The Masorahof the

Hebrew BibleA Six Week introductory Course Taught

byTim Hegg

TORAHRESOURCE.COM

An Introductionto the

Masorah of the Hebrew Bible

byTim Hegg

©2003 Tim HeggAll Rights Reserved

This material may not be copied or reproduced in any fashionwithout the express, written consent of the author.

For information contact:thegg@torahresource.com

or write:TorahResource.com • 4105 N 25th St • Tacoma WA 98406

1-800-508-3566

ContentsGeneral Introduction ........................................................................................................................... 4

The Masorah of the Leningrad Codex (L) ......................................................................................... 6

How the Masorah Parva Works .......................................................................................................... 8

Masorah Parva Notes with Superscript Arabic Numbers ................................................................ 12

Qere/Ketiv Markings in the Masorah ............................................................................................... 15

History of the Masorah...................................................................................................................... 16

Masoretic Terminology in the Talmud .............................................................................................. 16

The Beginning of the Masoretic Period ............................................................................................ 18

Individual Masoretes ......................................................................................................................... 19

The Ben Asher Family ....................................................................................................................... 19

The Ben Naphtali Family .................................................................................................................. 21

Independent Masoretic Treatises ...................................................................................................... 22

The End of the Masoretic Era ........................................................................................................... 22

Continuation of Work on the Masorah ............................................................................................. 23

Most Important Hebrew Manuscripts of the Masoretes .................................................................. 25

Traditions of the Scribes .................................................................................................................... 28

Orthography (traditions relating to the actual script or writing) ..................................................... 28

Irregularities other than Orthography.............................................................................................. 31

Plates of various manuscripts ........................................................................................................... 36

Examples of Masoretic Extra Marks (Puncta Extraordiaria) ......................................................... 41

Studies in Texts .................................................................................................................................. 43

4

General Introduction

Before we can delve into the history and use of the Masorah ofthe Hebrew Bible, and the Masoretes who created it, we need somebasic understanding of terms and issues. The word “masorah” comesfrom the word מסר, “to deliver, transmit.” The word סורתמ , masoretmeans “a chain of tradition,” “that which is transmitted from onegeneration to the next.” Thus, the Masorah of the Hebrew Bible is thefinal written record of the scribes, noting various aspects of thewritten text as they had received it, and how it therefore should becopied and passed to the next generation.

Thus, the Masorah of the Hebrew Bible is essentially the lists ofnotes kept by scribes orally and eventually written down from around600 CE and onward, that deal with specifics of the Hebrew text. It isnot as though the scribes of this era created the lists, but only thatthey wrote down for the first time those traditions which had beenlong-standing among the guild of scribes entrusted with the transmis-sion of the Scriptures. These lists were eventually added to the mar-gins of the pages of the Tanach itself (once the Tanach was put into“book” or codex form), as well as compiled at the end of books oreven at the end of the Tanach as a whole. These notes deal withvarious textual issues, matters of spelling, odd phrases, and generallythose types of things that might give rise to a “correction” whichwould, in fact, introduce an error into the manuscript. They alsoattempted to standardize the text, and therefore to make it useable forpublic reading in the Synagogue.

The obvious purpose for the Masorah was to help scribesmaintain the utmost accuracy in the transmission of the biblical text,and to see that the text was passed to the next generation in exactlythe form in which it was received. It can be seen at once that for thebible exegete, these notes may be invaluable in determining thehistory of the text as well as the proper understanding of its variousparts. While often the masoretic notes deal with minutiae which mayhave relatively little relevance for exegesis, as we shall see, in somecases the Masoretic notes help a great deal in the overall understand-ing and interpretation of the sacred text.

Secondly, we should understand that in reality we cannot speakof “The Masorah.” Nor is the term “Masoretic text” entirely accurate.This is because there is not one Masorah, but many, and likewise, thebiblical text produced by the scribes of the Masoretic period is notmonolithic but diverse. I hasten to note that this diversity is primarilyin very minute details (often in matters of spelling and accentuation).In fact, the study of the Masorah immediately highlights the fact thatwhat may seem the most insignificant detail to the modern reader was

In order for a Scroll to be suitablefor public reading, it couldcontain only the Sacred text ofScripture (though there were afew marks put in other thanletters). Thus, Synagogue Scrollshave never contained the voweland accent markings, nor anynotes or Masorah. These wereadded to the biblical text only forthe bible written for personal useand study, and particularly whenthe codex (book form) becameprevalent.

Masorot were attached to variousmanuscripts, and these reflect theschool of the scribes who pro-duced the manuscript. As such, thevarious masorot do not entirelyagree, and in some cases are quitedivergent.

5

a matter of great concern to the scribes. Yet even in spite of the factthat the minutiae often constitute the distinctive character of a scribaltradition, it is clear that there was more than one text type beingcirculated and copied during the Masoretic era. As such, it is techni-cally a misnomer to refer to the “Masoretic text” as though theMasoretes produced a monolithic text type. In reality, they did not.

So then how did it become so common, even among scholars,to refer to “the Masoretic Text” (often abbreviated MT)? This was theresult of the publication of the Hebrew Bible in modern times whichbecame the standard for scholarly work. Through the selection of aprimary manuscript to serve as the basis for the modern editions, itbecame easy to refer to that text as “the Masoretic Text,” when in factit was actually but one representation of the work of the Masoretes(even if it was considered the work of the majority, and generallyrepresentative of the whole).

Thirdly, we must remember that there were a number of factorswhich converged to bring about the need for a standardization of theHebrew text, and these factors had some influence on the manner inwhich the standardization process took place. There was the demiseof Hebrew as a living, spoken language within the Jewish communi-ties. Hebrew had become relegated to the Synagogue and was viewedas the language of sacred events. While surely there were those whomaintained Hebrew as a common language, the vast majority ofpeople within the Jewish communities had either the tongue of theirregion as a mother tongue, or were speaking some combination ofHebrew and the local language (e.g., note the later Yiddish andLadino). Therefore, the need to graphically represent the vowel andaccent marks, which had been developed along several schema,needed to be standardized so that the reading of the Torah in theSynagogue could remain a viable part of the community’s life. ButHebrew, like all languages, had evolved since the time of the ancientscribes, and spellings, idioms, pronunciations, and various othergrammatical matters had introduced diversity into the text as localcustoms, dialects, and traditions exerted their own individual influ-ences and nuances.

To the linguistic factors must be added the sociological ones.The Jewish community had survived the rise of the Christian Church,but not without much persecution. In the midst of being marginalizedby the diaspora communities among whom they dwelt, the Jewishpeople were constantly fighting for self-definition and survival as adistinct people group. The Tanach, and particularly the Torah, was theanchor point for Jewish identity (as well as the Oral Torah whichdefined and interpreted the Written text of the Scriptures). One cantherefore understand why the need for standardization of the text was

6

felt to be all that much more pressing in such a sociological climate.

The Masorah of the Leningrad Codex (L)

Below is a page from the Leningrad Codex, showing Exodus 12:13b-12:43a. This wasscanned from the facsimile edition published by Eerdmans/Brill. The biblical text is in three columns(the first column is only partially showing), with the Masorah parva ( הנטקסורה המה ) in the marginsbetween columns. The Masorah magna ( הדלגרה הסמ(ה is at the top and bottom of the page. Note thecorresponding page from BHS and the manner in which the Masorah is represented..

Sedarim marking,noting the begin-ning of a section inthe triennial cycle

Masorah magna

Masorah magna

Masorahparva in themarginsof the columns

Fig. 1

Ex. 12:21

7

Ex. 12:21Masorah parva inoutside margin of thepage

Sedarim marking,noting the begin-ning of a section inthe triennial cycle.BHS adds [י],meaning “10”—this is the 10th ofthe sedarim inExodus.

Cross-referenceto the Masorahmagna inMesorah Gedolah

Critical apparatus noting variantsbetween manuscripts, etc.

Fig. 2

Setumah: closedsection

Petuchah: opensection

This is a page from Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia (abbreviated BHS). Note the singlecolumn, the Masorah parva in the outside margin of the page; references to the Masorahmagna at the bottom of the page (which direct the reader to Weil’s Mesorah Gedolah), andthe critical apparatus at the very bottom of the page which gives details relating to variantsamong manuscripts and versions, suggested emendations, etc.

8

How the Masorah Parva Works

The abbreviated notes of the Masorah parva are in the marginsbetween columns of L. The note itself is put adjacent to the line towhich it refers, and a small circle (circule) is placed above the wordor phrase to which the note refers.

The ל with a dot over itstands for לא אית,“Unique, occurs onlyonce,” indicating that theword or phrase occursonly here in exactly thisform.

Note the raised circule ineach of the lines toindicate to which of thewords or phrases thenotes refer.

A similar schema is employed by BHS to reference the notes inthe Masorah parva. A circule indicates the word or phrase to which thenote is attached.

Fig. 3

Fig. 4

There are a number of possibilities when considering the notesof the Masorah parva and how they are reckoned with words orphrases. The note could reference a single word, or a phrase, or aword within a phrase, or a phrase within a phrase. The manner ofmarking these units can be somewhat confusing, so the reader mustpay close attention.

1. Marking a single word: the circule will be over the word towhich the note refers. The note will be in the outside marginof the page, adjacent to the line in which the word occurs.Fig. 4 above is an example of a single word marked withcircule, with the Masoretic note, ל (meaning “only here”)adjacent to the line. Note that the ל has a suspended dot overit. All Hebrew letters with suspended dots indicate that it iseither an abbreviation (as in this case) or represents a number.

.

9

2. More than one note per line of text: often there are severalnotes per line, meaning that a number of words or phrases inthat line are being commented upon. The Mp notes in themargin are separated by a period, and are in the order inwhich the circuli occur in the line. Note Gen 28:22 (p. 44 inBHS)—

Fig. 5

In this example, the first word, רשע is attached to the note בwith suspended dot, meaning “2,” or this word is found only 2times in this exact form. The second word, שעא�רנ is attachedto the second note, ל with suspended dot, meaning that thisexact form occurs only here.

