the relationship between ladino liturgical texts and spanish bibles

© 2012 Koninklijke Brill NV ISBN 978 90 04 23248 8

The Hebrew Bible in

Fifteenth-Century Spain

Exegesis, Literature, Philosophy, and the Arts

Edited by

Jonathan Decter and Arturo Prats

LEIDEN • BOSTON2012


CONTENTS

Introduction ........................................................................................ 1

I. LITERATURE AND ART

Weeping Over Rachel’s Tomb: Literary Reelaborations of a Midrashic Motif in Medieval and Early Modern Spain .......... 13Luis M. Girón-Negrón

The First Murder: Picturing Polemic c. 1391 ............................... 41Tom Nickson

Sephardic Illuminated Bibles: Jewish Patrons and Fifteenth-Century Christian Ateliers ......................................... 61Andreina Contessa

II. JEWISH EXEGESIS

Abarbanel’s Exegetical Subversion of Maimonides’ ʿAqedah: Transforming a Knight of Intellectual Virtue into a Knight of Existential Faith ........................................................................ 75James A. Diamond

“From My Flesh I Envision God”: Shem Tov Ibn Shaprut’s Exegesis of Job 19:25–27 .............................................................. 101Libby Garshowitz

Messianic Interpretation of the Song of Songs in Late-Medieval Iberia ................................................................................................ 117Maud Kozodoy

vi contents


III. CONVERSION AND THE USES OF BIBLICAL EXEGESIS

Pro-Converso Apologetics and Biblical Exegesis .......................... 151Claude B. Stuczynski

A Father’s Bequest: Augustinian Typology and Personal Testimony in the Conversion Narrative of Solomon Halevi/ Pablo de Santa María .................................................................... 177Ryan Szpiech

IV. LITURGY AND TRANSLATION

The Liturgy of Portuguese Conversos ............................................ 201Asher Salah

The Relationship between Ladino Liturgical Texts and Spanish Bibles ................................................................................ 223Ora (Rodrigue) Schwarzwald

Translation and the Invention of Renaissance Jewish Culture: The Case of Judah Messer Leon and Judah Abravanel .......... 245Aaron W. Hughes

Index .................................................................................................... 267

Appendix: Illustrations ..................................................................... 277


THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN LADINO LITURGICAL TEXTS AND SPANISH BIBLES

Ora (Rodrigue) Schwarzwald

Introduction

The genre of Hebrew Jewish liturgical texts consists of the Bible and various prayer books. The Bible is recited in synagogue throughout the year: a portion of the Pentateuch is read each Saturday (and addition-ally on Mondays and Thursdays), and the Haftara, selected chapters from the Prophets, is also read out loud each Saturday. In addition, the five scrolls (Megillot) are read on specific holidays throughout the year: Ecclesiastes on Sukkoth (Tabernacles), Esther on Purim, The Song of Songs on Passover, Ruth on Pentecost, and Lamentations on the ninth of Av. Psalms were also read on mourners’ days and when people were sick.

There are two types of Jewish prayer books, the regular daily prayer book (Siddur), and special prayer books for each of the major festi-vals (Mahzors). All prayer books consist of blessings and prayers com-posed during both Rabbinical and medieval times. Most Mahzorim also include Pirke Avot ‘Ethics of the Fathers’ and the Passover Haggadah.

Pirke Avot, a collection of wise sayings from rabbinical times, is customarily read in Sephardic Jewish communities between Passover and Pentecost—a chapter each week, totaling six chapters. The Hag-gadah, read on the first night of Passover (on the first two nights in the Diaspora), includes the story of the Exodus from Egypt along with rabbinical interpretations, praises to God, dietary commandments and instructions for special rituals. Both Pirke Avot and the Haggadah are abundant with biblical citations.

Because of their popularity, Pirke Avot and the Passover Haggadah have traditionally also been published as separate booklets. These litur-gical texts were translated into Ladino, the Judeo-Spanish calque type language, by Sephardic communities after the expulsion from Spain in 1492, and, depending on the communities to which they were targeted, were printed using either Hebrew or Latin characters: the

224 ora (rodrigue) schwarzwald


expelled Jews used the Hebrew character set whereas the converted communities that returned to Judaism used Latin letters.1

This paper will focus on biblical citations that can be found in the Haggadah (H1–5) and Pirke Avot (PA1–4). Citations from them and from the 1547 Constantinople translation of the Pentateuch, other biblical texts from Constantinople and Salonika (C, written in Hebrew letters),2 and the 1553 Ferrara Bible (F, written in Latin letters)3 will be compared with the medieval Romaneceadas Biblias known as Escorial 3, 4, 7, 19, etc., the Alba Bible and other pre-exilic translations.4 Addi-tionally, the biblical citations will be compared to Pirke Avot in Sēfer Tešubāh (ST, a pre-exilic manuscript from the end of the fourteenth or the beginning of the fifteenth century written in Latin letters)5 and Pirke Avot and the Haggadah from the Ferrara Mahzor (also written in Latin letters).6

Three sets of verses from Pirke Avot and the Haggadah will be com-pared below. The first paragraph is taken from Pirke Avot 3:6 (1). Since the citations in Pirke Avot are shorter than the ones from the Hag-gadah and one biblical verse is actually divided into two fragments in Pirke Avot, I have also chosen another paragraph from Pirke Avot, the beginning verse from Sanhedrin 10:1 (2), which is recited before

1 Ora (Rodrigue) Schwarzwald, The Ladino Translations of Pirke Aboth. Eda VeLashon 13 (Jerusalem: Magnes, 1989); idem, A Dictionary of the Ladino Haggadot. Eda VeLashon 27 (Jerusalem: Magnes, 2008).

2 Moshe Lazar, ed., The Ladino Scriptures: Constantinople—Salonica [1540–1572] (Lancaster, CA.: Labyrinthos, 2000).

3 Moshe Lazar, ed., The Ladino Bible of Ferrara [1553] (Culver City: Labyrinthos, 1992).

4 Andrés Enrique-Arias and Mark Davies, Biblia Medieval, http://view.byu.edu/bibles. See also: Oliver H. Hauptmann, ed., Escorial Bible I.j.4 (Philadelphia: Univer-sity of Pennsylvania Press, 1953), vol. 1; Oliver H. Hauptmann and Mark G. Littlefield, eds., Escorial Bible I.j.4. Spanish Series 34 (Madison: HSMS, 1987); Mark G. Littlefield, ed., Escorial Bible I.ii.19 (Madison: The Hispanic Seminary of Medieval Studies, 1992), and idem, Escorial Bible I.i.7 (Madison: The Hispanic Seminary of Medieval Studies, 1996); Antonio Paz y Meliá, ed., La Biblia de la Casa de Alba (Madrid: Imprenta Artís-tica, 1920–1922). There are other comparisons of some paragraphs from the Bible: Margherita Morreale, “Las antiguas Biblias hebreas españolas en el pasaje del Cántico de Moisés” Sefarad, 23 (1963): 3–21, compared Ferrara to the Romaneceadas Biblias; Lazar made some other comparisons in the introduction to Ij3. See Moshe Lazar, ed., Biblia Ladinada: Escorial I.j.3 (Madison: The Hispanic Seminary of Medieval Studies, 1995).

