OF THE TORAH 
 
 OR 
 
 THE MEANING AND PURPOSE OF THE 
 EXTRAORDINARY POINTS OF THE PENTATEUCH 
 
 (MASSORETIC TEXT) 
 
 A Contribution to the History of Textual Criticism 
 
 AMONG THE ANCIENT JEWS 
 
 BY 
 
 ROMAIN BUTIN, S. M., S. T. L. 
 
 H dissertation 
 
 SUBMITTED TO THE FACULTY OF PHILOSOPHY OF THE CATHOLIC UNIVERSITY OF AMERICA IN 
 CONFORMITY WITH THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY 
 
 BALTIMORE 
 
 J. H. FURST COMPANY 
 
 1906 
 
^H OF Pfi///^ 
 
 
 B98 
 
THE TEN NEQUDOTH 
 OF THE TORAH 
 
 OR 
 
 THE MEANING AND PURPOSE OF THE 
 EXTRAORDINARY POINTS OF THE PENTATEUCH 
 
 (MASSORETIC TEXT) 
 
 A Contribution to the History of Textual Criticism 
 AMONG the Ancient Jews 
 
 ROMAIN BUTIN, S. M., S. T. L. 
 
 H Dissertation 
 
 SUBMITTED TO THE FACULTY OF PHILOSOPHY OF THE CATHOLIC UNIVERSITY OF AMERICA IN 
 CONFORMITY WITH THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY 
 
 BALTIMORE 
 J. H. FURST COMPANY 
 
 j9oe 
 
BIOGRAPHY. 
 
 The author of this Dissertation, Romain Butin, was born Decem- 
 ber 3, 1871, at Saint-Romain d'Urfe, department of Loire, France. 
 After a preparatory training in the schools of his native town, he 
 pursued the study of the classics at the ' Ecole Cl^ricale ' of Les 
 Salles, and at the ' Petit S^minaire ' of Saint-Jodard, in the same 
 department. In 1890, he came to America and spent two years 
 in the study of Philosophy at the scholasticate of the Marist 
 Fathers, in Maryland. He then entered the Society of Mary, and 
 after two years of active work at Jeiferson College, Louisiana, came 
 to the Marist College near the Catholic University of America, 
 Washington, D. C, for his theological training. In 1898, he 
 matriculated at the Catholic University, where he followed the 
 courses of Moral Theology under the late Prof. Th. Bouquillon, 
 of Sacred Scripture under Prof. C. P. Grannan, and of Hebrew 
 under Prof. H. Hyvernat. In 1900, he received the Degree of 
 Licentiate of Theology, and was appointed professor of Hebrew 
 and Sacred Scripture at the Marist College. In the fall of the 
 same year, he registered in the Department of Semitic and 
 Egyptian Languages and Literatures. Since then, while continu- 
 ing the study of Sacred Scripture under Prof. C. P. Grannan, 
 he has devoted most of his time to the Hebrew and Aramaic 
 Languages and to post-Biblical Jewish Literature under Prof. 
 H. Hyvernat. 
 
 Ill 
 
PREFACE. 
 
 Assuming that from an early date, unavoidable errors have 
 crept into the text of the Hebrew Scriptures, the question arises, 
 have the Jews tried to restore that text to its primitive purity ? 
 if so, as is generally granted, at what date did they realize the 
 necessity of such a critical revision ? and what means did they 
 take to effect their purpose? We believe there is no rashness 
 in asserting that the last two questions have never been fully 
 solved, and are consequently, still open for discussion. It is 
 true that the ancient Qeres, as well as many extraordinary 
 features of the textus receptus, such as the Pisqa or blank space 
 in the middle of verses, the Suspended Letters, the Inverted 
 Nuns, the Extraordinary Points, etc., all of which are partly at 
 least anterior to the Talmud, have been repeatedly examined and 
 interpreted in various ways ; yet, as to the true purpose and 
 meaning of these pre-Talmudic textual peculiarities, there exists, 
 among scholars, the most discouraging absence of agreement, 
 and a solution that would command universal assent, is still a 
 desideratum. 
 
 The hope of contributing, even in a small measure, to the 
 attainment of this end, has prompted us to investigate the meaning 
 of the so-called Extraordinary Points, and find out whether or not 
 they are an evidence of a critical effort on the part of the ancient 
 Jews. 
 
 It is our pleasing duty to express our gratitude to Prof. H. 
 Hyvernat, not only for the constant and manifold encouragement 
 that he has given us in the preparation of this Dissertation, but 
 also for the unsparing care and kindness with which he has 
 directed our Semitic studies. 
 
 We must also acknowledge our indebtedness to Dr. S. Schechter, 
 President of the Faculty of the Jewish Theological Seminary, 
 
 V 
 
vi Preface. 
 
 New York, and to Dr. G. F. Moore, Professor of the History of 
 Keligions, in Harvard University, Cambridge, Mass., who have 
 consented to read the first redaction of this work, and to whom we 
 are under obligation for many valuable remarks and suggestions. 
 
 Our thanks are no less due to Dr. I. Casanowicz, of the 
 National Museum, Washington, D. C, for his kind assistance 
 towards the correct understanding of many Rabbinical texts. 
 
 Let us add, however, that none of these scholars are in any way 
 responsible for the views and conclusions which we advocate, and 
 that to us alone are to be attributed any shortcomings the reader 
 may detect in the present Dissertation. 
 
 ROMAIN BUTIN. 
 
 The Marist College, January, 1906. 
 
TABLE OF CONTENTS. 
 
 PAGE, 
 
 Biography ;... iii 
 
 Preface v 
 
 Abbreviatioks xi 
 
 CHAPTER I. 
 
 INTRODUCTORY. 
 
 1-4. A. Aim and Scope of the present work 1 
 
 5-14. B. Historical sketch of the various opinions regarding the 
 
 meaning of the Points 3 
 
 C. Arguments to be used in the solution 11 
 
 15. General Remarks 11 
 
 16. First Argument. Mental Preoccupations at the time when the 
 
 Points originated 12 
 
 17. Second Argument. Palajography 13 
 
 18. Third Argument. Textual Criticism 14 
 
 19. Fourth Argument. Jewish Writings 15 
 
 CHAPTER II. 
 GENERAL ARGUMENTS ON THE POINTS. 
 
 Section I. Approximate Age of the Points. 
 
 20. Konigsberger's opinion 19 
 
 21. The Points are older than R. Meir 20 
 
 22. The Points are anterior to the Second Century A. D 20 
 
 23. The Points are as old as the Christian era 21 
 
 24. The Points probably belong to the period of the Soferim 23 
 
 25. 26. Lagarde's View 24 
 
 Section II. Mental Activity of the Jews during that period. 
 
 iNFIiUENCE OF ALEXANDRIA OVER PALESTINE. 
 
 A. Textual Preoccupations. 
 
 27-29. The Peculiarities of the Text were noted by the ancient Jews. 26 
 30-33. Critical Labors among the ancient Jews 27 
 
 vii 
 
VIU 
 
 Table of Contend. 
 
 34. Critical Signs in Alexandria 30 
 
 35-37. The Palestinian Jews were acquainted with the critical signs 
 of the Alexandrians, and probably borrowed their graphical 
 
 methods from them 31 
 
 B. Exegetical Preoccupations. 
 
 38-39. Alexandrian Jewish Exegesis 35 
 
 40-41. Palestinian Exegesis 35 
 
 C. Meaning of the Points as derived from the preceding remarks. 
 
 42-44. The Points have not an exegetical import 37 
 
 45. The Points have probably the same import as the corresponding 
 
 Greek signs 89 
 
 4&-47. Form of the Nequdoth 39 
 
 48-50. Similar Signs in Alexandria 42 
 
 51. The iVe(/McZo</i have probably the value of a dele 43 
 
 52. This conclusion is strengthened by the meaning which other 
 
 nations and the Jews themselves, at a later date, attri- 
 buted to dots 43 
 
 53-54. Objection of Konig and Levias 45 
 
 Section III. Jewish Testimonies on the Points in General. 
 
 56. Preliminary remarks 46 
 
 57-58. Eule of K. Simeon B. Eleazar 46 
 
 59. Rule of Eabbi 48 
 
 60. View of some mediaeval Rabbis 50 
 
 61. The testimony of the Zohar 50 
 
 CHAPTER III. 
 
 THE INDIVIDUAL POINTED PASSAGES IN THE LIGHT OF 
 TEXTUAL CRITICISM AND OF THE JEWISH WRITINGS. 
 
 62-64. Indication of the various Testimonies on the Points 52 
 
 65-66. Testimony of Sifre 55 
 
 67-71. Genesis xvi, 5 57 
 
 72-76. Genesis xviii, 9 62 
 
 77-81. Genesis xix, 33 67 
 
 82-88. Genesis xxxiii, 4 72 
 
 89-92. Genesis xxxvii, 12 78 
 
 93-95. Numbers iii, 39 81 
 
 96-101. Numbers ix, 10 84 
 
 102-107. Numbers xxi, 30 88 
 
 108-118. Numbers xxix, 15 92 
 
 119-129. Deuteronomy xxix, 28 100 
 
Table of Contents, 
 
 IX 
 
 CONCLUSION. 
 
 130. Preliminary remarks 108 
 
 131. The Points are not due to chance 108 
 
 132-134. The Points have not an exegetical import 109 
 
 135-138. The Points do not correspond to our Italics Ill 
 
 139-143. The Critical Theories examined. The Points are real dele- 
 tions 113 
 
 APPENDIX. 
 
 144-153. Texts of the Jewish Testimonies on the ten pointed pas- 
 sages of the Pentateuch 119 
 
 Bibliography 131 
 
ABBREVIATIONS. 
 
 Apart from the common abbreviations, or those in which the 
 abbreviated word is easily recognized, we have also used the 
 following : 
 
 Aboth de R. Nathan (1) 
 
 recension). 
 
 AJP. = 
 
 Blau, MU. = 
 
 Cheyne's EB. = 
 
 Hamburger REdJ. == 
 
 Hastings' DB. = 
 
 ICC. = 
 
 JQR. = 
 
 Kitto's CBL. = 
 
 Konigsberger, MuTK. = 
 
 MM. = 
 
 MP. = 
 
 PB. = 
 
 PSBA. = 
 
 RB. = 
 
 REJ. = 
 
 Smith's DB. = 
 
 TSK. = 
 
 ZAW. = 
 
 ZMDG. = 
 
 ZWT. = 
 
 or (2) = (First recension) or (Second 
 
 American Journal of Philology. 
 
 Blau, Masoretische Untersuchungen. 
 
 Cheyne's Encyclopaedia Biblica. 
 
 Real-Encyclopiidie des Judentums. 
 
 Hastings' Dictionary of the Bible. 
 
 The International Critical Commentary, 
 etc. 
 
 The Jewish Quarterly Review. 
 
 Kitto's Cyclopaedia of Biblical Litera- 
 ture. 
 
 Aus Masorah und Talmudkritik. 
 
 Massorah Magna. 
 
 Massorah Parva. 
 
 Polychrome Bible, i. e., The Sacred 
 Books of the O. T. printed in colors. 
 
 Proceedings of the Society for Bibli- 
 cal Archaeology. 
 
 Revue Biblique Internationale. 
 
 Revue des Etudes Juives. 
 
 Smith's Dictionary of the Bible. 
 
 Theologische Studien und Kritiken. 
 
 Zeitschrift fiir die alttestamentliche 
 Wissenschaft. 
 
 Zeitschrift der Deutschen Morgenland- 
 ischen Gesellschaft. 
 
 Zeitschrift fiir wissenschaftliche Theo- 
 logie. 
 
 xi 
 
MEANING AND PURPOSE OF THE 
 EXTRAORDINARY POINTS OF THE PENTATEUCH. 
 
 CHAPTER I. 
 INTRODUCTORY. 
 
 A. Aim and Scope of the Present Work. 
 
 1. In the Massoretic text of the Bible, fifteen passages are 
 found, in which one or more letters or even entire words 
 are marked with points that cannot be accounted for by the 
 so-called Massoretic punctuation. These points, for this reason, 
 are known as the Punda Extraordmaria, ' Extraordinary Points,' 
 or more simply, in the Jewish writings, as the Nequdotli, ' the 
 Points.' ^ Of the fifteen passages, ten occur in the Pentateuch, 
 four in the Prophets, and one in the Hagiographa. They are 
 the following : — Gen. xvi, 5, "]^J''D1 ""J^^ TTirV lOD^"' ; Gen. xviii, 9, 
 'rh^ nDN^I ; Gen. xix, 33, nnipDI rCO'QJ'2 VT ^h'^ ; Gen. xxxiii, 
 4, inpli;^T ; Gen. xxxvii, 12, ]N^ hx myi^ ; Num. iii, 39, jinNi ; 
 Num. ix, 10, npm "jmn ^X ; Num. xxi, 30, N3TD iy n^I^N HDJ IJ? ; 
 Num. xxix, 15, \^'WV yr^W^ ; Dent, xxix, 28, D^iy "ly irji}'?'i ihb ; 
 2 Sam. xix, 20, NiJ'' 'w^ D1^3 ; Isaiah, xliv, 9, iian Dnnyi ; 
 Ezech. xli, 20, ^yhh TpT ; Ezech. xlvi, 22, niyHpnb ; Ps. xxvii, 
 
 13, iA^^h . 
 
 2. As may be seen in the title of our Dissertation, our present 
 study is limited to the ten Nequdoth of the Pentateuch ; this 
 course was suggested to us by considerations which it will not 
 be amiss to present to the reader. Though in point of origin, 
 all the Nequdoth may belong to the same epoch,^ still a sharp 
 
 ^On the precise meaning of ni"11pJ, see lower down, § 46. 
 ^Cp. Strack, Prolegomena, p. 90, 
 
2 Meaning and Purpose of the 
 
 distinction seems to have been made by the Jews themselves, 
 between the Points of the Torah and those of the other books. 
 While the four dotted passages of the Prophets are nowhere 
 mentioned before the Massorah of the vi or vii century A. d., 
 the ten passages of the Law form a well defined group and are 
 explained in Sifre.^ This list of Sifre, with or without the 
 explanations, and with more or less variations, is reproduced in 
 many of the subsequent Jewish works. The individual dotted 
 passages of the Law are besides, mentioned and explained in 
 several places of the Talmud and Midrashim.^ We have there- 
 fore in those explanations, for the Points of the Pentateuch, a 
 whole line of evidence which is entirely lacking in the case of the 
 four passages of the Prophets, since on them no explanations are 
 ever given. 
 
 The only passage of the Hagiographa, viz. Ps. xxvii, 13, 
 though mentioned in the Talmud — Berakhoth 4a — and there, 
 explained in the name of R. Jose (2nd cent. A. d.), has never 
 been included in any of the various lists of the Nequdoth, other 
 than in those of the Massorah,^ and consequently it has never 
 partaken of the official character of the Points of the Law. 
 
 3. Still less do we intend to treat of passages that are 
 occasionally pointed in mss. but never mentioned among the 
 Nequdoth.^ 
 
 Finally, we also exclude from our present study Num. x, 35 f. 
 It is true that Sifre requires points on the passage in question, 
 " (Ti^a^OT rbvchn ^^bv "l^pJ," ^ but the specification H'tiQ^DI rhv^^^ 
 shows that we have to deal here with a palseographical sign 
 different from the simple Nequdah, and needing a special and 
 
 ^ According to a growing tendency, we write ' Sifre,' although it might be more 
 according to pliilological methods to write 'Siphre,' ; in the same way, we write 
 'Soferim,' instead of 'Sopherim.' Sifre is a Jewish Halachic Commentary on 
 Numbers and Deuteronomy ; in its present form is commonly ascribed to the iii 
 cent., A. D., but many fragments are older ; cp. lower down, §65. 
 
 ^See lower down, §§ 63, 64, etc. 
 
 ' See Massorali Magna on Num. iii, 39 ; Ochlah weQchlah, ed. Frensdorff, n. 
 96. On the origin of tlie term 'Massorah,' see Bacher, JQR, iii, 785 ff. 
 
 * These, however, shall be utilized in this Dissertation, § 52. 
 
 6§ 84. Ed. Friedmann, p. 22a; cf. Hamburger, BEdJ, ii, 1215. 
 
Ten Extraordinary Points of the Pentateuch. 3 
 
 independent treatment. It may, of course, have the same mean- 
 ing as the Points proper, but Sifre itself does not inchide it in 
 the list it gives of them. On the same passage, Sabbath 115a-b, 
 simply mentions nVJa'^D, Soferim vi, 1, "liyil',^ while the Massorah 
 prescribes a sign known as the Inverted Nun.^ Let us add, that 
 in Rabbinical literature, with the exception of Midrash Mishle 
 (which however leaves out Gen. xviii, 9, in order to preserve the 
 official number of the dotted passages),^ Num. x, 35 f. is never 
 counted among the Nequdoth. 
 
 For all these reasons, we feel justified in narrowing the scope 
 of the present work to the Nequdoth of the Law as given in the 
 list of Sifre. 
 
 4. Nor do we intend to discuss ex jirofesso all the questions 
 that might be raised, in connection with those Extraordinary 
 Points ; out of the many problems to be solved, we have selected 
 for the present investigation, the one having reference to their 
 meaning and purpose. Logically, perhaps, this would not be the 
 first question that would offer itself for treatment, but in import- 
 ance it ranks first and foremost. However, the minor issues have 
 not been entirely overlooked, and some will be found in the 
 course of this dissertation ; but, as we have touched upon them 
 only in as much as they throw additional light on the question 
 of the meaning of the Nequdoth, their complete discussion should 
 not be expected here. 
 
 B. Historical Sketch. 
 
 5. The problem that we have chosen for discussion is not 
 entirely new, and many scholars have already, explicitly or 
 
 1 This word is corrected into 1 "C't? by Krauss, ZA W, 1902, pp. 57-65. 
 
 ^ See M. M. on Num. x, 35 and Ps. cvii, 23 ; Norzi, Minchath Shai, on Num. 
 X, 35, has the sign 2 ; cp. Ginsburg, Massorah Compiled, ii, p. 259, n. 15, and 
 Krauss, I. c. On the Inverted Nuns, see Blau, MU, pp. 40 ff. and the authors 
 quoted by him ; Harris, JQR, i, 137 flf.; Kouigsberger, MuTK, pp. 41 ff. ; Gins- 
 burg, Introd. , pp. 341 S. ; Konig, £"171/. , p. 34 ; H}'vernat, Le Langiuige de la 
 Massore, BB, 1905, pp. 212 f. 
 
 3 n:1U 13J-' r.lCrD, Prov. xxvi, 24. Ed. Buber, p. 100. 
 
4 Meaning and Purpose of the 
 
 implicitly, expressed their views on it; but no theory has, thus 
 far, secured universal acceptance, or pushed its claims beyond the 
 limits of probability. This will be made evident from the follow- 
 ing classification and analysis of these various opinions. 
 
 The explanations of the Nequdoth found in the early Jewish 
 literature, were generally accepted without further comment, by 
 the Jews of subsequent ages, as giving in their literal sense, the 
 true import of the Extraordinary Points. These Rabbinical 
 explanations seem to connect with the Points — at least as a 
 mnemonic device — a special thought which the dotted letters or 
 words, of themselves would never suggest. In consequence, this 
 interpretation of the Nequdoth is known as Hhe theory of the 
 hidden meaning.' However, there have always been among 
 the Jews, even in the Middle Ages, scholars, such as Rashi,^ the 
 Tosafists,^ Ba'al ha-Turim,^ Albo,^ etc.,^ who have not adopted 
 these opinions. If these men did not attribute to the dots a 
 critical value, they at least claimed that they practically annul 
 the words or letters over which they are placed. However, these 
 scholars, as far as we know, gave no special reason for their view, 
 and besides they do not seem to have influenced the trend of 
 contemporary thought. 
 
 6. As for Christian scholars, for a long time they seem to 
 have depended solely on the Jews for their convictions on this 
 question.^ Besides, it was not until the xvii century that they 
 began to take an interest in the problem, and from the very start 
 
 ^ Comm. on the Talmud of Babylon, M. Pesachim, ix, 2 ; Baba Metsi'a, 87a ; 
 Sanh. , 43b ; Menachoth, 87b ; also Comm. on the Bible, v. g. Gen. xix, 33. 
 
 ^On Nazir, 23a ; on the Tosafists see Mielziner, Introd. to the Talmud, p. 66 ff. 
 
 3 On Num. xxi, 30; on Ba'al ha-Turim (Jacob b. Asher), see JE, vii, 27 f. 
 
 ^Sefer Iqqarim, III, 22 (end) ; op. Buxtorf, Tiberias, p. 180. 
 
 5 See Blau, EinL, p. 117, n. 2; Stern, in Weiss' Beth Ha-Midrasch, 1865, pp. 
 58-62 ; also Pollak, ibid., p. 57. 
 
 ^Cp. St. Jerome, De Gen. ad lit., on Gen. xix, 33: " Appungunt (Judaei) 
 desuper quasi incredibile et quid rerum natura non capiat coire quemquam 
 nescientem." To this may be added the note of Origen (?) found in some mss. 
 on Gen, xxxiii, 4; we reproduce it after Field, Hexapla, ad locum, n. 6: "rd, 
 Ka.Te<t>l\r)<jev avrhv, 6irep icrrlv "E^pal'ffTl ovecraaKT], ev iravrl 'E^paiKQ BijSX/y irepU- 
 (TTiKTai, ovx tW ij.r} dvayivuiaKTiTai, dXX' vwaiviTToix^^rjs uxnrep 5td tovtov t^s /3//3Xoi/ 
 Tj]v irovYiplav tov 'HtraO • Kara d6\ov ykp KaTecpiXtja-e rbv 'IaKii/3. 
 
Ten Extraordinary Points of the Pentateuch. 5 
 
 their views were divided. The greater number still adliered to 
 the prevalent theory that made the Nequdoth express a hidden 
 meaning, though some occasionally ridiculed the Jews for having 
 attached such a special meaning to the pointed text-elements. In 
 this class we have Morinus/ Lightfoot/ Surenhusius/ and in 
 recent times Alexander/ Klostermann ^ and Levias.^ Dillmann/ 
 Konigsberger,^ Bertholet/ Steuernagel/" Driver ^^ hold also the 
 above theory by exception for Dent, xxix, 28, as does also 
 Gray^^ for Num. ix, 10. 
 
 7. Others, finding in what they claimed to be the absurd 
 character of the Jewish explanations of the Nequdoth, a sign that 
 the Jews were trying to account for what they did not under- 
 stand — " sunt palpitantia Hebraeorum judicia ut coecorum in 
 tenebris " ^^ — rejected these explanations as not giving the true 
 motive for the pointing of certain textual elements, and simply 
 confessed their inability to reach a satisfactory solution. Thus 
 Buxtorf,^* Cappellus,^' Walton.^^ 
 
 8. Finally, others took a still more radical stand by attributing 
 the Points to chance and accident. In their view, the explanations 
 given of these Points are due to the superstitious bias of the Jews 
 
 ^ Exercitationum Biblicarum de Hebraei Graecique Texius Sinceritate Libri duo 
 (1669), Lib. n, Exerc. xii, Cap. vi, p. 406. 
 
 ^ Opera Omnia (Eoterdam, 1686), vol. I, Chronica Temporum, p. 39. Michaelis, 
 Biblia Hebraica, on Deuteron. xxix, 28, quotes him with approval. 
 
 *^i/3Xos KaTaWayrjs, p. 71. 
 
 *Masorah, in Kitto's CBL, iii, 103. 
 
 ^ B'deher Sanmelis, etc. (in Strack's Kurzg. Comm. ), note on 2 Sam. xix, 20. 
 
 ^ Masorah, in JE, viii, 368. 
 
 ' Quoted by Driver, Deuteronomy, p. 328, note. 
 
 ^MuTK, 25 f. 
 
 ^ Deuteronomium erJcldrt (in Marti's Kurz. Hand-Commentar z. A. T. ), p. 90. 
 
 ^^ Ubersetzung u. Erkldrung d. Bilcher Deuteronomium u. Josua (in Nowack's 
 Handkommentar), p. 108. 
 
 ^^Deuteronomy (in the International Critical Commentary), p. 328. 
 
 ^^A Critical and Exegeiical Commentary on Numbers (in the International Critical 
 Commentary), p. 85. 
 
 "Buxtorf, Tiberias, p. 181. 
 
 " Tiberias, p. 173 ff. 181. 
 
 ^" Arcanum Punctationis Revelatum, ii, xii. 
 
 ^^Prolegomena, Prol. viii, 3. 
 
6 Meaning and Purpose of the 
 
 who saw mysteries everywhere. Thus R. Simon/ Guarin/ and 
 in modern times Green.^ 
 
 According to Buxtorf, Cappellus, and Walton, the problem is 
 insoluble ; according to Richard Simon and his followers, there is 
 no problem at all. Most of the authors mentioned, apart from 
 the fact that they never thought of any other means of solving 
 the difficulty save through the data from the Jewish writings, 
 evidently took it for granted that the literal interpretation 
 was the only one that could be placed upon these Jewish testi- 
 monies. 
 
 9. In 1692, Hiller in his "De Arcano Kethib et Keri," * 
 was apparently the first to clearly attribute to the Points a critical 
 value. As far as we can ascertain from quotations made from his 
 work, he claimed that the Nequdoth had been placed to cancel 
 words or letters. This has become the more common view among 
 subsequent writers. Thus Houbigant,'' Heidenheim,^ Eichhorn,'^ 
 de Wette,« Welte,^ Hupfeld,^« Olshausen,^^ Lagarde,^^ Smend,^^^ 
 
 ^Histoire Critique, Ch. XX vi, p. 144 : "Un copiste aura laiss^ tomber .... une 
 goutte d' encre dont il se sera forme quelque point : iin Juif ensuite superstitieux, 
 qui est persuade que tout ce qui est dans I'Ecriture est mystere, mSme jusqu'aux 
 plus petits points, ne manque pas d' in venter des raisons de ce pr^tendu mystere." 
 Cp. Cappellus and Walton, II. cc. 
 
 ^ Gramm. Hebr. et Chald., ii, p. 413. 
 
 ^ Hebrew Grammar, § 4. 
 
 * (Tubingen, 1692), Lib. i, iii, pp. 152 ff., quoted in Strack's Prolegomena, p. 
 91, and in Rosenmuller's Scholia, on Num. xxi, 30. 
 
 ^ Notae Criticae in Universos Veteris Testamenti Libras (Frankf. a. M., 1777), on 
 Num. iii, 39. 
 
 «Pentat. edit. C^H^Xn miD ISD, quoted in Blau, Einl, 117, n. 2. 
 
 '' Einkitung in d. A. T. (5 vols., Gottingen, 1823-1824), i, § 118. 
 
 ^ Lehrbuch d. Historisch-Kritischen Einleitung in die Kanonisch .... Biicher 
 (6th ed., Berlin, 1845), § 89, pp. 134 f. 
 
 9 In Tubing. Quartalfschrift, 1848, p. 631, quoted in Comely, Introductio in 
 Ulriusque Testamenti Libros, vol. I, 254, n. 11. 
 
 ^"Die Psalmen (4 vols., Gotha, 1855), n, p. 112. 
 
 "Die Psalmen (Leipzig, 1853), on Ps. xxvii, 13 ; Beitrdge zur Kritik des TJeber- 
 lieferten Textes im Buche Genesis (in Monatschr. d. Konigl. Preuss. Akad. d. Wis- 
 senschaften, 1870, pp. 380 £F.). 
 
 ^'^ Mitheilungen (4 vols. , Gottingen , 1884-1891), i, 19. 
 
 "i>e)- Prophet Ezechiel (Leipzig, 1880), on Ez. xlvi, 22. 
 
Ten Extraordinary Points of the Pentateuch. 7 
 
 Cheyne/ Lambert/ Neubauer/ Wellhaiisen/ Toy/ Cornill/ and 
 in some passages de Rossi/ Geiger/ Dillmann/ Delitzsch/" 
 Strack/^ Hamburger/^ Gray/^ and Baentsch.^* Blau ^^ and Gins- 
 burg ^^ also belong to this class, but add that the Points occasion- 
 ally indicate that another reading should be substituted for the 
 present Massoretic one. 
 
 10. In the middle of the xviii century Hiipeden ^'^ treated of 
 the Nequdoth far more systematically than had been done before, 
 so much so that he is supposed by many to have been the origi- 
 nator of the critical theories. He claimed that the Points had been 
 invented mostly to mark divergencies between mss., and that on this 
 account the dotted letters were, at least for us, critically doubtful. 
 His view has been accepted by Vogel,^^ Michaelis,^^ E,osenmuller/° 
 
 ^The Booh of Psahis (New York, 1888), on Ps. xxvii, 13; Isaiah (PB.) on 
 Is. xliv, 9. 
 
 ^ Les Points Extraordinaires, REJ, xxx, 116-118. 
 
 ^JQR, III, 540 f. 
 
 *Book of Psalms (in PB.), on Ps. xxvii, 13. 
 
 ^Ezechid (in PB. ), on Ez. xli, 20 ; xlvi, 22. 
 
 ^Das Buck d. Propheten Ezechiel (Leipzig, 1886), on Ez. xli, 20 ; xlvi, 22. 
 
 ' Variae Lectiones, on Num. iii, 39. 
 
 ^ Lesesi'dcke aus der Mishnah, p. 86 f. ; Urschrift, etc., p. 257 f . ; cp. p. 185. 
 
 ^ Die Genesis (5th edit., Leipzig, 1886), on Gen. xvi, 5; xxxiii, 4. 
 
 ^'^ Neuer Commentar iiher die Genesis (Leipzig, 1887), on Gen. xvi, 5; 
 xxxiii, 4. 
 
 ^^ Die Bilcher Genesis Exodus Leviticus u. Numeri (in Strack's Kurzgef. Com- 
 mentar), on Gen. xvi, 5 ; xix, 33 ; xxxiii, 4; Num. xxix, 15. 
 
 1^ REdJ, II, p. 1215. It is to be noted that Hamburger derives the meaning 
 of the Points from Sifre § 84, on Num. x, 35. 
 
 13 Num. xxi, 30. 
 
 ^* Exodus, Leviticus, Numeri iibersetzt u. erkldrt (in Nowack's Handkommentar), 
 on Num. iii, 39 ; ix, 10. 
 
 '^3IU, p. 8. 
 
 ^^Introduction, etc., 318 fE. 
 
 ^'' Neue wahrscheinliche Muthmassung von der wahren Ursache und Bedeuiung der 
 ausserordentlichen Punkte (Hannover, 1751). 
 
 ^^ Ludovici Cappdli Critica Sacra .... Libri sex (3 vols., Halle, 1775), vol. I, 
 pp. 455 £E. 
 
 19 Orient, u. Exeg. Biblioth., Th. i, p. 230 ; Th. xii, p. 135. 
 
 '"' Scholia on Num. iii, 39 ; on Deut. xxix, 28 ; on Ezechiel, xlvi, 22 ; on Psalm 
 xxvii, 13. 
 
8 Meaning and Purpose of the 
 
 Maurer,^ Scholz,^ Eisenstein,^ and for some passages, by de Rossi/ 
 Geiger,'^ Dillmann,'' Delitzsch/ and Hamburger.^ 
 
 11. Some other scholars, while admitting the Points to have 
 a critical import, simply hold that they were placed over words 
 and letters to show that these latter were considered as critically 
 doubtful, whatever may have been the foundation for the doubt. 
 Thus Kohler,» Bottcher,^« Keil," Buhl,!^ Ball,^^ Patterson,^* and 
 occasionally Geiger,^^ Strack,^^ Gray,^'^ and Baentsch.^^ 
 
 12. Akin to this last theory, is the view of Konig,^^ who 
 believes that the dots do not imply any positive judgment as to 
 the doubtfidness of the present Massoretic readings, but are simply 
 the outcome of a timid suspicion entertained against some textual 
 elements. In this sense, the dots would correspond to our inter- 
 rogation mark, placed after words to which special attention is 
 called for further investigation. 
 
 13. A last theory to be mentioned here is the one found 
 
 ^ Commentarius Grrammaticus Criticus in Vetus Testamentum ( 4 vols. , Leipzig, 1835- 
 1847) on Num. iii, 39 ; see however Coram, on Psalm xxvii, 13, where he says 
 that Hbv has been pointed because the Jews could not understand it. 
 
 ^ Einleitung in die Heiligen Schriften d. alien u. Neuen Testaments (2 vols., Koln, 
 1845), vol. I, p. 421. 
 
 ^In Ner ha-Maarabi, i, 1-8, etc. 
 
 * Variae Lediones, Ezechiel, xli, 20. 
 
 ^LesestUcke, 1. c. ; Urschrift, 1. c. 
 
 ^ Gaiesis, xviii, 9 ; xix, 33 ; xxxvii, 12. 
 
 ' On Gen. xviii, 9. 
 
 ^REdJ, n, p. 1216. 
 
 *In Bepertoriumf. Biblische u. Mwgenlundische Litteralur, V, 43. 
 
 ^'^Autifuhrliches Lehrbuch d. Hebrdischen Sprache (2 vols., Leipzig, 1866-1868), 
 1,47. 
 
 " Genesis u. Exodus (2d edit., Leipzig, 1866), p. 160, n. 1 ; Comm. iiber Ezechiel 
 (Leipzig, 1882), on Ezech. xlvi, 22. 
 
 ^^Kanon u. Text des Alien Testamenfe ( Leipzig, 1891), § 35, p. 105. 
 
 " The Book of Genesis (in PB.), on Gen. xvi, 5 ; xxxiii, 4. 
 
 " The Book of Numbers (in PB. ), on Num. in, 39. 
 
 ^^11. cc. 
 
 " 0. c, on Num. xxi, 30. 
 
 " 0. c, on Num. iii, 39. 
 
 ^^ 0. c, on Num. xxi, 30. 
 
 ^^ Einkitung, p. 33. 
 
Ten Extraordinary Points of the Pentateuch. 9 
 
 in the Zohar.^ It has been advocated by Schwab,^ Biichler/ 
 Konigsberger/ adopted on one passage as possible by Strack,^ and 
 given as an alternative probability by Levias.^ According to this 
 view the Nequdoth are not at all designed to throw suspicion or 
 doubt on the text, but correspond to our imderscoring, underlin- 
 ing, to our '(sic)' or to our italics. "Pour souligner un mot, une 
 lettre, on plafait des points sup^rieurs correspondant a notre 
 italique." ^ 
 
 14. Apart from the fact that most of the advocates of the 
 critical theories are not always consistent, it is to be noted that 
 with the exception of Hlipeden, Blau, Konigsberger, and Ginsburg,^ 
 none of them have treated the question at any length ; they are, 
 as a rule, satisfied in reproducing — tacitly in many cases — the 
 views of their predecessors. We may say that, until recently, 
 Hiipeden was the final authority on whom subsequent writers 
 depended. As far as we can see from the references made by 
 scholars to Hiipeden's work,^ his conclusions were based mainly, 
 if not exclusively, on the ordinary methods of Textual Criticism, 
 and especially on divergencies between mss. He does not seem 
 to have directed his attention to the mental attitude of the Jews 
 at the time of the origin of the Nequdoth, nor to the palseographi- 
 cal argument, nor to the data of the Jewish writings. Besides, 
 the very title that he gave to his work, Wahrscheinliche Iluthmas- 
 sung, etc., sufficiently indicates that he did not consider his 
 arguments conclusive, and that he proposed his view, more as a 
 hypothesis than a proved system. His method, as well as his 
 conclusions, seem to have been accepted by subsequent wi'iters ; 
 
 ^ Cabbalistic work attributed to Simon b. Yochai, but dating probably from the 
 xin Cent.; see Zunz, Gott. Vort, 419 Q. 
 
 ^ Talmud de Jerusalem, v, p. 138, n. 1. See, however, ^^ Notice sur les Points 
 Voyelles," p. 26: " ils servent a d^noter I'h&itation du scribe" which would be 
 the view of Konig. 
 
 ^Entstehung .... der Hebr. Ace, Teil I, pp. 89, 97, 116, 141. 
 
 *3fuTK, p. 9; cp. p. 7. 
 
 ^ 0. c, on Num. ix, 10. 
 
 ® Masorah in JE, viii, p. 368. 
 
 '' Schwab, Talm. de Jer., I. c. 
 
 ^ It is to be noted that Ginsburg avowedly depends on Blau for his views. 
 
 ^ See Vogel, Ludovici Cappelli Critica Sacra, I, c. 
 
10 Meaning and Purpose of the 
 
 for, as a rule, the arguments that he has failed to consider have 
 also been neglected by those that came after him. 
 
 In view of the complete disagreement among the various 
 authors mentioned heretofore, we may well understand the judg- 
 ment passed by Strack in 1873, on the then existing state of the 
 controversy relative to the meaning of the Extraordinary Points : 
 " De origine et significatione punctorum horum, nihil pro certo 
 affirmari potest. . . . Nunc plerique puncta lectionem variam vel 
 corruptam significari existimant." ^ The same judgment could 
 have been given in 1891, when Blau wrote his Masoretisehe 
 TJntersuchungen, for, nothing of any consequence was published 
 during the intervening years. Blau was the first to use the 
 Jewish writings systematically as a means of reaching the true 
 import of the Points. His scholarly treatment of these writings 
 shows a great j)rogress on his predecessors; still his views have 
 not as yet gained universal acceptance and his system has been 
 strongly opposed by Konigsberger. This last scholar is a firm 
 believer in the Massorah as against the old Jewish Midrashic 
 works. He claims that the Points are Massoretic and conse- 
 quently should be judged according to the methods of the 
 Massorah ; and as the Massorah is supposed by him to have 
 nothing but devices to preserve the text as it had been received, 
 the Points cannot have any other meaning. Konig is also at 
 variance with Blau, and does not hesitate to qualify Blau's 
 reasoning as "hinfallig." However, he has not considered the 
 question at any length, and has devoted to it only two pages 
 of his Einleitung. 
 
 If the reader wishes to know the present state of the question, 
 he will find it in the words of Levias, JE, vol. viii (1904), p. 
 368, art. Masorah. He says: "The significance of the dots is 
 disputed. Some hold them to be marks of erasure ; others believe 
 them to indicate that in some collated manuscripts the stigmatized 
 words were missing, hence that the reading is doubtful ; still others 
 contend that they are merely a mnemonic device to indicate homi- 
 letical explanations which the ancients had connected with those 
 
 ^Prolegomena, p. 90. 
 
Ten Extraordinary Points of the Pentateuch. 11 
 
 words ; finally, some maintain the dots were designed to guard 
 against the omission by copyists of text-elements which, at first 
 glance or after comparison with parallel passages, seemed to be 
 superfluous .... The first two explanations are unacceptable for 
 the reason that such faulty readings would belong to kere and 
 ketib, which, in case of doubt, the majority of manuscripts would 
 decide. The last two theories have equal probability." ^ 
 
 C Arguments to be used in the Solution. 
 
 15. The disagreement which we have noticed among scholars, 
 is not caused simply by the different interpretation of some given 
 individual data, but is primarily traceable to the radical diver- 
 gencies of views with regard to the arguments that should be 
 used and the method that should be followed in the solution of 
 the problem. K5nigsberger, for instance, when he opposes Blau, 
 does not say that the latter misunderstood Sifre and the other 
 sources ; he himself grants that such documents really have the 
 meaning given them by Blau; but he is of opinion that they 
 should not be trusted, because they have wrongly attributed to 
 the Nequdoth the same meaning as to the palseographical Greek 
 or Latin dot.^ 
 
 Besides, it is our conviction that a great deal of the uncertainty 
 is due to the lack of comprehensiveness in the treatment of the 
 Nequdoth. We think that the whole field should again be sur- 
 veyed and examined in the light not only of one or two lines of 
 argument, but of all the evidence combined. On the one hand, 
 considered individually, some of the arguments adducible may be 
 too indefinite to allow more than a general conclusion, or too 
 inconclusive to warrant more than a probable inference ; hence, 
 they must be strengthened by the other elements of solution, so 
 that from the cumulative force of all, a satisfactory conclusion 
 may be reached. On the other hand, it may also happen that 
 
 ^ The same hesitancy is seen in Weir, History of the Hebrew Text, pp. 53, 54. 
 In fact, he does not seem to have any definite system. 
 ^MuTK, p. 9-10. 
 
12 Meaning and Purpose of the 
 
 what would seem almost certain in the li^ht of one line of 
 argument, may be partially or entirely disproved by another. It 
 is then only by comparing the various partial results with one 
 another, and by controlling the one by the other, that we may 
 safely come to a scientific and final conclusion. 
 
 We now beg leave to set before the reader the main lines along 
 which the investigation should be carried out. 
 
 16. The first means of solution is derived from the circum- 
 stances of the time during which the Nequdoth came into existence. 
 This is simply the aj^plication to the Nequdoth of the principle — 
 universally acknowledged in theory, but very often ignored in 
 practice — that every effect must be judged in the light of its 
 cause or causes, and that every historical fact must be considered 
 in its surrounding historical circumstances. Man is a social 
 being, and as such, necessarily depends on, and undergoes the 
 influence of, his contemporaries and countrymen. The tendencies, 
 ideals, and preoccupations of his age and country, are also to a 
 great extent his own preoccupations and tendencies. There may 
 be — and seemingly there have actually been — sudden departures 
 from the received ideas of one epoch, but this is the exception, 
 not the rule ; and besides, when more closely examined, the 
 dependence of these apparent departures on the mental attitude 
 then prevalent, can often be clearly established. Man therefore 
 lives with his age and evolves with it. He may add a great deal 
 to the common stock of knowledge, but the nature of what he 
 adds is generally determined by the needs of the time. If then 
 we can establish to what age any individual man belongs, and 
 further, determine the leading preoccupations of that age, we can 
 know in what sphere he must have exercised his activity. Nay, 
 in some cases, we may be able to explain, at least broadly, the 
 purpose of little peculiarities, which otherwise would either 
 remain for us a sealed letter, or at best be left to various con- 
 jectures. There is no reason why the Extraordinary Points 
 should form an exception to this rule. Hence, if we can estab- 
 lish the epoch to which these Points are referable, together with 
 the mental preoccupations then existing among the Jews, we 
 should be able to discover the aim that their author or authors 
 
Ten Extraordinary Points of the Pentateuch. 13 
 
 had in view in appending them. To our knowledge, this argu- 
 ment has not been utilized to its full value by any of the authors 
 mentioned heretofore, although Blau has incidentally touched 
 upon it.^ Kdnigsberger, it is true, starts with the very suggestive 
 proverb, " Wer den Dichter will verstehen, muss in Dichters 
 Laude gehen," but he gives us nothing beyond the vague and 
 questionable assertion that the Jews would not modify the text 
 of the Bible which they had received from their fathers.^ 
 
 17. Akin to this first line of arguments, are the conclusions 
 drawn from the palaeographical methods in use at that time. 
 Owing to the lack of Jemsh mss. belonging to the period during 
 which the Nequdoih came into existence, we might be inclined to 
 think that no strictly palaeographical argument could be adduced 
 in connection with the Puncta Extraordinaria. If, however, we 
 bear in mind the lack of originality among the Hebrews in so 
 many branches of human activity, we are naturally led to inquire 
 whether we could not trace the origin of the Jewish palaeographical 
 methods in general, and of the points in particular, to similar 
 practices among other nations with which the Jews came into 
 contact. 
 
