Commentators:R. Yosef Bekhor Shor's Torah Commentary/1

R. Yosef Bekhor Shor's Torah Commentary

Introduction

Open Text of Commentary

Identification of the Author of the Commentary

R. Yosef Bekhor Shor's Torah commentary has survived in only one¹ mid-sixteenth century² manuscript, MS Munich 52. This manuscript has thus served as the basis for all printed editions of the commentary,³ including the current AlHaTorah.org edition.  That R. Yosef Bekhor Shor was the author of this commentary is clear from several pieces of evidence: an internal self-reference in the commentary,⁴ near verbatim citations of many passages from the commentary by other exegetes,⁵ and near verbatim citations of some its interpretations in other assorted Rabbinic literature.⁶

Scribal Accuracy of MS Munich 52

As several centuries elapsed between R. Yosef Bekhor Shor's authoring of his commentary and its lone surviving transcription by the scribe of MS Munich 52,⁷ the text of the manuscript must be examined for errors which may have crept into the text during its lengthy process of transmission.⁸ We are thus fortunate that R"Y Bekhor Shor's commentary was popular among later Tosafist exegetes and anthologizers, as their abundant citations of his interpretations serve in many cases as additional textual witnesses for particular passages from the commentary.⁹ The importance of mining this resource was underscored already by S. Poznanski,¹⁰ over a century ago:

על כל פנים על כל הבא להוציא את פירוש בכור שור בשלמותו להתבונן היטב בכל קובצי תוספות על התורה הנודעים למען השלים החסר ולהעמיד הגירסאות על מכונתן, ואל הוצאה שלמה כזאת יכסוף לב כל חובב דברי קדמוננו. 

In our efforts to reconstruct the original text of R. Yosef Bekhor Shor's commentary, the AlHaTorah.org edition has systematically compared the text of MS Munich 52 with the known firsthand citations of its interpretations, particularly those found in the Sefer HaGan¹¹ and Paneach Raza.¹² The analysis of these parallels has enabled hundreds of improvements of the text found in MS Munich 52, and these are all noted in the edition's textual apparatus. When full words or sentences have been added, they are also enclosed by curly braces.

It should be emphasized, however, that while MS Munich 52 is occasionally missing full lines (usually due to homeoteleutons) and displays no shortage of common inadvertent scribal errors,¹³ the manuscript is not characterized by intentional or wholesale abridgments of the text. Indeed, the text of MS Munich 52 frequently either matches the Tosafist citations almost letter for letter, or preserves more complete versions of the interpretations.¹⁴ It thus appears to be a predominantly faithful rendition of the original text of R"Y Bekhor Shor.¹⁵

The Hagahot in MS Munich 52 – Later Additions of R. Yosef Bekhor Shor Himself

There are 125 cases in MS Munich 52 in which an interpretation is followed by a notation of: הגה"ה‎, הג"ה‎, or הג'‏‎.¹⁶ These notations appear to indicate that the preceding interpretations were missing in the base text of the version of the commentary from which the scribe of MS Munich 52 was copying, and that he found them either glossed in the margins of the text or in a second copy of the commentary.¹⁷

Although it is theoretically possible that some of these הגהות are simply corrections of inadvertent scribal omissions, many of them disrupt the flow of the text¹⁸ or are self-contained interpretations, and thus bear the hallmarks of being later additions to the text. It is thus likely that most, if not all, of these הגהות were added to the commentary at a later stage. However, the question which remains to be resolved is whether these הגהות were added by R"Y Bekhor Shor himself or by a different person.

There are a number of factors which argue in favor of at least many, if not almost all,¹⁹ of these הגהות being later additions or updates of R. Yosef Bekhor Shor himself:

