Sample I


The Author’s Introduction

Thus said Abraham, the son of Rabbi Samuel son of Rabbi Abraham Zacuto, may he be remembered in the World-to-Come: The people of Israel are compared to the stars by name and number, akin to gold implements and the most precious stones. Even more so are the wise and pious ones, for it is said, The wise men shine like the brilliance of the firmament and those who lead others to righteousness [shine] like stars forever and ever.[1] That is the great difference between those who provide themselves with merit and those who lead others to righteousness and provide others with merit.[2] The star is the light of the heavenly orb; likewise the soul in the body is its most important part, and that is surely so.[3] They, I mean the sages of the Mishna and Talmud and all those who came after them, who composed books to dispense merits among us, they illuminate our souls.

In order to provide others and myself with merit, I arose to compose this small book. I intend to present by name and by date the sages of the Mishna and the Talmud as we have it. But I am leaving out the sages of the Baraitha[4] as I do not know them and their dates. I shall mention the Gaons and the authors of books and their times whenever I find it. I shall not glorify myself by saying that ‘this is great wisdom’, for because of my sins and due to persecutions and captivity and the need for food I have lost my strength. I have neither wisdom nor knowledge. For my taste has not lingered and my scent is spent.[5] However, in order to obtain merit I shall remember the important traditions and principles as cited and performed by the sages.

I composed this book and I am deserving of composing it, as it charts the generations from the Creation, which is when the world was created. [The Creation] is the tenet of the Torah, as it contains all the miracles that explain the Creation of the world and the true Present Force, which alone makes miracles. He alone helps in hard times and is very much present. Although there are angels but they are exist by Him and their existence depend on Him and His presence and one cannot speak properly of Presence but of the presence of the Blessed Creator whose presence is certain. This book is similar to [the one I wrote on] the science of mathematics and astronomy, as one fulfilled precept causes another precept to be fulfilled.

At first, I contemplated on the title for the book. If I were to call it Sefer Zadikim, The Book of The Righteous, it would diminish the honour due to Hasidim, the Pious who certainly were sages. An ignorant person cannot be pious, explained Rashi, (though he can fear sin), as he deals with trade. Although the prophet Samuel is called Samuel the Righteous at the end of Ch. Bame Behema.[6] There is also Simeon the Righteous. In the beginning of Ch. Techeleth,[7] Rashi explained that the pious are punctuous in fulfilling the commandments.

In Ch. Hameniach,[8] it is said: He who wishes to be pious must [first of all] observe the [civil] laws of Nezikin, and some say, the matters dealt with in Berachoth. Others say, the [ethics] dealt with in Aboth. In Ch. Kol Kitvei,[9] Raba says: Will the pious man take payment for Sabbath work? But Raba said that here we are dealing with a God-fearing person who does not wish to benefit from others but also would not wish to bother himself [for nothing]. Rashi explained: If they are pious men, they would rather give away their own in order to avoid even a hint of transgression. Even though it is not to be considered as payment for work that had been done on the Sabbath, as he did not agree to do the work on certain conditions but received it as abandoned property, still, he is not called a pious man unless he does give up what is his [by right]. However, here we are dealing with a God-fearing man and not a pious man who would rather give up his own, as he is not comfortable by gaining ownership of somebody’s abandoned property. He understands that [the owner] gave up his goods unwillingly [due to fire] yet he does not wish to trouble himself for nothing for he is not a pious man who would relinquish what is [rightfully] his. End of quote.

Therefore, it is apparent that the merit of a pious man is on a higher scale than the God-fearing one. In Temura,[10] and in the beginning of Ch. Hagozel[11]: A man is not called a pious one, unless he abstained from sin practically all his life. That is why I was afraid to call the book – The Book of The Pious, because of my respect for the sages that were [specifically] called ‘pious’, such as Jose b. Joezer, R. Jose the Priest, R. Judah b. Baba and R. Judah b. Ila’i who was ordained by him; and King David, Ezra the Priest, Hillel, Baba b. Buta, R. Akiba, Samuel the Lesser and Simeon the Pious who are mentioned in Talmud and those akin to them. For I was afraid they would burn me with their fiery breath, as for them silence is their glory.[12]

