Abstracts

1
‫לאומי לחקר המסורה‬-‫הארגון הבין‬
INTERNATIONAL ORGANIZATION FOR MASORETIC STUDIES (IOMS)
THE TWENTY-FIFTH INTERNATIONAL CONGRESS
MUNICH, August 5-6, 2013
ABSTRACTS
Edson de Faria Francisco (Brazil)
[email protected]
Mistaken Realization of Masoretic Annotations from Leningrad Codex B19a to the Biblia
Hebraica series: General Remarks
Since the publication of the Biblia Hebraica (BHK) (1929-1937), the annotations of the masora
parva and masora magna of the Leningrad Codex B19a (L) have been realized, wholly or partially,
in the Biblia Hebraica series. The BHK realizes only the masora parva and the Biblia Hebraica
Stuttgartensia (BHS) (1967-1977) realizes the masora parva, but in corrected and normalized
realization and the masora magna in a separate volume, the Massorah Gedolah iuxta
Leningradensem Codicem B19a, in corrected and normalized realization too. Currently, the Biblia
Hebraica Quinta (BHQ) (2004-) reproduces both the masora parva and the masora magna of
Codex L, in an essentially diplomatic representation, aiming at being faithful to its source.
However, one can see that not always the masora realization of Codex L has been carried out
accurately, and errors, omissions, additions and erroneous deciphering can be found in the three
editions of Biblia Hebraica series and also in the Massorah Gedolah. Not always these works
reflect what is actually in the masora of Codex L.
This brief study intends to comment and to show, through selected examples, terms,
expressions and masoretic notes reproduced erroneously in BHK, BHS or BHQ. The lecture will
point at the possible causes of such inaccuracies and comment on possible corrections. In addition
to the three editions, the lecture will address the Massorah Gedolah and several cases of mistakes
that are found in it too. The communication will emphasize that it is important that the terms,
expressions and annotations of the masora of Codex L should be realized correctly, for two
important reasons: 1. to be an important testimony of the ample activity of the Masoretes, as seen in
Codex L and 2. the usefulness of the masora for modern biblical research. The lecture completes the
topic “Reprodução Inexata de Anotações Massoréticas” (“Inaccurate Realization of Masoretic
Annotations”) of the chapter “Códice de Leningrado: Firkowitch I: B19a” (“Leningrad Codex:
Firkowitch I: B19a”) from the forthcoming Lexicon Masoreticum: Léxico de Terminologia
Massorética Tiberiense. The Lexicon Masoreticum is the current postdoctoral work of this author to
the University of São Paulo (USP), to be published in the future.
-------------------------------------------
2
Raymond de Hoop (Holland)
[email protected]
The Te’amim and the Theory of Relativity
In his study on the Tiberian Masora, Israel Yeivin formulated the principle that the separating value
of an accent depends on the context, formed by the totality of all the accents in a verse. This implies
that an accent like for instance geresh could have a stronger separating value in a long clause, than
on the other hand a zaqeph in a short phrase. In my paper I will argue that Yeivin’s theory should be
taken more seriously than usually happens. Scholars tend to accept Yeivin’s thesis concerning the
accents in several respects, but seem to forget that he did not see their values as fixed. In
descriptions of the te‘amim or in exegetical studies the function of atnach is generally described as
the main divider within a verse, next to silluq, the final accent in a verse. Even though this might
quite often be to the point, in a number of cases it is beside the mark. In case the atnach is applied
in a long series of accents it might have a similar separating value (and thus function) as for
instance zaqeph or revia‘. The acknowledgement of this principle is of great importance for the use
of the te‘amim in the exegesis of the Biblical text. In my paper I will discuss a number of examples
to demonstrate what this relative value of the te‘amim might imply.
----------------------------------------------------------Aron Dotan (Israel)
[email protected]
An Ancient Tradition of Verse Count of the Entire Bible
The Masora’s accepted count of 23204 verses in the entire Bible is corroborated by modern
computer counts as well. Beside it there is another count which shows a total reduced by some
hundreds verses, which is in clear contrast to the data of the masoretic genuine count. This other
count turns out to be of ancient origin, going back to the second century C.E., around the time of the
canonization of the Hebrew Holy Scriptures. The paper examines Talmudic sources for evidence
following the process of the gradual acceptance of books into the Canon of the Holy Scriptures. It
then attempts to synchronize it with the ancient enigmatic count of verses which may have been
based on a more limited Canon of Scriptures.