• The contents of five of these הגהות (Bereshit 24:7, Bereshit 33:6, Bereshit 36:12,²⁰ Shemot 1:22, Shemot 4:11²¹) are reproduced by the Sefer HaGan almost verbatim (except for removing the first person language)²² in the name of R"Y Bekhor Shor.²³ Given that, elsewhere (Bereshit 19:8), the Sefer HaGan states that he copied from an autograph copy of R"Y Bekhor Shor's commentary ("זה העתקתי ממכתב ידי הרב בכור שור"), his testimony in these cases constitutes strong evidence for these הגהות being authored by R"Y Bekhor Shor himself.²⁴
• The content of another הגה"ה (Bemidbar 4:37) is cited (using parallel language) in the name of R"Y Bekhor Shor in MS Hamburg 45.²⁵
• At least two of the הגהות (see Shemot 4:11, Shemot 15:26)²⁶ cite the interpretations of ר' עובדיה (בן שמואל הספרדי), and the only commentator we know who had firsthand access to R. Ovadiah's interpretations was R"Y Bekhor Shor.²⁷ Additionally, the הגה"ה in Shemot 4:11 includes a rare citation of ר' יצחק הגר, and Sefer HaGan Shemot 3:13 notes an additional instance in which R"Y Bekhor Shor cited an interpretation in the name of ר' יצחק הגר.‎²⁸
• Parallel content to over twenty of the הגהות appears in the Sefer HaGan.²⁹ Given that approximately fifty (!) percent of the Sefer HaGan is drawn from R"Y Bekhor Shor,³⁰ it is very likely that at least some, if not all, of these הגהות are also taken from R"Y Bekhor Shor.³¹
• There are several instances (see Shemot 4:8,³² Shemot 23:19,³³ Shemot 30:16,³⁴ Shemot 32:11,³⁵ Shemot 34:21) where the content of the הגהות corresponds precisely to distinctive positions found elsewhere in R"Y Bekhor Shor's commentary.³⁶

The question of whether or not the הגהות (or most of them) were written by R"Y Bekhor Shor himself impacts the assessment of the range of earlier exegetes which may have influenced the commentary (or the additions to it). Over thirty of the הגהות cite other sources, and approximately the same number have content which parallels that found in other exegetes. In particular, two of the הגהות cite Ibn Ezra³⁷ and the הגה"ה on Bereshit 33:6-7 cites the "ספר הדייקות של אבן פרחון".‎³⁸ If these הגהות were later additions of R"Y Bekhor Shor, they may indicate that he obtained access to these works only after completing the original version of his commentary.

An additional complication in the analysis of the הגהות is that it is not always clear how to demarcate their boundaries.³⁹ In almost all cases,⁴⁰ the הגה"ה notation marks the end of the הגה"ה. However, since MS Munich 52 does not mark where each הגה"ה begins, this must be determined based on content and context.⁴¹ The AlHaTorah.org edition places brackets around the contents of the הגהות, and the apparatus provides the basis for these demarcations.⁴²

See also the section below on Citations Not Found in MS Munich 52 for the hypothesis that there were additional הגהות of R"Y Bekhor Shor written in the margins of his personal copy which the Sefer HaGan saw and cited, but which did not get incorporated in MS Munich 52.

Tosafist Citations of the Commentary

The later Tosafist commentaries which cite R. Yosef Bekhor Shor may be divided into those which cite him firsthand from a copy of the original commentary, and those which cite him from secondary or tertiary sources. Noteworthy examples from the firsthand category include the following:

• MSS Munich 252 and Oxford Marsh 225 – This work cites R"Y Bekhor Shor by name on only eight occasions, but it incorporates interpretations from R"Y Bekhor Shor's commentary without attribution on a regular basis.⁴³
• Sefer HaGan – Approximately fifty percent of this work draws on the commentary of R. Yosef Bekhor Shor, and it cites him explicitly sixty-three times.⁴⁴ In Bereshit 19:2, the Sefer HaGan even states explicitly that he is working off R"Y Bekhor Shor's autograph copy ("זה העתקתי מכתב ידי הרב בכור שור").
• Paneach Raza on Sefer Devarim⁴⁵ – In contrast to the books of Bereshit through Bemidbar, where Paneach Raza's citations of R"Y Bekhor Shor are derived from secondary Tosafist collections (particularly the Sefer HaGan who is sometimes cited as the source for these interpretations), in Sefer Devarim, his citations of R"Y Bekhor Shor are not generally found in earlier collections. They are also much more numerous (forty-three compared to thirty-seven in the rest of Torah), and more faithfully preserve the original text. These factors make it likely that, in Devarim, Paneach Raza was working off a copy of R"Y Bekhor Shor's commentary itself.

