Part of the subject hub The Aleppo Codex, where the reference notes and essays on this subject are gathered in one place
In the summer of 2012 a professor in the Bible department of Bar-Ilan University, in Ramat Gan, told a newspaper reporter that every Hebrew Bible on the shelves of Jewish homes around the world contained errors. Sometimes there were scores of them, sometimes hundreds. Most were not dramatic: a missing yod, a wrong vowel sign, a mistaken cantillation mark.1 Menachem Cohen had by then spent forty years on the problem, as director of the project that called its answer Mikraot Gedolot HaKeter, and he spoke of it with the confidence of a man who had counted. Between the various rabbinic Bibles in those homes, he said, there were about fifteen hundred differences. “In all of them.”2 The reporter went back four centuries to explain how this had happened, to a corrector in a Venetian printing house who had set out to fix the text of the Bible for good, and had not been able to see the one book that could have helped him most.3
A Reader’s Bible, Built in Venice
The kind of book Cohen was trying to rebuild is familiar to anyone who has opened a traditional Jewish Bible for study. The project’s own description of it is plain. The biblical text stands in the middle, and around it are set the texts that belong to it: the commentaries of the medieval exegetes of the plain sense, such as Rashi and Abraham ibn Ezra; the ancient Aramaic translations, Targum Onkelos and Targum Jonathan; and the notes of the Masorah, which count and list the repeated combinations of letters and words throughout the Bible, and which were formed in the first millennium by the “masters of the Masorah” to keep the copying of the text exact and uniform among the communities of Israel.4 Reviewers of the first volume of HaKeter explained the name for English readers. Miqra’ot gedolot, “great Scriptures,” are editions of the Hebrew Bible with Masoretic notes, Aramaic translations and commentaries, as opposed to miqra’ot qetanot, “little Scriptures,” which carry the bare text.5
The term was first applied to the edition prepared by Jacob ben Hayyim ibn Adonijah and printed in 1524–1525 at the press of Daniel Bomberg in Venice.6 The journal has told that story in its essays on the Bomberg press and on Jacob ben Hayyim and the Second Rabbinic Bible. The reasons it mattered so much to the project at Bar-Ilan can be stated briefly. Barry Walfish, reviewing HaKeter’s first volume, called Ben Hayyim’s edition ground-breaking in several ways. It was the first serious attempt to produce a unified consonantal text from the best manuscript evidence available to its editor. It was the first printed Bible to carry the Masoretic notes beside the text. It achieved an unprecedented accuracy in pointing and cantillation. And it fixed on the page, beside the text, the commentaries of the great medieval exegetes, more of them than any edition before it.7
Cohen’s own historical writing puts the same edition at the hinge of the whole history of the text. In an essay on the sanctity of the biblical text and the science of textual criticism, he argued that the event which substantially changed the textual situation throughout the Diaspora, including Ashkenaz, and which led to the final victory of the authorized text, was the second edition of Miqraot Gedolot, printed by Ben Hayyim in Venice in 1524–1525. Later printed editions were built on it. A narrow margin of variants continued to appear from one printing to the next, but in his judgement the number of such changes did not exceed what is found in the best codices of the authorized text over its whole transmission.8
Printing, he wrote, did something manuscripts had never done. Even the Torah scrolls that went on being written by hand became more uniform, because printing put into the hands of scribes everywhere identical handbooks, the tikkune soferim, from which to copy their scrolls.9 The Bible on the family shelf and the scroll in the synagogue ark were both, in that sense, children of Venice.
The Corrector Who Could Not See the Crown
The 2012 report quotes Ben Hayyim’s own reason for his labour, from the preface he wrote in Venice. He had seen, he said, that many of the people, and many of the learned among them, no longer valued the Masorah, and asked what use it would be to them; it had nearly been forgotten and lost.10
I saw that many of the masses, as well as many of the wise scholars among us, in our generation, do not esteem neither tradition nor the mesora.
