[Mesorah] Ner Tamid

[Michael Poppers via Mesorah]

>> A *tipcha* immediately prior to higher-level-*mafsiq* *sof-pasuq*/
*silluq* is close to being a *m'shareis* <<
> I thought that was the case only when the entire second part of the pasuk
(meaning, everything after the esnachta) consisted of only two words. <
In the same chapter <http://www.mechon-mamre.org/c/ct/c0227.htm>, you can
repeatedly see the phenomenon -- e.g. see the end of verse 1 ("amos"
appears thrice, twice with a *m'shareis* and then with a *tipcha* prior to
the *sof-pasuq*) and the beginning of verse 4 (remember what I wrote before
about "*s'michus* phrases that span a *tipcha*"? :)).

Gut Voch/Shavu'a Tov,
!miruP tuG
and all the best from
*Michael Poppers* * Elizabeth, NJ, USA

On Sun, Mar 1, 2015 at 6:51 PM, Sholom Simon <sholom at aishdas.org> wrote:

>  At 01:49 PM 2/27/2015, Michael Poppers wrote:
>
> A *tipcha* immediately prior to higher-level-*mafsiq* *sof-pasuq*/*silluq*
> is close to being a *m'shareis*
>
>
> I thought that was the case only when the entire second part of the pasuk
> (meaning, everything after the esnachta) consisted of only two words.
>
> -- Sholom
>
>
>
>  (not in re to elision of a *dageish qal*, but in re to a possible
> understanding of the phrase); another example of many can be found in next
> week's *sedra* (also the *ta'anis-tzibbur* reading), "*vayiqra v'sheim H'*"
> -- many commentators apparently take the trop strictly in considering H'
> the subject (see ibn Ezra, RaShBaM, and S'forno), while RaShY, quoting
> Targum, considers MRAH the subject (which would certainly be the
> most-likely *p'shat* if the word was "*b'sheim*", as it would be if the
> *tipcha* was on "*vayiqra*").  As an exercise, look through last week's
> and this week's readings for *s'michus* phrases that span a *tipcha*....
>
> A gut'n Shabbes/Shabbas Shalom
> and all the best from
> *Michael Poppers* * Elizabeth, NJ, USA
>
> On Fri, Feb 27, 2015 at 11:08 AM, Sholom Simon via Mesorah <
> mesorah at lists.aishdas.org> wrote:
>  In the first pasuk of Tetzavah (Shemos 27:20), the last three words talk
> about lighting the ner tamid (27:20).  The Sifre (Beha'alos'cha, 59) draws
> from that the common understanding, that the ner should burn continuously.
>
> However, there is a tipcha under the word "ner."Â  Rashi seems to
> interpret the pasuk al pi the trop, as he says that the verse means: to
> light the ner, continually (i.e., it must be lit every night) -- although
> Rashi doesn't prove his assertion with trop, rather, he gives other
> examples of Torah's use of the word "tamid."
>
> Am I understanding this correctly?  If so, does anyone have any thoughts
> about this observation?
>
> Good shabbos!
>
> -- Sholom
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20150301/b0dae16b/attachment-0002.htm>