some notes on the origin of the tradition of the eighteen tiqqune soperim

Some Notes on the Origin of the Tradition of the Eighteen tiqqûnê sôperîmAuthor(s): Moshe A. ZiporSource: Vetus Testamentum, Vol. 44, Fasc. 1 (Jan., 1994), pp. 77-102Published by: BRILLStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/1519427 .

Accessed: 15/09/2014 02:08

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range ofcontent in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new formsof scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

.

BRILL is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Vetus Testamentum.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 96.40.134.149 on Mon, 15 Sep 2014 02:08:42 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=bap

http://www.jstor.org/stable/1519427?origin=JSTOR-pdf

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp


Vetus Testamentum XLIV, 1 (1994), © E. J. Brill, Leiden

SOME NOTES ON THE ORIGIN OF THE TRADITION OF THE EIGHTEEN

TIQQUNE SOPeRIM'

by

MOSHE A. ZIPOR Ramat-Gan

The term tiqqune sdperim,2 literally "corrections of scribes", is used to describe the "eighteen" biblical phrases3 where, according to the tradition found in Masoretic notations, the roots of which go back to tannaitic authorities, the biblical text has been "improved" because of reverence for God.4 In some of the sources, these alleged modifications are called kinna hakkdtub (a term used in the ancient sources, meaning that Scripture has employed a "substitute expression" or "euphemism");5 in others, tiqqun (correction) of the s6perim is the term used.

1 Some of the ideas submitted in this study were presented at the Tenth World Congress of Jewish Studies in Jerusalem in 1989 (see Proceedings [1990], pp. 51-8), and at the XIII Congress of the International Organization for the Study of the Old Testament in Leuven in 1989. This study was carried out in the autumn of 1986 at Cambridge University during my Sabbatical Year. I would like to express my gratitude to Professor J.A. Emerton, of the Faculty of Oriental Studies, and to Professor D.G.T. Williams, the President of Wolfson College, for their kind assistance. I am also grateful to Dr R.P. Gordon, with whom I discussed the first draft of this study. For sigla and bibliographical abbreviations used in this study see the lists at the end of the present article.

2 The most comprehensive study of this subject is McCarthy, Tiqqine Sopherim, summarized and condensed in her article, "Emendations of the Scribes", IDB Suppl. Vol. (1976), pp. 263-4. An up-to-date survey on the subject is Fishbane, pp. 66-74. Previous important studies: Ginsburg, pp. 347-63; Barnes; Lieberman, pp. 28-37; Barthelemy; McKane.

3 For the "eighteen" references see Appendix A, pp. 99-100 below. 4 In at least one case (Num. xii 12), the change was in deference to the honour

of Moses (or perhaps of Moses and Aaron). This case is unusual in many ways; see p. 82 below and n. 31; McCarthy, pp. 126-8. In the case of Num. xi 15 the most acceptable opinion is that the tradition of a tiqqun meant that "my wret- chedness" replaces "your" (God's), not "their" (Israel's); see McCarthy, p. 124 (or-so McKane, pp. 61-2-"let me not experience Your ill-will"). For Num. xii 12 see p. 97 below.

5 For this meaning of the root knh in rabbinical literature compare e.g. Mishna Sanhedrin VII 5. See Marcus Jastrow, Dictionary of the Targumim, the Talmud Babli



MOSHE A. ZIPOR

The phenomenon of the tiqqzne s6perim (henceforth: T.S.)6 has been thoroughly discussed by mediaeval as well as modern scholars. The question is not only how reliable the tradition of the eighteen cases of T.S. (i.e. theological corrections) is, but also what the exact meaning of the tradition is. Did the authors of this tradition intend to inform us that in certain biblical references the ancient text had actually been emended? Here we have two distinct questions. Even if it can be proved by philological means that historically these alleged emendations were never effected, and that in all these eighteen cases the MT reading is original, the possibility of their having been considered by the authors of the tradition to be emended texts is not precluded. The present study re-examines the tradition of the eighteen T.S. and suggests a new approach as to its birth and transformations.

I. The Sources

The T.S. list in the various sources differs in text, number and order as well as in other elements. The earliest lists known to me appear in Sifre Numbers lxxxvii (ed. H.S. Horovitz, pp. 81-2) to Num. x 35; in the Mekhilta of Rabbi Ishmael, Shirah vi (ed. H.S. Horovitz and I.A. Rabin [Frankfurt, 1928-31], pp. 134-5) to Exod. xv 7, and in its parallel in Mekhilta of R. Simeon bar Yohai.7 In these sources (henceforth S-Mekh) the list is limited to some seven or eight instances (according to the various manuscripts)8 in Sifre, and nine or ten in Mekhilta (not in the same order).9 The passage

and Yerushalmi, and the Midrashic Literature (London and New York, 1903), p. 663, s.v. kynwy, knwy, and McCarthy, p. 175.

6 This abbreviation is used here as a neutral (technical) symbol for the phenomenon in general, without regard to whether the sources employ the root tqn or knh, and without any allusion to its real significance as an emendation or euphemism; see below.

7 This page is absent from the edition of J.N. Epstein and E.Z. Melamed (Jerusalem, 1955-6), and has only recently been found; see Appendix B, p. 100 below.

8 Cf. McCarthy, p. 26, nn. 7-9. The increasing number of references is usually attributed to expansion; but, as McCarthy observes (n. 9), sometimes the shorter list may have been the result of omissions by homoioteleuton or homoioarchton.

9 The context in Exod. xv suggests that the logion fits there, and it is much less fitting at Num. x 35. It would appear, then, that it was originally connected with Exod. xv (and its source is the Mekilta). From there it drifted into Num. x. How- ever, as demonstrated by K.G. Kuhn, the version in Sifre is nearer to the original list. (Tannaitische Midraschim III: Der Tannaitische Midrasch Sifre zu Numeri [Stuttgart,

78



THE EIGHTEEN TIQQUNE SOPERfM

in S-Mekh which contains the T.S. list deals with the idea that the enemies of Israel are also the enemies of God, and, as a textual proof, Zech. ii 12 is quoted: "he who toucheth you, toucheth the apple of his eye". R. Judah (b. Ilay; ca. 130-160 C.E.) comments that the word 'eno, "his eye", replaced the word Ceni, "my eye", i.e. the eye of the Lord.10 Other similar biblical instances of "modified expressions" are then listed in an apparently haphazard order." These passages of Sifre and Mekhilta are later reproduced, with minor changes, in anthologies such as Yalkut Shimoni and Yalkut ha-Makhiri.12

The T.S. list then reappears in various mediaeval sources, becoming progressively longer: (a) in Midrashic literature such as Tanhuma'3 (which should be considered the next stage after S-Mekh; see below); (b) in the Masorah marginalis of certain biblical manuscripts. The earliest known to me is Codex Petropolitanus Babylonicus of the Latter Prophets, 916 C.E., which mentions the eighteen T.S. in both the Masorah parva and, in detail, in the Masorah magna;'4

1959], pp. 222-7, and Exkurs II, pp. 787-92). Kuhn claims that these two versions, that of Sifre and that of Mekhilta, originated in an earlier source, common to both, which was formed on the basis of Exod. xv 7 and consisted of exactly seven cases. His argument concerning the repeated model of seven units here and in the adjacent section is far from convincing. See also McCarthy, pp. 28-30 and n. 13.

10 "It does not say here: 'The apple of the eye' [Cayin], but: 'The apple of his eye' [Ynof], referring, as it were, to the One above. Scripture, however, modified the expression" (Mekilta de-Rabbi Ishmael, English translation of J.Z. Lauter- bach [Philadelphia, 1933], II, p. 43). Lieberman, p. 32, translates: "Scripture euphemized"; see also n. 36 below. Lauterbach (p. 43, n. 1) claims, that the original word of the "suppressed" phrase in the logion was "my eye" (eni), as can be seen in later sources; cf. the version in Mekhilta of R. Simeon bar Yohai, ed. J.N. Epstein and E.Z. Melamed, p. 2 (cf. McCarthy, p. 26, n. 4): "there is no teaching ( = to be derived) from waw but rather from yod". This, and some of the other sources where this logion appears with slight variations, have no "list" of "similar cases". To the various versions of the logion referred to by McCarthy, pp. 61-3, add, the one cited in Appendix B below. This issue deserves separate treatment.

11 The additional cases are not from R. Judah himself, as stated by, for example, Barnes, pp. 391-2.

12 For detailed descriptions of the various sources see McKane, pp. 53-60; McCarthy, pp. 25-53. Tabulation of the rabbinical sources is to be found in Barnes, pp. 393-401.

