[Mesorah] Hallel

[Michael Poppers]

RDBannett:
> Hoshi'a appears many times, all except this one are mil'eil. The absence
of a mesorah on the exception is not a permit to change it. <
Yes, the absence of evidence is not the same as evidence of absence, but
shouldn't this instance being the only *mil'ra* be all the more reason to
have a Masoretic "leis" comment upon it, given what the absence of such a
comment implies (as noted by MS)?  Thanks.

A gut'n Shabbes/Shabbas Shalom
and all the best from
*Michael Poppers* * Elizabeth, NJ, USA


On Fri, May 2, 2014 at 10:27 AM, D&E-H Bannett <dbnet at zahav.net.il> wrote:

> Late last night, I saved some time by referring to a page in R' M.
> Breuer's book.  As I don't expect that many have the book next to their
> computers, I'll fill in what I omitted last night.
>
> The Minchat Shai "corrected" the Tanakh because he notes that "if they
> were both mil'ra' the Radak and other ba'alei Mesorah would have mentioned
> the mil'ra' status of hoshi'a just as they do mention the mil'ra' status of
> hatzlicha. The absence of a mesoretic comment on hoshi'ah made him change
> it to mil'eil.
>
> Breuer explains why there is a mesorah on hatzlicha.  The word occurs
> twice in the Tanakh, once mil'eil and once mil'ra'.  It appears in Okhla
> v'Okhla as one of the twelve pairs one mil'eil one mil'ra'.
>
> Hoshi'a appears many times, all except this one are mil'eil. The absence
> of a mesorah on the exception is not a permit to change it.  The Keter and
> all the accurate manuscripts as well as the much copied Ben Hayyim  Mikraot
> Gedolot 1625 Venetzia have both words mil'ra' and both nuns dageshed.
>
>
> David
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20140502/513b3f50/attachment-0005.htm>