Therefore, I called my book, Sefer Yohassin - The Book of Lineage, such as the book that was read by the sages obm. In Pesachim, Ch. Tamid Nishchat,[13] R. Simlai came into the presence of R. Johanan and asked him: My master, please teach me Sefer Yohassin. Rashi explained it as the historical chronicles. [R. Johanan] asked, Where you from? He replied: From Lydda. - Where is your [original] home? - In Nehardea [in Babylonia]. He said: We do not teach people of Lydda or of Nehardea, even more so with you who are of Lydda and originally of Nehardea. Rashi explained that he wished to put him off.[14] Still, he pressured him and he agreed. May my master teach it in three months, he said. [R. Johanan] replied: Even Beruriah, wife of R. Meir and daughter of R. Hanina b. Teradion who studied 300 laws from 300 teachers in one wintry day, could not pass it in six[15] years and you wish to do it in three months! and he took a clod and threw it at him.

This expression is also used in Ch. Yedioth Hatumah,[16] ‘He took a clod and threw it at him.’ Also in the Ch. One, AZ[17] (in regard to R. Meir) and in Ch. Misheahazo[18] we find that [Asmodeus][19] threw Solomon for 400 parasangs[20]. As he was hastily leaving, [R. Simlai] asked him, What is the difference between a Passover sacrifice, which is offered for its own sake and for a different purpose and the Passover sacrifice for those who can eat it and cannot eat it? He said, As you are a scholar, come and I shall tell you: When it is slaughtered for its own sake and for different purpose, its disqualification is in respect of itself. When he slaughtered for those who can eat and who cannot eat, its disqualification is not in respect of itself, etc. It is [not] possible to distinguish its prohibition, etc. In the PT,[21] R. Simlai came to R. Jonathan and said to him, Teach me Aggada. He said, My ancestors kept a tradition, not to teach Aggada to Babylonians or to Southerners, as they are uncouth and lack Torah [knowledge]. And you are a Nehardean who lives in the South! There, he also asked to be taught the difference between the Passover sacrifice, which is offered for its own sake and for a different purpose and the Passover sacrifice for those who can eat and those who cannot eat it, etc.

Rami b.R. Judan[22] said, Since the day the Sefer Yohassin was hidden,[23] the sages lost their strength and the light of their eyes was dimmed. For Mar Zutra said, between Azel and Azel[24] they would load 400 camels with exegetical interpretations. Rashi expounds hidden to mean that the explanations between the mention of Azel and Azel in two verses in the Chronicles were forgotten. The author of the Aruch[25] explained that they refer to a single verse that begins with Azel and ends with Azel. Even so, it required 400 camels to carry the explanations. This explanation was given in the Aruch under the entry Azel. In Genesis Rabah, Exodus Rabah and in Midrash Ruth it is said, the Chronicles are included [in the Scripture canon] just for exegetic purposes. You can see how they made it so significant. Rambam[26] obm said in the Introduction [to Mishna] that it is not too useful to mention the names of the sages and their lineage, but this is not so. It is extremely useful as it supports our study of the Oral Law; it supports the transmission of the Tradition from Moses, Master of the Prophets who received [the Law] from The Holy One, blessed be He. For it tells how it was transmitted from one pious sage to another pious sage, until [it was received by] the Light of the Universe, Our Saintly Master [R. Judah the Prince].[27] ‘Ask your father and he will tell you, ask your elders and they will explain it to you’. [28]

Rambam obm himself explained in the Introduction [to the Mishna], why Rabbi [Judah the Prince] compiled Aboth: In order to inform us of the transmission of the true tradition from one sage to another, etc. Rashi explained this as an important tenet [of faith]. At the end of Elu Metziyoth,[29] entry Hadar, he explained the expression ‘Run to the Mishna’ as follows: He feared that the Mishna teachings would be forgotten and the names of the sages confused. Wherever it said ‘Liable’, people will say ‘Not liable’, and wherever it is said ‘Forbidden’ people will say, ‘Permitted’.

Not for naught was the Genesis made the first book [of the Pentateuch], but for the important purpose of providing us with the order of generations and their names. The fourth book [of Pentateuch], though it contains many commandments (on Nazirites, adulterous women, the priestly blessing; the bulk of sacrifice rules; of marital purity; of fringes; of vows and the laws of purity and impurity) is not called after them but [is called] Numbers, after the [Israelites who were] numbered in the census that [the book] begins with. That is the important tenet as it is stated in the Mishna of Yoma[30]: He recites by heart ‘and on the tenth’[31] (which is in the Book of the Numbered). As you are aware, many times it is said, ‘Whoever recites a saying in the name of the source, brings deliverance into the world’.[32] It is quoted in Kol Habasar[33] and in the Ch. One, Megilah,[34] and in the sixth, additional chapter of Aboth.[35] How angry R. Johanan became at R. Eliezer b. Pedath because [he recited his tradition and failed to mention his name as the source], in Yevamoth, in the PT Shekalim and in Numbers Rabah.