3. A phrase or word combination: Sometimes the note in theMp refers to a phrase or word combination within the line. Inthe case of a phrase, it is marked with a circule between eachof the words in the phrase. Thus, the number of circuli willvary depending upon how many words are in the phrase. Notethe example in Gen 29:35 (p. 46 in BHS)—

Fig. 6

The first note of the Mp (ל) refers to the phrase ההוי–תא–אודה ,marked by circuli between each word of the phrase. Thesecond note (ג) refers to the word הקרא .

4. A word within a phrase: Sometimes there is a note in theMp for a phrase, but there is a second note referring to asingle word within this phrase. This can get a little confusingif one is not careful! But remember the basic rules: the notesin the Mp will be separated by a period. Thus, the reader isaware of how many words or phrases to look for in the par-ticular line by counting the number of notes in the margin. (Ifthere are more notes than space allows, notes will be put in

10

Note that in the first line of the page, there are three Mpnotes (the third note is on a second line since there was notsufficient room in the margin). The first note, 12ה (disregardthe superscript 12 for now) relates to the first word of theline, ןמשי�ע , since the first circule is directly over this word.The second note, 13יז שמיעה לקול is attached to the two wordphrase ן למשי�ךקלע since the second circule is between the twowords, marking it as a phrase. The third Mp note, ב חס, relatesto the word ךקלל since the third circule is over this word. (Wewill learn the meaning of these various Mp notes later.)

5. A phrase or word combination within a phrase: At times,the Mp note will reference a phrase or word combinationwithin a phrase. If the phrase is a shorter component withinthe larger phrase, then the larger phrase will be marked withcirculi between the words, and the shorter phrase will bemarked by a second circule between the first two words ofthe phrase and extending to the end of the larger phrase. NoteIsaiah 3:15 (p. 680 in BHS) as an example;

12 Fig. 8

The third line of this example has four circuli: the first (be-tween the word םאנ and ידנא ) and the fourth following theTetragrammaton, ההוי . These mark the phrase ההוי ידנא–םאנ

אותבצ as a unit. Note, however, that there are two circulibetween the words ידנא and ההוי , indicating that this marks thebeginning of a second phrase, אותבה צהוי ידנא . The two Mp

the next line down.) Now, to mark a word within a markedphrase, once again the circule will be put over the word,while the phrase will be marked with circuli between thewords of the phrase. Note Ex 4:9 (p. 91 in BHS) as an exam-ple:

Fig. 7

123

11

notes thus correspond to the two phrases.Unfortunately, there are times when this system of mark-

ing a phrase within a phrase is ambiguous, and leaves thereader with questions. Note, in this regard, Ex 9:8 (p. 99 inBHS):

Fig. 9In the first line of this example, there are two notes in the Mp.There are six circuli in the line, marking out a phrase. Thefirst phrase is רןהא–לאה ושמ–לה אהור יאמיו , noted by a circulebetween the first two words, and a circule between the lasttwo words of the phrase. But there is an additional circulebetween the first two words. If the previous schema is fol-lowed, then the second phrase would be equivalent to the firstphrase, making no sense, since there are two different Mpnotes. We may presume that the second phrase consists ofonly the first two words ( ההור יאמיו ) but there is nothing in theintroduction to BHS which gives instructions about this. (It isof interest that the Mp of L does not contain the second notefound in BHS. Thus, the editors of BHS must have included itfrom another Masorah or from the Masorah finales.)

In the main, however, the schema set forth in BHS is withoutambiguity. At first the student may find it a bit difficult to ascertainwhich Mp notes go with which words or phrases in the line, but itwill be helpful to keep in mind that the Mp notes are separated byperiods, and thus the student should first count the number of notes,realizing that this same number of components should be sought forin the corresponding line. Starting with the first note, the studentshould attempt to pair up each note with its corresponding textualunit.

There is one other possible “bump in the road” when using theMp: a Masoretic accent, the Telisha magnum and the Telisha parvumboth appear as circuli. However, these should be distinguished fromthe circuli used to mark out textual units for the Mp by the fact that(1) the circuli used for the accents have small lines extending from

them ( ™k() rather than the simple circule (k‚); (2) the accents will be

placed at the beginning or end of word, while the circule of the Mpwill be in the middle of a word or between words.

12

Masorah Parva Notes with Superscript Arabic Numbers

The manner in which the BHS incorporates the Masorah magnais through the use of cross-reference numbers as superscript Arabicnumbers attached to notes in the Mp. These superscript numbers havea corresponding number in the footnotes immediately below thebiblical text. When the corresponding footnote has “Mm” (whichstands for Masorah magna), they relate to notes compiled by Weil inhis Masorah Gedolah (Pontificium Institutum Biblicum, 1968).Unfortunately, this work is no longer in print, and is therefore onlyavailable to the student through used book sources or libraries. Whatis more, Weil passed away before finishing his work, and the prom-ised second and third volumes (as noted in the Introduction to BHS)have never appeared. Still, the Masorah Gedolah contains a compila-tion of the Masorah magna from L as well as from other Masorot.

Weil compiled his work from the Masorah Gedolah of L,adding notes from other sources as well as from his own studies. Thenotes of Masorah Gedolah are listed numerically, corresponding tothe numbers of the footnotes in BHS. When Weil thought that anemendation (correction) was necessary, or if he wanted even tosuggest a possible emendation, he put these in square brackets. Un-fortunately, the Introduction to Masorah Gedolah is in French andHebrew, making it difficult for the English speaking student to use.The bulk of the work, however, is straight forward, and with a bit ofpractice, is useable by the English reader.

Fig.10

Fig.11

Fig.12

Page 2 from Weil, Masorah Gedolah

(footnotes in BHS)

1. The Mm references a number in Weil’s Masorah Gedolah:

13

2. Two references to the Mm in the Mp: Occasionally therewill two references in the Masorah magna in a single Masorahparva note. For example, see Genesis 1:1 —

The Mp note that attaches to יתראשב is פ’’ מ2פ וב’’ ר1ה ג .These abbreviations mean: (1) the word יתראשב is found 5times (ה). (2) It occurs 3 times (ג) at the beginning of theverse ( פ’’ג ר ) and 2 times (ב) within a verse ( פ’’וב מ ). Thesuperscript numbers each correspond to the footnote,which direct the reader to the appropriate list in Weil.

Fig.13

Fig.14

Fig.15

(Lists in Weil)

3. Parallel references in the Mm: In the Masorahparva of L it happens often that if the note is ל (meaningthe word or phrase only occurs once), a reference may bealluded to where a similar (but slightly different) unitoccurs. Likewise, if the note is ב, meaning the textual unitunder consideration occurs twice, the parallel reference

may be supplied in the Mp of L. In BHS, these parallel references aresupplied in the Mm. Note, for instance, Gen 24:28 (p. 35 in BHS)—

Fig.16

The Mp note ( 28ב ) attaches to the two word phrase המית אבל , and means that it occurs 2 times. Whenone consults the footnotes, the corresponding note (#28) has “Ru 1,8” which is the other time thisphrase occurs. If one were to go to Ruth 1:8, the reference in Gen 24:28 would be noted.

The same schema obtains for the Mp reference ל, meaning “only once,” when there is aparallel word or phrase which is similar but slightly different. Note in this regard, Gen 32:20where the phrase ינשה–תא has the reference in the footnotes “וחד ואת השני Lv 5,10,” meaning that inLev 5:10 the same phrase ( ינשה–תא ) is found except that it has vav attached.

14

4. Other references in the footnotes: Occasionally the foot-notes of BHS include additional information and references.This is usually not information found in the Masorah magnaof L but facts or notices the editors felt would be helpful tothe reader. Sometimes these note differences between vari-ous Masorot. Of special interest are those times when thefootnotes reference “contra textum” and “sub loco.” “Contratextum” (contrary to the text) would indicate some variationbetween texts or between parallel passages. “Sub loco”indicates that Weil intended to comment on this in a latervolume of his work (a planned volume 3).

For an example of these kinds of references, note Gen33:4 (p. 53 in BHS)—

The word under consideration is צ�ארו (note the circule). TheMp note is 3צואריו printed over ק, which is the sign for Qere/Ketiv (which we will study below). But note also that there isa superscript “3” which sends the reader to the apparatusfootnotes where the information is given: “Q addidi, cf. Gen45:14 et Mp sub loco.” In this note, “Q” stands for Qere andthe Latin “addidi” means “added.” Thus the editor added thisQere even though it was lacking in L. The note further sendsthe reader to Gen 45:14 where another form of צואר occurs,and indicates that Weil apparently intended to commentfurther in his additional notes (sub loco).

Fig.17

Fig.18

Daniel Mynatt has compiled thesub loco notes for the Torah in hiswork, The Sub Loco Notes in theTorah of Biblia HebraicaStuttgartensia (Bibal Press, 1994).These are very helpful, and oneonly wishes such notes wereavailable for the remainder of theTanach.

15

Qere/Ketiv Markings in the Masorah

“Qere” (קרי) is the passive form of the Aramaic verb meaning“read.” Likewise, “Ketiv” ( יבתכ ) is Aramaic for “written.” TheMasoretes developed this system in order to note a different pronun-ciation of a word from what the consonants as they had received themwould indicate. That is, in the tradition of the text as it was handeddown, the actual received pronunciation differed from what the con-sonants would otherwise indicate. Kelley comments:

The Qere/Ketiv notes may very well be the most problematic issue inMasoretic studies, and a tremendous amount of literature has been generatedon the questions involved. No one is certain how these notes originated orwhat was the basis for the difference between the Qere and the Ketiv. Theproblem is complicated by the fact that there is no unified body of Qere/Ketiv notes marked in manuscripts, and there were various methods formarking the notes and the proper pronunciation of the Qere. (Kelley, et al.,The Masorah of BHS, p. 11).

