SCRIBAL PRACTICES AND APPROACHE S ... - Emanuel Tov

Scribal Practices and Approaches Reflected in the Texts from the Judean Desert 243
either open or closed sections is also known to y. Meg. 1.71c, but there the verdict (Rav) is in
favor of an open section.
• Words were split between lines, as in inscriptions written in the ‘early’ Hebrew and square
scripts, and in Hebrew biblical scrolls written in the paleo-Hebrew script, apparently due to
considerations of space. This practice was not used in Scripture texts written in the square or
script and was forbidden by Sof. 2.1.
• Most tefillin written in the Qumran scribal practice allowed for interlinear additions (their
absence in some texts may be ascribed to the fragmentary status of their preservation). On the
other hand, such additions are not found in the tefillin written with MT spelling (ch. 8a2). The
latter group thus reflects the prescription of y. Meg. 1.71c: ‘One may hang in scrolls, but one may not hang in tefillin or mezuzot.’
• Because of the differing shapes of the tefillin, the pericopes were laid out differently in each
copy.
• For the differences in content between the various preserved samples of tefillin, see ch. 8a2.
• There is no indication that tefillin were written by special scribes as was the case in later
times. For example, the scribal peculiarities of the tefillin written according to the Qumran scribal
practice (ch. 8a2) cannot be distinguished from the other texts written by that group of scribes.
Mezuzot. The scribal features of mezuzot are very similar to those of tefillin, and indeed in
some cases the editors of these texts were uncertain regarding the differentiation between the two
(e.g. J. T. Milik, DJD VI, 35–7 with regard to 4QPhyl S, U and 4QMez G). The layout of
mezuzot was discussed in y. Meg. 1.71c. Mezuzot and tefillin contain the same biblical pericopes,
but their purpose is different, and they can be distinguished by the following scribal features:
• The leather of tefillin was thinner (0.07–0.08 mm according to J. T. Milik, DJD VI, 35–7 and
0.04 mm according to Y. Frankl apud Yadin, Tefillin, 43) than that of mezuzot which in most
aspects resemble regular manuscripts.
• Mezuzot were inscribed only on the recto, while several tefillin were additionally inscribed on
the verso.
• Mezuzot have margins, while tefillin usually do not. At the same time, XQPhyl 1 and 2 have
minute margins.
• The letters in mezuzot are of regular size, while the letters in tefillin are minute.
• Mezuzot are written on neatly shaped pieces of leather, while tefillin were usually inscribed
on leather of ragged shapes.
See ch. 3a, e.
See APPENDIX 4.
d. Texts written on papyrus
e. Texts written in Greek
f. Pesharim
The Qumran pesharim were authored by different individuals and were probably copied by yet
other scribes, some of whom could have been the authors themselves. These differences in
authorship are visible in the distinct focus and tendencies of the pesher methods of
interpretation, scope of lemmas, etc. Differences in scribal hands are visible primarily in the
handwriting, but also in scribal practices. Interestingly enough, none of the scribal hands visible in