Talk:Plene scriptum

Only for Hebrew?

Hi David. Is the term specifically and only used in the context of Judauc Studies? If yes, as it seems from the article, this should be stated right away in the first sentence. Thank you! Arminden (talk) 03:24, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

I have written what I know about the frequent use of this phrase by Jewish authors, and know very little about its use in other languages. If you have any sources about its use in other languages, please add them. It may be that in Roman times the phrase plene scriptum meant that Latin characters were written without abbreviation. We'll need a source for this, however. In its Hebrew usage, the word plene has two distinct meanings.Davidbena (talk) 13:34, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

FYI: Since a discussion had developed on my Talk-Page (see here) about the distinction between Mater lectionis and Plene scriptum, I thought that it would be best to move the discussion here by copy-editing:

On User talk:Davidbena, the following discussion was held on the subject:

Hi David, I'm unsatisfied by some aspects of this. Each of the articles Plene scriptum and Mater lectionis have at the top "Not to be confused with <the other one>". And yet, in Mater lectionis we can read "If words can be written with or without matres lectionis, spellings that include the letters are called malē (Hebrew) or plene (Latin), meaning "full", and spellings without them are called ḥaser or defective." Moreover, in all the examples of malē versus ḥaser given in these articles (and here too), the difference between the two forms is the presence or absence of a mater lectionis. I'm wondering if it is correct to have two articles instead of one. Zero^talk 18:15, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

@Zero0000:, anyone who has studied Semitic languages can tell you that there is a difference between Mater lectionis and Plene scriptum. Mater lectionis is similar, but actually a broader term, and is often used when referring to Semitic languages, such as Arabic and Hebrew, and has more to do with a specific function of the language, for better comprehension, or more specifically, consonants that are used to indicate a vowel. This differs from plene scriptum where the addition of a letter may or may not be used to indicate a vowel, and which word can often be satisfactorily read without the addition of that letter, such as in יעקוב in Leviticus 26:42, the only time in the Torah where the word "Jacob" (Heb. יעקב) is written with a "waw", in plene scriptum. The use of Mater lectionis is more commonly encountered when writing Judeo-Arabic (meaning, trying to find the Hebrew equivalents when writing Arabic in Hebrew characters). In the words of Professor Yosef Tobi of Haifa University, "not everything shown in Hebrew characters for Arabic words reflects what is customarily written in classical Arabic, nor does it reflect what is customarily written in classical Judeo-Arabic from the Middle Ages and which had been the standard in canonical Judeo-Arabic literature between the 10th–14th centuries. This matter finds expression in different ways: (a) the widespread use of vowels (mater lectionis) that are not compatible with anything prescribed in Arabic writing methods for the Middle Ages, and which are related to our discussion – namely, pre-classical Arabic, classical Arabic and classical Judeo-Arabic. On the other hand, we are all too familiar with this phenomenon from ancient Hebrew texts (the Dead Sea scrolls) and from the Hebrew texts in the Geniza MSS., that is to say, the practice of writing a word with an extreme plene scriptum. The sense here is not only to the copyist adding mater lectionis symbols for short-sounding vowels, but of also doubling the Hebrew letters for the vowel-like consonants, e.g. ו (waw) and י (yod). However, it should also be pointed out that, along with that, the copyist sometimes omits the mater lectionis in a long vowel; (b) the lack of consolidation and uniformity in spelling. Meaning, often the same word is written in different ways by the same copyist, and even on the same line or on adjacent lines; and it goes without saying that the spelling is likely to change from one manuscript to another." (END QUOTE). In short, plene scriptum in its Hebrew usage is simply whenever there is an additional letter added to a word and which is abnormal, in most cases, and is singled out as being abnormal. However, whenever we find the words plene (Heb. מלא) and defective scriptum (Heb. חסר) used in Tikkun Soferim (the model text for copying Torah scrolls by scribes), the word plene is always used in relation to others words written in defective scriptum, not because there is necessarily anything unusual or abnormal about the word being written in such a way, but to ensure a universal layout (conformity) in scribal practices, where one word must be written as though it were lacking in matres lectionis, and another word appearing as though it was not. It would be plainly wrong and inaccurate to discuss superfluous letters in the Torah by calling them Mater lectionis which has a useful purpose. I worked as a scribe before I was married, writing various religious scripts, and, as any Jewish scribe can tell you, a scribe must be very meticulous in copying the plene and defective scriptum in the Torah, Mezuzzah and Tefillin, and this purely for uniformity. Davidbena (talk) 19:14, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

