[Mesorah] Kimchi's rules

[Danny Levy]

‫בתאריך יום ד׳, 17 באפר׳ 2019 ב-22:18 מאת ‪Micha Berger‬‏ <‪
micha at aishdas.org‬‏>:‬

On Wed, Apr 17, 2019 at 09:32:01PM +0300, Danny Levy via Mesorah wrote:

: One of the rules of trop (a masoretic rule by all counts) that is easily

: verified by looking anywhere in Tanach (except for Sifrei Eme"t) is that

: the mesharet of a tvir is a darga if the te'amim are separated by two or

: more syllables...


> That's not a rule of the Baalei Mesorah, really. It's a pattern that

fits the data. You don't know if they had it in mind or not.


True, but it does illustrate that the Kimchi rules differed from the
pronunciation at the time of the Baalei Hamesorah.


> Exactly what RYQ set out to do -- find rules that fit the data.


> ....


> We have no indication he set out to create a different set of open and

closed syllable. Just a different way of thinking about them, one with

a clearer theoretical consistency.


But the result was a change in pronunciation.


> :                     In this rule a shva na is counted as a syllable,

: whether it is a shva na at the beginning of a word (e.g. Gen 15:7 and Num

: 17:11) or a shva na under a letter with a dagesh chazak (e.g. Num 34:5 and

: Deut 1:30).


> : A shva after a Kimchi long vowel, however, is not counted as a syllable,

: e.g in Ex 9:15 and 12:22.  Evidently the Ba'alei Hamesorah considered such

: a shva to be nach.


> Or, that your opening explanation, that it is about the number of

syllables that makes the meshareis of a tevir to be a darga is incorrect

according to RYQ.


What else could it be?


Or, as per

<https://he.wikipedia.org/wiki/טעמי_המקרא#הרכבי_הטעמים>, that rule is

about distinguishing qadma-merkha-tevir from qadma-darga-tevir, and so

your examples aren't in scope.


This is not correct.  I didn't have the time to look for the relevant
section in the long essay that you referenced, but it is clearly evident if
you check any parsha in Tanakh that the rule holds just as well without a
preceeding qadma.  I am more familiar with R. Breuer's essay on trop in the
first Breshit volume of Daat Mikra and I found it there with no mention of
the qadma.


> As I have been saying since the start... how can we talk about anyone

contradicting "Mesoretic Rules" without having an identifiable list of

rules made by Mesoretes?


> All we have is various sets of rules that do a better or worse job of

explaining how various texts are read. And the only question is whether

a set of rules overall tends to violate the readings the Mesoretes gave

those texts too often to be usable even in the "rule of grammar" sense

of violatable rule.


> In this case the Masoretic "rule" is no less consistent than the Kimchi
rule, and the dissonance between the two is unmistakable.

Chag Kasher V'sameakh,

Danny


>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/mesorah-aishdas.org/attachments/20190418/9a0e1a8b/attachment-0002.htm>