Column #106. Contents of this weekly column are (mostly) based on the sefer: EIM LAMIKRA HASHALEIM, by R' Nissan Sharoni, Ashdod, a guide to correct pronunciation of Hebrew, specifically in davening and Torah reading. Concerning the p'sukim that have a repeated phrase with a word with a DAGESH KAL which stays in one phrase and not in the other (we call it the MI CHAMOCHA - MI KAMOCHA anomaly)... Here's what DL writes... CB’s two “DAGESH inconsistencies” in T’hillim 148:2 and 150:5 are by no means inconsistent. As you correctly surmised, the TROP is the key to the explanation. The first HA-L’LUHU in each pasuk has a MERCHA, which is a M’SHAREIT (a note mark that leads to the next word without pause), and hence the following CHAF or VEThas no DAGESH. The second HA-L’LUHU in each pasuk has a R’VIA-MUGRASH, which is one of the MAFSIKIM in TA’AMEI EMET, and so the following KAF or BET has a DAGESH. The same is also true for 150:2. Ed. note: This does not help us explain the MI CHAMOCHA and MI KAMOCHA situation, since the second MI in the pasuk, the one followed by KAMOCHA (with the DAGESH intact) is marked with a MERCHA, which is a M'SHAREIT in the TROP of the 21 books of Tanach, as it is in the TAAMIM of SIFREI EMET. The DAGESH of KAMOCHA wouldbe expected to have fallen, but it doesn't. Some other possible explanations were offered in this column a couple of weeks ago. But it seems that TROP itself cannot explain it completely. Now we move on to a previous email from DL, also on something we raised in this column from SHIRAT HAYAM. By his own admission, this will sound quite technical, but let's give it a spin... This email is going to be somewhat technical but I think that it is important to explain a principle that is essential for an understanding of how the phrasing of p’sukim are determined by T’AMIM... In TBDATR of TT 605, in the course of your discussion as to whether ADIRIM in the phrase TZA-L’LU KA-OFERET B’MAYIM ADIRIM (Sh’mot 15:10) is an adjective describing the water or a noun referring to the Egyptians, you wrote: “The T’AMIM don’t really help resolve this dispute because the ZAKEIF-KATON on KA-OFERET and theTIPCHA under B’MAYIM are both second level (strong) pausers.” You are right that both ZAKEIF-KATON and TIPCHA are second-level
MAFSIKIM but that does not mean that their relative pausing strength in the
pasuk cannot be distinguished. There is a rule that whenever there is a series
of two or more MAFSIKIM of the same level in a pasuk (with or without M’SHARTIM
in between), the firstis the largest pauser of the series and the last is the
smallest. (Ed. Read that again, if it will help you.) The principle states that a pasuk is first divided into two halves (usually by an ETNACHTA), and then each half is further divided into two phrases, each phrase into two sub-phrases and so on, until no further division is necessary. Each half, phrase or sub-phrase is divided by a MAFSIK one level
below the level of the MAFSIK that ends it. Once the division by MAFSIKIM is
complete, appropriate M’SHARTIM are assigned to the remaining words. Applying this principle to the phrase in question, which is the second half of Sh’mot 15:10, produces the following result: The half-pasuk, which ends in a SOF-PASUK (level 1), is divided into two by the ZAKEIF-KATON (level 2) on KA-OFERET. Then the first phrase, TZA-L’LU KA-OFERET, which ends in the ZAKEIF-KATON (level2), is subdivided into two by the PASHTA (level 3) on TZA-L’LU, while the second phrase, B’MAYIM ADIRIM, which ends in the SOF-PASUK (level 1), is subdivided into two by the TIPCHA (level 2) under B’MAYIM. Thus, although both the ZAKEIF-KATON on KA-OFERET and the TIPCHA under B’MAYIM are second-level MAFSIKIM, the ZAKEIF-KATONis the larger pause because it represents the principal division of the half-pasuk, while the TIPCHA, representing a subdivision, has similar pausing strength here to the PASHTA on TZA-L’LU. ADIRIM, therefore, is an adjective describing the water. If ADIRIM were a noun referring to the Egyptians, the principal division of the pasuk would have to be at B’MAYIM, not at KA-OFERET. To achieve this would require the T’AMIM to be DARGA, T’VIR, TIPCHA, SOF-PASUK. The half-pasuk ending in the SOF-PASUK (level 1) would be divided by the TIPCHA (level 2) under B’MAYIM, andthe phrase TZA-L’LU KA-OFERET B’MAYIM would then be subdivided by a T’VIR (level 3) under KA-OFERET... To illustrate the principle with another example, let’s look at the first half of the following pasuk, starting at MI-CHAMOCHA and ending at the ETNACHTA under BAKODESH. It contains two second-level MAFSIKIM, a ZAKEIF-KATON on HASHEM and a TIPCHA under KAMOCHA. Does this mean that there is a doubt as to which of these isthe larger pauser? Obviously not. Even with no knowledge of T’AMIM whatsoever, it is evident that this half-pasuk consists of two parallel phrases, the first ending at HASHEM. The ZAKEIF-KATON on HASHEM marks the principal division of the half-pasuk ending at the ETNACHTA (level 1). The TIPCHA under KAMOCHA is the subdivisionof the second phrase, which ends in the same ETNACHTA, while the parallel subdivision of the first phrase ending at the ZAKEIF-KATON is achieved by the third-level PASHTA on BA’ELIM. The corollary of the Principle of Continuous Dichotomy is that whenever there is a series of two or more MAFSIKIM of the same level, the first one is the principal division, while each successive MAFSIK represents a further subdivision of the phrase following the first MAFSIK. Now that we have established that according to the T’AMIM, ADIRIM describes the water, how are we to explain the G’mara (Menachot 53a) that interprets it as referring to the Egyptians? The most likely explanation is that this is D'RASH, not P'SHAT. According to the opinion in N’darim 37b that the division of p’sukim byT’AMIM is of Divine origin, no other explanation is possible. If, however, the T’AMIM are a very ancient tradition, but not from Sinai, it is possible that the G’mara’s interpretation represents a different tradition... Ed. summary: The TA'AMIM must be read according to its rules, which will show us the straightforward meaning of the words; D'RASH will often "overlook" the Taamim, but still be valid on a D'RASH level. Thank you DL for your comments, explanations, and clarifications. Keep them coming. [The Parshat Mishpatim Homepage]
|
