1. Frenkel, Miriam, “Kanon ve-ḥevrah; ha-kanon ha-sifruti ke-keli le-gibush ha-‘illit ha-ḥevratit be-ḥevrat ha-genizah” in Ha-kanon ha-samuy min ha-‘ayin, eds. Ben-Sasson, Menahm et al. (Jerusalem: Magnes Press, 2010)Google Scholar, 88.

2. Goitein's pioneering contribution is summarized in: Shelomo Goitein, Dov, Jewish Education in Muslim Countries Based on Records from the Cairo Geniza (Jerusalem: Ben-Zvi Institute, 1962)Google Scholar; Mediterranean Society, vol. 2, The Community (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1971), 171–271Google Scholar. See also his discussion of the prestige of scholarship. Goitein, Mediterranean Society, vol.5, The Individual (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1988), 415–496Google Scholar.

3. Recently gathered in Allony, Neḥemia, The Jewish Library in the Middle Ages: Book Lists from the Cairo Genizah, eds. Frenkel, Miriam, Ben-Shammai, Haggai, with the participation of Moshe Sokolow (Jerusalem: Ben-Zvi Institute, 2006)Google Scholar.

4. Urbach, Ephraim E., Sefer ‘arugat ha-bosem (Jerusalem: Mekiẓe Nirdamin, 1939)Google Scholar, 4:155 and the introduction, 1:11. Grossman, Avraham, Ḥakhmei Ẓarfat ha-rishonim (Jerusalem: Magnes Press, 1995), 507–38Google Scholar; Hollender, Elizabeth, Piyyut Commentaries in Medieval Ashkenaz (Berlin: Walter de Greuyter, 2008), 89–107CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

5. According to the following reconstruction, it occurred in the synagogue of the Babylonians, probably in Fustat. ENA 637.4–5, line 2 reads במצ[אי] לילה [אלסבת פי כניס אלע]ראקיין (at [Saturday] night [in the Synagogue of the B]abylonians).

6. The hand is Eastern, of the twelfth or thirteenth century, as assessed by Dr. Edna Engel; other leaves from the same manuscript contain a biblical commentary in the genre of scriptural questions, a genre only known from the Genizah and probably not widespread after the classical Genizah period. See ENA 3051.12–13, ENA 3209.13, ENA 3240.28. The matching was done by the OCR-based automatic identification software of the Freidberg Genizah team. I am grateful to Dr. Roni Shweika for initiating and performing this examination. For a description of the technology see Shweka, Aharon, Choueka, Yaacov, Wolf, Lior, and Dershowitz, Nachum, “Ve-karev’ otam 'eḥad 'el 'eḥad: zihuy ktivot yad ve-ẓeruf kit‘ey genizah be-’emẓa'ut maḥshev,” Ginze Kedem 7 (2011): 171–207Google Scholar. For the genre see Sklare, David, “She'elot be-mikra: ḥibburim kedumim be-‘aravit-yehudit” in Davar davor ‘al’ ofanav, eds. Bar-Asher, Moshe, Hopkins, Simon A., Stroumsa, Sarah and Cheisa, Bruno (Jerusalem: Ben-Zvi, 2007), 205–231Google Scholar. On the basis of the finding presented here one should add the two additional fragments to the one already listed by Sklare (ENA 3240.28). The text mentions Rabbi Shmariah Ha-Cohen—probably a late eleventh to early twelfth century scholar—whose name and literary work is preserved only in the Genizah, and again, was not known after the classical Genizah period, and not beyond eastern geo-cultural circles. I intend to devote another paper to discussing the scarce evidence about him. See below n. 33.

7. Bereshit Rabbah, Va-yeẓe Ya‘akov, par. 71:9, to Genesis 30:11 (ed. Albeck, 3:833–835).

8. Numbered Aleph 5000 in Davidson, Israel, ’Oẓar ha-shirah ve-hapiyyut (New York: Jewish Theological Seminary, 1924–1933)Google Scholar, 1:230.

9. Numbered Aleph 819 in Davidson, 'Oẓar, 1:40.

10. Ed. Albeck, 3:833–835.

11. For further reading on the approach applied here see Halbertal, Moshe, People of the Book: Canon, Meaning, and Authority (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1997)Google Scholar; Finkelberg, Margalit and Stroumsa, Guy, Homer, the Bible and Beyond: Literary and Religious Canons in the Ancient World (Leiden: Brill, 2003)Google Scholar; Ha-kanon ha-samuy min ha-‘ayin, ed. M. Ben-Sasson et al.