Examples of works which appear to be accessing R"Y Bekhor Shor's interpretations only via a secondary or tertiary source include:

• Hadar Zekeinim Shemot through Devarim – Nearly all of Hadar Zekenim's thirty-seven citations of R"Y Bekhor Shor in Shemot through Devarim⁴⁶ can be found in Sefer HaGan, and on one occasion (Vayikra 1:1), Hadar Zekeinim explicitly cites Sefer HaGan as his source. The Hadar Zekeinim's citations also frequently reflect the Sefer HaGan's edited versions rather than R"Y Bekhor Shor's original formulations.
• Daat Zekeinim – All seventeen⁴⁷ of Daat Zekeinim's citations of R"Y Bekhor Shor can be found in Sefer HaGan, and these reflect the Sefer HaGan's edited versions of the interpretations.

The distinction between these two categories of works is significant since works which contain firsthand citations of R"Y Bekhor Shor are generally more reliable in their citations and more valuable as textual witnesses.⁴⁸

Citations Not Found in MS Munich 52

The vast majority of the Tosafist citations of R. Yosef Bekhor Shor can be found in MS Munich 52. These include:  fifty-six of the sixty-three firsthand citations in the Sefer HaGan (see above),⁴⁹ all forty-three citations in Paneach Raza on Devarim, and seven of the eight citations in the Munich 252-Oxford 225 MSS.⁵⁰ Of the citations which are not in MS Munich 52, a few appear to be simply the result of scribal error and mistaken attribution.⁵¹

However, there are at least a dozen cases in which there is a distinct likelihood that the cited interpretations, despite being missing in MS Munich 52, may have been authored by R"Y Bekhor Shor himself.⁵² One of these is the unique case of Bereshit 19:8 in which Sefer HaGan states that he is citing from R"Y Bekhor Shor's own copy. A possible explanation is that this case, as well as several others which share the characteristics of R"Y Bekhor Shor's הגהות‎,⁵³ are additional examples of R"Y Bekhor Shor's updates to his commentary.⁵⁴ These were glossed in the margins of R"Y Bekhor Shor's personal copy which the Sefer HaGan saw and used. However, not all of these updates made it into the copies which were made of the commentary,⁵⁵ and hence MS Munich 52 (which is apparently a derivative of one of these copies) is missing some of these updates.⁵⁶

In cases where there is a reasonable probability that a Tosafist citation of R"Y Bekhor Shor is authentic, the AlHaTorah.org edition encloses the citation in braces and notes its source in the critical apparatus.

Acknowledgments and Manuscript List

AlHaTorah.org's edition of R. Yosef Bekhor Shor's Torah commentary utilizes MS Munich 52 as its base text. It also makes ample use of interpretations of R. Yosef Bekhor Shor incorporated (both in his name and anonymously) in many assorted Tosafist texts. The following is a list of some of the manuscripts utilized in this edition. We gratefully acknowledge the libraries which house them for preserving these texts for posterity:

• Leiden Cod. Or. 4765 / Warn. 27 – Leiden University Library
• London - British Library Add. 27128 – © The British Library Board
• Munich 50, 52, 252 – Bayerische Stadtbibliothek
• Nürnberg Cent. V. App. 1 – Nürnberg Stadtbibliothek
• Oxford Marsh 225 (Neubauer 284), Opp. 31 (Neubauer 271/1,2,8), Opp. Add. Qu. 103 (Neubauer 2344) – Oxford - Bodleian Library
• Parma 3512 – Biblioteca Palatina
• Vienna Cod. Hebr. 28 (Schwarz #19) – Oesterreichische Nationalbibliothek

Finally, we express our appreciation to the staff of the Institute of Microfilmed Hebrew Manuscripts for all of their assistance.

¹ There are not even any additional surviving fragments of the commentary. The MS Parma Archivio di Stato 56981 fragments (containing sections of a commentary on Devarim 29-32) derive from the Sefer HaGan, despite their being mistakenly catalogued as from R"Y Bekhor Shor.

² The manuscript contains commentaries of R"Y Bekhor Shor, Ralbag and R. Yosef Kara, and a colophon at the end of Ralbag's commentary on Shir HaShirim notes that its transcription was completed at the end of Adar I of 5309 (1549). This would likely be at least 350 years after the commentary was authored (this is only an approximation as we do not have exact dates for R"Y Bekhor Shor or the writing of his commentary).

