[Mesorah] Another kleinigkeit

Thu Jul 2 12:58:48 PDT 2020

I see this differently.  What words starting with an aleph with a
chataf-patach lose this vowel when preceded by vav, kaf, lamed or bet,
other than Shem Adnut and Shem Elokut?

Danny

‫בתאריך יום ה׳, 2 ביולי 2020 ב-22:46 מאת ‪Mandel, Seth‬‏ <‪mandels at ou.org
‬‏>:‬

> Not really. It is a Masoretic note: this word appears X times like this in
> the T;NaKh, with the following 8 exceptions.  Such notes appear with all
> words in all forms, not only with the name of God, but appear also with the
> name of God.
> The fact that this Masoretic note is taught as a rule of grammar is no
> different than notes about how Ben Asher always uses a chataph-pasach in
> the words Halelu-yah whenever there is a ge'ayah under the he.
>
> Rabbi Dr. Seth Mandel
> Rabbinic Coordinator
> The Orthodox Union
>
> Voice and Fax (212) 613-8330        e-mail mandels at ou.org
>
> ------------------------------
> *From:* Danny Levy <danestlev at gmail.com>
> *Sent:* Thursday, July 2, 2020 3:36 PM
> *To:* Mandel, Seth <mandels at ou.org>
> *Cc:* Aharon Gal <galsaba at aol.com>; mesorah at aishdas.org <
> mesorah at aishdas.org>
> *Subject:* Re: [Mesorah] Another kleinigkeit
>
> Isn't the rule מש"ה מוציא וכל"ב מכניס, referring to the pronunciation of
> the Shem Adnut and Shem Elokut preceded by these letters, an example of
> forms used only when referring to God (ignoring the exceptions listed in
> the Mesorah)?
>
> Danny Levy
>
> ‫בתאריך יום ה׳, 2 ביולי 2020 ב-21:41 מאת ‪Mandel, Seth via Mesorah‬‏ <‪
> mesorah at lists.aishdas.org‬‏>:‬
>
> 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> 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
>
>
> 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
> 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=>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Mesorah mailing list
> 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=MDEw1p7sPQsCWU-sPlZyYzT4W8ALRZzG-gBXvH-yAIE&s=sOIz1m3p2ElqkqVB23-wAviB4F0v1Tc0GPFmJ_PGTIg&e=>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/mesorah-aishdas.org/attachments/20200702/c1b9c96b/attachment-0002.htm>