I wonder who permitted the authors to write the dicta without giving the reference; why did they not follow the example of R. al-Fasi[36] and Our Master Asher[37] obm? Probably they relied upon the elucidation of R. Jacob b. Idi who wished to pacify R. Johanan, as R. Eliezer was his disciple. [He said], his quotation without reference refers by default to R. Johanan, as R. Johanan was his master. That is the way with the authors that they are assumed to be quoting the sages of the Talmud. However, the masters of old did better [and gave references]. Rambam[38] was questioned on this and he replied that this was the approach of Our Saintly Master, [who established a stam, default reference system]: a Mishna stam dictum is by R. So-and-So by default, and the name of the originator is not mentioned except in the case of a difference of opinions; or in case of doubt; or in order to refute an opinion, as [R. Judah] said in Eduyoth. In addition, it is useful to know who the sages were, so that we can critically compare their sayings, as quoted in Talmud and posit questions. It is said in the Talmud,[39] ‘I recite this [name] neither [as] Gidal b. Menassia nor Gidal b. Manyumi but simply Gidal. What difference does that make? In order to oppose [one statement] of his to another statement] of his’. This is also said about Abin, that it is [Abin] stam. In the Ch. One, Hulin,[40] Rab Joseph extolled [and defended] himself against Rab Zeira. He reminded that he learnt his tradition from R. Judah his master, who took care to mention everyone [in his statements of law] who could possibly have been the source. Another great usefulness [of the knowledge of Sages] is that it helps to determine the law against those who disputed them. That is a tenet in the Torah. Also, from the order of generations the transmission of tradition is revealed [to facilitate the rule that the law follows the latter master] from Abaye onwards.

In Ch. Rabbi Eliezer Demilah [in Shabbath] the Rosh wrote: I wonder at R. al-Fasi! Why did he say, The Halacha is according to Rabah versus Rab, as Rabah is later than Rab? Elsewhere he wrote, the Halacha follows the latter sage from Abaye onwards. However, before Abaye, the Halacha is according to Rab, as of master versus disciple. Now, if there should be a disagreement between Raba and Rab Joseph, the Halacha would all the more so follow Rab, as he was the master of Rab Judah, [who was] their master.

In the Ch. Two, Eiruvin, the Rosh wrote that R. Meir ruled as Raba, Rambam ruled as Rabah; apparently, the Halacha is not according to a disciple before his master. From Abaye and Raba onwards, the Halacha follows those who followed them but one cannot say so with Abaye and Raba versus their masters.

In the beginning of Ch. Gid Hanashe,[41] regarding the white substance of the kidney, from the Rosh and in Tosafoth, you can see the opposite, that the Halacha follows Abaye versus Rabah, his master. In the beginning of Sukkah, the Halacha follows Raba versus his master Rabah. However, in Ch. Hamadir, the Rosh obm wrote that the Gaons were in doubt whether it will be understood that the Halacha does not follow Rabah, though he is the master of Abaye and Raba and we go by the stricter interpretation.

It is also useful to mention where they [the Sages] lived, as it helps to determine the law. At the end of Gittin,[42] on the matter of paying attention to the rumour, whether the Halacha follows Rab Shesheth[43] since he lived in Nehardea, the place of Samuel, as it is stated in Bene Hair.[44] Our master Samson[45] wrote in Sefer Kerithuth: one of the most important things in the study of Talmud is the knowledge of Tanna and Amora masters; who they were and when they lived. That is the rule: the Halacha follows the master if his disciple disagrees with his master while he was alive. The exception is the disagreement of R. Akiba with his master R. Eliezer, as is found in Ch. Ketzad Mevarchin,[46] where we found that [R. Eliezer] tended to follow the School of Shammai, according to the PT. See also in Ch. Rabbi Eliezer Demilah.[47]

