Interpretation of Variant Spellings in the Bible

Variable Spelling in the Bible

The orthography (spelling) of words throughout the Bible has many variations. The terms defective (haser) and full/plene (maleh) refer to alternative spellings of the same word, with no change in meaning, either leaving out or adding one of the matres lectionis, the Hebrew vowel letters. While alef, heh, vav and yud are all considered vowel letters, spelling variations are generally expressed as having the letters vav and yud missing or added. Sometimes a word may contain both a defective and full spelling, for example missing a vav in the beginning part of the word while retaining a vav at the end.¹

Comprehensive studies of the orthography of the Masoretic Text (MT) of the Bible have led modern scholars to conclude that the spelling in the Bible is not consistent or uniform, and “it is unlikely that some sort of system can be discovered behind this lack of consistency.”² While some words are always spelled one way or the other, and the “affix effect” has been noted, that “when words have plural terminations or other suffixes added, this often alters the characteristic spelling away from that found in the absolute singular,” even this general rule has so many exceptions such that “the overall lack of consistency in the orthography of the MT should be stressed.”³ Scholars understand this to indicate that there was no concept of a right or wrong way to spell a word, and that “precisely because the writings were optional…it was natural to make alterations, and…because they were optional…they were made haphazardly and not rigidly imposed at every point.”⁴ TB Kiddushin 30a even states that “we are not experts” regarding the deficient and plene forms of words.

Exegesis of Biblical Orthography

Understanding that in ancient times there were no rigid rules or consistency governing spelling easily leads to the conclusion that there is no deeper meaning behind the variant spellings. Such an approach is found in the writings of Abraham Ibn Ezra, a major Bible commentator of the Middle Ages. At the end of his introduction to his Bible commentary he writes that “I will not mention the reasons given by the Masoretes why this word is full and that is defective, because all of their explanations are in the manner of drash…these explanations are only good for children.”⁵ This sentiment is reiterated in his comments to Exodus 20:1, before beginning his commentary to the Decalogue. The most extreme presentation of his view is in his work Safa Berura. There he writes, “The sages of the Masorah derived from their minds reasons why some words are plene and some defective, which however only serves to satisfy the ignorant who seek reasons for the plene and defectives.”⁶

Of course, this is not the view of the vast majority of traditional commentators, who do mention explanations for the variable spellings, and consider these teachings significant and meaningful.⁷ This is exemplified by Rashi on TB Pesachim 3b, “All defective spellings in the Bible come to be interpreted,” and the interpretation of R. Ovadiah of Bartenura of the phrase “honoring the Torah” in Avot 4:6: “There is no greater honor of the Torah than the one who expounds on all the missing letters and extra letters in the Torah…to say that there is nothing purposeless in it.” There are numerous Rabbinic interpretations for these orthographic variations found in the Talmud, midrashic and exegetical literature. However, these tend to be viewed as localized interpretations, with no presentation of a comprehensive methodological theory.⁸ However, upon closer inspection, a uniform methodology can be ascertained.

A Uniform Theory of Variant Spellings

Rabbinic literature does contain a number of examples of attempts at a uniform approach to variant spellings in the Bible. These can generally be grouped together as variations of a basic idea presented succinctly by Rabbi Shmuel ben Yitzchak Yaffe Ashkenazi of Constantinople (1525-1595), in his commentary Yefei Toar to Genesis Rabbah 35:2, “Every defective spelling comes to minimize and take away from whatever it is indicating.” An early expression of this approach is found the commentary of the early Ashkenazic sage Rabbenu Yoel (Ba’al haRemazim) to Deuteronomy 2:11, “Every defective word is to be interpreted as referring to inferiority and baseness.”⁹

Rabbenu Yoel also notes in his commentary to Leviticus 26:42 that the letters either missing or added to words are those found in the Tetragrammaton,¹⁰ although he did not indicate what we are to make of this fact. It would seem to indicate some lack of holiness or perfection. The Zohar in a number of places, for example Numbers 120b, notes that the letter vav symbolizes life. This concept was developed by R. Issac Luria (the Ari) and later Kabbalists to indicate that while a full spelling indicates life and holiness, defective spellings indicate an aspect of impurity.¹¹ In modern times, Rabbi Israel Beeri (1911-1972), who served for many years as the rabbi of Nes Ziona, wrote a multi volume commentary to the Bible based on this guiding principle.¹² This all follows the general idea that a defective spelling naturally indicates something defective.

While this is the most popular uniform approach, others can be found. R. Shimshon Hirsch in his commentary to Genesis 1:14 explains that when a plural word is written with a defective suffix it comes to emphasize that which unites rather than that which divides, blunting an aspect of the plurality. This approach has an earlier precedent in Midrash Tanhuma (Ekev 10) where a missing vav in the word for the tablets of the Decalogue (luhot) in Deuteronomy 9:11 is interpreted as indicating that they were exactly equal, uniform, in size, thus diminishing their plurality in a sense. In modern times, this approach was followed by R. Avraham Jacobs in work on the subject.¹³ This view can also be seen as consistent with the approach that a defective spelling comes to minimize, in this case it comes to minimize the multiplicity inherent in the plural form.

