[Mesorah] FW: "artza-Kenaan"'s dageish chazaq

[D&E-H Bannett]

Re: <<it would be interesting if he disagrees with MSh on so 
fundamental a k'lal m'sorah>>

What is so fundamental?  As I pointed out, the only question 
is one of terminology. Not only do the ancients disagree on 
the terminology, but the modern experts as well.

Even the four classes that mevatel the rafeh. Mapik, mafsik, 
d'chik, ati meirachik, are not fundamental.  R' Yehuda ben 
Bilaam in his "T'amei Hamikra breaks them down into nine, 
instead of four.  On the other hand, Aharon ben Asher 
himself lists only three in a rhyming k'lal: Zeh minhagam 
l'olam, lo y'shanu et tafkidam, bar min mapik umafsik 
ud'atei meirachik". ,As he omits the d'chik, he strengthens 
those who say that d'chik and atei meirachik are one and not 
two.

Many say d'chik occurs only when there is a mesharet in the 
first word.  In nikkud Bavli ta'am mesharet doesn't exist. 
And to those who say that a condition for atei meirachik is 
that there is a makkaf, in nikkud bavli there are no 
makkafim. But in Bavel they certainly knew when to put a 
dagesh and when not to.

So I'm not a fundamentalist.


David