13

In light of comments here, what is the history of the current division of tanach into pesukim? Specifically, to what extent do we view our breaks as coming from Sinai? Are there Christian influences affecting some spots? What are some places where we differ from the Christians (if any)?

Note this is about verses not chapters. Sources highly recommended.

Community
  • 1
Double AA
  • 98,894
  • 6
  • 250
  • 713

2 Answers2

8

A primary source that bears on this is Megillah 3a/Nedarim 37b, which lists פיסוק טעמים and פסוקים (the divisions of cantillation and of verses) as being of Biblical origin (דאורייתא הוא), and sees these as implied in the description of the Torah reading under Ezra's direction in Neh. 8:8.

We also have evidence from various other places in the Gemara that their verses were pretty much the same as ours. For example, ארץ חטה... ודבש (Deut. 8:8) is repeatedly spoken of as "this entire verse" in Berachos 41a, Eruvin 4a, et al. So is שמע ישראל... אחד (ibid. 6:4), in Berachos 13b; תורה צוה... יעקב (Deut. 33:4), in Sukkah 42a; and others. In Taanis 27b the sections Gen. 1:1-5 and 1:6-8 are described as being, respectively, five and three verses long, exactly as we have it; similarly in Megillah 21b the reading for Rosh Chodesh (Num. 28:1-15) is described as consisting of sections 8, 2, and 5 verses long, again exactly matching our divisions.

To be sure, there are some cases, as with other aspects of the Oral Torah, where there are variant opinions. Kiddushin 30a thus mentions that Ex. 19:9 was divided "in the West" (Eretz Yisrael) into three verses, where the Babylonians had it as one (as we do); the next line then gives the number of verses in the Torah as 5888, as compared to our 5846 (although it is worth noting that this is still an agreement of over 99%). There are a couple of places in the Torah where even today there exist different traditions on how to read them, such as Gen. 35:22 and the two repetitions of the Ten Commandments, where two sets of trop are printed, representing two different ways of dividing the verses. I guess it's conceivable that there might be places where the non-Jewish verse divisions* were taken over into our mesorah, but based on all of the above it would seem that these would be at best isolated cases.

* Not to be confused with the chapter divisions and verse numeration, which are unquestionably of Christian origin.

