[Mesorah] a kleinigkeit

Sun Jan 28 12:34:39 PST 2018

Yes, the Leningrad has both a patach and a ge'aya. I did not mean to imply
otherwise; I just separated discussion of the vowel from that of the ge'aya.

I looked in R. Breuer's book - he does not mention this case.

You are correct that he did not list everything in Da'at Mikra.  B is not
listed in his Torah lists (I did not check the Nakh volumes), although he
does list B occasionally in his book but not routinely.  This seems to
indicate that he did not check B routinely - why not list it if he did?  In
this case, if he would have seen that B agrees with Leningrad, he may well
have adopted that text in his Tanakh.

Danny

2018-01-28 22:07 GMT+02:00 Mandel, Seth <mandels at ou.org>:

> Please try to be accurate.  The Leningrad Codex has both a full patah AND
> a ge‘aya, not just a patah, as you imply.  R. Breuer shows it as such in
> his apparatus.  I am adding that B also has this. Only one Sasson ms. has
> both a hataph-patah with a ge‘aya, something that I am alleging never
> occurs elsewhere in the T'NaKh.
>
> As R. Breuer does many times, in cases where he thinks that something
> found in a ms. is an obvious error, even in the Aleppo Codes (such as the
> hataph-segol under the shin in the word she-Hashem in the pasuk before
> T'hilla L'David, i.e. the second pasuq in "Ashrei").  I believe he thought
> the same about the hataph patah with a ge‘aya in Sasson 1053, and that what
> he printed was a compromise between the full patah with a ge‘aya that I
> think would have been justified according to his system and the mss. with
> only a hataph.
>
> I am stating for the record that I am not always correct.  But I believe I
> am in this case.
>
> I am looking for what R Breuer put in his book.  I do not know if he
> listed everything in the Da'at Mikra.
>
>
> Rabbi Dr. Seth Mandel
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
> *From:* Danny Levy <danestlev at gmail.com>
> *Sent:* Sunday, January 28, 2018 2:37 PM
> *To:* jeremy.simon at nyu.edu; mesorah at lists.aishdas.org
> *Cc:* Mandel, Seth; mesorah at aishdas.org
>
> *Subject:* Re: [Mesorah] a kleinigkeit
>
> R. Breuer's lists of the differences between the manuscripts that he
> examined in order to decide on the spelling, nikud and te'amim in his
> Tanakh are printed among the introductory chapters to each sefer in the
> Da'at Mikra Tanakh.  In this case, he lists only Leningrad with a patach,
> while both Sasoon mss. (507 and 1053) have a chataf-patach. This is why he
> has a chataf-patach in the text of his Tanakh with the patach version in
> the list at the back.  So it seems that in this case R' Jeremy is right.
>
> R. Breuer lists Sasoon 1053 as having both a chataf and a ge'aya, while
> 507 has just the chataf.  Mikra'ot G'dolot (1525) agrees with 1053, which
> presumably is why he added the ge'aya in his Tanakh, although it does
> appear to be very unusual.  It would seem that the scribe of 1053 might
> have had the same mesorah as Leningrad, but wrote a chataf-patach by
> mistake (thinking of the meaning).
>
> Danny Levy
>
> 2018-01-28 20:49 GMT+02:00 Jeremy Rosenbaum Simon via Mesorah <
> mesorah at lists.aishdas.org>:
>
> With all due respect, I think it is you who are misunderstanding, or at
> least misapplying, R. Breuer's shittah. It is true that R. Breuer included
> extra-masoretic metagim so as not to appear "odd" to those who were used to
> them. But that is the only concession he made to simple expectations, and
> is not, in any case, relevant here, where the meteg is masoretic (as can be
> seen from its presence in the list, as well as, in the Keter Yerushalaim,
> being a long meteg.
>
> As for his approach to chataf vowels, the only ones he modified where
> chataf vowels under non-guttural letters whose purpose was simply to
> indicate a shva na. He did this because he felt strongly that such a chataf
> should be pronounced as a shva, and not a short patach, and felt that
> continuing to print the chataf was misleading to readers. If anything, this
> is a case where he deviated from what readers would expect, in
> contradistinction to his approach with metagim (albeit still with the
> average reader in mind).
>
