This medieval Hebrew lexicographical and scientific miscellany is dated 1290 in two colophons and encloses three highly important texts, used as the base for editions and studies. These are: the Maḥberet Menahem by Menahem ben Jacob Ibn Saruq (died c. 970); an anonymous Hebrew prose translation of the very popular lapidary by Marbode of Rennes (12th c.) and an anonymous abridged version of the talmudic and midrashic lexicon entitled Sefer ha-Arukh by Natan ben Yehiel Anav of Rome (1035-1110), called the Berner Kleinen Arukh. The particularity of this copy is the presence of Old West Yiddish and Old French glosses. Furthermore, among the numerous later notes, there are more significant additions which abound in the blank pages and margins of the manuscript, such as: poems, calendars, a list of weights and currencies destined to apothecaries and physicians, a grammatical treatise, prognostication diagrams, medical recipes, legal texts and a most unusual charm in Middle High German in Hebrew characters, relative to Hulda, a German goddess comparable to Venus, taken from the Tannhäuserliede. Moreover, this manuscript passed through the hands of three Jews, one of them being Bendel von Ahrweiler (15th c.), and three Christian Hebraists, Konrad Pellikan (1478-1554), Johannes Buxdorf II and Samuel Hortin, before being donated by the latter to the BB in 1634. Their respective scriptural witnesses testify to the manuscript’s remarkable stature as an esteemed source of knowledge from the time it was compiled at the end of the 13th century, to its possession by Christian Hebraists in Switzerland during the 16th and 17th centuries. ‎

• ff. 1r-101v : Maḥberet Menahem (lacunary in the beginning, missing one folio). ‎
  This dictionary of the Hebrew language was composed by Menahem ben Jacob Ibn Saruq (died c. 970), a Jewish poet and philologist who spent most of his life in Cordoba. The importance of this dictionary (Maḥberet) named after its author (Menahem), lies within the fact that it was the first complete lexical systematization of the Biblical vocabulary composed in Hebrew. At the time, the prevailing view was the unilateral and bilateral character of Hebrew roots. Later, Ibn Saruq’s student, Judah ben David Hayyuj (c. 945-1000), a Jewish linguist from Morocco, set aside this theory and correctly suggested the triliteral character of Hebrew roots in several treatises in Arabic (three of which will be later translated into Hebrew by Moses Gikatilla (11th c.) and Abraham Ibn Ezra (1089/92-1164/67)). Once this new grammatical theory was established, Hayyuj will be considered as the father of scientific grammar. However, because the Maḥberet Menahem was written in Hebrew, it remained the chief source of philological instruction during the Middle Ages for Jews who were unacquainted with Arabic, especially those in Christian Europe, such as for Rashi (1040-1105), who refers to Menahem Ibn Saruq as a philological authority.
  The editions and extant manuscripts of the Maḥberet: ‎Since Filipowski’s 1854 edition of this work (criticized by D. Kaufmann in an article, 1886 and by Saénz-Badillos, 1985, 1986), a more accurate study of the Maḥberet was published in 1986 by the late Angel Saénz-Badillos, as a critical edition which does not depend on the old edition but follows the principles of modern textual criticism, incorporating no less than 11 complete manuscripts, 3 fragmentary manuscripts and 16 Cairo Genizah fragments (Saénz-Badillos, 1985, p. 32). This edition includes, among others, the two oldest extant complete manuscripts, both housed in the British Library (London): Add. Ms 27214, dated 1091 of Italian origin, which agrees with most Genizah fragments in the order of the roots and the contents and Ms Ar.Or.51, dated 1189, which is of Ashkenazi origin and should be considered as stemming from a second transmission of the text coming from central Europe, with a different order of roots and therefore constituting the second group of manuscripts (Saénz-Badillos, 1985, p. 32). According to Saénz-Badillos (1985, p. 33), the extant manuscripts and fragments of the Maḥberet organize the roots in three different main order systems (which form the first group, second group and third later group of manuscripts) and his main conclusion establishes that the order found in the first group including the oldest manuscript Add. Ms 27214, dated 1091 and the Genizah fragments, were the closest to the original ‘standard text’.
