0

I heard that there are differences between the Rambam's Peirush Hamishnayos found most commonly in the Mishnayos Zecher Chanoch and the version found in Mishnayos which are paired with the Rash. Is this true?

Additionally I am aware that there is an edition made by Rabbi Kafech of the Rambam's Peirush. Is it any different from the other two listed above?

  • Those are all just different translations. – Double AA Jan 6 '17 at 18:42
  • @DoubleAA I think the question is whether they are translating from different editions of the original. – WAF Jan 6 '17 at 18:49
  • @DoubleAA actually, I know of one case (Peah 6:3 or 6:4, the ראשי שורות discussion) where there's a completely different picture in the back of the Gemara vs. R' Kapach's translation. R' Kapach's translation matches the picture in his version. The text of the Rambam in the Gemara is hard to follow so I can't really tell if it matches the picture there. – Heshy Jul 3 '18 at 16:29
2

Rabbi Yosef Kappach made a great work translating the manuscripts of the Rambam in modern hebrew. His translation was critiqued by some people, I don't know what are the points critiqued because of his preference for one of the manuscripts. Rav Kapah expressed sharp criticism of the medieval translations. Rav Guedalia Nadel was thinking that the work of Rav Kapah contains a lot of errors in understanding the Rambam (oral sources).

Rabbi Shilat works more than 20 years on translation of parts of the perush hamishna in a medieval scholastic like Hebrew.

There is also the new translation from the Rav Ezra Korach, in machon Hamaor which was approved by Rav Steinman and Rav Eliashiv and Rav Shmuel Auerbach.. This translation contains a great amount of notes. The Korah family is linked to Kapah family and both were in Yemen, In Wikipedia you can find Yosef Korah, Shalom Korah, Pinchas Korah, who translated the sefer Hamitsvot, but not Ezra Korah. (I'm not sure)

Zecher Chanoch is the same as the perush HaRamban in shas Vilna but many typo were corrected. See in Kappach introduction, there are many authors.

  • 1
    The Korah family is linked to Kapah family and both were in Yemen What is your source that they are linked? What do you mean by linked? Why is it relevant? – mevaqesh Jan 9 '17 at 20:28
  • 1
    which was approved by Rav Steinman and Rav Eliashiv and Rav Shmuel Auerbach. AFAIK none of them speak medieval Judeo-Arabic, so why is this relevant? – mevaqesh Jan 9 '17 at 20:28
  • 1
    Note that R. Qorah largely copies (plagarises) R. Qafih's translation, see here: seforim.blogspot.com/2014/06/assorted-comments.html. – mevaqesh Jan 9 '17 at 20:30
  • 1
    @mevaqesh you are saying about plagiarism may be you are right. I found an edition of PHM. You want to prohibit to say that there is an other edition? You make censorship? – kouty Jan 9 '17 at 20:39
  • 1
    rav Nadel studied the PHM and concluded that the translation of rav Kapah has many errors. I personally am not able to judge anything but I wanted just to show that the translation of RK is not for unanimity the ultimate – kouty Jan 9 '17 at 21:06
1

I don't know about the two editions in the top of your question, however, the R' Yusuf Kafiẖ זצ”ל edition follows the original manuscript of the Rambam's peirush in the author's own hand. See the copyright information in the front of his edition.

  • Note that that mori qafih didn't have rambams manuscript to the whole perush hamishna, e.g. nezikin. – mevaqesh Jan 7 '17 at 23:52
  • 1
    @mevaqesh, I'm only following the copyright info, which specifies that it follows the Rambam's k'tav yad – Noach MiFrankfurt Jan 8 '17 at 3:13
  • Was that for the whole thing or a particular volume? Did you read the introduction? – mevaqesh Jan 8 '17 at 3:16
  • 2
    @mevaqesh, I looked on the title page the Zeraim/Mo'ed volume. – Noach MiFrankfurt Jan 8 '17 at 16:39
  • 1
    Then it might be a mistake to generalise about the rest of the PHM. – mevaqesh Jan 8 '17 at 17:14

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .