THE VOCALIZATION OF CODEX

REUCHLINIANUS: IS THE “PRE-

MASORETIC” BIBLE PRE-MASORETIC?
By S h elo m o M o ra g , Jerusalem

I. IN T R O D U C T IO N

Lovers of Hebrew and Judaeo-Arabic studies are greatly indebted

to D r Raphael Edelmann and to the Ejnar Munksgaard Publishing
House o f Copenhagen for the Corpus Codicum Hebraicorum Medii
Aevi series, which will include facsimile reproductions of several
important Hebrew and Judaeo-Arabic manuscripts. So far, two
volumes have appeared in this series—namely Maimonides’
commentary to the Mishnah, tractates Z‫״‬rā‘īm and Mo'ēd,1 and
the Codex Reucblinianus of the Prophets.2
Codex Reuchlinianus3 (hereinafter: CR), which has both the
Hebrew text and the Aramaic Tar gum of the Prophets, is dated
a . d . 1105-6.♦ The significance of this manuscript for the student
of Hebrew and Aramaic lies mainly in its vocalization. CR is the
first of four manuscripts which represent a unique tradition and
constitute “ The Pre-MaSoretic Bible” , in the opinion o f Pro-
fessor Alexander Sperber, who initiated the present edition of
CR and accompanied it with an introductory treatise, “ Masoretic
Hebrew” (hereinafter: Introduction). The other three manu-
scripts are: The Parma Pentateuch, the Parma Bible, and the
London Bible (hereinafter: MSS. 2-4). It is the special features of
the vocalization of these manuscripts which allow us, according
to Sperber, to regard them as “ pre-Masoretic” .
MSS. 2-4, the photostatic editions of which are to appear in
due course in the above series, have not been accessible to me;
1 Matmomdis Commentarius in Miscbnam t codicibus Hjoti. 11J tt Pococke 2gļ in
Bibliotheca BodUana oxommti servatisety2-j3 Bibliotheca! Sassoomtnsis Letcbvortb;
Introductionem hebraice et britannice scripsit Solomon D. Sassoon (1956-).
* Codex Bancblimanns, No. 3 of the Btudsbe handesbibliotbek in Karlsrnbe
(formerly Dnrlaeb No. 55) with a general Introduction: Masoretic Hebrew by
Alexander Sperber (1956).
) This MS. is also known as the Karlsruhe MS. (cf. n. z above).
. * See the colophon: ‫־ זרח בר‬T ‫נשתלם זה ספר נביאים תרגומא וקרא על‬
‫ ליזנירה‬tonh ‫ “ יהודה זוטר ספרא בשנת‬This book of the Prophets, the
Targum and the Hebrew text, was completed by Zeraķ bar Y*hūdhi the
lesser, the scribe, in the year 4866 to the creation of the world.”
2T6
 T H E V O C A L IZA T IO N O F C O D E X REU C H LIN IA N U S

I have been able, however, to study CR in its present excellent

photostatic edition, and to analyse its system of vocalization.
This analysis presents the conclusion that the application of the
title “ Pre-Masoretic Bible” to CR seems to rest upon a slender
foundation. Nevertheless, CR is, as will be shown, of consider-
able value for the history of both Hebrew and Aramaic vbcaliza-
tion.1
2. “ d Ag h ē š ” a n d “ r I p h e h ” in cr

2.1. The most striking feature in the vocalization of CR is the use

of the dāgbēš and the rāpbeb (denoted by a bar above the letter)
signs. Cf. for example, the following verses:
‫ דקר סר מ^יתיתיה‬: opi ‫םנ(ם‬5 ‫ והתז‬SV5 f ‫ש ועד בשר‬5 ‫וכב!ד מנוי! וכרמל! ט‬
‫ ושאר עץ יער! מספר‬:‫ועבדי קרביה וםשה!ן עם פגריהון מרצי ויהי תביר ועריק‬
‫חלשא‬
TTT
‫ומלבו‬
IT
‫דמיניין‬
• 1 ‫ • ז‬I
‫עם‬T ‫לטיהוי‬
‫ ״‬I **I
- ‫■יסוטז‬
* I
‫טשיר •יי •תיה‬
• T
‫עם‬T ‫ושאר‬
“ I
: ‫תער"יכתבס‬
• I I • TTI
‫יהיו‬
»•

• ‫יתןזשבון‬
(Isa. x. 18-19)2
2 a . How is this use of the dāgpēland the rāpbeb to be explained?
According to Sperber (in his Introduction, §66), we have here a
dāgbēi which “ combines the characteristics of both, namely of
dagesb forte, which is inserted after a short and otherwise open
vowel, and of dagesb lene which comes after a short and closed
vowel”, and, therefore, Sperber concludes “ we shall now define
the one dagesb as a dagesb, which is inserted after a short vowel, no
matter whether this vowel is open or closed” . In other words:
“ The dagesb comes to indicate that the preceding vowel is short.”
Sperber further states (ibid. § 67) that this use of the dāgpēi and the
rāpbeb is common to all four manuscripts; however, some dif-
ferences exist in this use between CR and the others. These dif-
ferences are:
(a) In CR, wherein no distinction is made between qamis an
patbaķ and between sēri and s*ghol, “ the dagesb is an innovation, by
1 For bibliography on CR see P. Kahle, Masorete* its Westerns ( =M dW ), n
(1930), 5j*. Brief descriptions of certain features in the vocalization of CR
have been given by Kahle, ibid. pp. 5 and apud Baner-T■eander, HG,
pp. 112 n', 113 q‫ ׳‬and 127 b', as wdl as by Y. F. Gumpertz, Mibbtā'e S’pbd-
tbinā (1953), p. 303. Kahle deals with this MS. together with other MSS.,
which disclose «imilar features in their vocalization.
1 CRhaswforTibetianBJ and ‫ ש‬for Tibetian fe. The digf>Uin these letters is
put above the letters (ļļ, to); the rāpbeb is denoted, as usual, by a superior bar
(to, to).
217
 T H E V O C A L IZA T IO N O F C O D E X REU C H LIN IA N U S

means of which we can ascertain, whether one and the same vowel-
sign indicates a long otsbort vowel. But in MSS. 2-4 the ‫ נקדן‬has
gone one logical step ahead and has differentiated between the
vowel-signs” (Introduction, §67).
(b) In CR, the dāgbēi is used in initial letters “ regardless of the
nature of the accent which the preceding word carries”, whereas
in MSS. 2-4, “ no dagsb is inserted in initial position, provided
the immediately preceding vowel ends in an open syllable and
has a so-called conjunctive accent” {ibid. §68).
2.3. Professor Sperber’s interpretation of the use of the
dāgbēi in CR is hardly plausible. It does not agree with the facts
which are brought to light by an examination of the vocalizer’s
method: we see, thereby, that five categories are to be distin-
guished in the consonants to which the dāgbēiand rāpbeb signs are
applied in CR:
(i) x (iv)
(ii) ‫תע ר; ה‬ (v)‫בגד כסת ;זסלפגסצקש‬
(iii) ‫ו‬
Each category has specific rules for the use of these signs.
2.31. In x, the dāgpēi and rāpbeb signs come to differentiate a
consonantal x from an x which is a mater lectionis. For example,
S5_\
‫י‬
won,•‫י‬
«‫אשור‬
▼
58, ‫פר‬
‫יז י‬- tt

