OF THE TORAH

OR

THE MEANING AND PURPOSE OF THE

EXTRAORDINARY POINTS OF THE PENTATEUCH
(MASSORETIC TEXT)

A Contribution to the History of Textual Criticism

AMONG THE ANCIENT JEWS

BY

ROMAIN BUTIN, S. M., S. T. L.

H dissertation

SUBMITTED TO THE FACULTY OF PHILOSOPHY OF THE CATHOLIC UNIVERSITY OF AMERICA IN

CONFORMITY WITH THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY

BALTIMORE
J. H. FURST COMPANY
1906
^H OF Pfi///^

B98
 THE TEN NEQUDOTH
OF THE TORAH
OR

THE MEANING AND PURPOSE OF THE

EXTRAORDINARY POINTS OF THE PENTATEUCH
(MASSORETIC TEXT)

A Contribution to the History of Textual Criticism

AMONG the Ancient Jews

ROMAIN BUTIN, S. M., S. T. L.

H Dissertation

SUBMITTED TO THE FACULTY OF PHILOSOPHY OF THE CATHOLIC UNIVERSITY OF AMERICA IN

CONFORMITY WITH THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY

BALTIMORE
J. H. FURST COMPANY
j9oe
 BIOGRAPHY.

The author of this Dissertation, Romain Butin, was born Decem-

ber 3, 1871, at Saint-Romain d'Urfe, department of Loire, France.
After a preparatory training in the schools of his native town, he
pursued the study of the classics at the ' Ecole Cl^ricale ' of Les
Salles, and at the ' Petit S^minaire ' of Saint-Jodard, in the same
department. In 1890, he came to America and spent two years
in the study of Philosophy at the scholasticate of the Marist
Fathers, in Maryland. He then entered the Society of Mary, and
after two years of active work at Jeiferson College, Louisiana, came
to the Marist College near the Catholic University of America,
Washington, D. C, for his theological training. In 1898, he
matriculated at the Catholic University, where he followed the
courses of Moral Theology under the late Prof. Th. Bouquillon,
of Sacred Scripture under Prof. C. P. Grannan, and of Hebrew
under Prof. H. Hyvernat. In 1900, he received the Degree of
Licentiate of Theology, and was appointed professor of Hebrew
and Sacred Scripture at the Marist College. In the fall of the
same year, he registered in the Department of Semitic and
Egyptian Languages and Literatures. Since then, while continu-
ing the study of Sacred Scripture under Prof. C. P. Grannan,
he has devoted most of his time to the Hebrew and Aramaic
Languages and to post-Biblical Jewish Literature under Prof.
H. Hyvernat.

Ill
 PREFACE.

Assuming that from an early date, unavoidable errors have

crept into the text of the Hebrew Scriptures, the question arises,
have the Jews tried to restore that text to its primitive purity ?
if so, as is generally granted, at what date did they realize the
necessity of such a critical revision ? and what means did they
take to effect their purpose? We believe there is no rashness
in asserting that the last two questions have never been fully
solved, and are consequently, still open for discussion. It is

true that the ancient Qeres, as well as many extraordinary

features of the textus receptus, such as the Pisqa or blank space
in the middle of verses, the Suspended Letters, the Inverted
Nuns, the Extraordinary Points, etc., all of which are partly at

least anterior to the Talmud, have been repeatedly examined and

interpreted in various ways yet, as ;
to the true purpose and
meaning of these pre-Talmudic textual peculiarities, there exists,
among most discouraging absence of agreement,
scholars, the
and a solution that would command universal assent, is still a
desideratum.
The hope of contributing, even in a small measure, to the
attainment of this end, has prompted us to investigate the meaning
of the so-called Extraordinary Points, and find out whether or not
they are an evidence of a critical effort on the part of the ancient
Jews.
It is our pleasing duty to express our gratitude to Prof. H.
Hyvernat, not only for the constant and manifold encouragement
that he has given us in the preparation of this Dissertation, but
also for the unsparing care and kindness with which he has
directed our Semitic studies.
We must also acknowledge our indebtedness to Dr. S. Schechter,

President of the Faculty of the Jewish Theological Seminary,

V
vi Preface.

New York, and to Dr. G. F. Moore, Professor of the History of

Keligions, in Harvard University, Cambridge, Mass., who have
consented to read the first redaction of this work, and to whom we
are under obligation for many valuable remarks and suggestions.
Our thanks are no less due to Dr. I. Casanowicz, of the
National Museum, Washington, D. C, for his kind assistance
towards the correct understanding of many Rabbinical texts.
Let us add, however, that none of these scholars are in any way
responsible for the views and conclusions which we advocate, and
that to us alone are to be attributed any shortcomings the reader
may detect in the present Dissertation.

ROMAIN BUTIN.
The Marist College, January, 1906.
 TABLE OF CONTENTS.

PAGE,
Biography ;... iii

Preface v
Abbreviatioks xi

CHAPTER I.

INTRODUCTORY.
1-4. A. Aim and Scope of the present work 1

5-14. B. Historical sketch of the various opinions regarding the

meaning of the Points 3
Arguments to be used in the solution
C. 11
15. General Remarks 11
16. First Argument. Mental Preoccupations at the time when the
Points originated 12
17. Second Argument. Palajography 13
18. Third Argument. Textual Criticism 14
19. Fourth Argument. Jewish Writings 15

CHAPTER II.

GENERAL ARGUMENTS ON THE POINTS.

Section I. Approximate Age of the Points.

20. Konigsberger's opinion 19
21. The Points are older than R. Meir 20
22. The Points are anterior to the Second Century A. D 20
23. The Points are as old as the Christian era 21
24. The Points probably belong to the period of the Soferim 23
25. 26. Lagarde's View 24

Section II. Mental Activity of the Jews during that period.

iNFIiUENCE OF ALEXANDRIA OVER PALESTINE.

A. Textual Preoccupations.

27-29. The Peculiarities of the Text were noted by the ancient Jews. 26
30-33. Critical Labors among the ancient Jews 27
vii
VIU Table of Contend.

34. Critical Signs in Alexandria 30

35-37. The Palestinian Jews were acquainted with the critical signs
of the Alexandrians, and probably borrowed their graphical
methods from them 31

B. Exegetical Preoccupations.

38-39. Alexandrian Jewish Exegesis 35

40-41. Palestinian Exegesis 35

C. Meaning of the Points as derived from the preceding remarks.

42-44. The Points have not an exegetical import 37

45. The Points have probably the same import as the corresponding
Greek signs 89
4&-47. Form of the Nequdoth 39
48-50. Similar Signs in Alexandria 42
51. The have probably the value of a dele
iVe(/McZo</i 43
52. This conclusion is strengthened by the meaning which other
nations and the Jews themselves, at a later date, attri-
buted to dots 43
53-54. Objection of Konig and Levias 45

Section III. Jewish Testimonies on the Points in General.

56. Preliminary remarks 46

57-58. Eule K. Simeon B. Eleazar
of 46
59. Rule of Eabbi 48
60. View of some mediaeval Rabbis 50
61. The testimony of the Zohar 50

CHAPTER III.

THE INDIVIDUAL POINTED PASSAGES IN THE LIGHT OF

TEXTUAL CRITICISM AND OF THE JEWISH WRITINGS.
62-64. Indication of the various Testimonies on the Points 52
65-66. Testimony of Sifre 55
67-71. Genesis xvi, 5 57
72-76. Genesis xviii, 9 62
77-81. Genesis xix, 33 67
82-88. Genesis xxxiii, 4 72
89-92. Genesis xxxvii, 12 78
93-95. Numbers iii, 39 81
96-101. Numbers ix, 10 84
102-107. Numbers xxi, 30 88
108-118. Numbers xxix, 15 92
119-129. Deuteronomy xxix, 28 100
 Table of Contents, IX

CONCLUSION.

130. Preliminary remarks 108

131. The Points are not due to chance 108
132-134. The Points have not an exegetical import 109
135-138. The Points do not correspond to our Italics Ill
139-143. The Critical Theories examined. The Points are real dele-
tions 113

APPENDIX.

144-153. Texts of the Jewish Testimonies on the ten pointed pas-

sages of the Pentateuch 119

Bibliography 131
 :

ABBREVIATIONS.

Apart from the common abbreviations, or those in which the

abbreviated word is easily recognized, we have also used the
following

Aboth de R. Nathan (1) or (2) = (First recension) or (Second

recension).
AJP. = American Journal of Philology.
Blau, MU. = Blau, Masoretische Untersuchungen.
Cheyne's EB. = Cheyne's Encyclopaedia Biblica.
Hamburger REdJ. == Real-Encyclopiidie des Judentums.
Hastings' DB. = Hastings' Dictionary of the Bible.
ICC. = The International Critical Commentary,
etc.

JQR. = The Jewish Quarterly Review.

Kitto's CBL. = Kitto's Cyclopaedia of Biblical Litera-
ture.

Konigsberger, MuTK. = Aus Masorah und Talmudkritik.

MM. = Massorah Magna.
MP. = Massorah Parva.
PB. = Polychrome Bible, The Sacred
i. e.,

Books of the O. T. printed in colors.

PSBA. = Proceedings of the Society for Bibli-
cal Archaeology.
RB. = Revue Biblique Internationale.
REJ. = Revue des Etudes Juives.
Smith's DB. = Smith's Dictionary of the Bible.
TSK. = Theologische Studien und Kritiken.
ZAW. = Zeitschrift die alttestamentliche
fiir

Wissenschaft.
ZMDG. = Zeitschrift der Deutschen Morgenland-
ischen Gesellschaft.
ZWT. = Zeitschrift fiir wissenschaftliche Theo-
logie.

xi
 . ;

MEANING AND PURPOSE OF THE

EXTRAORDINARY POINTS OF THE PENTATEUCH.

CHAPTER I.

INTRODUCTORY.

A. Aim and Scope of the Present Work.

1. In the Massoretic text of the Bible, fifteen passages are

found, in which one or more letters or even entire words

are marked with points that cannot be accounted for by the
so-called Massoretic punctuation. These points, for this reason,

are known as the Punda Extraordmaria, ' Extraordinary Points,'

or more simply, in the Jewish writings, as the Nequdotli, ' the
Points.' ^
Of the fifteen passages, ten occur in the Pentateuch,
four in the Prophets, and one in the Hagiographa. They are
the following : —Gen. xvi, 5, "]^J''D1 ""J^^ TTirV lOD^"' ; Gen. xviii, 9,

'rh^ nDN^I ; Gen. xix, 33, nnipDI rCO'QJ'2 VT ^h'^ ; Gen. xxxiii,
4, inpli;^T ; Gen. xxxvii, 12, ]N^ hx myi^ ; Num. iii, 39, jinNi
Num. ix, 10, npm "jmn ^X Num. ; xxi, 30, N3TD iy n^I^N HDJ IJ?

Num. xxix, 15, \^'WV yr^W^ ; Dent, xxix, 28, D^iy "ly irji}'?'i ihb ;

2 Sam. xix, 20, NiJ'' 'w^ D1^3 ; Isaiah, xliv, 9, iian Dnnyi ;

Ezech. xli, 20, ^yhh TpT ; Ezech. xlvi, 22, niyHpnb ; Ps. xxvii,
13, iA^^h
2. As may be seen in the title of our Dissertation, our present
study is limited to the ten Nequdoth of the Pentateuch ; this

course was suggested to us by considerations which it will not

be amiss to present to the reader. Though in point of origin,
all the Nequdoth may belong to the same epoch,^ still a sharp

^On the precise meaning of ni"11pJ, see lower down, § 46.

^Cp. Strack, Prolegomena, p. 90,
2 Meaning and Purpose of the

distinctionseems to have been made by the Jews themselves,

between the Points of the Torah and those of the other books.
While the four dotted passages of the Prophets are nowhere
mentioned before the Massorah of the vi or vii century A. d.,
the ten passages of theLaw form a well defined group and are
explained in Sifre.^ This list of Sifre, with or without the
explanations, and with more or less variations, is reproduced in
many of the subsequent Jewish works. The individual dotted
passages of the Law are besides, mentioned and explained in

several places of the Talmud and Midrashim.^ We have there-

fore in those explanations, for the Points of the Pentateuch, a
whole line of evidence which is entirely lacking in the case of the

four passages of the Prophets, since on them no explanations are

ever given.
The only passage of the Hagiographa, viz. Ps. xxvii, 13,
though mentioned in the Talmud —Berakhoth 4a—and there,

explained in the name of R. Jose (2nd cent. A. d.), has never

been included in any of the various lists of the Nequdoth, other
than in those of the Massorah,^ and consequently it has never
partaken of the official character of the Points of the Law.
3. Still less do we intend to treat of passages that are
occasionally pointed in mss. but never mentioned among the
Nequdoth.^
Finally, we also exclude from our present study Num. x, 35 f.

It is true that Sifre requires points on the passage in question,

" (Ti^a^OT rbvchn ^^bv "l^pJ," ^ but the specification H'tiQ^DI rhv^^^
shows that we have to deal here with a palseographical sign
different from the simple Nequdah, and needing a special and

^ According to a growing tendency, we write it might be more '

Sifre,' although
according to pliilological methods to write 'Siphre,' same way, we write ; in the
'Soferim,' instead of 'Sopherim.' Sifre is a Jewish Halachic Commentary on
Numbers and Deuteronomy in its present form is commonly ascribed to the iii
;

cent., A. D., but many fragments are older cp. lower down, §65. ;

^See lower down, §§ 63, 64, etc.

' See Massorali Magna on Num. iii, 39 Ochlah weQchlah, ed. Frensdorff, n.
;

96. On the origin of tlie term 'Massorah,' see Bacher, JQR, iii, 785 ff.

* These, however, shall be utilized in this Dissertation, § 52.

6§ 84. Ed. Friedmann, p. 22a; cf. Hamburger, BEdJ, ii, 1215.
 Ten Extraordinary Points of the Pentateuch. 3

independent treatment. It may, of course, have the same mean-

ing as the Points proper, but Sifre itself does not inchide it in

the list it gives of them. On the same passage, Sabbath 115a-b,

simply mentions nVJa'^D, Soferim vi, 1, "liyil',^ while the Massorah

prescribes a sign known as the Inverted Nun.^ Let us add, that

in Rabbinical literature, with the exception of Midrash Mishle
(which however leaves out Gen. xviii, 9, in order to preserve the
number of the dotted passages),^ Num. x, 35 f. is never
official

counted among the Nequdoth.

For all these reasons, we feel justified in narrowing the scope
of the present work to the Nequdoth of the Law as given in the
list of Sifre.
4. Nor do we intend to discuss ex jirofesso all the questions
that might be raised, in connection with those Extraordinary
Points ; out of the many problems to be solved, we have selected

for the present investigation, the one having reference to their

meaning and purpose. Logically, perhaps, this would not be the

first question that would offer itself for treatment, but in import-

ance it ranks first and foremost. However, the minor issues have
not been entirely overlooked, and some will be found in the
course of this dissertation ; but, as we have touched upon them
only in as much as they throw additional light on the question
of the meaning of the Nequdoth, their complete discussion should
not be expected here.

B. Historical Sketch.

5. The problem that we have chosen for discussion is not

entirely new, and many scholars have already, explicitly or

1 This word is corrected into 1 "C't? by Krauss, ZA W, 1902, pp. 57-65.

^ See M. M. on Num. x, 35 and Ps. cvii, 23 ; Norzi, Minchath Shai, on Num.
X, 35, has the sign 2 ; cp. Ginsburg, Massorah Compiled, ii, p. and
259, n. 15,
Krauss, I. c. On the Inverted Nuns, see Blau, MU, pp. 40 ff. and the authors
quoted by him ; Harris, JQR, i, 137 flf.; Kouigsberger, MuTK, pp. 41 ff. ; Gins-
burg, Introd. , pp. 341 S. ; Konig, £"171/.
,
p. 34 ; H}'vernat, Le Langiuige de la
Massore, BB, 1905, pp. 212 f.

3 n:1U 13J-' r.lCrD, Prov. xxvi, 24. Ed. Buber, p. 100.

4 Meaning and Purpose of the

implicitly, expressed their views on it; but no theory has, thus

far, secured universal acceptance, or pushed its claims beyond the

limits of probability. This will be made evident from the follow-

ing classification and analysis of these various opinions.
The explanations of the Nequdoth found in the early Jewish
literature, were generally accepted without further comment, by
the Jews of subsequent ages, as giving in their literal sense, the

true import of the Extraordinary Points. These Rabbinical

explanations seem to connect with the Points — at least as a

mnemonic device —a special thought which the dotted letters or

words, of themselves would never suggest. In consequence, this

interpretation of the Nequdoth is known as Hhe theory of the

hidden meaning.' However, there have always been among
the Jews, even in the Middle Ages, scholars, such as Rashi,^ the
Tosafists,^ Ba'al ha-Turim,^ Albo,^ etc.,^ who have not adopted
these opinions. If these men did not attribute to the dots a
critical value, they at least claimed that they practically annul
the words or letters over which they are placed. However, these
scholars, as far as we know, gave no special reason for their view,
and besides they do not seem to have influenced the trend of
contemporary thought.
6. As for Christian scholars, for a long time they seem to
have depended solely on the Jews for their convictions on this

question.^ Besides, it was not until the xvii century that they
began to take an interest in the problem, and from the very start

^ Comm. on
the Talmud of Babylon, M. Pesachim, ix, 2 Baba Metsi'a, 87a ; ;

Sanh. ,Menachoth, 87b also Comm. on the Bible, v. g. Gen. xix, 33.
43b ; ;

^On Nazir, 23a on the Tosafists see Mielziner, Introd. to the Talmud, p. 66 ff.
;

3 On Num. xxi, 30; on Ba'al ha-Turim (Jacob b. Asher), see JE, vii, 27 f.

^Sefer Iqqarim, III, 22 (end) ; op. Buxtorf, Tiberias, p. 180.

5 See Blau, EinL, p. 117, n. 2; Stern, in Weiss' Beth Ha-Midrasch, 1865, pp.
58-62 ;
also Pollak, ibid., p. 57.
^Cp. St. Jerome, De Gen. ad lit., on Gen. xix, 33: " Appungunt (Judaei)
desuper quasi incredibile et quid rerum natura non capiat coire quemquam
nescientem." To this may be added the note of Origen (?) found in some mss.
on Gen, xxxiii, 4; we reproduce it after Field, Hexapla, ad locum, n. 6: "rd,
Ka.Te<t>l\r)<jev avrhv, 6irep icrrlv "E^pal'ffTl ovecraaKT], ev iravrl 'E^paiKQ BijSX/y irepU-
(TTiKTai, ovx tW ij.r} dvayivuiaKTiTai, dXX' vwaiviTToix^^rjs uxnrep 5td tovtov t^s /3//3Xoi/

Tj]v irovYiplav tov 'HtraO •

Kara d6\ov ykp KaTecpiXtja-e rbv 'IaKii/3.
 Ten Extraordinary Points of the Pentateuch. 5

their views were divided. The greater number still adliered to

the prevalent theory that made the Nequdoth express a hidden
meaning, though some occasionally ridiculed the Jews for having
attached such a special meaning to the pointed text-elements. In
this class we have Morinus/ Lightfoot/ Surenhusius/ and in

recent times Alexander/ Klostermann ^ and Levias.^ Dillmann/

Konigsberger,^ Bertholet/ Steuernagel/" Driver ^^
hold also the
above theory by exception for Dent, xxix, 28, as does also
Gray^^ for Num. ix, 10.

7. Others, finding in what they claimed to be the absurd

character of the Jewish explanations of the Nequdoth, a sign that
the Jews were trying to account for what they did not under-
stand —" sunt palpitantia Hebraeorum judicia ut coecorum in
tenebris " — ^^
rejected these explanations as not giving the true
motive for the pointing of certain textual elements, and simply
confessed their inability to reach a satisfactory solution. Thus
Buxtorf,^* Cappellus,^' Walton.^^
8. Finally, others took a still more radical stand by attributing
the Points to chance and accident. In their view, the explanations

given of these Points are due to the superstitious bias of the Jews

^ Exercitationum Biblicarum de Hebraei Graecique Texius Sinceritate Libri duo

(1669), Lib. n, Exerc. xii, Cap. vi, p. 406.
^ Opera Omnia (Eoterdam, 1686), vol. I, Chronica Temporum, p. 39. Michaelis,
Biblia Hebraica, on Deuteron. xxix, 28, quotes him with approval.
*^i/3Xos KaTaWayrjs, p. 71.
*Masorah, in Kitto's CBL, iii, 103.
^ B'deher Sanmelis, etc. (in Strack's Kurzg. Comm. ), note on 2 Sam. xix, 20.
^ Masorah, in JE, viii, 368.
' Quoted by Driver, Deuteronomy, p. 328, note.
^MuTK, 25 f.

^ Deuteronomium erJcldrt (in Marti's Kurz. Hand-Commentar z. A. T. ), p. 90.

^^ Ubersetzung u. Erkldrung d. Bilcher Deuteronomium u. Josua (in Nowack's
Handkommentar), p. 108.
^^Deuteronomy (in the International Critical Commentary), p. 328.
^^A Critical and Exegeiical Commentary on Numbers (in the International Critical
Commentary), p. 85.
"Buxtorf, Tiberias, p. 181.
" Tiberias, p. 173 ff. 181.
^" Arcanum Punctationis Revelatum, ii, xii.

^^Prolegomena, Prol. viii, 3.

6 Meaning and Purpose of the

who saw mysteries everywhere. Thus R. Simon/ Guarin/ and

in modern times Green.^
According to Buxtorf, Cappellus, and Walton, the problem is

insoluble ; according to Richard Simon and his followers, there is

no problem at all. Most of the authors mentioned, apart from

the fact that they never thought of any other means of solving
the difficulty save through the data from the Jewish writings,
evidently took it for granted that the literal interpretation
was the only one that could be placed upon these Jewish testi-

monies.
9. In 1692, Hiller in his "De Arcano Kethib et Keri," *

was apparently the first to clearly attribute to the Points a critical

value. As far as we can ascertain from quotations made from his

work, he claimed that the Nequdoth had been placed to cancel

words or letters. This has become the more common view among
subsequent writers. Thus Houbigant,'' Heidenheim,^ Eichhorn,'^
de Wette,« Welte,^ Hupfeld,^« Olshausen,^^ Lagarde,^^ Smend,^^^

^Histoire Critique, Ch. p. 144 "Un copiste aura laiss^ tomber .... une
XX vi, :

goutte d' encre dont forme quelque point iin Juif ensuite superstitieux,
il se sera :

qui est persuade que tout ce qui est dans I'Ecriture est mystere, mSme jusqu'aux
plus petits points, ne manque pas d' in venter des raisons de ce pr^tendu mystere."
Cp. Cappellus and Walton, II. cc.
^ Gramm. Hebr. et Chald., ii, p. 413.
^ Hebrew Grammar, § 4.
* (Tubingen, 1692), Lib. i, iii, pp. 152 ff., quoted in Strack's Prolegomena, p.
91, and in Rosenmuller's Scholia, on Num. xxi, 30.
^ Notae Criticae in Universos Veteris Testamenti Libras (Frankf. a. M., 1777), on
Num. iii, 39.
«Pentat. edit. C^H^Xn miD ISD, quoted in Blau, Einl, 117, n. 2.
'' Einkitung in d. A. T. (5 vols., Gottingen, 1823-1824), i, § 118.
^ Lehrbuch d. Historisch-Kritischen Einleitung in die Kanonisch .... Biicher
(6th ed., Berlin, 1845), § 89, pp. 134 f.

9 In Tubing. Quartalfschrift, 1848, p. 631, quoted in Comely, Introductio in

Ulriusque Testamenti Libros, vol. I, 254, n. 11.
^"Die Psalmen (4 vols., Gotha, 1855), n, p. 112.
"Die Psalmen (Leipzig, 1853), on Ps. xxvii, 13 ; Beitrdge zur Kritik des TJeber-
lieferten Textes im Buche Genesis (in Monatschr. d. Konigl. Preuss. Akad. d. Wis-
senschaften, 1870, pp. 380 £F.).
^'^
Mitheilungen (4 vols. , Gottingen , 1884-1891), i, 19.
"i>e)- Prophet Ezechiel (Leipzig, 1880), on Ez. xlvi, 22.
 Ten Extraordinary Points of the Pentateuch. 7

Cheyne/ Lambert/ Neubauer/ Wellhaiisen/ Toy/ Cornill/ and

in some passages de Rossi/ Geiger/ Dillmann/ Delitzsch/"
Strack/^ Hamburger/^ Gray/^ and Baentsch.^* Blau ^^ and Gins-
burg ^^
also belong to this class, but add that the Points occasion-
ally indicate that another reading should be substituted for the
present Massoretic one.
10. In the middle of the xviii century Hiipeden ^'^
treated of
the Nequdoth far more systematically than had been done before,
so much so that he is supposed by many to have been the origi-
nator of the critical theories. He claimed that the Points had been
invented mostly to mark divergencies between mss., and that on this
account the dotted letters were, at least for us, critically doubtful.

His view has been accepted by Vogel,^^ Michaelis,^^ E,osenmuller/°

^The Booh of Psahis (New York, 1888), on Ps. xxvii, 13; Isaiah (PB.) on
Is. xliv, 9.
^ Les Points Extraordinaires, REJ, xxx, 116-118.
^JQR, III, 540 f.

*Book of Psalms (in PB.), on Ps. xxvii, 13.

^Ezechid (in PB. ), on Ez. xli, 20 ; xlvi, 22.
^Das Buck d. Propheten Ezechiel (Leipzig, 1886), on Ez. xli, 20 ; xlvi, 22.
' Variae Lectiones, on Num. iii, 39.
^ Lesesi'dcke aus der Mishnah, p. 86 f. ; Urschrift, etc., p. 257 f. ; cp. p. 185.
^ Die Genesis (5th edit., Leipzig, 1886), on Gen. xvi, 5; xxxiii, 4.

^'^ Neuer Commentar iiher die Genesis (Leipzig, 1887), on Gen. xvi, 5;
xxxiii, 4.
^^ Die Bilcher Genesis Exodus Leviticus u. Numeri (in Strack's Kurzgef. Com-
mentar), on Gen. xvi, 5 ; xix, 33 ; xxxiii, 4; Num. xxix, 15.
1^ REdJ, II, p. 1215. It is to be noted that Hamburger derives the meaning
of the Points from Sifre § 84, on Num. x, 35.
13 Num. xxi, 30.
^* Exodus, Leviticus, Numeri iibersetzt u. erkldrt (in Nowack's Handkommentar),
on Num. iii, 39 ; ix, 10.

'^3IU, p. 8.
^^Introduction, etc., 318 fE.

^''
Neue wahrscheinliche Muthmassung von der wahren Ursache und Bedeuiung der
ausserordentlichen Punkte (Hannover, 1751).
^^ Ludovici Cappdli Critica Sacra .... Libri sex (3 vols., Halle, 1775), vol. I,

pp. 455 £E.

19 Orient, u. Exeg. Biblioth., Th. i, p. 230 Th. xii, p. 135.

;

'"'
Scholia on Num. iii, 39 ; on Deut. xxix, 28 on Ezechiel, ; xlvi, 22 ; on Psalm
xxvii, 13.
8 Meaning and Purpose of the

Maurer,^ Scholz,^ Eisenstein,^ and for some passages, by de Rossi/

Geiger,'^ Dillmann,'' Delitzsch/ and Hamburger.^
11. Some other scholars, while admitting the Points to have
a critical import, simply hold that they were placed over words
and letters to show that these latter were considered as critically

doubtful, whatever may have been the foundation for the doubt.
Thus Kohler,» Bottcher,^« Keil," Buhl,!^ Ball,^^ Patterson,^* and
occasionally Geiger,^^ Strack,^^ Gray,^'^ and Baentsch.^^
12. Akin to this last theory, is the view of Konig,^^ who
believes that the dots do not imply any positive judgment as to
the doubtfidness of the present Massoretic readings, but are simply
the outcome of a timid suspicion entertained against some textual
elements. In this sense, the dots would correspond to our inter-
rogation mark, placed after words to which special attention is

called for further investigation.

13. A last theory to be mentioned here is the one found

^ Commentarius Grrammaticus Criticus in Vetus Testamentum ( 4 vols. Leipzig, 1835- ,

1847) on Num. iii, 39 ; see however Coram, on Psalm xxvii, 13, where he says
that Hbv has been pointed because the Jews could not understand it.

^ Einleitung in die Heiligen Schriften d. alien u. Neuen Testaments (2 vols., Koln,

1845), vol. I, p. 421.
^In Ner ha-Maarabi, i, 1-8, etc.
* Variae Lediones, Ezechiel, xli, 20.

^LesestUcke, 1. c. ; Urschrift, 1. c.
^ Gaiesis, xviii, 9 ; xix, 33 ; xxxvii, 12.
' On Gen. xviii, 9.
^REdJ, n, p. 1216.
*In Bepertoriumf. Biblische u. Mwgenlundische Litteralur, V, 43.
^'^Autifuhrliches Lehrbuch d. Hebrdischen Sprache (2 vols., Leipzig, 1866-1868),
1,47.
" Genesis u. Exodus (2d edit., Leipzig, 1866), p. 160, n. 1 ; Comm. iiber Ezechiel
(Leipzig, 1882), on Ezech. xlvi, 22.
^^Kanon u. Text des Alien Testamenfe ( Leipzig, 1891), § 35, p. 105.
" The Book of Genesis (in PB.), on Gen. xvi, 5 xxxiii, 4. ;

" The Book of Numbers (in PB. ), on Num. in, 39.

^^11. cc.

" 0. c, on Num. xxi, 30.

" 0. c, on Num. iii, 39.
^^ 0. c, on Num. xxi, 30.
^^ Einkitung, p. 33.
 ;

Ten Extraordinary Points of the Pentateuch. 9

in the Zohar.^ It has been advocated by Schwab,^ Biichler/

Konigsberger/ adopted on one passage as possible by Strack,^ and
given as an alternative probability by Levias.^ According to this

view the Nequdoth are not at all designed to throw suspicion or

doubt on the text, but correspond to our imderscoring, underlin-
ing, to our '(sic)' or to our italics. "Pour souligner un mot, une
lettre, on plafait des points sup^rieurs correspondant a notre
^
italique."
14. Apart from the fact that most of the advocates of the
critical theories are not always consistent, it is to be noted that
with the exception of Hlipeden, Blau, Konigsberger, and Ginsburg,^
none of them have treated the question at any length ; they are,
as a rule, satisfied in reproducing — tacitly in many cases — the
views of their predecessors. We may say that, until recently,
Hiipeden was the final authority on whom subsequent writers
depended. As far as we can see from the references made by
scholars to Hiipeden's work,^ his conclusions were based mainly,
if not exclusively, on the ordinary methods of Textual Criticism,
and especially on divergencies between mss. He does not seem
to have directed his attention to the mental attitude of the Jews
at the time of the origin of the Nequdoth, nor to the palseographi-
cal argument, nor to the data of the Jewish writings. Besides,
the very title that he gave to his work, Wahrscheinliche Iluthmas-
sung, etc., sufficiently indicates that he did not consider his
arguments conclusive, and that he proposed his view, more as a
hypothesis than a proved system. His method, as well as his
conclusions, seem to have been accepted by subsequent wi'iters

^ Cabbalistic work attributed to Simon b. Yochai, but dating probably from the
xin Cent.; see Zunz, Gott. Vort, 419 Q.
^ Talmud de Jerusalem, v, p. 138, n. 1. See, however, ^^ Notice sur les Points
Voyelles," p. 26: " ils servent a d^noter I'h&itation du scribe" which would be
the view of Konig.
^Entstehung .... der Hebr. Ace, Teil I, pp. 89, 97, 116, 141.
*3fuTK, p. 9; cp. p. 7.
^ 0. c, on Num. ix, 10.
® Masorah in JE, viii, p. 368.
''
Schwab, Talm. de Jer., I. c.
^ It is to be noted that Ginsburg avowedly depends on Blau for his views.

^ See Vogel, Ludovici Cappelli Critica Sacra, I, c.

 :

10 Meaning and Purpose of the

for, as a rule, the arguments that he has failed to consider have

by those that came after him.
also been neglected
In view of the complete disagreement among the various
authors mentioned heretofore, we may well understand the judg-
ment passed by Strack in 1873, on the then existing state of the
controversy relative to the meaning of the Extraordinary Points
" De origine et significatione punctorum horum, nihil pro certo
affirmari potest. . . . Nunc plerique puncta lectionem variam vel
corruptam significari The same judgment could
existimant." ^

have been given in 1891, when Blau wrote his Masoretisehe

TJntersuchungen, for, nothing of any consequence was published
during the intervening years. Blau was the first to use the
Jewish writings systematically as a means of reaching the true
import of the Points. His scholarly treatment of these writings
shows a great j)rogress on his predecessors; still his views have
not as yet gained universal acceptance and his system has been
strongly opposed by Konigsberger. This last scholar is a firm
believer in the Massorah as against the old Jewish Midrashic
works. He claims that the Points are Massoretic and conse-
quently should be judged according to the methods of the
Massorah ; and as the Massorah is supposed by him to have
nothing but devices to preserve the text as it had been received,
the Points cannot have any other meaning. Konig is also at
variance with Blau, and does not hesitate to qualify Blau's
reasoning as "hinfallig." However, he has not considered the
question at any length, and has devoted to it only two pages
of his Einleitung.
If the reader wishes to know the present state of the question,
he will find it in the words of Levias, JE, vol. viii (1904), p.

368, art. Masorah. He says: "The significance of the dots is

disputed. Some hold them to be marks of erasure ; others believe
them to indicate that in some collated manuscripts the stigmatized
words were missing, hence that the reading is doubtful still others ;

contend that they are merely a mnemonic device to indicate homi-

letical explanations which the ancients had connected with those

^Prolegomena, p. 90.
 Ten Extraordinary Points of the Pentateuch. 11

words ; finally, some maintain the dots were designed to guard

against the omission by copyists of text-elements which, at first
glance or after comparison with parallel passages, seemed to be
superfluous .... The first two explanations are unacceptable for

the reason that such faulty readings would belong to kere and
ketib, which, in case of doubt, the majority of manuscripts would
^
decide. The last two theories have equal probability."

C Arguments to be used in the Solution.

15. The disagreement which we have noticed among scholars,

is not caused simply by the different interpretation of some given

individual data, but is primarily traceable to the radical diver-
gencies of views with regard to the arguments that should be
used and the method that should be followed in the solution of
the problem. K5nigsberger, for instance, when he opposes Blau,
does not say that the latter misunderstood Sifre and the other
sources ; he himself grants that such documents really have the
meaning given them by Blau; but he is of opinion that they
should not be trusted, because they have wrongly attributed to
the Nequdoth the same meaning as to the palseographical Greek
or Latin dot.^
Besides, it is our conviction that a great deal of the uncertainty
is due to the lack of comprehensiveness in the treatment of the
Nequdoth. We think that the whole field should again be sur-
veyed and examined in the light not only of one or two lines of
argument, but of all the evidence combined. On the one hand,
considered individually, some of the arguments adducible may be
too indefinite to allowmore than a general conclusion, or too
inconclusive to warrant more than a probable inference hence, ;

they must be strengthened by the other elements of solution, so

that from the cumulative force of all, a satisfactory conclusion
may be reached. On the other hand, it may also happen that

^ The same hesitancy is seen in Weir, History of the Hebrew Text, pp. 53, 54.
In fact, he does not seem to have any definite system.
^MuTK, p. 9-10.
 —

12 Meaning and Purpose of the

what would seem almost certain in the li^ht of one line of

argument, may be by another. It
partially or entirely disproved
is then onlyby comparing the various partial results with one
another, and by controlling the one by the other, that we may
safely come to a scientific and final conclusion.
We now beg leave to set before the reader the main lines along
which the investigation should be carried out.
16. Themeans of solution is derived from the circum-
first

stances of the time during which the Nequdoth came into existence.
This is simply the aj^plication to the Nequdoth of the principle
universally acknowledged in theory, but very often ignored in
practice — that every effect must be judged in the light of its

cause or causes, and that every historical fact must be considered

in its surrounding historical circumstances. Man is a social
being, and as such, necessarily depends on, and undergoes the
influence of, his contemporaries and countrymen. The tendencies,
ideals, and preoccupations of his age and country, are also to a
great extent his own preoccupations and tendencies. There may
be —and seemingly there have actually been —sudden departures
from the received ideas of one epoch, but this is the exception,

not the rule ; and besides, when more closely examined, the
dependence of these apparent departures on the mental attitude
then prevalent, can often be clearly established. Man therefore
lives with his age and evolves with it. He may add a great deal
to the common stock of knowledge, but the nature of what he
adds is generally determined by the needs of the time. If then
we can establish to what age any individual man belongs, and
further, determine the leading preoccupations of that age, we can
know in what sphere he must have exercised his activity. Nay,
in some cases, we may be able to explain, at least broadly, the
purpose of little peculiarities, which otherwise would either
remain for us a sealed letter, or at best be left to various con-
jectures. There is no reason why the Extraordinary Points
should form an exception to this rule. Hence, if we can estab-
lish the epoch to which these Points are referable, together with
the mental preoccupations then existing among the Jews, we
should be able to discover the aim that their author or authors
 Ten Extraordinary Points of the Pentateuch. 13

had in view in appending them. To our knowledge, this argu-

ment has not been utilized to its full value by any of the authors
mentioned heretofore, although Blau has incidentally touched
upon it.^ Kdnigsberger, it is true, starts with the very suggestive
proverb, " Wer den Dichter will verstehen, muss in Dichters
Laude gehen," but he gives us nothing beyond the vague and
questionable assertion that the Jews would not modify the text
of the Bible which they had received from their fathers.^
17. Akin to this first line of arguments, are the conclusions
drawn from the palaeographical methods in use at that time.
Owing to the lack of Jemsh mss. belonging to the period during
which the Nequdoih came into existence, we might be inclined to
think that no strictly palaeographical argument could be adduced
in connection with the Puncta Extraordinaria. If, however, we
bear in mind the lack of originality among the Hebrews in so
many branches of human activity, we are naturally led to inquire
whether we could not trace the origin of the Jewish palaeographical
methods in general, and of the points in particular, to similar
practices among other nations with which the Jews came into
contact.
Of all the external influences through which the Jews may be
supposed to have been affected from the time of Alexander, that
of Alexandria undoubtedly ranks first and foremost. As points
were used by the Alexandrians for several purposes, the question
arises : Is it lawful to attribute to the Jewish Nequdoth the same
meaning as to these Greek dots ?

Palaeography, in connection with the question at issue, has not

been fully utilized; Blau^ has a few references to Latin, and
Ginsburg^ to Greek, palaeography; but the dependence of the
Jewish Nequdoth on the Latin and Greek dots is not shown.
Konigsberger,^ although he gives no reason for the course he
adopts, entirely sets aside any argument drawn from this source.

^JQB, VI, 562 S.;Einl., 116 f.

