Last updated 10th July 2024: Online ordering is currently unavailable due to technical issues. We apologise for any delays responding to customers while we resolve this. For further updates please visit our website https://www.cambridge.org/news-and-insights/technical-incident
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 31 August 2011
The composition dayyenu as preserved in the extant rituals consists of two parts — the first a poem in fifteen strophes (Da), the second a prose summary (Db). It reads as follows:
D
How many are the calls of the Almighty upon our thankfulness!
98 The translation (altered in accordance with the changes suggested by considerations to be presented in the notes immediately following) is that of Cecil Roth (see his ed. and tr. of the Passover Haggadah, London, 1934).
99 For this addition to the usual text, see Additional Note F.
100 For the correct reading of this passage see Additional Note F.
101 D is omitted from the Passover Haggadah in the ritual prepared by Maimonides.
In that of R. Saadia, it is described as a passage which may be recited, but which is not part of the regular service (see I. Davidson, S. Assaf, B. I. Joel, Siddur R. Saadja Gaon, p. 143).
102 B. Shabbat 32b; see M. Friedmann, Meir Ayyin, 1895, p. 106.
103 See above, Vol. XXXV, pp. 317 f.
104 Cf. e.g. Ecclus. 36. 17–19.
105 Cf. Jewish Quarterly Review, N. S. XVI, 1925, p. 86; XIX, 1929, p. 220. When I wrote the latter article, I still believed that the Book of Jubilees was a product of the latter half of the second century B.C., following in this respect the opinion of R. H. Charles (The Book of Jubilees, 1902, pp. LVIII ff.) and numerous other writers. The belief that the book is really a product of the earlier half of the second century B.C., and is pre-Maccabean, has been supported by E. Meyer, Ursprung u. Anfaenge d. Christentums, II, pp. 45 ff., and W. P. Albright, Prom the Stone Age to Christianity, pp. 266 ff. A review of the evidence has convinced me that their view is correct. Some of the evidence leading to this conclusion is briefly summarized below, pp. 19 ff.
106 The Curious omission of any reference to Jerusalem or the Holy Temple in the praise of God as the Creator and Deliverer of Israel, in Pss. 135. 3–12 (vv. 1, 2, are obviously an introduction, which is not an integral part of the original psalm; v. 21 is part of the doxology, which is likewise a liturgical addition after the psalm was introduced into the service) and 136.1–26, may be due to the fact that the essential portions of these psalms were composed during the period of the Maccabean rebellion when the Temple was defiled, and Jerusalem was in the hands of the pagans, so that it would have been blasphemous to mention either as one of God's gifts to Israel.
107 Regarding the significance of the use of the terms Ha-Malcom and Ha-Kadosh Baruk Hu in the Passover Haggadah, see Additional Note G.
108 E also occurs in Mekilta Bo, chap. 18, ed. Friedmann 22b, Horowitz-Rabin p. 78, Lauterbach I, p. 166; as well as in Yerushalmi, Pesahim X, 37d. The origin and development of this baraita have been widely discussed. See, with regard to it, the notes of Friedmann and Horowitz in the works just cited, and the following: Landshut, L., in Maggid Mereshit, introduction to the Passover Haggadah, Berlin, 1855Google Scholar; Sidon, , in Das juedische Literaturblatt, VII, 1878, pp. 110 ff.Google Scholar, 114 ff.; the series of articles by David Hoffmann on the subject, in Israel. Monatschrift, 1884, No. 4, pp. 13–14; 1892, No. 4, p. 13; 1894, No. 4, pp. 13–14; Magazin f. d. Wissenschaft d. Judentums, XIII, 1886, pp. 191 ff.; in Bet Vaad La-Hakamim, I, 1902, No. 3, pp. 13 ff.; Ha-Ibri, II, 1911, Nos. 14–15, pp. 164–65; M. Friedmann, in Meir Ayyin al Ha-Haggadah, pp. 42 ff.; A. Marx, in Jewish Quarterly Review, N. S. XIII, 1922–23, p. 517; and XIX, 1928–29, pp. 1 ff.; J. D. Eisenstein, Ozar Perushim ve-Ziyyurim, pp. 9 ff.; A. B. in Ha-Tor, II, 1922, Nos. 24–25, p. 18; S. Lieberman, in Hayerushalmi Kifeshuto, pp. 521 f.; E. D. Goldschmidt, Die Pessach-Haggada, pp. 40 ff.; Cecil Roth, The Haggadah, A New Edition, pp. 14 ff. Hoffmann was the first scholar to recognize the composite character of E, and to show that originally it referred only to three sons.
