CTR Psalm 32: Where Other Sources Stand

This document covers more than its parent document in the following ways:

• It shows all words where CTR differs from MAM, not just those that also differ from JP.
• It brings a number of other sources into the comparison.

This document covers less than its parent document in the following way: it sometimes ignores CTR or JP where their contents is either:

• Clearly in error.
• So weird that comparison with these other sources is not meaningful.

First let’s look at פשע in Psalm 32:1:

(WMG = Warsaw Miqraot Gedolot, 1874 (Internet Archive))

(SBB = Soncino Books of the Bible: The Psalms (Internet Archive))

All except MAM agree that the accent is revia mugrash. But MAM is not really an outlier here. It is simply the only edition we cited that agrees with the TM tradition here. By “TM tradition” I mean, broadly, the tradition stemming from the authoritative Tiberian manuscripts such as those of Aleppo and Leningrad. (Much further below we will introduce the JC and FS editions, among which MAM is rarely an outlier, i.e. with which MAM usually agrees, at least on the most substantive issues.)

In JP and SBB, the revia is on ש. All others have it on פ.

Side note: In CTR, פשע is accented with the CTR coding for geresh rather than geresh muqdam. (E.g., compare with the coding of בַּ֜֗ל and חֶ֜֗סֶד in 32:9 and 32:10.) Nonetheless, I interpret it as geresh muqdam. (See my document, “Pre-vowel Accents in Chabad’s CTR.”)

Now let’s look at אשרי in Psalm 32:2 (ignoring CTR):

In MAM, the maqaf after אשרי is marked up as a special kind of maqaf. This kind of maqaf is special because it (like many features of MAM) is an aid to reading that is not supplied by the authoritative manuscripts. (Other such features include qamats qatan and most non-pashta stress helpers.) For more information, see the section “תיבה הראויה להיות מוקפת (מקף אפור)” in Chapter 2 of the MAM documentation. That section of the documentation even makes reference to Psalm 32:2 אשרי־אדם in particular.

The combination of געיה with shewa (MAM, KCT, SBB) rarely appears like this, in the middle of a word. See my document, “Mid-word געיה with Shewa.”

Now let’s look at לא in Psalm 32:2 (ignoring CTR):

Now let’s look at כי in Psalm 32:3:

Now let’s look at יומם in Psalm 32:4 (ignoring CTR):

Now let’s look at ולילה in Psalm 32:4 (ignoring CTR):

(I assume that the vertical bar after ולילה is a legarmeh rather than a paseq. As such, I include it as part of the word.)

(For an explanation of what is meant by “JP charitable,” see the parent document, “Review of Chabad’s CTR.”)

Now let’s look at תכבד in Psalm 32:4:

Now let’s look at ועוני in Psalm 32:5 (ignoring CTR).This is the word that originally sparked my interest in Psalm 32 in CTR. (See my document, “Tsinnorit in Psalm 32:5 ועוני.”)

(I represent WMG as if it had special placement for ḥolam ḥaser on vav, but it does not.)

Now let’s look at נשאת in Psalm 32:5 (ignoring CTR):

Now let’s look at מים in Psalm 32:6 :

Now let’s look at תהיו in Psalm 32:9 (ignoring JP):

(I assume that the vertical bar after תהיו is a legarmeh rather than a paseq. As such, I include it as part of the word.)

Now let’s look at אין in Psalm 32:9:

Even though the editions in question do not distinguish between atnaḥ hafukh and yeraḥ ben yomo, it is clear that atnaḥ hafukh is intended because it comes right before oleh veyored.

Now let’s look at במתג ורסן in Psalm 32:9:

Most of the accent differences presented so far involve two conjunctive accents or involve a conjunctive accent and maqaf (the lack of an accent) (the formation of a compound word). But here the difference involves a disjunctive accent (deḥi ) and a conjunctive accent (munaḥ). A difference like this is generally considered to be a more significant difference than a conjunctive vs. conjunctive difference or a conjunctive vs. maqaf difference.

Now let’s look at קרב/קרוב in Psalm 32:9 (ignoring CTR):

Now let’s look at לרשע in Psalm 32:10:

Now let’s look at שמחו in Psalm 32:11:

Two other editions deserve some mention and comparison: the Jerusalem Crown (JC) and the Feldheim Simanim (FS) editions. They are so close to MAM that I have not listed them above. Yet, they differ from MAM in some small ways that are worth listing here.

Some manuscripts and editions have a געיה where MAM has neither a געיה nor an accent:

Regarding JC ... In the four cases of געיה above, JC uses a small געיה. This small געיה is an aid to reading that is not supplied by the AC. Thus one could say that in these words, JC sort of splits the difference between MAM and the many other editions that have a געיה (of full size).