[Mesorah] fourth section of details of the Masorah

Tue Sep 2 08:27:33 PDT 2014

A couple of matters before we continue:
I am asserting my copyright privileges on these emails; no one is allowed to copy them or send them to other people without my written permission.  I dislike having to say this, and I apologize to all members of the Mesorah list.  But when I first joined Avodah, I was innocent and assumed that no frum person would take something you wrote, publish it under his own name without crediting it, and omit important information to understand the context.  Little did I know that there are all sorts of people lurking on the internet, and, it pains me to say, exactly that happened with an article I had spent much time and effort on.  My statements here, of course, will not prevent such evil people from doing things like this, but I at least am making an effort, since, if God is willing, I intend to publish a book one day, and would like to include this series.
In this context, I am not allowing anyone from the list to forward it to others without my written consent, nor to publish links to it in blogs.  The smaller the group that is reading it now, the more chance I have of maintaining my rights.  But I am explicitly soliciting comments from everyone on this list, especially as we go on.

Next, in the previous installments I have explained some basic information and said briefly that the Aleppo Codex represents the work of Aharon Ben Asher himself.  This is relevant because the Rambam, in הלכות תפילין ומזוזה וספר תורהת  ח:ה, says as follows:
ח,ה  וספר שסמכנו עליו בדברים אלו, הוא הספר הידוע במצריים, שהוא כולל ארבעה ועשרים ספרים, שהיה בירושלים מכמה שנים להגיה ממנו הספרים; ועליו, היו הכול סומכין, לפי שהגיהו בן אשר ודיקדק בו שנים, והגיהו פעמים רבות כמו שהעתיקו.  ועליו, סמכתי בספר תורה שכתבתי כהלכתו
So the Rambam is stating that we pasken according to this manuscript, and all later poskim that address the issue that I know of agree..  We know that the manuscript the Rambam is referring to went later to Aleppo.  Although 800 years have gone by, the sources I have referred to show beyond a reasonable doubt that this is the same manuscript.
But that does not mean that only this manuscript is "right" and other manuscripts are "wrong."  There was a masorah before Aharon ben Asher was born.  The masorah is also reflected in the Biblical manuscripts in the niqqud Bavli, and they most certainly reflect the pronunciation of Chazal in Bavel.  Were they wrong?  Say, rather, the truth: that the masoretes in T’veriah were later recognized as having the most accurate masorah, and so the Rambam (who certainly did not pronounce Hebrew like the T’verian system) says that we "pasken" like them.  Someone who follows another old system cannot accurately be called "wrong," just like the Ashkenazim and Teimanim who did not abandon their old minhogim when the M’chabber wrote the Shulchan ‘Aruch cannot accurately be called "wrong," even had the R’Mo not written his dissent.  What can be said is that S’faradim now "pasken" like the M’chabber, and Ashk’nazim mostly "pasken" like the R’Mo.
Nevertheless, since the Rambam and others held that Ben Asher was the most authoritative word on the matter, and since most people (and printings) pay lip service to that idea, I think it is very valuable to see what Ben Asher himself holds on many matters.  Especially since it differs significantly in details from what most people who study Hebrew have been taught.
As I believe I have indicated, two of the major, characteristic differences between the Aleppo Codex and the codices close to it (there are several that have survived) and most printed editions lie in the area of the ge‘ayot and the hataph vowels.  There are also some characteristic differences in certain trop, which we will not discuss here, but can be found in Yeivin’s book (as can the matters we will discuss, but without the conclusions that I think can be drawn from them).
At this point, let me repeat again that the Tiberian system is one, interdependent system.  The vowels, the trop, the ge‘ayot, the maqqaf.  For instance, we read every day T’hillim 147, in which the tenth pasuq reads
י לֹ֤א בִגְבוּרַ֣ת הַסּ֣וּס יֶחְפָּ֑ץ  לֹֽא־בְשׁוֹקֵ֖י הָאִ֣ישׁ יִרְצֶֽה׃ (If you enlarge it, the trop should be visible.)
Each section of the pasuq consist of four words, almost exactly parallel: לא followed by two words in s’mikhut, followed by the verb.  But the trop is different, since in Sifrei אמ’ת the trop in the first part and the second part of the pasuq is always different, and the word לא is connected to the following word with a maqqaf in the second half, whereas in the first it has its own trop.  If the word was את instead of לא, then the first occurrence would be אֵת whereas the second would be אֶת-.  Which is why when I am asked for the rules of אֵת versus אֶת-, I can give general pointers, but not the exact rules, since they depend on the rest of the trop, and the rules of the trop essentially determine when it will be אֵת with its own trop versus אֶת- with a maqqaf.  The rules of the maqqaf, the rules of the ge‘aya, even the rules of the vowels, the rules of the trop are all interdependent to some extent.
As I stated, in the area of the ge‘ayot, ibn Adoniyah for some reason did not do what he had done in the matters of spelling (male and chaser), trop, and vocalization.  Instead of using the systems of the best manuscripts and trying to decide between them, he used an inferior system.  It can almost be said (and Kahle did) that the mark of a manuscript that follows Ben Asher closely is that the ge‘ayot are most all in different places that in the printed editions.