(Isa. xxxviL 33)•

The dāgbēl denotes, as we see, a consonantal x, whereas the
rāpbeb is placed above an x serving as a mater lectionis. In a
number o f cases, however, neither the dāgbēi nor the rāpbeb signs
are applied to consonantal x; for example, ‫אשם‬, ‫אחד‬, ‫אשר יףןלה‬
(I Sam. vi. 17). It seems that what we have here are omissions of
the dāgbēi sign. This is quite characteristic of a vocalizer who is
far from being consistent (cf. §2.352).
2.311. It appears that the four cases in which the dāgbēi sign is
applied to x in the Tiberian Masorah (W73 Gen. xHii. 26;
Ezr. viiL 18; *‫ךא‬1‫ ת‬Lev. xxiii. 17; « ‫ ך‬Job xxxiii. 21) are to be
explained in the light of the principle according to which CR
applies the dāgbēi sign to x.1 We should add in this connexion that
1 Cf. C Ginaburg, “ The Dageshed Alepha in the Kadsruhe-MS., being an
explanation of a difficult Massorah”, Verbtmihmg* du fix fttn lnttrnatioualt*
Orientalistta-Congvssts (1881), n (1881), 136-41. Ginsburg could examine the
photographs of only a fewof the pages of CR; from the use of the diļf>Uin Xin
these pages, and from additional evidence (primarily a Masorah note to
Codex Harley 570-11 of the British Museum), he rightly l^am*H that “the
218
 T H E V O C A L IZA T IO N OF C O D E X REU C H LIN IA N U S

the use of the ddgbēl sign to denote a consonantal ‫ א‬is occasionally

disclosed also by certain Babylonian MSS.1
2.32. As a rule, the ddgbēi and rdpbeb signs are not used with n,
9 and ‫ר‬.‫ ה ג‬has the rdpbeb sign when it is a mater lectionis (for
example,‫ וכעטמה‬I Sam. i. 6 ; ‫ ו§»םה יסךח‬Isa. i. j); this letter has, on
the other hand, the ddgbēlsign in accordance with the Tiberian rules
o f the mappiq (for example,‫צרתה‬,‫םה‬9 ‫ הך‬I Sam. i. 6; ‫ נגה‬Isa, ix. 1).3
2.33. Initial and final consonantal ‫ ו‬have neither the ddgpēlsign
nor the rdpbeb sign, for example, w1‫־‬pjņ (I Sam. vi, 2); ‫מלה‬
{ibid, verse 1 7 );‫( וולמממי‬Isa. i. 2); ‫{ ידדה‬ibid. viii. 21);‫( ולנת^ץ‬Jer.
xviii. 7); ‫( סחץ‬Hab. iii. 14). In these positions, the vocalizer of
CR could not have used the ddgbēisign without causing confusion;
a non-geminated ‫ ו‬with a ddgbēi sign (‫ )ו‬has in CR, as always in
the Tiberian vocalization system, the value of a vowel (for
example, rrin Isa. i. 4). As the ddgbēl sign cannot be applied to a
‫ ו‬in either initial or final positions, the rdpbeb is also not used with
a ‫ ו‬in these positions. A final ‫ ו‬which has a consonantal value is
very frequently accompanied by a &wd sign (for example, ‫ושולץ‬
Isa. vi. i ; ‫!*גליו‬. . .‫ פניו‬ibid, verse 2). It appears that the š*wd is
used here in order to stress the consonantal value of the final 1
Cf. §3.4. The vocalization of final consonantal ‫ י‬with a htreq
(§2.34) is based on a similar principle.
Dagheshed Alephs were far more numerous in certain codices than has hither-
to been supposed ”. Ginsburg did not, however, give any explanation for the
use of the ddgjjfl and ripbtb signs with K. For the problem under considera-
tion, cf. also Gumpertz, lot. tit.
1 See P. Kahle, D tr Musorttistbt T tx t iu Alton Ttstamtnts noth dtr dtr
Utbtrlitftrmg dtr babylomstbm Jttdtn (1902; 1 JS), p. 36, and Masortton dtr
Ostens {iņ iļļa M d O ), p. 119.
2 n and ‫ ר‬have the ddgpl! only in a limited number of cases, for example,
‫( מלהמהף‬nSam.xL 2 j);‫( תחת‬ibid. xxii. io ) ; T r (1 Kingsxii. 6);‫(והעחיים‬Isa.
xlii. 18). With the exception of the dāgptīin the ‫ ח‬of ‫( תחת‬and perhaps in some
other words which might have escaped my notice), the occurrence of the
ddļpti in the above cases is in agreement with the rules which determine the
application of this sign to the letters b, g, d ,^ ,f,k , l, m, n, s,p , /, q, Ī {f), t. Cf.
§2.3$. The vocalizer of CR has not inserted a ddgptlin ‫ ר‬in the words which in
the Tiberian Masorah have a dJgbif in^this letter : ‫( הרעמה‬I Sam. L j); ‫יתם‬5 *‫הו‬
(I Sam. x. 24; xvii. 2J; II Kings vi. 32); 9 "ļ «1&UU4 (Jer. 22212. *I- ri ‫כ!ת‬
(Ezek. xvi 4); ‫( מחצת ראש‬Hab. iii. 13).
2 Only rarely does a non-final consonantal ‫ ה‬have the ddg/btl; the only
example known to me of such a dJgbil is ‫( הדיח‬I Kings ii. 2).
219
 T H E V O C A L IZA T IO N O F C O D EX REU C H LIN IA N U S

With a medial consonantal ‫ ו‬the dāgbēšcomes to denote gemina-

tion (‫ קמו‬Isa. mndii. 2);1 the rāpbeb, on the other hand, accom-
panics a medial consonantal ‫ ו‬which is not geminated. The rāpbeb
comes with both an intervocalic ‫( ו‬for example, ‫ עדן‬Isa. i. 4 ; 8‫ון‬
ibid. xxxi. 2) and a ‫ ו‬which terminates the syllable (for example,
‫ |זועת‬I Sam. v. 12). It should be noted here that CR has the
rāpbeb sign above the ‫ ו‬in the same positions in which bgd kpt
would take this sign according to the Tiberian rules. Cf. §2.3 j.
2.34. Consonantal ‫ י‬which is not geminated usually has the
rāpbeb, for example: 8‫( ןבי‬I Sam. ii. 1); ‫( ןדל‬ibid, verse 4); ‫ב‬5 ‫ד‬
(ibid. v. 11); r w (ibid.); ‫( ודתה‬ibid.); « ‫ ( ך‬n Sam. xiii. 28); ‫יךעב‬
(Isa. viii. 21); ‫( יי*בי‬ibid. ix. 1); ‫( ״לד ילד‬ibid, verse 5); ‫;שועתני‬
(ibid, xxxiii. 2).
When final, a consonantal ‫ י‬frequently has both the rāpbeb and
the btreq sig n s: ‫( ה^י &ד‬Isa. i. 4); ‫( דך‬ibid, verse 5); ‫בל‬%‫פ‬. . .‫מו ץ‬
(ibid, verse 24). It appears that the purpose of this double-
featured vocalization of the final ‫ י‬is to emphasize its consonantal
nature. Cf. §3.3. As in the Tiberian vocalization, a non-
consonantal ‫ י‬is not accompanied by any sign: ‫( מצוקך‬I Sam. ii. 8);
‫ ( פפד‬n Kings xxv. 2 6 );‫( ןמי‬ibid, verse 3 0 );‫( ;לין‬Isa. L 21); ‫וריב‬
(ibid, verse 23). A dāgbēš in the ‫ י‬denotes gemination: ‫דבךח‬
(I Kings xi. 40); ‫( פדם‬Hab. iii. i j ).
The CR vocalization of both ‫ ו‬and ‫ י‬discloses, in spite of
the differences between the applications of the dāgbēš and rāpbeb
signs to these two letters, the same guiding principles: on
the one hand, the vocalizer aims at distinguishing as fully as
possible between the consonantal and the non-consonantal
(that is, vocalic or zero) values of these letters; on the other
hand, he attempts to differentiate geminated from non-geminated
‫ ו‬and ‫י‬.
2.35• Most of the letters ‫ת‬, ‫ש‬, ‫ק‬, ‫צ‬, ‫ם‬, 0, ‫נ‬, ‫ם‬, ‫ל‬, ‫כ‬, ‫ ט‬,‫ז‬, ‫ד‬,‫ג‬, ‫ב‬
constitute a separate category in the CR method of vocalization.
With these letters (hereinafter: the “ majority group”), the
dāgbēš sign is used: (a) when the consonant represented by the
letter is geminated, and (b) when the letter comes either in an
initial or in a medial position after a closed syllable.
1 I have come across only one word, in which a ddgpfj in a medial ‫ ן‬does
not denote gemination:‫( ?*?יהד‬i° the Targam to Isa. x. 19). In this case, the
ddgbil in the ‫ ו‬is in agreement with the CR rales for ddgbil in most of the
letters (§2.35).
220
 T H E V O C A L IZA T IO N OF C O D EX REU C H LIN IA N U S

