Dr. Samuel Maor Katan

There is much confusion over whether the father of Samuel is named Abraham or Moshe Maor Katan. Neubauer says Moshe. Putik and Polakovic say Abraham.

See Putik, "New Findings on the Life of David Gans," Judaica Bohemiae LI-1 (2016), page 17.

Samuel Maor Katan ben Abraham ha-Rofe, whose presence in Prague is confirmed by the colophon of a Kabbalistic work that was transcribed in 1587, was probably in the medical profession. See Kovetz be-kabbalah, Ms Oxford, Bodleian Library, Opp. 562 (Ox 1623 Cat. Neubauer).

Neubauer says the date is 1616 and that Samuel's father is Moshe, not Abraham.

From: Joanna Weinberg <joanna.weinberg@orinst.ox.ac.uk>
Subject: explanations and problems
Date: February 18, 2022 at 5:02:59 AM PST
To: Randol Schoenberg <randols912@gmail.com>
Cc: chiara petrolini <chiara.petrolini@gmail.com>

Dear Randy,

I have now spent some time with the curator trying to examine the ms. All is still not clear, but this is what we established:
Neubauer was completely right in call it a note. It is not a colophon, but a separate note from Samuel Maor Katan which is embedded in a manuscript that contains a collection of kabbalistic works. The note is from 166verso-167verso. At the beginning of the note he refers to kabbalist who stayed with him in 1616 who explained to him a text first according to the literal meaning and then according to the kabbalistic interpretation.
On166v he signs off (and this is what is not clear at all) I the writer Samuel Maor katan son of my fatherand lord Abraham....

and then it all becomes confusing. I don't believe that the date 1587 is given there and it simply wouldn't make sense given that he begins by talking about receiving this information in 1616! I would read it differently, but need to understand the entire text before giving my judgement.

I hope this helps for the time being,
Joanna

From: Nancy High <Hitzel@comcast.net>
Subject: RE: explanations and problems
Date: February 18, 2022 at 2:37:55 PM PST
To: Randol Schoenberg <randols912@gmail.com>, E Randol Schoenberg <randols@bslaw.net>
Cc: "thomas.high@verizon.net" <thomas.high@verizon.net>, Nancy High <tantesar@att.net>

Dear Randy,

Thanks so much for including me in this wonderful puzzle (or set of puzzles!).

I can help a little with Moshe Maor Katan. He is the son of Juda Maor Katan of the lineage of “Freidstadt”. Loeb is still living in 1570, when Moshe signs an item that way in the Frankfurt Pinkas. Moshe lived in Fft in the older house of the Golden Schwan (the one recently vacated by the problematic “Josef z gld Schwan”) from 1570, when he arrived there from somewhere (presumably not directly from Mantua, says Ettlinger) to 1578, when he left for Bohemia, going by way of Mergentheim and staying there for a time (also per Ettlinger).

Moshe’s son Loeb Geni - Jehuda Löb Maor Katan-Lucerna (Maor-Katan, Lucerna) (1575-1635)- Vienna needs to be named for Moshe’s father, unless they are using Sephardic naming traditions for some reason, so 1575 is fine for this Loeb’s birth. But if that year is correct, he should have been born in Frankfurt.

I am so glad you put the manuscript on Geni. That last line is so difficult! There is a nasty thing in the middle, but it starts out as “Shmuel Maor Katan bn la”a avi - and then this unintelligible set of letters: and then - haRofe mhr”r Moshe Rof’ zTs”l”

Or it could be something completely different, with what I’m reading as “avi” being part of a longer word, along with these letters. The whole thing is written so differently from the usual formula, but I don’t think there is much doubt about the father’s name being Moshe, and the word which looked like Abraham being just avi followed by those letters I can’t decipher. In order for that to be Abraham we would have to believe that Shmuel made a mem sofit on that word completely differently from his other mems sofit. We also would need to understand why there was no mhr”r nor cmr” immediately before “Abraham”, but merely the la”a which normally precedes that kind of honorific. And last, we would have to believe that the jod-like mark next to the bet was just a slip of the pen, because his other bets in the rest of the manuscript aren’t written that way. It really should be a jod.

Having said all that, I still wonder about the way there are faint diagonal lines, seeming to separate out the words mhr”r Moshe Rof’ as if he wanted to put them somewhere else (after “avi” perhaps?). In any case, we won’t be completely sure unless those 4 or 5 unidentified letters can be deciphered. I’ll keep coming back to it with fresh eyes in the hope of figuring it out, but why would I be successful where real Hebrew scholars are having trouble? It’s so frustrating, because he has such beautiful handwriting! I think he was getting tired as he neared the end of the MSS.

Not finished pondering this yet!

Nancy