In the last pasuk of the 5th aliyah in Miketz, we read "mishneh-kesef".
Why does the kaf in "kesef" have a dagesh?
I'm guessing that the answer is simple and not noteworthy (because my tikkun, which has notes all over the place, makes no comment on this).
Thanks,
-- Sholom
You are wrong.
The matter is complex, not simple at all.
My tikkun (alright, it is a Teimani tikkun, and they even care about things like ge‘ayot) does have a note that it is noteworthy.
It is termed a d'hiq, but the rules are not too well defined, even thought the d'hiq and the 'ate merahiq were both known by those versed in Masorah 1,000 years ago.
Rabbi Dr. Seth Mandel
Reb Seth, can you be a little more generous in your explanation of dechik?
RGD et al., this paragraph from a Leining-group post
<https://groups.google.com/forum/#!searchin/leining/d$27chik$20atei|sort:date/leining/CzQ4WwB76J8/CMc-tb_1DwAJ>
by Rivka Sherman-Gold
<https://www.amazon.com/Rivka-Sherman-Gold/e/B00IZ6XQZ2/ref=dp_byline_cont_book_1>
may be helpful: "Some Biblical Hebrew scholars use the term Dagesh Me*h*aber
for the dagesh referred to as Atei Merahik or De*h*ik. Yeivin’s book on the
Tiberian Masorah states that a word’s first syllable takes a dagesh if (i)
it is stressed on its first syllable (which has the first full vowel,
whether or not it is preceded by a shva or hataf) and (ii) it is preceded
by word that has a conjunctive accent and ends in an open syllable with a
kamatz or a segol. It has been suggested that the Aramaic term Atei Mera*h*ik
refers to the phenomenon, whereas the Aramaic term De*h*ik refers to the
dagesh itself."
--=====================_649543952==.ALT
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Hmm . . . I vaguely remember this. It has=20
something to do with a secondary stress making=20
the syllable that follows it a closed syllable --=20
I think. (I learned this from R Seth 6-1/2 years ago)
I see that the 'mem' in "umishna" has a ge'aya=20
(nowadays called a maseg?). So, perhaps that=20
makes the following syllable closed, and=20
therefore, a kaf, because it follows a closed syllable should have a dagesh?
(Any errors are, of course, mine!)
R Seth, am I close?
-- Sholom
Reb Seth, can you be a little more generous in your explanation of dechik?
Sent from my iPhone
You are wrong.
The matter is complex, not simple at all.
My tikkun (alright, it is a Teimani tikkun, and=20
they even care about things like ge=E2=80=98ayot)=20
does have a note that it is noteworthy.It is termed a d'hiq, but the rules are not too=20
well defined, even thought the d'hiq and the=20
'ate merahiq were both known by those versed in Masorah 1,000 years ago.Rabbi Dr. Seth Mandel
----------
From: Mesorah=20
<<mailto:mesorah-bounces@lists.aishdas.org>mesorah-bounces@lists.aishdas.o==20
on behalf of Sholom Simon via Mesorah=20
<<mailto:mesorah@lists.aishdas.org>mesorah@lists.aishdas.org>
Sent: Wednesday, December 20, 2017 9:31 AM
To: <mailto:mesorah@lists.aishdas.org>mesorah@lists.aishdas.org
Subject: [Mesorah] mishneh-kesefIn the last pasuk of the 5th aliyah in Miketz, we read "mishneh-kesef".
Why does the kaf in "kesef" have a dagesh?
