[Mesorah] וישב ל"ח י"ב הוא

Sat Dec 30 18:45:22 PST 2023

Shout-out to R'Micha for
https://aspaqlaria.aishdas.org/2023/12/28/intro-to-trop/ ! and until he
corrects the 3rd example, the *pasuq* in question is

וְנִסְכֵּיהֶ֗ם חֲצִ֣י הַהִין֩ יִֽהְיֶ֨ה לַפָּ֜ר וּשְׁלִישִׁ֧ת הַהִ֣ין
לָאַ֗יִל וּרְבִיעִ֥ת הַהִ֛ין לַכֶּ֖בֶשׂ יָ֑יִן זֹ֣את עֹלַ֥ת חֹ֨דֶשׁ֙
בְּחָדְשׁ֔וֹ לְחָדְשֵׁ֖י הַשָּׁנָֽה׃

.

On Sun, Dec 10, 2023 at 8:27 PM Michael Poppers <michaelpoppers at gmail.com>
wrote:

> 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/20231230/b715688c/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/20231230/b715688c/attachment-0001.png>