[Mesorah] mishneh-kesef

Sun Dec 24 15:29:11 PST 2017

> Well, my original thought was that it belongs to the second type of
d'hiq, phrases such as uma-t-ta‘aseh (ומה-תעשה) mentioned 4 lines from the
bottom on p. 79.
But, as I warned, things are not completely clear. <
Especially not when the author (at that p.-79 bottom) starts limiting the
d'chiq algorithm to having a "qamatz" (which I assume rules out the segol
of "umishneh"); and as "kesef" is mil'eil, "umishne-kesef" may anyway not
fit into the "second type of d'hiq" category that lists phrases of a
one-syllable (or mil'ra) word followed by a multi-syllable mil'ra word.

> in the light of day, I see that it may even more resemble some examples
of Ate Merahiq  such as yivne-b-bayit in הוא יבנה-בית
mentioned on p. 80, line 6 <
I don't think so: "umishne-kesef" is not a case of "many m'lachim between
t'amim".

> They believed that D'hiq and Ate Merahiq are different categories <
Yes, the author clearly assumes that; and the "the Aramaic term Atei Mera*h*ik
refers to the phenomenon, whereas the Aramaic term De*h*ik refers to the
dagesh itself" "suggestion" I quoted four days ago was news to me (but I
thought it worth quoting; the explanation which formed the majority of that
quote was, I believe, similar to what R'Reiachi has explained in Tiqqun
Simanim, and I especially would highlight "a kamatz or a segol" because the
vowel in the case of "umishne-kesef" is a segol).

> In fact, there are a couple of other categories which are similar in the
sense that the second word, connected by the trop to a preceding word that
ends in a vowel has a dagesh hazaq. <
And, to use the phraseology of Machberes haTinjan, there's one "melech"
between the t'amim...i.e., I think "melech" means what many would call a
syllable, and so "umishne-kesef" is a d'chiq situation, not according to
Machberes haTinjan but according to a larger understanding of the
phenomenon (to avoid machloqes, call it "d'chiq-like"); and the examples
R'Seth just noted likewise are d'chiq-like.  Listing all these d'chiq-like
phrases with the accents ("t'amim") *highlighted*, one can see the "melech
between *t'amim*":
-- *UMISH*ne-*KE*sef
-- tash*BI*su-*S'OR*
-- *QU*mu-*TZ'U*
and here are the Machberes haTinjan examples:
-- v'a*IY*da *BAM*
-- v'*AN*sa *BI*
-- v'ha*GI*sa *BO*
-- va'ava*DE*cha *BA*u
-- *MAH*-to*MAR*
-- *UMAH*-ta'a*SEH*
v'chadomeh :)

All the best from *Michael*

On Sun, Dec 24, 2017 at 1:57 PM, Mandel, Seth <mandels at ou.org> wrote:

