{"id":1253,"date":"2026-11-10T16:31:38","date_gmt":"2026-11-10T16:31:38","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/masoretes.online\/wordpress\/mishael-ben-uzziel-book-of-differences\/"},"modified":"2026-11-10T16:31:38","modified_gmt":"2026-11-10T16:31:38","slug":"mishael-ben-uzziel-book-of-differences","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/masoretes.online\/wordpress\/mishael-ben-uzziel-book-of-differences\/","title":{"rendered":"Mishael ben Uzziel and the Book of Differences"},"content":{"rendered":"\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">The <a href=\"https:\/\/grokipedia.com\/page\/Masoretes\">Masoretes<\/a> of <a href=\"https:\/\/grokipedia.com\/page\/Tiberias\">Tiberias<\/a> did not form a single undivided school. By the tenth century the Tiberian tradition of <a href=\"https:\/\/grokipedia.com\/page\/Tiberian_vocalization\">vocalising<\/a> and <a href=\"https:\/\/grokipedia.com\/page\/Hebrew_cantillation\">accenting<\/a> the Hebrew Bible had developed into several closely related branches, of which two were regarded as the most authoritative: that of Aaron ben Moses ben Asher and that of Moses ben David ben Naftali. The differences between them are known almost entirely from a single treatise, written in Arabic by a scholar named Mishael ben Uzziel and known as the <em>Kit\u0101b al-Khilaf<\/em>, \u201cThe Book of Differences\u201d. Aron Dotan describes the work as a collection of the points of controversy and agreement between the two masters of the Masorah, and as the only source for the readings and the method of Ben Naftali, from whose own works nothing survives except perhaps a few fragments that reflect his way of vocalising.<sup class=\"fn-ref\" id=\"ref-1\"><a href=\"#note-1\">1<\/a><\/sup><\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">The Book of Differences is a technical work, and much of it is concerned with signs so small that they are invisible to a reader who does not know where to look. Its importance lies in what it reveals about the final stage of the Masoretic period: the degree of uniformity that the Tiberian tradition had reached, the details on which its leading authorities still disagreed, and the way in which later generations used the list to judge between manuscripts. This essay describes the author and his setting, the structure and contents of the work, its relation to the surviving codices, its later reception, and the light that a recently published Geniza booklet has shed on the identity of Ben Naftali.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<div class=\"wp-block-group at-a-glance\"><div class=\"wp-block-group__inner-container is-layout-constrained wp-block-group-is-layout-constrained\">\n\n<h3 class=\"wp-block-heading\" id=\"at-a-glance\">At a glance<\/h3>\n\n<ul class=\"wp-block-list\">\n\n<li><strong>Title:<\/strong> <em>Kit\u0101b al-Khilaf<\/em>, the Book of Differences between the two masters Ben Asher and Ben Naftali, in Arabic.<\/li>\n\n<li><strong>Author:<\/strong> Mishael ben Uzziel, a Karaite scholar active in Jerusalem in the late tenth or early eleventh century.<\/li>\n\n<li><strong>Contents:<\/strong> 867 places of disagreement between Ben Asher and Ben Naftali and 406 places where they agree against another authority, together with general rules in the introduction.<\/li>\n\n<li><strong>Subject matter:<\/strong> mostly the minor <em>ga\u02bfya<\/em> and the <em>ga\u02bfya<\/em> on <em>shewa<\/em>; a few differences of spelling, word division, <em>maqqef<\/em> and vocalisation.<\/li>\n\n<li><strong>Value:<\/strong> the Aleppo Codex agrees with Ben Asher in 94 per cent of recorded differences and the Leningrad Codex in 90 per cent; the Cairo Codex of the Prophets agrees with Ben Naftali in 64 per cent.<\/li>\n\n<li><strong>Modern edition:<\/strong> Lazar Lipsch\u00fctz, Jerusalem 1965, after his study in <em>Textus<\/em> 4 (1964).<\/li>\n\n<\/ul>\n\n<\/div><\/div>\n\n\n\n<h2 class=\"wp-block-heading\" id=\"the-author-and-his-setting\">The Author and His Setting<\/h2>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">Very little is known about Mishael ben Uzziel beyond his work. Dotan, writing for the <em>Encyclopaedia Judaica<\/em>, considered that the author\u2019s date had not been established precisely, and placed him not before the first half of the eleventh century and not after the twelfth.<sup class=\"fn-ref\" id=\"ref-2\"><a href=\"#note-2\">2<\/a><\/sup> More recent research has narrowed the range. Geoffrey Khan, in his study of the Tiberian pronunciation tradition, describes Mishael as active in <a href=\"https:\/\/grokipedia.com\/page\/Jerusalem\">Jerusalem<\/a> at the end of the tenth or early in the eleventh century, and he notes that Mishael, like many scholars of the Jerusalem community of that time, was a <a href=\"https:\/\/grokipedia.com\/page\/Karaite_Judaism\">Karaite<\/a>.<sup class=\"fn-ref\" id=\"ref-3\"><a href=\"#note-3\">3<\/a><\/sup> Khan observes that Karaite scholars in Jerusalem in the eleventh century were in many respects the heirs of the Masoretic school, and that it was there, in the early eleventh century, that Mishael composed the Book of Differences.<sup class=\"fn-ref\" id=\"ref-4\"><a href=\"#note-4\">4<\/a><\/sup><\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">The identification rests in part on an inscription in a Torah manuscript preserved in the Karaite synagogue in <a href=\"https:\/\/grokipedia.com\/page\/Cairo\">Cairo<\/a> and known as C3. Khan quotes it in translation: \u201cI, Mishael ben Uzziel ben Joseph ben Hillel, checked this holy Torah in the enclosure of ben Bakhtavaih, may God have mercy on him.\u201d Following Israel Penkower, Khan regards this as likely to be the Mishael who wrote the Book of Differences. The enclosure of ben Bakhtavaih, he explains, was a scholarly institution founded in Jerusalem at the end of the tenth century by Y\u016bsuf ibn Bakhtavaih, also known as Y\u016bsuf ibn N\u016b\u1e25, and it was the hub of Karaite scholarship in the city in the first half of the eleventh century.<sup class=\"fn-ref\" id=\"ref-5\"><a href=\"#note-5\">5<\/a><\/sup> Yosef Ofer adds a further indication of date. Mishael refers to Ben Naftali with the blessing used for the dead, so that Ben Naftali must have died before Mishael wrote, which according to the study by Penkower cited by Ofer was at the end of the tenth or the beginning of the eleventh century.