One more thing: The best way to show the difference between Mater lectionis and Plene scriptum, according to Professor emeritus Yosef Tobi, is that Mater lectionis (lit. "mother of reading") can most effectively be understood by the example of the Hebrew name "David" (Hebrew: דויד) which is sometimes spelt in Hebrew with a yod (י), instead of simply דוד. The additional yod is used in this case as a Mater lectionis = "a mother of reading", since the plene letter yod is intentionally being used there to indicate the vowel sound, whereas in the spelling דוד there is nothing shown there to indicate the vowel sound of the "waw", and relies simply upon the knowledge of its reader to know the assigned vowels. Again, the emphasis here is on its function, rather than on its abnormality. Often, when commoners write every-day secular Hebrew, they purposely make use of Mater lectionis to indicate a certain vowel, such as writing "woman" = אשה with an additional yod (e.g. אישה), although the same word NEVER appears spelt as such in the Hebrew Bible. It is ALWAYS written without a yod. But, in secular Hebrew, people often wish to make one's intention as clear as possible, and therefore they indicate the vowel with a letter; the word אשה (= woman) being written with a yod to indicate the Hiriq, or "y" sound. In Mater lectionis, often the Hebrew character aleph (א) is used instead of the vowel patach (the "a" sound, as in "apple"), especially when writing personal names. We find many examples of this in classical Hebrew writings. Davidbena (talk) 21:04, 7 September 2019 (UTC) Davidbena (talk) 06:28, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

@Davidbena: thanks for your explanation. But, call me "stubborn" (you know me). I have read quite a lot about the early development of Semitic languages, up to early Hebrew but long before nikud. In my experience, scholars of that subject use "plene/defective" as effectively equivalent to "with matres lectionis/without matres lectionis". I'll give you some examples.

"Vowel letters ('plene writing') usually mark long vowels only, although quite often even they are not indicated either ('defective writing'): S. Weiniger (ed.) The Semitic Languages, ed. S. Weiniger, p576.

"Aramaic uses the matres lectionis w, y, h, and ' to indicate the final and medial vowels o/u, i/e, and a, generally when they are long (§9.5). However, in Mandaic each and every vowel, long or short, is spelled plene, i.e. with the use of matres lectionis": E. Lipinsky, Semitic Languages, Outline Of A Comparative Grammar, p161.

"The terms defective and full (plene) orthography refer to alternative forms of spelling the same word, one without one or more matres lectionis and the other with the addition of one or more matres lectionis. This terminology is, however, often not precise, since a single word can contain both types of orthography at the same time": Emanuel Tov, Textual critism of the Hebrew Bible, p221.

"spelling with or without the matres lectionis (plene or defective)" Encyclopedia Judaica, 2nd edition, p617.

"These four alphabet letters, yod, vav, alef, and he, called matres lectionis by the grammarians, thus acquired several vocalic values each, while retaining their consonantal value. ... The 'filling' of the consonantal script with vowel letters is called scriptio plena or plene script, its opposite, scriptio defectiva or defective script. Both terms are relative..." [1] (That article, written by someone who published a series of academic papers on it, lists major changes of terminology over the generations.)

None of this need apply to modern usage, especially in regard to vocalised texts. Zero^talk 16:51, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

Yes, the only similarity between Plene and defective scriptum is that one has a superfluous matres lectionis, and one does not. But there is also a large difference. The use of matres lectionis always comes to define the proper pronunciation of a word by filling in the void of a missing vowel, and this purely for the sake of pronunciation. However, not all plene scriptum are used with the same intention, as some plene (additional) letters are placed in one word, but the exact same word with the exact same pronunciation in the following verse or line is written without matres lectionis. The Sages of Israel who noted this peculiarity mentioned its occurrence as simply words bearing plene scriptum and words with defective scriptum, and which were not written for the sake of filling a needed void. The reason why these two terms are stressed so much together in rabbinic literature is so that scribes who copy down religious texts will be faithful to the original text, and no more. These two topoi are characteristically mentioned in rabbinic literature together; as being distinct from each other. The import, or that which is related to the discussion on matres lectionis, is different from plene scriptum in its generic sense, therefore, the use of these terms differ, depending on what one is trying to convey thereby. BTW: If you have access to the book, The Paleo-Hebrew Leviticus scroll (11QpaleoLev), by D.N. Freedman and K.A. Mathews, with contributions by R.S.Hanson, Philadelphia 1985, see how the terms "plene scriptum" and "defective scriptum" are used there. Davidbena (talk) 21:03, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

