[Mesorah] וישב ל"ח י"ב הוא

[Michael Poppers]

Great analysis, RYZ -- thanks! -- so I'll only respond on one aspect
that is important in general for parsing:
>> (the *tipcha* would be the main break, but since it's immediately before
a stronger *mafsiq* [the *silluq*], it's not really a break!) <<
> Not sure what you mean, then, that it is not really a break. <
I trust we all agree that *diqduq* is descriptive, not prescriptive: we are
gleaning meaning, not trying to fit meaning into preconceived rules.  In
trying to understand parsing flow, I noticed many years ago that when a
lesser *mafsiq* occurs just prior to a stronger *mafsiq*, the words
governed by these *mafsiqim* are almost always (remember, any "k'lal"/rule
will have exceptions :)) part of one phrase from the meaning/understanding
perspective.  You can see this pervasively with *pashta* prior to *zaqeif*,
*t'vir* before *tipcha*, *tipcha* prior to *silluq*, *zarqa* before *segol*,
and the like.  What I'm proposing does not affect *dageish-qal* elision or
lack thereof, but I think it helps parsing.  Thanks for considering!

On Sun, Dec 10, 2023 at 3:19 PM Yitzhak Ajzner <yitzhakajz at gmail.com> wrote:

> “(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> 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> *On Behalf Of *rabbirichwolpoe
> via Mesorah
> *Sent:* Sunday, 10 December 2023 4:44 AM
> *To:* rabbirichwolpoe <rabbirichwolpoe at gmail.com>; 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
> 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/fb83846f/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/fb83846f/attachment-0001.png>