Many of the interpretations produced based on this uniform approach can be viewed as forced or haphazard, especially when considering the vast number of variant spellings in the Bible. However, it may be possible to see a general trend in certain words, particularly those that are significant and have a considerable amount of exegetical comments. We will use the word ha-gadol as an example.

The Word Ha-Gadol

Genesis 1:16 states God made the two great lights, the greater light to dominate the day and the lesser light to dominate the night. This is the first instance of the word gadol both in singular and plural, in the Bible. Here the world is translated as “great,” the plain meaning is “big.” In terms of orthography, the word gadol here both in plural and singular is spelled without a vav. R. Pinchas Wolf (1875-1968), in his commentary to this verse, explains that since the sun and moon are only large relative to our position on Earth looking at them, and are not objectively the largest stars and moons, the word is written defectively.¹⁴ This interpretation follows the approach that a defective spelling comes to minimize. Thus defective spellings of gadol indicate a place where there is not actual greatness, while the plene spelling would imply true greatness.

Let us examine a few other instances of this word, and specifically with the same conjugation, as in Genesis 1:16, ha-gadol. From a statistical perspective, in Genesis ha-gadol is more commonly spelled defectively by a ratio of 5:2, Exodus only uses the defective spelling, while Deuteronomy has a higher percentage of the longer spelling, but still the shorter spelling is more prevalent, 8:5.¹⁵ Leviticus 21:10 is the only occurrence of ha-gadol in that book, it is plene. There is only one case of ha-gadol written plene in Numbers, versus four instances of defective spelling.¹⁶ There does not seem to be any obvious method to choosing which spelling to use, but we can say that the more common spelling of ha-gadol is defective. This relatively small pool makes it a good object of investigation.

In Genesis 10:21, Shem is described as older brother of Japeth. Although the verse is ambiguous as to whether Shem is the brother of the older Japeth, or he is himself the older brother of Japeth, the word for “older” here is ha-gadol, spelled with a vav. Here it is interpreted in the 19th century work Kvod ha-Torah to imply that he was truly great.¹⁷ Whether the term ha-gadol here is referring to Shem or Japeth, the Bible records only positive things about both of them, so the full spelling is appropriate. Contrast this to Genesis 27:1 and 27:15 where Esau is called the older son, but ha-gadol is spelled there defectively, without a vav. The 19th century work Heichal ha-Bracha explains that while Esau was older in age, he was not greater in character, thus the letter vav is absent.¹⁸

Similarly, in Exodus 3:3, the burning bush is described as a marvelous sight, the word ha-gadol here for “marvelous” is spelled without a vav. Heichal ha-Bracha here explains that the spelling indicates that the time for redemption had not yet arrived.¹⁹ We can also understand that the burning bush was not such an incredible miracle when compared to what will come later.

This way of interpreting the variant spellings of ha-gadol in particular already appears in Medieval Rabbinic commentaries. Exodus 18:22 describes Yitro’s instructions to Moses regarding appointing judges to help him, Have them bring every major dispute to you, but let them decide every minor dispute themselves. The word “major” (ha-gadol) is spelled without a vav, leading the 12th century work, Midrash Shekhel Tov to explain that these are not necessarily objectively major cases, but rather “even small matters that are difficult…this is a major thing in their eyes.”²⁰

Leviticus 21:10 is the only instance of ha-gadol in that book, in reference to the High Priest, being The priest who is exalted (ha-gadol) above his fellows… TB Yoma 18a learns from this verse that the High Priest “must be greater than his priestly brethren in strength, in beauty, in wisdom, and in wealth.” R. Azriel Rubin (d. 1912) in his work Sdei Yaar explains that all of these aspects of greatness are denoted by the word ha-gadol having a plene spelling, indicating nothing is lacking or deficient.²¹ As opposed to this, in all three references to the High Priest in Numbers 35 (vv. 25 and 28), where the rules of the city of refuge are written, where the manslayer must reside until the death of the High Priest (Numbers 35:28) are all written without a vav. In the commentary attributed to R. Elazar of Worms this is explained as referring to the deficiency of the High Priest, as TB Makkot 11a explains that it was the High Priest’s spiritual responsibility to pray and ensure that cases of accidental death do not occur.²²

Numbers 34:6 describes the western border of the Land of Israel, the coast of the Great Sea. The word “great”, ha-gadol, is spelled here with a vav. Rabbenu Yoel explains that while the Mediterranean Sea is not the largest body of water, however since it is the most important as it borders on Israel, it is written with a vav.²³