• Comment - If I may, what I see here regarding the Hebrew Plene Scriptum (ktiv male), is just the use of the same basic linguistic function, i.e. Plene Scriptum, but for two different reasons or purposes. The first reason or purpose for the use of the function is for grammatical and/or pronunciation needs. The second reason, is for manuscript/scribal reasons, in order to differentiate spellings of the same word according to different manuscript scribal traditions. But the basic linguistic function is the same, i.e. Plene Scriptum (ktiv male), and it always involves the use of mater lectionis for the spelling of words that otherwise would not have these mater lectionis added to their spelling. How about a compromise in this direction? I hope this helps. warshy ^(¥¥) 21:37, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

Whenever specifically discussing matres lectionis, the discussion takes on a different slant, and, yes, there is always a plene letter in matres lectionis. This explains why when discussing matres lectionis the emphasis is on the words pronunciation. However, in the grouping together of the terms plene and defective scriptum the emphasis is NOT on the word's pronunciation. Let us not forget, too, that the word "plene" is also used to define the horizontal bar written above the non-accentuated letters of בג"ד כפ"ת. Davidbena (talk) 21:44, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

P.S. - You may wish to see the definition of plene in the Merriam-Webster online dictionary here.Davidbena (talk) 22:00, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

I just saw the following source: Note how the author here, when describing the superfluous letter in the name "Jacob" (Hebrew: יעקוב) in Leviticus 26:42, the only time in the entire Bible where this spelling appears, he calls it "Plene scriptum", rather than "matres lectionis"! The reason is clear. The superfluous letter does not come to guide its reader in the pronunciation of the "holam"/"vaw," since, if that were the case, all the names of יעקב would have appeared similarly, with matres lectionis.Davidbena (talk) 22:12, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

Thank you. In order for me to understand your argument better, let me ask you a question: Do you agree that the use of the Plene scriptum in Hebrew manuscripts always involves the use of matres lectionis? If you agree, there is still a distinction between the two terms or concepts. I.e., they are related, but they are not exactly the same. Plene scriptum is a larger concept or function that involves the use of matres lectionis. Do you not agree with such an articulation? Thanks, warshy ^(¥¥)

Matres lectionis vs. Plene scriptum

@Warshy:, In answer to your question, no, I do not agree with your definition. The opposite is true. Matres lectionis always involves a plene scriptum, but plene scriptum does not always involve a matres lectionis. The reason for this has been explained to me by Professor emeritus, Yosef Tobi, of the University of Haifa (Department of Hebrew and Comparative Literature), who said that matres lectionis is needed to assist in a word's vowel pronunciation. However, plene scriptum is not necessarily needed for the word's correct vowel assignment.Davidbena (talk) 00:51, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

Hello Davidbena. Thank you for your answer. I have to admit that I, for one, do not understand your reasoning. Am I to understand, from your reasoning above, that you are actually saying that the two concepts are not related to one another? That you are actually saying that the concept of matres lectionis is in fact larger than the concept of plene scriptum? I do not believe that this is what you are implying. Maybe you could give an example of a use of plene scriptum where no mater lectionis is involved at all? Thank you, warshy ^(¥¥) 01:07, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

I never said such a thing; while they are indeed related, they are not the same thing.Davidbena (talk) 01:19, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

Thank you, Davidbena. OK! As far as I am concerned, we can leave at that. The two concepts are related, but they are not the same thing. Thanks again, warshy ^(¥¥) 01:40, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