Jacob ben Hayyim, quoted in Nir Hasson, “Reconstructing the Bible”11
He set himself, the report says, to produce the most precise Scriptures of his day, and he did, by the standards of his day.12 The difficulty lay in the books he could reach. Walfish names the main reason the edition fell short of its goal as Ben Hayyim’s choice of manuscripts. He did his best to obtain accurate copies of the text and of the Masorah, but he was limited to what lay within his geographical range, and it is clear today that the manuscripts he used were not the best. Time pressed on him as well, and did not allow him to use to full effect even the material that he had.13 Those who reprinted his work, Walfish adds, did not have the most accurate manuscripts either, and did not always make full use of what they had.14
The book that Ben Hayyim lacked was far away, in Syria. The report imagines it in the keeping of the community of Aleppo, who guarded it so closely that human eyes were hardly allowed to see its pages.15 Cohen put the consequence bluntly. “The fact that we skipped over the Keter Aram Tsova at the beginning of print was a huge loss,” he said. “This was a blunder.”16
Ben Hayyim also had to choose what to print beside the text. Walfish observes that he was guided by popularity and by space. He took the best-known commentaries, those of Rashi, Ibn Ezra, Radak and Ralbag, but left out others that were equally popular and simply too long. Ramban on the Torah and Radak on Psalms were not included. For Isaiah he chose Radak over the equally popular Ibn Ezra, and there are occasional errors in the identification of the commentaries themselves.17 The shape of the traditional rabbinic Bible, in other words, was partly the shape of a sixteenth-century page.
Confusion in the Scrolls
Ben Hayyim was not the first to look at the copies around him and find them in disarray. Cohen, writing about the attitude of medieval scholars to the variety of texts, gathered the complaints of three great legal authorities, one from the East, one from Spain and one from Ashkenaz, each of whom had come to the same discovery while trying to write a kosher Torah scroll.18
The first was Maimonides, in Egypt. He wrote that he had seen great confusion in all the scrolls about the open and closed sections, and that even the experts who had written works to establish them disagreed with one another, according to the copies on which they relied. He therefore set down the sections and the forms of the songs so that scrolls could be corrected by them.19 And he named the book he had trusted. It was a book renowned in Egypt, containing all twenty-four books of the Bible, which had been kept in Jerusalem for many years so that scrolls could be checked from it. Everyone relied on it, he wrote, because it had been corrected by ben Asher, who spent many years writing it precisely and checked it many times; and he had relied on it when he wrote a Torah scroll according to the law.20 Cohen reads the passage as most scholars do: it was apparently on this manuscript, the Keter Aram Sova, that Maimonides based his laws of writing a Torah scroll.21
The second was Meir ben Todros ha-Levi, the Ramah, in Spain. In the introduction to his Masoret Seyag la-Torah, in Cohen’s translation, he complained that even the proofread scrolls in his possession were in great disagreement. “Were it not for the Masorah which serves as a fence around the Torah,” he wrote, “almost no one would find his way in the controversies between the scrolls.” A man who wanted to write a kosher scroll would stumble over the full and defective spellings and grope “like a blind man through a fog of controversy.”22 The third was Yom Tov Lipmann Mühlhausen, in Ashkenaz, who wrote in his Tikkun Sefer Torah that he had toiled to find a scroll with the proper letters and sections and had found none, “not to mention a scroll which is accurate as to the plene and defective spellings, a subject completely lost to our entire generation.”23
Cohen’s point is that these sages were driven by law, not by curiosity. They would never have compared manuscripts if a single missing or extra letter, or a misplaced section break, did not make a Torah scroll unfit, and they did not even discuss the other books of the Bible.24 But their complaints describe the world into which print arrived. In Ashkenaz, Cohen argues, the variety of texts continued until printing began. Some of the first printed Bibles were set by German editors who had moved to Italy, and he cites the Soncino Prophets of 1485–1486 and the complete Bible of 1488, whose editor assured his readers that no codex written with a pen was as correct as his printed copies.25 Compared with the model codices, Cohen found, those editions show an immense number of variants, sometimes scores in a chapter and tens of thousands across the Bible; they were not the slips of a “young and inexperienced typesetter,” as the editor would have it, but the tradition of the Ashkenazi manuscripts.26 The journal’s essays on the Soncino Bible of 1488 and on Norzi’s Minhat Shai follow the printers and the correctors who came after them.