13 The terminus a quo of its editing is 800 C.E. For the different versions of Tanhuma see below, p. 101 Appendix C.

14 At Ezek. viii 17 and Zech. ii 12. This list includes also Mal. iii 8 (9); cf. Appendix A. At Mal. i 13 and iii 8 there is only an Mp notation (viz. without the

79



MOSHE A. ZIPOR

and then in a few late mediaeval Yemenite manuscripts.'5 The tradition of the 18 T.S. also appears in Codex Cairo of the Pro- phets,'6 only as an Mp notation.17 Significantly, such Masorah notations do not appear in the Aleppo and Leningrad B19a codices, nor in the other manuscripts related to them.18 (c) The T.S. list reappears, with slight variations, in Masoretic compilations such as Okhlah we-Okhlah (Ms. Paris, § 158),19 in treatises on the Masorah, such as Diqd2qel hattecdmim (ed. S. Baer and H.L. Strack),20 in the 10th-century Kitab al-Anwar wa-al Mara-

detailed list of references): "<One of the> 18 tiqqunuie soperim". Note that the Codex belongs to a different tradition of vocalization. Cf. also McCarthy, p. 47, on list no. 205 in Ginsburg's Masorah.

15 In addition to the manuscripts mentioned by Ginsburg, p. 350; McCarthy, pp. 42ff., the list appears in another Yemenite manuscript, Westminste Codex of Pentateuch and Haftarot (ca. 1496 C.E.), as a Mm at Num. xii 12 in almost identical order (but instead of 1 Chron. x 16, the end of 1 Kgs xii 16 is listed as a separate case).

16 The colophon ascribes the manuscript to Moshe ben Asher, 895 C.E. The date mentioned in the colophon obviously does not reflect the time when the manuscript was written; see M. Cohen, 'Alei Sefer 10 (1982), pp. 5-12; M. Glatzer, Sefunot N.S. 4 (1989), pp. 250-9. It certainly antedates 1130 C.E.; however, according to Glatzer , it does not antedate the 11th century.

17 Such notations, mentioning "eighteen tiqqune` s6perim of Ezra", are generally found in the margin of the text in the book of the Prophets, except 2 Sam. xvi 12.

18 I.e. Mss Sasoon 507, 1053, and Ms. B-M Or. 4445; see M. Breuer, in the introduction to his edition of the Bible (Jerusalem, 1989), which is based on the Aleppo Codex and the others related to it. Among the manuscripts described by R.[J.] Gottheil ("Some Hebrew Manuscripts in Cairo", JQR 17 [1905], pp. 609- 55), which were written between the 10th and 15th centuries, only a few contain one or two marginal Mp notations about the T.S., and not all of them indicate the same biblical references. The same applies to other mediaeval manuscripts. The presence of such Mm or Mp notations in some biblical manuscripts and not in others is a genealogical phenomenon. Probably at the beginning, the T.S. was not considered masoretic in nature but exegetical. Note, however, that Codex Aleppo and Ms. Leningrad B19a include exegetical comments in the Mp and Mm, such as "one word <appearing> in two different meanings"; e.g. at Gen. xxvii 25 and 1 Chron. xxv 3.

19 § 168 in ed. S. Frensdorff (Hannover, 1864), p. 113; but not in Ms. Halle. On the relationship between the manuscripts see J.S. Penkower, "The Tosaphist R. Menahem of Joigny and the Masoretic Work Okhla We-Okhla, the Halle Recension", Studies in Bible and Exegesis III: M.H. Goshen-Gottstein Memorial Book (Ramat-Gan; in the press). The list of Ms. Paris is cited in Appendix A below.

20 Die Dikduke ha-Teamim des Ahron ben Moscheh ben Ascher (Leipzig, 1879), pp. 44-5, § 57. This paragraph is among the additions to Aharon b. Asher's work (to the literature in McCarthy, p. 44, n. 100, add A. Dotan, Sefer Diqdqqe Ha.ttecdmin Jerusalem, 1967], p. 18). A very similar text is found in a Geniza fragment (T-S D.1.61) published by Keller. Other similar texts are the one cited by R. Eliahu Mizrahi in his commentary on Rashi, Num. xi 15, and the Bodl. Opp. 603 (OL 1257).

80



THE EIGHTEEN TIQQUNE SOPERIM

qib by the Karaite scholar, al-Qirqisani,21 and in Raymund Mar- tini's Pugio Fidei (ca. 1280), who quotes several Jewish sources (see Lieberman, p. 29, n. 7; McCarthy. pp. 52-4).

In this mediaeval group the following innovations appear: (a) They use the term tiqqun s6perim for the list, referring unam- biguously to corrections made by the Sopherim. Some of these sources use this term together with the phrase kinna hakkdtub, i.e. "Scripture euphemized" (e.g. Tanhuma on Exod. xv 7). How- ever, in later periods the idea of corrections introduced in the Holy Text was found objectionable. We thus find in the Prolegomenon to the list of "eighteen tiqqune s6perim" in the Baer-Strack edition of the Diqdqe6 hat.tecdmim:

There are eighteen expressions written22 in the Torah, and they are not written properly (ketiqqundm),23 but the sages of Israel read them with a tiqqun sdperfm [or following the Geniza fragment: "call them tiqqune s6perfm"].24 They did not emend them..., but our teacher, Moses, wrote them in the Torah, and what the prophets wrote in the remaining books, they wrote in a kinnay (form).25 The Scribes did not remove from, nor add to, (them) and they should be called kinnuye' s6perim. And these are the kinnuylm... [here follows the list of T.S. cases].

These tiqq2nim are attributed in the various sources to "the Sages", to Ezra, to Ezra and Nehemiah, to "the Scribes", to "the men of the Great Assembly", and the like.26

(b) In the mediaeval lists the number of items gradually increased; the number "eighteen" is often explicitly mentioned27

21 In a polemic anti-rabbanite chapter, where he denies the authenticity of T.S. tradition. Cf. McCarthy, pp. 39-42. Among the T.S. he also counts Num. xvi 14, which is not mentioned in other lists. But later, in the detailed discussion of each reference, it is omitted. On this reference, see below, p. 95.

22 In Mizrahi, erroneously: seturim, "dismantled" (or "contradicted"). 23 I prefer this translation, as it is the common usage of this word, to that of

Barnes (p. 403), and McCarthy (p. 45): "according to their tiqqun"; the word tiq- qzn is not employed here as a technical term (in the Geniza text < Keller, p. 79 >, and in Bodl. Opp. 603: ketiqndn).

24 Cf. Barnes, p. 403, n. 2; pace McCarthy. 25 In the Geniza text: "wrote in a binn4y..., should be called binnziye ketuzbim"

(an exchange of k/b). In Bodl. Opp. 603: "in a minnay". 26 For the various formulae see Barnes, pp. 403-4. 27 Although the actual number of items in most lists is smaller. This number,

eighteen, already appears in Codex Babilonicus Petropolitanus (916 C.E.); see p. 79 above. Then it appears in Qirqisani.

81



MOSHE A. ZIPOR

except for Tanhuma (which is the next stage of development after S-Mekh), which records 11 cases in Ms. Vatican 44 (see below), and up to 17 cases in the editions. Since the references are not identical in the various sources, their total sum extends to some 25 biblical cases.28 "Eighteen" is, no doubt, a typological figure.29

(c) Only Tanhuma follows S-Mekh in that the homily opens with the interpretation of the passage in Zech. ii 12 and adds other biblical examples of the same nature, in order to strengthen R. Judah's interpretation of this passage. The later sources (unless they cite the earlier ones, i.e. S-Mekh and Tanhuma) are simple T.S. lists which are not derived from Zech. ii 12, but are arranged (most of the references) more or less according to the order of the biblical books, starting with the Pentateuch and the books of Samuel,30 an order which is followed neither in the S-Mekh, nor in the Tanhuma (see the charts in McCarthy, pp. 51-5).

(d) S-Mekh suggests the alternative to "his eye" in Zech. ii 12 (which is the foundation of the homily).3' It also hints that a similar

28 Cf. McKane, p. 38 (add Num. xvi 14; see below). There are also differences between the various manuscripts of each source. For comparative charts see McCarthy, pp. 55-7.

