Gen. 29:24 [Samaritan Pentateuch]
ויתן לבן לה את זלפה שפחתו ללאה בתו לשפחה
And Lavan gave to her Zilpa, his maidservant, to Leʾa his daughter for a maidservant.
Gen. 29:24 [Masoretic Text]
וַיִּתֵּ֤ן לָבָן֙ לָ֔הּ אֶת־זִלְפָּ֖ה שִׁפְחָתֹ֑ו לְלֵאָ֥ה בִתֹּ֖ו שִׁפְחָֽה׃
And Lavan gave to her Zilpa, his maidservant, to Leʾa his daughter, a maidservant.
Morphology
- וַיִּתֵּ֤ן (va-yitten) – Root: נתן (natan); Form: Qal wayyiqtol 3rd person masculine singular; Translation: “And he gave”; Notes: Action performed by Lavan.
- לָבָן֙ (Lavan) – Root: לבן (Lavan); Form: Proper noun; Translation: “Lavan”; Notes: Subject of the sentence.
- לָ֔הּ (lah) – Root: ל (l); Form: Preposition + 3rd person feminine singular suffix; Translation: “to her”; Notes: Refers to Leʾah.
- אֶת־זִלְפָּ֖ה (et-Zilpah) – Root: זלפה (Zilpah); Form: Proper noun with definite direct object marker; Translation: “Zilpah”; Notes: Name of the maidservant.
- שִׁפְחָתֹ֑ו (shifḥato) – Root: שפחה (shifḥah); Form: Noun, feminine singular construct + 3rd person masculine singular suffix; Translation: “his maidservant”; Notes: Describes Zilpah’s role.
- לְלֵאָ֥ה (le-Leʾah) – Root: לאה (Leʾah); Form: Proper noun with prepositional prefix; Translation: “to Leʾah”; Notes: Indicates recipient.
- בִתֹּ֖ו (bitto) – Root: בת (bat); Form: Noun, feminine singular construct + 3rd person masculine singular suffix; Translation: “his daughter”; Notes: Specifies Leʾah’s identity.
- שִׁפְחָֽה (shifḥah) – Root: שפחה (shifḥah); Form: Noun, feminine singular absolute; Translation: “as a maidservant”; Notes: Reaffirms Zilpah’s role.
Textual Commentary on Genesis 29:24
Genesis 29:24 presents a minor but significant grammatical difference between the Masoretic Text (MT) and the Samaritan Pentateuch (SP). The MT lacks the preposition לְ (“for”), while the SP includes it, resulting in a slight variation in how Zilpa’s role as Leʾa’s maid is expressed.
Key Differences
| Feature | Samaritan Pentateuch (SP) | Masoretic Text (MT) | Effect on Meaning |
|---|---|---|---|
| “And Lavan gave to her” | ויתן לבן לה (wayyitten Lavan lah) | וַיִּתֵּן לָבָן לָהּ (wayyitten Lavan lah) | Identical wording. |
| “Zilpa, his maid” | את זלפה שפחתו (ʾet Zilpah šifḥatō) | אֶת־זִלְפָּה שִׁפְחָתוֹ (ʾet Zilpah šifḥatō) | No difference in meaning. |
| “To Leʾa his daughter” | ללאה בתו (ləLeʾa bito) | לְלֵאָה בִתּוֹ (ləLeʾa bito) | Identical in meaning. |
| “As a maid” vs. “For a maid” | לְשִׁפְחָה (ləšifḥāh, “for a maid”) | שִׁפְחָה (šifḥāh, “maid”) | The SP explicitly states “for a maid” by adding לְ (“for”), while the MT leaves it implied. |
Phonological and Morphological Differences
Presence of לְ (“For”) in the SP
- The Samaritan Pentateuch (SP) includes לְשִׁפְחָה (“for a maid”), making Zilpa’s role more explicit.
- The Masoretic Text (MT) simply states שִׁפְחָה (“maid”) without the preposition לְ, but the meaning is still understood from context.
- Both forms are grammatically correct, with the SP providing a more explicit clarification.
Use of Noun in Absolute Form vs. Prepositional Phrase
- In the MT, שִׁפְחָה (“maid”) is in absolute form, functioning as a noun in apposition to “Leʾa his daughter” (i.e., “Leʾa his daughter, maid”).
- In the SP, לְשִׁפְחָה (“for a maid”) is a prepositional phrase, emphasizing the purpose of the gift rather than simply stating Zilpa’s status.
Textual and Linguistic Implications
- The MT’s omission of לְ (“for”) results in a more concise construction but does not change the meaning.
- The SP’s inclusion of לְ (“for”) aligns with a general tendency in Samaritan scribal tradition to provide clarification where possible.
- Both texts confirm the same core idea: Lavan gave Zilpa to Leʾa as a servant, but the SP explicitly highlights her intended function.
Conclusion
The main difference between the Masoretic Text and the Samaritan Pentateuch in Genesis 29:24 is the presence of לְ (“for”) in the SP, making Zilpa’s role as a maid explicit rather than implied as in the MT. This difference does not alter the overall meaning but reflects a scribal tendency in the SP to provide additional clarification. Both texts confirm that Lavan gave Zilpa to Leʾa as her maid, and the variation in wording is stylistic rather than substantive.
