The Divergences of Kaifeng MS HUC 923

 

This manuscript contains prayers from Tisha B'Av.   We will see many of the interesting divergences in this text as we have in other prayer books from the Kaifeng Community. This is the first blessing before the Shema.

The texts agree here and in a modern version:

Divergences start here:

The Kaifeng version has a dagesh in the mem.  This is common with Kaifeng manuscripts.

Here, the Kaifeng version replaces mem with nun.  Is this from the influence of Aramaic.  We have seen this substitution before.

The Kaifeng version replaced the segol with a tsere.   Kaifeng: alaaya.  Modern: aleeya

Not in the Kaifeng version

The Kaifeng version has a heh in front of the word - that is the "the" definite article.  It replaces the sh'va under the mem with a segol.   He renews every day in the modern version.  The Kaifeng version is:  the (he) renews

The Kaifeng version has a dagesh in the bet.  Kaifeng: b'reshit.  Modern: v'reshit

The Kaifeng version does not place a dagesh in the vav, making the "o" sounding vowel here uncertain.

The Kaifeng version has a variant spelling of kulam, "all of" a variant we have seen before. 

Here, the Kaifeng version replaces the segol (eh) beneath the nun with tsere (ay).  The final kof is hidden beneath a stroke that may indicate someone came and changed the final kof to a vet. 

The last mem in the Kaifeng version has a dagesh, doubling the m sound.  

 

The Kaifeng version adds a shmo between this phrase.  Kaifeng "Exalted His Name Alone."  Modern: Exalted Alone

Here, ha'meshuba, has been replaced in the Kaifeng version with ha'mesubah, a spelling variant.  In the Kaifeng version ha'm'uhad has replaced v'ham'forad.  It is difficult to get a sense of this.  Possibly we have two spelling variants and two words switched. 

In the Kaifeng version, malechenu, or King, is inserted between 'forever' and 'in compassion.'  The modern version: "forever, in your compassion abundant" Kaifeng version: "foever, our king, in your compassion abundant"

Here, "your strength" uzuenu in the modern version, is izinu in the Kaifeng version.  The question mark like character seems like a later addition to stress that the second letter is zayin.

Here, the Kaifeng text has a vet, ayin, and daleth, with a long line above the letters.  Does this indicate that there is an error?  For the next word is ba'adenu, which is the full word.  

The Kaifeng version replaces the tsere (ay) beneath the dalet with chirek (ih) and adds a dagesh to the dalet, doubling the sound.

In the Kaifeng version, the tsere (ay) beneath the alef has been replaced with segol (eh)

The Kaifeng version replaces the tsere (ay) beneath the dalet with segol (eh)

In the Kaifeng text, hit'kin, to smite [?] replaces hekin, to array.  

The Kaifeng version replaces the kamets (aw) with patach (ah)

The Kaifeng version does not have a dagesh in the mem:  Kaifeng: hamah.  Modern: hammah

The Kaifeng version replaces the kibets beneath the ayin with chirek and adds a vav.  Kaifeng: iu-tzu.  Modern: uzuvu

The Kaifeng text reads: tz'vaot.  The modern text: tz'vaav.  Is the Kaifeng text making host into a plural?  Due to the volume of divergences in this text, I am making my (rough) notes available here for the remainder of the section I intended to examine.  Every word that has a box around it has some divergence of spelling, pointing or sense.  Any word underlined matched the modern text. I still have no firm conclusion about the often vast divergences of modern and Kaifeng prayer texts.