[Mesorah] Chataf Patach

[Michael Poppers]

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