 Of all the external influences through which the Jews may be 
 supposed to have been affected from the time of Alexander, that 
 of Alexandria undoubtedly ranks first and foremost. As points 
 were used by the Alexandrians for several purposes, the question 
 arises : Is it lawful to attribute to the Jewish Nequdoth the same 
 meaning as to these Greek dots ? 
 
 Palaeography, in connection with the question at issue, has not 
 been fully utilized; Blau^ has a few references to Latin, and 
 Ginsburg^ to Greek, palaeography; but the dependence of the 
 Jewish Nequdoth on the Latin and Greek dots is not shown. 
 Konigsberger,^ although he gives no reason for the course he 
 adopts, entirely sets aside any argument drawn from this source. 
 
 ^JQB, VI, 562 S.;Einl., 116 f. 
 2 MuTK, pp. 3 f. 
 
 ^ MU, p. 8, n. 1 ; Einl., 117, n. 2. See, however, Lagarde, MUlheilungen, i, 
 19 S. 
 
 *Introd., p, 321. 
 ^MuTK,y.9i. 
 
14 Meaning and Purpose of the 
 
 18. Another line of evidence is found in Textual Criticism. 
 Not indeed that in the present question of the Points, we should 
 investigate whether or not the Massoretic text is right, or establish 
 the true original reading of the pointed passages ; our aim is simply 
 to discover by means of the ordinary methods of Textual Criticism, 
 the possible critical state of these passages at the time when the 
 Nequdoth were appended, and as a result of this investigation to 
 arrive at some conclusion with regard to their primary import. 
 It is true that the value of Textual Criticism as a means of reach- 
 ing such a conclusion is repudiated by Konigsberger ; ^ but since 
 the points bear on the text, it is probable that by determining 
 the state of the text at that period, we may be able to discover 
 what was the nature of the textual peculiarity thus marked by the 
 Nequdoth, and this can be done only by adopting the methods of 
 Textual Criticism. 
 
 Furthermore, if these dots express a critical judgment, — such as 
 the discrepancies between MSS., the doubtfulness or the spurious- 
 ness of the dotted elements, — we can reasonably expect, by means 
 of critical methods, to find traces of such discrepancies, or to dis- 
 cover the reasons for which the Jews pronounced some words and 
 letters doubtful or spurious. 
 
 We need not dwell here on the means used to find out how the 
 various recensions read, when the Nequdoth originated. They are 
 the ordinary sources of Textual Criticism, viz., the Samaritan 
 Pentateuch, the early versions made immediately or mediately 
 from the Hebrew, the comparison of the dotted elements with the 
 parallel passages, the various conjectures based on philological, 
 lexicographical, or grammatical principles.^ The Hebrew mss. in 
 our possession can also be used ; for, though it is now the common 
 belief that all our mss. are derived from one prototype, agreed 
 upon in the second century A. d.,^ — which, if true, would tend to 
 
 iJifwr/iT., pp. 3, 41. 
 
 " For all these means, compare the critical Introductions. 
 
 ^This view was first propounded by Kosenmiiller in Hdbuch. fur d. Liter, der 
 Bihl. Kritik u. Exeg. (1797), i, 247; cp. also Preuschen, ZAW, ix, 303. It is 
 found also in the Preface to the Tauchnitz stereotyped edition of the Bible, 1834, 
 p. iv ; cp. Stade, ZA W, iv, 302 f. It was defended by Lagarde, Anmerk. zur 
 
Extraordinary Points of the Pentateuch. 15 
 
 show that our mss. are seemiDgly of little value, In determining 
 the state of the text previous to that time, — still in many instances, 
 some of ours mss. reproduce as their textual readings, the variants 
 from our Textus receptus, as found in the LXX, the Sam. Pent., or 
 the Book of Jubilees, recensions older than, or as old as, our present 
 recognized Massoretic text. Hence, either such mss. have been 
 occasionally corrected according to these or similar recensions, or 
 they are directly derived from them, though in the latter case, they 
 would have been partly harmonized with the Textus receptus, by 
 the Scribes and Correctors. Whatever view we adopt, it remains 
 true that our mss. can and should be used, in determining the 
 state of the text at the time when the Nequdoth were introduced. 
 19. Finally, our last and apparently most direct argument, is 
 derived from the meaning attributed to the Points by the Jewish 
 tradition, as preserved in Sifre and in various passages of the 
 Talmud and Midrashim. It is but natural to suppose that, since 
 the Jews appended the Points, the true purpose which they had in 
 view should have been preserved in the records they have left us on 
 the subject. With reference to the question under discussion, the 
 authority of these Jewish records is denied by Konigsberger ; but 
 everything tends to show that his view should be rejected. The 
 earlier Jewish writings are the reproduction of the oral lessons 
 given in the Jewish schools and academies, as is evident from the 
 fact that the authority of some Pabbi or Rabbis is generally given 
 in connection with the various decisions and opinions.^ If then 
 these writings, in general, embody the literary activity of the 
 
 Gnech. Ueberseiz. d. Proverbien, p. If.; Mater ialen z. Kritik u. Oeschichte d. Pent., 
 p. xii ; Mittheilungen, i, 19 f. ; Olshausen, Die Psahnen, p. 17 f. ; 337 f. ; Noldeke, 
 Histoire Litteraire de UA. T., 350 ff. ; ZWT, 1873, 445-447 ; Cornill, Ezechiel, 
 5fl. ; Eeach, Sebirin, p. 1. The opposite view is taken byStrack in Semitic Studies, 
 pp. 560 ff.; Text of the 0. T., in Hastings' DB., iv, p. 728. 
 
 ^ On these Jewish Writings, see the various Introductions to the Talmud, such 
 as Strack, Mielziner ; various articles in the Dictionaries and Encyclopiedias, 
 ss. vv. Midrash, Mishnah, Talmud, Tar gums, etc.; among these, Schechter's article 
 ^^ Talmud ^^ in Hastings' DB, v, p. 57 ff., deserve special mention. See also 
 the Literature on the Jewish schools, § 27 ; see besides, Stehelin, Traditions of the 
 Jews; Dobschiitz, Einfache Exegese d. Tannaim; Schiirer, Geschichte d. Isr. Volk., 
 II, 323 ff. ; 330 ff. 
 
16 Meaning and Purpose of the 
 
 Rabbis, and have preserved the answers given to questions agi- 
 tated in these schools, there is no reason why they should be set 
 aside, when we speak of this particular question of the meaning 
 of the Nequdoth. The fact that the Points are found in the Syna- 
 gogue scrolls, and are mentioned in so many places in Jewish 
 literature, shows that a certain importance was attached to them, 
 and consequently, that they are likely to have been discussed in 
 the Rabbinical Academies. In fact we also find that the name of 
 some Rabbi is oftentimes attached to some one of the explanations, 
 V. g. R. Jose (b. Chalafta) M. Pesachim, ix, 2 ; Tosefta Pesachim, 
 VIII, 3; Baba Metsi'a, 87a; Nazir, 23a; Horayoth, 10b; Men., 
 87b, etc. The explanations of Sifre, it is true, are anonymous, 
 but it is certainly very significant that on two passages (Gen. 
 xvi, 5, and Gen. xxxiii, 4) discrepancies are mentioned, which 
 clearly show that the Nequdoth had been duly taken up in the 
 scholastic discussions of the time. In view of what precedes, we 
 can but wonder that Kouigsberger refuses to take these Jewish 
 documents into consideration, and depends solely on what he 
 thinks to be the Massoretic methods. It will also be a matter 
 of surprise to many, that he supposes two distinct and 
 independent traditions with regard to the text of the Bible, 
 which traditions would have come down to us in two distinct 
 channels : the one Massoretic, bearing on the text proper, and 
 the other, Talmudic and Midrashic, bearing on its interpretation.^ 
 It is beyond all doubt, as will be seen later, that from a very 
 remote antiquity we meet among the Jews with some textual and 
 critical labors, which constitute the origin of the Massorah ; ^ but 
 to assert that these labors have left no historical traces in the old 
 Halachah or Haggadah,^ is an assertion altogether a priori. The 
 same men who handed down the interpretation of the Bible, also 
 transmitted the various textual or critical remarks on its text.* 
 It would be incomprehensible that, while interpreting the Bible, 
 
 ^3fiiTK, pp. 4f. ; 7; 9 f., etc. 
 
 ^See lower down, §§ 27 ff. 
 
 ^ On the term ' Haggada ' and its meaning, see Bacher, JQB, iv, 406 S. ; Agad. 
 d. Tann., i, 451 ff. 
 
 *Blau justly remarks that the Midrash interprets not only the text, but the text 
 with all its Massoretic rubrics, 3IU, p. 54 ff, ; IJinl,, pp. 120 ff. 
 
Ten Extraordinary Points of the Pentateuch. 17 
 
 the Tannaim or Amorraim had completely overlooked or mis- 
 construed the various corrections that had been made before them, 
 or the peculiarities which had been already noticed. We have a 
 clear proof of the contrary, in the fact that what is called the 
 Massorah proper, greatly depends on the earlier Jewish literary 
 productions, as is seen, v. g., from the Talmudic lists of textual 
 peculiarities incorporated into its own.^ For such rubrics, and in 
 particular for the Nequdoth of the Pentateuch, if we desire to 
 know their true import we must go back to these pre-Massoretic 
 works.^ We are aware that there are divergencies between the 
 later Massorah and the earlier works,^ but this is not to be 
 accounted for by the Massorah' s so-called independence of the 
 Talmud, etc., but should rather be explained by the different 
 stages of one and the same tradition, which at one time may have 
 been misunderstood, changed, modified, or enlarged. 
 
 Even if it were true — and it is at least very doubtful — that 
 the Massorah proper never passes a critical judgment against any 
 text-element, it should still be shown that in the earlier stages of 
 the Massorah, the same methods were already exclusively followed. 
 The aim of the Massorah may be to preserve the text, but it 
 preserves the text with all the peculiarities which the ancients 
 had already noticed, and the true import of which, as already 
 stated, is known independently of the Massorah.* To reject the 
 data of the Jewish writings a 'priori, to repudiate their explana- 
 tions without having examined them sufficiently, is to reject and 
 repudiate the best and most direct evidence as to the meaning 
 of the Points, and expose ourselves to mere subjective and con- 
 jectural conclusions. Of course, we do not intend to deny, that 
 in the various Midrashic works, there may be, and probably are, 
 many irrelevant amplifications and untrustworthy accounts with 
 
 ^ We find many textual and critical notices in the ancient Jewish works ; see 
 Kosenfeld C^ISID .nn22;r2 (Hebrew), Ch. ii, 6 ff., and especially Ch. iir, 9 ff. 
 
 ^Cp. although with some reservation, Rosenfeld, o. c, Ch. v, 30 ff. ; Ginsburg, 
 Introduct., 308 ff. ; and besides, the various critical Introductions. 
 
 ^See Rosenfeld, o. c, pp. 15 ff., 46, 47, 48, 50 ff.; cp. also Strack, Prolegomena, 
 59 ff. 
 
 ^Levias, art. Masorah, JE, viii, 370, rightly distinguishes the creative period 
 from the reproductive and the critical periods. Cp. Harris, JQR, r, 128 ff. 
 
 2 
 
18 Cleaning and Purpose of the 
 
 regard to the Nequdoih; but it is still possible to trace these 
 amplifications to their source, and by removing all later additions, 
 to determine what in them is original tradition. The purely 
 Halachic portions of these writings, such as Sifre, can be fairly 
 expected to have preserved the true original purpose of the 
 Points. 
 
 We have arranged the material at our disposal, in two main 
 Chapters. One Chapter will be devoted to evidences which 
 bear on the Nequdoth as such, without reference to the Biblical 
 verses in w^liich they occur, or to the letters over which they are 
 placed. To this Chapter belong the circumstances of the time 
 during which the Nequdoth came into existence. Palaeography, and 
 some Jewish testimonies on the Points. In the other Chapter we 
 shall examine every individual dotted passage in the light of 
 Textual Criticism and of the explanations given of it in the Jew- 
 ish literature. 
 
Ten Extraordinary Points of the Pentateuch. 19 
 
 CHAPTER II. 
 GENERAL ARGUMENTS ON THE NEQUDOTH. 
 
 In this Chapter, after having determined the approximate age 
 of the Points, we shall briefly inquire into the main preoccupa- 
 tions of that age with regard to the text of the Bible, and into 
 the palaeographical influences undergone by the Jews during that 
 period. Then, we shall be able to draw at least a partial 
 conclusion concerning the meaning of the Nequdoth, 
 
 Section I. Approximate age of the Nequdoth. 
 
 20. Konigsberger ^ is inclined to refer the pointing of cer- 
 tain letters to the latter half of the ii century a. d. In the 
 Biblical MS. of R. Meir,^ were found special readings,^ which, 
 although it is nowhere intimated, many think to have been mere 
 Haggadic hints in the margin. Ivonigsberger is induced by 
 these readings and by the fact that R. Meir was a scribe "* and 
 that his disciple, R. Simeon b. Eleazar,^ was the first to give rules 
 for the Haggadic treatment of the Nequdoth,^ to consider R. Meir 
 as the probable author of the Points. This view does not stand 
 the test of accurate investigation. That the Points should be 
 
 ^MuTK, 6f. 
 
 ^On K. Meir (ii cent. A. d. ), see Backer, Agad. d. Tan., n, 1 ff. ; Jost, Gcsch. 
 d. Judenth. , II, 86 ff. ; Graetz, History of the Jews, li, 435 ff. 
 
 ^ Jer. Taanith, i, 1 ; Bereshitli Rabba, ix, 5 ; xx, 12 (29), end — numbers vary 
 with the editions; xciv, 9 (8). On these readings see Zunz, Oott. Vortr., 182; 
 Miiller, Soferim, p. 86 ; Bacher, o. c, ii, p. 10, n. 2 and n. 3 ; Epstein, in Monat- 
 schrift, etc., 1885, p. 337 f., quoted by Harris in JQR, i, 135, n. 1. 
 
 * Jer. Megil., iv, 1 ; Sotah, 20a. 
 
 ^ On E. Simeon b. Eleazar, see Bacher, Ag. d. Tann. , ii, 422. 
 
 ^ Bereshith Eabba, XLvni, 15 (17), etc. See lower down, §§ 57 f. 
 
20 Meaning and Purpose of the 
 
 referred to a much earlier period, the following considerations 
 will show.^ 
 
 21. At the time of R. Meir, the Points are already made the 
 basis of special inferences. In Menachoth, 87b, we find a dis- 
 cussion between the Rabbis and the same R. Meir with regard 
 to the Jssa?-07i-measures in the temple. The Rabbis derived 
 special conclusions from the Point on ]1"1^V, while R. Meir 
 refused to draw any consequence from it. If R. Meir had been the 
 author of the Points, we would naturally expect him to oppose 
 to the interpretation of the Rabbis, the real purpose of the Nequdah, 
 which he himself would have had in view when pointing the word.^ 
 
 22. Besides, we have already called attention to the fact that 
 in the iii century, the date of the compilation of Sifre, the dots, 
 as used in connection with the official text of the Law, already 
 formed a well defined group ; hence, at that time, they must have 
 been universally recognized as an official feature of that text. 
 If R. Meir, or one of his contemporaries had been the author 
 of the Points, there is little doubt that in the golden age of 
 Rabbinical Scholasticism, his interference with the text would 
 have been challenged, and that this recognition of the dots would 
 not have been complete at the time of Sifre ; at any rate, the 
 name of their author would have been mentioned to justify their 
 being added to the official text. It is true that on two passages, 
 viz. Gen. xvi, 5, and Gen. xxxiii, 4, we find some Rabbis opposed 
 to the Points ; but for so doing they never appeal to their recent 
 origin, and besides, they are clearly in opposition to the common 
 opinion of their time. If the author of the Nequdoth had been 
 living then or had been known, his authority would have been 
 adduced against R. Simon b. Yochai, one of the objectors.^ 
 
 1 In the private copies of the Chinese Jews of K' ae-fung-Foo, the missionaries 
 whose attention had been called to certain passages of the Bible, verified the pres- 
 ence of the dots on Gen. xxxiii, 4. These mss. are of Western origin and belong 
 to the post-Massoretic period ; hence, nothing can be concluded in favor of the 
 age or of the universal reception of the Points. See Lettres EcUfiantes, vol. 24, p. 
 75 ; Eichorn, Einl. , ii, 577 If. ; Michaelis, Orient, u. Exeg. Biblioth. Th. V, 74 ff. ; 
 Miiller, Soferim, p. 88. 
 
 ^ See lower down, § 112. 
 
 ^ See lower down, § 65 and §§ 69, 85. Instead of Simon b. Yochai, many of 
 the Jewish Writings read Simeon b. Eleazar : see Appendix, on Gen. xxxiii, 4. 
 
Ten Extraordinary Points of the Pentateuch. 21 
 
 Moreover, many of the explanations of the Points are attributed 
 to R. Jose b. Chalafta (b. Chouai ?) ^ it cent. A. d. The Ncqudoth 
 must consequently not only have been existing in his clay, but 
 must have been already universally received, since he does not 
 attempt to vindicate their right to existence and simply tries to 
 explain their import. If so, we must further allow a sufficient 
 time to elapse from their origin to their general recognition by the 
 contemporaries of R. Jose. This throws back the origin of the 
 Nequdoth to a period evidently antedating R. Meir, and would 
 strongly suggest the beginning of the second century, at the latest, 
 as the epoch to which the Ncqudoth should be referred ; however, 
 other considerations force us to assign them to a still earlier date. 
 
 23. The Extraordinary Points are found in the Synagogue 
 scrolls, from which the Massoretic vowel-signs and accents have 
 been sedulously excluded. The Talmud, in order to safeguard the 
 accuracy of the Synagogue copies, enters into minute regulations.^ 
 For instance : — to mention only a few that are of interest for our 
 present purpose, — it was forbidden to write anything from mem- 
 ory,^ all had to be read before being transcribed ; * nothing was to 
 be put in the copy that was not in the original ; ^ the scroll, having 
 been copied, had to be examined within thirty days and every 
 mistake amended ; ^ from very ancient times, there were official 
 correctors attached to the temple, whose mission it was to control 
 the accuracy of copies by means of the temple model codex ; '' if in 
 each column there was more than one mistake, or according to 
 others three mistakes, the scroll could not be corrected but was 
 
 ^ Blau, JQB, VI, 562. Cp. M. Pesachim, ix, 2 ; Tosefta Pesachim, viii, 3 ; 
 Baba Metsi'a, 87a ; Nazir, 23a ; Horayoth, 10b ; Menachoth, 87b. 
 
 ^ On these Talmudic regulations, see Waehner, Antiq. Ebr. , i, Sect, i, Ch. XLV ; 
 Adler, Judaeor. Cod. etc., passim; Blau, Studien z. althebr. Buchvjesen, 180-188; 
 Lowe, Graphisch. Requisit. bei d. Juden, n, passim. 
 
 ^This is implied in Jer. Megil. iv, 1. 
 
 *Cp. M. Megillali, ii, 2 ; Jer. Megil., ii, 2 ; Eaba Bathra, 15a. 
 
 ^Cp. Sifre on Deut., § 56, edit. Friedmann, 87a; Sotali, 20a; cp. also Jer. 
 Megil., I, 11(9). 
 
 ^Kethuboth, 19b; Jer. Sanh., ii, 6. 
 
 ''Jer. Sheqalim, iv, 2; Kethuboth, 106a; cp. M. Sanla., ii, 4; Jer. Sanh., ii, 
 6; Blau, Althebr. Buchw., 106 f. 
 
22 Meaning and Purpose of the 
 
 rejected.^ These and many other precautions, made it almost 
 impossible for any foreign element to creep into the text. Need- 
 less to add that any extraordinary feature of the text could much 
 less than the ordinary elements escape the quick eye of the revi- 
 sers ; for, owing to their unusual character, their presence would 
 be more easily detected. Hence, the Extraordinary Points could 
 not have been introduced into the text of the Synagogue scrolls 
 after this Talmudic legislation had come into use. Again, these 
 regulations themselves suppose that before the time of the Talmud 
 an official text had been agreed upon, and that the Talmud simply 
 provides for its accurate transmission. This Synagogue text is no 
 other than the present Massoretic one or textus receptus. The date 
 of the adoption of the present textus receptus, will therefore be the 
 latest date assignable to the origin of the points ; for they must 
 have been in existence when the text itself was accepted. Now, 
 our present Massoretic text is the one that underlies the Version 
 of Aquila.^ That version was made towards the middle of the 
 second century a. d., and hence, the Nequdoth must have been 
 already existing at that time ; we say existing and not introduced, 
 because, to be allowed to stand in that official text they must have 
 had some title to belong to it. Nor is this an a priori assertion ; 
 for the beginning of the second century was precisely the period 
 that witnessed the origin and growth of the tendency to consider 
 every little particle of the text as of divine origin, and as convey- 
 ing a special divine thought. The Rabbis must have taken the 
 same view of the Nequdoth, and so, if these points were allowed to 
 stay, it must have been because they, too, were supposed to have 
 a special divine import. In its turn, this special value attributed 
 to the dots supposes that the Jews of the time took it for granted 
 that they had been placed by some one especially commissioned 
 by God for that purpose. No contemporary Rabbi could have 
 imparted to the Points such god-like significance, and so, we are 
 
 ^Jer. Megil., i, 11 : Jer, Sabbath, xvi, 1 ; Menachoth, 29b; Soferim, iii, 9. 
 Cp. Blau, 0. c, p. 187. 
 
 ^See the various Critical Introductions, and articles of Biblical Dictionaries. 
 See besides, Field, Uexapla, xvi-xxvii ; Derenbourg, Palestine, 396, n. 4 ; 399 ; 
 Burkitt, Aquila, JQB, 1898, 207 ff. 
 
Ten Extraordinary Points of the Pentateuch. 23 
 
 led to refer them to a period sufficiently earlier to allow the veri- 
 fication of the proverb : 
 
 "Omnia post obitum fingit majora vetustas." 
 
 In view of this fact, the beginning of the Christian era would be 
 the latest date to which the Extraordinary Points could reasonably 
 be assigned. 
 
 24. The same conclusion is reached, if we examine a tradi- 
 tion contained in Aboth de R. Nathan (1 and 2), reproduced in 
 Bemidbar Rabba/ and in the rubric of Ochlah w^Ochlah intro- 
 ducing the list of the Nequdoth.'^ We read in Aboth de R. 
 Nathan (1), IQX^I IH^'^N N3^ CN N"lTy 10K "]D i^i^ (llpj) Ho'? 
 
 : ]TVbv^ ^'^^p^ "n^VN r\2r\J nC ' Why (have points been placed) ? 
 Thus Ezra thought, if Elias comes and says to me : why hast 
 thou written thus ? I will answer him : I have already marked 
 them (the dotted letters) with points ; but if he says to me : 
 thou hast written rightly, then I will remove the points from 
 upon them.' This testimony, it goes "without saying, should not 
 be taken literally, because we find it expressed for the first 
 time in the VI or vii century. We know, besides, that the 
 Rabbis often connect what is obscure in point of origin, with 
 some great name, such as Moses or Ezra, or with some re- 
 nowned body of men, such as the Soferim or the men of the 
 Great Synagogue. We may well refuse to credit the Jewish 
 tradition which makes Ezra the author of the Points ; but if 
 so, their true author is unknown to the Jews themselves, and 
 then we have to face the following problem : although, as early 
 as the date of the compilation of the Mishnah (M. Pesachim, 
 IX, 2), we find explanations of the Points, given in the name of 
 R. Jose, nowhere in all the Jewish post-Biblical literature, do we 
 find an allusion to their real author. This, all will admit, is a 
 remarkable fact ; for, the principal enactments and opinions of the 
 Rabbis, scattered throughout the Jewish Writings, are explicitly 
 
 *See also lower down, § 128. 
 
 ^Frensdorff, Ochlah vf Ochlah, n. 96. This is not found in the Massoretic list 
 on Num., m, 39. 
 
24 Meaning and Purpose of the 
 
 attributed to them or to their school. This is the case even with 
 the decisions of the older Tannaim ; more than three hundred 
 points of difference between the two rival schools of Hillel and 
 Shammai, have been preserved to us.^ What could be the cause 
 for the apparent neglect of the author of the Nequdoth in Jewish 
 circles ? We see only two possible answers : either this author 
 died long before the composition of the earliest of these literary 
 productions, and had, at the time, fallen into oblivion, or else the 
 Nequdoth were not considered of sufficient importance to attract 
 the attention of the Rabbis to their author. The second alter- 
 native is altogether inadmissible, since as stated, the Nequdoth 
 were admitted into the official text, and also were duly taken up 
 and discussed in the Academies. We are therefore forced to the 
 other alternative, viz. that when the Mishnah and the other 
 fragments of the Jewish literature came into existence, the author 
 of the Points had been already forgotten. This throws back 
 their origin probably to pre-Christian times. Furthermore, since 
 so many of the sayings of the Tannaim have been preserved to 
 us, it is probable that the author of the Nequdoth lived before 
 their time, and that consequently, the Points are referable to that 
 dark period known as the time of the Soferim or of the Great 
 Synagogue. 
 
 Everything tends to show that the Nequdoth should be ascribed, 
 at the latest, to the very dawn of the Christian era, and probably 
 to a still more remote antiquity. 
 
 25. Lagarde makes the Points a little more recent. He thinks 
 that they were of accidental origin, ordinary corrections of inad- 
 vertent errors made by the copyist of the manuscript which, in 
 the second century A. d., was accepted as the standard.^ This 
 codex having acquired this authority, its accidental peculiarities, 
 including the deletions, were scrupulously reproduced in copies 
 made from it. Of course there may have been mistakes in the 
 place assigned to the dots in subsequent ages. 
 
 ^Blau, Einl., 115. See also the various Eabbis mentioned in Bacher, Agad. d. 
 Tann., i, where many of their sayings are recorded. 
 '^ Mittheilungen, i, 19 f. 
 
Ten Extraordinary Points of the Pentateuch. 25 
 
 26. This contention of Lagarde already supposes the question 
 relative to the meaning of the Nequdoth to have been solved ; if 
 the Points are exegetical signs no such origin could be vindicated. 
 Even granting for the present that the Nequdoth are real deletions, 
 it would be hard to see how their author would have been for- 
 gotten by the Rabbis of the second century, who were his con- 
 temporaries. Besides, if the Points were simple corrections of 
 inadvertent errors, we should not expect to find the dotted ele- 
 ments in other recensions, v. g. in the Sam. Pent, or the Lxx 
 version, for it would hardly be likely that mere mistakes in tran- 
 scription would correspond to the actual readings of the above 
 recensions. Now, it is true that the dotted elements are not found 
 in the Samaritan Pentateuch, for Gen. xvi, 5 ; Num. iii, 39 ; xxi, 
 30 ; but they occur for Gen. xviii, 9 ; xix, 33 ; xxxiii, 4 ; xxxvii, 
 12 ; Num. ix, 10 ; xxix, 15 ; Deuter. xxix, 28. On the other hand, 
 the Septuagint, although omitting the dotted letters in Num. ix, 
 10 (?) ; xxi, 30, has preserved them in Num. iii, 39; xxix, 15; 
 Dent, xxix, 28 ; and for some passages, owing to the nature of 
 the pointed elements, no comparison is possible, v. g., Gen. xvi, 5 ; 
 xix, 33 ; xxxvii, 12.^ Nor could it be seriously maintained, that 
 some scribe, disregarding the Points, corrected the Sam. Pent, on 
 the Hebrew standard codex of the second century : at least we 
 find no ground to say so. Moreover, were this granted, it might 
 be further asked why all the pointed passages have not been 
 corrected. Lagarde is certainly right in claiming that the Points 
 were found in the standard codex, and it is probably to this 
 fact that they owe their official character ; but they must have 
 existed before. We have therefore every reason to think that 
 our conclusion should be retained. Consequently, we must 
 examine the mental activity of the Jews from the time of the 
 Maccabees down to the beginning of the second century A. d., 
 as it is certainly to that period that the Nequdoth should be 
 referred. 
 
 ^ See the individual passages in our last chapter. 
 
26 Meaning and Purpose of the 
 
 Section II. Mental Activity of the Jews During 
 
 THAT Period. Influence of Alexandria 
 
 OVER Palestine. 
 
 During this period, two tendencies commend themselves to our 
 attention as likely to throw some light on the meaning of the 
 Extraordinary Pomts, viz. the Textual and Exegetical preoc- 
 cupations. This twofold activity, together with the influence of 
 Alexandria over Palestine at that time, will form the subject 
 of the following pages ; but the reader should not expect here 
 a complete treatment of these various points. Such a detailed 
 account would be out of proportion with our present work, and 
 besides, only for a few of the topics to be spoken of, is there any 
 controversy among scholars. 
 
 A. Textual Preoccupations} 
 
 27. First of all, we have to call attention to the fact that the 
 Jews of this age already noticed and duly registered many of 
 the peculiarities of the Biblical text. This assertion is a jiriori 
 probable ; for, the presence of numerous Synagogues,^ in which 
 the Law was read to the people, as well as of schools,^ in which 
 the Bible was taught, must of necessity have made the Rabbis 
 alive to the various peculiarities of the text. Furthermore, at 
 that time we meet the Scribes,* — men whose vocation it was to 
 
 ^ On the labours on tlie text of the Bible during this period, see in general, His- 
 tories of the Hebrew Text ; Introductions to Textual Criticism of the 0. T. ; various 
 contributions in Biblical Dictionaries and Encyclopedias, ss. vv. 3Iassorah, Talmud, 
 Hebrew Text, etc. See besides, Harris, JQB, 1889, 128 ff, ; 223 ff. ; Ginsburg, 
 Introd., passim. 
 
 ''On Synagogues, see in general, Treatises of Arcfueology, such as Benzinger, 
 Nowack ; Jewish Histories, such as Graetz, Jost, etc. ; articles in Dictionaries, 
 especially Bacher, Synagogue, in Hastings, DB. See also Schiirer, Oesch. d. Jud. 
 Volk., ir, 427 ff. ; Bousset, Religion d. Judenf., 149 fE. 
 
 'On Schools, see in general, works on Jewish education, such as Marcus, Simon, 
 Lewit, etc. ; see also Schiirer, o. c, ii, 422 ff. ; Edersheim, Life of Jesu^, I, 228 ff.; 
 Bousset, 0. c, 159 f. 
 
 * On the Scribes, see Schiirer, o. c, ii, 305 ff. ; 312 ff. ; Bousset, o. c, 139 ff., etc. 
 
Ten Extrao7'dmary Points of the Pentateuch. 27 
 
 study the Bible in all its details, in order to explain it to the 
 people; it would be incredible that with such a continual study of 
 the sacred text, its various peculiarities should have escaped them. 
 
 28. We have besides, positive data to show that many little 
 details of the text were actually noticed : not only did the Soferim 
 number the verses of the Pentateuch, but they knew which was 
 the middle verse, the middle word and the middle letter of each 
 of the five Books of the Law ; ^ they counted how many words 
 or letters were contained in some sections ; ^ how many times a 
 given word occurred in some Biblical passage,^ etc. This practice 
 must have been rather common, for the very name of " Soferim " 
 is supposed — although wrongly — to have been given to the Scribes, 
 because they numbered the elements of the Bible.* 
 
 29. Again, we find that parallel passages were compared with 
 one another, as is evident from the rules of Hillel based mainly 
 on the similarity or dissimilarity of parallel passages.^ To the 
 same end, we can appeal to the Sam. Pentateuch, the Septuagint 
 version and other recensions, to show that parallel passages were 
 not only compared, but oftentimes actually harmonized, and that 
 from this desire of harmonizing, many changes have been intro- 
 duced into the Biblical text.^ 
 
 30. In the critical sphere, we have to note that during this 
 period collections of the Sacred Books were made at different 
 times/ under Ezra,^ Nehemiah/ Judas Maccabee ; ^" and as the 
 
 ^ Qidd. 30a. On this and the following points, see especially, Dobschiitz, Ein- 
 fache Exegese d. Tannaim, p. 36 ff. 
 
 2 Sifre on Numb., § 84, ed. Friedmann, p. 22a ; Sab. 115b, end. 
 
 *Sifre on Deuteron., § 337, ed. Friedmann, p. 141a; M. Kerithoth, i, 1 ; Sab- 
 bath, 49b. 
 
 *Qidd. 30a. Cp. Ginsburg, Introd., pp. 69 f. ; Konig., EinL, p. 35. 
 
 ^ See lower down, § 40. 
 
 ® See the various Critical Introductions. 
 
 ' The gathering of sacred, or at least of highly valued Books, was common to all 
 nations : thus, we find a collection of Sacred Books in the temple of the Ammon- 
 ites (Euseb., Praeparatio Evangelica, i, 9, end) ; something similar is met with in 
 Sparta (Herod, vi, 57) ; in Athens (Herod, v, 90) etc. Cp. Trochon, Introduct., 
 I, 104 f. 
 
 8 Cp. Ezra, vii ; 4 Ezra, xiv, 24-26, 37-44. 
 
 8 2 Mace. II, 13. 
 
 i<*2 Mace. II, 14. Cp, 1 Mac. i, 59 f. ; in, 48 ; Joseph., Ant., xii, v. 4. 
 
28 Meaning and, Purpose of the 
 
 existing collections were most probably — although it is not 
 directly attested — scattered by Pompey/ Qiiintilius Yarns/ Titus,^ 
 and Hadrian, we are led to suppose that on these occasions also 
 the Sacred Books had to be gathered and welded anew into a 
 whole. The collections being made, copies had to be multiplied 
 not only to answer the needs of the Synagogues and schools 
 which were ever increasing in number, but also to nourish and 
 foster the piety of individual Jews.* 
 
 31. From these successive destructions and rearrangements 
 of the Sacred collections, as well as from the constant recopying 
 of the Text, there resulted almost necessarily various mistakes, 
 which more or less disfigured the divine pages. Whatever may 
 have been the character of such mistakes, whether purely acci- 
 dental,^ or partly intentional,^ or even entirely and positively 
 designed,'' it is beyond doubt that several recensions came into 
 existence at that early period. This is evidenced by the Sam. 
 Pentateuch, the Septuagint Version, the Book of Jubilees,^ the 
 Peshitto, the Nash papyrus,^ and also by the discrepancies between 
 the present Massoretic text and the one occasionally supposed by 
 the Mishnah,^*' the Gemarah," and the other ancient Jewish works. ^^ 
 
 ^On Pompey, see Joseph, Ant, xiv, iii and iv ; Wars, i, vi and vii ; C. App., 
 1,7. 
 
 ''Joseph., Ant, xvii, x, 9-10, xi, 1 ; Wars, ii, v, 1-3 ; C. App., i, 7. 
 
 'Joseph., Wars, vii, v, 6-7; Life, § 75. On the arch of Titus, a man is 
 depicted carrying on his back a long roll, undoubtedly a Torah scroll of the 
 Temple. Cp. Joseph., l. c. 
 
 ■* As early as the time of Judas Maccabee, copies of the Law were found in many 
 Jewish households, 1 Mac. , i, 59 f . After the triumph of the Jews, they must 
 have been greatly multiplied. 
 
 ^On these and the following points, see the various Critical Introductions; vari- 
 ous articles in Dictionaries, etc. To this first class belong mistakes arising from 
 transliteration, homoeoteleuton, homoeophoneton, wrong divisions of words, 
 wrong reconstruction of abbreviated words, etc. 
 
 * Such as grammatical and orthographical changes, etc. 
 
 ' Here probably belong changes made to safeguard the tetragrammaton, to re- 
 move indelicate expressions, etc. ; perhaps also the Tiqqun Soferim. 
 
 ^ See especially, Konsch, Jubilden, pp. 196 fl. 
 
 8 Exodus, XX, 2 ff. Cp. Cook, PSBA, 1903, 34 ff. 
 
 ^^ Strack, Prolegomena, 94 f . 
 
 ^^ Strack, Prolegomena, 96 ff. 
 
 12 B. Pick, ZA W, 1886, 23 ff. ; 101 ff. The results of this investigation are not 
 always safe, see the criticism of it by Derenbourg, ZA W, 1887, 91 ff. 
 
Ten Extraordinary Points of the Pentateuch. 29 
 
 32. The existence of these divergencies must have greatly 
 perplexed the Jews when they had to form new collections, or 
 when they attempted to interpret the text. It is not surprising 
 therefore to find that serious — although for a long time unsuccess- 
 ful — efforts seem to have been made to introduce uniformity mto 
 the text. We meet with official correctors whose duty it was to 
 revise and correct the Biblical scrolls ; ^ we hear that in the temple 
 there was a standard codex, according to which not only the king's 
 copy ^ but apparently other copies likewise had to be amended.^ 
 The letter of Aristeas supposes also a model codex to have existed 
 in Jerusalem at the time of the Septuagint translation of the 
 Pentateuch.* The practice is even traced back to Moses who is 
 said to have written thirteen rolls, twelve for the twelve tribes and 
 one for the Levites, so that should any mistake creep into the tribal 
 copies they could be corrected according to the levitical one.^ Some 
 besides, understand the model codex of the temple S~l*liy *1DD' 
 to be the copy of Ezra ' N*1TJ? ' '^ which is also spelled ' miy.' "^ At a 
 later date, in Talmudic and Massoretic times, we find the custom of 
 repairing to some renowned copy commonly adopted.^ Hence, 
 although the testimony of Philo ^ and Josephus ^^ that the Jews had 
 not changed one single letter of the Sacred Books, is objectively 
 false, it supposes at least that in their respective times, pains were 
 
 ^ Kethuboth, 106a. See besides, the regulations for the copying of scrolls, men- 
 tioned above, § 23 ; see also Harris, JQB,, 1889, p. 131 ; Blau, Althebr. Buehw., 
 p. 187. 
 
 ^ Tosefta Sanhedrin, iv, 7, edit. Zuckermandel, p. 421 ; Sanh. 21b ; Sifre on 
 Deuteron., § 160, edit. Friedmann, 105b ; Jer. Sanh., ii, 6. 
 
 3 Kethuboth, 19b. Cp. Harris, o. c, p. 131 ; Blau, o. c, pp. 107, 187. 
 
 *In Swete, Introduet, p. 525 (top). Cp. Blau, o. c, 100 f. 
 
 "Debarim Rabba, ix, 9 (4). Cp. Blau, o. c, p. 98. 
 
 ^Cp. Sifre on Deuteron., § 160, and the remarks of Friedmann, ibid., n. 6; 
 El. Le\dta, Massoreth ha- Massoreth, edit. Ginsburg, p. 106 ; Blau, Althebr. Buchw., 
 107 ff. 
 
 ^Cp. Blau, 0. c, p. 107, n. 3. 
 
 * On these model codices, see Strack, Prolegomena, pp. 14-19 ; Neubauer, in 
 Studia Biblica, iii, 22 ff. ; Ginsburg, Introduet, 409 ff., 429-443. In his Massorah 
 Compiled, etc., Ginsburg has collected the variants from Cod. Hilleli, iii, 106-134, 
 and of Cod. Jericho., 135. 
 
 ® Quoted from his lost works in Eusebius' Praeparalio Evangelica, viil, 6 (end). 
 
 " Cont. Apion., i, 8. 
 
30 Meaning and Purpose of the 
 
 already taken to guard the text against every kind of depravation. 
 It must have been also in conformity with the spirit of the times, 
 that, according to the letter of Aristeas (ii cent. b. c), the Jews 
 of Alexandria invoked curses upon any one that would dare add 
 to, modify, or mutilate the text of the newly made Greek version 
 of the Law ; ^ and it is not assuming too much to assert that some 
 similar respect for the purity of the text existed also among the 
 Palestinian Jews. 
 
 33. What principles were followed in determining the respec- 
 tive value of the various readings, we learn from the ancient 
 Jewish tradition. We are told that in the temple were found 
 three codices, one of which read ]"',j7a and the other two HJIVIO, 
 and that the former was corrected according to the two latter, etc.^ 
 To follow the majority of MSS. as a guide in Biblical Criticism, 
 may be a very defective method, but here we have not to judge 
 of the work done ; it is enough for our purpose to know that 
 such preoccupations existed when the Nequdoth originated. 
 
 34. It would also be very desirable to know what critical 
 signs, if any, these ancient Jews used as symbols of their doubts 
 and critical judgments. But very little is certain either about 
 the age of the various features of our Massoretic text or about 
 their import. We may however derive some information from 
 Alexandria, which, during the period under consideration, was 
 the great center of literary activity.^ There, all branches of 
 science flourished, and from there, a great literary influence made 
 itself felt in neighboring lands. The collections of literary works 
 in the large libraries of Alexandria were enormous for the times, 
 and the diffusion of Greek culture and literature was one of the 
 principal aims of the Ptolemies. In the course of time, owing 
 to various causes, such as constant recopying, insertion into the 
 
 ^ In Swete' s Introduct. , p. 572. 
 
 ^Sifre on Deuteron., § 356, edit. Friedmann, 148b (top) ; Jer. Taanith, iv, 2 ; 
 Aboth de E. Nathan (1st rec. Ch. 34 ; 2d. Ch. 46) ; Soferim, vi, 4. See Blau, 
 Ahhebr. Buchw., 101 ff. 
 
 ^ On Alexandria and its literary activity, see Dilhne, Geschichtliche Darstellung d. 
 Jud.-AIexandrin. Religions- Philosophie, 1-27 ; Matter, I' Ecole d' Alexandrie, passim; 
 Griifenhan, Klassische Philologie, etc. 
 
len Extraordinary Points of the Pentateuch, 31 
 
 text of marginal explanatory notes, etc., the text of the classics 
 became very corrupt/ Consequently, the Alexandrians soon 
 realized the necessity of issuing critical and revised editions of 
 the classics. Such editions — to mention only a few that referred 
 to Homer — were given out by Zenodotus (iii cent. b. c), Aristo- 
 phanes of Byzantium (iii cent. b. c), Aristarchus (ii cent. b. c), 
 Aristonicus (i cent. b. c), Didymus (i cent. A. d.).^ As it would 
 have been inelegant and even impossible to put all the corrections 
 or annotations in full in the margins, a whole series of conven- 
 tional signs, — many of which we still possess, — was adopted to 
 mark the various peculiarities, critical and exegetical, which the 
 Alexandrian critics had observed in the text.^ 
 
 35. Whether or not the Palestinian Jews, when engaged in 
 the work of correction and revision of the Bible, occasionally 
 adopted the same conventional signs, is precisely the point at issue. 
 We know enough, however, of the relations of the Jews with 
 Alexandria,* to make it certain that they must have been acquainted 
 with the Greek methods, and to make it at least probable that in 
 some cases they must actually have borrowed their critical signs. 
 We know that the Jews of Alexandria were very numerous, and 
 that they entered all the professions available. Among them we 
 find not only merchants, bankers, etc., but also literary men, such 
 as Aristobulus, Eupolemus, Artapanus, Demetrius, Aristeas, Jason, 
 Philo the Elder, Ezechiel, Philo, etc.^ 
 
 ^Blass, in Vol. i of Mullet's Hdbch. d. Klass. Altert., 252-269. 
 