29 The number "eighteen" as a sum is common in talmudical literature; e.g. eighteen decrees, and eighteen others which were the subject of disagreement (B. Shabbat 14b); items of men's clothing (120a); eighteen people are considered as "many" (B. Erubin 80b); eighteen benedictions in the Amidah prayer (actually nineteen: B. Berakhot 28b), etc. In many cases, evidently, the Sages made strenuous efforts to find as many as "eighteen" items. Significantly, in the Mm in three biblical manuscripts of the 12th and 13th centuries, the figure "thirteen" (also a rabbinic typological number) constantly recurs as the number of tiqqunzm, together with the thirteen references. Two of these manuscripts are listed in Ginsburg, p. 765-6; McCarthy pp. 49-50; the third one is Ms. Parma 2808 (reproduced in facsimile by A. Sperber, Codices Palatini [Copenhagen, 1959]; formerly known as de Rossi 2), where the list is identical with BM Add. 21, 161, and at the same biblical reference, Hab. i 12. Significantly, the numbers "thirteen" (Midrash Haggadol at Exod. iv 20) and "eighteen" (e.g. Yer. Megilla I 9 < 71d >) are mentioned also for the changes introduced in the Greek translation of the Pentateuch prepared for King Ptolemy. See also E. Tov, "The Rabbinic Tradition Concerning the 'Alterations' Inserted into the Greek Pentateuch and their Relation to the Original Text of the LXX", JSJ 15 (1984), pp. 65-89.

30 Not always the same order in the various sources and manuscripts, and often it looks like a postscript.

31 See n. 10 above. The only other case where the "original reading" is mentioned in the list of Mekhilta of R. Ishmael is Num. xii 12 (but not in Mekhilta of R. Simeon bar Yohai; see n. 7 above, nor in Sifre and in Ms. Vatican 44 of Tanhuma; see Appendix C). This case is peculiar in other respects; see n. 4 above. The "original reading" does not appear in the list of Sifre, but it does appear in Sifre at Num. xii 12 (ed. H.S. Horovitz, p. 103), where the words "his mother"

82



THE EIGHTEEN TIQQUNE S6PERfM

interpretation should be applied to the additional examples. Some of the later sources offer the "original" word for other T.S. cases as well, and a few add one of the formulas: "he (or "it") should have said...", "it should have been...", or "it was..." The alternative reading suggested in the various sources is not always the same. In fact, some of these suggestions seem to be highly imaginative.32

At the same time, in ancient sources we find the term tiqquin soperim, related to only one of two of the individual items included in the lists:33

(a) In Exodus Rabba xiii 1 (ed. A. Shinan [Tel-Aviv, 1984], p. 256), R. Joshua b. Levi (ca. 220-250 C.E.) comments on "the apple of his eye" (Zech. ii 12): "It is a tiqquin of the Scribes: it is written withyod" (v. 1: " 'my eye' was written").

(b) In Genesis Rabba xlix 7 (ed. J. Theodor and Ch. Albeck [Berlin, 1912-36], p. 505; for parallels see p. 505, n. 4) R. Simon (b. Pazzi, ca. 230-250 C.E.) comments on "And Abraham stood yet before the Lord" (Gen. xviii 22):

"This is a tiqqtin of the Scribes: the Shekhinah was actually waiting for Abraham". (This case does not appear in S-Mekh.)

The version of Leviticus Rabba xi 5 (ed. M. Margulies [Jerusalem, 1953], p. 224; cf. Midrash Tehillim xviii 22, ed. S. Buber [Wilna, 1891], p. 149), where both R. Judah and R. Simon are mentioned, deserves special attention. Here R. Judah and R. Nehemiah differ about the person to whom Ps. xviii 26 refers ("With the pious, you shew yourself with piety"), as follows:

R. Judah interpreted (this phrase) as alluding to Abraham... When he said "pass not away from thy servant" (Gen. xviii 3), what is written there? "and Abraham stood yet before the Lord" (xviii 22). R. Simon said, "This is a taqqdna of the sdperfm: the Shekhinah was actually waiting for him."

As will be shown below, this source has great significance for the history of the T.S. tradition. Here R. Simon appears to refer to R. Judah's homily and to elucidate it.

and "his flesh" are described as kinna hakkatub, instead of "our mother" and "our flesh". See also pp. 97-8 below.

32 The various alleged restorations have been collected in McKane, pp. 55-9. 33 Cf. Lieberman, p. 28; McCarthy, pp. 37-8, 58, 71 ff. Why McCarthy finds

just these two cases "not surprising" (p. 58) is not clear to me. See also below, p. 92.

83



MOSHE A. ZIPOR

II. Were the T.S. indeed Scribal Emendations?

The question whether the particular biblical expressions listed as T.S. are indeed a result of textual emendation has three-or rather four-possible answers:

(a) The text has never been changed, and it can be understood literally as it stands, as suggested by Ibn Ezra when referring to some of the cases.34

(b) The reference can be interpreted as a euphemism used by the author similar to the usage of the root brk ("bless") as a substitute for qll ("blaspheme") when "God" is the object (1 Kgs xxi 10, 13; Job i 5, 11, ii 5, 9), and similar to the insertion of "the enemies of" into the phrase "utterly scorned God" (2 Sam. xii 14). In this way R. Joseph Albo (Sefer haciqqarim xxii 2) and some other mediaeval scholars explain the cases of T.S.35 This approach is to be found also in the Prolegomenon to the T.S. list in certain Masorah treatises (see above p. 81). Such euphemisms used by the authors themselves are called by McCarthy (p. 170) "original (or "spontaneous") euphemisms" (as opposed to "secondary euphemisms", i.e. those made later by correctors; in other words: emendations). Gordon (p. 361) prefers the term "primary euphemism" for the authors' euphemisms. See, however, below p. 96 and n. 62.

(c) The tradition of the T.S. is reliable and these passages are indeed the result of emendation

(d) Finally, there is a fourth option, that more than one answer may be correct depending upon the individual case.

Views differ on this issue. Two especially noteworthy modern

34 The introduction to his commentary on the Pentateuch, at the end; commentary on Num. xi 15, xii 12; Job xxii 3. At Job vii 20 he says: "It is a tiqqun sdperim [i.e., it is considered as one of the instances of tiqqune sdperim], though interpretation of the text as it stands, without being considered as a tiqqun, is correct".

35 Ibn Ezra comments on Ps. cvi 20: " 'and they exchanged their glory'-a kin- n'y ( = 'substitution', or 'euphemism') for God's honour; in a similar way to 'you have utterly scorned' <'... the enemies of the Lord', 2 Sam. xii 14 > ... and he did not say 'you have utterly scorned the Lord'." Note that the latter item is not one of the T.S. Ibn Ezra also comments on Job i 5: " 'blessed' is an expression of a kinney, meaning its opposite, as in 1 Kgs xii 13"; but Ibn Ezra passes over Gen. xviii 22 and Zech. ii 12 in silence. That fact, and the way he comments on Ps. cvi 20, demonstrate that Ibn Ezra had no T.S. list (Ps. cvi 20 is present in almost all lists). We have no commentary of Ibn Ezra on the Former Prophets, Jeremiah and Ezekiel. See also n. 44 below.

84




scholars, Geiger and Ginsburg, have adopted the third possibility.36 According to their view, the lists37 of T.S. reflect an ancient tradition that in these cases textual emendations were carried out at a certain stage in the period of the Second Temple. Geiger even goes so far as to suggest that the Masoretic list is purely illustrative and that there are actually many more genuine corrections of the Scribes; e.g. r'h peneyhwh, originally in the Qal ( = Active), "to see the face of the Lord", often converted into the Nifcal (= Passive), "to be seen before the Lord";38 the alteration of brk into qll, etc.39 Barnes, representing the antitheses to this point of view, declares categorically: "The tikkun tradition belongs to Midrash rather than to Masorah ... the tikkune, sopherim are interpretations not readings" (p. 402; cf. Fishbane, p. 66, n. 3).

According to other scholars the majority of the T.S. cases are not genuine emendations. These scholars differ only as to which T.S. cases are authentic emendations.40 Barthelemy (pp. 286-94) and McCarthy (pp. 61ff., 129) maintain this view and base it on inter- nal evidence (i.e. the probability of the reading of the MT as opposed to the one suggested by the T.S. tradition as original) and on external data (ancient textual witnesses, such as the Versions

36 Geiger, pp. 308-45; Ginsburg, pp. 347-63. Ginsburg (p. 350), significantly, translates the formula kinnd hakkdtub in Mekhilta as "but the text is altered".

37 Scholars often refer to the various lists as one list and the differences between them are regarded as quantitative, and not qualitative.