³ The commentary was published piecemeal from this manuscript, beginning in the mid 19th century. Bereshit and Shemot were published by A. Jellinek (Leipzig, 1856), Vayikra by M. Halevi in HaZofeh LeHokhmat Yisrael 8 (1924), Bemidbar 1–15 by J. Neumann (Frankfurt, 1900), Bemidbar 16–36 by M. Bamberger (Budapest, 1928), Devarim 1–15 by A. Zweig (Breslau, 1914), and Devarim 32 and 34 by G. Walter (Breslau, 1890). The first complete edition was published by Y. Gad (Yerushalayim, 1956-1960), and this was followed by Y. Nevo (Yerushalayim, 1994) and a version incorporated in Mikraot Gedolot HaKeter, ed. M. Cohen (Ramat Gan, 1997-2013). This AlHaTorah.org edition has benefited from the collective wisdom of these earlier editions.

⁴ See Devarim 10:10: "ונתתי אני בכור שור סימן". This remark is reproduced in the Sefer HaGan in the name of R"Y Bekhor Shor, and it is also cited in his name in הגהות בספר המנהגים של ר' אייזיק טירנא, שחרית של חול, הגהה י"ז (it is unclear, however, whether the latter was using a copy of R"Y Bekhor Shor's commentary or was merely citing it secondhand from Sefer HaGan or later Tosafist works).The initial folio of MS Munich 52 also proclaims in large letters: "בכור שור". However, this alone is not sufficient proof, as also other manuscripts such as MSS Leiden 27 and London Or 2853 were erroneously attributed in their opening pages to R"Y Bekhor Shor (despite their citations of many later commentators).

⁵ The Sefer HaGan cites R. Yosef Bekhor Shor by name on sixty-three occasions, of which fifty-six can be found in MS Munich 52 (see below regarding the additional seven). [See also note below for Sefer HaGan's statement that he copied from R"Y Bekhor Shor's autograph copy.] Similarly, see below that almost all of the firsthand citations of R"Y Bekhor Shor in other Tosafist compendiums (e.g. all forty-three citations in Paneach Raza (MS Oxford Opp. 103) on Devarim) can be found in MS Munich 52. [See also below that many of the Tosafist works are merely citing R"Y Bekhor Shor secondhand via the Sefer HaGan, and thus do not constitute independent evidence.]

⁶ This diverse array of works includes:

• The Or Zarua (אלפא ביתא כ'‏) cites a large section entitled "ופירש ה"ר יוסף דאורליינש זצ"ל בפירושי חומש שלו" (and concluding with "עד כאן לשונו"), and this passage is found in MS Munich 52 Devarim 6:3. Another Or Zarua citation (הלכות ערב שבת ל"א) of R. Yosef of Orleans also matches R"Y Bekhor Shor's commentary on Shemot 8:12 (see also below regarding Tosafot Shabbat 12a). [See About R. Yosef Bekhor Shor for the evidence that R. Yosef of Orleans and R. Yosef Bekhor Shor are the same person.]
• The Maharam of Rothenburg as recorded by the Mordekhai Shevuot #759, cites ("וזה לשונו... עד כאן לשונו") a lengthy passage from R. Yosef Bekhor Shor's commentary with the heading: "ורבינו יוסף בכור שור פירש בפירוש חומש", and this section is found almost letter for letter in MS Munich 52 Bemidbar 30:3. [That it is the Maharam himself who quoted from R. Yosef Bekhor Shor's commentary (and not the Mordekhai) is clear from the words following the citation: "ואף על פי ששיטת התוס' וסוגיא דעלמא להתיר נדרים בלא פתח אלא בחרטה בעלמא לומר כדו תהית ותו לא גם ראיתי רבותי נוהגין כן ונהגתי אחריהן עד עתה חוזרני כדברי רבינו יוסף" which precede the concluding "הועתק מפרישת רבינו מאיר מפרק הדר".]
• There are four places in which Arugat HaBosem cites R. Yosef of Orleans which match the content of MS Munich 52. They are Arugat HaBosem 1:98 (~RYBS Shemot 40:35 and RYBS Bemidbar 28:24), 1:220 (~RYBS Shemot 20:12), 2:91 (~RYBS Bemidbar 8:2), and 2:116 (~RYBS Bemidbar 14:17).
• Tosafot Shabbat 12a s.v. שמא and Tosafot Chullin 98b-99a s.v. רבא both cite R. Yosef of Orleans, and these citations parallel content which appears in MS Munich 52 on Shemot 8:12 and Bemidbar 6:3, respectively. [In addition to his Biblical commentary, R"Y Bekhor Shor also wrote Tosafot on the Talmud (see R"Y Bekhor Shor Vayikra 25:20 and Bemidbar 6:3), and it is possible that our printed Tosafot are citing from the Talmudic Tosafot of R"Y Bekhor Shor. Either way, though, these citations support the premise that R"Y Bekhor Shor is the author of the commentary contained in MS Munich 52.]

