tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5589564.post7537266646624445467..comments2024-03-05T21:22:43.426-05:00Comments on parshablog: Is וַיִּיקֶץ נֹחַ malei or chaser, according to Radak, against the masorah (and Torah codes)?joshwaxmanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03516171362038454070noreply@blogger.comBlogger10125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5589564.post-67820047196255951592012-11-27T22:59:46.647-05:002012-11-27T22:59:46.647-05:00> Literally composed, yes. But we don't kno...> Literally composed, yes. But we don't know what the process was, and what the sources were. Obviously each Masorete did not work from scratch, but were working with some kind of accumulated body of knowledge.<br /><br />Of course. Ben Asher didn't "make up" the notes. But taking your statement to it's logical conclusion, one then can't rely on any Masoretic Notes. If we are going to trust the Aleppo Codex as the most perfect record of the Bible, then we have to take its own internal Masoretic Notes along with it. One has to assume that Ben Asher sifted through all he had and wrote those Masoretic Notes to be internally consistent within his Codex (and indeed they are). He ignored the notes not consistent with his textual tradition.<br /> <br />This is different than what Josh had implied, which was that the Masoretic Notes were composed by someone looking over a bunch of manuscripts and then compiling what he "saw" to be consistent with the text, which is then subject to that person possibly not having seen all the possible texts. But If Ben Asher indeed "missed" a variant text, it's irrelevant.MGnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5589564.post-53096500178366920802012-11-26T12:43:44.908-05:002012-11-26T12:43:44.908-05:00>The notes we find in the Aleppo Codex, for exa...>The notes we find in the Aleppo Codex, for example, were composed by Ben Asher himself. <br /><br />Literally composed, yes. But we don't know what the process was, and what the sources were. Obviously each Masorete did not work from scratch, but were working with some kind of accumulated body of knowledge.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5589564.post-30015962862562087572012-11-22T17:19:53.666-05:002012-11-22T17:19:53.666-05:00thanks.
i'll have to go through all this slow...thanks.<br /><br />i'll have to go through all this slowly, so i'm not going to able to respond, but my general impression is that i'm impressed with what you wrote.<br /><br />all the best,<br />joshjoshwaxmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05149022516101476797noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5589564.post-12245740905545404662012-11-22T14:52:53.312-05:002012-11-22T14:52:53.312-05:00"The masoretic notes were composed by people ..."The masoretic notes were composed by people who looked over the various sefarim and describing what was there." <br />This is misleading. The original Masoretic notes were composed by the Masoretes, of course. The notes we find in the Aleppo Codex, for example, were composed by Ben Asher himself. The Masoretic notes we find in the original editions of Mikraot Gedolot, however, were compiled from lists of Masoretic notes found in manuscripts, and had to be sorted through and reconciled, so they are often at odds with each other because they mix and match different notes from different manuscripts and authors. So we do find competing Masoretic notes, just as we find competing manuscripts. However, we do have the Masoretic notes on the Aleppo Codex in Tehillim, Melachim, and Shoftim, and in all three of those places we have the Mesorah Ketanah which says "3 Chaser". So there really in no question that the words in the Torah that we have should be malei, and there is not even a small safek about this.<br /><br />Lastly, with respect to chirik malei and chaser, this division was made by later grammarians, and the Tiberians made no such distinction. In fact, any unvoweled consonant in the middle of a word that has no nikkud or shva is not to be pronounced, such as how we do not pronounce the yod in "Alecha" or the second yod in "Einecha". The Ramah is saying that this second yod is no different, it's not "read" as VaYiyketz, but VaYiketz. It's not a kri/ketiv, just like Alecha is not a kri/ketiv. We have no evidence that the Ramah differentiated between Chirik malei and chaser.MGnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5589564.post-50111173896424222312012-11-22T14:52:04.958-05:002012-11-22T14:52:04.958-05:00"In fact, I believe that I can prove that Min..."In fact, I believe that I can prove that Minchas Shai is the one misreading the Radak."