tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5589564.post2414268504225483032..comments2024-03-05T21:22:43.426-05:00Comments on parshablog: How many lines in Haazinu?joshwaxmanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03516171362038454070noreply@blogger.comBlogger9125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5589564.post-49688529861803525122013-05-30T21:18:46.563-04:002013-05-30T21:18:46.563-04:00see Minchas Shai on this. i might be reading him i...see <a href="http://hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=14036&st=&pgnum=83" rel="nofollow">Minchas Shai</a> on this. i might be reading him incorrectly, but if i do read him correctly, he refers to Codex Hilleli (c. 600) as well as early sefarim Yerushalmiyim, and maseches Soferim (8th century eretz yisrael) with 70, as opposed to the Sefardic practice (as recorded by Rambam and Allepo Codex).<br /><br />So codex vs. codex, sefarim vs. sefarim, and a late-ish minor tractate to boot. dueling traditions.joshwaxmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05149022516101476797noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5589564.post-13005734680353639692013-05-30T21:09:38.617-04:002013-05-30T21:09:38.617-04:00while the Aleppo Codex had 67, apparently other pa...while the Aleppo Codex had 67, apparently other parallel traditions had 70. just as there are other traditions as to plene and deficient spellings of certain words, as is immediately apparent on reading Mincha Shai.<br /><br />my question to David Freedman is why assume that everyone "should" have conformed to the Aleppo Codex. Yes, the Allepo Codex has it. But why assume that there was an absence traditions parallel and/or predating it, such that any shift to 70 must have come later?<br /><br />I have not inspected manuscripts.joshwaxmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05149022516101476797noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5589564.post-24343510387790566322013-05-30T14:02:02.223-04:002013-05-30T14:02:02.223-04:00Ah now that i read through the commens I see what ...Ah now that i read through the commens I see what Josh Waxman is asking re: David Freedman. <br /><br />I second David's point. <br /><br />The information on this blog page alone is sufficient to answer, really. For a slightly more detailed discussion, part of this (which is all interesting anyway) leads to the same reasonable assumptions <br />http://www.jerusalem-crown.co.il/website/files/images/4-eng25.pdf <br /><br />Before a norm emerged to have 70 rather than 67, and reject what was in the Ben-Asher codex, and "correct" the mishne tora to reflect the "right" number of 70 lines-- typical of the process M. Yusif QaafiH describes in his introduction to the Mishne Tora-- we would need some manuscript evidence that 70 was prevalent. This week a complete 12th century Italian torah scroll was identified. I have my money on 67 lines in it. <br /><br />Does anyone know of manuscript evidence of 70 being practiced at any point before the mishne tora's publication (with 67 as its number)? Alex Schindlerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12977448932638171849noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5589564.post-1757308956500130312013-05-30T13:12:22.413-04:002013-05-30T13:12:22.413-04:00Basis 1) The Aleppo Codex, and no there are no dou...Basis 1) The Aleppo Codex, and no there are no doubts about this section of it. <br /><br />basis 2) the original girsa'oth of maimonides, to which Cassuto sadly lacked access. There aren't really any doubts about this halakha in the mishneh tora anymore; you can check any of the good manuscripts whether the QafiH edition, mechon mamre or the maqbili edition. Alex Schindlerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12977448932638171849noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5589564.post-91736991399658329342013-02-07T22:09:56.129-05:002013-02-07T22:09:56.129-05:00Can you elaborate on why it is clear that everyone...Can you elaborate on why it is clear that everyone should have used 67? On what basis?joshwaxmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05149022516101476797noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5589564.post-23299210685226116722013-02-07T09:34:29.711-05:002013-02-07T09:34:29.711-05:00My question is how our local practice became 70? ...My question is how our local practice became 70? It is clear that everyone should have used 67 (before the printers changed it to say 70).David Freedmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06343475732564964929noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5589564.post-37878345779954455282009-09-16T09:06:15.234-04:002009-09-16T09:06:15.234-04:0067 lines is pretty out there. We've got a broa...67 lines is pretty out there. We've got a broader sweep because we can see all the evidence at the same time, but more or less anyone throughout the ages who copied the Rambam could not have but assumed 67 to be an error. Even Cassuto who got to look at the Aleppo Codex itself for more than 20 hours didn't have the key to the puzzle!Mississippi Fred MacDowellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02734864605700159687noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5589564.post-21100729863369235532009-09-15T22:11:45.814-04:002009-09-15T22:11:45.814-04:00indeed; it is quite likely that i heard the same i...indeed; it is quite likely that i heard the same in Dr. Leiman's Intro to Bible class...<br /><br />kt,<br />joshjoshwaxmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05149022516101476797noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5589564.post-88108679537245776032009-09-15T17:07:47.215-04:002009-09-15T17:07:47.215-04:00Dr. Leiman gave a shiur about this. The girsa in ...Dr. Leiman gave a shiur about this. The girsa in the Rambam is wrong. It should read 67. He's got some pretty convincing proof, which escapes me now. Unfortunately its not online at www.leimanlibrary.org.<br /><br />-Yyshhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02592998197322068828noreply@blogger.com