⁷ See the note above for the dating.

⁸ As it is exceedingly rare that a scribe succeeds in making a perfect reproduction, care needs to be exercised when utilizing a lone textual witness, even if it is a relatively early copy. The concern, though, is heightened in the case at hand, given the likelihood that there were several degrees of separation (or textual stages) between the Munich MS and the original, and corruptions likely came about at every step of the way.

⁹ They also shed light on the mystery of the הגהות – see below.

¹⁰ In his seminal introduction, "מבוא על חכמי צרפת מפרשי המקרא", to his edition of פירוש על יחזקאל ותרי עשר לרבי אליעזר מבלגנצי (Warsaw, 1914): 74.

¹¹ The Sefer HaGan is a particularly valuable resource, as approximately a full fifty percent of the work draws from the interpretations of R"Y Bekhor Shor (in many sections of the Sefer HaGan, interpretation after interpretation is lifted straight from R"Y Bekhor Shor). See also J. Orlian, in his introduction to ספר הג"ן (Jerusalem, 2009): 45, who notes the value of Sefer HaGan for improving various readings in the text of MS Munich 52. It should also be noted that, conversely, it is very important to use R"Y Bekhor Shor as well as other Tosafist manuscripts for correcting and completing some of the missing passages in the text of Sefer HaGan.
[It should be emphasized, though, that the great value of the Sefer HaGan as a textual witness for the text of R"Y Bekhor Shor does not bolster the opposite claim (made in the introduction there) that material from the Sefer HaGan found its way back into the text of R"Y Bekhor Shor. The enormous percentage of the Sefer HaGan which is drawn directly from R"Y Bekhor Shor supports the default assumption that R"Y Bekhor Shor is the source of the interpretations found in both works, and there is no solid evidence of influence in the reverse direction. Additionally, that some later Tosafist compilations sometimes cite the Sefer HaGan as the source for interpretations found in MS Munich 52 also in no way proves that the Sefer HaGan was the author of these interpretations. It rather results from the simple reality (see below) that these later commentators were working off the Sefer HaGan, and not a copy of R"Y Bekhor Shor's commentary.  As a result, they were unaware that the Sefer HaGan had taken these interpretations (without attribution, as it did in hundreds of other instances) from R"Y Bekhor Shor.]

¹² See below that in the case of the Paneach Raza, only the citations in Devarim appear to be firsthand, while those in earlier Chumashim seem to be based primarily on the Sefer HaGan. It should also be noted that all printed editions of the Paneach Raza reflect the heavily redacted version initially published by the Maharal's son-in-law, to the point where frequently the original contours of the commentary can no longer be recognized. All of these editions are of little value for the subtle textual matters under examination, and thus our comparison utilized various manuscripts of the Paneach Raza (particularly MS Oxford Opp. 103).

¹³ An example of a homeoteleuton can be seen in Table 2, where the words "שייך לומר לבך עלך וכל חרטה שהיא בעולם" are missing in MS Munich 52 and must be reconstructed from the citation in the Mordekhai. In cases of obvious errors for which we possess no other textual witness by which to make the correction, the emendations have been made using common sense (and are noted in the textual apparatus). In many of these cases, we have adopted the suggested emendations of earlier editions (particularly the older editions which contain textual apparatuses).