The rdpbeb sign usually appears in all other positions. Cf. the
vocalization of the following verses for the use of the ddgbii and
the rdpbeb signs in letters of the “ majority group” :
‫מן‬# ‫ךי לכרפל פרם דדה לידידי ביןו־ן בן‬1‫ ?דרת ד‬,‫אשידזז מ לידיך‬
(Isa. v. 1)
‫רץ פתים עלה לכל‬8‫ א׳ט‬1‫ מבית פב‬rntf ‫ תרשיש פי‬ntā* ‫ צר הלילי‬ieta
(ibid, xxiii. 1)
The rules for the use of the dāgbii and the rdpbeb in the letters of
the “ majority group” are dearly distinct from those regulating
the use of these signs in the letters ‫§( א‬2.31), ‫ר‬, ‫ע‬, ‫§( ח‬2.32), ‫ז‬
2.33§) ‫§( ה‬2.32) , ‫ )ו‬and 2.34§) ‫—)י‬and they are basically identical
with the Tiberian rides of the dāgbii and rdpbeb. In other words: in
the CR vocalization, the Tiberian bgd kpt rules hold good not
only for bgd kpt, but for other letters as well, namdy /, /, m, n,
­‫ז‬, ■fy <ļy l (l)• We shall call this group of letters (the “ majority
group” minus bgd kpt) the “ smaller majority group ” .
In certain cases, the Tiberian bgd kpt rides do not apply to the
use of the ddgbii and the rdpbeb in die letters of the “ majority
group ” and particularly not in the letters of the “ smaller majority
group” . These exceptions will be dealt with bdow (§2.351). On
the whole, however, it appears that the CR use of the ddgbii and
rdpbeb is based upon the pre-requisite that the Tiberian bgd kpt
rules be applied to all letters of die alphabet; excepted are those
representing the pharyngeal consonants (‫ח‬, ‫)ע‬, ‫ר‬, and those serv-
ing both as matres lectionis and as consonants (‫י‬,‫ו‬, ‫ה‬, ‫)א‬. Each of
the above letter-categories has good reason to be excepted. In ‫א‬
and in final ‫ה‬, the ddgbii and the rdpbeb signs are used to distin-
guish between consonantal and zero values of the letters (§§2.31
and 2.32). ‫ ו‬and ‫ י‬have specific rules for the use of the ddgbii and
the rdpbeb signs, also based on differentiative principles (§§2.33
and 2.34). The letters with which the ddgbii and the rdpbeb are
usually not applied at all are ‫ח‬, ‫ע‬, non-final ‫ ה‬and ‫ ר‬: these letters
represent consonants which, as a rule, are not geminated, and the
use of the ddgbii sign with them could have created confusion.
2.351. The main exceptions to the use of the ddgpii and rdpbeb
signs in the “ majority group” letters, according to the Tiberian
bgd kpt rules, are as follows:
(a) Initial ‫ ל‬and ‫ ש‬have the rdpbeb (andnot, as would be expected,
the ddgbi!) when their vowel is a i*wd. Initial ‫ ל‬with a Pvd : ‫לכי‬
1 CL however, p. 219, n. 2.
221
 T H E V O C A L IZA T IO N O F C O D EX R EU C H LIN IA N U S

(Isa. L 18);‫( ’לבוש‬ibid. xiv. 19);4‫( לפלס‬Jer. L 2);‫( לצדי^הו‬ibid, verse 3);
‫לעיר‬,‫לסלכי‬,‫( לשדיה‬verse 18);‫(לבקןש‬ibid, iL 33).1 Initial ‫ ש‬with a / W :
‫( שללה‬this is the usual CR vocalization of this noun); ‫( שאל‬I Kings
iiL 5); ‫( שודם‬ibid, verses 16 and 18). However, when initial ‫ ל‬and ‫ש‬
have any vowel other than the Pwd, they usually take the dāgbēl-,
‫( לתקולת‬I Sana. L 20); ‫( ל|ן‬Jer. xviii. 13);‫( ללכת‬ibid, verse 1j ) ; ‫שאלת‬
(I Kings iiL 11); ‫( שכבה‬ibid, verse 19); *ito (Isa. L 3). For further
discussion of the use of rāpbeb with initial ‫ ל‬and ‫ ש‬see §2.36.
(b) Final ‫ ם‬and ‫ ן‬do not have the expected rāpbeb-. j n a , ,‫ן‬£‫פא‬
‫דשכם‬, ļtarn, ‫העם‬, ‫( עין‬Judg. vii. 1). I can see no reason for the
omission of the rāpbeb from ‫ ם‬and ‫ ן‬while this sign is used with ‫ף‬
and ‫ץ‬. There is, of course, reason for equipping ‫ ך‬with a rāpbeb;
this letter may stand either for a fricative consonant (for example,
in ‫ )לך‬or for a stop (for example, in ‫ >)פץך‬and the rāpbeb serves as a
further indication of its fricative value. For final ‫ ף‬and ‫ ץ‬with a
rāpbeb, cf. for example:‫( אלף כסף‬II Sam. xviii. 12); ‫( הארץ‬Isa. xiii.
13); ‫( פ_קבץ‬ibid, verse 14).
(c) In a considerable number of cases, the “ majority group”
letters have a dāgpčl when they are in an initial position and when .
the preceding word ends in an open syllable, and comes with a
conjunctive accent. According to the Tiberian rules of bgd kpt,
one would, of course, expect here a rāpbeb sign. Cf. the following
examples: ‫( מהרי ללכת‬II Sam. xv. 1 4 );‫( ודאנזזלה־לני‬ibid. xx. 1);
»?‫ דדד אחרי ש‬n ņ » (ibid, verse 2); ‫( חדה כי ירעב‬Isa: viiL 21).
The reading-traditions of the post-biblical literature provide
us with parallels to this phenomenon. Certain Jewish communi-
ties—and particularly the Yemenite community—which have
preserved in their reading of the Bible the distinction between
plosive and fricative bgd kpt have in their reading of the post-
biblical literature only plosive bgd kpt in an initial position, regard-
less o f the nature of the last syllable of the preceding word.2 In
1 According to Kahle (M JW , n, 57*), only a prepositional ‫—ל‬and not
every initial ‫—ל‬with a PvS has the ripbtb in CR. That this is not the case is
proved by the first two forms dted here.
* This is to say, in the reading of the post-biblical texts, initial bgd kp t are
plosive, whetheror not the preceding syllableis open, and, when open, whether
or not it closely precedes the following word. Unlike the reading-traditions
of the Bible, the reading-traditions of the post-biblical literature are not based
on written accents; we cannot, therefore, distinguish in the reading of these
texts between a final open syllable, having a conjunctive accent, and one
coming with a disjunctive accent. The pausal relationship between the fin«l
222
 T H E V O C A L IZA T IO N OF C O D EX R EU CH LIN IA N U S

CR, this phenomenon occurs, however, more frequently in the

letters of the “ smaller majority group ” than it does in bgdkpt. •In
quite a number of cases, initial bgdkpt obey the Tiberian rules and
have the rdpbeb when they come in the aforementioned position
(namely following an open syllable of a word which has, a con-
juncdve accent). For example,‫( פןל* תהמז לנו פליסה‬II Sam. xv. 14);
‫( לפה תלך‬ibid, verse 19); ‫( דהן דוד‬ibid, verse 32); ‫( לא בא‬n Sam. xx.
3); ‫ ת ס‬re‫( »'־‬Isa. i. j).
(d) A letter of the “ smaller majority group” sometimes pos
sesses a ddgbēSwhen, as the second letter in a word, it follows the
copulative wow or one of the particles which are usually vocalized
with a Pwd. Cf. the two following categories of cases: (i) dāgbēl
after n> or /, Ķ b (forming an exception to the Tiberian bgd kpt
rules): ‫( וובחזה‬H Sam. xv. 14); ‫( ואחותי‬H Sam. xxii. 7); ‫זמי‬1‫ן‬
(Isa. iii. zi); ‫( תקתה‬ibid, verse z j); Stm {ibid. vi. 1); ‫{ בהולכת‬ibid.
verse 13); ‫( פפ^יגי גבול‬Hos. v. 10); ‫( בפסץ‬Hab. iii, 14). In the
Targum of CR: ‫( טחלא ךקדרון‬n Sam. xv. z3). (ii) rdpbeb after w or
l, k ,b {in accordance with the Tiberian rules): ‫ ( וכל‬n Sam. xv. Z3
—three times); ‫{ לצדיק‬ibid, verse 2j); ‫{ במעלה‬ibid, verse 30); ‫ודוד‬
(for example, ibid, verse 31); ‫ר‬5 ‫פ‬...‫( ב צדק תי‬n Sam. xxii. zi);
‫וךה‬5 ‫במעה בכרם במלמה במקשה כעיר נ‬. . .‫( *תרה‬Isa. i. 8);1 ‫נה‬5‫( ו‬Isa.
iv. j). We may explain the occurrence of the ddgbci in the cases
classified under category (i) in the light of a principle which
is contradictory to the Tiberian tradition. According to this
principle, a free morpheme has a fixed form, in which no changes
occur when it is preceded by one of the above morphemes (#‫ ׳‬or
b, k, /). According to this principle, the ‫ נ‬of ‫נןפי‬, for instance,
which has a dāgbēl when initial, would retain this dagbel even
when preceded by w or by b, k, l. It is of interest to note that this
very same principle is sometimes disclosed by the behaviour of
bgd kpt in the vocalization of the Babylonian Mishnah Fragments
and in the reading traditions of the post-biblical literature of
certain Jewish communities. I refer to forms such as 2,?‫ ך‬5), ‫יכך‬
syllabic and the word following should be defined in terms of juncture. For
“ oral accents” in the reading-traditions of the post-biblical literature see S.
Morag, Taring, xxv1(5717= 1956/7), 13 ff.
1 The second 3 of ‫כסוכה‬, as well as the 3 of ‫ במקשה‬possess both the
ddgf)iland the rdpbeb signs. See §2.351.
* See E. Porath, Mistmmc Hebrew (in Hebrew; 1938), p. 29, and S. Morag,
Šibbtf K'pbūlBtb bgd kprt (in Hebrew; to be published in Kitbbbty baHebbrāb
bHlļer bamMiqrd‘ b'YtsrS’tl, voL vi).
 T H E V O C A L IZA T IO N O F CO D EX R EU C H LIN IA N U S