12. Shlomoh ben Mordekhai, Mizbaḥ ha-zahav (Basel, 1604)Google Scholar, 12a, quoted by Halbertal, The People of the Book, 99.

13. Amram ben Sheshna Gaon, quoted by Brody, Robert, The Geonim of Babylonia and the Shaping of Medieval Jewish Culture (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1998)Google Scholar, 167.

14. ENA 637.4b line 6.

15. Quoted in Sefer ha-’eshkol, eds. Shalom and Albeck, Hanoch (Jerusalem: Vagshal, 1984 ²)Google Scholar, 60a.

16. See Blau, Joshua, A Dictionary of Medieval Judaeo-Arabic Texts (Jerusalem: The Academy of the Hebrew Language, 2006)Google Scholar, 14.

17. Blau, Dictionary, 96.

18. I refer here to the account of the events as a reliable report. Even if the text is fictional, we should assume that it portrays common social interactions that may have happened in its time and place.

19. The idea of canon agents is based on the concept of canon makers, suggested by Bennet, Donna, “Conflicted Vision: A Consideration of Canon and Genre in English-Canadian Literature,” in Canadian Canons: Essays in Literary Values, ed. Lecker, Robert (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1991), 131–149Google Scholar. For another application of this model in a similar context see Lavee, Moshe, “‘Sefer haggadot yihiye le-fi ha-seder ha-’aḥaron: ma‘amad ha-midrash ve-ha-’aggadah be-reshimot ha-sefarim shel Rav Yosef Rosh Ha-Seder,” in Ha-kanon ha-samuy min ha-‘ayin, ed. Sasson, Ben et al. , 38–87Google Scholar.

20. Urbach, ‘Arugat ha-bosem 4:155 and introduction; Grossman, Ḥakhmei Ẓarfat, 507–38; and Hollender, Piyyut Commentaries, 89–107.

21. For surveys of the views concerning the identification of Elijah and Phineas see Ginzburg, Louis, The Legends of the Jews, vol. 4 (Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society, 1954), 195–97Google Scholar and vol. 6: 316–317 n. 3; Theodor Albecks's comments to Bereshit Rabbah 71:9, to Genesis 30:11 (ed. Albeck, 3:833–835); Seder ’Eliyahu Rabbah (ed. Friedman): 2–11; Feldman, Louis H., “The Portrayal of Phinehas by Philo, Pseudo-Philo, and Josephus,” JQR 92 (2002): 315–45CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Hayward, Robert, “Phinehas-The Same as Elijah: The Origins of a Rabbinic Tradition,” Journal of Jewish Studies 29 (1978): 22–34CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

22. See Hayward, “Phinehas-The Same as Elijah,” Feldman, “The Portrayal of Phineas”; Zeron, Alexander, “The Martyrdom of Elijah-Phineas,” Journal of Biblical Literature 98 (1979): 99–100CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Poirier, John C., “The End Time Return of Elijah and Moses at Qumran,” Dead Sea Discoveries 10 (2003): 221–42CrossRefGoogle Scholar. Note the careful phrasing of Poirier: “The account of Phineas in Pseudo-Philo (Bib. Ant. 48:1–2) is filled with allusions to Elijah's ministry, making this our oldest source containing the Phineas-Elijah complex” (233).

23. See Yalkut Shim‘oni, Phineas 771 (ed. Heiman): 512; Midrash Ha-gadol (ed. Rabinovitch): 450–451; Midrash Aggadah, Numbers 25:13, (ed. Buber, 2:148). The following chart suggests a reconstruction of the text in our Genizah fragment, which has one interesting difference:

The suggestion of the clause [ובין אביהם שבש]מים is based on the word בני that follows, and the use of a similar opposition in other works, such as Va-yikra Rabbah, Ẓav, par. 7:1, to Leviticus 6:2, Synopsys Schleiter-Milikowsky, http://www.biu.ac.il/JS/midrash/VR/outfiles/OUT07-01.htm.

24. Midrash Tehillim as found in T-S Or.1080 13.2 published by Wertheimer, Solomon Aaron, Batey Midrashot (Jerusalem: Mosad ha-Rav Kook, 1989)Google Scholar, 1:296.