2 MuTK, pp. 3 f.

^ MU, p. 8, n. 1 ; Einl., 117, n. 2. See, however, Lagarde, MUlheilungen, i,

19 S.
*Introd., p, 321.
^MuTK,y.9i.
14 Meaning and Purpose of the

18. Another line of evidence is found in Textual Criticism.

Not indeed that in the present question of the Points, we should
investigate whether or not the Massoretic text is right, or establish

the true original reading of the pointed passages ; our aim is simply
to discover by means of the ordinary methods of Textual Criticism,
the possible critical state of these passages at the time when the
Nequdoth were appended, and as a result of this investigation to

arrive at some conclusion with regard to their primary import.

It is true that the value of Textual Criticism as a means of reach-
ing such a conclusion is repudiated by Konigsberger ;
^
but since
the points bear on the text, it is probable that by determining
the state of the text at that period, we may be able to discover
what was the nature of the textual peculiarity thus marked by the
Nequdoth, and this can be done only by adopting the methods of
Textual Criticism.
Furthermore, if these dots express a critical judgment, —such as
the discrepancies between MSS., the doubtfulness or the spurious-
ness of the dotted elements, —we can reasonably expect, by means
of critical methods, to find traces of such discrepancies, or to dis-
cover the reasons for which the Jews pronounced some words and
letters doubtful or spurious.
We need not dwell here on the means used to find out how the
various recensions read, when the Nequdoth originated. They are
the ordinary sources of Textual Criticism, viz., the Samaritan
Pentateuch, the early versions made immediately or mediately
from the Hebrew, the comparison of the dotted elements with the
parallel passages, the various conjectures based on philological,
lexicographical, or grammatical principles.^ The Hebrew mss. in
our possession can also be used ; for, though now the common
it is

belief that all our mss. are derived from one prototype, agreed
upon in the second century A. d.,^ — which, if true, would tend to

iJifwr/iT., pp. 3, 41.

"
For all these means, compare the critical Introductions.
^This view was first propounded by Kosenmiiller in Hdbuch. fur d. Liter, der
Bihl. Kritik u. Exeg. (1797), 247; cp. also Preuschen, ZAW, ix, 303. It is
i,

found also in the Preface to the Tauchnitz stereotyped edition of the Bible, 1834,
p. iv cp. Stade, ZA W, iv, 302 f.
; It was defended by Lagarde, Anmerk. zur
 Extraordinary Points of the Pentateuch. 15

show that our mss. are seemiDgly of little value, In determining

the state of the text previous to that time, — still in many instances,
some of ours mss. reproduce as their textual readings, the variants
from our Textus receptus, as found in the LXX, the Sam. Pent., or
the Book of Jubilees, recensions older than, or as old as, our present
recognized Massoretic text. Hence, either such mss. have been
occasionally corrected according to these or similar recensions, or
they are directly derived from them, though in the latter case, they
would have been partly harmonized with the Textus receptus, by
the Scribes and Correctors. Whatever view we adopt, it remains
true that our mss. can and should be used, in determining the
state of the text at the time when the Nequdoth were introduced.
19. Finally, our last and apparently most direct argument, is

derived from the meaning attributed to the Points by the Jewish

tradition, as preserved in Sifre and in various passages of the
Talmud and Midrashim. It is but natural to suppose that, since

the Jews appended the Points, the true purpose which they had in
view should have been preserved in the records they have left us on
the subject. With reference to the question under discussion, the
authority of these Jewish records is denied by Konigsberger ; but
everything tends to show that his view should be rejected. The
earlier Jewish writings are the reproduction of the oral lessons
given in the Jewish schools and academies, as is evident from the
fact that the authority of some Pabbi or Rabbis is generally given
in connection with the various decisions and opinions.^ If then
these writings, in general, embody the literary activity of the

Gnech. Ueberseiz. d. Proverbien, p. If.; Mater ialen z. Kritik u. Oeschichte d. Pent.,

p. xii ; Mittheilungen, i, 19 f. ; Olshausen, Die Psahnen, p. 17 f. ; 337 f. ; Noldeke,
Histoire Litteraire de UA. T., 350 ff. ; ZWT, 1873, 445-447 ; Cornill, Ezechiel,
5fl. ; Eeach, Sebirin, p. 1. The opposite view is taken byStrack in Semitic Studies,
pp. 560 ff.; Text of the 0. T., in Hastings' DB., iv, p. 728.
^ On these Jewish Writings, see the various Introductions to the Talmud, such
as Strack, Mielziner ; various articles in the Dictionaries and Encyclopiedias,
ss. vv. Midrash, Mishnah, Talmud, Targums, etc.; among these, Schechter's article
^^
Talmud ^^
in Hastings' DB, v, p. 57 ff., deserve special mention. See also
the Literature on the Jewish schools, § 27 ; see besides, Stehelin, Traditions of the
Jews; Dobschiitz, Einfache Exegese d. Tannaim; Schiirer, Geschichte d. Isr. Volk.,
II, 323 ff. 330 ff. ;
16 Meaning and Purpose of the

Rabbis, and have preserved the answers given to questions agi-

tated in these schools, there is no reason why they should be set
aside, when we speak of this particular question of the meaning
of the Nequdoth. The fact that the Points are found in the Syna-
gogue scrolls, and are mentioned in so many places in Jewish
literature, shows that a certain importance was attached to them,
and consequently, that they are likely to have been discussed in
the Rabbinical Academies. In fact we also find that the name of
some Rabbi is oftentimes attached to some one of the explanations,
V. g. R. Jose (b. Chalafta) M. Pesachim, ix, 2 ; Tosefta Pesachim,
VIII,3; Baba Metsi'a, 87a; Nazir, 23a; Horayoth, 10b; Men.,
87b, etc. The explanations of Sifre, it is true, are anonymous,
but it is two passages (Gen.
certainly very significant that on
xvi, 5, and Gen. xxxiii, 4) discrepancies are mentioned, which
clearly show that the Nequdoth had been duly taken up in the
scholastic discussions of the time. In view of what precedes, we
can but wonder that Kouigsberger refuses to take these Jewish
documents into consideration, and depends solely on what he
thinks to be the Massoretic methods. It will also be a matter
of surprise to many, that he supposes two distinct and
independent traditions with regard to the text of the Bible,

which traditions would have come down to us in two distinct

channels : the one Massoretic, bearing on the text proper, and

the other, Talmudic and Midrashic, bearing on its interpretation.^

It is beyond all doubt, as will be seen later, that from a very

remote antiquity we meet among the Jews with some textual and
critical labors, which constitute the origin of the Massorah ;
^ but
to assert that these labors have left no historical traces in the old

Halachah or Haggadah,^ is an assertion altogether a priori. The

same men who handed down the interpretation of the Bible, also
transmitted the various textual or critical remarks on its text.*
It would be incomprehensible that, while interpreting the Bible,

^3fiiTK, pp. 4f. 7; 9 f., etc.;

^See lower down, §§ 27 ff.

^ On the term Haggada and its meaning, see Bacher,
'
' JQB, iv, 406 S. ; Agad.
d. Tann., i, 451 ff.

*Blau justly remarks that the Midrash interprets not only the text, but the text

with all its Massoretic rubrics, 3IU, p. 54 ff, IJinl,, pp. 120 ff.
;
 Ten Extraordinary Points of the Pentateuch. 17

the Tannaim or Amorraim had completely overlooked or mis-

construed the various corrections that had been made before them,
or the peculiarities which had been already noticed. We have a
clear proof of the contrary, in the fact that what is called the
Massorah proper, greatly depends on the earlier Jewish literary
productions, as is seen, v. g., from the Talmudic lists of textual
peculiarities incorporated into its own.^ For such rubrics, and in
particular for the Nequdoth of the Pentateuch, if we desire to
know their true import we must go back to these pre-Massoretic
works.^ We are aware that there are divergencies between the
later Massorah and the earlier works,^ but this is not to be
accounted for by the Massorah' s so-called independence of the
Talmud, etc., but should rather be explained by the different
stages of one and the same tradition, which at one time may have
been misunderstood, changed, modified, or enlarged.
Even if it were true —and it is at least very doubtful — that
the Massorah proper never passes a critical judgment against any
text-element, it should still be shown that in the earlier stages of
the Massorah, the same methods were already exclusively followed.
The aim of the Massorah may be to preserve the text, but it

preserves the text with all the peculiarities which the ancients
had already noticed, and the true import of which, as already
stated, is known independently of the Massorah.* To reject the

data of the Jewish writings a 'priori, to repudiate their explana-

tions without having examined them sufficiently, is to reject and
repudiate the best and most direct evidence as to the meaning
of the Points, and expose ourselves to mere subjective and con-
jectural conclusions. Of course, we do not intend to deny, that
in the various Midrashic works, there may be, and probably are,

many irrelevant amplifications and untrustworthy accounts with

^ We find many textual and critical notices in the ancient Jewish works ; see
Kosenfeld C^ISID .nn22;r2 (Hebrew), Ch. ii, 6 ff., and especially Ch. iir, 9 ff.

^Cp. although with some reservation, Rosenfeld, o. c, Ch. v, 30 ff. ; Ginsburg,

Introduct., 308 ff. ; and besides, the various critical Introductions.
^See Rosenfeld, o. c, pp. 15 ff., 46, 47, 48, 50 ff.; cp. also Strack, Prolegomena,
59 ff.

^Levias, art. Masorah, JE, viii, 370, rightly distinguishes the creative period
from the reproductive and the critical periods. Cp. Harris, JQR, r, 128 ff.
2
18 Cleaning and Purpose of the

regard to the Nequdoih; but it is still possible to trace these

amplifications to their source, and by removing all later additions,

to determine what in them is original tradition. The purely

Halachic portions of these writings, such as Sifre, can be fairly
expected to have preserved the true original purpose of the
Points.
We have arranged the material at our disposal, in two main
Chapters. One Chapter will be devoted to evidences which
bear on the Nequdoth as such, without reference to the Biblical
verses in w^liich they occur, or to the letters over which they are
placed. To this Chapter belong the circumstances of the time
during which the Nequdoth came into existence. Palaeography, and
some Jewish testimonies on the Points. In the other Chapter we
shall examine every individual dotted passage in the light of
Textual Criticism and of the explanations given of it in the Jew-
ish literature.
 Ten Extraordinary Points of the Pentateuch. 19

CHAPTER II.

GENERAL ARGUMENTS ON THE NEQUDOTH.

In this Chapter, after having determined the approximate age

of the Points, we shall briefly inquire into the main preoccupa-
tions of that age with regard to the text of the Bible, and into
the palaeographical influences undergone by the Jews during that
period. Then, we shall be able to draw at least a partial
conclusion concerning the meaning of the Nequdoth,

Section I. Approximate age of the Nequdoth.

20. Konigsberger ^ is inclined to refer the pointing of cer-

tain letters to the latter half of the ii century a. d. In the
Biblical MS. of R. Meir,^ were found special readings,^ which,
although it is nowhere intimated, many think to have been mere
Haggadic hints in the margin. Ivonigsberger is induced by
these readings and by the fact that R. Meir was a scribe "*
and
that his disciple, R. Simeon b. Eleazar,^ was the first to give rules
for the Haggadic treatment of the Nequdoth,^ to consider R. Meir
as the probable author of the Points. This view does not stand
the test of accurate investigation. That the Points should be

^MuTK, 6f.
^On K. Meir (ii cent. A. d. ), see Backer, Agad. d. Tan., n, 1 ff. ; Jost, Gcsch.
d. Judenth. , II, 86 ff. ; Graetz, History of the Jews, li, 435 ff.

^ Jer. Taanith, i, 1 ; Bereshitli Rabba, ix, 5 ; xx, 12 (29), end —numbers vary
with the editions; xciv, 9 (8). On these readings see Zunz, Oott. Vortr., 182;
Miiller, Soferim, p. 86 Bacher, ; o. c, ii, p. 10, n. 2 and n. 3 ; Epstein, in Monat-
schrift, etc., 1885, p. 337 f., quoted by Harris in JQR, i, 135, n. 1.
* Jer. Megil., iv, 1 Sotah, 20a.
;

^ On E. Simeon b. Eleazar, see Bacher, Ag. d. Tann. , ii, 422.

^ Bereshith Eabba, XLvni, 15 (17), etc. See lower down, §§ 57 f.
 ;

20 Meaning and Purpose of the

referred to a much earlier period, the following considerations

will show.^
21. At the time of R. Meir, the Points are already made the
basis of special inferences. In Menachoth, 87b, we find a dis-

cussion between the Rabbis and the same R. Meir with regard
to the Jssa?-07i-measures in the temple. The Rabbis derived
special conclusions while R. Meir
from the Point on ]1"1^V,
refused todraw any consequence from it. If R. Meir had been the
author of the Points, we would naturally expect him to oppose
to the interpretation of the Rabbis, the real purpose of the Nequdah,
which he himself would have had in view when pointing the word.^
22. Besides, we have already called attention to the fact that
in the iii century, the date of the compilation of Sifre, the dots,
as used in connection with the official text of the Law, already
formed a well defined group ; hence, at that time, they must have
been universally recognized as an official feature of that text.
If R. Meir, or one of his contemporaries had been the author
of the Points, there is little doubt that in the golden age of
Rabbinical Scholasticism, his interference with the text would
have been challenged, and that this recognition of the dots would
not have been complete at the time of Sifre ; at any rate, the
name of their author would have been mentioned to justify their
being added to the official text. It is true that on two passages,
viz. Gen. xvi, 5, and Gen. xxxiii, 4, we find some Rabbis opposed
to the Points ; but for so doing they never appeal to their recent
origin, and besides, they are clearly in opposition to the common
opinion of their time. If the author of the Nequdoth had been
living then or had been known, his authority would have been
adduced against R. Simon b. Yochai, one of the objectors.^

1 In the private copies of the Chinese Jews of K' ae-fung-Foo, the missionaries

whose attention had been called to certain passages of the Bible, verified the pres-
ence of the dots on Gen. xxxiii, 4. These mss. are of Western origin and belong
to the post-Massoretic period hence, nothing can be concluded in favor of the
;

age or of the universal reception of the Points. See Lettres EcUfiantes, vol. 24, p.
75 Eichorn, Einl. ii, 577 If. Michaelis, Orient, u. Exeg. Biblioth. Th. V, 74 ff.
; , ;

Miiller, Soferim, p. 88.

^ See lower down, § 112.
See lower down, § 65 and §§ 69, 85.
^ Instead of Simon b. Yochai, many of
the Jewish Writings read Simeon b. Eleazar see Appendix, on Gen. xxxiii, 4.:
 Ten Extraordinary Points of the Pentateuch. 21

Moreover, many of the explanations of the Points are attributed

to R. Jose b. Chalafta (b. Chouai ?) ^
it cent. A. d. The Ncqudoth
must consequently not only have been existing in his clay, but
must have been already universally received, since he does not
attempt to vindicate their right to existence and simply tries to

explain their import. If so, we must further allow a sufficient

time to elapse from their origin to their general recognition by the
contemporaries of R. Jose. This throws back the origin of the
Nequdoth to a period evidently antedating R. Meir, and would
strongly suggest the beginning of the second century, at the latest,
as the epoch to which the Ncqudoth should be referred ; however,
other considerations force us to assign them to a still earlier date.
23. The Extraordinary Points are found in the Synagogue
scrolls, from which the Massoretic vowel-signs and accents have
been sedulously excluded. The Talmud, in order to safeguard the
accuracy of the Synagogue copies, enters into minute regulations.^
For instance : — mention only few
to a that are of interest for our
present purpose, — was forbidden
it to write anything from mem-
ory,^ all had to be read before being transcribed ;
* nothing was to
be put in the copy that was not in the original ;
^ the scroll, having
been copied, had to be examined within thirty days and every
mistake amended ;
^ from very ancient times, there were official

correctors attached to the temple, whose mission it was to control

the accuracy of copiesby means of the temple model codex if in
; ''

each column there was more than one mistake, or according to

others three mistakes, the scroll could not be corrected but was

^ Blau, JQB, VI, 562. Cp. M. Pesachim, ix, 2 Tosefta Pesachim,

; viii, 3 ;

Baba Metsi'a, 87a ; Nazir, 23a ; Horayoth, 10b ; Menachoth, 87b.

^ On these Talmudic regulations, see Waehner, Antiq. Ebr. , i, Sect, i, Ch. XLV ;

Adler, Judaeor. Cod. etc., passim; Blau, Studien z. althebr. Buchvjesen, 180-188;
Lowe, Graphisch. Requisit. bei d. Juden, n, passim.
^This is implied in Jer. Megil. iv, 1.
*Cp. M. Megillali, ii, 2 ; Jer. Megil., ii, 2 ; Eaba Bathra, 15a.
^Cp. Sifre on Deut., § 56, edit. Friedmann, 87a; Sotali, 20a; cp. also Jer.
Megil., 11(9).
I,

^Kethuboth, 19b; Jer. Sanh., ii, 6.

''Jer. Sheqalim, iv, 2; Kethuboth, 106a; cp. M. Sanla., ii, 4; Jer. Sanh., ii,

6; Blau, Althebr. Buchw., 106 f.

22 Meaning and Purpose of the

rejected.^ These and many other precautions, made it almost

impossible for any foreign element to creep into the text. Need-
less to add that any extraordinary feature of the text could much
less than the ordinary elements escape the quick eye of the revi-
sers ; for, owing to their unusual character, their presence would
be more easily detected. Hence, the Extraordinary Points could
not have been introduced into the text of the Synagogue scrolls
after this Talmudic legislation had come into use. Again, these
regulations themselves suppose that before the time of the Talmud
an official text had been agreed upon, and that the Talmud simply
provides for its accurate transmission. This Synagogue text is no
other than the present Massoretic one or textus receptus. The date
of the adoption of the present textus receptus, will therefore be the
latest date assignable to the origin of the points ; for they must
have been in existence when the text itself was accepted. Now,
our present Massoretic text is the one that underlies the Version
of Aquila.^ That version was made towards the middle of the
second century a. d., and hence, the Nequdoth must have been
already existing at that time we say existing and not introduced,
;

because, to be allowed to stand in that official text they must have

had some title to belong to it. Nor is this an a priori assertion ;

for the beginning of the second century was precisely the period
that witnessed the origin and growth of the tendency to consider
every little particle of the text as of divine origin, and as convey-
ing a special divine thought. The Rabbis must have taken the
same view of the Nequdoth, and so, if these points were allowed to
stay, it must have been because they, too, were supposed to have
a special divine import. In its turn, this special value attributed
to the dots supposes that theJews of the time took it for granted
that they had been placed by some one especially commissioned
by God for that purpose. No contemporary Rabbi could have
imparted to the Points such god-like significance, and so, we are

^Jer. Megil., i, 11 : Jer, Sabbath, xvi, 1 ; Menachoth, 29b; Soferim, iii, 9.

Cp. Blau, 0. c, p. 187.

^See the various Critical Introductions, and articles of Biblical Dictionaries.
See besides, Field, Uexapla, xvi-xxvii ; Derenbourg, Palestine, 396, n. 4 ; 399 ;

Burkitt, Aquila, JQB, 1898, 207 ff.

 :

Ten Extraordinary Points of the Pentateuch. 23

led to refer them to a period sufficiently earlier to allow the veri-

fication of the proverb :

"Omnia post obitum fingit majora vetustas."

In view of this fact, the beginning of the Christian era would be

the latest date to which the Extraordinary Points could reasonably
be assigned.
24. The same
conclusion is reached, if we examine a tradi-
tion contained inAboth de R. Nathan (1 and 2), reproduced in
Bemidbar Rabba/ and in the rubric of Ochlah w^Ochlah intro-
ducing the list of the Nequdoth.'^ We read in Aboth de R.
Nathan (1), IQX^I IH^'^N N3^ CN N"lTy 10K "]D i^i^ (llpj) Ho'?

: ]TVbv^ ^'^^p^ "n^VN r\2r\J nC ' Why (have points been placed) ?
Thus Ezra thought, if Elias comes and says to me : why hast
thou written thus ? I will answer him : I have already marked
them (the dotted letters) with points ; but if he says to me
thou hast written rightly, then I will remove the points from
upon them.' This testimony, it goes "without saying, should not
be taken literally, because we find it expressed for the first

time in the VI or vii century. We know, besides, that the

Rabbis often connect what is obscure in point of origin, with
some great name, such as Moses or Ezra, or with some re-
nowned body of men, such as the Soferim or the men of the
Great Synagogue. We may well refuse to credit the Jewish
tradition which makes Ezra the author of the Points ; but if

so, their true author is unknown

Jews themselves, and to the

then we have to face the following problem although, as early :

as the date of the compilation of the Mishnah (M. Pesachim,

IX, 2), we find explanations of the Points, given in the name of
R. Jose, nowhere in all the Jewish post-Biblical literature, do we
find an allusion to their real author. This, all will admit, is a
remarkable fact ; for, the principal enactments and opinions of the
Rabbis, scattered throughout the Jewish Writings, are explicitly

*See also lower down, § 128.

^Frensdorff, Ochlah vf Ochlah, n. 96. This is not found in the Massoretic list

on Num., m, 39.
24 Meaning and Purpose of the

attributed to them or to their school. This is the case even with

the decisions of the older Tannaimmore than three hundred
;

points of difference between the two rival schools of Hillel and

Shammai, have been preserved to us.^ What could be the cause
for the apparent neglect of the author of the Nequdoth in Jewish
circles ? We see only two possible answers : either this author
died long before the composition of the earliest of these literary
productions, and had, at the time, fallen into oblivion, or else the
Nequdoth were not considered of sufficient importance to attract
the attention of the Rabbis to their author. The second alter-

native is altogether inadmissible, since as stated, the Nequdoth

were admitted into the official text, and also were duly taken up
and discussed in the Academies. We are therefore forced to the
other alternative, viz. that when the Mishnah and the other
fragments of the Jewish literature came into existence, the author
of the Points had been already forgotten. This throws back
their origin probably to pre-Christian times. Furthermore, since
so many of the sayings of the Tannaim have been preserved to
us, it is probable that the author of the Nequdoth lived before
their time, and that consequently, the Points are referable to that
dark period known as the time of the Soferim or of the Great
Synagogue.
Everything tends to show that the Nequdoth should be ascribed,
at the latest, to the very dawn of the Christian era, and probably
to a still more remote antiquity.
25. Lagarde makes the Points a little more recent. He thinks
that they were of accidental origin, ordinary corrections of inad-
vertent errors made by the copyist of the manuscript which, in
the second century A. d., was accepted as the standard.^ This
codex having acquired this authority, its accidental peculiarities,
including the deletions, were scrupulously reproduced in copies
made from it. Of course there may have been mistakes in the
place assigned to the dots in subsequent ages.

^Blau, Einl., 115. See also the various Eabbis mentioned in Bacher, Agad. d.

Tann., i, where many of their sayings are recorded.

'^
Mittheilungen, i, 19 f.
 Ten Extraordinary Points of the Pentateuch. 25

26. This contention of Lagarde already supposes the question

relative to the meaning of the Nequdoth to have been solved ; if

the Points are exegetical signs no such origin could be vindicated.

Even granting for the present that the Nequdoth are real deletions,

it would be hard to see how their author would have been for-

gotten by the Rabbis of the second century, who were his con-
temporaries. Besides, if the Points were simple corrections of
inadvertent errors, we should not expect to find the dotted ele-
ments in other recensions, v. g. in the Sam. Pent, or the Lxx
version, for it would hardly be likely that mere mistakes in tran-

scription would correspond to the actual readings of the above

recensions. Now, it is true that the dotted elements are not found
in the Samaritan Pentateuch, for Gen. xvi, 5 ; Num. iii, 39 ; xxi,
30 ; but they occur for Gen. xviii, 9 ; xix, 33 ; xxxiii, 4 ; xxxvii,
12 ; Num. ix, 10 ; xxix, 15 ; Deuter. xxix, 28. On the other hand,
the Septuagint, although omitting the dotted letters in Num. ix,

10 (?) ; xxi, 30, has preserved them in Num. iii, 39; xxix, 15;
Dent, xxix, 28 ; and for some passages, owing to the nature of

the pointed elements, no comparison is possible, v. g., Gen. xvi, 5 ;

xix, 33 ; xxxvii, 12.^ Nor could it be seriously maintained, that

some scribe, disregarding the Points, corrected the Sam. Pent, on
the Hebrew standard codex of the second century : at least we
find no ground to say so. Moreover, were this granted, it might
be further asked why all the pointed passages have not been
corrected. Lagarde is certainly right in claiming that the Points
were found in the standard codex, and it is probably to this
fact that they owe their official character ; but they must have
existed before. We have therefore every reason to think that
our conclusion should be retained. Consequently, we must
examine the mental activity of the Jews from the time of the
Maccabees down to the beginning of the second century A. d.,
as it is certainly to that period that the Nequdoth should be
referred.

^ See the individual passages in our last chapter.

26 Meaning and Purpose of the

Section II. Mental Activity of the Jews During

THAT Period. Influence of Alexandria
OVER Palestine.

During this period, two tendencies commend themselves to our

attention as likely to throw some light on the meaning of the
Extraordinary Pomts, viz. the Textual and Exegetical preoc-
cupations. This twofold activity, together with the influence of
Alexandria over Palestine at that time, will form the subject
of the following pages ; but the reader should not expect here
a complete treatment of these various points. Such a detailed
account would be out of proportion with our present work, and
besides, only for a few of the topics to be spoken of, is there any
controversy among scholars.

A. Textual Preoccupations}

27. First of all, we have to call attention to the fact that the
Jews of this age already noticed and duly registered many of
the peculiarities of the Biblical text. This assertion is a jiriori

probable ; for, the presence of numerous Synagogues,^ in which

the Law was read to the people, as well as of schools,^ in which
the Bible was taught, must of necessity have made the Rabbis
alive to the various peculiarities of the text. Furthermore, at
that time we meet the Scribes,* —men whose vocation it was to

^ On the labours on tlie text of the Bible during this period, see in general, His-
tories of the Hebrew Text ; Introductions to Textual Criticism of the 0. T. ; various
contributions in Biblical Dictionaries and Encyclopedias, ss. vv. 3Iassorah, Talmud,
Hebrew Text, etc. See besides, Harris, JQB, 1889, 128 ff, ; 223 ff. ; Ginsburg,
Introd., passim.
''On Synagogues, see in general, Treatises of Arcfueology, such as Benzinger,
Nowack ;
Jewish Histories, such as Graetz, Jost, etc. ; articles in Dictionaries,
especially Bacher, Synagogue, in Hastings, DB. See also Schiirer, Oesch. d. Jud.
Volk., ir, 427 ff. ; Bousset, Religion d. Judenf., 149 fE.

'On Schools, see in general, works on Jewish education, such as Marcus, Simon,
Lewit, etc. ; see also Schiirer, o. c, ii, 422 ff. ; Edersheim, Life of Jesu^, I, 228 ff.;

Bousset, 0. c, 159 f.

* On the Scribes, see Schiirer, o. c, ii, 305 ff. ; 312 ff. ; Bousset, o. c, 139 ff., etc.
 Ten Extrao7'dmary Points of the Pentateuch. 27

study the Bible in all its details, in order to explain it to the

people; it would be incredible that with such a continual study of

the sacred text, its various peculiarities should have escaped them.
28. We have besides, positive data to show that many little

details of the text were actually noticed : not only did the Soferim
number the verses of the Pentateuch, but they knew which was
the middle verse, the middle word and the middle letter of each
of the five Books of the Law ;
^ they counted how many words
or letters were contained in some sections ;
^ how many times a
given word occurred in some Biblical passage,^ etc. This practice
"
must have been rather common, for the very name of " Soferim
is supposed —although wrongly— to have been given to the Scribes,

because they numbered the elements of the Bible.*

29. Again, we find that parallel passages were compared with
one another, as is evident from the rules of Hillel based mainly
on the similarity or dissimilarity of parallel passages.^ To the
same end, we can appeal to the Sam. Pentateuch, the Septuagint
version and other recensions, to show that parallel passages were
not only compared, but oftentimes actually harmonized, and that
from this desire of harmonizing, many changes have been intro-

duced into the Biblical text.^

30. In the critical sphere, we have to note that during this

period collections of the Sacred Books were made at different
times/ under Ezra,^ Nehemiah/ Judas Maccabee ;
^"
and as the

^ Qidd. 30a. On this and the following points, see especially, Dobschiitz, Ein-
fache Exegese d. Tannaim, p. 36 ff.

2 Sifre on Numb., § 84, ed. Friedmann, p. 22a ; Sab. 115b, end.

*Sifre on Deuteron., § 337, ed. Friedmann, p. 141a; M. Kerithoth, i, 1 ; Sab-
bath, 49b.
*Qidd. 30a. Cp. Ginsburg, Introd., pp. 69 f. ; Konig., EinL, p. 35.
^ See lower down, § 40.
® See the various Critical Introductions.
The gathering
' was common to all
of sacred, or at least of highly valued Books,
nations thus, we
: Books in the temple of the Ammon-
find a collection of Sacred
ites (Euseb., Praeparatio Evangelica, i, 9, end) something similar is met with in ;

Sparta (Herod, vi, 57) in Athens (Herod, v, 90) etc. Cp. Trochon, Introduct.,
;

I, 104 f.

8 Cp. Ezra, vii ; 4 Ezra, xiv, 24-26, 37-44.

8 2 Mace. II, 13.
i<*2
Mace. II, 14. Cp, 1 Mac. i, 59 f. ; in, 48 ; Joseph., Ant., xii, v. 4.
 .

28 Meaning and, Purpose of the

existing collections were most probably —although it is not

directly attested — scattered by Pompey/ Qiiintilius Yarns/ Titus,^
and Hadrian, we are led to suppose that on these occasions also
the Sacred Books had to be gathered and welded anew into a
whole. The collections being made, copies had to be multiplied
not only to answer the needs of the Synagogues and schools
which were ever increasing in number, but also to nourish and
foster the piety of individual Jews.*
31. From these successive destructions and rearrangements
of the Sacred collections, as well as from the constant recopying
of the Text, there resulted almost necessarily various mistakes,
which more or less disfigured the divine pages. Whatever may
have been the character of such mistakes, whether purely acci-
dental,^ or partly intentional,^ or even entirely and positively
designed,'' it is beyond doubt that several recensions came into
existence at that early period. This is evidenced by the Sam.
Pentateuch, the Septuagint Version, the Book of Jubilees,^ the
Peshitto, the Nash papyrus,^ and also by the discrepancies between
the present Massoretic text and the one occasionally supposed by
the Mishnah,^*' the Gemarah," and the other ancient Jewish works. ^^

^On Pompey, see Joseph, Ant, xiv, iii and iv ; Wars, i, vi and vii ; C. App.,
1,7.
''Joseph., Ant, xvii, x, 9-10, xi, 1 ; Wars, ii, v, 1-3 ; C. App., i, 7.

'Joseph., Wars, vii, v, 6-7; Life, § 75. On the arch of Titus, a man is

depicted carrying on his back a long roll, undoubtedly a Torah scroll of the
Temple. Cp. Joseph., l. c.
*
As early as the time of Judas Maccabee, copies of the Law were found in many
Jewish households, 1 Mac. i, 59 , f. After the triumph of the Jews, they must
have been greatly multiplied.
^On these and the following points, see the various Critical Introductions; vari-
ous articles in Dictionaries, etc. To this first class belong mistakes arising from
transliteration, homoeoteleuton, homoeophoneton, wrong divisions of words,
wrong reconstruction of abbreviated words, etc.
* Such as grammatical and orthographical changes, etc.

' Here probably belong changes made to safeguard

the tetragrammaton, to re-
move indelicate expressions, etc. perhaps also the Tiqqun Soferim.
;

^ See especially, Konsch, Jubilden, pp. 196 fl.

8 Exodus, XX, 2 ff. Cp. Cook, PSBA, 1903, 34 ff.

^^ Strack, Prolegomena, 94 f
^^ Strack, Prolegomena, 96 ff.

12 B. Pick, ZA W, 1886, 23 ff. ; 101 ff. The results of this investigation are not
always safe, see the criticism of it by Derenbourg, ZA W, 1887, 91 ff.
 Ten Extraordinary Points of the Pentateuch. 29

32. The existence of these divergencies must have greatly

perplexed the Jews when they had to form new collections, or
when they attempted to interpret the text. It is not surprising
therefore to find that serious —although for a long time unsuccess-
ful — efforts seem to have been made to introduce uniformity mto
the text. We meet with official correctors whose duty it was to
revise and correct the Biblical scrolls ;
^
we hear that in the temple
there was a standard codex, according to which not only the king's
copy ^ but apparently other copies likewise had to be amended.^
The letter of Aristeas supposes also a model codex to have existed
in Jerusalem at the time of the Septuagint translation of the
Pentateuch.* The practice is even traced back to Moses who is
said to have written thirteen rolls, twelve for the twelve tribes and
one for the Levites, so that should any mistake creep into the tribal
copies they could be corrected according to the levitical one.^ Some
besides, understand the model codex of the temple S~l*liy *1DD'
to be the copy of Ezra '
N*1TJ? '
'^
which
At a is also spelled '
miy.'
"^

later date, in Talmudic and Massoretic we find the custom of times,

repairing to some renowned copy commonly adopted.^ Hence,
although the testimony of Philo ^ and Josephus ^^
that the Jews had
not changed one single letter of the Sacred Books, is objectively
false, it supposes at least that in their respective times, pains were

^ Kethuboth, 106a. See besides, the regulations for the copying of scrolls, men-
tioned above, § 23 ; see also Harris, JQB,, 1889, p. 131 ; Blau, Althebr. Buehw.,
p. 187.
^ Tosefta Sanhedrin, iv, 7, edit. Zuckermandel, p. 421 ; Sanh. 21b ; Sifre on
Deuteron., § 160, edit. Friedmann, 105b ; Jer. Sanh., ii, 6.
3 Kethuboth, 19b. Cp. Harris, o. c, p. 131 ; Blau, o. c, pp. 107, 187.
*In Swete, Introduet, p. 525 (top). Cp. Blau, o. c, 100 f.

"Debarim Rabba, ix, 9 (4). Cp. Blau, o. c, p. 98.

^Cp. Sifre on Deuteron., § 160, and the remarks of Friedmann, ibid., n. 6;
El. Le\dta, Massoreth ha- Massoreth, edit. Ginsburg, p. 106 ; Blau, Althebr. Buchw.,
107 ff.

^Cp. Blau, 0. c, p. 107, n. 3.

* On
these model codices, see Strack, Prolegomena, pp. 14-19 ; Neubauer, in
Studia Biblica, iii, 22 ff. Ginsburg, Introduet, 409 ff., 429-443. In his Massorah
;

Compiled, etc., Ginsburg has collected the variants from Cod. Hilleli, iii, 106-134,
and of Cod. Jericho., 135.
® Quoted from his lost works in Eusebius' Praeparalio Evangelica, viil, 6 (end).
" Cont. Apion., i, 8.
30 Meaning and Purpose of the

already taken to guard the text against every kind of depravation.

It must have been also in conformity with the spirit of the times,

Jews
that, according to the letter of Aristeas (ii cent. b. c), the

of Alexandria invoked curses upon any one that would dare add
to, modify, or mutilate the text of the newly made Greek version

of the Law and it is not assuming too much to assert that some
;
^

similar respect for the purity of the text existed also among the
Palestinian Jews.
33. What principles were followed in determining the respec-
tive value of the various readings, we learn from the ancient
Jewish tradition. We are told that in the temple were found
three codices, one of which read ]"',j7a and the other two HJIVIO,

and that the former was corrected according to the two latter, etc.^

To follow the majority of MSS. as a guide in Biblical Criticism,

may be a very defective method, but here we have not to judge
of the work done it is enough for our purpose to know that
;

such preoccupations existed when the Nequdoth originated.

34. It would also be very desirable to know what critical

signs, if any, these ancient Jews used as symbols of their doubts

and critical judgments. But very little is certain either about
the age of the various features of our Massoretic text or about
their import. We may however derive some information from
Alexandria, which, during the period under consideration, was
the great center of literary activity.^ There, all branches of
science flourished, and from there, a great literary influence made
itself felt in neighboring lands. The collections of literary works
in the large libraries of Alexandria were enormous for the times,
and the diffusion of Greek culture and literature was one of the
principal aims of the Ptolemies. In the course of time, owing
to various causes, such as constant recopying, insertion into the

^ In Swete' s Introduct. ,
p. 572.
^Sifre on Deuteron., § 356, edit. Friedmann, 148b (top) ; Jer. Taanith, iv, 2 ;

Aboth de E. Nathan (1st rec. Ch. 34 ; 2d. Ch. 46) ; Soferim, vi, 4. See Blau,
Ahhebr. Buchw., 101 ff.

^ On Alexandria and its literary activity, see Dilhne, Geschichtliche Darstellung d.

Jud.-AIexandrin. Religions- Philosophie, 1-27 ; Matter, I' Ecole d' Alexandrie, passim;
Griifenhan, Klassische Philologie, etc.
 len Extraordinary Points of the Pentateuch, 31

text of marginal explanatory notes, etc., the text of the classics

became very corrupt/ Consequently, the Alexandrians soon
realized the necessity of issuing critical and revised editions of
the classics. Such — mention only
editions to a few that referred
to Homer —were given out by Zenodotus (iii cent. b. c), Aristo-
phanes of Byzantium (iii cent. b. c), Aristarchus (ii cent. b. c),
Aristonicus (i cent. b. c), Didymus (i cent. A. d.).^ As it would
have been inelegant and even impossible to put all the corrections
or annotations in full in the margins, a whole series of conven-
tional signs, —many of which we still possess, —was adopted to
mark the various peculiarities, critical and exegetical, which the
Alexandrian critics had observed in the text.^
Whether or not the Palestinian Jews, when engaged in
35.
the work of correction and revision of the Bible, occasionally
adopted the same conventional signs, is precisely the point at issue.
We know enough, however, of the relations of the Jews with
Alexandria,* to make it certain that they must have been acquainted
with the Greek methods, and to make it at least probable that in
some cases they must actually have borrowed their critical signs.
We know that the Jews of Alexandria were very numerous, and
that they entered all the professions available. Among them we
find not only merchants, bankers, etc., but also literary men, such
as Aristobulus, Eupolemus, Artapanus, Demetrius, Aristeas, Jason,
Philo the Elder, Ezechiel, Philo, etc.^

^Blass, in Vol. i of Mullet's Hdbch. d. Klass. Altert., 252-269.

^For all these, see Pierron, V Iliade d^Homere, i, pp. xxix ff.

^ Gardthausen, Griech. Palaeographie, 288 f. ; d' Hom^re, ii, App.

Pierron, P Iliade
II, 522-533. The knowledge of these signs became a new branch of study and
treatises were written on them, v. g. by Hephestion, Philoxenlis, etc. (see Matter,
0. c, III, p. 126).
*0n these relations see in general Jewish Histories, such as Graetz, vol. ii,

passvn; see also Dahne, Geschichtliche Darstellung, etc., 28 ff. Frankel, Paldstin, ;

Exegese, etc., pp. 1-4 Siegfried, Philo, 1-31; Bousset, Bel. d. JudenL, 57 ff., ;

405 ff. ; Schiirer, Alexandria (Ancient) , in JE, vol. i, 361 ff.

