[Mesorah] a kleinigkeit

[Akiva Miller]

In the thread "a kleinigkeit", Rabbi Mandel posted a pasuk which is an
excellent illustration of a question I've wondered about. He posted it
as:

יד:יא וַיֹּאמְרוּ, אֶל-מֹשֶׁה הֲמִבְּלִי אֵיןקְבָרִים בְּמִצְרַיִם
לְקַחְתָּנוּ לָמוּת בַּמִּדְבָּר, מַה-זֹּאת עָשִׂיתָ לָּנוּ
לְהוֹצִיאָנוּ מִמִּצְרָיִם

This pasuk (Sh'mos 14:11), as he posted it and also as it appears at
http://www.mechon-mamre.org/i/t/t0214.htm, has a comma after the very
first word. I often copy pesukim from Mechon Mamre, because it is
convenient and I rarely (if ever) have a problem with the actual
spelling. But I am *frequently* surprised by the punctuation, and this
is a great example.

The trop for the words "vayomru el Moshe" is zarka-segol. Why would
anyone put a comma for zarka? Does the zarka function as a mafsik
here? "Vayomru el Moshe" is a phrase, a unit in which a comma is
totally inappropriate. What am I missing?

Akiva Miller

On Sun, Jan 28, 2018 at 11:11 AM, Mandel, Seth via Mesorah
<mesorah at lists.aishdas.org> wrote:
> I call it that because most people only care about masorah if it changes the
> meaning or the pronunciation.
>
> But the non-defenestrated denizens of the Mesorah group understand that the
> masorah is much deeper than such things, and is important in light of the
> number of rishonim who spent time on it.
>
> So I am mentioning something that I shamefully admit that I was unaware of
> all my years:
>
> In the pasuq:
>
> יד:יא וַיֹּאמְרוּ, אֶל-מֹשֶׁה הֲמִבְּלִי אֵיןקְבָרִים בְּמִצְרַיִם
> לְקַחְתָּנוּ לָמוּת בַּמִּדְבָּר, מַה-זֹּאת עָשִׂיתָ לָּנוּ לְהוֹצִיאָנוּ
> מִמִּצְרָיִם.
>
> regarding the word "hamibb'li," all printed Chumashim have the punctuation
> as is above, with a hataph-patah under the he'.
>
> However, that is not the puncuation in the kisvei yad that represent the
> Ben-Asher masorah.  Rather, all of them, without exception have a full patah
> — WITH a ge‘aya/AKA meteg.  As the meritorious members of this group are
> aware, that means that the syllable "ha" is lengthened and has a secondary
> stress.
>
> The Minchas Shai already noticed this issue.  He notes that R. Yonah had it
> with a full patah, and it is the R'DaQ who says it should be a hataph-patah
> based on S'faradi mss.  He even goes on to say that there are some who claim
> that the ms. on which R.Yonah was basing himself was the Aleppo Codex.  That
> means to me that the Minchas Shay, without being able to decide the matter,
> attaches serious weight to the view of R. Yonah.
>
> In any event, now we can be certain based on the better mss. that we have.
>
> Prescriptive grammarians, who hold that the he' hash'elah should always have
> a hataph-patah, of course will be disturbed.  But as we know, the Masorah
> did not believe in prescriptive grammar, only in descriptive.
>
>
>
> Rabbi Dr. Seth Mandel
> Rabbinic Coordinator
> The Orthodox Union
>
> Voice (212) 613-8330     Fax (212) 613-0718     e-mail mandels at ou.org
>
> _______________________________________________
> Mesorah mailing list
> Mesorah at lists.aishdas.org
> http://lists.aishdas.org/listinfo.cgi/mesorah-aishdas.org
>