25. See B. Bava Meẓi‘a 114a–b; Midrash Mishley, 9:2, (ed. Wisotzky, 68). See also Ta-Shma, Israel, “Ẓaddikim’ eynam metma'in—‘al halakha ve-aggadah,” Jewish Studies, an International Journal 1 (2002): 45–53Google Scholar.

26. Bereshit Rabbah, 71:9 (ed. Albeck, 3:833–835); Tanḥuma, Ki tissa 13; Seder 'Eliyahu Rabbah 18 (ed. Friedman, 96–97); T. Bava Meẓi‘a 114a–b, s.v. “Mahu she-yesadru.” See also Seder 'Eliyahu Zuta 15 (ed. Friedman, 199), also quoted in Yalkut Shim‘oni Niẓavim 940, where Elijah claims his origin from the offspring of Leah. Note the doubts regarding this version raised by Friedman in his comments to Seder 'Eliyahu Zuta, 200 n. 8 and his introduction, 6, and by Buber in his comments to Lekaḥ Tov on Genesis 30:11, 76a n. 18.

27. See Lekaḥ Tov (ed. Buber) 76a; Sekhel Tov, Genesis 30:11 (ed. Buber, 138). Both sources present a survey of all the views regarding the identity of Elijah. The descent of Elijah from Gad is quoted in Midrash Aggadah, Genesis 30:11 (ed. Buber, 78); Aggadat Bereshit 83:1 (ed. Buber 1903, 162). The descent of Elijah from Benjamin: Midrash Aggadah, Deuteronomy 12:13, (ed. Buber, 190).

28. See Targum Yonatan, Exodus 6:18, Numbers 25:12. This is a late targumic tradition, probably inspired by Pirkei de-Rabbi Eliezer. See Robert Hayward, “Phinehas.” As for the piyyutim, six out of the eight different variations of the sub-genre of alphabetical piyyut for Havdalah starting with איש found in the Genizah identify Elijah with Phineas, including the two most popular variations.

29. See Ta-Shma, Israel M., Keneset meḥkarim, vol. 3, Italy and Byzantium (Jerusalem: Bialik Institute, 2005), 188–201Google Scholar. Ta-Shma, Israel, “Le-toldot ha-kesharim ha-tarbutiyim beyn yehudey Bizantyon ve-'Ashkenaz” in Me'ah She'arim, eds. Fleischer, Ezra, Blidstein, Gerald, Horowitz, Carmi and Septimus, Bernard (Jerusalem: Magnes Press, 2001), 61–70Google Scholar. See also Mack, Ḥananael, Sodo shel Rabbi Moshe Ha-darshan (Jerusalem: Bialik Institute, 2010), 37–9Google Scholar, 90.

30. It is documented in only two manuscripts. See Maḥzor Vitry 209 (ed. S. Horowitz), 186; Maḥzor Vitry 209 (ed. A Goldschmidt, vol. 2), 312. MS London 655, the basis for this edition, has many additions, including the two piyyutim referred to in our Genizah fragment. The dating of the addition of piyyutim was not sufficiently discussed. See Goldschmidt, Ernst Daniel, Maḥzor Vitry, in Encyclopedia Judaica, vol. 13, ed. Skolnik, F., (Detroit: Macmillan Reference USA, 2007), 366–7Google Scholar.

31. Ashkenazi, Bezalel, Shitah Mekubeẓet BM 114b (Jerusalem: 1952): 458Google Scholar. See Urbach, Ephraim, Ba‘alei ha-tosafot, vol. 1 (Jerusalem: Bialik Institute, 1980)Google Scholar, 292.