> Well, my original thought was that it belongs to the second type of d'hiq,
> phrases such as uma-t-ta‘aseh (ומה-תעשה) mentioned 4 lines from the bottom
> on p. 79.
>
> But, as I warned, things are not completely clear.  So, in the light of
> day, I see that it may even more resemble some examples of Ate Merahiq
> such as yivne-b-bayit in הוא יבנה-בית
>
> mentioned on p. 80, line 6.
>
> When I said the matter was complex, I meant that I do not understand it
> fully,,either.  But this pages you saw establish the following facts:
>
> 1) The early ba'alei Masorah recognized that there are groups of word that
> do not follow the simple pattern of having a soft B'GaD K'PaT following a
> word ending in a vowel that is connected by the trop.
>
> 2) The early ba'alei Masorah divided these words into different categories.
>
> 3) They believed that D'hiq and Ate Merahiq are different categories.
>
>
> To us modern observers, it appears that a lot of these cases have nothing
> to do with each other.  For instance, P'siq means that the words have a
> slight separation, and Mappiq means that the word actually ends in a
> consonant, not a vowel.  The case of two similar letters is also clearly
> different.  That leaves 3 classes: Ogerah, D'hiq and Ate Merahiq.
>
> Ogerah is a class for which the ba'alei Masorah know of no reason; it
> means a group of real exceptions.
>
> D'hiq and Ate Merahiq, on the other hand,the ba'alei Masorah feel there is
> a reason, but they do not have the grammatical terms to explain it to our
> liking. (I admit that their description of Ate Merahiq as "due to the fact
> that there is a large distance between the two stressed syllables filled
> with various vowels, the first stress comes and pushes all the vowels and
> throws them onto the letter of the following stress as if they were
> projectiles/thrown stones" is quite an impressive description.  I
> understand the imagery, but I hesitate how to translate that into a
> grammatical category that is distinct from the second case of D'hiq.)
>
> Another complicating factor is that these rules (apparently, but not
> definitely) only apply to B'GaD K'PaT according to the ba'alei Masorah.
> But these rules mix cases where the B'GaD K'PaT have a dagesh qal with a
> dagesh hazaq.  In fact, there are a couple of other categories which are
> similar in the sense that the second word, connected by the trop to a
> preceding word that ends in a vowel has a dagesh hazaq.  Since members of
> the group Mesorah are assumed to be imterested in weird things, I will
> mention the group of word such as
>
> *שמות יב:טו* שִׁבְעַת יָמִים מַצּוֹת תֹּאכֵלוּ, אַךְ בַּיּוֹם הָרִאשׁוֹן
> תַּשְׁבִּיתוּ שְּׂאֹר מִבָּתֵּיכֶם:
> See that dagesh hazaq hiding in the sin of s'or?
>
> Then consider
>
> *שמות יב:לא* וַיִּקְרָא לְמֹשֶׁה וּלְאַהֲרֹן לַיְלָה, וַיֹּאמֶר קוּמוּ
> צְּאוּ מִתּוֹךְ עַמִּי
>
> and that doesn't seem to be an exception, see
>
> *בר' יט:יד* וַיֵּצֵא לוֹט וַיְדַבֵּר אֶל-חֲתָנָיו לֹקְחֵי בְנֹתָיו,
> וַיֹּאמֶר קוּמוּ צְּאוּ מִן-הַמָּקוֹם הַזֶּה
>
> There are several other examples like this.
>
> Yes, we can now invent another rule that applies only to words ending in
> -u connected by trop to words beginning in a sibilant.  What sort of
> cockamamie rule is that?
>
>
> What I am trying to convey is that there are wheels within wheels in the
> Masorah, things of which Hamlet quite properly said "*There are more
> things in heaven and earth*, Horatio, Than are dreamt of in your
> philosophy." Buried quite deeply beneath the surface.  Although the
> Masorah knew all of these cases, the ba'alei Masorah did not makes rules
> for most of them.  The grammarians that came later made all sorts of rules,
> and most are wrong according to the Masorah. In the case we are discussing,
> the ba'alei Masorah did make rules, and called two of them D'hiq and Ate
> Merahiq,  and no one really knows what these rules are and how they relate
> to other cases of dagesh hazaq on the first letter of a word.
>
> People who want complete clarity and texts that follow simple rules, hie
> thee elsewhere.
>
> But this is exactly like the halokho.  Wheels within wheels, in  many
> cases very deep, but not fully  explained or understood.
>
> Having confused everyone entirely, it is time for me to retreat to my cave
> for the day.
> Rabbi Dr. Seth Mandel
>
> ------------------------------
> *From:* Michael Poppers <michaelpoppers at gmail.com>
> *Sent:* Sunday, December 24, 2017 10:34 AM
> *To:* Mandel, Seth
> *Cc:* Sholom Simon; mesorah at aishdas.org; Gershon Dubin
> *Subject:* Re: [Mesorah] mishneh-kesef
>
> R'Seth, I perused the "Machberes haTinjan" pages (78-80) you scanned.
> Please explain how "umishneh-kesef" is a d'chiq situation -- where is the
> necessary "melech echad" between words?  Thanks.
>
> On Wed, Dec 20, 2017 at 2:24 PM, Mandel, Seth via Mesorah <
> mesorah at lists.aishdas.org> wrote:
>
> You are wrong.
>
> The matter is complex, not simple at all.
>
> My tikkun (alright, it is a Teimani tikkun, and they even care about
> things like ge‘ayot) does have a note that it is noteworthy.
>
> It is termed a d'hiq, but the rules are not too well defined, even thought
> the d'hiq and the 'ate merahiq were both known by those versed in Masorah
> 1,000 years ago.
>
>
> Rabbi Dr. Seth Mandel
>
> ------------------------------
> *From:* Mesorah <mesorah-bounces at lists.aishdas.org> on behalf of Sholom
> Simon via Mesorah <mesorah at lists.aishdas.org>
> *Sent:* Wednesday, December 20, 2017 9:31 AM
> *To:* mesorah at lists.aishdas.org
> *Subject:* [Mesorah] mishneh-kesef
>
> In the last pasuk of the 5th aliyah in Miketz, we read "mishneh-kesef".
>
> Why does the kaf in "kesef" have a dagesh?
>
> I'm guessing that the answer is simple and not noteworthy (because my
> tikkun, which has notes all over the place, makes no comment on this).
>
> Thanks,
>
> -- Sholom
>
> _______________________________________________
> Mesorah mailing list
> Mesorah at lists.aishdas.org
> http://lists.aishdas.org/listinfo.cgi/mesorah-aishdas.org
> Mesorah Info Page - The AishDas Society
> <http://lists.aishdas.org/listinfo.cgi/mesorah-aishdas.org>
> lists.aishdas.org
> To see the collection of prior postings to the list, visit the Mesorah
> Archives. Using Mesorah: To post a message to all the list members, send
> email ...
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20171224/3a7752b3/attachment-0002.htm>