109 The four passages do not all deal with the Passover celebration and the question which might be asked concerning it. Indeed, only Exod. 12. 26 ff. and 13. 8 really refer to the Passover ritual. Exod. 13. 14 deals with the redemption of the firstborn; and Deut. 6. 20 ff. with the commandments generally. But it was natural that the similarity of the expressions used in all four passages, and the reference to the Exodus, should have convinced the ancient commentator that all of them dealt with the same situation. This is an implied premise, which colors the whole approach.
110 For the variant reading of the Septuagint and some texts of the Vulgate, see below.
111 This difficulty was noticed by Don Isaac Abrabanel in his commentary on the Passover Haggadah.
112 Ed. Friedmann 21a, Horowitz-Rabin p. 66, Lauterbach I, p. 149. Mekilta of R. Simeon ben Yohai 12. 26, ed. Hoffmann, p. 21, cites this interpretation in a somewhat abbreviated form.
113 Azulai in his commentary on the Passover Haggadah (Simhat Ha-Regel, Lemberg, 1863) suggests that Exod. 12. 26 deals with two types of children, the good and the wicked, and therefore uses the plural, “your children,” while the other passages speak only of “thy son.” Similarly, and with a modern approach, Hoffmann in a series of articles indicates his belief that the present form of E has resulted from a combination of two earlier texts, one of which knew of three types of sons, the wise, the foolish, and the one too young to ask; the other dealt with two types of sons, the pious (tam) and the wicked (see his articles listed in note 108). As will be seen below, however, the reading tam, on which this analysis is based, is a euphemism introduced in the Passover Haggadah, for the word tippesh “fool,” used in the older forms of E.
114 It should be noted, perhaps, that another part of the Passover celebration, which at present has four parts, originally had only three. The “four questions” formulated for the child in the extant rituals are an expansion of three questions prescribed in the Mishna, according to the best texts (so Mishna Pesahim 10. 4, as printed in Yer. Pesahim 37b.; Mishna, ed. Lowe, p. 48; and other texts cited in ed. Wilna, 1927).
115 See my remarks in Akiba, pp. 254 ff.
116 This excellent rendering is that of Samuel, Maurice, in his translation of the Passover Haggadah (New York, 1942Google Scholar).
117 For the date of Mishna Pesahim, chap. X, see D. Hoffmann, Die Erste Mischna, Beilage z. Jahres-Bericht d. Rabbiner-Seminars zu Berlin, pro 1881–82, pp. 16 ff.; Zebi Carl, Pesahim, Introduction, pp. LXXII ff. and Appendix I, pp. 93 ff. This view is also adumbrated, apparently, by M. Friedmann in his edition of Mekilta 22b, note 23.
118 See above, note 38, for the variant readings of the different texts of the Passover Haggadah.
119 See variant readings in Biblia Sacra iuxta Latinam Vulgatam Versionem, Rome, 1936, ad loc.
120 This reading is also found in Vetus Latina, see Robert, U., Pentateuchi Versio Latina Antiquissima, Paris, 1881Google Scholar.
121 See also Friedmann, pp. 44 ff.
122 This interpretation is that given in Friedmann, loc. cit., and notes on Mekilta. It is also implied in the comment of Abrabanel on the passage.
