<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=windows-1252"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
<font size="+1">To add to the post of R' Raphael Davidovitch, I
agree that there is no need to argue about reasons for the patach
because both the Bar Ilan Keter and R' Mordekhai Breuer, have
kamatzim in both pesukim. This means that all,or almost all,of
the accurate manuscripts agree. I checked that this is so in the
Leningrad codex, the only one to which I have easy access. <br>
<br>
BTW, if both kikars are s'mikhut, the question is why the word has
a tevir, a ta'am mafsik that separates it from the following word
and causes the kamatz, and prefers to join zahav to tahor with a
ta'am m'chaber. Why not join kikar (with patach) to zahav and
separate from tahor, or all three words in one phrase. This
thought leads to the question of which came first. Was the kamatz
because of the tevir, or was the tevir because of the kamatz? <br>
This is not the only time this question arises. Some time ago I
sent a post entitled "Does anyone else find this interesting"
There I mentioned three pesukim in Tehillim where different
sources have dagesh or rafeh because of the t'amim or have the
ta'am mechaber or mafsik because of the t'amim. If rafeh, the
ta'am is m'chaber and, if dagesh, the ta'am is mafsik. All sources
are consistent in themselves. This brings us to the famous
question, which came first, the chicken or the egg, and did Adam
have a belly button.<br>
<br>
David<br>
<br>
</font>
</body>
</html>