[Mesorah] a kleinigkeit

Sun Jan 28 13:27:34 PST 2018

Without getting into the substance of the question, Lon BL Or 4445 does
have hataf-patah and g'aya. see f. 55v:
http://www.bl.uk/manuscripts/Viewer.aspx?ref=or_4445_fs001r

On Sun, Jan 28, 2018 at 10:51 PM, Danny Levy via Mesorah <
mesorah at lists.aishdas.org> wrote:

> R' Jeremy,
>
> Unfortunately the companion volume to Keter Yerushalayim will not help us
> here.  It is indeed very comprehensive but only for spelling differences.
> It does not list differences in nikud, ge'ayot and te'amim at all.
>
> Danny
>
> 2018-01-28 22:34 GMT+02:00 Danny Levy <danestlev at gmail.com>:
>
>> 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
>>>
>>>
>>>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/e5588097/attachment-0005.htm>