Thomas Aquinas’ Summa Theologiae in Hebrew: A New Finding

© 2013 Koninklijke Brill NV ISBN 978-90-04-22931-0

Latin-into-Hebrew:Texts and Studies

Volume One: Studies

Edited by

Resianne FontaineGad Freudenthal

LEIDEN • BOSTON2013


CONTENTSLATIN-INTO-HEBREW: VOLUMES ONE AND TWO

CONTENTS OF PRESENT VOLUME

In Memoriam: Francesca Yardenit Albertini (1974–2011) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

Latin-into-Hebrew: Introducing a Neglected Chapter in EuropeanCultural History . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9Alexander Fidora, Resianne Fontaine, Gad Freudenthal, Harvey J.Hames, and Yossef Schwartz

Introduction to this Volume . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19Resianne Fontaine and Gad Freudenthal

part i

latin-into-hebrew:the linguistic conditions of its possibility

1. Latin into Hebrew—Twice Over! Presenting Latin ScholasticMedicine to a Jewish Audience . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31Susan Einbinder andMichael McVaugh

2. Latin in Hebrew Letters: The Transliteration/Transcription/Translation of a Compendium of Arnaldus de Villa Nova’sSpeculummedicinae . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45Cyril Aslanov

3. Latin-into-Hebrew in the Making: Bilingual Documents in FacingColumns and Their Possible Function . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59Gad Freudenthal

4. From Latin into Hebrew through the Romance Vernaculars: TheCreation of an Interlanguage Written in Hebrew Characters . . . . . . . 69Cyril Aslanov


vi contents

5. La pratique du latin chez les médecins juifs et néophytes deProvence médiévale (XIVe–XVIe siècles) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 85Danièle Iancu-Agou

part ii

latin-into-hebrew: the medical connection

6. The Father of the Latin-into-Hebrew Translations: “Doeg theEdomite,” the Twelfth-Century Repentant Convert . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 105Gad Freudenthal

7. Transmitting Medicine across Religions: Jean of Avignon’sHebrew Translation of the Liliummedicine . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 121Naama Cohen-Hanegbi

Appendix: Jean of Avignon’s Introduction to his Translation ofLiliummedicine, an Annotated Critical Edition andTranslation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 146Naama Cohen-Hanegbi and Uri Melammed

8. The Three Magi and Other Christian Motifs in Medieval HebrewMedical Incantations: A Study in the Limits of FaithfulTranslation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 161Katelyn Mesler

part iii

latin-into-hebrew:the philosophical-scientificand literary-moral contexts

9. An Anonymous Hebrew Translation of a Latin Treatise onMeteorology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 221Resianne Fontaine

10. Albert the Naturalist in Judah Romano’s Hebrew Translations . . . . . 245Carsten L. Wilke

11. Thomas Aquinas’s Summa theologiae in Hebrew: A New Finding . . 275Tamás Visi


contents vii

12. The Aragonese Circle of “Jewish Scholastics” and Its PossibleRelationship to Local Christian Scholarship: An Overview ofHistorical Data and Some General Questions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 295Mauro Zonta

13. “Would that MyWords Were Inscribed”: Berechiah ha-Naqdan’sMišlei šuʿalim and European Fable Traditions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 309Tovi Bibring

part iv

latin-into-hebrew: the religious context

14. Latin into Hebrew and the Medieval Jewish-Christian Debate . . . . . 333Daniel J. Lasker

15. Citations latines de la tradition chrétienne dans la littératurehébraïque de controverse avec le christianisme (XIIe–XVe s.) . . . . . . . 349Philippe Bobichon

part v

latin-into-hebrew: final reflections

16. Traductions refaites et traductions révisées . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 391Jean-Pierre Rothschild

17. Nation and Translation: Steinschneider’s HebräischeÜbersetzungen and the End of Jewish Cultural Nationalism . . . . . . . . 421Irene E. Zwiep

18. Postface: Cultural Transfer between Latin and Hebrew in theMiddle Ages . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 447Charles Burnett

List of Contributors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 455Index of Modern Names . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 461Index of Ancient and Medieval Names . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 463Index of Ancient and Medieval Works . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 469Index of Subjects and Places . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 473


viii contents

CONTENTS OF VOLUME TWO: TEXTS IN CONTEXTSED. BY

ALEXANDER FIDORA,HARVEY J. HAMES, AND YOSSEF SCHWARTZ

Latin-into-Hebrew: Introducing a Neglected Chapter in EuropeanCultural History . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1Alexander Fidora, Resianne Fontaine, Gad Freudenthal, HarveyJ. Hames, and Yossef Schwartz

Introduction to this Volume . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11Alexander Fidora, Harvey J. Hames, and Yossef Schwartz

part i

textual analyses

1. The Medieval Hebrew Translations of Dominicus Gundissalinus . . 19Yossef Schwartz

2. Le Livre des causes du latin à l’hébreu: textes, problèmes,réception . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47Jean-Pierre Rothschild

3. Abraham Shalom’s Hebrew Translation of a Latin Treatise onMeteorology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 85Resianne Fontaine

4. The Quaestio de unitate universalis Translated into Hebrew:Vincent Ferrer, Petrus Nigri and ʿEli Habillo—A TextualComparison . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 101Alexander Fidora andMauro Zonta

5. Ramon Llull’s Ars brevis Translated into Hebrew: Problems ofTerminology and Methodology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 135Harvey J. Hames

6. Latin into Hebrew (and Back): Flavius Mithridates and his LatinTranslations from Judah Romano . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 161Saverio Campanini

7. Mordekhai Finzi’s Translation of Maestro Dardi’s Italian Algebra . . 195RoyWagner


contents ix

part ii

hebrew text editions

8. Dominicus Gundissalinus: Sefer ha-nefeš (Tractatus de anima) . . . . 225Yossef Schwartz (ed.)

9. Dominicus Gundissalinus (Wrongly Attributed to Boethius):Maamar ha-eḥad ve-ha-aḥdut (De unitate et uno) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 281Yossef Schwartz (ed.)