One of the most stable and characteristic uses of the ge‘aya is what YHB’Y called הכבדה   הגעיה.  This appears next to the vowel in a closed syllable, if that syllable is followed by another syllable, then a sh’wa na‘, then the stressed syllable.  For example, וְהִֽתְפַּלְל֞וּ in 1 Kings 8:35.  The ge‘aya is next to the hiriq; the syllable is closed, as shown by the peh with a dagesh qal beginning the next syllable, which is followed by a sh’wa na‘, which is followed by the stressed syllable.  Or take a look at Deuteronomy 30:17: וְהִֽשְׁתַּחֲוִ֛יתָ.  Go to www.aleppcodex.org/newsite, select Deuteronomy, the select “From 30_11 to 31_12.”  It is the last word in the 9th line from the bottom of the first column (note the "zoom image" button on this website, which brings up a tool where you adjust the magnification to your liking, and you can see every dot in the manuscript clearly), and you will see that Ben Asher has the ge‘aya clearly.  This appears in words that are connected by a maqqaf as well, since they are considered as one word.
This ge‘aya is standard whenever the word has a trop that is a mafsiq, it is almost always found.  Out of the thousands of times it appears in the T’NaKh, Yeivin estimated that it occurs with the ge‘aya over 90% of the time (there are only a couple of exceptions to the rule, which are listed in Mordechai Breuer, Ta’amei haMiqra, Horev, Jerusalem, 1989) p. 185).  But this ge‘aya disappeared completely in the standard printed Chumashim and T’NaKhs in Europe, without a trace left.  Instead, the printed editions put in a metheg (I will not call it a ge‘aya) under the tav, before the het with the hataph patah.  Some editions (like Qoren and Breuer) have restored it, but left the new metheg, creating a word with two ge‘ayot, something that is almost completely not allowed in the Ben Asher texts.
What is very interesting is what qualifies as a sh’wa na‘ here.  A sh’wa at the beginning of the word, of course, as in תִֽמְנֶֽה־לְךָ֣ ׀ חַ֡יִל in 1 Kings 20:25.  The second of two sh’was, as in וַֽיִּלְכְּדֻ֑הָ, Numbers 32:39.  The sh’wa under a letter with a dagesh hazaq, as in וַֽיְשַׁלְּחֵ֛הוּ, Genesis 3:23.  A hataf vowel under a guttural, as in in the example from Deuteronomy 29:17 above.  The first of two identical letters, as in the example from 2 Kings above.  And after some words that the Masoretic material clearly indicate have a sh’qa na‘, such as the first word in this quotation from Joshua 22:6: וַֽיְבָרְכֵ֖ם יְהוֹשֻׁ֑עַ וַֽיְשַׁלְּחֵ֔ם וַיֵּֽלְכ֖וּ אֶל־אָֽהֳלֵיהֶֽם.  Note also the third word, which is another case of the regular "heavy ge‘aya."
However, sh’wa’s after what is called a "tn’u‘ah g’dolah" are NOT normally considered na‘ for this purpose.  See the fourth word in the quotation above.  There are only a small number of exceptions.
On the one hand, it must be noted that at the time of the Ba’alei Masorah, no one knew what a "tn’u‘ah g’dolah" was.  It was a term invented by the Qimhi family in Spain in the 12th Century.  Nevertheless, one would have expected that if the sh’wa’s in these words were na‘, regardless of what one calls the first vowel, they would have a ge‘aya in the closed syllable, as every other possible case of sh’wa na‘ does.
This is just one of the signs that something is wrong with the Bahur’s rules.  In the next section, we will find more.
I must express my gratitude to the Mechon Mamre foundation (www.mechon-mamre.org<http://www.mechon-mamre.org>), which has put the T’NaKh on line with great care, with and without vowels and trop, a monumental task, and also put the Mishne Torah on line, in the most correct edition.  And to the Be-Zvi Institute, that put detailed photographs of all the extant pages of the Codex on www.aleppocodex.org/newsite.  Years ago, only a few individuals could see the Codex by special permission.  Then they issued a facsimile edition, which was very expensive and mostly purchased by libraries (it can be yours at Amazon, http://www.amazon.com/Aleppo-Codex-Massoretic-Considered-Authoritive/dp/9652235687/ref=sr_1_4?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1409598477&sr=1-4&keywords=Aleppo+Codex, for only $1,275).  But now it is available to anyone, and the magnification tool is extraordinarily useful.
Since it was necessary to show the trop, I have copied the examples here with the trop, but I strongly suspect it will cause problems in many computer systems; it even does in mine if I try to change the font.  However, you should be able to find the examples by the references I give for each.

Rabbi Dr. Seth Mandel
Rabbinic Coordinator
The Orthodox Union
11 Broadway, New York, NY  10004

•Voice (212) 613-8330 7 Fax (212) 613-0718   • e-mail mandels at ou.org<mailto:mandels at ou.org>
[cid:image001.jpg at 01C73F0F.8A8D8BE0]
Visit our new www.OUDirect.org<blocked::blocked::http://www.OUDirect.org> to manage YOUR account

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/mesorah-aishdas.org/attachments/20140902/d1efda76/attachment-0004.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image001.jpg
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 3051 bytes
Desc: image001.jpg
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/mesorah-aishdas.org/attachments/20140902/d1efda76/attachment-0004.jpg>