which arc based on the above principle, that is to say, on the

adherence to a fixed morphemic form (whereas the Tiberian
forms ‫ןיכך זןכך‬, reflect the law of the moiphophonemic change
which takes place in an intervocalic position). It should be
observed, however, that in CR bgd kpt following the above
morphemes usually have the rdpbeb sign, in compliance with the
Tiberian law; it is primarily the letters of the “ smaller majority
group” which have a dāgbēi in certain cases after w or b, k, 1.
Whereas with bgd kpt, the dāgbēi and the rdpbeb are applied to
denote different pronunciations, it appears that this is not the case
with the use of these signs in the letters of the “ smaller majority
group” . Cf. below (/) and §2.36.
(11) A letter of the “ smaller majority group” often has the
dāgbēiafter a bdtēpb,1 for example, (Jos. L 17);‫( ן*וןפה‬I Sam. L
5 ,6 ); ‫עםי‬5 ‫( ו‬ibid, verse 16). See Sperber’s Introduction, §§74, 77.
This phenomenon, however, is far from being general, and the
number of cases in which a rdpbeb follows a bdtēpb seems to be at
least equal to the number of cases in which a dāgbēi comes after a
bdtēpb. For a rdpbeb after bdtēpb, cf. the following: ‫( צהדם‬I Sam.
i. 3); ‫( בעבור‬ibid, verse 6); ‫( עלתה‬verse 7); ‫עליה‬:. ‫( אמתך‬verse 11);
‫( והאזיך‬Isa. i. 2); ‫־‬item (ibid, verse 3 ) ;‫( נאגו‬ibid, verse 4).
How is the occurrence of the dāgbēi in this position to be ex-
plained ? Quite frequently, the vocalizer of CR uses the ķāfēpb sign
with the gutturals as an equivalent to the Tiberian ?wd quiescent
(vffāļ Jos. L 17; Jer. ii. 31); in these cases, the dāgbēi is, of
course, in full accordance with the Tiberian bgd kpt rules. The
occasional use of the bdtēpb as an equivalent to the Pvd quiescent1
has resulted in the formation of a dāgbēiin the following letter also
when the bdtēpb has the value of Jted mobile, for example, ‫וכעסתה‬
(I Sam. L 6). However, a bdtēpb which is the equivalent of a
?wd mobile, is usually not followed by a dāgbēi. No absolute con-
sistency should be sought here (cf. §2.332). Thus, we encounter
twice in the forty-eighth chapter of Ezekiel the form freten (verse
21), whereas the form naton, with a rdpbeb sign above the ‫ם‬, occurs
1 In this paper, the term ķāftpb stands for ļffapb-patbaķ.
1 As a matter of fact, if the sign! denotes / ,wi quUsttns id well as P vč mobile,
why should not the sign 1‫ ־‬be used for both? Needless to say, this use of the
ķ&tlpb is basically contradictory to that of the Tiberian system of vocalization,
in which the function of the ķdflpb is to emphasize the mobilt quality of the
P w i in the gutturals and occasionally in other consonants. Cf. S. Morag,
HalS'vā bcH'Qjjdtbdm h i &*ļy Tfym&t (1956), p. 46.
224
 T H E V O C A L IZA T IO N OF C O D E X R EU C H LIN IA N U S

not less than nine times (verses 8, 9,10 [twice], 13 [twice], 1j, 20
[twice]. Cf. also ‫ חמשת‬verse i j ; ‫ חמש‬verses 16 [twice], 30, 32, 33,
34); the form ‫ חטשים‬appears in this chapter once (verse 17) where-
as trtffq occurs three times (in the same verse).1
( /) After the so-called Pwa medium, CR usually has a dāghēl in
the letters of the “ smaller majority group”, for example, ‫?בטי‬
(Judg. xx. 12—twice; II Sam. xv. 10); ‫( לתק^&ת‬I Sam. i. 20);‫חבלי‬
(II Sam. xxii. 6); ‫( וםל*ףז‬Is. xxxiv. 1); ‫{ לבשי‬ibid. lii. 1—twice);
‫( תבלתו‬Jer. xxxvi, 30); ‫{ ונשיהם‬ibid. xl. 7). Bgd kpt, on the other
hand, generally have here the ripbeb sign, in accordance with the
Tiberian rules. C f.‫( מפי‬II Sam. xxii. 1 1 );‫( פלכי‬for example, in
Isa. L i ; xxxvii. 18);‫{ בגדי‬ibid. lii. 1). See Sperber’s Introduction,
§§70, 71. A ddghēi in bgd kpt after a $*wd medium (for example,
‫ש‬£‫—כנ‬Jer. xli. 6; Mas. voc.: ‫ )כמגש‬is much less frequent than in
the “ smaller majority group” letters.
2.351. Occasionally both the dāghēl and the rdpbeh are applied
to the same letter: ‫( לאמתך‬I Sam. i. 11); ‫( אבשלם‬II Sam. xv. 14);
‫ כמלמח במקשה‬. . . ‫( במפח‬Isa. i. 8). In the first two cases the rdpheb
appears to be a correction; in the third (‫)כמעה‬, the ddgpēšis most
likely a correction (the rdpbeb above the ‫ כ‬may have originated as a
result of graphic attraction to the preceding and following
rdpbeb signs in this word). The dāgbēš ill the ‫ ב‬of ‫ במקשה‬seems to be
a correction also.
2.352. We have already noted above that the vocalization of
CR is far from being consistent. Cf. for example, also such cases
as ‫( ממלכה‬Jer. xviii. 7) versus ‫{ ממלכה‬ibid, verse 9); ‫( ותקרא‬I Sam. i.
20) versus ‫( נקרא‬II Sam. xx. 1) and ®‫( רקך‬II Kings xii. 20)2 or
‫ק‬1‫( המלך לצד‬II Sam. xv. 2j )versus ‫( מלעא לצדוק‬in the Targum to this
verse). Inconsistencies, it is true, exist; the analysis of the CR
1 It may be worth while to compare the parallel forms in the vocalization
of the CR Targum to this chapter of EzekieL In the Targum, the following
forms appear: ‫( המשא‬verse 8); ‫( המשא‬verses 13, 15, zo); ‫( חמשה‬verse 20);
‫( חמשא‬verses 9, ij ); ‫( חמשה‬verses 10—twice, 13, 21); ‫( חמשא‬verses 20, 21);
‫( חמשה‬verse 13);®‫( חסי‬verse 16); ®‫( חם‬verse 33), as well as the abbreviations
‫( וחם׳‬verses 16, 32, 34); ",®‫( יח‬verse 17—twice); ‫( וחפו‬ibid.); ‫( וחס״‬ibid.).
1 Cf. also ‫( הנקראים‬Isa. xlviii. 1), ®*‫( נקי‬ibid, verse 2), and ‫( תקשרי‬Jos. ii.
21) versus ‫( מקסרין‬in the Targum to this verse). The CR dāgblī in a ‫ ק‬at the end
of a syllable reminds us of the Tiberian dāgbti in such forms as ‫ת‬1‫( עקב‬see
Gesenius-Cowley, p. 73).
‫גי‬ 225 ssivlU
 T H E V O C A L IZ A T IO N O F C O D EX R EU C H LIN IA N U S