32. I cannot supply a certain identification of the referred rabbi. We should mention a few possibilities:

(1) Isaac b. Maru'an Ha-Levi of Narbonne (2) Isaac b. Shmu'el of Narbonne, who is mentioned in the commentary on Chronicles wrongly attributed to Rashi. He was occupied with the question of the identity of figures in Chronicles as seen in the commentary to 1 Chronicles 9:39. See Viezel, Eran, Ha-perush ha-meyuḥas le-Rashi ‘al divrei ha-yamim (Jerusalem: Bialik Institute, 2010)Google Scholar, 317 (3) Isaac b. Moses who is, according to the acrostic, the poet of the piyyut discussed in the Genizah fragment (4) Isaac b. Abraham Carcassonne, a student of Naḥmanides, whose talmudic commentaries are also documented in the Genizah. This would postdate the events to the late thirteenth century or even later. See Benedict, Benjamin Ze'ev, Merkaz ha-torah be-Provans (Jerusalem: Mosad Ha-Rav Kook, 1985), 162–165Google Scholar; Ta-Shma, Israel, Ha-sifrut ha-parshanit la-Talmud, vol. 2, 1200–1400 (Jerusalem; Magnes Press, 2004): 65Google Scholar, nn. 94–96. See Chwat, Ezra (published as Makhon Ofek), “Perush R. Iẓḥak Cracassone le-hilkhot ha-Rif,” Yeshurun 6 (1999): 3–42Google Scholar, esp. the list of his commentaries in n. 3. See Ezra Chwat, “Studies in the Alfasi Gloss-Supplements,” (PhD diss., Bar-Ilan University, 1995), 60–65. See also MS Moscow Ginzburg 637 and the introduction in Bloy, M., Shitat ha-kadmonim ‘al masekhet bava batra (New York: Simcha Graphic Association, 1980), 5–6Google Scholar.

33. Shmariah was probably a late eleventh- to early twelfth-century scholar in Fustat. According to our fragment he is the author of a commentary to the Book of Ruth. His signature is found on documents up to 1124 (T-S 16.133, T-S NS 184.68). He died before 1137, as his son signed a document and he is mentioned with the blessing of the dead (T-S 10J 28.7, T-S 13J 2.19). One Genizah fragment attributed to Shmariah Ha-Kohen is a section from Kitab al-tufaḥa (Yevr.-Arab. I 3032). The homily for Phineas in this work contains the same view attributed to Shmariah in our fragment and there is a partial similarity between the aggadic texts quoted in both texts (see MS Oxford 115, 198–202).

34. The claim is that a baraita in B. Baba Batra 121b assumes that Phineas is not Elijah. It is mentioned by R. Shmu'el b. Me'ir, the Tosafot, and in Shma'aiah's commentary for piyyut quoted by Avraham Grossman, Ḥakhmei Ẓarfat ha-rishonim, 355–356.

35. In a paper due to be published in Pe'amim, I intend to suggest that our fragment should be considered as a small but significant item of evidence for the influence of French rabbis who emigrated to the land of Israel and Egypt during the early thirteenth century. See Braslavi, Yosef, “Kit‘ei genizah ‘al ḥakhamim mi-Ẓarfat ve-’ashkenaz be-'Ereẓ Yisra'el u-ve-miẓrayim,” 'Erez-Yisra'el 4 (1956): 156–60Google Scholar; Elḥanan Reiner, “‘Aliyah ve-‘aliyah la-regel le-’Ereẓ Yisra'el 1099–1517,” (PhD Diss., The Hebrew University, 1988), 50–69; Kanarfogel, Ephraim, “The Aliyah of ‘Three Hundred Rabbis’ in 1211: Tosafist Attitudes Toward Settling in the Land of Israel,” JQR 76 (1985): 191–215CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Cuffel, Alexandra, “Call and Response: European Jewish Emigration to Egypt and Palestine in the Middle Ages,” JQR 90 (1999): 61–101CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Ta-Shma, Israel, Keneset Meḥkarim, vol. 4 (Jerusalem: Bialik Institute, 2010), ch. 5, esp. 45–49Google Scholar.

36. Numbered Aleph 2076 in Davidson, Israel, 'Oẓar ha-shirah ve-hapiyyut (New York: Jewish Theological Seminary, 1924–1933)Google Scholar, 1:97.

37. The study of Havdalah focused on the blessing itself or the Havdalah during the Amidah and not on the Havdalah system as a holistic unit.

38. Saul Lieberman called it “Tikkun moẓa'ei shabbat” in his Catalog of the Elkan Nathan Adler collection, ENA 3006.16. See the cataloging data available in the Friedberg Genizah website.