^On these, see Schiirer, Geschichte, iii, 304 ff. ; Christ, Gesch. d. Griech. Lit.,
in Miiller's Hdbch. d. Klass. Altert., vii, 543 f. ; Schiisz, Palestin. Geistesrichtimg,
20 On Aristobulus, see especially Joel, Blicke in
ff. ; d. Beligionsgeschichte, etc., i,

79-100. Many fragments of these authors have been reproduced in Mailer, Fi-ag-
menta Hist. Graeca, m, 207-230.
 ;

32 Meaning and Purpose of the

30, The Hellenistic Jews must have been well acquainted

with the palseographical methods which were used before their
very eyes in Alexandria. On the other hand, Palestine itself

at that underwent a strong hellenizing process. Greek

period,
ideals and methods were rapidly gaining ground in Palestine up to
the time of the Maccabees.^ At that time it is true, a reaction set
in, but it still differed widely from the subsequent Pharisaic
exclusivism, and apparently was not aimed at Alexandria. The
relations between the Alexandrian and Palestinian Jews were
never broken, the spiritual supremacy of Jerusalem was never
denied.^ At the time of the great festivals, especially the Passover,
the Jews used to flock to the Holy City from all parts of the
world, but chiefly from the Egyptian metropolis.^ It is then
beyond doubt that the various customs of the different nations
were familiar to the Jews of Palestine. Again, although it cannot
be said that Greek was extensively spoken among the common
people of Palestine, still its use was current among the educated
classes and it was taught in baany schools.* If so, the Greek mss.
used for teaching and learning, must, if nothing else, have made
the literary Jews acquainted with the Greek graphical methods
of the time.
We have therefore ample grounds to think that the Palestinian

Jews were familiar with the Alexandrian critical or exegetical

signs, and hence, it is at least probable that they themselves
occasionally used them. Let us, however, point out some resem-
blances between the two methods of writing, tending to show that
the Palestinian Jews actually depended on Alexandria for the
various graphical peculiarities.^

^See Schiirer, Geschichte, etc., i, 187 £P., ii, 42-67; Edersheim, Life of Jesus,
vol. n, App. IV.
^Cp. Josephus, Cont. Ap., i, 7 ; Neg., xiv, 13 ; Nid. 69b.
^ As indicative of the crowds in Jerusalem on those occasions, see Joseph., Wars,
n, xiv, 3 ; vi, ix, 3 ; see also, concerning the Synagogue of the Alexandrians in
Jerusalem, Acts, vi, 9 ; Jer. Megil., iii, 1. Cp. Schiirer, Geschicht. ii, p. 65.
* On the use of Greek in Palestine, see Joel, BUcke in d. Religionsgesckichte, i,

6-42 Neubauer, in Studia Biblica, i, 42 Schiirer, Geschichte, n, 63

; ; ff. ; Dalman,
Die Worte Jesu, 1-10 see also works on Jewish Education.
;

^On the following similarities, we have used, on the side of the Greeks,
especially Birt, Das Antike Buchwesen; Gardthausen, Griech. Palaeoc/raphie
 ;

Extraordinary Points of the Pentateuch. 33

37. We may call attention to the similarity of the material

used for writing both by Greeks and Jews, such as waxen
tablets, leather, parchment, papyrus ; to the similarity of the
book form, viz. the roll ; and to the similar disposition of
the text, viz. into columns separated by blank spaces. The
Greek line is based on the poetical eVo?,^ and the same is
probably also true of the Hebrew line with regard to the
poetical In the same way, we find both Alexandrians
pIDD.^
and Jews^ making use of Abbreviations,^ of Numerical
Letters,^ with special and common signs to distinguish them
from the ordinary letters of the text.^ The Greeks divided the
text into Paragraphs, and occasionally left a blank space between
them to these Paragraphs correspond the Jewish Parashahs,
'^

also marked with blank spaces.^ The further division of the

Paragraph into Sentences, among the Alexandrians,^ is also a

Thompson, Hdhook and Latin Pakeography ; Blass, in Miiller's HdbcL,

of Ghxek
etc., I, 299 ff. On we have consulted Waehner, Antiq.
the side of the Jews,
Ebraeor. ; Low, Graphische Requmten hei d. Juden ; Blau, Althebr. Buchw. ; also
Introductions to the O. T., etc.
^Thompson, Hdb., p. 79 ; Blass, o. c, pp. 340 ff. ; Eendel Harris, Stichometry,
AJP, IV, 139 ff.

2 Blau, Althebr. Buchw., 129 ff.

^ Whether the Jews used the Scriptio continua like the Greeks, is doubtful. In
general, see Critical Introductions where mistakes are pointed out, arising from
wrong division of words compare however, Perles, Analekten, 35 ff. In Talmudic
;

times,it had been generally given up see Harris, JQB, 1.889, p. 224. :

*0n Abbreviations among the Greeks, see Gardthausen, Palaeog., 243 ff. ;

Thompson, Hdb., 88 ff. among the Jews, various Introductions, v. g. Ginsburg,

;

Intr., 165 ff. ; see also Low, Graph. Reqwisit., ii, 49 ff. ; Perles, Analekt., 4 ff.

"See examples in Birt, o. c, 186 ff. ; cp. Thompson, Hdb., 104 ff. On the
probable use of numerical letters even in the Bible, see Davidson, art. Chronicles,

in Kitto's CBL, i, 505 ; Konig, Einl., 74, 90, 274.

^ For the Greeks, see lower down, §§ 48 ff. for the same signs among the Jews,
;

cp. Levias, Grammar

Aram. Idiom, p. 5 and n. 3.
of the
''Gardthausen, Palaeog., 273 ff. Thompson, Hdb., 68 f. ;

^See Waehner, Antiq. Ebraeor., Sect. I, §§ 339 ff. Pick, in Hebj-aica, i, 159 ; ;

Ginsburg, Int., 9 ff. Konig, Einl., 463 f. These Sections are divided into "closed "
;

and "open," for the explanation of which see the works just referred to; they
should not be confounded either with the weekly lessons, or with the Christian
Chapters.
9 Thompson, Hdb., 69.
34 Meaning and Purpose of the

contemporaneous Jewish practice/ thougb the double point (:)

used by the former to mark the end of a sentence,^ does not seem
to have been adopted by the Jews at that early date.^ It is also

worthy of notice, to find that later on, the Jews borrowed from
the Greeks the various punctuation marks and musical accents * ;

for though this practice does not belong to the age of the Nequdoth,
it bears testimony to the fact that the Jews would naturally turn
to the Greeks for graphical signs and methods.
Finally, we find both among Greeks and Jews the custom of
counting the various elements of their works. This practice,
known as Stic ho me try, —from the fact that verses were counted
more generally than the other elements of the text, though
columns, words and letters were also counted,^ is found among —
the Greeks long before the time of Christ,^ and its introduction
into Jewish palaeography belongs to our period.^ Here again we
must remark that the Jewish unit for counting, seems, like the
Greek, to have considerably varied, and that among both we meet
with a great uncertainty as to the numbers appended to the books,
for the arC')(pL ^ and for the D^'plDD.^

iSee Waehner, o. c, Sect. I, §§ 180 ff. ; Hupfeld, TSK, 1837, pp. 849 ff. ; Gins-
burg, Int., 69 ff. : Konig, Einl, 463 ff.

2 Thompson, Hdh., 69.

^ Hupfeld, I. c, 852 f. The double point is found among the Samaritans ( Peter-
mann. Ling. Sam. Gramm., p. 6). It occurs also in some Synagogue scrolls
(Konig, Einl, 463 ; Strack, Text of the 0. T., in Hastings' DB. iv, 727, col. 2 ;

Chwolson, CIH, 221).

*See Thompson, Hdb., 72; Gardthausen, Palaeog., 274. On the Hebrew
Accents, see the two treatises of Wickes on Hebrew Accentuation ; Biichler, Her-
kunft, etc. ; especially Praetorius, Herkunft d. Hebr. Ace. ; Praetorius has been
opposed by Gregory, quoted by Kittel in Notwendigkeit u. Moglichkeit einer Neuen
Ausgabe d. Hebr. Bibel, p. 80 cp. also Margolis, Accents in Hebrew, JE, i, 149
;
;

C!ohen, Cantillation, JE, in, 537.

^Gardthausen, Palaeogr., 127 f.
«Birt, 0. c, 162 fP., 186 ff. Gardthausen, ; o. c, 127 ; Rendel Harris, AJP, iv,
133 ff., 309 ff. ; Thompson, Hdb., 78 ff.

'Cp. Ginsburg, Intr., 69 ff". ; Kittel, Notwendigkeit, etc., 72 ff. ; Josephus, Ant.
XX, XI, 3.
8 Thompson, o. c, 81; Blass, o. c, 341; Serruys, Anastasiana, in Melanges
d'Arch^ologie, etc., xxii, 157 ff.

9 Ginsburg, Mr., 84, 87 ff. ; Rosenfeld, Q^IDID nn5U?2, 54 f.

 —
Extraordinary Points of the Pentateuch. 35

B. Exegetical Preoccupations.

38. At that time, the Greek classics were extensively com-

mented upon by the Alexandrians. The editions contained not
only critical but also exegetical annotations, which were occasion-
ally enlarged into real commentaries. These were sometimes
written in separate volumes, with special signs in the text itself
referring the reader to the corresponding place in the commentary.^
As said above, there were besides, conventional signs to represent
graphically the various critical and exegetical peculiarities.
39. The Alexandrian Jews, as might be expected, did for
their national literature what was done by the Greeks for theirs.
They were besides, great admirers both of Greek philosophy and
of the Bible, and hence strong efforts were made to harmonize the
two. They endeavoured to show that all that is reasonable in the
former, had been borrowed from, or at least was to be foimd in,

the latter. In order to attain this result more easily, they had
recourse to the allegorical method of interpretation. Philo ^ (20
B. C.-40 A. D.) although not the founder of this method,^
signs of it are found already in the writings of Aristobulus (ii
cent. B. c), and in the letter of Aristeas, — systematized it, and
went much beyond his predecessors in the application he made of
it. He says that since God is the author of the Scripture, even
of the Septuagint immediately as a Version, nothing is useless ;

every word, particle, expression, unusual turn of a phrase, is suffi-

cient ground to assert that this striking feature was designed, and
consequently to make it the basis of an allegorical interpretation.*
40. Among the Palestinian Jews we meet with a similar evolu-
tion. When the Sadducees attacked the value of the oral laws

^See Pierron, I'lliade (THomere, i, p. xxxvi.

^ On Philo, compare Jewish Histories, etc. See especially Gfrorer, Philo, i,

1 ff. ; Diihne, Jud.-Alexandr. Relig.-Pkilosophie, i, 98 S. ; Frankel, Schriftforsch.,

25-43 ; Siegfried, Philo, 168 ff. ; Edersheim, Life of Jesus, i, 31 ff., 40 ff.
;

Schiirer, Geschichte, in, 487 ff. ; Bousset, Religion d. Judent., 411 ff.

^Gforer, o. c, i, 68-113; Davidson, Sacred Hermeneutics, 57 ff. ; Siegfried,

Philo, 168-197 ; Edersheim, Life of Jesus, i, 31 S. ; Schiirer, Geschichte, ni, 548.
*Gf6rer, o. c, i, 54 ff., 68 ff. Davidson,
; o. c, 63 f.; Siegfried, L c. ; Edersheim,
0. c, I, 40 ff.
36 Meaning and Purpose of the

aud decisions, and denounced them as innovations, an effort was

made to base all the Halachoth and Haggadoth on the Biblical
text itself.^ Thus originated the proverb, "turn and return the
Law for everything is found in it." ^ Even then, the methods
that were followed in deriving the oral laws from the written one,
were not left to the arbitrary judgment of individual interpreters,
but certain rules calculated to render the deductions acceptable,

were devised. These rules were systematized by R. Hillel, and

summed up in seven formulas.^ As is evident from the examina-
tion of these rules, interpretation was at that time, still kept
within reasonable bounds, and in many respects was based on
perfectly justifiable and acceptable principles. Later on, Nachum
of Gimzo ^ (end of i cent. A. D.), probably under the influence of
Philo, propounded the view that a special meaning should be
attached to certain particles and conjunctions, so that on account
of their j)resence, the text be made to countenance the teachings of
tradition, either enlarging upon it or restricting its apparent mean-
ing.^ This is known as the toiyai ''13"l ' Extension and Limita-
tion.' The Palestinians, however, were not as yet prepared to
admit such fanciful principles, and Nachum's system was rejected
at the time, on the plea that though it is God who speaks in
Scripture, still He speaks for men and adapts His language to
the general rules of human parlance.^
41. But the views of Philo were making steady headway in
Palestine ; Josephus adopted his theory of inspiration according to
which man is a mere machine in the hands of God,^ etc. This

^Mielziner, Introd. to the Talmud, pp. 120 S. ; Edersheim, Zdfe, etc., i, 312 f.

2 Aboth, V, 32.
^Sifra, Introduct. (end), edit. Weiss, 3a ; Tosefta Sanh. vii, 11 (end), edit.
Zuchermandel, p. 427 ; Aboth de K. Nathan (1), Ch. 37. On these rules see
Mielziner, o. c, 123 f. ; Derenbourg, Palestine, 176 ff., 187 ff. ; Frankel, Schrift-
forscL, p. 15; Schiirer, Geschichte, ii, 335 f.

*Bacher, Agad. d. Tann., i, 57 ff. ; Graetz, History, ii, 330 f.

^ Mielziner, Introduction to the Talmud, 124 f.

^Mielziner, ibid.
''Ant. IV, vi, 5 viii, 48, 49; Cont. Apion., i, 7, 8, etc. ; Edersheim, Life of
Jesus, II, 684 f.
 Extraordinary Points of the Pentateuch. 37

same theory was endorsed by the great Aqiba/ who drew exactly
the same consequence as Philo, viz., that everything in Scripture
is the effect of a special design of God, that nothing is useless, not
even a single letter or sign. Hence, every little detail with which
the text could dispense, conveys a special divine idea. These
exaggerated views were not generally accepted by Aqiba's con-
temporaries, who clung to the seven rules of Hillel developed by
R. Ismael b. Elisha into thirteen.^ Aqiba's method is visible,

however, Greek Version of his disciple Aquila. Later on,

in the

it was adopted and perfected by R. Eliezer b. Jose, mostly for

Haggadic purposes.^ It is important to note that the Palestinian

Talmud applies the rules of Aqiba comparatively seldom, Avhile a
much greater use is made of them in the Babylonian Talmud.* It
is only fair to state however, that this use is generally restricted
to the Haggadah, and that the Rabbis did not intend to give in

the Midrash, the true sense of Scripture, which is to be looked for

in the literal interpretation.^

C. Meaning of the Nequdoth as Derived from the

Preceding Considerations.

FIRST CONCLUSION.

42. From the preceding pages, we learn that among the

Jews there Avere Textual and Exegetical labors, and that in
both spheres the influence of Alexandria made itself felt. We
may now draw a double conclusion with regard to the Extraordi-
naiy Points. It must be evident to the reader that these Points
should be referred to one or to the other of the two prevalent

^Bacher, Agad. d. Tann., i, 243 ff. ;

263-3.42 ; Derenbourg, Pcdestine, 395 ff.
;

Graetz, Histoi-y, ii, 352 ff. ; Mielziner, o. c, 125 f. ; Ginzberg, Akiba, JE, i, 304
ff. ; Schiirer, Gesch., ii, 375 ff.

'Sifra, beginning. Cp. Derenbourg, Palestine, 389 f. ; Backer, Agada d. Tann.,

I, 232 ff. ; Graetz, History, ii, 355 ff. ; Mielziner, o. c, 126 f.

3Mielziner, Introd., 127 Ginsburg, Midrash, in Kitto's CBL., Ill, 165 ff.
;

*See Surenhusius, ^l^Xos KaTa\\ayi}s 57-88; Frankel, Schriftforsch. 19; Dob- ,

schiitz, Einf. Exeg., 11 ff.

5 Mielziner, o. c, 122 ; Dobschiitz, /. c.

 ;

38 Meaning and Purpose of the

preoccupations. It is of prime importance to remember that

although the primitive tradition with regard to the place of the
Points may not have been preserved,^ still, it is beyoud all doubt
that they affect not a whole sentence or clause, but only the words
or letters over which they are placed. If it were not so it would
be impossible to see why, occasionally, only one letter has been
pointed, while for some other passages, we have three or more
dots. Jewish tradition besides is very positive in asserting that
the Points refer only to the elements thus marked, although it

may be at variance as to which letters should be pointed.

43. We may now briefly draw a first conclusion as follows :

The Nequdoth bear only on the words and letters over which they
are placed, and not on an entire clause of the Biblical passages
if then they are exegetical signs, they would imply that a certain
intei'pretation should be put on these pointed elements ; but in
Palestine, the interpretation of individual words and letters,

began only at the time of Nachum of Gimzo and Aqiba, and for
some time afterwards was still regarded with suspicion by most
of the Rabbis ; it is therefore improbable that, even if the
Nequdoth had originated at the time of these two writers, they
would have been allowed to pass into the official text of the
Synagogue scrolls, as signs of an official interpretation. The
Points moreover are undoubtedly older than the time of Nachum,
and consequently, have still less chance of indicating that an
exegetical explanation is connected with the words and letters
over which they are placed. Besides, even if we would grant
that at that time, words and letters were thus made susceptible of
a peculiar interpretation, we do not see why our present dotted
elements should have been selected in preference to so many
others. Ou the one hand, even if we understand the Jewish
explanations literally, it does not appear that from a Jewish point
of view, any special importance should have been attached to
these dotted Biblical passages ; there were many other places
apparently more important and more likely to attract the atten-
tion of the Rabbis. On the other hand, even if we concede that

^ See the details in our last Chapter.

 Exti'aordinary Points of the Pentateueh. 39

these words had a special importance, we fail to see, why, for

instance, it should be the ]1"lIfV of Num. xxix, 15, that received
the dots, rather than that of xxix, 1 ; or why it should be the
vht^ of Gen. xviii, 9, rather than the V^N of Gen. xix, 21, etc.

Moreover, in many cases, the pointed letters are not at all

superfluous in the sense in which they could have been made

the channel of a special divine thought, v. g. Gen. xviii, 9, 'V7^f/

Num. xxi, 30, 'iU^X,' etc.

44. Against the conclusion that the dots are not exegetical
signs, the fact that exegetical interpretations have been put upon
them cannot be adduced as an objection. If the dots have a critical
value, and especially the value of a dele, it should be expected that
later on, exegetical conceptions would actually be derived from

them. Again, let us add that like so many other features of the
text, these points may have been due to an exegetical bias, without
having an exegetical import, as is probably the case with the
so-called ' Emendations of the Scribes,' etc.

SECOND CONCLUSION.

45. As already shown, there were various textual labors

among Jews during that time. We then further conclude
the
that the Points are somehow connected with these labors, and
are the expression of some judgment on the text, either as mark-
ing a striking peculiarity, or calling attention to some critical
doubt. What was exactly intended by the Nequdoth, we are
likely to learn from the use of the same signs in Alexandria, from

which place, as said above, the Palestinian Jews, probably bor-

rowed them. To this end, it will be enough to determine the form
of the iV^^wr/o^/i, briefly analyse the meaning of similar signs in Alex-
andria, and finally apply to the former what we know of the latter.

46. FoEM OF THE Nequdoth. As to the original form of

the Nequdoth, there can be but littledoubt that it was what is

generally conveyed by the term " point." This is made evident
^
by the word that the Jews used for designating them, viz. DTllpJ

^Thus Aboth de R. Nathan (1) ch. 34, (2) ch. 37 ; Massorah Magna on Gen.
xvi, 5 ; Mass. Parva, Deut. xxix, 28, etc.
40 Meaning and Purpose of the

[nilpj] plural of mi pi [nip:]. The substantive rn\^:^ in Rab-

binical literature means a ' point/ real or imaginary, a ' dot ' made
with some pointed instrument or with the pen. As designating
the Extraordinary Points, it is used in Jer. Pesachim, ix, 2, in

Aboth de R. Nathan (2), Chap, xxxvii, on Deut. xxix, 28, and

in Bemidbar Rabba, iii, 13, on Deuter. xxix, 28 ; riTlpJ is even
used collectively for the ensemble of the points over a given passage,
in Jer. Pesachim, ix, 2 (?), Bereshith Rabba, lxxviii, 9 (12), and
Aboth de R. Nathan (1), Chap, xxxiv, on Deuter. xxix, 28.^
The pointed passages are indicated in various ways. Occasionally,
it is said that such a letter or word is lip: (m^^:^, D^p:, nnipJ) ;^
in these cases, llpj etc. are certainly pass, participles agreeing
with the preceding word and mean ' pointed.' At other times,
the passage is marked by V^V "ilpJ or hy . . .hv "llp^j followed by
the letters or words which are pointed ;
^ here, also, with Blau and
others, we should read "llpj, ' it is pointed,' and not "l^pi, ' point,'

with Baer and Konigsberger."* In some cases, especially in the

titles of the various lists of the Points, and in the rubrics of the
Massorah, we find '
HTinZI nmp3 "^.' ^ Here, since there are
more than Law, HTllpJ is evidently a participle
ten points in the
referring to some such word as vht2 understood, and should be
translated pointed passages
' this is made almost certain by the
'
;

fact that occasionally ]"'^Q is actually expressed.*" We thus come

to the conclusion that although Nequdah and Nequdoth are ' ' ' '

found as substantives to designate the Extraordinary Points as

such, and now are commonly used in that sense, still these words

^ See the various Dictionaries, s. v. n"np: or "!pJ ; thus Buxtorf -Fischer, Lexicon
Chald. ; Levy, Neu-Hebr. Wtbch. ; Jastrow, Dictionary of the Targum. etc. Dal- ,
, ;

man, Aram. Neu.-Hehr. Wtbch. ; cp. also Hillel, Die Nominalbildungen in der
Mischnah, 48 f.

' Thus, V. g., Aboth de E. Nathan (1), Ch. xxxiv, on Gen. xxxiii, 4 ; Num.
XXIX, 15 ; Soferim, vi, 3, on Gen. xviii, 9 ; xix, 33 ; xxxiii, 4, etc. ; Leqach
Tob, on Deuter. xxix, 28, ed. Padua, p. 101.
^ Thus, especially Sifre cp. § 69, and the various texts in the Appendix.
;

* Blau, Einl, 113 f. Konig, Einl., 32 Konigsberger, 3fuTK, 13, 14, 15, etc.
; ;
;

Baer, Genesis, p. 95.

*See Appendix.
® See Massoretic marginal note on Gen. xxxiii, 4 and Num. ix. 10.
 Extraordinary Points of the Pentateuch. 41

are generally passive participles from the root ID^} The verb
IpJ is uot found in the Bible, but it occurs in the Rabbinical
Hebrew literature with the sense of ' to pierce/ ' to prick/ and in

Massoretic terminology, more specifically, ' to furnish with vowel-

points and accents.' Finally, in Aboth de R. Nathan, (1 and 2),
Bemidbar Eabba, and Ochlah w^'Ochlah, it expresses the action of
appending the Nequdoth; as the word nil pi designates not only
the Extraordinary Points, but also means any kind of point or
dot, the verb HpJ, in the above authorities, must mean to mark '

with points,' or, in the Hiph'il (Aboth de R. Nathan, 2) ' to cause

to be pointed.' ^ This meaning of "IpJ is simply a palseographical
adaptation of its original sense of ^ to pierce,' and is nothing else
than the imitation with pen and ink of a puncture or prick made
with a sharp instrument.^ The Hebrew IpJ is clearly recognized
in the Syriac J-*^ , which also means 'to pierce' and 'to mark
;
with points ' the substantive j f^ qj corresponds to the Greek
(TTL'yiir] ' point.' The substantive jr-OQj from the root i-^^ is

also frequently used for the (nf^^i-q of the Greeks.* Hence the
term "milpj" given by the Jews to the Extraordinary Points is

sufficiently indicative of their form.

47. In the Hebrew Manuscripts, as a graphical sign of

the Nequdoth, thecommon dot by far prevails it is also supposed ;

by the remark of St. Jerome, when he says " appungunt desuper,"

etc., and by the Origenian note referred to above " iv iravTl
'^^paiKO) ySi/SXio) 7repL€(TTiKTai." ^ There are, however, a few vari-
ations as to the shape of the Nequdoth: occasionally they appear
under the form of a little circle, thus, cod. 600 of Kennicott,^

^ On all that precedes, see especially Hy vernat, Petite Introduction a I' Etude de
la Massore (reprint from RB.) s. v. ~pJ.
^ See the Dictionaries mentioned above, s. v. 'Ipl
^ The obelus has the same origin ; cp. Liddell and Scott, Greek-Eng. Lexicon, s. v.

'0/3eX6s ; Montfaucon, PalcEographia Grceca, p. 371.

*See Payne-Smith, Thesaurus Ling. Syriac, ss. w.
^ See above, p. 4, n. 6.
®Bruns, De Variis Lectionihus Bibliorum Kennicott., in Kepertorium, etc., xirr,
p. 44.
42 Meaning and Purpose of the

cod. Ebner/ etc. ; at other times, vertical ^ or horizontal ^ strokes

take the place of the common points. Even in the same MS. all these
different forms are sometimes found.* However, as the points alone
correspond to the word nmpJ and are much more used than the
other forms, it is evident that these variations are but modifications
or embellishments of the points.^ In any case, as they appear
interchanged with the dots proper, they must have the same
meaning.
48. Similar signs in Alexandria. In Alexandria
the points served several purposes : they were adduced by Aris-
tophanes of Byzantium, and later on by Nicanor,^ as punctuation
marks with a special value according to their position ; they are,
together with many other signs, used to fill up the blank spaces
at the end of a line ; ^ placed over numerical letters, two dots
indicate the tens of thousands ;
^ finally, they are used to mark
spurious elements of the text, as, v. g. in the fragment of Hyper-
ides, and later on in the codex Sinaiticus.^
49. The vertical strokes, which occasionally take the
place of the points in Hebrew mss., were used in Alexandria
to divide words where a special difficulty occurred, as v. g.,
where too many consonants came together ;
^^
they are appended
to the left of numerical letters to denote thousands,^^ or to the
right to denote fractions ^^
; in the papyrus of Aristotle, slanting
strokes with dots indicate transposition ;
^^
finally, they are found

^Eichhorn, Evd., n, § 355.

^ Thus Cassel MS. on Gen. xxxiii, 4 ; see besides, Michaelis, Orient, u. Exeg.
Bihliot. Th. i, pp. 230 f. , and Biblia Hebraica, on Gen. xix, 33, etc.
^Michaelis, Orient Bihliot., I. c.

*Thus MS. 1106 of the Breslau library (Konigsberger, MuTK, p. 6, n. 1).

* Wedo not see why Biichler seems to assimilate them to the vertical accents
{Herkunft, etc., pp. 89, 97, 116 f., 141).
^Gardthausen, Palaeographie, 274; Thompson, Hdb. of Palceography, 70,
' Gardthausen, o. c, 277.

* Gardthausen, o. c, 267; Thompson, o. c, 105.

^Gardthausen, o. c, 278 f. ; Thompson, o. c, 74; Blass, in Miiller's Hdbch.,
etc., I, 323.
^''Gardthausen, o. c, 274.
"Thompson, o. c, 104 f.

'* Gardthausen, o. c. , 268.

^'Thompson, o. c, 74.
 .

Extraordinary Points of the Pentateuch. 43

with the same signification as the points, viz. to cancel letters or

words, and in this sense they occur in the codex Alexandrinus/

50. The horizontal strokes, which also occasionally
replace the points in Jewish mss., are placed over numerical
letters to them from the ordinary elements of the
distinguish
text ;
^ we
them over words which are contracted ^ they
find ;

are used by Origen to mark a word found in the lxx but not
in Hebrew ;
* they are also found with the special purpose of
cancelling spurious elements,^ and in this sense they were used
by Aristarchus " 6 Se o^e\o<i Trpo? ra aOerov/xeva iirl tov irotrjTOV
:

ijryovv vevoOevfieva jj v7ro/3€^\r)fi€va " ^ hence the verb o^eXi^w ' to;

"^

mark as spurious by means of the obelus.'

51. We may now apply to the Jewish Nequdoth the meaning
that we find attached to the corresponding Greek signs. Of
course, it would be entirely preposterous to make the Hebrew
Extraordinary Points mark numerical letters as the Greek points
and strokes occasionally do ; or to make them correspond to the

Greek vertical strokes or accents used to separate words or letters,

where there was a special difficulty in pronouncing them well ; or

to assimilate them to the various punctuation marks ; or, finally,

to consider them as mere flourishes at the end of a line. There

remains consequently but one meaning assignable to the Nequdoth,
viz. that, like the Greek dots, they are signs of real deletions.

This is besides, the only function on which the various forms

of the Nequdoth agree.
52. This conclusion is further strengthened by the meaning
which other nations, and the Jews themselves at a later date,

attributed to dots. Thus with the Latins, the points as well as

the vertical and horizontal strokes are used to cancel,^ but the
common sign for this was the point, and for this reason, we have

1 Thompson, Hdb., 74.

^Thompson, o. c, 104.
^ Thompson, o. c. 88 f ,

* Field, Hexapla, pp. lii S., etc.

^ Thompson, o. c. , 74 ; Grardthausen, Palaeographie, 279.

® Gardthausen, o. c, 288 f.

''
See Liddell and Scott, Qi-eek-Engl. Lexicon.
* Thompson, o. c, 75 ; Prou, Manuel de Pcdeographie, 151 f.
 ;

44 Meaning and Purpose of the

the verb ' expungere ' in the sense of ' delere.' ^

St. Jerome,
applying this meaning of the obelus, marked with that sign the
Deuterocanonical portions of Daniel relative to Susanna and to
Bel and the Dragon.^ The point and horizontal stroke are also
used for cancelling by the Samaritans.^ The Jews at a later
date, employed the points to mark letters that were considered as
spurious. Thus in the St. Petersburg Codex of the Prophets,
Is. li, 4; Ezech. xliv, 10; xiv, 11, 13; xx, 7; Hag. i, 11;
ii, 21 ; Zach. i, 3, etc.,* and in many other Biblical Mss.^ Com-
pare also Codex Cassel, on Gen. xli, 25 ; 2 Chron. iii, 14, etc.^ The

dots serve the same purpose in the Oxford MS. of Pirqe Aboth
(Bodl. 145).'' Besides, mnemonic catchwords, letters of the alpha-

bet taken as such, first letters of abbreviated words when joined

togethei', are often marked with a dash, slanting strokes or points,
to show that they are not regular words of the text.^ In the
same way, points are placed over quotations and like our
inverted commas, show that the words are not of the author
himself;® numerical letters, though generally marked with the
sign of abbreviations, are also indicated by points, to prevent
their being understood as an ordinary word of the sentence.^*'
Finally, when a word cannot be written fully at the end of a
line, the entire word is occasionally repeated in the following line

but to prevent the letters already written at the end of the

preceding line from being read twice, points are placed upon
them, evidently to cancel them."

^ Blau, MU, p. 8, n. 1 ; cp. Forcellini, Totius Latinitatis Lexicon, ii, 238, col. 1.
* Prolegemena in Daniel.
^Peterman, Ling. Samarit. Oramm., §8; Watson, in Hebraica, ix, 224. This
method is still used by modern Eastern Syrians, as shown, v. g., in Cod. Hyvernat,
10, in which three dots in red ink appear cp. 32b, etc. ;

*Ginsburg, Introd., 321.

^See Baer and Strack, Biqdvqe ha-Te'amim, 45, C. b Ginsburg, Introd., 334. ;

«Michaelis, Orient., etc., Th. i, pp. 231 ff.

' Sayings of the Fathers, edit. Taylor,
p. 52 of the translation, note 38.
"See, V. g., Derenbourg, Manuel du Lerteur, Journ. As., vi*^ S^i-ie, xvi, 315, 316,
327, etc. ; Neubauer, Petite Gram. Hebr., 7, 10, etc. ; Ginzberg, Genizah Studies,
JQR, XVIII, 104, 109, etc. ; Levias, Grammar of the Aramaic Idiom, p. 6.
"See Schechter, Saadyana, pp. 122-126.
^° See Levias, o. c.
p. 5, n. 3 Ginsburg, Intr. 85, etc.
, ; ,

" Thus in a small fragment from the Cairo Genizah, lent by Dr. S. Schechter
to Prof. H. Hyvernat for publication. Six examples occur in one page.
 :

Extraordinary Points of the Pentateuch. 45

53. It would be useless now to examine all the theories on

the Nequdoth in the light of Palaeography ; if the Nequdoth could
be clearly identified with the Greek dots, they could have no
other meaning than that of a dele; nowhere do we find these
points used to denote special exegesis, or striking features of the
text, or discrepancies between Mss. and recensions. The opinion
of Konigsberger especially, is in direct contradiction to the evi-
dences in this line ; it would be almost incredible that the Jews,
who were acquainted with the Alexandrian custom of using dots
as signs of deletions, would themselves have employed them for
the very reverse, i. e., to mark certain unexpected letters as
genuine and consequently to be retained.
54. Against Konig thiscp. Levias
^
conclusion,
objects ^
— —
that if the Nequdoth had been used to mark words and letters as
spurious, we would expect the Jews to have used them con-
sistently. Now, we find such superfluous letters marked "iTI"',
or "^ip X^l ^TID, etc. Therefore, to grant that the Nequdoth were
designed to cancel, is to attribute to the Jews a lack of con-
sistency, which cannot be assumed.
55. This objection of K5nig wrongly supposes that no change
has taken place in Jewish methods and practices. We know, to
give only a few examples, that there are three distinct systems
for the Massoretic punctuation ;
^ we further know, not only that
dififerent words were used to designate the same thing, but that the
same word did not always preserve the same meaning,* etc. The
methods used for cancelling letters and words were not restricted
to one, as Konig himself grants, and hence we find no difficulty
in admitting that the Nequdoth were intended to cancel. The
same multiplicity of methods in cancelling interpolated letters,
is seen among the Greeks and Latins. Besides the method of
crossing out a word or erasing it, they used many others, such as

^Einl, p. 33, n. 1.
^Levias, art. Masorah, JE, Vol. viii, p. 368.
3 A third system is described by Kahle, ZAW, 1901, pp. 273-317. See also
Bacher, art. Punctuation, JE, x, 270 f.

*Elias Levita, Massoreth ha-Massoreth, passim, see v. g., 131-133; Frensdorff,

Massora Magna, 1-20. Hyvernat, Petite Introduction d l^ Etude de la Massore, BB,
1903, 541 ff. ; 1904, 521 ff. ; 1905, 203 ff., 515 ff.
46 Meaning and Purpose of the

including the word between various signs <....>,) ) or

' '
;
placing accents, dots, obelus over every letter, as said

above ; drawing a line above or below the word ; encircling it all

around with dots, etc.^ In order to designate the condemnation

of a word, more than ten verbs occur in Greek, each one indi-
cative of a special method, thus : adereco, o^eXi^co, 8cajpd(f)Q),

fieTwypdcfxo, 7r€pi<ypd(})co, eKypdcfxi), Trapaypdcfxi), i^aXelcfxa, ckko-

XdiTTCO, pj^ta^ft), crri^co, TrepcaTi^co, viroaTC^wr'
In view of what precedes, the Jews must appear to us as very
conservative and consistent. Whatever, therefore, may have been
the reason for which they had recourse to the points, it remains
true that the lack of consistency cannot be adduced as an objection
against the cancelling value of the Nequdoth; and consequently,
we have every reason to maintain our conclusion that the Extra-
ordinary Points were real signs of deletions.

Section II. Jewish Testimonies on the

Points in General.

66. We might be expected to consider in this place the

little clause found at the end of the list of the Points, as given
by Aboth de R. Nathan (1 and 2) and by Bemidbar Rabba, in
which Ezra is justifying himself for having written the pointed
letters. However, as this clause possibly refers only to Deuteron.
xxix, 28, and not to the pointed passages in general, we postpone
the explanation of this testimony until we examine the Nequdoth
of that verse.^ As more general notices we have the words of R.
Simeon b. Eleazar, of Rabbi, and of the Zohar.
57. The rule attributed to R Simeon b. Eleazar by Bereshith
Rabba,^ —reproduced by many subsequent Jewish writings,^ —and
* Gardthausen, Palaeogr., 278 f.; Thompson, Hdb. ofPalceogr., 74.
^ See Liddell and Scott, Greek Engl. Lexicon, ss. vv.

See lower down, § 128.

^

*XLvni, 15 (17) Lxxvni, 9 (12). ;

^ Thus Leqach Tob on Genesis xviii, 9, edit. Buber, p. 84 Shir ha-Shirim ;

Rabba, vn, 8 Yalqut, § 82, § 133 Sekhel Tob, Gen. xviii, 9, edit. Buber, p.
; ;

26 Gen. xxxiii, 4, edit. Buber, p. 178.

;
 Extraordinary Points of the Pentateuch. 47

to the Rabbis in general by Jer. Pesachim, ix, 2, is substan-

tially the following: nnXIL' Dlpa ^DD ["iTj;'?*^ ]3 ]1J;dW '"I "IDIX]
HDT m)^^ DHDH HN u;-in nnN nmpjn ^pj; roi
dfid nj^id
: rn^^:iT\ DN u;nn nnx 3nDn ^y. The exact translation of this
passage is not clear, on account of the various meanings that
can be put on rn^y^ and DFlD. In fact these words do not seem
to have been used consistently. In one of the cases, viz. Gen.
xviii, 9, '"thi^, where the rule is applied by R. Simeon himself,
the comparison made between the PTWD^ and
is the DDD : ]ND
rmpjn nx u^in nnx dhdh hv hdi mipjn^; this evidently
supposes that VP^^^ is taken in the sense of ' pointed letters ',

and DHD in the sense of '

unpointed letters,' for only in this
interpretation is it true that the mipJ surpasses the DHD. The
same is also true of the probable application of the rule to
Num. ix, 10, where the DHD being more numerous than the
rnipJ, the pointed He of npm is left out and pni referred to
'CJ'^^} This sense of the two words is also borne out by the fact
that we have no example in the Pentateuch, of the points being
more numerous than the actual letters of the pointed word.
There is, it is true, a pointed passage in the Hagiographa, viz.
Ps. xxvii, 13, in which the points are more numerous than the
letters of the word, since this word N^l? is pointed above and

below,^ but this passage does not belong to the pre-Massoretic

official list of the Nequdoth, and it is not probable that R. Simeon
referred to it in his explanation.^

On the other hand, on Gen. xxxiii, 4,^ rCTipi and DPD are taken
in the sense of ' points ' and ' letters DHD N^ ]KD
' respectively,
'
m DHDH hv HDI mip: t6^ n'l)p}n bv nnn. word in As the
question inpti'"'T is entirely pointed, R. Simeon can only mean that
the number of the points '
mipjn', is equal to the number of the
letters '
2T)Dn.'