 ^For all these, see Pierron, V Iliade d^Homere, i, pp. xxix ff. 
 
 ^ Gardthausen, Griech. Palaeographie, 288 f. ; Pierron, P Iliade d' Hom^re, ii, App. 
 II, 522-533. The knowledge of these signs became a new branch of study and 
 treatises were written on them, v. g. by Hephestion, Philoxenlis, etc. (see Matter, 
 0. c, III, p. 126). 
 
 *0n these relations see in general Jewish Histories, such as Graetz, vol. ii, 
 passvn; see also Dahne, Geschichtliche Darstellung, etc., 28 ff. ; Frankel, Paldstin, 
 Exegese, etc., pp. 1-4 ; Siegfried, Philo, 1-31 ; Bousset, Bel. d. JudenL, 57 ff., 
 405 ff. ; Schiirer, Alexandria (Ancient) , in JE, vol. i, 361 ff. 
 
 ^On these, see Schiirer, Geschichte, iii, 304 ff. ; Christ, Gesch. d. Griech. Lit., 
 in Miiller's Hdbch. d. Klass. Altert., vii, 543 f. ; Schiisz, Palestin. Geistesrichtimg, 
 20 ff. ; On Aristobulus, see especially Joel, Blicke in d. Beligionsgeschichte, etc., i, 
 79-100. Many fragments of these authors have been reproduced in Mailer, Fi-ag- 
 menta Hist. Graeca, m, 207-230. 
 
32 Meaning and Purpose of the 
 
 30, The Hellenistic Jews must have been well acquainted 
 with the palseographical methods which were used before their 
 very eyes in Alexandria. On the other hand, Palestine itself 
 at that period, underwent a strong hellenizing process. Greek 
 ideals and methods were rapidly gaining ground in Palestine up to 
 the time of the Maccabees.^ At that time it is true, a reaction set 
 in, but it still differed widely from the subsequent Pharisaic 
 exclusivism, and apparently was not aimed at Alexandria. The 
 relations between the Alexandrian and Palestinian Jews were 
 never broken, the spiritual supremacy of Jerusalem was never 
 denied.^ At the time of the great festivals, especially the Passover, 
 the Jews used to flock to the Holy City from all parts of the 
 world, but chiefly from the Egyptian metropolis.^ It is then 
 beyond doubt that the various customs of the different nations 
 were familiar to the Jews of Palestine. Again, although it cannot 
 be said that Greek was extensively spoken among the common 
 people of Palestine, still its use was current among the educated 
 classes and it was taught in baany schools.* If so, the Greek mss. 
 used for teaching and learning, must, if nothing else, have made 
 the literary Jews acquainted with the Greek graphical methods 
 of the time. 
 
 We have therefore ample grounds to think that the Palestinian 
 Jews were familiar with the Alexandrian critical or exegetical 
 signs, and hence, it is at least probable that they themselves 
 occasionally used them. Let us, however, point out some resem- 
 blances between the two methods of writing, tending to show that 
 the Palestinian Jews actually depended on Alexandria for the 
 various graphical peculiarities.^ 
 
 ^See Schiirer, Geschichte, etc., i, 187 £P., ii, 42-67; Edersheim, Life of Jesus, 
 vol. n, App. IV. 
 
 ^Cp. Josephus, Cont. Ap., i, 7 ; Neg., xiv, 13 ; Nid. 69b. 
 
 ^ As indicative of the crowds in Jerusalem on those occasions, see Joseph., Wars, 
 n, xiv, 3 ; vi, ix, 3 ; see also, concerning the Synagogue of the Alexandrians in 
 Jerusalem, Acts, vi, 9 ; Jer. Megil., iii, 1. Cp. Schiirer, Geschicht. ii, p. 65. 
 
 * On the use of Greek in Palestine, see Joel, BUcke in d. Religionsgesckichte, i, 
 6-42 ; Neubauer, in Studia Biblica, i, 42 ; Schiirer, Geschichte, n, 63 ff. ; Dalman, 
 Die Worte Jesu, 1-10 ; see also works on Jewish Education. 
 
 ^On the following similarities, we have used, on the side of the Greeks, 
 especially Birt, Das Antike Buchwesen; Gardthausen, Griech. Palaeoc/raphie ; 
 
Extraordinary Points of the Pentateuch. 33 
 
 37. We may call attention to the similarity of the material 
 used for writing both by Greeks and Jews, such as waxen 
 tablets, leather, parchment, papyrus ; to the similarity of the 
 book form, viz. the roll ; and to the similar disposition of 
 the text, viz. into columns separated by blank spaces. The 
 Greek line is based on the poetical eVo?,^ and the same is 
 probably also true of the Hebrew line with regard to the 
 poetical pIDD.^ In the same way, we find both Alexandrians 
 and Jews^ making use of Abbreviations,^ of Numerical 
 Letters,^ with special and common signs to distinguish them 
 from the ordinary letters of the text.^ The Greeks divided the 
 text into Paragraphs, and occasionally left a blank space between 
 them ; '^ to these Paragraphs correspond the Jewish Parashahs, 
 also marked with blank spaces.^ The further division of the 
 Paragraph into Sentences, among the Alexandrians,^ is also a 
 
 Thompson, Hdhook of Ghxek and Latin Pakeography ; Blass, in Miiller's HdbcL, 
 etc., I, 299 ff. On the side of the Jews, we have consulted Waehner, Antiq. 
 Ebraeor. ; Low, Graphische Requmten hei d. Juden ; Blau, Althebr. Buchw. ; also 
 Introductions to the O. T., etc. 
 
 ^Thompson, Hdb., p. 79 ; Blass, o. c, pp. 340 ff. ; Eendel Harris, Stichometry, 
 AJP, IV, 139 ff. 
 
 2 Blau, Althebr. Buchw., 129 ff. 
 
 ^ Whether the Jews used the Scriptio continua like the Greeks, is doubtful. In 
 general, see Critical Introductions where mistakes are pointed out, arising from 
 wrong division of words ; compare however, Perles, Analekten, 35 ff. In Talmudic 
 times, it had been generally given up : see Harris, JQB, 1.889, p. 224. 
 
 *0n Abbreviations among the Greeks, see Gardthausen, Palaeog., 243 ff. ; 
 Thompson, Hdb., 88 ff. ; among the Jews, various Introductions, v. g. Ginsburg, 
 Intr., 165 ff. ; see also Low, Graph. Reqwisit., ii, 49 ff. ; Perles, Analekt., 4 ff. 
 
 "See examples in Birt, o. c, 186 ff. ; cp. Thompson, Hdb., 104 ff. On the 
 probable use of numerical letters even in the Bible, see Davidson, art. Chronicles, 
 in Kitto's CBL, i, 505 ; Konig, Einl., 74, 90, 274. 
 
 ^ For the Greeks, see lower down, §§ 48 ff. ; for the same signs among the Jews, 
 cp. Levias, Grammar of the Aram. Idiom, p. 5 and n. 3. 
 
 ''Gardthausen, Palaeog., 273 ff. ; Thompson, Hdb., 68 f. 
 
 ^See Waehner, Antiq. Ebraeor., Sect. I, §§ 339 ff. ; Pick, in Hebj-aica, i, 159 ; 
 Ginsburg, Int., 9 ff. ; Konig, Einl., 463 f. These Sections are divided into "closed " 
 and "open," for the explanation of which see the works just referred to; they 
 should not be confounded either with the weekly lessons, or with the Christian 
 Chapters. 
 
 9 Thompson, Hdb., 69. 
 
34 Meaning and Purpose of the 
 
 contemporaneous Jewish practice/ thougb the double point (:) 
 used by the former to mark the end of a sentence,^ does not seem 
 to have been adopted by the Jews at that early date.^ It is also 
 worthy of notice, to find that later on, the Jews borrowed from 
 the Greeks the various punctuation marks and musical accents ; * 
 for though this practice does not belong to the age of the Nequdoth, 
 it bears testimony to the fact that the Jews would naturally turn 
 to the Greeks for graphical signs and methods. 
 
 Finally, we find both among Greeks and Jews the custom of 
 counting the various elements of their works. This practice, 
 known as Stic ho me try, — from the fact that verses were counted 
 more generally than the other elements of the text, though 
 columns, words and letters were also counted,^ — is found among 
 the Greeks long before the time of Christ,^ and its introduction 
 into Jewish palaeography belongs to our period.^ Here again we 
 must remark that the Jewish unit for counting, seems, like the 
 Greek, to have considerably varied, and that among both we meet 
 with a great uncertainty as to the numbers appended to the books, 
 for the arC')(pL ^ and for the D^'plDD.^ 
 
 iSee Waehner, o. c, Sect. I, §§ 180 ff. ; Hupfeld, TSK, 1837, pp. 849 ff. ; Gins- 
 burg, Int., 69 ff. : Konig, Einl, 463 ff. 
 
 2 Thompson, Hdh., 69. 
 
 ^ Hupfeld, I. c, 852 f. The double point is found among the Samaritans ( Peter- 
 mann. Ling. Sam. Gramm., p. 6). It occurs also in some Synagogue scrolls 
 (Konig, Einl, 463 ; Strack, Text of the 0. T., in Hastings' DB. iv, 727, col. 2 ; 
 Chwolson, CIH, 221). 
 
 *See Thompson, Hdb., 72; Gardthausen, Palaeog., 274. On the Hebrew 
 Accents, see the two treatises of Wickes on Hebrew Accentuation ; Biichler, Her- 
 kunft, etc. ; especially Praetorius, Herkunft d. Hebr. Ace. ; Praetorius has been 
 opposed by Gregory, quoted by Kittel in Notwendigkeit u. Moglichkeit einer Neuen 
 Ausgabe d. Hebr. Bibel, p. 80 ; cp. also Margolis, Accents in Hebrew, JE, i, 149 ; 
 C!ohen, Cantillation, JE, in, 537. 
 
 ^Gardthausen, Palaeogr., 127 f. 
 
 «Birt, 0. c, 162 fP., 186 ff. ; Gardthausen, o. c, 127 ; Rendel Harris, AJP, iv, 
 133 ff., 309 ff. ; Thompson, Hdb., 78 ff. 
 
 'Cp. Ginsburg, Intr., 69 ff". ; Kittel, Notwendigkeit, etc., 72 ff. ; Josephus, Ant. 
 XX, XI, 3. 
 
 8 Thompson, o. c, 81; Blass, o. c, 341; Serruys, Anastasiana, in Melanges 
 d'Arch^ologie, etc., xxii, 157 ff. 
 
 9 Ginsburg, Mr., 84, 87 ff. ; Rosenfeld, Q^IDID nn5U?2, 54 f. 
 
Extraordinary Points of the Pentateuch. 35 
 
 B. Exegetical Preoccupations. 
 
 38. At that time, the Greek classics were extensively com- 
 mented upon by the Alexandrians. The editions contained not 
 only critical but also exegetical annotations, which were occasion- 
 ally enlarged into real commentaries. These were sometimes 
 written in separate volumes, with special signs in the text itself 
 referring the reader to the corresponding place in the commentary.^ 
 As said above, there were besides, conventional signs to represent 
 graphically the various critical and exegetical peculiarities. 
 
 39. The Alexandrian Jews, as might be expected, did for 
 their national literature what was done by the Greeks for theirs. 
 They were besides, great admirers both of Greek philosophy and 
 of the Bible, and hence strong efforts were made to harmonize the 
 two. They endeavoured to show that all that is reasonable in the 
 former, had been borrowed from, or at least was to be foimd in, 
 the latter. In order to attain this result more easily, they had 
 recourse to the allegorical method of interpretation. Philo ^ (20 
 B. C.-40 A. D.) although not the founder of this method,^ — 
 signs of it are found already in the writings of Aristobulus (ii 
 cent. B. c), and in the letter of Aristeas, — systematized it, and 
 went much beyond his predecessors in the application he made of 
 it. He says that since God is the author of the Scripture, even 
 of the Septuagint immediately as a Version, nothing is useless ; 
 every word, particle, expression, unusual turn of a phrase, is suffi- 
 cient ground to assert that this striking feature was designed, and 
 consequently to make it the basis of an allegorical interpretation.* 
 
 40. Among the Palestinian Jews we meet with a similar evolu- 
 tion. When the Sadducees attacked the value of the oral laws 
 
 ^See Pierron, I'lliade (THomere, i, p. xxxvi. 
 
 ^ On Philo, compare Jewish Histories, etc. See especially Gfrorer, Philo, i, 
 1 ff. ; Diihne, Jud.-Alexandr. Relig.-Pkilosophie, i, 98 S. ; Frankel, Schriftforsch., 
 25-43 ; Siegfried, Philo, 168 ff. ; Edersheim, Life of Jesus, i, 31 ff., 40 ff. ; 
 Schiirer, Geschichte, in, 487 ff. ; Bousset, Religion d. Judent., 411 ff. 
 
 ^Gforer, o. c, i, 68-113; Davidson, Sacred Hermeneutics, 57 ff. ; Siegfried, 
 Philo, 168-197 ; Edersheim, Life of Jesus, i, 31 S. ; Schiirer, Geschichte, ni, 548. 
 
 *Gf6rer, o. c, i, 54 ff., 68 ff. ; Davidson, o. c, 63 f.; Siegfried, L c. ; Edersheim, 
 0. c, I, 40 ff. 
 
36 Meaning and Purpose of the 
 
 aud decisions, and denounced them as innovations, an effort was 
 made to base all the Halachoth and Haggadoth on the Biblical 
 text itself.^ Thus originated the proverb, "turn and return the 
 Law for everything is found in it." ^ Even then, the methods 
 that were followed in deriving the oral laws from the written one, 
 were not left to the arbitrary judgment of individual interpreters, 
 but certain rules calculated to render the deductions acceptable, 
 were devised. These rules were systematized by R. Hillel, and 
 summed up in seven formulas.^ As is evident from the examina- 
 tion of these rules, interpretation was at that time, still kept 
 within reasonable bounds, and in many respects was based on 
 perfectly justifiable and acceptable principles. Later on, Nachum 
 of Gimzo ^ (end of i cent. A. D.), probably under the influence of 
 Philo, propounded the view that a special meaning should be 
 attached to certain particles and conjunctions, so that on account 
 of their j)resence, the text be made to countenance the teachings of 
 tradition, either enlarging upon it or restricting its apparent mean- 
 ing.^ This is known as the toiyai ''13"l ' Extension and Limita- 
 tion.' The Palestinians, however, were not as yet prepared to 
 admit such fanciful principles, and Nachum's system was rejected 
 at the time, on the plea that though it is God who speaks in 
 Scripture, still He speaks for men and adapts His language to 
 the general rules of human parlance.^ 
 
 41. But the views of Philo were making steady headway in 
 Palestine ; Josephus adopted his theory of inspiration according to 
 which man is a mere machine in the hands of God,^ etc. This 
 
 ^Mielziner, Introd. to the Talmud, pp. 120 S. ; Edersheim, Zdfe, etc., i, 312 f. 
 
 2 Aboth, V, 32. 
 
 ^Sifra, Introduct. (end), edit. Weiss, 3a ; Tosefta Sanh. vii, 11 (end), edit. 
 Zuchermandel, p. 427 ; Aboth de K. Nathan (1), Ch. 37. On these rules see 
 Mielziner, o. c, 123 f. ; Derenbourg, Palestine, 176 ff., 187 ff. ; Frankel, Schrift- 
 forscL, p. 15; Schiirer, Geschichte, ii, 335 f. 
 
 *Bacher, Agad. d. Tann., i, 57 ff. ; Graetz, History, ii, 330 f. 
 
 ^ Mielziner, Introduction to the Talmud, 124 f. 
 
 ^Mielziner, ibid. 
 
 ''Ant. IV, vi, 5 viii, 48, 49; Cont. Apion., i, 7, 8, etc. ; Edersheim, Life of 
 Jesus, II, 684 f. 
 
Extraordinary Points of the Pentateuch. 37 
 
 same theory was endorsed by the great Aqiba/ who drew exactly 
 the same consequence as Philo, viz., that everything in Scripture 
 is the effect of a special design of God, that nothing is useless, not 
 even a single letter or sign. Hence, every little detail with which 
 the text could dispense, conveys a special divine idea. These 
 exaggerated views were not generally accepted by Aqiba's con- 
 temporaries, who clung to the seven rules of Hillel developed by 
 R. Ismael b. Elisha into thirteen.^ Aqiba's method is visible, 
 however, in the Greek Version of his disciple Aquila. Later on, 
 it was adopted and perfected by R. Eliezer b. Jose, mostly for 
 Haggadic purposes.^ It is important to note that the Palestinian 
 Talmud applies the rules of Aqiba comparatively seldom, Avhile a 
 much greater use is made of them in the Babylonian Talmud.* It 
 is only fair to state however, that this use is generally restricted 
 to the Haggadah, and that the Rabbis did not intend to give in 
 the Midrash, the true sense of Scripture, which is to be looked for 
 in the literal interpretation.^ 
 
 C. Meaning of the Nequdoth as Derived from the 
 Preceding Considerations. 
 
 FIRST CONCLUSION. 
 
 42. From the preceding pages, we learn that among the 
 Jews there Avere Textual and Exegetical labors, and that in 
 both spheres the influence of Alexandria made itself felt. We 
 may now draw a double conclusion with regard to the Extraordi- 
 naiy Points. It must be evident to the reader that these Points 
 should be referred to one or to the other of the two prevalent 
 
 ^Bacher, Agad. d. Tann., i, 243 ff. ; 263-3.42 ; Derenbourg, Pcdestine, 395 ff. ; 
 Graetz, Histoi-y, ii, 352 ff. ; Mielziner, o. c, 125 f. ; Ginzberg, Akiba, JE, i, 304 
 ff. ; Schiirer, Gesch., ii, 375 ff. 
 
 ■■'Sifra, beginning. Cp. Derenbourg, Palestine, 389 f. ; Backer, Agada d. Tann., 
 I, 232 ff. ; Graetz, History, ii, 355 ff. ; Mielziner, o. c, 126 f. 
 
 3 Mielziner, Introd., 127 ; Ginsburg, Midrash, in Kitto's CBL., Ill, 165 ff. 
 
 *See Surenhusius, ^l^Xos KaTa\\ayi}s 57-88; Frankel, Schriftforsch. , 19; Dob- 
 schiitz, Einf. Exeg., 11 ff. 
 
 5 Mielziner, o. c, 122 ; Dobschiitz, /. c. 
 
38 Meaning and Purpose of the 
 
 preoccupations. It is of prime importance to remember that 
 although the primitive tradition with regard to the place of the 
 Points may not have been preserved,^ still, it is beyoud all doubt 
 that they affect not a whole sentence or clause, but only the words 
 or letters over which they are placed. If it were not so it would 
 be impossible to see why, occasionally, only one letter has been 
 pointed, while for some other passages, we have three or more 
 dots. Jewish tradition besides is very positive in asserting that 
 the Points refer only to the elements thus marked, although it 
 may be at variance as to which letters should be pointed. 
 
 43. We may now briefly draw a first conclusion as follows : 
 The Nequdoth bear only on the words and letters over which they 
 are placed, and not on an entire clause of the Biblical passages ; 
 if then they are exegetical signs, they would imply that a certain 
 intei'pretation should be put on these pointed elements ; but in 
 Palestine, the interpretation of individual words and letters, 
 began only at the time of Nachum of Gimzo and Aqiba, and for 
 some time afterwards was still regarded with suspicion by most 
 of the Rabbis ; it is therefore improbable that, even if the 
 Nequdoth had originated at the time of these two writers, they 
 would have been allowed to pass into the official text of the 
 Synagogue scrolls, as signs of an official interpretation. The 
 Points moreover are undoubtedly older than the time of Nachum, 
 and consequently, have still less chance of indicating that an 
 exegetical explanation is connected with the words and letters 
 over which they are placed. Besides, even if we would grant 
 that at that time, words and letters were thus made susceptible of 
 a peculiar interpretation, we do not see why our present dotted 
 elements should have been selected in preference to so many 
 others. Ou the one hand, even if we understand the Jewish 
 explanations literally, it does not appear that from a Jewish point 
 of view, any special importance should have been attached to 
 these dotted Biblical passages ; there were many other places 
 apparently more important and more likely to attract the atten- 
 tion of the Rabbis. On the other hand, even if we concede that 
 
 ^ See the details in our last Chapter. 
 
Exti'aordinary Points of the Pentateueh. 39 
 
 these words had a special importance, we fail to see, why, for 
 instance, it should be the ]1"lIfV of Num. xxix, 15, that received 
 the dots, rather than that of xxix, 1 ; or why it should be the 
 vht^ of Gen. xviii, 9, rather than the V^N of Gen. xix, 21, etc. 
 Moreover, in many cases, the pointed letters are not at all 
 superfluous in the sense in which they could have been made 
 the channel of a special divine thought, v. g. Gen. xviii, 9, 'V7^f/ 
 Num. xxi, 30, 'iU^X,' etc. 
 
 44. Against the conclusion that the dots are not exegetical 
 signs, the fact that exegetical interpretations have been put upon 
 them cannot be adduced as an objection. If the dots have a critical 
 value, and especially the value of a dele, it should be expected that 
 later on, exegetical conceptions would actually be derived from 
 them. Again, let us add that like so many other features of the 
 text, these points may have been due to an exegetical bias, without 
 having an exegetical import, as is probably the case with the 
 so-called ' Emendations of the Scribes,' etc. 
 
 SECOND CONCLUSION. 
 
 45. As already shown, there were various textual labors 
 among the Jews during that time. We then further conclude 
 that the Points are somehow connected with these labors, and 
 are the expression of some judgment on the text, either as mark- 
 ing a striking peculiarity, or calling attention to some critical 
 doubt. What was exactly intended by the Nequdoth, we are 
 likely to learn from the use of the same signs in Alexandria, from 
 which place, as said above, the Palestinian Jews, probably bor- 
 rowed them. To this end, it will be enough to determine the form 
 of the iV^^wr/o^/i, briefly analyse the meaning of similar signs in Alex- 
 andria, and finally apply to the former what we know of the latter. 
 
 46. FoEM OF THE Nequdoth. As to the original form of 
 the Nequdoth, there can be but little doubt that it was what is 
 generally conveyed by the term " point." This is made evident 
 by the word that the Jews used for designating them, viz. DTllpJ ^ 
 
 ^Thus Aboth de R. Nathan (1) ch. 34, (2) ch. 37 ; Massorah Magna on Gen. 
 xvi, 5 ; Mass. Parva, Deut. xxix, 28, etc. 
 
40 Meaning and Purpose of the 
 
 [nilpj] plural of mi pi [nip:]. The substantive rn\^:^ in Rab- 
 binical literature means a ' point/ real or imaginary, a ' dot ' made 
 with some pointed instrument or with the pen. As designating 
 the Extraordinary Points, it is used in Jer. Pesachim, ix, 2, in 
 Aboth de R. Nathan (2), Chap, xxxvii, on Deut. xxix, 28, and 
 in Bemidbar Rabba, iii, 13, on Deuter. xxix, 28 ; riTlpJ is even 
 used collectively for the ensemble of the points over a given passage, 
 in Jer. Pesachim, ix, 2 (?), Bereshith Rabba, lxxviii, 9 (12), and 
 Aboth de R. Nathan (1), Chap, xxxiv, on Deuter. xxix, 28.^ 
 The pointed passages are indicated in various ways. Occasionally, 
 it is said that such a letter or word is lip: (m^^:^, D^p:, nnipJ) ;^ 
 in these cases, llpj etc. are certainly pass, participles agreeing 
 with the preceding word and mean ' pointed.' At other times, 
 the passage is marked by V^V "ilpJ or hy . . .hv "llp^j followed by 
 the letters or words which are pointed ; ^ here, also, with Blau and 
 others, we should read "llpj, ' it is pointed,' and not "l^pi, ' point,' 
 with Baer and Konigsberger."* In some cases, especially in the 
 titles of the various lists of the Points, and in the rubrics of the 
 Massorah, we find ' HTinZI nmp3 "^.' ^ Here, since there are 
 more than ten points in the Law, HTllpJ is evidently a participle 
 referring to some such word as vht2 understood, and should be 
 translated ' pointed passages ' ; this is made almost certain by the 
 fact that occasionally ]"'^Q is actually expressed.*" We thus come 
 to the conclusion that although ' Nequdah ' and ' Nequdoth ' are 
 found as substantives to designate the Extraordinary Points as 
 such, and now are commonly used in that sense, still these words 
 
 ^ See the various Dictionaries, s. v. n"np: or "!pJ ; thus Buxtorf -Fischer, Lexicon 
 Chald. ; Levy, Neu-Hebr. Wtbch. ; Jastrow, Dictionary of the Targum. , etc. , ; Dal- 
 man, Aram. Neu.-Hehr. Wtbch. ; cp. also Hillel, Die Nominalbildungen in der 
 Mischnah, 48 f. 
 
 ' Thus, V. g., Aboth de E. Nathan (1), Ch. xxxiv, on Gen. xxxiii, 4 ; Num. 
 XXIX, 15 ; Soferim, vi, 3, on Gen. xviii, 9 ; xix, 33 ; xxxiii, 4, etc. ; Leqach 
 Tob, on Deuter. xxix, 28, ed. Padua, p. 101. 
 
 ^ Thus, especially Sifre ; cp. § 69, and the various texts in the Appendix. 
 
 * Blau, Einl, 113 f. ; Konig, Einl., 32 ; Konigsberger, 3fuTK, 13, 14, 15, etc. ; 
 Baer, Genesis, p. 95. 
 
 *See Appendix. 
 
 ® See Massoretic marginal note on Gen. xxxiii, 4 and Num. ix. 10. 
 
Extraordinary Points of the Pentateuch. 41 
 
 are generally passive participles from the root ID^} The verb 
 IpJ is uot found in the Bible, but it occurs in the Rabbinical 
 Hebrew literature with the sense of ' to pierce/ ' to prick/ and in 
 Massoretic terminology, more specifically, ' to furnish with vowel- 
 points and accents.' Finally, in Aboth de R. Nathan, (1 and 2), 
 Bemidbar Eabba, and Ochlah w^'Ochlah, it expresses the action of 
 appending the Nequdoth; as the word nil pi designates not only 
 the Extraordinary Points, but also means any kind of point or 
 dot, the verb HpJ, in the above authorities, must mean ' to mark 
 with points,' or, in the Hiph'il (Aboth de R. Nathan, 2) ' to cause 
 to be pointed.' ^ This meaning of "IpJ is simply a palseographical 
 adaptation of its original sense of ^ to pierce,' and is nothing else 
 than the imitation with pen and ink of a puncture or prick made 
 with a sharp instrument.^ The Hebrew IpJ is clearly recognized 
 in the Syriac J-*^ , which also means 'to pierce' and 'to mark 
 with points ; ' the substantive j f^ qj corresponds to the Greek 
 (TTL'yiir] ' point.' The substantive jr-OQj from the root i-^^ is 
 also frequently used for the (nf^^i-q of the Greeks.* Hence the 
 term "milpj" given by the Jews to the Extraordinary Points is 
 sufficiently indicative of their form. 
 
 47. In the Hebrew Manuscripts, as a graphical sign of 
 the Nequdoth, the common dot by far prevails ; it is also supposed 
 by the remark of St. Jerome, when he says " appungunt desuper," 
 etc., and by the Origenian note referred to above " iv iravTl 
 '^^paiKO) ySi/SXio) 7repL€(TTiKTai." ^ There are, however, a few vari- 
 ations as to the shape of the Nequdoth: occasionally they appear 
 under the form of a little circle, thus, cod. 600 of Kennicott,^ 
 
 ^ On all that precedes, see especially Hy vernat, Petite Introduction a I' Etude de 
 la Massore (reprint from RB.) s. v. ~pJ. 
 
 ^ See the Dictionaries mentioned above, s. v. 'Ipl 
 
 ^ The obelus has the same origin ; cp. Liddell and Scott, Greek-Eng. Lexicon, s. v. 
 '0/3eX6s ; Montfaucon, PalcEographia Grceca, p. 371. 
 
 *See Payne-Smith, Thesaurus Ling. Syriac, ss. w. 
 
 ^ See above, p. 4, n. 6. 
 
 ®Bruns, De Variis Lectionihus Bibliorum Kennicott., in Kepertorium, etc., xirr, 
 p. 44. 
 
42 Meaning and Purpose of the 
 
 cod. Ebner/ etc. ; at other times, vertical ^ or horizontal ^ strokes 
 take the place of the common points. Even in the same MS. all these 
 different forms are sometimes found.* However, as the points alone 
 correspond to the word nmpJ and are much more used than the 
 other forms, it is evident that these variations are but modifications 
 or embellishments of the points.^ In any case, as they appear 
 interchanged with the dots proper, they must have the same 
 meaning. 
 
 48. Similar signs in Alexandria. In Alexandria 
 the points served several purposes : they were adduced by Aris- 
 tophanes of Byzantium, and later on by Nicanor,^ as punctuation 
 marks with a special value according to their position ; they are, 
 together with many other signs, used to fill up the blank spaces 
 at the end of a line ; ^ placed over numerical letters, two dots 
 indicate the tens of thousands ; ^ finally, they are used to mark 
 spurious elements of the text, as, v. g. in the fragment of Hyper- 
 ides, and later on in the codex Sinaiticus.^ 
 
 49. The vertical strokes, which occasionally take the 
 place of the points in Hebrew mss., were used in Alexandria 
 to divide words where a special difficulty occurred, as v. g., 
 where too many consonants came together ; ^^ they are appended 
 to the left of numerical letters to denote thousands,^^ or to the 
 right to denote fractions ; ^^ in the papyrus of Aristotle, slanting 
 strokes with dots indicate transposition ; ^^ finally, they are found 
 
 ^Eichhorn, Evd., n, § 355. 
 
 ^ Thus Cassel MS. on Gen. xxxiii, 4 ; see besides, Michaelis, Orient, u. Exeg. 
 Bihliot. Th. i, pp. 230 f . , and Biblia Hebraica, on Gen. xix, 33, etc. 
 
 ^Michaelis, Orient Bihliot., I. c. 
 
 *Thus MS. 1106 of the Breslau library (Konigsberger, MuTK, p. 6, n. 1). 
 
 * We do not see why Biichler seems to assimilate them to the vertical accents 
 {Herkunft, etc., pp. 89, 97, 116 f., 141). 
 
 ^Gardthausen, Palaeographie, 274; Thompson, Hdb. of Palceography, 70, 
 ' Gardthausen, o. c, 277. 
 
 * Gardthausen, o. c, 267; Thompson, o. c, 105. 
 
 ^Gardthausen, o. c, 278 f. ; Thompson, o. c, 74; Blass, in Miiller's Hdbch., 
 etc., I, 323. 
 
 ^''Gardthausen, o. c, 274. 
 "Thompson, o. c, 104 f. 
 '* Gardthausen, o. c. , 268. 
 ^'Thompson, o. c, 74. 
 
Extraordinary Points of the Pentateuch. 43 
 
 with the same signification as the points, viz. to cancel letters or 
 words, and in this sense they occur in the codex Alexandrinus/ 
 
 50. The horizontal strokes, which also occasionally 
 replace the points in Jewish mss., are placed over numerical 
 letters to distinguish them from the ordinary elements of the 
 text ; ^ we find them over words which are contracted ; ^ they 
 are used by Origen to mark a word found in the lxx but not 
 in Hebrew ; * they are also found with the special purpose of 
 cancelling spurious elements,^ and in this sense they were used 
 by Aristarchus : " 6 Se o^e\o<i Trpo? ra aOerov/xeva iirl tov irotrjTOV 
 ijryovv vevoOevfieva jj v7ro/3€^\r)fi€va ; " ^ hence the verb o^eXi^w ' to 
 mark as spurious by means of the obelus.' "^ 
 
 51. We may now apply to the Jewish Nequdoth the meaning 
 that we find attached to the corresponding Greek signs. Of 
 course, it would be entirely preposterous to make the Hebrew 
 Extraordinary Points mark numerical letters as the Greek points 
 and strokes occasionally do ; or to make them correspond to the 
 Greek vertical strokes or accents used to separate words or letters, 
 where there was a special difficulty in pronouncing them well ; or 
 to assimilate them to the various punctuation marks ; or, finally, 
 to consider them as mere flourishes at the end of a line. There 
 remains consequently but one meaning assignable to the Nequdoth, 
 viz. that, like the Greek dots, they are signs of real deletions. 
 This is besides, the only function on which the various forms 
 of the Nequdoth agree. 
 
 52. This conclusion is further strengthened by the meaning 
 which other nations, and the Jews themselves at a later date, 
 attributed to dots. Thus with the Latins, the points as well as 
 the vertical and horizontal strokes are used to cancel,^ but the 
 common sign for this was the point, and for this reason, we have 
 
 1 Thompson, Hdb., 74. 
 ^Thompson, o. c, 104. 
 ^ Thompson, o. c. , 88 f . 
 
 * Field, Hexapla, pp. lii S., etc. 
 
 ^ Thompson, o. c. , 74 ; Grardthausen, Palaeographie, 279. 
 
 ® Gardthausen, o. c, 288 f. 
 
 '' See Liddell and Scott, Qi-eek-Engl. Lexicon. 
 
 * Thompson, o. c, 75 ; Prou, Manuel de Pcdeographie, 151 f. 
 
44 Meaning and Purpose of the 
 
 the verb ' expungere ' in the sense of ' delere.' ^ St. Jerome, 
 applying this meaning of the obelus, marked with that sign the 
 Deuterocanonical portions of Daniel relative to Susanna and to 
 Bel and the Dragon.^ The point and horizontal stroke are also 
 used for cancelling by the Samaritans.^ The Jews at a later 
 date, employed the points to mark letters that were considered as 
 spurious. Thus in the St. Petersburg Codex of the Prophets, 
 Is. li, 4; Ezech. xliv, 10; xiv, 11, 13; xx, 7; Hag. i, 11; 
 ii, 21 ; Zach. i, 3, etc.,* and in many other Biblical Mss.^ Com- 
 pare also Codex Cassel, on Gen. xli, 25 ; 2 Chron. iii, 14, etc.^ The 
 dots serve the same purpose in the Oxford MS. of Pirqe Aboth 
 (Bodl. 145).'' Besides, mnemonic catchwords, letters of the alpha- 
 bet taken as such, first letters of abbreviated words when joined 
 togethei', are often marked with a dash, slanting strokes or points, 
 to show that they are not regular words of the text.^ In the 
 same way, points are placed over quotations and like our 
 inverted commas, show that the words are not of the author 
 himself;® numerical letters, though generally marked with the 
 sign of abbreviations, are also indicated by points, to prevent 
 their being understood as an ordinary word of the sentence.^*' 
 Finally, when a word cannot be written fully at the end of a 
 line, the entire word is occasionally repeated in the following line ; 
 but to prevent the letters already written at the end of the 
 preceding line from being read twice, points are placed upon 
 them, evidently to cancel them." 
 
 ^ Blau, MU, p. 8, n. 1 ; cp. Forcellini, Totius Latinitatis Lexicon, ii, 238, col. 1. 
 
 * Prolegemena in Daniel. 
 
 ^Peterman, Ling. Samarit. Oramm., §8; Watson, in Hebraica, ix, 224. This 
 method is still used by modern Eastern Syrians, as shown, v. g., in Cod. Hyvernat, 
 10, in which three dots in red ink appear ; cp. 32b, etc. 
 
 *Ginsburg, Introd., 321. 
 
 ^See Baer and Strack, Biqdvqe ha-Te'amim, 45, C. b ; Ginsburg, Introd., 334. 
 
 «Michaelis, Orient., etc., Th. i, pp. 231 ff. 
 
 ' Sayings of the Fathers, edit. Taylor, p. 52 of the translation, note 38. 
 
 "See, V. g., Derenbourg, Manuel du Lerteur, Journ. As., vi*^ S^i-ie, xvi, 315, 316, 
 327, etc. ; Neubauer, Petite Gram. Hebr., 7, 10, etc. ; Ginzberg, Genizah Studies, 
 JQR, XVIII, 104, 109, etc. ; Levias, Grammar of the Aramaic Idiom, p. 6. 
 
 "See Schechter, Saadyana, pp. 122-126. 
 
 ^° See Levias, o. c. , p. 5, n. 3 ; Ginsburg, Intr. , 85, etc. 
 
 " Thus in a small fragment from the Cairo Genizah, lent by Dr. S. Schechter 
 to Prof. H. Hyvernat for publication. Six examples occur in one page. 
 
Extraordinary Points of the Pentateuch. 45 
 
 53. It would be useless now to examine all the theories on 
 the Nequdoth in the light of Palaeography ; if the Nequdoth could 
 be clearly identified with the Greek dots, they could have no 
 other meaning than that of a dele; nowhere do we find these 
 points used to denote special exegesis, or striking features of the 
 text, or discrepancies between Mss. and recensions. The opinion 
 of Konigsberger especially, is in direct contradiction to the evi- 
 dences in this line ; it would be almost incredible that the Jews, 
 who were acquainted with the Alexandrian custom of using dots 
 as signs of deletions, would themselves have employed them for 
 the very reverse, i. e., to mark certain unexpected letters as 
 genuine and consequently to be retained. 
 
 54. Against this conclusion, Konig ^ — cp. Levias ^ — objects 
 that if the Nequdoth had been used to mark words and letters as 
 spurious, we would expect the Jews to have used them con- 
 sistently. Now, we find such superfluous letters marked "iTI"', 
 or "^ip X^l ^TID, etc. Therefore, to grant that the Nequdoth were 
 designed to cancel, is to attribute to the Jews a lack of con- 
 sistency, which cannot be assumed. 
 
 55. This objection of K5nig wrongly supposes that no change 
 has taken place in Jewish methods and practices. We know, to 
 give only a few examples, that there are three distinct systems 
 for the Massoretic punctuation ; ^ we further know, not only that 
 dififerent words were used to designate the same thing, but that the 
 same word did not always preserve the same meaning,* etc. The 
 methods used for cancelling letters and words were not restricted 
 to one, as Konig himself grants, and hence we find no difficulty 
 in admitting that the Nequdoth were intended to cancel. The 
 same multiplicity of methods in cancelling interpolated letters, 
 is seen among the Greeks and Latins. Besides the method of 
 crossing out a word or erasing it, they used many others, such as : 
 
 ^Einl, p. 33, n. 1. 
 
 ^Levias, art. Masorah, JE, Vol. viii, p. 368. 
 
 3 A third system is described by Kahle, ZAW, 1901, pp. 273-317. See also 
 Bacher, art. Punctuation, JE, x, 270 f. 
 
 *Elias Levita, Massoreth ha-Massoreth, passim, see v. g., 131-133; Frensdorff, 
 Massora Magna, 1-20. Hyvernat, Petite Introduction d l^ Etude de la Massore, BB, 
 1903, 541 ff. ; 1904, 521 ff. ; 1905, 203 ff., 515 ff. 
 
46 Meaning and Purpose of the 
 
 including the word between various signs <....>,) ) or 
 
 ' ' ; placing accents, dots, obelus over every letter, as said 
 
 above ; drawing a line above or below the word ; encircling it all 
 around with dots, etc.^ In order to designate the condemnation 
 of a word, more than ten verbs occur in Greek, each one indi- 
 cative of a special method, thus : adereco, o^eXi^co, 8cajpd(f)Q), 
 fieTwypdcfxo, 7r€pi<ypd(})co, eKypdcfxi), Trapaypdcfxi), i^aXelcfxa, ckko- 
 XdiTTCO, pj^ta^ft), crri^co, TrepcaTi^co, viroaTC^wr' 
 
 In view of what precedes, the Jews must appear to us as very 
 conservative and consistent. Whatever, therefore, may have been 
 the reason for which they had recourse to the points, it remains 
 true that the lack of consistency cannot be adduced as an objection 
 against the cancelling value of the Nequdoth; and consequently, 
 we have every reason to maintain our conclusion that the Extra- 
 ordinary Points were real signs of deletions. 
 
 Section II. Jewish Testimonies on the 
 Points in General. 
 
 66. We might be expected to consider in this place the 
 little clause found at the end of the list of the Points, as given 
 by Aboth de R. Nathan (1 and 2) and by Bemidbar Rabba, in 
 which Ezra is justifying himself for having written the pointed 
 letters. However, as this clause possibly refers only to Deuteron. 
 xxix, 28, and not to the pointed passages in general, we postpone 
 the explanation of this testimony until we examine the Nequdoth 
 of that verse.^ As more general notices we have the words of R. 
 Simeon b. Eleazar, of Rabbi, and of the Zohar. 
 
 57. The rule attributed to R Simeon b. Eleazar by Bereshith 
 Rabba,^ — reproduced by many subsequent Jewish writings,^ — and 
 
 * Gardthausen, Palaeogr., 278 f.; Thompson, Hdb. ofPalceogr., 74. 
 
 ^ See Liddell and Scott, Greek Engl. Lexicon, ss. vv. 
 
 ^ See lower down, § 128. 
 
 *XLvni, 15 (17) ; Lxxvni, 9 (12). 
 
 ^ Thus Leqach Tob on Genesis xviii, 9, edit. Buber, p. 84 ; Shir ha-Shirim 
 Rabba, vn, 8 ; Yalqut, § 82, § 133 ; Sekhel Tob, Gen. xviii, 9, edit. Buber, p. 
 26 ; Gen. xxxiii, 4, edit. Buber, p. 178. 
 
Extraordinary Points of the Pentateuch. 47 
 
 to the Rabbis in general by Jer. Pesachim, ix, 2, is substan- 
 tially the following: nnXIL' Dlpa ^DD ["iTj;'?*^ ]3 ]1J;dW '"I "IDIX] 
 
 HDT m)^^ DHDH HN u;-in nnN nmpjn ^pj; roi dfid nj^id 
 
 : rn^^:iT\ DN u;nn nnx 3nDn ^y. The exact translation of this 
 passage is not clear, on account of the various meanings that 
 can be put on rn^y^ and DFlD. In fact these words do not seem 
 to have been used consistently. In one of the cases, viz. Gen. 
 xviii, 9, '"thi^, where the rule is applied by R. Simeon himself, 
 the comparison is made between the PTWD^ and the DDD : ]ND 
 
 rmpjn nx u^in nnx dhdh hv hdi mipjn^; this evidently 
 
 supposes that VP^^^ is taken in the sense of ' pointed letters ', 
 and DHD in the sense of ' unpointed letters,' for only in this 
 interpretation is it true that the mipJ surpasses the DHD. The 
 same is also true of the probable application of the rule to 
 Num. ix, 10, where the DHD being more numerous than the 
 rnipJ, the pointed He of npm is left out and pni referred to 
 'CJ'^^} This sense of the two words is also borne out by the fact 
 that we have no example in the Pentateuch, of the points being 
 more numerous than the actual letters of the pointed word. 
 There is, it is true, a pointed passage in the Hagiographa, viz. 
 Ps. xxvii, 13, in which the points are more numerous than the 
 letters of the word, since this word N^l? is pointed above and 
 below,^ but this passage does not belong to the pre-Massoretic 
 official list of the Nequdoth, and it is not probable that R. Simeon 
 referred to it in his explanation.^ 
 
 On the other hand, on Gen. xxxiii, 4,^ rCTipi and DPD are taken 
 in the sense of ' points ' and ' letters ' respectively, DHD N^ ]KD 
 ' m DHDH hv HDI mip: t6^ n'l)p}n bv nnn. As the word in 
 question inpti'"'T is entirely pointed, R. Simeon can only mean that 
 the number of the points ' mipjn', is equal to the number of the 
 letters ' 2T)Dn.' 
 