It would seem that at times the Qere/Ketiv record actual variantsthat had entered into the text, while it is clear that at other times theywere included to help the reader in the Synagogue read the text ac-cording to current halachah for public reading.

The method used by the Masoretes was to retain the consonantsof the text but to put the vowels of the Qere with those consonants.Then, in the Mp, the consonants that should be read were printed. Thereader was expected to supply the vowels in the text to the consonantsof the Mp. This is the same schema used by BHS. The Ketiv is re-tained in the text, and the Qere is indicated in the Mp written over theletter ק. Note, for example, Gen. 8:17 (p. 12 in BHS) —

Fig.19The first word with circule in the line is אצוה . The Mp note has

the consonants היצא. Thus, while the Masoretes received the writtentext with vav in this word, they had likewise received the traditionthat it should be pronounced as though written with a yod. Thus, theword in the Mp is written above the letter ק which signals a קרי,Qere, meaning the written vowels in the text are to be used with theconsonants in the Mp. We will look at specific Qere/Ketiv below,noting how these textual issues affect exegesis.

16

History of the Masorah

The transmission of the Biblical text was generally in hands ofscribes ריםסופ who were skilled in the exact copying of the Bible andwere therefore legally recognized as people knowledgeable in theTorah, and who were accomplished scholars of it. The term, which inancient times meant “torah scholar” ( cf. the term ריםרי סופדב ,m.Sanhedrin 11:3), came to mean those who specialized in the writ-ten Torah and in its exact transmission. Some were only transcribers,called ריםלבל (scribe, clerk, librarian). R. Meir was referred to as a

ריםלבל (b.Eruvin 13a). These scribes took as their main interest thepreservation of the sacred text and are accredited with a number ofrules and standards which were established for this purpose.

It is not known exactly who these scribes were, but some of thescholars mentioned in the Talmud are conspicuous by their specialinterest in every legal discussion dealing with the problem of the textof the Bible, its transcription, and its meaning. Some of these are: R.Meir (y.Ta’anit 1:1, cf. 64a; m.Megillah 4:1; b.Eruvin 13a; b.Sota20a), R. Hananel (y.Megillah 1:11; b.Megillah 18b), R. Samuel b.Shilat (y.Megillah 71c, d; b.Bava Batra 8b, 21a; b.Ketuvim 50a).

The name ריםסופ (scribe) came from the activity of counting theletters to assure accuracy, as the Talmud states (b.Kiddushin 30a):“Therefore the ancients were called soferim ( ריםסופ ) because theycounted ( ריםי� סופה ) all the letters of the Torah . . . .”

Regarding the work of the soferim, Dotan writes:

The main point of their work was instruction in the reading of a text lackingvocalization and accentuation signs, and passing this reading on fromgeneration to generation. Since the text was holy it was not permissible toadd anything to the skeleton of the letters of the Bible, and only a small partof what they established as reading aids was noted in the sacred text, that is,the very text which to this day has served for the public reading prescribedby halakah. It can be said that those items which did penetrate into the holytext did so during the very earliest period of its development with the resultthat they too became sanctified. Anything which did not find a place in thetext itself, such as vocalization and the accentuation signs and the variousmasoretic notes, at first had to be transmitted orally, and even when theywere committed to writing they were still not allowed to be introduced intothe sacred text. (EJ, vol. 16, Supplementary entries, column 1405).

Masoretic Terminology in the Talmud

Though the Talmudic era predates that of the Masoretic work,there are many indications that the activity which the Masoretesfinalized was well underway in the earlier period. Some examplesare (1) references to the number of verses in books or sections

17

(b.Kiddushin 30a, though the number disagrees with the Masoretictotals). (2) references to plene (full) and defective spellings (Mid.Rab. Genesis 12:6):

All toledoth found in the Scripture are defective (תלדות instead of תולדות)except two, viz. These are the toledoth (generations) of Perez (Ruth 4:18),and the present instance (Gen 2:4). And why are they defective? R. Judansaid in the R. Abun’s name: The six [which they lack] corresponds to the sixthings which were taken away from Adam, viz., his lustre, his immortality[lit., life], his height, the fruit of the earth, the fruit trees, and the luminaries.

The text goes on to explain how each of the six are based upon othersayings of Scripture. The important point for us, however, is thatthere was already, before the Masoretic era, a conscious effort to listand know the anamolies of the Hebrew text.

(3) There are references to the irregular features of the text,such as the extraordinary points (Sifre Numbers 69), large and smallletters (b. Megillah 16b), and the רי סופע�ריםיט , ’itturei sophrim, theexclusion of vav where it was deemed unnecessary (b. Nedarim 37b-38a).

“. . . afar off on a journey:” ( קהדרך רחב ) There are dots over the letter ה (inindicating that even if someone is on a nearby trip but is unclean, he ,(רחקהwould not carry out the passover offering with them. (Sifre Num 69[9:10])

The text goes on to show many other examples where the dots mark aparticular word, and how such dots above words point to a givenintepretation or hidden meaning.

The Talmudic literature also makes observations on the textemploying terminology which sounds very much like the laterMasoretic notes. (See Yeivin, pp. 132f for examples). Thus, thefoundations of the Masorah were already well established before theactual work of the Masoretes.

Yet it is also clear that in the Talmudic era the text was still notuniform from one community to the next, and wide standardizationwas yet to be accomplished. Apart from the differences alreadynoted between the number of verses listed in the Talmud as overagainst those noted in the Masorah, one of the most celebrated exam-ples of the differences between the two is the fact that the Talmudrefers to Psalm 1 and 2 as a single psalm (b. Berchot 9b-10a), whilethe Masorah of L, for example, treats Psalms 1 and 2 as seperatepsalms.

Since the verse, “May the words of my mouth be acceptable” (Ps 19:15)would serve equally well at the end of the Prayer as much as at the begin-ning, why did rabbis ordain that it was to be said at the end of the Eighteen

18

Blessings [the Prayer]? Why not say it as the beginning? Said R. Judah,son of R. Simeon b. Pazzi, “Since David said that verse only at the end ofeighteen chapters [of Psalms, namely, at the end of Psalm 19], rabbis on thataccount ordained that it should come at the end of the Eighteen Blessings.”But the eighteen Psalms [to which reference has just been made] in fact arenineteen! “Happy is the man” and “Why are the nations in an uproar” (Ps.1:1, 2:1) constitute a single chapter.For R. Judah, son of R.. Simeon b. Pazzi said, “David recited 103 Psalms,and he never said ‘Halleluyah’ until he had witnessed the downfall of thewicked. “For it has been said, ‘Let sinners cease out of the earth, and let thewicked be no more. Bless the Lord, O my soul. Halleluyah’ (Ps 104:3, 5).These 103 Psalms in fact are 104 Psalms.That then yields the inference that “Happy is the man” and “Why are thenations in an uproar” (Ps 1:1, 2:1) constitute a single chapter.For R. Samuel bar Nahmani said R. Yohanan said, “Every chapter that wasparticularly beloved for David did he open by saying ‘Happy’ and close bysaying ‘Happy’. He began with ‘Happy,’ as Scriptures states, ‘Happy is theman’ (Ps 1:1) and he closed with ‘Happy’, as Scriptures states, ‘Happy areall who trust in him’ (Ps 2:11).

Thus we can see that prior to the Masoretic era (5th century CEand following), there was a clear desire to discuss the text in attemptsto standardize it, but without any written or authoritative action.

The Beginning of the Masoretic Period

Kelly (p. 14) indicates that “isolating a starting date for theMasoretic Period is a difficult and somewhat arbitarary problem.”This is because (1) there is a scarcity of data regarding how theMasorah got its start, as well as limited data on the Masoretes them-selves. (2) It is arbitary because, as noted above, the kind of workwhich the Masoretes did has good parallels in the Talmudic era, andthough there was no written, systematic schema from that era, theseeds for such a system were obviously being sown.

Some feel it is best to attach the Masoretic era to the time framewhen the written marks for the vowels, established by the Masoretes,first appear. Kelly, following others, has placed this beginning be-tween 600 and 725 CE. This is based upon the fact that theBabylonian Talmud, generally agreed to have been completed around600 CE, never mentions anything about vowel signs added to the textby the Masoretes. Furthermore, Jerome, about a century earlier, evenmentions that Jews did not have signs to mark vowels (Dotan, 1416).What is more, the Cairo Codex of the Prophets dates from 895 CEand is complete with vowels and accents. This coincides with thework of Asher the Elder who lived in the second half of the eighthcentury, and his work included matters of vowels and accent signs.

It is not known whether or not the vowels and accents were

19

added seperately, in stages, or at the same time. Generally it has beenheld that the two items were essential parts of a unified system andthat they were added to the text at the same time. Dotan, however,has argued on the basis of the Babylonian and Palestinian systems aswell as Rabbinic literature that the accents were added to the textprior to that of the vowels. Dotan reasoned as well that the intona-tions and pauses marked by the accents were more difficult to pre-serve than the vowel sounds, and so they were given priority in thework of the Masoretes.

As to the notes which the Masoretes added, Dotan has arguedthat these must have come after the completion of the accents andvowels, since in the Cairo Geneza, manuscripts were found that hadfull accentuation and vowels, but only scanty notes. However, sincethe Masoretic notes deal primarily with the consonants and not thevowels or accents, it is reasonable to suggest that they were writtendown earlier than the accents and vowels, but only attached to thetext at a later date.

With this in mind, we may speculate about the beginning of theMasorah. Work on the Masorah began approximately 600 CE, eventhough the fact that scrolls containing markings apart from the sacredtext itself were unfit for liturgical use (cf. Yeivin, p. 37). As such, wemay speculate that originally the Masoretic notes were transmittedorally, and only later written down in seperate treatises or notebooks(some of which are known from later dates). As time passed, itbecame acceptable to enter vowel and accents signs, as well asMasoretic notes into scrolls intended for private use.