^ Jer. Pesachim, ix, 2 ; see below, § 98 ff.

^ See Massorah Magna on Num. iii, 39, and the marginal Massoretic note on
Ps. xxvii, 13.
^ Besides, this method of pointing is not found in the Talmudic passage —Bera-
khoth, ia —where the Points are given for this word.
*Bereshith Rabba, Ixxviii, 9 (12) ; cp. § 46.
 .

48 Meaning and Purpose of the

58. What is meant by this rule is not beyond dispute.^ One

thing, however, seems to be certain, viz. that it has nothing to do
with the import of the Nequdoth. If it were otherwise, we
would have to say, v. g., that N, % ^ of V7X have been pointed
because the angels inquired about Abraham, Dn"lDN' At such
I'^X.

a rate, the Rabbis might have taken in any given word two or
three letters, yielding a desired sense, and pointed them, but this
would be absurd. The rule of R. Simeon is a mere Haggadic
adaptation of the letters already pointed for some other reason.
In Gen. xxxiii, 4, we are told that since the number of the points
and of the letters is the same, it is a sign that Esau kissed Jacob
sincerely.^ This is already implied in the Biblical sentence, with-
out the points, and hence, the latter, on inpll^"'!, would be perfectly
useless. In fact R. Yanai's objection against him is precisely
that he gives no real explanation. The fact that the dispositions

of Esau would have changed, and that in the beginning he

intended to bite Jacob '
^'2\D^ h'D,' is not suggested by the Bibli-
cal verse as long as inptt'"'! stands ; besides, the same might have
been said of any of the actions of Esau. If inpiyi alone has been
pointed, there must have been for this, apart from the explanation
of R. Simeon, some special reason, which did not exist for the
other words of the sentence. We are, therefore, led to the con-

clusion, that R. Simeon does not intend to give us the purpose

of the Nequdoth. The only use that can be made of this rule of

R. Simeon will be to find out the place of the Nequdoth in his

day, but even here it will prove of little service, for we have only
three cases where it has been clearly applied.
69. Apparently intended as a corrective of the preceding
rule, is the expression of Rabbi,^ who says : D^ ]^i<^ ''D hv ^^

^ See the altogether inadmissable interpretation of Sekhel Tob on Gen. xxxiii,

4, ed. Buber, where this rule is made to apply to Q^re w^lo Ketib. See
p. 178,
also Hirschfeld, Hagg. Exegese, 373, quoted in Strack, Prolegomena, p. 90.
^ On the differences between Shir ha-Shirim and Bereshith Eabba, see Appendix
;

Shir ha-Shirim has omitted a whole clause through a homceoteluton i)D7?2

'
'
'
'

Yalqut, § 133 has also important variations, but it is evident that it does not
transcribe accurately. The objection of E. Yanai would be out of place, if K.
Simeon had said, as Yalqut makes him say, that Esau did not kiss Jacob sincerely.
' Jer. Pesachim, ix, 2.
 '

Eodraordinary Points of the Pentateuch. 49

:3nDn dn p'?Doi n-npjn nx :i;-m nx ]'?viD^t3 nnx mipj k^n

The ordinary sense of ]'?j;o^D is from above ', but here this '

translation offers special difficulties. Rabbi clearly supposes that

there were other cases, in which the rV^^:^ was not ]^J7a^a. In
the official list of the Nequdoth given in Sifre, the points are
always placed over the letters to which they refer :
'
vhv lip J
'
. . . . 7^ 11 pi' ^ There is but one case where, according to Sifre,

the points are ntOD^QI H^ya'^D;^ but, apart from the fact that
these words are generally understood as ' in the beginning and at
the end,' ^ it is not likely that Rabbi had in view all the other
passages which were pointed above but not below; for, these
cases are the majority, and Rabbi seems to speak only of excep-
tional occurrences. Blau^ is therefore justified in understanding
]'?yD^D as ' in the beginning or on the first letter.' ^ It is true
that this rule, having been framed for existing, and not for
hypothetical cases, would suppose that there were words actually
pointed on the first letter only, whereas we know of no such cases
in our present method of placing the dots. But, as we shall see
in the examination of individual passages, there are probably
three passages in which, according to some schools the first letter

alone received the points, although they affected the entire word,
viz. Gen. xix, 33, HDIpDT; Num. iii, 39, ]nnNT; Num. xxix, 15,

Again, it is to be noted that Rabbi takes PTVid'^ in its ordinary

sense of ' point,' for, the expression '

]^j;d^D rnipJ ' can be justified
only if we distinguish the rH)'^^ from the letter to which it

referred. Besides, it is not probable that Rabbi would ahvays

recommend the interpretation of the first letter of a word, if
pointed, and refuse to interpret any other letter. If we under-
stand Rabbi correctly, his saying should be rendered as follows :

1 On Num. ix, 10, § 69, edit. Friedman, 18a.

2 On Num. xi, 35, § 84, p. 22a.
3 See Blau, MU, p. 42 ; Konig, Einl, p. 34.
* MU, p. 27.
^Cp. Targ. on Ezech., xlii, 9; xlvi, 19; Num. iv, 26, etc.; in the Targuni,
NiVi?^ often corresponds to the Hebrew X1D)2* Compare besides, the massoretic
use of b^rb?: in opposition to i'l'^^ (Hyvernat, BB, 1905, 210).
^ See these various passages below in the third chapter.
4
50 Cleaning and, Purpose of the

' Even if there was but one point, provided it be on the first

letter, take this point into account, and leave out the letters.'

Accordingly, the presence of the Point annuls, at least for

exegesis, the entire word ; and this implies that the word was
considered as critically doubtful, otherwise there would have been
no reason not to interpret it as well as the others. How the
point on the first letter was deemed sufficient to annul the entire

word, is made clear if we remember that in the three cases

mentioned, the pointed word begins with a conjunctive waw ; by
pointing this ivaw, and thereby removing it, the entire word was
placed out of the context, and this may have been considered
sufficient to recall to mind that it was spurious or at least criti-

cally doubtful, and that consequently it should not be interpreted.

60. Similar to the view of Rabbi, and perhaps borrowed
from it, is that of the medieval Jewish Rabbis, who also tell us

that the pointed letters are non-existent for interpretation ;

^ that
they are good only as a basis for the Derash, but not for the
literal interpretation.^ We are also told that the dots lessen
the import of a word,^ and this supposes that the Nequdoth take
away from the word something that it would have without them.
All this clearly suggests, even if not realized by those Rabbis,
that the pointed letters are not as good critically as the other

elements of the text, i. e., that they are at least critically

doubtful.
In what precedes, we find nothing that would militate in favor
either of the would-be original exegetical import of the Nequdoth,
or of their italicizing value.
61. In favor of the theory of Italics, we may quote the pas-

sage of the Zohar on Num. ix, 10: "in^X X"l Hpim "^ms IK
^:n^D nxinx'? i^^nx )rhD) Nnn^xn amp: ]i:^n-i .-n^j?a nn
This testimony is not so clearly in favor of the view of Konigs-
berger as might seem at first; nfrOriN^ 'to make visible, or
prominent,' does not necessarily mean ' to italicize,' in the sense

^ See above,
§ 5. See also Leqach Tob. on Deut. xxix, 28, ed. Padua, p. 101.
^Rashi on Baba Metsi'a, 87a Cbmm. on Gen. xix, 33, etc.
;

^Rashi on Menachoth 87b (top) Sanh. 43b, etc, ;

* Quoted in Buxtorf, Tiberias, p. 180,

 Extraordinary Points of the Pentateuch. 51

of retaining a word although there would seem to be grounds for

rejecting it. The words of the Zohar would still be justified,

even had considered the Nequdoth as deletive signs. In any

if it

case it is needless to remark that the Zohar is of late origin/ and

may have been influenced by the methods of the Massorah proper,
which precisely calls attention to all the various features of the
text.

^See especially Zunz, Gott. Vortr., 419 ff.

52 Meaning and Purpose of the

CHAPTER III.

THE INDIVIDUAL POINTED PASSAGES, IN THE

LIGHT OF TEXTUAL CRITICISM AND
OF THE JEWISH WRITINGS.

62. As remarked above, the use of Textual Criticism with

regard to the meauing of the Nequdoth, is widely different from
the use of the same, when the aim of the investigation is to
discover the true original readings of the Hebrew text. Our
intention is simply to find out what was the state of the text when
the Points came into existence, and thus to be enabled to reach
some conclusion concerning their original import.
As to the Jewish testimonies which we shall use in this Chap-
ter, it might have been desirable to collect them here, and submit
them to a critical study ; thus the reader would know at the outset
what in them is original tradition, and what is mere Midrash.
However such a work of comparison, as it implies a work of inter-
pretation which is possible only in the examination of each pas-
sage, cannot properly be done here. We shall therefore content
ourselves with giving a full list of these testimonies, with the text
of the most important of them, viz., Sifre. The text of the others
will be found in an Appendix at the end of this work.

63. A. Testimonies in which the Nequdoth aee Grouped.

Without explanations.
Soferim, vi, 3.^ Massorah Magna on Num. iii, 39.^ Diqduqe
ha-Te'amim.^

^ Edited by Miiller, Masechet Soferim. It is also found in the editions of the

Babylonian Talmud among the minor treatises at the end of Seder Nesiqin. In
its final redaction, it belongs to the vni or ix cent. A. c, but Ch. vi-ix seem to
be older. See Harris, JQB, i, 230; Miiller, o. c, 21 L ; Zunz, Oott. Vortr., p.
100 ;
Mielziner, Introd. Talmud, p. 63.
to the
^ See also Ochlah weQchlah, ed. Frensdorff, n. 96.
^Diqduqe ha-Te'amim, in the Eabb. Bible of Venice, 1517-18, App. O, fol. 'X
 Extraordinary Points of the Pentateuch. 53

With explanations.
Sifre on Num. Aboth de R. Nathan (1st recension)
ix, 10, §69.*
Ch. xxxiv.^ Aboth de R. Nathan (2nd recension), Ch. xxxvii.^
Midrash Mishle, KJIti; "IDJ^ VnD:f3 Prov. xxvi, 24.'' Leqach
Tob (Pesiqta Zutarta), on Num. ix, 10.* Bemidbar Rabba, iii,
i3.«

64. Individual Testimonies on the Pointed Passages.

Gen. xviii, 9. Baba Metsi'a, 87a middle. —Bereshith Rabba/

recto. Diqduqe ha-Te'amim is a Grammatico-Massoretic treatise by Aharon b.

Asher, x cent. A. d. (cp. JE, i, p. 18). It is doubtful whether the passage rela-
tive to the Points is original it is not found in most recensions (see Ginsburg,
:

Introd., p. 281 Baer and Strack, p. viii). Baer's MS. contains much extrane-
ff. ;

ous matter borrowed from various sources and especially from Midrash Mishle.
^Ed. Friedmann, 18a; this testimony is reproduced in Yalqut, § 722, and in
Midr. Leqach Tob, edit. Padua, p. 194. It is also found in Ugolini, Thesaurus
Antiquit. S(mrarum, XV, p. cxlv. The work belongs to the in or IV cent. A. D.
See Friedmann' s7n<rodMC<. (Hebrew) ; Mielziner, Intr. to the Talmud, p. 20.
^ Ed. Schechter,
pp. 100 f. Aboth de E. Nathan is a kind of Tosefta to the
Mishnic Tractate 'Pirqe Aboth.' In its present shape, it is post-Talmudic,
probably vi or vii cent. A recension very different from the one published in
the Talmud, was edited by Tausik (Munich, 1872). The two recensions are
given in parallel columns by Schechter. On Aboth de K. Nathan, see
especially Schechter, Introd. (Hebrew) Mielziner, Introd., p. 63.
;

» Ed. Schechter, pp. 97 f.

* Ed. Buber, p. 99 f. Midrash Mishle is a Comment, on Proverbs belonging to
the X or xi cent. See Buber' s Introd. (Hebrew) ; Zunz, o. c, p. 280. The
passage relative to the Points is missing in the ordinary editions, but it is found
in the editions of Constantinople and was known to the author of Arukh (s. v.

npJ) ; see Buber, p. 99, n. 10.

* Edit. M. Padua, p. 194. Leqach Tob is a Midr. Comment, on the Pentateuch
by Tobia b. Eliezer it is also, but wrongly called Pesiqta Zutarta. The first two
;

books were edited by Buber, 1880, the last three by M. Padua, 1880 Levit. ;

Num. and Deut. are also found in Ugolini, o. c. xvi, 1 It dates from the xii , fif.

cent. See Zunz, Oott. Vortr., pp. 195 ff. Buber's Introd. (Hebrew); Welte, ;

Jiid. Litter., i, 462 ff. Hamburger, BEdJ, Suppl. i, 117-122.

;

® Comm. on Num. of the x or xi cent. A. D. See Zunz, o. c. 270 3. Wiinsche, , ;

Biblioth. Rabb., Introd. to Bemidbar Rabba. Cp. JE, ii, 669 ff.
'Bereshith Rabba, xlviii, 15 (17) it is a Haggadic Comm. on Gen., and
;

belongs to the v or vi cent. See Zunz, Gott. Vortr., 184 £E. ; Wiinsche, Biblioth.
Bobbin., Introd. to Bereshith Rabba ; JE, viii, 557.
54 Meaning and Purpose of the

—Leqach Tob.^— Sekhel Tob.^— Midrash ha-Gadol.^

Gen. XIX, 33. Nazir, 23a. —Horayoth, 10b. —Bereshith Kabba."
Midr. Yelamdenu.^— Leqach Tob.«— Sekhel Tob.^—
Zohar.«— Midr. ha-Gadol.»
Gen. XXXIII, 4. Bereshith Rabba.*" —Shir ha-Shirim Rabba.^^
—Leqach Tob.^2_]yji(jj,. Tanchuma.^3__gekhel Tob.^*—
Zohar.i^— Midr. ha-Gadol.^«
Gen. XXXVII, 12. Bereshith Rabba.^'' —Leqach Tob.^^ —Sekhel
Tob."— Midr. ha-Gadol.^"
Num. Ill, 39. —Leqach
Bekhoroth, 4a. Tob.^^

Num. IX, 10. —

Mishn. Pesachim, ix, Pesachim, 2. Jerus. ix, 2.
—Tosefta Pesachim, —Zohar.^viii, 3.

1 Ed. Buber, p. 84.

' Haggad. Comm. on Genesis, and Exodus by Menachem b. Salomo ; ed. Buber,

p. 26.
' Collection of Kabbinic homilies on the Pentateuch, compiled in the xrv cent,

by a Yemen Jew. Genesis has been published by Schechter (1902). On Gen.

xviii, 9, see col. 273.
*Li, 8 (10).
» A lost Cbmm. on the Pentateuch ; Zunz ascribes it to the ix cent. Many
passages have been preserved in Aruch and Yalqut. It is different from Mid-
rash Tanchuma, although this latter has been occasionally printed under the
name of Yelamdenu. Buber published a recension of Midr. Tanchuma, which
he claims to be anterior to Yelamdenu. In general, see Zunz, Oott. Vortr., 237
ff,;Buber' s Introduct. (Hebrew), but see also Neubauer, J, xm, 224 f. TheBE
passage relative to the Points is quoted in Aruch, s. v. 1
V
and in Yalqut, § 86,,

with slight variations.

«Ed. Buber, p. 90.
' Ed. Buber, p. 40.

® Quoted in Minchath Shai, ad locum.

9 Ed. Schechter, col. 297.

>»LXXViii, 9 (12).
" VII, 8.
"Ed. Buber, p. 171.
15 Ed. Frankf. a. O., 12c.
"Ed. Buber, p. 178.
1*Quoted in Buxtorf, Tiberias, p. 176.
i«Ed. Schechter, col. 516.
"lxxxiv, 13 (12).
i*Ed. Buber, p. 188.
»9Ed. Buber, p. 217.
»OEd. Schechter, col. 561.
" Ed. M. Padua, p. 168.
^ Quoted in Buxtorf s Tiberias, p. 180.
 Extraordinary Points of the Pentateuch. 55

Num. XXI, 30. Midr. ha-Gadol.^

Num. XXIX, 15. Menachoth, 87b.
Deut. XXIX, 28. Sanhedrin, 43b. —Leqach Tob.^
65, Sifre, "jn^yn^. On Num., ix, 10, § 69. Ed. Fried-
man, 18a.^

van"i iDDnj n'?^ ^pv^'p wni' iiyyii; vitd hd^h iqik ^n^^ D
]NJi nx mn^ vnx n^^i id t^iiVD nn^ '?dd ipn'ji nyu' nmxn
HD Niiio :DO!ij; ni< nij?-i^ n'pn o'pn N^ii' v'rv -npj dh^dn

HM x^u; v^v "npj ]-inxi n^D ipD nt^x n^iSi nipD ^d n Niii^D

'n^ nnnojn n N^iio tiD'pD ins* ]nii;j; (^y) n^n n\-i n^t:^
"':x ?iN D^i'?:n an^^i^y ^n iipj c^iy iv ij^jd^i ij^ ni^:jm ij\-i^x
i)p2 npin-i "]-n3 i« nnx ]nd p)x tnnnojn nx dd*? yniN
:HDDn nx nnoj? n^ij; ^^^ n^ ndio hmi n^np -ji-q hm '^dn^ p'py
66, As Sifre is by far the most important testimony on the
original meaning of the Nequdoth, and the starting point of many
of the subsequent explanations, we may be allowed a few remarks
on this testimony, First of all, it is beyond doubt that Sifre
intends to give us, not a Midrashic adaptation to letters already
pointed, but the true purpose of the Nequdoth. In all cases, it

tells us that such and such a passage is pointed ' because ' . . . .

and then he gives the reason for the existence of the dots. In the
sequel, we shall attempt to find out the true bearing of these ex-
planations ; let it suffice for the present to remark that they are
not Haggadic speculations based on the pointed letters or words.
We have seen above that the Nequdoth bear only on certain

'
See in Schechter, Aboth de R. Nathan (1), p. 101, n. 27.
Ed. Padua, p. 101.
'^

^This testimony is reproduced in Yalqut, § 722 and in Leqach Tob on Num.

;

ix, 10, ed. Padua, p. 194. The principal variants will be indicated in the Appendix ;

the difiFerences between Sifre and Leqach Tob are so numerous, that we shall give
the two testimonies separate.
56 Meaning and Purpose of the

elements of the text, and not on the entire sentence or verse. We

have also come to the conclusion tliat tlie individual words and
letters were not then made the basis for special interpretations.
Accordingly, it is a priori probable that Sifre, which reproduces
the old traditions of the ii cent. A. D., does not intend to give the
interpretation of individual letters, as the original purpose of the
Points. Besides, there is absolutely no connection between the
pointed letters and the explanations given of the purpose of the dots.
A ' yod '
in Tm, or a '
riN '
before the direct object of a verb, can
never signify that Sarah spoke only with reference to Hagar, or
that the brothers of Joseph went to Shechem only in order to feed
themselves. On the other hand, a little examination of this pas-
sage of Sifre will convince us, that not only no special interpre-
tation should be based on the pointed letters, but that on the
contrary these letters are entirely set aside, and that the Points
have precisely the function of marking these letters as not to be
interpreted. It is certainly noteworthy that the present Massoretic
text, without the Points, would imply or might imply the very
contradictory of what Sifre makes it imply with the Points. This
will be examined in detail later ; let us simply give one example.
On Num. iii, 39, we read that Moses and Aaron numbered the
Levites, etc. Aaron therefore took part in the numbering ; but
according to Sifre, because ]"inX'l is pointed, we are obliged to say
that Aaron did not take part in that nimibering. It is evident
that on this passage, Sifre thought that the Nequdoth annulled
]inK1, and its explanation of the Points is but an indirect way
of saying that for some reason l^nxi should be left out. Some-
thing similar is found in all the passages. The conclusion is
therefore forced upon us, that these exj)lanations of the Points by
Sifre, are only an indirect means of suggesting their true purpose.
Perhaps this indirect way of explaining the import of the Points
is a mere display of wit, calculated to raise the curiosity of the
students, make a deeper impression on their memory, exercise and
develop their mental acumen. Possibly also, this method of pre-
sentation is a euphemistic device to avoid scandalizing the weak
and might have been done by the blunt assertion
uninitiated, as
that some elements of the Bible were spurious or doubtful,
 Extraordinai'y Points of the Pentateuch. 57

especially at a time when it was firmly believed that every word

had been given to Moses. Or again, we may have to deal here
with formulas, explicitly framed as mnemonic phrases in order to
help the memory of the pupils. Mnemonic devices of all kinds
were common even in pre-Talmudic times.^ Whatever may be
the nature of the explanations of Sifre, it is certain that at least
in so far as they afford indirect information regarding the function
of the Nequdoth, they are of the highest value, since they give us
the view current among the Rabbis before the iii century of the
Christian era.
This will sufficiently account for the preference given to Sifre
in the following pages, both in relation to the original meaning
of the Nequdoth, and to the place that they should occupy in the
pointed passage.^

Genesis, XVI, 5.

^nnj ^DJN 'fjv ^Dan d^dn h^ ^"w -^a^^m

67. According to the Massorah the Points fall on the second

^
yod of "^y^yi ; to this correspond the Synagogue scrolls, Baer's
Diqduqe ha-Te'amim,* Codex Hilleli,^ and probably also Soferim ^
and Midr. Mishle ^ " Hipj ^^33^ -l'1\" Sifre (cp. Yalqut, § 722)
and after it, Bemidbar Rabba,^ leave the place of the Points

^ Onmnemonic phrases and devices, see especially Briill, Die Mnemotechnik

the
d. (Hebrew), passim; Lauterbach, Mnemonics, JE.
Talm. Compare besides,
the authorities mentioned above, § 27.
^ In the following pages, we shall retain the term catchword as applying to '
'

the explanations of Sifre, without thereby taking the position that they are really
mnemonic formulas.
^ See Mass. Magn. ad locum ; Ochlah w^Ochlah, Frensdorff, n. 96 ; Norzi, Min-
chath Shai, ad locum ; Michaelis, etc.
* Baer and Strack, n. 58, p. 46.
^ See Norzi, Minchath Shai, I. c. ; Ginsburg, Masswah Compiled, iii, 107.
«vi, 3. Cp. Miiller, p. 87.
''
On Prov. XXVI, 24. Ed. Buber, p. 99.
8 III, 13.
58 Meaning and Purpose of the

undetermined. Leqach Tob (list)/ Diqduqe ha-Te'amim,* and

the Massoretic list on Num. iii, 39, place the dots over yy2)
without further specification. Aboth de R. Nathan (1)^ seems to
point the first yod instead of the second, "TJ"^3DU; '^
bv "npl"
Finally, a few Biblical mss.* and Aboth de E. Nathan (2)
^ point
every letter of "['"''^'"'^'^ •

The pointed y:'^:2) is found in the Sam. Pent., and

68.
supposed by lxx, Peshitto, Vulgate, Targ. Onkelos, etc.^ How-
ever, the nature of the dotted letter is such, that whether it be
preserved or rejected, the sense remains the same. As the whole

question hinges on the presence or absence of the yod, the

versions do not help us in the solution.
The Sam. Pent, reads "jJ"'!)!, without the yod, and although
the great mass of Hebrew mss. have that letter, still it is absent
in Kenn. 69, 75, 89, 150, 155, 157, 185, 189, 601, and first
hand in 3, 139, 223. In all the passages of the Hebrew Bible,
the preposition y'2, est. y^2, in conjunction with the pronoun

2d msc. sing., is ?|3i3 (Gen. iii, 15, 1 Sam. xx, 23), or in a

pause ?|3''2 (Gen. xiii, 8 ; xvii, 2 ; xxvi, 28 ; xxxi, 49, 50, 51).

There is only one exception, viz. 1 K. xv, 19, where it is written

as in our present verse ^''^'^2 . Even in this last passage some
thirty MSS. of Kennicott read it "]:''3 J
Thus only twice, —and once doubtfully, —has the preposition

y2, with the suffix of the 2nd msc. sing., taken the plural
form. Whether or not y2'^2 be strictly possible from a grammati-
cal point of view,^ it is to be noticed that, with the exception of

'On Num. ix, 10. Edit. Padua, p. 194.

end of the first Eabbmic Bible, Venice, 1517
''At the f. App. O, fol. 'X, recio.

^Ch. XXXIV, Ed. Schecliter, p. 100.

*See Blau, Einl., p. 118.
*Ch. XXXVII. Ed. Schechter, p. 97.
^ On the Textual Criticism of this passage, see Kosenmiiller, Scholia, ad locum ;
Delitzsch, Gen., 282; Dillmann, Gen., 250; Strack, Geii., Lev., Num., p. 53;
Gunkel, Genesis, 163, etc.

'See Kashi, on Genes., xvi, 5, "Hb^ .^Tl ICn N1p?2D'^:* -j-^r: bD " ; Mass, P.,
ibid., " n^i'nD N7)2 '?" see also ; No rzi, Mlnehath Shai, ibid.

^See Gesenius-Kautzsch, Hehr. Gram. (27th edit.), § 103, o; Strack, Hebr.

Oram., § 43, c ; Konig, Lehrgebdude, Th. ii, 1, pp. 302, 305 ff.
 Extraordinary Points of the Pentateuch. 59

Gen. xvi, 5 ; 1 K. xv, 19 (?) ; Joshua iii, 4 (Q®re), viii, 11 (also

Q*re), this preposition is always united to singular suffixes, with-
out the yod; thus we have: '^y^l,^ 1^3,^ "^^^.^ The passage in
Gen. xvi, 5, is perfectly parallel with Gen. xiii, 8, etc., and there is

no apparent reason why it should be written differently here. Hence,

the second yod is rightly rejected by almost all critics. It is true
that it is a sound principle of Textual Criticism, that changes may
be made to harmonize divergent parallel passages, but not to make
them dissimilar, and hence, we should expect y>y^^ to be changed
into ']y^2, not "j^D into yy^2 ; still a homoeoteleuton is very likely
in this passage, and we cannot refrain from thinking that it is

actually responsible for the presence of the yod in TJ''D. Com-

pare the forms "ji^j;,
n''J"'V3, "l''J"'V2, IT'JDiO, etc., which occur in
the same and in the next verse. In any case, it is beyond doubt,
as shown from the Sam. Pent, and mss., that there were several
recensions, in some of which, wrongly or rightly, the dotted yod
was not to be found.
69. The explanations * given of the Points by Sifre are as
follows " It is pointed because she (Sarah) said this to him
:

(Abraham) only with reference to Hagar there are some, how- ;

ever, who say that (she spoke) with reference to those who caused
strife between him and her." This is substantially reproduced
by all the other Jewish writings, v. g., Aboth de R. Nathan (1
and partly 2), Leqach Tob (list), and Bemidbar Rabba. The
amplifications of Midr. Mishle, reproduced and somewhat enlarged
in Codex Baer of Diqduqe ha-Te'amim, do not belong to the
primitive tradition and have nothing to do with the Nequdoth.
We have just remarked that, whatever be the reason that
underlies the fact, ^2, when in connection with the suffixes of the
singular, seldom or never takes the yod of the plural : "]3''D, r\y^2,

^J'^D, U''^. On the other hand, it always takes it with the plural

^ Gen. IX, 12, 13, 15, 17 ; xiii, 8 ; xvi, 5, etc.

^ Gen. XXX, 36 ; Lev. xxvi, 46, etc.
' See places mentioned.
* On these explanations see Buxtorf, Tiberias, 174 ; Miiller, Soferim, 87 ; Blau,
MU, 17 ff. ; Konigsberger, MuTK, 11; Ginsburg, Introd., 323; Weir, Hebr.
Text, 56,
60 Meaning and Purpose of the

suffixes: nn"':"'^/ DD^r^/ "IJ'':"'D.^ The impression produced by

the presence of the yod is, therefore, that it implies a plural idea
in
l''^,
as it does generally for ordinary Hebrew substantives/
Accordingly, our present passage, written 1TD, would seem to
indicate that between Abraham and Sarah there existed several
reasons for disagreement, several D''J"'3.^ This may not be true
in reality, but it may furnish sufficient grounds for a mnemonic
explanation. The difference of opinion among the Rabbis seems
to have been due precisely to the presence or absence of the yod
in "^^2. While the majority maintained that the yod should be
cancelled, and gave as reason that Sarah spoke only with reference
to Hagar, etc., i. e., that ]''D should be in the singular, "j^D,^ the
minority claimed that the plural form, "jTD, should be retained,
and hence said that Sarah spoke with reference to those that
caused strife between him and her. The Nequdah, placed over
the yod according to the first view, should not be appended
according to the second. The difference of opinion was occa-
sioned, not, as is commonly supposed,^ by the difference of the
explanations suggested for the Points, but by the right that
the dots had of being placed at all over this letter yod. This, we

^ 1 Sam. XVII, 3 ; Job xli, 8, etc.

''Gen. IX, 12, 15 ; xvii, 11 ; Jos. in, 4 ; etc.

* Gen. XXVI, 28 ; Jos. xxii, 27 ; etc.
* Gesenius-Kautzsch, Hebr. Gram., § 91.
* 'pD is something that belongs to the person indicated in the suffix or to whom
it is referred ; hence it is repeated before words placed in opposition, or at least
is used in the plural. See Konig, /. c.

^Cp. Hamburger, BEdJ, ii, 1215. The suppression of the yod in "j^J^D is also
admitted by R. Jochanan, who claims that we should write '^JD not ']*J''D (Bere-
shith R. XLV, 8). This was adopted by many mediaeval Rabbis, who asserted
that we should read 'r]^JD") H^D. (Thus Rashi, /. c, cp. Yalqut, § 79 ; "JiriD n"!11?2

on Ber. Rabba XLV, 8) see Minchnth Shai, ad locum. They seemed to have realized
;

that a yod should be left out in j"'J^D and they removed the first one to accommo-
date the word to the idea of R. Jochanan this view probably influenced Aboth de ;

R. Nathan (1) to point the first yod (Cp. Bachya, in Konigsberger, MuTK, p. 12 ;

Qimchi, ad locum, ed. Ginzburg, p. 43a). The Haggadic speculations that because
Sarah rebuked Abraham, her life was shortened by 48 years, connected with
the Points by Konigsberger, have nothing to do with them, and in Bereshith
Rabba, from which they are taken, they are not referred to the Nequdoth at all.
Cp. Bereshith Rabba, XLV, 7 (5) (end).
''Cp. Blau, MU, l. c. ; Ginsburg, Introd., I. c. ; Konig, Einl., I. c.
 ;;

Extraordinary Points of the Pentateuch. 61

think, is made clear by Sifre itself, which gives us to understand

that, had there been no Point, we would have to say that Sarah
did not speak with reference to Hagar alone '
1373 . • • • N7X,' but
with reference to others also ; this is exactly what we find among
the minority. It is, therefore, well nigh certain that the words
of Sifre simply imply that the minority did not approve of the
presence of the Nequdah, and read "jT^I.^
70. Blau —and after him Ginsburg —understands the data
of Sifre differently. He sees in the opinion of the majority a
hint to a reading n:''3, and in that of the minority to Dn"'J''3
' Sarah spoke only with reference to Hagar, i. e., the text should
read, nr31 "'J'^D niH"' LDD^'' ; others think that she spoke with
reference to those who caused strife, etc., i. e., we should read,

HTDI ''^''3 mni :0CtI'\' This interpretation of Sifre would neces-

sitate a change in the placing of the Nequdoth; for if we read
nJ"'D we should point not only the yod but also the haph, ' "^'^3
',

as these two letters constitute the difference between the two

words ; if we accept the reading of the minority, n''J''D, the yod
should not be dotted at all but only the haph, '
"iT3.'
^ A deviation
as to the place of the Points is certainly possible, and if Sifre

necessitated the readings nj"'3 or DiT'J'i^, it could be easily granted

but as we have tried to show, Sifre lends itself to another inter-
pretation. Besides, there is no trace of such readings either
in Mss. or in the versions. Finally, it seems to us that the
very wording of Sifre antagonizes Blau's view. It tells us
" "ID^3 n:n hv X'PN "h ^b^ ". These words mQN "ob . . . N^X,
perfectly natural in our supposition, are at least useless in Blau's
hypothesis. If attention had been called to the feminine form
n3''D, it would have been sufficient and more natural to say simply
"iJn hv "h mnxii', without the exclusive particle H^^D, which
draws attention to a singular idea. Note, besides, the difference
of wording for the opinion of the minority.

1 That such is really the meaning of Sifre, is made clearer from another passage

where E. Simon b. Yochai opposes the view of the majority see lower down on ;

Gen. xxxiu, 4, § 85 see also the difference of wording where alternative catch-
;

words are given, v. g., Bemidbar Rabba in, 13, on Num. xxi, 30.
''Blau, MU, 18; Ginsburg, Introd., 323 S. Weir, Hebr. Text, 57; Konig,
;

EinL, p. 32 Kittel, Biblia Hebraica (Leipzig, 1905), ad locum.

;
62 Meaning and Purpose of the

71. It is true that iu giving the Biblical passage, Sifre reads

i:''D1 and not "]'>J'>D1 ; consequently, this document might be sup-

posed to place the point on some other letter, since its biblical
verse did not contain the yod. However, it is most likely that
it had in view the commonly received text, in which the yod was

found, and that it left it out precisely on account of the view its
author took of the meaning of the Nequdoth.
The pointing of the entire Y"''^ ''^ by some Biblical mss. ">

and Aboth de R. Nathan (2), is evidently a mistake all the ;

more, since the explanations given of the dots in the last named
document are the same as those of other Jewish writings which
point only the yod. The pointing of the first yod by Aboth de
R. Nathan (1) is also a deviation brought about by the reading
"T^yi, according to the view of some medieval Rabbis, mentioned
in a preceding note.^
From all this we conclude that only the second yod of "|'':''D1

was originally pointed and that the Nequdah was intended to

stigmatise it.

Genesis XVIII, 9.

72. Sifre (cp. Yalqut, list, § 722) leaves the place unde-
termined ; Diqduqe ha-Te'amim and the Massoretic list place the
dots over vh^ without specifying the exact letters that should be
pointed Baba Metsi'a,^ Bereshith Rabba ^ (cp. Yalqut, § 82,
;

'naX''1), most MSS. of Soferim,* Aboth de R. Nathan (1), Leqach

Tob (ad locumy Sekhel Tob,^ Bemidbar Rabba,^ Midr. ha-Gadol,^

1 P. 60, n. 6.
2 87a, middle.
»XLViu, 15 (17).
* VI, 3 ; cp. Miiller, 87.
6 Ed. Buber, 84.
8 Ed. Buber, 26.
' Rosenfeld, D''"lD1D nnCCTO, p. 66, says that according to Bemidbar Kabba,
only the waw of 1"'?X is pointed ; in all the editions we have consulted, it is

"rbN22? v'^x hv mpi"

8 Ed. Schechter, col. 273.
 ;

Extraordinary Points of the Pentateuch. 63

point K, "*, 1 of yh^- See also Rashi* and D. Qimchi.^ Some

MSS. of Soferim,^ Aboth de R. Nathan (2), and probably also
Leqach Tob (list), have the dots over iTX. Finally, one MS. of
Baba Metsi'a (Yat. 119),* a few mss. of Diqduqe ha-Te'amim,®
and some Biblical mss.,^ place them over the entire 1"'^X.
73. Instead of IIDX^I,^ lxx has elirev = "1DX''1. This read-
ing is probably correct, for, in the context, except v. 5, the verb
is generally in the singular ; this is also the reading of Kenn.
18, 75, 132. Besides, the one who speaks in verse 9, is the
same as in verse 10, and in verse 10, the verb is in the singular.
The pointed V^N is found in all versions ; it is, however, to be
noted that the objective pronoun is very often omitted after the
verb in similar passages, and in the context, is generally not
expressed, v. g., xviii, 5, 10, 15, 26, 27, etc. It is, therefore,
possible that V^^ should have been absent some recensions. in

LXX has enrey Se irpo'i avrov, and the Peshitto o^ Oj^jo. This,
however, does not necessarily suppose the presence of V7^, for
instead of it we might have 1^. Though 1^ does not occur in
the context, still, its presence in some recensions might have been
due to a homceoteleuton with the last syllable of IT'DN"'! in the
preceding verse, or, for a word as common as 17, to a mechanical
and unconscious substitution of it for Ti^N. It is, consequently,
permissible to suppose that in some recensions the verse read
^b "laN'^l,^ or possibly . . . IION'^I, while the one from which our
present textus receptus has been derived had xh^ 1"10N''1.

74. The explanations given of the Points in the Jewish

^ On Gen. xviii, 9 and on Baba Metsi'a 87a.

^ On Gen. xvin, 9 ; ed. Ginzburg, p. 47b ; he evidently depends on Bashi.
'Miiller, o. c, 87
* See Rabbinowicz, Diqduqe Soferim, Part xiii, on Baba Metsi'a 87a, p. 260, n. "I.

'Thus Gsd. Baer and Cod. of St. Petersburg, see Baer and Strack, p. 46.
«See Konigsberger, 3htTK, 13; Blau, Einl, 118.
' On the Textual Criticism of this passage, see Kosenmiiller, Scholia, ad loc.

Delitzsch, Gen., 298 ; Dillmann, Gen., 262 ; Miiller, Soferim, 87 ; Strack, o. c, p.

59 ; Gunkel, o. c, 173.
* Thus Hiipeden, in Vogel o. c. , i, 456 ; Miiller, Soferim, 87 ; Hamburger,
REdJ, n, 1216; Dillmann, Gen., ad locum; Kittel, Bib. Hebr., ad locum.
64 Meaning and Purpose of the

writings vary considerably.^ Sifre (cp. Yalqiit, § 722) repro-

duced in Leqach Tob (list), simply says that the Points have
been placed ' because they (the angels) knew where she (Sarah)
was.' This testimony Aboth de R, Nathan
is also reproduced in

(1) and Bemidbar Rabba, with the addition and still asked for '

her ;
' these words not being found in Sifre are not part of the
primitive tradition, and seem to have been added under the influ-
ence of Baba Metsi'a, to the eifect that one should inquire about
the wife of one's host.
Baba Metsi'a, 87a (cp. Midr. ha-Gadol, Rashi,^ and Qimchi),'*
although reproducing the data of Sifre, does not refer them to the
Nequdoth, but instead, tells us that X, i, 1 of vbi^ are pointed, ' to

teach the conventional law that one should inquire about the wife
of one's host.'
In Bereshith Rabba, R. Simeon b. Eleazer bases a different
explanation on the dotted letters of V^N, viz. that the angels asked
Sarah where Abraham was Vi^ " where is he ? " This is found :

substantially in Leqach Tob (ad locum), Sekhel Tob, Rashi,

Yalqut,* D. Qimchi, and also in Midr. ha-Gadol as an alternative
explanation.
That the Points were placed for the reason given by R. Simeon,
is certainly not correct ; if such were the reason, there is nothing
to prevent us from taking in a word any two or three letters that

would give us a desired meaning and pointing them. R. Simeon's

explanation is a mere display of wit based on letters pointed for

some other reason. Besides, the pointing of these three letters

in V^N is certainly a mistake ; for, neither as a sign of a special
interpretation, nor as an indication of a special spelling, nor as a
mark of their unexpected presence, nor finally as the expression
of a critical doubt, could the Points on v^N be justified. The
deviation is probably due to the fact that originally the Points

^ On these explanations, see Buxtorf, Tiberias, 175 ; Miiller, Soferim, 87 ;

Blau,
MU, 19; Ginsburg, Introd., 324; Konigsberger, MuTK, 12 ff.; Weir, Hehr.
Text, p. 57.
* Coram, on Gen. , xvm, 9.

