בין כתב יד קאופמן 2 לכתב יד קאופמן 1: ייחודו של כ"י קאופמן 2 בתצורת הפועל והשם בהשוואה לכ"י קאופמן 1

Ms. K2 (m. Nid. 4:2—6:2 and m. Zabim 2:3 until the end of the sixth seder of the Mishnah) is separately defined and differentiated from Ms. K1 (includes the entire Mishnah except for the pages attributed to K2) by the distinctive shape of its block letters and the appearance of the pages of the manuscript. This paper discusses the grammatical differences between them, with a stress on morphology. Below I summarize some of the main findings and results: The Morphology of the Verb 1. Past fem. third person singular of the root בו"א: in K2 באה in biblical Hebrew, but in K1 and in all other mss. of the Mishna — באת (ל"י derivation). 2. Object suffixes in ל"י verbs: in third person masculine and feminine, inflection is similar to that of strong verbs, with alef as the third radical (e.g., עשאוה, קנאה). In Ms. K1 and Ms. Parma B the third consonant is yod, e.g., קנייה; שאפייה;מנין (except with respect to the root — עש"י: עשאו, עשאן, etc.). The Morphology of the Noun 1. קליפות: The feminine plural form ות- is only found in K2 (alongside קליפין). The other mss. know only קליפין. 2. עריבה: The nomen rectum in K2 is עריבת as in Parma B, Yemen, and the Babylonian tradition (K2 is in agreement with the eastern type). In contrast, the representatives of the western type (K1 and Parma A) vocalize similar to segolate forms — עריבת, like דבלה in biblical Hebrew. Following an extensive examination of the K2 manuscript, in comparison with K1 and other manuscripts, I concluded that K2 is linguistically independent and represents a unique tradition. The results show that the K2 tradition's use of some words differs from that of K1 and other manuscripts. Notwithstanding, K2's use of nouns and verbs does concur in many instances with the western type (= in agreement with K1). While this was to be expected, I also discovered that, for many other words, the usage conforms to the eastern type (= different from K1). The fact that K2 shares verbal and nominal traditions with what are considered "prototypical" manuscripts (from both the western and eastern types) demonstrates its superior quality.