Masoretic Text

Found 5 Search results

  1. Nusach Ha-mikra – Accuracy of the Biblical Text

    Part 3 - The Version of Chazal and the Masora Version

    Rabbi Amnon Bazak

    The Masoretes lived between the 8th and 10th centuries, and sought to establish a uniform version of the text that would be accepted, from that point onwards, in all Jewish communities.The Masora text was preserved with great accuracy and meticulousness by means of various devices.

    In general, the Masora version of the text continues the version used by Chazal, nevertheless, it should be noted that in dozens of instances the Masora version differs from the text used by Chazal, and sometimes these differences are substantial. A clear awareness of the many discrepancies between the Masoretic version of Tanakh and the version used and cited by Chazal existed amongst authorities and commentators through the ages.

  2. Nusach Ha-mikra – Accuracy of the Biblical Text

    Part 4 - Keri u-Khetiv

    Rabbi Amnon Bazak

    There are examples of the keri u-khetiv phenomenon that indicate the possibility of linguistic errors and grammatical updates, but there are also instances of 'keri u-khetiv' which appear to indicate the existence of different textual versions, reflecting discrepancies between different manuscripts.

  3. Nusach Ha-mikra – Accuracy of the Biblical Text

    Part 5 - Development of the Masoretic Text

    Rabbi Amnon Bazak

    The Masoretic version is indeed accepted as authoritative, but since the Tanakh is such a remarkably complex work, including tens of thousands of details  - letters, vowels, cantillation marks, etc. - in many instances the general acceptance of an authoritative version was not sufficient for it to be implemented with perfect accuracy throughout the Jewish Diaspora.

  4. Nusach Ha-mikra – Accuracy of the Biblical Text

    Part 6 - Textual Witnesses and Textual Amendments

    Rabbi Amnon Bazak

    The Masoretic text is the most complete and most accurate extant testimony for the Tanakh, nevertheless, there are many other ancient textual witnesses, which contain numerous instances of different versions of words or verses. The first group consists of the ancient Hebrew textual witnesses, first and foremost among them the Dead Sea Scrolls. Until the discovery of these scrolls, many biblical scholars had dismissed the significance of the Masoretic text owing to its relatively late appearance. The scrolls brought about a change in attitude, since they demonstrated that the Masora preserved a tradition that was older by a millennium or more, and that had been passed down meticulously.

  5. Radak - Rav David Kimchi

    Dr. Avigail Rock

    The Radak — R. David Kimchi — was born and active in Provence, in southern France, near Spain. The Radak was a member of a family of Spanish grammarians and exegetes. Like R. Avraham ibn Ezra, the Kimchi family brought the fundamentals of linguistics and grammar from Spain to France.

    Despite the fact that Radak sees himself as a pashtan, he does not hesitate to cite derash. However, when the Radak quotes these sources, it is obvious that he has a distinction between peshat and derash.

    Two principles guide the Radak in citing Midrashic sources:

    • When it is difficult to resolve the peshat without the derash.
    • For the lovers of derash - in order to explain the text and engage his readers.

    The view of the Radak is that the Torah is not a historical tome. Those stories of the Patriarchs which have been selected to put into the Torah with all of its details must fulfill one criterion: teaching a moral lesson.

    Just as one may learn from the positive acts of the forefathers, so one may learn from their negative acts. The Radak does not engage in apologetics; instead, he writes explicitly that the narratives which describe the negative acts of the Patriarchs have been written in order to help us avoid this sort of behavior.

    The Radak points out consistently that the Torah often uses repetitious language, not because each word introduces new meaning, but because the verse seeks to stress the significance of a given issue. This view stands in stark contrast to that of Rashi, who argues that generally speaking, one must assign meaning to every word, as there cannot be any redundancy in the biblical text.