I'm guessing that the answer is simple and not noteworthy (because my
tikkun, which has notes all over the place, makes no comment on this).Thanks,
-- Sholom
_______________________________________________
Mesorah mailing list
<mailto:Mesorah@lists.aishdas.org>Mesorah@lists.aishdas.org
http://lists.aishdas.org/listinfo.cgi/mesorah-aishdas.org
<http://lists.aishdas.org/listinfo.cgi/mesorah-aishdas.org>Mesorah=20
Info Page - The AishDas Society
<http://lists.aishdas.org>lists.aishdas.org
To see the collection of prior postings to the=20
list, visit the Mesorah Archives. Using=20
Mesorah: To post a message to all the list members, send email ..._______________________________________________
Mesorah mailing list
<mailto:Mesorah@lists.aishdas.org>Mesorah@lists.aishdas.org
http://lists.aishdas.org/listinfo.cgi/mesorah-aishdas.org
--=====================_649543952==.ALT
Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
<html>
<body>
Hmm . . . I vaguely remember this. It has something to do with a
secondary stress making the syllable that follows it a closed syllable --
I think. (I learned this from R Seth 6-1/2 years ago)<br><br>
I see that the 'mem' in "umishna" has a ge'aya (nowadays called
a maseg?). So, perhaps that makes the following syllable closed,
and therefore, a kaf, because it follows a closed syllable should have a
dagesh?<br><br>
(Any errors are, of course, mine!)<br><br>
R Seth, am I close? <br><br>
-- Sholom<br><br>
<br>
At 02:48 PM 12/20/2017, Juno wrote:<br>
<blockquote type=3Dcite class=3Dcite cite=3D"">Reb Seth, can you be a little
more generous in your explanation of dechik?<br><br>
On Dec 20, 2017, at 2:24 PM, Mandel, Seth via Mesorah
<<a href=3D"mailto:mesorah@lists.aishdas.org">
mesorah@lists.aishdas.org</a>> wrote:<br><br>
<blockquote type=3Dcite class=3Dcite cite=3D"">You are wrong.<br><br>
The matter is complex, not simple at all.<br><br>
My tikkun (alright, it is a Teimani tikkun, and they even care about
things like ge=E2=80=98ayot) does have a note that it is noteworthy.<br><br>
It is termed a d'hiq, but the rules are not too well defined, even
thought the d'hiq and the 'ate merahiq were both known by those versed in
Masorah 1,000 years ago.<br><br>
<br>
Rabbi Dr. Seth Mandel<font size=3D2><br>
</font><br>
<hr>
<font face=3D"Calibri"><b>From:</b> Mesorah
<<a href=3D"mailto:mesorah-bounces@lists.aishdas.org">
mesorah-bounces@lists.aishdas.org</a>> on behalf of Sholom Simon via
Mesorah
<<a href=3D"mailto:mesorah@lists.aishdas.org">
mesorah@lists.aishdas.org</a>><br>
<b>Sent:</b> Wednesday, December 20, 2017 9:31 AM<br>
<b>To:</b>
<a href=3D"mailto:mesorah@lists.aishdas.org">mesorah@lists.aishdas.org</a>
<br>
<b>Subject:</b> [Mesorah] mishneh-kesef</font> <br>
<br>
<font size=3D2>In the last pasuk of the 5th aliyah in Miketz, we read
"mishneh-kesef".<br><br>
Why does the kaf in "kesef" have a dagesh?<br><br>
I'm guessing that the answer is simple and not noteworthy (because my
<br>
tikkun, which has notes all over the place, makes no comment on
this).<br><br>
Thanks,<br><br>
-- Sholom<br><br>
_______________________________________________<br>
Mesorah mailing list<br>
<a href=3D"mailto:Mesorah@lists.aishdas.org">Mesorah@lists.aishdas.org</a>
<br>
<a href=3D"http://lists.aishdas.org/listinfo.cgi/mesorah-aishdas.org" eudora=
=3D"autourl">
http://lists.aishdas.org/listinfo.cgi/mesorah-aishdas.org</a> <br>
<a href=3D"http://lists.aishdas.org/listinfo.cgi/mesorah-aishdas.org">
Mesorah Info Page - The AishDas Society</a><br>
<a href=3D"http://lists.aishdas.org">lists.aishdas.org</a><br>
To see the collection of prior postings to the list, visit the Mesorah
Archives. Using Mesorah: To post a message to all the list members, send
email ...<br><br>
</font>_______________________________________________<br>
Mesorah mailing list<br>
<a href=3D"mailto:Mesorah@lists.aishdas.org">Mesorah@lists.aishdas.org</a>
<br>
<a href=3D"http://lists.aishdas.org/listinfo.cgi/mesorah-aishdas.org" eudora=
=3D"autourl">
http://lists.aishdas.org/listinfo.cgi/mesorah-aishdas.org</a></blockquote>
</blockquote></body>
</html>
--=====================_649543952==.ALT--
My esteemed friend R. Dubin,
We are in a time when I rejoice if I hear someone who knows in reading the Torah where BGa'D K'PaT have a dagesh and when they are rafe. And you want to know rules pertaining to a dagesh hazaq vs. qal?!
