[Mesorah] וישב ל"ח י"ב הוא

[Michael Poppers]

> 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/20231210/63633f83/attachment-0001.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image003.png
Type: image/png
Size: 61777 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/mesorah-aishdas.org/attachments/20231210/63633f83/attachment-0001.png>