 ^ Jer. Pesachim, ix, 2 ; see below, § 98 ff. 
 
 ^ See Massorah Magna on Num. iii, 39, and the marginal Massoretic note on 
 Ps. xxvii, 13. 
 
 ^ Besides, this method of pointing is not found in the Talmudic passage — Bera- 
 khoth, ia — where the Points are given for this word. 
 
 *Bereshith Rabba, Ixxviii, 9 (12) ; cp. § 46. 
 
48 Meaning and Purpose of the 
 
 58. What is meant by this rule is not beyond dispute.^ One 
 thing, however, seems to be certain, viz. that it has nothing to do 
 with the import of the Nequdoth. If it were otherwise, we 
 would have to say, v. g., that N, % ^ of V7X have been pointed 
 because the angels inquired about Abraham, Dn"lDN' I'^X. At such 
 a rate, the Rabbis might have taken in any given word two or 
 three letters, yielding a desired sense, and pointed them, but this 
 would be absurd. The rule of R. Simeon is a mere Haggadic 
 adaptation of the letters already pointed for some other reason. 
 In Gen. xxxiii, 4, we are told that since the number of the points 
 and of the letters is the same, it is a sign that Esau kissed Jacob 
 sincerely.^ This is already implied in the Biblical sentence, with- 
 out the points, and hence, the latter, on inpll^"'!, would be perfectly 
 useless. In fact R. Yanai's objection against him is precisely 
 that he gives no real explanation. The fact that the dispositions 
 of Esau would have changed, and that in the beginning he 
 intended to bite Jacob ' ^'2\D^ h'D,' is not suggested by the Bibli- 
 cal verse as long as inptt'"'! stands ; besides, the same might have 
 been said of any of the actions of Esau. If inpiyi alone has been 
 pointed, there must have been for this, apart from the explanation 
 of R. Simeon, some special reason, which did not exist for the 
 other words of the sentence. We are, therefore, led to the con- 
 clusion, that R. Simeon does not intend to give us the purpose 
 of the Nequdoth. The only use that can be made of this rule of 
 R. Simeon will be to find out the place of the Nequdoth in his 
 day, but even here it will prove of little service, for we have only 
 three cases where it has been clearly applied. 
 
 69. Apparently intended as a corrective of the preceding 
 rule, is the expression of Rabbi,^ who says : D^ ]^i<^ ''D hv ^^ 
 
 ^ See the altogether inadmissable interpretation of Sekhel Tob on Gen. xxxiii, 
 4, ed. Buber, p. 178, where this rule is made to apply to Q^re w^lo Ketib. See 
 also Hirschfeld, Hagg. Exegese, 373, quoted in Strack, Prolegomena, p. 90. 
 
 ^ On the differences between Shir ha-Shirim and Bereshith Eabba, see Appendix ; 
 Shir ha-Shirim has omitted a whole clause through a homceoteluton ' ' ■i)D7?2 ' ' . 
 Yalqut, § 133 has also important variations, but it is evident that it does not 
 transcribe accurately. The objection of E. Yanai would be out of place, if K. 
 Simeon had said, as Yalqut makes him say, that Esau did not kiss Jacob sincerely. 
 
 ' Jer. Pesachim, ix, 2. 
 
Eodraordinary Points of the Pentateuch. 49 
 
 :3nDn dn p'?Doi n-npjn nx :i;-m nx ]'?viD^t3 nnx mipj k^n 
 
 The ordinary sense of ]'?j;o^D is ' from above ', but here this 
 translation offers special difficulties. Rabbi clearly supposes that 
 there were other cases, in which the rV^^:^ was not ]^J7a^a. In 
 the official list of the Nequdoth given in Sifre, the points are 
 always placed over the letters to which they refer : ' vhv lip J ' 
 ' . . . . 7^ 11 pi' ^ There is but one case where, according to Sifre, 
 the points are ntOD^QI H^ya'^D;^ but, apart from the fact that 
 these words are generally understood as ' in the beginning and at 
 the end,' ^ it is not likely that Rabbi had in view all the other 
 passages which were pointed above but not below; for, these 
 cases are the majority, and Rabbi seems to speak only of excep- 
 tional occurrences. Blau^ is therefore justified in understanding 
 ]'?yD^D as ' in the beginning or on the first letter.' ^ It is true 
 that this rule, having been framed for existing, and not for 
 hypothetical cases, would suppose that there were words actually 
 pointed on the first letter only, whereas we know of no such cases 
 in our present method of placing the dots. But, as we shall see 
 in the examination of individual passages, there are probably 
 three passages in which, according to some schools the first letter 
 alone received the points, although they affected the entire word, 
 viz. Gen. xix, 33, HDIpDT; Num. iii, 39, ]nnNT; Num. xxix, 15, 
 
 Again, it is to be noted that Rabbi takes PTVid'^ in its ordinary 
 sense of ' point,' for, the expression ' ]^j;d^D rnipJ ' can be justified 
 only if we distinguish the rH)'^^ from the letter to which it 
 referred. Besides, it is not probable that Rabbi would ahvays 
 recommend the interpretation of the first letter of a word, if 
 pointed, and refuse to interpret any other letter. If we under- 
 stand Rabbi correctly, his saying should be rendered as follows : 
 
 1 On Num. ix, 10, § 69, edit. Friedman, 18a. 
 
 2 On Num. xi, 35, § 84, p. 22a. 
 
 3 See Blau, MU, p. 42 ; Konig, Einl, p. 34. 
 * MU, p. 27. 
 
 ^Cp. Targ. on Ezech., xlii, 9; xlvi, 19; Num. iv, 26, etc.; in the Targuni, 
 NiVi?^ often corresponds to the Hebrew X1D)2* Compare besides, the massoretic 
 use of b^rb?: in opposition to i'l'^^ (Hyvernat, BB, 1905, 210). 
 
 ^ See these various passages below in the third chapter. 
 
 4 
 
50 Cleaning and, Purpose of the 
 
 ' Even if there was but one point, provided it be on the first 
 letter, take this point into account, and leave out the letters.' 
 Accordingly, the presence of the Point annuls, at least for 
 exegesis, the entire word ; and this implies that the word was 
 considered as critically doubtful, otherwise there would have been 
 no reason not to interpret it as well as the others. How the 
 point on the first letter was deemed sufficient to annul the entire 
 word, is made clear if we remember that in the three cases 
 mentioned, the pointed word begins with a conjunctive waw ; by 
 pointing this ivaw, and thereby removing it, the entire word was 
 placed out of the context, and this may have been considered 
 sufficient to recall to mind that it was spurious or at least criti- 
 cally doubtful, and that consequently it should not be interpreted. 
 
 60. Similar to the view of Rabbi, and perhaps borrowed 
 from it, is that of the medieval Jewish Rabbis, who also tell us 
 that the pointed letters are non-existent for interpretation ; ^ that 
 they are good only as a basis for the Derash, but not for the 
 literal interpretation.^ We are also told that the dots lessen 
 the import of a word,^ and this supposes that the Nequdoth take 
 away from the word something that it would have without them. 
 All this clearly suggests, even if not realized by those Rabbis, 
 that the pointed letters are not as good critically as the other 
 elements of the text, i. e., that they are at least critically 
 doubtful. 
 
 In what precedes, we find nothing that would militate in favor 
 either of the would-be original exegetical import of the Nequdoth, 
 or of their italicizing value. 
 
 61. In favor of the theory of Italics, we may quote the pas- 
 sage of the Zohar on Num. ix, 10: "in^X X"l Hpim "^ms IK 
 
 ^:n^D nxinx'? i^^nx )rhD) Nnn^xn amp: ]i:^n-i .-n^j?a nn 
 
 This testimony is not so clearly in favor of the view of Konigs- 
 berger as might seem at first; nfrOriN^ 'to make visible, or 
 prominent,' does not necessarily mean ' to italicize,' in the sense 
 
 ^ See above, § 5. See also Leqach Tob. on Deut. xxix, 28, ed. Padua, p. 101. 
 ^ Rashi on Baba Metsi'a, 87a ; Cbmm. on Gen. xix, 33, etc. 
 ^Rashi on Menachoth 87b (top) ; Sanh. 43b, etc, 
 * Quoted in Buxtorf, Tiberias, p. 180, 
 
Extraordinary Points of the Pentateuch. 51 
 
 of retaining a word although there would seem to be grounds for 
 rejecting it. The words of the Zohar would still be justified, 
 even if it had considered the Nequdoth as deletive signs. In any 
 case it is needless to remark that the Zohar is of late origin/ and 
 may have been influenced by the methods of the Massorah proper, 
 which precisely calls attention to all the various features of the 
 text. 
 
 ^See especially Zunz, Gott. Vortr., 419 ff. 
 
52 Meaning and Purpose of the 
 
 CHAPTER III. 
 
 THE INDIVIDUAL POINTED PASSAGES, IN THE 
 
 LIGHT OF TEXTUAL CRITICISM AND 
 
 OF THE JEWISH WRITINGS. 
 
 62. As remarked above, the use of Textual Criticism with 
 regard to the meauing of the Nequdoth, is widely different from 
 the use of the same, when the aim of the investigation is to 
 discover the true original readings of the Hebrew text. Our 
 intention is simply to find out what was the state of the text when 
 the Points came into existence, and thus to be enabled to reach 
 some conclusion concerning their original import. 
 
 As to the Jewish testimonies which we shall use in this Chap- 
 ter, it might have been desirable to collect them here, and submit 
 them to a critical study ; thus the reader would know at the outset 
 what in them is original tradition, and what is mere Midrash. 
 However such a work of comparison, as it implies a work of inter- 
 pretation which is possible only in the examination of each pas- 
 sage, cannot properly be done here. We shall therefore content 
 ourselves with giving a full list of these testimonies, with the text 
 of the most important of them, viz., Sifre. The text of the others 
 will be found in an Appendix at the end of this work. 
 
 63. A. Testimonies in which the Nequdoth aee Grouped. 
 
 Without explanations. 
 
 Soferim, vi, 3.^ Massorah Magna on Num. iii, 39.^ Diqduqe 
 ha-Te'amim.^ 
 
 ^ Edited by Miiller, Masechet Soferim. It is also found in the editions of the 
 Babylonian Talmud among the minor treatises at the end of Seder Nesiqin. In 
 its final redaction, it belongs to the vni or ix cent. A. c, but Ch. vi-ix seem to 
 be older. See Harris, JQB, i, 230; Miiller, o. c, 21 L ; Zunz, Oott. Vortr., p. 
 100 ; Mielziner, Introd. to the Talmud, p. 63. 
 
 ^ See also Ochlah weQchlah, ed. Frensdorff, n. 96. 
 
 ^Diqduqe ha-Te'amim, in the Eabb. Bible of Venice, 1517-18, App. O, fol. 'X 
 
Extraordinary Points of the Pentateuch. 53 
 
 With explanations. 
 
 Sifre on Num. ix, 10, §69.* Aboth de R. Nathan (1st recension) 
 Ch. xxxiv.^ Aboth de R. Nathan (2nd recension), Ch. xxxvii.^ 
 Midrash Mishle, KJIti; "IDJ^ VnD:f3 Prov. xxvi, 24.'' Leqach 
 Tob (Pesiqta Zutarta), on Num. ix, 10.* Bemidbar Rabba, iii, 
 i3.« 
 
 64. Individual Testimonies on the Pointed Passages. 
 
 Gen. xviii, 9. Baba Metsi'a, 87a middle. — Bereshith Rabba/ 
 
 recto. Diqduqe ha-Te'amim is a Grammatico-Massoretic treatise by Aharon b. 
 Asher, x cent. A. d. (cp. JE, i, p. 18). It is doubtful whether the passage rela- 
 tive to the Points is original : it is not found in most recensions (see Ginsburg, 
 Introd., p. 281 ff. ; Baer and Strack, p. viii). Baer's MS. contains much extrane- 
 ous matter borrowed from various sources and especially from Midrash Mishle. 
 
 ^Ed. Friedmann, 18a; this testimony is reproduced in Yalqut, § 722, and in 
 Midr. Leqach Tob, edit. Padua, p. 194. It is also found in Ugolini, Thesaurus 
 Antiquit. S(mrarum, XV, p. cxlv. The work belongs to the in or IV cent. A. D. 
 See Friedmann' s7n<rodMC<. (Hebrew) ; Mielziner, Intr. to the Talmud, p. 20. 
 
 ^ Ed. Schechter, pp. 100 f. Aboth de E. Nathan is a kind of Tosefta to the 
 Mishnic Tractate 'Pirqe Aboth.' In its present shape, it is post-Talmudic, 
 probably vi or vii cent. A recension very different from the one published in 
 the Talmud, was edited by Tausik (Munich, 1872). The two recensions are 
 given in parallel columns by Schechter. On Aboth de K. Nathan, see 
 especially Schechter, Introd. (Hebrew) ; Mielziner, Introd., p. 63. 
 
 » Ed. Schechter, pp. 97 f. 
 
 * Ed. Buber, p. 99 f. Midrash Mishle is a Comment, on Proverbs belonging to 
 the X or xi cent. See Buber' s Introd. (Hebrew) ; Zunz, o. c, p. 280. The 
 passage relative to the Points is missing in the ordinary editions, but it is found 
 in the editions of Constantinople and was known to the author of Arukh (s. v. 
 npJ) ; see Buber, p. 99, n. 10. 
 
 * Edit. M. Padua, p. 194. Leqach Tob is a Midr. Comment, on the Pentateuch 
 by Tobia b. Eliezer ; it is also, but wrongly called Pesiqta Zutarta. The first two 
 books were edited by Buber, 1880, the last three by M. Padua, 1880 ; Levit. 
 Num. and Deut. are also found in Ugolini, o. c. , xvi, 1 fif. It dates from the xii 
 cent. See Zunz, Oott. Vortr., pp. 195 ff. ; Buber's Introd. (Hebrew); Welte, 
 Jiid. Litter., i, 462 ff. ; Hamburger, BEdJ, Suppl. i, 117-122. 
 
 ® Comm. on Num. of the x or xi cent. A. D. See Zunz, o. c. , 270 3. ; Wiinsche, 
 Biblioth. Rabb., Introd. to Bemidbar Rabba. Cp. JE, ii, 669 ff. 
 
 'Bereshith Rabba, xlviii, 15 (17) ; it is a Haggadic Comm. on Gen., and 
 belongs to the v or vi cent. See Zunz, Gott. Vortr., 184 £E. ; Wiinsche, Biblioth. 
 Bobbin., Introd. to Bereshith Rabba ; JE, viii, 557. 
 
54 Meaning and Purpose of the 
 
 — Leqach Tob.^— Sekhel Tob.^— Midrash ha-Gadol.^ 
 Gen. XIX, 33. Nazir, 23a. — Horayoth, 10b. — Bereshith Kabba." 
 
 Midr. Yelamdenu.^— Leqach Tob.«— Sekhel Tob.^— 
 
 Zohar.«— Midr. ha-Gadol.» 
 Gen. XXXIII, 4. Bereshith Rabba.*" — Shir ha-Shirim Rabba.^^ 
 
 —Leqach Tob.^2_]yji(jj,. Tanchuma.^3__gekhel Tob.^*— 
 
 Zohar.i^— Midr. ha-Gadol.^« 
 Gen. XXXVII, 12. Bereshith Rabba.^'' — Leqach Tob.^^ — Sekhel 
 
 Tob."— Midr. ha-Gadol.^" 
 Num. Ill, 39. Bekhoroth, 4a. — Leqach Tob.^^ 
 Num. IX, 10. Mishn. Pesachim, ix, 2. — Jerus. Pesachim, ix, 2. 
 
 — Tosefta Pesachim, viii, 3. — Zohar.^ 
 
 1 Ed. Buber, p. 84. 
 
 ' Haggad. Comm. on Genesis, and Exodus by Menachem b. Salomo ; ed. Buber, 
 p. 26. 
 
 ' Collection of Kabbinic homilies on the Pentateuch, compiled in the xrv cent, 
 by a Yemen Jew. Genesis has been published by Schechter (1902). On Gen. 
 xviii, 9, see col. 273. 
 
 *Li, 8 (10). 
 
 » A lost Cbmm. on the Pentateuch ; Zunz ascribes it to the ix cent. Many 
 passages have been preserved in Aruch and Yalqut. It is different from Mid- 
 rash Tanchuma, although this latter has been occasionally printed under the 
 name of Yelamdenu. Buber published a recension of Midr. Tanchuma, which 
 he claims to be anterior to Yelamdenu. In general, see Zunz, Oott. Vortr., 237 
 ff, ; Buber' s Introduct. (Hebrew), but see also Neubauer, BE J, xm, 224 f. The 
 passage relative to the Points is quoted in Aruch, s. v. V 1 , and in Yalqut, § 86, 
 with slight variations. 
 
 «Ed. Buber, p. 90. 
 
 ' Ed. Buber, p. 40. 
 
 ® Quoted in Minchath Shai, ad locum. 
 
 9 Ed. Schechter, col. 297. 
 
 >»LXXViii, 9 (12). 
 
 " VII, 8. 
 
 "Ed. Buber, p. 171. 
 
 15 Ed. Frankf. a. O., 12c. 
 
 "Ed. Buber, p. 178. 
 
 1* Quoted in Buxtorf, Tiberias, p. 176. 
 
 i«Ed. Schechter, col. 516. 
 
 "lxxxiv, 13 (12). 
 
 i*Ed. Buber, p. 188. 
 
 »9Ed. Buber, p. 217. 
 
 »OEd. Schechter, col. 561. 
 
 " Ed. M. Padua, p. 168. 
 
 ^ Quoted in Buxtorf s Tiberias, p. 180. 
 
Extraordinary Points of the Pentateuch. 55 
 
 Num. XXI, 30. Midr. ha-Gadol.^ 
 
 Num. XXIX, 15. Menachoth, 87b. 
 
 Deut. XXIX, 28. Sanhedrin, 43b. — Leqach Tob.^ 
 
 65, Sifre, "jn^yn^. On Num., ix, 10, § 69. Ed. Fried- 
 man, 18a.^ 
 
 van"i iDDnj n'?^ ^pv^'p wni' iiyyii; vitd hd^h iqik ^n^^ D 
 ]NJi nx mn^ vnx n^^i id t^iiVD nn^ '?dd ipn'ji nyu' nmxn 
 □HD Niiio :DO!ij; ni< nij?-i^ n'pn o'pn N^ii' v'rv -npj dh^dn 
 
 HM x^u; v^v "npj ]-inxi n^D ipD nt^x n^iSi nipD ^d n Niii^D 
 
 'n^ nnnojn n N^iio tiD'pD ins* ]nii;j; (^y) n^n n\-i n^t:^ 
 "':x ?iN D^i'?:n an^^i^y ^n iipj c^iy iv ij^jd^i ij^ ni^:jm ij\-i^x 
 i)p2 npin-i "]-n3 i« nnx ]nd p)x tnnnojn nx dd*? yniN 
 : HDDn nx nnoj? n^ij; ^^■^ n^ ndio hmi n^np -ji-q hm '^dn^ p'py 
 
 66, As Sifre is by far the most important testimony on the 
 original meaning of the Nequdoth, and the starting point of many 
 of the subsequent explanations, we may be allowed a few remarks 
 on this testimony, First of all, it is beyond doubt that Sifre 
 intends to give us, not a Midrashic adaptation to letters already 
 pointed, but the true purpose of the Nequdoth. In all cases, it 
 tells us that such and such a passage is pointed ' because ' . . . . 
 and then he gives the reason for the existence of the dots. In the 
 sequel, we shall attempt to find out the true bearing of these ex- 
 planations ; let it suffice for the present to remark that they are 
 not Haggadic speculations based on the pointed letters or words. 
 We have seen above that the Nequdoth bear only on certain 
 
 ' See in Schechter, Aboth de R. Nathan (1), p. 101, n. 27. 
 
 '^ Ed. Padua, p. 101. 
 
 ^This testimony is reproduced in Yalqut, § 722 ; and in Leqach Tob on Num. 
 ix, 10, ed. Padua, p. 194. The principal variants will be indicated in the Appendix ; 
 the difiFerences between Sifre and Leqach Tob are so numerous, that we shall give 
 the two testimonies separate. 
 
56 Meaning and Purpose of the 
 
 elements of the text, and not on the entire sentence or verse. We 
 have also come to the conclusion tliat tlie individual words and 
 letters were not then made the basis for special interpretations. 
 Accordingly, it is a priori probable that Sifre, which reproduces 
 the old traditions of the ii cent. A. D., does not intend to give the 
 interpretation of individual letters, as the original purpose of the 
 Points. Besides, there is absolutely no connection between the 
 pointed letters and the explanations given of the purpose of the dots. 
 A ' yod ' in Tm, or a ' riN ' before the direct object of a verb, can 
 never signify that Sarah spoke only with reference to Hagar, or 
 that the brothers of Joseph went to Shechem only in order to feed 
 themselves. On the other hand, a little examination of this pas- 
 sage of Sifre will convince us, that not only no special interpre- 
 tation should be based on the pointed letters, but that on the 
 contrary these letters are entirely set aside, and that the Points 
 have precisely the function of marking these letters as not to be 
 interpreted. It is certainly noteworthy that the present Massoretic 
 text, without the Points, would imply or might imply the very 
 contradictory of what Sifre makes it imply with the Points. This 
 will be examined in detail later ; let us simply give one example. 
 On Num. iii, 39, we read that Moses and Aaron numbered the 
 Levites, etc. Aaron therefore took part in the numbering ; but 
 according to Sifre, because ]"inX'l is pointed, we are obliged to say 
 that Aaron did not take part in that nimibering. It is evident 
 that on this passage, Sifre thought that the Nequdoth annulled 
 ]inK1, and its explanation of the Points is but an indirect way 
 of saying that for some reason l^nxi should be left out. Some- 
 thing similar is found in all the passages. The conclusion is 
 therefore forced upon us, that these exj)lanations of the Points by 
 Sifre, are only an indirect means of suggesting their true purpose. 
 Perhaps this indirect way of explaining the import of the Points 
 is a mere display of wit, calculated to raise the curiosity of the 
 students, make a deeper impression on their memory, exercise and 
 develop their mental acumen. Possibly also, this method of pre- 
 sentation is a euphemistic device to avoid scandalizing the weak 
 and uninitiated, as might have been done by the blunt assertion 
 that some elements of the Bible were spurious or doubtful, 
 
Extraordinai'y Points of the Pentateuch. 57 
 
 especially at a time when it was firmly believed that every word 
 had been given to Moses. Or again, we may have to deal here 
 with formulas, explicitly framed as mnemonic phrases in order to 
 help the memory of the pupils. Mnemonic devices of all kinds 
 were common even in pre-Talmudic times.^ Whatever may be 
 the nature of the explanations of Sifre, it is certain that at least 
 in so far as they afford indirect information regarding the function 
 of the Nequdoth, they are of the highest value, since they give us 
 the view current among the Rabbis before the iii century of the 
 Christian era. 
 
 This will sufficiently account for the preference given to Sifre 
 in the following pages, both in relation to the original meaning 
 of the Nequdoth, and to the place that they should occupy in the 
 pointed passage.^ 
 
 Genesis, XVI, 5. 
 
 ^nnj ^DJN 'fjv ^Dan d^dn h^ ^"w -^a^^m 
 
 67. According to the Massorah the Points fall on the second 
 yod of "^y^yi ^ ; to this correspond the Synagogue scrolls, Baer's 
 Diqduqe ha-Te'amim,* Codex Hilleli,^ and probably also Soferim ^ 
 and Midr. Mishle ^ " Hipj ^^33^ -l'1\" Sifre (cp. Yalqut, § 722) 
 and after it, Bemidbar Rabba,^ leave the place of the Points 
 
 ^ On the mnemonic phrases and devices, see especially Briill, Die Mnemotechnik 
 d. Talm. (Hebrew), passim; Lauterbach, Mnemonics, JE. Compare besides, 
 the authorities mentioned above, § 27. 
 
 ^ In the following pages, we shall retain the term ' catchword ' as applying to 
 the explanations of Sifre, without thereby taking the position that they are really 
 mnemonic formulas. 
 
 ^ See Mass. Magn. ad locum ; Ochlah w^Ochlah, Frensdorff, n. 96 ; Norzi, Min- 
 chath Shai, ad locum ; Michaelis, etc. 
 
 * Baer and Strack, n. 58, p. 46. 
 
 ^ See Norzi, Minchath Shai, I. c. ; Ginsburg, Masswah Compiled, iii, 107. 
 
 «vi, 3. Cp. Miiller, p. 87. 
 
 '' On Prov. XXVI, 24. Ed. Buber, p. 99. 
 
 8 III, 13. 
 
58 Meaning and Purpose of the 
 
 undetermined. Leqach Tob (list)/ Diqduqe ha-Te'amim,* and 
 the Massoretic list on Num. iii, 39, place the dots over yy2) 
 without further specification. Aboth de R. Nathan (1)^ seems to 
 point the first yod instead of the second, "TJ"^3DU; '^ bv "npl" 
 Finally, a few Biblical mss.* and Aboth de E. Nathan (2) ^ point 
 every letter of "['"''^'"'^'^ • 
 
 68. The pointed y:'^:2) is found in the Sam. Pent., and 
 supposed by lxx, Peshitto, Vulgate, Targ. Onkelos, etc.^ How- 
 ever, the nature of the dotted letter is such, that whether it be 
 preserved or rejected, the sense remains the same. As the whole 
 question hinges on the presence or absence of the yod, the 
 versions do not help us in the solution. 
 
 The Sam. Pent, reads "jJ"'!)!, without the yod, and although 
 the great mass of Hebrew mss. have that letter, still it is absent 
 in Kenn. 69, 75, 89, 150, 155, 157, 185, 189, 601, and first 
 hand in 3, 139, 223. In all the passages of the Hebrew Bible, 
 the preposition y'2, est. y^2, in conjunction with the pronoun 
 2d msc. sing., is ?|3i3 (Gen. iii, 15, 1 Sam. xx, 23), or in a 
 pause ?|3''2 (Gen. xiii, 8 ; xvii, 2 ; xxvi, 28 ; xxxi, 49, 50, 51). 
 There is only one exception, viz. 1 K. xv, 19, where it is written 
 as in our present verse ^''^'^2 . Even in this last passage some 
 thirty MSS. of Kennicott read it "]:''3 J 
 
 Thus only twice, — and once doubtfully, — has the preposition 
 y2, with the suffix of the 2nd msc. sing., taken the plural 
 form. Whether or not y2'^2 be strictly possible from a grammati- 
 cal point of view,^ it is to be noticed that, with the exception of 
 
 'On Num. ix, 10. Edit. Padua, p. 194. 
 
 ''At the end of the first Eabbmic Bible, Venice, 1517 f. App. O, fol. 'X, recio. 
 
 ^Ch. XXXIV, Ed. Schecliter, p. 100. 
 
 *See Blau, Einl., p. 118. 
 
 *Ch. XXXVII. Ed. Schechter, p. 97. 
 
 ^ On the Textual Criticism of this passage, see Kosenmiiller, Scholia, ad locum ; 
 Delitzsch, Gen., 282; Dillmann, Gen., 250; Strack, Geii., Lev., Num., p. 53; 
 Gunkel, Genesis, 163, etc. 
 
 'See Kashi, on Genes., xvi, 5, "Hb^ .^Tl ICn N1p?2D'^:* -j-^r: bD " ; Mass, P., 
 ibid., " n^i'nD N7)2 '?" ; see also No rzi, Mlnehath Shai, ibid. 
 
 ^See Gesenius-Kautzsch, Hehr. Gram. (27th edit.), § 103, o; Strack, Hebr. 
 Oram., § 43, c ; Konig, Lehrgebdude, Th. ii, 1, pp. 302, 305 ff. 
 
Extraordinary Points of the Pentateuch. 59 
 
 Gen. xvi, 5 ; 1 K. xv, 19 (?) ; Joshua iii, 4 (Q®re), viii, 11 (also 
 Q*re), this preposition is always united to singular suffixes, with- 
 out the yod; thus we have: '^y^l,^ 1^3,^ "^^^.^ The passage in 
 Gen. xvi, 5, is perfectly parallel with Gen. xiii, 8, etc., and there is 
 no apparent reason why it should be written differently here. Hence, 
 the second yod is rightly rejected by almost all critics. It is true 
 that it is a sound principle of Textual Criticism, that changes may 
 be made to harmonize divergent parallel passages, but not to make 
 them dissimilar, and hence, we should expect y>y^^ to be changed 
 into ']y^2, not "j^D into yy^2 ; still a homoeoteleuton is very likely 
 in this passage, and we cannot refrain from thinking that it is 
 actually responsible for the presence of the yod in TJ''D. Com- 
 pare the forms "ji^j;, n''J"'V3, "l''J"'V2, IT'JDiO, etc., which occur in 
 the same and in the next verse. In any case, it is beyond doubt, 
 as shown from the Sam. Pent, and mss., that there were several 
 recensions, in some of which, wrongly or rightly, the dotted yod 
 was not to be found. 
 
 69. The explanations * given of the Points by Sifre are as 
 follows : " It is pointed because she (Sarah) said this to him 
 (Abraham) only with reference to Hagar ; there are some, how- 
 ever, who say that (she spoke) with reference to those who caused 
 strife between him and her." This is substantially reproduced 
 by all the other Jewish writings, v. g., Aboth de R. Nathan (1 
 and partly 2), Leqach Tob (list), and Bemidbar Rabba. The 
 amplifications of Midr. Mishle, reproduced and somewhat enlarged 
 in Codex Baer of Diqduqe ha-Te'amim, do not belong to the 
 primitive tradition and have nothing to do with the Nequdoth. 
 
 We have just remarked that, whatever be the reason that 
 underlies the fact, ^2, when in connection with the suffixes of the 
 singular, seldom or never takes the yod of the plural : "]3''D, r\y^2, 
 ^J'^D, U''^. On the other hand, it always takes it with the plural 
 
 ^ Gen. IX, 12, 13, 15, 17 ; xiii, 8 ; xvi, 5, etc. 
 
 ^ Gen. XXX, 36 ; Lev. xxvi, 46, etc. 
 
 ' See places mentioned. 
 
 * On these explanations see Buxtorf, Tiberias, 174 ; Miiller, Soferim, 87 ; Blau, 
 MU, 17 ff. ; Konigsberger, MuTK, 11; Ginsburg, Introd., 323; Weir, Hebr. 
 Text, 56, 
 
60 Meaning and Purpose of the 
 
 suffixes: nn"':"'^/ DD^r^/ "IJ'':"'D.^ The impression produced by 
 the presence of the yod is, therefore, that it implies a plural idea 
 in l''^, as it does generally for ordinary Hebrew substantives/ 
 Accordingly, our present passage, written 1TD, would seem to 
 indicate that between Abraham and Sarah there existed several 
 reasons for disagreement, several D''J"'3.^ This may not be true 
 in reality, but it may furnish sufficient grounds for a mnemonic 
 explanation. The difference of opinion among the Rabbis seems 
 to have been due precisely to the presence or absence of the yod 
 in "^^2. While the majority maintained that the yod should be 
 cancelled, and gave as reason that Sarah spoke only with reference 
 to Hagar, etc., i. e., that ]''D should be in the singular, "j^D,^ the 
 minority claimed that the plural form, "jTD, should be retained, 
 and hence said that Sarah spoke with reference to those that 
 caused strife between him and her. The Nequdah, placed over 
 the yod according to the first view, should not be appended 
 according to the second. The difference of opinion was occa- 
 sioned, not, as is commonly supposed,^ by the difference of the 
 explanations suggested for the Points, but by the right that 
 the dots had of being placed at all over this letter yod. This, we 
 
 ^ 1 Sam. XVII, 3 ; Job xli, 8, etc. 
 
 ''Gen. IX, 12, 15 ; xvii, 11 ; Jos. in, 4 ; etc. 
 
 * Gen. XXVI, 28 ; Jos. xxii, 27 ; etc. 
 
 * Gesenius-Kautzsch, Hebr. Gram., § 91. 
 
 * 'pD is something that belongs to the person indicated in the suffix or to whom 
 it is referred ; hence it is repeated before words placed in opposition, or at least 
 is used in the plural. See Konig, /. c. 
 
 ^Cp. Hamburger, BEdJ, ii, 1215. The suppression of the yod in "j^J^D is also 
 admitted by R. Jochanan, who claims that we should write '^JD not ']*J''D (Bere- 
 shith R. XLV, 8). This was adopted by many mediaeval Rabbis, who asserted 
 that we should read 'r]^JD") H^D. (Thus Rashi, /. c, cp. Yalqut, § 79 ; "JiriD n"!11?2 
 on Ber. Rabba XLV, 8) ; see Minchnth Shai, ad locum. They seemed to have realized 
 that a yod should be left out in ■j"'J^D and they removed the first one to accommo- 
 date the word to the idea of R. Jochanan ; this view probably influenced Aboth de 
 R. Nathan (1) to point the first yod (Cp. Bachya, in Konigsberger, MuTK, p. 12 ; 
 Qimchi, ad locum, ed. Ginzburg, p. 43a). The Haggadic speculations that because 
 Sarah rebuked Abraham, her life was shortened by 48 years, connected with 
 the Points by Konigsberger, have nothing to do with them, and in Bereshith 
 Rabba, from which they are taken, they are not referred to the Nequdoth at all. 
 Cp. Bereshith Rabba, XLV, 7 (5) (end). 
 
 ''Cp. Blau, MU, l. c. ; Ginsburg, Introd., I. c. ; Konig, Einl., I. c. 
 
Extraordinary Points of the Pentateuch. 61 
 
 think, is made clear by Sifre itself, which gives us to understand 
 that, had there been no Point, we would have to say that Sarah 
 did not speak with reference to Hagar alone ' 1373 . • • • N7X,' but 
 with reference to others also ; this is exactly what we find among 
 the minority. It is, therefore, well nigh certain that the words 
 of Sifre simply imply that the minority did not approve of the 
 presence of the Nequdah, and read "jT^I.^ 
 
 70. Blau — and after him Ginsburg — understands the data 
 of Sifre differently. He sees in the opinion of the majority a 
 hint to a reading n:''3, and in that of the minority to Dn"'J''3 ; 
 ' Sarah spoke only with reference to Hagar, i. e., the text should 
 read, nr31 "'J'^D niH"' LDD^'' ; others think that she spoke with 
 reference to those who caused strife, etc., i. e., we should read, 
 □HTDI ''^''3 mni :0CtI'\' This interpretation of Sifre would neces- 
 sitate a change in the placing of the Nequdoth; for if we read 
 nJ"'D we should point not only the yod but also the haph, ' "^■'^3 ', 
 as these two letters constitute the difference between the two 
 words ; if we accept the reading of the minority, □n''J''D, the yod 
 should not be dotted at all but only the haph, ' "iT3.' ^ A deviation 
 as to the place of the Points is certainly possible, and if Sifre 
 necessitated the readings nj"'3 or DiT'J'i^, it could be easily granted ; 
 but as we have tried to show, Sifre lends itself to another inter- 
 pretation. Besides, there is no trace of such readings either 
 in Mss. or in the versions. Finally, it seems to us that the 
 very wording of Sifre antagonizes Blau's view. It tells us 
 " "ID^3 n:n hv X'PN "h mQN ^b^ ". These words "ob . . . N^X, 
 perfectly natural in our supposition, are at least useless in Blau's 
 hypothesis. If attention had been called to the feminine form 
 n3''D, it would have been sufficient and more natural to say simply 
 "iJn hv "h mnxii', without the exclusive particle H^^D, which 
 draws attention to a singular idea. Note, besides, the difference 
 of wording for the opinion of the minority. 
 
 1 That such is really the meaning of Sifre, is made clearer from another passage 
 where E. Simon b. Yochai opposes the view of the majority ; see lower down on 
 Gen. xxxiu, 4, § 85 ; see also the difference of wording where alternative catch- 
 words are given, v. g., Bemidbar Rabba in, 13, on Num. xxi, 30. 
 
 ''Blau, MU, 18; Ginsburg, Introd., 323 S. ; Weir, Hebr. Text, 57; Konig, 
 EinL, p. 32 ; Kittel, Biblia Hebraica (Leipzig, 1905), ad locum. 
 
62 Meaning and Purpose of the 
 
 71. It is true that iu giving the Biblical passage, Sifre reads 
 i:''D1 and not "]'>J'>D1 ; consequently, this document might be sup- 
 posed to place the point on some other letter, since its biblical 
 verse did not contain the yod. However, it is most likely that 
 it had in view the commonly received text, in which the yod was 
 found, and that it left it out precisely on account of the view its 
 author took of the meaning of the Nequdoth. 
 
 The pointing of the entire Y"''^ ''^ "> by some Biblical mss. 
 and Aboth de R. Nathan (2), is evidently a mistake ; all the 
 more, since the explanations given of the dots in the last named 
 document are the same as those of other Jewish writings which 
 point only the yod. The pointing of the first yod by Aboth de 
 R. Nathan (1) is also a deviation brought about by the reading 
 "T^yi, according to the view of some medieval Rabbis, mentioned 
 in a preceding note.^ 
 
 From all this we conclude that only the second yod of "|'':''D1 
 was originally pointed and that the Nequdah was intended to 
 stigmatise it. 
 
 Genesis XVIII, 9. 
 
 72. Sifre (cp. Yalqut, list, § 722) leaves the place unde- 
 termined ; Diqduqe ha-Te'amim and the Massoretic list place the 
 dots over vh^ without specifying the exact letters that should be 
 pointed ; Baba Metsi'a,^ Bereshith Rabba ^ (cp. Yalqut, § 82, 
 'naX''1), most MSS. of Soferim,* Aboth de R. Nathan (1), Leqach 
 Tob (ad locumy Sekhel Tob,^ Bemidbar Rabba,^ Midr. ha-Gadol,^ 
 
 1 P. 60, n. 6. 
 
 2 87a, middle. 
 »XLViu, 15 (17). 
 
 * VI, 3 ; cp. Miiller, 87. 
 6 Ed. Buber, 84. 
 8 Ed. Buber, 26. 
 
 ' Rosenfeld, D''"lD1D nnCCTO, p. 66, says that according to Bemidbar Kabba, 
 only the waw of 1"'?X is pointed ; in all the editions we have consulted, it is 
 
 "rbN22? v'^x hv mpi" 
 
 8 Ed. Schechter, col. 273. 
 
Extraordinary Points of the Pentateuch. 63 
 
 point K, "*, 1 of yh^- See also Rashi* and D. Qimchi.^ Some 
 MSS. of Soferim,^ Aboth de R. Nathan (2), and probably also 
 Leqach Tob (list), have the dots over iTX. Finally, one MS. of 
 Baba Metsi'a (Yat. 119),* a few mss. of Diqduqe ha-Te'amim,® 
 and some Biblical mss.,^ place them over the entire 1"'^X. 
 
 73. Instead of IIDX^I,^ lxx has elirev = "1DX''1. This read- 
 ing is probably correct, for, in the context, except v. 5, the verb 
 is generally in the singular ; this is also the reading of Kenn. 
 18, 75, 132. Besides, the one who speaks in verse 9, is the 
 same as in verse 10, and in verse 10, the verb is in the singular. 
 The pointed V^N is found in all versions ; it is, however, to be 
 noted that the objective pronoun is very often omitted after the 
 verb in similar passages, and in the context, is generally not 
 expressed, v. g., xviii, 5, 10, 15, 26, 27, etc. It is, therefore, 
 possible that V^^ should have been absent in some recensions. 
 LXX has enrey Se irpo'i avrov, and the Peshitto o^ Oj^jo. This, 
 however, does not necessarily suppose the presence of V7^, for 
 instead of it we might have 1^. Though 1^ does not occur in 
 the context, still, its presence in some recensions might have been 
 due to a homceoteleuton with the last syllable of IT'DN"'! in the 
 preceding verse, or, for a word as common as 17, to a mechanical 
 and unconscious substitution of it for Ti^N. It is, consequently, 
 permissible to suppose that in some recensions the verse read 
 ^b "laN'^l,^ or possibly . . . IION'^I, while the one from which our 
 present textus receptus has been derived had xh^ 1"10N''1. 
 
 74. The explanations given of the Points in the Jewish 
 
 ^ On Gen. xviii, 9 and on Baba Metsi'a 87a. 
 
 ^ On Gen. xvin, 9 ; ed. Ginzburg, p. 47b ; he evidently depends on Bashi. 
 
 'Miiller, o. c, 87 
 
 * See Rabbinowicz, Diqduqe Soferim, Part xiii, on Baba Metsi'a 87a, p. 260, n. "I. 
 ' Thus Gsd. Baer and Cod. of St. Petersburg, see Baer and Strack, p. 46. 
 «See Konigsberger, 3htTK, 13; Blau, Einl, 118. 
 
 ' On the Textual Criticism of this passage, see Kosenmiiller, Scholia, ad loc. ; 
 Delitzsch, Gen., 298 ; Dillmann, Gen., 262 ; Miiller, Soferim, 87 ; Strack, o. c, p. 
 59 ; Gunkel, o. c, 173. 
 
 * Thus Hiipeden, in Vogel o. c. , i, 456 ; Miiller, Soferim, 87 ; Hamburger, 
 REdJ, n, 1216; Dillmann, Gen., ad locum; Kittel, Bib. Hebr., ad locum. 
 
64 Meaning and Purpose of the 
 
 writings vary considerably.^ Sifre (cp. Yalqiit, § 722) repro- 
 duced in Leqach Tob (list), simply says that the Points have 
 been placed ' because they (the angels) knew where she (Sarah) 
 was.' This testimony is also reproduced in Aboth de R, Nathan 
 (1) and Bemidbar Rabba, with the addition ' and still asked for 
 her ; ' these words not being found in Sifre are not part of the 
 primitive tradition, and seem to have been added under the influ- 
 ence of Baba Metsi'a, to the eifect that one should inquire about 
 the wife of one's host. 
 
 Baba Metsi'a, 87a (cp. Midr. ha-Gadol, Rashi,^ and Qimchi),'* 
 although reproducing the data of Sifre, does not refer them to the 
 Nequdoth, but instead, tells us that X, i, 1 of vbi^ are pointed, ' to 
 teach the conventional law that one should inquire about the wife 
 of one's host.' 
 