123 Rabbi Elijah Gaon of Wilna, taking note of this difficulty, explains that E requires both the biblical answer, Deut. 6. 21, “We were Pharaoh's bondmen, etc.,” as well as the citation from the Mishna.
124 See above, Vol. XXXV, p. 326.
125 Azulai, in his commentary, cited above, quotes a manuscript of the commentary on the Passover Haggadah by R. Isaiah di Trani according to which the reply “Do thou therefore teach him the laws of the Passover ritual, etc.,” was given to the wicked son. We have no other trace of such a version of E, and it seems probable that the manuscript of the commentary used by Azulai was defective, for in the ed. of R. Isaiah di Trani's commentary on the Passover Haggadah (see Krengel, M., Shaare Geulah, Cracow, 1896, p. 17Google Scholar) the response is assigned to the “wise son” as in other rituals. Azulai, referring to the view of R. Isaiah as recorded in his commentary on the Passover Haggadah, and as cited further in Shibbale Haleket, assumes that R. Isaiah changed his mind regarding the proper text of E (see Simhat Ha-Regel, Lwow, 1782, 100a).
126 Ursprung u. Anfaenge d. Christentums, II, pp. 45 ff.
127 From the Stone Age to Christianity, pp. 266 ff.
128 H. T. R., XVI, 1923, pp. 59 ff.; and Journal of Biblical Literature, XLIX, 1930, pp. 21 ff. Albeck, Ch., Das Buch d. Jubilaeen u. d. Halacha, Berlin, 1930, p. 34Google Scholar is alone in denying any association between this passage in Jubilees and the Noachic laws of the Talmud. He is right, however, in rejecting E. Schuerer's thesis that the author of the Book of Jubilees could not have known of the Rabbinic code of Noachic laws, and created one which was entirely independent of that known to normative Judaism (see Sehuerer4 III, p. 179). Albeck asserts (p. 59) that “die Angaben Finkelsteins S. 60 f. wie seine Ausfuehrungen sind unrichtig” and proceeds simply to refer to the midrashic texts which I cite without further discussion. A re-examination of these texts does not indicate to me any need for the change either of the interpretations I gave, or the conclusions I drew. The view that the passage in Jubilees is closely associated with the Rabbinic tradition regarding the Noachic laws is further upheld by L. Ginzberg, The Legends of the Jews, V, p. 193, note 67; and M. Guttmann, Das Judentum u. seine Umwelt, p. 105.
129 See HTR, loc. cit., p. 53; and Journal of Biblical Literature, XLIX, 1930, pp. 34 ffGoogle Scholar.
130 See Ch. Albeck, op. cit., p. 30, whose views in this regard I now completely accept.
131 See HTR, loc. cit., p. 53; Ch. Albeck, op. cit., pp. 30 ff.
132 See R. H. Pfeiffer, Introduction to the Old Testament, pp. 794 ff.; G. V. Rad, Das Geschichtsbild d. Chronistischen Werkes, pp. 88 ff.; Rothstein-Haenel, Kommentar z. ersten Buch d. Chronik, II, pp. XXXIII ff.; cf. W. F. Albright, in Journal of Biblical Literature, XL, 1921, p. 119.
133 Mishna, Gittin 5. 8.
134 See S. Schechter, Documents of Jewish Sectaries, Cambridge, 1910, p. 14, line 3; cf. also ibid., p. 13, line 3; Rost, Leonard, Die Damaskusschrift, Berlin, 1933, p. 25Google Scholar; R. H. Charles, Apochrypha and Pseudepigrapha of the Old Testament II, p. 831. For the discussion of the passage, see Ginzberg, L., Eine unbekannte juedische Sekte, 1922, pp. 124Google Scholar ff.
135 Cf. Ch. Albeck, op. cit., pp. 35–86; and cf. HTR, XVI, 1923, pp. 42 ff.; as well as Monatsschrift, LXXVI, 1932, pp. 525 ff.
136 See L. Finkelstein, The Pharisees, pp. 113 f.
137 So R. H. Charles, The Book of Jubilees, p. LIX.
