Editing Medieval Ashkenazi Masorah and Masora Figurata: Observations on the Functions of the Micrography in Hebrew Manuscripts

HAL is a multi-disciplinary open access archive for the deposit and dissemination of scientific research documents, whether they are published or not. The documents may come from teaching and research institutions in France or abroad, or from public or private research centers. L’archive ouverte pluridisciplinaire HAL, est destinée au dépôt et à la diffusion de documents scientifiques de niveau recherche, publiés ou non, émanant des établissements d’enseignement et de recherche français ou étrangers, des laboratoires publics ou privés.

The question of the presence of micrographical figurative Masorah in biblical medieval Hebrew codices recently received renewed interest in the scholarly community (Liss 2012; fronda 2013; haLperin 2013;  haLperin 2014).This paper completes and extends the work done in the critical edition published as a monograph entitled The Masorah of Elijah ha-Naqdan: An Edition of Ashkenazic Micrographical Notes (forthcoming October 2015).For the first time, thirteen cases of figurative and alphabetical Masorah were studied from MS Vatican, BAV, Vat.Ebr. 14 1 and critically edited in comparison with seven other manuscripts, namely, a) the Leningrad Codex, 2 b) the Damascus Codex, 3 c) the MS London, British Library, Or. 4445, d) the MS Madrid, Complutense University Library, 118-Z-42, also called M1, e) the MS London, Valmadonna Trust (private collection), Valmadonna 1, f) the MS Berlin, Staatsbibliothek, Or.Qu. 9, g) the MS Vatican, BAV, Vat.Ebr.482.   4   In this forthcoming monograph, our editorial procedure allowed us to see four things.First, to trace the process involved in the writing of figurative Masorah.Second, to evaluate the kinds of Masoretic knowledge transmitted by Masora Figurata.Third, to evaluate the relation to the Tiberian tradition and to know if Masora Figurata was major impediment in the delivery of Masoretic informations.Fourth, to a reassessment of the relevancy of the Ashkenazic Bibles compared to Sephardic Bibles for studying Masoretic contents.However, the praxeological questions of how figurative Masorah served as an aid to the study of the Bible and whether form and content in these drawings are related to one another have not been dealt with in the forthcoming monograph.The present article will fill this gap.
To enter into these new aspects of the question, the MS Vat.Ebr. 14 (hereafter Vat14), copied in Northern France (Normandy) by Elijah ben Berakhia ha-Naqdan around 1239 C.E., 5 will be again our main source.Our program of analysis will first present the kinds of micrographical figurative elements delivered by Vat 14, their place in the manuscripts, and their features.The second step is to follow the analytic procedure from the 'text-image relationship' perspective, to evaluate the potential hermeneutic relationship between texts and the components, shapes and inner contents of Masora Figurata.