10. Les traductions hébraïques du Livre des causes latin, éditionsynoptique . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 289Jean-Pierre Rothschild (ed.)

11. Judah Romano’s Hebrew Translation from Albert, De anima III . . . . 369Carsten L. Wilke (ed.)

12. Mordekhai Finzi’s Translation of Maestro Dardi’s Italian Algebra,a Partial Edition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 437RoyWagner (ed.)

List of Contributors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 503Index of Modern Names . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 507Index of Ancient and Medieval Names . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 509Index of Ancient and Medieval Works . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 513


chapter eleven

THOMAS AQUINAS’S SUMMA THEOLOGIAE IN HEBREW:A NEW FINDING*

Tamás Visi

The theological works of the Dominican friar and regent master at the Uni-versity of Paris, Thomas Aquinas (1224/5–1274), were widely read in theMiddle Ages by university students and masters as well as by friars andmonks, but they enjoyed much less popularity among other segments ofsociety. Aquinas was read by “relatively few high ecclesiastics” and “amongthe laity … some jurists and doctors.”1 However, for most of the lay popula-tion Aquinas’s works “had no appeal at all.”2Jews were neither clerics nor “university people” in medieval Europe.

Nevertheless, among the medieval readers of Aquinas we do find someJews: in Italy, Hillel of Verona during the late thirteenth century and JudahRomano in the first decades of the fourteenth century translated substantialpassages from several of Aquinas’s works into Hebrew. A major researcherof the subject, Giuseppe Sermoneta, coined the phrase “Jewish Thomism”to characterize the Jewish interest in Aquinas’s thought.3 A second wave ofLatin-to-Hebrew translations of Aquinas’s philosophical writings occurred

* I am grateful to Resianne Fontaine, Cyril Aslanov, Gad Freudenthal, Daniel Lasker,Yossef Schwarz, and Milan Žonca for comments. This paper was written while I was Fellowat the Institute for Advanced Study, Hebrew University of Jerusalem, in the group “JewishPhysicians in Medieval Christian Europe: Professional Knowledge as an Agent for CulturalChange” (March–August 2012). I am glad to express my appreciation to the Institute forthe excellent working conditions I enjoyed during my tenure. This research was supportedby a Marie Curie European Reintegration Grant within the Seventh European CommunityFramework Program.

1 J.N. Hillgarth, “Who Read Thomas Aquinas?” in idem, Spain and the Mediterranean inthe LaterMiddle Ages: Studies in Political and Intellectual History, Variorum Collected StudiesSeries: CS764 (Aldershot: Ashgate Variorum, 2003), p. 30.

2 Daniel Hobbins, Authorship and Publicity Before Print: Jean Gerson and the Transforma-tion of Late Medieval Learning (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2009), p. 184.

3 Cf. Giuseppe [Yosef] Sermoneta, “Pour une histoire du thomisme juif,” pp. 130–135 inAquinas and Problems of his Time, ed. G. Verbeke and D. Verhelst (Leuven and The Hague:Leuven University Press and Martinus Nijhoff, 1976).


276 tamás visi

on the Iberian Peninsula in the fifteenth century, within a broader phe-nomenon of a new Jewish occupationwith Latin scholastic texts thatMauroZonta has dubbed “Hebrew Scholasticism.”4Since Jewish readers and translators of Aquinas lived mostly in Italy or

on the Iberian Peninsula, it is not surprising to find Italian and SephardiHebrew manuscripts that contain Hebrew versions of Aquinas’s works. Ontheother hand, onedoesnot expect to findmuchevidenceof a Jewish recep-tion of Aquinas in Hebrew manuscripts from Germany or Eastern Europe.Nevertheless, as we shall see presently, three Ashkenazi manuscripts pre-serve a hitherto unknownHebrew translation of long excerpts from the firstpart of Aquinas’s Summa theologiae.

1. Sefer Ḥoḵmat ha-ʾelohut

A Hebrew philosophical text entitled Sefer Ḥokm̱at ha-ʾelohut (Book of theScience of the Deity), by an unknown author, is attested by three manu-scripts: (1)Oxford, Bodleian,MSOpp. 583 (Neubauer 1331), an early fifteenth-century manuscript containing various scientific and philosophical textswritten in Ashkenazi hands; (2) Vatican, Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana,ebr. 388, written in an Ashkenazi hand, probably in Germany, fifteenthcentury, which also contains Gershom ben Solomon of Arles’ Šaʿar ha-šamayim (Gate of Heaven); and (3) St. Petersburg, National Library of Rus-sia, Yevr. I. 460, Ashkenazi hand, sixteenth century.5 The text is dividedinto seventy-eight sections. The Vatican manuscript contains only the firsttwenty-one sections; the Oxford and St. Petersburgmanuscripts contain thefull text.The title SeferḤokm̱at ha-ʾelohut appears only in theOxfordmanuscript.6

The identity of the text attested in the three manuscripts has not beenrecognized in catalogues, including the online catalogue of the Institute of

4 See Mauro Zonta, Hebrew Scholasticism in the Fifteenth Century (Dordrecht: Springer,2006), esp. pp. 13–24.

5 Abraham [Adolf] Neubauer, Catalogue of the Hebrew Manuscripts in the Bodleian Li-brary, (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1886–1906) vol. I, pp. 473–474 [No. 1331]; Malachi Beit-Ariéand R.A. May, Supplement of Addenda and Corrigenda to Vol. I (A. Neubauer’s Catalogue)(Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1994), p. 222 [No. 1331]; Benjamin Richler, Malachi Beit-Arié, andNurit Pasternak, Hebrew Manuscripts in the Vatican Library: Catalogue (Vatican City: Bib-lioteca Apostolica Vaticana, 2008), p. 336 [Vat. ebr. 388]. The first folio of the St. Petersburgmanuscript is misplaced (fol. 26).