5 Moshe Lazar, ed., Sēfer Tešubāh: A Ladino Compendium of Jewish Law and Ethics (Culver City: Labyrinthos, 1993), 63–81.

6 Moshe Lazar, ed., The Ladino Mahzōr of Ferrara [1553] (Culver City: Labyrinthos, 1993).

ladino liturgical texts and spanish bibles 225


reading each of the six chapters from Pirke Avot. The third paragraph is taken from the Haggadah—the section from Maggid that starts with Tse Ulmad (3).

After presenting the text examples, a comparison of the given verses will be classified according to a few special features. The comparison will show that unlike the post-exilic translations, not only do pre-exilic translations differ considerably from one another but they also differ from the post-exilic translations (both lexically and grammatically).

The explanation as to why there are differences between pre- and post-exilic translations and between the Ladino translations themselves will conclude that the key to these differences is the target population for which the translations were created. In the discussion section I will refute the assumption that the Jewish Ladino translations were based on the Spanish medieval texts and claim that it was the practice of orally transmitting texts that led to the formation of the post-exilic translations.

The Texts

The first example, from Pirke Avot, suggests not only that Torah should be studied at any place where people are gathered, but also that anyone studying Jewish tradition is blessed.

The second text from Sanhedrin outlines the purpose of the maxims included in Pirke Avot (i.e. that their study prepares Jews for the world to come, as it makes them more righteous).7

The third example is taken from the Haggadah as part of a rabbini-cal discussion regarding the history of the Israelites and the role of two evil personalities, Laban from Aram (Mesopotamia) and Pharaoh, who wanted to eradicate the Israelites. Most of the discussion in this text is an interpretation of the first recited biblical verse.

7 This is the reason that Pirke Avot is studied among Sephardic Jews between Passover and Pentecost, the holiday which celebrates the acceptance of Jewish law. Shavuoth “Pentecost” is also called Hag Matan Torah “the holiday in which the Torah was given to the Israelites in the desert.” In the Ashkenazi tradition Pirke Avot is studied between Passover and the High Holidays (Rosh HaShana “the Jewish new year” and Yom Kippur “the day of repentance”) for the same reason, i.e. to purify the heart.



(1) Mishna, Pirke Avot 3:6:

Rabi Halafta ben Dosa ’iš kefar Hanania ’omer: ‘aśara šeyošvin ve‘osqin batora šəkhina šəruya benehem, šene’emar: “ɛlōhīm nissåb baʿădat-ʾēl” (Psalms 82:1; 1a). uminayin ʾafilu hamiša, šeneʾemar: “waʾăguddåtō ʿal-ʾɛrɛs yəsådåh” (Amos 9:6; 1b). uminayin ʾafilu šəloša, šeneʾemar: “bəqɛrɛb ʾɛlōhīm yišpōt” (Psalms 82:1; 1a). uminayin ʾafilu šnayim, šeneʾemar: “ʾåz nidbərū yirʾē YHWH ʾīš ʾɛt-rēʿēhū wayyaqšēb YHWH wayyišmåʿ” (Malachi 3:16; 1c). uminayin ʾafilu ʾehad, šeneʾemar: “bəkål-hammåqōm ʾăšɛr ʾazkīr ʾɛt-šəmī ʾåbō ʾēlɛkå ūbēraktīkå” (Exodus 20:20; 1d).

‘Rabbi Halafta Ben Dosa of the village of Hanania says: When ten people sit together and study the Bible, the presence of God is among them as it is said: “God stands in a congregation of the Almighty” (Psalms 82:1; 1a). How do we know that this applies even to five? Because it is said: “He has founded his band upon the earth” (Amos 9:6; 1b). How do we know that this applies even to three? Because it is said: “He judges in the midst of judges” (Psalms 82:1; 1a). How do we know that it applies even to two? Because it is said: “Then those who feared God spoke one with another and God listened and heard” (Malachi 3:16; 1c). How do we know that it also applies even to one? Because it is said: “In every place where I have my name remembered, I will come to you and bless you” (Exodus 20:24; 1d).

(2) Mishna, Sanhedrin 10:1:

Kol Yiśraʾel yeš lahem heleq laʿolam haba, šeneʾemar: “wəʿammēk kullåm saddīqīm ləʿōlåm yīršū ʾårɛs nēsɛr mattåʿay maʿăśē yåday ləhitpåʾēr” (Isaiah 60:21; 2).

All Israel have a share in the world to come, as it is said: “And all your people will be righteous; they will inherit the land forever, they are my plants, the work of my hands, wherein I glory” (Isaiah 60:21).8

(3) Passover Haggadah, from Magid:

Se ulmad ma biqeš lavan haʾarami laʿaśot ləyaʿaqov ʾavino. Šeparʿo lo gazar ʾela ʿal hazekharim velavan biqeš laʿaqor hakol, šeneʾemar:

8 The translations are adapted from Avrohom Davis, Pirke Avot: The Wisdom of the Fathers (New York: Metsudah, 1979), 3 and 88.



“ʾărammī ʾōbēd ʾåbī wayyērɛd misraymå wayyågår šåm bimtē məʿåt wayhī-šåm ləgōy gådōl ʿåsūm wåråb” (Deuteronomy 26:5; 3a). “wayyērɛd misraymå” ʾanus ʿal pi hadibur.

wayyågår šåm, melamed šelo yarad yaʿaqov ʾavinu lehištaqeaʿ bemisrayim ʾela lagur šam. Šeneʾemar: “wayyōmrū ʾɛl-parʿō lågūr båʾårɛs bånū kī-ʾēn mirʿɛ lassōn ʾăšɛr laʿăbådɛkå kī-kåbēd håråʿåb bəʾɛrɛs kənåʿan wəʿattå yēšbū-nå ʿăbådɛkå bəʾɛrɛs gōšɛn” (Genesis 47:4; 3b).