<sup class=\"fn-ref\" id=\"ref-6\"><a href=\"#note-6\">6<\/a><\/sup><\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">The setting matters for understanding the work. By the time Mishael wrote, the two Masoretes whose differences he recorded were no longer alive, and the tradition of Tiberian reading was being cultivated in Jerusalem rather than in Tiberias. Khan points out that grammarians outside Palestine at this period could no longer gain direct access to the oral tradition of Tiberian reading. <a href=\"https:\/\/grokipedia.com\/page\/Jonah_ibn_Janah\">Jonah ibn Janah<\/a>, an Andalusian grammarian of the early eleventh century, lamented that he could not verify the length of certain vowels because his country lacked readers and teachers of the tradition.<sup class=\"fn-ref\" id=\"ref-7\"><a href=\"#note-7\">7<\/a><\/sup> A work that recorded the differences between the two leading authorities in writing was therefore of value well beyond the circle in which it was composed.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h2 class=\"wp-block-heading\" id=\"the-two-masters\">The Two Masters<\/h2>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">Before turning to the work itself it is worth recalling what is known of the two Masoretes whose differences it records. Ofer summarises the evidence. Both lived in the first half of the tenth century. Aaron ben Moses ben Asher is the better known: he vocalised the Aleppo Codex and wrote its Masoretic notes, and several Masoretic treatises are attributed to him, chief among them the <em>Diqduqe ha-Te\u02bfamim<\/em>. His period of activity can be placed around 930, because the scribe of the Aleppo Codex, Shlomo ben Buya\u02bfa, is known from another manuscript that he wrote in 929, and the colophon of the Cairo Codex of the Prophets, which attributes that manuscript to Aaron\u2019s father Moses ben Asher and dates it to 895, is consistent with such a date for the son.<sup class=\"fn-ref\" id=\"ref-8\"><a href=\"#note-8\">8<\/a><\/sup> Dotan records that Aaron was the first Masorete who, in addition to biblical manuscripts and readings attributed to him, left a well-defined work of Masorah and grammar, the <em>Diqduqe ha-Te\u02bfamim<\/em>, which is the first such collection known by the name of its author and the first compiled with a grammatical aim.<sup class=\"fn-ref\" id=\"ref-9\"><a href=\"#note-9\">9<\/a><\/sup><\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">Of Ben Naftali much less is known. Ofer notes that a Karaite commentary on Genesis 49:21, perhaps by the Karaite scholar Sahl ben Ma\u1e63lia\u1e25, connects both Ben Asher and Ben Naftali with the territory of the tribe of Naphtali and with the city of Tiberias, and that it is reasonable to suppose that Moses ben Naftali was a contemporary of Aaron ben Asher and discussed with him the questions on which they disagreed.<sup class=\"fn-ref\" id=\"ref-10\"><a href=\"#note-10\">10<\/a><\/sup> The later tradition was confused about his name. A Bible manuscript copied at <a href=\"https:\/\/grokipedia.com\/page\/Avignon\">Avignon<\/a> in 1419, now at <a href=\"https:\/\/grokipedia.com\/page\/Trinity_College,_Cambridge\">Trinity College, Cambridge<\/a> and formerly in the private collection of <a href=\"https:\/\/masoretes.online\/wordpress\/christian-david-ginsburg-a-christian-scholar-on-the-masorah\/\">Christian David Ginsburg<\/a>, opens with rules for the letters <em>bgdkpt<\/em> headed as the teaching of \u201cJacob ben Naftali the chief scribe\u201d, and contrasts his practice with that of Moses ben Asher. <a href=\"https:\/\/grokipedia.com\/page\/Elia_Levita\">Elia Levita<\/a> called the Masorete Jacob ben Naftali in the third introduction to his <em>Masoret ha-Masoret<\/em>, and the Italian scholar Gedaliah ibn Ya\u1e25ya, in his <em>Shalshelet ha-Qabbalah<\/em> (Venice, 1586), spoke of two great sages after the generation of <a href=\"https:\/\/grokipedia.com\/page\/Saadia_Gaon\">Saadia Gaon<\/a>, Aaron ben Moses of the tribe of Asher and Moses ben David of the tribe of Naphtali, interpreting their names as tribal designations.<sup class=\"fn-ref\" id=\"ref-11\"><a href=\"#note-11\">11<\/a><\/sup> Ofer suggests that Levita may have taken the name Jacob from the rules for <em>bgdkpt<\/em> rather than from the Book of Differences.<sup class=\"fn-ref\" id=\"ref-12\"><a href=\"#note-12\">12<\/a><\/sup><\/p>\n\n\n\n<h2 class=\"wp-block-heading\" id=\"the-work-and-its-title\">The Work and Its Title<\/h2>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">Dotan gives the full title of the work as <em>Kit\u0101b al-Khulf alladh\u012b bayn al-Mu\u02bfallimayn ben Asher wa-ben Naftali<\/em>, \u201cThe Book of the Differences between the Two Masters, Ben Asher and Ben Naftali\u201d.<sup class=\"fn-ref\" id=\"ref-13\"><a href=\"#note-13\">13<\/a><\/sup> Ofer quotes the opening words of the work from Lipsch\u00fctz\u2019s edition, in which Mishael addresses an unnamed patron: \u201cYou asked, may God strengthen you, that I set down for you the differences over which the two masters Ab\u016b Sa\u02bf\u012bd Aaron ben Moses ben Asher and Moses ben David ben Naftali, may God have mercy on them, disagreed.\u201d Ofer also cites an early Hebrew translation of the same sentence preserved in a compilation known as <em>\u02bfAdat Devorim<\/em>, in a manuscript now in the <a href=\"https:\/\/grokipedia.com\/page\/National_Library_of_Russia\">National Library of Russia<\/a>.<sup class=\"fn-ref\" id=\"ref-14\"><a href=\"#note-14\">14<\/a><\/sup> The opening establishes both the purpose of the work, which was written on request, and the names of the two authorities in the form that Mishael knew.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">Dotan describes the method of compilation. The points of controversy and agreement were gathered, after the death of the two masters, from manuscripts that they had vocalised. Some differences are stated as rules or differences of principle, while the majority are lists of individual details.<sup class=\"fn-ref\" id=\"ref-15\"><a href=\"#note-15\">15<\/a><\/sup> Ofer suggests a different possibility for the origin of the differences themselves: since Ben Asher and Ben Naftali appear to have been active at the same time, it is reasonable to suppose that their disagreements were first recorded following direct discussion between the two, rather than by later comparison of vocalised manuscripts.<sup class=\"fn-ref\" id=\"ref-16\"><a href=\"#note-16\">16<\/a><\/sup> The two views are not necessarily incompatible, since Mishael could have worked from written records of disputes that had first arisen in conversation, but the question cannot be settled from the evidence now available.