The introduction of the codex (book form) among the Jewsgreatly assisted the rise of the Masorah, for it offered wide marginsfor notes. The codex form was most likely introduced around 700CE. As the codex form gained popularity, the scrolls became less andless, and eventually were used only in the synagogue. The codexbecame the standard form of the text for all other uses.

Individual Masoretes

The Ben Asher Family

The most famous Masoretic family is that of Ben Asher. Thedynasty began in the second half of the eighth century CE with Asherthe Elder, and more is known about this family than any other be-cause the Asher manuscripts became accepted as the model. Anuntitled treatise on sheva mentions five generations of the benAshers, concluding with Moses ben Asher and his son Aaron benAsher.

20

Details of Moses ben Asher’s life are sketchy, but he mostlikely lived during the last half of the ninth century. His most notableaccomplishment was the production of a model codex now called theCairo Codex of the Prophets. The colophon claims that the codexwas written in 895 CE by Moses ben Asher. This codex has thedistinction of being the oldest dated codex known to scholarship.The colophon, however, has been debated as to its authenticity, sincethe system of vocalization in the Cairo Codex is closer to benNaphtali than to ben Asher. Most scholars, however, argue that thetwo systems are not that different, and that it is very possible Mosesben Asher was using a system slightly different than that representedby his son, Aaron.

Another famous manuscript, British Museum 4445, is alsousually associated with Moses ben Asher because he is referred to inthe Masorah. This manuscript is usually dated to sometime in thefirst half of the tenth century, and it is debated as to whether Mosesben Asher was alive at this time. Though many scholars do notbelieve he actually wrote the Codex, most agree that it is a goodrepresentation of the Moses ben Asher tradition.

The last member of the family, Aaron ben Asher, was the mostfamous because his system of vocalization, accents, and Masoraheventually gained fame as the best. He lived during the first half ofthe tenth century but further details of his life are unknown.

A Masoretic treatise called קי ה�יםמאתדקד (Diqduqe ha-Te’amim)is traditionally attributed to Aaron ben Asher. Though it is clear thatnot all of the grammatical rules delineated in this treatise originatedwith Aaron ben Asher, it is tradition that he collected them from othersources, and utilized them in the production of his manuscripts. Itseems equally clear that he added some of his own original materialin order to elaborate his tradition. The Diqduqe ha-Te’amim dealswith matters of vocalization and accentuation, particularly withproblems concerning sheva and ga’ya (also called meteg - used toidentify a stressed syllable, or vowel which should be pronounced).What is particularly important about this treatise is not only that itgives a picture of Aaron ben Asher’s principles as a Masorete, butalso that it stands as a bridge between pure Masoretic concerns andgrammar. Dealing with rules of pointing and the use of dagesh, itdescribes the emerging grammar which was the inevitable product ofthe Masoretic enterprise to standardize the text, and thus the lan-guage.

Two important manuscripts are associated with Aaron benAsher: the Leningrad Codex (L) which was prepared (according to itscolophon) in 1008 CE by Samuel ben Jacob from exemplars writtenby Aaron ben Asher. Many erasures in the manuscript cause it to

21

appear as having been corrected toward Aaron ben Asher’s text.While some have questioned the reliablity of the manuscript, mostscholars agree that it represents the ben Asher tradition. Both BHK3

and BHS were based upon this manuscript.The colophon of the Aleppo Codex claims that the text was

written by Solomon ben Buya’a, but that the vowels, accents, andMasorah were written by Aaron ben Asher himself. Scholars, for themost part, have come to the conclusion that the Aleppo Codex is thebest representative of the Aaron ben Asher tradition, and as such ithas formed the basis for the Hebrew University Bible Project inJerusalem. Though it was originally complete, portions were lost in ariot in 1947 where the synagogue in which it was kept was overtaken.There is a rabbinic tradition that Maimonides (1135-1204) cited thismanuscript as the exemplor when he discussed certain matters relat-ing to the halachah of writing a scroll.

The Ben Naphtali Family

Another Tiberian Masorete contemporary with Aaron benAsher was Moses ben David ben Naphtali. Though staying withinthe traditions of the Tiberian Masoretes, Moses held a differenttradition of the Bible text than that held by the ben Asher family.These differences are often cited in manuscripts and independenttreatises. One such famous treatise was written by Mishael benUzziel, most likely in the 11th to 12th centuries, and was titled (inArabic) Kithab al-Khilaf. A Hebrew version (Sefer ha-Hillufim,“Book of Differences”) is also extant.

The treatise opens by outlining eight general rules which weresources of dispute for ben Asher and ben Naphtali. Most of the work,however, lists particular examples of the Biblical text where the twodiffered, and where the two agreed against other Masoretes. The bestknown difference between the two deals with the pronunciation ofthe inseperable prepositions כ ,ב, and ל when joined to certain wordsbeginning with י , e.g., לראשי , which ben Asher would have pro-nounced לראשיב , “be-yis-ra-el” while ben Naphtali would have said

לראישב ,“bisrael.” ( Interestingly, current pronunciation in Israelwould favor Naphtali in this instance.) So miniscule were the differ-ences between the two systems that Kelley writes:

The difference between ben Asher and ben Naphtali are minuscule; the twosystems are certainly representative of small variations within the standardTiberian tradition. In this vein, Goshen-Gottstein commented, ‘I am afraid… that the vast majority of present-day Bible scholars would not noticewithout special study any difference in a ben Naphtali manuscript (if therewere one in existence).’ Goshen-Gottstein argues further that the similari-

22

ties between the two systems accounts for the fact that ben Naphtali read-ings were able to enter subsequent manuscripts of the ben Asher tradition.In essence, the two systems were so close, unobservant (or unaware) scribescould copy ben Naphtali readings into a ben Asher text without noticing anydifference. (Kelley, p. 20)

Independent Masoretic Treatises

Numbers of treatises are extant which did not originate fromone of the recognized families of Masoretes. Most famous of these isone called הכלאה ולכא , Okhlah ve-Okhlah, taking the name from thefirst pair of words listed in its nearly 400 lists of words. The lists arearranged alphabetically, and most of the material is topical (that is,the lists deal with the Bible text by topic rather than in the order ofthe text itself). Some of the lists are routine, such as qere/ketiv, whileothers are collective lists of special occurances, such as words orphrases which are different (and frequently only used once) but sharesome common category or detail, or pairs of words which are similarbut have an obvious difference (such as plene [full] and defectivespellings, or pairs of words where the first element does not have vavbut the second element does.)

Until the discovery of the Cairo Geniza, Okhlah ve-Okhlah wasthe only such treatise known. In the Geniza, however, fragments ofother such treatises were discovered, showing that such treatises weremore common than originally thought. Most explain the need forsuch treatises as the collection of Masoretic notes during the erawhere writing them in the margins of scrolls was prohibited or atleast frowned upon.

The End of the Masoretic Era

The Masoretic era can be closed with the end of the activity ofben Asher and Ben Naphtali (ca. 950 CE). The Tiberian tradition hadbeen fixed by this time, and the consonantal text and vowel signsalong with the accents were well established as the received tradition.What differences existed among the Masoretes were clearly in therealm of minutiae. So close are the manuscripts from this period thatone is able to see how monolithic the tradition had become. Thestandard Tiberian tradition eventually supplanted all other vocaliza-tion systems, and the ben Asher system was revered as the mostaccurate representative of the Tiberian tradition.

After 1100 CE manuscripts were copied with less care. Oftenmanuscripts from different traditions were used as exemplars, copy-ing the Masorah into manuscripts which differed from the veryvehicle originally given to keep the text standardized. In some cases

23

the Masorah was decoratively added, and in other cases severalMasorot were combined in a single manuscript. It is evident that theera following the Masoretic period had no equal measure of care forthe accurate transmission of a standardized text.

Continuation of Work on the Masorah

What follows are short notes on important individuals whoworked on the Masorah or added to its understanding in the yearssubsequent to the Masoretic era:

Meir ben Todros ha-Levi Abulafia (1180-1244) wrote the bookMasoret Siyag la-Torah, a treatise concerned with the consonantaltext of the Torah. It lists plene/defective spellings as well as rulesand issues for writing a Torah scroll.

Menahem ha-Meiri (1249-1306) wrote the book Kiryat Sefer, whichcontains both the halachah for writing a Torah scroll and then compi-lation of Massoretic notes, including pronunciation of words, numberof words in sections, etc.

Jekuthiel ha-Naqdan (dates uncertain) wrote the treatise ‘Ein ha-Qore, a study of details affecting proper reading of the Torah, Esther,and Lamentations. It is primarily concerned with vowels and ac-cents, and, like ha-Meiri, had a great influence upon those who tookit upon themselves to write a Torah Scroll.

Jacob ben Chayyim (dates uncertain, but late 15th or early 16thcentury) is a name which stands out in Masorah studies, for it was byhim that the Masorah was rescued and through his efforts that wehave it extant today. He came to Italy around 1510 to escape perse-cution, and worked for Daniel Bomberg who had printed the FirstRabbinic Bible, edited by Felix Pratensis (1516-17). He was plan-ning a new edition when he hired ben Chayyim. The first edition hadnot been received well by the Christians because of its Jewish em-phasis, and Jews were not pleased that its editor, Pratensis, was a Jewwho had come to believe in Yeshua. Ben Chayyim, a learned Jewskilled in the Bible text, seemed an obvious choice to prepare thesecond edition.

As they began to look for manuscripts for the second edition,ben Chayyim wanted to include the Masorah in the new work, butcould only find ornamental copies in the extant manuscripts. Thus,he set himself to the task of collating, correcting, ordering, analyzingand finally arranging the Masorah from the many manuscripts avail-

24

able to him. This he appended to the Second Rabbinic Bible whichappeared in 1524-25. Subsequently he also came to accept Yeshua asthe Messiah, and his name was thereafter expunged from the printededitions.

ben Chayyim listed the Masora parva (Mp) and Masora magna(Mm) in the margins as was the tradition. But his real innovationwas the addition of a Masorah finalis (Mf), which listed the Mm inlexical order. Many of the lists in the Mm were entirely included inthe Mf, whereas in other cases a cross-reference note was found inthe Mf, pointing the reader to the place where the desired note couldbe found in the text—a kind of “cross-reference” system. Thus theMasorah was organized into an orderly system by which the readercould find the lists either in the text or alphabetically in the Mf.

