[Mesorah] Chataf Patach

[Gershon Dubin]

Not sure why you think you mis-heard;  he said there were two variations
on mochalas vs. machalas and gave a vort from Rav Pam for the difference.
 Mochalas still has a chataf komatz, no?

Gershon
gershon.dubin at juno.com
 
On Tue, 25 Nov 2008 20:24:15 -0500 Michael Poppers
<MPoppers at kayescholer.com> writes:
> Thanks, RDB!
> 
> > would you think that the kamatz is katan <
> I was comparing it to words like "l'ga-aleich" of Rus 3 and 
> "bachari" of Y'chezqeil 20 (where the underlying infinitive's second 
> root-letter is a guttural), and in general, I thought that the 
> qamatz ahead of a chataf-qamatz is treated at least by Ashk'nazim as 
> a qamatz-qaton.  All moot in this case if no one holds that the ches 
> is graced w/ a chataf-qamatz (I apparently misheard RYR).  Thanks. 
> 
> All the best from
> --Michael Poppers via RIM pager
> 
> 
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: D&E-H Bannett [dbnet at zahav.net.il]
> Sent: 11/26/2008 12:10 AM ZE2
> To: Michael Poppers
> Cc: Gershon Dubin <gershon.dubin at juno.com>; 
> mesorah at lists.aishdas.org
> Subject: Re: [Mesorah] Chataf Patach
> 
> 
> 
> Re:  <<I'm not sure if RDB answered RGD's Q (whether the 
> pronunciation of a chataf depends on a machloqes between ben 
> Asheir and ben Naftali)>>
> 
> True, I didn't say if there is a b-A b-N machIoket and the 
> truth is that I don't remember it as such.  As far as I 
> know, there is no machloket at all.  There are differences 
> of opinion on the need for noting a chataf for sh'vaim 
> na'im. As ben Asher himself put it, "v'ein ladavar shoresh 
> ki im birtzon hasof'rim".
> 
> As to the Minhat Shai's very common comment "sh'va l'vad". 
> Many years ago I wondered if his opposition to these 
> "optional" chatafim meant simply that his accurate sources 
> did not have the custom of writing them and so, following 
> tradition, he didn't.  Some years later, when I saw his 
> introduction which did not appear in the Minchat Shai of my 
> mikraot gedolot. I realized that he was backing the 
> seven-vowel kadmonim who, before R' Yosef Kimchi, 
> considered these sh'vaim to be nachim.
> 
> And re: the nikkud of Mach'lat bat Yishmael: <<patach for 
> mem, chataf[-patach] for ches vs. qamatz-qaton for mem, 
> chataf[-qamatz] for ches)>>
> 
> 
>   Minchat Shai quotes Ohr Torah that all accurate sources 
> have a kamatz in the mem and a chataf in the chet. BTW, this 
> horrified RVH who found just the opposite.   But, the name 
> Mach'lat is one on which Leningrad and other mss agree and 
> that Sapir had checked in the Keter. It has a kamatz in the 
> mem and a chataf patach (not kamatz) in the chet. And why 
> would you think that the kamatz is katan?  The chet has a 
> sh'va na which shows that the mem has a kamatz gadol. (BTW, 
> same nikkud in yahalom).  That's the reason for the chataf, 
> so one shouldn't make the sh'va into a nach and the kamatz, 
> therefore, katan.  On this too, I don't have any 
> recollection of a b-A vs. b-N machloket.  If Breuer or 
> Yeivin had mentioned such, I'm pretty sure I would remember. 
> I don't have access to a list of these machlokot and my 
> memory is not what it used to be so.... maybe....
> 
> Breuer and Cohen Keter texts both have this "correct" 
> nikkud.   Most "accurate" Tanakhim printed in the last two 
> hundred years or so have the mem with patach.
> 
> And now I can go to sleep.
> 
> David
>  
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Mesorah mailing list
> Mesorah at lists.aishdas.org
> http://lists.aishdas.org/listinfo.cgi/mesorah-aishdas.org
> 
> 
 
____________________________________________________________
Click now to find great physician jobs throughout the nation!
http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL2141/fc/PnY6rw2b5lRdyg7WrWpswlfVoONrZ8hkaHcY6z0uaQt9xHbM7NdDn/