The Book Ben Hayyim Never Saw
The manuscript that Maimonides trusted, and that Ben Hayyim could not reach, gives the Bar-Ilan edition its name. Yosef Ofer, of Bar-Ilan and the Academy of the Hebrew Language, who once worked on the HaKeter project himself,27 describes it as the most famous Masoretic codex: a complete Bible of 490 leaves, evidently written in Tiberias about 930, to which Aharon ben Asher added the vowels, the accents and the Masoretic notes.28 The codex had no colophon. What it had, at its beginning, was an eleventh-century dedication recording its gift to the Karaite synagogue in Jerusalem. That inscription names the scribe who wrote the letters, Shlomo ben Buya’a, “the swift scribe,” and gives Aharon ben Asher, who pointed it and wrote its notes, a long run of superlatives: father of sages and first of scholars, unique in his time.29 Both names carry the blessing for the dead. Ofer draws from the inscription the division of labour between the two men. The scribe was a calligrapher, like the scribes who write scrolls today. The Masorete was responsible for the text: he added the reading tradition he had received, and he checked the letters the scribe had written.30
Already in its own age the book was known by its crown. Ofer cites a note in another great Bible of the period, the codex once owned by Suleiman Sassoon, whose Masorete quoted a reading “in the work of the great teacher Aharon ben Asher in his cycle known as al-Taj,” the Arabic word for crown.31 The 2012 report tells the codex’s later journey in the form in which Bar-Ilan’s friends heard it: bought by the Karaite community in Jerusalem, carried off by the Crusaders and ransomed by the Jews of Egypt, consulted by Maimonides, and kept for centuries by the Jews of Aleppo.32 The journal’s essays on the Aleppo Codex and on its authority among the Tiberian manuscripts give the fuller account.
The report also gives the loss. During the riots against the Jews of Aleppo, it says, the codex was torn, and much of it was later brought to Israel by roundabout ways with the help of Yitzhak Ben-Zvi, but it arrived incomplete: the first two hundred pages, containing nearly all of the Five Books of Moses, had disappeared.33 The report dates those riots to 1948; most accounts, including the journal’s essay on the pogrom and the rescue, place them in December 1947. The search for the missing leaves is told in The Missing Leaves.
