<html><body>
<p>As was pointed out offline, what I wrote is irrelevant to the situation under discussion. RDC's answer, OTOH, is quite relevant. Thanks. <br>
<br>
All the best from<br>
--Michael Poppers via RIM pager
<ul><img width="16" height="16" src="cid:1__=0ABBF966DFFA71D78f9e8a93@kayescholer.com" border="0" alt="Inactive hide details for Michael Poppers">Michael Poppers</ul>
----- Original Message -----<br>
<br>
<tt><b> From: </b></tt><tt>Michael Poppers</tt><br>
<tt><b> Sent: </b></tt><tt>02/20/2008 01:41 PM EST</tt><br>
<tt><b> To: </b></tt><tt>"Michael Hamm" <msh210@math.wustl.edu>; "Mesorah AishDas List" <Mesorah@Lists.AishDas.org></tt><br>
<tt><b> Subject: </b></tt><tt>Re: [Mesorah] kodashim</tt><br>
<br>
> A baal k'ria recently told me that kadashim/kodashim has a kamatz gadol<br>
(rachav) at its start, but hakodashim has a kamatz katan. Is this<br>
correct? I always thought each had a kamatz katan. <<br>
AFAIK, there is a machloqes hadaqdaqanim if a qamatz in an open syllable ahead of a chataf-qamatz is a QQ or a QG. <br>
<br>
> (And why would the<br>
prefixed he make a difference?) <<br>
Offhand, I don't see why any additional syllable(s) ahead of the open syllable in question would, ceteris paribus, make a difference.<br>
<br>
All the best from<br>
--Michael Poppers via RIM pager<br>
<br>
</body></html>