Ben Chayyim’s work was accepted with great authority andbecame a sort of “textus receptus” even as late as the 20th century.So standard was his work that when “the Masorah” was referred to inscholarly works, it was intended to reference ben Chayyim’s work.In spite of the great value of ben Chayyim’s work, it is not withouterror itself, since he worked primarily from late medieval manu-scripts which contained a mixture of traditions. For this reason theSecond Rabbinic Bible cannot be considered a pure ben Asher text,and its status has been diminished with the discovery of better, oldermanuscripts and the refinement of critical methodology.

Elias Levita (1468-1549) has been called the father of MasoreticStudies because of his immense contributions. His work on theMasorah came primarily from his time in Venice (1527-1540), wherehe worked at Bomberg’s press as a corrector and editor (shortly afterben Chayyim’s departure). In 1536, Levita produced a massive workentitled Book of Rememberance which was a Masoretic concordanceto the Hebrew Bible, but it was never published. His primary contri-bution was his work Massoreth ha-Massoreth (1538), a guidebookand commentary on the Masorah. It is organized into tables, as wellas treatises on Masoretic topics. He created a storm by showing thatthe vowel pointing did not originate with the consonantal text, sincethe prevailing pious Jewish opinion that the vowel signs either origi-nated at Sinai or were established by Ezra was accepted by the major-ity of the Jewish communities.

Modern scholars of note are Seeligmann Isaac Baer (1825-1897), Christian David Ginsburg (1831-1914), Paul Ernst Kahle(1875-1965), and Gerard E. Weil (1926-1986). Living scholarsinclude Aaron Dotan, E. J. Revell, and Israel Yeivin.

25

Most Important Hebrew Manuscripts of the Masoretes

A - Aleppo Codex

Written by Solomon ben Buya‘a according to the colophon. Ap-proximately 100 years later a note was added indicating that Aharonben Asher himself provided the manuscript with vowel points, accentsigns, and masoretic notes. This colophon is now lost, but it wascopied a number of times before its destruction.

Characteristics of the Codex:1) The manuscript agrees with ben Asher and the sefer hillufim,

against ben Naphtali 94% of time—more than any other manuscript.2) Where ben Asher and ben Naphtali agree against other schol-

ars, according to sefer hillufim, A agrees with ben Asher and Naphtali90% of the time.

3) The writing of the Song of Moses (Dt 32) and the marking ofthe petuhot and setumot are very close to those of Maimonides asrecorded from the Bible of ben Asher.

4) Yeivin considers Aleppo to be superior to all other ancientmanuscripts of the Masoretes, in spelling, in the writing of the songin the Bible, and in its Masorah (pp. 16-17).

5) It is written in 3 columns except the poetic books Psalms,Prov and Job, which are written in 2 columns.

6) Qere/Ketiv are somewhat fewer than other manuscripts

History of the Codex:

The codex was kept in Aleppo in Syria, where the communityleaders forbade anyone to photograph it or use it for scholarly pur-poses. W. Wickes was able to photograph one page in 1886, andJacob Sappir was allowed to study it and listed some 100 words andtheir spellings (HaLevanon vol. 1).

In 1948 riots broke out against the Jewish community and thesynagogue was set on fire. The manuscript was thought to be lost,but much of it was saved, and it eventually found its way to Jerusa-lem. It is preseved today in the library of the Ben-Zvi Institute. Ofthe original 380 pages, only 294 have been preserved. The followingis missing from the manuscript:

• of the Torah, all is lost except Gen 26:34-27:30, which is pre-served in the photo taken by Wickes, and Dt 4:38-6:3 is preserved inanother photo. Dt 28:17 to the end of the book is preserved in themanuscript.

26

• the former prophets are preserved complete except for2Ki14:21-18:13.

• the latter prophets are complete except for Jer 29:9-31:35; 32:2-4, 9-11, 15-18, 22-24.

• in the Writings 2 Chron 35:7-36:19 is missing, along with Songof Songs 3:12 to the end of the book (meaning the rest of Song ofSongs, all of Qohelet, Lamantations, Esther, Daniel, Ezra andNehemiah are missing).

L - Leningrad Ms (Also called B 19a) Written in 1009CE, it was copied from a manusript which must have differed slightlyfrom the A manuscript. According to a colphon, however, it wascorrected “According to the most exact texts of ben Asher.”

Characteristics of the Leningrad Ms:1) written in 3 columns (poetic books in 2 columns), containing

the whole Tanach, with masoretic lists at the end, and also sectionsfrom the Diqduqe ha-Te‘amim, hillufim, and other masoretic lists.

2) it is less exact than A in writing the Songs (Moses, etc.),marking of petuhot and setumot, and often differs from A in the useof vowel letters.

3) the masorah of L often differs from that of A, and appears tobe later. At times the masorah of L differs with the text of L. It listssome details which A’s masorah does not, such as names of scholarsand sources.

History of the Leningrad Ms

The manuscript is presently owned by the Leningrad PublicLibrary where it is housed. It was loaned to the Old TestamentSeminar of the Univeristy of Leipzig in preparation for the compila-tion of the BHK (published in 1937). It continued to be the basis forthe subsequent BHS (published in 1967/77) publication. The BibleSociety of Germany (Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft) is preparing BibliaHebraica Quinta (fifth edition), of which Ruth has been published inuncorrected proofs and distributed at the national Society for BiblicalLiterature meeting in November of 1998. It will likewise be basedupon the Leningrad codex.

Or. 4445 (also known as B) This manuscript contains mostof the Torah (Gen 39:20-Dt 1:33, except Nu 7:46-73; 9:12-18). It hasno colophon, but appears to have been written about the same time asthe Aleppo codex, around 925 CE. It is less carefully written thaneither A or L, but the principles which govern its pointing generally

27

agree with A.It contains both Masorah parva and Masorah magna, the latter of

which is longer than either A or L. It is housed in the British Mu-seum in London.

Cairo Manuscript of the Prophets (also known as C)

This manuscript contains all the books of the prophets and ac-cording to its colophon was written in 896 CE by Mosheah ben Asher(father of Aaron). It is written in three columns, and the text, vowels,accent signs and masorah are very carefully written—as carefully asA. Though it is carefully written, it differs greatly with A, agreeingwith ben Naphtali texts a majority of the time. Yet though textually itis closer to ben Naphtali, in most other features it resembles A quiteclosely.

One interesting feature of the manuscript is that it sometimes putsdagesh in alef when that letter represents a consonant.

Heb. 24ª 5702 (formerly known as MS Sasson 507) [S]

Contains nearly the whole Torah (from Gen 9:26 to the end,except for Ex 18:1-23). It is written in 3 columns and is probablyfrom the 10th century CE.

It agrees with ben Naphtali the majority of the time, and employsben Naphtali pointing in some cases ( לראישב ).

It contains both Mp and Mm as well as collective lists.

MS Sasson 1053 [S1]

This manuscript contained the whole Tanach, but a number of thepages are wholly or partially missing now. It is in three columns andcontains Mp, but shows the Mm only on some of its pages. BenAsher is mentioned in a number of places. It is dated to the 10thcentury CE.

S1 is less carefully written than the former manuscripts described.It often does not differentiate between ש and ש with any diacriticalmark. When two identical vowels should be written, S1 shows onlyone, e.g., לךמה . As well, simple sheva is used with gutterals ratherthan chatef-sheva, e.g., יםלהא rather than the more common יםלהא .

For a listing of other manuscripts, see Yeivin, pp. 22-31.

28

Traditions of the Scribes

Orthography (traditions relating to the actual script or writing)

ק�דותנ Nequdot or Extraordinary Points (Puncta Extraordinaria)

Sifre Numbers 69 [to Num 9:10] lists 10 times when a special dotis put above a word or letter in the Torah. In addition to these 10,there are 4 in the prophets and one in the Writings, making a total of15. They are:

Gen 16:5 וביניך

Gen 18:9 אליו

Gen 19:33 ובקומה

Gen 33:4 וישקהו

Gen 37:12 את

Num 3:39 ואהרן

Num 9:10 רחקה

Num 21:30 אשר

We know that such pointing predates the Masoretes because it isalso found in some of the Qumran scrolls. Here we have theMasoretes simply preserving the tradition which they were handed.

Generally four suggests have been given by scholars as to whatthe dots above these words may mean:

1) that the letters should erased2) there is some doubt about the textual traditon of these words3) the dots relate to some midrashic commentary that attaches to

the letters4) the dots point out a doctrinal reservation

It may well be that the dots above letters/words signified differentthings to different groups and different scribes. For instance, Tov, ina recent lecture (SBL, 1997), indicated that he felt the dots found inthe Qumran manuscripts indicated that the letters should be disre-garded (=erased). Yet it is clear that in some cases in the Tanach, todelete the dotted word makes no sense (cf. Gen 37:12). Kelleysuggests (p. 34) that the dots simply pointed out an issue with theword or letter, but not necessarily the same issue each time.

Num 29:15 ועשרון

Dt 29:28 לנו ולבנינו

2 Sa 19:20 יצא

Is 44:9 המה

Ezek 41:20 ההיכל

Ezek 46:22 מהקצעות

Ps 27:13 לולא

29

Nun or Isolated Nunim (Nunim haphukah נונים הפוכה/נונים מנוזרותor Nunim menuzarot)

This symbol attained various forms. In some traditions it isdescribed as כ and in Greek (especially Alexandrinus) sources it isdescribed as reversed sigma (antisigma). In the Greek sources theunderstanding was that the portion enclosed by these signa was out ofplace and became a subtle means of removing data from the texts.