General features and vat14's fiGurative masorah
There is no extant typology of the micrography used neither in the medieval Hebrew codices nor in the biblical ones, beyond the detailed description of Kogman-Appel (2004) for Hebrew Bibles in Medieval Spain.The use of micrography is a phenomenon identified by art history as part of the embellishment and decoration program of the manuscripts.Recently, Dalia Halperin focused again on this art of using texts written in a very small shaped letters to draw some forms (haLperin 2013; haLperin 2014).She notes several uses of micrographic drawings like in the carpet pages, 6 in word header illuminated and in isolated drawings. 7Each kind can endorse both abstract or figurative elements as well as decorative or illustrative functions (ferber 1976-77: 18).The MS Vat14 has the tendency to display only isolated micrographic drawings, no carpet pages nor illuminated headers.In most cases, these drawings are located in the inner margins or at the bottom of the pages, thereby replacing the regular three to five lines of Masora Magna.
This specific series of isolated micrography in Vat14 led us to propose for it a new terminology of micrographical elements, summarized in this schema, and to define 'ornamental Masorah,' 'figurative Masorah' and 'alphabetical Masorah'.
Of course, some purely ornamental micrographic motives resemble geometrical interlaces, typical line-rolls appear also in MS Vat.14.
8 But these will not be the focus of this study.The core of this study is precisely the forty-seven figurative elements composed of micrographical letters in addition to eleven figures that were simply drawn and are not built from micrographical letters.The following table (Table 1) sums up the repartition of these elements. 8The use of micrography exists in ancient manuscripts such as the Cairo Codex (894-5?), see ferber (1976-77) and beit-arié, sirat and gLatzer (1997: 48-52).Some of the figurative drawings in Vat14 encompass small recognizable detailed elements like animals, objects, plants, and human beings, particularly from Genesis and Exodus, where the biblical text is the most narrative.The following table (Table 2) enumerates the figurative elements (micrographical as well as simply drawn) found in these micrographical drawings.As Alphabetical Masorah elements are not figurative according to the definition above, these are removed from the Table 2. 9 9 The MS Vat14 is planned to be on-line available (see the Polonski Project at http://bav.bodleian.ox.ac.uk/digitized-items-hebrew-manuscripts [last visit, June 2015]).The reader will be able to find some of the figurative Masorah in goLb (1976) or in attia (forthcoming 2015) for the figurative elements from Exodus.Only the detailed described example will be here published.The number of the first column is to be found in the list of attia (forthcoming 2015: Appendice 2).As stated, the alphabetical Masorah have been erased here, hence the lacks of some of the numbers.Rows nr. 7, 11, 14, 20, 38, 40,  41, 42, 44 and 48, as  Generally speaking, the figurative forms (micrographical or not) in Vat14 are more realistic than those in the MS Berlin, SBB, Or.Qu. 9, copied in 1233 also by Elijah ha-Naqdan. 10The MS Vat14 remains the richer as far as complexity of the drawing is concerned.We find nineteen human being forms (from recognizable men and women to newborns and metaphore of men melted with swords (illustration Ex. 32:27).We find thirteen figurative forms representing recognizable places or architectural elements of some specific places (for instance the pillars of the Tabernacle, or the tombs of Rachel and Deborah).The category "objects" is the richest with forty-three different elements.It should be stressed that some of them, as we will see in the detailed examples, are directly inspired from medieval times, attesting to the Northern French cultural milieu of Elijah ha-Naqdan.Trying to understand the motivation of such drawings apart a strict function of illustrating the biblical text, we will enter into the complexity and the richness of the composition of some of these micrographical isolated figures by presenting six detailed examples.

detaiLed exampLes of text-image reLationship in vat14