“bimtē məʿåt”, kema šeneʾemar: “bəšibʿīm nɛpɛš yårədū ʾăbōtɛkå misråymå wəʿattå śåmkå YHWH ʾɛlōhɛkå kəkōkbē haššåmayim lårōb” (Deuteronomy 10:22; 3c).

“wayhī-šåm ləgōy”, melamed šehayu yiśraʾel mesuyanim šam.“gådōl ʿåsūm”, kema šeneʾemar:” ūbnē yiśråʾēl pårū wayyišrəsū

wayyirbū wayyaʿasmū bimʾōd məʾōd wattimmålē håʾårɛs ʾōtåm (Exo-dus 1:7; 3d).

“wåråb”, kema šeneʾemar: rəbåbå kəsɛmah haśśådɛ nətattīk wattirbī wattigdəlī wattåbōʾī baʿădī ʿădåyīm šådayim nåkōnū ūśʿårēk simmēah wəʾat ʿērōm wəʿɛryå (Ezekiel 16:7; 3e).

‘Go forth and learn what Laban the Aramean wanted to do to our father Jacob. Pharaoh had issued a decree against the male children only, but Laban wanted to uproot everyone. As it is said: “An Aramean sought to destroy my father; and he went down to Egypt and sojourned there, few in number; and he became there a nation—great and mighty and numerous” (Deuteronomy 26:5; 3a).

“And he went down to Egypt” compelled by Divine decree.“And he sojourned there”—this teaches that Jacob our father did

not go down to Egypt to settle, but only to live there temporarily. As it is said, “They said to Pharaoh: We have come to sojourn in the land, for there is no pasture for your servants’ flocks because the famine is severe in the land of Canaan; and now, please, let your servants dwell in the land of Goshen” (Genesis 47:4; 3b).

“Few in number” as it is said: “Your fathers went down to Egypt with seventy souls, and now, the Lord, your God, has made you as numerous as the stars of heaven” (Deuteronomy 10:12; 3c).

“And he became there a nation” this teaches that the Israelites achieved distinction there.

“Great, mighty,” as it is said: “And the children of Israel were fruit-ful and increased abundantly, and multiplied and became very, very mighty, and the land became filled with them” (Exodus 1:7; 3d).

“And numerous,” as it is said: “I caused you to thrive like the plants of the field, and you increased and grew and became very beautiful,



your breasts formed and your hair grown long, but you were naked and bare”9 (Ezekiel 16:7; 3e).

Comparison

In the following paragraphs I will compare the pre- and post-exilic translations of the same biblical verses. The findings will be classified into the following categories: names for God; names of people and places; the translations of the Hebrew present tense; nominal sentences; the connective particle; lexical variations and syntactic phraseology.10

In the comparisons given below, pre-exilic translations are followed by post-exilic ones. Where there is no reference to any specific version, all the translations are the same. Where most of the translations are the same, the examples which are exceptions will be indicated first.

A. God’s Names

The name of God appears in the Bible as ʾɛlōhīm, ’el and YHWH. The translations show the following distribution:

(4a) ʾɛlōhīm 1 (1a)—dios (E3), Eloym (E5/E7), Elohjm (EV), el Dio (ST), el Señor in the pre-exilic translations.

– dio (PA1), el dio in the post-exilic translations.(4b) ʾɛlōhīm 2 (1a)—los juezes (E3, E5/E7), medias (EV), los dioses

(BNM, Alba, ST), ellos (E4). – juezes.(4c) ʾɛlōhɛkå (3c)—tu señor (E19), tu dios. – tu dio.(5) ’el (1a)—los dioses (E4), el señor (Alba), el dio (ST), dios. – dio (F, FM), fuertes (PA1), juezes.(6a) YHWH1 (1c×2)—dios (E6/E8), el señor. – H’ (PA4), A. (F, FM, PA2), YY [all pronounced Adonay].

9 The English translation is adapted from the Sephardic Haggadah from Seattle—Passover Agada (Agada de Pesah): Hebrew, Ladino and English, According to the Cus-tom of the Seattle Sephardic Community (Seattle: Washington, 2004)—and on the following translation: http://www.chabad.org/holidays/passover/pesach_cdo/aid/1737/jewish/Maggid.htm.

10 Some of the findings strengthen the previously observed phenomena found in comparing pre- and post-Bible translations—Ora (Rodrigue) Schwarzwald, “On the Jewish Nature of Medieval Spanish Biblical Translations: Linguistic Differences between Medieval and Post-Exilic Spanish Translations of the Bible,” Sefarad 70 (2010): 117–140.



(6b) YHWH2 (3c)—adonay (E3, AJ, Alba), dios (E19), el señor (E5/E7). – H’ (PA4), A. (F, FM, PA2), YY [all pronounced Adonay].

The examples clearly demonstrate the variety of ways to which God is referred in the different translations. Except for examples (4b) and (5), all the post-exilic translations use the same translations: The name Adonay is spelled as an abbreviation in order to avoid profanation in (6a–b) for YHWH and (el) Dio for Elohim (a, 4c). While two of the pre-exilic translations use the word Elohim in (4a) and Adonay is used once in three pre-exilic translations in (6b), the words Dios or El Señor are more frequently used in the pre-exilic translations. Only ST uses el Dio in the pre-exilic translations in (4a) and (5).

El Dio is the most commonly used in Judeo-Spanish to translate Elohim as is reflected in all the translations.11 The use of Dioses appears in post-exilic translations only in reference to idols or other deities, never God (cf. los dioses in ST in 4b).

The translation in (4b) shows that all the translators pondered the double occurrence of the word Elohim in the verse and did not trans-late it literally in the second occurrence. The post-exilic translators unanimously utilized the word juezes (indefinite), while the pre-exilic ones either replaced it (medias, ellos), chose los juezes (with the defi-nite article), or employed los dioses, a choice that could not have been used in the post-exilic translations. The use of juezes is determined by the Hebrew word yišpot ‘will judge’: God judges in the presence of other judges.12

The translation in (5) is the only one in which the post-exilic trans-lations vary more than the pre-exilic ones: C and most of PA transla-tions use juezes, parallel to the translation of (4b). F and FM use dio, and only Venice 1601 utilizes fuertes (based perhaps on the Aramaic taqqifin ‘strong’ translation of the verse).

