Magdil and Migdol-Liturgical Responses to Textual Variants
2013; Volume: 41; Issue: 2 Linguagem: Inglês
ISSN
0792-3910
Autores Tópico(s)Archaeology and Historical Studies
ResumoTowards the end of Grace after Meals (Birkat ha-Mazon), we find the verse, Magdil [or migdol] yeshu'ot malko ve-oseh hesed li-meshiho le-David u-le-zar'o ad olam: He magnifies [or is a tower of] victory for His king and deals kindly with His anointed, with David and his descendants for ever. The source text has two forms, one found II 22 (the haftarah for the seventh day of Passover), and the other Psalm 18, the one prescribed for that day according to the custom of the Vilna Gaon (Ha-Gra). There are several differences between the two versions, especially verse 51, where Psalm 18 has the hifil participle magdil [magnifies] and II 22 the noun migdol [is a tower]. The Psalms version seems better linguistically, since magdil as a verb is paralleled by the verb oseh the second half of the verse. Still, it is not unknown for God to be described as a tower, e.g., Ps. 61:4, where He is called a tower of strength. The Masoretes note II that although the keri (read version) of verse 51 has a noun, the ketiv (written version) has a verb, magdil. Both sets of consonants are the same, mem-gimel-dalet-lamed; but should the dalet and lamed be separated by a yod or by a vav? Note that by pronouncing the word as migdol the Masoretes treated the yod as a shortened vav. It is almost impossible to account for all the differences between these versions. One cannot rightly blame the variants scribal carelessness, since there seems to be a degree of consistency between them, that many verbs the version are the past tense, whereas the future is more common Psalms. If is the original text, it could have been a historical record that was later altered when the text was turned into a prayer. Samson Raphael Hirsch reflects the common Jewish position when he says: psalm was set down II Samuel, chapter 22, as a part of the story of David. David himself made some changes it when it was finally turned over to the people as a kind of national hymn. (1) In this way David turned II 22:51 from a historical report, God is [or was] my tower of support, to a prayer of hope that God may future support the Davidic dynasty. In the Da'at Mikra edition of Psalms, Amos Hakham notes other evidence of material that was reworked to become a prayer for the future. For example, Ps. 18:2 introduces a statement about the future not found Samuel, saying erhamekha (using an Aramaism for love): I will love You, O Lord, my support. Moshe Zvi Segal, his commentary to the Kiryat Sefer edition of the Books of Samuel, makes a similar point: David, who calls himself the Lord's king or anointed one, hopes or prays that the loving kindness of the Lord will never turn away from his house. This reflects the natural ambition of a ruler to see his dynasty endure. It must be pointed out, however, that biblical Hebrew does not always have a clear distinction between tenses. (2) The liturgical practice is to assign magdil to the Grace after Meals weekdays and migdol to Sabbaths and festivals. Barukh she-Amar by Barukh Halevi Epstein, maintains that although people tended to use magdil (the Psalms version), prayer books had a marginal note, bet-shin-bet: migdol, i.e., in II Samuel (bi-Shemuel Bet--migdol), which, he claims, was misread owing to the use of the abbreviations as be-Shabbat: migdol, meaning on Sabbath (and festivals): migdol. (3) Epstein argues that either version is acceptable and that there is no need to assign the alternatives to different occasions. He assumes that the custom he criticizes may have emerged with the invention of printing (Hebrew printing began the second half of the fifteenth century), when a printer misinterpreted the marginal reference to II (bi-Shemuel Bet) and turned it into a rubric: on Sabbath (and festivals): migdol. This appears to find support the fact that the terms I and II were first used the Bomberg Bible of 1516/17. …
Referência(s)