6 The scribe copied the title in larger letters at the beginning of the text. The same titleappears on a separate sheet as well, which is a later addition to the manuscript.


thomas aquinas’s summa theologiae in hebrew 277

Microfilmed Hebrew Manuscripts (National Library of Israel).7 Neubauer,Steinschneider, andothers described the text in theOxfordmanuscript as ananonymous compendium on theology.8 Neubauer suggested that the workmight be a translation from a Latin original, but this idea has been ignoredby other scholars. Nevertheless, Neubauer was right.Ḥokm̱at ha-ʾelohut is actually a collection of seventy-eight shorter or

longer excerpts from Aquinas’s Summa theologiae and a passage from hisSumma contra gentiles in a hitherto unknown Hebrew translation. (For anoverview of the content, see Appendix B.) The author or translator does notreveal the fact that a Latin source lies behind the compendium. There areno Latin or vernacular glosses (leʿazim) in the text, except for a short remarkthat (Platonic) forms are called ʾideʿot in Greek.9 The excerpts do not fol-low the order in which they appear in the Summa theologiae: the authorrearranged them according to his own preferences. The possibility that theHebrew translator did not access the Summa theologiae directly but workedfromaLatin compendiumbasedon it cannotbe excluded.10 In that case, partof the editorial rearrangement of the text may go back to a Christian com-piler. Nevertheless, the text in the formwe have it reflects Jewish theologicalinterests (see below), so it is likely that the Jewish translator is responsiblefor the final structure of the compendium.In all three manuscripts, the main text is accompanied by marginal

glosses in some of the sections. The Vatican manuscript contains only afew of them. The Oxford and the St. Petersburg manuscripts share a num-ber of glosses, but each has additional marginalia not shared by the others.Therefore, it is likely thatmost of the glosseswere not authored by the trans-lator/redactor of the text but added by later hands. Moreover, the marginalnotes peculiar to the Oxford manuscript contain a few German phrases,so it is likely that the glossator lived in Germany.11 It is worth remarking

7 See the references in note 5 and the online catalogue at http://aleph.nli.org.il/F/6HAFL3CR7D8ERH4T22T99533NQFYYH6T5QTFQK9KDNVATNLQBR-10171?func=find-b-0&con_lng=heb (2012-07-26). Recently, Ezra Chwat has updated the online catalogue after Iinformed him about my conclusions.

8 See Neubauer, Catalogue, vol. 1, p. 474; Moritz Steinschneider, Die Hebraeischen Über-setzungen des Mittelalters und die Juden als Dolmetscher (Graz: Akademische Druck- u. Ver-lagsanstalt, 1956 [1893]), p. 140. See also the previous references.

9 Oxford, Bodleian, MS Opp. 583 (Neubauer 1331), fol. 85v: ןויןושלבתועידיא .10 Latin manuscripts containing excerpts from Aquinas’s Summa theologiae are by no

meansunknown (oneexample: Vienna,ÖsterreichischeNationalbibliothek,CodexVindobo-nensis Palatinus 1590, fols. 42r–62r, fourteenth century). I am not aware of any studies of suchcollection of excerpts from Aquinas’s works.

11 Oxford, Bodleian, MS Opp. 583 (Neubauer 1331), fols. 52r, 55r, 84v.

http://aleph.nli.org.il/F/6HAFL3CR7D8ERH4T22T99533NQFYYH6T5QTFQK9KDNVATNLQBR-10171?func=find-b-0&con_lng=heb




278 tamás visi

that another text found in the same Oxford manuscript bears evidence ofa similar pattern of transmission, according to Resianne Fontaine’s study inthis volume: it is a meteorological text that was translated from Latin intoHebrew, probably in France, to which later copyists added German glossesin the margins.12

2. A Hitherto Unknown Translation

Excerpts from Aquinas’s Summa theologiae were translated into Hebrewby Judah Romano in Italy during the first half of the fourteenth century.13Ḥokm̱at ha-ʾelohut includes an excerpt of Summa theologiae, qu. 3 art. 3,which was translated by Judah Romano as well. The comparison of thetwo translations shows that Ḥokm̱at ha-ʾelohut is neither identical with nordependent on Romano’s translation of Aquinas.14Whether the author ofḤokm̱atha-ʾelohut is identicalwith anyof theother

known Hebrew translators of Aquinas is a question to be clarified by futureresearch. Eli Habillo and Abraham Nachmias ben Joseph translated varioustexts byAquinas during the last quarter of the fifteenth century.15TheOxfordmanuscript can be dated to the beginning of the fifteenth century on thebasis of watermarks.16 Therefore, it is not very likely that Ḥokm̱at ha- eʾlohutis awork by the aforementioned translators.Whether it has any relationshipto anonymous translations of Aquinas is a question for future research.

3. Method of Selection

A typical quaestio of Aquinas’s Summa theologiae is divided into a numberof “articles” (articuli), each of them being devoted to answering a particu-lar yes/no question. Aquinas always has definite answers to his questions; at

12 Resianne Fontaine, “An Anonymous Hebrew Translation of a Latin Treatise on Mete-orology,” this volume, pp. 221–244. I am most grateful to Resianne Fontaine for sharing herpaper with me.

13 Cf. Giuseppe [Yosef] Sermoneta, “Jehudah benMošeh ben Daniʾel Romano, traducteurde Saint Thomas,” pp. 235–262 in Hommage à Georges Vajda, ed. Gérard Nahon and CharlesTouati (Louvain: Éditions Peeters, 1980); Caterina Rigo, “Yehudah ben Mosheh Romanotraduttore degli Scolastici latini,” Henoch 17 (1995): 141–170.

14 Cf. Oxford, Bodleian, MS Opp. 583 (Neubauer 1331), fols. 49v–50r to Oxford, Bodleian,MS Opp. 686 (Neubauer 1390), fols. 119v–120r.

