[Mesorah] וישב ל"ח י"ב הוא

[Yitzhak Ajzner]

“(the tipcha would be the main break, but since it's immediately before a stronger mafsiq [the silluq], it's not really a break!).”

The Tipha is the biggest break in the 2nd half of the verse. The fact that it comes immediately before the silluq does not affect this in any way. When one reads these words, the biggest break, between the etnahta and the silluq should be on the tipha. Not sure what you mean, then, that it is not really a break.

 

“the pasuq intended that the emphasis be on Y'hudah going sheep-shearing w/ his friend (and thus on Tamar's actions).”

I agree with this analysis, but I it does not give a full picture of what is happening here. One needs to address the logical price for emphasizing the shearing in Timna.

In theory, if only logic ruled, and not story-telling considerations, one would have expected the break on Yehuda. It would have been munah zakef. Zarka-Segol only ever appear in the first half of a verse. By putting the main break on HaAdulami, it sounds as if he not only did the shearing, but that is also where he was comforted:

Va’yinahem … Va’ya’al … where? (break) in Timna.

But that is not what the verse means. The being comforted happened beforehand, and is given as the reason that enabled him to go shearing.

So yes, this logic was broken in order to make the shearing the focus of the verse. But one needs to define, and hence limit, when the te’amim are prepared to pull a trick like that: breaking the logic to enhance the story.

 

Yitzhak

 

 

From: Michael Poppers <michaelpoppers at gmail.com> 
Sent: Sunday, 10 December 2023 6:48 PM
To: Yitzhak Ajzner <yitzhakajz at gmail.com>; mesorah at aishdas.org
Subject: Re: [Mesorah] וישב ל"ח י"ב הוא

 

> Just saying: a Zakef makes absolutely no sense at all! <

RYA, agreed -- as I wrote to Mesorah this past Fri at 1501ET: "...I would (and do) lein w/ a r'vi'a: as per a recent discussion, zaqeif would break the main post-esnachta phrase at that word (hu), but I think the next phrase must be connected to the hu, so better a r'vi'a on hu so that the main phrase essentially is the entire set of words after the esnachta (the tipcha would be the main break, but since it's immediately before a stronger mafsiq [the silluq], it's not really a break!)."

> The real question in this verse, is why is the main break in the 2nd half of the verse on HaAdulami, and not on Yehuda. <

If, let us say, "vayinacheim Y'hudah" was graced w/ zarqa segol in order to be the main break, the emphasis would be on Y'huda's widowerhood -- apparently, the pasuq intended that the emphasis be on Y'hudah going sheep-shearing w/ his friend (and thus on Tamar's actions).

 

On Sun, Dec 10, 2023 at 5:01 AM Yitzhak Ajzner via Mesorah <mesorah at lists.aishdas.org <mailto:mesorah at lists.aishdas.org> > wrote:

Just saying: a Zakef makes absolutely no sense at all!

This is how the 2nd half of the verse divides up (from Michael Perlman’s Humash):



Putting a zakef on “hu”, means this section splits on that word, which would make the verse incomprehensible.

 

The real question in this verse, is why is the main break in the 2nd half of the verse on HaAdulami, and not on Yehuda. Timnata modifies Va’ya’al, and has nothing to do with Va’yinahem. By putting the main break on HaAdulami, it seems like it also modifies Va’yinahem, but it doesn’t. Although it would require quite an effort, that can be explained.

 

Yitzhak

 

 

From: Mesorah <mesorah-bounces at lists.aishdas.org <mailto:mesorah-bounces at lists.aishdas.org> > On Behalf Of rabbirichwolpoe via Mesorah
Sent: Sunday, 10 December 2023 4:44 AM
To: rabbirichwolpoe <rabbirichwolpoe at gmail.com <mailto:rabbirichwolpoe at gmail.com> >; mesorah at aishdas.org <mailto:mesorah at aishdas.org> 
Subject: Re: [Mesorah] וישב ל"ח י"ב הוא

 

the publisher would be first in line to tell you that this seifer is not entirely based on Heidenheim>>

 

Absolutely true

 

BUT

In my experience he is usually close to RWH

 

This specific deviation was a bit of a surprise to me

 

There are other cases where RWH might be more controversial.  But afaict not this one

 

FWIW, I did confim this morning with 1 of my Roedelheim Humashim that RWH Has a revia.

 

 

 

RRW

 

 

_______________________________________________
Mesorah mailing list
Mesorah at lists.aishdas.org <mailto: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/20231210/b66813ec/attachment-0001.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image002.png
Type: image/png
Size: 61792 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/mesorah-aishdas.org/attachments/20231210/b66813ec/attachment-0001.png>