> But this practice has no relevance to the case at hand. He did not change
> a chataf under a non-guttural to a shva. He "changed" one under a guttural
> to a full vowel. This is entirely different, and, as far as I can tell from
> what I remember of what R. Breuer wrote (and I have read much of it,
> including the relevant sections of the book on the Aleppo codex), he would
> not have deviated from Aleppo in this if he did not have significant
> textual support from other manuscripts. The fact that Bar Ilan, which does
> not share R. Breuer's methodology for meteg or for chataf (Prof. Cohen kept
> all the chatafs R. Breuer changed) arrived at the same conclusion furhter
> supports that this decision is well supported generally and not a feature
> of a quirk of R. Breuer's methodology.
>
> Jeremy
>
> On Sun, Jan 28, 2018 at 12:48 PM, Mandel, Seth <mandels at ou.org> wrote:
>
> You misunderstand R. Breuer's shitta.  As he explains, he mostly goes
> according to the majority of the best kisvei yad.  However, he does not
> want it to appear too strange to regular Jews.  As a consequence, he omits
> all the many hataph vowels that Ben Asher put into the Codex, and puts in
> the "metegs" that people are used to, even if they do not exist in any of
> the best mss.  He tries to distinguish the ge‘ayot that are in the mss. as
> opposed to the others by having the printer use metegs of different
> length.  In this case, I am sure he did not want to depart from the
> hataph-patah because that is what people are used to.
>
> There are no mss. that have both a ge‘aya AND a hataph on this word to the
> best of my knowledge.
>
> You can go to R. Breuer's long book about how he decided questions without
> having the Aleppo Codex available: he uses the majority of the good mss.,
> since in almost all cases the majority agrees with the Codex.  I am sure
> that if he mentions this case there he will say that the mss. all have a
> full patah.
>
>
> Rabbi Dr. Seth Mandel
>
> ------------------------------
> *From:* Jeremy Rosenbaum Simon <jeremy.simon at nyu.edu>
> *Sent:* Sunday, January 28, 2018 12:05 PM
> *To:* Mandel, Seth
> *Subject:* Re: [Mesorah] a kleinigkeit
>
> I was only addressing the patach, not the meteg. As for the list at the
> back, that only represents one manuscript, in this case Leningrad, not "the
> manuscripts". This list lets you see where his final decision deviated from
> that of his primary manuscript, which, depending on the edition and the
> section of Tanach, is either Leningrad or Aleppo. However, he deviated only
> on the basis of textual evidence, at least in the vast majority of cases. I
> would be extremely surprised to find that he changed the nikkud here
> without strong manuscript evidence.
>
> On Jan 28, 2018, at 11:54 AM, Mandel, Seth <mandels at ou.org> wrote:
>
> Not true.
>
> Breuer, following his own shitta, has both a hataph-patah AND a ge‘aya.
> And in the index in the back of his editions of the T'NaKh, where he lists
> the forms actually found in the mss, he has a full patah and a ge‘aya.
>
>
> Rabbi Dr. Seth Mandel
> Rabbinic Coordinator
> The Orthodox Union
>
> Voice (212) 613-8330     Fax (212) 613-0718     e-mail mandels at ou.org
>
>
> ------------------------------
> *From:* Jeremy Rosenbaum Simon <jeremy.simon at nyu.edu>
> *Sent:* Sunday, January 28, 2018 11:31 AM
> *To:* Mandel, Seth
> *Cc:* mesorah at aishdas.org
> *Subject:* Re: [Mesorah] a kleinigkeit
>
> Given that both R. Breuer and Bar Ilan have a chataf parachute, I find it
> difficult to credit you claim that _all_ ben Asher manuscripts have a full
> patach. Neither of them would have deviated from Leningrad, which indeed
> has a full patach, without good support. And dikduk rules would not factor
> significantly.
>
> Jeremy
>
> On 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
>
>
>
>
> --
> Jeremy R. Simon, MD, PhD, FACEP
> Associate Professor of Medicine at CUMC (Emergency Medicine)
> Columbia University
> Editor, The Routledge Companion to Philosophy of Medicine
> *https://www.routledge.com/products/9781138846791
> <https://www.routledge.com/products/9781138846791>*
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20180128/7b2ae28a/attachment-0005.htm>