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h2 class=\"wp-block-heading\" id=\"the-contents\">The Contents<\/h2>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">Khan summarises the scale of the work. It lists disagreements between Ben Asher and Ben Naftali in 867 specific places, and agreements of the two against another authority, usually unnamed, in 406 places. Most of these concern very small details. The majority of the disagreements relate to the minor <a href=\"https:\/\/grokipedia.com\/page\/Ga%27ya\"><em>ga\u02bfya<\/em><\/a>, that is, a <em>ga\u02bfya<\/em> on a short vowel in a closed syllable, and to the <em>ga\u02bfya<\/em> written on <a href=\"https:\/\/grokipedia.com\/page\/Shewa\"><em>shewa<\/em><\/a>. A few relate to spelling, to the division of words and to vocalisation.<sup class=\"fn-ref\" id=\"ref-17\"><a href=\"#note-17\">17<\/a><\/sup> Ofer, using a round figure, speaks of nearly a thousand disputes between the two Masoretes set out in the Book of Differences, concerning vocalisation, the joining of words by <em>maqqef<\/em>, the accents and above all the marking of <em>ga\u02bfyot<\/em>.<sup class=\"fn-ref\" id=\"ref-18\"><a href=\"#note-18\">18<\/a><\/sup><\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">Several general differences are set out in the introduction rather than in the lists. Khan gives examples. Ben Asher vocalised the prepositions <em>le-<\/em> or <em>be-<\/em> with <em>shewa<\/em> when they were followed by <em>yod<\/em> with <em>\u1e25ireq<\/em>, as in <span lang=\"he\" dir=\"rtl\">\u05dc\u05b0\u05d9\u05b4\u05e9\u05b0\u05c2\u05e8\u05b8\u05d0\u05b5\u05dc<\/span> (\u201cfor Israel\u201d), whereas Ben Naftali vocalised the first letter with <em>\u1e25ireq<\/em> and left the <em>yod<\/em> without a vowel, <span lang=\"he\" dir=\"rtl\">\u05dc\u05b4\u05d9\u05e9\u05b0\u05c2\u05e8\u05b8\u05d0\u05b5\u05dc<\/span>. The name Issachar was vocalised differently by Ben Asher and by Ben Naftali, and another Masorete, Moshe Mo\u1e25e, is reported to have had a third practice. Ben Asher vocalised the <em>kaf<\/em> of forms of the verb \u201cto eat\u201d before <em>segol<\/em> with <em>\u1e25a\u1e6def pata\u1e25<\/em>, as in the form meaning \u201cyou will eat it\u201d in Ezekiel 4:12, reflecting a reading of the <em>shewa<\/em> as vocal, whereas Ben Naftali read the <em>shewa<\/em> in all such cases as silent.<sup class=\"fn-ref\" id=\"ref-19\"><a href=\"#note-19\">19<\/a><\/sup><\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">Other entries illustrate the kinds of detail at issue. In a number of cases Ben Naftali read a word with a conjunctive accent where Ben Asher joined it to the following word with <em>maqqef<\/em>, as in the phrase meaning \u201cwhen he blasphemes the Name\u201d in Leviticus 24:16.<sup class=\"fn-ref\" id=\"ref-20\"><a href=\"#note-20\">20<\/a><\/sup> Ben Naftali placed a <a href=\"https:\/\/grokipedia.com\/page\/Dagesh\"><em>dagesh<\/em><\/a> in the first <em>nun<\/em> of the name Nun in the combination \u201cson of Nun\u201d, a measure that Khan interprets as intended to prevent two identical letters from coalescing across the word boundary, and he marked a <em>dagesh<\/em> in the <em>qof<\/em> of the verb meaning \u201che supplants\u201d in Jeremiah 9:3, which ensured a clear division of syllables and distinguished the form from the more frequent name Jacob.<sup class=\"fn-ref\" id=\"ref-21\"><a href=\"#note-21\">21<\/a><\/sup> At Exodus 6:27 Ben Asher is reported to have read the word for \u201cthose who spoke\u201d without minor <em>ga\u02bfya<\/em>, while Ben Naftali read it with one.<sup class=\"fn-ref\" id=\"ref-22\"><a href=\"#note-22\">22<\/a><\/sup><\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">Khan\u2019s analysis of the Tiberian reading draws on many further entries, which show how the differences cluster around a small number of phonetic questions. The two other examples he gives of a conjunctive accent in Ben Naftali where Ben Asher has <em>maqqef<\/em> are the phrase \u201cbeautiful in form\u201d in Genesis 39:6 and the words \u201cwith whom is not?\u201d in Job 12:3.<sup class=\"fn-ref\" id=\"ref-23\"><a href=\"#note-23\">23<\/a><\/sup> At Exodus 6:27, he notes, the Leningrad Codex agrees with the reading of Ben Naftali rather than with that of Ben Asher, and in the word for \u201cthe spies\u201d in Joshua 6:22 and 6:23 Ben Asher read the <em>shewa<\/em> on the <em>mem<\/em> as vocal, whereas Ben Naftali regularly read it as silent.<sup class=\"fn-ref\" id=\"ref-24\"><a href=\"#note-24\">24<\/a><\/sup> A related group of entries concerns the conjunction <em>vav<\/em> followed by <em>shewa<\/em>. In the phrases \u201cand in every beast of\u201d in Genesis 9:10 and \u201cand when Aaron set up\u201d in Exodus 30:8 the difference appears to lie in the presence or absence of the musical minor <em>ga\u02bfya<\/em>; in the word \u201cand my incense\u201d in Ezekiel 16:18 Ben Naftali read the <em>vav<\/em> with a phonetic <em>ga\u02bfya<\/em> and the following <em>shewa<\/em> as vocal, where Ben Asher read the <em>vav<\/em> without <em>ga\u02bfya<\/em> and the <em>shewa<\/em> as silent; and in \u201cand full of trouble\u201d in Job 14:1 Ben Asher appears to have read the <em>vav<\/em> with minor <em>ga\u02bfya<\/em> and the <em>shewa<\/em> as silent, while Ben Naftali read it with phonetic <em>ga\u02bfya<\/em> and vocal <em>shewa<\/em>.<sup class=\"fn-ref\" id=\"ref-25\"><a href=\"#note-25\">25<\/a><\/sup> A similar difference over phonetic <em>ga\u02bfya<\/em> and the reading of <em>shewa<\/em> is recorded in the phrase \u201clike a false divination\u201d in Ezekiel 21:28.<sup class=\"fn-ref\" id=\"ref-26\"><a href=\"#note-26\">26<\/a><\/sup><\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">Some entries concern whole classes of forms rather than single passages. Ben Asher read the <em>shewa<\/em> as vocal in a single form of the root meaning \u201cto drive out\u201d, in Psalm 34:1, where the Leningrad and Aleppo codices mark it with <em>\u1e25a\u1e6def pata\u1e25<\/em>, whereas Ben Naftali read the <em>shewa<\/em> as silent in all forms of that root. The same distinction applied to the verb \u201cto eat\u201d, where Ben Asher read the <em>shewa<\/em> as vocal in forms with <em>segol<\/em> before a suffix with geminate <em>nun<\/em>, of which Khan counts twenty-four in the Hebrew Bible.<sup class=\"fn-ref\" id=\"ref-27\"><a href=\"#note-27\">27<\/a><\/sup> The Book of Differences also records differences in the lengthening of short vowels before two identical consonants, as in the word \u201cyour curse\u201d in Genesis 27:13.