¹⁴ See Table 1 for an instructive example where MS Munich 52 closely tracks the direct citation of R"Y Bekhor Shor's commentary found in the Or Zarua, while Sefer HaGan considerably abridges the interpretation. See also Table 2 for the comparison of the two versions of the very lengthy passage of R"Y Bekhor cited by the Maharam (as recorded by the Mordechai).

¹⁵ It is noteworthy that many of the misquoted verses and other blatant errors in MS Munich 52 appear similarly in the Sefer HaGan (for some of the numerous examples: see Bereshit 27:4, Bereshit 49:25, Shemot 18:2, Shemot 25:37, Bemidbar 22:32, Bemidbar 22:35, Devarim 33:7, Devarim 33:20). This lends credence to the assumption that they result from R. Yosef Bekhor Shor citing from memory, rather than copyists' errors.  [MS Munich 52 and Sefer HaGan also frequently contain similar abridgments of cited verses.]

¹⁶ There are 34 in Bereshit (including two "הגה"ה לא ראיתי"‎s), 55 in Shemot, 12 in Vayikra, 11 in Bemdibar, and 13 in Devarim.  For an extended analysis of 28 of these glosses, see S. Baruchi, "ההגהות בפירוש ר' יוסף בכור שור לתורה", Megadim 40 (5764): 75-113.

¹⁷ It is also possible that these הגהות were already in the text from which MS Munich 52 was copied, and that he simply faithfully transcribed them. If so, the question of whether these הגהות were found in the margin or in a second copy would simply be transfered back a generation to the scribe of the earlier text.

¹⁸ About thirty-five הגהות disrupt the flow of the text or are situated out of order. See Bereshit 18:18-19, 19:37, 22:1-2, 33:6-7, 34:24, 37:10, 41:42, Shemot 4:11, 6:13, 9:5, 10:5(11), 12:23(7), 18:22(19), 20:19(12), 21:7, 22:26, 24:7-8, 27:17, Vayikra 11:29, 17:13, 19:18, (19:19), 20:14, 20:17, 21:1, 21:2, Bemidbar 4:37(49), 12:7(8), 16:1, 19:13(20), 22:6(7), 24:16(3), Devarim 4:2, 11:13-14, 14:12, 24:6.

¹⁹ There are, however, some exceptions. At least the second part of the הגה"ה in Shemot 24:11 is not from R"Y Bekhor Shor, as it cites "ר' ישעיה מטרנא" (and this interpretation is, in fact, found in MS Cambridge 377.3). See also the הגה"ה to Shemot 22:20 which is cited in the Sefer HaGan in the name of ר' יצחק ב"ר יוסף (noted by J. Orlian in his introduction to ספר הג"ן (Jerusalem, 2009): 45).

²⁰ The case of Bereshit 36:12 is cited as evidence already by S. Poznanski in the introduction to his edition of פירוש על יחזקאל ותרי עשר לרבי אליעזר מבלגנצי (Warsaw, 1914): 73-74.

²¹ See also the language of R"Y Bekhor Shor there "וראשון שלי", and see also the first person language used in the הגהות on Bereshit 26:26, Bereshit 33:6, Bereshit 41:42, Shemot 9:5.

²² The Sefer HaGan consistently converts R"Y Bekhor Shor's first person language into third person formulations describing R"Y Bekhor Shor. For a couple of the numerous examples, see Shemot 7:20 and 8:12.

²³ Later Tosafist citations of these interpretations in the name of R"Y Bekhor Shor are taken secondhand from the Sefer HaGan, and are thus usually not pertinent to the issue at hand.

²⁴ There are also two instances [Bemidbar 28:30 (see Sefer HaGan Bemidbar 29:8), Bemidbar 31:3] of interpretations concluding with "מצאתי" which are possibly later additions (as they are found out of order in the manuscript) which are similarly cited in the name of R"Y Bekhor Shor in the Sefer HaGan.

²⁵ This was noted by E. Kanarfogel, The Intellectual History and Rabbinic Culture of Medieval Ashkenaz (Detroit, 2012): 245 (n. 121).

²⁶ It is possible that the citation of R. Ovadiah in Bereshit 39:2 is also part of the הגה"ה there.