The inverted נ occurs at nine places in the Tanach. In BHS, thesign resembles a נ turned backwards with a dot above it. Sourcesagree on the placement of the first two inverted nuns. They appearafter Num 10:34 and 10:36. Ginsburg followed the interpretation ofSifre and felt that the inverted nuns suggested that the passage wasmisplaced. Indeed, the Lxx inserts verses 35-36 between verses 33and 34 (making the order 33, 35, 36, 34). Yet another place in Sifre,however, says that the nuns at this place were to set this section off sothat it should be treated as “a separate scroll.”

The other places where the nun is inverted are not agreed upon bythe various masorot. Some manuscripts list Ps 107:21-26, 40 and theBHS has followed this as well. Ginsburg has also noted the samephenomenon for Ps 107: 40, where he suggested it should be insertedbetween verses 38 and 39. Such a transformation supplies a subjectfor verse 39 and the logic of the passage is improved. BHS, in theapparatus, follows this line of reasoning.

For Talmudic discussion, cf. b.Shabbat 115b and 116a where theidea of the passage being out of place is likewise referenced. TheSages suggest that HaShem Himself instructed the scribes to putthese inverted nuns in their respective places.

Suspended Letters (Litterae Suspensae) אותיות תלויות

Four times in the Tanach letters are written above the normalposition and thus called “suspended letters.” The masorot are uni-form in calling attention to these letters, though the reason for theexistence may be multifaceted. The locations are Jg 18:30; Ps80:14; Jb 38:13 and 15.

1) Jg 18:30 Suspended נ to change השמ to השנמ , Moses toManasseh. The motive, apparently, was to spare Moses the badreputation involved in having an idolatrous priest as a grandson(Jonathan). See comments of b.Bava Batra 109a.

2) Ps 80:14 Suspended ע in רעמי . Some suggest this is the middleletter of the Psalms, and that it is therefore raised for that purpose.Ginsburg suggests that originally ע and א were not written in the text,

30

and that two traditions, one with א yielding “river,” the other with עgiving “forest,” were originally contained in the text. Thus the ע wassuspended to highlight the correct reading.

3 & 4) Job 38:13, 14 Yeivin suggests that the ע suspended inthese verses is a correction (like what occurs occasionally inQumran) of the silent ע which was often omitted.

Large Letters איתיות גדולות

Larger letters occur at a number of places, though their numberincreased with time. In the Masoretic era, apparently there were fourplaces were larger letters were found, and perhaps five places (cf.Dotan, Masorah, col. 1408). In the Masorah of L there are largeletters noted at 4 places:

1) Lev 11:42 (גחון), which is not in L but is listed in BHS2) Num 27:5 (משפטן), in L and in BHS3&4) Dt 6:4, once on שמע and on אחד., both in L and BHS

The standard Rabbinic tradition for the large letters of Dt 6:4 are

well known (cf. Soferim 9:4). The עשמ on ע and the ד on דאח are large

to form the word עד, meaning “witness”. Thus, the Shema was to bethe confession or witness for the Jewish community.

Another occurances also has a fairly straight forward explanationas well: the vav in גחון of Lev 11:42 marks the middle letter of theTorah. As to the large nun in משפטן of Num 27:5, the meaning orsignificance has been lost.

As noted, the number of larger letters increased with time. In thecurrent Torah scrolls, there are 16 large letters as follows:

1) Gen 1:1 ,בראשת in ב 9) סהיו in ס , Num 13:302) הזונכה in ז , Gen 34:31 10) לדגי in י , Num 14:173) יםשלש in ם , Gen 50:23 11) ןטפשמ in ן , Num 27:54) אצ in צ , Ex 11:8 עמש in ע (12-13 דחא in ד ; , Deut 6:45) רצנ in נ , Ex 34:7 יםמת in ת (14 , Deut 18:136) רחא in ר , Ex 34:14 םכלשיו in ל (15 , Deut 29:277) חוןג in ו , Lev 11:42 ההויל–ה in ה (16 , Deut 32:68) חלגתהו in ג , Lev 13:33

Small Letters אותיות קטנות

In the masorah of L, there are only three small letters noted, andall of these are reproduced in BHS. These each involve a final nunand are called נ�ירין עין זנ nunim z’airin in the Mp. Passages listed are:

31

Is 44:14 ארן

Jer 39:13 ונבושזבן

Prov 16:28 ונרגן

Some have suggested that the small letters hint at an alternativetextual tradition, or that they are intended as corrections but theirexact meaning was forgotten.

Other Peculiarities

Gen 11:32 (some manuscripts) inverted נNum 25:12 broken וEx 3:19 crooked נNum 2:13 medial מ where we would expect ם mem sofitIs 9:6 mem sofit (ם) where we would expect medial מ

Irregularities other than Orthography

Some of the traditions which the Masoretes hand down to us werenot of a written nature—they were oral in their tradition and re-mained so. As in all of these traditions, none of the masorot are100% in agreement as to their exact nature and number. Dotan writes:

Apart from these matters which mainly are connected with the writing ofcopies of the Bible—and there could not be transcription without their clearestablishment—all of the other issues are part of oral transmission; i.e., thenotes concerning the text of the Bible and the instructions for its properpronunciation and its exact copying were handed down orally from genera-tion to generation before they were set down in writing. It may be assumedthat these comments could be written down and were committed to writingwith the institution of the use of the codex among the Jews—apparently inthe sixth or seventh century C.E. Therefore one must differentiate quiteclearly between the oral Masorah which is endless and cannot be definedeven though there are allusions to it and evidence thereof, and between thewritten Masorah whose notations were written in the margins and which iscalled simply “the Masorah.” (Dotan, Masorah, col. 1409)

Tiqqunei Sopherim (Emendations of the Scribes) תיקוני סופרים

A Masoretic tradition lists 18 passages which have been emendedfor theological reasons. These changes were attributed to earlierscribes who designed the emendations to remove irreverent expres-sions (as they saw it) concerning God. One of these pertained toMoses, as already noted.

Various masorot contain the list, as do the Rabbinic sources(Mechilta on Ex. 15:7; Midrash Tanchuma on Ex 15:7). Subjoining

32

the Rabbinic lists together brings the number and occurances tomatch that of the masorot. (For discussion of the masoretic lists, seeGinsburg, pp. 349-51.) The tiqqunei sopherim are not mentioned inthe Mp of the BHK (Biblia Hebraica Kittel, the UBS Edition whichpreceeded BHS) or the BHS. The BHS does mention some of theemendations in the critical apparatus. However, some are conspicu-ously missing.

These changes are usually made in the slightest possible ways,such as the omission of a single consonant (or in some cases more),or through the transposition of consonants. In some cases the wordorder is altered.

Text In BHS? Text In BHS?

Gen 18:22 yes Ezek 8:17 yesNum 11:15 yes Hos 4:7 yesNum 12:12 (x2) yes Hab 1:12 yes1Sa 3:13 yes Zech 2:12 yes2Sa 16:12 no Mal 1:13 yes2Sa 20:1 no Jb 7:20 yes1Ki 12:16 no Jb 32:3 yesJer 2:11 yes Lam 3:20 yes

2Chr 10:16 no

Is there any evidence for the theory of emendation? Perhaps. Forinstance, in 1Sa 3:13 and Jb 7:20 the tiqqunei sopherim is supportedby the Lxx. On the other hand, most of the other scribal correctionshave no critical evidence to support them. That they would list the18 indicates that they saw this phenomena as the rare exception, andclearly not the norm.

Itturei Sopherim (Omissions of the Scribes) יתורי סופרים

b.Nedarim 37b-38a indicates that there are five instances where aconjunction should appear but is missing. The passage implies that וthe scribes deleted the vav in these cases because they felt it hadaccidently found its way into the text. This same tradition is includedin some of the masoretic lists.

This occurs four times with the word דחא (Gen 18:5; 24:55; Num31:2; Ps 68:26) and once with the word טפשמ (Ps 36:7). None ofthese are mentioned in the Mp of BHS.

The difficulty here is that vav is noteriously inconsistent in theTanach as far as grammar and syntax goes. Why would the scribespick these cases as being more obvious than many others?

33

Read but not Written קרא ולא כתיב

Once again, b.Nedarim 37b-38a indicates that seven passagesexist where a word is to be read, although it is not actually written inthe text.

Nedarim includes: 2 Sa 8:3; 16:23; Jer 31:38; 50:29; Ruth 2:11;3:5, 17. Masoretic sources add the following, though they omit Ruth2:11: Jg 20:13; 2Sa 18:20; 2Ki 19:31, 37. Apparently these werereadings passed on through the oral tradition but were somehow lostor left out in the written sources. How should we treat these? Arethey to be accepted or not?

Written but not Read כתיב ולא קרא

This is just opposite of what was listed above. Something whichis written is not to be read. Once again, Nedarim and the Masoreticsources list the occurances of this phenomenon:

2Kgs 5:18; Jer 32:11; Jer 51:3; Ezek 48:16, Ruth 2:12 (Masoreticnotes add the following, but omit Jer 32:11), 2Sa 13:33; 15:21; Jer38:16; 39:12.

Most of these are minor particles, though their significance wasobviously important to those who believed every letter was divinelyordained.

Qere/Ketiv Written (this way) but Read (this way) קרא/כתיב

This phenomenon indicated by the Masoretes shows a placewhere, in the public reading of the Tanach, a word written in themanuscript was to be replaced with a different word.

As noted above, scholars are divided as to the exact import of theQere/Ketiv system. Some think it preserves various traditions of thetext from among various communities. Kimchi (ca. 1160-1235)suggested that the system was a way of retaining various manuscriptreadings which had been gathered by the scribes. Abrabanel (ca.1437-1508) thought that this was merely a correction method bywhich the scribes, unwilling to change the sacred text as it was thenin written form, indicated the tradition they had received in terms ofthe actual text.

