[Mesorah] large nun in Ruth 3:13

[Yitzchak M. Gottlieb]

On Jun 28, 2011, at 10:40 AM, Hayyim Obadyah wrote:

> Can anyone offer insight as to why Rabbi Breuer chose in Ruth 3:13 to have the nûn in לִינִי  lînî written large?

I have a thought, but no proof:

> Neither Aleppo Codex nor Leningrad Codex write any of the letters of this word as רבתי, larger than normal, even though the word is listed as having a large nûn in lists of large letters in the Masora Finalis of Leningrad Codex. 

The Leningrad Codex doesn't write the first ב in בראשית as large either.  In the דעת מקרא section, the footnote says that the word appears in "all the lists" of large letters.  This list of source is the same as the one you quote below from "The Biblical Text in the Jerusalem Crown Edition and its Sources in the Masora and Manuscripts."  It could be that the codices do not write the letter as large and defer to the lists.  I would think that Breuer's book on the כתר would have better information, but I don't have a copy.

> Although in its Masora Magna on Gen 1:1 and on I Chron 1:1, the Second Rabbinic Bible of 1527 lists the nûn in this word as a large letter, in the text of Ruth itself the word is printed with a large lāmedh, and a Masora Parva reads למדנחאי  “according to the Eastern tradition”. 
>  
> Ginsburg (III:91) cites a Yemenite masora: אין למד דליני רבתי למערבאי  “the lāmedh of ליני  is not large according to the Western tradition”. 
>  
> Neither lāmedh nor nûn is included in the list of large letters in Prophets and Writings from Machsor Vitry (Ginsburg I:35, §א226).  Ginsburg (I:36, §א227) collated 10 versions of the list אותיות גדולות שבקריא' “ large (‘majuscular’) letters that are in Scripture”.  Of these, the nûn of לִינִי  appears only in Sefer ’okhla we’okhla (Paris [the list does not appear in the Halle manuscript]) §83 and in the two lists of the Second Rabbinic Bible at Gen 1:1 and I Chron 1:1.  The lāmedh does not appear in any of the lists.
>  
> Further, although Ginsburg does not mention it, the list in Sefer ’okhla we’okhla qualifies this entry with the note ויש ספרים  “and there are [some] scrolls [which read]….” 
>  
> Ginsburg (I:37, §א229) also collated 9 versions of the list אותיות קטנות  “small (‘minuscular’) letters”.  Of these, the nûn appears in Orient 16 at Jer 39:13.
>  
> In The Biblical Text in the Jerusalem Crown Edition and its Sources in the Masora and Manuscripts (2003), Rabbi Breuer indicates both supporting and conflicting witnesses for the nusaḥ printed.  In this case, as conflicting he only gives the Second Rabbinic Bible (לִינִי, with large lāmedh), and as supporting he only gives: “מ"ש?” but adds in a footnote the sources noted above:
> נ של לִינִי מובאת ברשימת האותיות הגדולות של מ"ס-ל ומ"ג-ד בר' א,א; דה"א א,א.  כל ניא מובאת באו"א 83 בשם י"ס.
> The nûn of לִינִי  is included in the list of large letters in the Masora Finalis of the Leningrad Codex and in the Masora Magna of the Second Rabbinic Bible at Genesis 1:1 and I Chronicles 1:1.  Thus [also] is it included in Sefer ’okhla we’okhla 83 attributed to “there are [some] scrolls”.
>  
> It is particularly puzzling that he seems to cite Minḥath Shay (MSh) as supportive of the large nûn, even with a question mark.  The entry in MSh reads: 
> כפי המסרה דריש דברי הימים וריש בראשית הנו"ן רבתי ולא הלמ"ד, ובנוסח אחר מאותיות גדולות לא נמנית עמהם, וכן בספרים כתובי יד אין שום אחד מהן גדולות
> “According to the masora at the beginning of Chronicles and the beginning of Genesis, the nûn is large and not the lāmedh, but in another version of large letters it is not listed with them, and thus it is in the manuscript codices that neither of them is large.” 

Note the question mark on Breuers use of the MSh: the MSh brings two opinions but does not state that either is authoritative.
 
> I can only imagine that Rabbi Breuer saw the MSh’s comments as possibly implying “even though...” and that MSh supports a large nûn.  It seems to me, however, that MSh generally provides the evidence of “manuscript codices” as support for his position, and thus the lack of large letters in those implies that he himself does not make them large.  Further, even if it is the case that MSh supported a large nûn, I would not expect Rabbi Breuer to choose MSh over the text of the Aleppo Codex.
>  
> Given that the evidence for a large nûn is so weak, I am surprised that Rabbi Breuer chose this nusaḥ.  Can anyone suggest why he would go against the Aleppo Codex in this case?

-- 
Yitzchak M. Gottlieb
zuki at CS.Princeton.EDU