²⁷ For a list of R"Y Bekhor Shor's citations of R. Ovadiah, see R. Yosef Bekhor Shor. Some later works (such as Sefer HaGan) cite R. Ovadiah's interpretations secondhand from the commentary of R"Y Bekhor Shor, and others cite them thirdhand from Sefer HaGan.

²⁸ See also the citation of "החכם צח" in the הגה"ה on Shemot 1:22, and R"Y Bekhor Shor's citation of "דברי צח והשרטט הוא המנוחי ר' אברהם בר חייא מברזלונאיא זצ"ל" in Devarim 28:63.

²⁹ See Bereshit 1:2 (Sefer HaGan here must be reconstructed from Paneach Raza), 24:23(34), 25:31,33, 30:9, 39:2, 49:4, Shemot 6:13, 7:29 (8:4), 12:1, 12:40, 12:45, 14:24, 14:31, 15:26, 19:15, 20:6, 24:7-8, 26:15, Vayikra 1:15, 10:11, 21:2, Bemidbar 4:37(49), 25:6, Devarim 2:29 (26), 11:13-14.

³⁰ Conversely, R"Y Bekhor Shor's work is roughly twice as large as the Sefer HaGan, and thus about a fourth of R"Y Bekhor Shor's commentary is utilized by Sefer HaGan. This corresponds almost exactly to the percentage of the הגהות found in Sefer HaGan (this includes both the הגהות which it explicitly cites in the name of R"Y Bekhor Shor and the ones whose content it incorporates anonymously).

³¹ See also the הגה"ה on Bemidbar 22:6 which appears non-sequentially (after the interpretation of 22:7) in both R"Y Bekhor Shor and Sefer HaGan, thus also indicating that the Sefer HaGan derived this interpretation from R"Y Bekhor Shor.

³² See R"Y Bekhor Shor Shemot 4:1.

³³ See R"Y Bekhor Shor Devarim 14:21.

³⁴ See R"Y Bekhor Shor Bemidbar 1:1.

³⁵ See R"Y Bekhor Shor Shemot 32:7-10.

³⁶ There are also examples of less distinctive interpretations; for e.g. Devarim 2:29 (see R"Y Bekhor Shor Devarim 20:16), Devarim 27:17 (see R"Y Bekhor Shor Devarim 27:15). It should also be noted that the content and language found in the הגהות generally match that of the main layer of the commentary (a thorough linguistic analysis has not yet been completed).

³⁷ See Bereshit 49:4 and Shemot 24:11. The Sefer HaGan Bereshit 2:23 records another instance in which R"Y Bekhor Shor cites Ibn Ezra. This case is not found in MS Munich 52 and it may have been a gloss which the Sefer HaGan had but which did not get incorporated in MS Munich 52.

³⁸ See S. Poznanski in the introduction to his edition of פירוש על יחזקאל ותרי עשר לרבי אליעזר מבלגנצי (Warsaw, 1914): 59,70-71.

³⁹ See S. Baruchi's article, "ההגהות בפירוש ר' יוסף בכור שור לתורה", Megadim 40 (5764): 75-113, which addresses this question.

⁴⁰ Two exceptions are: the one word gloss in Devarim 14:13 (in MS Munich 52, the word הגה"ה here is written much closer to the word which follows) and Devarim 33:21. Baruchi (in his aforementioned article) argues that there are other cases as well, but his evidence for these additional examples is not persuasive enough to shake the default assumption that the הגה"ה notation refers to what precedes it, as per the overwhelming majority of cases.

⁴¹ See above that approximately a fourth of the הגהות are out of sequential order or interrupt the flow of the commentary. This factor, as well as citations of the הגהות by others, frequently helps establish where the הגהות begin and end. There are some cases, though, where this cannot be determined with certainty.

⁴² In cases of ambiguity, we have adopted a conservative approach and included in a הגה"ה only what is more definitely a part of it.

⁴³ The MSS Munich 252 and Oxford Marsh 225 anthology is undated, but the limited array of commentators cited in the work (and its apparent use by later works) may support a dating to the early part of the 13th century.  If so, it would be the earliest recorded use of R"Y Bekhor Shor's commentary.  For more on the importance of the Munich-Oxford MSS, see Rashbam's Torah Commentary.

