03.04.2013 Views

SCRIBAL PRACTICES AND APPROACHE S ... - Emanuel Tov

SCRIBAL PRACTICES AND APPROACHE S ... - Emanuel Tov

SCRIBAL PRACTICES AND APPROACHE S ... - Emanuel Tov

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.

242 Chapter 7: Special Scribal Characteristics<br />

complete texts in paleo-Hebrew characters; it has been suggested cautiously (ch. 6b) that these<br />

texts were written by Sadducees.<br />

c. Tefillin and mezuzot (illustr. 9)<br />

Most of the tefillin from the Judean Desert derive from Qumran cave 4 (21 copies), with one<br />

additional copy from each of caves 1, 5, and 8, as well as from Murabba>at, Nah≥al H≥ever,<br />

Nah≥al S≥eat, 264, the scribes of XQPhyl 1–4<br />

followed the rabbinic rule of leaving minute spaces between letters (b. Menah≥. 30a and y. Meg.<br />

1.71d), while the scribes of MurPhyl and 4QPhyl C, in which ligatures are used, followed a<br />

different practice.<br />

• As a result of the economy described above, the text was subdivided into fewer units than in<br />

regular Scripture texts. For example, the text of the Decalogue in 4QPhyl J is written as a<br />

continuous text, with no spaces between the words and commands (illustr. 9). Papyrus Nash<br />

follows a middle path, since it has spaces between the words, but no extra spaces between the<br />

commands.<br />

• Every cave 4 exemplar used three letter-spaces to separate the sections (see e.g. 4QPhyl C 1<br />

15, 19). In 8QPhyl, sections end in the middle of the line, and are followed by a blank line and an<br />

indentation on the subsequent line. Likewise, MurPhyl indicates open sections by leaving the<br />

rest of the line blank followed by an empty line. These internal differences are also reflected in<br />

rabbinic literature with regard to mezuzot, and b. Menah≥. 31b–32a records a long discussion<br />

concerning the space between the two pericopes of the mezuzah. R. Meir favored an open<br />

section (‘because they are not adjacent in the Torah’), but by the third generation of Amoraim, a<br />

closed section was used (R. Nah≥man bar Isaac). The lack of clarity with regard to the use of<br />

314 The main group of tefillin was published by J. T. Milik in DJD VI; for a preliminary publication of four tefillin, see K. G.<br />

Kuhn, Phylakterien aus Höhle 4 von Qumran (AHAW, Phil.-Hist. Kl. 1957, 1; Heidelberg 1957). A second group was<br />

published by Y. Yadin, Tefillin from Qumran (X Q Phyl 1–4) (Jerusalem 1969) = ErIsr 9 (1969) 60–85. Corrections for<br />

the latter are provided by M. Baillet, “Nouveaux phylactères de Qumran (XQ Phyl 1–4) à propos d’une édition<br />

récente,” RevQ 7 (1970) 403–15. See further 1Q13 and 8Q3. XH≥ev/SePhylactery was published in DJD XXXVIII by<br />

M. Morgenstern and M. Segal. 5QPhyl (5Q8) has not been opened. Two tefillin from S≥e

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!