[Mesorah] kikar / kikar

[David and Esther Bannett via Mesorah]

To add to the post of R' Raphael Davidovitch, I agree that there is no 
need to argue about reasons for the patach because both the Bar Ilan 
Keter and R' Mordekhai Breuer, have kamatzim in both pesukim.  This 
means that all,or almost all,of the accurate manuscripts agree.  I 
checked that this is so in the Leningrad codex, the only one to which I 
have easy access.

BTW, if both kikars are s'mikhut, the question is why the word has a 
tevir, a ta'am mafsik that separates it from the following word and 
causes the kamatz, and prefers to join zahav to tahor with a ta'am 
m'chaber. Why not join kikar (with patach) to zahav and separate from 
tahor, or all three words in one phrase.  This thought leads to the 
question of which came first. Was the kamatz because of the tevir, or 
was the tevir because of the kamatz?
This is not the only time this question arises. Some time ago I sent a 
post entitled  "Does anyone else find this interesting" There I 
mentioned three pesukim in Tehillim where different sources have dagesh 
or rafeh because of the t'amim or have the ta'am mechaber or mafsik 
because of the t'amim. If rafeh, the ta'am is m'chaber and, if dagesh, 
the ta'am is mafsik. All sources are consistent in themselves.  This 
brings us to the famous question, which came first, the chicken or the 
egg, and did Adam have a belly button.

David

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/mesorah-aishdas.org/attachments/20170326/9a69701b/attachment-0005.htm>