''I. c.

* § 82.
 Extraordinary Points of the Pentateuch. 65

were placed on V^N i"iaN''"l, apparently with a view to its being

read 1^ "IDN""!. These letters put together in order to be made
the basis of a mnemonic catchword gave ""Xi ' and where ? ' This
would be a good foundation for the seman of Sifre, which tells us
that the Points have been placed because the angels knew where
Sarah was. The immediate inference from this explanation is

that an interrogative particle ought to be left out, since the natural

consequence of the knowledge of a thing, is the uselessness of
inquiring about it. This interrogative particle is found in the
three letters ""Xl 'and where?' Not indeed that the angels
actually did not ask, since rT'X follows, but simply to remind
the student that the letters 1, N, ''
should be cancelled. Later on,
the order of the three letters was inverted for Haggadic purposes,
and they were read 'l""X
' where is he ? ' This brought about the
further result that the three letters were taken from the word
V7X, in which they occur in the above order i^^X. The Haggadic
explanations of Baba Metsi'a 87a — unjustifiable, as remarked by
the Tosafist,^ if N, ^, 1, of T'^X were pointed —would be sufficiently

clear if we point "'Xl ' and where ? ' since attention is drawn to
the question of the angels. Of course Baba Metsi'a, no more than
the explanations of Bereshith Rabba, does not hint at the spurious
character of the dotted letters ; nor does it give the true reason
for their being pointed; it is also the adaptation of an after-
thought to letters already pointed, but it is interesting to note
that, like Sifre, it suggests the pointing of an interrogative particle.

We must likewise call attention to the words of Rashi on this

passage, viz. that dotted words can be made the foundation only
of a Midrashic interpretation — here a conventional law. Strictly
speaking, these letters are considered non-existent in a literal
interpretation ;
^ it is, however, very doubtful whether Baba Metsi'a
was guided by such a principle.
75. Another way of accounting for the deviation as to the

place of the Nequdoth, is to suppose, as made possible from Textual

^ On Baba Metsi'a 87a, catchword "llpJ n?oV, where it says that the Points
should fall on ri*'N, to justify the explanation of the Gemarah.
2 On Baba Metsi'a, 87a.
66 Meaning and Purpose of the

Criticism, that originally vb^ was entirely pointed, but that on

account of the height of the Lamed, the dots were not preserved
over that letter, as they would have produced an unsightly appear-
ance.* This view finds support, as said above, in a few Biblical
MSS., in a MS. of Baba Metsi'a, and in some MSS. of Diqduqe ha-
Te'amim. However, the reason given for the supposed deviation
is at best very doubtful, since we find the Lamed pointed twice in
Deuter. xxix, 28. The explanations of Baba Metsi'a —apparently
given in the MS. which points the entire 1''^N — certainly excludes
the pointing '
i^^'N ' still more than the pointing '
i^^N.' The
adaptation of the catchword of Sifre to the pointing of the entire
word would be far-fetched and unnatural, and we refrain from
giving the various attempts we have made in that direction.^
Most likely, after the confounding of "'NT with T^N, and the point-
ing of V"'^N, some scribe placed the dots over the four letters, either
through mistake, or because he was induced thereto by the absence
of T'^X in some biblical mss. Possibly also, the talmudic teaching
that the angels did not inquire about Sarah except through her
husband '
T'T'i^,' was not without its effect in producing the change ;

especially at a time, when apparently the true meaning of the

Nequdoth had been forgotten, and when they were made the basis
of special exegesis.^ The pointing of T'^X does not seem, there-
fore, to be original.
76. A
method of placing the Nequdoth, viz. TV^, is
third
found in Leqach Tob (list), Aboth de R. Nathan (2), and a few

MSS. of Soferim. This pointing would furnish very good grounds

for the seman of Sifre and the Haggadic explanations of Baba
Metsi'a, which, as said above, suppose the pointing of an interro-

* Thus Konigsberger, MuTK, 13. Bachya quoted by Konigsberger, says that,

as the Lamed of l^'b'N has already Zaqeph Qaton, there would have been a danger
of confounding this with the Nequdah, and so the latter was not preserved. This
cannot be true, for, before the accents were introduced into the text, Baba Metsi'a
and Bereshith Rabba pointed only X, \ and ""j in Ber. R. this tradition is already
referred to R. Simeon b. Eleazar (ii cent.).
^ V.
g., since the angels knew where Sarah was, they had no need of asking

anybody, and consequently did not ask Abraham, I'^bx := him.

^Baba Metsi'a 87a ; cp. Midr. ha-Gadol, I. c, and Rabbinowicz, Diqduqe Sofer-
im, I. c, n. 12?.
 Extraordinary Points of the Pentateuch. 67

gative particle. This is the tradition which is accepted as original,

by Blau ^ and Ginsburg.^ However, there is nothing in this word
which would deserve special attention, unless indeed it be pro-
nounced critically doubtful or spurious. But although Sifre might
have motives of its own, we see no reason to say that iTN should
be left out. It is found in all versions, and is required by the
context. If with Blau and Ginsburg we cancel iTN, the verse
would read : SiN3 r\:ir\ ^DN^i in^N rr\X[} rh^ nax^i " And they
said to him, as to Sarah thy wife, and he (interrupting) said :

behold she is in the tent." This is very unnatural, and the

answer of Abraham undoubtedly supposes a question to have been
asked. The pointing of
word was very likely due to the
this

catchword of Sifre itself, which supposes the cancelling of the

interrogative particle after the original pointing of "'NT had been
;

changed to VK, the most natural way to account for it, was to
transfer the dots from T'X to rT'N.
On the whole, it seems to us more probable that originally
^, ^, "^
of V^N i"iaX''"l were the letters pointed, and that the seman
of Sifre suggests their spuriousness.

Genesis, XIX, 33.

ni^D2n N3m win rh'^b^ y^ ]rv2i^ nx ]Y^m

77. Sifre tells us that HD^pni is pointed, " na"ip31 bv l^pJ;"

thus also Midr. Yelamdenu,* "lipj naip31," Sekhel Tob, "yh^
"
ni2)pn) bv ITpJ , and the Munich MS. of Horayoth ; ^ thus also
Rashi, " -npj n-l^D3 b^ HDip^l," ^ and nJIHD mjno on Bereshith
Rabba, li, 8 (10). That every letter of HDlp^l should be pointed

1
MU, 19 ff.

^Introd., 324.
^ Thus Mass. Parva and Mass. Text.
*See Aruch s. v. Y\ and Yalqut § 86.
5 Ed. Buber, p. 40.
^ See Rabbinowicz, Diqduqe Sqferim, Part X, Horayoth, p. 32.
''
Comment, on Gen. , xix, 33.
 ;

68 Meaning and Purpose of the

is also the tradition supposed in some Biblical mss.^ Moreover,

Norzi insists that only the second waio of nQlp3% and not the
other letters, should be dotted, thus implying that opinions
differed.2 Leqach Tob (list), " na'ipDI," Leqach Tob {ad locum),^
and Midr. Mishle, leave the exact place undetermined this is also ;

the case in the Massoretic list and in Diqduqe ha-Te'amim.

Aboth de R. Nathan (2) is alone in pointing the two words
n'D'l'p'D'l n'D'D'^'D; this is probably a mistake arising from
some such rubric as is found in Leqach Tob, " niOlpDI H^Dtf 3
vbv IPJ " which was construed as implying that the two words
should be pointed. Horayoth 10b, Soferim, Aboth de R. Nathan
(1), Bemidbar Rabba, Zohar, Baer's Diqduqe ha-Te'amim, dot
only the second ivaw of HOIpDI.* Nazir 23a, Bereshith Rabba,^
Midr. ha-Gadol," might all be strictly understood as pointing
the first waw of nD1p3V Whatever may be the true tradition,
there has certainly been, in some of the above authorities, a

deviation from the original place assigned to the Nequdoth ; this

is the more certain since all start from the same fundamental idea
in giving the explanations of the Points.
78. The reading of our present editions of the Bible is supported
by Sam. Pent., lxx, Peshitto, Vulgate, Targ. Onkelos.'' However
the dotted HDlp^l is written defective in Kenn, 6, 11, 227, 253.
In verse 35, the same word is written defective, although a few
MSS., and also the Sam. Pent., read it plene. There is no apparent
reason why the same word should be spelled differently in the
two verses. Hence, it is quite natural that an attempt should
have been made at harmonizing them ; and while some adopted
the reading of verse 33, others preferred that of verse 35. On
this and similar cases, we should not lose sight of the principle

^Cp. Michaelis, Bihlia Sebr. , ad locum; Blau, Einl., p. 118.

* Minchath Shai, ad locum.
3 Ed. Buber, p. 90.
* Cp. Minchath Shai, and the authorities cited there ; D. Qimchi, o. c. , 51a
Ba'al ha-Turim, on Gen. xix, 33.
*Li, 8 (10).
6 Ed. Schechter, col. 297.
^
See Delitzsch, Oen., 311 ; Dillmann, Gen., 273; Sti-ack, o. c, p. 64.
 Extraordinary Points of the Pentateuch. 69

that, in weighing evidence, we should generally give preference

-

to the defective orthography as against the plene forms ; for, to

write a plene, defective, is a serious mistake, but not vice versa;

hence, when the scribe was in doubt as to whether a word should
be written plene or defective, he would naturally write it plene}
According to this canon, even though only a few mss. exhibit the
defective form of HDp^l in verse 33, they should be followed ; in
any case, whether we read HDWDI or nDp31, there are sufficient

grounds to admit the existence of several recensions, some of

which had it plene, others defective.
79. Sifre, from which all the other works depend immediately
or mediately, tells us that HDIp^l is pointed, because Lot knew
not when his elder daughter lay down, but that he knew when
she arose. It is clear therefore that by placing the dots over
noip31, the action that it expresses is not to be counted among
those of which Lot was ignorant, i. e. riDTpDI should be left out.
Evidently, the ignorance of Lot concerning any of the actions
mentioned, was not to be assumed, and would not have been
thought of, had it not been positively asserted by the Biblical
passage ;
^ hence, to remind the student that the word representing
any of them was spurious, it was sufficient to say that Lot was
conscious of that action. It is true that we have not found in
any trace of the absence of HDIpDI, but Sifre
textual criticism
may have had reasons of its own to pronounce it interpolated.
After all, it is not impossible that the riQWDI of verse 33, should
have been introduced from verse 35, through a homoeoteleuton,
although no trace of such a recension has reached us.^ To see
how far exegetical preoccupations may have helped to introduce
noip^l, or sanction its interpolation, the reader is referred to Blau,
MU, p. 14.
80. That the above is the meaning of Sifre would seem clear,

*Cp. Menachoth 29b, with the remarks of Ginsburg, Introd., 156 f.

"
See the remark of St. Jerome above, p. 4, n. 6 ; cp. Sekhel Tob, ed. Buber,
p. 40, after Ber. Eabba, Li, 9 (11).

^That n)21pD1 is annulled by the Points is also the opinion of Rashi (on Gen.
XIX, 33), and of the Tosafist (on Nazir 23a, catchword n?27). The words of the
Tosafist have been wrongly inserted into some of the editions of Eashi.
70 Meaning and Purpose of the

were it not for the fact that, while the idea of its catchword has
been generally preserved in the Jewish writings, many of them
explicitly place the Ncqudah only on the second waw of nDlpSI,
and others, perhaps on the first. Strictly speaking, it is possible
that Sifre and the other documents which tell us that there are
Points over HDIpSI, simply call attention to the pointed word,
without specifying the exact letters over which they should be
placed. Although such a supposition is possible in itself, still

the catchword of Sifre could hardly be justified in that hypo-

thesis :
^ for, neither as real exegesis, nor as italics, nor as express-
ing a critical doubt could the explanation, 'because when she
arose he knew,' be derived from the presence or absence of the
single letter 'waw.' It seems, therefore, beyond all prudent doubt
that Sifre implies the condemnation of the entire HDlpDV This
word, however, —a remark that applies also to ]ini>?1, Num. in,
39, as found in Bemidbar Rabba, and to ]1"i^V1j Num. xxix, 15,
— may have been one of the cases referred to by Rabbi, ^ in which
a point (above (?)) on the beginning or first letter '
]'?J7D^Q,' was
enough to annul the entire word. By pointing the conjunction waw,
HDIpDI is placed out of the context and could easily be recognized as
spurious. Accordingly, while some pointed every letter, '
hblpZli,'
others were satisfied with placing the dot over the conjunctive
waw alone, '
HDIpDi,' and as the palteographical effect was the same,
the seman was also the same. As remarked above, some of the
Jewish sources can be understood in that way. A confusion could
have arisen between the two waws, and the point could have
easily

been transferred from the first to the second and this all the ;

more, since there were mss. in which noipDI was written defec-
tive. Starting from a rubric similar to that found in Nazir 23a,
"noip31 )"">)
bv "11p3" = naip^i, some writings understood it as,

SlD1p3iy V"! bv '^',' and in this latter form, it has come down
to us in Aboth de R. Nathan (1) and Soferim.

' The least objectionable explanation would be to suppose that n)31pD1 written
without the waw, would have been marked "iDn ', which for mnemonic purposes

was referred to i?"!"* N? thus it would give the impression that the ignorance of
;

Lot was not complete and consequently that he knew.

' Jer. Pesachira, ix, 2.
 Extraordinary Points of the Pentateuch, 71

Possibly also, the rubric was simply '"T^^y' 'pj HDIp^l, which
became ^ '1
^V
'
Tlpl Later on, the waw was construed as a con-
struct state determined by HOIpD, as above, rnolp3 '1 bv "lIpJ-'
'

This was made clearer still by the insertion of the relative 7iy.^

81. As Sifre is the starting point for all the other explanations
and haggadic amplifications, we have dwelt purposely on its words.
It would be useless to insist on the other testimonies, for they
have no relation to the meaning of the Nequdoth, although they
were occasioned by the misapprehension of the " yT" noipDI " of
Sifre. They try to account for the knowledge of Lot with regard
to the naipDT (thus, v. g. Midrash Yelamdenu ; Sekhel Tob after
Bereshith Rabba),^ or to show that, on account of his know-
ing when the elder daughter arose, Lot was responsible for his
incest with the second daughter (Nazir 23a, reproduced in Arukh,
s. V.Horayoth 10b, Midr. ha-Gadol,^ cp. Leqach Tob, ad
T'l ;

locum, and D. Qimchi).^ Aboth de R. Nathan (2), enlarging on

this last idea, concludes that since Lot was conscious when his

elder daughter arose, he must have been conscious both of the

n^DlfD and noipSI in the case of his second daughter. Midr.
Mishle gives the explanations of Sifre, but says that the niD'lpDT

intended here is the one found in verse 35 in the case of the

second daughter. This departure from Sifre, although the Rab-
binical proverb, '
7T?'2V mili H'T'Dy ' is added, seems to be due
to the desire of sheltering Lot, by protracting his ignorance as
long as possible.

Perhaps the deviation may have arisen from the fact that the rubric gave the
^

number of the Points " llpJ 'V =

six points; this became llpJ V'*'1. Cp. M.
P. on Deut. xxix, 28, in some Mss. see also Ba'al ha-Turim basing his explan-
;

ations on the numerical value of 0. Again the dotted word may have been
marked with only one sign as in Leqach Tob (list), Massoretic list, Diqduqe ha-
Te'amim later on, only the letter waw, over which the sign fell was considered as
;

pointed. Finally, we may be allowed to make one further suggestion, viz., that,
as "iDn is used to mark the absence of a word as well as of a letter, n)21p21 may
have been accompanied with the rubric ."I'lnN n"lXnC1J2 "iCn 'missing in other
copies.' As IDn is the technical term to designate a defective reading, it was
understood to mean " n)01pD1 is written defective in other copies."
» LI.,9(11).
' Ed. Schechter, col. 297.

*Comm., 51a.
72 Meaning and Purpose of the

In many of these writings, the original meaning of the Nequdoth

seems to have been forgotten, and although the idea of Sifre is
mechanically preserved, there are joined to it purely Midrashic
speculations, often borrowed from documents in which they were
not connected with the points at all.

There can therefore be but little doubt that originally the entire
nolpSI was pointed, and that the Nequdoth was intended to

cancel it.^

Genesis, XXXIII, 4.

82. On this verse most of the sources explicitly state, or

clearly suppose, that )np'{V'^) is entirely pointed; thus Bereshith
Rabba,^ and after it, Shir ha-Shirim Rabba,^ Sekhel Tob,^ D.
Qimchi," and Yalqut ; ^ thus also Aboth de R. Nathan (1 and 2),
Soferim,^ Baer's edit, of Diqduqe ha-Te'amim,^ Leqach Tob {ad
loGum),^^ Midr. Tanchuma," Midr. ha-Gadol.^^ Others simply
say that inptL'''"! is pointed, the obvious meaning of which is that
the entire word is pointed thus Sifre, Bemidbar Rabba, Midr. ;

Mishle ;
'^
cp. Rashi,i^ j^^j^ Ezra,'' Ba al ha-Turim.'^ This is also

^ It is not clear whether or not the seman of Sifre implies also the condemnation
of n^OlpDI of verse 35 cp. Blau and Ginsburg, //. cc.
;
this is of secondary ;

importance for us, as we treat only of the '

meaning ' of the Nequdoth.
''
See the various editions ; cp. besides, Norzi, Minchath Shai, ad locum ;
Micha-
elis, Biblia ; Baer, Genesis, etc.

^Lxxvin, 9 (12).
* vn, 8 ; see the omission in its reproduction of Bereshith Eabba, Appendix, ad
locum.
5 Ed. Buber, 178.
^ Coram., ed. Ginzburg, 74b.
7
§ 133.
8Cp. Miiller, Soferhn, 88.
* Baer and Strack , I. c.

i°Ed. Buber, 171.

" Ed. Frankf. a. O. 12c.
12
Ed. Schechter, col. 516.
13
Ed. Buber, p. 100.
" On Gen. xxxiii, 4.
1° On Gen, xxxiii, 4, in Mass. Bible, Venice, 1617.
 Extraordinary Points of the Pentateuch. 73

the tradition preserved iu the Chinese mss. spoken of above,^ as

well as in the note found in some Greek MSS. on this passage :

TO, KaT€(f)L\r]a€v avTov OTrep iarlv '^^palcrrl oveaaaKr}, iv iravrX

'^^paiKcp Bt^Xicp TrepiecTTiKTaL, k. t. X.^ To this unanimous con-
sent, Leqach Tob (list),^ ")r\'pW^)," and Diqduqe ha-Te'amim/
" inp^''l/' form no exception.
83. With regard to the verse under consideration/ all mss.,
Sam. Pent., Peshitto, Vnlg., Targ. Onkelos, Targ. Ps.-Jonathan,
and Targ. Jerus., agree with the Massoretic text. In the Greek
version there is a great deal of confusion. AE read : " /cal

TrpoaeSpa/xev 'Hcrav et? crvvdvTrjcrLV aura), Kol irepiXa^oiv avrov

icfjiXtjaev fcal irpocreTrecrev iwl top rpd-yifKov avrov •
koI cKXavaav
afx(f)6repoi, ; " ^ thus also, with slight variations, Luciau,^ Com-
plutensian edit., codic. mtyz and others, Caten. Nicephori.^
The editio Pomana, as well as Holmes and Lagarde,^ have " koI
irpoaeSpafiev 'Hcrav .... Kal irepiXajBciiv avrov TrpoaeTreaev iirl
rov rpdy^rjXov avrov Kal Kare(f>iXr]a€v avrov •
Kal eKXavaav afM(f)6-

repot" thus agreeing with our Massoretic text. The editio Aldina
reads " Kal TreptXa^ojv avrov icfjiXTjaev Kal 'rrpoaeireaev iirl rov
:

rpd'x^rjXov avrov Kal Karecf^iXyjaev avrov • Kal eKXavaav a/jbcporepoi.''

This is also found in cod. Sarravianus (G. Holmes, iv), but

with the obelus before icfytXrja-ev " :
—
e^iXtjaev, Kal " ^" . . . .

The obelus is also preserved in Grabe's edit., which besides,

' ^^
prints Kal Kare^tXrjaev '
in smaller characters.
From what precedes it is clear that the .variations are due to
Origen's Hexapla. The ancient reading of lxx was the one
found in AE etc., as above. Origen's revised text, in order to

iSeep. 20, n. 1.
^ Field, Hexapla, ad locum, n. 6.
»Ed. Padua, I. c.

* Venice Bible, 1517, I. c.

^On the Textual Criticism of this passage, see Delitzsch, Gen., 407 ; Dillmann,
Gen., 359; Ball, Gen., 91.
^ See Swete, 0. T. in Greek, ad locum.
''
Lagarde, Pentat. Gr. , ad locum.
* Lagarde, Genesis, 134; Holmes, Veins Test. Grace, ad locum.
'*
Lagarde and Holmes, II. cc.
'° Holmes and Lagarde, II. cc.

^^ Holmes, /. c.
74 Meaning and Purpose of the

harmonize the Greek with the Hebrew, read :

" koX irepika^ouv
avrov— i^CXrjaev /cal : Trpoaeireo'ev iirl tov Tpd')(rfKov avTOv ^ /cat

KaTe(f>iXr]aev avrov : koI SKXavcrav afjL(j)6T€pot (see Cod. Sarravi-

anus). Later on, some scribes reproduced the Origenian text, with-
out the critical signs, and this is the text of the eclitio Aldina, etc.

The editio Romana left out the obelized words and thus came into
harmony with Hebrew. There is no doubt, therefore, that the old
Greek version had '
TrepiXa^oov i(f)i\rjaev/ and this is further
borne out by the Sahidic Coptic version.^ The Bohairic omits
7repL\a^o)v.^
84. There must have been consequently at least two Hebrew
recensions on this verse, one of which had inpll'''1 "iripDIT'l, from
which Ixx was made; and the other 'i;i'i ^Q^) )r\p21V) as is found
in the Massoretic text. The reading suggested by Ixx is more
natural, and is accepted by Bacher^ and Ball.* The two ideas
Ho embrace and kiss' occur together in Gen. xxix, 13 (Cp. xlviii,

10), whereas we never find the order ^ to fall on the neck, kiss,

and cry.' ^ The reading 1DD"'1 )r\pW"''] nxiii bv b^'^) seems to have
originated from the combination of two expressions, viz. ' to kiss
and cry' (Gen. xxix, 11, xlv, 15; cp. 1, 1) and Ho fall on the
neck and cry' (Gen. xlv, 14; xlvi, 29); hence, Ho fall on the
neck, kiss, and cry.'
We may further inquire whether inp:!'''") was transferred from
a supposedly original place after "inpDn^l, or simply interpolated.
While admitting that "inpiy^l is more natural after inpSH^I, we
cannot but wonder at the unexpected presence of so many marks
of friendship. Would it be too rash a conjecture to say that
inpi:;^! is spurious, and has been interpolated after the manner
referred to above ? Later on, some scribe noticing the unnatural
place of inpli''"!, might have transferred it to a less objectionable
and not uuparallelled place after inp^rTil.
85. Coming now to the explanation of the Nequdoth in the

> Ed. Ciasca, Sacrorum Bibliorum Fragmenta Copto-Sahidica, p. 33.

^ Ed. Lagarde, Pent. Koptisch, ad locum.
^Quoted in Blau, MU, 23, n. 1.
*Genesis, ad locum, and p. 91.
* Still, see Luke, xv, 20.
 Extraordinary Points of the Pentateuch. 75

Jewish writings/ we must first take into account the data of Sifre.
It tells us that inpll'''1 has been pointed, 'because Esau did not
kiss him (Jacob) with his whole heart.' ^ This catchword cannot
be exegetical, for the sincerity of any of the actions of Esau might
have alike been questioned, and consequently the word represent-
ing that action might have been pointed. If inp^"*! alone is

pointed, there must have been some special reason, which did not
exist for the others. According to Sifre, if the dots had not been
placed on this word, we should conclude that Esau had kissed
Jacob sincerely ; but their presence so affects inplt^'"!, that we are
led to think the contrary. Therefore Rabbi Simon b. Yochai,^
who thinks that Esau kissed Jacob sincerely, does not give an
alternative explanation of the points, but denies their very right
^
to existence.
80. Sifre seems to lay special stress on the idea of sincerity,

since it is the sincerity of the kiss and not its existence, that is

questioned ;
^ consequently, though inpU'"'! is really one of the
actions of Esau, we must deal with it in such a way, as to make
it appear as an insincere mark of affection. If such be really the
meaning of Sifre, we see but one way of justifying this explana-
tion. In our Massoretic editions, the order of the actions of Esau
is unexpected both idiomatically, since we never find the sequel
* to embrace, fall on the neck, kiss, and cry,' and naturally, for, ' to

kiss/ should precede and not follow the ' falling on the neck.'

The place assigned here to inp^'^l seems to lay special emphasis

^See Buxtorf, Tiberias, 176; MuUer, Soferimi, 88; Blau, MU, 22 ff. ; Konigs-
berger, MuTK, 16 fE. ; Ginsburg, Introd., 325; Weir, Hebr. Text, 58; cp.
Bacher, Ag. d. Tann, ii, 116.
^This testimony is I. c. Leqach Tob (list),
reproduced in Bemidbar Rabba, ;

and Yalqut § 722.

^ Aboth de E. Nathan
(1 and 2), Bereshith Eabba, etc., have Simon b. Eleazar.
* Bereshith Babba seems to have understood the words of E. Simeon as the true

explanations of the Points, for the Nequdoth are made to teach that the kiss was
sincere in Yalqut, Bereshith Eabba is corrected, and made to agree with Sifre,
;

"ID"? ^DD 'P^'J ab"^," but this correction is not critically correct, cp. above, § 58.
Leqach Tob (list) and Rashi (Comm. on Genesis, xxxiii, 4), also understand the

words of E. Simeon, as an alternative explanation of the Points.

^ This idea of sincerity is insisted upon by most of the later Jewish writings.
 ;

76 Meaning and Purpose of the

on it; after Esau had fallen on the neck of Jacob, we would

expect him to cry, but not to kiss him. It would seem, therefore,
that Esau must have had a special and deliberate intention to
kiss Jacob at that moment and inplt?''1 ; in that place has all the

characteristics of a real act of love. This is at the basis of the

view of R. Simon, who objects to the pointing of this word. The

other actions of Esau coming in their regular order were con-
sidered as mere formalities, and might be co-existent with feelings
of enmity ; hence, R. Simon says that in the beginning Esau was
hostile to Jacob, but at that moment his dispositions changed and
he kissed him sincerely. The majority, by reading a text where
inptl^''') came after inp^n""!, as in the Septuagint, did away with the
emphasis which is laid on it in the Massoretic text, and at the
same time, made possible the explanation that Esau did not kiss
Jacob sincerely. This explanation, taking into account the place
of a word as a foundation for interpretation, is generally foreign
to Sifre, but as has been remarked, the passage of Sifre is probably
only a list of mnemonic formulas, and in such a system, the above
method has nothing to surprise us.
87. The subsequent Jewish writings soon misunderstood the
meaning of Sifre, enlarged upon the idea of sincerity, and adapted
to the Points still further Haggadic interpretations. Apparently
starting from the words of R. Simeon, viz. that Esau was hostile
to Jacob before he kissed him, some say, with a play on the
words, that he did not come to kiss him '
IplfJ^ ' but to bite him
' ID^J? ' and further add that the neck of Jacob was turned into
marble, that Esau cried on account of his teeth and Jacob on
account of his neck ; see Bereshith Rabba, reproduced in Leqach
Tob {ad locum), Shir ha-Shirim, Sekhel Tob, D. Qimchi, Yalqut
see also Midr. Tanchuma, and after it, Midr. ha-Gadol with still

more additions. This idea is also at the basis of the rendering

given by Targum Jon. and Targ. Jer., for, although they trans-
late ' he kissed him,' they inconsistently add that Esau cried on
account of his teeth and Jacob on account of his neck.^ As is

self-evident, these speculations and tlie still more foreign data

^ Compare the Origenian note referred to above, p. 4, n. 6.

 Extraordinary Points of the PentateucJi. 77

of Midr. Mishle have nothing to do with the meaning of the

Nequdoth.^
88.In what precedes, we have assumed that the idea of
sincerity was the one brought into prominence by Sifre, but we
are not entirely satisfied that it is so. After all, what Sifre has in
view might not be the idea of the sincerity of the kiss, but its
existence. This is the view taken by Blau, who claims that the
words D? 7D3 after "IPII'J ^htV in the catchword of Sifre are an
addition not found in the early tradition.^ The latter, however, is

doubtful, as these words are found in the second half of the

catchword, and their presence there does not seem to be objection-
able. Although we consider these two words genuine, still the
emphasis may not be laid on them ; they may have been added
simply in order to help the memory in remembering the main idea
better, and may be but an echo of the scholastic discussion that
took place on that verse.^ Everything in the antecedents of Esau
tended to show that he would not befriend Jacob, but on the
contrary would be hostile to him. Of all the actions of Esau
mentioned in this passage, there is but oue which from its very
nature is an act of love, viz. inpIL'"'! ; the others, as we find in the
explanations of this verse by the Midrash, could have taken place
for different motives. In view of this fact, would it not be
enough to assert that the kiss is said by Sifre to lack an essential
quality, viz. sincerity, in order to convey to the memory of the
student, that Esau did not kiss Jacob at all ? This would also
sufficiently explain the answer of the minority, viz. that although
Esau was hostile to Jacob, still his dispositions changed and he
kissed him sincerely, i. e. although Esau was not expected to have
the feelings implied in inplt^'^l, still, etc. ; hence the genuineness of
inpU^''! is vindicated. The absence of inpU^"'! or at least its critical

doubtfulness, would go far to explain how it became possible to

substitute yv^ for pli;j. On this, see especially Pirqe de R. Eliezer,
Ch. 37 towards the end :
" inJW^) n'?^ inpit'^l inNlip MD ^X."

1 See Buber, Midr. Mishle, p. 100, n. 23.

2 MU, 23.
^ That there was a discussion on this passage, is evident from Sifre itself, where
two opinions are recorded.
78 Meaning and Purpose of the

The fact that later Jewish writings have insisted on the sincerity
of Esau's kiss could hardly be made an objection against this
view, as they may have built their opinion on an expression
merely intended by Sifre as an incidental remark.

In any case, we can conclude with great probability that the

Points were intended to cancel inpU'''1 ; it is to be noted that
even if inpIL'"''! were not in its proper place, the Points would not
necessarily indicate a transposition as such ; they simply stigma-
tize the word as it stands ; whether it had to be inserted elsewhere,
must be judged on different grounds.

Genesis XXXVII, 12.

89. If we except Sifre, which, after quoting the Biblical

verse, has the vague expression, " V"?"^ TipJ/' and the Oxford MS.
of Aboth de P. Nathan (1)^ which points the Ayin of my"l^ —
a mistake arising probably from the fact that some read the Bibli-
cal verse "lil mxi'? instead of myi^ — all the other Jewish
sources explicitly state that UN* is pointed. Thus, Bereshith
Rabba,^ (Cp. D. Qimchi^ and Yalqut^) Aboth de P. Nathan
(1 and 2), Soferim, Midr. Mishle, Leqach Tob (list, n'N, and
ad locum ^ ) Sekhel Tob,^ Diqduqe ha-Te'amim, Bemidbar Pabba,
Midr. ha-Gadol;^ thus also Pashi.*
90. The pointed nx, particle of direction, is of such a nature
that it can be rendered only in the other Semitic languages. It is

' Thus various editions ; cp. Norzi, Minchath Shai ; Michaelis, Biblia ; Baer,
Genesis ; Ginsburg, etc.
2 Schechter, p. 100, n. 24.
^Lxxxiv, 13 (12).
*Comra., p. 79 a.
s§§ 141 and 722.
«Ed. Buber, p. 188.
''Ed. Buber, p. 217.
8 Ed. Schechter, col. 561.
^ Comm. ad locum, in Venice Bible, 1617.
 Extraordinary Points of the Pentateuch. 79

found in the Sam. Pent., and tlie corresponding sign is also found
in the Targum Onkelos, but it is omitted in the Peshitto, where
the Hebrew ns* is generally rendered by ^ and seldom by ,

tw .^ The absence of the particle in Syriac makes it probable

that the text from which it was translated had not the HN for, ;

its presence in the original would have been a strong inducement

for the Syriac translator to put it also in the Syriac text ; all the
more, since it is quite customary to use it in similar cases. How-
ever, riN in this passage is according to Hebrew usage, which
generally admits of the particle before the accusative when it is

determined.^ Probably it was left out in some recensions to pre-

vent misapprehension of the sense, and possible confusion with
XXX vii, 2, where r\^ occurs with a different meaning.^
91. Sifre gives as reason for the Points on this passage,* that

the brothers of Joseph '

went Sechem only to feed themselves/
to
as against the Biblical verse which says that they went to feed
their father's flocks. Some, like Sekhel Tob, see in this the
application of the haggadic rule of Nachum of Gimzo, '''im/
and say that they (Joseph's brothers) went to feed ivith, riN, the

flocks. This is altogether arbitrary, and foreign to the idea of

Sifre ; many other words could, and apparently should, have been
pointed, had the Points been designed to call attention to a special
exegetical interpretation of the so-called superfluous words. The
catchword of Sifre leads us to infer that if there had been no
points on this passage we would conclude that the Patriarchs
went to feed the flocks of their father, but that on account of the
Nequdoth, they went to feed only themselves. Arguing on these
lines Blau ^ and Ginsburg ^ came to the conclusion that the whole
clause DrT'DX ]XiJ DN should be left out, for, then and only then,
is it possible to say that they did not go to feed their father's

^See Duval, Grammaire Syriaque, p. 325; Woldoke, Syrische Grammatik (2d.

edit.), p. 218 £f.

^See Gesenius-Kautzsch, Hehr. Granim., § 117.

=*
See Muller, Soferim, 88.
'On this passage see Buxtorf, Tiberias, 177; Miiller, Soferim, 88; Blau, 3IU,
23 f.; Ginsburg, Introd., 325 ; Konigsberger, MttTK, 18 ; Weir, Hebr. Text, 59.

^MU, l. c.

^Introd., I. c.
80 Meaning and Purpose of the

flocks but themselves, i. e. my"l^ should be left without an object,

and then it can mean ' to feed ' (themselves) ; cp. Is., v, 1 7 ; xi,

7 ; Ixv, 25, etc. The cancelling of this clause would make this

verse parallel with verses 33 and 16. In that case, the Nequdoth
should be placed not only on nx but also on Dfl^DX ]Nii. This
is in itself possible and may have been the reading of some
recensions ; moreover, as Sifre does not give the exact place of
the Nequdoth, it leaves us free to point also Dn"'2K ]K!i, if this is

necessitated by its catchword. However, there is such a perfect

agreement between the various Jewish documents with regard
to the pointing of riN alone, that it creates a very strong pre-
sumption in favor of this tradition. In our present text ]Nli

Dn''3N is necessarily the object of mV"l/j on account of the connec-

tive particle nx ; by suppressing n^? we make possible a different
construction, viz. DDtV:! D.TDX ]Xii .mvi^ ID^^I 'they went to
^
feed (themselves), while their father's flocks were in Sechem.'
We do not mean that even after the supjjression of FIX, it would
be correct to translate the verse in that way, but such a rendering
might be enough to remind the student that DN was spurious.
It seems therefore preferable to accept the universal Jewish
tradition, — in this case seemingly original, —according to which
only nx is to be pointed and, as shown by Sifre, cancelled.

The seman of Sifre has been accurately preserved in

92.
Bereshith Rabba and Leqach Tob (list). It is also found, but
with paraphrastic additions, in Leqach Tob [ad locum), Sekhel Tob,
and Midr. ha-Gadol ; see also D. Qimchi, explaining Bereshith
Rabba.^ The clause ]aiij; nx mj;i^ disappears entirely in Aboth
de R. Nathan (2), and is replaced by "ill -j"i naX3.
''"i: [''X''2D]
The seman of Sifre is also modified in Aboth de R. Nathan (1),
reproduced in Bemidbar Rabba ; for, although it says that Jacob's
sons did not go to feed his flocks, still it omits the clause that
' they were feeding themselves,' and instead, gives mnti'^1 ^IDX^
mnEnn'?").^ Accordingly, the opposition is no longer between

^ See the Comm. on Eashi, CfSrn \nDk2?, quoted in Konigsberger, p. 19. n. 1.

'H. c.

" It is evident that the author of that recension has misunderstood " l^iiJJ? mi?"l^,"
and replaced it by what he considered to be its equivalent.
 Extraordinary Points of the Pentateuch. 81

feeding the flocks (the verse without the points) and ' feeding
themselves ' (the verse with the points), but between feeding the
flocks and eating, etc., which would rather suggest the doubtful
character, H'^DX ]Kli HN, but of mj?")'? itself.
not of riN or
The deviation of Ab. de R. Nathan (1) is also foimd in Midr.
Mishle, with the further amplifications, introduced apparently to
safeguard the honor of the Patriarchs, that
since, while they went '

to eatand drink, they secured (through Joseph) nourishment for

the world, how much more would they have done so, if they had
gone to the teaching of the Torah.' All this passage of Midr.
Mishle has been substantially incorporated into Cod. Baer of
Diqduqe ha-Te'amim.^ It is noteworthy however, that the main
idea of Sifre, that the brothers of Joseph were not feeding the
flocks of their father, has been preserved in all the subsequent
traditional literature, and underlies all the additions and changes.

Num. Ill, 39.