To sum up: the three occurrences of divinity in one verse is the main reason for the variety of translations. Nevertheless, pre-exilic versions use Dios, Dioses, and el Señor for the names of God. The post-exilic translations use el Dio for God and Adonay for YHWH. ST is the only text found in pre-exilic translation that at times uses el Dio (as is com-mon in post-exilic translations). Some of the pre-exilic translations are

11 One of the explanations for the lack of s in Dios in the Judeo-Spanish name is the misinterpretation of the final s as indicating plurality, contrary to the Jewish belief.

12 The traditional interpretation is that God judges among the angels who are assigned to judging.



also based on the traditional interpretation that the second occurrence of Elohim in (4b) refers to judges.

B. Person and Place Names

(7) ʾărammī (3a)—Siro (E6/E8), el haramj (E3), el aramj (AJ, E5/E7), lauan el aramj (E19), el aramita (E4), laban el armenjco [el de siria] (Alba).

– El syro (F), asirio (FM), arami.(8a) misraymå1 (3a)—a egipto, a egibto (E19, E5/E7). – A Misrayim (C), a Egypto (F, FM), a aibto (H1), a ağifto (H2), a

ayifto.(8b) misraymå2 (3c)—a egipto, a egibto (E19, E5/E7). – A Misrayim (C), a Egypto (F, FM),—(H1), a ağifto (H2), a ayifto.(9) parʿō (3b)—(E3, AJ, Alba), a faron (E19), a faraon (E5/E7, E4). – Parho (F), parhoh (FM), par’o.(10) kənåʿan (3b)—canaan. – Kenahan (F, FM), kena‘an.(11) gōšɛn (3b)—gozem (E4),—(AJ), gosen. – Gossen (F, FM), gošen.

Examples (9–11) show that post-exilic translations retain the tradi-tional Hebrew pronunciation of these names, unlike the pre-exilic translations that use Spanish equivalents. The use of h to represent the Hebrew Ayin in (9) and (10) is a well known convention used in the Latin script Ladino translations. The Hebrew script translations copy and vocalize these names as they appear in Hebrew.

The names Arami (7) and Misrayim (8a-b) deserve a special discus-sion: Arami is copied in the Hebrew script post-exilic translations, just like in (9–11). Only the Ferrara Bible and Mahzor use el syro or asirio, and thus resemble some of the pre-exilic translations.13 Some of the pre-exilic translations also copy the Hebrew name, but add the defi-nite article to it, which is missing in Hebrew, i.e. el haramj, el aramj. Others add proper name of this gentilic noun, e.g. lauan el aramj, laban el armenjco [el de siria], or use the Spanish adjectival forms, el

13 The fact that both versions came from Ferrara and show different translations is not surprising as it has been found that there were variations even among Ferrara Bibles. See Uriel Macías Kapón, “La Biblia de Ferrara en bibliotecas y bibliografías españolas,” in Introducción a la Biblia de Ferrara: actas del Simposio Internacional sobre la Biblia de Ferrara: Sevilla, 25–28 de noviembre de 1991, ed. Iacob M. Hassán and Ángel Berenguer Amador (Madrid: Comisión Nacional Quinto Centenario, 1994), 473–502.



aramita and el armenjco. It is clear that there is a greater variety of translations of this single name in pre-exilic translations than exist in the post-exilic ones.

Unlike the former cases, the word Misrayim, ‘Egypt’, shows greater variety in post-exilic translations in (8a–b): C copied the name in the translation as in the other cases, while the other translations vary according to eastern and western traditions. The versions from Italy, F, FM, H2 and H3 use the Spanish name, whereas the versions from the Ottoman Empire in Salonika and Belgrade use the old Judeo-Spanish tradition of pronouncing the name, Ayifto.14 The Italian versions of the Haggadah tend to retain more standardized Spanish forms than the eastern versions, and the use of Ağifto is a sign for it.15 The pre-exilic translations use the Spanish name of the country, Egipto.

Regarding the use of personal names and place names, the pre-exilic translations are more faithful to the Spanish tradition whereas the post-exilic translations adhere to the Hebrew names except for the name Egypt. The Ferrara texts resemble the pre-exilic texts in the translations of two names, and the Italian tradition also follows suit but only in the name for Egypt. Otherwise, it resembles traditional pronunciation of the Hebrew names.16

C. The Translation of the Hebrew Present (Participle) Form

(12) nissåb (1a)—esta (E3, Alba, ST), se para (E5/E7), estudo (E4), estuuo (BNM).– parado (PA3, PA4), están.

(13) ʾōbēd (3a)—siguraua (E6/E8), quiso estroyr (E3, AJ), quiso deperder (E19), cuydo deperder (E5/E7), quiso perder (E4), quiso distruyr (Alba).– deperdio (C), deperdiente (F), quiso deperder (FM, H1), deperdién

(H2, H3), quižo depedrer (H4), quižo deperder (H5).

14 Joseph Nehama, Dicctionaire du Judeo-Espagnol (Madrid: CSIC, 1977).15 Note that the name is not exactly Egipto as in the Ferrara versions. The examples

here do not demonstrate more cases of the unique Italian versions. For more details see Ora (Rodrigue) Schwarzwald, “Linguistic Variations among Ladino Translations as Determined by Geographical, Temporal and Textual Factors,” Folia Lingüística Histórica, 17 (1996): 57–72.

16 These findings are further supported in Ora (Rodrigue) Schwarzwald, “Proper Names in Ladino Translations: Origin and Jewish Identity,” Pe‘amim, 84 (2000): 66–77, and A Dictionary of the Ladino Haggadot (see n. 1).



Although both Hebrew forms take the participle present tense, they are not necessarily perceived as such in the translations. In (12) pre-exilic translations use present tense forms or the past tense, and perhaps an adjectival form (estudo?). In (13) they use past tense forms. The post-exilic translations use the adjectival or participle form in (12) and past or participle forms in (13).

Only in the post-exilic translation is the apocopated present parti-ciple form presented as in están (12) and deperdién (next to deperdi-ente) in (13). The post-exilic translations use only the verb deperder in (13), whereas a variety of verbs are used in the pre-exilic translations: sigurar, estruir, deperder, perder, and destruir. In spite of the exist-ing varieties among the post-exilic translations, it is clear that they resemble each other more than the pre-exilic ones.

D. Nominal Sentences

(14) kī-ʾēn mirʿɛ lassōn (3b)—que non han pasto las ovejas (E3), que non han [. . .] (AJ), por que non oujmos logar do paçiesen el ganado (E19), ca non ay pasto para los ganados (E5/E7), que no ay pasto al Ganado (E4), ca non podiamos fallar pasto para nuestro Ganado (Alba).

