The Pointing of the Amidah in HUC 945

 

Above is the beginning of the Amidah for Yom Kippur in HUC 945.  We will review a portion of this prayer against a modern version for nikkudim, or vowel points, overall consonantal spelling, word order and sense.  

Here the segol does not have a sh'va.  This is common in Kaifeng texts, so I will ignore this anomaly in this prayer from this point.  In the second word, "the God of," the alef in the Kaifeng version has a segol.  The modern version does not.  

The alef in the first word has a sh'va beneath the het. This appears to be an anomaly for a tsere.  This would be pronounced at the end of elohee, instead of elohey.

Yitzah has a sh'va under the kof.  This does not affect pronunciation.

The Kaifeng version has a segol beneath the aleph.  This does not affect pronunciation.  

The Kaifeng version writes segol, instead of tsere, beneath the alef.   This does to affect pronunciation.

The Kaifeng version has replaces the tsere beneath the aleph with a segol.  This does not affect pronunciation. 

Beneath then nun, the Kaifeng version replaces the tsere with a segol.  This does not affect pronunciation. 

This word is missing a vav, the word "and" instead of "and remember" Kaifeng version has only "remember."

The Kaifeng version replaces the sh'va beneath the samech with a qamats.  Kaifeng pronunciation: hasadey, the modern: has'dey.

Is misspelled as:

So, "and to bring about" is replaced by VMRHM [?]

These two words:

Have been dropped in the Kaifeng version, and replaced with 

Which renders this area of the Kaifeng text unreadable:

It should read:

But it reads:

The texts converge with this word:

With the Kaifeng version having a dagesh in the bet.  This does not impact pronunciation. 

The modern version: and therefore his name in love.  The Kaifeng version: and will bring about the redemption to the seed afterward for them [?]  Is acherchim, afterward, here confused with achavah, love?

In the Kaifeng text, an "el" is added between l'chaim melech in the modern text.  Reading "Remember to life [the] king" to "Remember to life, God, King," in the Kaifeng text.

The Kaifeng text is missing a chet in "chaim," life, perhaps because it is spelled without a chet in the next instance.

In the Kaifeng text, the final kof has two vertical dots that appear under a final kof (ךְ) and  are called a silent sh'va (sh'va nach). This diacritical mark indicates the complete absence of a vowel sound after the consonant, effectively bringing the syllable to a close.  This changes the pronunciation: the Kaifeng text suggests it is "l'maanackh" and the modern text "l'maanackha."

The Kaifeng text says "rachamin mushua" while the modern text "ozer u'mushia."  Kaifeng reads "mercy / salvation" while the modern text "help and salvation"

Here, the Kaifeng text places a sh'va under the gimel.  The modern text has a tsere.  The Kaifeng pronunciation: "u'mag'n" and the modern "u'magen"

Here, the Kaifeng text uses the Tetragrammaton, while the modern texts spells out "adonai" there here there is no difference in pronunciation. Regardless of what is written, Adonai is read.  Beneath the yod, the Kaifeng texts substitutes the tsere yod for the patah, and drops the tsere.

 

Here, the Kaifeng text has "one who brings dew."   This is not in the modern text.  Is this part of the liturgy for Sukkot?

Here, the Kaifeng text is missing tsere, and beneath the tet, chireq yod, for patah.

Here, the word order of the Kaifeng text does not agree with the modern text.  "Healer the sick, supporter of the fallen."  In the modern text, "Supporter of the fallen, and healer of the sick."

The Kaifeng texts replaces the sh'va below the peh, with a qibbuts.  Kaifeng pronunciation: "nophfulim" and the modern: "nophf'lim"

Kaifeng has a variant spelling of "kamocha" like you.  Both sound the same. 

In the Kaifeng text, the segol beneath the mem is rendered tsere.  No difference in pronunciation. 

Here, the Kaifeng text writers "meleckh" king, as "mimith" perhaps confusing the word melekh, king, for [the] dead.

The Kaifeng text leaves out this phrase.  

Father, "av" is written with a kamats in the Kaifeng rendering, and patah in the modern version.

Beneath the mem, the Kaifeng text replaces chirq yod with qamats.   Kaifeng: Harachaman.  Current: Harachamim

Under the kof, the Kaifeng version replaces the tsere with seqol.   Both are "e" sounds.

In the Kaifeng text "l'haim b'rachamim" is switched as "b'ramamim l'haim," respectively, "to life in mercy" and "in mercy to life."

Beneath the nun, the Kaifeng rendering provides a tsere in lieu of a segol.  Both are "e" sounds.

From our investigation of the Halel prayer before, and now this portion of the Amidah, we can agree with Leslie in at least in broad terms about the Hebrew of the Kaifeng Community:

pointing of the prayer books is systematically different [than the Torah portions], and there are many mistakes, both of consonants and pointing; these books seem to reflect a Kaifeng pronunciation, though Persian influences may be present.

There is far more variability in this text than, say, the Torah portion we checked previously.  What kind of anomalous elements do we find here?

I count a total of 29 differences in this short bit of Amidah prayer between the Kaifeng and a modern text.  Of those 20 are the minor errors in pointing we have seen before in Kaifeng texts.  Most differences occur in e and a vowel sounds and do not affect the meaning of the text.  The remaining differences involve a part of the text rendered unintelligible, missing word(s), two inserted words, two words exchanged, changing the meaning, the  Tetragrammaton and Adonai (spelled in Hebrew) are switched, one word is probably misspelled.

Indeed, by modern standards, Kaifeng HUC 945, a daily prayer book, has many points of divergence from modern siddurim.  Why is this?  The Kaifeng Community were excellent stewards their Torah square books (and their scrolls?) but we do not see the same care in this siddurim.  We must develop a wider sample to make firmer decisions about this issue.