[Mesorah] Nikud on YKVK

[D&E-H Bannett]

The background on this question has been mentioned often on
list in the past but it seems that people are forgetful or
that there are new people on the list.  Whatever, it is time
to go over it again, perhaps in a more organized manner
which, knowing myself, is not very likely.


1. First to the rules ancient customs or rules of the
sof'rim and menak'dim;

In ketiv uk'ri, the established custom for some thousand
years has been that the letters of the ketiv are written in
the text of the Tanakh with the nikkud of the k'ri. The
letters of the k'ri are written on the margin. To read the
word correctly, one places the nikkud from the text into the
word in the margin.

For ketiv v'lo kri. the word in the text has no nikkud.
Just as letters without nikkud are not pronounced (except at
end of word) so words without nikkud are not pronounced.
For k'ri v'lo k'tiv, the same rule still applies.  The
nikkud is in the text without any letters and the letters of
the kri are in the margin.

As shem Havaya is read as shem Adanut, the letters in the
Tanakh are YKVK and the nikkud is that of shem Adanut.
Because it is appears so often and is so well known, the
sof'rim did not bother to write the kri in the margin. They
didn't even bother to write all the nikkud.  Usually, the
cholem over the dalet  is omitted, as is the patach sign
adjacent to the sh'va under the alef.  (Note that I wrote
the letters of the kri, alef and dalet, not yud and hei of
the ketiv.)
Similarly, some sofrim or menakdim wrote a chataf kamatz
when they wanted to point out that the kamatz is katan but
they didn't bother in the word kol (all) in s'mikhut because
it so common that everyone knows not to read kal. (v'khal
bashlish and kol 'atzmoti has been mentioned on the list.)

There is no connection between the nikkud of the kri and the
word of the ketiv. The correct nikkud of the ketiv cannot be
known directly from the text. The usual spelling of YKVK in
most translations, that uses the nikkud of Adanut with the
letters of YKVK shows the ignorance of the original
translators and is not the correct pronunciation of G-d's
name.

The first text I saw that broke this ancient custom was
Koren.  Because people today are so ignorant, Koren decided
that people would read YKVK with the nikkud of shem Adanut
so they omitted the nikkud completely. By ancient custom,
this means that the word YKVK in their Tanakh should not be
pronounced at all. (Not the first time that this was done. I
heard a story that Hashomer Hatzair once put out a Tanakh
that omitted shem Hashem.)
Koren then did the same thing in their Siddur.


2. And now to the sh'va:

The subject of the changes made by R' Yosef Kimchi in the
number of vowels and the resulting addition of sh'vaim na'im
that had been nachim has gone through many rounds on  the
list. R' Seth repeated it just lately in his usual excellent
manner.  The question of how the sh'va na' should be
pronounced or, more accurately, how it used to be
pronounced, has not been repeated lately.  so the time has
come.

All the ba'alei mesora, from ancient to modern make it clear
that the normal sh'va na' has a weak patach sound.  Before
certain letters, however it changes.  Before a yud,  the
sh'va takes a weak chirik sound. For example, b'yom (on the
day) is pronounced BiYOM, not BeYOM, BaYOM, or BoYOM. The
lower case letters after the B indicate a very short slight
hint of the sound, far from a full vowel. B'ito (in its
time) is bi-ito. The sound of the yud makes it easier to
precede it with an "i" sound.  There fore most people do it
and so ben Asher heard and recorded it. Listen to
yourself.You probably do it too.

Before a gronit, the sh'va takes a weak form of the nikkud
of the following letter. Tishm'u is pronounced Mu-U, not
Mi-U, Me-u, etc.

Another problem with groniot is that they are weak letters
and, with their vowels, easily slurred or elided. This is
especially true when the gronit has a sh'va na' under it.
The sh'va can become nach or vanish completely. In these
cases, the ba'alei hamesora often warned us that the sh'va
is na' by placing a vowel with the appropiate sign next to
the sh'va. As the sh'va usually has a slight patachish "ah"
sound they put a patach adjacent to the sh'va. In words
where the sh'va was a shortening of a vowel they put the
appropriate vowel.  Just as, in the morning, the plural of
boker is b'karim so in chodesh the plural should be
ch'dashim but, because of the gronit, chet, the plural is
CHoDASHIM where the lower case "o" is a weak vowel, a chataf
kamatz.  Note that the vowel is chatuf. It is so weak that
it is vanishing even as it appears.  It cannot be
emphasized. That is what chatuf means. So why do we
ignoramuses emphasize the CHO.

In Elokim, the alef has a sh'va na'. As it is a shortening
of the tzeire in the word El it stilll has a slight "eh"
sound as is noted by the chataf segol.  The eh is chatuf. It
should not be emphasized.

And just to make it more interesting, the Keter and 
Leningrad have just a
sh'va in the alef of of Elokim written as YKVK. They do not
add the segol.

This list is part of the Avodah list. The 'ayin of avoda has
a sh'va na.  Most of us, including me, usually say A-vo-DA.
(strong-weak-strong) which, of course is so unHebrew. The
first syllable should be 'aVO with the DA stronger than the
'aVO because the word is mil'ra'.  The first 'a should be
chatuf not


emphasized. But, it is many long years since we
were real Semites and we no longer sound like Semites. The 
ones who do make the 'a chatuf are those who pronounce the 
word mileil,  'aVOda.  In this case, the apostrophe does not 
mean that they pronounce the 'ayin.

And did you ever see a chataf chirik?  Well, there are two
of them in the Keter.

And I'm much too tired to continue so we'll let it go for
tonight.

David