15 See Steinschneider, Die Hebraeischen Übersetzungen, 483–486.16 See Fontaine, “An Anonymous Hebrew Translation”; Beit-Arié and May, Supplement of

Addenda and Corrigenda, p. 222.



the beginning of the articulus, though, he presents arguments against theposition that he will eventually take. Then a passage beginning with thephrase sed contraquotes anauthority contradicting theprevious arguments.After that, Aquinas proceeds to reveal his own opinion concerning the ques-tion and marshals arguments for it in a section that begins with the phraserespondeo. Finally, Aquinas addresses each of the objections enumerated atthe beginning of the articulus, one by one.In most cases, the author of Ḥokm̱at ha-ʾelohut translated only the ques-

tions and the substance of Aquinas’s solution (responsio), omitting the ini-tial objections, the sed contra, and the responses to the objections. In a fewcases, the main section is not rendered into Hebrew in its entirety; in onecase, someofAquinas’s responses to theobjections are included in the trans-lation.17 One of the articuli of Aquinas’s work is divided into three parts bythe Hebrew translator and presented as three independent units.18An exceptional case is section 8 (see Appendix B), on the unity of God,

since heremore than half of the text is taken not from the Summa theologiaebut from another work by Aquinas, the Summa contra gentiles, book I,chapter 42. In this chapter, no fewer than sixteen arguments are arrayedto prove that there is only one God, and all of them are rendered intoHebrew.19At the end of the Latin text, Aquinas quotes three biblical passagesstating that there is only one God (Deut. 6:4, Exod. 20:3, and Ephesians 4:5).He adds that these arguments refute those pagans who believe in manygods. Aquinas finishes the discussion with brief critical remarks about theManicheans and Arians.The Hebrew translation of Aquinas’s concluding remarks diverges from

the Latin. It omits the biblical citations from the New Testament and fromExodus along with the criticism of the Manicheans and the Arians. Theremainder of the text is rendered into Hebrew with substantial modifica-tions. Whereas Aquinas simply says that the polytheists are “refuted” by thearguments for God’s unity, the author of the Hebrew text states that mostof the Gentiles have fallen into inconsistency concerning the unity of God:although they admit in principle that only one deity exist, in practice they

17 I refer to the folios in the Oxford manuscript and to the numbers of the sections (seeAppendix B): Oxford, Bodleian, MS Opp. 583 (Neubauer 1331), fols. 71v–72r [No. 45], 73v–74r[No. 50], 74r–v [No. 51], 78v–79r [No. 58].

18 Oxford, Bodleian, MS Opp. 583 (Neubauer 1331), fols. 54v–56r [Nos. 10–12].19 Ibid., fols. 50v–53r [No. 8].


280 tamás visi

worship many gods.20 After that, the author remarks that the first threearguments need further explanation and proceeds to translate the threeproofs for God’s unity from the Summa theologiae, pars prima, qu. 11 art. 3.Since these arguments are extended versions of the first three arguments inthe Summa contra gentiles, the author could present them as “explanations”of the previous text.It seems that the author wanted to anchor the correct understanding

of divine unity in view of the Gentiles’ error concerning it; this is why heincludes the sixteen additional arguments from the Summa contra gentiles.This is the only passage of the work I am aware of at present in which theauthor reveals something of his motivations in composing this book. It isremarkable that the author does not disclose the fact that he is combiningtwo different works by Aquinas and does not draw proofs for the unity ofGod from any Jewish sources.Notwithstanding these exceptional cases, the author follows the same

method of selection in most of the work. Besides the question itself, whichserves as a title of each section of the compendium, only the main part ofAquinas’s response is translated; but that is translated quite faithfully frombeginning to end. On the other hand, the names of Christian authors andbooks cited by Aquinas are obfuscated by being rendered in vague terms,such as “a certain sage said,” or are totally omitted from the translation.21It is more difficult to fathom all the principles behind the author’s choice

among the quaestiones and articuli of the Summa theologiae. Some choicesare easy to explain. The compendium begins with a Hebrew translation ofAquinas’s famous “five ways” of proving the existence of God, which wasconsidered to be a most important metaphysical topic by medieval Jewishphilosophers.22 Similarly, it is not very surprising that the Trinitological andChristological sections of Summa theologiae are completely ignored by theJewish author. However, Aquinas’s quite original and interesting discussionsconcerning the creation of the world are also totally ignored, although thistopic, too, was highly relevant for medieval Jewish philosophers and onewould have expected our author to find them relevant. On the other hand,the author included many topics that were not part of the repertoire ofmedieval Jewish philosophers, such as whether and how separate intellects,that is angels, are capable of being in a particular place and of locomotion,

20 Ibid., fol. 53v; cf. Appendix B.21 See, for example, §§28, 51, 58 in Appendix B below.22 Cf. Appendix A.



whether God can be classified under a genus or a species, and whether Heknows things that never exist.23 It is to be hoped that a more detailed analy-sis, which I plan to undertake in future, will explain the author’s choices.

4. The Character of the Translationand the Author’s Competence

The translation is of high quality: the author seems to have understood theLatin original perfectly and made skillful use of the Hebrew terminologyand linguistic register of the Tibbonid school to reproduce Aquinas’s argu-ments in Hebrew. The author avoids using mere transliterations or glossesto render Latin technical terms; instead, he offers the corresponding tech-nical term in Tibbonid Hebrew or, in the absence of an appropriate Hebrewphrase, a close circumlocution of the Latin term in Tibbonid Hebrew.Two peculiar terminological choices are worth of mentioning: proposi-

tio is translated asmeliṣah—the only parallel known to me is in Moses ibnTibbon’s translation ofMillot ha-higgayon attributed to Maimonides. Latinobiectivus is rendered as noke̱ḥi, just as in Hillel of Verona’s Hebrew bor-rowing of Aquinas’s De unitate intellectu.24 Whether these terminologicalpeculiarities reflect the anonymous author’s intellectual or cultural back-ground cannot be determined now.

5. Provenance

The author seems to have been very competent in both the Latin and theHebrew philosophical literature of the Middle Ages. In light of this fact, it isunlikely that the authorwas anAshkenazi Jew, notwithstanding the fact thatall three known manuscripts of the text are written in an Ashkenazi hand.Before the sixteenth century, there was only one significant philosophicalschool among Ashkenazi Jews: in Prague, during the last decades of thefourteenth century and the first decades of the fifteenth century, Yomtov

23 Note, however, that the question whether an angel can be in more than one place atthe same time obtained some relevance in the context of Yomtov Lippmann Mühlhausen’spolemics against the Christian doctrine of transubstantiation; see Daniel J. Lasker, “Transub-stantiation, Elijah’s Chair, Plato, and the Jewish-ChristianDebate,” Revue des Études Juives 143(1984): 31–58, on 37–38.