Alex
  • 90,513
  • 2
  • 162
  • 379
  • 2
    That covers the T in Tanach nicely, but what about the Nach bits? Were those divisions also דאורייתא הוא? :) (Such as Megilah Ester which spawned the question) – avi Jan 22 '12 at 20:58
  • The P'nei Y'hoshu'a on Kidushin speaks speculatively about the lengths of p'sukim in sefer T'hilim as if it were not a decided fact. Link. This is the same part of the g'mara which states that the term "Torah" can refer to all of Tana"ch. – WAF Jan 22 '12 at 21:10
  • 2
    @avi: in Nedarim there it goes on to say that also several other features of the biblical text are הלכה למשה מסיני, and many of the examples it cites are from Nach. Which, I guess, means that the idea that such things will exist was given to Moshe (along with the incidences of them in the Torah), and the authors of the individual books of Nach applied them in the appropriate places. So the same would presumably hold true of the verse divisions. – Alex Jan 22 '12 at 21:33
  • @WAF, I'm not reading him as saying that the lengths of the pesukim there are undecided, just that he's trying to explain Tosafos' objection to the apparent meaning of the Gemara there, that Tehillim has 5896 verses (as compared to the 2526 that we have). – Alex Jan 22 '12 at 21:35
  • It baffles me that people think that הלכה למשה מסיני is meant literally. Especially when its applied to things like Nach. – avi Jan 23 '12 at 08:07
  • @avi, okay, I'll bite. What else can this phrase mean? – Alex Jan 24 '12 at 02:44
  • @Alex That it is a tradition, and we may not know the exact source, but we've always done it that way. – avi Jan 24 '12 at 10:58
  • @avi, do you have any source for that understanding? I think that that might be expressed with other terms, such as הלכה (without the attribution to Moshe) or עמא דבר. – Alex Jan 24 '12 at 15:55
  • @Alex There are two options. My understanding, or the Gemora is lying. The idea that for a thousand years, the Jewish people went around with the divisons of pasukim for books that were not yet written is ridiculous. "halacha" or a "Ama davar" is used for things which there are alternative practices for, "halacha m'moshe" are for things which are not disputed. – avi Jan 24 '12 at 18:41
  • @avi: you don't really need either of those alternatives. See what I wrote above: "the idea that such things will exist was given to Moshe (along with the incidences of them in the Torah), and the authors of the individual books of Nach applied them in the appropriate places." So yes, the division of pesukim in Esther or whatever is of course not הלמ"ס, but the concept that there should be such divisions - and the basic rules thereof, such as that a pasuk has to contain at least three words - is. – Alex Jan 24 '12 at 19:17
  • @Alex Do you have a reason to say think that a pasuk having a minimum of 3 words is a rule of pasuk division not just a coincidence? Most sentences have multiple words after all. – Double AA Nov 20 '12 at 04:25
  • from http://www.aishdas.org/toratemet/en_pamphlet9.html "R' Menachem Kasher (Torah Shelemah, vol. 28 addenda ch. 12) quotes an explanation of this Gemara from R' Yehuda Epstein, a student of R' Chaim of Volozhin. R' Epstein pointed out that there are 43 verses from the Torah that are quoted in Psalms and Chronicles - 8 in Psalms and 35 in Chronicles. If these Torah verses that are cited in Psalms and Chronicles are added to the 5,845 verses in the Torah we arrive at the number of 5,888 that the Gemara mentions..." – Menachem Apr 23 '13 at 16:10
  • "...While the exact wording of the Gemara is still difficult, the meaning seems to have been elucidated. It is not that Psalms and Chronicles have a few more or less verses than the Torah. Rather, if we add certain Torah verses from these books to the count in the Torah then we arrive at the number cited by the Gemara." – Menachem Apr 23 '13 at 16:11
  • @DoubleAA: Chizkuni to Ex. 20:14 says, "We don't find any verse in the Torah of two words, except for [dibros 5-9]." Similarly in Shulchan Aruch Harav 494:11: "We find no verse in the Torah less than 3 words." – Alex May 02 '13 at 05:13
  • @Alex Hmmm so those sound more like the coincidence track. (Obviously intentional in the grander sense, but not an a priori rule.) – Double AA May 02 '13 at 05:16
  • @DoubleAA: not really, because both of them are giving this as a reason why there's a taam tachton - so as not to violate this rule. – Alex May 02 '13 at 05:23
  • @Alex Ahh I see. That's what's I get for not following up and reading it inside. Note also the Tosfot he cites http://hebrewbooks.org/shas.aspx?mesechta=20&daf=30&format=text – Double AA May 02 '13 at 05:26
  • @avi and Alex: As another example of a rule called HLMMS but seems unlikely to be meant literally is Yadayim 4:3. – Double AA Oct 31 '13 at 03:26
1

In terms of places where we differ from the Christian version, compare how the two of us count the introductory phrases in Psalms:

Jewish

Christian

Double AA
  • 98,894
  • 6
  • 250
  • 713
  • 2
    Is this an answer or a comment? – avi Jan 23 '12 at 08:08
  • @avi Part of the question was "What are some places where we differ from the Christians (if any)?" – Double AA Jan 23 '12 at 18:38
  • You're right about the incipits, but then chapter 20 is a bad example, as its incipit is an entire pasuk. – msh210 Jan 23 '12 at 18:50
  • @msh210 Yes, we count it individually and they don't. Notice the total number of verses in the chapter. – Double AA Jan 23 '12 at 18:52
  • But the question was about where verses start and end. Our pasuk 1 is not counted by them as part of verse 1 (AFAICT) but rather as an incipit not part of any verse. So they would seem to agree with us about where each verse ends. OTOH, in chapter 145, in which the incipit is part of a pasuk, their verse 1 starts with "aromimcha" and ours starts with "t'hila". – msh210 Jan 23 '12 at 18:54
  • @msh210 True, but I think differences in where psukim exist is included in "the history of the current division of tanach into pesukim". The fact that they don't count it at all is still an important difference, even if the remainder of the chapter is matching. – Double AA Jan 23 '12 at 19:13
  • Fair enough. 15 – msh210 Jan 23 '12 at 19:29