¹ See Chanoch Albeck, “Mavo le-Bereshit Rabbah,” in idem and Julius Theodor, eds., Midrash Bereshit Rabbah (3 vols.; Jerusalem: Wahrmann, 1965) 3. 93–96.

² Theodor and Albeck, Midrash Bereshit Rabbah, 3. 128. The Venice edition, while based on the earlier Constantinople edition, contains significant variations. Albeck noted (p. 131) that the Venice edition probably relied on a manuscript similar to MS Paris 149. Subsequent printed editions were derived from the Venice edition (p. 132).

³ Regarding MS Vat. 30, Albeck wrote (ibid., 3. 103), “according to it we can discern the additions which are in the other manuscripts and printed editions, as well as what the scribes deleted from the elemental Genesis Rabba, since it [MS Vat. 30] retains in the main the fundamental Genesis Rabba without additions and deletions.”

⁴ Ibid., 3. 109–10.

⁵ Besides the scribe's annotations, there are marginal notations written by another hand. The two are easily distinguishable. This note focuses only on those comments written by Mordechai ben Isaac.

⁶ Five of these marginal notations were omissions from scriptural verses: Job 21:11; Isa 16:12; Ezek 16:7; Exod 16:4; and 1 Kgs 5:15.

⁷ Ronald N. Brown, “A Note on the Commentary Attributed to Rashi on Genesis Rabba,” Tarbiz 53 (1983) 478 [Hebrew].

⁸ In the margin opposite Gen. R. 45.8 (Theodor and Albeck, Midrash Bereshit Rabbah, 1. 455) קחצי ،ד דםא are the words אתלכמ וײט קרפ הצרפ לא אב חשרפ.

⁹ In the margin opposite Gen. R. 54.1 (Theodor and Albeck, Midrash Bereshit Rabbah, 2. 575) שחנב השעמ are the words חשרפ ונדמליב חלשב יהױ.

¹⁰ Theodor and Albeck, Midrash Bereshit Rabbah, 2. 764.

¹¹ Gisenstein, Judah David, Ozar Midrashim: A Library of Two Hundred Minor Midrashim (2 vols.; Jerusalem: n.p., 1969)Google Scholar 1. 38 (§ 21).