For Cohen the surviving pages were all the more precious for the near-perfection he saw in them. “For Ben Asher, author of the Keter, the conformity was absolute. Well, not absolute. Had it been absolute he would have been an angel,” he told the reporter. In his estimate it would be hard to find more than ten departures from the Masorah in the codex, against thousands of corrections in every other manuscript and many hundreds in the printed books.34 He preferred, moreover, not to call the printed departures “errors.” They were “nonconformities,” measured against the Masorah, which can say how many times a given word appears in a given form in the whole Bible, and so allows a copyist to keep as close as possible to the text the Masoretes knew.35
Building the New Edition
The project describes itself as a new scientific foundation edition of the classical form. It was founded and is directed by Cohen, formerly dean of the Faculty of Jewish Studies at Bar-Ilan, and it has been carried on for some thirty years by a team of research assistants and staff.36 The staff page shows what that means in practice: a scientific secretary; senior research assistants deciding readings and preparing the reader’s aids; a specialist who sets the punctuation; others who survey all the manuscripts of each commentary to choose base texts and control groups and then compare them systematically; a specialist in the Masorah; a scholar responsible for the readings and vowels of Targum Onkelos; a typesetter; and programmers for the online edition.37 Its list of former workers includes names familiar to students of the Masorah, among them Yitzhak Penkower and Yosef Ofer.38
The first volume, Joshua and Judges, appeared in 1992 and was received by reviewers, the project recalls, as an event of historical importance.39 Walfish counted 180 Hebrew pages and a hundred more numbered with stars in that first book.40 A reviewer of the fourth volume, Isaiah, in 1996, explained to readers that the general principles of the edition were set out in the Joshua–Judges volume, which contained both a clear defence of the edition and a useful history of Miqraot Gedolot, while the Kings volume carried a highly technical discussion of the use of the ga’ya.41 The edition was printed book by book. In 2012, sixteen volumes had appeared and four remained, and a donation of a million and a half dollars was to see them through.42 The project now describes the printed edition as twenty-one volumes, with a general introduction and topical introductions by Cohen and an essay on Ibn Ezra’s commentary by Uriel Simon,43 and Bar-Ilan University Press sells its large-format volumes at twenty-three by thirty-one centimetres.44
The Masorah of the Crown, and a Key to It
At the centre of each page is the text of the Aleppo Codex, which the project calls the most accurate manuscript of the Bible as judged by the notes of the Masorah. The portions missing from it were reconstructed by Cohen and are presented to the reader in full.45 According to the 2012 report, he and his staff drew conclusions for the lost portions from the surviving parts of the codex, used other early manuscripts considered to have a Masorah of high quality, and employed a computer program that helped reconstruct Ben Asher’s understanding of the Masoretic notes.46
The notes themselves are printed as the codex has them. The reviewer of the Isaiah volume found the Aleppo text carefully and clearly reproduced together with its Masorah parva and Masorah magna, and singled out the explanation of the laconic notes which the editors had added, called Ein ha-Masorah, “the eye of the Masorah,” as extremely useful for readers not acquainted with the intricacies of the system.47 The project describes the same apparatus as allowing even a reader who is not an expert to find his way through what it calls an instructive text in its own right.48 The journal’s essays on the Masorah parva and Masorah magna and on the Masorah finalis introduce the kinds of notes that Ein ha-Masorah explains.
Targums from Yemen
Around the text stand the Aramaic Targums. The project states that their text was edited from accurate Yemenite manuscripts,49 and the 2012 report repeats that the translation into Aramaic was based on ancient manuscripts from Yemen.50 The reviewer of Isaiah noticed the consequence on the page: the Targum of the edition uses a slightly modified system of vocalisation, fitting its Yemenite origin.51 The journal’s essays on Targum Onkelos and on the Yemenite Taj explain why Yemen, of all the Jewish communities, became a court of appeal for the reading of the Targum.
Commentaries Restored from Their Manuscripts
The commentaries posed a different problem, and the project’s account of it is one of the clearest statements of the edition’s method. Before printing, it explains, the commentaries were passed from one manuscript to the next, and errors entered some of them, partly by accident, as the routine of copying produced its slips, and partly on purpose, as copyists corrected the text according to their own logic and their taste in language and style. Copyists sometimes added explanatory notes of their own in the margins, and in time these entered the body of the commentary.52 To deal with this the project introduced what it describes as a new and systematic method: a sample check of all the manuscripts of each commentary now in existence, to find those closest to the original, and to fix the final text from them.53
The results are presented with aids that earlier rabbinic Bibles did not have: punctuation, vowels for difficult words, bold type for the words of the verse, references for quotations, the expansion of abbreviations, and markings for later additions and for the author’s own corrections of his commentary.54 One feature attracted more notice than the rest. The 2012 report records, “to the delight of students,” that Rashi’s commentary is printed in ordinary square letters. The semi-cursive type known as Rashi script, which generations of students have struggled to read, was simply a printers’ font meant to distinguish the commentary from the text of Scripture. “Rashi was not able to read Rashi writing,” Cohen said.55
The edition also widened the circle of commentators. The project counts twenty different commentaries across the Bible, some not included in earlier editions, and adds a glossary for the philosophical language of Gersonides.56 That glossary explains why it is needed: Ralbag wrote in the language of medieval Jewish thought, shaped largely by translations of Arabic terms and structures, the language through which the great Jewish thinkers came to know the methods of Greek philosophy.57 The Isaiah volume shows the policy at work. It prints seven commentators, Rashi, Radak, Ibn Ezra, Joseph Kara, Eliezer of Beaugency, Isaiah of Trani and Joseph Kaspi. Ibn Ezra on Isaiah, the reviewer noted, was not found in the usual rabbinic Bible and had been available only in Michael Friedländer’s edition of 1873, and the important commentaries of Kara and Beaugency had not been widely available at all.58 Ben Hayyim had left Ibn Ezra out of Isaiah to save space;59 HaKeter put him back.