The figurative forms in Vat14 have been described once as "unskillful illustrations of the biblical text" (metzger 1986: 386), what is probably true from a pure aesthetic point of view, as we will not discuss the artistic merits of the drawings of Elijah ha-Naqdan in this paper.Let us see whether they could be something more than illustrative elements.Table 2: Detailed Figurative Forms (simply drawn forms, in grey).
The drawing shows a triangular shape, presumably the Ark, and three levels inside it labeled ‫תחתיים‬ taḥtiyim, ‫שנים‬ shenim, ‫שלישים‬ shelishim, meaning the first, second, and third decks.In the figure, shelishim represents the upper stage, and taḥtiyim the lower one.Some simple drawings are added: a man and a woman in the upper part, animals (a mouse and a bird?) in the middle stage, and an undecipherable object on the bottom.These micrographic figures illustrate the end of Gen. 6:16: 11 ‫תעשה‬ ‫ושלשים‬ ‫שנים‬ ‫תחתים‬ ‫תשים‬ ‫בצדה‬ ‫התבה‬ ‫ופתח‬ ..., "[...] and the door of the ark you will make in its side; with lower, second, and third decks you will make it."Rashi's commentary (berLiner 1905: 14) relies upon these three categories, beginning with the upper level:  TBSan 108b shows the same comments, with a reversed order of the description of the compartments, beginning with the lower level for waste matter. 13The Midrash BerR on Gen. 6:16 provides an explanation of the meaning of the three parts of the Ark with another combination of the level: ‫ולטהורים‬ ‫ולבניו‬ ‫לו‬ ‫ושניים‬ ‫לזבלים‬ ‫תחתיים‬ ‫תעשה‬ ‫ושלישים‬ ‫שניים‬ ‫תחתיים‬ ‫ולטהורים‬ ‫ולבניו‬ ‫לו‬ ‫שניים‬ ‫לטמאים‬ ‫תחתיים‬ ‫שמחליפים‬ ‫ויש‬ ‫לטמיאים,‬ ‫ושלישים‬ ‫הצד‬ ‫מן‬ ‫פוססן‬ ‫והיה‬ ‫לו‬ ‫היה‬ ‫קטרקטין‬ ‫כמין‬ ‫אלא‬ ‫עושה,‬ ‫הוא‬ ‫כיצד‬ ‫לזבלים,‬ ‫העיליונים‬ (aLbecK and theodor 1903: §31, 285), "The bottom story is for garbage, the second for him [=Noah] and his family along with the clean animals, and the third is for unclean ones.Others reverse it: the bottom story for the unclean animals, the second for himself and family and the top for the garbage.How did he manage it?He arranged a kind of trapdoor through which he shoveled it sideways" (Freedman and simon 1939a: 245).
As regards philological contents, this MFig contains four Masoretic notes.The central part of the figurative Masorah (note 1) includes three horizontal lines made of MM, related to Gen. 5:26 on ‫:ושמונים‬ Note 1 says: "The term ‫ושמונים‬ [occurs] six times plene [spelling] in the Bible, [then gives seven occurrences but 2 Kings 19:35 is repeated twice (so only 6)], [and] in Chronicles [the term is] always plene except one time, in 2 Chr.2:17."Here, the six first occurrences record plene spelling, which doesn't include the repetition of 2 Kings 19:35, and then points out the exception in 2 Chronicles.This note appears previously written on folio 6v (only six occurrences quoted, and the exception is not mentioned).In this case, the repetition of 2 Kings 19:35, probably made to complete the drawing, does not alter the philological contents of the note.Furthermore, there are no apparent connections of meaning between the triangle of the Ark and the levels inside it and this specific Masoretic note on the term shemonim from Gen. 5:26.
The roof of the Arch is partially decipherable, containing several notes:  According to note 2, the expression ‫תעשה‬ ‫אשר‬ ‫וזה‬ is used twice in the Pentateuch, which is accurate according to the concordances.This list as such is not recorded in L in verse Gen. 6:15 nor Ex. 29:38.ginsburg (1880-1905) recorded a larger list on we-zeh (Tome I: 460) and a commentary (Tome IV: 356).The note 3 on Gen. 6:16 (tahtiyim, once with daghesh and one without [in 2 Sam.24:6]) is accurate.The note 4 is written a bit in disorder, but probably its lemma is ‫ואני‬ (from Gen. 6:16), and the note says that this lemma is placed at the beginning of the verse in this section (beparshat [hyvernat 1902: 101]), and eleven times in the Bible (be-Qeryah) and their references are […]".The feet of the Ark have been cut and remain undecipherable.
The preliminary result of this analysis is that Elijah ha-Naqdan uses the Ark as a way to illustrate the Biblical verse in Gen. 6:16 and also as a way to recall Rashi's interpretation of the three levels of the Ark.It confirms Rashi as the source and textual inspiration for this precise representation of the Ark.

