[Mesorah] Another kleinigkeit

[Mandel, Seth]

Conceptually, it might be appropriate to have different forms of verbs and adjectives used for God.  Next time you invent a language, you can feel free to try.
But in dealing with facts, no human language that know of does that.  They all use regular noun and verb forms when referring to the Deity.
The Rambam in a couple of places notes that adjectives and verbs do not mean the same thing when used to refer to God.  God does not see as humans see, does not speak as humans speak, and no human adjectives really apply to God.  Chazal are aware of this: when they explain the mitzva of והלבת בדרכיו, they do not say it means "just as He IS merciful, you should BE merciful," but rather "just as He is CALLED merciful, you should BE merciful." As the Rambam says, HQBH is not merciful in the sense that a person is merciful, and so how can the Torah say that one should follow the ways of HQBH? Rather, a person should follow the adjectives that the Torah uses for HQBH.  I have no doubt that the Rambam, at least, would be much happier if Hebrew used different words and forms when referring to God.
(FYI: when I said that I know of no language that does that, I should mention that Arabic uses the same words when referring to God, but in Arabic you never mention "Allah" without says something like "ta‘aala," the equivalent of "yit‘alleh." So they do use a specific or phrase only used when referring to God.  The Rambam always does the same in writing Arabic, but not in Hebrew. He is aware that neither the T'NaKh nor Chazal utilize such a system.)
Getting back to the matter at hand: in order for an idea like you suggest, that the Bible uses a certain form only when referring to God, you have to show that there is any phenomenon with any words referring to God in the T'NaKh.  If one can show that such a system indeed operates in Biblical Hebrew, then one can claim that the form molokh is part of that system  Otherwise, it remains an ad hoc explanation.
There is nothing wrong with making ad hoc explanations in drash.  Rabbis do it all the time.  But they do not claim that it is part of the system ("grammar") of Hebrew.  Drash is all good for its purpose, but one cannot use it linguistically, because linguistics describes the way words, forms, and syntax is normally used in a language.
Objectively, מלך would not be a word you would want to use to prove such a system if you  could choose. The form molakh with  a pasach appears 101 times in the T'NaKh, and molokh with a qomatz 9 times.  Of those 9, 6 appear either with a silluq (sof pasuq) or etnah.ta. The remaining 3 (T'hillim 93:1, 97:1, and and 99:1) all appear with identical syntax: first a two word phrase יי מלך followed by a two word phrase also consisting of a noun and a verb.  Parallel phrases.  None of the other occurrences of the word in the T'NaKh appear in any simliar sytactic structure, including the other case in T'hillim.
It is well known that what are called "pausal" forms occur frequently in the T'NaKh in cases of parallel phrases.  There are probably just as many of those (a) and cases where there indeed is a pause, but not the trop (b), as cases where the form appears at the end of a pasuq or with an etnah.ta.  An example of (a) is Ex. 20:9 לֹֽא־תַעֲשֶׂ֨ה כָל־מְלָאכָ֜ה אַתָּ֣ה ׀ וּבִנְךָ֣ וּבִתֶּ֗ךָ עַבְדְּךָ֤ וַאֲמָֽתְךָ֙ וּבְהֶמְתֶּ֔ךָ וְגֵֽרְךָ֖ אֲשֶׁ֥ר בִּשְׁעָרֶֽיךָ׃ and of (b) is Ex 20:16 וַיֹּ֨אמֶר מֹשֶׁ֣ה אֶל־הָעָם֮ אַל־תִּירָאוּ֒
Thus we have an established category of synetactical situations into which these 3 examples of molokh fit, and it is not ad hoc to suggest that the reason for the pausal form is because of this other phenomenon.

Rabbi Dr. Seth Mandel

________________________________
From: Aharon Gal <galsaba at aol.com>
Sent: Wednesday, July 1, 2020 6:40 PM
To: Mandel, Seth <mandels at ou.org>
Cc: mesorah at aishdas.org <mesorah at aishdas.org>
Subject: Re: [Mesorah] Another kleinigkeit

I was not able to find in the Bible Adonai Molach (מָלַךְ) with Kamatz and Patach. Only מָלָךְ Kamatz Kamatz, not only when it is at the end of a verse.
When the Tanach writes about men, then it is Kamatz and Patach (מָלַךְ), unless it is at Sof Pasuk or Etnachta.
Is it possible that the Kamatz Kamatz is because it is about God?

Aharon

On Jul 1, 2020, at 3:59 PM, Mandel, Seth via Mesorah <mesorah at lists.aishdas.org<mailto:mesorah at lists.aishdas.org>> wrote:

I have seen places that mention "the verse "God rules, God ruled, God will rule." But many denizen of Mesorah already know that that is a falsity: there is no such pasuk (althoug most people think it is a pasuk). Anywhere. The sentence is found in davening, including some of the oldest parts, so it was composed by Chazal.  But it is actually drawn from the three p'sukim all Jews say at the beginning of P'sukei d'Zimra:
ִשְׂמְח֤וּ הַשָּׁמַ֨יִם֙ וְתָגֵ֣ל הָאָ֔רֶץ וְיֹֽאמְר֥וּ בַגּוֹיִ֖ם יְיָ֥ מָלָֽךְ, יְיָ֥׀ יִמְלֹ֖ךְ לְעֹלָ֥ם וָעֶֽד, יְיָ֣ מֶ֭לֶךְ עוֹלָ֣ם וָעֶ֑ד אָֽבְד֥וּ ג֝וֹיִ֗ם מֵֽאַרְצֽוֹ
Three different p'sukim, the first from Chronicles, the second from the Torah, and the third from T'hillim.
Four of the words from the ersatz "verse" in the siddur are right next to each other, and the other two in the very next pasuk. No surprise that the 6 words were combined to express the thought very eloquently.
That also explains, for anyone who ever wondered, why the "verse" uses the pausal form " מָלָֽך."  As any student of Hebrew knows, the form is molakh with a pasach in the past, and molokh is a form used in pause.  Which it is in the source, since it is at the end of the verse in Chronicles.


Rabbi Dr. Seth Mandel
Rabbinic Coordinator
The Orthodox Union

Voice and Fax (212) 613-8330        e-mail mandels at ou.org<mailto:mandels at ou.org>


Legal Disclaimer
The contents of this email and any attachments are intended solely for the addressee(s) and may contain confidential and/or legally privileged information. You must not use or disclose them other than for the purposes for which they were supplied. If you are not the intended recipient of this message, or if this message has been addressed to you in error, please immediately alert the sender by reply email and then delete or destroy all copies of this message and any attachments. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any use, dissemination, copying, or storage of this message or its attachments is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful. Any privilege or confidentiality pertaining to this email and attachments is not waived by reason of mistaken delivery to you.
_______________________________________________
Mesorah mailing list
Mesorah at lists.aishdas.org<mailto:Mesorah at lists.aishdas.org>
http://lists.aishdas.org/listinfo.cgi/mesorah-aishdas.org<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__lists.aishdas.org_listinfo.cgi_mesorah-2Daishdas.org&d=DwMFaQ&c=VTwaeXjOsAHot2hQQ0nozrBJwyviuCtydNuGwYGfYiI&r=e6XbAQdGwcl_5FMtQ-t1eA&m=M3LQadPYuOR7dIOsvgN7aLBKtY0XEczRutlEIxaG-hU&s=uRLtAeXv1eFUUbLJzolGfGwB6cldAfwEm1sAo-7ChPs&e=>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/mesorah-aishdas.org/attachments/20200702/33aefdb4/attachment-0002.htm>