93. Most Jewish writings correspond to the Massoretic tra-

dition : Bekhoroth 4a, Soferim, Aboth de R. Nathan (1 and 2),
Leqach Tob {ad locum),^ Midr. Mishle, Diqduqe ha-
Baer's
Te'amim ^ cp. Rashi,^ Albo,^ Misrachi.^
; Bemidbar Rabba and a
MS. of Aboth de R. Nathan (1) ^ point only the rvaw of ]"inNl ; this
is probably a mistake arising from the abbreviated rubric of Sifre,

.... i6vj {.v^'bv "iipJ [I'^nl'NT = . . . . ^biv bv "i^pJ ]'\^^^ bwV^);

or, as said above, the mistake may be due to the fact that a point

^ See Baer and Strack, o. c. ,

p. 46.
* See various editions.
3 Ed. Padua, Levit. Num., p. 168.
*Baer and Strack, p. 46.
^Comm. on Num. iii, 39.
^ Sefer Iqqarim, in. 22 (end), transl. Schlessinger, p. 323.
' Quoted in Norzi, Minchath Shai, ad locum.
sSchechter, p. 100, n. 25.
 ;

82 Meaning and Purpose of the

on the first letter was considered by some as sufficiently affecting

the entire word.^ Sifre, as usual, leaves the place undetermined

Leqach Tob (list) Diqduqe ha-Te'amim, Massoretic list, place the
dots over ]"l'nK% but are silent as to whether every letter of the
word should be pointed.
94. The Sam. Pent, and version, the Peshitto, as well as
Kennic. 1, 193, 226, 439, 610, 612, 624 and de Rossi 47, and
first hand 2, 185, omit the pointed inriNV Judging from the
context, the omission of ]"inN1 is in conformity with verses 5,

11, 14, 16, 40, 42, 44. Moses alone receives the command to
number the sons of Levi, 14 and 15, and this he alone seems to
have done, 16. Hence, ]'nnxi is certainly suspicious and is pro-
nounced interpolated by many scholars.^ Its introduction can be
accounted for from the fact that, according to other passages
(Num. iv, 34, 37, 41, etc.), Aaron actually took part in the
numbering. Probably some scribe introduced ]"inX1 in the
margin to remind the reader of that fact, and from there it

passed into the text proper ; the mistake was all the more likely
to be made, since Moses and Aaron are so often mentioned
together. Be this as it may, there are clear traces of various
recensions in some of which j'nnxi was not to be found.

95. Sifre tells us that the presence of the Nequdoth is due

to the fact that " ]^:Dn ]a ]"inx n\n N^ " ;
^ that y:t2n means ' the
numberiug,' in the active sense, and not ' the numbered,' is made
evident from the catchword of Sifre which implies that if ]*inX1
had not been pointed Aaron would have been y^'OH ]Q this, in the ;

Biblical verse to which Sifre refers, can be true only of the action
of numbering and not of being numbered. Accordingly, Aaron
should not be associated with Moses in this passage, and hence
]"inX"l should be left out. This explanation is preserved in Aboth

1 See above, § 80.

^ On the Text Criticism, see Houbigant, Notae Crilicae, p. 153 ; Vogel, Lud.
CappelU Criticae Sacra, i, 457 ; Strack, B'dcher Genesis . . . Num., 378 ;
Baentsch,
Ex. Lev. Num., p. 460.
•^On the Jewish explanations, see Buxtorf, Tiberias, p. 177; Miiller, Soferim,
88; Blau, MU, 9ff.; Konigsberger, MuTK, 20; Ginsburg, Introcl, 328; Weir,
Hd)r. Text, 59.
 :

Extraordinary Points of the Pentateuch. 83

de R. Nathan (1), Midr. Mishle, Leqach Tob (list), and, with

the variations Bemidbar Rabba.^ Leqach Tob
mentioned, in
{ad locum) gives a variant for the meaning of the Points
p nnx lay r^-itoifj ]inNi r\d7 m}i:h rw'^^n n^nn ^iD"in^ ^c^.
This has all the appearance of a Massoretic note marking a
peculiarity of the Biblical verse, but it may be an echo of some
former tradition according to which ]"inN1 would have been
introduced on the strength of iv, 34, etc. Bekhoroth 4a reads

]''''JD imK3 rvr\ X^It' ; it therefore understands ]"'jan in the sense

that Aaron was not among the numbered, and this is the
meaning put on this Talmudic passage by Rashi^ and the
Tosafist;^ Aboth de R. Nathan (2) follows the same tradition,
" nmir'3 nov ]"inx n\"l^ '?D\" The rendering that Aaron was
not among the numbered Levites, is evidently a further interpre-
tation of the rubric of Sifre, " ]^3an ]D ]"inX HM ^h^" and
shows that already at the time of the Talmud, the true purpose
of the Points had been somewhat confused. If ]"inK1 had been
pointed because Aaron was not among the numbered, we do not
see why jinxi of verse iii, 39, should have been chosen, rather
than the same word in iii, 38. The doubtful character of ]~inX1
was not, however, without some influence on the explanation that
Aaron was not one of the numbered.
It is consequently beyond doubt that ]"inxi had been declared
at least critically doubtful, and that, as a consequence, dots were
placed over every letter of the word ; although, as an equivalent,
some may have been satisfied in pointing only the conjunctive
waw, ]nnxi.'
'

1 Blau reads Bemidbar Kabba ^'^J)2n nnX rm X^iJ? bv, which would refer to
p
the numbered this is found in the Venice edition, 1545.
; The difference comes
from the abbreviation "X which is actually found in the Amsterd. editions of
1641 and 1725.
^ On Bekhoroth 4a see also Comm. on Num. iii, 39.
;

* On Bechoroth 4a, catchword ]"inN1.

 ;;

84 Meaning and Purpose of the

Num. IX, 10.

^'1:1 npni ^"n3 ix

97. The Massoretic text has the Nequdah on the He of Hpm.

This is also the place assigned to it by Sifre (cp. Yalqut, § 722),
M. Pesachim, ix, 2 (cp. Arukh, s. v. *lpJ), Jer. Pesachim, ix, 2,
Tosefta Pesachim, viii, 3, Aboth cle R. Nathan (1),^ Soferim,
Leqach Tob (list and ad locuni),^ Diqduqe ha-Te'amim, Rashi,*
Ba'al ha-Turim.^ Zohar^ and Midr. Mishle leave the place
undetermined, while Aboth de R. Nathan (2) and some mss.'^

point every letter of npm. Finally, Bemidbar Rabba and the

Oxford MS. of Aboth de R. Nathan ^
(1) point the Cheth of npni
the pointing of the Cheth is evidently a mistake arising from the
similarity and confusion between the two letters n and H; all

the more, since the explanation given here for the Nequdoth,
whatever be its import, is found in many of the other writings
which point the He.
97. The dotted npm is found in the Peshitto, Targ. Onkelos,
and in the Sam. Pentateuch, which last however reads it plene
as do also some Hebrew MSS.** The Ixx translates this word by
the adverb iv oSco /.laKpav instead of the adjective iv oBw jxaKpa.
The adverb jxaKpav ( Vulg. procul ) tends to show that the
translators did not take npni as an adjective attributive to "ITi,
but as a part of the predicate. If the dotted npm had been

^ See various editions Norzi, Minchath Shai ; Michaelis ; Ginsburg, Kittel, etc.
''See however Norzi, Minchath Shai, ad locum.
3 Ed. Padua, p. 194.
*0n M. Pesachim, ix, 2 (93b).
^In Venice Bible, 1617, ad locum.
''Quoted in Minchath Shai, ad locum, and in Buxtorf's Tiberias, p. 180.
'
See Michaelis, Biblia, ad locum.
« See Schechter, p. 100, n. 26.
" On the Text. Criticism of the passage, see Strack, Gen Num. 394
Baentsch, Num. 494.
 JExtraordinary Points of the Pentateuch. 85

written with He, no such confusion could liave taken place.

Besides, ^11, though epicene, is usually masculine, and so we
would expect pni rather than npf]"]. It may be supposed that
the one who wrote npm ^"IT had vaguely in mind the expression
npm pN (Deut. xxix, 21 ; Jos. ix, 6, 9, etc.). The He was
therefore absent in some recensions, and this is further borne out
by the Targ. of Ps.-Jon., " No'py nilN^ pmai 1^:d IN,"
in which case they must have read pm *]"TID 1{^ . . .
ty^N con-
strued as -jTlD pm IK • . . If ^K.

98. In order to understand the explanations which are given

of the point on this passage,^ we must remember that, whatever
may have been the reasons for the extension, all the Rabbis were
agreed, that apart from the two classes of men expresslly men-
tioned who had to postpone the celebration of the Passover, there

were others hinted at in this verse, v. g., those who were physi-
cally prevented or were morally defiled.^ With regard to the
distance that was to be considered as npni, some took the distance
to Modaim — 15 miles — as a norm,^ while others, among whom
are R. Eliezer, and R. Juda, limited it to the threshold of the
sanctuary.* These two Rabbis based their view on the prescrip-
tion for the eating of tithes (Deut. xiv, 23-25). In this latter
case it is said that the Israelites should eat the tithes only in the
place chosen by God, i. e. Jerusalem and any one who was too
faraway (kept away) from Jerusalem, had to fulfil the prescription
given in Deut. xiv, 25. In like manner (Deut. xvi, 6), for
celebrating the Passover the sanctuary was the proper place, and
hence any place outside of it, if the man was kept away, was
considered sufficient distance. Apparently the idea of remoteness
does not refer to the distance, which may not be npm, but to the

^ On the Jewish explanations of the Points, see Buxtorf, Tiberias, 177 ; Geiger,
Urschrift, 185; Lesestucke, 86 ff. ; Miiller, Soferim, 88; Blau, 3IU, 25 f. ; Konigs-
berger, MuTK, 20 ; Ginsburg, Introd., 322 ;
Weir, Heb. Text, 60.
^M. Pesachim, 1; Jer. Pesachim, ix, 1; Pesachim, 93a; Tosefta Pes.,
ix,
vm, 1. Note besides the Paseq line in the Massoretic Text, between X?2t2 and

^M. Pesachim, ix, 2 Pesachim, 931i Neubauer, Geographie du Talmud, p. 99.

; ;

*M. Pes., IX, 2; Sifre, '^n^rrO, § 69, p. 18a (cp. Leqach Tob, ed. Padua,
p. 194) ; Jer. Pesachim, ix, 2; Pesachim, 94b (end).
 ;

86 Meaning and Purpose of the

man, who, for some reason, such as defilement, is prevented from

entering the sanctuary ; however, it was said by R. Abai *
that the

law of the npm 'I'TI did not apply to the unclean but to the
clean. In fact R. Eliezer seems to have read his text just like
the Ixx and Targ. Jonathan ; besides, he seems to have given as
translation ' distant on a journey ' and not on a distant journey.' '

According to R. Jose the Nequdah on the He has precisely for

effect to bring about the possibility of such an interpretation

this is equivalent to the condemnation of the He in npm.^

Consequently, the Gemarah explains the point by saying that
He is pointed because it is the man, not the journey, that is afar

off: "np*in"l I'll ]^N1 pinn IV^i^," l e., although he be near, still

he is kept away, '

p"im,' by his state of defilement.^ This is the

view of Rashi also."* Sifre has no other meaning than the above :

it tells us that He is pointed, because, although the distance be

short, if the man is defiled he should not offer the Passover with
the others ; i. e., if he is defiled the distance matters little, for

he himself is morally remote, and cannot celebrate the Passover,

pm irr\2 = 'l"^"'^ prn W^i^ ; thus according to Sifre the He has
to be condemned.
99. The catchword of Sifre has been preserved in Leqach
Tob (list) and Bemidbar Rabba. Aboth de R. Nathan (1) and
Midr. Mishle reproduce the explanations of R. Jose, but with the
variations, "... t6i< npim NH^H i<bw " instead of ^JDa i6

'lil ifh^ ""Sm npirnii'. Aboth de R. Nathan (2), as said above,

points the entire n'p '1'n'"l and departs still more from the
explanations of Sifre on which it apparently depends. Its testi-

mony, though explainable by the cancelling of the He, would

rather perhaps suggest the removal of the entire word np"in"1 ;

"r^n^y n^x nrxti; vbv "i^Jn ^nii npinn rvn]i; npm -j-nD in"
This method of placing the points may have arisen from the false

^Pesachim, 94b.
^ M. Pesachim ix, 2 ; Jer. Pesachim ix, 2 ; Tosefta Pesachim viii, 3. See
Moses b. Nachman in Norzi, Minchatli Shai, ad locum.
"Jer. Pesachim ix, 2 (end).
* Eashi, Comm. on Num. ix, 10 ; Ba'al ha-Turim simply says that the He is

annulled by the Point.

 '

Extraordinary Points of the Pentateuch. 87

reconstruction of some such rubric as HIpJ 'n *five points/

instead of ' He is pointed '
; this is all the more probable since
it reads npin"l plene, i. e., with five letters. It may also have
been based on some mss. in which, in conformity with v. 13 of
the same chapter, nplIT"! was not to be found; probably, however,
this pointing of every letter is purely a mistake, and in any case,
neither the place of the Nequdoth nor their explanations correspond
accurately to the original tradition.
100. This, we think, after Geiger ^ and Friedmann,^ is the
correct understanding of Sifre ; Blau,^ however, takes a different
view. He supposes a reading npm "]"n31, instead of the present

r\p'n'~\ l^y^^ IN, and argues as follows : if we accept the reading

"ITIDI, it is evident that there is a danger of making the waw
conjunctive, instead of disjunctive,* in which case the text would
read :
" he who is defiled and at the same time is on a long
journey," etc. Now Sifre says that even he who is on a short
journey but is defiled should not oifer the Passover ; this accord-

ing to Blau is to remind the reader that instead of the 1

' and
we should read IS' ' or.'

101. Against this view, there is the explicit mention by Sifre

itself of the He as the pointed letter.^ Besides, if Sifre had
intended to insist on the two classes of men who should postpone
the Passover, viz., ]V^:h N0t3 and npm 1"1"1D, we should natur-
ally expect Sifre to tell us ]i;B:b NQtO Nim r\n)1p yr\2 )b^B^ and

not simply NDiO Nin," unless —as Blau actually does —we throw
suspicion on the WB^b of the Biblical verse ; but this would be
of little service, for Sifre certainly read it in its recension.
Finally, the reference to the words of Rabbi,^ " ]^X^ ^B bv ^^

* Urschrift, etc., 185 f.

^ Sifre, p. 18a, n. 8.

^MU, 26. See also Ginsburg, Introd., 322.

*That the ivaiv is sometimes equivalent to IN, is seen from other passages, such
as Exod. xxi, 15, 17 IK. xviii, 27, etc.
;

* See however the repetition of this seman at the end of the list, where we read
simply tVj Tlpl
^Compare Sifre, § 69 (beginning).
' Blau, MU, 27. See above, § 59.
 ;

88 Meaning and Pwyose of the

]bv^bD HmN ni}p^ X^X U^," does not warrant the infer-
ence that on this passage the point was placed on the first letter

of some word, viz., y]12\ Blau is right in understanding ]^j;a^D

in the sense of 'in the beginning,' instead of 'above,' but the
saying of Rabbi, being opposed to a general statement, has itself
all the characteristics of a universal rule. Moreover, the rule of
Rabbi, if applied to the supposed "pH^) in this passage, would
entail the condemnation of the entire word, since — at least for
real exegesis — it is pronounced non-existent, but this position,
we think, could not be maintained.
Let us then conclude that originally only the He of npn"! was
pointed, and that the point is devised to cancel it, thus making it

agree with recensions in which this letter was not to be found.^

Num. XXI, 30.

nD:i IV u'^w:) p^i -ij; ]ntz;n "idx di^:)

102. Soferim, Aboth de R. Nathan (1), Bemidbar Rabba,

Baer's Diqduqe ha-Te'amim, correspond to the Massoretic tra-
dition with regard to the place of the points. The Oxford MS.
of Aboth de R. Nathan (1)^ points the Daleth of N3"I''D "ly

and Yalqut — although reproducing Sifre — probably dots the

Daleth of HDJ "IJ? ;
* Aboth de R. Nathan (2) places the dots over
'"I'li;'^'"!, but its explanations probably refer to N21''D HJ? ; Leqach
Tob (list) reads TlfX; Sifre and Midr. Mishle leave the place
undetermined. Midr. Mishle in quoting the Biblical passage has
only riDU IV W^ll^Ti, thereby implying that the points fall some-
where on one of these words. Some apparently pointed the

^ The testimony of Zoliar, which probably attributes to the Points the value of
our opposed to the older Jewish sources.
Italics, is therefore
^ Thus the various editions cp. Norzi, Michaelis, Ginsburg, Kittel,
;
etc.

^'Schechter, p. 101, n. 27.

*
§ 722 thus in some editions as v. g., that of Frankf. a. M. (1687) and that of
;

Zolkiew (1858) It is to be remarked that in quoting the Biblical passage, Yalqut

.

has only PiD^ "II? D*''£?J1.' In other editions, the place of the Points is left unde-
'

termined, and the reference is '

"I2?N nDJ "IJ? D^UJl.'
 ;

Extraordinary Points of the Pentateuch. 89

entire 1]Ui^, for Norzi insists that only the Resh should have
the Nequdah}
103. The passage has greatly suffered and there are no two
versions that agree on it,^ However, it would be beyond our
purpose to enter into a full discussion of this verse ; almost every
word offers a new difficulty, from a critical as well as from an
exegetical point of view. Let it be noted simply that the Sam.
Pent, and lxx read li'X instead of the dotted "Wi^, and this is

also the reading of Baba Bathra 78b-79a.^ There were besides,

several recensions with regard to ^s'D"l''D ly, which is read 'D Vj?,

by Sam. lxx, Targ. Onkelos, as well as by Kennic. 193

Pent.,
(first hand), 345. The word U^fry\, pointed by Aboth de K.
Nathan (2), seems to be critically correct, though its translation
has occasioned a different rendering iu lxx, viz. at jvvalK€^.
Kennicott 4 omits ny before nSl
104. In the Jewish testimonies on this passage, we have
several divergent accounts of the Nequdoth} Sifre informs us
that there are points because ' further it was also thus.' It is

clear, therefore, that the limit set to the ravages of the victorious
Amorites should be either extended or entirelyleft aside. To this
effect, we might suppress ny before HDJ and read "iiyx PlDJ D'^tt'J^,
'
we have laid waste Nophach which,' etc. As the Biblical verse
would not say any longer that the devastation stopped at Nophach,
we would be at liberty to assert with Sifre that ^further, it was
also thus.' ^ This would correspond accurately enough to the
words of Sifre, but riDJ found in almost all mss., in
"iy is

the Sam. Pent., and is supposed by lxx " eVt " as well as by the
Peshitto " \-^ A ;
" it is besides very doubtful whether any
of the ancient Jewish writings would support the supposedly

^ Minchath Shai, ad locum. ; thus also Meiri, in Blau, MU, 28, and Lonzano, Or
Torah, 19 b.

*0n the Text. Criticism of the verse, see Strack, Gen Num., p. 429;
Baentsch, Num., 587 ; Paterson, Num., ad locum.
' Cp. Yalqut, § 765, and also Num. xxi, 28.
* On these explanations, see Buxtorf, Tiberias, 178 ; Geiger, Urschnft, 257
Miiller, Soferim, 89 ; Blau, 3fU, 28 ff. ; Konigsberger, MuTK, 21 f. ;
Ginsburg,
Introd., Weir, Hebr. Text, 61.
326 ;

*See Blau, MU, 29 however, see also ; p. 34.

 ;'

90 Meaning and Purpose of the

original place of the dots over riDJ "ij?. See, however, Midr.
Mishle, and Yalqnt in some editions.
105. On account of the prevalent tradition that the Besh
of ^"W^ is the letter pointed, we must investigate whether the
catchword of Sifre can be accounted for in that hypothesis. By
cancelling the Resh of IlI'X, we may translate the verse, ' we laid
waste as far as Nophach, fire has been as far as Medeba.'
According to our present Massoretic text, the ravage was carried
on only as far as Nophach, but did not reach Medeba, since
Medeba is given simply to deterrauie the limits of the territory
of Nophach it is therefore evident that we extend the sphere of
;

the Amorite conquest by reading X^TiD "IJ? Ti^N consequently, ;

we can also say with Sifre that further it was also thus.' As the
'

suppression of Resh in "i^X has good support in Textual Criti-

cism, and accoimts as well as the first view for the catchword of
Sifre, it seems to us useless to make any other supposition. How
the place of the Nequdah was occasionally changed, and the
Dalcth of '"^12 nj? pointed, is easily understood if we pay atten-
tion to the similarity between the two letters Resh and Daleth
the substitution was made some recen-
easier from the fact that
sions read
N3T'D bv instead of ^DT^D IV and further, some ;

transferred the points from 'T^D "IV to nCJ "IV (?)• Whatever
may be said of the supposed reading N^T'D hv, it is beyond
doubt that the catchword of Sifre cannot be justified if we
point '"lia ly ; as long as we accept "ili;x, whether we read
hv OY 'liD ly, it could not be said that the destruction was
carried further than is indicated in the present Massoretic text.
The pointing of 1^, although not primitive, may have given rise
to other explanations, as is apparently the case in Aboth de R.
Nathan (2) ; this document tells us that U^\uy\ is pointed because
they did not carry on this destruction as far as Medeba. In view
of the fact that it reads the Biblical verse NDT'IO hv, and says that
without the Nequdoth we should infer that they had smitten as
far as "ly" Medeba, it is very likely that it intends to call
attention to the difference of readings between "VQ Ij; and
'T'O 7j;. Possibly, however, this explanation is purely exegetical,
laying emphasis on the translation of p''Ti'J1, as '
and the women
 — '

Extraordinary Points of the Pentateuch. 91

instead of ' we laid waste ; ' if so, the place assigned to the points
would not have been the result of a mistake, but the eifect of a
deliberate judgment. It is needless to say that this explanation
is a deviation, and in no way represents the original tradition
preserved in Sifre.
106. Aboth de R. Nathan (1) has an account of the
Nequdoth different from that of Sifre. It says " h>V "TIpJ

This, if not directly suggestive of the function of the Nequdoth

in cancelling the Resh of "W^, is at least the Haggadic explana-
tion of a text in which the Resh was not to be found. Apparently
it translates U^^2^y\ by 'and the women,' and as a corresponding
term ti;x by ' men ; ' ^
thus we may read : Heshbon has perished
'

unto Dibon, Avomen as far as Nophach, men as far as Medeba ;

hence the further explanation that they destroyed the popula-

tions i. e., U^fDTi and W^ —but not the provinces.^ Bemidbar
Rabba, in an alternative catchword, probably intended to repro-

duce this passage of Aboth de R. Nathan but it displaced the ;

negative particles, making the explanation just the reverse of

that of Aboth de R. Nathan, mDlNH ^2nnn K^Ii; Hd'^D N'^1
niniO N7N. Still, it is not impossible that some Rabbi, while
preserving the terms of Aboth de R. Nathan, wished to give
an explanation more in conformity with the traditional one.
Apparently he translates ^K by fire " lyx " (cp. Baba Bathra ' '

78b, 79a) then by further translating D"'^J1 as we laid waste,'

; '

it could be said that they did not destroy the populations — as

there is no question of women and men —but that the provinces
had undergone devastation. It is clear therefore that both in the
seman of Sifre, as well as in the explanations of Aboth de R.

^On the ^'X = ^'^X, see Blau, MU, 29 ; Ginsburg, Introd., I. c. It is found on
the Mesa stone, 11. Siloam Inscr., 11. 2, 4.
13, 20, 25, and in the
^Blau, 3IU, 29. Whether or not UN should still be construed as a relative, is
of secondary importance for us Sifre did not understand it as such.
;
Cp. Diestel,
Die Nota relationis in Hebr., quoted by Konigsberger, MuTK, 21, n. 2 ;
Hommel,
in ZDMG, xxxii, 708 ff. See, besides, the reconstruction of Hiller after the
suppression of the Resh of "irX, " nriJ? XnCJ nr", quoted in Kosenmiiller,
Scholia, ad locum, and Konigsberger, MuTK, 21, n. 2. This, however, would
not justify the seman of Sifre, as the sense would remain the same.
 ;

92 Meaning and Purpose of the

Nathan and Bemidbar Rabba, we have a clear indication or

supposition that the Be.^h of "ill^N is spurious and sliould be
cancelled.
107. When we examine the explanation of Midr. Mishle, the
idea of which is preserved in Midr. ha-Gadol/ viz., that the
Amorites allowed a portion to escape, we cannot help seeing in it

a special interpretation of, or an equivalent to, the words of Aboth

de R. Nathan (1),
' that they destroyed the populations but not
the provinces.' Perhaps, however, it has in view the translation
of n^]l!Ti by 'women' and tl^Nby 'men.' Then, it could be said
that women perished as far as Nophach and men as far as Medeba ;

hence, we could conclude that the Amorites spared men, as far as

Nophach, and women, as far as Medeba, i. e., that they allowed a
portion to escape.

Num. XXIX, 15.

108. The Massoretic text enumerates the several victims to

be offered during the solemnities of the feast of Tabernacles, and
mentions the quantity of flour to be used for each : ]niyj; ]i"lII?V1

D^It'DD ']mV nVDIx'? inxn W2jb-^ Tims also, Sam. Pent., Ixx,
Vulg., Targ. Onkelos but Peshitto has ; p^ P ^ j-ma^o = "nN ]n^j;i
one ]1"iU^j; is omitted in Kenn. 193, 199. In the context, this

same expression occurs in xxviii, 13 ; in xxviii, 21 (the first ]Tm;y

is omitted in Kenn. 140, and Peshitto reads r-^ jjo^jsi^o );

in xxviii, 29 (one I'lltt'j; is omitted in Kenn. 184, and Peshitto

reads as in v. 21) ; in xxix, 10 (but Kenn. 9, 109, to which
Peshitto corresponds, read iriN lllfyi). Hence, there existed some
uncertainty in the use of these jTltt'y. In any case, there can be
but little doubt that on this passage there were recensions in which
one of them was dropped. As in^y is not reduplicated in xxix,
4, though Sam. Pent., Ixx, Kenn. 177 have two, it is very likely
that some scribe followed the analogy of that verse, and put only
one ]T1II>V ill xxix, 15, while others followed the analogy of the
passages mentioned above.^ In the context, there is but one

'See Schechter, Ab. de B. Nathan {1), p. 101, n. 27.

''See Strack,o. c, 455 Baentsch, o. c, ad locum Paterson,
; ;
o. c, ad locum.
 Extraordinary Points of the Pentateuch. 93

passage in which ])''\WV is not reduplicated ; it is probable that

owing to the process of harmonization another ]n^j; has been intro-

duced into verse 15, while, as shown by Pcshitto, there should

have been only one.
109. Even in the recensions that had the two yillUV in verse

15, there were several traditions with regard to the conjunctive

wa2t\ In the parallel passages mentioned above, there is doubt
on that point. On Num. xxviii, 21, the waic is omitted by
Hebrew, Targ. Oukelos, and Ixx ; but it is given by Sam. Pent.,
Peshitto, Vulg., and some Hebr. mss.^ The conjunctive waw is

also omitted in xxviii, 29, by Hebr., Ixx, Vulg. but it is found ;

inSam. Pent., Peshitto, Keun. 17, de Rossi, 1, 549. Hebr., Ixx,

and Vulg., leave out the waw in xxix, 10; but it is retained by
Sam. Pent., Peshitto. In xxix, 4, on the contrary, the conjunc-
tion is given by Hebr., Sam. Pent., Peshitto, but is omitted by
Ixx, and Vulg. It is not surprising, therefore, to find dis-
crejjancies with regard to xxix, 15 ; though found in Hebr., Sam.
Pent., Peshitto, and Vulg., the vmw is omitted by Ixx, —except
AF,2—as well as by Kenn. 181, 674.
110. A third class of variants with regard to ]1"lIt'V in its

various grammatical forms bears on the orthography of tliis

word. In the plural it generally occurs, at least in the context,

defectively written; e. g., xxviii, 12, 20, 28; xxix, 3, 9, 14;
however, in some mss. of Kenn., especially 9, 84, 132, 193, and
in some Sam. mss., such as Kenn. 64, QQ, it is written plene. In
the singular, it occurs once written defective, viz. xxviii, 13 (first),

although some thirty mss. of Kenn. read it plene. In the other

passages, it is generally fully written; thus xxviii, 13 (2d), xxviii,
21 (twice); xxviii, 29 (twice); xxix, 4; xxix, 10 (twice). These
various ]1~l^y occur also defectively written in some mss., for
which we refer the reader to Kennicott, de Rossi, etc. The same
uncertainty prevails regarding verse 15 ; though these two jl'l'il'j?,

are read plene in Sam. Pent., and in almost all mss., still, the first

is read defective, in Kenn. 89, 10'9, 232, 253, 260, 600 marg., and
the second, in Kenn. 5, 15, 69, 109, 158, 232, 253, 260. If we

^Kenn, 1 and de Rossi 1.

^Swete, O. T. in Greek, ad locum; cp. Holmes, Vet. Test. Graec, ad locum.

 —

94 Meaning and Purpose of the

bear iu mind the principle referred to above, viz. that the dejective
spelling should generally be given preference over the plena forms,
it is very probable that ]1"i^J? should be written defective. Besides,
it is also certain that ]1~i^j; was not repeated in some mss., and in

others, was written without the conjunctive waio.

111. As might be expected from what precedes, the greatest
confusion prevails among the various Jewish sources with regard
to the place of the Nequdoth. According to some, VillVV is

entirely pointed ; thus Sifre, " ]n^j; bv "llpj/' Meiri and a few
MSS.^ Aboth de R. Nathan (2) and Midr. Mishle^ place the
points over the second ]nii;v. Aboth de R. Nathan (1),
"T''n ]niry llpJ .... ]'n^j; ]n:i^yr', and Soferim, point only
the waw of the second ]1~i^y. Bemidbar Rabba and a MS. of Aboth
de R. Nathan (1),^ although pointing the entire ll^If^; refer to
Num. xxviii, 21, " TiDD b'iV . . . . ]n^V bv l^pl" Yalqut
though it reproduces Sifre — leaves the place undetermined ; this
is also the case, at least with respect to the exact letters, in
Leqach Tob (list), Diqduqe ha-Te'amim, and the Massoretic list.

Finally, Menachoth, STb,"* says that the waw in the middle of the
first ]1"iti'J? is the letter pointed. As is evident from the Hebrew
MSS. and editions, this latter tradition has prevailed in most
Massoretic schools.^
112. In the midst of such confusion, we must turn to the
various explanations of the points, in order to find out both
their place and purpose. Sifre tells us that one of the
two Issarons is pointed because there was but one Issaron,
"13^3 nnx X^N HM X^U' bv-"
])'^'WV In order to understand
this testimony, we must bear in mind the scholastic discussion
preserved in Menacboth 87a (end) and 87b (top). The Rabbis
were all agreed that there was in the temple no dry-measure

^See Michaelis, Bibl., ad locum.

^ ""iUn has been corrected by the editor into IV^'NIH.

^Schechter, p. 101, n. 28.

* See Arukh, s. v. "pi ; Yalqut, § 782 ; Rabbinowicz, Diqduqe Soferim, P. xv,
p. 216.
^ Thus various editions cp. Norzi, Ginsburg, Kittel, etc. It would seem that
;

some pointed the conjunctive wau' see Strack, ; o. c, p. 455; cp. Konigsberger,
MuTK, 23-25.
 Extraordinary Points of the Pentateuch. 95

larger than a single Issaron, and that, consequently, the three and
the two Issaro7is required respectively for a bullock and a ram,
were not measured in measures containing three and two Issarons
respectively, but that a one-Jssaron measure was used for the
purpose.^ They were all agreed besides, on the presence in
the temple of a ha\f-Issaron measure. However, they diiFered
regarding the Biblical passages which should be appealed to as
support for these traditions and regarding the number of one-
Issaron measures in the temple.
The by R. Meir, stated that there were
minority, represented
two kinds of one-Issaron measures, the one heaped and the other
struck, because it is said, " ]Tm;y ])1]UV " —an application of the
rule of extension on account of repetition ; on the other hand, as
we read " iriN ]1~llt'yi," ^ it is a sign that the two or three
Issarons were measured in a single Issaron measure ; further,
the presence of " "iPlX III^VI," ' and one Issaron/ justifies the

tradition that there was also a half- Issaron measure.

The majority said that there was but one kind of Issarons,
because it is said, " "inX ]n:t'j;i." The presence of yi'^WV ]'niL'y

does not justify the view of R. Meir that there were two kinds
of Issarons, but implies only the existence of a half-/ssaro/i.^
The repetition of '\)'^WV jllII'V in xxix, 15, should not be under-
stood as indicative of a measure larger than a single Issaron,
because one of them is pointed, i. e., the rule of extension does
not apply to this passage on account of the point, but makes
I'niI'V ])'\1VV equivalent to R. Meir's nriN ]n^V.^ They all seem
to have taken it for granted that the presence of two ]mi'V should
be made the basis of an extension, either with regard to the num-
ber of the one-Issaron measures, — as R. Meir, not taking the
Point into account, actually does, — or with reference to the capa-
city of the Issarons ; this extension however was set aside on
account of the Nequdah.

^See Rashi on this passage 87a (end).

^ Num. xxix, 4.

'They had probably and not xxix, 15

in view xxix, 10 as the rule of extension
was not applied on account of the Point.
to that last verse
*See the explicit statement, ibid. 87b (top).
 :

96 Meaning and Purpose of the

Consequently, when Sifre tells us that ^YWV is pointed, because '

there was but one Issaron,^ it evidently takes the same view
as the Rabbis, in considering the point as annulling one of the
Issarons, and it excludes the opinion of R. Meir concerning the
existence of the two one-Issaron measures. (See this idea in
Leqach Tob, (list)). The immediate inference is that one of the

])'^WV should be left out, as its presence would give rise to the
law of extension. As Sifre reads the Biblical verse V\'^]VV ]1"ni'y>
it is impossible to know whether it is the first or the second ]1"i^V
which is pointed.
113. From the fact that Sifre points the entire ]Tnii'y, and
since the explanation of the point by R. Jose, viz., ITia'' K?^
^^n"? 0^:11; bwn i6) "id'? 'y b^2 i6, also supposes that ]nu;y
should be entirely pointed, we are led to the conclusion that, in
the Gemarah, there has been a deviation from the primitive place
assigned to the Nequdoth on this passage. In what follows we try
to give what we consider a probable account of this deviation.
In Menachoth, the Biblical verse is read as in Sifre, '
])'^WV jTI^V/
and not '
llliyy ]1"ni'V1 '
; but the wording of the explanation of
the point by R. Jose supposes a text, '
yi'lWV ]')'^WV\' for, emphasis
is laid on the pointing of the waw in the middle of ]"l"l^y, as if to
prevent a possible confusion with another waw ; this latter can
only be the conjunctive waw in ]1"lU'V1. This leads us further to
assume, that the rubric from wliich Menachoth borrows read,

^]rwV '1 hv "l^pJ/ construed as ]rwv \hw'\ '")

bv "l^pJ^; or per-
haps, according to a possible method, mentioned above, of pointing
the first letter as representative of the whole word, it read
' '1
hv 'p^ ]"l"1^yi ' with the subsequent confusion of the two waws.
This would be a perfect parallel to HDIpDI of Gen. xix, 33, to
which we refer the reader.^
114. According to the current text of the Talmud, in which
we read, '
mpJD,' it would seem that the Rabbis intended to draw
their inference from a single dotted letter; but, as Rabbinowicz
remarks, up to the edition of Frankfurt a. M., 1690, the

'See above, §§59, 80, 93.

^
Diqduqe Soferim, P. xv, p. 216, n. 6.
 Extraordinary Points of the Pentateuch. 97

previous editions read the plural '

"^^^^':^'Cl,^ which is also the case
in the MS. of Cairo.^ It is also very significant that the plural
has been preserved at the end of the explanation of R. Jose,
"ir^m ^b '•npJ "O "l." it seems, therefore, well nigh certain
that the primitive tradition knew of more than one point on this
passage. We think ourselves justified consequently, in maintain-
ing that originally the explanation of R. Jose simply read,
" . . . .]rwV^ ibv^ llpJ HD^." When the confusion
mQ"" ^h'Q)

spoken of above had taken place, either at the time of the Gema-
rah or later on, the need was felt of specifying more accurately
what they considered to be the real place of the points, and of
further guarding against a possible confusion either with another
waw or with other parallel passages, such as xxviii, 21, xxviii, 29,
xxix, 10 ; to this made the following
effect they additions and
corrections: h^ ]Wtr\ ]rwV bw ]rwV V^'^^2m V""!] lip: HD^

The explanations of Menachoth just given, will sufficiently

account for the pointing of the second waw of ]"l"liyv^ hy the

Massorah. We wish simply to note that the Massoretic ]1"l^yi

Nim very likely stands for 'N JHI, i e. the jnU'y'l of the first

day of the feast, or, more probably still, the first inify of the
feast (of Tabernacles).^
115. Although the idea contained in the catchw^ord of Sifre
has been preserved by most of the subsequent Jewish testimonies,
still, the place that Sifre assigned to the Nequdoth has been con-
fused in many of them. Sifre itself, by leaving undetermined which
one of the two j'nu'y should be pointed, is partly responsible for
the various changes in that respect. In almost all cases, however,
we can still detect the probable reason for the deviation.
In Aboth de R. Nathan (1), we read, " T^D j'TnfJ? ^y "!1p:"
which it refers to the second ]1"ni'y. This, in the rubric on which
Aboth de R. Nathan depends, was probably intended to mean

^ The commentary of Rashi also had *'11pi?2, but was corrected by the author
of ni»D*p?2 ri'jrn, into mpJ^O, in order to make it agree with the text of the
Talmud ; see Rabbinowicz, ibid.
='Cp. FrensdorfP, Ochlah vfOcUah, n. 96 and the note to it p. 28 ; the Paris MS.
of Ochlah weOchlah reads JHI X?D"ip, ibid.
 .

98 Meaning and Purpose of the

that the ]Tl^y ivith the waw, i. e. I'llli'yi, should be pointed.

Aboth de R. Nathan apparently read 'the waw of VilW)) is pointed/
and as in the Biblical passage it read '
]1"ili;j; ]1"lU'j;i/ it naturally
understood the rubric as referring to the second ]"l11I'y, in which
the conjunctive waiv does not appear. The addition of DT' b'Qf

""iTi ]1^S**in 2TiD, has been sufficiently explained above in Mena-

choth. The reason given for the pointing is that of Sifre.
116, Soferim also, reproduces a tradition according to which
the second waiv of the second Vi'MVV should be pointed ; it says,
'llpJ ""J^n iniyyDiy T"""]/ but, asMiiller^ remarks, ^wn should be
referred to V"! and not to ]"1"1II'V ; consequently, we should read
"•Jlfn ]ntfj;i^ Vl, instead of ]n^y3Ti;, and thus it would agree
with Menachoth and Massorah. As Soferim had a Biblical verse
'
])'\'WV jnn^J?,' there was no ]'n^J? with two icaws to justify the
rubric ^wr\ .... 1 ''I, and, therefore, it referred '^wn to ]nu;j; =
the second ])'^]VV-

117. Bemidbar Rabba — cp. one MS. of Aboth de R. Nathan

(1)2 — says, N^iy -\Dbj2 mDD hu; ]Wi^i "inN ]]'^wv bv "iipJ'

'l^b^ "IPiN ]mi;y n'pK Uir n\"l.^ It is to be noted that with

the exception of the clause riDC bll^ ]1^N1 IPli^, it corresponds

exactly to Sifre in the reason which it assigns for the Nequdoth.
Unlike any other Jewish document, it tells us that it is one of
the inu^y required for the feast of the Passover, which should be
pointed, i. e., one of the inil'y in Num. xxviii, 21. It is hard
to see the origin of this unexpected statement. The reading
]W^'] "ImN ]n^y is very likely due to the abbreviation X ]')1'WV,
which some reconstructed inx ]'\1WV, and others ]Wi^1 jnil'V the ;

compiler of Bemidbar Rabba placed the two readings side by

side, as is often done, and thus we have yifVi^l iriN ]1"1II'V. The
presence of riDD b"^ instead of in bn^, which creates the main
difficulty, is probably traceable to some such rubric as is found in
the Massoretic list on Num. iii, 39, viz., wm ]nu;y = 'X :m 'WV,
i. e., 'the first jT^U^J?,' as above. Bemidbar Rabba referred 'N to

^ Soferim, p. 89 f

^ Schechter, p. 101, n. 28.

