Some Leining Minutiae for Hukat-Balak
22:5: בער is written חסר (defective, or without the ו) in Breuer (rather than בעור as, for example, in Minhat Shai and Simanim). In nine instances Yemenite ספרי תורה preserve a variant spelling, which according to R. Breuer reflects the correct מסורה. In eight of these instances the Yemenite reading matches the Keter Aram Tzova (Aleppo Codex). In the ninth instance, which happens to be בעור/בער, the Yemenites preserve בער and the manuscript and masoretic evidence does not allow for a clear resolution; as of yet it has also remained impossible to determine with absolute certainy what was the tradition of the Keter in this matter. See Breuer, Nusah ha-Mikra, p. 31; Breuer, Keter Aram Tzova, p. 85; Ofer, Sefunot, v. 4(ns), pp. 311, 335-36.
22:9: אתון is feminine, hence התעללת is hit'alalt and הרגתיך is haragtikh. (Once I realized it was feminine I stopped erring by reading hit'alalta and haragtikha.)
23:18: ושמע is pronounced with a שוא נע under the ש. Some texts (not Breuer) have retained the חטף פתח, which was a masoretic device to indicate that it is a שוא נע. Reading a שוא נע is an exception to the general rule that a שוא following an initial שרוק is נח. See Breuer, Ta'ame ha-Mikra, p. 192.
24:7: דליו has a plural suffix and hence is read dalyav (rather than dalyo with a singular suffix, which is how I used to read it).
24:14: הנני has a שוא נח under the נ. See Breuer, Ta'ame ha-Mikra, p. 200 (cf. Simanim, which has it as נע).
Trivia: what unusual and unique trop sequence appears in הפטרת בלק? (You won't find it in all editions.)
(For more leining notes on פרשת חקת, click here; for some leining notes relevant to פרשת פינחס, see my post here and here; on a Zoharic tradition that פינחס is written with a small yud, see Parsha Blog here and here; on the trop of ומנחתם, see his post here.)
22:9: אתון is feminine, hence התעללת is hit'alalt and הרגתיך is haragtikh. (Once I realized it was feminine I stopped erring by reading hit'alalta and haragtikha.)
23:18: ושמע is pronounced with a שוא נע under the ש. Some texts (not Breuer) have retained the חטף פתח, which was a masoretic device to indicate that it is a שוא נע. Reading a שוא נע is an exception to the general rule that a שוא following an initial שרוק is נח. See Breuer, Ta'ame ha-Mikra, p. 192.
24:7: דליו has a plural suffix and hence is read dalyav (rather than dalyo with a singular suffix, which is how I used to read it).
24:14: הנני has a שוא נח under the נ. See Breuer, Ta'ame ha-Mikra, p. 200 (cf. Simanim, which has it as נע).
Trivia: what unusual and unique trop sequence appears in הפטרת בלק? (You won't find it in all editions.)
(For more leining notes on פרשת חקת, click here; for some leining notes relevant to פרשת פינחס, see my post here and here; on a Zoharic tradition that פינחס is written with a small yud, see Parsha Blog here and here; on the trop of ומנחתם, see his post here.)
Labels: Bible, Hebrew Language, Leining
posted by Lion of Zion at 9:11 AM
8 Comments:
1) In the first line, you mean defective, not plene, which means malei.
2) The shva na under the shin of u'shema is not really an exception -- it follows the rule that a shva after an initial shuruk is nach unless the shuruk has a meteg and the trup falls on the third syllable (there may be a further clause to the rule, but I don't think so). For some reason (and I'm sure there is a reason),most or all of these words start with a sybillant -- u'zehav is the other one that comes immeditely to mind.
3) Regarding hin'ni. It is absolutely correct to state that, masoretically, the word has a shva nach. As instructions to a leiner, however, I think things are a bit more complicated. Hin'ni is one af a vast number of words in which the the masorah assigned a shva nach and today is read as a shva na. This is because modern readers (and tikkunim) follow the rules of R. Elijah Levita/Bachur, whereas the masorah was much more stingy in idntifying shva na's. You can argue which one is the appropriate way to read (and I have, internally at least, many times), but I would think that it is even more important to be consistent. Therefore, unless you are going to follow the masoretic rules across the board (and I don't think I know of anyone other than myself who does this -- certainly I get little support on the leining list when this sort of issue comes up), you're probably best off reading this word as hineni, I would think.
hey MDJ,
1) bad mistake. thanks.
2) did you derive that rule? i don't remember it in r. breuer and i can't remember if i checked yeivin. interesting.
3) i'm not sure what you mean by "unless you are going to follow the masoretic rules across the board." can you give some other examples. are you talking about specific "exceptions" (i.e., יצחק-לי) or more general "rules" (i.e., the business with the שוא after a long vowel)
MDJ,
regarding שוא, i had different problem this week. at the very end of בלק the עולה corrected me on ויהיו. i was reading the ה as נח, but he kept on hearing ויחיו.
MDJ,
While I don't always manage it, I've tried to follow the masoretic na/nach divide on doubled letters for years, albeit with quite a bit of trouble (I, like most people, was originally taught according to the Bachur rules). I'm not sure I like how it sounds (and I always debate on whether it is distorting people's understanding of the leyning), but rules are rules. So you're not alone. ;)
Lion,
I did not and could not have derived that rule by myself. I'm virtually positive it's in Yeivin, as well as many other sources. And yes (if the e-mail didn't make it clear) I was mostly talking about tnu'a gedola.
As for vayih'yu, that is one of the dangers of reading in a way others are not accostomed to. Though this is the first time I've become aware of a case where someone would correct you for an issue of getting the type of shva right (which he probably shouldn't be correcting you on anyway -- although keep your eye out for the fall edition of the Journal of Halacha and Contemporary Society, where there will be an article by R. Moshe Rosenberg of SAR and Cong. Etz Chaim in KGH on correcting the leiner. I believe he will, at least in principle, take a more maximal stance than most of us are used to)
Ender,
Welcome to the club then. Though I would point out that to be a full voting member you need to make most shvas after tnua gedola nach as well.
As for the rules are rules thing, I do take that approach as well, though in the end, I am conflicted, because there is the further issue of the natural development of the language, as well as p'sak. I belive the Magen Avraham basically says that after a tnua gedola a shva is na and after an ketana it is nach, thus codifying one of bachur's rule's even though it opposes the masoretic rule that I assume he did not know.
Correction,
As stated in yeivin,the rule about a shva after an opening churuk is that it is na if there is a meteg and the accent is on the third OR FOURTH syllable. The truth of the matter is that when it is relevant to my leining, I often have to look these rules up (and/or look at the list of chagnes in the back of a Breuer tanach, where most of these shvas turn up as chataf patachs.
hey lion
tks for the useful pinchas links, it was an eye opener for me. it's great that you point out the previous posts on the parsha, a la hirhurim, since many posts get lost in time.
Maybe you have a post on the three different Keruei spellings found since Bamidbar?
YK
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home