<sup class=\"fn-ref\" id=\"ref-28\"><a href=\"#note-28\">28<\/a><\/sup> Taken together, these examples confirm Khan\u2019s general conclusion. The disagreements turn on the precise duration of vowels and on whether a <em>shewa<\/em> was pronounced, matters which the <em>ga\u02bfya<\/em> was designed to record, and they presuppose agreement on everything else.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">The work also preserves information about the oral realisation of the text. Mishael records that Ben Naftali read all cases of the word <span lang=\"he\" dir=\"rtl\">\u05d1\u05b8\u05bc\u05ea\u05b4\u05bc\u05d9\u05dd<\/span> (\u201chouses\u201d) that carry two accents with more muscular force than cases without two accents, while Ben Asher read only two cases, in 1 Chronicles 28:11 and Deuteronomy 6:11, with such pressure. Mishael also cites a Masoretic statement attributed to Ben Asher that there are four cases in the Bible with an intense <em>dagesh<\/em>.<sup class=\"fn-ref\" id=\"ref-29\"><a href=\"#note-29\">29<\/a><\/sup> On the word <span lang=\"he\" dir=\"rtl\">\u05d5\u05bc\u05e4\u05bb\u05d5\u05b8\u05bc\u05d4<\/span> in Genesis 46:13 he reports a consensus about the pronunciation of the <em>vav<\/em>.<sup class=\"fn-ref\" id=\"ref-30\"><a href=\"#note-30\">30<\/a><\/sup> Such remarks show that the Book of Differences was concerned not only with the written signs but with the reading that the signs were meant to record.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h2 class=\"wp-block-heading\" id=\"what-the-differences-reveal\">What the Differences Reveal<\/h2>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">Khan draws an important conclusion from the character of the lists. The fact that the Book of Differences rarely mentions vowels and accents implies that their reading was by then almost entirely fixed in a tradition on which the Masoretic authorities agreed. The concentration on the minor <em>ga\u02bfya<\/em> and on <em>ga\u02bfya<\/em> with <em>shewa<\/em> indicates that these details too formed part of the fixed sub-traditions of the two masters, and the minimal variation in these features across the model Tiberian manuscripts reflects the same fixation.<sup class=\"fn-ref\" id=\"ref-31\"><a href=\"#note-31\">31<\/a><\/sup> The differences between Ben Asher and Ben Naftali, in other words, are differences within a single tradition, not between two systems. Dotan makes the same point: Moses ben Naftali was one of those who shaped the Tiberian version of the Bible, and only within that framework did he differ from others over the minutest details, mainly over <em>ga\u02bfyot<\/em> and less often over conjunctive accents.<sup class=\"fn-ref\" id=\"ref-32\"><a href=\"#note-32\">32<\/a><\/sup><\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">Khan places the work within a wider process of standardisation. The tradition of vocalisation in the standard Tiberian manuscripts was far more uniform than other, non-Tiberian traditions, because of the efforts made to standardise it in view of its greater authority, and treatises that collated differences between Masoretes, of which the Book of Differences is the best known, reflect that process. The purpose of such collation, he suggests, was to impose a degree of standardisation on a tradition that had developed by the tenth century into a number of heterogeneous sub-schools.<sup class=\"fn-ref\" id=\"ref-33\"><a href=\"#note-33\">33<\/a><\/sup> He also notes that the masters themselves seem to have exercised some personal initiative in fixing their traditions, especially Ben Naftali, whose tradition shows greater consistency in various features than the more conservative tradition of Ben Asher. Ben Naftali, for instance, introduced pausal forms in places where they are not found in Ben Asher\u2019s tradition, and he adopted orthoepic measures to ensure greater accuracy of reading.<sup class=\"fn-ref\" id=\"ref-34\"><a href=\"#note-34\">34<\/a><\/sup><\/p>\n\n\n\n<h2 class=\"wp-block-heading\" id=\"the-book-of-differences-and-the-codices\">The Book of Differences and the Codices<\/h2>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">The practical importance of the work for modern scholarship is that it provides a test against which the great Tiberian manuscripts can be measured. Khan reports that the readings of Ben Asher in the Book of Differences conform very closely to those of the <a href=\"https:\/\/grokipedia.com\/page\/Aleppo_Codex\">Aleppo Codex<\/a>, which was vocalised by Ben Asher himself, and also to the <a href=\"https:\/\/grokipedia.com\/page\/Leningrad_Codex\">Leningrad Codex<\/a>, whose many erasures and corrections brought it closer to that tradition than it had originally been. The Ben Naftali readings conform closely to the <a href=\"https:\/\/masoretes.online\/wordpress\/the-cairo-prophets-codex\/\">Cairo Codex of the Prophets<\/a>.<sup class=\"fn-ref\" id=\"ref-35\"><a href=\"#note-35\">35<\/a><\/sup> In his description of the principal manuscripts, Khan gives the proportions. The Aleppo Codex agrees with Ben Asher against Ben Naftali in 94 per cent of the recorded differences, the Leningrad Codex in 90 per cent, and the oldest leaves of the Pentateuch in British Library Or. 4445 in 80 per cent. The Cairo Codex of the Prophets, by contrast, agrees with Ben Asher in only 33 per cent of the cases and with Ben Naftali in 64 per cent, and it also shows features of vocalisation attributed to Ben Naftali, such as the form <span lang=\"he\" dir=\"rtl\">\u05dc\u05b4\u05d9\u05e9\u05b0\u05c2\u05e8\u05b8\u05d0\u05b5\u05dc<\/span> and the <em>dagesh<\/em> in the <em>qof<\/em> of the verb in Jeremiah 9:3.<sup class=\"fn-ref\" id=\"ref-36\"><a href=\"#note-36\">36<\/a><\/sup><\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">These figures have had a decisive influence on the evaluation of the codices. Khan notes that the comparison with the statements in the Book of Differences confirms the testimony of the Aleppo Codex\u2019s colophon that Ben Asher added its vocalisation, accents and Masoretic notes, and he adds that the codex is thought to be the manuscript that <a href=\"https:\/\/grokipedia.com\/page\/Maimonides\">Maimonides<\/a> examined when he pronounced Ben Asher\u2019s tradition superior to that of other Masoretes.<sup class=\"fn-ref\" id=\"ref-37\"><a href=\"#note-37\">37<\/a><\/sup> Dotan likewise records that the Cairo Codex of the Prophets, whose colophon attributes it to Moses ben Asher, the father of Aaron, and dates it to 895, is no longer regarded as part of the Ben Asher school but represents a text closely related to Ben Naftali.<sup class=\"fn-ref\" id=\"ref-38\"><a href=\"#note-38\">38<\/a><\/sup> Khan states that there is now a consensus that the Cairo codex was written later, most likely in the eleventh century, and that its colophon is a later copy of an earlier one.