3 Some editions read differently • • •
'
'T^hr:! :,n Vl^ p^KT h^D ptL'X"! pi^r bv "llpj '•

Thus, Wilna edit. 1887. See appendix, ad locum.

 Extraordinary Points of the Pentateuch. 99

in, and read, 'one ]T]'WV of the first feast is pointed.' As the
first of the great feasts mentioned in the context is the Passover,
xxviii, 16 if., it was more accurately determined by replacing
'
K in by its supposed equivalent, '
nOD.'
^

118. Aboth de R. Nathan (2) and Midr. Mishle point the

second jTltt'j;. The reason for this is obvious : both read their
Biblical text ^]rwV \\'WV\' and as Sifre says that \rmv is

pointed, they naturally pointed the second in which there is no

conjunctive loaw (see above the remarks on Aboth de R. Nathan
(1)). The explanations given of the Points by these two sources
are different from any of those which we have seen so far,

" m^niL'y ^W ]1J;:d n\-| ^h^ " (Midr. Mishle), but they may be
an echo of Sifre denying the existence of a second Issaron, and
of Menachoth forbidding, on account of the Nequdoth, any exten-
sion to be derived from the presence of two inu'y.

From what precedes, we can safely conclude that originally one

of the Issarons was entirely pointed —presumably the first, but
possibly also, the second, —and that the points were devised to cancel
it. It should be noted further that while the place of the Nequ-
doth has been confused in various ways, so as to render the expla-
nations inappropriate, still we know that they have been placed
on letters which were missing in some mss. or recensions. Appar-
ently, here, as in other cases, the absence of these letters in mss.
and recensions made the deviation easier ; and hence, it would
seem that there always existed at least a faint idea about the

function that the Nequdoth were intended to fulfil.

^See, with reference to the MS. of Aboth de E. Nathan (1), Elan, MU, p. 16.

As to the variant Jl" bu "rXI Vi? ]irN1 'jTl'i'i' see Blau, MU, p. 15. Of course
the presence of HDD instead of ^H, may be simply an oversight : the author having
still in his mind the word mDD, mentioned a few lines before, for Num. ix, 10.
100 Meaning and Purpose of the

Deuteeonomy XXIX, 28.

mir^v*? nb)v "iv iJ^Ji'^i ^JV n*?::.!! ^:^'^^N n)n^b n-inoin

119. The whole verse seems to be an interpolation, and F.

Hummelaiier ^
was introduced only by the final
admits that it

editor, to take the place of a whole anecdote which he did not

care to narrate. Whatever may be said of that supposition, it

is evident that the dots were not appended to indicate the inter-

polation of the Avhole verse, and that the verse was accepted as
genuine when the Nequdoth were placed. Apart from this fact,
there does not seem to exist anything critically doubtful, though
the exegesis of the verse varies considerably according to authors.
The only trace of divergent readings is the omission of im^N r^^V^^b

by Kenn. 109, which connects mriDjn with IJ^JD^I 1J^. It is to

be noted also, that the Ixx uses the second person instead of the
first, ' @e« vfxwv,'' ' <^avepa vjxlvj' '
Tetcvom vfioiv.^
Sanhedrin 43b, the oldest document with regard to the place of
the Nequdoth, places them over *iy "li^'JDVi ij'?". This has become
the general tradition in subsequent Jewish works. Thus, most
MSS. of Soferim,^ Aboth de R. Nathan (1), reproduced in Arukh
s. V. "IpJ, Leqach Tob (^ad locum) ^ Bemidbar Rabba thus also, ;

Rashi and the Tosafist on Sanhedrin 43b, Ba'al ha-Turim on

Dent, xxix, 28 ; thus finally, the Massoretic list on Xum. iii, 39,
and almost all mss. and editions The Massorah Parva in the
editions of Venice, 1524, 1548, 1617 f., and Basel, 1619 f. reads
simply '
niinZ} nmpJ '">,'
but Norzi, Michaelis, Ginsburg, have the
rubric milpJ N'V '• ^v
* H P^^iiits. Baer's Diqduqe ha-Te'amim
and Ochlah w'^Ochlah agree in pointing Ij; irji'?"! ij^. Others,
however, such as the Paris cod. of Soferim *
and some Biblical mss.,^

^Humraelauer, Comm. on DeuL, 483; cp. EB., 1901, 610; according to Hum-
melauer, it is " glossa et suspirium redactoris" (!).

'Muller, Soferim, 90.

^Ed. Padua, Deuteron., p. 101.
*Muller, Soferim, 90.
° Michaelis, Bibl. Hebr. , ad locum.
 —

Extraordinary Points of tJie Pentateuch. 101

omit the point on the 'Ay in of ly. Aboth de R. Nathan (2) places the
dots over n^;ijn"l, but this is certainly a mistake, and in the sub-

sequent explanations it refers to a tradition according to which

IV iJ'"'3D^i )2b should probably also be pointed, "np: iri< ^^n)
[j^^ynl (NH) IJ? X^N.' Sifre leaves the place of the Points
undertermined with regard to the exact letters ; this is also the
case in Leqach Tob (list), Midr. Mishle,^ and Diqduqe ha-Te'amim.
120. If we turn now to the explanations given of the points,
it is well nigh impossible to see how they could have been
suggested by the pointing of 'y 1J''J3'?T "i:^. As remarked above,
most scholars who hold the Nequdoth to have a critical value
make an exception for this passage and grant that here the
points are merely exegetical. Few, however, agree as to what
the exegetical peculiarity is. Besides, as is evident from the con-
clusion reached in a previous chapter, there is a strong presumption
against attributing to the dots such an exegetical import. Finally,
whatever may be made of the pointing of 1J"'3D^1 )2b, no satisfac-

tory reason has ever been adduced for the pointing of the Ayin '

in Ij;.^ Nor can it be said that originally the 'Ayin was not
pointed, for it is hard to see why
this letter should have been

added to 1J''J37l Ua There cannot have been an influence from

the early explanations, which, as far as we know, do not take the
'Ayin into consideration. more probable that, as the
It is far

reason for its being pointed was not known, it was left out by
some of the subsequent works. We are therefore led to assume
at least as a hypothesis to be verified — that there has been some
confusion on this passage.
121. —reproduced
Sifre, in Leqach Tob (list), Yalqut,^ and
Bemidbar Rabba, — tells us that points have been placed, because,
says the Lord, " when you shall have fulfilled the things that are
revealed I will also make known to you the things that are
concealed." Hence we conclude that mriDjn as well as D^^Jn
will belong to us if we fulfil what has already been revealed to
us. Let us first investigate the import of the condition that

^The editor has added ir^D^I Ijb ^^ "ilpl

^ See V. g. Bashi on Sanh. 43b ; Ba'al ha-Turim, on Deut. xxix, 28.
3
§ 722.
 :

102 Meaning and Purpose of the

is set for the possession of mnojn. This condition seems to

be nothing else but the second half of the Biblical verse
" . . . . n3"I '?D nx r^W^ " ; S with the infin. est. that follows,
is taken as representing the cause for the preceding clause (cp.
Gen. iii, 22; xxxiv, 7, 15; Ex. xxiii, 2; 1 Sam. xii, 17; xiv,
33, etc.). So that Sifre apparently translates mifj?^ as 'by-

fulfilling,' or 'in that you shall have fulfilled.' Again, "''I'pin

of Sifre refers to nWH nimn nDT ^D HN (Dent, xxix, 28) for,

although both the Biblical Th^T[ and the D''1^jn of Sifre are
equivalent to HTH *lDDD D^^HDH .... ^3"! ^D HN of Deut. xxviii,

58 (cp. XXX, 11-14), still, it is probable that Sifre does not intend
to replace the Biblical n^Jjn by ''l^in, which it has itself; if

such had been its intention, would have used D^^jH instead
it

of D"'"l'?)in, as it does for mriDjn. The reason, therefore, for

which we shall possess niriDJn, is according to Sifre the
" nxin nmnn nD"i ^d nx m^y'? " of that verse.
122. The second half of the catchword of Sifre, and the most
important for us, viz. 'I will also make known to you the things
that are concealed' clearly indicates that the niriDjn as well as
the n^ijn will belong to us and our children. If so, we should
refer niriDJn U^ and leave out the two divine names
to I^JD^I

IJTl'^N mn"'^. In that case, it is true, we would expect Sifre to

tell us, 'the concealed things belong to us and not to Yahweh our
God ' instead of ' I will also make known to you,' etc., but such

an expression, apart from the fact that strictly speaking it would

not be correct, as our knowledge of revealed things does not
exclude but supposes the divine science, would have seemed
derogatory to the dignity of God. Consequently, while the idea
was preserved, it was framed in terms more respectful to the
Divinity. The Nequdoth would thus fall on 1J\"l'?X ri\TXh and not
on 'J7 1^32^1 13^. This was already the view of Rashi and of the
Tosafist, on Sanh. 43b. The latter besides, gives us what may be
considered the true reason for the pointing of ' Ayin in "ly along
with irJ3^1 ^^, viz., in order to make up eleven points, corres-
ponding to the eleven letters of 1J\"1^X \'y\rch.

By leaving aside IJTl^N mn''^, we understand at once the catch-

word of Sifre ; with it we may translate the Biblical verse, ' the
 Extraordinary Points of the Pentateuch. 103

hidden as well as the revealed things will belong to us and to our

children for ever, if we fulfil (by our having fulfilled) all the
contents of this Law '
; hence the catchword '
when you shall have
fulfilled the things that are revealed, I will also make known to you
the things that are concealed.'
123. The reason why 1J"'Jd'?1 ):h has been chosen to replace
l:\1^N n)ivb, is probably due to the fact that, as i:j''J2'?* ):h is
lo take the place of "im^N r\)r\^b iu interpretation, they should
also be substituted for them in receiving the points. It is possible,
however, as Rashi tells us,^ and as is the case in Kenn. 109, that
13"^JD^1 )2b should actually be transposed before n^JJil ; thus the
Nequdoth, while primarily cancelling im'pN rViJVb, would also
remind the student that "1J''Jd'?"I u'? was not in its proper place.
In both cases, the ' Ayln has been added only to make up the
required number of points, viz., eleven.
124. As to Sanhedrin, 43b,^ we simply confess our inability
to grasp the exact bearing of the explanations it gives of the
Nequdoth. The sense of the passage is not clear.^ Probably, it

is meant that, had there not been points, we should have to say
that God did not punish Israel on account of the secret sins of the
individual, not only before, but also after, the Israelites had crossed
the Jordan. The points modify the passage so that the Israelites
were not responsible for such sins before they had crossed the
Jordan, but henceforth, they were made responsible and would be
punished unless they should avert divine wrath by punishing such
sins themselves. From this we can infer that as soon as the
Israelites were in the promised land and the contents of the verse
in question became binding on them, the mPDJil, here under-
stood as '
hidden sins,' should not be reserved to God but should
be the concern of Israel, '
1^33^1 ^h.' The words im^N* HI.t'?
are virtually non-existent, were not written by the sacred writer,

and the Points stigmatize them ; the clause ' after they had
crossed the Jordan ' is simply a means to rivet attention, and

1 On Sanh. 43b.
^See Arukh, s. v. "IpJ.

'Cp. Eashi, ad locum ; Levy, Neuhebr. WtbcL, in, 435 ;

Bacher, Agad. d. Tann.,
II, 241 ; Blau, 3IU, 57 f, ; see besides, the context in Sanhedr.
104 Meaning and Purpose of the

morally represents the time of composition of Deuteronomy, since,

as soon as this law became obligatory, irn?^ HTI"'? had to be

left out. Before the Israelites had crossed the Jordan, i. e., before
the promulgation of this law, such responsibility for sins that
could not be seen, was not to be assumed, and consequently, it was
maintained that niDDjn had belonged to God exclusively, and
that Israel was not responsible.
The explanations of Sanhedrin are preserved in Leqach Tob
[ad locum), which besides, adds that the pointed words "l^JD?! "IJ?

^
are annulled, " n:^h? )b^D Dmpj."
125, Aboth de R. Nathan (2), although pointing n^i:m (read

'V )y22b) 'i^h), seems to take only a'piy ly into consideration ;

besides, it has nothing but Midrashic speculations which are found

nowhere else, and which apparently have no reference to the

Points. It is interesting to note, however, that in connection with

the explanations of the Nequdoth, the document in question
reproduces the passage relative to the suspended Nun of rw 12,

Jud. xviii, 30, and would, therefore, seem to attribute to the dots

the same fiinction as the suspension of the Nun, i. e. the value of

a dele.^ It is probable, however, that the editor of Aboth de R.
Nathan (2) has been guided simply by the expression NH^ ITlJ??,
which is found in reference to the suspended Nun, and occurs also
in its own explanation of the Points.
126. A different interpretation given of Sifre, etc., by Mayer
Lambert,^ is substantially as follows. According to the present

Biblical verse it would seem that the concealed things belong to

God for ever '

'd7^V 1V/ as the revealed things belong to us for
ever. Sifre tells us that at some future date, viz., when we shall
have performed the revealed things, God will give up the exclusive
possession of the n"inDJn ; hence, Sifre implies that these DiriDJ
do not belong to God for ever and consequently rh)V "IP should be
left out. In the same way, in Sanh. 43b., we are told that ub^V "IV
* for ever is suppressed with regard to the period anterior to the
'

crossing of the Jordan ; until then, according to R. Juda, the secret

^ Cp. Ibn Ezra, on Deut. xxix, 28.

•^Cp. Blau, MU, 46 ff.; Ginsburg, Introd., 334 f .
; Konigsberger, 3IuTK, 59 S.
^ Les Points Extraordinaires, REJ, xxx, 116-118.
 ;:

Extraordinary Points of the Pentateuch. 105

sins, and according to R. Nehemiah, even the manifest sins, had

not been punished ; accordingly, D^lj; ij; should be cancelled.
How did it happen that 'y "irjn'pT 1J^ was pointed instead of
X:b^Vly? Probably from the misapprehension of a rubric,
'mpJ 'V "IV = iubWV iy, understood as it is pointed as far as
'
'

the'^ym' — lipj []^]j; lj?.

127. This is certainly a very tempting hypothesis; still, it

has much against it. It is not clear why two words, and not one
or three, should have been selected to justify the rubric 'HIpJ j'^y "ly.'

Neither is it clear, why in many mss. the Massorah parva men-

tions explicitly the number of the points, ' eleven,' ^
unless there
was a reason to do so, which reason hardly exists, if we suppose
that ']} 1J''337l 1J7 was pointed in good faith, although wrongly.
Again in the Biblical verse, cb^V "IV primarily refers to n'pijn
it would be surprising, that in the early documents, this word is

not taken into consideration, and that the opposition is made

between r\)jvb FT'.nDJn and ):h minDJn if the hypothesis of ;

Lambert were riglit we would rather expect some such catchword

as :
'
there are points because the revealed things do not belong to
us for ever.'
Finally, we do not see why the crossing of the Jordan would
have been selected by Sanhedrin as the time when the niriDJil
will become our concern, 1J''2D^1 1J^. We, therefore, prefer the view
explained above, according to which irn7N r^^iV? should be
cancelled,
128. We have now to examine the clause found in Aboth de R.
Nathan (1 and 2) and also in Bemidbar Rabba at the end of their
respective lists. In Aboth de R. Nathan (1) it reads as follows

]rvbv 'mpj -12D ^b ^jx ioin ip n^nD hd ^jdd ^b ion^t ih^^n

rj.T^ya mip: -])2V^ HDHD nB^ '^b lOlX CNI" Whether this

clause refers to the ten dotted passages of the Pentateuch, or should

be restricted to Deut. xxix, 28, is still matter of discussion.^

1 See above, § 119.

2 Blau, 3IU, 7f.; Ginsburg, Introd., 320 ; Konig., EM., p. 32, n, 1 ; these three
scholars extend the clause to all the pointed passages. Konigsberger, MuTK, p.

27, restricts it to the verse under consideration.

106 Meaning and Purpose of the

Aboth de R. Nathan (2), though possibly applying it to all the

passages,more probably refers only to Deuteronomy when it says,
' why are all these letters pointed ? ' This is better understood of
the eleven letters of that passage, than of the letters of all the other
passages combined. Bemidbar Rabba more probably restricts the

clause to Deut., for, although it is not probable that the abbrevia-

tion N"i1 means 'and eleven,' — the eleven letters of 1J^•^'?^< mn"'^,^
— still, it does seem that we have to deal with an alternative
explanation of the Points, for this passage is similar to other
occurrences in the same document, where such alternative catch-
words are given. Aboth de R. Nathan (1), as it stands and as it

is quoted in Arukh,^ evidently restricts this clause to Deuteronomy,

for it has a special explanation for every pointed passage, and it

would have none for this one, unless it applies the above clause to
it. Besides, the very wording of this first recension w^ould leave
but little doubt as to the intention of its author to limit the ex-
planation to this passage; it says: "1J''J2^"1 ^^7 and the '^2/m of
iy are pointed, why ? But thus says Ezra," etc. ; it is clear
that the explanation given, forms an answer to the question ' why
have these letters been pointed ? ' It is, however, the opinion of
Schechter ^ and Blau ^ that here, there is an omission w^hich is to
be supplied from the second recension. Still the omission, if

omission there be, is very old, as our present reading is found in

Arukh. It is to be noted besides, that in the passage relative to

the Points, Aboth de R. Nathan (1) is generally free from such

strongly speculative explanations, as are found in the second
recension on Deuter. xxix, 28. In any case, even if we grant the
omission of a whole clause, it would still remain doubtful whether
it should be understood of all the pointed passages or only of
Deuteronomy.
129. The obvious meaning of the words of Ezra is that the
Nequdoth mark these letters as critically doubtful. On the one
hand, since Elias can pronounce against them, they may be

^ Thus would Konigsberger, /. c, have it rendered.

^S. V. Ipl
^ Aboth de B. Nathan, p. 101, n. 29.
^MU, 8.
 ;

Extraordinary Points of (he Pentateuch. 107

spurious, and on the other, since the same Elias can approve of
their having been written, they may be genuine, in which hitter
case, Ezra would remove the points. Therefore, these letters are
doubtful, and Ezra himself cannot pronounce on their spurious-
ness or their genuineness. The by Kouig,
interpretation given
who, on the strength of makes the points express a
this passage,

mere interrogation mark, hardly does justice to the words of Ezra

for, if such an authority as Elias is needed to solve the difficulty, there

must have been more than a slight suspicion with regard to their
genuineness. Besides, if Elias blames Ezra for having written
them, Ezra has an answer ready, viz., that he has already marked
them with points, and this is almost the same as not having written
them at all.
However, if this clause be restricted to Deuteronomy, it is
permissible to see in it a means to avoid pronouncing the two
divine names spurious, although they might have been considered
as positively interpolated. The responsibility was left to Elias to
reject or retain "1J\"|^N iTiivb, and if he chose to keep these words,

then it rested with him to sanction them and give them the true
sacredness which they had hitherto lacked.
 ;

108 Meaning and Purpose of the

CONCLUSION.

130. Before examiniug the various theories in detail, let us

call the reader's attention to a few facts, which, we think, must be
admitted regardless of the opinions that one may hold.

(1.) As shown in the preceding pages, the Extraordinary

Points bear only on single words and letters ; consequently,
whether they mark a special exegesis or a striking feature of the
text, whether they express discrepancies between mss. or critical

doubts, or whether they condemn some elements, it is certain that

for many other striking features, discrepancies, doubts, or words

and letters to be condemned, but bearing on longer Biblical clauses,
the dots have not been used.
(2.) Again, in almost all passages, we have seen that the Points
bear on words and letters which, though found in our present
textus receptus, were omitted in other recensions ; it therefore
follows that whatever be the import of the Nequdoth, it so

happened that other striking features, or critical judgments, were

not expressed by them.
(3.) It is also noteworthy that, although the primitive tradi-
tion with regard to the place of the Points has not always been
preserved, still, the later Jewish works have generally placed
them over letters or words not found in all mss. or recensions
and, as we may safely presume, the Rabbis must have been induced
thereto from the conviction that, owing to their function, the
Nequdoth would be better justified when placed on these other
letters or words.

A. The Theoey of Chance and Accident.

131. It is hardly necessary to insist on the unfounded char-

acter of the opinion of Richard Simon and others, who make the
Points the outcome of chance and accident. This view is altogether
too much a priori. It would be a wise chance indeed, that would
place the Points only on letters critically doubtful. Again, we are
 Extraordinary Points of the Pentateuch. 109

unable to see why occasionally only one letter is pointed, while in

other cases as many as eleven are so marked. This, if nothing
else, would make it certain that the view of Richard Simon is

untenable.

B. The Exegetical View.

132. We already rejected this view as incompatible with the

mental attitude of the Jews at the time when the Nequdoth
originated, and as unheard of in Palaeography.^ From the pre-
ceding analysis of the individual passages, it must be clear to the
reader that neither Textual Criticism, nor the catchwords of Sifre,
etc., will allow this hypothesis to stand. The catchwords of Sifre,
and in most cases, those of the other Jewish writings — after the

Haggadic amplifications have been removed can be justified only —

by leaving aside the dotted words or letters hence, it follows that;

not only no special exegesis is derived from the dotted letters, but
that on the contrary, in real exegesis they should not be inter-
preted at all ; this further supposes the Points to have been devised
to annul the elements over which they were placed, by throwing at
least a suspicion on their genuineness.
133. Besides, Textual Criticism shows that, in almost all

cases, the Points have been placed on words or letters regarding

which the various recensions disagreed. In view of these facts,

could it be seriously maintained that out of the many passages on

which a special exegesis might have been based, the Rabbis marked
with points only those words or letters which were not universally
acknowledged to be genuine? It is true that Haggadic specula-
tions were often based on letters considered as superfluous, but a
superfluous letter, in so far as was made the basis for a special
it

interpretation, is not at all synonymous with a letter critically

doubtful or spurious. Furthermore, as the Points form an official
feature of the text, the supposed exegesis would seem to have been
officially connected with that text, and this still more increases the
improbability that such doubtful letters should have been chosen

^Cp. above, §§ 42-55.

110 Meaning and Purpose of the

for an exegetical purpose. Again, from the viewpoint of the

Rabbis, this special meaning was intended by God, and it is but
reasonable to suppose that they must have felt rather sure of
the divine origin and genuineness of the textual elements from
which they derived such views. If the exegetical theory were true,
they would have done just the reverse.
134. We hardly lessen the difiiculty by saying that occasion-
ally Textual Criticism does not throw suspicion over the words
originally pointed, v. g., Gen, xix, 33 and Deut. xxix, 28. When
using Textual Criticism, we never claimed that in the present state
of our knowledge, we should necessarily and in all cases find dis-
crepancies among Mss. or recensions. Sifre, on Gen. xix, 33,
whatever may have been the reason for rejecting niOlpSI, clearly
indicates that this word should be cancelled. As to Deuteronomy
xxix, 28, apart from the fact that one MS. does not reproduce the
pointed words, it may be asked, why did not the Jews place the
Points over the two divine names ? Since they felt no scruple in
putting the vowel-points on these names, why should they have
refrained from marking them with dots, if dots had simply ex-
pressed a special interpretation, or — a remark which goes against
Konigsberger — called attention to the unusual presence of these
words ? If we admit that the Points have the value of a dele, or
at least express a strong doubt as to genuineness, all is explained
naturally. We know that it was forbidden to erase any of the
divine names, even when written wrongly ;
^
the same idea
of reverence that prompted the Jews not to remove the divine
names even in such cases, induced them also not to place upon
them the dots, which were the equivalent of an erasure. In any
case, the reluctance to point the divine names indicates much more

than a mere exegetical peculiarity.

We feel therefore compelled to reject this Exegetical theory
as not giving us the true purpose for which the Nequdoth were
appended.

^Makkoth, 22a ; Shebu'oth, 35 a and b ; Soferim, iv, 1, etc. Cp.Waehner, Ant.

Ebrceor., Sect. I, § 362, vol. i, pp. 198 f.; Blau, Alth. Buchw., 165 f.; Muller,
Soferim, 58 ff.
 Extraordinary Points of (he Peniateuch. Ill

C. Theory of Italics.

135. The reader doubtless remembers that Konigsberger re-

jects both Textual Criticism aud the Jewish writiugs as means of
determining the purpose of the Nequdoth} This is undoubtedly
very significant, and he himself grants that his theory cannot claim
the support of either. In fact, from what precedes, there is very
little doubt that his system is incorrect. The very existence of
recensions not having the dotted words or letters, would alone
make it probable that the Points are in .some way connected with
these discrepancies ; and if we would still maintain that the dots
indicate that the elements over which they were placed were to be
retained, it should not be said with Konigsberger that it was done
in contradistinction to other parallel passages, but rather in oppo-
sition to some Mss. or recensions, which left them outwe ; thus
would fall into the theory that makes the Points mark discrepan-
cies between mss.
136. Besides, K5nigsberger supposes a work of comparison to
have taken place between the various parallel passages a work —
which we ourselves advocate. But how would he account for the
fact, that among all the discrepancies between parallel passages,
those only which had letters or words not found in the others have
been indicated by Points.
137. Furthermore, even if this difficulty were answered, we
should have still to account for the restricted number of the
Extraordinary Points. It is hardly credible that the Jews while
comparing the various parallel passages, should have found only
those ten passages worthy of attention. In Genesis alone, there
are numerous passages in which the same word is spelled differ-
ently. Why have not the Jews called attention to them also?
Again, it might be asked, why are the dots placed over, v. g.,

the jnil'V of Num. xxix, 15, and not over the ]rwv of verse 10;
over vh^ of Gen. xviii, 9, and not over that of Gen. xix, 21 ;
over ]"inN1 of Num. iii, 39, rather than over the same word in iv, 34,
and so on ? If the author of the dots had in view only to safe-

1
See above, §§18, 19.
112 Meaning and Purpose of the

guard the uuusual presence of certain letters in certain words, he

should have also pointed the other passages which exhibit the same
unusual character, and where apparently there was the same danger
of making a mistake. This argument would retain all its force,

if instead of making the Points express a striking feature of one

passage when put in comparison with a parallel one, Ave would
base the underscoring of words and letters on discrepancies between
MSS. Kdnigsberger, it is true, argues that the dotted letters give

a less regular reading and, consequently, should be retained ; but

this changes the question concerning the meaning of the Nequdoth,
into one of pure Textual Criticism. For, even if the dotted letters
were critically correct, it would not follow that the dots were not
invented to answer a critical preoccupation ; the author of the
Points, owing to the unexpected presence of these letters or for
some other reason, might still, although wrongly, have thus marked
them doubtful or spurious.
138. We have seen besides, that the early Jewish tradition,
as embodied in Sifre, far from emphasizing the genuineness of the
dotted letters, implies that they should be left out. Sifre, as it is

nearer and apparently more conformable to the primitive tradition

than the Massorah proper, cannot be discarded. Were it true
that, as Konigsberger seems to assume, the Massorah never con-
demned any textual elements, it would still remain to be proved
that in pre-Massoretic times the same method was always followed.
Let the reader remember besides, what we have already stated,
viz., that the differences existing between the older Jewish works

and the Massorah, are not to be accounted for by the existence of

two independent and parallel traditions, one Midrashic, the other
Massoretic, and both having a different scope ; they should rather
be explained by the different stages of one and the same tra-
dition, which at one time was misunderstood or became con-
fused.^ We may add that, as the Massorah does not hint even
once at the supposed striking feature to which the Points refer,

Konigsberger' s explanations, concerning the reason for placing the

Points, seem to be a mere substitution of his own theoretical con-

ceptions for those of the Jewish writings.

^ See above, § 19.

 Extraordinary Points of the Pentateuch. llS

It seems to us therefore to be beyond all doubt that the theory

of Italics does uot correspond to the primitive meaning of the
Nequdoth.

D. Critical Theoeies.

139. Were we to judge of the respective values of the various

critical theories simply from the results of Textual Criticism, it

would seem that all these theories sufficiently harmonize with its

data. Since, in almost all cases, we have detected traces of recen-

sions in which the dotted elements were not found, it is quite natu-
ral to conclude that the Nequdoth either call attention to the
existence of discrepancies between mss., or that, in view of such
divergencies, doubts having arisen as to the genuineness of these
words and letters, the Points express this doubt ; or finally, that,
on the strength of the other recensions, these words and letters

having been condemned as spurious, the Extraordinary Points

served to mark graphically such a condemnation, which last import
they have in contemporary Palaeography.
Let us, however, examine those theories a little more closely,
for we think that it is yet possible, even from the data of Textual
Criticism alone, to come to a conclusion less vague and general.
140. As we said above, the Points are used only when recen-
sions disagreed as to the presence or absence of some words or
letters and not for other discrepancies ; if these Points had
expressed discrepancies as such, it is hardly conceivable that they
would not have been used for other differences besides those that
they actually mark. In the same way, if they had been used to
express a doubt, we could hardly account for the fact that they
express only those doubts that arose from the presence of certain
textual elements, and not other doubts as well. Still less can we
account for this state of aifairs, if, with Konig, we tone down the
doubt to a mere interrogation mark ; for, in that case, there must
have been many other passages against which, for some reason or
other, such suspicions could have been entertained.
141. Moreover, while comparing the various recensions, the
author of the Points must have met with many other instances.
114 Meaning and Purpose of the

besides the few pointed, in which his own copies had letters or

words lacking in some of these other recensions. If then, by

appending the Points, the Jews simply intended to mark discrep-
ancies between mss., or to express their own subjective doubts, why
have only those passages been pointed ? We have seen, for instance,
that there were several recensions with regard to the plene or
defective forms of ITlII'VI, and that this word was occasionally
written but once in places where it is written twice in our Mas-
soretic text ; why have they pointed only one, viz.. Num. xxix,
15? From two considerations, based on the small number
these
of the Nequdoth, it follows that those theories which make them
express a vague and easily detected peculiarity have the less
chance of giving us their true purpose. Thus, the theory main-
taining that the Points merely mark discrepancies between mss.
and recensions, is not as probable as the one which adds to this
the idea of a suspicion entertained against the genuineness of the
Massoretic readings ; and this last theory is again less probable

than the one which would extend the suspicion into a positive
doubt. More probable than any of the preceding, is the theory
that makes the Nequdoth conventional signs for cancelling words
and letters that were considered spurious. The author of the
Points may have noticed many discrepancies between mss., may
have entertained many suspicions or even positive doubts as to
the genuineness of certain letters and words, and yet, he would not
reject these words or letters, unless impelled by stronger motives.
Only in those ten passages, were the grounds considered strong
enough to allow such a decisive stand to be taken against our

present Massoretic readings. Finally, we cannot lay too much

stress ou the fact that the ancient Rabbis must have been strongly
convinced of the cancelling value of the Points, when they
departed from the original tradition with regard to their place, in
order to place them on letters which, as has been shown, they could
more clearly consider as spurious.
142. This conclusion, arrived at from the date of Textual
Criticism, is fully borne out by the explanations of Sifre. In view
of the decisive stand it takes against the dotted letters, it is not
probable that the Nequdoth simply call attention to the existence
 Extraordinary Points of the Fentateiich. 115

of discrepancies between mss., although we may grant that these

divergencies may have been the cause of the rejection of the pointed
letters. In the same way, the claim that the Points simply cor-
respond to a mere interrogation mark hardly does justice to the
catchwords of Sifre. Nor would it avail anything in favor of this
last view, to argue, as Konig does, from the disagreement that
seems to exist among the Rabbis with regard to the pui'pose of the
Extraordinary Points, and from this to conclude that nothing
definite was known about them. In many cases, these supposed
dissensions are only apparent and are due to the fact that while
the idea implied was the same, the explanations were diiferent,

V. g., Num. ix, 10; xxi, 30; xxix, 15; Deuteron. xxix, 28. In
other cases, we have been able to distinguish the older tradition,
where no such hesitancy is found, from the later Midrashic ampli-
fications, and although the meaning of the Points may have become
confused in the latter, it would not be fair to reject the former on
that account. There are, it is true, two cases, where even in Sifre

there seems to have existed a discrepancy among the Rabbis, viz..

Gen. xvi, 5 and Gen. xxxiii, 4 ; but, as we have explained, the
controversy does not refer to the meaning of the Points but to
their right to existence. The dots are not the outcome of discus-
sions as to whether or not a word was genuine, in the sense that
they would mark the impossibility for the Rabbis to reach an
agreement ; consequently, they do not call attention to the uncer-
tainty of the word as such. On the contrary, the presence of the
Points on these letters was the occasion and cause of such sporadic
disagreements, precisely because, being agreed on their import,
most Rabbis wanted to retain them and thus condemn the dotted
elements, while others pronounced the dotted letters genuine and
consequently wished to remove the Points.
143, The preceding considerations also disprove — at least to

a great extent — the theory that the Points express only a real and
serious doubt with regard to the genuineness of the dotted letters.
Apart from the questionable passage of Aboth de R. Nathan (1
and 2) and Bemidbar Rabba, at the end of their respective lists,*

1 See above, §§ 128 f.

116 Meaning and Purpose of the

very little could be adduced in favor of this view and against the
theory which makes the Points an equivalent of our dele. The
tone of Sifre is far too emphatic to allow us to stop short of a
positive condemnation. It never speaks hesitatingly, but clearly
asserts without restriction that such letters should be removed.^
Again, although it might be questioned whether Aboth de R.
Nathan (2) had a clear conception of the meaning of the Points,
still the use — at least mechanical —of the technical formula '
^ID"*/

in its explanation, is an indication that the dotted letters should

be left out ; for, this formula '
^"ID'',' very much like the scholastic
' dices '
or ' videtur quod 7ion,' is used only to introduce a clause or
an interpretation that the Rabbis wished to reject.^ Hence, if the
explanations made necessary by the presence of the dotted letters,

are positively rejected, we must needs conclude that these dotted

letters themselves are condemned.

There
only one theory left, viz., that the Nequdoth were
is

originallyand primarily intended to cancel. The only question

that might be asked, would be whether we should make an excep-
tion for Gen. xxxiii, 4, where a transposition is probably intended.
But as we have shown, even if the transposition be granted, it

would not follow that the Nequdoth indicate the transposition as

such ; they simply cancel the word in the place it occupies, but of
themselves, do not indicate whether or where it should be re-
inserted. Again, the claim of Blau and Ginsburg,^ that occasion-
ally the Points indicate the substitution of another reading for the
present Massoretic one, is not justified, at least with regard to the
official Nequdoth. The fact that in mss., dots are sometimes found
over letters replaced by others in other recensions, cannot be
adduced against this assertion ; as far as we know, in such pas-
sages, the variant is given in the margin, which is not the case
when the letter is to be omitted. It is, therefore, evident that the
Points simply cancel these letters of the text, and whether any-

' See Blau, 31 U, p. 8.

^ Bacher, Jiidische Schriftauslegung, '
p, 72,
3 Cp. above, § 9.
 Extraordinary Points of the Fentaieuch. 117

thing had to be inserted in their stead should be judged from

different sources.
As from Textual Criticism and the Jewish
this result, derived

Writings, also harmonizes with the mental attitude of the Jews

at the time when the Nequdoth originated,^ and with the palseo-
we may give as our final conclusion that
graphical use of dots,^
the Nequdoth or Extraordinary Points of the Pentateuch
were devised by their author or authors, to condemn, as
spurious, the words or letters over which they were placed.

iCp. above, §§ 42-44.

^Cp. above, §§ 45-55.
 APPENDIX.

The Jewish Testimonies on the Nequdoth.^

Genesis XVI, 5.
144.
1.—Sifre.2 hv N^N 1^ niaN i6w -j:^31 ^^''D 'n *tOC^^ 13 N^il^D

Thus Bemidbar Rabba iii, 13 ; most editions, however, read

Y:^21.
Thus also Leqach Tob (list),^ Y^:^D1 "iJ^D 'H 'BW^"
. . . .
" N^u; "lip: HD^.
2. —Aboth de R. Nathau (1st. Recension)* ^^^^l '•^''^ 'n tSlDli;''

3. —Aboth de R. Nathan (2d. Recension) ^

">m 'n ]2)BW^
nin ni:D n'^n i^ mox n^u; .t'^j; Tp:n Y''':"''3'i

4. —Midrash Mishle.^
-jiji^tt' I'v i^^Di ^:^D 'n L:iDtt'^ niinn nmp: itt^y ]j^:n ]on

t'yi nDi ^y mpon vnD^ ]d dn ,-!31d d^du; Dif ^i^n ,nnit<

^y ^itt'Ni no ,n^ip3 yair; .-nir^ ^^n idnd iitn b^ noNJir^ rinm
:n:n nmx bv rv^^^ f]n njn nmx
5. — Soferim, vi, 3.^ mp: ^^^^^^ ^^''
T^''^''
""^^^ "''' I^IDtt'''

^ In the following notes, we have noticed only the variants which are of some
importance, either with regard to the place of the Points or with regard to their
explanations. On these Jewish testimonies see above §§ 63 f.

*
§ 69. Ed. Friedmann, p. 18a.
' On Num. ix, 10. Ed. Padua, p. 194.
*Ch. XXXIV. Ed. Schechter, p. 100.
*Ch. XXXVII. Ed. Schechter, p. 97.
6 On Prov. xxvi, 24. Ed. Buber, p. 99.
''
Ed. Miiller, p. xii.

119
120 Appendix.

6. —Diqduqe ha-Teamim.^ y^)} ^DDH^ y:^n).

