[Mesorah] Melo Khol Ha'aretz Kevodo

Tue Jan 19 11:20:06 PST 2016

Interesting side question.  However, you do know that the 150 Kapitalekh of T'hillim are incorrect according to the Halokho.  The Yerushalmi says there are 147 chapters, and, according to all early sources, Kapital 115 is not a new chapter.  Most Kapitlekh are designated as such in the masoretic manuscript: the new chapter has the status of a p'sucha, and the header is written as a p'sucha itself; there are only about 10 or a few more  where there is not a header or something like haleluyah. So it might have been to emphasize that the division into 150 was not a Jewish division, since most T'hillim are indeed divided by the Christians at the beginning of a masoretic section.  Unlike in the rest of T'nakh, where the Christian division often does not match up with the Masorah.

Just a guess.

Rabbi Dr. Seth Mandel
Rabbinic Coordinator
The Orthodox Union

Voice (212) 613-8330     Fax (212) 613-0718     e-mail mandels at ou.org
________________________________
From: Micha Berger <micha at aishdas.org>
Sent: Tuesday, January 19, 2016 11:16 AM
To: Mandel, Seth
Cc: mesorah at aishdas.org
Subject: Re: [Mesorah] Melo Khol Ha'aretz Kevodo

I didn't deny the citation of pereq 147, I just said that it would probably be "boneih" even without the quote. It fits the norm AKhG used when invented their own coinages. IOW, what I said boils down to asserting that it's "oseh Shamayim va'aretz" that needs the justification, not "boneih Y-m".

(But my thesis was that "noun form" and "verb form" should be dropped in favor of semichut vs non. The verb (lashon hoveh) - noun distinction simply isn't supposed to be there.)

Side question: Why is it that the one book of Tanakh for which we have some sort of mesorah about chapterization, we are more likely to use the Latin "Capital", but the other books, where we are using the Xians' chapters, we rarely hear "kapitl" rather than "pereq"?

On 2016-01-19 10:52 am, Mandel, Seth wrote:

I agree with you philosophically.  As I wrote, I cannot find any real difference in meaning.
However, linguistically – or, rather, according to the Masorah –there is a clear difference.  In Kapitel 146, it refers to Him as "‘Oseh Shamaym va'aretz," literally "He makes heaven and earth." It does not use a tzere, which would mean "The Maker of heaven and earth."
The b'rakhot and t'fillot composed by Ezra and his BD endeavor to quote the Bible when they can.  I am planning on writing a about that sometime, but I have many proofs that they use quotations/references.

Rabbi Dr. Seth Mandel
Rabbinic Coordinator
The Orthodox Union

Voice (212) 613-8330     Fax (212) 613-0718     e-mail mandels at ou.org<mailto:mandels at ou.org>

________________________________________
From: Micha Berger <micha at aishdas.org<mailto:micha at aishdas.org>>
Sent: Tuesday, January 19, 2016 10:32 AM
To: Mandel, Seth
Cc: mesorah at aishdas.org<mailto:mesorah at aishdas.org>
Subject: Re: [Mesorah] Melo Khol Ha'aretz Kevodo

On Tue, Jan 19, 2016 at 04:12:56AM +0000, Mandel, Seth wrote:
: Exampli gratia: bonei Yerushalim is the noun in construct, meaning
: "the builder of Y-m." Boneh Y-m is a verb form, and a brokho based on
: that would mean Blessed ... is He who builds (or is builiding) Y-m."

Speaking philosophically rather than linguistically, I would conclude
that "boneh" is the form used both for "builder" and for "is building",
that the noun and the present tense verb are the same thing. To put
the idea back into its philosophical context, it means that as long as you
are dancing, you are a dancer. We are making a distinction the Author
of Leshon haQodesh is "intentionally" guiding us away from making. It's
a philosophical error.

This kind of worldview, that you are what you do, fits a religion that
gives such a central role to halakhah.

I think this is why LhQ so often throws in an implied "One Who". "Builder"
and "One Who is building" are the same word with the same meaning. The "One
Who" is an artifact of chosing the verb translation.

"Bonei" is the semichut, we shift to tzeirei not to change from "building"
to builder" but to add the "of" for "of Y-m". Which then forces our
hand, when translating into a language that does separate these parts
of speech, to use "builder" -- "is building of Y-m / Y-m's is building"
makes no sense. (Although you could say that Hashem is "Y-m's 'One Who
is building'".)

: In Shmoneh 'Esrei, we use the first form, since we are quoting from the
: pasuq in T'hilllim 147:2, where it is a noun form ("God is the Builder of
: Y-m"). But if somone used the form with a segol, would it really change
: the meaning?
:

Besides, descriptions of G-d are more common for berakhos: "haMotzi
lechem", not "hotzi lekhem". Verbs tend to get changed into descriptions
of G-d with "asher" -- "asher qidishanu bemitzvosav". The baqashah part
then goes into the body, not the chasimah.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

--
Micha Berger             Here is the test to find whether your mission
micha at aishdas.org<mailto:micha at aishdas.org>        on Earth is finished:
http://www.aishdas.org   if you're alive, it isn't.
Fax: (270) 514-1507                        - Richard Bach

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

--
Micha Berger             Here is the test to find whether your mission
micha at aishdas.org        on Earth is finished:
http://www.aishdas.org   if you're alive, it isn't.
Fax: (270) 514-1507                        - Richard Bach
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/mesorah-aishdas.org/attachments/20160119/abf149c2/attachment-0001.htm>