38 Cf. however, the reservation of E.Z. Melamed, Tarbiz 19 (1948), p. 15. 39 Geiger, p. 268 and n. 2. Cf. also the alteration of the component "Baal" in

theophoric names, like "Jerubbaal" into "Bosheth" (= shame). 40 Cf. e.g. the treatment of the various T.S. cases in the Revised Standard Version

and New English Bible (presented in a comparative table in McKane, pp. 66-8). See also the bibliography in the footnotes of McCarthy, pp. 61-92. Significantly, BHK gives the notation "Tiq soph" in various forms in the apparatuses:

(a) In the apparatus II (the "main" apparatus), with the instruction lege: 1 Sam. iii 13; Hab. i 12; Mal. i 12; Job vii 20.

(b) In the same apparatus, without the signal "lege", but with the "lectio originalis": Gen. xviii 22; Ezek. viii 17; Ps. cvi 20; Lam. iii 20.

(c) The following "tiq soph" notations appear in apparatus I (of the "less important readings"): Num. xi 15; xii 12; Jer. ii 11; Zech. ii 12(!); Job xxxii 3.

BHS adds at Hos. iv 7 the notations "Tiq Soph kebodt" and "T S 3pl, prp hemifru (Tiq soph)". At Job vii 20 the notation is only "tiq Soph G Cdleykd" (without "1 c ..."). At 1 Sam. iii 13: "Tiq soph lojhim, cf. G L 115, 93, 94; lo cf. Ginsburg". BHS also replaces the reference of Mal. i 12 with i 13: "1 'oti (Tiq soph)". The notation of BHS at Zech. ii 12 is more specific: "Tiq soph pro Ceni, cf Gw Tert(ullianus) V".

85



MOSHE A. ZIPOR

and Qumran Scrolls).41 Barthelemy discusses only Zech. ii 12 and 1 Sam. iii 13, and regards them as genuine emendations. To this, McCarthy adds the case of Job vii 20. On the same grounds, she maintains that in all other instances (including Ezek. vii 17, against McKane, pp. 71-5), the T.S. are merely midrashic interpretations and that there is no evidence whatsoever of the existence of a different, "original" reading. She concludes (p. 166) that "The tiqqune sopherim were first midrashic in origin and only later adopted into certain Masoretic traditions." As a matter of fact, her scrutiny of each T.S. case (pp. 61-129) reveals that most need not even be considered "original euphemisms", but can be understood literally.

The tendency of the Rabbis to explain difficult references (or ones that are not difficult) as T.S. is due to the current usage of euphemistic expressions in both biblical (such as brk, "bless", referring to God as object, actually meaning "to blaspheme") and post-biblical language.42

McCarthy ascribes this tendency also to the widespread use of the midrashic device of 'al tiqre: "do not read ... but rather ..." (henceforth A.T.), which enables the text to be read with changes of vowels and even of consonants. She finds "definite points of overlapping" between the A.T. and the T.S. phenomena (p. 166; see also n. 67 below). The connection between the phenomena of A.T. and T.S. is stressed by McCarthy, passim, who devotes a large part of her study (pp. 139-66) to the features of A.T.-type homilies and their parallels in T.S. cases. It seems to me, however, that her

approach is based on an inaccurate description of the A.T. phenomenon. This issue will be discussed in extenso separately.

I tend to agree with McCarthy's contention that in most of the T.S. cases no emendation has ever been effected. However, I have some reservations as to the conclusions of Barthelemy and McCar- thy concerning the case of Zech. ii 12, which they accept as an emendation:

41 One should keep in mind Tov's reservation (p. 286) concerning their criterion of the existence or absence of texual testimony: its absence may occa- sionally be merely the result of its having been suppressed by the Rabbis. Of course, the Rabbis' assumption that a certain passage is a result of a correction did not necessarily depend on an extent variant; cf. e.g. the instance of Gen. xviii 22.

42 See, e.g. Jastrow (n. 5), s.v. brk piel (3); brkh (3); McCarthy pp. 177 ff.

86




(a) Even a rendering in some of the Versions which coincides with the "original" reading suggested by the Masoretic list of T.S. need not necessarily reflect the Urtext, but may, rather, reflect the interpretation of what the particular translator deemed to be a euphemism. The reading or rendering "my eye", present in some of the 3rd-century sources,43 may be understood in this manner. Similarly, an extant incidental Hebrew reading "my eye" in a mediaeval manuscript may be an unconscious consequence of the T.S. tradition.

(b) The possibility of a wawlyod scribal error should also be seriously considered (see also Gordon, pp. 359-60).

(c) As a matter of fact, this verse is ambiguous: it is not easy to determine whether in v. 12b the prophet speaks on God's behalf, or whether these are the prophet's own words. If the latter is the case, then "his eye" also refers to God, and hence neither emendation nor euphemism is present in this particular passage (cf. McKane, pp. 68-71; McCarthy, pp. 64-5).

As for Job vii 20, if it were indeed a deliberate emendation of the text, there would be no satisfactory explanation why the preceding expression in the same verse "why hast thou set me as a mark (or "target") against thee", which is no less offensive, has not been emended (cf. McKane, p. 61). For 1 Sam. iii 13 see below, pp. 91-2.

Independently of their attitude towards the "official" T.S. cases, many scholars are of the opinion that outside the T.S. list there are other passages in the MT which are, in fact, a result of theological emendation. Some adopt a few of Geiger's passages (see p. 85 above); others supply additional examples.4

43 Cf. BHS (see n. 40 above); Barthelemy, p. 289; McCarthy, pp. 65-7. 44 Barthelemy agrees with Geiger that there are also other theological emenda-

tions outside the traditional list; the instances of "despised the enemies of the lord" (2 Sam. xii 14) and "the sons of Israel" (Deut. xxxii 8) are his examples (pp. 284ff.; cf. McKane pp. 64ff.). For other cases see McCarthy, pp. 197-243. To these references other inner-biblical changes should be added, such as are evident through a comparison of parallel texts (e.g. 1 Chron. xiv 12, compared with 2 Sam. v 21; Ps. xcvi 7 compared with xxix 1). Additional alleged cases of theological emendations have been suggested by others; e.g. Ps. lxxx 7, "and our enemies laugh among themselves" (so RSV; MT: ldmo), believed to be originally "mock thee" (cf. Ibn Ezra ad loc.; however, more probably it was ldnu, "at us", as in the LXX; cf. BHK and BHS); Job xxi 16, originally "not in his hands"; see e.g. Melamed; Brawer; Fishbane, pp. 66 ff.

87



MOSHE A. ZIPOR

III. Various Approaches to the Meaning of the Tradition

A separate issue concerns what the authors of the T.S. tradition believed to be the true nature of the T.S. The traditional lists deal equally with the seemingly well-attested case of 1 Sam. iii 13 (LXX: xaxoXoyoUvTsg 0e6v), and those of Num. xi 12; Jer. ii 11, etc., where little, if anything, can be said against the MT and in favour of the alleged original reading suggested by the T.S. tradition. As was mentioned above, two different terms are used for the T.S. cases in the various sources: kinna hakkdtub in some, and tiqqun soperzm in others. Lieberman (p. 31) claims that the difference in terminology reflects two divergent irreconcilable opinions. One group states that the euphemistic expressions were used by Scripture, while the other claims that the text was changed by the Sopherim. This twofold explanation, however, overlooks the significant fact that, when dealing with the T.S. list, kinna hakkdtub is the only term used in the ancient sources (S-Mekh), whereas mediaeval sources explicitly call it tiqqune sdperzm, apparently indicating a certain development in the basic conception. Can it be a coincidence?

On the contrary, other scholars, like Segal (p. 859), Barthelemy (p. 289), and McCarthy (p. 246), contend that both terms have the same intention: that the text has undergone emendation; that the use of the term kinna hakkdtub is itself euphemistic and was employed (so McCarthy) in order "to convey the impression that Scripture had not been tampered with, but had always been written euphemistically". They point to the two sources, "where the memory of what had actually happened" was preserved. The term tiqqan soperzm is applied by R. Joshua b. Levi (for Zech. ii 12 , in Exodus Rabba) and by his disciple, R. Simon b. Pazzi (for Gen. xviii 22, in Gen. Rabba xlix 7; see p. 83 above).45 What R. Judah, in his day, did not dare to say outright was stated by R. Joshua b. Levi one century later.