<br /><br />Actually, he isn't. True, the Radak on Chumash says that that the word in Noach is chaser, but the Michlol and the Shoroshim don't read that way. In fact, the text from the Michlol you've pasted into your piece is the wrong text - it's the piece on YKZ, not YZK, that the MS is referencing - turn the page in your Michlol and you'll see this clearly. The Radak says there, that these words - found at Noach, Yaakov, and Pharaoh - are all malei. He then quotes the three places where it is chaser. The "notes of the Medakdek" (Bachur) that the MS refers to can be found right here, where there is a (very obvious) printer's error in the Michlol (since he quotes the same posuk in Vayeitzei twice, once as malei and once as chaser), so Bachur amends the chaser quote to be the posuk found at Shimshon, based on the Masorah. The Michlal Yofi misread the Radak as saying that the posuk in Vayeitzei is chaser, when that was a printer's error. Bochur corrected the error. The MS uses Bachur (no slouch in these matters) to prove that the Radak had a malei reading in our text here.<br /><br />Similarly in Shoroshim it's clear that the Radak had these words malei. He says the that Yud has a Gaaya to replace the missing root Yud ONLY on the last pasuk. The other two, not having gaayot, are malei. (The Vayikatz of Yaakov also would have had a gaaya, being milerah, if it were chaser.) There is no correction from any printer. Bochur's notes on Shoroshim (found in the back in most editions) also state clearly that these are malei with only the three notable exceptions, and the MS again uses this as a source. <br /><br />So the MS read the Radak correctly in Michlol and in Shoroshim (both with an assist from Bachur), that the words are malei, and the Michlal Yofi is the one who misread the Radak in Michlol, with respect to the spelling in Vayeitzei, based on a printer's error. (Or he misread the Shoroshim to mean that all three are chaser when in fact the Radak only meant the last posuk with the gaaya.) This is what the MS means when he says "[the Michlal Yofi's] words were taken from Michlol" - in error. He "proves" the correct reading of Radak based on Bachur. Now perhaps the Michlal Yofi in Noach was relying on the Radak on Chumash there, which it seems the MS did not have. Either way, the Radak on Chumash seems to contradict what he says in Michlol and in Shoroshim. But the MS did not misread him. (The Radak isn't to be relied upon in Masoretic matters regardless.)<br /><br />Now, the Radak in Michlol that you DO quote from, where he seems to say that the word in Noach is chaser, despite the text inside the Michlol having two Yods - sorry, but you are completely misreading this Radak. The Radak there is talking about the shoresh YZK. He is saying that the conjugation of this shoresh into future tense with prefix Aleph/Yod/Tau/Nun can (typically) take a patach under the Tzadi, but there are also examples where it takes a segol, i.e. VaYitzek Dam HaMakah (where _that posuk_ comes without the Yud of future tense - similar to Vayiketz Shlomo, where _that posuk_ also comes without the Yud of future tense), and Vayiketz Noach, which also comes with a segol - different shoresh but same nikkud. Then Radak brings examples of where the conjugation can take a cholom. So this is not about malei or chaser, but about the various nekudot that the future tense can take. There is no printers correction here, since the Radak truly holds that the word in Noach is malei! Your red brackets are in the wrong place. Please reread. In any case, this isn't the Michlol that the MS was referencing.<br /><br />MGnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5589564.post-81244763805071701792011-10-29T23:28:20.843-04:002011-10-29T23:28:20.843-04:00Following through, then I would guess that that by...Following through, then I would guess that that by "one read and the other not read", he means a chirik malei?<br /><br />If so, then we revert back to the discrepancy between Rama and the Radak.joshwaxmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05149022516101476797noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5589564.post-55082674381436903292011-10-29T23:13:00.196-04:002011-10-29T23:13:00.196-04:00Although chirik malei has a yud and is pronounced ...Although chirik malei has a yud and is pronounced differently to chirik chaser, this does not mean the yud itself is pronounced, no more than a yud after a tzeireh is pronounced, or an alef/hei after kamatz gadol.<br /><br />These are all called nach nistar - that is, they are inaudible and only used as mater lectionis.Shmuelnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5589564.post-90179506590118938732011-10-27T20:05:59.682-04:002011-10-27T20:05:59.682-04:00Something you might enjoy
http://www.youtube.com...Something you might enjoy<br /><br /><br />http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=VJHc_dQ9WSI#!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5589564.post-76042297825943680002011-10-27T17:45:15.194-04:002011-10-27T17:45:15.194-04:00thanks. i'll emend when i get the chance.thanks. i'll emend when i get the chance.joshwaxmanhttp://parsha.blogspot.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5589564.post-49475275332622107792011-10-27T17:19:26.015-04:002011-10-27T17:19:26.015-04:00Nice post
"precise and ???" - the Hebr...Nice post<br /><br />"precise and ???" - the Hebrew is דק ואשכח as in דוק ותשכח - he was דק and found [truth].Jrnoreply@blogger.com