Yeivin gives six categories of the Qere/Ketiv, listing qereve’lokativ and kativ ve’lo qere, as one category, and perpetual qere(as in the substitution of the vowels for ידנא upon the Name, יהוה) asan additional category. The remaining 4 categories are listed below:

34

1) Euphemisms - 16 cases were the qere presents a euphemism,replacing an unpleasant word. Examples:

Is 13:16 - הנלגשת “rape/ravish” (ketiv), הנבכשת “lay down” (qere)1Sa 5:9 - יםלפע “hemorroid” (ketiv), חוריםט “tumors” (qere)

The Talmud remarks (b.Megillah 25b), “wherever the text is writtenindelicately, we read it delicately.”

2) Plene or Defective forms which are unusual - these have todo particularly with anomalies in spelling, or of forms which, whenwritten defectively, might be difficult to read. Example:

Ezek 21:28 - וםקסכ (ketiv), םקסכ (qere)

Other Masoretic lists (e.g., Okhlah ve-okhlah) have words spelledwith medial א that is not read (48 words), words spelled with a final אthat is not read (12 words), and words with י lacking within the word,but where the י should be read , and each of which is a unique form(56 words).

3) Correcting archaic or dialectal forms - These are forms whereupdating spelling or orthographic changes are noted by theMasoretes. This includes words spelled with final י that is not read.Example:

2Ki 4:2 יכל (ketiv), ךל (qere)

Another phenomenon in this category are those words written withfinal ה but read with final ו. Example:

1Ki 22:49 רהבשנ (ketiv), בשנ�ר , (qere)

By “dialectic,” Yeivin refers to those words which may be loan wordsand conform to a “foreign” spelling, much like in English whereBritish and American spellings may differ (e.g., colour / color).

4) Other categories - in this listing Yeivin gathers those whichmay have resulted from scribal error, such as metathesis, word divi-sion, omission of letters, addition of letters, or substitution of letters.Examples:

a) metathesis -2Sa 20:14 �הלקיו (ketiv), הקיו�ל (qere). What word would havebeen considered viable by the spelling קלה is questionable. The

35

lexicons (Holladay, BDB, KB, etc.) all refer to the qere readingunder the lising קלה.

b) word division -Ezek 42:9 כותשלתה חת�מ (ketiv), מ�כותשלת החת (qere)In addition there are words written as one which, according tothe Masoretes, should be read as two, and visa versa.There are cases where letters from the first word in a pair areadded to the second, and visa versa.

c) omission of a letter - While some of these cases may haveresulted from mere spelling errors or valid mistakes, some are alsothe result of haplography. Examples:

Josh 24:3 רבאו (ketiv), הרבאו (qere)Lam 5:7 םינא (ketiv), םינאו (qere)

d) Addition of letters - these, most often, have the addtion of a.at the beginning of a word ו at the end of a word, or a ה

1Ki 7:23 קוהו (ketiv), קוו (qere)

e) Replacement of one letter by another of similar form - Manyof these forms are an interchange between ו and י. Some in thiscategory represent variations of forms in dialect or reading tradition,as well as scribal errors (including, apparently, errors of hearing)

Ex 21:8 (qere) לו ,(ketiv) לא2Ki 19:23 רכבב (ketiv), רבב (qere)2Ki 20:4 ירעה (ketiv), רצח (qere)Is 49:13 ח�ציפ (ketiv), פ�ח�צ (qere)Ezek 16:53 ביתש (ketiv), תש�ב (qere)

The complete number of Qere/Ketiv varies from masorah tomasorah. Tov gives numbers ranging from 848 to 1566 (Tov, TextualCriticism of the Hebrew Bible, p. 58). It became the masoretic tradi-tion to put the ketiv in the text with the vowels of the qere, thus leav-ing the original pointing of the ketiv without representation. In BHS,the qere is indicated in the margin written over a ק or (in a few cases)the full word קרי. The suspended circule alerts the reader to thepresence of the marginal note.

36 - Appendix

Appendix - 37

Page from the Aleppo Codex: 1Chronicles 2:26-3:4

38 - Appendix

Page from a 14th Century Chumash: Leviticus 23:4-19(from the Catalogue of the Lehmann Hebrew Manuscript Library)

Appendix - 39

A Fragment with Palestinian Pointing(Oxford Ms. Heb e 30, fol 48b)

Isaiah 7:11-9:8This manuscript utilized abbreviations for all but the first word

(Illustration from: Ernst Würthwein, The Text of the Old Testament (Eerdmans, 1973)

40 - Appendix

Isaiah 41:23-42:17 from theIsaiah Scroll of the Dead Sea Scrolls (1QIs)

Note dots abovethe word קרתיבך (?)The correct word isI have“ ,קראתיךcalled you . . . .”

Appendix - 41

ק�דותנ , Nequdot or Extraordinary Points (Puncta Extraordinaria)

Note dots above תא andthe note in the Mp, י נקוד

times dots in the 10“ ,בתורTorah

Numbers 10:34-35

Isolated Nun נונים הפוכה / נונים מנוזרות

Examples of Masoretic Extra Marks

Genesis 37:12

Suspended Letters אותיות תלויות

Judges 18:30

42 - Appendix

Large Letters אותיות גדלות

Leviticus 11:42

”Middle letter of the Torah“ ,חצי אותיות בתורה

Small Letters/Odd forms אותיות קטנות

Isaiah 44:14

The nun in רןא is smaller than normal.

Is. 44:14 Surely he cuts cedars for himself, and takes a cypress or an oakand raises it for himself among the trees of the forest. He plants a fir, andthe rain makes it grow.

Isaiah 9:6

Mem sofit where we would expect medial mem

Appendix - 43

Studies in TextsUsing the Masorah in the Study of Biblical Texts

44 - Studies in Texts

Qere/Ketiv – Which Text Should Be Received?

Exodus 21:7–9 לא or לו ?

NASBEx. 21:7 “If a man sells his daughter as a female slave, she is not to go free as themale slaves do. 8 “If she is displeasing in the eyes of her master who designatedher for himself, then he shall let her be redeemed. He does not have authority tosell her to a foreign people because of his unfairness to her. 9 “If he designates herfor his son, he shall deal with her according to the custom of daughters. 10 “If hetakes to himself another woman, he may not reduce her food, her clothing, or herconjugal rights. 11 “If he will not do these three things for her, then she shall goout for nothing, without payment of money.

7 eja;n dev ti" ajpodw'tai th;n eJautou'

qugatevra oijkevtin oujk ajpeleuvsetai

w{sper ajpotrevcousin aiJ dou'lai 8

eja;n mh; eujaresthvsh/ tw'/ kurivw/ aujth'"

h}n auJtw'/ kaqwmologhvsato

ajpolutrwvsei aujthvn e[qnei de;

ajllotrivw/ ouj kuvriov" ejstin pwlei'n

aujthvn o{ti hjqevthsen ejn aujth'/ 9 eja;n

de; tw'/ uiJw'/ kaqomologhvshtai aujthvn

kata; to; dikaivwma tw'n qugatevrwn

poihvsei aujth'/ 10 eja;n de; a[llhn

lavbh/ eJautw'/ ta; devonta kai; to;n

iJmatismo;n kai; th;n oJmilivan aujth'"

oujk ajposterhvsei 11 eja;n de; ta;

triva tau'ta mh; poihvsh/ aujth'/

ejxeleuvsetai dwrea;n a[neu ajrgurivou

7 And if any one sell his daughter as adomestic, she shall not depart as themaidservants depart. 8 If she be notpleasing to her master, after she hasbetrothed her self to him, he shall lether go free; but he is not at liberty tosell her to a foreign nation, because hehas trifled with her. 9 And if he shouldhave betrothed her to his son, he shalldo to her according to the right ofdaughters. 10 And if he take another tohimself, he shall not deprive her ofnecessaries and her apparel, and hercompanionship with him.

Lxx

Studies in Texts - 45

The crucial point of this text hangs on whether one takes theketiv or the qere in v. 8. All of the English versions take the qere:

ASV 8 If she please not her master, who hath espoused her to himself,CEV 8 If she doesn’t please the man who bought her to be his wife,CJB 8 If her master married her but decides she no longer pleases himESV 8 If she does not please her master, who has designated her for himself,JPS 8 If she proves to be displeasing to her master, who designated her for

himself,KJV 8 If she please not her master, who hath betrothed her to himself,NAB 8 But if her master, who had destined her for himself, dislikes her,NASB 8 “If she is displeasing in the eyes of her master who designated her for

himself,NET 8 If she does not please her master, who has desired her for himself,NIV 8 If she does not please the master who has selected her for himself,NJB 8 If she does not please her master who intended her for himself,NKJV 8 If she does not please her master, who has betrothed her to himself,NLT 8 If she does not please the man who bought her,NRSV 8 If she does not please her master, who designated her for himself,REB 8 If she does not please her master, who designated her for himself,RSV 8 If she does not please her master, who has designated her for himself,TEV 8 If she is sold to someone who intends to make her his wife, but he

doesn’t like her,

How would this section read if the translator were to take theketiv rather than the qere?“When a man will sell his daughter for a handmaid, she shall not goout as the servants go out. If it is wrong matter in the eyes of hermaster who did not know her, then he shall let her be redeemed. To aforeign people he shall not sell her, for her price is his breach ofpromise against her. And if for his son he will make her knownaccording to the judgment of daughters he shall do to her. If anotherhe should take to himself while she remains, he may not diminish herclothing or cosmetic oils.” (Exodus 21:7-10)

The scenario seems to be this: A man buys a maiden being soldas a slave and does so with the intent to make her his wife. After thepurchase, he decides not to marry her for whatever reason—there issomething wrong with the situation. Yet he has not “known” her, thatis, he has not consumated a marriage through physical relations. Hecannot sell her to a foreign people. If rather his son desires her for awife, he may designate her as such, but in this case she is to betreated as any other Israelite daughter, that is, with proper bride price,etc. Back to the first scenario: if after deciding not to marry her, theman who purchased her takes another woman for a wife while theslave girl remains in his house, he must support her with clothing andnecessary cosmetics (oil) until such time as she leaves his house.

