<html>Does someone have a scan of that page that they can share?<BR><BR>Gershon<BR>gershon.dubin@juno.com<BR><BR>-- D&E-H Bannett <dbnet@zahav.net.il> wrote:<BR>Re: your question <<difference between the dagesh chazak in <BR>the 'na' of of Hoshia na and the lack of one in hatzlicha <BR>na?>><BR><BR>I suggest you look in R' Mordekhai Breuer's book on the <BR>Keter, IIRC page 43. He points out that, in all the ancient <BR>manuscripts as well as the Mikraot Gedolot Venetzia 5286, <BR>both hoshiya and hatzlicha have the same ta'am <BR>(tzinorit-merkha) and a dagesh in "na". Radak and other <BR>medakd'kim and ba'alei mesora mention the unusual, that both <BR>words are milra'. Because of a misinterpretation of the <BR>Mesora(see Breuer), this was changed by the Minchat Shai to <BR>the way it appears today in most printed Tanakh. Since then <BR>we have the mileil of the hoshiya. Those "in the know" added <BR>the incorrect "diyyuk" of reading (only) the hatzlicha as <BR>milra'. Or is that "diyyuk" the reading of hoshiya as <BR>mileil?<BR><BR>So, to summarize: According to all the old sources, both <BR>Na's have a dagesh, both words have same ta'am, both words <BR>are milra'.<BR><BR><BR>k"t,<BR><BR>David <BR><BR>_______________________________________________<BR>Mesorah mailing list<BR>Mesorah@lists.aishdas.org<BR>http://lists.aishdas.org/listinfo.cgi/mesorah-aishdas.org<BR></html>
<font face="Times-New-Roman" size="2"><br><br>____________________________________________________________
<br><a href=http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL2142/fc/Ioyw6i3l5OrcWPBVQoCa6VPB4PqXtJQDg91qD3qTjSNmCQ7XlFc63T/ target="_blank">Click now for great deals on quality business cards!</font></a><br>