אינו[1] רק בנפש האדם, כי כח המזון[2] שיזון בו האדם[3] על דרך משל[4] אינו כח[5] המזון שיזון בו החמור[6] והסוס[7], כי האדם נזון בחלק הזן מן הנפש[8] האנושית, והחמור נזון בחלק הזן מן הנפש החמורית, והתמר[9] נזון בחלק הזן מן הנפש אשר לה, ואמנם יאמר על הכל נזון בשתוף
- ↑ Thus Br So Ma = Ar. אנמא הו; edd. אינם. See Introduction, p. 25 (bottom).
- ↑ Ar. אלאגתדי = אלאגתד̇א.
- ↑ (Ma אדם) שיזון בו האדם = Ar. אלד̇י ללאנסאן.
- ↑ So > על דרך משל.
- ↑ So ככח.
- ↑ שיזון בו החמור = Ar. אלד̇י ללחמאר.
- ↑ So הסוס והחמור.
- ↑ So + אשר לו.
- ↑ Ma marg. (later hand) cod. 71 (Parma) והתמר = Ar. ואלנכ̇לה̈. Br So Mi Ma codd. 10 (Parma) 46 261 378 438 802 959 1246 1262 edd. והנשר "and the eagle". Ma may have been corrected by comparison with some other Heb. text, but hardly with the Arabic. Cod. 1161, which will be referred to below, is defective here. Since a palm is nourished by a nutritive faculty (חלק הזן), it was proper for M. to use ואלנכ̇לה̈. Later, (p. 10, lines 10–12) in speaking of the faculty of sensation (פעל הרגשה) of the various species, M. refers to that of the eagle (Ar. אלעקאב). All Heb. Mss. and texts, except codd. 71 and 1161, have correctly הנשר. Codd. 71 and 1161 read התמר. Thus, in describing the nutritive faculty of the different species, the Ar. refers to that of man, the ass, and the palm, while in discussing the faculty of sensation it speaks of man, the ass, and the eagle. Ma with its marginal reading, alone, agrees with the Ar. The texts which read והנשר in the first instance have הנשר in the second, while cod. 71 has התמר in both cases. This consistency in the Heb. texts is suspicious. The Ar., cod. 71, and Ma marg., no doubt retain correctly the first list of species, namely, man, ass, and the palm, and it can safely be said that I. T. translated accordingly. The present condition of the Heb. texts arose, perhaps, from a misunderstanding of the original I. T. version. Some copyist, thinking probably that the same word should be used in both places, must have changed והתמר to agree with the later occurring הנשר. Another copyist, thinking that הנשר in the second instance was an error, changed this to התמר (codd. 71, 1161). That M. need not have used the same list of species in both instances is apparent from the context. First of all, he speaks of each species as having a nutritive faculty (כח הזן) peculiar to itself, and states that this faculty of man differs from that of the ass and the horse, the two latter representing one species. Then, discussing the nutritive faculty, he illustrates from human, animal, and plant life, saying that the nutritive faculty which nourishes man differs from that which nourishes the ass, and both from that which nourishes the palm. Later, however, no longer speaking of the nutritive faculty but of the faculty of sensation, M. very properly avoids referring to the palm as being endowed with such a faculty. Instead he uses the eagle (אלעקאב) as an illustration. Thus, M. may well have used two different illustrations, one from plant life, and the other from animal life.