The reviewer made a further observation that is easily missed. The edition does not try to harmonise. When the manuscripts of a commentary support a biblical reading that differs from the Aleppo Codex, the difference is retained, so that the volume shows how the text continued, to a small extent, to diverge through the Middle Ages.60 A commentator’s lemma, in other words, is allowed to remain a witness to the Bible he read.
From Shelf to Screen
From the start the project planned to live on screens as well as on shelves. Its online edition, which the project calls the heart of its site, rests on software developed for HaKeter that allows readers to browse every component of the edition and to search its texts, including queries on vowels and accents.61 The desktop program goes further. It searches the Targums, the commentaries and the Masorah, but its chief feature is a search of the biblical text in three dimensions at once, letters, vowels and accents, with wildcards in each dimension, groups of letters or accents, settings for dagesh, sin and maqqef, and searches by root.62 In 2012 the reporter called this “Keter Application” every philologist’s dream, and wrote that it made possible, for the first time, a scientific examination of the ancient Masorah. Cohen hoped it would change young people’s sense of the biblical text, and was providing it to schools at no cost.63
A. P. Hayman had seen the design whole from the first volume. Writing in 1994, he listed seven ways in which the new edition differed from every earlier version: it was based on the Aleppo Codex and reproduced its Masorah exactly; it explained the Masorah on every page; its Targum and commentaries came from the best available manuscripts; it printed a wider collection of commentaries; it used square script throughout, with no Rashi script; it marked lemma from commentary in bold; and all its material had been mounted on a database to be made available with search software.64
A Crown and Its Rivals
The reception of the early volumes was warm. Walfish wrote that the first volume set a new standard for accuracy and accessibility.65 Eric Lawee, in the Journal of Jewish Studies in 1997, thought that the editor and his team were initiating a new era in the history of rabbinic Bibles, of a kind Ben Hayyim could never have imagined, and predicted that, like Ben Hayyim’s work of nearly five hundred years before, HaKeter would set the standard for decades and perhaps for centuries.66 Gary Rendsburg wrote that all serious students of the Bible, the Targumim, the Masorah and the rabbinic commentaries were in Cohen’s debt.67 These verdicts are gathered on the project’s own site, and should be read with that in mind; they are nonetheless the words of their authors.
The fundraising language of the 2012 report was bolder still. Cohen claimed that his team had produced the most accurate version of the Bible published in at least the past thousand years, “or maybe, ever,” and hoped it would become the agreed standard that would carry the text from the age of books into the digital age.68 Bar-Ilan’s own pages call it “the new standard Bible for every Jewish home.”69 A historian of the text can note that the claim of accuracy is a claim about conformity with the Masorah of one codex, which is exactly what the edition set out to achieve, and not a claim about the original wording of the books, which is a different question.