⁴⁴ See the note above that the Sefer HaGan consistently converts R"Y Bekhor Shor's first person language into third person formulations mentioning R"Y Bekhor Shor's name.  The Sefer HaGan also cites R"Y Bekhor Shor by name when contrasting his interpretations to those of others.

⁴⁵ See note above regarding the problematic nature of the printed editions of the Paneach Raza and the imperative to utilize manuscripts such as Oxford Opp. 103.

⁴⁶ In Bereshit, Hadar Zekeinim appears to have had a different source.

⁴⁷ Interestingly, none of the seventeen are found in Bereshit.

⁴⁸ However, in some instances even the secondary citations contain helpful textual information.  This is true because the Sefer HaGan was also preserved in only one complete manuscript and one partial one, and its text (particularly in Bereshit) is missing numerous passages.  Some of these can be reconstructed using Paneach Raza and Hadar Zekeinim.

⁴⁹ The Sefer HaGan citations completely missing in MS Munich 52 are: Bereshit 2:23, 2:24, 11:11, 14:23, 19:8, Shemot 3:13, 27:18.  There are also cases (such as Shemot 10:2 and Bemidbar 1:2) where only part of the citation is found in MS Munich 52.

⁵⁰ The citation missing in MS Munich 52 is on Bereshit 24:24.

⁵¹ These include three cases in which Hadar Zekenim attributes an interpretation to R"Y Bekhor Shor which is found in Rashbam's commentary and not in R"Y Bekhor Shor: Shemot 16:15 (the earlier part of this interpretation, though not the latter part, is in fact derived from R"Y Bekhor Shor), Devarim 7:7, and Devarim 20:19. [In all of these three cases, the interpretation is correctly attributed to Rashbam by the Sefer HaGan (in Devarim 7:7, the lone surviving manuscript of Sefer HaGan is deficient and its text needs to be corrected from the Paneach Raza).] It is possible that, in these cases, a scribe or even the author of Hadar Zekeinim misdeciphered an attribution to "רב' ש'‏" (meant to refer to ר' שמואל, i.e. Rashbam) as if it read "רב"ש", and thus misunderstood it to refer to רב בכור שור.  Hadar Zekenim's citation of R"Y Bekhor Shor in Bereshit 14:10 is likely a fourth example of this same phenomenon (here, too, Sefer HaGan cites the interpretation in the name of Rashbam).  [See also Bereshit 2:23 for a case in which the exact opposite happened.]

⁵² These, of course, do not include the interpretations of R. Yaakov (Tam) of Orleans which some have confused with R. Yosef of Orleans (see note in About R. Yosef Bekhor Shor). They also do not include the citations of R"Y Bekhor Shor by Moshav Zekeinim whose citations of R"Y Bekhor Shor are not corroborated by any other works, and who apparently misattributed interpretations of others to R"Y Bekhor Shor.

⁵³ These include: Bereshit 2:23 (in which R"Y Bekhor cites Ibn Ezra, as he does on only two other occasions, in his updates to Bereshit 49:4 and Shemot 24:11), Shemot 3:13 (in which R"Y Bekhor cites the interpretation of R. Yitzchak HaGer, as he does on only one other occasion, in his update to Shemot 4:11), Shemot 27:18 (in which R"Y Bekhor cites his father).

⁵⁴ It is possible that, for this reason, in the case of Bereshit 19:8, the Sefer HaGan emphasizes that he is copying from R"Y Bekhor Shor's own manuscript.

⁵⁵ It is possible that R"Y Bekhor Shor gradually added his updates, and that his later ones were less widely disseminated.  Alternatively, it is possible that later scribes occasionally missed some of the marginal notes.

⁵⁶ See also the interesting case of Bereshit 24:22-23 (and the textual notes there) where it is possible that MS Munich 52 preserves only the later updated version of R"Y Bekhor Shor, while Minchat Yehuda, Hadar Zekeinim and others preserve the earlier (conflicting) interpretation of R"Y Bekhor Shor.
It is also theoretically possible that some of the citations not found in MS Munich 52 were interpretations of R"Y Bekhor Shor that were delivered orally and not incorporated in his written commentary. However, this hypothesis would not account for the case of Bereshit 19:8.