-----------------------------------------------------------Viktor Golinets (Germany)
[email protected]
Variations of Vocalization within the Tiberian Masoretic Tradition and in Comparison with
other Textual Traditions
There are many cases within the Tiberian masoretic tradition where the same word is vocalized
differently, although neither the semantics of the context nor the morphosyntax seem to demand any
vocalization variation. Sometimes this variation pertain to phonology, sometimes the meaning of the
passage is involved. An example for the latter case is Dt 6:16, where the word ‫ ַבַּמָּסּה‬is vocalized as
a noun, while in Dt 9:22 and Dt 33:8 the word ‫ ְבַּמָסּה‬is regarded as a place name. While this word,
which seems to have the same meaning in all three instances, is understood in two ways within the
Tiberian masoretic tradition, the masoretic understanding of this word is also at variance with other
3
textual traditions. The Targums render ‫ ַמָסּה‬as a noun in all three cases. The Septuagint seems to
understand ‫ ַמָסּה‬as a place name in the first two instances.
This lecture aims to evaluate these and other cases of vocalisation variance in the Tiberian
masoretic tradition in comparison with other textual traditions of the Hebrew Bible.
----------------------------------------Lea Himmelfarb (Israel)
[email protected]
Rabbi Samsom Raphael Hirsch’s Use of the Biblical Accentuation in his Bible Commentary
The present paper focuses on the explicit relationship between the punctuation method of Biblical
accentuation and the Biblical commentary by Rabbi Samson Raphael Hirsch (1808-1888).
Rabbi Samson Raphael Hirsch expressed his immense admiration for the interpretive implications
of the Biblical accentuation system. Verses in which the accentuation system is mentioned by this
commentator are examined in order to find out whether Rabbi Hirsch accurately utilized the
accentuation rules and principles for dividing the verse. Or maybe his knowledge of the accents’
methodology was insufficiently grounded, and he drew erroneous conclusions, and, in point of fact,
incorrectly relied upon the accents in his commentary.
The choice of examples represents different aspects of Rabbi Hirsch’s methodology and fall into
three categories: 1) mention of the accents as authoritative support; 2) interpretation that is contrary
to the accents; 3) interpretation that follows the accents.
The examples are verses from the Twenty-one Prose Books and from the Three Poetical Books Psalms, Job, and Proverbs.
--------------------------------------------Franz D. Hubmann (Austria)
[email protected]
Irregular Letters in Medieval Tora Scrolls and Manuscripts: A Provisional Report of Work in
Progress
The appearance of certain irregular letters in distinctive words of medieval Tora Scrolls and
Manuscripts is a well known phenomenon. However, a closer look at the collected data from
various manuscripts, reveals a great variety. This fact can be seen not only in different Tora Scrolls
but also in the Tora-Codices. The great difference in the data may be due to local scribal traditions
or the provenance of the manuscript. It may also be an indicator of an earlier or later date of the
manuscript. In order to bring some light to this phenomenon, it would be reasonable to collect the
data and to compare them first. Through this procedure we may get to a more or less basic system
of placing such irregular letters in the text which can serve as point of departure for further
comparisons. Special attention must be paid to those manuscripts which show corrections of regular
letters into irregular ones (as an example I will present the Tora-Scroll BSB 487 from Munich), or –
as in the case of codices – have marginal notes that postulate an irregular letter (reference will be
made to Cod.hebr.19 of the ÖNB, Vienna). The presented paper will contain first some sampleforms of these irregular letters in the manuscripts at our disposition; secondly, a provisional
collection and comparison of the data exemplified on the book of Genesis and thirdly, some
examples of the possible meaning of this peculiar type of marking certain letters/words which may
be gleaned from contemporary commentaries.
4
----------------------------------------------------Elvira Martin Contreras (Spain)
[email protected]
The Nun-like Sign in the Masora of the Cairo Codex of the Prophets: Use and Function
The exact role of this symbol and its masoretic term is still unknown, although some authors
consider it another way of expressing the phenomenon ketib-qere (A. Dotan, “Masora”, 1971, p.
616; I. Yeivin, Introduction, 1980, pp. 52-53; E. d. F. Francisco, Manual da Bíblia Hebraica.
Introduçao ao Texto Massorético. Guia Introdutório para a Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia, 3ª ed.
Brasil, 2008, pp. 191- 192; E. Tov, Textual Criticism, p. 59; Himbaza 2000).
In the Cairo Codex of the Prophets (C) this sign occurs more than five hundred times while its
presence in the other main masoretic codices is scarce or null. In the present study all the
occurrences are analyzed in order to define its use and to explain its function in the context of this
Codex.
-------------------------------------------------Josef M. Oesch (Austria)
[email protected]
Historical Sketch of the Representation of Petuha and Setuma in Hebrew Bible Manuscripts
with Special Emphasis of the Pentateuch Texts
1. Origin, content and function of the terms “petuha” and “setuma”.
The terms “petuha” and “setuma” were handed down in connection with the rules for copying Tora
scrolls in a halakha, which forbids the exchange of these two entities. Comments on their content
and the function, however, are not to be found, and neither are their various significations clarified.
