The Spelling and Pointing of HUC 962: Checking the work of Rabbi Pinchas

 

We examined Rabbi Pinchas as the author of this parshah, and a Haggadah, and the list created with with Gozani of the books currently in the Kaifeng Synagogue.  Now we will look at the accuracy of this parshah.  We examined parshah Kedosim and found that:

There are 868 words in this parshah.  There are 14 pointing errors, and two stray consonants that can be considered errors.  Besides these two, there are no misspelled consonants in this section.  There are 17 errors in total, making an error rate of 1.96 percent.

We also found, examining the pointing and spelling of the Yom Kippur evening Amidah, in HUC 945, and the Hallel in HUC 939, that there are considerable differences between pointing in the Torah sections, and those in the service prayer books, as noted by Leslie.  We will continue to examine both the Torah sections and prayer books to see if this trend continues with a larger sample.

This section is the conclusion of Exodus 38:21 - 40:38.  There are two of these sections in the HUC collection HUC 962, the work of Rabbi Pinchas, and HUC 963.

The Kaifeng version replaces the tsere with a segol.  No change in pronunciation.   We will see this anomaly in spelling several times.

On page 6 of the Kaifeng manuscript, "u'min: is placed between "hat'keleth" and "haor"

Did Rabbi  Pinchas glace at the "u'min" at the start of this sentence, and then reproduce it when his hand went back to the page again?  The modern version reads: "And of the blue, and purple..." The Kaifeng version: "And of the blue, and of the purple..."

Here, the Kaifeng version the sh'va is written as tsere.  Kaifeng: mashezar.  Modern: mash'zar

Here, page 9, Rabbi Pinchas added a vav as the vowel "o" for ephod.  According to Brown, Driver, Briggs, the spelling of Rabbi Pinchas is correct, and well attested:

But only the aleph, pei, dalet version is found in this section.  This error makes sense in the fact that he used a common variant spelling of ephod - but it is not used in this parshah at all.  If this is a random error on the Rabbi's part, it is an intelligent error: he uses a well-known variant of the word, rather than creatively spelling the it.  Interestingly, it is spelled correctly in HUC 963:

On page 10:

Here, the segol is written as tsere in the Kaifeng manuscript.  The modern pronunciation: nopekh.  The Kaifeng: nopaykh.

For the Kaifeng version, chateph patach is written as kamets.  Both are an "a" sound.

Here, the Kaifeng version spells "mis's'b'zoth" with a vav as a vowel, essentially doing the same thing we saw for ephod above.  This would be both a plene and defectiva use of vowels/spelling.  

Brown Driver and Biggs notes this word as: מִשְׁבְּצ(וֺ)ת noun feminine.  We would expect this word to have the vav, but it does not in this passage.  

Here, the dagesh is missing from the Kaifeng text:

The Kaifeng version has a dagesh in the kof, indicating a stronger pronunciation of "k"

Here, the Kaifeng text replaces the tsere with a segol.  No change in pronunciation. 

The Kaifeng version replaces the tsere with a segol.  No change in pronunciation. 

Here, the Kaifeng text add a dagesh to the mem, forming a harder "m" sound.

The Kaifeng version replaces tsere with segol.  See the example above.

The Kaifeng version replaces the tsere yod with kamets yod, which is not a part of the Hebrew vowel structure.  Theoretically, both are pronounced the same.

See above

This is the same divergence with the word "work" we have seen above.

Here, the dagesh is not written in the Kaifeng version.

The Kaifeng text substitutes tsere for segol beneath the aleph.  Modern: et.  Kaifeng: ayet.

 

The Kaifeng example replaces the tsere with the segol.   The pronunciation is identical. 

 

The Kaifeng example replaces a segol with tsere.  No difference in pronunciation.

In the Kaifeng version the segol beneath the peh is replaced by a kamets.  Kaifeng: Hapatach.  Modern: Hapetach.

This section has 1182 words, and 26 of those have anomalies with the modern version.  If we accept these as errors, then 2.2 % of the text is incorrect.  These were the results of parshah Kedusim:

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.

So, the purported error rate is very close for both these parashot.  Is this what we can expect from the Kaifeng Square books?  We will need to check some more. 

5:  tsere to segol: both maaseh and takeleth are consistently spelled this way.

2:  the vav was added to make a plene spelling

2:  segol to tsere

2:  chateph patach to kamets

2:  tsere to segol

1:  added word

1:  missing a dagesh

1:  a dagesh was added

1: chateph patach to patach

1: tsere yod to a version of segol yad which does not exist

1: segol to kamets

The two apparent patterns is the spelling of tikeret, or blue.  But the tikeret is spelled in the modern way six times, and in the Kaifeng way, six times.  It is difficult to find a pattern here.  

Was Rabbi Pinchas inconsistently spelling the work from carelessness?   The other word with this kind of variability is ma'ashe, which appears correctly three times, and incorrectly two times.  There is not a discernable pattern for errors.  What manuscript of this parshah did Rabbi Pinchas use to copy his manuscript?  It is difficult to believe he was selectively careless.  Perhaps the manuscript(s) he copied from had these divergences?