Although these two cases, according to McCarthy and Bar- thelemy, are historically of a different nature ("his eye" in Zech. ii 12 is an emendation, whereas in Gen. xviii 22 the text has not actually been altered),46 the sages considered both cases, and

45 See also the passage of Lev. Rabba xi 5 (cited p. 83 above), referred to by neither Barthelemy nor McCarthy.

46 See McCarthy, pp. 73-4. The contextual problem of Gen. xviii 22 has to be solved through literary criticsm. As for the notion expressed by the T.S. tradition, that the "improvement" was achieved through a metathesis of words, McCarthy

88




similarly all the others on the list, as tiqqunfm, "corrections of the text".

IV. Tiqqunzm and kinnuylm-Another Approach

To sum up the approaches to the history of the tradition concerning tiqqunim and kinniyzm: according to one approach the two terms express two antagonistic views of the nature of the T.S. phenomenon, while the other approach believes that they are only two formulations, one tacit and one explicit, of the same basic opinion, viz. that the text had been corrected.

A third approach believes, too, that tiqqun and kinna hakkdtub are two formulations for the same opinion; but contrary to Segal, Bar- thelemy and McCarthy, this approach contends that the two formulations imply that the T.S. are euphemisms made by the author himself. This view already appears in mediaeval sources such as Diqdaqe hatteCidmim and parallels (see p. 81 above) but is also advocated by some modern scholars.47 But this approach is impos- sible: (1) it is clear that the use of the expression tiqqun sdperfm is of later appearance than kinna hakkdtub, i.e. "euphemism". Why was it necessary to create a new term with dangerous connota- tions implying that the holy Scripture had been emended? (2) Translating the word s6per as meaning "author" and interpreting the expression tiqqun soperzm as "the independent com- posers avoided ("corrected") indelicate expressions" betrays a certain lack of linguistic historical knowledge. sdper in Talmudic literature means not "author" but "scribe", or sometimes "schoolteacher", "scholar"; cf. also Yer. Shekalim 48c; B. Kid- dushin 30a.

In truth, neither approach supplies satisfactory answers to some basic questions:

1. Why are other instances of genuine emendations or euphemisms not included in the T.S. lists (see p. 85 above)? Though the Rabbis may not have been aware of all these cases, there can be no doubt that they knew the euphemistic use of brk,

(pp. 143-4, 163) points to Sifre Deut. on xi 21 (ed. L. Finkelstein [Berlin, 1939], p. 107), with reference to Eccles. i 4, as an equivalent from the A.T. domain (see p. 86 above). This case, however, is an error, as I show in my article in Sinai 100 (1989), p. 716.

47 E.g. Y.M. Grintz, Mebo' Miqra' (Tel Aviv, 1972), pp. 57-9.

89



MOSHE A. ZIPOR

"bless", for "blaspheme"; "(despise) the enemies of the Lord" (2 Sam. xii 14) for "(despise) the Lord", etc. Another unquivocal case of emendation, which was known to the Rabbis and yet not included in the list of T.S., is the use of the suspended nun of mnsh (Judg. xvii 30): it is the Talmud itself, in B. Baba Bathra 109b (cf. Tos. Sanhedrin XIV 8, ed. M.S. Zuckermandel [Pasewalk, 1880], p. 436), that states that this nun was deliberately inserted in order to conceal the fact that a descendant of msh was an idolatrous priest ("Corruption is to be ascribed to the corrupt").

2. Why is the famous T.S. of Gen. xviii 22 absent from the list in S-Mekh which is attached to R. Judah's logion? As indicated above (p. 83) R. Judah was aware of this case and he explains the phrase as a fulfilment of Abraham's request to the Lord that he wait and not go away (v. 3). It is surprising that this very particular case was not included with the others under the code-title "Scripture euphemized". Is it simply a coincidence that this T.S. was adopted by the T.S. list at exactly the same moment that the term tiqquin soperfm emerged as the title of the list?

The approaches mentioned above also overlook some other points, as will be demonstrated below.

I shall, therefore, propose an approach that casts a new light on the entire T.S. phenomenon. The common denominator of the former two approaches is that they deal with all the instances of T.S. as a unit. In my opinion, however, the list is a conglomeration of two distinct phenomena, which refer to different biblical references: kinna hakkdtub and tiqqu2ne soperim. The "canonized" list began its life (as is apparent from the earlier sources) as a modest group of illustrations of euphemisms, and was later erroneously taken to be a list of corrections made by the Sopherim. Note that in all the instances included in the S-Mekh only one pattern of alterations of the text is involved, namely, the replacement of one grammatical person (when referring to God) by another (for Num. xii 12 see n. 4 above).

The notation about kinna hakkdtub presumes a Scriptural stylistic convention allowing Scripture to say, for example, "My people exchanged his glory" (er. ii 11), and the reader aware of this convention will understand that the meaning is actually 'my ( = God's) glory", in exactly the same manner as Scripture can, when the object is God, substitute "bless" for "blaspheme" or "abuse the enemies of the Lord" for "abuse the Lord". This usage of the third

90




person instead of the first or second when a malediction or the like is uttered is common in rabbinical language. Their tendency, then, to find such disguised language in biblical phrases as well is com- prehensible.

I think that there is no need, therefore, to explain the term kinna hakkdtub other than by its prescriptive meaning, "Scriptural cir- cumlocution" or "euphemism" (see n. 5 above); nor is there any need to treat it as a veil to hide another meaning, such as "correc- .tion of the sacred text".

As for the question why the T.S. list did not include euphemisms such as "bless", "enemies of the Lord": the original author of the "list" never intended to make a comprehensive list of the euphemisms in the Bible. R. Judah explained the one biblical passage, "he that touches you touches the apple of his eye", by interpreting "his eye" as "my eye", and then the Rabbis offered as proof texts several similar instances of euphemisms, employing the same technique, i.e. altering the grammatical person. The cases mentioned above of "bless", etc. do not belong to the category of change of grammatical person; nor does the "suspended nun", which is, in fact, an obvious case of emendation.

From the incorporation of the case of 1 Sam. iii 13 among the illustrations, we may infer that the "original indelicate phrase" which was replaced by ldhem, "themselves", of the MT was, according to authors of the list, 1i, "me".48 Their observation has nothing to do with the alleged actual emendation of the probable original reading meqalelzm helohzm, "cursing God", attested by xaoxoXoyouvTro 0e6v in the LXX. They were undoubtedly unaware of such a reading since, had they been aware of it, this case would not have passed muster.49 In addition, I doubt whether the MT reading "cursing themselves" is indeed a deliberate theological correction of "cursing God". According to the custom reflectred in 1 Kgs xxi 10, 13: Job i 5, 11, ii 5, 9;50 and often in post-biblical

48 As in some of the sources. See McCarthy, pp. 77-8. Qimhi is misquoted (p. 78) as if saying that it was "la'e". His words, "as he-the writer-did not want to say: 'To God (la'dl) blessed be He' ", use Rabbinical-not biblical-language and are not the exact literal reconstruction of the original text.

49 Contrast McCarthy, p. 78. See also n. 51 below. 50 Cf. also Ps. x 3, where ni'es seems to be an explanatory gloss to brk. The

LXX, in the enlarged passage of Job ii 9, which renders barek elohim wdmut, sitc6v xt piFLa s~ x'ptov, "say something against the lord", seems to be an "improve-

91



MOSHE A. ZIPOR

literature, the correction would have been carried out by "conver- ting" "curse" into "bless". The present reading in the MT is probably "an accidental corruption resulting from the omission of an )alep" ()lh[y]m thus becoming Ihm) (cf. McKane, p. 61).

The use of Cdlay in Job vii 20 instead of Caleykd was also understood by the author of the "original list" as a euphemism of the same kind, i.e. the alteration of grammatical person.51

R. Joshua b. Levi, on the other hand, deals only with the single case of "his eye" in Zech. ii 12, which he considers a tiqqun soperim (perhaps because he knew the variant "my eye").52 He does not refer to any other case from the "list", nor to any other instances. Had he thought that there were other emendations, he certainly would not have failed to label them tiqqun s6perfm, words which allegedly R. Judah had not dared to mention explicitly. In the same manner, the same argument can be made for R. Simon b. Pazzi and his statement about Gen. xviii 22 (see p. 83 above).

In order to explain why the few cases compiled as addenda to R. Judah's logion were shifted from the realm of "euphemisms" (viz. formulation) to that of emendations, it should be borne in mind that, although the views of R. Judah and of R. Joshua b. Levi on Zech. ii 12 (the point of reference for both of them) are entirely different, namely, euphemism according to R. Judah and emendation according to R. Judah, their interpretations remain identical: the meaning of "his eye" in this context being actually "my eye", and the reason that "my eye" is not found in the text being from a sense of reverence towards God's honour. The Rabbis who antedated the Tanhuma were misled by this interpretative agreement into think- ing that the difference between the two Rabbis was in formulation only, and that kinna hakkdtub and tiqqun soperim were identical in meaning (an opinion expressed by mediaeval sources).53 The term

ment" of a Hebrew Vorlage qll, "curse". It may be, however, an interpretation of brk in the context; cf. the rendering at i 5.