As for the example of plene scriptum where no matres lectionis is involved you have in Hebrew: יִשָּׂשכָר. Another example of a word where the plene scriptum is not used as a matres lectionis is found in the Book of Daniel (see Daniel 8:11), where the word הרים is written with a plene Hebrew letter yod, and which word according to its Qere and Ketiv is to be pronounced as "huram" (Heb. הוּרַם). Again, the two terms, while similar, are still distinct. Matres lectionis (lit. "mother of reading") is only used to help in the words reading, whereas plene scriptum may or may not be used for assisting in reading.Davidbena (talk) 01:47, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

@Davidbena: I think you are coming from a perspective that all spelling variations have a purpose. For example, you wrote "The superfluous letter does not come to guide its reader in the pronunciation of the "holam"/"vaw," since, if that were the case, all the names of יעקב would have appeared similarly, with matres lectionis." But that ignores the possibility that the reason for the variation is that some copyists chose to include the letter and some didn't. Some of them thought we needed help with pronunciation and some didn't. Or some of them copied from an earlier source that spelt it one way and others copied from other sources. I understand that this explanation doesn't fit well with the belief in an inspired text sacred in every letter, but I can tell you for sure it is overwhelmingly the explanation held by secular scholars. It is general held that the earliest biblical books would have been originally without internal matres lectionis (the evidence on final matres lectionis is too thin to say) and that these internal matres lectionis were added later in an unsystematic fashion. This is enough to explain almost all of the variation. By the way, my favorite example is toldot which appears in Genesis alone as תלדות, תולדת, תולדות, and תלדת. (Btw, I hate sitting for hours in airports as now.) Zero^talk 07:09, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

@Zero0000:, No, your assumption that "some copyists chose to include the letter and some didn't. Some of them thought we needed help with pronunciation and some didn't. Or some of them copied from an earlier source that spelt it one way and others copied from other sources," is incorrect, seeing that the variations in spelling (except only in ten places) is the same for all communities and all copyists of the Torah. (The ten variants in spelling with plene and defective scriptum are well-known to scribes, and you can see them here, in Torah scroll (Yemenite)#Places in the Yemenite scrolls which differ from the Aleppo Codex, which are: Gen. 4:13, Gen. 7:11, Gen. 9:29, Exo. 1:19, Exo. 25:31, Exo. 28:26, Lev. 19:16, Num. 1:17, Num. 10:10, and Num. 22:5). In fact, what you assumed here was already assumed by an inquirer many years before you, who wrote to the Chief Rabbi of his time, Rabbi David ben Abi Zimra (known as the Radbaz), saying that perhaps the variations in script meant that errors had befallen the original Torah manuscript, in which the Chief Rabbi replied "No, since all the variations we find written in the Torah are merely a Halakhah le-Moshe mi-Sinai (a Law given to Moses at Sinai)." You can see his protracted response in his Questions & Responsa, published as Ibn Abi-Zimra, David (1749). David Ashkenazi (ed.). The Responsa of the Radbaz (in Hebrew). Vol. 1. Venice., s.v. Part III, responsum # 594 (reprinted in Israel, n.d.)(OCLC 741067500). As for the examples of plene scriptum given in this article, they are agreed upon by all, except for where I mentioned the Yemenite variant. So, the question remains: If many of the words are the same and are pronounced in the exact same way, why is there a word with a superfluous letter (plene) and one where there is not? Again, the answer is simply "Halakhah le-Moshe mi-Sinai," or what was determined for that word at Sinai. Of course, where we find the ten different traditions in the words mentioned above, these can truly be ascribed to scribal error.

At the very end of Rabbi David ben Abi Zimra's responsum, he makes a very interesting observation. There, he writes that in the Jewish Midrashic literature, when copying the Hebrew word אתו in the biblical verse אל תירא אתו (Deuteronomy 3:2), lit. "Do not fear him," it had written the word אתו with its matres lectionis, i.e. אותו, and when a scribe came along and wanted to write his own Torah scroll, because he had read Midrash Rabba (Deuteronomy Rabba) 1:22 and saw the word written in this way, he thought that in the Torah which he wrote it should also be written in the same way, and, thus, made the change in his own scroll, with an additional "waw"! The same mistake was made by a scribe who when he saw the word אתו in the biblical verse עד דרש אחיך אתו (Deuteronomy 22:2), lit. "until your brother demands it," which was written with its matres lectionis (i.e. אותו) in Sifrei on the Book of Deuteronomy, he too made the change in his own Torah scroll. Rabbi David ben Abi Zimra, seeing their errors, took the scrolls they made and corrected them, where they had emended the script to be plene scriptum when it was not. The Rabbi went on to conclude that in the Torah there is no logical way of explaining the words written in plene and defective scriptum, except to say that they are all Halacha le-Moshe mi-Sinai. Enjoy your trip, wherever you are, and, have a safe flight!Davidbena (talk) 21:22, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