  Finally, where can the version of the Maḥberet in the Bern Codex 200 be situated in this line of transmission? Already in his 1886 article, David Kaufmann presumed that this text reflected another shorter version of the Maḥberet and tried to defend that there may have been two Urtexts the Maḥberet, one shorter version and one longer more standard version. In reaction to this theory, Saénz-Badillos (1985, p. 35 and ibid., 1986, p. 49) looked for this ‘shorter version’ in several manuscripts but came to the conclusion that there are no traces of a ‘shorter’ original text, and that the text in Codex 200 can neither be considered part of the first, nor the second group of manuscripts mentioned above. Furthermore, even though the text in Codex 200 has many shorter passages of the original text, deliberately shortened by later scribes, it is overall considered an ‘re-elaborated’ manuscript containing many additions and should be inserted into the third group of later manuscripts with many additions (Saénz-Badillos, 1985, p. 36 and ibid.,1986, p. 49).
  ‎ Lastly, it is noteworthy to add that since the publication of Saénz-Badillos’1986 critical edition, another two fragments of the Maḥberet were recently discovered in bindings of notarial documents in the State Archive of Bologna by Mauro Perani (Perani, pp. 146-147) and which were originally part of a manuscript of the Maḥberet copied in southern Italy during the 11th century, assigned to the scribal school of Otranto.‎
• ff. 101v-103v : 5 blank pages at the end of quire XIII enclose poetical, calendrical, astronomical and astrological material with tables, rosters and diagrams (see under ‘Later additions’).‎
  Colophon on folio 101v: Transcription:
  מן איש חסיד יהי ברוך שסיימתי ספר ערוך ויזכהו
  חזק ונתחזק הסופר לא יזק
  לא היום ולא לעולם עד
  שיעלה חמור בסולם ‏
  אני ישראל בר' דוד סיימתי
  המחברת הזה בשנת נ'‏
  לפרט'‏
  
  Translation:‎
  Strength and we shall be strengthened this scribe will not cause any damage
  Not today or forever until he climbs a ladder on a donkey‎
  I am Israel bar David I finished
  This notebook in the year 50 according to the small count.
  
  ‎(equivalent to 1290 C.E.)‎.
  The exact same expression in the first 3 lines of this colophon seen above are also found in the colophon of Zurich, Braginsky collection, Ms 389 (f. 209v), a 13th century mahzor according to the north French rite.
• ff. 104r-111v : Sefer ha-Avanim (Lapidary)‎ Title transcription: ‎אלו שמות האבנים הטובים כוחם וצבע מראיתם וגבורתם בתבניתם
  Title translation: Here are the names of the precious stones,‎‏ ‏their virtue[s] and colour[s], their aspect and their power when they have their shapes. ‎
  This lapidary is a treatise on stones which was recently been studied and edited in an article by Gad Freudenthal and Jean-Marc Mandioso in 2014. It is separated into two distinct sections: the first, describing the properties of 67 gemstones (ff. 104r-108v) and the second, discussing how the gemstones should be handled (ff. 109r-111v) (Steinschneider, p. 957). The incipit/title only refers to the first text (ff. 104r-108v), which is an anonymous Hebrew prose translation of the very popular lapidary by Marbode of Rennes in Old French, originally a Latin poem composed before 1150. (Studer and Evans, pp. XIV-XV; Freudenthal and Mandioso, p. 22-23). The second text (ff. 109r-111v) is not related in any way to the first one and has recently been identified by Katelyn Mesler as a Hebrew translation from Anglo-Norman of the so-called Techel/Azareus Complex.