– que no pasto a las ouejas (F, FM), que no(n) pasto alas obeǰas.(15) kī-kåbēd håråʿåb (3b)—que es muy grande la fanbre (E3, E19), que

es muy grande la *an** (AJ), por quanto es grandela fanbre (E5/E7), que es graue la fanbre (E4), por la grand fanbre que es (Alba).

– que pesgada la hamre (C), que graue la hanbre (F), que graue la fambre (FM), que pezgada la fambre (H2, H3), que pezgada la ambre/anbre (H4, H5).

(16) wəʿammēk kullåm saddīqīm—(2) e el to pueblo: todos iustos (E6/E8), Mas el tu pueblo todos derecheros (GE), & tu pueblo todos son justos (E3), E el tu pueblo todos seran justos (E5/E7, E4, RAH), E tu pueblo todos seran justos (BNM), & el tu pueblo vniuersal mente iustos seran (Alba).

– Y tu pueblo todos ellos ǰustos/justos.

In all three examples (14–16), there is no copulative verb in the post-exilic translations. The existence of the copula is very common in pre-exilic translations: han, oujmos, ay, podiamos fallar, es, son, seran. Only in (16) is the copula missing in some of the pre-exilic examples. This lack of copulative verbs in the post-exilic translations is an exact reflection of the Hebrew structure of nominal sentences. There is no need in Hebrew for a verbal copula when the predicate is a noun, an adjective, an adverb, or a prepositional phrase in the present tense. The



post-exilic translations copy this structure, thus ignoring the Spanish syntactic structure.

It should also be noted here that only in the post-exilic translations is the word kullåm ‘all of them’ translated as todos ellos following the Hebrew structure, a translation that does not appear in any of the pre-exilic ones.

E. Connective Particle

The connective particle is e (&) in the pre-exilic translations and always y [i] in the post-exilic ones, as in Judeo-Spanish.

F. Lexical Variations and Syntactic Phraseology

The set of examples below shows distinct linguistic variation among the translations. I will discuss each of them separately and then sum-marize the differences.

(17) waʾăguddåtō (1b)—e . . . su faceziello (E6/E8), & su ayuntamjento (E3), & la su ocupilaçion (E5/E7), & la su acopilaçion (E4), & su mano (BNM, RAH), e su colaçion (ST).

– y su ayuntamiento (F, FM), y su ajuntamiento (PA2), y su manoǰo.

Only the Latin script post-exilic translations resemble E3 in the use of ajuntamiento. All the Hebrew script post-exilic translations constantly use manoǰo, including C, which none of the pre-exilic translations uti-lize. In addition the pre-exilic translations use a variety of words to express Hebrew ’ăgudda ‘association, bundle’: faceziello, ocupilaçion, acopilaçion, mano, and colaçion. In this example ST translates simi-larly to the other pre-exilic translations.

(18) wayyaqšēb YHWH wayyišmåʿ (1c)—E dios touo mientes e escucho (E8/E6), & escucho el señor & oyolo (E3), & escucha el señor & oye (E5/E7), & onrran al su nonbre (E4), & escucholo el señor & oyolo (BNM, RAH), e escuchán el Señor e oyén (ST).

– y escucho YY/A/H’ y oyo.

The post-exilic translations use the past tense forms and do not add any direct objects to the verbs, as in Hebrew. The pre-exilic transla-tions use a variety of tenses and some of them add the direct object to the verbs. Most of them use the verbs escuchar and oír, as in the post-exilic ones, but not always as the translations of E6/E8 and E4 show.



(19) nēsɛr mattåʿay (2)—engendramiento de lo que yo plante (E6/E8), engendramjento del mjo llantamjento (GE), rramo de mj plan-tamjento (E3), reyes dela mj planta (E5/E7), rrayz dela mj planta (E4), ramo de mjs plantas (BNM), rramas de las mjs plantas (RAH), la rama delas mis plantas (Alba).

– ramo de mis plantas (C, F, FM, PA2), rama de mis plantas (PA1, PA3, PA4).

The post-exilic translations use ramo or rama in the singular, and plantas in the plural, as in Hebrew, and follow the Hebrew construct state expressed by “X of my Y” with no definite article. The pre-exilic translations use a variety of words for neser ‘stem’: engendramiento, reyes, rrayz as well as ramo, rama, and even rramas in the plural form. The word mattå’ay ‘my plantation’ is translated by lo que yo plante, llantamjento, plantamjento, planta, and plantas, in the singular or in the plural. The addition of the definite article is also noticeable in a few of the pre-exilic translations.

(20) bimtē məʿåt (3a)—con muy poca companna (E6/E8), con poca gente (E3, AJ), con omnes pocos (E19), con varones pocos (E5/E7, E4), con pocos varones (Alba).

– con varones pocos (C, F, H1, H4, H5), con gente poca (FM, H2, H3).

Even when some of the lexical choices are identical in the transla-tions, as varones-gente, the syntax is different: whereas in post-exilic translations the adjective always follows the noun (as in Hebrew), in pre-exilic translations the adjective sometimes comes first.

(21) lågūr (3b)—para morar (E3), para mo*** (AJ), morar (E19, Alba), a morir (!) (E5/E7), amorar (E4).

– por morar (C, F, H4, H5), para peregrinar (FM), por pelegrinar (H2, H3).

The pre-exilic translations use the verb morar, except for E5/E7 which uses morir, probably a typographical error. The post-exilic translations use morar or peregrinar/pelegrinar. The biblical Hebrew root g-w-r is the source for the noun ger ‘a non-permanent inhabitant’ and the verb lågur ‘to dwell temporarily in a certain location’. This is the meaning carried in this verse which led some of the post-exilic translations’ choice of peregrinar/pelegrinar.17

17 In post-biblical Hebrew ger means ‘convert’ and lagur means ‘to live, to dwell.’



(22) yēšbū (3b)—esten (E3), moren (E19, E4), pueblen (E5/E7), asente-mos (Alba).

– esten.

The post-exilic translations translate yešbu ‘(they) will sit’ unanimously as esten, while the pre-exilic ones translate the word by asentemos ‘we will sit’, or by moren, pueblen, and esten in (22).

(23) bəšibʿīm nɛpɛš (3c)—setanta almas (E6/E8), con setenta personas (E3, AJ, E5/E7, E4), con setenta almas (E19, Alba).

– con setenta almas.

Four pre-exilic translations translate nἑfεš ‘soul’ freely into personas ‘people’, while all the others (including the post-exilic examples) trans-late it literally with the word almas.

(24) bimʾōd məʾōd (3d)—muy mucho (E3, E19, E5/E7), mucho mucho (E4), mucho ademas (Alba).

