Q875 MT Lev 24:10 #y)w SV(1) – The MT lacks the definite
11QpaleoLeva III 5 #y)hw article.
Q876 MT Lev 24:12 whxynyw SV(1) – The MT lacks the object
11QpaleoLeva III 7- marker.^1301
8
wt) wxynywQ877 MT Lev 25:30 r#) SV(1) – 11QpaleoLeva lacks the
11QpaleoLeva IV 3 omits relative pronoun.
Q878 MT Lev 25:31 b#xy SV(1) – Difference in number.^1302
11QpaleoLeva IV 5 wb#xy
Q879 MT Lev 25:31 lbybw SV(1) – 11QpaleoLeva lacks the
11QpaleoLeva IV 5 lbwyb conjunction.
Q880 MT Lev 25:32 Mtzx) OV(l) – Possible difference in
11QpaleoLeva IV 6 Mtz) pronunciation.^1303
Q881 MT Lev 25:34 #rgm OV(l) – Possible difference in
11QpaleoLeva IV 7 #gm pronunciation.^1304
Q882 MT Lev 26:19 t) SV(1) – 11QpaleoLeva lacks the
11QpaleoLeva V 2 omits object marker.
Q883 MT Lev 26:22 ytxl#hw SV(1) – Lexical interchange.^1305
1301
The pronominal object suffix is appended to the verb directly in the MT, against the reading in
11QpaleoLev 1302 a which appends the pronominal object to the object marker.
The verb refers to a plural subject, Myrcxh ytb, “village houses,” so the form in 11QpaleoLeva is
grammatically correct. The SP and the LXX support the reading in 11QpaleoLev 1303 a.
On the elision of heth in 11QpaleoLeva see D.N. Freedman and K.A. Mathews, 45, 55, and E. Qimron,
Hebrew of the Dead Sea Scrolls 1304 , 25-26. See also Q864 and note above.
On the weakening of reš in pronunciation in Qumran Hebrew E. Qimron, Hebrew of the Dead Sea
Scrolls 1305 , 26-27.
The form in 11QpaleoLeva is read as Pi‘el, against the Hiph‘il in the MT. Alternatively, if the form in
11QpaleoLeva is read as Qal, this variant would appear to go against the observed tendency for some basic
stem roots to be written as intensive or causative stems in Qumran Hebrew (see E. Qimron, Hebrew of the
Dead Sea Scrolls, 48-49), a phenomenon also observed in Samaritan Hebrew (see Z. Ben-Hayyim, Gram-
mar, 222-23). The variation between different stemmed roots is here treated as a lexical interchange.