46 - Studies in Texts

According to the Masorah of BHS, there are 17 times whenthe written text has לא but the Mp indicates a qere/ketiv in which לוis the replacement. The 16 other occurances besides the text underconsideration are:

In order to make a full assessment, the various versionswould need to be consulted to see how they may have played intothe decision of the translators regarding what reading should bereceived.

Text Qere Ketiv

NASB follows:

Comments

Lev 11:21Lev 25:30

1Sam 2:32Sam 16:182Kings 8:10Isaiah 9:2

Isaiah 49:5Isaiah 63:9Psalm 100:3Psalm 139:16Job 13:15Job 41:4Prov 19:7Prov 26:2

Ezra 4:21Chron 11:20

• Qere appears to be the better reading

•• Ketiv may be the better reading, cf. KB

• Qere appears to be the correct reading

•• Qere appears to be the correct reading

• “and Israel he will not gather” (?)

Ketiv is possible: “in all their affliction he did not afflict”••• Ketiv appears to be the better reading

• Ketiv is also possible

•Qere is also possible (“to Him I will keep silent . . . .”)•

• Qere is also possible (“to him it comes”, = brings trouble?)

• Ketiv may be the better reading (“we have not sacrificed”)

•

Ex 21:8 • Ketiv seems to be the better reading

Studies in Texts - 47

The Perpetual Qere / Ketiv of the Tetragrammaton

As I noted previously, the Masoretes developed a perpetualqere/ketiv for the Tetragrammaton. By “perpetual” is meant that theydid not note in the masorah each occurance, but simply expected thereader to read “Adonai” ידנא when יהוה is encountered in the text. Insome instances, however, they expected that the reader would pro-nounce “Elohim” יםלהא when יהוה was encountered. How did theydifferentiate which word they expected to be read? Like all of theqere/ketiv, they put the vowels of the word to be read under theconsonants of the written text. Thus, they generally pointed theTetragrammaton as ההוי or ההוי when Adonai is read and as ההוי or ההוי

when Elohim is to be read. In each case, the first and last vowels ofare included, and sometimes the middle vowel. The times thatElohim is to be read for the Tetragrammaton are those times when theconstruction י יהוהדנא occur, in which case the redundant “AdonaiAdonai” was avoided by reading “Adonai Elohim” (e.g., Gen. 15:2,8;Judg. 16:28; 2Sam 7:18ff).

There is a curious masoretic note regarding the word ידנא i.e.,when spelled with qametz. At Genesis 18:3, the note in the Mp reads“134 times:”

Ginsburg (Introduction to the Massoretico-Critical Edition ofthe Hebrew Bible) notes that the Scribes guarded the ineffable Nameby substituting Adonai or Elohim wherever it occurred. By this hedoes not mean that the Scribes actually altered the text, but that theysimply substituted the vowels of the Name which was to be read,retaining the written consonants as they received them.

However, Ginsburg’s statements might be misunderstoodbecause he shows the manner in which parallel texts from Samueland Chronicles differ in the use of the divine Name. For example:

–לא הלעאה ראמל היהוב דוד לאשיו 19

דוד–לא ההוי ראמיו דייב םנתתה יםתשלפ

20 דךיב יםתשלפה–תא ןתא ןתנ–יכ הלעראמיו דוד םש םכיו יםרצפ–לעבב דדו אביו

ןכ–לע םימ רץפכ י*נפל יביא–תא ההוי רץפ

יםרצפ לעב ה�אה קוםמה–םש קרא

הלעאה ראמל יםאלהב ידוד לאשיו 14:10

ראמיו דייב םתת�נ ים]תשל[פ יםיתשלפ–לע

–לעבב ל�עיו 11 דךיב יםתת�נ הלע ההוי לו

רץפ ידוד ראמיו ידוד םש םכיו יםרצפ

ןכ–לע םימ רץפכ דייב י*באוי–תא יםלהאה

�יםרצפ לעב ה�אה קוםמה–םש קרא

2Samuel 5 1Chronicles 14

48 - Studies in Texts

דוד םאשיו םיהבצע–תא םש–ב�זעיו 21

לותעל יםתשלפ עוד פ�סיו 22 פ יושנאו

היהוב דוד לאשיו 23 יםארפ קמעב ש�טניו

את�ב םריהחא–לא בסה הלעת לא ראמיו

ךעמשב ייהו 24 יםאכב מ�למ םהל

יםאכבה יראשב דהעצ קול–תא ך]עמ][ש[כ

כותהל יךנפל ההוי אצי זא יכ רץחת זא

רשאכ ןכ דוד שעיו 25 יםתשלפ הנחמב

�צ�ךאב–דע עבגמ יםתשלפ–תא ךיו ההוי ה

פ רזג

ידוד ראמיו םיהלהא–תא םש–ב�זעיו 12

יםתשלפ עוד יפ�סיו 13 פ שאב רפ�שיו

יםאלהב ידוד עוד לאשיו 14 קמעב ט�שפיו

בסה םריהחא הלעת לא יםלהאה לו ראמיו

ייהו 15 יםאכבה מ�למ םהל את�ב םיהלעמ

זא יםאכבה יראשב דהעצה קול–תא ךעמשכ

כותהל יךנפל יםלהאה אצי–יכ המחלמב אצת

�צ רשאכ ידוד שעיו 16 יםתשלפ הנחמ–תא�ה

–דעו עוןבגמ יםתשלפ הנחמ–תא כ�יו יםלהאה

רהזג

But the differences between these parallel texts is not a matterof masoretic substitution but simply the desire of the original writers/redactors to use one Name or the other. Surely the later Chroniclerevidences the increasing weight of the tradition not to pronounce theTetragrammaton, and thus he uses Elohim throughout. And this iswhy Ginsburg drew upon this example—to show the evolution of thetradition to refrain from pronouncing the Divine Name. There may beevidence that early scribal tradition found ways to obscure the Nameso that it would not be pronounced (especially in compound namesthat included Yah or Yaho). But Ginsburg did not mean to indicatethat the masoretes changed the written text in order to guard theName, only that they developed the perpetual qere/ketiv in respect tothe Name.

This is apparently misunderstood by Bullinger in The Compan-ion Bible (reprinted by Kregel). There he seems to teach (Appendix 4and 32) that in the 134 instances where ידנא stands alone, themasoretes have actually changed the written text, extracting יהוה andsubstituting ידנא . This, of course, is not the case. In the 134 times that

ידנא stands alone, it stands as the Divine Name. The fact that it ispointed with qametz as over against patach differentiates it from thecommon word for “lord” or “master.” This is important, for thosetimes that Adonai stands alone, it nonetheless designates יהוה. Ofcourse, Genesis 18 is a classic case where יהוה appears, that is, takeson physical form. From a Messianic perspective, this is understood tobe a pre-incarnate appearance of Messiah Yeshua.

For a listing of the 134 times where ידנא is found without יהוה

following, see Ginsburg, Masorah, 1:25f; 4:28f.

Studies in Texts - 49

Extra Nikkudot and Rabbinic Interpretation

Regardless of what may have been the original intent of thepuncta extraordinaria, the Sages often took them to indicate some-thing special in the text, and therefore as a “jumping off” point for amore involved exegesis and interpretation. Deuteronomy 29:28[Eng29:29] is a case in point

Note the extra Nikkudot on the words לל� �ינ�נבנ , and the Mp notetimes, 10 of (from) them in the Torah.” This is 15“ ,הי נקוד י מנה בתורone of the 15 occurances in the Tanach where words have the sus-pended “dots” (nikkudot) over them. But what does it indicate here?The critical apparatus of BHS has the further note (indicated by thesuperscript “b” enclosing the marked words) that the Lxx (©) ofVaticanus, Theodotion (Q), and the Lucian recension (L) all translatethese words with minor (min) differences in 2 places (2 pl). Indeed,in some Hebrew manuscripts the ע of the following דע is also marked.In most manuscripts, however, only the 10 letters marked in BHShave the extra nikkudot. The BHS note is given to alert the reader thatthe Lxx translates the words, meaning that the text they were translat-ing did not exclude the words. Thus, the extra nikkudot do not, appar-ently, indicate that the words were known to be lacking in the oldertradition. What, then, is the purpose for the markings?

Here is where the Sages see in the extra nikkudot an indicationof ancient exegesis and interpretation. The text would be literallytranslated thus: “The secret things belong to Adonai our God, and therevealed things to us and to our children forever to do all the words

50 - Studies in Texts

of this Torah.” The question, of course, is how this is to be under-stood. What is the import of the final clause? How do the “secretthings” connect with the “revealed things?”

For the rabbis, the extra nikkudot posed this question, and theysought to derive answers. For instance, Rashi writes: “It is dottedabove the words לנו ולבנינו to explain that even for the things that arerevealed, He did not punish the many until they had crossed theJordan, after they had taken upon themselves the oath on MountGerizim and on Mount Ebal, and became thereby responsible foreach other (cf. b.Sanhedrin 43).” Others suggested that the dottedwords were to be connected to both the nouns “hidden things” and“revealed things,” so that even though the hidden things belong toGod, if the children of Israel would do all the words of the Torah,these hidden things would also become theirs along with the revealedthings. Thus, they explained שותעל , “to do” as the cause for the pre-ceding clause (cf. Gen 3:22; 34:7, 15; Ex. 23:2; 1Sam 12:17; 16:33,etc.). Thus Sifre translates the final clause as “in that you shall fulfillall the words of the Torah.” The meaning given for the verse is then:“when you shall have fulfilled the things that are revealed I will alsomake known to you the things that are concealed.”

This example gives us a little insight into the rabbinic exegesiswhich was, in many cases, based upon the masoretic tradition of thetext. At times, when it may appear that the rabbis have gone far afieldin their exegesis and interpretations, it may be that they are attempt-ing to explain the written text as they received it, and the oral tradi-tions that accompanied that written text, oral traditions which, insome measure, are preserved for us (or at least hinted at) in themasorah.