method of vocalization shows, however, that in most cases the

use of the dāgpēi and the rāpheb signs is based upon the rules that
have been described in the present study.
2.36. How are we to explain the use of the dāgbēi and the
rāpheb with the letters of the “ smaller majority group ” (;£, /, /, m,
n, s, /, qt ! (/)) according to the rules which in the Tiberian tradi-
tion are applied only to bgd kpt? It would seem that in the CR
vocalization every letter representing a consonant which can be
geminated should as a rule have either a dāgbēi or a rāpheb. Since
‫ר‬, ‫ ע‬, n are not geminated, the dāgpēi and rāpbeb signs are usually
not applied to them at all (§2.32); the use of these signs with K
(§2.31) and final 2.32§) ‫)ה‬, as well as with 2-33§) ‫ )ו‬and 2.34§) ‫)י‬,
is, as we have seen above, subject to specific rules. On the other
hand, in most o f the letters, in the “ majority group”, the
dāgbēi denotes either gemination (and in this respect the use of the
dāgbēl in CR is Tiberian) or the syllable boundary. As a syllable-
boundary marker the dāgbēi sign appears both initially and
medially: it comes in the beginning of the word, and in the middle
of the word following a consonant which is accompanied by a
Pwā sign, when this Jhuā is qtdsscens. It is as a syllable-boundary
marker in the letters of the “ majority group ” that CR employs the
dāgpēi according to the Tiberian bgd kpt rides.
It is apparent that the principle which has been adopted by the
vocalizer of CR aims at solving one of the existing major diffi-
culties o f the Tiberian vocalization system. In this system, the
same sign stands for both i*wāmobile (the phonetic value of which
is zero) and for š*wā qmescens (the phonetic value of which is that
of a vowel), and unless the consonant, with which the J W sign
comes, be a guttural,1 there is no clue in the system itself for
solving this ambiguity. In order to know the phonetic value of a
medial Pwā sign, the reader of a Tiberian text has to rely upon
oral tradition or must have recourse to grammatical rules and
subsidiary—not always effective—clues (such as the metbegb).
The situation is different in the CR system of vocalization.
Here, the dāgbēi in a letter of the “ majority group” indicates,
when this letter is in a medial position, that the preceding syllable
is closed (that is, that the preceding Pwi is quiescens)\ a rāpbeb
denotes that syllable as open (and the preceding i*wā to be mobile).
This principle of indicating the nature of a medial J W by a
dāgbēi in the following letter is not completely unknown to the
1 We arc not concerned here with the cases in which the ķdttpb comes ■with
non-guttural consonants.
226
 T H E V O C A L IZA T IO N O F C O D E X R EU C H LIN IA N U S

Tiberian Masorah: certain Tiberian m anuscripts have a ddgbēiin a

letter which follows a guttural (for example, ntgrnj Ps. lxi. 4; 16»$
ibid. cv. 22), indicating that the preceding Pwd is quitscerts.1 More-
over, the very term itself, ddgpēl, may imply in the Masorah that a
medial &wd is quiescetts (whereas rdpbeb would denote that a medial
Pwd is mobile).1■
To sum u p : in the vocalization of CR we observe the applica-
tion of the ddgpei and rdpbeb signs, which in most Tiberian manu-
scripts are used only with bgd kpt, to other letters as well (the
letters of the "smaller majority group’‫)׳‬. In both the bgd kpt
group and in the “ smaller majority group”, CR uses the dāgpēš
and the rdpbeb signs according to the same rules, namely, the
Tiberian bgd kpt rules. There is, however, a fundamental dif-
ference between the meaning of these signs when applied to the
letters of the “ smaller majority group” and when used with the
bgd kpt group. With the former group, these signs indicate word-
boundary (except when the word begins with a ‫ ל‬or a ‫ש‬, see above
§ 2.3 j i (a)) and syllable-boundary, but seemingly have no phonetic
significance regarding the pronunciation of the consonants with
which they come; when used with the latter group they indicate
two kinds of pronunciation (plosive versus fricative) also. This is
why the use of the ddgjxJand the rdpbeb with bgdkpt differs in certain
cases from the use of these signs with the letters of the “ smaller
majority group” (see ibid, (d), (e), (J); cf. also (<‫))־‬. To take one
of these cases as an example, after foe so-called Pwd medium, bgd
kpt have a rdpbeb (for example,‫ )»לכי‬whereas the letters of foe
“ smaller majority group” have a ddgbēl (for example, vgpļi). In
fo rm s which have bgd kpt as their third consonant, it appears that
the vocalizer followed the practice of a reading-tradition which
had a fricative (rdpbeb) pronunciation; he could not, therefore,
have employed here the ddgbēito denote that foe Pwd is quiescetts as
this sign would have indicated also a plosive pronunciation of the
1 See G D. Ginsburg, Introduction to the Hebrew Bible (1897), pp. 121-36.
The mim use of the d&ppfJ sign is disclosed by the Ben N apitdh vocalization
of the word ‫( מנ^ב‬Jer. ix. 3; see the important list of Ben Napbtdb's variants
published by F. Pčrez Castro in Sefarad, xv [193;], 3-30). Here the dJgbl!
serves to distinguish this form from ‫מנ^ב‬. A similar principle is disclosed by
the use of the d&ppUin an initial letter, when the same letter precedes in close
connexion (for example, «HMR1TUIsa. xlii. 3; see Ginsburg, op. cit. pp. 114 f£
and cf. Ben Napbtdll’s 1® P Exod. xxxiiL 11; p»“p Num. xL 28—Ctutro,
op. cit. p. 11).
1 See S. Frensdorff, Die Massora Maffta (1876), p. 68, n. 6, and p. 132;
FJias Levita, Massoretb Ha-Massoretb (ed. G D. Ginsburg, 1867), pp. 203-4.
227 XS -3
 T H E V O C A L IZA T IO N O F C O D E X R EU C H LIN IA N U S

consonant which follows the š*wā. With the letters of the

“ smaller majority group” on the other hand, the use of the
dāgbēl.and the rāpbeb did not involve any indication whatsoever
concerning the pronunciation of the consonants with which they
come.1 With this group, they are, therefore, used also in forms
like ‫?ובטי‬, etc, to indicate syllable-boundary.
One problem yet remains, namely what is the purpose of the
rāpbeb sign which comes with initial ‫ ל‬and ‫ ש‬when their vowel is.
š*wā. I see no answer to this question.12
2.361. It seems appropriate to deal here briefly with the place
the CR vocalization occupies in the historical development of
Hebrew vocalization.
In the history of the Hebrew vocalization systems, as it is
known to us today, we observe, in all three schools—the Baby-
Ionian, the Tibetian, and the Palestinian—a clear process of
development from a partial and phonemic to a fuller and phonetic,
vocalization.
Thus, in the earlier stages of the Babylonian vocalization, the
vowel-signs are found above certain words only, and in these
words not all vowels are denoted. In these early stages, the
vocalizers did not deem it necessary to denote every vowel not
represented in the orthography. Only certain dubious cases, in
which a reading error could have occurred, were vocalized.
Later on, however, the use of the vowel signs became more
frequent and consistent, and the last stage in the development of
Babylonian vocalization, the so-called “ complicated” Babylonian
system, is based on an utterly different approach. This system is
an attempt at furnishing the reader w ith/*// instructions as to the
correct pronunciation of the text. Denoting vowel quality and—
to some extent—quantity (or, possibly, stress), as well as gemi-
nation, the “ complicated” Babylonian system constitutes the
most elaborate form of phonetic transcription to exist in any of
the vocalization systems of Hebrew.
A sim ilar, albeit not fully parallel, development can be traced
in the history of the Tibetian and Palestinian vocalization systems.
As several of the CR peculiarities show, its vocalization is more
1 Needless to say, we are not concerned here with the use of the dāgptS as a
sign denoting gemination.
2 Kurt Levy (see MAW, n, 57*, n. 1) suggested that the rāpbeb comes with
the preposition ‫( ל‬cf. above, p. 222, n. 1) to denote the pronunciation el, which
exists in Samaritan Hebrew. Until further proof is supplied, this explanation
will remain, of course, in the domain of conjecture.
228
 T H E V O C A L IZA T IO N OF C O DEX REU C H LIN IA N U S