Did not Chazal say about this "אין דורשין בבמוסרה בשלושה ולא בסתרי דגש וגיעיה בשניים" (my apologies to the Mishna in Hagiga)?
If you were not my friend, I would ignore this. As it is, I will delay a response for a while. For the matter is cloaked in mist, no matter how I tried to simplify it when discussing it in a class with Sholom. And for people who want clear answers, 'twould be better to cease looking.
Seth Mandel
The quotation from this post is a literal quotation from Yeivin's Introduction to the Tiberian Masorah. This was intended by Yeivin to be an introductory survey, and he is careful to mention almost every phenomenon. The svara about the two names he quotes in the name of Dotan. But he himself says there that the phenomenon has not been studied in detail.
As far as Dotan goes, most of his svaras are against the Masorah and against the best evidence, and Yeivin does not accept most of them.
In his detailed book on the Aleppo codex, Yeivin does not mention either ate merahiq or d'hiq.
Rabbi Dr. Seth Mandel
R'Seth, I perused the "Machberes haTinjan" pages (78-80) you scanned.
Please explain how "umishneh-kesef" is a d'chiq situation -- where is the
necessary "melech echad" between words? Thanks.
Well, my original thought was that it belongs to the second type of d'hiq, phrases such as uma-t-ta‘aseh (ומה-תעשה) mentioned 4 lines from the bottom on p. 79.
But, as I warned, things are not completely clear. So, in the light of day, I see that it may even more resemble some examples of Ate Merahiq such as yivne-b-bayit in הוא יבנה-בית
mentioned on p. 80, line 6.
When I said the matter was complex, I meant that I do not understand it fully,either. But this pages you saw establish the following facts:
1) The early ba'alei Masorah recognized that there are groups of word that do not follow the simple pattern of having a soft B'GaD K'PaT following a word ending in a vowel that is connected by the trop.
2) The early ba'alei Masorah divided these words into different categories.
3) They believed that D'hiq and Ate Merahiq are different categories.
To us modern observers, it appears that a lot of these cases have nothing to do with each other. For instance, P'siq means that the words have a slight separation, and Mappiq means that the word actually ends in a consonant, not a vowel. The case of two similar letters is also clearly different. That leaves 3 classes: Ogerah, D'hiq and Ate Merahiq.
Ogerah is a class for which the ba'alei Masorah know of no reason; it means a group of real exceptions.
D'hiq and Ate Merahiq, on the other hand,the ba'alei Masorah feel there is a reason, but they do not have the grammatical terms to explain it to our liking. (I admit that their description of Ate Merahiq as "due to the fact that there is a large distance between the two stressed syllables filled with various vowels, the first stress comes and pushes all the vowels and throws them onto the letter of the following stress as if they were projectiles/thrown stones" is quite an impressive description. I understand the imagery, but I hesitate how to translate that into a grammatical category that is distinct from the second case of D'hiq.)
Another complicating factor is that these rules (apparently, but not definitely) only apply to B'GaD K'PaT according to the ba'alei Masorah. But these rules mix cases where the B'GaD K'PaT have a dagesh qal with a dagesh hazaq. In fact, there are a couple of other categories which are similar in the sense that the second word, connected by the trop to a preceding word that ends in a vowel has a dagesh hazaq. Since members of the group Mesorah are assumed to be imterested in weird things, I will mention the group of word such as
שמות יב:טו שִׁבְעַת יָמִים מַצּוֹת תֹּאכֵלוּ, אַךְ בַּיּוֹם הָרִאשׁוֹן תַּשְׁבִּיתוּ שְּׂאֹר מִבָּתֵּיכֶם:
See that dagesh hazaq hiding in the sin of s'or?
Then consider
שמות יב:לא וַיִּקְרָא לְמֹשֶׁה וּלְאַהֲרֹן לַיְלָה, וַיֹּאמֶר קוּמוּ צְּאוּ מִתּוֹךְ עַמִּי
and that doesn't seem to be an exception, see
בר' יט:יד וַיֵּצֵא לוֹט וַיְדַבֵּר אֶל-חֲתָנָיו לֹקְחֵי בְנֹתָיו, וַיֹּאמֶר קוּמוּ צְּאוּ מִן-הַמָּקוֹם הַזֶּה
There are several other examples like this.