51 As opposed to McCarthy (p. 162), who defines this case and 1 Sam. iii 13 as well as deliberate corrections by "omission of a letter within a word", and on the same grounds she finds a relationship with the phenomenon of )al tiqre.

52 See n. 40 above. I stress again that this view of R. Joshua b. Levi and the question whether the reference was a true emendation are two separate issues.

53 The fact that in the transmission of R. Judah's homily the name of the author has often been omitted (e.g. editions of Sifre) has contributed to the confusion between the two distinct interpretations. It is significant that in a 14th-century anthology (Yalkut Makhiri to Ps. cx, ed. S. Buber [Berdyczew, 1899], p. 184) the first passage from the T.S. list of Mekhilta is cited thus:

92




tiqqun s6perim was afterwards applied to the other references appended to R. Judah's logion, and the way was opened for the inclusion of new members into the list, some of which had hitherto not qualified as kinna hakkdtub but as tiqqunim.

Note that, although R. Judah himself refers to Gen. xviii 22 and interprets it to refer to the Lord waiting for Abraham (Leviticus Rabba xi 5), he does not describe it as kinna hakkdtub. He possibly considered this case as a theological correction, although he does not use the term tiqqun s6perfm, which probably did not exist in his time. This can, no doubt, explain why this case, which is mentioned by R. Judah himself, was not included among the additional illustrations for R. Judah's logion in S-Mekh. It was introduced only when the group of illustrations was considered as tiqqune s6perfm (i.e. since the Tanhuma).

A later innovation which has misled both mediaeval and modern scholars is the coining of the term kinnuye s6perim, taken as a synonym for tiqqane soper'm (see also n. 66 below). This term is, as a matter of fact, a hybrid form of kinna hakkdtub and tiqqun s6per^m. This combined expression emerged in late sources such as the addition to Diqdaqe ha.ttecdmfm (p. 81 above). Note that the wording of the Geniza fragment (n. 25 above) is binnuye (= kinnuye') ketubin.54

It is in the nature of "lists" to expand,55 reaching out, as it were, and recruiting similar expressions into the list. In keeping with the interpretation of "his honour" in Jer. ii 11, as replacing "my honour", later Sages applied the same type of interpretation to Hos. iv 7.56 Once the demarcation of the original collection of illustrations had been breached, the door was open for all kinds of references until finally a limitation of "eighteen" was imposed. At this stage the "collection" of T.S. was not only additional illustrations of Zech. ii 12, but began to acquire an independent existence

He who touches you is as if he touches the apple of my eye; it was corrected to "the apple of his eye"; that is to teach you, that whoever rises up against Israel, it is as if he rises up against the Shekhinah.

54 Similarly quoted by R. Eliahu Mizrahi in his comment on Num. xi 15; kinnuy kettubn.

55 Two biblical examples are the various lists of the utensils of the Tabernacle and the Temple (see, e.g.,JSS 26 [1981], pp. 16-20); Isa. xl 20 in the MT and in 1QIsa.

56 This reference is absent from S-Mekh and from Ms. 44 of Tanhuma (on which see p. 100 below).

93



MOSHE A. ZIPOR

as a "list" arranged according to the order of the biblical books (so in various Masoretic notations and in Qirqisani; the latest source that follows the construction of S-Mekh is the Tanhuma).

This also explains why a case such as "and they condemned Job" (Job xxii 3), which, according to the T.S. tradition, replaces "they condemned the Lord", could not be part of the S-Mekh, but did penetrate the mediaeval T.S. lists. Of course, it is possible that the difficulty in this passage had been overlooked, but there are two other possible explanations for the exclusion of Job xxxii 3 from the original examples:

(a) Though considered a euphemism, it was not a grammatical change and was therefore not included.

(b) Although we have only two extant explicit notations in old sources of references being tiqqun s6perfm, that of R. Simon (on Gen. xviii 22), and that of R. Joshua b. Levi (on Zech. ii 12), possibly Job xxxii 3, too, had been considered as another tiqqan soperim, and, as such, was included in the T.S. list only after this list had been recorded as tiqqune soperzm (viz. since the Tanhuma).

This latter explanation seems to me to be the more probable for the following reasons: whenever the stylistic convention of euphemism is used, it must be comprehended by the discerning reader who is able to grasp the true meaning of the particular biblical expression. This, however, is not the case with Job xxxii 3. The text does not read, e.g., "and they declared themselves57 (or "the enemies of the Lord" etc.) to be in the wrong", which, according to the convention, would actually mean: "and they declared the Lord to be in the wrong". The present wording of Job xxxii 3 does not make the reader understand that, in fact, the text means God himself, and one is liable to understand is literally: "for they had found no answer, and yet had condemned Job" (or "they caused Job to behave like a wicked man", if we take the hiph. rs' to be

causative).58 This reference, therefore, cannot be considered a euphemism. But if the Sages deemed that the present wording actually referred to God, they undoubtedly considered it a result of

57 For such a euphemistic formulation cf. e.g. B. Gittin 56b. 58 Such interpretations, indeed, are to be found in the commentaries. Accord-

ing to another interpretation the negation lo6 in the first part of the verse refers also to the second part: "and, therefore, they did not declare Job to be in the wrong"; cf. the literature at McCarthy, pp. 115 ff., esp. at n. 284. The same extension of lo' is also in v. 9.

94



THE EIGHTEEN TIQQUNE S6PERIM

theological correction, intended to conceal the real meaning of the text: not the Lord (as originally) was convicted, but Job.59 Once the list had begun to be considered tiqqu2ne sdperzm, viz. emendations, this case could be added to it. On the other hand, such cases as "bless" and "the enemies of the Lord" could not, since they are obviously not emendations.

Qirqisani (ed. L. Nemoy, pp. 151 ff.) is the only one who includes "Will you put out the eyes of those men", Num. xvi 14, as a substitute for "your eyes" in his list of the eighteen T.S. (In ch. XXII, where he discusses each T.S. case in order to prove that actually no changes in the text had been made, this reference is not mentioned.) His reconstruction "your eyes" makes no sense at all, and the original suggestion had certainly been that the present phrase was substituted for the crude "take out our eyes". This is, indeed, how the biblical phrase is interpreted by several exegetes (e.g. Ibn Janah, Rashi) and, in any case, it can be considered a euphemism only if interpreted in this manner. This view originates in Talmudical sources (B. Sotah 1 la), albeit concerning a different subject, viz. "and he will go up out of the land" (Exod. i 10), on which R. Abba b. Kahana remarks: "(they spoke) like a man who is pronouncing a curse against himself but attaches his curse to someone else" (i.e. "we shall have to go up out").60 Such indirect

wording is common in biblical and post-biblical language.61 This

usage is sometimes called kinnuy. Num. xvi 14, however, is not mentioned in any of the other T.S. lists and has nothing to do with the T.S. phenomenon. It is inconceivable that the Sopherim would have changed the text, or even that the author would make a cir- cumlocution to safeguard the dignity of Dathan and Abiram. Here

59 McCarthy, p. 164, provides a parallel A.T. case of "changing one word for another": "do not read wesinnantdm ("teach them diligently"), but rather wesillastdm ("divide them into three"; or probably: "triple them")" (B. Kid- dushin 30a, with reference to Deut. vi 8). As I show in Sinai 100 (1987), p. 715, this passage is corrupt.

60 In B. Sanhedrin 106a the remark of R. Abba b. Kahana refers to Num. xxiv 14. The same explanation is applied by Rashi to Num xvi 14.

61 For examples see McCarthy, p. 174. 1 Sam. xxvi 23 is also cited by Jonah Ibn Janah (p. 311) as an example. Such usage is also present in the New Testa- ment. For a similar practice in the Palestinian Aramaic translation see A. Diez Macho, in Mdlanges D. Barthelemy (Fribourg and G6ttingen, 1981), pp. 61-89. The third person is also used meaning the second person; e.g. B. Sukka 48b "a water- skin will be made of someone's skin" (i.e. your skin).