R. al-Fasi obm, the author of Halachoth Gedoloth, and Rambam ruled as Raba, that one cleans his feet[48] against the wall but not upon the ground. R. Zerachiah ha-Levi ruled as Rab Papa, since he was the last [to decide]. Ramban[49] obm objected to this since Raba was the master of Rab Papa and the Halacha is not according to the disciple versus master. The Rashba obm wrote that we do not say that it is not a proof, that he is last; for R. Nahman was the master of Raba and even then, whoever did not study before R. Nahman, followed the ruling of Raba. It is indicated by these words that wherever we find it stated, ‘So said Raba to R. Nahman’, we consider it as if a disciple is sitting before his master and we do not rule according to him. However, if the two sages differ as two people who have a difference of opinion, the Halacha follows Raba. Here too, if Rab Papa disputed with Raba, it is possible that since he was the last, we accept his ruling. Also, the Rosh ruled as Rab Papa, as he was the last.

[The Sages] insisted on quoting the law in the [exact words] of the master. As they said, Hillel said,[50] ‘An in [instead of hin] full of drawn water renders a ritual bath unfit’. For one must state [a dictum] in the master’s language. Rambam obm explained: [Hillel] said [in instead of hin] in the name of his [masters], Shemaiah and Abtalion, for [they] were proselytes and could not pronounce Heh and they said in instead of hin. He also said, ‘Some interpreted it, that they said hen instead of hin, with a Yud’. And Rashi explained in the Ch. One, Shabbath,[51] that is not the language of Mishna but the language of Torah and that is how [Hillel] heard it from his masters Shemaiah and Abtalion. The author of the Aruch in the entry lashon [language] explained that [Hillel] did not use the words kab and log[52] but hin, in the language of Our Master Moses pbuh or in the tongue of Shemaiah and Abtalion. I wonder about the words of the Aruch, as a log of oil is mentioned in the Torah. Also, in the Prophets regarding the famine in Samaria the word kab as in ‘a fourth of a kab of seed pods’[53] is used. Still, those who pronounced hin with a Heh, not with an Alef, and with a Yud, etc., were careful to mention their source. In Ch. Shelosha Sheachlu,[54] R. Safra sat and stated: The dictum had it, ‘may not taste’. Rabina said to him, ‘may not eat’. What difference does it make? [It teaches that] one must repeat the exact words of his master. Also in the Ch. One, Bechoroth,[55] and in Ch. Rabbi Ishmael,[56] R. Assi asked R. Johanan: What is [the law] if wine is mixed [msk] by a goy? He said to him, Use the verb mzg[57]! He replied: But it is written [in the Scripture], ‘she hath mingled [msk] her wine’.[58] He said to him, The language of the Torah is distinct and so is the language of the Sages.[59]

Also, in Ch. Reshith Hagez,[60] R. Johanan was exacting with Rab Issi b. Hini,[61] and stressed the difference between the language of the Torah and the language of the Sages, and corrected R. Issi b. Hini. According to Rashi’s version, R. Issi b. Hini said to his son, ‘ewes’. He used the plural [form] written in the Scripture, rechelim [ewes] and R. Johanan told him to employ the plural used by the Sages, recheloth [ewes]. However, in the Gemara,[62] R. Johanan studied with his son [and said, etc.] but Rashi was prudent in his commentary, as we do not encounter the sons of R. Johanan for they had all died. Still it is possible [that it was R. Johanan’s son] as he may have died at age ten or more, as it is said, ‘At ten – study the Mishna’. Perhaps, he had a son in his old age who stayed with the daughters he had. We know he said to R. Eleazar [b. Pedath], ‘if it is because of sons, etc.’[63] And yet, R. Eleazar had a son called R. Pedath, [named] after his grandfather.

