Wednesday, January 11, 2012

Why the dagesh in הַצְּפִינוֹ?

Summary: And whether Ibn Ezra actually disagrees with the existence of the phenomenon.

Post: In the second perek of Shemos,

3. [When] she could no longer hide him, she took [for] him a reed basket, smeared it with clay and pitch, placed the child into it, and put [it] into the marsh at the Nile's edge.ג. וְלֹא יָכְלָה עוֹד הַצְּפִינוֹ וַתִּקַּח לוֹ תֵּבַת גֹּמֶא וַתַּחְמְרָה בַחֵמָר וּבַזָּפֶת וַתָּשֶׂם בָּהּ אֶת הַיֶּלֶד וַתָּשֶׂם בַּסּוּף עַל שְׂפַת הַיְאֹר:

Ibn Ezra writes:
[ ב, ג] ונדגש צ' הצפינו כדגשות קו"ף, אם יקרך עון לדבר בם צחות. ובעבור היות הצדי בשו"א נע נרפה הפ"א שהיה ראוי להדגש. והוא שם הפועל מהבנין הכבד הנוסף. ואין צורך לבקש למה לא צפנתהו עוד, אולי השכנות המצריות שמעו קולו כי לא היו לבדם דרים בארץ רעמסס. וכתב: ושאלה אשה משכנתה. ובאה מלת תיבת גומא מלעיל בעבור היות הניגון בתחלת מלת גומא.
"And the tzadi of הַצְּפִינוֹ gets a dagesh chazak like the dagesh of the kuf of {I Shmuel 28:10}

י  וַיִּשָּׁבַע לָהּ שָׁאוּל, בַּה' לֵאמֹר:  חַי-ה', אִם-יִקְּרֵךְ עָו‍ֹן בַּדָּבָר הַזֶּה.10 And Saul swore to her by the LORD, saying: 'As the LORD liveth, there shall no punishment happen to thee for this thing.'

for the sake of clear speech {similar to "tiferes halashon"}. And because the tzadi has a sheva na {due to the dagesh chazak}, the peh loses its dagesh kal {and thus, becomes a fricative}, for it was otherwise fit to have a dagesh..."

With that as background, check out this astonishing Or Torah:

"הַצְּפִינוֹ -- the tzadi has a dagesh in all the precise sefarim; and so too in Codex Hilleli; and so in R' Yonah Ibn Janach; and so writes the Radak in his Shoresh; and also in the Masorah they say 'three words have the dagesh and lack of dagesh switched, and the mnemonic is הצפינו, מקדש ה', משתי עיני...' And the meaning of switched is that in these three words, the second letter is fit to be without dagesh and the third letter fit to have a dagesh, and the matter is the opposite, with the second with a dagesh and the third without a dagesh.

And R' Avraham Ibn Ezra wrote 'and the tzadi of הצפינו has no dagesh, etc.' and this does not seem right.'

But this is the opposite of what we have Ibn Ezra saying! Minchas Shai notes this. After describing the phenomenon and explaining it, he cites this Or Torah. And then he writes:

"And I say that the printer erred, and it should state ונדגש צד"י, and this is obvious and clear from the context of his words. And the author of Or Torah, had he descended to the end of the language, it would seem right to him."

This is indeed pretty obvious, so it is not even necessary for me to concur.

I am not certain about the status of JNUL at present. It seems to be up, then down, etc., or else I would look in their Mikraos Gedolos to document this Ibn Ezra. But clearly, this printer's error has been corrected at Daat, and in other printings I have seen.

Finally, here is the discussion in Chelek HaDikduk, page 6-7 in the PDF:

He explains it as for tiferes, mentions that Or Torah disputes Ibn Ezra regarding the existence of the phenomenon, does not mention that Ibn Ezra actually agrees with Or Torah. And that the author of Livyat Chen writes that the dagesh indicates the chozek hapeulah.

No comments:


Blog Widget by LinkWithin