24 See Jacob Klatzkin, Thesaurus Philosophicus Linguae Hebraicae et Veteris et Recentioris,vol. 2, part 3 (Berlin: Eschkol, 1930), p. 37; ibid., vol. 2 part 2 (Berlin: Eschkol, 1928), p. 296.


282 tamás visi

Lippmann Mühlhausen, Menahem Shalem, Avigdor Kara, and other per-sons attached to their circle engaged in a serious study of Hebrew philo-sophical texts, such as Moses Narboni’s commentary on the Guide of thePerplexed.25 However, the writings of the members of this circle seem torepresent a different intellectual agenda and style of thinking than that ofḤokm̱at ha- eʾlohut.Nevertheless, it is worth noting that an enigmatic proselyte (ger ṣedeq)

known as Israel ben Abraham is mentioned by Menahem Shalem and thata collection of philosophical sentences on the soul, attributed to Israelben Abraham in a fifteenth-century Ashkenazi manuscript, is based in parton Aquinas, according to the recent research by Milan Žonca.26 However,comparison of this text to Ḥokm̱at ha-ʾelohut has not revealed any obviousconnection between the two texts.27We know of two geographical-cultural areas where Jews translated philo-

sophical texts from Latin into Hebrew: Italy and the Iberian Peninsula.In Italy, Hillel of Verona paraphrased part of Aquinas’s De unitate intel-lectu in Hebrew during the second half of the thirteenth century; JudahRomano translated many excerpts from various works by Aquinas, includ-ing the Summa theologiae, in the first half of the fourteenth century. In theIberian Peninsula, Jews translated a significant number of philosophicaltexts, including some of Aquinas’s writings, from Latin to Hebrew.28A Sephardi background for Sefer Ḥokm̱at ha-ʾelohut may be indicated by

the fact that the gloss ʾideʿot (“ideas”; i.e., Platonic forms) is spelled with amedial ʿayin, which indicates, as Cyril Aslanov has kindly informedme, thatthe author duly pronounced this guttural sound, which is a characteristicof the Sephardi pronunciation of Hebrew. Nevertheless, one cannot excludeProvence or Italy, since Sephardi Jews lived there in the later Middle Ages.An Italian provenance makes it easier to understand how the text spread toAshkenaz.

25 For further references, see my “The Emergence of Philosophy in Ashkenazic Contexts:The Case of Czech Lands in the Early Fifteenth Century,” Simon Dubnow Institute Yearbook 8(2009): 213–243.

26 See Milan Žonca, “Israel ben Abraham: An Ashkenazic Translator of Latin ScholasticTexts?” (forthcoming). I am grateful to Milan Žonca for sharing his paper with me beforepublication.

27 An anonymous Ashkenazi philosophical compendium in amanuscript formerly in theMontefiore Library quotes Aquinas’s Summa theologiae and Summa contra gentiles in JudahRomano’s translation (MS Montefiore 130, fols. 113v and 114r).

28 See Zonta, Hebrew Scholasticism.



6. Karaite Reception of Aquinas?

A gloss by a sixteenth-century Ashkenazi hand, added to §18 of Ḥokm̱atha- eʾlohut, is attested only in the St. Petersburg manuscript. The section inquestion is a translation of Summa theologiae, pars prima, qu. 7 art. 2, withthe argument that no existent can be infinite in the same way as God is.Unfortunately, some of the gloss is illegible at the edge of the page:

יתלבלעב=[ת״בבתואיצמיכל״זו׳ירקע׳יביציישבוהילאר״המםכחהרמאמלעוייסהז׳וסוליפה]?[צ״א]?[ל״ב…]?ת[עדלוענמהראבתהרבכלעופב]תילכת

Without doubt the person referred to in this remark is Elijah Bashyatchi(ca. 1420–1490), one of the most important Karaite scholars of all times andauthor of ʾAderet ʾEliyahu, a definitive legal code of Karaism. As has beenshown by Daniel Lasker, ʾAderet ʾEliyahu contains philosophical materialthat evinces the influence of Maimonides.29 The “ten principles” (ʿiqqarim)mentioned in the gloss refers to a chapter of ʾAderet ʾEliyahu where Bashy-atchi lists ten articles of faith with long philosophical and theological expla-nations.30 The gloss cites a short sentence from Bashyatchi’s first article offaith, where the Karaite author recapitulates the “philosophers’ doctrine”that all existents are contingent except God. In this context he mentionsthat “the existence of [series] that are infinite in actuality has been provedimpossible by the philosophers.”31 This clause is cited in the gloss: the authorremarks that the thesis that only God has infinite existence stated in the rel-evant passage of Ḥokm̱at ha-ʾelohut (and by Aquinas) supports Bashyatchi’sstatement.It is very likely that the author of the gloss was a Karaite; thus this

short text represents a Karaite use of Aquinas’s thought via an anonymousHebrew compendium.32Other instances of Karaite reception of Aquinas are

29 Daniel J. Lasker, “Maimonides’ Influence on the Philosophy of Elijah Bashyazi theKaraite,” (Heb.) Jerusalem Studies in Jewish Thought 3 (1984): 405–425; idem, From JudahHadassi to Elijah Bashyatchi: Studies in LateMedieval Karaite Philosophy (Leiden: Brill, 2008),pp. 96–122.

30 Sefer ha-Miṣvot shel ha-yehudim ha-qaraʾim: ʾAderet ʾEliyahu (Jerusalem: Ha-moʿaṣaha-ʾarṣit shel ʿadat ha-yehudim ha-qaraʾim be-Yisraʾel, 1966), fols. 81b–88a.

