[Mesorah] Hoshiya Na Hatzlicha Na

[Michael Poppers]

I greatly appreciate RDB's response, as Dr. Klarberg explains (see 
http://www.torahsearch.com/page.cfm/1840) why one would expect penultimate 
stress for this type of "elongated imperative" word.  {BTW, I think 
there's an error in his explanation as quoted there: he says, "In the 
Tenach, which Rabbi M. Breuer edited (according to the Masorah of Ben 
Asher in Keter Aram Tzova), he indicated that hoshiah and hatzlichah 
should both be read with penultimate stress," but the online (at 
http://www.aleppocodex.org/newsite/index.html) Keser Aram Tzova manuscript 
seems to indicate *ultimate* stress for both words.}

I have a slightly-different Q: if, as seems to be the case, both words are 
mil'ra (which per se deserves the "leis" Masoretic note), why is there 
nevertheless a dageish in each of the nunin (which one would expect after 
a word that ends with a qamatz-heih only when that word is mil'eil)?  Yes, 
one could claim that this d'chiq is also part of the "leis" situation, but 
still....

> both hoshiya and hatzlicha have the same ta'am 
(tzinorit-merkha) <
In my printed T'hilim, tzinoris is indicated with a "tilde" circumflex 
(just like the zarqa of the s'farim other than sifrei EMeTH).  The online 
Aleppo Codex has what looks like a t'lishah -- actually, more like a P 
flipped along its vertical axis -- on those T'hilim 118 words (more 
importantly for the discussion started by Josh, it has the same symbol on 
both of those words, as per RDB's summary) and on words (like "admas'cha" 
in 5-28:51) which are graced with a zarqa.  Anyone familiar with the 
history of the ta'amei hamiqra alphabet(s) and when changes like this one 
for the tzinoris/zarqa were made?  Thanks.

All the best from
Michael Poppers * Elizabeth, NJ, USA



D&E-H Bannett <dbnet at zahav.net.il> 
Sent by: mesorah-bounces at lists.aishdas.org
07/24/2008 11:03 AM



To
Josh Skolnick <joshskolnickavodah at gmail.com>; mesorah at lists.aishdas.org
cc

Subject
Re: [Mesorah] Hoshiya Na Hatzlicha Na






Re: your question <<difference between the dagesh chazak in 
the 'na' of of Hoshia na and the lack of one in hatzlicha 
na?>>

I suggest you look in R' Mordekhai Breuer's book on the 
Keter, IIRC page 43. He points out that, in all the ancient 
manuscripts as well as the Mikraot Gedolot Venetzia 5286, 
both hoshiya and hatzlicha have the same ta'am 
(tzinorit-merkha) and a dagesh in "na".  Radak and other 
medakd'kim and ba'alei mesora mention the unusual, that both 
words are milra'.  Because of a misinterpretation of the 
Mesora(see Breuer), this was changed by the Minchat Shai to 
the way it appears today in most printed Tanakh. Since then 
we have the mileil of the hoshiya. Those "in the know" added 
the incorrect "diyyuk" of reading (only) the hatzlicha as 
milra'. Or is that "diyyuk" the reading of hoshiya as 
mileil?

So, to summarize:  According to all the old sources, both 
Na's have a dagesh, both words have same ta'am, both words 
are milra'.


k"t,

David 

_______________________________________________
Mesorah mailing list
Mesorah at lists.aishdas.org
http://lists.aishdas.org/listinfo.cgi/mesorah-aishdas.org

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/mesorah-aishdas.org/attachments/20080724/b8f33bbb/attachment.htm>