– en mucho mucho (F, FM), en lo mucho mucho.

The intensifying expression bim’od mə’od is interpreted by the pre-exilic translations in (24): muy mucho or mucho ademas, and repeats the word mucho in E4. None of these translations however relate to the particle b- ‘in’ which occurs in Hebrew. The post-exilic translations use the preposition en in all the versions and they all double the word mucho thus copying the Hebrew structure.

(25) rəbåbå kəsɛmah haśśådɛ (3e)—dite amuchiguada assi como yerba de campo (E6/E8), grande commo lo que cresçe enel canpo (E3), multiplicaras como la yerua del canpo (E5/E7), commo la yerua del canpo (E4), multiplicada como/commo los arboles del campo (BNM, RAH), multiplicada quasy yerua del canpo (Alba).

– milaria como ermollo/hermollo/ermoyo del/de el canpo/campo te di.

Only the word campo is common to all the translations. The post-exilic translations are unique in the use of both milaria and hermollo/ermollo/ermoyo, Judeo-Spanish words that are non-existent in Span-ish.18 The pre-exilic translations prefer yerba/yerva (<hierba) for sεmah though not all of them (cf. lo que cresçe and arboles), and a variety of words for rəbåbå [revava]: dite amuchiguada, grande, multiplicaras,

18 Joan Corominas and José Pascual, Diccionario crítico etimológico Castellano e Hispánico (Madrid: Gredos, 1981–1991), relate the latter to armuelle, and indicate that ermollir, hermollecer and hermollo are old Judeo-Spanish forms attested already in the fourteenth century.



and multiplicada. The syntax of the expressions also varies among the pre-exilic translations.

The last set of examples (17–25) clearly shows that the pre-exilic trans-lations demonstrate more lexical variability than the post-exilic ones. Also, their syntax shows greater inconsistency and many more free translations than the post-exilic ones that are word for word translations.

At times, the pre- and post-exilic translations show some resem-blance, e.g. the post-exilic translations are similar to E3 in (17) and (22), to BNM in (19), to E5/E7 and E4 in (20), and to E19 and Alba in (23); however, they differ from them in all the other examples. Even when the lexical choices are similar in some translations, as in (20), the syntax is different.

Discussion

As previously noted, the Ladino translation genre is noted for its inflexibility on the one hand, and for its archaic nature on the other.19 It reflects various Hebrew syntactic structures while retaining many grammatical and lexical linguistic features typical of medieval Spanish. The post-exilic texts represent these Ladino translations.

The comparison of the texts above proves that there is a great dis-tinction between the pre- and post-exilic translations of biblical verses. The texts differ in the lexical choices of God’s names, personal names and place names and other content words, in the use of the conjunc-tive particle, in the syntactic translation of nominal sentences and other phrases, and in the translation of participle forms.

One outstanding finding is that there is more variation among the medieval texts than among the post-exilic ones. Considering time and

19 Moshe Lazar, “Bible Translations in Ladino from after the Expulsion,” Sefunot, 8 (1964): 337–75; Israel S. Revah, “Hispanisme et judaïsme des langues parlées et écrites par les Sefardim,” in Actas del primer Simposio de Estudios Sefardíes, ed. Iacob M. Hassán (Madrid: Instituto Arias Montano, 1970), 233–241; Haïm-Vidal Sephiha, Le Ladino: Deutéronome (Paris: Centre de Recherches Hispaniques, 1973), and Le Ladino (Judéo-Espagnol Calque) (Paris: Association Vidas Largas, 1979); Schwarzwald, Pirke Aboth (see n. 1); David M. Bunis, “Translating from the Head and from the Heart: The Essentially Oral Nature of the Ladino Bible-Translation Tradition,” in Hommage á Haïm Vidal Sephiha, ed. Winfried Busse and Marie-Christine Varol-Bornes (Berne: Peter Lang, 1996), 337–357.



location, the divergence between the pre- and post-exilic texts is even more impressive: the pre-exilic texts were all written in Spain within a range of about 200–300 years. The post-exilic texts were published in various countries (Italy, Turkey, and the Balkans [Greece, Yugosla-via]) between 154020 and the twentieth century. The question arises as to why there is such diversity among the pre-exilic texts and such similarity among the post-exilic ones. The following discussion will consider this phenomenon and question whether the medieval texts served as sources for the Ladino translations.

As stated above, whereas the post-exilic translations reveal Ladino rigid translation from Hebrew to (Judeo-)Spanish, the pre-exilic trans-lations reflect exactly the opposite. When the translations are free, much more variability can be found in the translations. This explains the inconsistencies of the pre-exilic translations.

Two explanations can be given regarding the restricted choice of lexical items in the post-exilic translations:

1. Academic literature in linguistics proves that there is less variation in dying languages than in living ones.21 Since Judeo-Spanish had been cut off from its Spanish source, the number of words used by the speakers decreased. This is the reason for fewer lexical varia-tions in the post-exilic translations.

2. Because the liturgical texts had sacred value for the Jews, the trans-lators tried to be as accurate and as faithful to the original Hebrew text as possible. The precision could be accomplished by a careful choice of words that fit the meanings and structures of Hebrew. This is the reason for limited variations in the lexical choices in combination with a rigid syntactic structure.

The first explanation given above, however, cannot be supported because the first post-biblical translations were published shortly after the expulsion from Spain. The language could not have been

20 The first publication of Psalms in Ladino in Hebrew letters.21 See David Crystal, Language Death (Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University

Press, 2000); Daniel Nettle and Suzanne Romaine, Vanishing Voices: The Extinction of the World’s Languages (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000); Hans-Jürgen Sasse, Theory of Language Death, and Language Decay and Contact-induced Change: Simi-larities and Differences. Arbeitspapier 12 (Köln: Institut für Sprachwissenschaft, Uni-versität zu Köln, 1990).



impoverished in such a short period of time.22 The lexical choices do not reveal poor vocabulary but rather a restricted one. Both the Bible, the Mahzor, Pirke Avot and the Haggadah translations show a rich vocabulary, with many archaic features that either exist in Judeo-Span-ish or reflect old medieval Spanish no longer in use. Moreover, other texts published at the same time in Judeo-Spanish clearly demonstrate the lexical richness of the language and the regular use of Spanish syntactic structures.23

Pirke Avot in Sēfer Tešubāh, a pre-exilic translation, resembles the post-exilic translations in two features: 1. In the use of (el) Dio in (4a) and in (5), instead of Dios and el Señor; 2. In the use of the apoco-pated participle forms escuchán and oyén in (18). Apparently, the lat-ter feature could be considered appropriate according to the Ladino translations (cf. Section 3.3), but it is in fact exceptional in this context because it translates Hebrew past tense forms with equivalent pres-ent participle ones, unlike the post-exilic translation in this example. In all its other features ST resembles the pre-exilic translations. ST is a compendium of texts that was probably written for the Converso community in Spain in order to explain the Jewish law. The converted Jews in Spain tried to assimilate into Spanish society and hid their ties to Judaism; therefore, their language showed no signs of Jewish tradi-tion. The author of ST used the Latin script that was in use among the Conversos and the standard Spanish of his time. In spite of the effort to mimic the Jewish texts by the use of the above mentioned features, ST does not seem to get closer to the Jewish tradition; its inconsistency in the first feature and the inappropriateness of the second feature as well as its resemblance to the other pre-exilic translations reveal that his usage was not the traditional Jewish one.