 In Bereshith Rabba, R. Simeon b. Eleazer bases a different 
 explanation on the dotted letters of V^N, viz. that the angels asked 
 Sarah where Abraham was : Vi^ " where is he ? " This is found 
 substantially in Leqach Tob (ad locum), Sekhel Tob, Rashi, 
 Yalqut,* D. Qimchi, and also in Midr. ha-Gadol as an alternative 
 explanation. 
 
 That the Points were placed for the reason given by R. Simeon, 
 is certainly not correct ; if such were the reason, there is nothing 
 to prevent us from taking in a word any two or three letters that 
 would give us a desired meaning and pointing them. R. Simeon's 
 explanation is a mere display of wit based on letters pointed for 
 some other reason. Besides, the pointing of these three letters 
 in V^N is certainly a mistake ; for, neither as a sign of a special 
 interpretation, nor as an indication of a special spelling, nor as a 
 mark of their unexpected presence, nor finally as the expression 
 of a critical doubt, could the Points on v^N be justified. The 
 deviation is probably due to the fact that originally the Points 
 
 ^ On these explanations, see Buxtorf, Tiberias, 175 ; Miiller, Soferim, 87 ; Blau, 
 MU, 19; Ginsburg, Introd., 324; Konigsberger, MuTK, 12 ff.; Weir, Hehr. 
 Text, p. 57. 
 
 * Coram, on Gen. , xvm, 9. 
 ''I. c. 
 
 * § 82. 
 
Extraordinary Points of the Pentateuch. 65 
 
 were placed on V^N i"iaN''"l, apparently with a view to its being 
 read 1^ "IDN""!. These letters put together in order to be made 
 the basis of a mnemonic catchword gave ""Xi ' and where ? ' This 
 would be a good foundation for the seman of Sifre, which tells us 
 that the Points have been placed because the angels knew where 
 Sarah was. The immediate inference from this explanation is 
 that an interrogative particle ought to be left out, since the natural 
 consequence of the knowledge of a thing, is the uselessness of 
 inquiring about it. This interrogative particle is found in the 
 three letters ""Xl 'and where?' Not indeed that the angels 
 actually did not ask, since rT'X follows, but simply to remind 
 the student that the letters 1, N, '' should be cancelled. Later on, 
 the order of the three letters was inverted for Haggadic purposes, 
 and they were read 'l""X ' where is he ? ' This brought about the 
 further result that the three letters were taken from the word 
 V7X, in which they occur in the above order i^^X. The Haggadic 
 explanations of Baba Metsi'a 87a — unjustifiable, as remarked by 
 the Tosafist,^ if N, ^, 1, of T'^X were pointed — would be sufficiently 
 clear if we point "'Xl ' and where ? ' since attention is drawn to 
 the question of the angels. Of course Baba Metsi'a, no more than 
 the explanations of Bereshith Rabba, does not hint at the spurious 
 character of the dotted letters ; nor does it give the true reason 
 for their being pointed; it is also the adaptation of an after- 
 thought to letters already pointed, but it is interesting to note 
 that, like Sifre, it suggests the pointing of an interrogative particle. 
 We must likewise call attention to the words of Rashi on this 
 passage, viz. that dotted words can be made the foundation only 
 of a Midrashic interpretation — here a conventional law. Strictly 
 speaking, these letters are considered non-existent in a literal 
 interpretation ; ^ it is, however, very doubtful whether Baba Metsi'a 
 was guided by such a principle. 
 
 75. Another way of accounting for the deviation as to the 
 place of the Nequdoth, is to suppose, as made possible from Textual 
 
 ^ On Baba Metsi'a 87a, catchword "llpJ n?oV, where it says that the Points 
 should fall on ri*'N, to justify the explanation of the Gemarah. 
 2 On Baba Metsi'a, 87a. 
 
66 Meaning and Purpose of the 
 
 Criticism, that originally vb^ was entirely pointed, but that on 
 account of the height of the Lamed, the dots were not preserved 
 over that letter, as they would have produced an unsightly appear- 
 ance.* This view finds support, as said above, in a few Biblical 
 MSS., in a MS. of Baba Metsi'a, and in some MSS. of Diqduqe ha- 
 Te'amim. However, the reason given for the supposed deviation 
 is at best very doubtful, since we find the Lamed pointed twice in 
 Deuter. xxix, 28. The explanations of Baba Metsi'a — apparently 
 given in the MS. which points the entire 1''^N — certainly excludes 
 the pointing ' i^^'N ' still more than the pointing ' i^^N.' The 
 adaptation of the catchword of Sifre to the pointing of the entire 
 word would be far-fetched and unnatural, and we refrain from 
 giving the various attempts we have made in that direction.^ 
 Most likely, after the confounding of "'NT with T^N, and the point- 
 ing of V"'^N, some scribe placed the dots over the four letters, either 
 through mistake, or because he was induced thereto by the absence 
 of T'^X in some biblical mss. Possibly also, the talmudic teaching 
 that the angels did not inquire about Sarah except through her 
 husband ' T'T'i^,' was not without its effect in producing the change ; 
 especially at a time, when apparently the true meaning of the 
 Nequdoth had been forgotten, and when they were made the basis 
 of special exegesis.^ The pointing of T'^X does not seem, there- 
 fore, to be original. 
 
 76. A third method of placing the Nequdoth, viz. TV^, is 
 found in Leqach Tob (list), Aboth de R. Nathan (2), and a few 
 MSS. of Soferim. This pointing would furnish very good grounds 
 for the seman of Sifre and the Haggadic explanations of Baba 
 Metsi'a, which, as said above, suppose the pointing of an interro- 
 
 * Thus Konigsberger, MuTK, 13. Bachya quoted by Konigsberger, says that, 
 as the Lamed of l^'b'N has already Zaqeph Qaton, there would have been a danger 
 of confounding this with the Nequdah, and so the latter was not preserved. This 
 cannot be true, for, before the accents were introduced into the text, Baba Metsi'a 
 and Bereshith Rabba pointed only X, ""j \ and in Ber. R. this tradition is already 
 referred to R. Simeon b. Eleazar (ii cent.). 
 
 ^ V. g., since the angels knew where Sarah was, they had no need of asking 
 anybody, and consequently did not ask Abraham, I'^bx := him. 
 
 ^Baba Metsi'a 87a ; cp. Midr. ha-Gadol, I. c, and Rabbinowicz, Diqduqe Sofer- 
 im, I. c, n. 12?. 
 
Extraordinary Points of the Pentateuch. 67 
 
 gative particle. This is the tradition which is accepted as original, 
 by Blau ^ and Ginsburg.^ However, there is nothing in this word 
 which would deserve special attention, unless indeed it be pro- 
 nounced critically doubtful or spurious. But although Sifre might 
 have motives of its own, we see no reason to say that iTN should 
 be left out. It is found in all versions, and is required by the 
 context. If with Blau and Ginsburg we cancel iTN, the verse 
 
 would read : SiN3 r\:ir\ ^DN^i in^N rr\X[} rh^ nax^i " And they 
 
 said to him, as to Sarah thy wife, and he (interrupting) said : 
 behold she is in the tent." This is very unnatural, and the 
 answer of Abraham undoubtedly supposes a question to have been 
 asked. The pointing of this word was very likely due to the 
 catchword of Sifre itself, which supposes the cancelling of the 
 interrogative particle ; after the original pointing of "'NT had been 
 changed to VK, the most natural way to account for it, was to 
 transfer the dots from T'X to rT'N. 
 
 On the whole, it seems to us more probable that originally 
 ^, ^, "^ of V^N i"iaX''"l were the letters pointed, and that the seman 
 of Sifre suggests their spuriousness. 
 
 Genesis, XIX, 33. 
 ni^D2n N3m win rh'^b^ y^ ]rv2i^ nx ]Y^m 
 
 77. Sifre tells us that HD^pni is pointed, " na"ip31 bv l^pJ;" 
 thus also Midr. Yelamdenu,* "lipj naip31," Sekhel Tob, "yh^ 
 ni2)pn) bv ITpJ " , and the Munich MS. of Horayoth ; ^ thus also 
 Rashi, " -npj n-l^D3 b^ HDip^l," ^ and nJIHD mjno on Bereshith 
 Rabba, li, 8 (10). That every letter of HDlp^l should be pointed 
 
 1 MU, 19 ff. 
 
 ^Introd., 324. 
 
 ^ Thus Mass. Parva and Mass. Text. 
 
 *See Aruch s. v. Y\ and Yalqut § 86. 
 
 5 Ed. Buber, p. 40. 
 
 ^ See Rabbinowicz, Diqduqe Sqferim, Part X, Horayoth, p. 32. 
 
 '' Comment, on Gen. , xix, 33. 
 
68 Meaning and Purpose of the 
 
 is also the tradition supposed in some Biblical mss.^ Moreover, 
 Norzi insists that only the second waio of nQlp3% and not the 
 other letters, should be dotted, thus implying that opinions 
 differed.2 Leqach Tob (list), " na'ipDI," Leqach Tob {ad locum),^ 
 and Midr. Mishle, leave the exact place undetermined ; this is also 
 the case in the Massoretic list and in Diqduqe ha-Te'amim. 
 Aboth de R. Nathan (2) is alone in pointing the two words 
 n'D'l'p'D'l n'D'D'^'D; this is probably a mistake arising from 
 some such rubric as is found in Leqach Tob, " niOlpDI H^Dtf 3 
 vbv IPJ " which was construed as implying that the two words 
 should be pointed. Horayoth 10b, Soferim, Aboth de R. Nathan 
 (1), Bemidbar Rabba, Zohar, Baer's Diqduqe ha-Te'amim, dot 
 only the second ivaw of HOIpDI.* Nazir 23a, Bereshith Rabba,^ 
 Midr. ha-Gadol," might all be strictly understood as pointing 
 the first waw of nD1p3V Whatever may be the true tradition, 
 there has certainly been, in some of the above authorities, a 
 deviation from the original place assigned to the Nequdoth ; this 
 is the more certain since all start from the same fundamental idea 
 in giving the explanations of the Points. 
 
 78. The reading of our present editions of the Bible is supported 
 by Sam. Pent., lxx, Peshitto, Vulgate, Targ. Onkelos.'' However 
 the dotted HDlp^l is written defective in Kenn, 6, 11, 227, 253. 
 In verse 35, the same word is written defective, although a few 
 MSS., and also the Sam. Pent., read it plene. There is no apparent 
 reason why the same word should be spelled differently in the 
 two verses. Hence, it is quite natural that an attempt should 
 have been made at harmonizing them ; and while some adopted 
 the reading of verse 33, others preferred that of verse 35. On 
 this and similar cases, we should not lose sight of the principle 
 
 ^Cp. Michaelis, Bihlia Sebr. , ad locum; Blau, Einl., p. 118. 
 
 * Minchath Shai, ad locum. 
 3 Ed. Buber, p. 90. 
 
 * Cp. Minchath Shai, and the authorities cited there ; D. Qimchi, o. c. , 51a ; 
 Ba'al ha-Turim, on Gen. xix, 33. 
 
 *Li, 8 (10). 
 
 6 Ed. Schechter, col. 297. 
 
 ■^ See Delitzsch, Oen., 311 ; Dillmann, Gen., 273; Sti-ack, o. c, p. 64. 
 
Extraordinary Points of the Pentateuch. 69 
 
 that, in weighing evidence, - we should generally give preference 
 to the defective orthography as against the plene forms ; for, to 
 write a plene, defective, is a serious mistake, but not vice versa; 
 hence, when the scribe was in doubt as to whether a word should 
 be written plene or defective, he would naturally write it plene} 
 According to this canon, even though only a few mss. exhibit the 
 defective form of HDp^l in verse 33, they should be followed ; in 
 any case, whether we read HDWDI or nDp31, there are sufficient 
 grounds to admit the existence of several recensions, some of 
 which had it plene, others defective. 
 
 79. Sifre, from which all the other works depend immediately 
 or mediately, tells us that HDIp^l is pointed, because Lot knew 
 not when his elder daughter lay down, but that he knew when 
 she arose. It is clear therefore that by placing the dots over 
 noip31, the action that it expresses is not to be counted among 
 those of which Lot was ignorant, i. e. riDTpDI should be left out. 
 Evidently, the ignorance of Lot concerning any of the actions 
 mentioned, was not to be assumed, and would not have been 
 thought of, had it not been positively asserted by the Biblical 
 passage ; ^ hence, to remind the student that the word representing 
 any of them was spurious, it was sufficient to say that Lot was 
 conscious of that action. It is true that we have not found in 
 textual criticism any trace of the absence of HDIpDI, but Sifre 
 may have had reasons of its own to pronounce it interpolated. 
 After all, it is not impossible that the riQWDI of verse 33, should 
 have been introduced from verse 35, through a homoeoteleuton, 
 although no trace of such a recension has reached us.^ To see 
 how far exegetical preoccupations may have helped to introduce 
 noip^l, or sanction its interpolation, the reader is referred to Blau, 
 MU, p. 14. 
 
 80. That the above is the meaning of Sifre would seem clear, 
 
 *Cp. Menachoth 29b, with the remarks of Ginsburg, Introd., 156 f. 
 
 " See the remark of St. Jerome above, p. 4, n. 6 ; cp. Sekhel Tob, ed. Buber, 
 p. 40, after Ber. Eabba, Li, 9 (11). 
 
 ^That n)21pD1 is annulled by the Points is also the opinion of Rashi (on Gen. 
 XIX, 33), and of the Tosafist (on Nazir 23a, catchword n?27). The words of the 
 Tosafist have been wrongly inserted into some of the editions of Eashi. 
 
70 Meaning and Purpose of the 
 
 were it not for the fact that, while the idea of its catchword has 
 been generally preserved in the Jewish writings, many of them 
 explicitly place the Ncqudah only on the second waw of nDlpSI, 
 and others, perhaps on the first. Strictly speaking, it is possible 
 that Sifre and the other documents which tell us that there are 
 Points over HDIpSI, simply call attention to the pointed word, 
 without specifying the exact letters over which they should be 
 placed. Although such a supposition is possible in itself, still 
 the catchword of Sifre could hardly be justified in that hypo- 
 thesis : ^ for, neither as real exegesis, nor as italics, nor as express- 
 ing a critical doubt could the explanation, 'because when she 
 arose he knew,' be derived from the presence or absence of the 
 single letter 'waw.' It seems, therefore, beyond all prudent doubt 
 that Sifre implies the condemnation of the entire HDlpDV This 
 word, however, — a remark that applies also to ]ini>?1, Num. in, 
 39, as found in Bemidbar Rabba, and to ]1"i^V1j Num. xxix, 15, 
 — may have been one of the cases referred to by Rabbi, ^ in which 
 a point (above (?)) on the beginning or first letter ' ]'?J7D^Q,' was 
 enough to annul the entire word. By pointing the conjunction waw, 
 HDIpDI is placed out of the context and could easily be recognized as 
 spurious. Accordingly, while some pointed every letter, ' hblpZli,' 
 others were satisfied with placing the dot over the conjunctive 
 waw alone, ' HDIpDi,' and as the palteographical effect was the same, 
 the seman was also the same. As remarked above, some of the 
 Jewish sources can be understood in that way. A confusion could 
 easily have arisen between the two waws, and the point could have 
 been transferred from the first to the second ; and this all the 
 more, since there were mss. in which noipDI was written defec- 
 tive. Starting from a rubric similar to that found in Nazir 23a, 
 "noip31 )"">) bv "11p3" = naip^i, some writings understood it as, 
 SlD1p3iy V"! bv '^',' and in this latter form, it has come down 
 to us in Aboth de R. Nathan (1) and Soferim. 
 
 ' The least objectionable explanation would be to suppose that n)31pD1 written 
 without the waw, would have been marked "iDn ', which for mnemonic purposes 
 was referred to i?"!"* N? ; thus it would give the impression that the ignorance of 
 Lot was not complete and consequently that he knew. 
 
 ' Jer. Pesachira, ix, 2. 
 
Extraordinary Points of the Pentateuch, 71 
 
 Possibly also, the rubric was simply '"T^^y' 'pj HDIp^l, which 
 became ^ '1 ^V ' Tlpl Later on, the waw was construed as a con- 
 struct state determined by HOIpD, as above, ' rnolp3 '1 bv "lIpJ-' 
 This was made clearer still by the insertion of the relative 7iy.^ 
 
 81. As Sifre is the starting point for all the other explanations 
 and haggadic amplifications, we have dwelt purposely on its words. 
 It would be useless to insist on the other testimonies, for they 
 have no relation to the meaning of the Nequdoth, although they 
 were occasioned by the misapprehension of the " yT" noipDI " of 
 Sifre. They try to account for the knowledge of Lot with regard 
 to the naipDT (thus, v. g. Midrash Yelamdenu ; Sekhel Tob after 
 Bereshith Rabba),^ or to show that, on account of his know- 
 ing when the elder daughter arose, Lot was responsible for his 
 incest with the second daughter (Nazir 23a, reproduced in Arukh, 
 s. V. T'l ; Horayoth 10b, Midr. ha-Gadol,^ cp. Leqach Tob, ad 
 locum, and D. Qimchi).^ Aboth de R. Nathan (2), enlarging on 
 this last idea, concludes that since Lot was conscious when his 
 elder daughter arose, he must have been conscious both of the 
 n^DlfD and noipSI in the case of his second daughter. Midr. 
 Mishle gives the explanations of Sifre, but says that the niD'lpDT 
 intended here is the one found in verse 35 in the case of the 
 second daughter. This departure from Sifre, although the Rab- 
 binical proverb, ' 7T?'2V mili H'T'Dy ' is added, seems to be due 
 to the desire of sheltering Lot, by protracting his ignorance as 
 long as possible. 
 
 ^ Perhaps the deviation may have arisen from the fact that the rubric gave the 
 number of the Points " llpJ 'V = six points; this became llpJ V'*'1. Cp. M. 
 P. on Deut. xxix, 28, in some Mss. ; see also Ba'al ha-Turim basing his explan- 
 ations on the numerical value of 0. Again the dotted word may have been 
 marked with only one sign as in Leqach Tob (list), Massoretic list, Diqduqe ha- 
 Te'amim ; later on, only the letter waw, over which the sign fell was considered as 
 pointed. Finally, we may be allowed to make one further suggestion, viz., that, 
 as "iDn is used to mark the absence of a word as well as of a letter, n)21p21 may 
 have been accompanied with the rubric ."I'lnN n"lXnC1J2 "iCn 'missing in other 
 copies.' As IDn is the technical term to designate a defective reading, it was 
 understood to mean " n)01pD1 is written defective in other copies." 
 
 » LI., 9(11). 
 
 ' Ed. Schechter, col. 297. 
 
 *Comm., 51a. 
 
72 Meaning and Purpose of the 
 
 In many of these writings, the original meaning of the Nequdoth 
 seems to have been forgotten, and although the idea of Sifre is 
 mechanically preserved, there are joined to it purely Midrashic 
 speculations, often borrowed from documents in which they were 
 not connected with the points at all. 
 
 There can therefore be but little doubt that originally the entire 
 nolpSI was pointed, and that the Nequdoth was intended to 
 cancel it.^ 
 
 Genesis, XXXIII, 4. 
 
 82. On this verse most of the sources explicitly state, or 
 clearly suppose, that )np'{V'^) is entirely pointed; thus Bereshith 
 Rabba,^ and after it, Shir ha-Shirim Rabba,^ Sekhel Tob,^ D. 
 Qimchi," and Yalqut ; ^ thus also Aboth de R. Nathan (1 and 2), 
 Soferim,^ Baer's edit, of Diqduqe ha-Te'amim,^ Leqach Tob {ad 
 loGum),^^ Midr. Tanchuma," Midr. ha-Gadol.^^ Others simply 
 say that inptL'''"! is pointed, the obvious meaning of which is that 
 the entire word is pointed ; thus Sifre, Bemidbar Rabba, Midr. 
 Mishle ; '^ cp. Rashi,i^ j^^j^ Ezra,'' Ba al ha-Turim.'^ This is also 
 
 ^ It is not clear whether or not the seman of Sifre implies also the condemnation 
 of n^OlpDI of verse 35 ; cp. Blau and Ginsburg, //. cc. ; this is of secondary 
 importance for us, as we treat only of the ' meaning ' of the Nequdoth. 
 
 '■' See the various editions ; cp. besides, Norzi, Minchath Shai, ad locum ; Micha- 
 elis, Biblia ; Baer, Genesis, etc. 
 
 ^Lxxvin, 9 (12). 
 
 * vn, 8 ; see the omission in its reproduction of Bereshith Eabba, Appendix, ad 
 locum. 
 
 5 Ed. Buber, 178. 
 
 ^ Coram., ed. Ginzburg, 74b. 
 
 7 § 133. 
 
 8Cp. Miiller, Soferhn, 88. 
 
 * Baer and Strack , I. c. 
 i°Ed. Buber, 171. 
 
 " Ed. Frankf. a. O. 12c. 
 
 12 Ed. Schechter, col. 516. 
 
 13 Ed. Buber, p. 100. 
 " On Gen. xxxiii, 4. 
 
 1° On Gen, xxxiii, 4, in Mass. Bible, Venice, 1617. 
 
Extraordinary Points of the Pentateuch. 73 
 
 the tradition preserved iu the Chinese mss. spoken of above,^ as 
 well as in the note found in some Greek MSS. on this passage : 
 TO, KaT€(f)L\r]a€v avTov OTrep iarlv '^^palcrrl oveaaaKr}, iv iravrX 
 '^^paiKcp Bt^Xicp TrepiecTTiKTaL, k. t. X.^ To this unanimous con- 
 sent, Leqach Tob (list),^ ")r\'pW^)," and Diqduqe ha-Te'amim/ 
 " inp^''l/' form no exception. 
 
 83. With regard to the verse under consideration/ all mss., 
 Sam. Pent., Peshitto, Vnlg., Targ. Onkelos, Targ. Ps.-Jonathan, 
 and Targ. Jerus., agree with the Massoretic text. In the Greek 
 version there is a great deal of confusion. AE read : " /cal 
 TrpoaeSpa/xev 'Hcrav et? crvvdvTrjcrLV aura), Kol irepiXa^oiv avrov 
 icfjiXtjaev fcal irpocreTrecrev iwl top rpd-yifKov avrov • koI cKXavaav 
 afx(f)6repoi, ; " ^ thus also, with slight variations, Luciau,^ Com- 
 plutensian edit., codic. mtyz and others, Caten. Nicephori.^ 
 
 The editio Pomana, as well as Holmes and Lagarde,^ have " koI 
 irpoaeSpafiev 'Hcrav .... Kal irepiXajBciiv avrov TrpoaeTreaev iirl 
 rov rpdy^rjXov avrov Kal Kare(f>iXr]a€v avrov • Kal eKXavaav afM(f)6- 
 repot" thus agreeing with our Massoretic text. The editio Aldina 
 reads : " Kal TreptXa^ojv avrov icfjiXTjaev Kal 'rrpoaeireaev iirl rov 
 rpd'x^rjXov avrov Kal Karecf^iXyjaev avrov • Kal eKXavaav a/jbcporepoi.'' 
 This is also found in cod. Sarravianus (G. Holmes, iv), but 
 with the obelus before icfytXrja-ev : " — e^iXtjaev, Kal . . . . " ^" 
 The obelus is also preserved in Grabe's edit., which besides, 
 prints ' Kal Kare^tXrjaev ' in smaller characters. ^^ 
 
 From what precedes it is clear that the .variations are due to 
 Origen's Hexapla. The ancient reading of lxx was the one 
 found in AE etc., as above. Origen's revised text, in order to 
 
 iSeep. 20, n. 1. 
 
 ^ Field, Hexapla, ad locum, n. 6. 
 
 »Ed. Padua, I. c. 
 
 * Venice Bible, 1517, I. c. 
 
 ^On the Textual Criticism of this passage, see Delitzsch, Gen., 407 ; Dillmann, 
 Gen., 359; Ball, Gen., 91. 
 ^ See Swete, 0. T. in Greek, ad locum. 
 '' Lagarde, Pentat. Gr. , ad locum. 
 
 * Lagarde, Genesis, 134; Holmes, Veins Test. Grace, ad locum. 
 '■* Lagarde and Holmes, II. cc. 
 
 '° Holmes and Lagarde, II. cc. 
 ^^ Holmes, /. c. 
 
74 Meaning and Purpose of the 
 
 harmonize the Greek with the Hebrew, read : " koX irepika^ouv 
 avrov — i^CXrjaev /cal : Trpoaeireo'ev iirl tov Tpd')(rfKov avTOv ^ /cat 
 KaTe(f>iXr]aev avrov : koI SKXavcrav afjL(j)6T€pot (see Cod. Sarravi- 
 anus). Later on, some scribes reproduced the Origenian text, with- 
 out the critical signs, and this is the text of the eclitio Aldina, etc. 
 The editio Romana left out the obelized words and thus came into 
 harmony with Hebrew. There is no doubt, therefore, that the old 
 Greek version had ' TrepiXa^oov i(f)i\rjaev/ and this is further 
 borne out by the Sahidic Coptic version.^ The Bohairic omits 
 7repL\a^o)v.^ 
 
 84. There must have been consequently at least two Hebrew 
 recensions on this verse, one of which had inpll'''1 "iripDIT'l, from 
 which Ixx was made; and the other 'i;i'i ^Q^) )r\p21V) as is found 
 in the Massoretic text. The reading suggested by Ixx is more 
 natural, and is accepted by Bacher^ and Ball.* The two ideas 
 Ho embrace and kiss' occur together in Gen. xxix, 13 (Cp. xlviii, 
 10), whereas we never find the order ^ to fall on the neck, kiss, 
 and cry.' ^ The reading 1DD"'1 )r\pW"''] nxiii bv b^'^) seems to have 
 originated from the combination of two expressions, viz. ' to kiss 
 and cry' (Gen. xxix, 11, xlv, 15; cp. 1, 1) and Ho fall on the 
 neck and cry' (Gen. xlv, 14; xlvi, 29); hence, Ho fall on the 
 neck, kiss, and cry.' 
 
 We may further inquire whether inp:!'''") was transferred from 
 a supposedly original place after "inpDn^l, or simply interpolated. 
 While admitting that "inpiy^l is more natural after inpSH^I, we 
 cannot but wonder at the unexpected presence of so many marks 
 of friendship. Would it be too rash a conjecture to say that 
 inpi:;^! is spurious, and has been interpolated after the manner 
 referred to above ? Later on, some scribe noticing the unnatural 
 place of inpli''"!, might have transferred it to a less objectionable 
 and not uuparallelled place after inp^rTil. 
 
 85. Coming now to the explanation of the Nequdoth in the 
 
 > Ed. Ciasca, Sacrorum Bibliorum Fragmenta Copto-Sahidica, p. 33. 
 ^ Ed. Lagarde, Pent. Koptisch, ad locum. 
 ^Quoted in Blau, MU, 23, n. 1. 
 
 * Genesis, ad locum, and p. 91. 
 
 * Still, see Luke, xv, 20. 
 
Extraordinary Points of the Pentateuch. 75 
 
 Jewish writings/ we must first take into account the data of Sifre. 
 It tells us that inpll'''1 has been pointed, 'because Esau did not 
 kiss him (Jacob) with his whole heart.' ^ This catchword cannot 
 be exegetical, for the sincerity of any of the actions of Esau might 
 have alike been questioned, and consequently the word represent- 
 ing that action might have been pointed. If inp^"*! alone is 
 pointed, there must have been some special reason, which did not 
 exist for the others. According to Sifre, if the dots had not been 
 placed on this word, we should conclude that Esau had kissed 
 Jacob sincerely ; but their presence so affects inplt^'"!, that we are 
 led to think the contrary. Therefore Rabbi Simon b. Yochai,^ 
 who thinks that Esau kissed Jacob sincerely, does not give an 
 alternative explanation of the points, but denies their very right 
 to existence. ^ 
 
 80. Sifre seems to lay special stress on the idea of sincerity, 
 since it is the sincerity of the kiss and not its existence, that is 
 questioned ; ^ consequently, though inpU'"'! is really one of the 
 actions of Esau, we must deal with it in such a way, as to make 
 it appear as an insincere mark of affection. If such be really the 
 meaning of Sifre, we see but one way of justifying this explana- 
 tion. In our Massoretic editions, the order of the actions of Esau 
 is unexpected both idiomatically, since we never find the sequel 
 * to embrace, fall on the neck, kiss, and cry,' and naturally, for, ' to 
 kiss/ should precede and not follow the ' falling on the neck.' 
 The place assigned here to inp^'^l seems to lay special emphasis 
 
 ^See Buxtorf, Tiberias, 176; MuUer, Soferimi, 88; Blau, MU, 22 ff. ; Konigs- 
 berger, MuTK, 16 fE. ; Ginsburg, Introd., 325; Weir, Hebr. Text, 58; cp. 
 Bacher, Ag. d. Tann, ii, 116. 
 
 ^This testimony is reproduced in Bemidbar Rabba, I. c. ; Leqach Tob (list), 
 and Yalqut § 722. 
 
 ^ Aboth de E. Nathan (1 and 2), Bereshith Eabba, etc., have Simon b. Eleazar. 
 
 * Bereshith Babba seems to have understood the words of E. Simeon as the true 
 explanations of the Points, for the Nequdoth are made to teach that the kiss was 
 sincere ; in Yalqut, Bereshith Eabba is corrected, and made to agree with Sifre, 
 "ID"? ^DD 'P^'J ab"^," but this correction is not critically correct, cp. above, § 58. 
 Leqach Tob (list) and Rashi (Comm. on Genesis, xxxiii, 4), also understand the 
 words of E. Simeon, as an alternative explanation of the Points. 
 
 ^ This idea of sincerity is insisted upon by most of the later Jewish writings. 
 
76 Meaning and Purpose of the 
 
 on it; after Esau had fallen on the neck of Jacob, we would 
 expect him to cry, but not to kiss him. It would seem, therefore, 
 that Esau must have had a special and deliberate intention to 
 kiss Jacob at that moment ; and inplt?''1 in that place has all the 
 characteristics of a real act of love. This is at the basis of the 
 view of R. Simon, who objects to the pointing of this word. The 
 other actions of Esau coming in their regular order were con- 
 sidered as mere formalities, and might be co-existent with feelings 
 of enmity ; hence, R. Simon says that in the beginning Esau was 
 hostile to Jacob, but at that moment his dispositions changed and 
 he kissed him sincerely. The majority, by reading a text where 
 inptl^''') came after inp^n""!, as in the Septuagint, did away with the 
 emphasis which is laid on it in the Massoretic text, and at the 
 same time, made possible the explanation that Esau did not kiss 
 Jacob sincerely. This explanation, taking into account the place 
 of a word as a foundation for interpretation, is generally foreign 
 to Sifre, but as has been remarked, the passage of Sifre is probably 
 only a list of mnemonic formulas, and in such a system, the above 
 method has nothing to surprise us. 
 
 87. The subsequent Jewish writings soon misunderstood the 
 meaning of Sifre, enlarged upon the idea of sincerity, and adapted 
 to the Points still further Haggadic interpretations. Apparently 
 starting from the words of R. Simeon, viz. that Esau was hostile 
 to Jacob before he kissed him, some say, with a play on the 
 words, that he did not come to kiss him ' IplfJ^ ' but to bite him 
 ' ID^J? ' and further add that the neck of Jacob was turned into 
 marble, that Esau cried on account of his teeth and Jacob on 
 account of his neck ; see Bereshith Rabba, reproduced in Leqach 
 Tob {ad locum), Shir ha-Shirim, Sekhel Tob, D. Qimchi, Yalqut ; 
 see also Midr. Tanchuma, and after it, Midr. ha-Gadol with still 
 more additions. This idea is also at the basis of the rendering 
 given by Targum Jon. and Targ. Jer., for, although they trans- 
 late ' he kissed him,' they inconsistently add that Esau cried on 
 account of his teeth and Jacob on account of his neck.^ As is 
 self-evident, these speculations and tlie still more foreign data 
 
 ^ Compare the Origenian note referred to above, p. 4, n. 6. 
 
Extraordinary Points of the PentateucJi. 77 
 
 of Midr. Mishle have nothing to do with the meaning of the 
 Nequdoth.^ 
 
 88. In what precedes, we have assumed that the idea of 
 sincerity was the one brought into prominence by Sifre, but we 
 are not entirely satisfied that it is so. After all, what Sifre has in 
 view might not be the idea of the sincerity of the kiss, but its 
 existence. This is the view taken by Blau, who claims that the 
 words D? 7D3 after "IPII'J ^htV in the catchword of Sifre are an 
 addition not found in the early tradition.^ The latter, however, is 
 doubtful, as these words are found in the second half of the 
 catchword, and their presence there does not seem to be objection- 
 able. Although we consider these two words genuine, still the 
 emphasis may not be laid on them ; they may have been added 
 simply in order to help the memory in remembering the main idea 
 better, and may be but an echo of the scholastic discussion that 
 took place on that verse.^ Everything in the antecedents of Esau 
 tended to show that he would not befriend Jacob, but on the 
 contrary would be hostile to him. Of all the actions of Esau 
 mentioned in this passage, there is but oue which from its very 
 nature is an act of love, viz. inpIL'"'! ; the others, as we find in the 
 explanations of this verse by the Midrash, could have taken place 
 for different motives. In view of this fact, would it not be 
 enough to assert that the kiss is said by Sifre to lack an essential 
 quality, viz. sincerity, in order to convey to the memory of the 
 student, that Esau did not kiss Jacob at all ? This would also 
 sufficiently explain the answer of the minority, viz. that although 
 Esau was hostile to Jacob, still his dispositions changed and he 
 kissed him sincerely, i. e. although Esau was not expected to have 
 the feelings implied in inplt^'^l, still, etc. ; hence the genuineness of 
 inpU^''! is vindicated. The absence of inpU^"'! or at least its critical 
 doubtfulness, would go far to explain how it became possible to 
 substitute yv^ for pli;j. On this, see especially Pirqe de R. Eliezer, 
 Ch. 37 towards the end : " inJW^) n'?^ inpit'^l inNlip MD ^X." 
 
 1 See Buber, Midr. Mishle, p. 100, n. 23. 
 
 2 MU, 23. 
 
 ^ That there was a discussion on this passage, is evident from Sifre itself, where 
 two opinions are recorded. 
 
78 Meaning and Purpose of the 
 
 The fact that later Jewish writings have insisted on the sincerity 
 of Esau's kiss could hardly be made an objection against this 
 view, as they may have built their opinion on an expression 
 merely intended by Sifre as an incidental remark. 
 
 In any case, we can conclude with great probability that the 
 Points were intended to cancel inpU'''1 ; it is to be noted that 
 even if inpIL'"''! were not in its proper place, the Points would not 
 necessarily indicate a transposition as such ; they simply stigma- 
 tize the word as it stands ; whether it had to be inserted elsewhere, 
 must be judged on different grounds. 
 
 Genesis XXXVII, 12. 
 
 89. If we except Sifre, which, after quoting the Biblical 
 verse, has the vague expression, " V"?"^ TipJ/' and the Oxford MS. 
 of Aboth de P. Nathan (1)^ which points the Ayin of my"l^ — 
 a mistake arising probably from the fact that some read the Bibli- 
 cal verse "lil mxi'? instead of myi^ — all the other Jewish 
 sources explicitly state that UN* is pointed. Thus, Bereshith 
 Rabba,^ (Cp. D. Qimchi^ and Yalqut^) Aboth de P. Nathan 
 (1 and 2), Soferim, Midr. Mishle, Leqach Tob (list, n'N, and 
 ad locum ^ ) Sekhel Tob,^ Diqduqe ha-Te'amim, Bemidbar Pabba, 
 Midr. ha-Gadol;^ thus also Pashi.* 
 
 90. The pointed nx, particle of direction, is of such a nature 
 that it can be rendered only in the other Semitic languages. It is 
 
 ' Thus various editions ; cp. Norzi, Minchath Shai ; Michaelis, Biblia ; Baer, 
 Genesis ; Ginsburg, etc. 
 2 Schechter, p. 100, n. 24. 
 ^Lxxxiv, 13 (12). 
 *Comra., p. 79 a. 
 s§§ 141 and 722. 
 «Ed. Buber, p. 188. 
 ''Ed. Buber, p. 217. 
 8 Ed. Schechter, col. 561. 
 ^ Comm. ad locum, in Venice Bible, 1617. 
 
Extraordinary Points of the Pentateuch. 79 
 
 found in the Sam. Pent., and tlie corresponding sign is also found 
 in the Targum Onkelos, but it is omitted in the Peshitto, where 
 the Hebrew ns* is generally rendered by ^ , and seldom by 
 tw .^ The absence of the particle in Syriac makes it probable 
 that the text from which it was translated had not the HN ; for, 
 its presence in the original would have been a strong inducement 
 for the Syriac translator to put it also in the Syriac text ; all the 
 more, since it is quite customary to use it in similar cases. How- 
 ever, riN in this passage is according to Hebrew usage, which 
 generally admits of the particle before the accusative when it is 
 determined.^ Probably it was left out in some recensions to pre- 
 vent misapprehension of the sense, and possible confusion with 
 XXX vii, 2, where r\^ occurs with a different meaning.^ 
 
 91. Sifre gives as reason for the Points on this passage,* that 
 the brothers of Joseph ' went to Sechem only to feed themselves/ 
 as against the Biblical verse which says that they went to feed 
 their father's flocks. Some, like Sekhel Tob, see in this the 
 application of the haggadic rule of Nachum of Gimzo, '''im/ 
 and say that they (Joseph's brothers) went to feed ivith, riN, the 
 flocks. This is altogether arbitrary, and foreign to the idea of 
 Sifre ; many other words could, and apparently should, have been 
 pointed, had the Points been designed to call attention to a special 
 exegetical interpretation of the so-called superfluous words. The 
 catchword of Sifre leads us to infer that if there had been no 
 points on this passage we would conclude that the Patriarchs 
 went to feed the flocks of their father, but that on account of the 
 Nequdoth, they went to feed only themselves. Arguing on these 
 lines Blau ^ and Ginsburg ^ came to the conclusion that the whole 
 clause DrT'DX ]XiJ DN should be left out, for, then and only then, 
 is it possible to say that they did not go to feed their father's 
 
 ^See Duval, Grammaire Syriaque, p. 325; Woldoke, Syrische Grammatik (2d. 
 edit.), p. 218 £f. 
 
 ^See Gesenius-Kautzsch, Hehr. Granim., § 117. 
 
 =* See Muller, Soferim, 88. 
 
 ■'On this passage see Buxtorf, Tiberias, 177; Miiller, Soferim, 88; Blau, 3IU, 
 23 f.; Ginsburg, Introd., 325 ; Konigsberger, MttTK, 18 ; Weir, Hebr. Text, 59. 
 
 ^MU, l. c. 
 
 ^Introd., I. c. 
 
80 Meaning and Purpose of the 
 
 flocks but themselves, i. e. my"l^ should be left without an object, 
 and then it can mean ' to feed ' (themselves) ; cp. Is., v, 1 7 ; xi, 
 7 ; Ixv, 25, etc. The cancelling of this clause would make this 
 verse parallel with verses 33 and 16. In that case, the Nequdoth 
 should be placed not only on nx but also on Dfl^DX ]Nii. This 
 is in itself possible and may have been the reading of some 
 recensions ; moreover, as Sifre does not give the exact place of 
 the Nequdoth, it leaves us free to point also Dn"'2K ]K!i, if this is 
 necessitated by its catchword. However, there is such a perfect 
 agreement between the various Jewish documents with regard 
 to the pointing of riN alone, that it creates a very strong pre- 
 sumption in favor of this tradition. In our present text ]Nli 
 Dn''3N is necessarily the object of mV"l/j on account of the connec- 
 tive particle nx ; by suppressing n^? we make possible a different 
 construction, viz. DDtV:! D.TDX ]Xii .mvi^ ID^^I 'they went to 
 feed (themselves), while their father's flocks were in Sechem.' ^ 
 We do not mean that even after the supjjression of FIX, it would 
 be correct to translate the verse in that way, but such a rendering 
 might be enough to remind the student that DN was spurious. 
 It seems therefore preferable to accept the universal Jewish 
 tradition, — in this case seemingly original, — according to which 
 only nx is to be pointed and, as shown by Sifre, cancelled. 
 
 92. The seman of Sifre has been accurately preserved in 
 Bereshith Rabba and Leqach Tob (list). It is also found, but 
 with paraphrastic additions, in Leqach Tob [ad locum), Sekhel Tob, 
 and Midr. ha-Gadol ; see also D. Qimchi, explaining Bereshith 
 Rabba.^ The clause ]aiij; nx mj;i^ disappears entirely in Aboth 
 de R. Nathan (2), and is replaced by "ill -j"i ''"i: [□''X''2D] naX3. 
 The seman of Sifre is also modified in Aboth de R. Nathan (1), 
 reproduced in Bemidbar Rabba ; for, although it says that Jacob's 
 sons did not go to feed his flocks, still it omits the clause that 
 ' they were feeding themselves,' and instead, gives mnti'^1 ^IDX^ 
 mnEnn'?").^ Accordingly, the opposition is no longer between 
 
 ^ See the Comm. on Eashi, CfSrn \nDk2?, quoted in Konigsberger, p. 19. n. 1. 
 'H. c. 
 
 " It is evident that the author of that recension has misunderstood " l^iiJJ? mi?"l^," 
 and replaced it by what he considered to be its equivalent. 
 
Extraordinary Points of the Pentateuch. 81 
 
 feeding the flocks (the verse without the points) and ' feeding 
 themselves ' (the verse with the points), but between feeding the 
 flocks and eating, etc., which would rather suggest the doubtful 
 character, not of riN or □H'^DX ]Kli HN, but of mj?")'? itself. 
 The deviation of Ab. de R. Nathan (1) is also foimd in Midr. 
 Mishle, with the further amplifications, introduced apparently to 
 safeguard the honor of the Patriarchs, that ' since, while they went 
 to eat and drink, they secured (through Joseph) nourishment for 
 the world, how much more would they have done so, if they had 
 gone to the teaching of the Torah.' All this passage of Midr. 
 Mishle has been substantially incorporated into Cod. Baer of 
 Diqduqe ha-Te'amim.^ It is noteworthy however, that the main 
 idea of Sifre, that the brothers of Joseph were not feeding the 
 flocks of their father, has been preserved in all the subsequent 
 traditional literature, and underlies all the additions and changes. 
 
 Num. Ill, 39. 
 
 93. Most Jewish writings correspond to the Massoretic tra- 
 dition : Bekhoroth 4a, Soferim, Aboth de R. Nathan (1 and 2), 
 Leqach Tob {ad locum),^ Midr. Mishle, Baer's Diqduqe ha- 
 Te'amim ; ^ cp. Rashi,^ Albo,^ Misrachi.^ Bemidbar Rabba and a 
 MS. of Aboth de R. Nathan (1) ^ point only the rvaw of ]"inNl ; this 
 is probably a mistake arising from the abbreviated rubric of Sifre, 
 
 .... i6vj {.v^'bv "iipJ [I'^nl'NT = . . . . ^biv bv "i^pJ ]'\^^^ bwV^); 
 
 or, as said above, the mistake may be due to the fact that a point 
 
 ^ See Baer and Strack, o. c. , p. 46. 
 