Noah's offering and the altar refer to Midrash (fol. 9r)
The biblical text on fol.9r displays the verses running from Gen. 8:10 to 8:21.
The main figurative element displays the exit from the Ark, and the burnt offering that Noah offered on an altar in Gen. 8:20: ‫עלת‬ ‫ויעל‬ ‫הטהר‬ ‫העוף‬ ‫ומכל‬ ‫הטהורה‬ ‫הבהמה‬ ‫מכל‬ ‫ויקח‬ ‫ליהוה‬ ‫מזבח‬ ‫נח‬ ‫ויבן‬ ‫,במזבח‬ "Then Noah built an altar to YHWH, and took some of every clean animal and of every clean bird, and he offered burnt offerings on the top of the altar." Only the left side of the note is figurative.
14 It displays a human being (Noah) standing in front of an altar on which a taurus ‫)שור(‬ is burned.Ibn Ezra's short commentary evokes the ten species of pure beasts in general (without the more exhaustive enumeration contained in Deut.14: 5) as well as the place where the altar was built, Mount Ararat.The long version of Ibn Ezra's commentary describes the top of the altar.
The MFig contains five notes with a repetition of the fourth that contains a Masoretic note.The figure of Noah entails that some letters are combined with simple drawings and one can decipher written words on (1) his back, (2) his hat, and (3) his belly: [1] ‫והמזבח‬ ‫דמותו‬ ‫וזה‬ ‫עשה‬ ‫נוח‬ ‫,ומזבח‬ "Noah made an altar, and this is its form and the altar;" [2] ‫עמודים‬ ‫,מזבח‬ "Altar [are?] standing;" [3] 18 ‫]ע?[שר‬ ‫,]ב?[שור‬ "Bull ?" The text inside the figures of Noah explains the image.The phrase on his abdomen probably reads 'ox' ‫.)שור(‬The altar is composed of micrographic letters that are barely legible due to the blurring of the manuscript's ink.In its lower right part, we find a long MM note on imperfect hiphil ‫ף‬ ֥ ִ ‫ֹס‬ ‫א‬ in Gen. 8:21: [4] ‫לקום‬ (Ex. 10:29) ‫דברת‬ (Gen.The contents of the key, partially blurred, repeat instances of the list that is written inside the altar: In f. 9r of Vat14, note 4 states: "Three instances of the term ‫ף‬ ֥ ִ ‫ֹס‬ ‫א‬ [in Gen. 8:21] are defective out of nineteen occurrences, which are as follows […]."The list then begins with the three defective forms of Gen. 8:21 (where the term occurs twice) and the one of Ex. 10:29.The next instances listed refer to the half-defective ‫אסיף‬ or plene forms ‫.אוסיף‬Some of the items are missing due to the blurring of the ink.
As regards preliminary results, the figurative Masorah matches Gen. 8:20-21.Elijah chose to draw a taurus (bull with horns and hoofs) upon the altar because he meant to remind the reader of the midrashic explanation of BerR on Gen. 8:20.As far as contents, the Masora Figurata shows three explanatory notes (notes 1, 2, 3 are about Noah standing in front of a Taurus) and note 4 (which expands upon the Masora Parva).
The figurative Masorah consists of an architectural element: a gateway.Elijah drew it on left side of a decorative shape.Ornamental form's contents: These words correspond to a unique Masoretic note on the terms ‫ולו‬ ‫לו‬ from Gen. 17:18.It begins on the decorative side and ends on the figurative one.The decorative form presents seventeen occurrences, and the gateway form presents five occurrences, but the last one (Job 16:4) is copied three times, but this repetition does not alter any philological contents.These twenty-two occurrences are mentioned in the MP of the same folio. 19 Here, the Masoretic contents of note 1 match several spellings on the term ‫לו/ולוא/ולו‬ in Gen. 17:18.At first view, the figure of the gateway evokes probably God gi-ving commandments.The narrative presents important theological features, although of course the figurative representation of God remains strictly prohibited. 20It may be suggested here that the use of a complex micrography, endorsing a long Masoretic list, may have guide the scribe to prepare a figurative micrography instead of a regular lay out in horizontal lines.
The micrography represents Abraham as a horseman dressed like a knight (with helmet, spurs and horse).A label under it indicates ‫אברם‬ ‫וילך‬ (Gen.12:4), quoting the biblical text written in the folio.In the inner mar- 19 See ginsburg (1880-1905, Tome I), where list nr.304 includes all items, list nr.305 records the plene spelling ‫לוא‬ and list nr.306 the term ‫;ולו‬ see also weiL (1971: 1444). 20Ex. 20:4, fourth Commandment.gin, a list is written.Regarding the contents, the Masora Magna, located inside the horse's back, relies on Gen. 12:1, ‫לך‬ ‫:לך‬ ‫לך‬ ‫ולך‬ ‫וחד‬ ‫דסמיך‬ ‫ל׳‬ ‫לך‬ ‫,לך‬ "Lekh Lekha is a casus let because of status constructus [with segol in Gen. 12:1], and appears one time [under the form] we-Lekh lekha [also with segol in Gen. 22:2]." The head of the horse contains a description, repeating a Masora Magna remark, placed in the upper margin on Gen. 11:29, ‫ל׳‬ ‫.יסכה‬Other notes are blurred but obviously refer to Masora Magna because the word ‫סימניהון‬ / simanehon is illegible. 21The list written at the left of the figurative forms comes from Sefer Okhla we-Okhla (frensdorf 1864: list 35; díaz-esteban 1975: list 36).This example illustrates the strong influence of the European Christian milieu on Jewish Culture.
The Masora Magna, located in the lower margin, runs from right to left and is divided into a decorative part, a calf and a tree; under the tree, a table is set.A cup and a pot are drawn on it.This complex figurative form illustrates Gen. 18:7, which tells about the calf's preparation for the messengers' meal.The tree illustrates the expression of the biblical text itself under the tree ‫העץ(‬ ‫תחת‬ / taḥat ha-'eṣ) that is mentioned twice, in Gen. 18:4 and Gen. 18:8.The details of the table set under the tree could be an allusion to Rashi: the expression in Gen. 18:4 "under the tree" ‫העץ(‬ ‫תחת‬ / taḥat ha-'eṣ) is explained by Rashi with the words ‫האילן‬ ‫תחת‬ / taḥat ha-'ilan, in which 'ilan is a synonym of 'eṣ.The bird in the tree, drawn with a simple line, seems to be decorative.
The contents of the forms are partially decipherable because the ink is blurred.Near the calf, a biblical verse is partly legible (Gen.18:7).Inside the form of the calf's head, occurrences should be written, but as the ink is blurred, only the generic term ‫סימנהון‬ / simanehon, introducing occurrences, is easily decipherable.The triangular element on its left also derives from Gen. 18:7 and Gen 18:4.The tree, partially decipherable, contains several Masoretic notes, such as one on the term ‫האהלה‬ (Gen.18:6) as well as one on the term ‫וחלב‬ (Gen.18:8).In a certain disorder, there are three repetitions of the verse in Gen. 18:7.The table under the tree is labeled ‫השלחן‬ ‫,זה‬ "It is the table." This figurative micrography has been built with Masoretic lists, and is first an illustration of a biblical episode (preparation of the meal for the angels) and the place of a meal (under the tree).In our opinion, the tree also emphasizes Rashi's commentary.The additional details of the table, with pot and cup (not quoted in the biblical text and looking out as medieval objects), probably match the midrashic commentary also repeated in the Rashi's comments ad loco to show that the meal followed local meal customs.
This last example may give a key of how the figurative forms were chosen.
23 It is not a micrographical figurative form but only a simple line drawing, letting us focus on the image-main text relationship.The end of the text mentions the commandment of wearing a blue tassel (ṭalit) with a frange (ṣiṣit) at each corner (see Num. 15:38 to 15:41): ‫ונתנו‬ ‫לדרתם‬ ‫בגדיהם‬ ‫על-כנפי‬ ‫ציצת‬ ‫להם‬ ‫ועשו‬ ‫אלהם‬ ‫ואמרת‬ ‫בני-ישראל‬ ‫אל‬ ‫דבר‬ ‫תכלת‬ ‫פתיל‬ ‫הכנף‬ ‫,על-ציצת‬ "Speak unto the children of Israel, and bid them that they make them throughout their generations fringes in the corners of their garments, and that they put with the fringe of each corner a thread of blue" (Num.15:38).

