[Mesorah] question re 4-30:9 (was "Re: question re 5-15:11")

[MPoppers at kayescholer.com]

RDL noted:
> The first parsha of Matot includes seven p'sukim that start with v'im. 
In six of them, v'im is hyphenated to the following word.  In 4-30:9, 
however, not only is v'im not hyphenated, but also it has a mafsik 
(t'lisha g'dola).  One would expect it to be hyphenated to the kadma as 
4-30:6.  Can anyone think of a reason for the difference, either connected 
to the rules of t'amim or to the meaning of this pasuk?  <
This may be a distinction without a difference, but here's my first 
thought.  A few of the p'suqim in this parashah (4-30:6, 9, 13, and 15) 
are emphasized by the use of the zarqa and segol, and of those, the only 
one with a noun following the "v'im" is 9, and that word ("b'yom") is 
significant, as the pasuq could have said "v'im k'sheshama'" or something 
to that effect.  Speaking hypothetically, I don't think "v'im" in 9 would 
have been graced with a mafsiq if, like the other three p'suqim, it had 
been followed by a verbal form.  I'm not sure why "v'im-b'yom" (or "v'im 
b'yom") with a m'shorais (or m'shorasim) didn't (couldn't?) occur, but if 
there has to be a mafsiq, I think it was better being on "v'im" than on 
"b'yom," because that way "b'yom" is more strongly connected to the 
"shmo-a'...osahh" phrase.

All the best from
Michael Poppers * Elizabeth, NJ, USA
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/mesorah-aishdas.org/attachments/20060830/f92f0da9/attachment-0010.htm>