As we have remarked, they were careful with the names of the Sages. Accordingly, we have found in Yoma,[64] R. Hanan, the son of Raba, repeated to Hiyya, the son of Rab [in the presence of Rab]: R. Zechariah the son of Kefutal. Whereupon, Rab said to him that it should be read with a Beth - Kebutal. In the PT,[65] A priest [said to] Rab, How shall we read it, Kebutar or Kebutal? and because he was praying, he drew with his finger to indicate that it was Kebutar. So too in Ch. Ketzad Meabrin[66] [or perhaps it is] MeAbrin as R. Johanan said that he studied with his master R. Oshaia for 18 years[67] and learned from him only one thing in the Mishna, that Meabrin is written with an Alef [instead of an Ayin]. And in the same place, it says: People of Judea who were careful about their language, retained their learning but not so the people of Galilee.[68] R. Rehaba of Pumbeditha was praised [by the sages] at the end of Ch. Ein Omdin,[69] for he was careful to quote the words and the names of the sources as received from his master Rab Judah, for [Rehaba] said: The Temple Mount was surrounded by a stoa[70]. He used the word stoa,[71] instead of iztaba or iztabanith as in the Ch. One, Pesachim[72] and in many other places. There is an opinion that he was careful to quote the name [of the source], as there was doubt whether he heard the law from R. Judah b. Ila’i or from Rab Judah. That is the explanation given by R. Zemach the Gaon, as it is stated in the entry Rehaba. However, Rashi in Ch. Makom Shenahagu[73] said there was a doubt whether he heard the law from R. Judah or from R. Judah Nesi’ah,[74] as he was a contemporary. That is also the interpretation of Rashbam obm. However, in the Ch. One, Beitzah,[75] Rashi reconsidered and said it is after all, Rab Judah, not R. Judah Nesi’ah, as Rehaba never met R. Judah Nesi’ah, though they were contemporaries, since he lived in Pumbeditha, while R. Judah Nesi’ah lived in Palestine. The Aruch, under the entry Rab deals with this question at length and quotes Our Master Hananel. Still, the Tosafoth in Hulin in Ch. Elu Treifoth[76] and in the beginning of Beitzah did not agree to this explanation but the commentators did give [such an explanation]. We also saw in Kiddushin,[77] that R. Judah was very meticulous with R. Nahman, when he was summoned to be judged by him, even in the use of mundane words. In Ch. Hagozel,[78] R. Ashi said to Mar Keshisha: Did I not tell you that you should not transpose the names of sages? That statement was made in the name of R. Elai.[79]

Ramban obm wrote to his son: The first of the rules of Talmud, according to R. Campanton; know who the Tanna was, etc. Bear their names on your lips like a banner. In this small book of mine, I will endeavour to bring along an explanation of a law or some useful item that appears to me to be an innovation. I ask assistance from the Blessed Lord to show me the way of truth and to allow me to complete my work and to write, Blessed are those whose ways are blameless who walk according to the law of the Lord,[80] then I will answer one who taunts me for I have trusted in Your words. I have more understanding than the elders, for I have obeyed your precepts, turn to me and have mercy upon me, as you do for those who love your Name. Amen.


[1] Daniel 12:3.

[2] Zacuto means ‘his merit’.

[3] This is an allusion to the cabbalistic idea that the soul is akin to Light.

[4] Tannaitic source not included in the Mishna.

[5] Cf Jer. 48:11 ‘his taste remained in him, and his scent is not changed’.

[6] Shabbath 56a.The Prophet was a sage, but he dealt with trade, as a judge.

[7] Menachoth 40a.

[8] BK 30a.

[9] Shabbath 120a. The following discussion concerns the saving of goods from fire on Sabbath. If the owner offers people to save things from fire in order to take the things for themselves, and they still return the goods to the owner, though they are entitled to keep it, they are entitled to receive it as a reward for their work, and it is not called a payment for Sabbath.

[10] BK 15b.

[11] BK 103b.

[12] Cf Ps 65:2

[13] Pesachim 62b.

[14] This story throws light on the competition, enmity and sympathy between the Babylonians and Palestinian Jewry of that time, somewhat similar to the ambivalent feelings of Israeli and American Jews nowadays.

[15] Three, in our texts.

[16] Shevu’oth 18b. R. Jonathan b. Jose asked for the Scriptural reason why one should be punished for having intercourse with a menstrual woman and his teacher threw a clod at him.

[17] 18b.

[18] Gittin 68b.

[19] The King of demons. Appears in the apocryphal Book of Tobit.

[20] An ancient Persian measure of distance, which is approximately 3.5 miles or 5.6 km

[21] PT Pesachim 32b 5:3.

[22] Judah in our Gemara.

[23] Suppressed, forgotten or destroyed.

[24] Interpretations on the chapter starting and ending with Azel (I Chron. 8:38 – 9:44)

[25] Sefer Aruch, (1) Talmudic lexicon by R. Zemach, the son of Paltoi, c. 880 and (2) Talmudic Lexicon, composed by R. Nathan b. Jehiel of Rome; 1035 - 1106.