<sup class=\"fn-ref\" id=\"ref-39\"><a href=\"#note-39\">39<\/a><\/sup> Ofer, citing Israel Yeivin, similarly observes that no manuscript of Ben Naftali himself is known, and that the manuscript whose system is closest to that reflected in the Book of Differences is, paradoxically, the codex of the Prophets attributed to Moses ben Asher.<sup class=\"fn-ref\" id=\"ref-40\"><a href=\"#note-40\">40<\/a><\/sup><\/p>\n\n\n\n<h2 class=\"wp-block-heading\" id=\"equal-authorities-and-the-later-preference-for-ben-asher\">Equal Authorities and the Later Preference for Ben Asher<\/h2>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">At the end of the Masoretic period the two traditions were considered equally authoritative. Khan points out that Mishael himself does not give priority to either master, and that the Masoretic treatise <em>Hid\u0101yat al-Q\u0101ri\u02be<\/em> of Ab\u016b al-Faraj H\u0101r\u016bn likewise ranks neither above the other. The <em>Hid\u0101ya<\/em> does, however, insist that a reader should not mix the two traditions according to his own judgement of individual words: he must either read entirely according to Ben Naftali, including all the good and difficult forms that Ben Naftali reads, or entirely according to Ben Asher, which is also authoritative, since one who chooses the best reading of each word from either master reads without any rule.<sup class=\"fn-ref\" id=\"ref-41\"><a href=\"#note-41\">41<\/a><\/sup> An anonymous treatise on the cantillation of the accents, which Khan also quotes, states that the melodies of the accents were transmitted \u201cfrom the hearts of the two masters\u201d and cannot be explained, a formula that he compares with the anchoring of the reading traditions of the Qur\u02be\u0101n, the <a href=\"https:\/\/grokipedia.com\/page\/Qira%27at\"><em>qir\u0101\u02be\u0101t<\/em><\/a>, to the authority of particular scholars.<sup class=\"fn-ref\" id=\"ref-42\"><a href=\"#note-42\">42<\/a><\/sup><\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">The ranking of the two authorities came later. Khan notes that the lack of ranking was the practice among Masoretic scholars until the time of Maimonides, who declared Ben Asher to be the most reliable authority, and that <a href=\"https:\/\/grokipedia.com\/page\/David_Kimhi\">David Kimhi<\/a>, who died in 1235, seems to have been the first to decide in favour of Ben Asher in the context of reported differences between the two, according to Lipsch\u00fctz.<sup class=\"fn-ref\" id=\"ref-43\"><a href=\"#note-43\">43<\/a><\/sup> Dotan describes the consequences. The decision in favour of Ben Asher, which originated in early times and was strengthened by Maimonides\u2019 support for the Ben Asher text, even though Maimonides spoke only of the open and closed sections and the layout of the songs in the Torah, led to the progressive exclusion of Ben Naftali\u2019s readings from the accepted text of the Bible.<sup class=\"fn-ref\" id=\"ref-44\"><a href=\"#note-44\">44<\/a><\/sup><\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">As time passed even the details of Ben Naftali\u2019s readings were forgotten, and, as Dotan observes, all exceptional readings that departed from the accepted text came to be ascribed to him. Levita, whom Dotan cites from the third introduction to the <em>Masoret ha-Masoret<\/em>, identified Ben Naftali, whom he called Jacob ben Naftali, with the Eastern or Babylonian tradition, and the nineteenth-century scholar Pinsker still accepted that view. In the twentieth century Paul Kahle identified the so-called non-conventional or expanded Tiberian system of vocalisation with Ben Naftali.<sup class=\"fn-ref\" id=\"ref-45\"><a href=\"#note-45\">45<\/a><\/sup> Ofer notes that Kahle\u2019s identification is not accepted.<sup class=\"fn-ref\" id=\"ref-46\"><a href=\"#note-46\">46<\/a><\/sup> The Book of Differences, as edited by Lipsch\u00fctz, has been the means of correcting these errors, because it shows what Ben Naftali\u2019s readings actually were.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h2 class=\"wp-block-heading\" id=\"the-transmission-of-the-text\">The Transmission of the Text<\/h2>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">The Book of Differences itself suffered in transmission. Dotan writes that the lists of variants were copied and recopied many times in the Middle Ages, so that a large number of errors were introduced, and that even the first name of Ben Naftali became confused in the copies.<sup class=\"fn-ref\" id=\"ref-47\"><a href=\"#note-47\">47<\/a><\/sup> Khan\u2019s citations from the work refer throughout to the edition by Lazar Lipsch\u00fctz, published in Jerusalem in 1965, and to his earlier study in the journal <em>Textus<\/em>.<sup class=\"fn-ref\" id=\"ref-48\"><a href=\"#note-48\">48<\/a><\/sup> The edition was published by the Magnes Press of the <a href=\"https:\/\/grokipedia.com\/page\/Hebrew_University_of_Jerusalem\">Hebrew University of Jerusalem<\/a>, and its library catalogue record describes a volume in two separately paginated parts, of 29 and 54 pages, with two plates.<sup class=\"fn-ref\" id=\"ref-49\"><a href=\"#note-49\">49<\/a><\/sup> Lipsch\u00fctz\u2019s study appeared in the fourth volume of <em>Textus<\/em>, the journal of the Hebrew University Bible Project.<sup class=\"fn-ref\" id=\"ref-50\"><a href=\"#note-50\">50<\/a><\/sup><\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">The variation in the transmitted lists is one reason why modern comparisons between the codices and the Book of Differences give percentages rather than absolute agreement. A manuscript that agrees with Ben Asher in ninety-four per cent of cases may disagree in the remainder because of its own errors, because of errors in the copies of the Book of Differences, or because some recorded differences were already uncertain in Mishael\u2019s day. The figures should be read as measures of affinity rather than as proof of identity, and Khan presents them in that way, noting that no two of the model codices are completely identical and that the differences between them are sometimes the result of scribal error and sometimes due to slightly different reading traditions or systems of marking.