DOI Heft:
Artykuły / Articles
DOI Artikel:Budzioch, Dagmara; Tomal, Maciej: The manuskript of the Moreh Nevuchim from the collection of the National Museum in Krakow
DOI Seite / Zitierlink: https://doi.org/10.11588/diglit.31060#0159
The manuscript ofMoreh Nevuchimfrom the collection ofthe National Museum in Kraków
157
in the Ha-Cohens lexicon as a son of Yechiel ben Yeąutiel ben Benjamin, an author of
“Sefer Maalot ha-Middot”.22 A problem arises here, however, as Yechiel died in 1284, while
our codex is dated 1406. On the other band, Ariel Toaff identifies Yeąutiel ben Yechiel as
the most prolibc scribe active in Perugia in the 14th century. The first of the representa-
tives members of the family with the surname Mi-Bethel, i.e. Da Synagoga, was Joab ben
Binyamin ben Joab: “Lo scriba Joab b. Binyamin b. Joab della famiglia dei Bethel o De
Synagoga, copiava a Perugia il 28 Tammuz 1366, alleta di ąuindici anni, il ‘Sefer maalot
ha-middot’ (‘Libro dei gradi’) di Jechiel ha-Sofer b. Jeąutiel (Vitale di Consiglio) di Bethel
(...) Ma la figura di maggiore spicco tra gli scribe perugini e ąuella di Jeąutiel b. Jechiel
Rofe di Bethel b. Jeąutiel, attivo a Perugia ed in altri centri delfUmbria nelfultimo scorcio
del XIV secolo ed agli inizi del XV secolo. Discendente del ramo dei Bethel, cui appartena-
va il suo antenato Jechiel ha-Sofer b. Jeąutiel b. Binyamin ha-Rofe, gia piu volte ricordato
fu tra i piu prolifici ed apprezzati scribi ebrei del Medioevo”.23
It seems, therefore that Ha-Cohen is wrong stating that Yeąutiel was the son of Yechiel.
He must be seen rather among some later descendants of Yechiel ben Yeąutiel. As to our
colophon, if Yekutiel mentioned there is the same person as Yeąutiel, distinguished among
the Perugian scribes, his activity in the region of Perugia (including Citta di Castello)
stretches from the end of the 14th century to the 1430s. He would be, then, a contemporary
of the scribe Yicchaą son of Ezracha of Catalonia.
Interestingly enough, a Yicchaą occurs again. Could he be the same as Yicchaą the
scribe? This would be, however, difficult to interpret in the light of the first colophon, as
a certain sum of money has been already paid to the scribe (Yicchaą). His work had been,
therefore, paid and it would not be plausible to assume that he nonetheless became an
owner of the manuscript afterwards. One could rather expect that the manuscript could
be sold by the owner, i.e. Deodato di Abramo, namely Nathanael ben Avraham. Would
it be possible that Nathanael/Deodato sold the manuscript or passed it to the hands of
the other Yicchaą enabling him to sell it further, i.e. to Shlomo ben Avraham? Two pos-
sibilities that stem from that assumption pose, however, certain difficulties. The whole
issue might have passed during a relatively short time-span, somewhere between finishing
the manuscript, i.e. 1406 and the last recorded transaction of the second witness of the
contract, Avraham ben Nathan, 1416 (see further in the text) - or slightly later. In that pe-
riod the manuscript must have changed owners and been passed to the hands of another
owner. This option, although possible, contradicts - to some extent - the spirit of the first
colophon. Could Deodato, who expected so many spiritual profits out of the reading of
Mor eh Nevuchim, so ąuickly sell the manuscript to someone else? Or, for some reason, he
decided to sell the manuscript and it passed to the hands of the second Yicchaą, the seller
of the codex from the second colophon. Could he be, then, a family member who inher-
ited the volume of Moreh Nevuchim?
