When googling the Kaifeng Jews ability to place vowel points in their texts, this is the result via AI:
Kaifeng Jewish texts exhibit random and meaningless placement of Hebrew vowel points because the scribes who copied them did not understand the vowels, even though the consonant text was accurately transcribed. As a result, these markings are considered unintelligible, and a literate Hebrew speaker can read the text by disregarding the randomly placed vowels.
This statement is culled from this article on the Jewish Learning webpage: .
it seems they were written by someone who did not understand them, as the vowels were placed randomly.
Even the Hebrew Union College, which has most of the Kaifeng manuscripts has this statement attached to each manuscript scan:
...the Hebrew is inconsistently pointed, with numerous misspellings, attesting to an attenuated knowledge of Hebrew orthography.
I have examined the parshah Kedoshim for accuracy of the nikkudim and will share those results. Then we can start addressing the level of Hebrew knowledge religious leaders of the community.
The first pointing error is in Leviticus, chapter 19, verse two, the word "and you will speak." In the second vowel, chametz is written as patach below the mem.
The next pointing error in the chapter 19, verse four, "gods" tsere is written as sh'va below the vav and tsere beneath the aleph:
In verse eight "profaned" chireq is written as patah and "from your people" segol is written as tsere under the chet.
In verse twelve "name" tsere is written as segol under the shin:
In verse twenty, "designated" hateph segol is written as segol beneath the chet
In verse twenty four, for "Adonai" a sh'va is added below the yud. As we will see below, this should not matter in how this word is pronounced.
In verse twenty nine, for "harlotry" the segol is written as tsere under the nun.
In chapter 20, verse two, there is a stray shin between "ish ish" literarily "man man" meaning an emphatic "no one, or no person." Is this a scribal error, or is there a tradition of this additional shin in this verse not in the "standard" Masoretic text?
Later in the verse, a dagesh is added to the vet of "stones"
In verse seven, "sanctify yourself" a dagesh is added to the letter kof. As we will see below, this should not affect how this word is pronounced, as kof is only pronounced one way, as a k-sound.
In verse twenty, "childless" chireq yod, is written as an upside down tere yod beneath the resh. As we will see below, this should not affect pronunciation of this word.
In verse twenty-four, "their land" sh'va is written as segol below the dalet.
In verse twenty-five there is a stray het. As with the stray het above, is this an error, or some unknown scribal tradition?
There are 868 words in this parshah. There are 14 pointing errors, and two stray consonants that can be considered errors. Besides those two, there are no misspelled consonants in this section. There are 17 errors in total, making an error rate of 1.96 percent.
This text is largely correct! Certainly the vowels were not placed random and meaninglessly. For that matter, neither is the placement of vowels point to "an attenuated knowledge of Hebrew orthography." In Donald Leslie's Survival of the Chinese Jews, he has this to say about the Kaifeng Square Sections:
"The section books themselves are of a high degree of accuracy both for point and other signs... When we are compare the many corrections in the Scrolls, and the peculiar pointing of most of the prayer books, we are forced to the conclusion that at least some of these square section books stem from before the 1642 flood, probably not copied in Kaifeng, presumably of Persian and Bukarah origin. No doubt, several of them were in private homes, as opposed to the scrolls, that were communally in the synagogue; and thus they may have survived the flood," page 148.
Indeed, the examination bears out [that as least] Kedoshim is largely accurate. Given that some of the Square Sections colophons indicating they were copied in Kaifeng seems to contradicts Leslie's assertion. Only texts copied outside of Kaifeng can be accurate! It is difficult to understand how Leslie would believe that the production of any of the square portions outside of Kaifeng, as he examined the Judeo-Persian colophons in his paper "The Judeo-Persian Colophons to the Pentateuch of the K'aifeng Jews" and of those six colophons, HUC MS 981 states that is was composed in Kaifeng in 1621. The others fail to mention Kaifeng, but contain the names of rabbis we know were part of the Kaifeng community in other extant writings.
The error rate of this parshah is low, but what do those errors mean when we look at the manuscript and its intended use, to aid the gabbai in correctly mispronounced Hebrew when the Torah is being chanted. Let's look at each error with an eye to pronunciation.
For "and you will speak" the Kaifeng pronunciation is "v'ararha" and the modern standard is "v'amahrha," a slight h, or breathing sound with the vowel.
For "gods" the Kaifeng pronunciation is "v'elohey" and the modern standard is "velohey"
For "profaned" the Kaifeng pronunciation is "halel" and the modern standard is "hilel"
For "name" the Kaifeng pronunciation is "shehm," so a slight breath on the e, and the modern standard is "shem"
For "designated" the Kaifeng pronunciation is "necherefet" and the modern standard is "necherefet" where the second e from the left is a quick e.
For the four letter name of God, pronounced Adonai when chanting, it is difficult to know if the Kaifeng Jews pronounced the name in accordance of the modern standard, as the word is not pointed for Adonai. Modern pronunciation would be "laAdonai" while the Kaifeng pronunciation may have been "l'donai" or "luhdonai" but this is far from certain.
For "harlotry" the Kaifeng pronunciation is "tiz'neeh" while the modern standard is "tiz'neh" where the e here is a bit fuller than the Kaifeng pronunciation of e.
Next is the added shin to which would not be a pronunciation issue. Why is that letter there?
For "stones" the Kaifeng pronunciation is "ba'aven" and the modern standard is "va'aven"
For "sanctify yourself" the addition of a dagesh in kof would not change the pronunciation, as there is one way to pronounce k in Hebrew.
For "childless" the Kaifeng pronunciation is "areirim" and the modern standard is "areyrim"
For "their land" and upside down segol below the dalet would not alter pronunciation.
The het between "tirmosh" and "haadama" would not impact pronunciation.
Overall, the errors above would do little to nothing to affect either the pronunciation of the Hebrew words during the Kaifeng service, nor understanding of the passages. Leslie is correct about the fundamental accuracy of these texts. This parshah can still be employed as a pronunciation guide for modern synagogues.
Leslie does write that the Kaifeng Jewish siddurim are poorly pointed. On page 119 of his Survival of the Chinese Jews he writes:
"...the pointing of the prayer books is systematically different, and there are many mistakes, both of consonants and pointing; these books seem to reflect a Kaifeng pronunciation, though Persian influences may be present."
We will examine Leslie's claims about the condition of the siddurim shortly. Here is a preliminary investigation of one prayer, the Hallel prayer in HUC 939.
Comments
Post a Comment