39. Ezra Fleischer, “‘Al siddur kadum ke-minhag’ Erez Yisra'el,” in Me'ah She'arim, 39.

40. For these models see: Fleischer, Ezra, “Shiv‘atot havdalah ’Ereẓ Yisra'eliyot,” Tarbiẓ 36 (1967): 342–365Google Scholar. For an example of poetic Shema blessings see T-S NS 271.6 and Fleischer's discussion in Fleischer, Ezra, Eretz-Israel Prayer and Prayer Rituals (Jerusalem: Magnes Press, 1988), 80–85Google Scholar; Fleischer, Ezra, “Ket‘aim mi-kovẓey tefillah,” Kobeẓ ‘al Yad 13, no. 23 (1996)Google Scholar: 101 n. 34. In Siddur Rasag we read וקום ישרכון ד'כר אלהבדלה פי ג'מיע ברכתא (they include a mention of the Havdalah in all the blessings). See Siddur Rav Sa‘adiah Gaon (eds. Davidson, Assaf, Joel), 123. See also T-S NS 271.60. The fragment was not identified as belonging to the genre. Mosseri v.138.1 might also belong to this type.

41. I will mention a few fragments including Havdalah liturgies: T-S 8H.15 (in a siddur(?)), T-S NS 229.15–16, T-S NS 159.69, T-S NS 235.192. The last one includes the following: 1a–a list of verses and a petition with a magical undertow (העמידו, הכניעו, החפירו, ביישו, טאטאו, טלטלו); 1b–the end of the petition and a list of verses of comfort; 2a–the end of the list of verses, and the beginning of a prayer (ברוך המפיר עצות רעות); 2b–petition referring to Elijah as one of the people who established a covenant with God; 3a–the end of the petition once again with magical undertones (היועצים החשובים המדברים אלינו לרעה); 3b–more petitions, implying the Havdalah (ברוך מחדש מעשים טובים וחננו והוא יעשה שלום על כל ישראל אליהו הנביא); 4–the piyyut איש אזור איזור עור; 5a–the end of the piyyut and a petition in the name of Elijah and other magical names; 6–the end of a list of verses and the piyyut איש אשר קינא.

42. The form is also used in piyyutim about Mordekhai who is also called איש (Esther 3:1). See for example איש יהודי אתוי מיהודה, T-S NS 235.136 f.5.

43. The adaptation, quotation, imitation, echo, and so forth in the field of piyyut is a vast field that demands a thorough treatment. See Elizur, Shulamit, “‘Ibudey piyyutim ba-genizah ha-Kahirit,” Pe'amim 78 (1999), 100–127Google Scholar.

44. Fleischer, Ezra, Shirat ha-kodesh ha-‘ivrit bi-yemey ha-beynayim (Jerusalem: Keter, 1975), 49–51Google Scholar.

45. Spiro, Abram, “The Ascension of Phinehas,” Publications of the American Academy for Jewish Research 22 (1953)Google Scholar: 103 n. 27.

46. Ibn Ezra, Numbers 25:12; R. Levi B. Gershom, Judges 5:35, 6:21; R. David Kimḥi, Judges 20:28, 1 Kings 17:1, 19:4, Malakhi 2:4, 1 Chronicles 9:23.

47. Bar-Tikva, Binyamin, “‘Eliyahu ha-navi be-piyutey havdalah,” in Le-’ot zikaron: meḥkarim ba-shirah ha-‘ivrit u-ve-moreshet Yisra'el, ed. Hazan, Ephraim and Yahalom, Joseph (Ramat-Gan: Bar Ilan University Press, 2006), 239–80Google Scholar.

48. See Elizur, Shulamit, “Ha-piyyutim be-maḥzor 'Aram Ẓova,” in Mevo'ot le-maḥzor 'Aram Ẓova (Jerusalem: Yad Ha-Rav Nissim, 2008)Google Scholar, 46 n. 38.

49. There is also another witness for the Genizah version: Another Geniza fragment, T-S NS 131.29 presents the poem on one page, up to the letter yod. The letter ḥet is missing and after it we find טרם ק, with a sign of deletion above the letters, and then יעץ עיצה, and this is, unfortunately, the end of the fragment. The combination of the lack of the letter ḥet, and the mark of deletion on the few letters of the strophe tet imply a lack of stability of the text in this place.

50. See שלח מנזר, in Yarden, Dov, Shirey ha-kodesh le-Rabbi Shelomo 'ibn Gabirol, vol. 2 (Jerusalem: American Academy for Jewish Research, 1972), 512–513Google Scholar.

51. See Bar-Tikva, “'Eliyahu ha-navi,” 249. For the redactions of Ha-Levi's Diwan see: Yahalom, Joseph, Yehudah Halevy: Poetry and Pilgrimage (Jerusalem: Magnes Press, 2009), 180–205Google Scholar. I am grateful to Benjamin Bar-Tikva for his helpful comments regarding the Diwans.