 * See various editions. 
 
 3 Ed. Padua, Levit. Num., p. 168. 
 
 * Baer and Strack, p. 46. 
 ^Comm. on Num. iii, 39. 
 
 ^ Sefer Iqqarim, in. 22 (end), transl. Schlessinger, p. 323. 
 ' Quoted in Norzi, Minchath Shai, ad locum. 
 sSchechter, p. 100, n. 25. 
 
82 Meaning and Purpose of the 
 
 on the first letter was considered by some as sufficiently affecting 
 the entire word.^ Sifre, as usual, leaves the place undetermined ; 
 Leqach Tob (list) Diqduqe ha-Te'amim, Massoretic list, place the 
 dots over ]"l'nK% but are silent as to whether every letter of the 
 word should be pointed. 
 
 94. The Sam. Pent, and version, the Peshitto, as well as 
 Kennic. 1, 193, 226, 439, 610, 612, 624 and de Rossi 47, and 
 first hand 2, 185, omit the pointed inriNV Judging from the 
 context, the omission of ]"inN1 is in conformity with verses 5, 
 11, 14, 16, 40, 42, 44. Moses alone receives the command to 
 number the sons of Levi, 14 and 15, and this he alone seems to 
 have done, 16. Hence, ]'nnxi is certainly suspicious and is pro- 
 nounced interpolated by many scholars.^ Its introduction can be 
 accounted for from the fact that, according to other passages 
 (Num. iv, 34, 37, 41, etc.), Aaron actually took part in the 
 numbering. Probably some scribe introduced ]"inX1 in the 
 margin to remind the reader of that fact, and from there it 
 passed into the text proper ; the mistake was all the more likely 
 to be made, since Moses and Aaron are so often mentioned 
 together. Be this as it may, there are clear traces of various 
 recensions in some of which j'nnxi was not to be found. 
 
 95. Sifre tells us that the presence of the Nequdoth is due 
 to the fact that " ]^:Dn ]a ]"inx n\n N^ " ; ^ that y:t2n means ' the 
 numberiug,' in the active sense, and not ' the numbered,' is made 
 evident from the catchword of Sifre which implies that if ]*inX1 
 had not been pointed Aaron would have been y^'OH ]Q ; this, in the 
 Biblical verse to which Sifre refers, can be true only of the action 
 of numbering and not of being numbered. Accordingly, Aaron 
 should not be associated with Moses in this passage, and hence 
 ]"inX"l should be left out. This explanation is preserved in Aboth 
 
 1 See above, § 80. 
 
 ^ On the Text Criticism, see Houbigant, Notae Crilicae, p. 153 ; Vogel, Lud. 
 CappelU Criticae Sacra, i, 457 ; Strack, B'dcher Genesis . . . Num., 378 ; Baentsch, 
 Ex. Lev. Num., p. 460. 
 
 •^On the Jewish explanations, see Buxtorf, Tiberias, p. 177; Miiller, Soferim, 
 88; Blau, MU, 9ff.; Konigsberger, MuTK, 20; Ginsburg, Introcl, 328; Weir, 
 Hd)r. Text, 59. 
 
Extraordinary Points of the Pentateuch. 83 
 
 de R. Nathan (1), Midr. Mishle, Leqach Tob (list), and, with 
 the variations mentioned, in Bemidbar Rabba.^ Leqach Tob 
 {ad locum) gives a variant for the meaning of the Points : 
 
 p nnx lay r^-itoifj ]inNi r\d7 m}i:h rw'^^n n^nn ^iD"in^ ^c^. 
 
 This has all the appearance of a Massoretic note marking a 
 peculiarity of the Biblical verse, but it may be an echo of some 
 former tradition according to which ]"inN1 would have been 
 introduced on the strength of iv, 34, etc. Bekhoroth 4a reads : 
 
 ]''''JD imK3 rvr\ X^It' ; it therefore understands ]"'jan in the sense 
 that Aaron was not among the numbered, and this is the 
 meaning put on this Talmudic passage by Rashi^ and the 
 Tosafist;^ Aboth de R. Nathan (2) follows the same tradition, 
 " nmir'3 nov ]"inx n\"l^ '?D\" The rendering that Aaron was 
 not among the numbered Levites, is evidently a further interpre- 
 tation of the rubric of Sifre, " ]^3an ]D ]"inX HM ^h^" and 
 shows that already at the time of the Talmud, the true purpose 
 of the Points had been somewhat confused. If ]"inK1 had been 
 pointed because Aaron was not among the numbered, we do not 
 see why jinxi of verse iii, 39, should have been chosen, rather 
 than the same word in iii, 38. The doubtful character of ]~inX1 
 was not, however, without some influence on the explanation that 
 Aaron was not one of the numbered. 
 
 It is consequently beyond doubt that ]"inxi had been declared 
 at least critically doubtful, and that, as a consequence, dots were 
 placed over every letter of the word ; although, as an equivalent, 
 some may have been satisfied in pointing only the conjunctive 
 
 waw, ' ]nnxi.' 
 
 1 Blau reads Bemidbar Kabba ^'^J)2n p nnX rm X^iJ? bv, which would refer to 
 the numbered ; this is found in the Venice edition, 1545. The difference comes 
 from the abbreviation "X which is actually found in the Amsterd. editions of 
 1641 and 1725. 
 
 ^ On Bekhoroth 4a ; see also Comm. on Num. iii, 39. 
 
 * On Bechoroth 4a, catchword ]"inN1. 
 
84 Meaning and Purpose of the 
 
 Num. IX, 10. 
 
 ^'1:1 npni ^"n3 ix 
 
 97. The Massoretic text has the Nequdah on the He of Hpm. 
 This is also the place assigned to it by Sifre (cp. Yalqut, § 722), 
 M. Pesachim, ix, 2 (cp. Arukh, s. v. *lpJ), Jer. Pesachim, ix, 2, 
 Tosefta Pesachim, viii, 3, Aboth cle R. Nathan (1),^ Soferim, 
 Leqach Tob (list and ad locuni),^ Diqduqe ha-Te'amim, Rashi,* 
 Ba'al ha-Turim.^ Zohar^ and Midr. Mishle leave the place 
 undetermined, while Aboth de R. Nathan (2) and some mss.'^ 
 point every letter of npm. Finally, Bemidbar Rabba and the 
 Oxford MS. of Aboth de R. Nathan ^ (1) point the Cheth of npni ; 
 the pointing of the Cheth is evidently a mistake arising from the 
 similarity and confusion between the two letters n and H; all 
 the more, since the explanation given here for the Nequdoth, 
 whatever be its import, is found in many of the other writings 
 which point the He. 
 
 97. The dotted npm is found in the Peshitto, Targ. Onkelos, 
 and in the Sam. Pentateuch, which last however reads it plene 
 as do also some Hebrew MSS.** The Ixx translates this word by 
 the adverb iv oSco /.laKpav instead of the adjective iv oBw jxaKpa. 
 The adverb jxaKpav ( Vulg. procul ) tends to show that the 
 translators did not take npni as an adjective attributive to "ITi, 
 but as a part of the predicate. If the dotted npm had been 
 
 ^ See various editions Norzi, Minchath Shai ; Michaelis ; Ginsburg, Kittel, etc. 
 
 ''See however Norzi, Minchath Shai, ad locum. 
 
 3 Ed. Padua, p. 194. 
 
 *0n M. Pesachim, ix, 2 (93b). 
 
 ^In Venice Bible, 1617, ad locum. 
 
 ''Quoted in Minchath Shai, ad locum, and in Buxtorf's Tiberias, p. 180. 
 
 ' See Michaelis, Biblia, ad locum. 
 
 « See Schechter, p. 100, n. 26. 
 
 " On the Text. Criticism of the passage, see Strack, Gen Num. 394 ; 
 
 Baentsch, Num. 494. 
 
JExtraordinary Points of the Pentateuch. 85 
 
 written with He, no such confusion could liave taken place. 
 Besides, ^11, though epicene, is usually masculine, and so we 
 would expect pni rather than npf]"]. It may be supposed that 
 the one who wrote npm ^"IT had vaguely in mind the expression 
 npm pN (Deut. xxix, 21 ; Jos. ix, 6, 9, etc.). The He was 
 therefore absent in some recensions, and this is further borne out 
 by the Targ. of Ps.-Jon., " No'py nilN^ pmai 1^:d IN," 
 in which case they must have read pm *]"TID 1{^ . . . ty^N con- 
 strued as -jTlD pm IK • . . If ^K. 
 
 98. In order to understand the explanations which are given 
 of the point on this passage,^ we must remember that, whatever 
 may have been the reasons for the extension, all the Rabbis were 
 agreed, that apart from the two classes of men expresslly men- 
 tioned who had to postpone the celebration of the Passover, there 
 were others hinted at in this verse, v. g., those who were physi- 
 cally prevented or were morally defiled.^ With regard to the 
 distance that was to be considered as npni, some took the distance 
 to Modaim — 15 miles — as a norm,^ while others, among whom 
 are R. Eliezer, and R. Juda, limited it to the threshold of the 
 sanctuary.* These two Rabbis based their view on the prescrip- 
 tion for the eating of tithes (Deut. xiv, 23-25). In this latter 
 case it is said that the Israelites should eat the tithes only in the 
 place chosen by God, i. e. Jerusalem and any one who was too 
 far away (kept away) from Jerusalem, had to fulfil the prescription 
 given in Deut. xiv, 25. In like manner (Deut. xvi, 6), for 
 celebrating the Passover the sanctuary was the proper place, and 
 hence any place outside of it, if the man was kept away, was 
 considered sufficient distance. Apparently the idea of remoteness 
 does not refer to the distance, which may not be npm, but to the 
 
 ^ On the Jewish explanations of the Points, see Buxtorf, Tiberias, 177 ; Geiger, 
 Urschrift, 185; Lesestucke, 86 ff. ; Miiller, Soferim, 88; Blau, 3IU, 25 f. ; Konigs- 
 berger, MuTK, 20 ; Ginsburg, Introd., 322 ; Weir, Heb. Text, 60. 
 
 ^M. Pesachim, ix, 1; Jer. Pesachim, ix, 1; Pesachim, 93a; Tosefta Pes., 
 vm, 1. Note besides the Paseq line in the Massoretic Text, between X?2t2 and 
 
 ^M. Pesachim, ix, 2 ; Pesachim, 931i ; Neubauer, Geographie du Talmud, p. 99. 
 *M. Pes., IX, 2; Sifre, '^n^rrO, § 69, p. 18a (cp. Leqach Tob, ed. Padua, 
 p. 194) ; Jer. Pesachim, ix, 2; Pesachim, 94b (end). 
 
86 Meaning and Purpose of the 
 
 man, who, for some reason, such as defilement, is prevented from 
 entering the sanctuary ; however, it was said by R. Abai * that the 
 law of the npm 'I'TI did not apply to the unclean but to the 
 clean. In fact R. Eliezer seems to have read his text just like 
 the Ixx and Targ. Jonathan ; besides, he seems to have given as 
 translation ' distant on a journey ' and not ' on a distant journey.' 
 According to R. Jose the Nequdah on the He has precisely for 
 effect to bring about the possibility of such an interpretation ; 
 this is equivalent to the condemnation of the He in npm.^ 
 Consequently, the Gemarah explains the point by saying that 
 He is pointed because it is the man, not the journey, that is afar 
 off: "np*in"l I'll ]^N1 pinn IV^i^," l e., although he be near, still 
 he is kept away, ' p"im,' by his state of defilement.^ This is the 
 view of Rashi also."* Sifre has no other meaning than the above : 
 it tells us that He is pointed, because, although the distance be 
 short, if the man is defiled he should not offer the Passover with 
 the others ; i. e., if he is defiled the distance matters little, for 
 he himself is morally remote, and cannot celebrate the Passover, 
 pm irr\2 = 'l"^"'^ prn W^i^ ; thus according to Sifre the He has 
 to be condemned. 
 
 99. The catchword of Sifre has been preserved in Leqach 
 Tob (list) and Bemidbar Rabba. Aboth de R. Nathan (1) and 
 Midr. Mishle reproduce the explanations of R. Jose, but with the 
 variations, "... t6i< npim NH^H i<bw " instead of ^JDa i6 
 'lil ifh^ ""Sm npirnii'. Aboth de R. Nathan (2), as said above, 
 points the entire n'p '1'n'"l and departs still more from the 
 explanations of Sifre on which it apparently depends. Its testi- 
 mony, though explainable by the cancelling of the He, would 
 rather perhaps suggest the removal of the entire word np"in"1 ; 
 
 "r^n^y n^x nrxti; vbv "i^Jn ^nii npinn rvn]i; npm -j-nD in" 
 
 This method of placing the points may have arisen from the false 
 
 ^Pesachim, 94b. 
 
 ^ M. Pesachim ix, 2 ; Jer. Pesachim ix, 2 ; Tosefta Pesachim viii, 3. See 
 Moses b. Nachman in Norzi, Minchatli Shai, ad locum. 
 
 "Jer. Pesachim ix, 2 (end). 
 
 * Eashi, Comm. on Num. ix, 10 ; Ba'al ha-Turim simply says that the He is 
 annulled by the Point. 
 
Extraordinary Points of the Pentateuch. 87 
 
 reconstruction of some such rubric as HIpJ 'n *five points/ 
 instead of ' He is pointed ' ; this is all the more probable since 
 it reads npin"l plene, i. e., with five letters. It may also have 
 been based on some mss. in which, in conformity with v. 13 of 
 the same chapter, nplIT"! was not to be found; probably, however, 
 this pointing of every letter is purely a mistake, and in any case, 
 neither the place of the Nequdoth nor their explanations correspond 
 accurately to the original tradition. 
 
 100. This, we think, after Geiger ^ and Friedmann,^ is the 
 correct understanding of Sifre ; Blau,^ however, takes a different 
 view. He supposes a reading npm "]"n31, instead of the present 
 r\p'n'~\ l^y^^ IN, and argues as follows : if we accept the reading 
 "ITIDI, it is evident that there is a danger of making the waw 
 conjunctive, instead of disjunctive,* in which case the text would 
 read : " he who is defiled and at the same time is on a long 
 journey," etc. Now Sifre says that even he who is on a short 
 journey but is defiled should not oifer the Passover ; this accord- 
 ing to Blau is to remind the reader that instead of the 1 ' and ' 
 we should read IS' ' or.' 
 
 101. Against this view, there is the explicit mention by Sifre 
 itself of the He as the pointed letter.^ Besides, if Sifre had 
 intended to insist on the two classes of men who should postpone 
 the Passover, viz., ]V^:h N0t3 and npm 1"1"1D, we should natur- 
 ally expect Sifre to tell us ]i;B:b NQtO Nim r\n)1p yr\2 )b^B^ and 
 not simply NDiO Nin," unless — as Blau actually does — we throw 
 suspicion on the WB^b of the Biblical verse ; but this would be 
 of little service, for Sifre certainly read it in its recension. 
 Finally, the reference to the words of Rabbi,^ " ]^X^ ^B bv ^^ 
 
 * Urschrift, etc., 185 f. 
 ^ Sifre, p. 18a, n. 8. 
 
 ^MU, 26. See also Ginsburg, Introd., 322. 
 
 *That the ivaiv is sometimes equivalent to IN, is seen from other passages, such 
 as Exod. xxi, 15, 17 ; IK. xviii, 27, etc. 
 
 * See however the repetition of this seman at the end of the list, where we read 
 simply tVj Tlpl 
 
 ^Compare Sifre, § 69 (beginning). 
 ' Blau, MU, 27. See above, § 59. 
 
88 Meaning and Pwyose of the 
 
 ]bv^bD HmN ni}p^ X^X U^," does not warrant the infer- 
 ence that on this passage the point was placed on the first letter 
 of some word, viz., y]12\ Blau is right in understanding ]^j;a^D 
 in the sense of 'in the beginning,' instead of 'above,' but the 
 saying of Rabbi, being opposed to a general statement, has itself 
 all the characteristics of a universal rule. Moreover, the rule of 
 Rabbi, if applied to the supposed "pH^) in this passage, would 
 entail the condemnation of the entire word, since — at least for 
 real exegesis — it is pronounced non-existent, but this position, 
 we think, could not be maintained. 
 
 Let us then conclude that originally only the He of npn"! was 
 pointed, and that the point is devised to cancel it, thus making it 
 agree with recensions in which this letter was not to be found.^ 
 
 Num. XXI, 30. 
 nD:i IV u'^w:) p^i -ij; ]ntz;n "idx di^:) 
 
 102. Soferim, Aboth de R. Nathan (1), Bemidbar Rabba, 
 Baer's Diqduqe ha-Te'amim, correspond to the Massoretic tra- 
 dition with regard to the place of the points. The Oxford MS. 
 of Aboth de R. Nathan (1)^ points the Daleth of N3"I''D "ly ; 
 and Yalqut — although reproducing Sifre — probably dots the 
 Daleth of HDJ "IJ? ; * Aboth de R. Nathan (2) places the dots over 
 □ '"I'li;'^'"!, but its explanations probably refer to N21''D HJ? ; Leqach 
 Tob (list) reads TlfX; Sifre and Midr. Mishle leave the place 
 undetermined. Midr. Mishle in quoting the Biblical passage has 
 only riDU IV W^ll^Ti, thereby implying that the points fall some- 
 where on one of these words. Some apparently pointed the 
 
 ^ The testimony of Zoliar, which probably attributes to the Points the value of 
 our Italics, is therefore opposed to the older Jewish sources. 
 
 ^ Thus the various editions ; cp. Norzi, Michaelis, Ginsburg, Kittel, etc. 
 
 ^'Schechter, p. 101, n. 27. 
 
 * § 722 ; thus in some editions as v. g., that of Frankf. a. M. (1687) and that of 
 Zolkiew (1858) . It is to be remarked that in quoting the Biblical passage, Yalqut 
 has only ' PiD^ "II? D*''£?J1.' In other editions, the place of the Points is left unde- 
 termined, and the reference is ' "I2?N nDJ "IJ? D^UJl.' 
 
Extraordinary Points of the Pentateuch. 89 
 
 entire 1]Ui^, for Norzi insists that only the Resh should have 
 the Nequdah} 
 
 103. The passage has greatly suffered and there are no two 
 versions that agree on it,^ However, it would be beyond our 
 purpose to enter into a full discussion of this verse ; almost every 
 word offers a new difficulty, from a critical as well as from an 
 exegetical point of view. Let it be noted simply that the Sam. 
 Pent, and lxx read li'X instead of the dotted "Wi^, and this is 
 also the reading of Baba Bathra 78b-79a.^ There were besides, 
 several recensions with regard to ^s'D"l''D ly, which is read 'D Vj?, 
 by Sam. Pent., lxx, Targ. Onkelos, as well as by Kennic. 193 
 (first hand), 345. The word U^fry\, pointed by Aboth de K. 
 Nathan (2), seems to be critically correct, though its translation 
 has occasioned a different rendering iu lxx, viz. at jvvalK€^. 
 Kennicott 4 omits ny before nSl 
 
 104. In the Jewish testimonies on this passage, we have 
 several divergent accounts of the Nequdoth} Sifre informs us 
 that there are points because ' further it was also thus.' It is 
 clear, therefore, that the limit set to the ravages of the victorious 
 Amorites should be either extended or entirely left aside. To this 
 effect, we might suppress ny before HDJ and read "iiyx PlDJ D'^tt'J^, 
 ' we have laid waste Nophach which,' etc. As the Biblical verse 
 would not say any longer that the devastation stopped at Nophach, 
 we would be at liberty to assert with Sifre that ^further, it was 
 also thus.' ^ This would correspond accurately enough to the 
 words of Sifre, but riDJ "iy is found in almost all mss., in 
 the Sam. Pent., and is supposed by lxx " eVt " as well as by the 
 Peshitto " \-^ A ; " it is besides very doubtful whether any 
 of the ancient Jewish writings would support the supposedly 
 
 ^ Minchath Shai, ad locum. ; thus also Meiri, in Blau, MU, 28, and Lonzano, Or 
 Torah, 19 b. 
 
 *0n the Text. Criticism of the verse, see Strack, Gen Num., p. 429; 
 
 Baentsch, Num., 587 ; Paterson, Num., ad locum. 
 
 ' Cp. Yalqut, § 765, and also Num. xxi, 28. 
 
 * On these explanations, see Buxtorf, Tiberias, 178 ; Geiger, Urschnft, 257 ; 
 Miiller, Soferim, 89 ; Blau, 3fU, 28 ff. ; Konigsberger, MuTK, 21 f. ; Ginsburg, 
 Introd., 326 ; Weir, Hebr. Text, 61. 
 
 *See Blau, MU, 29 ; however, see also p. 34. 
 
90 Meaning and Purpose of the 
 
 original place of the dots over riDJ "ij?. See, however, Midr. 
 Mishle, and Yalqnt in some editions. 
 
 105. On account of the prevalent tradition that the Besh 
 of ^"W^ is the letter pointed, we must investigate whether the 
 catchword of Sifre can be accounted for in that hypothesis. By 
 cancelling the Resh of IlI'X, we may translate the verse, ' we laid 
 waste as far as Nophach, fire has been as far as Medeba.' 
 According to our present Massoretic text, the ravage was carried 
 on only as far as Nophach, but did not reach Medeba, since 
 Medeba is given simply to deterrauie the limits of the territory 
 of Nophach ; it is therefore evident that we extend the sphere of 
 the Amorite conquest by reading X^TiD "IJ? Ti^N ; consequently, 
 we can also say with Sifre ' that further it was also thus.' As the 
 suppression of Resh in "i^X has good support in Textual Criti- 
 cism, and accoimts as well as the first view for the catchword of 
 Sifre, it seems to us useless to make any other supposition. How 
 the place of the Nequdah was occasionally changed, and the 
 Dalcth of '"^12 nj? pointed, is easily understood if we pay atten- 
 tion to the similarity between the two letters Resh and Daleth ; 
 the substitution was made easier from the fact that some recen- 
 sions read N3T'D bv instead of ^DT^D IV ; and further, some 
 transferred the points from 'T^D "IV to nCJ "IV (?)• Whatever 
 may be said of the supposed reading N^T'D hv, it is beyond 
 doubt that the catchword of Sifre cannot be justified if we 
 point '"lia ly ; as long as we accept "ili;x, whether we read 
 hv OY 'liD ly, it could not be said that the destruction was 
 carried further than is indicated in the present Massoretic text. 
 The pointing of 1^, although not primitive, may have given rise 
 to other explanations, as is apparently the case in Aboth de R. 
 Nathan (2) ; this document tells us that U^\uy\ is pointed because 
 they did not carry on this destruction as far as Medeba. In view 
 of the fact that it reads the Biblical verse NDT'IO hv, and says that 
 without the Nequdoth we should infer that they had smitten as 
 far as "ly" Medeba, it is very likely that it intends to call 
 attention to the difference of readings between "VQ Ij; and 
 'T'O 7j;. Possibly, however, this explanation is purely exegetical, 
 laying emphasis on the translation of p''Ti'J1, as ' and the women ' 
 
Extraordinary Points of the Pentateuch. 91 
 
 instead of ' we laid waste ; ' if so, the place assigned to the points 
 would not have been the result of a mistake, but the eifect of a 
 deliberate judgment. It is needless to say that this explanation 
 is a deviation, and in no way represents the original tradition 
 preserved in Sifre. 
 
 106. Aboth de R. Nathan (1) has an account of the 
 Nequdoth different from that of Sifre. It says " h>V "TIpJ 
 
 This, if not directly suggestive of the function of the Nequdoth 
 in cancelling the Resh of "W^, is at least the Haggadic explana- 
 tion of a text in which the Resh was not to be found. Apparently 
 it translates U^^2^y\ by 'and the women,' and as a corresponding 
 term ti;x by ' men ; ' ^ thus we may read : ' Heshbon has perished 
 unto Dibon, Avomen as far as Nophach, men as far as Medeba ; ' 
 hence the further explanation that they destroyed the popula- 
 tions — i. e., U^fDTi and W^ — but not the provinces.^ Bemidbar 
 Rabba, in an alternative catchword, probably intended to repro- 
 duce this passage of Aboth de R. Nathan ; but it displaced the 
 negative particles, making the explanation just the reverse of 
 that of Aboth de R. Nathan, mDlNH ^2nnn K^Ii; Hd'^D N'^1 
 niniO N7N. Still, it is not impossible that some Rabbi, while 
 preserving the terms of Aboth de R. Nathan, wished to give 
 an explanation more in conformity with the traditional one. 
 Apparently he translates ^K by ' fire ' " lyx " (cp. Baba Bathra 
 78b, 79a) ; then by further translating D"'^J1 as ' we laid waste,' 
 it could be said that they did not destroy the populations — as 
 there is no question of women and men — but that the provinces 
 had undergone devastation. It is clear therefore that both in the 
 seman of Sifre, as well as in the explanations of Aboth de R. 
 
 ^On the ^'X = ^'^X, see Blau, MU, 29 ; Ginsburg, Introd., I. c. It is found on 
 the Mesa stone, 11. 13, 20, 25, and in the Siloam Inscr., 11. 2, 4. 
 
 ^Blau, 3IU, 29. Whether or not UN should still be construed as a relative, is 
 of secondary importance for us ; Sifre did not understand it as such. Cp. Diestel, 
 Die Nota relationis in Hebr., quoted by Konigsberger, MuTK, 21, n. 2 ; Hommel, 
 in ZDMG, xxxii, 708 ff. See, besides, the reconstruction of Hiller after the 
 suppression of the Resh of "irX, " nriJ? XnCJ nr", quoted in Kosenmiiller, 
 Scholia, ad locum, and Konigsberger, MuTK, 21, n. 2. This, however, would 
 not justify the seman of Sifre, as the sense would remain the same. 
 
92 Meaning and Purpose of the 
 
 Nathan and Bemidbar Rabba, we have a clear indication or 
 supposition that the Be.^h of "ill^N is spurious and sliould be 
 cancelled. 
 
 107. When we examine the explanation of Midr. Mishle, the 
 idea of which is preserved in Midr. ha-Gadol/ viz., that the 
 Amorites allowed a portion to escape, we cannot help seeing in it 
 a special interpretation of, or an equivalent to, the words of Aboth 
 de R. Nathan (1), ' that they destroyed the populations but not 
 the provinces.' Perhaps, however, it has in view the translation 
 of n^]l!Ti by 'women' and tl^N by 'men.' Then, it could be said 
 that women perished as far as Nophach and men as far as Medeba ; 
 hence, we could conclude that the Amorites spared men, as far as 
 Nophach, and women, as far as Medeba, i. e., that they allowed a 
 portion to escape. 
 
 Num. XXIX, 15. 
 
 108. The Massoretic text enumerates the several victims to 
 be offered during the solemnities of the feast of Tabernacles, and 
 mentions the quantity of flour to be used for each : ]niyj; ]i"lII?V1 
 D^It'DD ']mV nVDIx'? inxn W2jb-^ Tims also, Sam. Pent., Ixx, 
 Vulg., Targ. Onkelos ; but Peshitto has p^ P ^ j-ma^o = "nN ]n^j;i ; 
 one ]1"iU^j; is omitted in Kenn. 193, 199. In the context, this 
 same expression occurs in xxviii, 13 ; in xxviii, 21 (the first ]Tm;y 
 is omitted in Kenn. 140, and Peshitto reads r-^ jjo^jsi^o ); 
 in xxviii, 29 (one I'lltt'j; is omitted in Kenn. 184, and Peshitto 
 reads as in v. 21) ; in xxix, 10 (but Kenn. 9, 109, to which 
 Peshitto corresponds, read iriN lllfyi). Hence, there existed some 
 uncertainty in the use of these jTltt'y. In any case, there can be 
 but little doubt that on this passage there were recensions in which 
 one of them was dropped. As in^y is not reduplicated in xxix, 
 4, though Sam. Pent., Ixx, Kenn. 177 have two, it is very likely 
 that some scribe followed the analogy of that verse, and put only 
 one ]T1II>V ill xxix, 15, while others followed the analogy of the 
 passages mentioned above.^ In the context, there is but one 
 
 'See Schechter, Ab. de B. Nathan {1), p. 101, n. 27. 
 
 ''See Strack, o. c, 455 ; Baentsch, o. c, ad locum ; Paterson, o. c, ad locum. 
 
Extraordinary Points of the Pentateuch. 93 
 
 passage in which ])''\WV is not reduplicated ; it is probable that 
 owing to the process of harmonization another ]n^j; has been intro- 
 duced into verse 15, while, as shown by Pcshitto, there should 
 have been only one. 
 
 109. Even in the recensions that had the two yillUV in verse 
 15, there were several traditions with regard to the conjunctive 
 wa2t\ In the parallel passages mentioned above, there is doubt 
 on that point. On Num. xxviii, 21, the waic is omitted by 
 Hebrew, Targ. Oukelos, and Ixx ; but it is given by Sam. Pent., 
 Peshitto, Vulg., and some Hebr. mss.^ The conjunctive waw is 
 also omitted in xxviii, 29, by Hebr., Ixx, Vulg. ; but it is found 
 in Sam. Pent., Peshitto, Keun. 17, de Rossi, 1, 549. Hebr., Ixx, 
 and Vulg., leave out the waw in xxix, 10; but it is retained by 
 Sam. Pent., Peshitto. In xxix, 4, on the contrary, the conjunc- 
 tion is given by Hebr., Sam. Pent., Peshitto, but is omitted by 
 Ixx, and Vulg. It is not surprising, therefore, to find dis- 
 crejjancies with regard to xxix, 15 ; though found in Hebr., Sam. 
 Pent., Peshitto, and Vulg., the vmw is omitted by Ixx, — except 
 AF,2— as well as by Kenn. 181, 674. 
 
 110. A third class of variants with regard to ]1"lIt'V in its 
 various grammatical forms bears on the orthography of tliis 
 word. In the plural it generally occurs, at least in the context, 
 defectively written; e. g., xxviii, 12, 20, 28; xxix, 3, 9, 14; 
 however, in some mss. of Kenn., especially 9, 84, 132, 193, and 
 in some Sam. mss., such as Kenn. 64, QQ, it is written plene. In 
 the singular, it occurs once written defective, viz. xxviii, 13 (first), 
 although some thirty mss. of Kenn. read it plene. In the other 
 passages, it is generally fully written; thus xxviii, 13 (2d), xxviii, 
 21 (twice); xxviii, 29 (twice); xxix, 4; xxix, 10 (twice). These 
 various ]1~l^y occur also defectively written in some mss., for 
 which we refer the reader to Kennicott, de Rossi, etc. The same 
 uncertainty prevails regarding verse 15 ; though these two jl'l'il'j?, 
 are read plene in Sam. Pent., and in almost all mss., still, the first 
 is read defective, in Kenn. 89, 10'9, 232, 253, 260, 600 marg., and 
 the second, in Kenn. 5, 15, 69, 109, 158, 232, 253, 260. If we 
 
 ^Kenn, 1 and de Rossi 1. 
 
 ^Swete, O. T. in Greek, ad locum; cp. Holmes, Vet. Test. Graec, ad locum. 
 
94 Meaning and Purpose of the 
 
 bear iu mind the principle referred to above, viz. that the dejective 
 spelling should generally be given preference over the plena forms, 
 it is very probable that ]1"i^J? should be written defective. Besides, 
 it is also certain that ]1~i^j; was not repeated in some mss., and in 
 others, was written without the conjunctive waio. 
 
 111. As might be expected from what precedes, the greatest 
 confusion prevails among the various Jewish sources with regard 
 to the place of the Nequdoth. According to some, VillVV is 
 entirely pointed ; thus Sifre, " ]n^j; bv "llpj/' Meiri and a few 
 MSS.^ Aboth de R. Nathan (2) and Midr. Mishle^ place the 
 points over the second ]nii;v. Aboth de R. Nathan (1), 
 "T''n ]niry llpJ .... ]'n^j; ]n:i^yr', and Soferim, point only 
 the waw of the second ]1~i^y. Bemidbar Rabba and a MS. of Aboth 
 de R. Nathan (1),^ although pointing the entire ll^If^; refer to 
 Num. xxviii, 21, " TiDD b'iV . . . . ]n^V bv l^pl" Yalqut — 
 though it reproduces Sifre — leaves the place undetermined ; this 
 is also the case, at least with respect to the exact letters, in 
 Leqach Tob (list), Diqduqe ha-Te'amim, and the Massoretic list. 
 Finally, Menachoth, STb,"* says that the waw in the middle of the 
 first ]1"iti'J? is the letter pointed. As is evident from the Hebrew 
 MSS. and editions, this latter tradition has prevailed in most 
 Massoretic schools.^ 
 
 112. In the midst of such confusion, we must turn to the 
 various explanations of the points, in order to find out both 
 their place and purpose. Sifre tells us that one of the 
 two Issarons is pointed because there was but one Issaron, 
 "13^3 nnx ])'^'WV X^N HM X^U' bv-" In order to understand 
 this testimony, we must bear in mind the scholastic discussion 
 preserved in Menacboth 87a (end) and 87b (top). The Rabbis 
 were all agreed that there was in the temple no dry-measure 
 
 ^See Michaelis, Bibl., ad locum. 
 
 ^ ""iUn has been corrected by the editor into IV^'NIH. 
 
 ^Schechter, p. 101, n. 28. 
 
 * See Arukh, s. v. "pi ; Yalqut, § 782 ; Rabbinowicz, Diqduqe Soferim, P. xv, 
 p. 216. 
 
 ^ Thus various editions ; cp. Norzi, Ginsburg, Kittel, etc. It would seem that 
 some pointed the conjunctive wau' ; see Strack, o. c, p. 455; cp. Konigsberger, 
 MuTK, 23-25. 
 
Extraordinary Points of the Pentateuch. 95 
 
 larger than a single Issaron, and that, consequently, the three and 
 the two Issaro7is required respectively for a bullock and a ram, 
 were not measured in measures containing three and two Issarons 
 respectively, but that a one-Jssaron measure was used for the 
 purpose.^ They were all agreed besides, on the presence in 
 the temple of a ha\f-Issaron measure. However, they diiFered 
 regarding the Biblical passages which should be appealed to as 
 support for these traditions and regarding the number of one- 
 Issaron measures in the temple. 
 
 The minority, represented by R. Meir, stated that there were 
 two kinds of one-Issaron measures, the one heaped and the other 
 struck, because it is said, " ]Tm;y ])1]UV " — an application of the 
 rule of extension on account of repetition ; on the other hand, as 
 we read " iriN ]1~llt'yi," ^ it is a sign that the two or three 
 Issarons were measured in a single Issaron measure ; further, 
 the presence of " "iPlX III^VI," ' and one Issaron/ justifies the 
 tradition that there was also a half- Issaron measure. 
 
 The majority said that there was but one kind of Issarons, 
 because it is said, " "inX ]n:t'j;i." The presence of yi'^WV ]'niL'y 
 does not justify the view of R. Meir that there were two kinds 
 of Issarons, but implies only the existence of a half-/ssaro/i.^ 
 The repetition of '\)'^WV jllII'V in xxix, 15, should not be under- 
 stood as indicative of a measure larger than a single Issaron, 
 because one of them is pointed, i. e., the rule of extension does 
 not apply to this passage on account of the point, but makes 
 I'niI'V ])'\1VV equivalent to R. Meir's nriN ]n^V.^ They all seem 
 to have taken it for granted that the presence of two ]mi'V should 
 be made the basis of an extension, either with regard to the num- 
 ber of the one-Issaron measures, — as R. Meir, not taking the 
 Point into account, actually does, — or with reference to the capa- 
 city of the Issarons ; this extension however was set aside on 
 account of the Nequdah. 
 
 ^See Rashi on this passage 87a (end). 
 ^ Num. xxix, 4. 
 
 'They had probably in view xxix, 10 and not xxix, 15 as the rule of extension 
 was not applied to that last verse on account of the Point. 
 *See the explicit statement, ibid. 87b (top). 
 
96 Meaning and Purpose of the 
 
 Consequently, when Sifre tells us that ^YWV is pointed, ' because 
 there was but one Issaron,^ it evidently takes the same view 
 as the Rabbis, in considering the point as annulling one of the 
 Issarons, and it excludes the opinion of R. Meir concerning the 
 existence of the two one-Issaron measures. (See this idea in 
 Leqach Tob, (list)). The immediate inference is that one of the 
 ])'^WV should be left out, as its presence would give rise to the 
 law of extension. As Sifre reads the Biblical verse V\'^]VV ]1"ni'y> 
 it is impossible to know whether it is the first or the second ]1"i^V 
 which is pointed. 
 
 113. From the fact that Sifre points the entire ]Tnii'y, and 
 since the explanation of the point by R. Jose, viz., ITia'' K?^ 
 
 ^^n"? 0^:11; bwn i6) "id'? 'y b^2 i6, also supposes that ]nu;y 
 
 should be entirely pointed, we are led to the conclusion that, in 
 the Gemarah, there has been a deviation from the primitive place 
 assigned to the Nequdoth on this passage. In what follows we try 
 to give what we consider a probable account of this deviation. 
 In Menachoth, the Biblical verse is read as in Sifre, ' ])'^WV jTI^V/ 
 and not ' llliyy ]1"ni'V1 ' ; but the wording of the explanation of 
 the point by R. Jose supposes a text, ' yi'lWV ]')'^WV\' for, emphasis 
 is laid on the pointing of the waw in the middle of ]"l"l^y, as if to 
 prevent a possible confusion with another waw ; this latter can 
 only be the conjunctive waw in ]1"lU'V1. This leads us further to 
 assume, that the rubric from wliich Menachoth borrows read, 
 ^]rwV '1 hv "l^pJ/ construed as ]rwv \hw'\ '") bv "l^pJ^; or per- 
 haps, according to a possible method, mentioned above, of pointing 
 the first letter as representative of the whole word, it read : 
 ' '1 hv 'p^ ]"l"1^yi ' with the subsequent confusion of the two waws. 
 This would be a perfect parallel to HDIpDI of Gen. xix, 33, to 
 which we refer the reader.^ 
 
 114. According to the current text of the Talmud, in which 
 we read, ' mpJD,' it would seem that the Rabbis intended to draw 
 their inference from a single dotted letter; but, as Rabbinowicz 
 remarks, up to the edition of Frankfurt a. M., 1690, the 
 
 'See above, §§59, 80, 93. 
 
 ^ Diqduqe Soferim, P. xv, p. 216, n. 6. 
 
Extraordinary Points of the Pentateuch. 97 
 
 previous editions read the plural ' "^^^^':^'Cl,^ which is also the case 
 in the MS. of Cairo.^ It is also very significant that the plural 
 has been preserved at the end of the explanation of R. Jose, 
 "ir^m ^b '•npJ "O "l." it seems, therefore, well nigh certain 
 that the primitive tradition knew of more than one point on this 
 passage. We think ourselves justified consequently, in maintain- 
 ing that originally the explanation of R. Jose simply read, 
 " . . . . mQ"" ^h'Q) ]rwV^ ibv^ llpJ HD^." When the confusion 
 spoken of above had taken place, either at the time of the Gema- 
 rah or later on, the need was felt of specifying more accurately 
 what they considered to be the real place of the points, and of 
 further guarding against a possible confusion either with another 
 waw or with other parallel passages, such as xxviii, 21, xxviii, 29, 
 xxix, 10 ; to this effect they made the following additions and 
 corrections: h^ ]Wtr\ ]rwV bw ]rwV V^'^^2m V""!] lip: HD^ 
 
 The explanations of Menachoth just given, will sufficiently 
 account for the pointing of the second waw of ]"l"liyv^ hy the 
 Massorah. We wish simply to note that the Massoretic ]1"l^yi 
 Nim very likely stands for 'N JHI, i e. the jnU'y'l of the first 
 day of the feast, or, more probably still, the first inify of the 
 feast (of Tabernacles).^ 
 
 115. Although the idea contained in the catchw^ord of Sifre 
 has been preserved by most of the subsequent Jewish testimonies, 
 still, the place that Sifre assigned to the Nequdoth has been con- 
 fused in many of them. Sifre itself, by leaving undetermined which 
 one of the two j'nu'y should be pointed, is partly responsible for 
 the various changes in that respect. In almost all cases, however, 
 we can still detect the probable reason for the deviation. 
 
 In Aboth de R. Nathan (1), we read, " T^D j'TnfJ? ^y "!1p:" 
 which it refers to the second ]1"ni'y. This, in the rubric on which 
 Aboth de R. Nathan depends, was probably intended to mean 
 
 ^ The commentary of Rashi also had *'11pi?2, but was corrected by the author 
 of ni»D*p?2 ri'jrn, into mpJ^O, in order to make it agree with the text of the 
 Talmud ; see Rabbinowicz, ibid. 
 
 ='Cp. FrensdorfP, Ochlah vfOcUah, n. 96 and the note to it p. 28 ; the Paris MS. 
 of Ochlah weOchlah reads JHI X?D"ip, ibid. 
 
98 Meaning and Purpose of the 
 
 that the ]Tl^y ivith the waw, i. e. I'llli'yi, should be pointed. 
 Aboth de R. Nathan apparently read 'the waw of VilW)) is pointed/ 
 and as in the Biblical passage it read ' ]1"ili;j; ]1"lU'j;i/ it naturally 
 understood the rubric as referring to the second ]"l11I'y, in which 
 the conjunctive waiv does not appear. The addition of DT' b'Qf 
 ""iTi ]1^S**in 2TiD, has been sufficiently explained above in Mena- 
 choth. The reason given for the pointing is that of Sifre. 
 
 116, Soferim also, reproduces a tradition according to which 
 the second waiv of the second Vi'MVV should be pointed ; it says, 
 'llpJ ""J^n iniyyDiy T"""]/ but, asMiiller^ remarks, ^wn should be 
 referred to V"! and not to ]"1"1II'V ; consequently, we should read 
 "•Jlfn ]ntfj;i^ Vl, instead of ]n^y3Ti;, and thus it would agree 
 with Menachoth and Massorah. As Soferim had a Biblical verse 
 ' ])'\'WV jnn^J?,' there was no ]'n^J? with two icaws to justify the 
 rubric ^wr\ .... 1 ''I, and, therefore, it referred '^wn to ]nu;j; = 
 the second ])'^]VV- 
 
 117. Bemidbar Rabba — cp. one MS. of Aboth de R. Nathan 
 
 (1)2 — says, N^iy -\Dbj2 mDD hu; ]Wi^i "inN ]]'^wv bv "iipJ' 
 
 'l^b^ "IPiN ]mi;y n'pK Uir n\"l.^ It is to be noted that with 
 the exception of the clause riDC bll^ ]1^N1 IPli^, it corresponds 
 exactly to Sifre in the reason which it assigns for the Nequdoth. 
 Unlike any other Jewish document, it tells us that it is one of 
 the inu^y required for the feast of the Passover, which should be 
 pointed, i. e., one of the inil'y in Num. xxviii, 21. It is hard 
 to see the origin of this unexpected statement. The reading 
 ]W^'] "ImN ]n^y is very likely due to the abbreviation X ]')1'WV, 
 which some reconstructed inx ]'\1WV, and others ]Wi^1 jnil'V ; the 
 compiler of Bemidbar Rabba placed the two readings side by 
 side, as is often done, and thus we have yifVi^l iriN ]1"1II'V. The 
 presence of riDD b"^ instead of in bn^, which creates the main 
 difficulty, is probably traceable to some such rubric as is found in 
 the Massoretic list on Num. iii, 39, viz., wm ]nu;y = 'X :m 'WV, 
 i. e., 'the first jT^U^J?,' as above. Bemidbar Rabba referred 'N to 
 
 ^ Soferim, p. 89 f . 
 ^ Schechter, p. 101, n. 28. 
 