24
Column two (same folio) begins the Parasha of korach (Num.16:1), the rebellion against Moses uttered by Korach.In this folio, Korach is carefully drawn standing like a proud and arrogant man.He wears a priest cloak with ṣiṣ that has four fringes containing four knots at each corner.The word ‫ציציות‬ / ṣiṣiot is written on his chest.Nevertheless, the paleographic ductus does not indicate the script of Elijah in this word but a script of a second hand.This word has been written afterwards like some glosses in the mar-23 I thank Hanna Liss for her interest on this example. 24Jewish Publication Society's translation.gins that are clearly not from Elijah.Furthermore, the ink is darker than the rest of the drawing.The word ‫ציצת‬ written by Elijah ha-Naqdan is defective (with only one yod) in the biblical main text.Consequently, the Masoretic note, also written by Elijah on this term, records four occurrences of this word in defective spelling. 25Undoubtedly, Korach was drawn at the beginning of the biblical section to recall the episode.For what purpose would someone add the word ‫ציציות‬ in plene orthography?First, the second reader may have been wished to remember Rashi's commentary on Num.15:39: But, in the commentary, the word ‫ציצית‬ in plene orthography is explained by a gematria based on BamR 18:21. 27That is why it is uncertain why a scribe would quote the plural feminine form ‫)ציציות(‬ instead of the form employed by Rashi ‫)ציצית(‬ if he wanted to relate it to his drawing.Moreover, the gematria in Rashi's commentary refers to eight threads and five knots, but our drawing clearly presents four fringes with only four knots each.If the question of the form of ‫ציציות‬ remains unsolved, an explanation of the drawing by Elijah of four fringes and four knots might be found in the BamR, "Parashat Korach" 18:3.The Midrash reports the polemic uttered by Korach about the commandment of wearing ṣiṣit (Num.15:38): ‫טלית‬ ‫למשה‬ ‫ואמר‬ ‫קרח‬ ‫קפץ‬ ‫ציצית‬ ‫להם‬ ‫ועשו‬ ‫הענין‬ ‫מן‬ ‫למעלה‬ ‫כתיב‬ ‫מה‬ ‫קרח‬ ‫ויקח‬ ‫ג‬ ‫טלית‬ ‫קרח‬ ‫א״ל‬ ‫בציצית‬ ‫חייבת‬ ‫א״ל‬ ‫הציצית‬ ‫מן‬ ‫פטורה‬ ‫שתהא‬ ‫מהו‬ ‫תכלת‬ ‫שכולה‬ ‫אותה‬ ‫פוטרות‬ ‫חוטין‬ ‫ארבע‬ ‫עצמה‬ ‫פוטרת‬ ‫אין‬ ‫תכלת‬ ‫.שכולה‬ [Korach… took] What is written in the preceding passage?Bid them they shall make […]  a thread of blue (Num.15:38).Korach jumped up and asked Moses: "If a cloak is entirely of blue, what is the law as regards its being exempted from the obligation of fringes?" Moses answered him "it is a subject to the obligation of fringes."Korach retorted: "A cloak that is entirely composed of blue cannot free itself from the obligation, four blue threads do free it!"(freedman and simon 1939b: 709).
This final example represents an interesting aspect of the will of Elijah ha-Nadan to create a figurative (human being) form by illustrating the biblical text but also referring to a midrashic interpretation.