52. Such variations are also found in the text of midrashic works. The correlation of the wider instability of late midrashic texts and their status can be discussed in the same terms.

53. Numbered Aleph 3121 in: Davidson, ’Oẓar, 1:146–147.

54. T-S 8H.15, T-S NS 235.195, T-S NS 159.116, T-S NS 271.20, T-S NS 145.46, T-S NS 235.192, T-S NS 201.6, London BL Or. 5557, 46, Paris AIU IV.374, Mosseri II.244 f.2, Mosseri V 138.1.

55. i.e. T-S NS 145.46.

56. See Davidson, 'Oẓar, vol. 1, 146–147. For Maḥzor 'Aram Ẓova see Elizur, “Ha-piyyutim," 46 n. 38.

57. According to the midrash, Yekutiel is one of the names of Moses. See Va-yikra Rabbah, Va-yikra 1:3 to Leviticus 1:1 (ed. Margulies), 10.

58. T-S NS 271.20. Paris AIU IV.374 skips the letter tet.

59. See the following examples:

I suspect that the repetition of the word רץ in BL OR 5557 f. 46 is a mistake. The reading of the last two words is difficult. Another possible reading is יחזו [ ]עיני.

60. T-S 8H 15. I translated מעונים as the plural of מעון, referring to heaven as the dwelling place of God. A less probable translation is “rain for the afflicted” —מעוּנים.

61. T-S NS 145.46.

62. T-S NS 235.195a. As in Yanai: ר]גז אף חר] (Kedushtot for Shabbat, Shemot, 27, in the reading published in Ma'agarim, the website of the historical dictionary of the Academy of the Hebrew Language on the basis of T-S NS 115.186. Cf. the reading of Rabinoviz, Zvi Meir, Maḥzor piyutey Yanai la-torah ve-la-mo‘adim, vol. 2 (Jerusalem: Bialik Insititute, 1985)Google Scholar, 355 line 6. See also Qalir, פוקד רוחות חר וקצף וזעם from Kedushtot for the “four readings,” ? בני צורף for Shekalim, line 30, in the Ma'agarim website on the basis of Oxford MS heb. d.41 ff. 29–56.

63. T-S 8H18 f. 7.

64. T-S NS 235.192.

65. T-S NS 274.4f. The image of untying a knot as a symbol for rain might be rooted in the act of untying a knot for releasing liquids from skins: see for example Va-yikra Rabbah 12:1 (ed. Margulies, 140–141): חמא זיקא… שרא יתיה… שרי שתיה (he saw a skin… he untied it… he began to drink.) The reading is doubtful. קטר is also a possible reading, giving the same meaning on the basis of a loan from the Aramaic. The line implies the rabbinic (and biblical) motif of dew as giving life.

66. T-S 10 H3.5, T-S NS 131.40, T-S NS 141.10, T-S NS 145.8a, T-S NS 159.69, T-S NS 229.15, T-S NS 235.192, T-S NS 271.6, T-S NS 272.8, T-S Misc. 29.8a, T-S AS 116.387, Geneva 119, Strasbourg 4078.146.5, Oxford heb. e.44.126.

67. An odd version is found in T-S AS 116.387. This is a small and torn fragment, in a nice square hand, partially preserving only bits from the first nine lines of the piyyut:

This is probably a scribal error influenced by the line שלא טעם טעם מיתה. At any case this can be counted as another piece of evidence for the instability of the letter tet.

68. Strasbourg 4078.146.5, T-S 10 H3.5, T-S NS 235.192, T-S NS 141.10.

69. Except for one fragment: Strasbourg 4078.146.5.

70. Maḥzor Vitry 203 (ed. S. Horowitz), 184. It is only found in MS Oxford and MS London. See also Maḥzor Vitry (ed. A Goldschmidt), 2:307.

71. Two in the Mosseri collection (V. 252, II.244) and one partial (צ–ת) fragment in Cambridge (Or.1080 15.39).

72. The use of סלה to portray the act of execution might be a borrowed use of the word in the sense of paving the road as in Isaiah 57:14. See also Sa‘adiah's poem אשנבי חרך שקפת presented in the Ma'agarim website on the basis of Genizah Fragment Oxford heb. c.20 f. 7–8. It might also derive from מסוללות (B. Shabbat 65a), as a verb that might refer to the act of sending one's hand (or spear) to an intimate organ.