<sup class=\"fn-ref\" id=\"ref-51\"><a href=\"#note-51\">51<\/a><\/sup><\/p>\n\n\n\n<figure class=\"ornate-card overflow-hidden mb-8\"><picture class=\"article-figure-picture\"><img loading=\"lazy\" decoding=\"async\" width=\"1280\" height=\"720\" src=\"https:\/\/masoretes.online\/wordpress\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/11\/Mishael-body-fragments-take-1.jpg\" alt=\"Gloved hands hold a magnifying glass over fragments of medieval manuscripts on a light table in a conservation room\" class=\"article-figure-img wp-image-1252\" srcset=\"https:\/\/masoretes.online\/wordpress\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/11\/Mishael-body-fragments-take-1.jpg?v=20261101clean 1280w, https:\/\/masoretes.online\/wordpress\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/11\/Mishael-body-fragments-take-1-300x169.jpg?v=20261101clean 300w, https:\/\/masoretes.online\/wordpress\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/11\/Mishael-body-fragments-take-1-1024x576.jpg?v=20261101clean 1024w, https:\/\/masoretes.online\/wordpress\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/11\/Mishael-body-fragments-take-1-768x432.jpg?v=20261101clean 768w\" sizes=\"auto, (max-width: 1280px) 100vw, 1280px\" \/><\/picture><figcaption class=\"figure-caption\">Illustration: Geniza fragments under examination; a small booklet from the Geneva Geniza collection supplied a new witness to Ben Naftali.<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n\n\n\n<h2 class=\"wp-block-heading\" id=\"a-new-witness-to-ben-naftali\">A New Witness to Ben Naftali<\/h2>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">The confusion over Ben Naftali\u2019s name, which Dotan noted, has been resolved by a small manuscript from the <a href=\"https:\/\/grokipedia.com\/page\/Cairo_Geniza\">Cairo Geniza<\/a> now in the public and university library of <a href=\"https:\/\/grokipedia.com\/page\/Geneva\">Geneva<\/a>. Ofer published it in 5770 (2009\u201310) in the catalogue of the Geneva Geniza collection, which had been discovered in 2005 and had come to public notice in 2006. The manuscript, Geneva Geniza MS 80, is a complete small booklet of five leaves. Its first part gives the number of verses in each weekly portion and each book of the Bible, and its second contains a short liturgical poem.<sup class=\"fn-ref\" id=\"ref-52\"><a href=\"#note-52\">52<\/a><\/sup> The list of verse counts ends with the statement that \u201cthis count was written by Rabbi Samuel from the mouth of my master and teacher Rabbi Moses ben David ben Jacob ben Naftali, of blessed memory\u201d.<sup class=\"fn-ref\" id=\"ref-53\"><a href=\"#note-53\">53<\/a><\/sup><\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">Ofer draws several conclusions from this colophon. First, it confirms the name that Mishael gives, Moses ben David. Second, it shows that Jacob, the name by which Levita and others knew the Masorete, was the name of his grandfather, which explains how the confusion arose. Third, it indicates that \u201cBen Naftali\u201d was a family name, borne by a line that went back at least three generations before Moses ben David, so that it is parallel to the name \u201cBen Asher\u201d, which was likewise borne by several generations of Masoretes.<sup class=\"fn-ref\" id=\"ref-54\"><a href=\"#note-54\">54<\/a><\/sup> He concludes that the attribution of the differences to Jacob ben Naftali is an error and that Mishael\u2019s testimony, being close in time to the two Masoretes, should be preferred.<sup class=\"fn-ref\" id=\"ref-55\"><a href=\"#note-55\">55<\/a><\/sup> He also argues that Rabbi Samuel was a pupil of Ben Naftali who wrote down the verse counts from his teacher\u2019s dictation, and that the surviving booklet is a later copy made by one of Samuel\u2019s own pupils.<sup class=\"fn-ref\" id=\"ref-56\"><a href=\"#note-56\">56<\/a><\/sup><\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">The verse counts themselves show Ben Naftali dealing with known difficulties in the Masoretic tradition. The total given for the Torah is 5,845 verses and for the whole Bible 23,203. In the last weekly portion of Genesis most manuscripts give a count of 84 verses, although the portion as transmitted contains 85, so that the sum of the counts for the twelve portions of Genesis falls one short of the total for the book. Ben Naftali\u2019s list gives 107 verses rather than 106 for the preceding portion, so that the total for Genesis comes out correctly. Ofer suggests that Ben Naftali\u2019s main concern may have been to reconcile the overall count for the book, but he notes that he has not found any manuscript evidence for a different division of verses in these portions.<sup class=\"fn-ref\" id=\"ref-57\"><a href=\"#note-57\">57<\/a><\/sup> Ofer tentatively identifies the author of the poem in the booklet with Aaron ha-Kohen, a gaon of the Land of Israel whose tenure began around 933, which would agree with the estimated date of Ben Naftali; but he stresses that the name was common among priestly families and that the identification is far from certain.<sup class=\"fn-ref\" id=\"ref-58\"><a href=\"#note-58\">58<\/a><\/sup><\/p>\n\n\n\n<h2 class=\"wp-block-heading\" id=\"assessment\">Assessment<\/h2>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">The Book of Differences is a small work with a large influence. It preserves the only reliable record of the readings of Moses ben David ben Naftali, and it provides the standard by which the great Tiberian codices are classified.<sup class=\"fn-ref\" id=\"ref-59\"><a href=\"#note-59\">59<\/a><\/sup> Its author, a Karaite scholar working in Jerusalem around the turn of the tenth and eleventh centuries, recorded the differences between two masters whom he regarded as equally authoritative, and the work itself shows how narrow those differences had become: the vowels and accents were almost entirely fixed, and the disputes concerned mainly the minor <em>ga\u02bfya<\/em> and a few details of spelling, word division and <em>dagesh<\/em>.<sup class=\"fn-ref\" id=\"ref-60\"><a href=\"#note-60\">60<\/a><\/sup><\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">The later history of the work illustrates how such a record could be both used and misused. The preference for Ben Asher, which Maimonides strengthened and David Kimhi applied explicitly to the differences, made the Book of Differences a guide to what should be avoided as much as to what should be followed, and the name of Ben Naftali became attached to readings that had nothing to do with him.<sup class=\"fn-ref\" id=\"ref-61\"><a href=\"#note-61\">61<\/a><\/sup> The edition by Lipsch\u00fctz restored the evidence for his actual practice, and the Geneva booklet published by Ofer has now confirmed his full name, clarified the family to which he belonged and shown him at work on the counting of verses.<sup class=\"fn-ref\" id=\"ref-62\"><a href=\"#note-62\">62<\/a><\/sup> Taken together, these sources allow Ben Naftali to be seen, as Dotan put it, as one of those who shaped the Tiberian Bible, rather than as the author of a rival system.