From a later assignment of a function to them (“give Moses time for reflection”) we can see that
they were originally elements of oral texts, that is, shorter (setuma) and longer pauses (petuha). In
order to represent them in a written text, smaller and larger spaces in a line were chosen; thus the
terms setuma (‘congested line’) and petuha (‘open line’).
2. The findings in the manuscripts of the Dead Sea
This representation of shorter and longer pauses in a text can be observed as early as in the
manuscripts of the Dead Sea. Even though no unified method of marking has yet been developed
there, that method, which is described in the later treatise ‘Sefer Tora’, is already strongly
represented. We can also find remarkable similarities in the textual structures when these old texts
are compared to medieval manuscripts.
3. From the standardization of texts to the oldest biblical codices
After the textual standardization two not quite identical systems of marking were established for
petuha and setuma : The scriptural system according to ‘Sefer Tora’/’Soferim II’ and the Mishne
Tora of Maimonide on the one hand and on the other hand that of ‘Soferim’ and the rules of Jacob
ben Asher. Both systems can be found in medieval codices and Tora scrolls. Even though they do
not evince a totally unified picture of the tradition of petuha and setuma, they still contain a
remarkable degree of concordance.
4. Unification in the representation and tradition of petuha and setuma
5
Both in medieval Tora scrolls (for example Munich BSB 487) and in Pentateuch codices (Vienna
ÖNB Codex Or. 19) we can see an attempt to unify these varying structural devices and varying
structures. There we can recognize the wish to conform to the rule of the pre-mentioned halakha in
the process of copying, in order to produce Tora scrolls which are suitable for recitation during
worship in a synagogue. This striving for unification came to an end in the rules of ‘Shulhan Aruch’
concerning the representation of petuha and setuma.
5. Signification and role of the petuha and setuma in present-day editions of the Bible and their
weight in interpreting the texts
While petuha and setuma are used in today’s Tora scrolls according to the prescription of ‘Shulhan
Arukh’, scholarly editions of the Bible tend to follow the precepts of Mamonide in their markings,
if they find their way into the lay-out of the text at all. In single instances, however, the various
editions contain remarkable differences and inconsistencies. In interpretations these markings in
handed-down texts may find growing attention, but before they are established in the scholarly
world, a method of structural critique (‘delimitation criticism’) will have to be found.
-------------------------------------------------Yosef Ofer (Israel)
[email protected]
Masora as Error Correcting Code
Error Correcting Code (=ECC) is a mathematical technique for reliable transmission of information
over a "noisy" communications channel which is liable to introduce errors. ECC is a subset of
information theory, which is concerned with creating far more sophisticated and efficient methods
for ensuring a high probability that messages will be decoded correctly even if errors (at a
reasonable level) occur during transmission.
At first glance, the Masora seems to carry out exactly the same function in relation to the biblical
text that ECC does for transmissions: it represents additional data appended to the original text, in
different forms (Masora Magna and Masora Parva), facilitating "transmission" of the original text
from generation to generation along with a mechanism for correcting errors that occur in the
process of copying manuscripts. However, closer inspection reveals some differences between these
two areas. For instance, ECC as applied to communications is concerned with chance errors, which
are completely content-blind, whereas scribal errors are content-dependent: a scribe may replace a
certain word with another one with a similar meaning; he may use plene instead of defective
spelling; he may add or omit conjunctive 'waw', and so on. The Masora therefore focuses especially
on protection against this sorts of errors.
The lecture will present weak Masora mechanisms which failed, and contrast them with a protective
mechanism which achieved great success – Maimonides' codification of the tradition concerning
"open" and "closed" portions (textual units), and the graphic form in which the biblical songs
appear. We posit that Maimonides' success was due not only to his stature in the Jewish world, but
also – and perhaps more importantly – to the successful ECC method which he adopted. We also
discuss structural aspects of the Masora which aided the mass dissemination of the biblical text set
down by the Masoretes, overcoming the problem of scribal errors, and prevailing over other textual
traditions which competed with the Masoretic text.
The lecture is based on cooperation between me and Professor of Mathematics Alex Lubotzky.
------------------------------------------------
6
E. John Revell (Canada)
[email protected]
The Vowels and the Accents of the Masoretic Text
The Masoretic Text is usually spoken of as a uniform, self-consistent work. However, a number of
scholars have remarked, of certain passages, that the vowels do not seem consistent with the
accents. As far as I know, the only one who has carried this beyond casual remarks is Yohanan
Breuer, who offers some two dozen examples in his article `Dissonance between Masoretic
Accentuation and Vocalization in Verse-division of the Biblical Text'. However, the problem is even
more extensive than that. This paper ask what can be learned from this situation.