Could ST have served as the source for the post-exilic translations of Pirke Avot? The answer is definitely not. ST deviates from them in too many linguistic features. On the contrary, it seems to be influenced by an old Jewish translation tradition that it did not follow entirely.

22 In fact, discourse concerning Judeo-Spanish decline really emerged only toward the end of the twentieth century. See for instance Tracy K. Harris, Death of a Language: The History of Judeo-Spanish (Newark: University of Delaware Press, 1994).

23 See David M. Bunis, “Distinctive Characteristics of Jewish Ibero-Romance, Circa 1492,” Hispania Judaica Bulletin, 4 (2004): 105–137; Laura Minervini, “La formación de la Koiné Judeo-española en el siglo XVI,” Revue de Linguistique Romane, 263–264 (2002): 497–512; John Zemke, Moshe ben Bariķ Almosnino’s “Regimiento de la vida” and “Tratado de los sueños” (Tempe, AZ: Arizona Center for Medieval and Renais-sance Studies, 2004); Haïm-Vidal Sephiha, Le Judéo-Espagnol (Paris: Entente, 1986).



The Ferrara Mahzor (FM) and Bible (F), although published only one year apart (1552–1553) differ from each other in the spelling of Parho—Parhoh in (9), and hanbre—fambre in (15) and in the four fol-lowing cases: 1. el syro—asirio in (7); 2. deperdiente—quiso deperder in (13); 3. con varones pocos—con gente poca in (20); 4. morar—peregrinar in (21). All these differences except 1 do not form an exceptional edition, because they match the other post-exilic translations. As proven by Macías, even the Ferrara Bible itself has been published several times with minor variations in translation.24 The same observa-tion can be assumed to be the source of the differences in F and FM. The variations are very rare and all correspond to the well established other Ladino translations. As for el syro—asirio in (7), it should be noted that only el syro (F) resembles Siro in E6/E8. Can this consti-tute proof that F was influenced by this pre-exilic translation? Perhaps, although the rest of the examples show that there is hardly any resem-blance between the pre-exilic translations and the Ferrara ones. One cannot rely on one linguistic instance for the proof of origin (cf. the discussion at the end of section 3.6).

The Jewish nature of the pre-exilic Spanish translations is primarily assumed by the authorship of the Jewish translators. In many cases, some of the pre-exilic Bibles are based on the Hebrew Bible rather than on the Vulgate: they follow the order of the books of the Hebrew Bible, and also the division of the Parashot (weekly portions read in the synagogue) in the Pentateuch.25 The occasional use of Adonay for YHWH (and in our examples Elohim as well) have also been put for-ward to support the Judaic nature of the texts. Moreover, some trans-lations fit the Massoretic and rabbinical interpretations of the biblical texts (not particularly apparent in our examples apart from the verse in 1a).

Lazar claims that the Ladino translations of Constantinople, Ferrara and Salonika were derived from surviving medieval translations of the Bible.26 He even draws a chart to indicate the relationship among the translations in which he argues that the post-exilic translations are

24 Macías Kapón, “La Biblia de Ferrara” (see n. 13).25 See the tables of comparison in Lazar, Biblia Ladinada, xv, xvii (see n. 4).26 Moshe Lazar, “Ladinando la Biblia entre los sefardíes mediterráneos: Italia,

Imperio Otomano y Viena,” in Introducción a la Biblia de Ferrara: actas del Simpo-sio Internacional sobre la Biblia de Ferrara: Sevilla, 25–28 de noviembre de 1991, ed. Iacob M. Hassán and Ángel Berenguer Amador (Madrid: Comisión Nacional Quinto Centenario, 1994), 355, and Biblia Ladinada, xiii (see n. 4).



descendents of the E3 “family” of translations. This family includes Alba and portions of E19, with some influences from biblical glossa-ries and rabbinical exegesis.

It would be expedient to show a direct linkage between the pre-exilic to the post-exilic translations, but the linguistic data simply cannot support this claim. The similarities between the pre- and post-exilic translations are sporadic, unsystematic and inconsistent, whereas the similarities among the post-exilic texts are remarkable. The occasional rare use of Adonay (versus its systematic use in the post-exilic trans-lations) or Elohim (never found in the post-exilic translations), the order of the books in the Bible, and even the occasional concordance of the translations with traditional Jewish interpretation of the bibli-cal verses, cannot prove that the pre-exilic translations served as the source for the development of the post-exilic ones. The same sources were available to the post-exilic translators as well.

It is certain that all the translations were based on the Hebrew Bible, but to what extent are they linked to each other? The analysis above proves beyond doubt that the pre-exilic translations are very differ-ent from the post-exilic ones. Although some of the Spanish transla-tions were written by (or with the help of ) Jews and based on the Hebrew Masoretic text, they were fashioned for Christian patrons and were thus probably intended for non-Jewish readers, contrary to some claims made disputing this.27 The translator of the Alba Bible, Rabbi Moses Arragel, claims in his commentaries (and also to his patron Don Luis de Guzmán) that he has not followed the Jewish tradition of translating the Bible.28 This suggests that there was a Jewish tradi-tion of translating the Bible which was not adopted by the transla-tors who were writing for a Christian readership. The target audience of pre-exilic translations prevented the translators from using a more traditional Jewish style.

Syntactic structure is the key feature that prevents us from consid-ering pre-exilic translations as the primary source for the post-exilic ones. How is it possible that all the post-exilic texts translate Hebrew

27 José Llamas, “La Antigua Biblia castellana de los judíos españoles,” Sefarad, 4 (1944): 219-244; Littlefield (Escorial Bible I.ii.19, viii–xiii; see n. 4) claims that E19 was intended for Jewish readers, whereas E4 and E7 for Christian ones, and E3 and Alba for both Christian and Jewish use.