<sup class=\"fn-ref\" id=\"ref-63\"><a href=\"#note-63\">63<\/a><\/sup><\/p>\n\n\n\n<h2 class=\"wp-block-heading\" id=\"notes\">Notes<\/h2>\n\n\n\n<ol class=\"wp-block-list post-notes\">\n\n<li id=\"note-1\">Aron Dotan, \u201cMasorah\u201d, in <em>Encyclopaedia Judaica<\/em>, 2nd edn, at <a href=\"https:\/\/www.encyclopedia.com\/religion\/encyclopedias-almanacs-transcripts-and-maps\/masorah\">Encyclopedia.com<\/a>, \u00a76.2.4. <a href=\"#ref-1\" aria-label=\"Return to citation 1\">*<\/a><\/li>\n\n<li id=\"note-2\">Dotan, \u201cMasorah\u201d, \u00a76.2.4. <a href=\"#ref-2\" aria-label=\"Return to citation 2\">*<\/a><\/li>\n\n<li id=\"note-3\">Geoffrey Khan, <em><a href=\"https:\/\/library.oapen.org\/bitstream\/handle\/20.500.12657\/22422\/9781783746774.pdf\">The Tiberian Pronunciation Tradition of Biblical Hebrew<\/a><\/em>, vol. 1 (Cambridge: Open Book Publishers, 2020), pp. 93\u201394, 107. <a href=\"#ref-3\" aria-label=\"Return to citation 3\">*<\/a><\/li>\n\n<li id=\"note-4\">Khan, <em>Tiberian Pronunciation Tradition<\/em>, p. 107. <a href=\"#ref-4\" aria-label=\"Return to citation 4\">*<\/a><\/li>\n\n<li id=\"note-5\">Khan, <em>Tiberian Pronunciation Tradition<\/em>, pp. 93\u201394 n. 116. <a href=\"#ref-5\" aria-label=\"Return to citation 5\">*<\/a><\/li>\n\n<li id=\"note-6\">Yosef Ofer, \u201c<a href=\"https:\/\/yosef-ofer.github.io\/personal-web\/papers\/number%20naftali.pdf\">Minyan pesuqe ha-miqra shel Ben Naftali<\/a>\u201d (in Hebrew), in David Rosenthal (ed.), <em>The Cairo Genizah Collection in Geneva: Catalogue and Studies<\/em> (in Hebrew; Jerusalem, 5770 [2009\u201310]), pp. 208\u2013221, p. 209 n. 7. <a href=\"#ref-6\" aria-label=\"Return to citation 6\">*<\/a><\/li>\n\n<li id=\"note-7\">Khan, <em>Tiberian Pronunciation Tradition<\/em>, pp. 107\u2013108. <a href=\"#ref-7\" aria-label=\"Return to citation 7\">*<\/a><\/li>\n\n<li id=\"note-8\">Ofer, \u201cMinyan pesuqe ha-miqra shel Ben Naftali\u201d, p. 208 n. 1. <a href=\"#ref-8\" aria-label=\"Return to citation 8\">*<\/a><\/li>\n\n<li id=\"note-9\">Dotan, \u201cMasorah\u201d, \u00a76.2.1. <a href=\"#ref-9\" aria-label=\"Return to citation 9\">*<\/a><\/li>\n\n<li id=\"note-10\">Ofer, \u201cMinyan pesuqe ha-miqra shel Ben Naftali\u201d, p. 209 and nn. 6\u20137. <a href=\"#ref-10\" aria-label=\"Return to citation 10\">*<\/a><\/li>\n\n<li id=\"note-11\">Ofer, \u201cMinyan pesuqe ha-miqra shel Ben Naftali\u201d, pp. 209\u2013210 and nn. 12\u201315. <a href=\"#ref-11\" aria-label=\"Return to citation 11\">*<\/a><\/li>\n\n<li id=\"note-12\">Ofer, \u201cMinyan pesuqe ha-miqra shel Ben Naftali\u201d, p. 210 n. 17. <a href=\"#ref-12\" aria-label=\"Return to citation 12\">*<\/a><\/li>\n\n<li id=\"note-13\">Dotan, \u201cMasorah\u201d, \u00a76.2.4. <a href=\"#ref-13\" aria-label=\"Return to citation 13\">*<\/a><\/li>\n\n<li id=\"note-14\">Ofer, \u201cMinyan pesuqe ha-miqra shel Ben Naftali\u201d, p. 209 and n. 11. <a href=\"#ref-14\" aria-label=\"Return to citation 14\">*<\/a><\/li>\n\n<li id=\"note-15\">Dotan, \u201cMasorah\u201d, \u00a76.2.4. <a href=\"#ref-15\" aria-label=\"Return to citation 15\">*<\/a><\/li>\n\n<li id=\"note-16\">Ofer, \u201cMinyan pesuqe ha-miqra shel Ben Naftali\u201d, p. 208 n. 1. <a href=\"#ref-16\" aria-label=\"Return to citation 16\">*<\/a><\/li>\n\n<li id=\"note-17\">Khan, <em>Tiberian Pronunciation Tradition<\/em>, pp. 93\u201394. <a href=\"#ref-17\" aria-label=\"Return to citation 17\">*<\/a><\/li>\n\n<li id=\"note-18\">Ofer, \u201cMinyan pesuqe ha-miqra shel Ben Naftali\u201d, p. 208. <a href=\"#ref-18\" aria-label=\"Return to citation 18\">*<\/a><\/li>\n\n<li id=\"note-19\">Khan, <em>Tiberian Pronunciation Tradition<\/em>, p. 94. <a href=\"#ref-19\" aria-label=\"Return to citation 19\">*<\/a><\/li>\n\n<li id=\"note-20\">Khan, <em>Tiberian Pronunciation Tradition<\/em>, p. 101. <a href=\"#ref-20\" aria-label=\"Return to citation 20\">*<\/a><\/li>\n\n<li id=\"note-21\">Khan, <em>Tiberian Pronunciation Tradition<\/em>, pp. 102\u2013103, 545. <a href=\"#ref-21\" aria-label=\"Return to citation 21\">*<\/a><\/li>\n\n<li id=\"note-22\">Khan, <em>Tiberian Pronunciation Tradition<\/em>, p. 379. <a href=\"#ref-22\" aria-label=\"Return to citation 22\">*<\/a><\/li>\n\n<li id=\"note-23\">Khan, <em>Tiberian Pronunciation Tradition<\/em>, p. 101. <a href=\"#ref-23\" aria-label=\"Return to citation 23\">*<\/a><\/li>\n\n<li id=\"note-24\">Khan, <em>Tiberian Pronunciation Tradition<\/em>, pp. 379\u2013380. <a href=\"#ref-24\" aria-label=\"Return to citation 24\">*<\/a><\/li>\n\n<li id=\"note-25\">Khan, <em>Tiberian Pronunciation Tradition<\/em>, pp. 399\u2013400. <a href=\"#ref-25\" aria-label=\"Return to citation 25\">*<\/a><\/li>\n\n<li id=\"note-26\">Khan, <em>Tiberian Pronunciation Tradition<\/em>, p. 406. <a href=\"#ref-26\" aria-label=\"Return to citation 26\">*<\/a><\/li>\n\n<li id=\"note-27\">Khan, <em>Tiberian Pronunciation Tradition<\/em>, p. 363. <a href=\"#ref-27\" aria-label=\"Return to citation 27\">*<\/a><\/li>\n\n<li id=\"note-28\">Khan, <em>Tiberian Pronunciation Tradition<\/em>, p. 393. <a href=\"#ref-28\" aria-label=\"Return to citation 28\">*<\/a><\/li>\n\n<li id=\"note-29\">Khan, <em>Tiberian Pronunciation Tradition<\/em>, pp. 554\u2013555. <a href=\"#ref-29\" aria-label=\"Return to citation 29\">*<\/a><\/li>\n\n<li id=\"note-30\">Khan, <em>Tiberian Pronunciation Tradition<\/em>, p. 173. <a href=\"#ref-30\" aria-label=\"Return to citation 30\">*<\/a><\/li>\n\n<li id=\"note-31\">Khan, <em>Tiberian Pronunciation Tradition<\/em>, pp. 96\u201397. <a href=\"#ref-31\" aria-label=\"Return to citation 31\">*<\/a><\/li>\n\n<li id=\"note-32\">Dotan, \u201cMasorah\u201d, \u00a76.2.5. <a href=\"#ref-32\" aria-label=\"Return to citation 32\">*<\/a><\/li>\n\n<li id=\"note-33\">Khan, <em>Tiberian Pronunciation Tradition<\/em>, pp. 93\u201395. <a href=\"#ref-33\" aria-label=\"Return to citation 33\">*<\/a><\/li>\n\n<li id=\"note-34\">Khan, <em>Tiberian Pronunciation Tradition<\/em>, p. 97. <a href=\"#ref-34\" aria-label=\"Return to citation 34\">*<\/a><\/li>\n\n<li id=\"note-35\">Khan, <em>Tiberian Pronunciation Tradition<\/em>, p. 95. <a href=\"#ref-35\" aria-label=\"Return to citation 35\">*<\/a><\/li>\n\n<li id=\"note-36\">Khan, <em>Tiberian Pronunciation Tradition<\/em>, pp. 26\u201329. <a href=\"#ref-36\" aria-label=\"Return to citation 36\">*<\/a><\/li>\n\n<li id=\"note-37\">Khan, <em>Tiberian Pronunciation Tradition<\/em>, pp. 25\u201326. <a href=\"#ref-37\" aria-label=\"Return to citation 37\">*<\/a><\/li>\n\n<li id=\"note-38\">Dotan, \u201cMasorah\u201d, \u00a76.2.3. <a