@Davidbena: You are making references to "modern" texts, all of which date at most from the times of the Masorites. The handful of manuscripts judged to be the best by the Masorites differ from each other in only a small number of words as you say. Looking backwards in time one can say that the MT was only one of multiple textual traditions at the time of the Dead Sea scrolls. The more complete books, such as the Isaiah Scroll, differ from MT in thousands of places but some shorter fragments follow MT much more closely (maybe one letter in every thousand). But that's not as long ago as I want to refer to either. There are a large number of non-biblical inscriptions on pottery and stone, in Hebrew and related languages, that cover all the centuries during which the biblical text may have first been written down. What they show (and I think this is unanimous amongst experts) is that Hebrew was originally written with consonants only, except that there is still some debate about when final matres lectionis appeared. So either the earliest books of bible were originally written like that too, or they were written in a manner which had not been invented yet according to all contemporaneous evidence. It shouldn't surprise you that secular scholars overwhelmingly prefer the former. The "copyists" I referred to are not those who copied MT from one scroll to another, but those unknown early copyists who produced MT by repeated copying from the lost original text. Zero^talk 03:12, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

religious misunderstandings

Well, after Davidbena's latest reply/explanation to Zero above, it is clear what the source of the misunderstandings above is. Davidbena is simply providing the rabbinic/halachik explanation of a Latin concept, plene scriptum, which in Latin simply means "full spelling." Mind you that he does not even ever connect his entry to the proper Hebrew grammatical/ortographic entry on Wikipedia, which is actually here. Mind you, that he is giving a Latin concept, not a Hebrew one, and in his entry it is primarily linked to a Latin, i.e. Christian religious source. His first reference in the article is to Van der Hooght, Evarardi (1939). Augustus Hahn (ed.). Biblia Hebraica (in Latin).

For a secular encyclopedia such as Wikipedia, such an explanation may be included as part of the entry, but it is definitely NOT the complete, full entry. The full secular entry should link to this Wikipedia entry/explanation of the Masoretic text and of the differences between the original consonantal only spelling of the Hebrew script, and the later addition of the vowel marks to it by the Masoretes. His entry does not currently link to any of the above Hebrew grammar/orthography entries in Wikipedia, and these are the ones it should link to in the first place. Thank you, warshy ^(¥¥) 16:17, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

I have added Qere and Ketiv and Ktiv hasar niqqud to "See also" in this article. Still, I am somewhat amazed at why you are trying to deny valid Jewish sources which define the terms of "plene" and "defective scriptum." Wikipedia, as an encyclopedic venue and outlet, defines terms as they exist in the secular world, and since "plene scriptum" is used by, both, the religious Jewish community, as well as by the non-religious academic community (e.g. The Paleo-Hebrew Leviticus scroll, written by D.N. Freedman) to accurately define the Hebrew words יתר (plene) and חסר (defective) scriptum, there is nothing amiss about the entry here. In fact, it is the proper English/Latin rendering for the Hebrew words, without resorting to their transliteration. Furthermore, the term "plene" is also used for the horizontal bar drawn over the non-accentuated בג"ד כפ"ת letters. Any Hebrew speaker can tell you that Qere and Ketiv is a different concept altogether, where, for example, in Hebrew orthography, a word that is clearly written in a given text is altogether omitted during its reading, because of its offensiveness, and replaced with another word (e.g. where they publicly read "yishkavennah" = יִשְׁכָּבֶנָּה in Deuteronomy 28:30 instead of the written "yishgalennah" = ישגלנה, or where they publicly read "ṭeḥorīm" = טחורים in Deuteronomy 28:27 instead of the written "ʿafolīm" = עפלים). Furthermore, the Wikipedia page Ktiv hasar niqqud is mostly unrelated to "plene scriptum" in our context, since it literally involves "A written script without a vowel." As we all know, the entire Torah is written without vowels. In fact, the article there is more closely related to Mater lectionis, since it explains the filling-in of a vowel by an additional letter to aid in its reading, but ignores the fact that in the Torah there is no such thing as "aiding in its reading" since the very same word written in "plene scriptum" and which word and pronunciation is repeated elsewhere, but without "plene scriptum," cannot be related to the concept "matres lectionis," just as explained in the source quoted above (Radbaz), who calls these differences related only to Halakha LeMoshe MiSinai (A Law given to Moses at Sinai). We are cautioned here against interjecting our own bias. The sources are available for all to see. If there is a dispute about its definition, you are free to add the conflicting opinion, with, of course, sources.