functions of figurative micrographicaL masorah in vat14
All the detailed examples show clearly that the scribe always had in mind first to write Masorah (here Masoretic notes) illustrating the Bible and not simply decorating it.In addition, these examples show that he wanted also to allude to meta-text within details of the micrographical images and to refer to some scholarly knowledge of the Bible.All of the most detailed figurative forms were made in Genesis, and it is there that we discovered a frequent use of figurative Masorah to allude to metatexts.

28
Here is a list of the cases where we could trace allusions to other texts than only the biblical written around the form.

concLuding remarKs
In conclusion, this analysis justifies expanding research on Ashkenazi Masorah, encompassing figurative micrographical Masorah, as a valid and underutilized historical source in the development of the Hebrew textual universe of Judaism.Our quentissential case study, the MS Vat.14, gives us a glimpse of the complexities of the use and function of the figurative Masorah in thirteenth Ashkenazi century, which was sometimes meant as more than decoration.
First, the figurative Masorah is all connected by strong hermeneutic and semantic bonds to the biblical text.Like visual elements and practical signets in a book, they remind the reader precisely of the beginning of biblical weekly sections (parashah), or emphasize a specific episode in the biblical narration.Second, in the most detailed cases found in Genesis, the designs transmit some scholarly information: (a) the form serves to remind the reader of the Rashi commentary (b) the form indicates the Midrash Rabba or other rabbinic literature (c) the form signals a contemporary visual element of the thirteenth century.The two first visual elements (a-b) may have certainly served educational functions by pointing to traditional Jewish sources (Midrash, Rashi), which invites the reader to discover, study, and interpret the texts that form the core of medieval Jewish rabbinic culture at a time (1239 C. E.) when difficulties multiplied for French Jews.

30
Our content analysis demonstrates that Elijah ha-Naqdan copied Masoretic notes also in complex forms, similarly to what he did in the book of Exodus (see our monograph).From that, we deduce that most of the notes in Vat14 were considered reliable an Ashkenazic Masoretic tradition.Some repetitions do occur in completing the drawings (see examples 1 and 3).But, in these cases, they represent no impediment to the philological contents.Finally, in most of the cases, the biblical text, the figure, and the Masoretic notes written on the same folio correspond to each other (except in Note 1 in the Ark's case).
To conclude, in this context, Masora Figurata of MS Vat14 could have functioned as: a) a pedagogical visual tool to learn the sections of the biblical text as they often appear at the beginning of pericopes; b) a pedagogical tool to learn the Masoretic note (mnemonic device), or challenging other experts in Masorah, and c) a manner to physically representent the rabbinic literature around the biblical text, as a way to preserve it as well as a tool to teach interpretations of the Bible.
The Masorah copied by this thirteenth-century Ashkenazi scholar encourages further research in this field.Our analysis shows one thing conclusively: the figurative Masorah in Ashkenaz, especially performed by Elijah ha-Naqdan in 1239 C.E., fulfills more than purely aesthetic function: these were real media for transmission of Masoretic knowledge and of Biblical hermeneutics.

Figure 1 :
Figure 1: Categories of Micrographical Masoretic Notes according to Shape.

Table 1 :
Book of Vat14 Figurative Masorah Alphabetical Masorah Simple figurative drawing (SD) Repartition of the Figurative, Alphabetical and Simply Drawn Elements.
well as those referred with SD and marked in grey in 217r and 223v were published in goLb (1976: Plate 21); nr.20 was included in metzger (1982: 156, fig.205) too.