95



MOSHE A. ZIPOR

Qirqisani or, more probably, his Rabbinical source, which no doubt interpreted Num. xvi 14 as "our eyes", fell into error. Not only had he failed to distinguish what he supposed were emendations from euphemisms by the author, but he also did not see the difference between a euphemism imposed by the author (kinnd hakkdtub) and cases where the speaker, not the author, had chosen euphemistic wording (kinney) to express his intention,62 with Scrip- ture merely quoting him. The latter must be the case with Num. xvi 14. One is entitled to believe that Jeremiah (ii 11) or Habakkuk

(i 12) or Moses (Num. xi 15)63 had uttered expressions offensive to God's dignity and that Scripture reformulated them, but one would not expect Scripture to soften words of calamity uttered by Dathan and Abiram against themselves. Hence, the softened formulation can be attributed only to the person speaking at the time of the action, and not to the literary stage. The same lack of discrimina- tion is found in modern scholars who seem to be unaware of the distinction between these several types of euphemisms.64 Thus, McCarthy, when differentiating between "original euphemisms" of the author and "secondary euphemisms" (which actually are emendations; see p. 84 above), includes also "with the heads of those men" (meaning "our heads", viz. of the Philistines; 1 Sam. xxix 4),65 as well as Num. xvi 14, among the cases of "original euphemisms".66 Here again Scripture is merely quoting the Philistines' own words. It is most unlikely that the Philistines would

62 Which the term "original euphemism" (p. 84 above) would suit best; see below.

63 Perhaps also Zechariah (ii 12); see p. 87 above. 64 Obviously also other mediaeval scholars, such as Ibn Janah, ch. 27 (28) of

Sefer haRiqmah and apparently Rashi (Ex. i 10), who concluded the explanation with the words: "so that is as though Scripture wrote 'and we shall have to go up out' ". Rashi at 2 Sam. xii 14; Job i 5 commented: "it is a kinnay"; but at 1 Sam. xx 16, "the enemies of David" (which is equally not a member of the T.S. list), he writes: kinnd hakkdtub. Also R. Eliah Mizrahi (cited by McCarthy, p. 40, n. 71) makes no distinction between the terms. Not so Lieberman; see below.

65 Cf. the parallel text 1 Chron. xii 20. This is, of course, a rewriting of 1 Sam. xxix 4, not its "indelicate" predecessor.

66 McCarthy, pp. 179-2, 195. On p. 181, n. 86, McCarthy also cites Qimhi who comments of 1 Sam. xxix 4: " 'Those men' is a kinndy in place of themselves". But Qimhi does not say kinnd hakkdtub; the kinndy had been employed by the Philistines. McCarthy uses the term kinnuzyim frequently, without making any distinction between kinnd hakkdtuzb and kinndy. See esp. pp. 169-70 and n. 9, where she writes, erroneously: "The term kinnuy is present in ... the Siphre, Mekhilta..." The fact is that these sources use the term kinna hakkdttb exclusively.

96



THE EIGHTEEN TIQQUNE S6pERfM

use harsh expressions of calamity against themselves, and that Scripture would change their own expression in order to protect their dignity. Such cases of "self-euphemism" must, therefore, not be jumbled together with euphemisms imposed by the text, but should be listed in a separate category.

Two T.S. cases deserve particular attention: (a) ()fs) le'ohdleykd/le)ohdldyw, "to his tents", which, according to

the T.S. tradition, replaces le1loheykd/lle1lohyw, "to his gods" in 2 Sam. xx 1; 1 Kgs xii 16; 2 Chron. x 16. This case already appears in the Mekhilta of R. Ishmael, and the euphemism is achieved not by a change of grammatical persons, which is-as argued above- the common feature of the original references, but through a metathesis of letters. This item, however, is not a part of the original set of kinnd hakkatutb cases, but originates in a homily of 'al- tiqre:67 "do not read le'ohdleykd, "to your tents", but rather le)loheykd, "to your gods".68 Note that this item does not appear in Sifre, nor in Ms. Vatican 44 of Tanhuma, which apparently contains an older version of the Tanhuma T.S. list (see Appendix C). Moreover, it is evident that the version in Mekhilta had been con- taminated by later interpolations. For example, the "reconstruction" of the alternative expression in Num. xii 12, which is the only one included in the Mekhilta of R. Ishmael69 (except for Zech. ii 12 which is the subject of the exegesis), does not appear in the T.S. passage of Sifre (nor in Ms. 44 of Tanhuma), but it does appear in a different section of Sifre Numbers, 105 (p. 103; see also below). This proves that the version in the known manuscripts and editions of Mekhilta has absorbed additions from later origins.

(b) The case of Num. xii 12 is extraordinary in that it is the only T.S. not concerned with the honour of God but with that of Moses

67 One manuscript on Midrash Shemuel (ed. S. Buber [Cracow, 1893], p. 42); Yalk. II, 1006; Rashi and Qimhi on Hos. iii 5; cf. McCarthy, pp. 85 ff. The homily is attributed to R. Simeon b. Yohai (ca. 130-160 C.E.). McCarthy (pp. 163-4) finds significance in the fact that the traditions record these biblical references both as a T.S. case and as an A.T. case, being "the clearest point of direct overlapping of the two phenomena". See however p. 86 above.

68 McCarthy, pp. 90, 142, as opposed to Geiger, p. 316. But her explanation that the reference was labelled as a tiqqun in order to hide the idolatrous implica- tion of the A.T. homily (pp. 90, 142, 164) is hardly conceivable. A mistaken mechanical shift from A.T. phase to T.S. phase is more probable.

69 Cf. Barnes, p. 392. The version in Mekhilta of R. Simeon b. Yohai is abridged; see Appendix B.

97



MOSHE A. ZIPOR

and Aaron. Lieberman (p. 32) solved this case through another source (Sifre Zuta, ed. H.S. Horovitz, p. 277) where this passage concerning the "real" intention of "his mother" and "his flesh" continues with the following (English translation by Lieberman):

From here R. Eleazar b. Simeon concluded that if a person has to mention something (unpleasant) with reference to himself, he should word it as if it referred to someone else.

"From here", according to Lieberman, refers to Aaron's own words. They are, therefore, a euphemism employed by Aaron himself, and not by Scripture. Nevertheless, the compilers of S- Mekh placed this instance in the category of euphemisms prescribed by Scripture.70

This explanation, on the face of it, seems both reasonable and possible. But one may contend that in other T.S. cases Scripture only quotes exactly the euphemistic turn of speech of Moses, Jeremiah, Zechariah and others (actually, God's own phraselogy). If the criterion is such that "self-euphemism" is as acceptable as "Scripture euphemisms", where are the other cases of the same type like Exod. i 10; Num. xvi 14 (so Qirqisani) and 1 Sam. xxix 5?

Another interpretation, no less convincing, is that the words "from here" refer to Scripture, which took pains to improve Aaron's "improper" turn of speech, even though in this case it was only the honour of a man of God, and not God himself, that was involved.71 On the other hand, the rabbis certainly did not believe that the euphemisms in instances such as Exod. i 10; 1 Sam. xxix 4 were prescribed by Scripture.

Conclusion

The tradition concerning eighteen tiqqune sodperm, with its textual implications, has its genesis in a literary phenomenon. It began its life as a small group of illustrations of original euphemisms made by the biblical authors (kinna hakkdtub), where a change of personal

70 McCarthy (p. 126, n. 315) seems not fully to reflect Lieberman's argument. 71 One is tempted to explain this T.S. as interpreting the words of Aaron 'al-nda

tehi in the second person masculine (referring to Moses) similarly to the expression 'al-na' taset (v. 11), seeing the present text as replacing "your coming out of your mother's womb ... your flesh". Note, however, that the reconstruction "our mother", "our flesh" is already present in Sifre Numbers cv (p. 103).

98



THE EIGHTEEN TIQQUNE SO6ERIM

suffix was used. These were the examples of a particular biblical stylistic usage, identified in the 3rd century by R. Judah. Through an erroneous mediaeval interpretation, this group was identified with the phenomenon of scribal emendation (tiqqun sdperim). As a result, other biblical passages, which were considered to be scribal emendations, together with some other types of euphemism, were added, until the present form of Masoretic "eighteen tiqquine s6perfm" took shape.

Appendix A: The "eighteen" cases of T. S.