31 Ibid., fol. 81b: ירשפאלכותואיצמהביוחמאוהשי״שהתלוזתואיצמהירשפאםהםיאצמנהללכשעדםהי״שהתלוזםיאצמנהשםנמאו׳םיארבנתואיצמהירשפאםיאצמנהללכןכםא׳םיארבנםהתואיצמהוראיברבכלעופבתילכתלעביתלבתואיצמשאוהורמואשהמיפכתפומבראבתנהזתואיצמהירשפא

ועונמהםיפוסולפה .32 Another gloss by the same hand, mentioning Elijah Bashyatchi (Eliyahu baʿal ʾAderet)

can be found on fol. 22v of the same manuscript (but to a different text).


284 tamás visi

unknown to me at this moment, but Karaite reception of Hebrew scientificand philosophical texts is well-documented in the laterMiddle Ages.33 Sincethe gloss is in an Ashkenazi hand, probably of the sixteenth century, it islikely that the glossator lived in Eastern Europe, perhaps in present-dayLithuania, where Karaite communities existed at that time. This hypothesisis corroborated by an eighteenth-century ownership-note at the end of themanuscript: the manuscript was purchased in 1754/55 in the city of Troki(Lithuania), where there was a major Karaite community from the end ofthe fourteenth century. The same hand added several additional glossesto Ḥokm̱at ha- eʾlohut. A deeper analysis of these glosses may shed furtherlight on the indirect responses of Eastern European Karaites to Aquinas’sphilosophy in the early modern period.

Conclusion

An anonymous philosophical compendium in Hebrew, entitled Ḥokm̱atha- eʾlohut, consists of seventy-eight extracts fromThomasAquinas’s Summatheologiae in a hitherto unknown Hebrew translation. In the section aboutGod’s unity, a long passage from Aquinas’s Summa contra gentiles has beenadded to the material culled from the Summa theologiae. The author doesnot reveal the fact that the work is based on a Latin text. References toChristian authors and texts are obscured or omitted. It is possible that theHebrew translator did not access the Summa theologiae directly but workedfrom a Latin abridgement of Aquinas’s text. A specimen of the translationis presented in Appendix A below. For a list of translated passages, consultAppendix B.The author-translator of the text is unknown at this moment. All three

extant manuscripts of the Hebrew text are Ashkenazi, and none is earlierthan the first half of the fifteenth century. However, because we cannotfit the activity of the translator into any identifiable cultural pattern inmedieval Ashkenaz, it is unlikely that the author was an Ashkenazi Jew.Some traits of the text suggest that the author had a Sephardi cultural andlinguistic background; if he happened to work in Italy that would makeit easier to understand why the text has been transmitted in Ashkenazimanuscripts. Further researchmay shedmore light on the origin of the text.

33 See Ofer Elior, “Ruaḥ ḥen as a Looking Glass: The Study of Science in Different JewishCultures as Reflected in a Medieval Introduction to Aristotelian Science and in its LaterHistory,” (PhD thesis, Ben-Gurion University of the Negev, Beersheva, 2010), pp. 173–225.



Appendix A:Aquinas’s “Proof fromMotion” in Ḥokmat ha-ʾelohut

תוהלאתמכח

1םיכרד’הבםיחיכומהזאצמנהולאשיש’תי’שהתואיצמיתפומ

שישםישיגרמאוההשגרהבואוהתמאהעונתהדצמ2רתויםסרופמאיהשןושארתפומ

ןיאשעעונתמרבדןיאועינמהחכמ3עעונתמעעונתמלכוםלועההזבםיעעונתמםינינע

וניאתיעבטההעונתשלעופבשרבדאוהםירחאעינמהו5וילאעעונתמשרבדלא4חוכב

אלא6לעופהלאחכהןמ׳יצוהללוכירבדןיאולעופהלאחוכהןמאיבהלקררחארבד

ותואהשועוחכבםחהיהש7ץעהםמחמולעופבםחאוהששאהומכלעופבהיהיכ״א

לעופבוחכבתחאתבב9דחארבדהיהישרשפאיאוותואהנשמו8עינמהזבולעופבםח

יפלתחאתבבחכבםחתויהללוכיוניאלעופבםחשםיקולחםינייניעיפלקרדחאןייניעב

ומצעתאעינישואעעונתמועינמ10דחאןייניעבודחאדצמדחרבדהיהישרשפאיאהז

אללאךלישרשפאיאהזורחארבדמרבדותואו׳רחאי״עעעונתישךירצעעונתמלכו

13ועיניאל12םייעצמאהש׳ייעצמאםיעינמאלועינמהנושארהלחתההיהאלכ״אש11תילכת

ןכלע14והעינתדיהכ״אאעעונתיאללקמומכםתואעינמהןושארהןמועעונתיםאאלא

:הולאאוה16עינמותואו׳ירחאמעעונתיאלרשאןושארעינמלא15ואוביחרכהב

Aquinas, Summa theologiae, pars prima, q2 art3 (Leonine edition):Respondeo dicendum quod Deum esse quinque viis probari potest. Primaautem etmanifestior via est, quae sumitur ex partemotus. Certum est enim,et sensu constat, aliqua moveri in hoc mundo. Omne autem quod movetur,ab alio movetur. Nihil enim movetur, nisi secundum quod est in potentiaad illud ad quod movetur, movet autem aliquid secundum quod est actu.Movere enim nihil aliud est quam educere aliquid de potentia in actum,de potentia autem non potest aliquid reduci in actum, nisi per aliquod ensin actu, sicut calidum in actu, ut ignis, facit lignum, quod est calidum inpotentia, esse actu calidum, et per hoc movet et alterat ipsum. Non autemest possibile ut idem sit simul in actu et potentia secundum idem, sed solumsecundum diversa, quod enim est calidum in actu, non potest simul essecalidum in potentia, sed est simul frigidum in potentia. Impossibile est ergoquod, secundum idem et eodem modo, aliquid sit movens et motum, velquod moveat seipsum. Omne ergo quod movetur, oportet ab alio moveri.Si ergo id a quo movetur, moveatur, oportet et ipsum ab alio moveri etillud ab alio. Hic autem non est procedere in infinitum, quia sic non esset