 3 Some editions read differently • • • ' 'T^hr:! :,n Vl^ p^KT h^D ptL'X"! pi^r bv "llpj '• 
 Thus, Wilna edit. 1887. See appendix, ad locum. 
 
Extraordinary Points of the Pentateuch. 99 
 
 in, and read, 'one ]T]'WV of the first feast is pointed.' As the 
 first of the great feasts mentioned in the context is the Passover, 
 xxviii, 16 if., it was more accurately determined by replacing 
 ' K in by its supposed equivalent, ' nOD.' ^ 
 
 118. Aboth de R. Nathan (2) and Midr. Mishle point the 
 second jTltt'j;. The reason for this is obvious : both read their 
 Biblical text ^]rwV \\'WV\' and as Sifre says that \rmv is 
 pointed, they naturally pointed the second in which there is no 
 conjunctive loaw (see above the remarks on Aboth de R. Nathan 
 (1)). The explanations given of the Points by these two sources 
 are different from any of those which we have seen so far, 
 " m^niL'y ^W ]1J;:d n\-| ^h^ " (Midr. Mishle), but they may be 
 an echo of Sifre denying the existence of a second Issaron, and 
 of Menachoth forbidding, on account of the Nequdoth, any exten- 
 sion to be derived from the presence of two inu'y. 
 
 From what precedes, we can safely conclude that originally one 
 of the Issarons was entirely pointed — presumably the first, but 
 possibly also, the second, — and that the points were devised to cancel 
 it. It should be noted further that while the place of the Nequ- 
 doth has been confused in various ways, so as to render the expla- 
 nations inappropriate, still we know that they have been placed 
 on letters which were missing in some mss. or recensions. Appar- 
 ently, here, as in other cases, the absence of these letters in mss. 
 and recensions made the deviation easier ; and hence, it would 
 seem that there always existed at least a faint idea about the 
 function that the Nequdoth were intended to fulfil. 
 
 ^See, with reference to the MS. of Aboth de E. Nathan (1), Elan, MU, p. 16. 
 As to the variant Jl" bu "rXI Vi? ]irN1 'jTl'i'i' see Blau, MU, p. 15. Of course 
 the presence of HDD instead of ^H, may be simply an oversight : the author having 
 still in his mind the word mDD, mentioned a few lines before, for Num. ix, 10. 
 
100 Meaning and Purpose of the 
 
 Deuteeonomy XXIX, 28. 
 
 mir^v*? nb)v "iv iJ^Ji'^i ^JV n*?::.!! ^:^'^^N n)n^b n-inoin 
 
 119. The whole verse seems to be an interpolation, and F. 
 Hummelaiier ^ admits that it was introduced only by the final 
 editor, to take the place of a whole anecdote which he did not 
 care to narrate. Whatever may be said of that supposition, it 
 is evident that the dots were not appended to indicate the inter- 
 polation of the Avhole verse, and that the verse was accepted as 
 genuine when the Nequdoth were placed. Apart from this fact, 
 there does not seem to exist anything critically doubtful, though 
 the exegesis of the verse varies considerably according to authors. 
 The only trace of divergent readings is the omission of im^N r^^V^^b 
 by Kenn. 109, which connects mriDjn with IJ^JD^I 1J^. It is to 
 be noted also, that the Ixx uses the second person instead of the 
 first, ' @e« vfxwv,'' ' <^avepa vjxlvj' '■ Tetcvom vfioiv.^ 
 
 Sanhedrin 43b, the oldest document with regard to the place of 
 the Nequdoth, places them over *iy "li^'JDVi ij'?". This has become 
 the general tradition in subsequent Jewish works. Thus, most 
 MSS. of Soferim,^ Aboth de R. Nathan (1), reproduced in Arukh 
 s. V. "IpJ, Leqach Tob (^ad locum) ^ Bemidbar Rabba ; thus also, 
 Rashi and the Tosafist on Sanhedrin 43b, Ba'al ha-Turim on 
 Dent, xxix, 28 ; thus finally, the Massoretic list on Xum. iii, 39, 
 and almost all mss. and editions The Massorah Parva in the 
 editions of Venice, 1524, 1548, 1617 f., and Basel, 1619 f. reads 
 simply ' niinZ} nmpJ '">,' but Norzi, Michaelis, Ginsburg, have the 
 rubric * milpJ N'V '• ^v H P^^iiits. Baer's Diqduqe ha-Te'amim 
 and Ochlah w'^Ochlah agree in pointing Ij; irji'?"! ij^. Others, 
 however, such as the Paris cod. of Soferim * and some Biblical mss.,^ 
 
 ^Humraelauer, Comm. on DeuL, 483; cp. EB., 1901, 610; according to Hum- 
 melauer, it is " glossa et suspirium redactoris" (!). 
 ■■'Muller, Soferim, 90. 
 ^Ed. Padua, Deuteron., p. 101. 
 *Muller, Soferim, 90. 
 ° Michaelis, Bibl. Hebr. , ad locum. 
 
Extraordinary Points of tJie Pentateuch. 101 
 
 omit the point on the 'Ay in of ly. Aboth de R. Nathan (2) places the 
 dots over n^;ijn"l, but this is certainly a mistake, and in the sub- 
 sequent explanations it refers to a tradition according to which 
 IV iJ'"'3D^i )2b should probably also be pointed, "np: iri< ^^n) 
 [j^^ynl (NH) IJ? X^N.' Sifre leaves the place of the Points 
 undertermined with regard to the exact letters ; this is also the 
 case in Leqach Tob (list), Midr. Mishle,^ and Diqduqe ha-Te'amim. 
 
 120. If we turn now to the explanations given of the points, 
 it is well nigh impossible to see how they could have been 
 suggested by the pointing of 'y 1J''J3'?T "i:^. As remarked above, 
 most scholars who hold the Nequdoth to have a critical value 
 make an exception for this passage and grant that here the 
 points are merely exegetical. Few, however, agree as to what 
 the exegetical peculiarity is. Besides, as is evident from the con- 
 clusion reached in a previous chapter, there is a strong presumption 
 against attributing to the dots such an exegetical import. Finally, 
 whatever may be made of the pointing of 1J"'3D^1 )2b, no satisfac- 
 tory reason has ever been adduced for the pointing of the ' Ayin 
 in Ij;.^ Nor can it be said that originally the 'Ayin was not 
 pointed, for it is hard to see why this letter should have been 
 added to 1J''J37l Ua There cannot have been an influence from 
 the early explanations, which, as far as we know, do not take the 
 'Ayin into consideration. It is far more probable that, as the 
 reason for its being pointed was not known, it was left out by 
 some of the subsequent works. We are therefore led to assume — 
 at least as a hypothesis to be verified — that there has been some 
 confusion on this passage. 
 
 121. Sifre, — reproduced in Leqach Tob (list), Yalqut,^ and 
 Bemidbar Rabba, — tells us that points have been placed, because, 
 says the Lord, " when you shall have fulfilled the things that are 
 revealed I will also make known to you the things that are 
 concealed." Hence we conclude that mriDjn as well as D^^Jn 
 will belong to us if we fulfil what has already been revealed to 
 us. Let us first investigate the import of the condition that 
 
 ^The editor has added ir^D^I Ijb ^^ "ilpl 
 
 ^ See V. g. Bashi on Sanh. 43b ; Ba'al ha-Turim, on Deut. xxix, 28. 
 
 3 § 722. 
 
102 Meaning and Purpose of the 
 
 is set for the possession of mnojn. This condition seems to 
 be nothing else but the second half of the Biblical verse : 
 " . . . . n3"I '?D nx r^W^ " ; S with the infin. est. that follows, 
 is taken as representing the cause for the preceding clause (cp. 
 Gen. iii, 22; xxxiv, 7, 15; Ex. xxiii, 2; 1 Sam. xii, 17; xiv, 
 33, etc.). So that Sifre apparently translates mifj?^ as 'by- 
 fulfilling,' or 'in that you shall have fulfilled.' Again, □"''I'pin 
 of Sifre refers to nWH nimn nDT ^D HN (Dent, xxix, 28) for, 
 although both the Biblical Th^T[ and the D''1^jn of Sifre are 
 equivalent to HTH *lDDD D^^HDH .... ^3"! ^D HN of Deut. xxviii, 
 58 (cp. XXX, 11-14), still, it is probable that Sifre does not intend 
 to replace the Biblical n^Jjn by □''l^in, which it has itself; if 
 such had been its intention, it would have used D^^jH instead 
 of D"'"l'?)in, as it does for mriDjn. The reason, therefore, for 
 which we shall possess niriDJn, is according to Sifre the 
 
 " nxin nmnn nD"i ^d nx m^y'? " of that verse. 
 
 122. The second half of the catchword of Sifre, and the most 
 important for us, viz. 'I will also make known to you the things 
 that are concealed' clearly indicates that the niriDjn as well as 
 the n^ijn will belong to us and our children. If so, we should 
 refer niriDJn to I^JD^I U^ and leave out the two divine names 
 IJTl'^N mn"'^. In that case, it is true, we would expect Sifre to 
 tell us, 'the concealed things belong to us and not to Yahweh our 
 God ' instead of ' I will also make known to you,' etc., but such 
 an expression, apart from the fact that strictly speaking it would 
 not be correct, as our knowledge of revealed things does not 
 exclude but supposes the divine science, would have seemed 
 derogatory to the dignity of God. Consequently, while the idea 
 was preserved, it was framed in terms more respectful to the 
 Divinity. The Nequdoth would thus fall on 1J\"l'?X ri\TXh and not 
 on 'J7 1^32^1 13^. This was already the view of Rashi and of the 
 Tosafist, on Sanh. 43b. The latter besides, gives us what may be 
 considered the true reason for the pointing of ' Ayin in "ly along 
 with irJ3^1 ^^, viz., in order to make up eleven points, corres- 
 ponding to the eleven letters of 1J\"1^X \'y\rch. 
 
 By leaving aside IJTl^N mn''^, we understand at once the catch- 
 word of Sifre ; with it we may translate the Biblical verse, ' the 
 
Extraordinary Points of the Pentateuch. 103 
 
 hidden as well as the revealed things will belong to us and to our 
 children for ever, if we fulfil (by our having fulfilled) all the 
 contents of this Law ' ; hence the catchword ' when you shall have 
 fulfilled the things that are revealed, I will also make known to you 
 the things that are concealed.' 
 
 123. The reason why 1J"'Jd'?1 ):h has been chosen to replace 
 l:\1^N n)ivb, is probably due to the fact that, as i:j''J2'?* ):h is 
 lo take the place of "im^N r\)r\^b iu interpretation, they should 
 also be substituted for them in receiving the points. It is possible, 
 however, as Rashi tells us,^ and as is the case in Kenn. 109, that 
 13"^JD^1 )2b should actually be transposed before n^JJil ; thus the 
 Nequdoth, while primarily cancelling im'pN rViJVb, would also 
 remind the student that "1J''Jd'?"I u'? was not in its proper place. 
 In both cases, the ' Ayln has been added only to make up the 
 required number of points, viz., eleven. 
 
 124. As to Sanhedrin, 43b,^ we simply confess our inability 
 to grasp the exact bearing of the explanations it gives of the 
 Nequdoth. The sense of the passage is not clear.^ Probably, it 
 is meant that, had there not been points, we should have to say 
 that God did not punish Israel on account of the secret sins of the 
 individual, not only before, but also after, the Israelites had crossed 
 the Jordan. The points modify the passage so that the Israelites 
 were not responsible for such sins before they had crossed the 
 Jordan, but henceforth, they were made responsible and would be 
 punished unless they should avert divine wrath by punishing such 
 sins themselves. From this we can infer that as soon as the 
 Israelites were in the promised land and the contents of the verse 
 in question became binding on them, the mPDJil, here under- 
 stood as ' hidden sins,' should not be reserved to God but should 
 be the concern of Israel, ' 1^33^1 ^h.' The words im^N* HI.t'? 
 are virtually non-existent, were not written by the sacred writer, 
 and the Points stigmatize them ; the clause ' after they had 
 crossed the Jordan ' is simply a means to rivet attention, and 
 
 1 On Sanh. 43b. 
 ^See Arukh, s. v. "IpJ. 
 
 'Cp. Eashi, ad locum ; Levy, Neuhebr. WtbcL, in, 435 ; Bacher, Agad. d. Tann., 
 II, 241 ; Blau, 3IU, 57 f, ; see besides, the context in Sanhedr. 
 
104 Meaning and Purpose of the 
 
 morally represents the time of composition of Deuteronomy, since, 
 as soon as this law became obligatory, irn?^ HTI"'? had to be 
 left out. Before the Israelites had crossed the Jordan, i. e., before 
 the promulgation of this law, such responsibility for sins that 
 could not be seen, was not to be assumed, and consequently, it was 
 maintained that niDDjn had belonged to God exclusively, and 
 that Israel was not responsible. 
 
 The explanations of Sanhedrin are preserved in Leqach Tob 
 [ad locum), which besides, adds that the pointed words "l^JD?! "IJ? 
 are annulled, " n:^h? )b^D Dmpj." ^ 
 
 125, Aboth de R. Nathan (2), although pointing n^i:m (read 
 'V )y22b) 'i^h), seems to take only a'piy ly into consideration ; 
 besides, it has nothing but Midrashic speculations which are found 
 nowhere else, and which apparently have no reference to the 
 Points. It is interesting to note, however, that in connection with 
 the explanations of the Nequdoth, the document in question 
 reproduces the passage relative to the suspended Nun of rw 12, 
 Jud. xviii, 30, and would, therefore, seem to attribute to the dots 
 the same fiinction as the suspension of the Nun, i. e. the value of 
 a dele.^ It is probable, however, that the editor of Aboth de R. 
 Nathan (2) has been guided simply by the expression NH^ ITlJ??, 
 which is found in reference to the suspended Nun, and occurs also 
 in its own explanation of the Points. 
 
 126. A different interpretation given of Sifre, etc., by Mayer 
 Lambert,^ is substantially as follows. According to the present 
 Biblical verse it would seem that the concealed things belong to 
 God for ever ' 'd7^V 1V/ as the revealed things belong to us for 
 ever. Sifre tells us that at some future date, viz., when we shall 
 have performed the revealed things, God will give up the exclusive 
 possession of the n"inDJn ; hence, Sifre implies that these DiriDJ 
 do not belong to God for ever and consequently rh)V "IP should be 
 left out. In the same way, in Sanh. 43b., we are told that ub^V "IV 
 * for ever ' is suppressed with regard to the period anterior to the 
 crossing of the Jordan ; until then, according to R. Juda, the secret 
 
 ^ Cp. Ibn Ezra, on Deut. xxix, 28. 
 
 •^Cp. Blau, MU, 46 ff.; Ginsburg, Introd., 334 f . ; Konigsberger, 3IuTK, 59 S. 
 
 ^ Les Points Extraordinaires, REJ, xxx, 116-118. 
 
Extraordinary Points of the Pentateuch. 105 
 
 sins, and according to R. Nehemiah, even the manifest sins, had 
 not been punished ; accordingly, D^lj; ij; should be cancelled. 
 How did it happen that 'y "irjn'pT 1J^ was pointed instead of 
 X:b^V ly? Probably from the misapprehension of a rubric, 
 ' mpJ 'V "IV ' = iubWV iy, understood as ' it is pointed as far as 
 the'^ym' — lipj []^]j; lj?. 
 
 127. This is certainly a very tempting hypothesis; still, it 
 has much against it. It is not clear why two words, and not one 
 or three, should have been selected to justify the rubric 'HIpJ j'^y "ly.' 
 Neither is it clear, why in many mss. the Massorah parva men- 
 tions explicitly the number of the points, ' eleven,' ^ unless there 
 was a reason to do so, which reason hardly exists, if we suppose 
 that ']} 1J''337l 1J7 was pointed in good faith, although wrongly. 
 Again in the Biblical verse, cb^V "IV primarily refers to n'pijn ; 
 it would be surprising, that in the early documents, this word is 
 not taken into consideration, and that the opposition is made 
 between r\)jvb FT'.nDJn and ):h minDJn ; if the hypothesis of 
 Lambert were riglit we would rather expect some such catchword 
 as : ' there are points because the revealed things do not belong to 
 us for ever.' 
 
 Finally, we do not see why the crossing of the Jordan would 
 have been selected by Sanhedrin as the time when the niriDJil 
 will become our concern, 1J''2D^1 1J^. We, therefore, prefer the view 
 explained above, according to which irn7N r^^iV? should be 
 cancelled, 
 
 128. We have now to examine the clause found in Aboth de R. 
 Nathan (1 and 2) and also in Bemidbar Rabba at the end of their 
 respective lists. In Aboth de R. Nathan (1) it reads as follows : 
 
 ]rvbv 'mpj -12D ^b ^jx ioin ip n^nD hd ^jdd ^b ion^t ih^^n 
 
 rj.T^ya mip: -])2V^ HDHD nB^ '^b lOlX CNI" Whether this 
 clause refers to the ten dotted passages of the Pentateuch, or should 
 be restricted to Deut. xxix, 28, is still matter of discussion.^ 
 
 1 See above, § 119. 
 
 2 Blau, 3IU, 7f.; Ginsburg, Introd., 320 ; Konig., EM., p. 32, n, 1 ; these three 
 scholars extend the clause to all the pointed passages. Konigsberger, MuTK, p. 
 27, restricts it to the verse under consideration. 
 
106 Meaning and Purpose of the 
 
 Aboth de R. Nathan (2), though possibly applying it to all the 
 passages, more probably refers only to Deuteronomy when it says, 
 ' why are all these letters pointed ? ' This is better understood of 
 the eleven letters of that passage, than of the letters of all the other 
 passages combined. Bemidbar Rabba more probably restricts the 
 clause to Deut., for, although it is not probable that the abbrevia- 
 tion N"i1 means 'and eleven,' — the eleven letters of 1J^•^'?^< mn"'^,^ 
 — still, it does seem that we have to deal with an alternative 
 explanation of the Points, for this passage is similar to other 
 occurrences in the same document, where such alternative catch- 
 words are given. Aboth de R. Nathan (1), as it stands and as it 
 is quoted in Arukh,^ evidently restricts this clause to Deuteronomy, 
 for it has a special explanation for every pointed passage, and it 
 would have none for this one, unless it applies the above clause to 
 it. Besides, the very wording of this first recension w^ould leave 
 but little doubt as to the intention of its author to limit the ex- 
 planation to this passage; it says: "1J''J2^"1 ^^7 and the '^2/m of 
 iy are pointed, why ? But thus says Ezra," etc. ; it is clear 
 that the explanation given, forms an answer to the question ' why 
 have these letters been pointed ? ' It is, however, the opinion of 
 Schechter ^ and Blau ^ that here, there is an omission w^hich is to 
 be supplied from the second recension. Still the omission, if 
 omission there be, is very old, as our present reading is found in 
 Arukh. It is to be noted besides, that in the passage relative to 
 the Points, Aboth de R. Nathan (1) is generally free from such 
 strongly speculative explanations, as are found in the second 
 recension on Deuter. xxix, 28. In any case, even if we grant the 
 omission of a whole clause, it would still remain doubtful whether 
 it should be understood of all the pointed passages or only of 
 Deuteronomy. 
 
 129. The obvious meaning of the words of Ezra is that the 
 Nequdoth mark these letters as critically doubtful. On the one 
 hand, since Elias can pronounce against them, they may be 
 
 ^ Thus would Konigsberger, /. c, have it rendered. 
 
 ^S. V. Ipl 
 
 ^ Aboth de B. Nathan, p. 101, n. 29. 
 
 ^MU, 8. 
 
Extraordinary Points of (he Pentateuch. 107 
 
 spurious, and on the other, since the same Elias can approve of 
 their having been written, they may be genuine, in which hitter 
 case, Ezra would remove the points. Therefore, these letters are 
 doubtful, and Ezra himself cannot pronounce on their spurious- 
 ness or their genuineness. The interpretation given by Kouig, 
 who, on the strength of this passage, makes the points express a 
 mere interrogation mark, hardly does justice to the words of Ezra ; 
 for, if such an authority as Elias is needed to solve the difficulty, there 
 must have been more than a slight suspicion with regard to their 
 genuineness. Besides, if Elias blames Ezra for having written 
 them, Ezra has an answer ready, viz., that he has already marked 
 them with points, and this is almost the same as not having written 
 them at all. 
 
 However, if this clause be restricted to Deuteronomy, it is 
 permissible to see in it a means to avoid pronouncing the two 
 divine names spurious, although they might have been considered 
 as positively interpolated. The responsibility was left to Elias to 
 reject or retain "1J\"|^N iTiivb, and if he chose to keep these words, 
 then it rested with him to sanction them and give them the true 
 sacredness which they had hitherto lacked. 
 
108 Meaning and Purpose of the 
 
 CONCLUSION. 
 
 130. Before examiniug the various theories in detail, let us 
 call the reader's attention to a few facts, which, we think, must be 
 admitted regardless of the opinions that one may hold. 
 
 (1.) As shown in the preceding pages, the Extraordinary 
 Points bear only on single words and letters ; consequently, 
 whether they mark a special exegesis or a striking feature of the 
 text, whether they express discrepancies between mss. or critical 
 doubts, or whether they condemn some elements, it is certain that 
 for many other striking features, discrepancies, doubts, or words 
 and letters to be condemned, but bearing on longer Biblical clauses, 
 the dots have not been used. 
 
 (2.) Again, in almost all passages, we have seen that the Points 
 bear on words and letters which, though found in our present 
 textus receptus, were omitted in other recensions ; it therefore 
 follows that whatever be the import of the Nequdoth, it so 
 happened that other striking features, or critical judgments, were 
 not expressed by them. 
 
 (3.) It is also noteworthy that, although the primitive tradi- 
 tion with regard to the place of the Points has not always been 
 preserved, still, the later Jewish works have generally placed 
 them over letters or words not found in all mss. or recensions ; 
 and, as we may safely presume, the Rabbis must have been induced 
 thereto from the conviction that, owing to their function, the 
 Nequdoth would be better justified when placed on these other 
 letters or words. 
 
 A. The Theoey of Chance and Accident. 
 
 131. It is hardly necessary to insist on the unfounded char- 
 acter of the opinion of Richard Simon and others, who make the 
 Points the outcome of chance and accident. This view is altogether 
 too much a priori. It would be a wise chance indeed, that would 
 place the Points only on letters critically doubtful. Again, we are 
 
Extraordinary Points of the Pentateuch. 109 
 
 unable to see why occasionally only one letter is pointed, while in 
 other cases as many as eleven are so marked. This, if nothing 
 else, would make it certain that the view of Richard Simon is 
 untenable. 
 
 B. The Exegetical View. 
 
 132. We already rejected this view as incompatible with the 
 mental attitude of the Jews at the time when the Nequdoth 
 originated, and as unheard of in Palaeography.^ From the pre- 
 ceding analysis of the individual passages, it must be clear to the 
 reader that neither Textual Criticism, nor the catchwords of Sifre, 
 etc., will allow this hypothesis to stand. The catchwords of Sifre, 
 and in most cases, those of the other Jewish writings — after the 
 Haggadic amplifications have been removed — can be justified only 
 by leaving aside the dotted words or letters ; hence, it follows that 
 not only no special exegesis is derived from the dotted letters, but 
 that on the contrary, in real exegesis they should not be inter- 
 preted at all ; this further supposes the Points to have been devised 
 to annul the elements over which they were placed, by throwing at 
 least a suspicion on their genuineness. 
 
 133. Besides, Textual Criticism shows that, in almost all 
 cases, the Points have been placed on words or letters regarding 
 which the various recensions disagreed. In view of these facts, 
 could it be seriously maintained that out of the many passages on 
 which a special exegesis might have been based, the Rabbis marked 
 with points only those words or letters which were not universally 
 acknowledged to be genuine? It is true that Haggadic specula- 
 tions were often based on letters considered as superfluous, but a 
 superfluous letter, in so far as it was made the basis for a special 
 interpretation, is not at all synonymous with a letter critically 
 doubtful or spurious. Furthermore, as the Points form an official 
 feature of the text, the supposed exegesis would seem to have been 
 officially connected with that text, and this still more increases the 
 improbability that such doubtful letters should have been chosen 
 
 ^Cp. above, §§ 42-55. 
 
110 Meaning and Purpose of the 
 
 for an exegetical purpose. Again, from the viewpoint of the 
 Rabbis, this special meaning was intended by God, and it is but 
 reasonable to suppose that they must have felt rather sure of 
 the divine origin and genuineness of the textual elements from 
 which they derived such views. If the exegetical theory were true, 
 they would have done just the reverse. 
 
 134. We hardly lessen the difiiculty by saying that occasion- 
 ally Textual Criticism does not throw suspicion over the words 
 originally pointed, v. g., Gen, xix, 33 and Deut. xxix, 28. When 
 using Textual Criticism, we never claimed that in the present state 
 of our knowledge, we should necessarily and in all cases find dis- 
 crepancies among Mss. or recensions. Sifre, on Gen. xix, 33, 
 whatever may have been the reason for rejecting niOlpSI, clearly 
 indicates that this word should be cancelled. As to Deuteronomy 
 xxix, 28, apart from the fact that one MS. does not reproduce the 
 pointed words, it may be asked, why did not the Jews place the 
 Points over the two divine names ? Since they felt no scruple in 
 putting the vowel-points on these names, why should they have 
 refrained from marking them with dots, if dots had simply ex- 
 pressed a special interpretation, or — a remark which goes against 
 Konigsberger — called attention to the unusual presence of these 
 words ? If we admit that the Points have the value of a dele, or 
 at least express a strong doubt as to genuineness, all is explained 
 naturally. We know that it was forbidden to erase any of the 
 divine names, even when written wrongly ; ^ the same idea 
 of reverence that prompted the Jews not to remove the divine 
 names even in such cases, induced them also not to place upon 
 them the dots, which were the equivalent of an erasure. In any 
 case, the reluctance to point the divine names indicates much more 
 than a mere exegetical peculiarity. 
 
 We feel therefore compelled to reject this Exegetical theory 
 as not giving us the true purpose for which the Nequdoth were 
 appended. 
 
 ^Makkoth, 22a ; Shebu'oth, 35 a and b ; Soferim, iv, 1, etc. Cp.Waehner, Ant. 
 Ebrceor., Sect. I, § 362, vol. i, pp. 198 f.; Blau, Alth. Buchw., 165 f.; Muller, 
 Soferim, 58 ff. 
 
Extraordinary Points of (he Peniateuch. Ill 
 
 C. Theory of Italics. 
 
 135. The reader doubtless remembers that Konigsberger re- 
 jects both Textual Criticism aud the Jewish writiugs as means of 
 determining the purpose of the Nequdoth} This is undoubtedly 
 very significant, and he himself grants that his theory cannot claim 
 the support of either. In fact, from what precedes, there is very 
 little doubt that his system is incorrect. The very existence of 
 recensions not having the dotted words or letters, would alone 
 make it probable that the Points are in .some way connected with 
 these discrepancies ; and if we would still maintain that the dots 
 indicate that the elements over which they were placed were to be 
 retained, it should not be said with Konigsberger that it was done 
 in contradistinction to other parallel passages, but rather in oppo- 
 sition to some Mss. or recensions, which left them out ; thus we 
 would fall into the theory that makes the Points mark discrepan- 
 cies between mss. 
 
 136. Besides, K5nigsberger supposes a work of comparison to 
 have taken place between the various parallel passages — a work 
 which we ourselves advocate. But how would he account for the 
 fact, that among all the discrepancies between parallel passages, 
 those only which had letters or words not found in the others have 
 been indicated by Points. 
 
 137. Furthermore, even if this difficulty were answered, we 
 should have still to account for the restricted number of the 
 Extraordinary Points. It is hardly credible that the Jews while 
 comparing the various parallel passages, should have found only 
 those ten passages worthy of attention. In Genesis alone, there 
 are numerous passages in which the same word is spelled differ- 
 ently. Why have not the Jews called attention to them also? 
 Again, it might be asked, why are the dots placed over, v. g., 
 the jnil'V of Num. xxix, 15, and not over the ]rwv of verse 10; 
 over vh^ of Gen. xviii, 9, and not over that of Gen. xix, 21 ; 
 over ]"inN1 of Num. iii, 39, rather than over the same word in iv, 34, 
 and so on ? If the author of the dots had in view only to safe- 
 
 1 See above, §§18, 19. 
 
112 Meaning and Purpose of the 
 
 guard the uuusual presence of certain letters in certain words, he 
 should have also pointed the other passages which exhibit the same 
 unusual character, and where apparently there was the same danger 
 of making a mistake. This argument would retain all its force, 
 if instead of making the Points express a striking feature of one 
 passage when put in comparison with a parallel one, Ave would 
 base the underscoring of words and letters on discrepancies between 
 MSS. Kdnigsberger, it is true, argues that the dotted letters give 
 a less regular reading and, consequently, should be retained ; but 
 this changes the question concerning the meaning of the Nequdoth, 
 into one of pure Textual Criticism. For, even if the dotted letters 
 were critically correct, it would not follow that the dots were not 
 invented to answer a critical preoccupation ; the author of the 
 Points, owing to the unexpected presence of these letters or for 
 some other reason, might still, although wrongly, have thus marked 
 them doubtful or spurious. 
 
 138. We have seen besides, that the early Jewish tradition, 
 as embodied in Sifre, far from emphasizing the genuineness of the 
 dotted letters, implies that they should be left out. Sifre, as it is 
 nearer and apparently more conformable to the primitive tradition 
 than the Massorah proper, cannot be discarded. Were it true 
 that, as Konigsberger seems to assume, the Massorah never con- 
 demned any textual elements, it would still remain to be proved 
 that in pre-Massoretic times the same method was always followed. 
 Let the reader remember besides, what we have already stated, 
 viz., that the differences existing between the older Jewish works 
 and the Massorah, are not to be accounted for by the existence of 
 two independent and parallel traditions, one Midrashic, the other 
 Massoretic, and both having a different scope ; they should rather 
 be explained by the different stages of one and the same tra- 
 dition, which at one time was misunderstood or became con- 
 fused.^ We may add that, as the Massorah does not hint even 
 once at the supposed striking feature to which the Points refer, 
 Konigsberger' s explanations, concerning the reason for placing the 
 Points, seem to be a mere substitution of his own theoretical con- 
 ceptions for those of the Jewish writings. 
 
 ^ See above, § 19. 
 
Extraordinary Points of the Pentateuch. llS 
 
 It seems to us therefore to be beyond all doubt that the theory 
 of Italics does uot correspond to the primitive meaning of the 
 Nequdoth. 
 
 D. Critical Theoeies. 
 
 139. Were we to judge of the respective values of the various 
 critical theories simply from the results of Textual Criticism, it 
 would seem that all these theories sufficiently harmonize with its 
 data. Since, in almost all cases, we have detected traces of recen- 
 sions in which the dotted elements were not found, it is quite natu- 
 ral to conclude that the Nequdoth either call attention to the 
 existence of discrepancies between mss., or that, in view of such 
 divergencies, doubts having arisen as to the genuineness of these 
 words and letters, the Points express this doubt ; or finally, that, 
 on the strength of the other recensions, these words and letters 
 having been condemned as spurious, the Extraordinary Points 
 served to mark graphically such a condemnation, which last import 
 they have in contemporary Palaeography. 
 
 Let us, however, examine those theories a little more closely, 
 for we think that it is yet possible, even from the data of Textual 
 Criticism alone, to come to a conclusion less vague and general. 
 
 140. As we said above, the Points are used only when recen- 
 sions disagreed as to the presence or absence of some words or 
 letters and not for other discrepancies ; if these Points had 
 expressed discrepancies as such, it is hardly conceivable that they 
 would not have been used for other differences besides those that 
 they actually mark. In the same way, if they had been used to 
 express a doubt, we could hardly account for the fact that they 
 express only those doubts that arose from the presence of certain 
 textual elements, and not other doubts as well. Still less can we 
 account for this state of aifairs, if, with Konig, we tone down the 
 doubt to a mere interrogation mark ; for, in that case, there must 
 have been many other passages against which, for some reason or 
 other, such suspicions could have been entertained. 
 
 141. Moreover, while comparing the various recensions, the 
 author of the Points must have met with many other instances. 
 
114 Meaning and Purpose of the 
 
 besides the few pointed, in which his own copies had letters or 
 words lacking in some of these other recensions. If then, by 
 appending the Points, the Jews simply intended to mark discrep- 
 ancies between mss., or to express their own subjective doubts, why 
 have only those passages been pointed ? We have seen, for instance, 
 that there were several recensions with regard to the plene or 
 defective forms of ITlII'VI, and that this word was occasionally 
 written but once in places where it is written twice in our Mas- 
 soretic text ; why have they pointed only one, viz.. Num. xxix, 
 15? From these two considerations, based on the small number 
 of the Nequdoth, it follows that those theories which make them 
 express a vague and easily detected peculiarity have the less 
 chance of giving us their true purpose. Thus, the theory main- 
 taining that the Points merely mark discrepancies between mss. 
 and recensions, is not as probable as the one which adds to this 
 the idea of a suspicion entertained against the genuineness of the 
 Massoretic readings ; and this last theory is again less probable 
 than the one which would extend the suspicion into a positive 
 doubt. More probable than any of the preceding, is the theory 
 that makes the Nequdoth conventional signs for cancelling words 
 and letters that were considered spurious. The author of the 
 Points may have noticed many discrepancies between mss., may 
 have entertained many suspicions or even positive doubts as to 
 the genuineness of certain letters and words, and yet, he would not 
 reject these words or letters, unless impelled by stronger motives. 
 Only in those ten passages, were the grounds considered strong 
 enough to allow such a decisive stand to be taken against our 
 present Massoretic readings. Finally, we cannot lay too much 
 stress ou the fact that the ancient Rabbis must have been strongly 
 convinced of the cancelling value of the Points, when they 
 departed from the original tradition with regard to their place, in 
 order to place them on letters which, as has been shown, they could 
 more clearly consider as spurious. 
 
 142. This conclusion, arrived at from the date of Textual 
 Criticism, is fully borne out by the explanations of Sifre. In view 
 of the decisive stand it takes against the dotted letters, it is not 
 probable that the Nequdoth simply call attention to the existence 
 
Extraordinary Points of the Fentateiich. 115 
 
 of discrepancies between mss., although we may grant that these 
 divergencies may have been the cause of the rejection of the pointed 
 letters. In the same way, the claim that the Points simply cor- 
 respond to a mere interrogation mark hardly does justice to the 
 catchwords of Sifre. Nor would it avail anything in favor of this 
 last view, to argue, as Konig does, from the disagreement that 
 seems to exist among the Rabbis with regard to the pui'pose of the 
 Extraordinary Points, and from this to conclude that nothing 
 definite was known about them. In many cases, these supposed 
 dissensions are only apparent and are due to the fact that while 
 the idea implied was the same, the explanations were diiferent, 
 V. g., Num. ix, 10; xxi, 30; xxix, 15; Deuteron. xxix, 28. In 
 other cases, we have been able to distinguish the older tradition, 
 where no such hesitancy is found, from the later Midrashic ampli- 
 fications, and although the meaning of the Points may have become 
 confused in the latter, it would not be fair to reject the former on 
 that account. There are, it is true, two cases, where even in Sifre 
 there seems to have existed a discrepancy among the Rabbis, viz.. 
 Gen. xvi, 5 and Gen. xxxiii, 4 ; but, as we have explained, the 
 controversy does not refer to the meaning of the Points but to 
 their right to existence. The dots are not the outcome of discus- 
 sions as to whether or not a word was genuine, in the sense that 
 they would mark the impossibility for the Rabbis to reach an 
 agreement ; consequently, they do not call attention to the uncer- 
 tainty of the word as such. On the contrary, the presence of the 
 Points on these letters was the occasion and cause of such sporadic 
 disagreements, precisely because, being agreed on their import, 
 most Rabbis wanted to retain them and thus condemn the dotted 
 elements, while others pronounced the dotted letters genuine and 
 consequently wished to remove the Points. 
 
 143, The preceding considerations also disprove — at least to 
 a great extent — the theory that the Points express only a real and 
 serious doubt with regard to the genuineness of the dotted letters. 
 Apart from the questionable passage of Aboth de R. Nathan (1 
 and 2) and Bemidbar Rabba, at the end of their respective lists,* 
 
 1 See above, §§ 128 f. 
 
116 Meaning and Purpose of the 
 
 very little could be adduced in favor of this view and against the 
 theory which makes the Points an equivalent of our dele. The 
 tone of Sifre is far too emphatic to allow us to stop short of a 
 positive condemnation. It never speaks hesitatingly, but clearly 
 asserts without restriction that such letters should be removed.^ 
 Again, although it might be questioned whether Aboth de R. 
 Nathan (2) had a clear conception of the meaning of the Points, 
 still the use — at least mechanical — of the technical formula ' ^ID"*/ 
 in its explanation, is an indication that the dotted letters should 
 be left out ; for, this formula ' ^"ID'',' very much like the scholastic 
 ' dices ' or ' videtur quod 7ion,' is used only to introduce a clause or 
 an interpretation that the Rabbis wished to reject.^ Hence, if the 
 explanations made necessary by the presence of the dotted letters, 
 are positively rejected, we must needs conclude that these dotted 
 letters themselves are condemned. 
 
 There is only one theory left, viz., that the Nequdoth were 
 originally and primarily intended to cancel. The only question 
 that might be asked, would be whether we should make an excep- 
 tion for Gen. xxxiii, 4, where a transposition is probably intended. 
 But as we have shown, even if the transposition be granted, it 
 would not follow that the Nequdoth indicate the transposition as 
 such ; they simply cancel the word in the place it occupies, but of 
 themselves, do not indicate whether or where it should be re- 
 inserted. Again, the claim of Blau and Ginsburg,^ that occasion- 
 ally the Points indicate the substitution of another reading for the 
 present Massoretic one, is not justified, at least with regard to the 
 official Nequdoth. The fact that in mss., dots are sometimes found 
 over letters replaced by others in other recensions, cannot be 
 adduced against this assertion ; as far as we know, in such pas- 
 sages, the variant is given in the margin, which is not the case 
 when the letter is to be omitted. It is, therefore, evident that the 
 Points simply cancel these letters of the text, and whether any- 
 
 ' See Blau, 31 U, p. 8. 
 
 ^ Bacher, Jiidische Schriftauslegung, p, 72, 
 
 3 Cp. above, § 9. ' 
 
Extraordinary Points of the Fentaieuch. 117 
 
 thing had to be inserted in their stead should be judged from 
 different sources. 
 
 As this result, derived from Textual Criticism and the Jewish 
 Writings, also harmonizes with the mental attitude of the Jews 
 at the time when the Nequdoth originated,^ and with the palseo- 
 graphical use of dots,^ we may give as our final conclusion that 
 the Nequdoth or Extraordinary Points of the Pentateuch 
 were devised by their author or authors, to condemn, as 
 spurious, the words or letters over which they were placed. 
 
 iCp. above, §§ 42-44. 
 ^Cp. above, §§ 45-55. 
 
APPENDIX. 
 
 The Jewish Testimonies on the Nequdoth.^ 
 
 Genesis XVI, 5. 
 144. 
 
 1.— Sifre.2 hv N^N 1^ niaN i6w -j:^31 ^^''D 'n *tOC^^ 13 N^il^D 
 
 Thus Bemidbar Rabba iii, 13 ; most editions, however, read 
 Y:^21. Thus also Leqach Tob (list),^ Y^:^D1 "iJ^D 'H 'BW^" 
 
 . . . . " N^u; "lip: HD^. 
 
 2. — Aboth de R. Nathau (1st. Recension)* ^^^^l '•^''^ 'n tSlDli;'' 
 3. — Aboth de R. Nathan (2d. Recension) ^ ">m 'n ]2)BW^ 
 
 nin ni:D n'^n i^ mox n^u; .t'^j; Tp:n Y''':"''3'i 
 
 4. — Midrash Mishle.^ 
 
 -jiji^tt' I'v i^^Di ^:^D 'n L:iDtt'^ ♦niinn nmp: itt^y ]j^:n ]on 
 
 t'yi nDi ^y mpon vnD^ ]d dn ,-!31d d^du; Dif ^i^n ,nnit< 
 ^y ^itt'Ni no ,n^ip3 yair; .-nir^ ^^n idnd iitn b^ noNJir^ rinm 
 
 :n:n nmx bv rv^^^ f]n njn nmx 
 
 5. — Soferim, vi, 3.^ mp: ^^^^^^ ■^^'' T^''^'' ""^^^ "''' I^IDtt''' 
 
 ^ In the following notes, we have noticed only the variants which are of some 
 importance, either with regard to the place of the Points or with regard to their 
 explanations. On these Jewish testimonies see above §§ 63 f. 
 
 * § 69. Ed. Friedmann, p. 18a. 
 
 ' On Num. ix, 10. Ed. Padua, p. 194. 
 
 *Ch. XXXIV. Ed. Schechter, p. 100. 
 
 *Ch. XXXVII. Ed. Schechter, p. 97. 
 
 6 On Prov. xxvi, 24. Ed. Buber, p. 99. 
 
 '' Ed. Miiller, p. xii. 
 
 119 
 
120 Appendix. 
 
 6. — Diqduqe ha-Teamim.^ y^)} ^DDH^ y:^n). 
 
 7. — Massorah Magna, on Num. iii, 39. ^ n^ "IDXm "]'^:^3"l 
 
 *ybv ""Don D.-n3K ^k 
 
 Genesis XVIII, 9. 
 145. 
 
