[Mesorah] Allepo Codex - Ruth 1:9 (another source)

Tue Nov 2 06:12:55 PDT 2010

thanks.  this is very helpful.  That “be`alma” definitely makes a difference.  I have understood in the past “be`alma” as indicating (or at least implying) “not belishna”.  Is that incorrect?

From: Dov Bloom [mailto:dovb at netvision.net.il] 
Sent: Monday, November 01, 2010 7:10 PM
To: Hayyim Obadyah; mesorah at lists.aishdas.org
Cc: dovbbb at gmail.com; משה בלום; Elihu Shanoon
Subject: Re: [Mesorah] Allepo Codex - Ruth 1:9 (another source)

I found one other (I wouldn't call it secondary) source outside of the Allepo Codex with this same Messora:

Codex Lamed (mem) whose Messora Gedola Rav M. Breuer published in 5751 (reissued by Reuven Mas 5762). This Codex was written by, punctuated by and had the massoretic notes written by one Shmuel Ben Yaacov, who also punctuated and wrote the Massora of the Leningrad B19a codex. Its MG is greatly influenced by the Bavli Massora. 

On Dvarim 31:21 it says 

"Ki Timtzena" (Deut 31:21 ) Umtzena menucha (Ruth 1:9) kt' (ktuvin ken) b'alm' (b'alma). 

The editor R Breuer references the parallel Allepo MG in Dvarim. 

The usage "be'alma" is a Bavli Messora term, defined by Ofer in his book "Ha'Messora HaBavlit LaTorah Ekronoteha U'Dracheha" (Magnes 5761) as meaning (in my words, not his) - this Massoretic note is not limited to Tora/ or Neviim /or some sefer but applies to the whole Tanach. 

I understand this Messora as specifying these 2 cases of the root M' Tz' A'  ending with a nun with a kamatz - . 
Both are plural feminine, if my dikduk is on the level. That's pretty similar to me, better than an understood "be'lishana" which you have not infrequently in the Messora....

Kol Tuv

Dov Bloom (DB the younger on this list)

----- Original Message ----- 

From: Hayyim Obadyah <mailto:HayyimObadyah at aol.com>  

To: mesorah at lists.aishdas.org 

Sent: Sunday, October 31, 2010 8:18 PM

Subject: Re: [Mesorah] Allepo Codex - Ruth 1:9

I’m sure you’re right.  They just didn’t seem similar enough.

Can you suggest any secondary source on the Aleppo Codex massora that is not in L?  

From: Yisrael Dubitsky [mailto:yidubitsky at gmail.com] 
Sent: Sunday, October 31, 2010 12:02 PM
To: Hayyim Obadyah
Cc: mesorah at lists.aishdas.org
Subject: Re: [Mesorah] Allepo Codex - Ruth 1:9

Aleppo at Deut 31:21 has the same note so clearly that is the second reference...Why would you discount that?

On Sun, Oct 31, 2010 at 5:20 PM, Hayyim Obadyah <HayyimObadyah at aol.com> wrote:

It looks to me that the Aleppo Codex gives a masora qetana not in the Leningrad Codex for WMC)N  וּמְצֶ֣אןָ of "beth haser (twice defective)".  However, I find no other occurrence of the word, with or without waw conjunctive, with or without final heh (although TMC)N  תִמְצֶ֨אןָ, also haser, occurs in Deut 31:21).  I found nothing listed for the word in Ginsburg's Massorah or Frensdorff's Massora Magna or his Ochlah W’ochlah.  

Am I misreading the manuscript pdf?

Hayyim

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

  _____  

_______________________________________________
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/20101102/80dbdf0a/attachment-0006.htm>