href=\"#ref-38\" aria-label=\"Return to citation 38\">*<\/a><\/li>\n\n<li id=\"note-39\">Khan, <em>Tiberian Pronunciation Tradition<\/em>, p. 29. <a href=\"#ref-39\" aria-label=\"Return to citation 39\">*<\/a><\/li>\n\n<li id=\"note-40\">Ofer, \u201cMinyan pesuqe ha-miqra shel Ben Naftali\u201d, p. 209 and n. 9. <a href=\"#ref-40\" aria-label=\"Return to citation 40\">*<\/a><\/li>\n\n<li id=\"note-41\">Khan, <em>Tiberian Pronunciation Tradition<\/em>, pp. 95\u201396. <a href=\"#ref-41\" aria-label=\"Return to citation 41\">*<\/a><\/li>\n\n<li id=\"note-42\">Khan, <em>Tiberian Pronunciation Tradition<\/em>, pp. 96\u201397. <a href=\"#ref-42\" aria-label=\"Return to citation 42\">*<\/a><\/li>\n\n<li id=\"note-43\">Khan, <em>Tiberian Pronunciation Tradition<\/em>, p. 96. <a href=\"#ref-43\" aria-label=\"Return to citation 43\">*<\/a><\/li>\n\n<li id=\"note-44\">Dotan, \u201cMasorah\u201d, \u00a76.2.5. <a href=\"#ref-44\" aria-label=\"Return to citation 44\">*<\/a><\/li>\n\n<li id=\"note-45\">Dotan, \u201cMasorah\u201d, \u00a76.2.5. <a href=\"#ref-45\" aria-label=\"Return to citation 45\">*<\/a><\/li>\n\n<li id=\"note-46\">Ofer, \u201cMinyan pesuqe ha-miqra shel Ben Naftali\u201d, p. 209 n. 9. <a href=\"#ref-46\" aria-label=\"Return to citation 46\">*<\/a><\/li>\n\n<li id=\"note-47\">Dotan, \u201cMasorah\u201d, \u00a76.2.4. <a href=\"#ref-47\" aria-label=\"Return to citation 47\">*<\/a><\/li>\n\n<li id=\"note-48\">Khan, <em>Tiberian Pronunciation Tradition<\/em>, pp. 93\u201394 n. 116; Lazar Lipsch\u00fctz (ed.), <em><a href=\"https:\/\/archive.org\/details\/kitabalkhilafmis0000mish\">Kit\u0101b al-Khilaf: Mishael ben Uzziel\u2019s Treatise on the Differences between Ben Asher and Ben Naphtali<\/a><\/em> (Jerusalem: Magnes Press, 1965), catalogue record at the Internet Archive; Lazar Lipsch\u00fctz, \u201c<a href=\"https:\/\/bibleproject.huji.ac.il\/publications\/kit\u0101b-al-khilaf-book-\u1e25illufim\">Kit\u0101b al-Khilaf, the Book of the \u1e24illufim<\/a>\u201d, <em>Textus<\/em> 4 (1964), pp. 1\u201329, record at the Hebrew University Bible Project. <a href=\"#ref-48\" aria-label=\"Return to citation 48\">*<\/a><\/li>\n\n<li id=\"note-49\">Lipsch\u00fctz (ed.), <em>Kit\u0101b al-Khilaf<\/em>. <a href=\"#ref-49\" aria-label=\"Return to citation 49\">*<\/a><\/li>\n\n<li id=\"note-50\">Lipsch\u00fctz, \u201cKit\u0101b al-Khilaf\u201d. <a href=\"#ref-50\" aria-label=\"Return to citation 50\">*<\/a><\/li>\n\n<li id=\"note-51\">Khan, <em>Tiberian Pronunciation Tradition<\/em>, pp. 25\u201329. <a href=\"#ref-51\" aria-label=\"Return to citation 51\">*<\/a><\/li>\n\n<li id=\"note-52\">Ofer, \u201cMinyan pesuqe ha-miqra shel Ben Naftali\u201d, pp. 211\u2013214. <a href=\"#ref-52\" aria-label=\"Return to citation 52\">*<\/a><\/li>\n\n<li id=\"note-53\">Ofer, \u201cMinyan pesuqe ha-miqra shel Ben Naftali\u201d, pp. 209, 213. <a href=\"#ref-53\" aria-label=\"Return to citation 53\">*<\/a><\/li>\n\n<li id=\"note-54\">Ofer, \u201cMinyan pesuqe ha-miqra shel Ben Naftali\u201d, p. 210. <a href=\"#ref-54\" aria-label=\"Return to citation 54\">*<\/a><\/li>\n\n<li id=\"note-55\">Ofer, \u201cMinyan pesuqe ha-miqra shel Ben Naftali\u201d, p. 210. <a href=\"#ref-55\" aria-label=\"Return to citation 55\">*<\/a><\/li>\n\n<li id=\"note-56\">Ofer, \u201cMinyan pesuqe ha-miqra shel Ben Naftali\u201d, p. 214. <a href=\"#ref-56\" aria-label=\"Return to citation 56\">*<\/a><\/li>\n\n<li id=\"note-57\">Ofer, \u201cMinyan pesuqe ha-miqra shel Ben Naftali\u201d, pp. 213\u2013215. <a href=\"#ref-57\" aria-label=\"Return to citation 57\">*<\/a><\/li>\n\n<li id=\"note-58\">Ofer, \u201cMinyan pesuqe ha-miqra shel Ben Naftali\u201d, p. 214 n. 24. <a href=\"#ref-58\" aria-label=\"Return to citation 58\">*<\/a><\/li>\n\n<li id=\"note-59\">Dotan, \u201cMasorah\u201d, \u00a76.2.4; Khan, <em>Tiberian Pronunciation Tradition<\/em>, pp. 26\u201329. <a href=\"#ref-59\" aria-label=\"Return to citation 59\">*<\/a><\/li>\n\n<li id=\"note-60\">Khan, <em>Tiberian Pronunciation Tradition<\/em>, pp. 93\u201397. <a href=\"#ref-60\" aria-label=\"Return to citation 60\">*<\/a><\/li>\n\n<li id=\"note-61\">Dotan, \u201cMasorah\u201d, \u00a76.2.5; Khan, <em>Tiberian Pronunciation Tradition<\/em>, p. 96. <a href=\"#ref-61\" aria-label=\"Return to citation 61\">*<\/a><\/li>\n\n<li id=\"note-62\">Ofer, \u201cMinyan pesuqe ha-miqra shel Ben Naftali\u201d, pp. 209\u2013215. <a href=\"#ref-62\" aria-label=\"Return to citation 62\">*<\/a><\/li>\n\n<li id=\"note-63\">Dotan, \u201cMasorah\u201d, \u00a76.2.5. <a href=\"#ref-63\" aria-label=\"Return to citation 63\">*<\/a><\/li>\n\n<\/ol>\n\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Written in Arabic by a Karaite scholar in Jerusalem around the turn of the tenth and eleventh centuries, the Book of Differences is the only reliable record of how the Masoretes Ben Asher and Ben Naftali disagreed, and the standard by which the great Tiberian codices are still classified.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":1251,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[2],"tags":[35,31,894,893,897,895,896,892,891],"class_list":["post-1253","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-masoretes","tag-aleppo-codex","tag-ben-asher","tag-ben-naftali","tag-book-of-differences","tag-cairo-codex-of-the-prophets","tag-gaya","tag-karaites","tag-kitab-al-khilaf","tag-mishael-ben-uzziel"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/masoretes.online\/wordpress\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1253","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/masoretes.online\/wordpress\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/masoretes.online\/wordpress\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/masoretes.online\/wordpress\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/masoretes.online\/wordpress\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=1253"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/masoretes.online\/wordpress\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1253\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/masoretes.online\/wordpress\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/1251"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/masoretes.online\/wordpress\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=1253"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/masoretes.online\/wordpress\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=1253"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/masoretes.online\/wordpress\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=1253"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}