7. —Massorah Magna, on Num. iii, 39. ^
n^ "IDXm "]'^:^3"l

*ybv ""Don D.-n3K ^k

Genesis XVIII, 9.
145.
1. — Sifre. wv^v vnu; -jnu^x nnu; iTN* i^Vn nox^i d xiii^D

2. —Baba Metsi'a 87a (middle), reproduced in Midr. ha-

Gadol, ed. Schechter, col. 273. 1)p:i H'ob ^DV ^Dl DIU^D ^JD
:)bw x^JDDK3 DIN bi^^^-ii; px ']-n n-nn ma^*?* vte^ i^n bv

3. — Bereshith Rabba xlviii, 15 (17), reproduced in Leqacli

Tob (ad locum), p. 84 ; Yalqut, § 82, and partly in Mid. ha-
Gadol, col. 273.

lyin nnx mipjn bv n^n 2nD nuid nnxtt' d'D3 n'^tz'i "iqn ^mpj
n"np:niL' ]nd -mipan nx iL'in nnx snon ^y ro"i mip3 on^n nx
Dir^D Mmv Tn "-D.-nnN i^x <i-nipjn nx ir^nn nnx snDn ^y nnn

4. —Aboth de R. Nathan (1st. Recension). naN^I ^ [13 NiJI^D]

]npDDi ns ]^j;-i?ii? L-ia^a i^teirl T^N ,^y nip: -nnu; n^N i^'px

: nnnN
5. —Aboth de R. Nathan (2d. Recension). ^1D^ "inil'N mw H'^'N

^At the end of the Venice Bible, 1517 f. , app. O, fol. 'i recto.

" Ed. Baer and Strack, p. 46. pinxn nr Yj "ilp:) -^^21. Codex Baer repro-
duces Midrash Mishle with some variations.
"' bj?
3M. M. on Gen. xvi, 5, 'inD "^ bj? llpJ -prDI. Marginal note nipJ '21

"•In the Vat. MS. (119), '*'bx Pi? "llpi, see Rabbinowicz, Diqduqe Sofenm,
Part xiii, p. 260, n. 1. Midr. ha-Gadol, V^N br mpl
" Leqach Tob omits Tir:i . . .
'T'^N ;
Yalqut "Jil irX -it2h lipj rX.
6 Leqach Tob omits CmDX rX . . . H^T mipl
'LeqachTob '"""'N" Ti^rTO"!. The quotation of Midr. ha-Gadol begins only
with C^'D.
^ Leqach Tob, Yalqut, and Midr. ha-Gadol, add CmDX?.

^In the documents, the words between brackets have been inserted by the
editors, those between parenthesis are readings considered incorrect.
 Appendix. 121

ite^ iihw ^^31^3 mii^n ^dn^o ^^-ll:; ir^iX nni3x bw Cinvnol

6. — Bemidbar Rabba, l. c, mii^ <T« V^N 110X^1 nmiDTl

7. —Leqach Tob (list), I. c, ]^j;-iV lipj HD^ -ipwii TDIV n'^N

8. —Sekhel Tob ; ed. Buber, p. 26. li;'nx • ''l''''N ^j; "llpj •T'^X
nx nnx] mipjn bv n^n 2nD xii^a nnxii; mpa ^d niy^^N ]d
u;m"i
T^'N mpj is'DT -n-npjn E^nn nnx [snDn ^y hdt mip: dhdh
m ,mnx xim -iqxjii' fix'pDn nnx idij; 'm miyn ^nx^ cniDN ^d
n\y 1^ TiDXi nini Dm^x px n'^x r^x idx^t mti; '?yi v'py i^xii;

-m^p^n nx ^ni^ T^x ^v nip: "jd^d'? in^x nitt'

9. —Soferim, /. c, "iipj ^
(n^x) vx jni:;x nT;!; .Tx v^x nox^i
10. —Diqduqe ha-Te'amim, l. c, iTX xh^ IIQX''") ^V^X
11. — Massorah Magna, I. c, ]nii'X nill? .TX M"''?X

Genesis XIX, 33.

146.
1. — Sifre, I. c, bv l^pJ TM2)p2) HDDU'D V1^ X^l ID Xli^D
:j;-i^ HDipDi j;t x'? nDDirD im^ 'naipDi
2. —Nazir 23a, reproduced in Horayoth 10b; Arukli, s. v.,

V); Midr. ha-Gadol, col. 297.

HTDD biL> ^nj2)p2) I'^i bv "np:i na^ ^jin di id ''di^'-i diii^d xjn
mm "iXD HDV^D^ m^ mn ^xai yi^ nnipD 'pdx yT x^ hdd^du; nai^
:'^:i xian ^nii^^a^ ^y2\s x'? xjnnx x^jd^i nj^a xpc: mn
3. —Bereshith Rabba, li, 8 (10), llpj ')!) y^ ],T2X nx j^pifm
•yi^ naips yi^ x^ n2DW2]2; ni:i)p2) b'iv ^ xi bv

^ Schechter suggests the following correction : ."lDJ3n ,miJ?2^2 '."1'N 'bw^" H.b'S

- On this variant, see Miilier, Sofmm, p. 87.

^ Codex Baer and Cod. of St. Petersburg have i*?N ; see Baer and Strack, o. c.

p. 46.

*M. T. rbN.
^Yalqnt, V'^l bv "npl
•'Horayoth, r;?2"ip:u; V'*1 ; Midr. ha-Gadol, ri?21p2iy:,'^ V"l.
122 Appendix.

4. —Aboth de R. Nathan (1st. Recension), I. c, N^l ID KiJVD]

5. —Aboth de R. Nathan (2d. Recension), /. c, n'D'D'U^'D J?1^ X^l

.yT HDipsT n^DTi's HTViim -ti/^nn naipDi ^^nn n^ n^jwn^

6.—Bemidbar Rabba, I. c, HDip^l HDDU^D Vl^ N^l nmiDll

7.—Midrash Mishle, /. c, n» ''JCO ,ni2)p^) r\2JW2 V^^ i<^1

8. —Mid. Yelamdeuu, quoted in Arukh, s. v., )') and Yalqut,

§ 86.

HMU; HD^ mpJ Malpni HDipDI n^DU'D V"!^ N^l D^DD HD HNI

9.— Leqach Tob (list), l. c, yi^ n'? HDDir^DIi' HQ^ -XD'IpDI

:VT naipDT
10.—Leqach Tob (ad locum), p. 90, HDIpDI n:iDW2 J71^ N^l

HM «'?') ,u;^n-iir yT noipD ^3X vt n*? hdd^du; iia'?'? v^y mpj

1 1 .—Sckhel Tob, p. 40. inU^DIfD .TDN HN 2D^m mODH NDm

rd7W -|D 'pD n^^:u' hk^dod [TiDyn:^] y^n^ nmny nx^uim imnyD
:n'a^p2^ bv "i^p^ H^*? rnnnn ni2}p2 yTi xii^i yifn if^nnu; ly nauy^
12.— Zohar.^ I'NID HDipni n2Dl2;2 y"1^ n"?! D^HD {^D^onpD ^TH XQ
]^Dn Ni3iy NinnD n^n^x nin x^^yi xyi^oi ]^iD rxi 'py -npji

-.rxn XDH n^'priTi^x I'D ]^:di .tjd xpcj'? nn^wD xd^d

»MSS. of Epstein and of Oxford, -)2ipD1 ri):KDi:' VN"1 b'J ;

see Schechter, 100,

n. 22.

*MS. of Halberstamm, "i:>'\ r.232?D2? n)2lb nTSipD bv lip J ; see Schechter, p. 97,

n. 19.
» Yalqut omits one "riip^l.
* Yalqut omits "JD'Cb to the end of the quotation.
'"
Quoted in Mlnchalh Shai, ad locum.
 Appendix. 123

13.— Soferim, /. c, OlpJ HDipDtt' INI HiDipm H^DTTD yT N*?!

14. —Diqduqe ha-Te'amim, ;. c, ],TDN nx I^TI'm '-HDlp^l

15. — Massorah Magna, L c, NOIp D.TDK DN ]^p::/m ^^a^pD^

(^enms XXXIII, 4.

147.
1.— Sifre, /. c, p ]i;"\ 1D^ ^DD ipifj N^iz; inp^^i n NJilO
nmN3 i^am ddh: n^n Dpy*? n:tiz; iiyyu; vn^D ^^D'?^ noix '•ni''

2. —Bereshith Rabba, Ixxviii, 9 (12), reproduced in Shir ha-

Shirim Rabba, vii, 8 ; Yalqut, § 133 ; Sekhel Tob, p. 178.

^2^^ n-np:n ohdh nx ^"in nnx n-np:n hv nni dhdh Naia

n-iip:n bv hdi ddd n^ ]nd -mipjn nx u^nn nnx 'dddh bv

ND n'?^ id'?d x^x v^v lip: nD*? ]d dx ^xt 'i ^x od*? to ipu^:!

:'iJi ^:;''iy ^u; ij'^nx Dpr ^^ nxiii n^yji )Du;:b x^x ipu;:^

3. — Aboth de R. Nathan (1st. Recension), l.c ., Iil^y r>T1 "13 XJiT'D

x'?Ti' HD^a mp: i^id m'pu^^i mxiij ^y ^id^i inp^n^i inxip^

]3^x I'^oi nax bii; it np^u;j naix iiy^x p ])v^iv ""d-i • naxD )pw:
:nDX^
4. —Aboth de R. Nathan (2d. Recension), l. c, nxi2f bv ^ID"'")

p ]'^v^^ ^31 -HDnx ^tt' np''u;: nmiit; ^id"" -np: Tn'p'iy"''!

no yin iM nxjiz; ^it' nbr\D2 wv bw VTVvn bD x^m idix niy^x
:n3nx ^u^ xMii;

> Ed. Baer rn*D2 bs? n?:ip2 "?*:? V'1 by -np], with the explanations of Sifre in
Cod. Baer.
2 M. T. n?2ipDi. M. P. "1 br ^1pl
'Yalqut, Nbm.
* Sekhel Tob adds, p'ip^i'i .msip: xbx niii:: p'xr .niD\1 ].11S ]^D Xini!?
: nD\-iDn nrmx ^:lJ c^' nTnp:i pbn

5 Shir ha-Shirim omits n?2b:: .... 'iin:>2'2}.

Yalqut and Sekhel Tob read 'D? ?DD

" lpil?2 nb'Z ; see other variants in Sekhel
Tob and Yalqut, //. cc.
124 Appendix.

5.— Bemidbar Rabba, I c, ^hw bv ^^hv "npJ ^npii;^1 nniDIl

:^2b to ^plr:

6._Midrash Mishle, /. c, "npj 1D3^1 ^r\pll;^) mS'liJ hv b)^^1

7. —Midr. Tanchuma/ reproduced in Midrash ha-Gadol, col. 516.

mw b^v nx^ii nwv:^^ ^Dw:b wv ^p2 inpDn^i insnp^ iii^y p^i
:'iji iDD^i -nDJ^ ^Tf 'p^irj nmi k^u; Tnpii^'^i i^p: ipb

8. —Leqach Tob (list), /. c, ^D^ OD^ te IpIil^J n'?!!' )n'pw^)

mpj -]D^ 13^ te ipw:^ nvvj nniND "id^x \ym^ p ]ij;Diir
9.— Leqach Tob («(? locum), p. 171. inp^n"*! IDNnp^ WV p^l
x'pK ipi:?:^ ii^p3 ^bw na'^a \sr -i'n o^^y mpj 'Tn'p'ii;'^'!

10. —Zohar, iu Biixtorf, Tiberias, p. 176, ^^j;^ ,T^V mp: ^npiy^T

ll._Soferim, /. e., Iipj I^D inpU'^l TlN^ii bv b^€)^^

12.—Diqduqe ha-Teamim, I. c., 'inxnp^ WV p^l Onp^^l

13. —Massorah Magna, I. c., nnsnp^ WV p^T ^Onp^r^l

Genesis XXXYII, 12.

148.
l._Sifre, I c, "n.T^X ]N!i nx T)}V'h l^nx ID^^T id NIJI^D

:n'!2)iv nx m:;"i^ t<^x id'?.! n^^ 'v^y mp:

2. — Bereshith Rabba, Ixxxiv, 13 (12); also found with few
differences in Leqach Tob (list), /. c. : Leqach Tob {ad locum), p.

188 ; Sekhel Tob, p. 217 ; Yalqut, § 141 ; Midr. ha-Gadol,

col. 561. )Dbn iib'd; ij^'h nx bv "np:! • "^ii n^j n^vb vnx o^^*

lEd. Frankf. a. O., fol. 12 c.

^ Ed. Baer (the words between brackets are found only in Cod. Baer)

»M. T. inp'yi-^l

* Yalqut omits Cn'DN.

^Yalqut has DN ^J.
«Leqach Tob, ud locum, adds, an^2N' |N^ "^I^N^I ;
Midr. lia-Gadol and Cod.
Baer of Diqduqe ha-Te'amira add, H^MrSI rib^DX2 ;
Bekhel Tob adds, C^^-'D
 Appendix. 125

3. —
Aboth de R. Nathan (1st, Recension), c, also found in l.

Bemidbar Rabba. a.T^N ]Nli n'N n^V^h VHN D/^T D XJiTiD

^dn'? n^k id'^h ]Niin mj;-!^ n^^ hd'pd 'n'N ^y iipj ddttd

4. —Aboth de R. Nathan (2d. Recension), l. c, ]Ni{ 'n'N mxi^

D^L:mi:^i 1i n: ^noN^ D^yno vn d.T3n ]Ni{ nx '?id'' ddit^d d.T3n
nmN
5. —Midr. Mishle, l. c.

N^^ no^a o^^V mpj nN- ddii^sd.t^n ]NJi nN niN-i^ i^nx n^^i
r\v^2QN na I'p nn^i nm %mnu;^i ^idn^ n^n ,mv"i^ ^^hr\
nmn no'?nb id'ph dn ,d^ij;^ n^no nna N5i^ mntf^i ^idn^ id^h^
:naDT naD nnx bv

6.—Soferim, /. c, lipj nN ,]Nii nN myi^ VHN D*?^!-

7. —Diqduqe ha-Tearaim, /. c, '' myi'? D^HN] (T'^N) D^^I • nN-

8. —Massorah Magna, /. c, D)V'h I^HN ID^^I •^nN»

Num. Ill, 39.

149.
1.— Sifre, I. c, ]-inN1 nii^Q ipD III^N D^lS"! ^"npD ^D D NU^D
:i^jan ]d ]-inN hm n^iz; ^T''?j; mp:
2.— Bekhoroth 4a., N^jm VpD"''? N^ ]^^J0 iniN2 HM N^IZ; jinNl
: • • • ]^^JD iniND HM N^Ti' D^iipDn ii;on3U' ]nnN ^y "iip: nn'?

3. —Aboth de R. Nathan (1st. Recension), /. c, also in Midr.

Mishle, /. c, bv "^pJ ]'inN1 nWD HpD ^W^ D^)bn mpD ^D 13 NliPD

4. —Aboth de R. Nathan (2d. Recension), l. c, D^)br\ mpC bj

:r\'\i^2 'Day pnN n\ntt' ^d^ ]'-i'n'N'i nii^o ipB "iii^n

^MS. of Oxford has '1""^ bv "lip: "?:'?.

^ Schechter suggests the correction, "j"l '^'IJ C'N^^^J.
^ What follows is reproduced in Cod. Baer of Diqduqe ha-Te'amim ; see Baer
and Strack, 0. c, p. 46.
* Codex Baer like Midr. ha-Gadol, see above.

= M. T. nN-

" Yalqut, ed. Warsaw, has pHS bp.

'In Schechter's MS., it is ITiN biJ? VNl bi? "lipj ~)2'p ; see Bemidbar Rabba.
* Schechter suggests to add 1CC!^D.
126 Appendix.

5. —Bemidbar Rabba, I. c, ]nnx"l nwi2 IpD "l^N U^)bn ^"IpC bj

6.— Leqach Tob (list), I. c, HM N^II' -ITHNI ntt'D "ipD 1U^«

7. —Leqach Tob (ad locum), ed. Padua, p. 168. '^"IpD ^D

nu/ncn n^nn iDinit; ""D^ mpj ]'nnN • pnxi nifa ipc -iitn ^i'?n

8.— Soferim, /. c, (jinx) ]nnxi HTi'a "ipc -iii'K n^i^-i ^"lIpD '^D

: lipj
9.— Diqduqe ha-Te'amim, l. e., n^pc ^D ^-jinXV

10. —Massorah Magna, /. c, D^l^n mpD ^D ^-innXV

Num. IX, 10.

150.
i._Sifre, /. c, -|-nD '^DN *N'nn ^v "np: r\p)n'\ -j-ns \v

2.— Mish. Pesachim, ix, 2, Dayman ]o npim 111 ^{^•^ IT ^N

pin-itt' ^JDD N*? ixDi'? 'n 'py npj jd^c'? ^di^ "i .t^ idx ^'in^i nmyn
: ^in*?! n-nyn nDipDNo t^'?^ '•nit

3.__Jer. Pesachim, ix, 2, .121 DDDH^ nyi:;3 D^QN ]JD~n

'^y

^y n2"i mipjn^ nyit^ni n-npjn n^ p'poai dddh n^s iz^m dn ni)p:n

y^W ^D ^y P^N ^21 "IDN DHDH HN p^DDl mipJH DN ^in HN DHDH

:npin"i "jTi pNi pinn it'^N mpj npiniD^ N'n

4._Tosefta Pesachim, viii, 3, IDI^ M ^y "lipj "]D^D^ ^D1^ '"1 IDN
tyin'?! miy ncipoxa n^n "•nii npimiz; ^jcd i6

1
The editions of Venice 1545, and Wilna 1887, have "inS that of Wilna 1896, ;

which we follow in the text, has ^"!~N finally, other editions, like Amsterdam,
;

1641 and 1725 have simply 'N, in an abbreviated form. Evidently, this abbrevia-
tion is responsible for the two readings "inS and 'p~N, for it can stand for both,
and was reconstructed in both ways.
^ Ed. Baer has, pHXI br nip: j-iriNI n^'?3

^M. T. pnxl
* At the end of the list, it has rbi? "irl
 Appendix. 127

5. —Aboth de R. Nathan (1st. Recension), I. c, in n XJiT'D

npim "]n nriM i^b^ nn^a npiniDu^ ^'n bv "i^^ np'im ']ii2
:y^^b) n-iiv ncyoN ]d n'?n

6. —Aboth de R. Nathan (2d, Recension), Z. c, "jllD li^

:nDnp n^n nrNu? v^j; Tpjn ^nii npim rvn^i; n'p'Tn'i

7. —
Bemidbar Rabba, /. c, lipj DD^ Hpini "jllD IX nmiDm
ncipDN ]D N^N npim -j^i .th ^hw la^a np^nn "rir n'^n bv
nw^v HM N*? nq:: Nim n2np "jn-12 '^cnu; n'^i -y^nb) niTyn
:nDDn nx nnoy
8. —Midrash Mishle, l. c, nnM iibw "10^0 -Hpim "j^HD IX
:^»in^i .-niyn ncipoxa x'?x [npini -^-n]
9.— Leqach Tob (list), I. c, rc.^'y imD I^^DK 'n ^V lipj -npini
•.niins nmpj (T^aa) inx mi
10. — Zohar, in Buxtorf, Tlbenas, p. 180, NT npini 'p']2 IX
:n^D nxinx*? ]"'''nx )nbj) xnmxi nmpj prxi .-nir^ya nn i.tx
11. — Soferim, l. c, lipj 'n npm ']'\12 IX-

12.— Diqduqe ha-Te'amim, /. c, ^Ipni "^IID IX npm

-
13. —Massorah Magna, /. c, 'npm "]T1D IX -npn"!-

iV^wm. XXI, 30.

151.
1.—Sifre, I. c, ^Dp: XDTD "IV '-li:;X ^HDU IV O^tt'JI OHD XiJI^D

: ]D HM ]^n^D F]xiz; ^
vbv
2. — Aboth do R. Nathan (1st. Recension), ^. c, D^II^JI ID XiilO

-id'?d r\^b I'tt'XDu; '\z;'n ^y "iipj xdtd ij; Tir^x nci: "iy

'MS. of Oxford, 'H ?i? "l^pj ; see Schechter, p. 101, n. 26.

2 Ed. Baer, like Aboth de R. Natlian (1).
»M. T. ripm.
*Yalqut, edit, of Fr. a. M. (1687) and Zolkiew (1858), has nV>: "!':>.
s
Yalqut, ed. of Fr. a. M. and Zolkiew, omits ND"i^?2 TJ 1UN ed. of Warsaw ;

omits SD-i^)2 "iV.

« Thus Yalqut ; ed. of Warsaw has '\t'ii bv "ilpJ.

'MS. of Oxford -i'JTi) '".

^'J nip:) ; Schechter, p. 101, n. 27.
128 Appendix.

3. —Aboth de R. Nathan (2d. Recension), l. c, Hj? "''i:;'yi

4. —Bemidbar Rabba, I. c, ^j; "npj "lll^N HDJ IJJ D^II^il nmiDII

5. —Midr. Mishle, l. c, vbv 1^3 -[N'^Ta 1J? "lU^S*] PDi: "iy D^iyjT

6. —Midrash ha-Gadol (ms.) quoted in Schechter, Aboth de R.

Nathan (1st. Recension), p. 101, n. 27, 1d'?D • • •
[lip J HD^]

7. — Leqach Tob (list), L c, :n\-| ]'?n'?D ^i^UJ -rai^Q "ly Ll'tl^N]

8. —Soferim, /. c, "IlpJ 'T Ij; Ttl^N HC: "ly WW})

9. —Diqduqe ha-Te'amim, /. c, ^13t< DTJI •
nU'X •

10. — Massorah Magna, /. c, ]}2Wn HDN DTOI O^I^X-

m<m. XXIX, 15.

152.
1. — Sifre, I. c, [hvl *]nii;v ^y nip: jnii'j; ']nii^y is xi^i^s

nn'pD HHN ]niz^j; ('py) n'pn hm n'pi:;

2. —Menachoth 87b, reproduced in Arukh. s. v., "IpJ; Yalqnt,

§ 782. ])'\wv b'lv ]^'^]uv v^^i^^^ T'l nip: r\i2b ^di^ 'n "las*

n'?! iBb ':i '?:i'2 n'? nna^ i<bti; :n bii; ]w^']r\ d^12 u)^ bfi^ ]w^-\
iw^^i i<b ^nip: a'm h^i<b d^w hw2
3. —Aboth de R. Nathan (1st. Recension), /, c, [13 KJiVD]
1'^iD ]"i-!U'y nip: noon :n bw ]i^N-in dijo d^i b^ ]"n^y ptyyi

4. — Aboth de R. Nathan (2d. Recension), I.e., ] 1'-i'li;'j; I^II^yi

i:^n:l; r'py n^pjn ii'ddi itdd 'py c^:nu;y ^jk; ]^v^ ^)nw ^id^
t^i'DD '?D bv inx s*^N ]iyio

' MS. of Halberstamra, in Schechter, p. 97, n. 24. "ir ir^Jin n"?*:; r'^i'' "IpJlT
: ^bsD -ly n"?! 1:1? rbr -or^ "P'? ^'^i*:^
^ Ed. Baer, nipJ ffi"^"„ l^'N. '
'

^Yalqnt, ed. Warsaw, IllUn.

* Yalqnt, ed. Frankf. a. M., omits 'Jl"l27r bi? "lipi ; edit. Warsaw reads bi? "lipJ

»In Schechter's ms., we have .... ITSb^ HDC ^i? "J"" b'^ "inN pi^:;? by lip: ;

see Bemidbar Kabba.

 Appendix. 129

5. —Bemidbar Rabba, I.e., llpj •nii'J/'n ]rwv \\'WV nmiDII

6. — Midrash Mishle, Z. c, []Wi^T(] {^Wn) ]rwv -jn^V X^'WV^

: nnx ]n;i;y x^x minify , ^w j^VlO hm n^^ no^o v^y "np:
7. —Leqach Tob (list), I c, HMX^X X^W la'?D 'I'mi^j; \\1WV
:]'nu'j?n nx jhd ma^ d^^d ^w wyan rvn x^i id'pd "inx ]i"iu;v

8. — Soferim, I. c, Mv")) jiti^xin to'i^D iHDty jnif^ jnu^y

9. —Diqduqe ha-Te'amim, I. c, :rn jn^I^yV^

10. —Massorali Magna, Z. c, :x:m ]V2Db y\'\'\W ]™j;V*

Deideron. XXIX, 28.

153.
1.—Sifre, c, I. ij^:d'?i ^:b r\)b::r\) ij\n^x 'n^ nnriDjn i3 xjiio
nx DD^ ymx ^:x ?]x d^i^jh nn^^y ^'x ^Tp: 'd^ij; ny
: nnnDjn
2. —Sanhedrin 43b, reproduced in Arukh s. v. "ipj, with slight
variations, bv ^^V ^hw "Id'pO IV^W ]'^y ^yi ):'^22b) ^^b bv "i^^ '"^^'^
rvon: "\ b'^ rr\^n^ i2n n^i ]iTn nx '?x"iii;^ nsyu; ij; nnno^n
x^ii> ii'D x'rx D^iy "ly laxj "idd x^m '?iv^ nnnojn bv ^^V ':3i
nx ^xn^^ TiDyu; "ly ^i^jdi:; j^irjij? bv ^'Jy x'? -jd nnnojn bv ^JV
: ]n-iM

S.^Aboth de R. Nathan (1st. Recension), I. c, reproduced in

Arukh, s. v. IpJ, with minor variations, 'n^ nnnOJH )2 X^IO
na^iysTi; 'y ^yi ly^jD^n'j^ ^y mpj i:'^j2^i T:'? m'?::).-!! mn'px
iDix "p n^nD na ^jdd ^'^ ^dx^i in^^x X2'' dx xniy "lox "id x^x
: j.T'pya nmpj inyx n^nD hd'' ^'? loix dxi ].T'?y ^mpj "i3d )b ^jx

'Thus, edit, of Venice, 1545; Amsterdam, 1641, 1725; Frankf. a. O., 1643;
Wilna, 1896. The editions of Lamberg, 1862 and Wilna, 1887, read: b*J Tlpi
n::'??: :5n bz' ]irNi b^ prxn ])'^m\ See above, § 117.
^Thus Cod. of Paris and edit. ; Codex Halberstamm omits V^").

Ed. Baer, :5m "jn^r ir.uri

3

/M. T. liTiZ?:?!.
5 Yalqut omits aVi:?.

6Yalqutaddsrby.
130 Appendix.

4. —Aboth de R. Nathan (2d. Recension), /. c, 'rh mnoin

iv N^N 11 p3 "ij^N N^ni D'piy 'w iJ^3D^i ^^^ n vy^'^'n'"! irn'?i<

^d7 x^N n\-iHE'o ]D N^m HM n^jD ]n ^2i hi^jd ]d diu;"i)

]iyatt^ ^D"i noN -n^jo iQD n^nj p^D^ nu^jo ^tf i^ii^yaD nu^y^

[no^] iDK^i i.T^x xiD"" « xn^y "lax "^d x^k i^^n ni^rnxn ^d ^y
nn^nD nc^ c^'?] (i^ idn'' dnt uvhv ^mpj 13d i^ ^jn iqin nnDDD
:]n^^j;a jn^nnip: p'pDD ^:nn nni«
5. —Bemidbar Rabba, I. c.

nax^i in^^K ND^ Dx xmy nox -jd x^x mpj hd'? x'^i nnnojn
n^nD HD"" -"^ nox^ cxi D.T^y ^rnpj n^D "i^ idix ]n',x dddd hd^

6. —Midrash Mishle, I. c, reproduced in Arukh, s. v., "ipl

]"'x ^)b:nw HD ^y ^jn n'Dpn nrh "inx ,inD3u; no ^y ymi2 ]^xi

:-ii»y^ n^biD'' onx

7.—Leqach Tob (list), c, "lip: HD^ oy^:^^ 1J^ ni^ijni
I.

nnnDjn dd^ ymx ^:x ^x ^i^in n^u;y nx dh^ nox

8. —Leqach Tob (ad locum), ed. Padua, p. 101. nox "irniD"!

^xnu;^ "iii'jy: iibw id^o "lysiy 'y ^yi TrjD^ r:*? ^y "npj no^
'n^ nnnojn -yaiyD om -j-iTn nx ^"inv^ ly nnnojn '?y
:nrx i^XD n^npj Tj^jn^ r:^ ni^:jni irn^x
9.—Soferim, ;. c, "ly 13^:3^ 13^ n^JJHI UM^X ^^b D-inDJn
mp: ny3u^ 'y \.ii)p2 i^d u^jd^i i:^)] n^y
10. —Diqduqe ha-Teamim, I. c, 'D^y ly IJ^JD*?") i:^

11. —Massorah Magna, I c, in '^^^ niinojn ly l^jb^ i:^

:'i jD
1 Ed. Baer has lip] nrD'i^ ]"^:!) I^^JD^I 1J^»
 BIBLIOGRAPHY.

1. "Works in Which the Points are more

Particularly Treated.

Blau, Ludwig, Masoretische Untersucliungen. Strassburg, 1891.

*' " Zur Einleitung in die Heilige Schrift. Buda-
pest, 1894.
BuxTORF, Johannes, Tiberias sive Commentarius Masorethicus.
Basileae, 1620.
Eisenstein, J. D., The early Masorah on the dotted Letters in
the Hebrew Scriptures, in Ner ha-Maarabi,
VoL I.

GiNSBURG, Christian D., Introduction to the Massoretico-

Critical Edition of the Hebrew Bible.
London, 1897.
KoNiG, Eduard, Einleitung in das Alte Testament. Bonn, 1893.
Konigsberger, Bernhard, Aus Masorah und Talmudkritik.
Berlin, 1892.
Strack, Hermann L., Prologomena Critica in Yetus Testa-
mentum Hebraicum. Leipzig, 1873.
Weir, Thomas H., A Hebrew Text of
Short History of the
Old Testament. London, 1899.
the
Hiller, Mat., De Arcano Keri et Kethib. Tubingen, 1692.
HiJPEDEN, Jo. Henr., Neue wahrscheinliche Muthmassung von
der wahren Ursache und Bedeutung der
ausserordentlichen Punkte. Hannover, 1751.^

^ The author is sorry to say that he has been unable to consult the works of
Hiller and Hiipeden ; their views have been derived from quotations by subse-
quent scholars.
131
132 Bibliogr-aphy.

2. "Works on the Jewish Labors, History and

Literature in General.

Bacher, Wilhelm, Die Agada der Tannalten. 2 vols., Strass-

burg. 1st. vol. (2d. edit.) 1903 ; 2d. vol.

(1st. edit.) 1890.
" " Die Alteste Terminologie der Judischen Schrift-
auslegung. Leipzig, 1899.
Benzinger, J., Hebraische Archaologie. Leipzig, 1894.
Blau, Ludwig, Studien zur althebriiischen Buchwesen. Strass-
burg, 1902.
BousSET, D. WiLHELM, Die Religion des Judenthums im neutes-
tementlichen Zeitalter. Berlin, 1903.

Dahne, August Ferdinand, Geschichtliche Darstellung der

jiidisch-alexandrinischen Religions-Pliiloso-
phie. 2 vols. Halle, 1834.
Derenbourg, J., Essai sur PHistoire et la G^ographie de la
Palestine ; Premiere Partie : Histoire de la
Palestine. Paris, 1867.

Dobschutz, Lieber, Die einfache Bibelexegese der Tannaim.

Halle a. S., 1893.
Edersheim, Alfred, The Life and Times of Jesus the Messiah.
2 vols. New York, (no date).
Frankel, Dr. Z., Ueber den Einfluss der paljistinischen Exegese
auf die alexandrinische Hermeneutik. Leip-
zig, 1851.
" " Ueber paliistinische und alexandrinische
Schriftforschuug. Breslau, 1854.
Geiger, Abraham, Lehr- und Lesebuch zur Sprache der Misch-
nah. Breslau, 1845.
" " Urschrift und Uebersetzungen der Bibel in

ihrer Abhangigkeit von der innern Ent-

wickelung des Judenthums. Breslau, 1857.
Gfrorer, a. F., Kritische Geschichte des Urchristenthums : I
Theil, Philo und die jiidisch-alexandrinische
Theosophie. 2 vols. Stuttgart, 1835.
 Bibliography. 133

Graetz, Peof. H., History of the Jews. 6 vols. Philadelphia,

1891-1898.
Hambueger, De. J., Real-Encyclopadie des Judentums. 3 vols.
Strelitz i. M., 1896.
Joel, De. M., Blicke in die Religiongeschichte zu Anfang des
zweiten christlichen Jahrhunderts. 2 vols.
Breslau, 1880-1883.
JosT, J. M., Geschichte des Judenthums und seiner Secten. 3
vols. Leipzig, 1857-1859.
Lewit, Julius, Darstellung der theoretischen und praktisehen
Padagogik im jiidischen Altertume. Ber-
lin, 1895.
Low, Leopold, Graphische Requisiten und Erzeugnisse bei
den Juden. 2 vols. Leipzig, 1870-1871.
Maecus, Sam., Die Padagogik des Israeliten Volkes. Wien,
1877.
MiELZiNEE, M., Introduction to the Talmud. 2d edit. New
York and London, 1903.
Nowack, W., Lehrbuch der Hebriiischen Archaologie. 2 vols.
Freiburg i. B. und Leipzig, 1894.
Peeles, Felix, Analekten zur Textkritik des Alten Testaments.
Miinchen, 1895.
"ScHUEEE, Emil, Geschichte der Jiidischen Volkes in Zeitalter
Jesu Christi. 3 vols. Leipzig. Vol. I,

4th edit., 1901 ; Vols. II and III, 3d edit.,

1898.
ScHusz, Philipp, Palaestinensische Geistesrichtung u. Religiose
Parteien zur Zeit Jesu. Wein, 1898.
SiEGFEiED, Gael, Philo von Alexandria als Ausleger des Alten
Testaments. Jena, 1875.
Simon, Joseph, L'Education et I'Instruction des Enfants chez les

Anciens Juifs. Leipzig, 1879.

Stehelin, John Petee, Traditions of the Jews or Doctrines and
Explanations contained in the Talmud and
other Rabbinical Writings. (Translated
from the Dutch.) 2 vols. London, 1743.
Strack, Heem. L.,- Einleitung in den Talmud. Leipzig, 1894.
134 Bibliography.

SuRENHUSius, GuiLiELMUS, Bi/3\o<; KaTaXXayi]^. Amsterdam,

1713.
Waehnee, And. Geog., Antiquitates Ebraeorum. 2 vols. Got-
tingen, 1743.
"Wolf, Cheistophorus, Bibliotheca Hebraea. 4 vols. Ham-
burg and Leipzig, 1715-1733.
ZuNZ, Dr., Die gottesdienstlichen Yortrage der Juden. 2d edit,

by N. Briill, Frankfurt a. M., 1892.

3. Various Collections and Encyclopaedias.

Briggs, Charles Augustus Driver, Samuel R. Plummer,

; ;

Alfred, The International Critical Com-

mentary on the Holy Scriptures of the Old
and New Testaments. New York, 1901.
(Not complete.)
Cheyne, T. K., and Black, J. Sutherland, Encyclopgedia
Biblica, 4 vols.. New York, 1899-1903.
Hastings, James, A Dictionary of the Bible. 5 vols.. New
York, 1902-1904.
Haupt, Paul, The Sacred Books of the Old Testament printed
in colors, Leipzig, 1893. (Not yet com-
plete).

The Jewish Encyclopedia. New York, 1901-1905.

KiTTO, John, A Cyclopaedia of Biblical Literature (originally

by J. Kitto), 3d.
edited 3 vols., edit, in

edited by William Lindsay Alexan-

der. Edinburgh, 1876.
KoHUT, G. Alex., Semitic Studies in memory of Alex. Kohut.
Berlin, 1897.
Marti, Karl, Kurzer Hand-Corn mentar zum Alten Testament.
20 Abteilungen, Freiburg, i. B., 1898-
1904.
MiJLLER, IwAN voN, Handbucli der klassischen Altertums-
Wissenschaft, in systematischer Darstellung.
2d edition, 1892. . . .
 Bibliography. 135

NowACK, W., Handkommentar zum Alten Testament. 13 vols.

G5ttingen, 1897-1903.
Repertorium fur Biblische u. Morgenliindische Litteratur, 18
vols., 1777-1786.
Smith, William, A Dictionary of the Bible. 3 vols., Boston
and London, 1863.
Steack, Herman L. und Zocklee, Otto, Kurzgefasster Kom-
mentar zu den Heiligen Schriften Alten u.
Neuen Testamentes, 2d. edit. 14 Abteil.,
Miinchen, 1891-1897.
Stadia Biblica et Ecclesiastica, Essays in the Biblical Archae-
ology and Criticism and kindred Subjects,
by Members of the University of Oxford.
4 vols., Oxford, 1885-1896.

4. Editions of the Jewish Writings generally

USED in the present WORK.

Aboth de R. Nathan. Ed. Salomon Schechter. (Two recensions

in parallel columns.) Vienna, 1887.
Diqduqe ha-Te'amim. In the Venice Bible, 1517-18. Appen-
dix 2.
« " Ed. S. Baer und H. L. Strack. Die
Diqduqe Ha-t®amim des Ahron ben Mos-
cheh ben Ascher. Leipzig, 1879.
Leqach Tob. Lekach Tob (Pesikta Sutarta) ein Agadischer
;

Commentar zum ersten u. zweiten Buche

Mosis von R. Tobia b. Eliezer, herausge-
geben v. Salomon Buber. Wilna, 1884.
" " Lekach Tob, etc. (on Leviticus, Numbers and
Deuteronomy) edited by Aharon Moses
Padua! Wilna, 1884.
Midrash Mishle. Edited by Salomon Buber. Wilna, 1893.
Midrash ha-Gadol. Midrash Hag-gadol, forming a collection of
ancient Rabbinical homilies to the Penta-
teuch. Edited by Salomon Schechter.
Genesis, Cambridge, 1902.
136 Bibliography,

Midrash Rabba. With the Commentaries r|D1"> T" • r]DT' p^JJ? ^^y
F]D1"' -^inD mJHD. 2 vols. Wilna, 1896.
Sekhel Tob. Sechel Tob. Commentar zum ersten und zweiten
Buche Mosis, von R. Menachem b. Salomo,
herausgegeben von Salomon Buber. 2 vols.
Berlin, 1900-1901.
Sifre. Sifre deb§ Rab. Herausgegeben von M. Friedmann.
Wien, 1864.
Soferim. Masechet Soferim, herausgegeben von Joel Miiller.

Leipzig, 1878.
Midrash Tanchuma. Edition of Frankf. a. O., 1701.

Talmud of Babylon. Edition of Wilna. 12 vols. 1897.

Talmud of Jerusalem. Edition of Krotoshin, 1866.
" " Le Talmud de Jerusalem, transl. by
Moise Schwab. 12 vols. Paris, 1871-1890.
Tosefta. Edited by Moses Samuel Zuckermandel. Pasewalk,
1881.
Yalqut Shimeoni. Ed. Frankfurt a. IV^., 1687.

Corrigenda: p. 7, n. 12. read Mittheilungen \ p. 1-15, dek "Ten" in the

title at the top of the pages ; p. 17, 1. 1, read Amoraim.
BS1225.2.B98
ThetennequdothoftheTorah-

1 1012 000^2 1519