[26] R. Moses b. Maimon, or Maimonides, born March 30, 1135, Córdoba [Spain] - died Dec. 13, 1204, Egypt; Arabic name Abu ‘Imran Musa Ibn Maimon Ibn ‘Ubayd Allah. The greatest medieval Jewish scholar, he codified the Talmud and in Guide for the Perplexed (1190) attempted to reconcile Aristotelian philosophy with Jewish theology.

[27] Rabbi Judah the Prince, 135 - 220, the ruler of the Jewish community in Roman Palestine, and the editor of Mishna. Elsewhere called ‘Rabbi’.

[28] Deut 32:7.

[29] BM 33a

[30] 68b.

[31] Num 29:7-11.

[32] Megilah 15a. R. Eleazar said in the name of R. Hanina: Whoever reports a saying in the name of its originator brings deliverance to the world, as it says (Esther. 2: 22) and Esther told the king in Mordecai's name.

[33] Hulin 104b.

[34] 15a.

[35] Mishna 6.

[36] Isaac b. Jacob Al-Fasi (1013-1103), a native of North Africa, lived in Spain. Al-Fasi abridged the Talmud, compiling only the necessary laws.

[37] R. Asher b. Jehiel, born c. 1250, on Rhine - died Oct. 24, 1327, in Toledo, Spain; also called (by acronym) Rosh (for Rabbenu [Our Master] Asher), a major codifier of the Talmud.

[38] Rambam did not give the sources from the Talmud in his Mishne Torah.

[39] Pesachim 107a.

[40] 18b.

[41] Hulin 92b.

[42] Gittin 89a.

[43] Who said one should pay attention to a rumour that a certain girl is betrothed. In Sura it was different; they used to suppress such rumour

[44] Megilah 29a.

[45] R. Samson b. Isaac of Chinon (1260-1330), or Maharshak. He wrote a book on the methodology of the Talmud called Sefer Kerithuth (Constantinople, 1515).

[46] Berachoth 36a.

[47] Shabbath, Ch. 19

[48] Shabbath 141a. Abaye said, One may scrape off the clay from his foot on to the ground, but not on to a wall. Raba said, He may scrape it off onto a wall but not on to the ground. Mar son of Rabina said, Both are forbidden. R. Papa said, Both are permitted.

[49] Nahmanides (c. 1194, Gerona, Catalonia - 1270, Acre, Palestine); original name Moses Ben Nahman, or, by acronym, Ramban. Spanish scholar and sage, a philosopher, poet, physician, and Cabbalist.

[50] Shabbath 15a.

[51] 15a.

[52] measures of volume

[53] II Kings, 6:25.

[54] Berachoth 47a. R. Judah the son of R. Samuel b. Shilath said in the name of Rab, The guests may not eat anything until the one who breaks bread has tasted.

[55] 6a.

[56] AZ 58b.

[57] This is the usual verb for ‘to dilute wine with water’, whereas R. Assi used masak.

[58] Prov 9:2.

[59] His point is that in the language of the Rabbis mazag means ‘mixing wine with water’; but masak, while having that meaning in Biblical Hebrew, means in Rabbinic Hebrew ‘mixing strong wine with weaker wine’.

[60] Hulin 137b.

[61] Also known as Assi b. Hini or as Assi, was contemporary with R. Johanan.

[62] In our Gemara, Issi b. Hini was teaching his son.

[63] If it is because you lost children, you know I’ve lost ten sons. R. Eleazar lost children, still, he had a son left and maybe that is the case with R. Johanan as well.

[64] 19b.

[65] PT Yoma 1:6, Gemara.

[66] Eiruvin 53a.

[67] In our editions: R. Johanan said, I spent eighteen days at R. Oshaia Berabbi

[68] who were not careful about their language, did not retain their learning.

[69] Berachoth 33b.

[70] double colonnade

[71] The exact word used by his master, though the passage is based on a Mishna where the word iztaba is used.

[72] 13b.

[73] Pesachim 52b.

[74] A grandson of R. Judah the Prince. His title is transliterated, not translated just to avoid confusion with his grandfather.

[75] 11b.

[76] Hulin.

[77] 70a. He corrected every word used by the judge, in order to show his superiority, though he agreed to be judged by R. Nahman.

[78] BK 96b.

[79] Instead of R. Jonathan, as he erroneously stated.

[80] Ps 119:1.


Zacuto Home Page