[Mesorah] Emet Trops

[galsaba at aol.com]

 On my previous email I wrote about the pasuk from Mishlei:
לַֽעֲלוּקָ֨ה ׀ שְׁתֵּ֥י בָנוֹת֮ הַ֤ב ׀ הַ֥ב שָׁל֣וֹשׁ הֵ֭נָּה לֹ֣א תִשְׂבַּ֑עְנָה אַ֝רְבַּ֗ע לֹא־אָ֥מְרוּ הֽוֹן׃

I am not sure if I was right.  Indeed one possibility is this:The second "Hav" is Ole VeYored. LaAluka is a title, in my opinion (like "LeDavid"), and the trope is Azla LeGarme, functions as a Temurat Ole VeYored. 
The nikud Patach under the letter Lamed, is not "to the". It is actually a Sheva that was converted to Patach. The reason is the Chataf Patach under the letter Ain.
But there is another possibility. The trop on the word "Vanot" is Tzinor. This is a trop type "Mishne".This trop "nominates" a Shalish. This Shalish is the Azla LeGarme on the word "La'Aluka". The Patach under the letter Lamed is "to the".
While the first option "Aluka" is the name of the sage who wrote the Mashal,The second option says that the creature Aluka (leech).
Which one makes more sense?
Kol Tuv,
Aharon Gal201-414-7190 

    On Wednesday, November 22, 2023 at 12:30:34 PM EST, rabbirichwolpoe <rabbirichwolpoe at gmail.com> wrote:  
 
 

All the above is guide me to think that the Temura is not 100% Temura. It does not take with it all the rules of the trops, of which she replacing.>>
I kinda thought all along that this is the most obvious solution.




 RRW

-------- Original message --------From: galsaba--- via Mesorah <mesorah at lists.aishdas.org> Date: 11/22/23 08:51 (GMT-05:00) To: Yitzhak Ajzner <yitzhakajz at gmail.com> Cc: mesorah at aishdas.org Subject: Re: [Mesorah] Emet Trops 
Prior to email the group I thought about the idea that there was influence from 25:1, as the three words are the same. Possible. Although 25:1 is a short pasuk.If this is the case, then may be the melody of the same three words is identical in these two verses, and therefore, the trops too.
As for the rules, why should we think that the rule of "Etnach will never come to the right of Ole Veyored, is stronger that the rule that the Temura of Ole Veyored is always Azla LeGarme, and the temura of Etnach is always Pazer?
See the following from Tehilim 9:7. הָֽאוֹיֵ֨ב | תַּ֥מּוּ חֳרָב֗וֹת לָ֫נֶ֥צַח וְעָרִ֥ים נָתַ֑שְׁתָּ אָבַ֖ד זִכְרָ֣ם הֵֽמָּה:


How is it possible that we have two Ole Veyored (actually, the first one is Temurat Ole VeYored) at the same pasuk?See the pasuk from Tehulim 98:1

מִזְמ֡וֹר שִׁ֤ירוּ לַֽיהוָ֨ה ׀ שִׁ֣יר חָ֭דָשׁ כִּֽי־נִפְלָא֣וֹת עָשָׂ֑ה הוֹשִֽׁיעָה־לּ֥וֹ יְ֝מִינ֗וֹ וּזְר֥וֹעַ קׇדְשֽׁוֹ׃

How is it possible to have two Etnach (actually, the first one is Temurat Etnach) at the same pasuk?

See Mishlei 30:15


לַֽעֲלוּקָ֨ה ׀ שְׁתֵּ֥י בָנוֹת֮ הַ֤ב ׀ הַ֥ב שָׁל֣וֹשׁ הֵ֭נָּה לֹ֣א תִשְׂבַּ֑עְנָה אַ֝רְבַּ֗ע לֹא־אָ֥מְרוּ הֽוֹן׃
The second "Hav" is Ole VeYored. LaAluka is a title, in my opinion (like "LeDavid"), and the trope is Azla LeGarme, functions as a Temurat Ole VeYored. How is it possible to have two Ole VeYored (one is temurat Ole VeYored) in the same pasuk?
All the above is guide me to think that the Temura is not 100% Temura. It does not take with it all the rules of the trops, of which she replacing.
So, the pazer on the word LeDavid" in Pasuk 28:1, is Temurat Etnach? Is it Temurat Ole Veyored? or may be we need to consider it not completely as Temura of either one. The pazer here is a strong mafsik. If you do not see it as 100% the replacement of Etnach, then there is no reason why it win ill not come to the right of Ole VeYored.
By the way, seems to me that also the trop Shalshelet in the 21 sefarim, is no 100% temurat Segol. It is stronger.
Kol Tuv,


Aharon Gal201-414-7190 



      
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/mesorah-aishdas.org/attachments/20231122/a20e3e2e/attachment-0001.htm>