There was, moreover, a rival crown. The report observed that the Bar-Ilan HaKeter had a competitor in Keter Yerushalayim, published eleven years earlier by the late Rabbi Mordechai Breuer, also based on the Aleppo Codex, and that a philological argument had broken out between the two experts about the proper way to place a certain accent sign above the letters.70 The journal’s essay on the Jerusalem Crown edition describes Breuer’s single-volume text. The two projects agreed on the manuscript and differed on its details, which is perhaps the most Masoretic of disagreements.
The reviewer of the Isaiah volume, finally, raised the question that hangs over every Aleppo-based edition. One might debate the importance of the project for the Torah, he wrote, where much of the Aleppo Codex is missing.71 For Joshua or Isaiah, a reader of HaKeter reads the codex itself, notes and all. For Genesis, the reader reads Cohen’s reconstruction of what the codex probably said, built from its surviving parts, from other manuscripts with a good Masorah, and from a model of Ben Asher’s habits.72 The reconstruction may be very good. It remains a reconstruction.
The Shelf in the Home
The hub page on Miqraot Gedolot HaKeter gives the edition’s facts at a glance. What the sources add is a sense of its scale and of its argument with time. Ben Hayyim, in Venice, worked from the books within his reach, under the pressure of a press, and produced a Bible that every later printer followed.73 Maimonides, in Egypt, had already pointed to the one book that everyone relied on,74 and the Ramah, in Spain, had already said that without the Masorah no one could find a way through the quarrels of the scrolls.75 At Bar-Ilan, a team of assistants, programmers and typesetters spent some thirty years putting that book and its Masorah back at the centre of the page, with the commentators around it restored from their own manuscripts.76
Cohen hoped, in 2012, that the finished work would be “the real Keter Aram Tsova.”77 It is not, and cannot be: the real codex lies in Jerusalem, missing most of its Torah. What HaKeter offers is a way for a reader at a kitchen table, or a student at a screen, to read the codex’s text and its notes, and to hear its medieval commentators, more nearly as their authors left them than any rabbinic Bible since Venice allowed.
Notes
- Nir Hasson, “Reconstructing the Bible,” Haaretz English edition, 18 July 2012, reproduced by American Friends of Bar-Ilan University, at afbiu.org. *
- Hasson, “Reconstructing the Bible”. *
- Hasson, “Reconstructing the Bible”. *
- Mikraot Gedolot HaKeter project, Bar-Ilan University, home page and description of the edition (Hebrew), at mgketer.org. *
- Barry Walfish, review of Menachem Cohen, ed., Mikra’ot Gedolot “Haketer”: Joshua–Judges (Ramat-Gan: Bar-Ilan University Press, 1992), Hebrew Studies 36 (1995): 230 ff., doi.org/10.1353/hbr.1995.0057, 230. *
- Walfish, review of Joshua–Judges, 230. *
- Walfish, review of Joshua–Judges, 230. *
- Menachem Cohen, “The Idea of the Sanctity of the Biblical Text and the Science of Textual Criticism,” English version, at users.cecs.anu.edu.au. *
- Cohen, “Sanctity of the Biblical Text”. *
- Hasson, “Reconstructing the Bible”. *
- Hasson, “Reconstructing the Bible”. *
- Hasson, “Reconstructing the Bible”. *
- Walfish, review of Joshua–Judges. *
