stamforum

stamforum
פורום בינלאומי לנושא סת"ם

Monday, February 13, 2012

"Lamarbeh HaMisra"

I heard that there are those who write the word "Lamarbeh" as one word and some who write it with a seperation between the mem-stumah and the reish.

Does anyone know where it speaks about this? Also what is the accepted minhag?

15 comments:

  1. Both nuschaot brought in Minhas Shay (printed in back of many Nachs-Mikraot Gedolot) Yeshaya 9:6

    ReplyDelete
  2. I had heard to check there..Thanks..

    What's the accepted minhag?

    ReplyDelete
  3. I dont know. Only ashkenaz-ashkenaz write nevi'im, others dont, so I dont know.
    I know there are tikunim for the nevi'im, so you can look there.

    ReplyDelete
  4. If anyone has one (tikkun for nevi'im) and could check I'd appreciate it very much!

    ReplyDelete
  5. The proper way is to write it in two separate words. However, we read it as Lemarbe (one word). This is the way it appears in the Aleppo Codex.

    (Does any one know a way to upload a picture besides creating a new post?)

    ReplyDelete
  6. Alberto Shalom,
    There isnt a way to upload pics in the comments. but you may give a link and peole can search thru the link.

    The tikun of tzinagel that beis hastam provided is according to the Keter Aram-Tzova (Aleppo codex) so these are not 2 sources, but 1 source!

    ReplyDelete
  7. Thank you Moshe,
    I was going to upload pics of the Keter and the Leningrad Codex on the above. The Massorah of the Keter is superior as upheld by the RAMBAM & demonstrated by R. Breuer A"H.

    Although, the Leningrad Codex shows it as one word with a MEM setuma in the middle; Yehoshua was asking about the preferred NOSCHA which is as the Aleppo Codex and the Tzinagel Tikun which R' Shmuel uploaded. As such, we have a preference for writing it in two words.

    As a side you may enjoy the Aggadic discussion on Sanhedrin 94a regarding this MEM setuma.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Thanks Alberto,
    In regard to the Tzinagel Tikun according the Keter, there is in the nusach megilas Ester a variation - as the Ashkenaz custom [Rema OC 691 from hagahot maimoni] all the parshos in Ester are stumot, but in the keter there 4 psuchot. Note Liskat Hasofer (in Keset Hasofer, 28:5) quotes Orchot Chayim (Mayorca 13-14 cen. ??) that 4 parshot are petuchot as the keter.
    Maybe 2 versions, ashkenazic and sefrardic in regard to these parshiyot in Megilas Ester.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hi Moshe,
      What you point out is a most interesting topic. However, due to R. Shelomo Ganzfried’s ruling, the dominant custom in both Ashkenazic and Sephardic traditions today is to write the megillah with all the parashot being setumot. As such it is no longer an Ashkenazi Sephardi thing.

      Notwithstanding, what he quoted with respect to the Orchot Chayim is correct, but it is not limited to 4 petuchot, but rather 6 as stated. There are other parashot that tradition has also established as setumot that are not part of what the Keset documents. These include:

      1.(1:10)ביום השביעי
      2.(2:11)ובכל יום ויום
      3. And many others

      I still cannot understand the basis upon which he issued his Pesak, for all evidence points to a totally different reality.

      For example, ALL Tiberian masoretic codices contain both open and closed portions. Also, Yemenite scribes did not entirely adopt the tradition of closed portions, leaving the divisions in many scrolls of Esther similar to what is found in the masoretic codices.

      Apparently, the Rav did not have access to these more ancient and authoritative manuscripts and issued his decision on what was available to him. Importantly however, he also concluded VEYESH MAKHSHIRIM. Also, in his additional notes in the Lishkat he states: "And even though our custom is that all of these are closed, it nevertheless seems that if some or all of these are open one may read from the scroll with a blessing."

      The section of the Aleppo Codex containing the Book of Esther was burned/dissappeared during Arab riots of 1948. As such, we could no longer have the direct absolute evidence of the tradition of Setumot and Petuchot of the many sections of Neviim and Ketuvim that disappeared with it.

      Delete
    2. The YAD HASHEM, however, works in mysterious ways. In the City of Skidel OK in Lithuania, there was one Yid, Rabbi Shalom Shakhna Yellin (1790-1874)who was an expert in the text of the Bible. In 1855, he began preparations for immigration to Eretz-Israel. His main intention was to reach Aleppo and examine the Keter.

      In the end, things came up and R. Yellin could not make the trip. In his place, he sent his son-in-law, Rabbi Yehoshua Qimhi. To him, R. Yellin gave a copy of the Bible with many marginal notes and questions about the text. R. Qimhi examined the Aleppo Codex, and in every place he recorded the wording of the Keter. Yellin also listed the open and closed portions in the Prophets and the Writings, and other data about the Aleppo Codex.

      It was known that this copy of the Bible existed. However, all traces of it had been lost. In 1987, the Yellin family house in Qiryat Moshe, Jerusalem, was about to be torn down. Old boxes with books were removed from the attic, and some of them were going to be sent for burial in the genizah. At the last moment, the connection between these books and Rabbi Shalom Shakhna Yellin was discovered, and the Bible that had returned with the notes from Aleppo was saved from disappearing forever.

      The most important information that comes from Qimhi’s notes in the margins of the Bible relates to the open and closed paragraphs in both the prophets and writings. This information was unique to the Aleppo Codex, and it cannot be reconstructed according to any other manuscript of the Bible.

      Breuer’s later editions of the Bible, which were published after the discovery of the Yellin Bible, rely upon these notes, as do the missing portions of the Aleppo Codex which were published in the editions of Miqraot Gedolot Haketer.

      Bibles that show the parashot in Esther based upon a reconstruction of the Aleppo Codex include two editions following the Breuer method (Horev and The Jerusalem Crown). The flow of text in such bibles is as follows:
      • 1:1-9 {S*} 1:10-15 {P*} 1:16-22 {P*} 2:1-4 {P*} 2:5-10 {S*}[51] 2:11-20 {S*} 2:21-23 {P*} 3:1-7 {S*} 3:8-15 {S*} 4:1-12 {P*} 4:13-17 {S*} 5:1-2 {S*} 5:3-14 {S*} 6:1-14;7:1-4 {S*} 7:5-8 {S*} 7:9-10 {P*} 8:1-2 {S*} 8:3-6 {S*} 8:7-14 {S*} 8:15-17;9:1-6
      • {S*} Haman's Sons: {SONG*} 9:7-9 {SONG*}
      • {S*} 9:10-19 {S*} 9:20-28 {S*} 9:29-32 {S*} 10:1-3

      Delete
    3. As I pointed in the former comment, it is not R. Ganzfried's innovation but an old ashkenazic custom quoted in Rema Orach Chayim ch. 691 from Hagahot Maimoni, that all the parshot in Ester are stumot.

      Delete
    4. BTW Alberto, I think the leningrad codex of ester also has parashot pesuchot as the allepo codex, can you verify that. I cant download a copy of the phacsimile of leningrad to check.

      Delete
    5. Yes it does, as well as all other extant Tiberian manuscripts as I pointed in the above post.

      Delete
  9. Alberto Attia -
    If you catch this comment would you mind uploading the pics of the Keter and the Leningrad Codex, I'd like to have them for my files. Thanks!

    ReplyDelete
  10. You can make a new post. Hopefully no one will mind, I for sure won't :). If you don't want to upload them to a new post here you can also email them to me

    yehoshua.deitel at gmail dot com

    Thanks!

    ReplyDelete

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.