Zecher or Zeicher?

The Second Rabbinic Bible (Venice, 1525), edited by Yaakov ben Hayyim ibn Adoniyahu, became the basic textus receptus for editions printed up to the present period. It was, however, recognized through the centuries that even his painstaking work was not free from error; beginning with R. Menahem di Lonzano and Shelomoh Yedidyah of Norzi (“Minhat Shai”) in the sixteenth century and continuing to R. Mordechai ben Shimshon (Breuer) of Jerusalem and others in the twenty-first century, various individuals have dedicated themselves to polishing Yaakov’s edition. (Note that Yaakov later converted to Christianity.)

The Minhat Shai identified, for example, ten spelling errors in Yaakov’s edition of the Book of Esther. (Two more errors were later identified.) Eight of these errors were matters of plene and defective spellings (i.e., an extra or missing "vav" or "yod" mater lectiones), and the Minhat Shai’s corrections in this regard were universally accepted. Two of his corrections, however, were more substantial . . . and controversial: where the Venice edition (8:11, 9:2) reads להרג and בפניהם, the Minhat Shai concluded that the proper readings should be ולהרג and לפניהם. These corrections were not accepted in the Ashkenzi world, and both popular printed editions and scrolls continued to perpetuate the corrupted text.

The two errors were retained not only in the text, but also as the words were pronounced in the public reading of the megillah on Purim. Then a custom developed as early as the late eighteenth century (but becoming widespread only in the twentieth century) whereby the baal kore would repeat these words twice, once with the correct reading and once with the erroneous reading. (Alternate customs are to repeat the phrase or even the entire verse.)

Finally, in 1990 R. Breuer published a polemical article calling on Ashkenazi Jews to write their scrolls properly and to read the word only once (and correctly). He adduced his proof from manuscript and massoretic sources (including the Aleppo Codex) and concluded:

Consider this: before us are two opposing forces. In one corner are Aharon ben Asher [Aleppo Codex], the Rambam, the Sages and Masters of the Massorah, and the Minhat Shai; in the other corner is Yaakov ben Hayyim ben Yitzhak ibn Adoniyahu. And still we are not capable of deciding between these two “equal” powers? בין בן אדוניהו—ובין אדוניננו הרמב"ם.

When we read the megillah according to the [incorrect] version . . . [?] we also erect an eternal testament and monument to that apostate [Yaakov] who bequeathed to us his corrupted edition. The remembrance of Amalek should be blotted out, yet the apostate son of Adoniyahu should be remembered forever—as opposed to the son of Asher, the son of Maimon and our Sages (may they be remembered for a blessing)!?

It would seem that the time has come to fix this perversion.

(Prof. Jordan Penkower reached the same conclusion a few years later after having conducted a much more thorough review of the sources.)

* * *

In the same 1990 article, R. Breuer deals with another instance of an erroneous double reading custom in this week’s maftir for parshat zakhor: zekher with segel-segol and zeikher with tzere-segol (Deut. 25:17); this particular double-reading custom first began in the late nineteenth century. Using the same recourse to the massoretic and manuscript evidence, he proves that the correct (and only) reading should be tzere-segol.

In the conclusion R. Breuer refers to a variant reading in Gen. 9:29. Whereas Yemenites preserve the correct reading of ויהיו, Ashkenazim read from scrolls that have ויהי in error (following Lonzano and the Minhat Shai).

And consider this: when an individual hears parshat zakhor from an Ashkenazi Torah, in which it is written ויהי, he thereby pronounces that it is enough that this is a custom inherited from our ancestors and that this is the decision of Lonzano and the Minhat Shai—even though this is a matter in which their view is in opposition to the massorah, and there is a major concern regarding the validity of the public reading.

But when he then repeats zeikher-zekher, he thereby declares that one can rely neither on the custom received from our ancestors [zekher] nor on Lonzano and the Minhat Shai [zeikher]—even though all the sources in the world justify their opinion and the whole question doesn’t even deal with the validity of the public reading in any way. This is a contradiction that boggles the mind!

(Once again, Prof. Penkower reached the same conclusion following a much more exhaustive search of the sources.)

For an addendum, click here.

References: Mordechai Breuer, מקראות שיש להם הכרע in מגדים, no. 10 (1990), 97-112 (click here for article); a much fuller treatment appears in Jordan Penkower, מנהג ומסורה: "זכר עמלק" בחמש או בשש נקודות in עיוני מקרא ופרשנות, vol. 4 (Ramat Gan: Bar Ilan University Press, 1997), 71-128. For my posts on R. Breuer, click here. For more on zeikher/zekher, see Balashon and On the Mainline.

* * *

If you do prefer the double readings, you might be interested in this teshuvah by R. Hayyim David Halevi on a synagogue that repeats zekher/zeikher five times!
On using a foreign pronouciation in general for leining:
And one more for this week:
For more teshuvot by R. Halevi, former chief rabbi of Tel Aviv, click here.

* * *

In a recent post on the haftarah I mentioned an article on its origin; the complete reference is Shemuel Hacohen Weingarten, ראשיתן של הפטרה in Sinai 83.3-4 (Sivan-Tamuz 1978), 105-36; with additional notes by R. Yosef Kafah (84.1-2 [Tishri-Heshvan 1978], 93-94) and David Metzger (84.1-2 [Tishri-Heshvan 1978], 94-5), and a response by Weingarten (85.6-7 [Ab-Ellul 1979], 276-79).