  There are four extant Hebrew lapidaries which are based on the Old French version of Marbode’s lapidary (see Freudenthal and Mandioso, pp. 32-33):
  • Jacob ben Reuben’s Sefer ha-Osher (preserved in 6 manuscripts, see Freudenthal and Mandioso, p. 33, note 47).‎
  • An anonymous Hebrew translation found in the end of the 13th century biblical manuscript called the Leipzig Glossary (Leipzig, University Library, Ms 1099, which was edited by M. Banitt, pp. 185-195).‎
  • A Hebrew translation by Berachiah ben Natronai ha-Naqdan (12th c.), found in Oxford, Bodleian Library, Ms Can or. 70 (Neubauer cat. n°1147), ff. 73r-80v (For an edition of this text, see Bos and Zwink; see also Steinschneider, 1893, §572, p. 957 and ibid., 1897, p. 69; see also Visi).‎
  • An anonymous Hebrew translation found in two manuscripts:
    • An historical miscellany, dated c. 1332-1351, Oxford, Bodleian Library, Ms Heb. d.11, ff. 352r-358v (Neubauer and Cowley cat. n°2797/45) (see also Isserles, 2014, pp. 276-277).‎
    • The manuscript, Bern, Burgerbibliothek, Ms Codex 200 of the end of the 13th century (1290 C.E.), ff. 104r-111v.
  ‎‎
  Whilst lapidaries in verse were composed possibly as mnemonic devices with an aesthetic purpose for learned physicians and pharmacists, lapidaries in prose were mainly copied by laymen as a source for practical knowledge and concrete application. These texts were often expanded and improved with additions of useful information and can be considered as ‘texts in flux’, as Gad Freudenthal suggests. Furthermore, a good example of this transmission pattern of continually updating a text is this lapidary in prose found in Ms Codex 200, where interlinear and marginal additions have been interpolated to the main text. Furthermore, when another scribe came along and copied the text, he would integrate the additions but not always in the same place, thus creating yet another version (Freudenthal and Madioso, pp. 26-30). To prove this point, a comparison was made between the texts in the Bern manuscript and the Bodleian manuscript Heb. d. 11 and the conclusion was put forth in the words of Gad Freudenthal declaring: “…every time when a lapidary was copied, a new text results, one that was ever further removed from the original.” (Freudenthal and Madioso, p. 31). In other words, the Hebrew version of Marbode’s Lapidary found in Ms Codex 200, should be seen as link in a chain of multiple renderings of this treatise.‎
• f. 112r : Originally blank page [part of quire I (112r-119v) of TU3] filled in partially with the Maḥberet Menaḥem by hand 2 of TU 1, already found on folio 65r. The bottom margin of this page contains later additions (see under ‘Later additions’).‎
• Colophon on folio 111v:‎ Transcription:
  סליק ספר האבנים הנקרא בלשון לטין לפדריוש
  Translation: End of Sefer ha-Avanim named in Latin language Lapidarius.‎
• ff. 112v-255v : Sefer Arukh ha-Qatan by Natan ben Yehiel Anav of Rome (1035-1110). Wednesday 11th Shevat (5)050 (Wednesday 24 January 1290)
  This work is an abridged version of the talmudic and midrashic lexicon entitled Sefer ha-Arukh. The original work was completed in 1101 by the Natan ben Yehiel of Rome, a member of the Anav family. According to tradition, the Anavs were descended from one of the aristocratic families of Jerusalem, whom Titus had exiled to Rome after the destruction of the Temple in 70 C.E. It is also the first Jewish family in Rome to be known by a surname. Other variants for this name are Degli Manzi, Del Manzi, Umano, Pietosi and Piatelli. Not much is known about his life other than Natan ben Yehiel studied under his father, who was the head of the Yeshiva of Rome. As a young man, Natan ben Yehiel also studied under R. Moses ha-Darshan of Narbonne (11th c.) and other scholars in Bari and Pavia. After his father died, he returned to Rome around 1070 to succeed his him in his position of Rosh Yeshiva in Rome, along with his two brothers. It was during this time that Natan ben Yehiel wrote responsa as well as his magnum opus the Sefer ha-Arukh. Known for his charitable acts, he is known to have commissioned a synagogue and a ritual bathhouse for his community in Rome.