complete than that of the Tiberian school: it denotes consonantal

‫ א‬versus ‫ א‬which is a mater lectionis (§2.31); it marks—by different
means—consonantal 2.34§) ‫)י‬, consonantal ‫ ו‬in medial and final
positions (§2.33) and it has a way of indicating the opening and
the ending of the syllable not only in bgd kpt, as does the usual
Tiberian vocalization, but in /, /, m, n, s, s, q, J (/), as well. To
conclude, the CR vocalisation system is far more phonetic in its prin-
ciples than the usual Tiberian system.
One may add that the invention of a vocalization system repre-
senting a fuller phonetic notation was probably due to the
activity of a school which considered the already existing systems
to be inadequate. Such a situation is, of course, symptomatic of
a rather late period, in which the reading o f the text became less
and less accurate. During the period in which the early activities
of the Masoretic schools took place, the reading of the biblical
text was based more upon oral, living, tradition than upon the
written vowel signs; later on, however, it became more and more
dependent upon the written vowel signs.
Professor Sperber’s assumption that the vocalization of CR
represents a “ pre-Masoretic” school appears, therefore, incom-
patible with the actual findings. As we observed, there is good
reason to believe that the aforementioned tendency towards a
fuller phonetic notation, so conspicuous in CR, is typical of a
later stage in the development of the vocalization systems. We
have here to do with a school, a Palestinian school as we shall see
later, which is distinctly post-Masoretic.

3. O T H E R P E C U L IA R IT IE S OF T H E CR V O C A L IZ A T IO N

3.1. As compared with the Tiberian Masoretic vocalization, CR

discloses some morphological variants, for example, jņ? (II Sam.
xv. 20; Mas. voc.: ‫ אשר ; )קנ^נןן‬trip®? {ibid, verse 21; Mas. voc.:
‫ *?י־‬oipjpa).
3.2. A consonant with a Pwa mobile, which is geminated in the
Tiberian, is quite frequently not geminated in CR. For example,
‫( הנביאים‬I Kings xx. 35); 3*7 {ibid, verse 36); ‫( רדתה‬Isa. xxxiv.
j and 7); «‫( ו סט‬Ezek. xliii. 88). Cf. Sperber’s Introduction,
§69. The tendency to drop the ddgbid of a consonant which has
a i*wd as its vowel is evident also in MSS. which are vocalized
according to the Tiberian tradition.1 The phenomenon is, how-
ever, more frequent in CR. Both in the Tiberian tradition and in
1 Cf. Gesenias-Cowley, p. 74.
229
 T H E V O C A L IZA T IO N OF C O D EX R B U C H LIN IA N U S

CR, this dropping of the dāģūl occurs mainly in the semi-vowels

(v an d j‫)׳‬, in the sonants (/, m, »), and in the sibilants (s, /, %).
3.3. The vocalizer of CR distinguishes neither between patbab
and qdmts nor between s*g/boland sēri. All of these vowel signs are
used in CR; the vocalizer, however, is completely free in his
choice of either the patbaķ or the qdmts as he is in that of the sēri or
s‘gbol. Cf., for example, the following verses:
‫ המה חכמים המה‬tmfii ‫ כגיס סכלים המה ולא‬v r r ‫עי ארל עמי «*הי לא‬
‫ולהטיב לא״ידעו‬
t
t •1 ‫וז‬
‫להרע‬
»‫זי‬

(Jer. iv. 22)

‫םםיכם‬1‫לכם נביאיכם אשר בקרבכם וק‬ ‫אל‬
(ibid. xxix. 8)
This lack of distinction between patbaķ and qdmts on the one
hand and sēri and s,gpol on the other is a salient feature of certain
texts which have Palestinian vocalization.1
3.4. In a closed and unstressed syllable, CR usually has a
b*fapb-qdmif as the equivalent of Tiberian qdmts: ‫( אכלה‬I Sam. L 9);
,‫?]־‬J, (II Sam. xv. 19; so also in the Targum to this verse: ‫;)*מלי‬
frŪM (ibid. xv. 3 2 );‫( באמיו‬ibid. xxii. 7). In certain cases, however,
CR uses boltm as the parallel of Tiberian qdmif which comes in the
aforementioned position: ‫( בלבול‬Jos. iv. 7); ‫( בלפןןכם‬ibid, v i j).
Cf. Sperber’s Introduction, §62. Occasionally, ķ*fapb-qdmtf is the
CR parallel of Tiberian boltm (for example,‫ ומיכל‬n Sam. xxii. 4).
Needless to say, CR also has a ķ*fapb-qdmēļ when the Tiberian
vocalization has this vowel sign: ‫( אהולם‬Isa. xvi. 3).
The use of the b*fapb-qdmis in the category of syllables under
consideration should be considered, so it appears, in the light of
the general tendency of the vocalizer to make the vocalization
signs as unequivocal as possible. Our vocalizer may have two
signs (t and ‫ ;־‬- and ‫ )ד‬for the same vowel, but he would avoid
the use of one sign for two vowels. This is why he does not use
the qdmis in the above category of syllables: the phonetic value of
the qdmtf sign was a—as we infer from the mixed use of the
qdmis and patbab vowel signs—and its use in those syllables would
have implied that their vowel has to be pronounced as an a. On
the other hand, in most cases the vocalizer of CR did wish to
conform to the Tiberian practice of not employing the boltm sign
to denote an 0 in closed unstressed syllables. The ideal solution to
1 Cf., for example, Kahle, MdWt n, 20*.
230
 T H E V O C A L IZA T IO N O F CO D EX REU C H LIN IA N U S

the problem seemed to be the adaptation of the Iftapb-qimcs for

the desired purpose. The feet that in these syllables the ķ*tapb-
qamis is followed by a S*wi sign (for example, 1*‫ )ץךד‬did not
bother the vocalizer. In this connexion, it may be of some value
to compare the CR notation o f the 0 vowel in closed unstressed
syllables with that of the Tiberian, Palestinian and Babylonian1*4
schools.
0 vowel with
0 vowel in closed gutturals (and
unstressed syllables occasionally with
and in open syllables other consonants) 0 vowel in open and
preceding a guttural representing a in closed stressed
with historical Pvd syllables
Tiberian s *
vocalization
Palestinian X (= Tiberian X x,1
vocalization jaltm )
X (»Tiberian X —
qdmlf)'
Babylonian X (»Tiberian & (Tiberian * ,‫י‬
vocalization pdltrn)
X (»Tiberian
qdmlfp
CR "Ķ (sometimes X) in X (rarely g ) , \
vocalization closed unstressed
syllables; ^ in
open syllables pre-
ceding a guttural1
1 For Palestinian parallels to Tiberian qdmlf in closed unstressed syllables,
see P. Leander, Z~A.W . uv (1936), 93; P. Kahle, Tbt Cairo Gtarfa (1947),
p. 53. As qdmlf and patbaļ are used alternately in the Palestinian tradition,
Palestinianpatbaķ may also be the parallel of a Tiberian 0 in the position under
consideration. See Kahle, MdW, n, 20, 28 it aJ. A. Murtonen, Mattrialsfor a
Non-Masorttit H tbrtv Grammar, 1 (19)8), 29-30.
1 Babylonian Hebrew frequently has a u vowel as the equivalent of
Tiberian qdmlf in closed unstressed syllables. See Kahle, MTB, p. 23. It is
mostly later Babylonian MSS. which have a qdmlf as the parallel of Tiberian
qdmlf in the position under consideration, and the occurrence of this vowel-
sign in these MSS. may perhaps have resulted from Tiberian inflnenrr (Kahle
apud Bauer-Leander, HG, p. 100 q).
1 This qdmlf like any otherqdmlf, mayalternate withpathaķ:11)‫ רים‬Isa. xvL 3.
4 Only in very few cases do Palestinian and Babylonian Hebrew have a
vowel as the parallel of Tiberian ķ‘tapb-qdmlf which comes with a medial
guttural (that is, in forms like h^ļTIl, ^VjTK); the usual parallel of such a (ffapb-
qdmlf in these traditions is zero (see Kahle, MTB, ibid, and Teander, lot. tit.).
 T H E V O C A L IZA T IO N O F C O D EX REU C H LIN IA N U S