To reiterate, you may may wish to consider the definition of "plene" as brought down in the Merriam-Webster dictionary: "Plene, having the full orthographic or grammatical form given in Masoretic texts as corrections of the defective forms that appeared in ancient biblical texts plene spelling plene writings — compare kere, kethib. Latin plenus full; translation of Late Hebrew mālē." Cheers.Davidbena (talk) 19:05, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

Thank you. Yes, that is precisely what I want. The article here, if it is to remain at all, has to start precisely from the Merriam Webster dictionary definition you give above. But, as Zero has already pointed out to begin with, the subject matter here is intrinsically related to mater lectionis, and to the already existing Wikipedia Hebrew grammar and orthography entries that I have pointed out. And, with more time, in this context, all the issues related to here are in fact already covered in those articles, and so in the end there may not be a need at all for this separate article to remain. Currently, all it does is give a rabbinic/halachik (and even leaning toward the mystical, of course) explanation to a completely secular linguistic and orthographic aspect of the Hebrew language. Be well, warshy ^(¥¥) 20:11, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

P.S. - The current entry, if it is to remain at all, needs to be completely rewritten, and start from the Merriam Webster definitions, as I said. But there may be no need for it all, since all the relevant issues are already covered in the other articles. But adding these other articles as a "see also" won't do it. As it is, the article is simply a religious/halachic interpretation of some medieval Latin Christian concepts, with a final explanation simply pointing to rabbinic myths that solve all problems and inconsistencies in the Hebrew language and in the religion derived from the Hebrew Bible as the "law" given to Moses at Sinai. Well, such religious beliefs won't cut it as encyclopedic explanations of purely grammatical and orthographic issues. Thank you, warshy ^(¥¥) 20:23, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but terms such as "Mater lectionis" and "Plene scriptum" must be defined by valid sources. We have shown through the cited sources how the two terms are different, though related. If you should have any other definitions of "plene scriptum," you may add them along with their sources. If you wish, you can take the article to dispute resolution. In Jewish law, yes, there is a legitimate term called "plene scriptum," but it is not limited to Jewish law alone, although it is used by secularists to describe a phenomenon in Jewish religious texts. If you know of other usages, you can add those too. But why are you so averse to describing a well-known Jewish halachic term? By rejecting the accepted Jewish concept of Halacha le-Moshe mi-Sinai, though well-sourced, it appears in my humble opinion that you are trying hard to establish your own logic and rationale for this phenomenon of "plene scriptum" in Jewish religious texts such as the Torah. But wouldn't that infringe upon WP:Original Research? Just asking. You can, however, bring down other conflicting sources, if you've found any, to substantiate your claims. That would be perfectly legitimate, and the matter will then be decided upon by our readers. Feel free to do so. BTW: The Merriam-Webster definition is one view, but it is not necessarily better than the definition given by the Radbaz in his Questions & Responsa.Davidbena (talk) 20:43, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

Thank you Davidbena, and my respects. You do know some rabbinic stuff pretty well, and your intentions are certainly good. In my opinion, this halachik concept of plene scriptum as expounded by you is NOT NOTABLE enough to have its own separate entry in Wikipedia. It could certainly have a paragraph or two added (a separate section, maybe even) about it in the Qere and Ketiv article, which is where the issue comes from and starts. That is where it belongs. This is my opinion, and I believe that Zero, who was really the first one to raise objections to its current form and content, may also agree with me. Other editors can also certainly join the debate at this point, and we shall see how the chips may fall in the end. Be well, Shalom, warshy ^(¥¥) 21:30, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