עעונתמש(5.פ״סחכמ4.׳סקואי״כברסח3.םסרופמרתוי:׳טו2.פ״סו׳טוי״כברסח)תוהלאתמכח(1)לעופהלאחכהןמ׳יצוהללוכירבדןיאו(6.וילאעעונתמשרבדלאחכבוניאש:׳טו.פ״סי״כברסח)וילארסח)דחא(9.׳טוי״כברסח)עינמהזבו(8.׳סקואי״כבשאה7.ןוילגהלעףסונלבא׳סקואי״כברסחי״כ]תילכתול[11.׳יסקוארחאןיינעבו.פ״סי״כברסח)דחאןייניעבו(10.׳טוי״כברסח)רבד(.פ״סי״כבחרכוה15.׳סקואי״כב]העונת[14.פ״סי״כועעונתי13.׳טו׳ייעצמאש12.׳טוי״כ]׳ילכתילבדע[.׳סקוא.׳טו]׳ושאר[עינמ16.פ״סאביש


286 tamás visi

aliquod primum movens; et per consequens nec aliquod aliud movens,quia moventia secunda non movent nisi per hoc quod sunt mota a primomovente, sicut baculus nonmovet nisi per hoc quod estmotus amanu. Ergonecesse est devenire ad aliquod primum movens, quod a nullo movetur, ethoc omnes intelligunt Deum.



Appendix B:An Overview of the Content of Ḥok̄mat ha-ʾelohut

Note: ‘q’ refers to quaestio and ‘art’ to articulus in Aquinas’s Summa theolo-giae, pars prima. Folio-numbers refer to theOxfordmanuscript. Sections arenot numbered in any of the manuscripts.

1. Fols. 46v–47v = q2 art3

2. Fols. 47v–48r = q2 art1י״שהתאעדילרשפאםאתלאשרשאו

3. Fol. 48r–v = q2 art2תפומבי״שהתאעדילרשפאםאתלאשרשאו

4. Fols. 48v–49r = q3 art1ףוגוניא׳תי׳שהש

5. Fol. 49r–v = q3 art2הרוצורמוחתבכרההולאבןיאש

6. Fols. 49v–50r = q3 art 3ותוהמאוה׳תיהולאש

7. Fol. 50r–v = q3 art 4דחארבדותואיצמוותומצעהולאהש

8. Fols. 50v–53r = q11 art 3דוחיהיתפומןהולאו

Translation of Thomas Aquinas, Summa contra gentiles, lib. I, cap. 42.At the end of this section the author adds: [fol. 53v] [cf. MS Vat. ebr. 388

fol. 164r, MS St. Petersburg, Yevr. I 460, fol. 3r]

׳רשיעמש1׳ירבדההלארפסב׳נש׳מכחיכוהללכונשדוקהיבתכמםגונעדי׳יתפומברשאומ״מםידבועהברהתוהלאלשפ״עאש׳ומואהלכשיחכיהזהתותימאבו׳דחאי״יוניהלאי״יונרמארשאםהמהשלשהלעמלונרמארשא׳יתפומההלאמוםידומםלוכלעדחאהולא:רתוישוריפבכ״גםתרוצבותכאןכלערצוקב

After that comes a translation of Aquinas’s three arguments in Summatheologiae, pars prima, q11 art3.

9. Fol. 54v = q9 art1יונישילב״ישהש

1 .פ״סי״כ-ןנחתאו׳פב


288 tamás visi

10. Fols. 54v–55r = q3 art5הובגללכואגוסםושבללכנוניא׳תי׳שהש

11. Fol. 55r–v = q3 art5גוסתחתןימתויהללוכיוניא׳תי׳שהש

12. Fols. 55v–56r = q3 art5םירדעהותוליעומכתוללכתהותוכיישךרדלעגוסבוניא׳תי׳שהשו

13. Fols. 55v–56r = q3 art6׳תיםשבהרקמםושןיאשםיתפומהוליאו

The first proof does not appear in Aquinas; the second proof is the first proofinAquinas; and the following two arguments areAquinas’s second and thirdproofs.

14. Fols. 56r–57r = q3 art7תוטישפהתילכתב׳תי׳שהש

15. Fol. 57r–v = q4 art1ירמגלםלש׳תיםשהש

16. Fol. 57v = q4 art2תומלשלכולויהישל״רללכבםושי״שהש

17. Fol. 58r = q7 art1תילכתילב׳תי׳שהש

18. Fols. 58v–59r = q7 art2דחאדצמקרםתסתילכתילבי״שהתלוזרבדןיאש

19. Fol. 59r = q25 art1לעפתמחכאלודחוימלעופחכ׳תיםשבשיש

20. Fol. 59r = q25 art2תילכתילבי״שהחכםא

21. Fols. 59r–60r = q25 art3רבדלכונממאלפיאלשםירבדהלכתושעללוכי׳רבתיםשהםא

22. Fol. 60r = q44 art1םיאצמנהלכלשתלעופההלע׳תי׳שהםא

23. Fol. 60v = q44 art4םיאצמנהלכלשתילכתההלעי״שהםא



24. Fol. 60v = q18 art2תחאהלועפתויחהםא

25. Fols. 61r–62r = q18 art3׳תיםשלךיישתויחהםאו

26. Fol. 62r = q90 art3םיכאלמה׳ועצמאב׳תי׳שהמהיושעףוגהניאשהאירבםא

27. Fol. 62r–v = q103 art1גיהנמםלועלםא

28. Fols. 62v–63r = q103 art3דחאגיהנמםלועלשיםאו

At the beginning few sentences which have no basis in Leonine edition.Boethius is rendered as he-ḥaka̱m.