This table1 shows that, with respect to the notation of the

0 vowel in the position in question, CR stands midway between
the Tiberian and the Palestinian schools. Unlike the Tiberian, it
does not use the qdmes to denote the vowel in question; for this
purpose, a special sign, the ķ*tapb-qāmēs, is used, which never
leaves the reader in doubt as to die phonetic value of the vowel
which it denotes.
When we compare the vocalization of CR with that of
Palestinian texts, we see that, whereas the Palestinian vocalizers
had in many cases to have recourse to the bolem sign to denote the
quality of the vowel in question, CR has found a way of dif-
ferentiating between the notation of 0 in closed unstressed syl-
lables (as well as in category 2) and of ‫ ע‬in open and in closed
stressed syllables. Only in a comparatively small number of cases
CR adheres to the Palestinian practice of denoting the 0 of the
closed and unstressed syllables by a boltm.
3.5. Final consonantal ‫ י‬is frequently accompanied by both a
bireq and a rāpbtb•. fn irr.. .‫( אה^יל‬Jer. iv. 20);‫{ דברל‬ibid. v. 14); 'h
{ibid, verse 1j : four tim es);‫{ בזול‬ibid. xlix. 15). Cf. above§2.34.
This double notation comes to emphasize the consonantal nature
of the final ‫י‬. A final ‫ י‬accompanied by a btreq appears both in
Palestinian (for example, 1(‫ לווי‬and in Babylonian texts (for
example,'3.(‫מזו‬, '‫ובזו‬
3.6. Final consonantal ‫ ו‬has quite frequently the Pwa sign. Cf.
§ 2.3 3. To this, the practice of the Babylonian vocalization system
may be compared. Although this system does not employ the
$*wi sign with a final ‫ו‬, it does occasionally attempt to emphasize
the consonantal character of a ‫ ו‬in this position by placing above it
the sign o f the vowel u (for example,‫אביו‬, rhK).+
1 The problem of the quality of the vowel* represented by the signs of the
ķoltm and the qdmlf (in closed unstressed syllables) in the various vocalization
systems does not fall within the scope of the present discussion.
* A. Murtonen, op. at. p. TO, line 116 (I owe this referenceto Dr Murtonen).
The Kaufmann MS. of the Mishnah also has a final consonantal ‫—י‬whether
it is represented in the orthography by one letter (for example,‫ )??ל‬or by two
letters (for example, ‫—)ברזילי‬which is accompanied by a ķirtq (cf Tbt
Mishnah Tstatist ObaJotb, critically edited by A. Goldberg [1955]. Introduc-
tion, p. ‫)כ‬.
* Kahle, MJO, p. 164. Both in the Palestinian and in the Babylonian texts,
a final consonantal ‫ י‬is accompanied by a ķrtq mostly when ‫ ו‬is the preceding
letter.
* Kahle, lot. tit., and M TB, p. 26. In all words known to me in which
the Babylonian vocalization has a final ‫ ו‬with a superior u sign, the ‫ ו‬follows
 T H E V O C A L IZA T IO N OF C O DEX R EU CH LIN IA N U S

3.7. CR has a Prvd sign placed under final ‫ ח‬and ‫ ע‬: ‫( יןרוע‬II Sam.
xv. 32); ‫( ףשפע‬ibid. xxii. 7); ‫( דברח‬I Kings xi. 40); stMfj (Jer.
xviiL 9); 9‫( הך‬ibid, verse 12); ‫( פשלח‬ibid. xxL 1). This use of the
final Pwa obviously aims at emphasizing the consonantal nature
of final ‫ ח‬and ‫ע‬. To a final ‫ה‬, which has the dāgbēl ( = Tiberian
mapptq), the Pwd is not applied; its use in this case woulcl have
been redundant. Cf. for example,‫( פתפהפה‬II Sam. xv. 28). A final
‫ ה‬which comes with a Pwd does not have a mapptq: rrr (Isa. xiii.
10).
As we see, the CR vocalization does not usually possess a
parallel to the Tiberian ptatbabfurtivum. Occasionally, however, a
patbaķ precedes the final guttural, and the occurrence of this
patbaķ is, as pointed out by Kahle,1 quite frequent after an / : ‫והדמז‬
(II Sam. xv. 14; but cf. r r r Isa. iv. 4); 3 ,? ‫רחז‬r ‫־‬r (Isa. xlii. 13);
‫( ןדע‬ibid. xlv. 14); ‫*מנ‬11‫( י‬ibid, verse 20). After a vowel other
than t it is comparatively rare to find a patbaķ before a final
guttural. In these cases (for example, ‫ תזישע‬Jos. L 1) the patbaķ
may perhaps be a later addition.2 There seems to be a phonetic
explanation to the fact that CR has the patbaķ after /, but not, as a
rule, after other vowels; this problem, however, cannot be dealt
with here.
The Tiberian tradition of Hebrew is the only tradition to
possess a patbaķ furtivum (or, at least, the only one to use it con-
sistently).3 In not having a regular parallel to this patbaķ (except,
as stated above, after an t), CR is in accordance with both the
Palestinian and the Babylonian traditions. However, other
peculiarities of CR considered, this feature should be regarded as
Palestinian.
3.8. A Tiberian Pwa, preceding a ‫ י‬which has a bireq as its
vowel, is usually represented in CR by a btreq, while the following
‫ י‬is silent: ‫( רשטע‬Isa. xlii. 23; Mas. voc.: ‫( בירפדהו ;)ךש?ע‬Jer.
xxix. 27); ‫( וימימו‬Ezek. xliii. 10); ‫( רשמת‬ibid, verse 11). Some
an Ī. It should be noted that both in the Babylonian and Palestinian vocaliza-
tions, the u sign appears also above a medial consonantal ‫( ו‬for example,
‫ ל ח ד‬MdO, ibid.; Porafo, op. tit. pp. 27-8; ‫( ודויד‬Murtonen, op. tit. p. 0,
line 14).
1 Apmd Bauer-Leander, HG, p. 113 q‫׳‬.
1 Cf. Sperber’s Introduction, §8j.
1 See Kahle apmd Bauer-Leander, HG, p. 113 q'; S. Motag in LrJonM
Ld'dm, Lxxvn, 104-10. For a patbaķ with a final 9 , mostly when following a
qim tf, in foe Babylonian tradition, see Kahle, MdO, p. 166.

*33
 T H E V O C A L IZA T IO N OF C O DEX R EU C H LIN IA N U S

forms, however, conform to the Masoretic vocalization: ,‫ליישךאל‬

(Jer. ii. 31; the same vocalization occurs in the Tar gum of this
verse).
The phenomenon under consideration (C*yi>G) is charac-
teristic of the Ben Najtdli school of Masorah.1 It is to be explained
as the result of a phonetic process originating in the pronunciation
of a Bwd which precedes a ‫ י‬like an *; hence: C‘y i> G .2
3.81. In a few cases, CR has a ‫ י‬with a btreq as the parallel of
Tiberian ‫ י‬with a Bwd mobile: ‫( ״סתה‬Jos. vi. 26; cf., however,
?‫—ישכלליט‬with a Bwd—in the Tar gum of this verse); ‫ומןדבל‬
(II Sam. xxii. 4); ‫( ללליל‬Isa. xv. 2, and ibid, verse 4);3 ‫( ליקיילו‬Hos.
vii. 1 4 ) . Parallels to this phenomenon are attested to in Hebrew,
in both the Palestinian4and Babylonian5traditions, and in Syriac.6*
3.9. The vocalization of CR discloses some graphic peculi-
aritdes. to is distinguished from to by inserting the differentiating
dot within the letter: to corresponds to the usual to and r corre-
sponds to the usual to.7 The form of the ķdtēph in CR is different
from that usually employed: the Bwd sign is inserted inside the
letter and placed above the vowel sign (for example, ‫ ?תרלם‬Isa.
xvi. 3). The mapptq may be placed under the ‫ה‬, and not inserted
within this letter (for example, ‫ הרעמה‬I Sam. i. 6). All these
peculiarities appear in other MSS. as ‫־‬tfell.8

4. IS “ C O D E X R E U C H L I N I A N U S ” O F T H E ‫ ״‬B E N
N A PH TA l Ī ” SCHOOL?

Quite a few of the characteristics disclosed by the vocalization of

CR are shared also by other MSS. A number of these MSS. have
been described by Paul Kahle9 who considers them, as well as
1 The relation between the CR vocalization and the Btn Napbtdti school
will be discussed below (§4).
1 See Gumpertz, op. at. pp. 77 and ioj ; A. Ben-David in Taring, xxvi
(1956/7), 404; S. Morag, HalS'wd baH’ģjjdtbām Jel & nļf Ttymdn, pp. 26 ff.
‫ י‬In Isa. xvi. 7, the ‫ י‬of this form, which occurs twice in the verse, has a
I*wd: ‫״ליל‬
♦ Cf. Murtonen, op. at. p. 44, third line from the bottom:‫=( ימהר‬rTib.‫; )לטהר‬
p .‫כד‬, line 16:‫=( חדתי‬T ib.‫)מדתו‬. . » Cf. Kahle, MdO, p. 165.
6 In Syriac y*>yi (> 1). Cf. Brockelmann, Sjr. Gram.6, p. 45.
‫ י‬For the form of ddg/bif and rdpbeb in these letters, see p. 217, n. 2.
8 For ‫ ש‬and to, see Kahle, n, 59*-60*; MdO, p. 107. For the form of
the ķdffpb see Kahle, MdW, n, 58*. For the mappdq see, for example, Gold-
berg, op. ā t. p. M. 9 MdW, n, j 5* ff.