Even though this interpretive methodology is the most popular uniform theory regarding explaining variable spellings, there are still times when it seems that the interpretation could have been either way, and the one chosen is what fit. For example, Genesis 15:18 describes the borders of the land promised to Abraham, from the river of Egypt to the great (ha-gadol) river, the river Euphrates. Here Midrash Shekhel Tov explains that the word ha-gadol is spelled without a vav, as the river is only large in a subjective sense, because it is used to delineate the borders of the Land of Israel, and objectively there are many rivers longer than the Euphrates.²⁴ This is also how R. Yehudah haChassid interprets the defective spelling of ha-gadol regarding the Euphrates in Deuteronomy 1:7.²⁵ Note that above Rabbenu Yoel explained that the word ha-gadol in the coast of the Great Sea (Numbers 34:6) is spelled with a vav because while the Mediterranean Sea is not the largest body of water, since it borders on Israel it is written with a vav. Of course these two contradictory approaches are found in completely different works, still it demonstrates that even this apparently uniform methodology can be used in opposite ways, the defective letter denoting either an objective or subjective deficiency. This case is further complicated by the fact that in the next verse, Numbers 34:7, the same Great Sea is spelled without a vav. R. Pinchas Wolf explains that this is because in Numbers 34:6 the Great Sea is described as serving as the western border, so it deserves to be written plene, whereas in Numbers 34:7 the Great Sea is only the starting point for determining the northern border, so it is serving a secondary role, and thus is written without a vav.²⁶

The Approaches Found in the Talmud and Midrash

While it is true that “out of the vast number of spellings that were actually or potentially variable only a limited proportion were subject to exegetical comment on the spelling by rabbis” in the Talmud,²⁷ if we examine those cases where the Talmud does provide an interpretation, these in fact operate in accordance with uniform approaches.

Often the Talmud follows the approach we have seen regarding deficient spellings, that they indicate some lack or deficiency. For example, R. Nachman explains in TB Sukkah 9b that the word b’sukkot written without a vav in Leviticus 23:42 comes to invalidate a sukkah built underneath another sukkah. Despite the fact that the word is plural, the defective spelling takes away from that plurality. Similarly, that defective spelling is used in TB Sukkah 6b to allow one of the walls of the sukkah to be incomplete, deficient, and yet still count as a wall. The defective spelling of the word totafot in Deuteronomy 6:8 is used in TB Sanhedrin 4b to minimize the number of chambers needed in tefillin, reducing the plurality implied in the world. Similarly deficient spellings in the narrative regarding the sins of the sons of Eli in 1 Samuel 2:22 and 24 are used in TB Shabbat 55b to indicate that they did not actually sin. Conversely, the double plene spelling of Putiel in Exodus 7:25, with both a vav and yud, is interpreted in TB Sotah 43a as implying the Pinchas was descended from both Joseph and Yitro, who are both hinted to by the term “Putiel.”²⁸

This is also seen in the classical midrash. Both Mekhilta (Yitro 1) and Tanhuma (Behar 1) explain that while Ephron is initially spelled with a vav, once he asked for and received payment from Abraham for a burial plot for Sara his name is spelled defectively (Genesis 23:17) because he was considered to have degraded himself by not giving the plot for free as he initially stated.

Although the Talmud never explicitly presents a uniform approach that defective spellings indicate deficiency, this is the way these words are often interpreted in the cases where they do provide an explanation.

Other explanations are sometimes found in the Talmud, based on an alternate reading of the word due to the defective spelling. For example, TB Rosh Hashanah 24a explains the source for the rule that the assembled people have to respond to the declaration of the court when a new month is sanctified. “Rav Pappa said that the verse states: Which you shall proclaim them [otam] to be sacred convocations (Leviticus 23:2). Read into the verse: You [atem]…” Meaning that since the word otam is spelled without a vav, it can be read as atem. There is a similar teaching in TB Baba Batra 21a, “Truly, that man is remembered for the good, and his name is Yehoshua ben Gamla. If not for him the Torah would have been forgotten from the Jewish people. Initially, whoever had a father would have his father teach him Torah, and whoever did not have a father would not learn Torah. What verse did they interpret? And you shall teach them [otam] to your sons (Deuteronomy 11:19), to mean: And you yourselves [atem] shall teach,” meaning that classes with teachers must be established by the community to make sure everyone learns Torah. This approach to variable spellings allows for a wider range of interpretation than always looking for some kind of deficiency.

This second approach was not as popular in post-Talmudic literature, probably because there was a certain hesitation in employing a methodology that was so open ended. Still, this approach can be found in medieval rabbinic literature as well. For example, Rabbenu Yoel writes that the defective spelling of the adulteress [ha-noafet] in Leviticus 20:10 allows it to be read as ha-ne’efet (the baked), “because she is baked in the fire of her evil inclination.”²⁹

It is true that “even at best one must doubt whether rabbinic comments and interpretations were numerous enough to cover more than a limited number of the words in which spelling variations occurred,”³⁰ but when an interpretation was provided in the Talmud or midrash, it appears to be based on some kind of unwritten, yet presumed, uniform methodology.

Conclusion

The exegetical interpretations of the variable spellings in the Bible are considered by Bible scholars to be without any basis as the spelling of words in the Bible is understood not to be governed by strict rules. However, the Talmud and midrash provide some localized explanations which seem to follow an implied uniform approach. The approach of understanding defective spellings to imply some element of deficiency was explicitly stated by later sages, who applied this methodology to many cases that were not dealt with in earlier sources. While individual readers of the Bible may not find the individual interpretations compelling, and feel that they are too elastic and unconvincing, rabbinic literature, going back to the earliest exegetical comments that we have on the variable spellings, operate based on a certain uniform methodology.