[Mesorah] ham'chadesh, ham'vorach, ...

[R Davidovich]

FWIW, you are not annoying me at all.  Au contraire.  I have wondered about
the mysterious Hei Hayediah followed by a Mem-with no dagesh but a shva-na
for over a decade now.

I asked someone in yeshiva about it and all he could show me was a siddur
called Siddur R'Shabsi Sofer, a two-volume siddur with peirush published by
Ner Israel. (I believe it was the first and only publishing venture of a
real hardcover sefer the yeshiva ever undertook.) In the siddur he explains
that there should be a dagesh. Ayin Sham. My knowledge of dikduk at the
time, and most probably now, was not sufficient to enable me to understand
his explanation.  But presumably if you saw the explanation, which he felt
was necessary, you would understand what he is arguing about.  Although
unless you are at Ner Israel, I don't know how you would find it, as I never
saw the sefer anywhere else in the world.  And in fact I have seen sefardi
siddurim that have a dagesh in the mem.  "Hamevareich es Amo Yisrael
Bashalom".

If you find an answer, please let me know.

Raffy Davidovich

On Thu, May 29, 2008 at 12:30 PM, Michael Hamm <msh210 at math.wustl.edu>
wrote:

> If I'm annoying anyone with my repeated dikduk questions, please let me
> know (off-list), and I'll curtail 'em, b'li neder.
>
> Any piel or pual verb in present tense that starts with a mem-sh'va (as
> most of them do) and is preceded by a he hay'dia ("the"), such as
> "ham'chadesh", "ham'vorach", "ham'shubach", etc., and which appears in
> t'fila but not quoted from Tanach, the ArtScroll (S'farad, Hebrew-only)
> sidur writes without a dagesh in the mem, but with a sh'va-na line over it.
>  Why no dagesh?  And if no dagesh, why the sh'va na?
>
> Michael Hamm
>



-- 
RD
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/mesorah-aishdas.org/attachments/20080529/24a48e53/attachment-0010.htm>