234
 TH B V O CA LIZA TIO N OF CO D EX R EU CH LIN IA N U S

CR,1 to represent the Bible text of the Ben Napbtdft school.

Kahle admits that not all peculiarities of the MSS. under cop-
sideration are to be regarded as Ben Napbtdft features.* Thus, it is
evident that the lack of differentiation between pathab and qdmis
on the one hand and s*gboland sēri on the other (§ 3.3), is definitely
not a Ben Napbtdft feature.* On the whole, however, Kahle
assigns these MSS. to the Ben Napbtdft school.
A detailed examination of all MSS. which, according to Kahle
represent the Ben Napbtdft school, falls outside the scope of this
paper. What concerns us here is the question of whether or not
CR is a Ben Napbtdft MS. We shall answer this by comparing in
the following table certain features of CR vocalization with both
their Ben Āiēr and Ben Napbtdft* parallels.
Ben Napht&ll Ben Aščr
CR ( = BN) (=BA)
1. Application of the Tiberian No consistent No consistent
bgd kpt rules also to the parallels* parallels
letters !j, /, /, m, it, t, f, q,
n * ) .n $*•3 5 )
2. Lack of distinction between These vowels are differentiated
patbaķ and qdmlf and between
ftri and fg b il (§ 3.3)
3. Frequent dropping of the Not, as far as we Less frequent than
digbtdforte in semi-vowels, know, more fre- in CR
sonants, and sibilants (§3.2) quent than in BA
4. Use of the ķ*fapb-qāml! to No parallel use
denote an 0 in a dosed and
unstressed syllable (§3-4)
j. ķlrtq with a final consonantal No parallel use
‫§( י‬3 -5)
6. PwS with a final consonantal No parallel use
‫§( י‬3 -6 )
7• Jfwi with final n and 9 ; Patbaķ fartmtm with final n and ‫ ע‬after
patbaķ fartwum usually only Ī, /, Ū, 8 ; zero in other cases
after an t (§3.7)
* In this description, Kahle denotes CR by “ Ms.O”.
* Ibid. p. 66*. * Ibid. p. 67*.
* For the B*n Napbtdti school, see rKahle, ibid. pp. 61* ff.; T-azar Lipschūtz,
But Astr-Ben NaftaJi; dtr BibtJttxt dtr tiberiscben Masortttn (1935); F. P6rez
Castro, “Corregido y Correcto”, Srfarad, xv (195 5), 3-30; A. Ben-David in
Tarbi%, xxvi (1956/7), 384 flf.
* In the word (Jer. ix. 3), BN uses the ddgptl according to the CR
principles (see above, p. 227, n. 1).
 T H E V O C A L IZ A T IO N OF C O DEX REU C H LIN IA N U S
Ben Naphtill Ben Ažēr
CR (= B N ) (= B A )
8 . I n it i a l (preceding a ‫י‬ ‫וישמע‬ ‫ ויש מ ע‬1
with a firtq ) > blrtq: ?M P J
(§ 3 -8 )
9. ‫ ש? ר‬1‫( ה‬Ezek. xlviiL 26, 33)2 ‫?ששכר‬ ‫ןשש?ר‬
10. 1‫( ? ך מ‬Jos. ii. 23; vi, 6; ‫( ? ן מן‬Exod. ‫?ז־נין‬
xiv. i ; xviL 4; xxL 1 ; xxv. TTTiii. 11)
29)
‫( ? ך נ ון‬Jos. ii. 1 ; xix. j 1) ‫( ? ך מן‬Num. xL
28 )
‫ ? ד מ ן‬Go», i-1)
11. ‫( ^ לי לי‬Hos. viL 14)1 ‫ך לי לו‬ ‫יילילו‬
• ‫״‬1
12. Tends not to have the A similar tendency A wider use o f the
maqqlpb in certain cases in to that of CR‘ maqqlpb than in
which BA possesses the CR and BN
maqqlpb*
13. The use of the mttbtgp:
agreement with BN in
certain cases and with BA in
others.6 E .g.:
Jer. L 7: ‫א שלחך‬ ‫א שלחך‬ ‫א שלחך‬
ii. 6: ‫ה פ ע ל ה‬ ‫הפעלה‬ ‫הפעלה‬
ii. 22: ‫כייא ם‬ ‫כי א ס ־‬ ‫<כי' א ם ־‬
!ii- 9: ‫ותחנף‬ ‫והחנף‬
xvi. 17: ” TO? ‫סוד‬1‫ב‬ 7 ‫ וז‬0 ‫ב‬

This com parison shows that on ly a small num ber o f CR features

in this table can be defined as belonging to the school o f Ben
Napbtā/ī.
1 The Cairo Codex of the Latter Prophets (dated a . d . 897), vocalized by
M6&e Ben Ažēr, also has forms like ‫( וישפע‬see Ben-David, op, fit. p. 404). The
rale of the Btn A lfr school is, however, that a P v i which precedes ijo d with a
ķirtq should be maintained (see Diķdāķēy HafP'imlm, $ 13).
1 In Ezek.xlviiL 25 CR has ‫שכר‬4‫( ח‬there is a vowel sign under the second V,
but its nature is not clear).
j Cf. also: ’<
‫( ”>’■"׳‬Isa. xv. 2, 3); ‫( ^ליל‬ibid. xvL 7).
* Cf. for example, CR: ‫ פליסה‬€‫( כי ־לא תהתז ל‬n Sam. xv. 14; BA:
‫( והלה כן ץ־עב ;)לא־תהיה־לנו‬Isa. viii. 21; BA: ‫)כי־ירעב‬. The relationship
between the use of the maqqlpb and that of the Mttbeļft will not be dimnmwl
here. ‫ י‬Cf. Ben-David, op. tit. p. 391.
* The Btn Napbtāit material is taken from Castro’s paper (above, p. 235,
n. 4).
236
 T H E V O C A L IZA T IO N O F C O D E X R E U C H L IN IA N U S

The Masoretic schools of Ben AJēr and Ben Naphtālī differ

mainly in the use of the metbegb and the maqqipb (cf. the above
table, nos. 12 and 13), in some phonetic matters (cf. above
no. 8),1 and in the reading of certain words (cf. above nos. 9 and
11); CR differs from both these schools in principal matters of
vocalization.

Some of the peculiarities of CR vocalization are distinctly

Palestinian (cf. §§3.3 and 3.8); others are shared both by Pales-
rinian and Babylonian MSS. (§§3.5, 3.7, and 3.9). As CR does
not possess any major Babylonian feature which is not also a
Palestinian feature, and as it does have specific Palestinian charac-
tens tics, we can regard it as representing a certain Palestinian
school. This school, as we saw above (§2.361), aimed to achieve,
as far as possible, a full phonetic notation in its vocalization. We
further observed that in its principles this school is rather post-
than ^»-Masoretic; it represents a later stage in the development
of the Masorah.
The importance of CR—and of the other MSS. of the same
school—lies not in their supposedly being “ pre-Masoretic” but
in the new data with which they furnish us, data which are rele-
vant to the history of the traditions and of the vocalization sys-
terns of Hebrew and Aramaic. The study of these MSS. reveals a
new philological school, which may be named, in the light of its
tendency to completeness, the “ fuller Palestinian” school.
1 Another phonetic question over which the Btn A H r and Be* Napbtih
schools differ is the quality of the Pwā in certain cases, such as some forms of
the roots ‫אכל‬, ‫גרש‬, ‫קרב‬. This question is directly related to the general
problem of the medial Pvā.

*37