@Warshy:, this is for your information: The Babylonian Talmud (Nedarim 37b) says explicitly that the oral tradition passed down to Israel by the scribes, telling us how words in the Hebrew Bible are to be read (Hebrew: מקרא סופרים = miqra soferim) is a Halakha LeMoshe MiSinai (A law given to Moses at Sinai). In other words, the vowel arrangements for every word have been passed down orally by the scribes. This teaching is important, considering that in some Hebrew or Aramaic words with plene scriptum, we may find an addition Hebrew letter waw (e.g. יעקוב), and which additional character is still not enough to tell us if the letter is to be read as the Holam (the mid back rounded vowel), [o̞], typically transliterated as an "o", as in the English word "no," or whether it is to be read as a Kubutz and Shuruk, represented by the "u" sound, as in the English word "tube." The same confusion would still apply to plene scriptum where the Hebrew character yod was added to a word (e.g. אליהם), since the yod added to any word may mean that the previous consonant should either be read as a Hiriq, represented by an "ee"-sound, as in the English word "feet," or else read as a Tzere, represented by the long vowel sound of "ei", as in the English word "eight."

What you wrote about this article's title not being notable enough, perhaps you are unfamiliar with its usage in secular, religious and academic writings, but I assure you that it is used frequently. Maimonides, the rabbi and philosopher, speaks of "plene" and "defective scriptum", together, in his magnum opus, his "Mishne Torah," where we read in Hil. Sefer Torah 8:3: "A Torah scroll whose text has not been proofread in its plene and defective scriptum it is possible to correct it (i.e. any errors) and to make the [necessary] emendment." Similarly, scribes who write Tefillin (phylacteries) are warned by R. Joseph Karo in his Shulhan Arukh (Orach Chaim 32:20): "One must be meticulous in words written in defective scriptum and in plene scriptum, since if he (i.e. the scribe) had omitted [a letter] or had written a superfluous letter, they are invalid." In fact, the use of these terms together is rampant all throughout rabbinic literature.Davidbena (talk) 04:42, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

Hello Davidbena. You may want to believe that when Nedarim 37b writes mikrah soferim it is referring to plene and defective scriptum, but those are not the Hebrew words the Talmud is using to refer to different spellings. Then again, it does not really matter, since the whole concept of a Talmud and Halachah itself is justified in the Talmud as being the law given to Moses at Sinai. These are just religious beliefs, and they are definitely not shared by all Jews. I also believe that all your other later rabbinic sources are not using the words plene and defective scriptum in Latin as you are. Are you saying that the Ramba"m, Radba"z, and Karo in the Shulchan Aruch are all using plene and defective scriptum in Latin as you are? I don't believe so. Pray tell, what is the Hebrew terms that all these rabbinic sources are using to refer to these grammatical and orthographic concepts? Thank you, warshy ^(¥¥) 15:48, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

So, are you looking for a source that uses the Latin terms "plene scriptum"? Will you accept a scholarly publication put out by the American Schools of Oriental Research, or perhaps they are not good enough for you? They published the book, The Paleo-Hebrew Leviticus Scroll (11QpaleoLev), by D. N. Freedman and K. A. Mathews, in 1985 (ISBN 0-89757-007-3), and where on p. xii they make use of the Latin term plene scriptum, and next to it they point out that the term is often shortened in their work to only plene. On the same page, they also make use of the other term defective scriptum, writing there that it, too, is often shortened to only defective. In their book, they mention many times the term plene to describe examples of a superfluous letter written in the Paleo-Hebrew Leviticus scroll, and which plene letter in each word differed from the Masoretic Text. They rarely refer to these additional letters as matres lectionis, but mostly plene letters. If you have access to this important book, you can find their use of the term on page 29 (with respect to a word in Leviticus 13:4), also on page 44 (with respect to a word in Lev. 25:28 and Lev. 25:31) and where ביובל (= "on the Jubilee") is written in the Paleo-Hebrew scroll in plene scriptum, as also on other pages. The only time that the two authors mention matres lectionis is when they wanted to show the morphological changes in Paleo-Hebrew words, where an additional Hebrew letter was sometimes added instead of vowels (usually words with long vowel sounds) in personal seals and signet rings dating from the 5th to 1st centuries BCE, or when occasionally mentioning the superfluous letters "waw" and "yod" used in words in the Paleo-Hebrew Leviticus scroll. Besides the above-mentioned authors, you may also wish to see this article, where the linguist also makes use of the term plene scriptum. Davidbena (talk) 21:12, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