29. Fol. 63r–v = q103 art5ךרבתיםשהתגהנהתחתםירבדהלכםא

30. Fols. 63v–64v = q8 art2םוקמלכבי״שהםא

31. Fol. 64v = q8 art1םיאצמנהלכב׳תיי״שהםא

32. Fols. 64v–65r = q8 art3תוחכנבוחכבותומצעבםיאצמנהלכב׳תיםשהםא

33. Fol. 65v = q8 art4ותלוזלךיישןיאשי״שלדחוימלכבי״שהתויהםא

34. Fols. 65v–66r = q14 art9םלועבםניארשאםירבדהעדויי״שהםא

35. Fols. 66r–67r = q14 art11םיטרפהםישיאהריכמועדויי״שהםא

36. Fol. 67r = q15 art1י״שהלכשבתורוצםא

37. Fol. 67v = q15 art3י״המםילכשומהםינייניעהלכלש׳תיי״שהלכשבתורוצםא

38. Fols. 67v–68v = q15 art2הדבלתחאואםההברהונרמאשתורוצםתואםא


290 tamás visi

39. Fols. 68v–69r = q14 art2ומצעתאליכשמ׳תיי״שהםא

An additional excursus quoting the Liber de causis [Sefer ha-ʿIllot] not foundin the Leonine edition of the Summa theologiae.

40. Fol. 69r = q14 art3ומצעתאגישי׳תיי״שהםא

41. Fol. 69r–v = q14 art4ומצעאוה׳תיי״שהתלכשהתלועפםא

42. Fols. 69v–70r = q14 art5׳יאצמנה׳ירבדהראשליכשיי״שהםא

43. Fol. 70r–v = q14 art12תילכתילבםהש׳ירבדליכשהללוכי׳תי׳שהםא

44. Fol. 71r–v = q12 art7ותומצעו׳תי׳התוהמתאגישהללוכיארבנלכשםושםא

45. Fols. 71v–72r = q12 art8תואצמנהלכוב׳תי׳שהתוהמליכשישכארבנלכשםא

An additional passage paraphrasing Aquinas’s reply to the fourth argument(ad quartum dicendum quod naturale desiderium etc.) is added to the endof the section.

46. Fol. 72r–v = q14 art8םיאצמנהתליעי״שהתעידילכשםא

47. Fols. 72v–73r = q22 art2׳תי׳שהתחגשהתחת׳ירבדהלכםא

48. Fol. 73r = q22 art4םיאצמנלחרכההשועי״שהתחגשהםא

49. Fol. 73r–v = q52 art1םוקמב׳ידרפנה׳ילכשםא

50. Fols. 73v–74r = q52 art2תומוקמהברהבתחאתבבתויהללוכידרפנלכשואךאלמהםא

The concluding remark (et per hoc patet de facili responsio ad obiecta etc.)is also translated.

51. Fol. 74r–v = q50 art3םילכשללודגןיינמשיםא



The second half of Aquinas’s argument containing a quotation from Ps-Dionysius is omitted.

52. Fols. 74v–75r = q50 art4םינימהינשקולחכ׳ילכשהקוליחשיםא

53. Fol. 75r–v = q53 art1םוקמל׳וקמבעעונתהללוכיךאלמםא

Many marginal notes.

54. Fols. 75v–76v = q53 art2םיעצמאהתומוקמברובעלםוקמלםוקממעעונתמךאלמהםא

55. Fols. 76v–77v = q53 art3עגרבואןמזבךאלמהתעונתםא

56. Fols. 77v–78r = q50 art5םידספנםניאםיכאלמהםא

Many marginal glosses.

57. Fol. 78r–v = q55 art1תורוצי״עואםתומצעבוםתוהמבוליכשיםיכאלמהםא


58. Fols. 78v–79r = q55 art2תואצמנהןמתוחוקלתורוצי״עוליכשיםיכאלמהםא

The quotation from Augustine at the end of the passage is omitted.

59. Fol. 79r = q54 art2ולכשתלועפאוהךאלמהתואיצמםא

60. Fol. 79r–v = q57 art2םיטרפהו׳ישיאהליכשיךאלמםא

61. Fols. 79v–80r = q56 art3י״שהתאעדילוליכשהללוכיולשעבטי״עךאלמםא

62. Fol. 80r–v = q75 art2ומצעמדמועהרבדםדאהתמשנםא

63. Fols. 80v–81r = q75 art3ומצעינפבדמועאוהשרבדח״בראשתמשנםא

64. Fols. 81r–82r = q76 art2םיפוגיוברכהברתתתילכשה׳משנםא


292 tamás visi

65. Fols. 82r–83v = q76 art8ףוגהיקלחלכבהלוכ׳משנהםא

Many marginal notes.

66. Fols. 83v–84r = q77 art2הברה׳משנהתוחכםא

67. Fol. 84r–v = q77 art3םיחכנותולועפי״עושרפויווקלחתי׳משנהתוחכםא

68. Fols. 84v–85v = q79 art2לעפתמהחכלכשהםא

69. Fols. 85v–86r = q79 art3לעופהלכששיש׳מולשיםא

The beginning of the Hebrew text is longer than the Latin.

70. Fol. 86r–v = q79 art4המשנהתוחכמאבלעופהלכשםא

71. Fol. 87r = q79 art5םלוכבדחאלעופהלכשםא

There is a saliq after this question: what did the scribe mean by this?

72. Fols. 87r–89r = q85 art1׳ימודמהןמתטשפהבםירמחה׳ייפוגה׳יאצמנהליכשיונלשלכשםא

Something is added at the end from some other source.

73. Fol. 89r–v = q86 art1׳יטרפהו׳ישיאה]ליכשהל״צ!ה״כ[ליבשבלכשםא

74. Fols. 89v–91v = q85 art2ודילעשרבדואלכשומהרבדומכונלשלכשלםהםימודמהןמתוטשפומהתורוצהםא

ליכשיםדא


75. Fol. 91r = q79 art11תחאואשפנהתוחוכינשישעמהלכשוינויעהלכשםא

76. Fols. 91r–92r = q79 art6שפנלשואםדאלש׳יליכשמהחכבןורכזהםא

77. Fol. 92r–v = q79 art7לכשהיתלבתרחאחכןורכזה⟩לכשה⟨חכםא



78. Fols. 92v–93r = q86 art2תילכתםהלןיארשאםירבדהליכשיונלשלכשםא

Thomas Aquinas’ Summa Theologiae in Hebrew: A New Finding

Documents

Transcript of Thomas Aquinas’ Summa Theologiae in Hebrew: A New Finding