28 See Shifra Sznol, “ ‘La bendición de Yaakov’ (Génesis 49) en lengua griega y en lengua laaz a la luz del Pentateuco de Constantinopla (1547)” (paper, Fifteenth World Congress for Jewish Studies, Jerusalem, 5th August 2009).



word for word whereas the pre-exilic ones implement free translation? How realistic is it to consider that various translators in a variety of different locations all systematically chose the same method of word for word translations?

Considering the fact that the oral Jewish tradition of word for word Bible transmission existed in Spain prior to the composition of any translations,29 it seems that the pre-exilic Spanish translators took it upon themselves to turn the biblical text, perhaps even the Ladino oral translations, into a standardized comprehensible Spanish text. The grammar and the lexicon used seem to be independent of the literal Jewish tradition; therefore, the claim that these translations served as the source of the post-exilic ones cannot be supported.

The way in which proper names and names for God are used proves beyond doubt that the Spanish translations were written for the benefit of a non-Jewish readership (i.e. Christians).30

The Hebrew texts of Pirke Avot and the Haggadah are written in rabbinical, post-biblical style, known as Mishnaic Hebrew, which is significantly different from the biblical style. Nevertheless, the biblical citations they contain are translated in a similar manner to the bibli-cal translations of C and F, and it is clear that these have not been influenced by rabbinical style. On the contrary, the entire texts, the citations, as well as the rabbinical texts, follow the same rigid norms of translation that typified the Bible translations from Constantinople-Salonika and Ferrara. How, then, can the post-exilic texts be so similar in spite of the fact that they were written at different times and in dif-ferent locations?

One explanation stems from the spread of printed books. Very soon after the books were printed, Ladino translations would have reached Sephardic Jewish communities throughout Italy, the Ottoman Empire, and other settlements of converted Jews who returned to Judaism (in Italy, the Netherlands, and England). These communities would have

29 Eliezer Gutwirth, “Religión, Historia y las biblias romanceadas,” Revista Catalana de Teología, 13 (1988): 115–34; David M. Bunis, “Tres formas de ladinar la Biblia en Italia en los siglos XVI–XVII,” in Introducción a la Biblia de Ferrara: actas del Simpo-sio Internacional sobre la Biblia de Ferrara: Sevilla, 25–28 de noviembre de 1991, ed. Iacob M. Hassán and Ángel Berenguer Amador (Madrid: Comisión Nacional Quinto Centenario, 1994, 315–345, and “Translating from the Head and from the Heart” (see n. 19).

30 In the Ladino Bibles there is an extensive use of Jewish terms as well, like šabat ‘Saturday’ rather than sábado, which did not occur in our current examples.



abridged the existing versions and slightly modified them according to their dialects; hence the minor variations among the post-exilic translations. Nevertheless, the fact that within five years (1547–1552) two monumental translations, the Constantinople Pentateuch and the Ferrara Bible, were published in different locations using two distinct scripts but which resemble each other in most linguistic features sug-gests that they both stemmed from the same oral tradition.

As stated above, in addition to reading from the Bible every week, and repeatedly year after year according to the Jewish annual cycle, Jews also pray daily from prayer books which contain many biblical citations. It is therefore not surprising that Ladino translations were memorized by many individuals and that as a result, the various ver-sions of the same text did not fluctuate greatly over a significant period of time.

Finally, I would like to add an anecdote from my own experience: while researching Pirke Avot, I wanted to record the way in which Ladino texts are chanted when read. One informant was a Jew from Salonika who used to serve as a Ba’al Tefila (prayer leader) in the syna-gogue. Shoshana Weich-Shahak, a musicologist, and I met with him and asked him to chant the Ladino version of the text. Without the Ladino translations (although he did have the Hebrew text with him), this man was able to recite the entire Ladino text orally from begin-ning to end. His oral transmission was amazingly similar to the Salo-nika Ladino translations of Pirke Avot. This anecdote further supports the claim that texts can be preserved by oral repeated transmission.

From all the discussion above, the argument that Ladino post-exilic Jewish translations are descendents of the Spanish pre-exilic biblical translations is untenable.31

31 Support can be found in Amigo Espada’s arguments as well. See Lorenzo Amigo Espada, “Una aproximación al Pentateuco de Constantinopla (1547),” Estudios Bíbli-cos, 43 (1990): 81–111.



Appendix

Abbreviations

These are the abbreviations of the texts: the first translations in each comparison are taken from the Spanish Bibles (Enrique-Arias and Davies): XIII, E6-E8, E3 (also Lazar, Biblia Ladinada), AJ, E19, E5-E7, EV, E4, BNM, RAH, Alba, XV. For each verse equivalents are found only in some of the Bibles, but not in all of them.

The Ladino Bibles include:

C = Constantinople-Salonica Bible (Lazar, The Ladino Scriptures), in Hebrew script.

F = Ferrara Bible 1553 (Lazar, The Ladino Bible of Ferrara), in Latin script.

The following versions are compared in Pirke Avot:32

ST = Sēfer Tešubāh (Lazar, Sēfer Tešubāh, 69), in Latin script (irrel-evant for (2) and (3) below), a pre-exilic text.

FM = Ferrara Mahzōr 1552 (Lazar, The Ladino Mahzōr of Ferrara, 193), in Latin script.

PA1 = Venice 1601, in Hebrew vocalized script.PA2 = Amsterdam 1664, in Latin script.PA3 = Firenze 1749 in Hebrew vocalized script.PA4 = Jerusalem 1901 in Hebrew non-vocalized script.

The following versions are compared in the Haggadah:

FM = Ferrara Mahzōr 1552 (Lazar, The Ladino Mahzōr of Ferrara, 166), in Latin script.

H1 = Salonika 1565, in Hebrew vocalized script, as part of a Siddur for women (parts of the text are missing in it).

H2 = Venice 1609, in Hebrew vocalized script.H3 = Livorno 1794, in Hebrew vocalized script.H4 = Salonika 1822, in Hebrew vocalized script.H5 = Belgrade 1841, in Hebrew Rashi, non-vocalized script.

32 The description of FM and PA1, PA2, PA3, PA4 can be found in Schwarzwald, Pirke Aboth, 20–36 (see n. 1). H1, H2, H3, H4, H5 are described in Schwarzwald, A Dictionary of the Ladino Haggadot, 9–16 (see n. 1).

the relationship between ladino liturgical texts and spanish bibles

Documents