One of the most common lists is the one in Okhlah we-Okhlah, Ms. Paris, no. 158 (ed. S. Frensdorff [Hannover, 1864], p. 113, no. 168). It contains the following "Eighteen words, corrected by Ezra": Gen. xviii 22, "but Abraham stood yet before the Lord", where (according to this tradition) it should have been "the Lord stood yet before Abraham"; Num. xi 15 (where it should have been "that I may not see thy evil"); Num. xii 12 ("our mother's womb" and "our flesh"); 1 Sam. iii 13 ("his sons curse me"); 2 Sam. xvi 12 ("The Lord will look with his eye"); 1 Kgs xii 16, and similarly at 1 Chron. x 16 ("everyone to his gods", i.e. his idols); Jer. ii 11 ("has changed my glory"); Ezek. vii 17 ("to my nose"); Hos. iv 7 ("my glory", intending to say, no doubt, "my glory they have changed into shame"); Hab. i 11 ("thou shalt not die", or "thou diest not"); Zech. ii 12 ("toucheth the apple of my eye"); Mal. i 13 ("and ye sniff at me"); Ps. cvi 20 ("they changed my glory"); Job vii 20 ("I have become a burden unto thee"), and xxxii 3, ("they have condemned the Judge", i.e. the Lord); Lam. iii 19 ("thy soul will mourn over me").

In some sources the case of Num. xii 12 refers only to the first phrase; others consider "its flesh" as a separate case; some also count the second occurrence "to his tents" ("and they went...") at 1 Kgs xii 16 and 1 Chron. x 16 as a separate case, or they record 2 Sam. xx 1 instead of i Kgs xii 16. In some sources, Mal. i 12, "profaned it" (standing for "me") replaces Mal. i 13. This paragraph in Okhlah we-Okhlah appears only in Ms. Paris, but not in Ms. Halle.

In some sources there are also other references. In instance of qobecim (Mal. iii 8?, 9?), mentioned in the

Masorah magna in the Petropolitan Codex of the Prophets (see p.

99



MOSHE A. ZIPOR

79 above), is obscure. This codex hints at each reference by a single catchword and offers no "reconstruction". The Masorah parva notation at Mal. iii is in the margin opposite v.8. In list no. 104 of Ginsburg's Masorah (II, p. 710) v. 8 is clearly meant. In the Cairo Codex of the Prophets the Mp notation is opposite v. 9. (Of course, the position of the notation by the scribe does not necessarily reflect real understanding, or any tradition.) Geiger (p. 314) and Ginsburg, Introduction (p. 363), think that this catchword refers to ne'drim, "you have been cursed" (v. 9), the original reading of which was me)drerzm, "you have cursed", and the object was "me", mentioned later. This interpretation is not satisfactory, since this codex in all the other cases either points out the relevant word itself (which should have been done in the present case as well) or mentions a catchword which hints at the verse, where the word under discussion is in the continuation of the verse and not in a preceding part of it. According to Diez Merino (p. 36) the alleged "original" reading was coqebim in both v. 8 and v. 9 (cf. BHS and Prov. xxii 23). This view also imposes the same tiqqu2n on the other occurrences of qb¢ in these verses. Pace Diez Merino, the rendering of the Targum is exegetical (cf. Onkelos at Lev. xxiv 11) and does not presuppose a reading coqebfm.

For other T.S. references see below. In modern scholarship the term tiqqu2n is sometimes employed for additional verses that have not been included in the lists, and they are explained as theological emendations (see e.g. Fishbane, p. 69, n. 10).

Appendix B. The T.S. List in Mekhilta of R. Simeon bar Yohai

The missing page from Epstein-Melamed's edition has recently been discovered in the Taylor-Schechter (Genizah) Collection in Cambridge University Library (T-S A.S. 77.27) and is published by M. Kahana, "Another Page from the Mekhilta of R. Simeon b. Yohai", 'Alei Sefer 15 (1988/9), pp. 5-20. Here is the translation of the relevant section (the restorations are according to Kahana):

<... and so y > ou say "Surely < he that touches you" > etc. (Zech. ii 12); R. <J >udah says: "The ap <pie of the eye"-it does not say here > but "The a < pple of his eye > "; Scriptu < re >, ho < w > ever, modified the expression. In like manner y<ou interprete the passage: "You say also: Be>hold, what a weariness is it and you sniff at it" (Mal. i 13); Scripture, however, modified the expression.

100




In like manner you intrerpret the passage: "Why hast thou set me as a mark for thee?" (ob vii 20); Scripture, however, modified the expression. And <so on up to (?)> "Let her not be as one dead" (Num. xii 12). So also here in the interpretation of the passage "Surely he that touches <you touches the app>le of his eye" R. Judah says: "The apple of his eye"-Scripture is referring to the One above; Scripture, <however>, modified the expression.

And if one helps Israel ... (etc.)

Appendix C: The List in Tanhuma Ms. Vatican 44

In contrast to the current version pertaining to our subject in Tanhuma, as found in most manuscripts and editions, Ms. Vatican 44 has a shorter version, free from later additions which penetrated the other manuscripts, as follows:

"Surely he that touches you touches the apple of his eye"; it is a tiqqun soperlm, as "his eye" does not refer to the One above. In like manner you say also: "behold, what a weariness is it, and you sniff at it, says the Lord"; Scripture, however, modified the expression (kinnd hakkdtub). In like manner, "His sons curse themselves, but he did not reproach them"; Scripture, however, modified the expression. In like manner...

Here follow the cases of Job vii 20; Hab. i 11; Gen. xviii 22; Num. xi 15, xii 12 (both "its mother" and "its flesh"; the alleged "original" phrase is not mentioned); Lam. iii 19; 2 Sam. xvi 12. None of the "reconstructions" is added. The cases of 2 Sam. xx 1/1 Kgs xii 16 and 2 Chron. x 16 and Ezek. viii 17 do not appear, nor does the conclusion about the deeds of the Men of the Great Assembly, which appears in other manuscripts and editions of the Tanhuma.

Sigla and works cited

A.T. = )al tiqre; RSV= Revised Standard Version; NEB = The New English Bible (Cambridge, 1970); Mm = Masora magna; Mp = Masora parva; T.S. = tiqqun soperzm.

The following works are referred to only by author and, where necessary, date: W.E. Barnes, "Ancient Corrections in the Text of the Old Testament", JTS 1 (1899-1900), pp. 387-414; D. Bar-

101



MOSHE A. ZIPOR

thelemy, "Les Tiqqune Sopherim et la critique textuelle de 1'Ancient Testament", SVT 9 (1963), pp. 285-304 (reprinted and brought up to date in Etudes d'histoire du texte de l'Ancien Testament (Fribourg and G6ttingen, 1978), pp. 91-110, 282-90 (the citations in the present article are from SVT); A.J. Brawer, "Corrections in Scriptures and in its Ancient Translations", Beth Mikra 18 (1973), pp. 431-48; L. Diez Merino, "Los Tiqqune Soferim et la Tradi- ci6n Targumica", in G.J. Norton and S. Pisaro (ed.), Tradition of the Text: Studies Offered to Dominique Barthilemy in Celebration of his 70th Birthday (Fribourg and G6ttingen, 1991), pp. 18-44; M. Fishbane, Biblical Interpretation in Ancient Israel (Oxford, 1985); A. Geiger, Urschrift und Uebersetzungen der Bibel (Breslau, 1857); C.D. Ginsburg, Introduction to the Masoretico-Critical Edition of the Hebrew Bible (Lon- don, 1897); R.P. Gordon (Review of McCarthy), VT 32 (1982), pp. 358-62; Jonah IbnJanah, Kitab al-lumac (Sefer haRiqmah), in M. Wilensky's second edition of Yehuda Ibn Tibbon's translation (Jerusalem, 1964); B. Keller, "Fragment d'un traite d'exegese massoretique", Textus 5 (1966), pp. 60-83; S. Lieberman, Hellenism in Jewish Palestine (New York, 1950); C. McCarthy, The Tiqqune Sopherim and Other Theological Corrections in the Masoretic Text of the Old Testament (Fribourg and G6ttingen, 1981); W. McKane, "Obser- vations on the Tikkune Sopherim", in M. Black and W.A. Smalley (ed.), On Language, Culture and Religion: in Honor of Eugene A. Nida

(The Hague and Paris, 1974), pp. 53-77; E.Z. Melamed, "Tiq- qune Sopherim and Kinnfye Sopherim in the Book of Job", Hod Yosef: in memoriam of Joseph Shlush (Jerusalem, 1966), pp. 33-8 (reprinted in Mehqdrim bammiqrda betargumdw ubimepdrsdw [Jerusalem, 1984], pp. 84-9); M.H. Segal, Mevo hammiqra) IV (Tel-Aviv, 1950); E. Tov, review of McCarthy, JOR, NS 73 (1983), pp. 284-7.

102



some notes on the origin of the tradition of the eighteen tiqqune soperim

Documents