The last hypothesis seems to stand to reason especially when we try to shed some light
on the person of the second witness, namely Avraham son of Nathan. Could he be identi-
22
23
N.Y. ha-Cohen, ibidem, vol. 5, pp. 30-31.
A. Toaff, ibidem, p. 35.
157
in the Ha-Cohens lexicon as a son of Yechiel ben Yeąutiel ben Benjamin, an author of
“Sefer Maalot ha-Middot”.22 A problem arises here, however, as Yechiel died in 1284, while
our codex is dated 1406. On the other band, Ariel Toaff identifies Yeąutiel ben Yechiel as
the most prolibc scribe active in Perugia in the 14th century. The first of the representa-
tives members of the family with the surname Mi-Bethel, i.e. Da Synagoga, was Joab ben
Binyamin ben Joab: “Lo scriba Joab b. Binyamin b. Joab della famiglia dei Bethel o De
Synagoga, copiava a Perugia il 28 Tammuz 1366, alleta di ąuindici anni, il ‘Sefer maalot
ha-middot’ (‘Libro dei gradi’) di Jechiel ha-Sofer b. Jeąutiel (Vitale di Consiglio) di Bethel
(...) Ma la figura di maggiore spicco tra gli scribe perugini e ąuella di Jeąutiel b. Jechiel
Rofe di Bethel b. Jeąutiel, attivo a Perugia ed in altri centri delfUmbria nelfultimo scorcio
del XIV secolo ed agli inizi del XV secolo. Discendente del ramo dei Bethel, cui appartena-
va il suo antenato Jechiel ha-Sofer b. Jeąutiel b. Binyamin ha-Rofe, gia piu volte ricordato
fu tra i piu prolifici ed apprezzati scribi ebrei del Medioevo”.23
It seems, therefore that Ha-Cohen is wrong stating that Yeąutiel was the son of Yechiel.
He must be seen rather among some later descendants of Yechiel ben Yeąutiel. As to our
colophon, if Yekutiel mentioned there is the same person as Yeąutiel, distinguished among
the Perugian scribes, his activity in the region of Perugia (including Citta di Castello)
stretches from the end of the 14th century to the 1430s. He would be, then, a contemporary
of the scribe Yicchaą son of Ezracha of Catalonia.
Interestingly enough, a Yicchaą occurs again. Could he be the same as Yicchaą the
scribe? This would be, however, difficult to interpret in the light of the first colophon, as
a certain sum of money has been already paid to the scribe (Yicchaą). His work had been,
therefore, paid and it would not be plausible to assume that he nonetheless became an
owner of the manuscript afterwards. One could rather expect that the manuscript could
be sold by the owner, i.e. Deodato di Abramo, namely Nathanael ben Avraham. Would
it be possible that Nathanael/Deodato sold the manuscript or passed it to the hands of
the other Yicchaą enabling him to sell it further, i.e. to Shlomo ben Avraham? Two pos-
sibilities that stem from that assumption pose, however, certain difficulties. The whole
issue might have passed during a relatively short time-span, somewhere between finishing
the manuscript, i.e. 1406 and the last recorded transaction of the second witness of the
contract, Avraham ben Nathan, 1416 (see further in the text) - or slightly later. In that pe-
riod the manuscript must have changed owners and been passed to the hands of another
owner. This option, although possible, contradicts - to some extent - the spirit of the first
colophon. Could Deodato, who expected so many spiritual profits out of the reading of
Mor eh Nevuchim, so ąuickly sell the manuscript to someone else? Or, for some reason, he
decided to sell the manuscript and it passed to the hands of the second Yicchaą, the seller
of the codex from the second colophon. Could he be, then, a family member who inher-
ited the volume of Moreh Nevuchim?
The last hypothesis seems to stand to reason especially when we try to shed some light
on the person of the second witness, namely Avraham son of Nathan. Could he be identi-
22
23
N.Y. ha-Cohen, ibidem, vol. 5, pp. 30-31.
A. Toaff, ibidem, p. 35.