Response to Chaim Milikowsky, "Further on Editing Rabbinic Texts," JQR 90 (1999) 137-149

THE JEWISH QUARTERLYREVIEW,XCII, Nos. 1-2 (July-October, 2001) 131-132 RESPONSE TO CHAIM MILIKOWSKY, "FURTHER ON EDITING RABBINIC TEXTS," JQR90 (1999) 137-149 RIVKAB. KERN ULMER, The Jewish Studies Program, University of Pennsylvania Professor Milikowsky's review of the first volume of my (preliminary) text edition of PesiqtaRabbatil is a very comprehensiveandlearnedessay regarding the many different editorial techniques of rabbinic works. His utilization of secondary literaturefrom other areas of textual scholarship, in particularmedieval textual studies, is particularlywelcome. His criticism of my edition is well taken, especially his comment that the homilies listed in my Appendix MS Dropsie should have been cited in Chapter 24. Regardinghis preferencefor one type of text edition of rabbinictexts, on this point scholars may respectfully agree or disagree. The purpose of this response is to correctsome minor misquotes of my work. Milikowsky wrote: "See the discussion by Ulmer (correcther reference to Mandelbaumto vol. 1, p. 10 of the Hebrewpagination)"(p. 145, n. 24). My referencewas actuallyto "M. Lutzki, vol. 1, Hebrewp. 10" (pp. xxxxxxi , n. 152 of my Introduction). Milikowsky stated:"Accordingto Ulmer, MS JTS8195 was writtenin an 18th centuryGermanhand"(p. 147). In his note to this sentence he wrote in part that "MS JTS 8195 was written in the 19th century."I actually wrote: "The descriptionof Marxdates the manuscriptcirca 1800.... Furthermore , the materialon which PesiqtaRabbatiMS 8195 was copied, paper made from rags, would suggest a date before the middle of the nineteenth centuryafterwhich papermade from wood came into use" (p. xxxiv). Regardingthe relationshipbetween MS Dropsie 26 andMS Casanataof 3324, Milikowsky said that I implied "a slight tendency to regard MS Dropsie the earliermanuscript"(p. 148). I actually wrote the opposite: "In comparing the two manuscriptsit seems that the Dropsie manuscriptis a slightly emended andalteredversion of the Casanatamanuscript;thereis a strong possibility that the Vorlage for the Dropsie manuscriptwas indeed the Casanatamanuscript"(p. xxxi). Milikowsky made an importantcriticism regardingmy use of parentheses to indicate marginaliaor emendationsby the scribe of MS JTS 8195. In 1A Synoptic Edition of Pesiqta Rabbati Based uponAll Extant Manuscripts and the Editio Princeps (Atlanta, 1997). Volume 2 was published in 1999; Volume 3 is in preparation. 132 THEJEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW my edition I also utilized parenthesesfor the few instances in which the scribe himself inserted parentheses, and I did not differentiate between these different sets of parentheses.2I am in general agreementwith Milikowsky 's comment that "parenthesesare not found in medieval Hebrew manuscripts,andalso not in the earlierprintedbooks" (p. 148, n. 31), but it should be noted thatthe editio princeps of PesiqtaRabbatihas parentheses in its text (on page Ic). 2In an article in JJS 52 (2001) 269-307 I identify the scribe of the manuscriptas Elyaqim Samiler Mehlsack (Muhlsack). In the same article I also list some differences between the manuscript and the printed editions that were available to the scribe. ...