Take the 2-minute tour ×
Mi Yodeya is a question and answer site for those who base their lives on Jewish law and tradition and anyone interested in learning more. It's 100% free, no registration required.

enter image description here

It seems that two versions of Isaiah 8:11 exist.

One has "כחזקת היד" -- this is the version in the Aleppo (shown above) and Leningrad codices: http://www.studylight.org/desk/?sr=1&old_q=Isaiah+8%3A11&search_form_type=general&q1=Isaiah+8%3A11&s=0&t1=iw_ale&ns=0

One has "בחזקת היד " -- this is the version in Mikraot G'dolot and all the commentators there (Yonatan, Rashi, Radak, Metzudot).

Does anyone have any light to shed on this?

share|improve this question
3  
Mira Bernstein, welcome to Mi Yodeya, and thanks very much for bringing your question here! I hope you'll look around and find other information that interests you, perhaps including our 15 other Isaiah questions. Please consider registering your account, which will give you access to more of the site's features. –  Isaac Moses Nov 26 '13 at 18:31
1  
Shhhhh don't tell everyone. –  Double AA Nov 26 '13 at 20:20
1  
Wikitext has it with a כ: he.wikisource.org/wiki/… –  Ephraim Nov 26 '13 at 20:22
1  
@Ephraim As they should. Mikraot Gedolot goofed. No big deal. –  Double AA Nov 26 '13 at 20:23
1  
@Ephraim He brought the evidence in the question! What do you think the printed texts you are looking at are based on? The answer is always Bomberg until certain printings in the last 100 years or so. –  Double AA Nov 26 '13 at 20:58
show 2 more comments

2 Answers

I'm not sure what light you want shed on this other than not to trust the Mikraot Gedolot for fine issues of proper nusach hamikra. The Aleppo, Leningrad, Bodmer, Damascus, and Cairo Codices (9th to 12th centuries) all have a כ. Bomberg's Mikraot Gedolot (2nd edition, 16th century, seen below) has a ב. Bomberg's edition is notorious for small errors, but its popularity (as with many early printed materials) allowed for many of his mistakes to creep into common usage. Just to add to the point, you'll see he goofed on the dagesh kal which should be in the beginning of the same word in question.

For the curious, neither בחזקת or כחזקת appears elsewhere in Tanach, so nothing can be proven from the ליתא.

share|improve this answer
    
Fascinating, and it's interesting how one printed edition could cause so much confusion. It's similar to the decisions that lead to the less clear versions of Tosafot that appear in all editions of Shas. See: printingthetalmud.org/essays/4.html . –  Ephraim Nov 27 '13 at 7:17
add comment

For what's its worth, here's the version from the Dead Sea Scrolls: enter image description here

See it here: http://dss.collections.imj.org.il/isaiah?id=17:11#8:11

So that version, also has the word spelled with a "kaf".

share|improve this answer
    
This is not meant to be an answer, just another interesting piece of information. –  Ephraim Nov 26 '13 at 20:48
2  
So shouldn't it be a comment? –  Double AA Nov 26 '13 at 21:52
2  
Yes. I'm not aware that there's a way to post an image in the comments. –  Ephraim Nov 27 '13 at 12:58
    
You can post links to images in comments just like you would post any other link. –  Double AA Nov 28 '13 at 23:52
    
@DoubleAA – But images themselves get saved into the SE ecosystem (for better or for worse). –  Adam Mosheh Dec 3 '13 at 23:12
add comment

Your Answer

 
discard

By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.