Arnon Atzmon, "The original order of Pesikta de-Rav Kahana," 1-23
Determining the original order of the text of Pesikta de-Rav Kahana has plagued scholars since its discovery and reconstruction. This question is not merely technical; rather, it relates to the very essence of the work. The fact that multiple full and partial textual witnesses of the Pesikta have been discovered has not brought this question to its resolution, for these witnesses present the Pesikta in three significantly different orders. This article analyses the textual evidence supporting the order of the text found in these three different versions of the Pesikta. The article also takes into consideration the conceptual consequences of these findings on the nature and essence of the Pesikta. The article concludes by arguing in favour of the order found in one of these versions and with an explanation of the processes that led to the creation of the other two orders.
Barak S. Cohen, "Citation formulae in the Babylonian Talmud: from transmission to authoritative traditions," 24-44
Scholars have generally viewed the citation formula ‘thus R. X said’ (over 200 appearances) as identical to the more typical formulae used to quote Amoraic statements. In contrast I argue that this particular citation formula differs from the more typical formula in that it is used only when there is an attempt to establish a Halakhic norm, especially when it contradicts alternative traditions. I will further argue that late Babylonian Amoraim use this formula to quote an earlier authoritative source whereas earlier Amoraim use it to quote a sage with whom they had contact. These findings testify to a trend among later Amoraim to issue Halakhic rulings based on the authority of dominant figures from earlier generations and contribute to our understanding of how Halakhic decisions were formulated to accord with particularly prominent rabbis in talmudic Babylonia.
Jonathan Jacobs, "Nahmanides and Ibn Ezra’s commentaries on Genesis," 45-67
In this article I re-examine the question of which of Ibn Ezra’s commentaries on Genesis was available to Nahmanides when he wrote his own commentary on the book. The consensus until now had been that Nahmanides was familiar with both the short commentary and the second recension. A comprehensive analysis of Nahmanides’ commentary on Genesis demonstrates that this consensus is incorrect – Nahmanides was only familiar with Ibn Ezra’s short commentary. This conclusion is based on our familiarity with Nahmanides’ inclusive approach to his sources, as well as specific examples which prove that Nahmanides was not familiar with the second recension (and not even the ‘third approach’).
Miriam Sklarz, "Nahmanides’ typological interpretation of the encounter between Abram and Melchizedek (Gen. 14:18–20)," 68-82
Many of Nahmanides’ typological interpretations are closely associated with rabbinic Midrash and with Rashi’s comments, themselves based on Midrash. An exceptional deviation from the interpretation of the Midrash and Rashi is found in Nahmanides’ typological commentary on the encounter between Abram and Melchizedek (Gen. 14:18–20). Nahmanides, like the Midrash and Rashi, explains the encounter as hinting to the future priestly services in the Temple. But while the Midrash and Rashi emphasize the bread and wine offerings of Melchizedek, these are omitted from Nahmanides’ commentary. The focus is shifted from Melchizedek’s actions and gifts to those of Abram. Thus Nahmanides’ interpretation offers an alternative typology to that of the rabbis and Rashi and he refrains from even mentioning their typological interpretation. The present article offers an explanation for this exception, in the light of anti-Christian polemic and the typological significance of Melchizedek and his offerings in the Christian interpretation.