 1. — Sifre. wv^v vnu; -jnu^x nnu; iTN* i^Vn nox^i d xiii^D 
 
 2. — Baba Metsi'a 87a (middle), reproduced in Midr. ha- 
 Gadol, ed. Schechter, col. 273. 1)p:i H'ob ^DV ^Dl DIU^D ^JD 
 
 :)bw x^JDDK3 DIN bi^^^-ii; px ']-n n-nn ma^*?* vte^ i^n bv 
 
 3. — Bereshith Rabba xlviii, 15 (17), reproduced in Leqacli 
 Tob (ad locum), p. 84 ; Yalqut, § 82, and partly in Mid. ha- 
 Gadol, col. 273. 
 
 lyin nnx mipjn bv n^n 2nD nuid nnxtt' d'D3 n'^tz'i "iqn ^mpj 
 n"np:niL' ]nd -mipan nx iL'in nnx snon ^y ro"i mip3 on^n nx 
 Dir^D Mmv Tn "-D.-nnN i^x <i-nipjn nx ir^nn nnx snDn ^y nnn 
 
 4. — Aboth de R. Nathan (1st. Recension). naN^I ^ [13 NiJI^D] 
 
 ]npDDi ns ]^j;-i?ii? L-ia^a i^teirl T^N ,^y nip: -nnu; n^N i^'px 
 
 : nnnN 
 
 5. — Aboth de R. Nathan (2d. Recension). ^1D^ "inil'N mw H'^'N 
 
 ^At the end of the Venice Bible, 1517 f. , app. O, fol. 'i recto. 
 " Ed. Baer and Strack, p. 46. pinxn nr Yj "ilp:) -^^21. Codex Baer repro- 
 duces Midrash Mishle with some variations. 
 
 3M. M. on Gen. xvi, 5, 'inD "^ bj? llpJ -prDI. Marginal note "' bj? nipJ '21 
 
 "•In the Vat. MS. (119), '*'bx Pi? "llpi, see Rabbinowicz, Diqduqe Sofenm, 
 Part xiii, p. 260, n. 1. Midr. ha-Gadol, V^N br mpl 
 
 " Leqach Tob omits Tir:i . . . 'T'^N ; Yalqut "Jil irX -it2h lipj rX. 
 
 6 Leqach Tob omits CmDX rX . . . H^T mipl 
 
 ■'LeqachTob '"""'N" Ti^rTO"!. The quotation of Midr. ha-Gadol begins only 
 with C^'D. 
 
 ^ Leqach Tob, Yalqut, and Midr. ha-Gadol, add CmDX?. 
 
 ^In the documents, the words between brackets have been inserted by the 
 editors, those between parenthesis are readings considered incorrect. 
 
Appendix. 121 
 
 ite^ iihw ^^31^3 mii^n ^dn^o ^^-ll:; ir^iX nni3x bw Cinvnol 
 
 6. — Bemidbar Rabba, l. c, mii^ <T« V^N 110X^1 nmiDTl 
 
 7. — Leqach Tob (list), I. c, ]^j;-iV lipj HD^ -ipwii TDIV n'^N 
 8. — Sekhel Tob ; ed. Buber, p. 26. li;'nx • ''l''''N ^j; "llpj •T'^X 
 
 nx u;m"i nnx] mipjn bv n^n 2nD xii^a nnxii; mpa ^d niy^^N ]d 
 T^'N mpj is'DT -n-npjn E^nn nnx [snDn ^y hdt mip: dhdh 
 □m ,mnx xim -iqxjii' fix'pDn nnx idij; 'm miyn ^nx^ cniDN ^d 
 n\y 1^ TiDXi nini Dm^x px n'^x r^x idx^t mti; '?yi v'py i^xii; 
 -m^p^n nx ^ni^ T^x ^v nip: "jd^d'? in^x nitt' 
 
 9. — Soferim, /. c, "iipj ^ (n^x) vx ■jni:;x nT;!; .Tx v^x nox^i 
 
 10. — Diqduqe ha-Te'amim, l. c, iTX xh^ IIQX''") ^V^X 
 11. — Massorah Magna, I. c, ■]nii'X nill? .TX M"''?X 
 
 Genesis XIX, 33. 
 146. 
 
 1. — Sifre, I. c, bv l^pJ TM2)p2) HDDU'D V1^ X^l ID Xli^D 
 
 :j;-i^ HDipDi j;t x'? nDDirD im^ 'naipDi 
 
 2. — Nazir 23a, reproduced in Horayoth 10b; Arukli, s. v., 
 V); Midr. ha-Gadol, col. 297. 
 
 HTDD biL> ^nj2)p2) I'^i bv "np:i na^ ^jin di id ''di^'-i diii^d xjn 
 
 mm "iXD HDV^D^ m^ mn ^xai yi^ nnipD 'pdx yT x^ hdd^du; nai^ 
 
 :'^:i xian ^nii^^a^ ^y2\s x'? xjnnx x^jd^i nj^a xpc: mn 
 
 3. — Bereshith Rabba, li, 8 (10), llpj ')!) y^ ],T2X nx j^pifm 
 
 •yi^ naips yi^ x^ n2DW2]2; ni:i)p2) b'iv ^ xi bv 
 
 ^ Schechter suggests the following correction : ."lDJ3n ,miJ?2^2 '."1'N 'bw^" H.b'S 
 
 - On this variant, see Miilier, Sofmm, p. 87. 
 
 ^ Codex Baer and Cod. of St. Petersburg have i*?N ; see Baer and Strack, o. c. 
 p. 46. 
 
 *M. T. rbN. 
 
 ^Yalqnt, V'^l bv "npl 
 
 •'Horayoth, r;?2"ip:u; V'*1 ; Midr. ha-Gadol, ri?21p2iy:,'^ V"l. 
 
122 Appendix. 
 
 4. — Aboth de R. Nathan (1st. Recension), I. c, N^l ID KiJVD] 
 
 5. — Aboth de R. Nathan (2d. Recension), /. c, n'D'D'U^'D J?1^ X^l 
 
 .yT HDipsT n^DTi's HTViim -ti/^nn naipDi ^^nn n^ n^jwn^ 
 
 6.— Bemidbar Rabba, I. c, HDip^l HDDU^D Vl^ N^l nmiDll 
 
 7.— Midrash Mishle, /. c, n» ''JCO ,ni2)p^) r\2JW2 V^^ i<^1 
 
 8. — Mid. Yelamdeuu, quoted in Arukh, s. v., )') and Yalqut, 
 § 86. 
 
 HMU; HD^ mpJ Malpni HDipDI n^DU'D V"!^ N^l D^DD HD HNI 
 9.— Leqach Tob (list), l. c, yi^ n'? HDDir^DIi' HQ^ -XD'IpDI 
 
 :VT naipDT 
 10.— Leqach Tob (ad locum), p. 90, ♦ HDIpDI n:iDW2 J71^ N^l 
 
 HM «'?') ,u;^n-iir yT noipD ^3X vt n*? hdd^du; iia'?'? v^y mpj 
 
 1 1 .—Sckhel Tob, p. 40. inU^DIfD ♦ .TDN HN 2D^m mODH NDm 
 
 rd7W -|D 'pD n^^:u' hk^dod [TiDyn:^] y^n^ nmny nx^uim imnyD 
 :n'a^p2^ bv "i^p^ H^*? rnnnn ni2}p2 yTi xii^i yifn if^nnu; ly nauy^ 
 
 12.— Zohar.^ I'NID HDipni n2Dl2;2 y"1^ n"?! D^HD {^D^onpD ^TH XQ 
 
 ]^Dn Ni3iy NinnD n^n^x nin x^^yi xyi^oi ]^iD rxi 'py -npji 
 -.rxn XDH n^'priTi^x I'D ]^:di .tjd xpcj'? nn^wD xd^d 
 
 »MSS. of Epstein and of Oxford, -)2ipD1 ri):KDi:' VN"1 b'J ; see Schechter, 100, 
 
 n. 22. 
 
 *MS. of Halberstamm, "i:>'\ r.232?D2? n)2lb nTSipD bv lip J ; see Schechter, p. 97, 
 n. 19. 
 
 » Yalqut omits one "riip^l. 
 
 * Yalqut omits "JD'Cb to the end of the quotation. 
 
 '" Quoted in Mlnchalh Shai, ad locum. 
 
Appendix. 123 
 
 13.— Soferim, /. c, OlpJ HDipDtt' INI HiDipm H^DTTD yT N*?! 
 14. — Diqduqe ha-Te'amim, ;. c, ],TDN nx I^TI'm '-HDlp^l 
 15. — Massorah Magna, L c, NOIp D.TDK DN ]^p::/m ^^a^pD^ 
 
 (^enms XXXIII, 4. 
 147. 
 
 1.— Sifre, /. c, p ]i;"\ 1D^ ^DD ipifj N^iz; inp^^i n NJilO 
 nmN3 i^am ddh: n^n Dpy*? n:tiz; iiyyu; vn^D ^^D'?^ noix '•ni'' 
 
 2. — Bereshith Rabba, Ixxviii, 9 (12), reproduced in Shir ha- 
 Shirim Rabba, vii, 8 ; Yalqut, § 133 ; Sekhel Tob, p. 178. 
 
 ^2^^ n-np:n ohdh nx ^"in nnx n-np:n hv nni dhdh Naia 
 n-iip:n bv hdi ddd n^ ]nd -mipjn nx u^nn nnx 'dddh bv 
 
 ND n'?^ id'?d x^x ♦ v^v lip: nD*? ]d dx ^xt 'i ^x od*? to ipu^:! 
 :'iJi ^:;''iy ^u; ij'^nx Dpr ^^ nxiii n^yji )Du;:b x^x ipu;:^ 
 
 3. — Aboth de R. Nathan (1st. Recension), l.c ., Iil^y r>T1 "13 XJiT'D 
 
 x'?Ti' HD^a mp: i^id m'pu^^i mxiij ^y ^id^i inp^n^i inxip^ 
 ]3^x I'^oi nax bii; it np^u;j naix iiy^x p ])v^iv ""d-i • naxD )pw: 
 
 :nDX^ 
 
 4. — Aboth de R. Nathan (2d. Recension), l. c, nxi2f bv ^ID"'") 
 
 p ]'^v^^ ^31 -HDnx ^tt' np''u;: nmiit; ^id"" -np: Tn'p'iy"''! 
 no yin iM nxjiz; ^it' nbr\D2 wv bw VTVvn bD x^m idix niy^x 
 
 :n3nx ^u^ xMii; 
 
 > Ed. Baer rn*D2 bs? n?:ip2 "?*:? V'1 by -np], with the explanations of Sifre in 
 Cod. Baer. 
 
 2 M. T. n?2ipDi. M. P. "1 br ^1pl 
 
 'Yalqut, Nbm. 
 
 * Sekhel Tob adds, p'ip^i'i .msip: xbx niii:: p'xr .niD\1 ].11S ]^D Xini!? 
 
 : nD\-iDn nrmx ^:lJ c^' nTnp:i pbn 
 
 5 Shir ha-Shirim omits n?2b:: .... 'iin:>2'2}. 
 
 " Yalqut and Sekhel Tob read 'D? ?DD lpil?2 nb'Z ; see other variants in Sekhel 
 Tob and Yalqut, //. cc. 
 
124 Appendix. 
 
 5.— Bemidbar Rabba, I c, ^hw bv ^^hv "npJ ^npii;^1 nniDIl 
 
 :^2b to ^plr: 
 
 6._Midrash Mishle, /. c, "npj 1D3^1 ^r\pll;^) mS'liJ hv b)^^1 
 7. — Midr. Tanchuma/ reproduced in Midrash ha-Gadol, col. 516. 
 
 mw b^v nx^ii nwv:^^ ^Dw:b wv ^p2 inpDn^i insnp^ iii^y p^i 
 :'iji iDD^i -nDJ^ ^Tf 'p^irj nmi k^u; Tnpii^'^i i^p: ipb 
 
 8. — Leqach Tob (list), /. c, ^D^ OD^ te IpIil^J n'?!!' )n'pw^) 
 
 mpj -]D^ 13^ te ipw:^ nvvj nniND "id^x \ym^ p ]ij;Diir 
 
 9.— Leqach Tob («(? locum), p. 171. inp^n"*! IDNnp^ WV p^l 
 
 x'pK ipi:?:^ ii^p3 ^bw na'^a \sr -i'n o^^y mpj 'Tn'p'ii;'^'! 
 
 10. — Zohar, iu Biixtorf, Tiberias, p. 176, ^^j;^ ,T^V mp: ^npiy^T 
 
 ll._Soferim, /. e., Iipj I^D inpU'^l TlN^ii bv b^€)^^ 
 
 12.— Diqduqe ha-Teamim, I. c., 'inxnp^ WV p^l Onp^^l 
 
 13. — Massorah Magna, I. c., nnsnp^ WV p^T ^Onp^r^l 
 
 Genesis XXXYII, 12. 
 148. 
 
 l._Sifre, I c, "n.T^X ]N!i nx T)}V'h l^nx ID^^T id NIJI^D 
 
 :n'!2)iv nx m:;"i^ t<^x id'?.! n^^ 'v^y mp: 
 
 2. — Bereshith Rabba, Ixxxiv, 13 (12); also found with few 
 differences in Leqach Tob (list), /. c. : Leqach Tob {ad locum), p. 
 188 ; Sekhel Tob, p. 217 ; Yalqut, § 141 ; Midr. ha-Gadol, 
 
 col. 561. )Dbn iib'd; ij^'h nx bv "np:! • "^ii n^j n^vb vnx o^^* 
 
 lEd. Frankf. a. O., fol. 12 c. 
 
 ^ Ed. Baer (the words between brackets are found only in Cod. Baer) 
 
 »M. T. inp'yi-^l 
 
 * Yalqut omits Cn'DN. 
 ^Yalqut has DN ^J. 
 
 « Leqach Tob, ud locum, adds, an^2N' |N^ "^I^N^I ; Midr. lia-Gadol and Cod. 
 Baer of Diqduqe ha-Te'amira add, H^MrSI rib^DX2 ; Bekhel Tob adds, C^^-'D 
 
Appendix. 125 
 
 3. — Aboth de R. Nathan (1st, Recension), l. c, also found in 
 Bemidbar Rabba. a.T^N ]Nli n'N n^V^h VHN D/^T D XJiTiD 
 
 ^dn'? n^k id'^h ]Niin mj;-!^ n^^ hd'pd 'n'N ^y iipj ddttd 
 
 4. — Aboth de R. Nathan (2d. Recension), l. c, ]Ni{ 'n'N mxi^ 
 
 D^L:mi:^i 1i n: ^noN^ D^yno vn d.T3n ]Ni{ nx '?id'' ddit^d d.T3n 
 
 nmN 
 
 5. — Midr. Mishle, l. c. 
 
 N^^ no^a o^^V mpj nN- ddii^sd.t^n ]NJi nN niN-i^ i^nx n^^i 
 r\v^2 QN na I'p nn^i nm %mnu;^i ^idn^ n^n ,mv"i^ ^^hr\ 
 nmn no'?nb id'ph dn ,d^ij;^ n^no nna N5i^ mntf^i ^idn^ id^h^ 
 
 :naDT naD nnx bv 
 
 6.— Soferim, /. c, lipj nN ,]Nii nN myi^ VHN D*?^!- 
 
 7. — Diqduqe ha-Tearaim, /. c, '' myi'? D^HN] (T'^N) D^^I • nN- 
 
 8. — Massorah Magna, /. c, D)V'h I^HN ID^^I •^nN» 
 
 Num. Ill, 39. 
 149. 
 
 1.— Sifre, I. c, ]-inN1 nii^Q ipD III^N D^lS"! ^"npD ^D D NU^D 
 
 :i^jan ]d ]-inN hm n^iz; ^T''?j; mp: 
 
 2.— Bekhoroth 4a., N^jm VpD"''? N^ ]^^J0 iniN2 HM N^IZ; jinNl 
 
 : • • • ]^^JD iniND HM N^Ti' D^iipDn ii;on3U' ]nnN ^y "iip: nn'? 
 
 3. — Aboth de R. Nathan (1st. Recension), /. c, also in Midr. 
 Mishle, /. c, bv "^pJ ]'inN1 nWD HpD ^W^ D^)bn mpD ^D 13 NliPD 
 
 4. — Aboth de R. Nathan (2d. Recension), l. c, D^)br\ mpC bj 
 
 :r\'\i^2 'Day pnN n\ntt' ^d^ ]'-i'n'N'i nii^o ipB "iii^n 
 
 ^MS. of Oxford has '1""^ bv "lip: "?:'?. 
 ^ Schechter suggests the correction, "j"l '^'IJ C'N^^^J. 
 
 ^ What follows is reproduced in Cod. Baer of Diqduqe ha-Te'amim ; see Baer 
 and Strack, 0. c, p. 46. 
 
 * Codex Baer like Midr. ha-Gadol, see above. 
 = M. T. nN- 
 
 " Yalqut, ed. Warsaw, has pHS bp. 
 
 'In Schechter's MS., it is ITiN biJ? VNl bi? "lipj ~)2'p ; see Bemidbar Rabba. 
 
 * Schechter suggests to add 1CC!^D. 
 
126 Appendix. 
 
 5. — Bemidbar Rabba, I. c, ]nnx"l nwi2 IpD "l^N U^)bn ^"IpC bj 
 6.— Leqach Tob (list), I. c, HM N^II' -ITHNI ntt'D "ipD 1U^« 
 7. — Leqach Tob (ad locum), ed. Padua, p. 168. '^"IpD ^D 
 
 nu/ncn n^nn iDinit; ""D^ mpj ]'nnN • pnxi nifa ipc -iitn □^i'?n 
 
 8.— Soferim, /. c, (jinx) ]nnxi HTi'a "ipc -iii'K n^i^-i ^"lIpD '^D 
 
 : lipj 
 9.— Diqduqe ha-Te'amim, l. e., n^pc ^D ^-jinXV 
 
 10. — Massorah Magna, /. c, D^l^n mpD ^D ^-innXV 
 
 Num. IX, 10. 
 150. 
 
 i._Sifre, /. c, -|-nD '^DN *N'nn ^v "np: r\p)n'\ -j-ns \v 
 
 2.— Mish. Pesachim, ix, 2, Dayman ]o npim 111 ^{^•^ IT ^N 
 
 pin-itt' ^JDD N*? ixDi'? 'n 'py npj ■jd^c'? ^di^ "i .t^ idx ^'in^i nmyn 
 
 : ^in*?! n-nyn nDipDNo t^'?^ '•nit 
 
 3.__Jer. Pesachim, ix, 2, '^y .121 DDDH^ nyi:;3 D^QN ]JD~n 
 
 ^y n2"i mipjn^ nyit^ni n-npjn n^ p'poai dddh n^s iz^m dn ni)p:n 
 
 y^W ^D ^y P^N ^21 "IDN ♦ DHDH HN p^DDl mipJH DN ^in HN DHDH 
 
 :npin"i "jTi pNi pinn it'^N mpj npiniD^ N'n 
 
 4._Tosefta Pesachim, viii, 3, IDI^ M ^y "lipj "]D^D^ ^D1^ '"1 IDN 
 
 tyin'?! miy ncipoxa n^n "•nii npimiz; ^jcd i6 
 
 1 The editions of Venice 1545, and Wilna 1887, have "inS ; that of Wilna 1896, 
 which we follow in the text, has ^"!~N ; finally, other editions, like Amsterdam, 
 1641 and 1725 have simply 'N, in an abbreviated form. Evidently, this abbrevia- 
 tion is responsible for the two readings "inS and 'p~N, for it can stand for both, 
 and was reconstructed in both ways. 
 
 ^ Ed. Baer has, pHXI br nip: j-iriNI n^'?3 
 
 ^M. T. pnxl 
 
 * At the end of the list, it has rbi? "irl 
 
Appendix. 127 
 
 5. — Aboth de R. Nathan (1st. Recension), I. c, in n XJiT'D 
 
 npim "]n nriM i^b^ nn^a npiniDu^ ^'n bv "i^^ np'im ']ii2 
 
 :y^^b) n-iiv ncyoN ]d n'?n 
 
 6. — Aboth de R. Nathan (2d, Recension), Z. c, "jllD li^ 
 
 :nDnp n^n nrNu? v^j; Tpjn ^nii npim rvn^i; n'p'Tn'i 
 
 7. — Bemidbar Rabba, /. c, lipj DD^ Hpini "jllD IX nmiDm 
 
 ncipDN ]D N^N npim -j^i .th ^hw la^a np^nn "rir n'^n bv 
 nw^v HM N*? nq:: Nim n2np "jn-12 '^cnu; n'^i -y^nb) niTyn 
 
 :nDDn nx nnoy 
 
 8. — Midrash Mishle, l. c, nnM iibw "10^0 -Hpim "j^HD IX 
 
 :^»in^i .-niyn ncipoxa x'?x [npini -^-n] 
 
 9.— Leqach Tob (list), I. c, rc.^'y imD I^^DK 'n ^V lipj -npini 
 
 •.niins nmpj (T^aa) inx mi 
 
 10. — Zohar, in Buxtorf, Tlbenas, p. 180, NT npini 'p']2 IX 
 
 :n^D nxinx*? ]"'''nx )nbj) xnmxi nmpj prxi .-nir^ya nn i.tx 
 
 11. — Soferim, l. c, lipj 'n npm ']'\12 IX- 
 12.— Diqduqe ha-Te'amim, /. c, ^Ipni "^IID IX ♦ npm ♦ 
 - 13. — Massorah Magna, /. c, 'npm "]T1D IX -npn"!- 
 
 iV^wm. XXI, 30. 
 151. 
 
 1.— Sifre, I. c, ^Dp: XDTD "IV '-li:;X ^HDU IV O^tt'JI OHD XiJI^D 
 
 : ]D HM ]^n^D F]xiz; ^ vbv 
 
 2. — Aboth do R. Nathan (1st. Recension), ^. c, D^II^JI ID XiilO 
 
 -id'?d r\^b I'tt'XDu; '\z;'n ^y "iipj xdtd ij; Tir^x nci: "iy 
 
 'MS. of Oxford, 'H ?i? "l^pj ; see Schechter, p. 101, n. 26. 
 2 Ed. Baer, like Aboth de R. Natlian (1). 
 
 »M. T. ripm. 
 
 *Yalqut, edit, of Fr. a. M. (1687) and Zolkiew (1858), has nV>: "!':>. 
 s Yalqut, ed. of Fr. a. M. and Zolkiew, omits ND"i^?2 TJ 1UN ; ed. of Warsaw 
 omits SD-i^)2 "iV. 
 
 « Thus Yalqut ; ed. of Warsaw has '\t'ii bv "ilpJ. 
 
 'MS. of Oxford -i'JTi) '". ^'J nip:) ; Schechter, p. 101, n. 27. 
 
128 Appendix. 
 
 3. — Aboth de R. Nathan (2d. Recension), l. c, Hj? □"''i:;'yi 
 
 4. — Bemidbar Rabba, I. c, ^j; "npj "lll^N HDJ IJJ D^II^il nmiDII 
 
 5. — Midr. Mishle, l. c, vbv 1^3 -[N'^Ta 1J? "lU^S*] PDi: "iy D^iyjT 
 
 6. — Midrash ha-Gadol (ms.) quoted in Schechter, Aboth de R. 
 Nathan (1st. Recension), p. 101, n. 27, 1d'?D • • • [lip J HD^] 
 
 7. — Leqach Tob (list), L c, :n\-| ]'?n'?D ^i^UJ -rai^Q "ly Ll'tl^N] 
 8. — Soferim, /. c, "IlpJ 'T Ij; Ttl^N HC: "ly WW}) ♦ 
 9. — Diqduqe ha-Te'amim, /. c, ^13t< DTJI • nU'X • 
 10. — Massorah Magna, /. c, ]}2Wn HDN DTOI O^I^X- 
 
 m<m. XXIX, 15. 
 152. 
 
 1. — Sifre, I. c, [hvl *]nii;v ^y nip: jnii'j; ']nii^y is xi^i^s 
 
 nn'pD HHN ]niz^j; ('py) n'pn hm n'pi:; 
 
 2. — Menachoth 87b, reproduced in Arukh. s. v., "IpJ; Yalqnt, 
 
 § 782. ])'\wv b'lv ]^'^]uv v^^i^^^ T'l nip: r\i2b ^di^ 'n "las* 
 n'?! iBb ':i '?:i'2 n'? nna^ i<bti; :n bii; ]w^']r\ d^12 u)^ bfi^ ]w^-\ 
 
 iw^^i i<b ^nip: a'm h^i<b d^w hw2 
 
 3. — Aboth de R. Nathan (1st. Recension), /, c, [13 KJiVD] 
 
 1'^iD ]"i-!U'y nip: noon :n bw ]i^N-in dijo d^i b^ ]"n^y ptyyi 
 
 4. — Aboth de R. Nathan (2d. Recension), I.e., ] 1'-i'li;'j; I^II^yi 
 
 i:^n:l; r'py n^pjn ii'ddi itdd 'py c^:nu;y ^jk; ]^v^ ^)nw ^id^ 
 
 t^i'DD '?D bv inx s*^N ]iyio 
 
 ' MS. of Halberstamra, in Schechter, p. 97, n. 24. "ir ir^Jin n"?*:; r'^i'' "IpJlT 
 
 : ^bsD -ly n"?! 1:1? rbr -or^ "P'? ^'^i*:^ 
 
 ^ Ed. Baer, nipJ ffi"^"„ l^'N. ' ' 
 
 ^Yalqnt, ed. Warsaw, IllUn. 
 
 * Yalqnt, ed. Frankf. a. M., omits 'Jl"l27r bi? "lipi ; edit. Warsaw reads bi? "lipJ 
 
 »In Schechter's ms., we have .... ITSb^ HDC ^i? "J"" b'^ "inN pi^:;? by lip: ; 
 see Bemidbar Kabba. 
 
Appendix. 129 
 
 5. — Bemidbar Rabba, I.e., llpj •nii'J/'n ]rwv \\'WV nmiDII 
 
 6. — Midrash Mishle, Z. c, []Wi^T(] {^Wn) ]rwv -jn^V X^'WV^ 
 
 : nnx ]n;i;y x^x , minify ^w j^VlO hm n^^ no^o v^y "np: 
 
 7. — Leqach Tob (list), I c, X^X HM X^W la'?D 'I'mi^j; \\1WV 
 
 :]'nu'j?n nx jhd ma^ d^^d ^w wyan rvn x^i id'pd "inx ]i"iu;v 
 8. — Soferim, I. c, Mv")) jiti^xin to'i^D iHDty jnif^ jnu^y 
 
 9. — Diqduqe ha-Te'amim, I. c, :rn jn^I^yV^ 
 
 10. — Massorali Magna, Z. c, :x:m ]V2Db y\'\'\W ♦]™j;V* 
 
 Deideron. XXIX, 28. 
 153. 
 
 1.— Sifre, I. c, ij^:d'?i ^:b r\)b::r\) ij\n^x 'n^ nnriDjn i3 xjiio 
 nx DD^ ymx ^:x ?]x d^i^jh nn^^y ^'x ^Tp: 'd^ij; ny 
 
 : nnnDjn 
 
 2. — Sanhedrin 43b, reproduced in Arukh s. v. "ipj, with slight 
 variations, bv ^^V ^hw "Id'pO IV^W ]'^y ^yi ):'^22b) ^^b bv "i^^ '"^^'^ 
 
 rvon: "\ b'^ rr\^n^ i2n n^i ]iTn nx '?x"iii;^ nsyu; ij; nnno^n 
 x^ii> □ii'D x'rx D^iy "ly laxj "idd x^m □'?iv^ nnnojn bv ^^V ':3i 
 nx ^xn^^ TiDyu; "ly ^i^jdi:; j^irjij? bv ^'Jy x'? -jd nnnojn bv ^JV 
 
 : ]n-iM 
 
 S.^Aboth de R. Nathan (1st. Recension), I. c, reproduced in 
 Arukh, s. v. IpJ, with minor variations, 'n^ nnnOJH )2 X^IO 
 
 na^iysTi; 'y ^yi ly^jD^n'j^ ^y mpj i:'^j2^i T:'? m'?::).-!! mn'px 
 iDix "p n^nD na ^jdd ^'^ ^dx^i in^^x X2'' dx xniy "lox "id x^x 
 : j.T'pya nmpj inyx n^nD hd'' ^'? loix dxi ].T'?y ^mpj "i3d )b ^jx 
 
 'Thus, edit, of Venice, 1545; Amsterdam, 1641, 1725; Frankf. a. O., 1643; 
 Wilna, 1896. The editions of Lamberg, 1862 and Wilna, 1887, read: b*J Tlpi 
 
 n::'??: :5n bz' ]irNi b^ prxn ])'^m\ See above, § 117. 
 
 ^Thus Cod. of Paris and edit. ; Codex Halberstamm omits V^"). 
 
 3 Ed. Baer, :5m "jn^r ir.uri 
 
 /M. T. liTiZ?:?!. 
 5 Yalqut omits aVi:?. 
 6Yalqutaddsrby. 
 
130 Appendix. 
 
 4. — Aboth de R. Nathan (2d. Recension), /. c, 'rh mnoin 
 
 iv N^N 11 p3 "ij^N N^ni D'piy 'w iJ^3D^i ^^^ n vy^'^'n'"! irn'?i< 
 
 ^d7 x^N n\-i HE'o ]D N^m HM n^jD ]n ^2i hi^jd ]d diu;"i) 
 ]iyatt^ ^D"i noN -n^jo iQD n^nj p^D^ nu^jo ^tf i^ii^yaD nu^y^ 
 
 [no^] iDK^i i.T^x xiD"" □« xn^y "lax "^d x^k i^^n ni^rnxn ^d ^y 
 nn^nD nc^ c^'?] (i^ idn'' dnt uvhv ^mpj 13d i^ ^jn iqin nnDDD 
 
 :]n^^j;a jn^nnip: p'pDD ^:nn nni« 
 
 5. — Bemidbar Rabba, I. c. 
 
 nax^i in^^K ND^ Dx xmy nox -jd x^x mpj hd'? x'^i ♦nnnojn 
 n^nD HD"" -"^ nox^ cxi D.T^y ^rnpj n^D "i^ idix ]n',x dddd hd^ 
 
 6. — Midrash Mishle, I. c, reproduced in Arukh, s. v., "ipl 
 
 ]"'x ^)b:nw HD ^y ^jn n'Dpn nrh "inx ,inD3u; no ^y ymi2 ]^xi 
 
 :-ii»y^ n^biD'' onx 
 
 7.— Leqach Tob (list), I. c, "lip: HD^ oy^:^^ 1J^ ni^ijni 
 
 ♦ nnnDjn dd^ ymx ^:x ^x ^i^in □n^u;y nx dh^ nox 
 
 8. — Leqach Tob (ad locum), ed. Padua, p. 101. nox "irniD"! 
 
 ^xnu;^ "iii'jy: iibw id^o "lysiy 'y ^yi TrjD^ r:*? ^y "npj no^ 
 
 'n^ nnnojn -yaiyD om -j-iTn nx ^"inv^ ly nnnojn '?y 
 
 :nrx i^XD n^npj Tj^jn^ r:^ ni^:jni irn^x 
 
 9.— Soferim, ;. c, "ly 13^:3^ 13^ n^JJHI UM^X ^^b D-inDJn 
 
 mp: ny3u^ 'y \.ii)p2 i^d u^jd^i i:^)] n^y 
 
 10. — Diqduqe ha-Teamim, I. c, 'D^y ly IJ^JD*?") i:^ 
 
 11. — Massorah Magna, I c, in '^^^ niinojn ♦ly l^jb^ i:^ 
 
 :'i jD 
 
 1 Ed. Baer has lip] nrD'i^ ]"^:!) I^^JD^I 1J^» 
 
BIBLIOGRAPHY. 
 
 1. "Works in Which the Points are more 
 Particularly Treated. 
 
 Blau, Ludwig, Masoretische Untersucliungen. Strassburg, 1891. 
 *' " Zur Einleitung in die Heilige Schrift. Buda- 
 
 pest, 1894. 
 BuxTORF, Johannes, Tiberias sive Commentarius Masorethicus. 
 
 Basileae, 1620. 
 Eisenstein, J. D., The early Masorah on the dotted Letters in 
 
 the Hebrew Scriptures, in Ner ha-Maarabi, 
 
 VoL I. 
 GiNSBURG, Christian D., Introduction to the Massoretico- 
 
 Critical Edition of the Hebrew Bible. 
 
 London, 1897. 
 KoNiG, Eduard, Einleitung in das Alte Testament. Bonn, 1893. 
 Konigsberger, Bernhard, Aus Masorah und Talmudkritik. 
 
 Berlin, 1892. 
 Strack, Hermann L., Prologomena Critica in Yetus Testa- 
 
 mentum Hebraicum. Leipzig, 1873. 
 Weir, Thomas H., A Short History of the Hebrew Text of 
 
 the Old Testament. London, 1899. 
 Hiller, Mat., De Arcano Keri et Kethib. Tubingen, 1692. 
 HiJPEDEN, Jo. Henr., Neue wahrscheinliche Muthmassung von 
 
 der wahren Ursache und Bedeutung der 
 
 ausserordentlichen Punkte. Hannover, 1751.^ 
 
 ^ The author is sorry to say that he has been unable to consult the works of 
 Hiller and Hiipeden ; their views have been derived from quotations by subse- 
 quent scholars. 
 
 131 
 
132 Bibliogr-aphy. 
 
 2. "Works on the Jewish Labors, History and 
 Literature in General. 
 
 Bacher, Wilhelm, Die Agada der Tannalten. 2 vols., Strass- 
 
 burg. 1st. vol. (2d. edit.) 1903 ; 2d. vol. 
 
 (1st. edit.) 1890. 
 " " Die Alteste Terminologie der Judischen Schrift- 
 
 auslegung. Leipzig, 1899. 
 Benzinger, J., Hebraische Archaologie. Leipzig, 1894. 
 Blau, Ludwig, Studien zur althebriiischen Buchwesen. Strass- 
 
 burg, 1902. 
 BousSET, D. WiLHELM, Die Religion des Judenthums im neutes- 
 
 tementlichen Zeitalter. Berlin, 1903. 
 Dahne, August Ferdinand, Geschichtliche Darstellung der 
 
 jiidisch-alexandrinischen Religions-Pliiloso- 
 
 phie. 2 vols. Halle, 1834. 
 Derenbourg, J., Essai sur PHistoire et la G^ographie de la 
 
 Palestine ; Premiere Partie : Histoire de la 
 
 Palestine. Paris, 1867. 
 Dobschutz, Lieber, Die einfache Bibelexegese der Tannaim. 
 
 Halle a. S., 1893. 
 Edersheim, Alfred, The Life and Times of Jesus the Messiah. 
 
 2 vols. New York, (no date). 
 Frankel, Dr. Z., Ueber den Einfluss der paljistinischen Exegese 
 
 auf die alexandrinische Hermeneutik. Leip- 
 zig, 1851. 
 " " Ueber paliistinische und alexandrinische 
 
 Schriftforschuug. Breslau, 1854. 
 Geiger, Abraham, Lehr- und Lesebuch zur Sprache der Misch- 
 
 nah. Breslau, 1845. 
 " " Urschrift und Uebersetzungen der Bibel in 
 
 ihrer Abhangigkeit von der innern Ent- 
 
 wickelung des Judenthums. Breslau, 1857. 
 Gfrorer, a. F., Kritische Geschichte des Urchristenthums : I 
 
 Theil, Philo und die jiidisch-alexandrinische 
 
 Theosophie. 2 vols. Stuttgart, 1835. 
 
Bibliography. 133 
 
 Graetz, Peof. H., History of the Jews. 6 vols. Philadelphia, 
 
 1891-1898. 
 Hambueger, De. J., Real-Encyclopadie des Judentums. 3 vols. 
 
 Strelitz i. M., 1896. 
 Joel, De. M., Blicke in die Religiongeschichte zu Anfang des 
 
 zweiten christlichen Jahrhunderts. 2 vols. 
 
 Breslau, 1880-1883. 
 JosT, J. M., Geschichte des Judenthums und seiner Secten. 3 
 
 vols. Leipzig, 1857-1859. 
 Lewit, Julius, Darstellung der theoretischen und praktisehen 
 
 Padagogik im jiidischen Altertume. Ber- 
 lin, 1895. 
 Low, Leopold, Graphische Requisiten und Erzeugnisse bei 
 
 den Juden. 2 vols. Leipzig, 1870-1871. 
 Maecus, Sam., Die Padagogik des Israeliten Volkes. Wien, 
 
 1877. 
 MiELZiNEE, M., Introduction to the Talmud. 2d edit. New 
 
 York and London, 1903. 
 Nowack, W., Lehrbuch der Hebriiischen Archaologie. 2 vols. 
 
 Freiburg i. B. und Leipzig, 1894. 
 Peeles, Felix, Analekten zur Textkritik des Alten Testaments. 
 
 Miinchen, 1895. 
 "ScHUEEE, Emil, Geschichte der Jiidischen Volkes in Zeitalter 
 
 Jesu Christi. 3 vols. Leipzig. Vol. I, 
 
 4th edit., 1901 ; Vols. II and III, 3d edit., 
 
 1898. 
 ScHusz, Philipp, Palaestinensische Geistesrichtung u. Religiose 
 
 Parteien zur Zeit Jesu. Wein, 1898. 
 SiEGFEiED, Gael, Philo von Alexandria als Ausleger des Alten 
 
 Testaments. Jena, 1875. 
 Simon, Joseph, L'Education et I'Instruction des Enfants chez les 
 
 Anciens Juifs. Leipzig, 1879. 
 Stehelin, John Petee, Traditions of the Jews or Doctrines and 
 
 Explanations contained in the Talmud and 
 
 other Rabbinical Writings. (Translated 
 
 from the Dutch.) 2 vols. London, 1743. 
 Strack, Heem. L.,- Einleitung in den Talmud. Leipzig, 1894. 
 
134 Bibliography. 
 
 SuRENHUSius, GuiLiELMUS, Bi/3\o<; KaTaXXayi]^. Amsterdam, 
 1713. 
 
 Waehnee, And. Geog., Antiquitates Ebraeorum. 2 vols. Got- 
 tingen, 1743. 
 
 "Wolf, Cheistophorus, Bibliotheca Hebraea. 4 vols. Ham- 
 burg and Leipzig, 1715-1733. 
 
 ZuNZ, Dr., Die gottesdienstlichen Yortrage der Juden. 2d edit, 
 by N. Briill, Frankfurt a. M., 1892. 
 
 3. Various Collections and Encyclopaedias. 
 
 Briggs, Charles Augustus ; Driver, Samuel R. ; Plummer, 
 Alfred, The International Critical Com- 
 mentary on the Holy Scriptures of the Old 
 and New Testaments. New York, 1901. 
 (Not complete.) 
 
 Cheyne, T. K., and Black, J. Sutherland, Encyclopgedia 
 Biblica, 4 vols.. New York, 1899-1903. 
 
 Hastings, James, A Dictionary of the Bible. 5 vols.. New 
 York, 1902-1904. 
 
 Haupt, Paul, The Sacred Books of the Old Testament printed 
 in colors, Leipzig, 1893. (Not yet com- 
 plete). 
 
 The Jewish Encyclopedia. New York, 1901-1905. 
 
 KiTTO, John, A Cyclopaedia of Biblical Literature (originally 
 edited by J. Kitto), 3d. edit, in 3 vols., 
 edited by William Lindsay Alexan- 
 der. Edinburgh, 1876. 
 
 KoHUT, G. Alex., Semitic Studies in memory of Alex. Kohut. 
 Berlin, 1897. 
 
 Marti, Karl, Kurzer Hand-Corn mentar zum Alten Testament. 
 20 Abteilungen, Freiburg, i. B., 1898- 
 1904. 
 
 MiJLLER, IwAN voN, Handbucli der klassischen Altertums- 
 Wissenschaft, in systematischer Darstellung. 
 2d edition, 1892. . . . 
 
Bibliography. 135 
 
 NowACK, W., Handkommentar zum Alten Testament. 13 vols. 
 G5ttingen, 1897-1903. 
 
 Repertorium fur Biblische u. Morgenliindische Litteratur, 18 
 vols., 1777-1786. 
 
 Smith, William, A Dictionary of the Bible. 3 vols., Boston 
 and London, 1863. 
 
 Steack, Herman L. und Zocklee, Otto, Kurzgefasster Kom- 
 mentar zu den Heiligen Schriften Alten u. 
 Neuen Testamentes, 2d. edit. 14 Abteil., 
 Miinchen, 1891-1897. 
 
 Stadia Biblica et Ecclesiastica, Essays in the Biblical Archae- 
 ology and Criticism and kindred Subjects, 
 by Members of the University of Oxford. 
 4 vols., Oxford, 1885-1896. 
 
 4. Editions of the Jewish Writings generally 
 
 USED in the present WORK. 
 
 Aboth de R. Nathan. Ed. Salomon Schechter. (Two recensions 
 in parallel columns.) Vienna, 1887. 
 
 Diqduqe ha-Te'amim. In the Venice Bible, 1517-18. Appen- 
 dix 2. 
 « " Ed. S. Baer und H. L. Strack. Die 
 
 Diqduqe Ha-t®amim des Ahron ben Mos- 
 cheh ben Ascher. Leipzig, 1879. 
 
 Leqach Tob. Lekach Tob (Pesikta Sutarta) ; ein Agadischer 
 Commentar zum ersten u. zweiten Buche 
 Mosis von R. Tobia b. Eliezer, herausge- 
 geben v. Salomon Buber. Wilna, 1884. 
 " " Lekach Tob, etc. (on Leviticus, Numbers and 
 Deuteronomy) edited by Aharon Moses 
 Padua! Wilna, 1884. 
 
 Midrash Mishle. Edited by Salomon Buber. Wilna, 1893. 
 
 Midrash ha-Gadol. Midrash Hag-gadol, forming a collection of 
 ancient Rabbinical homilies to the Penta- 
 teuch. Edited by Salomon Schechter. 
 Genesis, Cambridge, 1902. 
 
136 Bibliography, 
 
 Midrash Rabba. With the Commentaries ♦ r|D1"> T" • r]DT' p^JJ? ♦^^y 
 
 F]D1"' -^inD mJHD. 2 vols. Wilna, 1896. 
 Sekhel Tob. Sechel Tob. Commentar zum ersten und zweiten 
 
 Buche Mosis, von R. Menachem b. Salomo, 
 
 herausgegeben von Salomon Buber. 2 vols. 
 
 Berlin, 1900-1901. 
 Sifre. Sifre deb§ Rab. Herausgegeben von M. Friedmann. 
 
 Wien, 1864. 
 Soferim. Masechet Soferim, herausgegeben von Joel Miiller. 
 
 Leipzig, 1878. 
 Midrash Tanchuma. Edition of Frankf. a. O., 1701. 
 Talmud of Babylon. Edition of Wilna. 12 vols. 1897. 
 Talmud of Jerusalem. Edition of Krotoshin, 1866. 
 
 " " Le Talmud de Jerusalem, transl. by 
 
 Moise Schwab. 12 vols. Paris, 1871-1890. 
 Tosefta. Edited by Moses Samuel Zuckermandel. Pasewalk, 
 
 1881. 
 Yalqut Shimeoni. Ed. Frankfurt a. IV^., 1687. 
 
 Corrigenda: p. 7, n. 12. read Mittheilungen \ p. 1-15, dek "Ten" in the 
 title at the top of the pages ; p. 17, 1. 1, read Amoraim. 
 
BS1225.2.B98 
 
 ThetennequdothoftheTorah- 
 
 1 1012 000^2 1519 
 
 I 
 ■ 
 
 !