As for your question, Hebrew words have their English equivalents. We find this in the words "Levirate marriage" used for "Yibbum." The Hebrew words for the alternate concepts of plene and defective scriptum are חסר ויתר and sometimes simply מלא וחסר. Rabbi Yosef Karo uses the Hebrew words חסרות ויתירות. I think that most people here can understand why we would prefer to use common English expressions in the English encyclopedia, especially where the word is used and accepted in academics, whether Jewish or otherwise. (see plene). Often the Latin terms are used to describe words that exist in Hebrew, such as et cetera (Hebrew: וכיוצא בזה). If the transliterated Hebrew words are important to you, we can always make a REDIRECT to the article, using the transliterated Hebrew words. Be well, my friend.Davidbena (talk) 21:24, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

With regard to Nedarim 37b, you are correct that the sugya does not explicitly refer to plene and defective scriptum, but only to the orally transmitted vowel assignments for each biblical word. However, Radbaz, in his Questions & Responsa, writes explicitly that the reference to Rav Yitzhak's words in Nedarim 37b also applies to plene and defective scriptum. This is a reliable secondary source, and I believe that it is worthy of mentioning here.Davidbena (talk) 21:47, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

David, I don't seem to have access to the book of Freedman and Matthews, but you should know that one of those I quoted above was Emanuel Tov who for many years was the Editor-in-Chief of the Dead Sea Scrolls publication project and one of the most famous scholars of the history of the bible text. So his opinion on correct terminology cannot be readily dismissed. Zero^talk 23:10, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

Emanuel Tov is an excellent source. He studied the Hebrew linguistic tradition as it developed over the years, including the language as found in external Jewish sources not related to the Hebrew Bible, but which shed light on the Hebrew Bible. In his works he also speaks about the use of matres lectionis. If you can find any information that is applicable and which further adds insight to our topic, please add it. I will double-check all information that you add here when I visit the National Library of Israel. Thanks.Davidbena (talk) 04:07, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

Zero0000, I will relate to your statements in your comment to me when I find the time. Yesterday, I was quite busy and very tired.Davidbena (talk) 04:11, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

Masoretic text (MT) vs. ancient Hebrew manuscripts

User:Zero0000, this is in response to your earlier statement to me.

It is widely known that all Hebrew words contained in the Torah scroll are written without vowels. In fact, any Torah scroll written with vowels is invalid. This rule of practice is still observed in all of Jewry today. However, in ordinary codices used for training children on the proper way of reading the Torah, it is permitted to write the vowels in the script, along with their diacritical trope symbols. The tradition of reading biblical words, with each word's assigned vowel, was passed down in Israel from generation to generation, and these phonetic sounds represented by vowel symbols have been added to the codices by the Masoretes, who made use of the Tiberian sublinear vocalisation. Others made use of the Babylonian supralinear punctuation to mark out these very same vowels.

As you correctly noted, in the more ancient scrolls discovered in caves around the Dead Sea, there were often found in them variant textual spellings, slightly different from those texts now associated with the Masoretic text (henceforth: MT). Tractate Soferim mentions that during the Temple period they discovered three Torah scrolls in the Temple precincts. Where one was in discordance with the other two, they stored it away, hoping thereby to bring conformity to the textual readings used by Israel. Today, when discussing the MT, the plene and defective words are universally known. The earlier textual renderings are less known, and we are still unable to determine if the variant readings in those early texts were the norm, or perhaps scribal errors that had befallen those texts and for which reason they were stored away as defective writings.Davidbena (talk) 21:52, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

"Yeter ve-Haser" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Yeter ve-Haser. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. Zerach (talk) 22:35, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

The phrase "Yeter ve-Haser" is the transliteration of the Hebrew words for "plene and defective scriptum," which in Hebrew are יתר וחסר, sometimes referred to as such by editors who speak Hebrew here on Wikipedia, as well as Jewish seminary students. Its use as a phrase, of course, is restricted to a small Hebrew-English speaking audience.Davidbena (talk) 06:32, 10 October 2019 (UTC)