  Aside from the fact that this work is one of the landmarks of medieval Italian Jewish learning and the only preserved literary production of Italian Jews from this period in history, the Sefer ha-Arukh preserves many passages and references to earlier lost works. Moreover, this compilation bases itself on the grammatical bilateral scheme of Hebrew roots, established by Menahem Ibn Saruq and subsequently endorsed by the rabbis in Franco-Germany, rather than the principle of triliteral roots, discovered by Judah ben David Hayyuj and adopted by the Spanish grammarians as a rule (see the description of the Maḥberet Menahem above). Furthermore, this multifaceted work reflects Natan ben Yehiel’s immense erudition in the field of medicine, astronomy, mathematics and geometry and above all in linguistics. Accordingly, as a polyglot, Natan ben Yehiel employs along-side the Hebrew, a multitude of vernaculars, such as Arabic, Persian, Greek, Latin, Slavonic and his native Italian, to clarify and explain difficult etymologies found in the Talmud and Midrash.‎
  Once completed, the Sefer ha-Arukh gained a large acceptance, namely among the biblical commentators and Tosafists of Franco-Germany and Italy. Numerous manuscript copies of the work circulated and its first published edition in 1477 (location unknown, then by D. Bomberg in Venice, 1531), enabled an even larger dissemination of it (a modern edition was published by Alexander Kohut in 1878-92). Further proof of the popularity gained by this work is the compiling of many supplements, such as the ‘abbreviated’ Arukh, named the Arukh ha-Katzar or Kitzur Arukh, which only includes the explanation of words, without their etymologies (Ed. Princeps Constantinople, 1511, Cracow, 1591, Prague, 1707). This abridged work is extant in only two manuscripts, the earliest being precisely the one identified in Ms Codex 200, while the later one dates from the 15th century (Munich, Bayerische Staatsbibliothek, cod. Hebr. 390). The earlier version in Cod. 200, named the Berner Kleinen Arukh, was copied in 1290 by Asher bar Jacob Halevi of Osnabrück, and encloses 318 Old West Yiddish and Old French vocalized glosses, 226 of which are integral to the text, leaving the remainder as marginal or interlinear additions. Of these additions, 67 are by a hand contemporary to the original text and the last 25 are by a later hand (see Frakes, pp. 5-6) (see Kaufmann, 1885 “Buxtorf’s Handschrift”; E. Timm, 1977, 1987, 2004; Perles, 1973; and see edited sample in Frakes, pp. 5-6).
  Colophon on folio 255v:‎ Transcription:‎‎ ‏
  האל לבעל ביתי לזמן ארוך ללמוד ולהגות בו
  הוא וזרעו עד סוף כל הימים וזה הספר כתבתי
  בשנת החמישים בתוך חמשה שבועות וסיימתיו ‏
  בשבט בי'א' בו ביום ד' אני הכותב אשר בר' יעקב
  הלוי לבן דודי ר' יצחק בר' אלעזר הלוי חזק ושלם
  
  Translation:‎
  Amen [to the] pious man, my he be blessed, I finished [the] Book Arukh which grants favor
  To the husband of my daughter to study and to ponder it for a long time ‎
  Him and his descendance until the end of days and this is the book which I wrote ‎
  In the fiftieth year within five weeks and I finished it
  On the 11th of Shevat on Wednesday. I the author Asher bar Jacob Halevi for my cousin R. Itsḥaq son of R. Eleazar Halevi [who is] strong and complete.
  
  ‎(11th Shevat (5)050 is equivalent to Wednesday 24th January 1290)‎
• ff. 256r-258v : 6 blank pages at the end of quire XVIII are filled with small paragraphs of different later hands (see under ‘later additions’).‎