The most obvious case of such inconsistency is the marking of 20 or so pausal forms with
conjunctive accents. One tradition could not combine these two unless the value of at least one of
them had been lost. Consideration of this question leads to important conclusions, such as the
voweling of the text must have been established first, and the accents added later.
Other features of voweling mark the ends of minor units within those marked by pausal forms. The
ends of such units are usually marked with a disjunctive accent, occasionally with a conjunctive,
leading to the same conclusions as with pausal forms. In a few cases, the word marked as a unit by
the voweling is divided between two units by the accentuation (Ps 10:15). In these cases, the Greek
translation, the earliest, follows the voweling, supporting the view that the accentuation was a later
addition.
There are other forms of inconsistency, down to the occasional variation between an accent or
maqqef in marking a word with qames or holem, or with segol or sere in a closed final syllable.
Such inconsistencies are not common, but they occur throughout the text, and so ought to receive
more consideration. Some speculations on their origin are offered.
-------------------------------------------------Paul Sanders (Holland)
[email protected]
Poetic Layouts in the Oldest Masoretic Codices of the Hebrew Bible
In many ancient Hebrew manuscripts, we find eye-catching text layouts for Biblical poetry,
especially the books of Psalms and Proverbs, the poetic parts of Job, and some other poetic texts. In
these sections, there is at least one blank space within most lines. In some manuscripts, virtually all
the blank spaces, which are of varying width, occur between the end of a colon and the first word of
the following colon. Such text layouts can be labelled as colometric. In other manuscripts, however,
many of such blank spaces do not occur at the ends of cola but between words that are part of the
same colon. These text layouts are only pseudo-colometric.
Unfortunately, these colometric and pseudo-colometric text layouts have not been studied
extensively. I have recently finished my complete analysis of the poetic text layouts in Berlin Or.
Qu. 680 (Paul Kahle’s Ec1) and the famous Aleppo Codex. I will discuss them in an article in the
volume Have a Break (edited with Raymond de Hoop, Pericope series, publication expected in
2013 or 2104).
7
In my paper, I will for the first time present a survey of the final results of my analysis of the poetic
layouts in Berlin Or. Qu. 680 and in the Aleppo Codex. As I will show, the poetic text layouts in the
Leningrad Codex (Len. B19A) are commonly only pseudo-colometric. Therefore, I have not selected
this manuscript for an extensive analysis. In Berlin Or. Qu. 680, however, most poetic texts appear
to have an appropriate division of the text that indicates clearly how the copyist delimited the cola.
When writing the consonantal text of the famous Aleppo Codex, Shlomo ben Buya`a also wanted to
indicate where the cola ended by inserting blank spaces, but in Psalms, Job and Proverbs the
columns were not wide enough to position two long cola on the same line and to leave a space
blank between them. Therefore, he could not always indicate clearly which colometric division of
the text he had in mind.
In my article, I will also compare the distribution of the Masoretic (Babylonian and Tiberian)
accents, the distribution of the pausal forms, and the much older poetic text layouts in fragmentary
manuscripts from Masada and Qumran. To what extent do these divisions of the poetic texts
correspond to the division, by means of blank spaces and line breaks, in Berlin Or. Qu. 680 and in
the Aleppo Codex? And how can the divergences be explained? In some cases, deviating divisions
will appear to be due to a different interpretation of the text.
Scholars who are willing to give their reaction to my paper will receive the text of my paper before
the Munich IOMS meeting if they ask for it by e-mail ([email protected]).
-----------------------------------------------------Benjamin Ziemer (Germany)
[email protected]
Who Counted First the Letters of the Tora?
The number given for the letters of the Tora in Codex L, 400,945, is far beyond reality. This seems
to be typical for most reported letter counts before and even after Norzi. But, according to the
famous Baraita in Qid. 30a, the "Soferim" had counted the letters of the Tora even much earlier.
Indeed, some statistical findings to be presented suggest that already the proto-rabbinic text was
based on exact statistics on the number of letters of each book and the total numbers of each letter
of the alphabet in the Tora.
Assuming this, the question will be discussed if some Masoretes knew the exact number of letters
too. According to Norzi the Tora has to contain 304805 letters. However, the Codex L, with its
independent orthography sometimes divergent from its own Masora, has exactly 304,850 letters in
the Tora, according to Computer counting. The differences in plene / defective writing between the
early Tiberian manuscripts increase at the end of Deuteronomy - more than 15 differences between
Codex A and Codex L are to be found in Deuteronomy 28-34. Despite the fact that the vocalization,
accentuation and Masora of Codex L are copied from Codex A or a manuscript very close to it, the
letters seem to reflect an independent manuscript tradition, perhaps as old and good as that of
Codex A - and perhaps with its own antique counting tradition.