[Mesorah] She'ata / Sha'ata

[R. Rich Wolpoe]

I had hoped someone would correct you on this.
The form QeTeL does not change in s'michus.  Melekh Mitzrayim, not m'lakh.
The form Q'TaL (with a qomatz also does not change in s'michus.
With suffixes, the former changes to QiTL- or QaTL-.  The latter does not change with suffixes.  Ever.»

So are saying shevach is Qetel ergo it does not become sh'vach? 

Let's make a few observations, comments and speculations

1. Is this QETEL rule for Biblical Hebrew or for Rabbinic Hebrew. If for BibHeb - then perhaps conversely there IS a s'michus form for shevach in RabHeb?  Thus this rule might not apply to Talmudic passages such as "kol sh'vach n'urim l'aviha". Maybe that's a RabHeb construct form but the native form remains Shevach?

2 if Wolpoe could err re: s'michus of Shevach becoming sh'vach, does it stand to reason that the Mss. Could have perpetuated similar errors?

3. Is there any Mss. Evidence 
For Sh'vach as a stand alone word such as in Keil Adon and aferwards, or in hashir v'hashevach etc.? Can we indepndently verify this

4. FWIW Ri Kimchi is pretty convinced that Shevach and Shivchacha are correct. Baer endorses Kimchi. Hoffmeister - whose task is to roll back grammtical fixes - leaves this intact.

5. If true that Maaseh Rav is endorsing the form sh'vach over Shevach then as per above the GRA is endorsing an Ashk'naz mesorah [from Mss.] over a S'phardic one [as per Kimchi] which is odd to say the least

------------------

I would like to add Eizor Eliyahu to my collection, but let's also remember that Hoffmeister and Baer did research texts too, although their agenda were 180 degrees apart

BAER - like RWH and Birnbaum was in favor of making grammatical emendations

Hoffmeister's goal was to roll them back

It stands to reason that when they concur, we can draw some kind of support.  Add a carefully redacted Eidot Mizrach version, then you have even more support.


Shalom and Regards, RRW