- Walfish, review of Joshua–Judges. *
- Hasson, “Reconstructing the Bible”. *
- Hasson, “Reconstructing the Bible”. *
- Walfish, review of Joshua–Judges. *
- Cohen, “Sanctity of the Biblical Text”. *
- Maimonides, Mishneh Torah, Laws of Tefillin, Mezuzah and the Torah Scroll 8:4, trans. Eliyahu Touger, at sefaria.org. *
- Maimonides, Mishneh Torah, Sefer Torah 8:4. *
- Cohen, “Sanctity of the Biblical Text”. *
- Cohen, “Sanctity of the Biblical Text”. *
- Cohen, “Sanctity of the Biblical Text”. *
- Cohen, “Sanctity of the Biblical Text”. *
- Cohen, “Sanctity of the Biblical Text”. *
- Cohen, “Sanctity of the Biblical Text”. *
- Mikraot Gedolot HaKeter project, “Project Staff” (Hebrew), at mgketer.org. *
- Yosef Ofer, The Masora on Scripture and Its Methods (Berlin: De Gruyter, 2019), preface and chapter 1 in the publisher’s preview, at pageplace.de, 7. *
- Ofer, Masora on Scripture, 7. *
- Ofer, Masora on Scripture, 7–8. *
- Ofer, Masora on Scripture, 8. *
- Hasson, “Reconstructing the Bible”. *
- Hasson, “Reconstructing the Bible”. *
- Hasson, “Reconstructing the Bible”. *
- Hasson, “Reconstructing the Bible”. *
- Mikraot Gedolot HaKeter, home page. *
- Mikraot Gedolot HaKeter, “Project Staff”. *
- Mikraot Gedolot HaKeter, “Project Staff”. *
- Mikraot Gedolot HaKeter, home page. *
- Walfish, review of Joshua–Judges, 230. *
- Review of Menahem Cohen, ed., Mikraot Gedolot “Haketer” Vol. 4: Isaiah (Ramat Gan: Bar-Ilan University Press, 1996), Hebrew Studies 40 (1999): 314–315, doi.org/10.1353/hbr.1999.0016, 314. *
- Hasson, “Reconstructing the Bible”. *
- Mikraot Gedolot HaKeter, home page. *
- Bar-Ilan University Press, catalogue entry for Mikra’ot Gedolot Haketer, at biupress.co.il. *
- Mikraot Gedolot HaKeter, home page. *
- Hasson, “Reconstructing the Bible”. *
- Hebrew Studies 40 review of Isaiah, 314–315. *
- Mikraot Gedolot HaKeter, home page. *
- Mikraot Gedolot HaKeter, home page. *
- Hasson, “Reconstructing the Bible”. *
- Hebrew Studies 40 review of Isaiah, 315. *
- Mikraot Gedolot HaKeter, home page. *
- Mikraot Gedolot HaKeter, home page. *
- Mikraot Gedolot HaKeter, home page. *
- Hasson, “Reconstructing the Bible”. *
- Mikraot Gedolot HaKeter, home page. *
- Mikraot Gedolot HaKeter project, “Glossary of Terms and Expressions in the Commentary of Ralbag” (Hebrew), at mgketer.org. *
- Hebrew Studies 40 review of Isaiah, 315. *
- Walfish, review of Joshua–Judges. *
- Hebrew Studies 40 review of Isaiah, 315. *
- Mikraot Gedolot HaKeter, home page. *
- Mikraot Gedolot HaKeter project, “The Keter Software” (Hebrew), at mgketer.org. *
- Hasson, “Reconstructing the Bible”. *
- Mikraot Gedolot HaKeter project, “Responses and Reviews” (Hebrew page quoting the reviews in their original languages), at mgketer.org. *
- Mikraot Gedolot HaKeter, “Responses and Reviews”. *
- Mikraot Gedolot HaKeter, “Responses and Reviews”. *
- Mikraot Gedolot HaKeter, “Responses and Reviews”. *
- Hasson, “Reconstructing the Bible”. *
- Bar-Ilan University, “Mikra’ot Gedolot,” Jewish heritage pages, at biu.ac.il. *
- Hasson, “Reconstructing the Bible”. *
- Hebrew Studies 40 review of Isaiah, 315. *
- Hasson, “Reconstructing the Bible”. *
- Walfish, review of Joshua–Judges. *
- Maimonides, Mishneh Torah, Sefer Torah 8:4. *
- Cohen, “Sanctity of the Biblical Text”. *
- Mikraot Gedolot HaKeter, home page. *
- Hasson, “Reconstructing the Bible”. *