The Pointing of Hallel in HUC 939

 

We examined the nikkudim, the pointing in the Square Section for Kedushah parshah.  We saw that the pointing, as well as the consonantal text, is largely error free. Despite internet sources that claim otherwise, the Torah sections of the Kaifeng Jews are accurate.  Leslie noted this:

"...the signs and pointing in the square section book of the Law are remarkably accurate and in accordance with other traditions; these books must be an importation from before 1600, for it is doubtful that  they would have been copied so well in Kaifeng.  On the other  hand, 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."

It is time to check one prayer to examine that state of the pointing on HUC manuscript 939, which are fragments of the daily prayers and Hallel. We will being with Hallel.  To quote My Jewish Learning:

Hallel is a prayer of thanksgiving added to the morning service on festive Jewish holidays. The prayer, whose Hebrew name literally means “praise,” is comprised of six psalms (113-118) that amount to an extended expression of praise and thanks to God for the many kindnesses bestowed upon Israel.  Hallel is recited on the first two days of Passover, Shavuot, Sukkot and Hanukkah. A shortened version, known colloquially as Half Hallel, is recited on the last six days of Passover and Rosh Chodesh, the celebration of the new Hebrew month.

The Hallel prayer from 939 is a fragment.  We will only match up the spelling with what exists; we will presume the prayer was complete at one time in this manuscript.  

We have only portions of Psalm 118 in this manuscript.  We will match these parts up to existent modern "normative" texts of this prayer, with the full knowledge that we lose vital markers of historical context by using a modern text.  

The Kaifeng Hallel is light in some areas, and difficult to read.  It begins in the area below the blue line.  The line struck out in red is not in the Kaifeng Hallel.  Otherwise, the text is properly spelled, both for the consonants and the vowels:

This section, beginning with is largely correct in terms of the text.  There is an error here:

These letters are transposed.  The text should read:

As noted before, the Chinese symbol for "no" is above the word first word, perhaps indicating the error.  There is also another unknown symbol over the second word. Below are the pointing anomalies on page 9 of this manuscript:

Below the mem patah has replaced tsere.  

Kaifeng: ha mazar

Standard: ha mezar

Below the mem chireq has replaced segol,  Below the chet kametz has replaced patah.

Kaifeng: bamir'hav

Standard: bamer'hav

Below the mem, qamets has replaced patah.

Kaifeng: mah    

Standard: mah

The dalet is written with a dagesh in the Kaifeng manuscript.

Kaifeng: b'nedivim

Standard: b'nedivim

Page 10 of the manuscript does not contain any missing or anomalous words:

There are some pointing differences:

Below the alef, tsere is written as segol

Kaifeng: keesh

Standard: k'esh

Beneath the daleth, the qamats is replaced with a patah

Kaifeng: dahoh

Standard: dahoh

Below the ayin, the the sh'va is written as patah. Below the resh the qamats is written as patah.

Kaifeng: azarani

Standard: azarani

Below the resh, the qamats is written as as patah

Kaifeng: vezim'rah

Standard: vezim'rah

Beneath the lamad, sh'va is written.

This would not impact pronunciation as sh'va is silent.

Below the het the sh'va is written as segol.  Beneath the yod, segol is written as sh'va

Kaifeng: eeyeh

Standard: e'yeh

Beneath the ayin, sh'va is written as qamats.  Below the shin, tere yod is written as segol

Kaifeng: maaseh

Standard: maaseh 

Below the ayin, a sh'va is added to patah

Kaifeng: hash'ar

Standard: hashaar

PAGE 11

This page has no spelling issues or missing words.  There are some vowel issues:

Below the alef, the tsere is written as segol.

Kaifeng: mee'et

Standard: me'et

Beneath the nun, tere yod is written as segol

Kaifeng: v'nish'm'hah

Standard: v'nishm'hah

Below the shin, sh'va is written

In both instances here, under the lamed, chireq yod is written as tsere yod 

Kaifeng: haz'leyhat

Standard: haz'liyhat

Beneath the shin, tsere is written as segol

Kaifeng: beshem

Standard: b'shem

Beneath the kaf, sh'va is written as tsere

Kaifeng: beracheenukhem

Standard: berach'nukhem

PAGE 12

This page has pointing anomalies and missing words.  We will handle each in turn:

Beneath the vav, patah is written as sh'va

Kaifeng: v'y'aeer

Standard: vayaeer

Beneath the lamed, chireq yod has been added. This changes the word from God to my God.

Beneath the alef, sh'va is written as patah.  Beneath the first mem, sh'va is written as patah

Kaifeng: aromamekha

Standard: arom'mekha

The preposition "to" lamed, as been added in the Kaifeng text.  This changes "Lord"  into "to the Lord"

In this section, there are missing portions of this prayer.  Here we have an occurrence of the "no" Chinese symbol in the right hand margin, as well as two circles written above the text.  Do these circles have some significance?  If this is a Masoretic editing symbol, it means this:  

When the Masoretes wanted to register a note about a single word, they placed a small circle over the center of the word

It is interesting that these happen before some disruptions in the text.  Let us take these issues in turn:

Both texts match until the underlined section of the modern prayer, which is missing from the Kaifeng manuscript.  When the Kaifeng text picks up, it add the three words underlined, not found in the modern text.

Toward the end of page twelve, the only difference between the two texts is that the Kaifeng text writes ha-el, and the modern text just el.

Page 12 ends with

which continues correctly on  PAGE 13:

This follows the modern text.  But the conclusion of the fragment we have is not found in the modern prayer:

We will return to this larger pieces in a moment.  Let us return to the pointing issues:

This appears to be a genuine spelling error.

Kaifeng: oshe

Standard: u'shey

This changes the meaning from "do your will" to "who make your will"

This appears to be a spelling error.  The alef has been replaced with an ayin.

Kaifeng: na'im

Standard: na-eh

Both words mean pleasant, and do not change the meaning

Here, the modern text has a "ki" between these words, and the Kaifeng text places a vav, and, in front of olam, world:

The ki in this section accentuates the sense of greatness.  Without that ki, the text still reads the same, but without the emphasis. 

The final anomaly before the texts diverge is the heh in front of "el" in the Kaifeng text.  This does not affect the understanding of the text.

There are two issues with the text.  There is the pointing divergences, and the divergences in the text starting on page 12 and ending on 13.  

First, any differences in the pointing of the Kaifeng text and the "Standard" text are all minor, and mostly have to do with very small issues about how to pronounce the vowel sound "a".  There is not a single instance in this text where vowel pronunciation causes any lapse in understanding or pronouncing this text.

There are textual issues with this prayer near the end.  It seems that at some time after this prayer was written, someone read it with an eye toward edits, but it was never completed.  Nearly an entire line is missing from the Kaifeng text.  This mars the reading of the text.

At least for this prayer, Leslie's summary does not hold:  

...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 have seen issues with the pointing of "a" vowels before in Kaifeng manuscripts.  They are minor in everyway.  Leslie thought the pointing and spelling of the Kaifeng prayer books was so different they had to reflect a "Kaifeng pronunciation" or an influence from Persia.  This text does not reflect Leslie's descriptions.  Even in its fragmentary state, and with ten missing words, the text is usable.

Also, there is a fundamental difference between standards of pointing for siddurim, prayer books, and Torah pointing.  One is the traditions of Torah pronunciation were 'set' far early than those of siddurim. Siddurim have also been subject to much regional variation.  How do we know that the precursor manuscript to this Hallel contained those 10 missing words?

We will examine more prayer manuscripts at a later date.