מקראות גדולות "הכתר": מהדורת יסוד חדשה" ההדרה מדעית על-פי כתבי יד עתיקים: נוסח המסורה של המקרא עם מסורהגדולה ומסורה קטנה על-פי כתר אר צוה [Mikra'ot Gedolot "Haketer": a revised and augmented scientific edition of "Mikra'ot Gedolot" based on the Aleppo Codex and early medieval MSS: Joshua-Judges] (review)

Hebrew Studies 36 (1995) 230 Reviews " ,~ 'Er?» n'~c ilii.m :iW"m "0' m"ilC :"imil"n,'il'l n~'pc mcop il"OC' il"'lil"OC 0» ~'pCil a,w P"'Cil il"CCil nO') :C'P'nU O'COEnfD-»ro'il':"il:n~ O'~ ,n:>" 'El-'» [MIKRA·OT GEDOLOT "HAKETER": A REVISED AND AUGMENTED SCIENTIFIC EDITION OF "MIKRA·OT GEDOLOT" BASED ON THE ALEPPO CODEX AND EARLY MEDIEVAL MSS: JOSHUA· JUDGES]. Menachem Cohen, ed. Pp.!l' 180, 100*. Ramat-Oan: Bar-TIan University Press, 1992. Cloth. The term Miqra'ot gedolot (Oreat Scriptures) refers to editions of the Hebrew Bible with Masoretic notes, Aramaic translations, and commentaries by scholars from the medieval and early modem periods (as opposed to Miqra'ot qetanot [Little Scriptures] which include the biblical text without accompaniment). The term was first applied to the edition of the Bible prepared under the direction of Jacob Ben Ilayyim ibn Adonijah and printed in 1524-25 in Venice at the press of Daniel Bomberg. Ben-fJayyim's edition was ground-breaking in several regards. It was the first serious attempt to produce a unified version of the consonantal biblical text based on the best manuscript evidence available to the editor. It was the first printed Bible to include the Masoretic notes alongside the biblical text. Ben-Ilayyim also introduced a dictionary of Masoretic terms, called Masorah gedolah, which he published at the end of his edition. whose purpose was to make the Masorah more accessible to the average reader. Ben-Ilayyim's edition also achieved unprecedented accuracy in establishing the pointing and cantillation notes of the biblical text. Finally, it immortalized the commentaries of the greatest medieval exegetes, which were printed on the same pages as the biblical text as companions to it. In this regard Ben-Ilayyim was not the first, but his edition included more commentaries than any of its predecessors. Ben-fJayyim's edition was immediately acclaimed as the most accurate version of the Masoretic text produced to date, and subsequent editions of Miqra'ot gedolot were based almost exclusively on it. For all his efforts and their historical importance, however, Ben-fJayyim's edition fell far short of his goal. The main reason for his failure lies in his choice of manuscripts. Although he did his best to obtain accurate manuscripts of both the biblical text and the Masorah, he was limited to those within his geographical range, and it is clear today that the manuscripts he used were not the best. Another factor which hampered him was the time constraints under which he was forced to work. which did not allow him to utilize all of the manuscript material available to him to best effect. Hebrew Studies 36 (1995) 231 Reviews The deficiencies of Ben-lJa,yyim's edition were recognized quite soon after it was published, and scholars such as Menahem Lonzano and Yedidiah Solomon Norzi attempted to correct the many errors they found in it in their works Or Torah and MinlJat Shai. These works influenced subsequent editions of the biblical text itself (Miqra 'ot qetanot), but not editions of Miqra'ot gedolot. But even these works fell short of the goal of producing an edition of the biblical text which corresponded exactly to the instructions of the Masorah. They, too, did not have the most accurate manuscripts of either the biblical text or the Masorah, and even what they did have they did not use to full advantage. The text of the Targumim in Ben-lJa,yyim's edition seems to have been based on European manuscripts, which, it is now recognized, are far less accurate than those written in Eastern centers, particularly Yemen. In his choice of commentaries, Ben-ijayyim was directed by considerations of popularity and space. He chose the most popular commentaries, such as those of Rashi, Ibn Ezra, Radaq and Ralbag, but could not include those which were equally popular but too long. For example, Ramban's commentary on the Torah and Radaq's on Tehillim were not included despite their popularity. For Isaiah, he chose Radaq over the equally popular Ibn Ezra. There are also occasional errors in the identification of commentaries . For...