Yes, we can now invent another rule that applies only to words ending in -u connected by trop to words beginning in a sibilant. What sort of cockamamie rule is that?
What I am trying to convey is that there are wheels within wheels in the Masorah, things of which Hamlet quite properly said "There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, Than are dreamt of in your philosophy." Buried quite deeply beneath the surface. Although the Masorah knew all of these cases, the ba'alei Masorah did not makes rules for most of them. The grammarians that came later made all sorts of rules, and most are wrong according to the Masorah. In the case we are discussing, the ba'alei Masorah did make rules, and called two of them D'hiq and Ate Merahiq, and no one really knows what these rules are and how they relate to other cases of dagesh hazaq on the first letter of a word.
People who want complete clarity and texts that follow simple rules, hie thee elsewhere.
But this is exactly like the halokho. Wheels within wheels, in many cases very deep, but not fully explained or understood.
Having confused everyone entirely, it is time for me to retreat to my cave for the day.
Rabbi Dr. Seth Mandel
Well, my original thought was that it belongs to the second type of
d'hiq, phrases such as uma-t-ta‘aseh (ומה-תעשה) mentioned 4 lines from the
bottom on p. 79.
But, as I warned, things are not completely clear. <
Especially not when the author (at that p.-79 bottom) starts limiting the
d'chiq algorithm to having a "qamatz" (which I assume rules out the segol
of "umishneh"); and as "kesef" is mil'eil, "umishne-kesef" may anyway not
fit into the "second type of d'hiq" category that lists phrases of a
one-syllable (or mil'ra) word followed by a multi-syllable mil'ra word.
in the light of day, I see that it may even more resemble some examples
of Ate Merahiq such as yivne-b-bayit in הוא יבנה-בית
mentioned on p. 80, line 6 <
I don't think so: "umishne-kesef" is not a case of "many m'lachim between
t'amim".
They believed that D'hiq and Ate Merahiq are different categories <
Yes, the author clearly assumes that; and the "the Aramaic term Atei Mera*h*ik
refers to the phenomenon, whereas the Aramaic term De*h*ik refers to the
dagesh itself" "suggestion" I quoted four days ago was news to me (but I
thought it worth quoting; the explanation which formed the majority of that
quote was, I believe, similar to what R'Reiachi has explained in Tiqqun
Simanim, and I especially would highlight "a kamatz or a segol" because the
vowel in the case of "umishne-kesef" is a segol).
In fact, there are a couple of other categories which are similar in the
sense that the second word, connected by the trop to a preceding word that
ends in a vowel has a dagesh hazaq. <
And, to use the phraseology of Machberes haTinjan, there's one "melech"
between the t'amim...i.e., I think "melech" means what many would call a
syllable, and so "umishne-kesef" is a d'chiq situation, not according to
Machberes haTinjan but according to a larger understanding of the
phenomenon (to avoid machloqes, call it "d'chiq-like"); and the examples
R'Seth just noted likewise are d'chiq-like. Listing all these d'chiq-like
phrases with the accents ("t'amim") *highlighted*, one can see the "melech
between *t'amim*":
-- *UMISH*ne-*KE*sef
-- tash*BI*su-*S'OR*
-- *QU*mu-*TZ'U*
and here are the Machberes haTinjan examples:
-- v'a*IY*da *BAM*
-- v'*AN*sa *BI*
-- v'ha*GI*sa *BO*
-- va'ava*DE*cha *BA*u
-- *MAH*-to*MAR*
-- *UMAH*-ta'a*SEH*
v'chadomeh 
All the best from *Michael*
In the example cited, mishne is not mil'eil. It is connected with a maqqaf to the word kesef, and has no ge‘aya at all, so it has no stressed syllables.
In that sense it is similar to Ate Merahiq examples brought.
And when the Mahberet limits the vowel to a qomatz, it is clearly only talking about the first time of D'hiq, an unstressed syllable between two stressed ones. It is not talking about the second kind of the D'hiq it lists, like uma-t-ta‘aseh, which has no stress prior to the main one.
Rabbi Dr. Seth Mandel
Rabbinic Coordinator
The Orthodox Union
Voice (212) 613-8330 Fax (212) 613-0718 e-mail mandels@ou.org
It occurred to me that those who have not spent time with the Masoretic
mss. perhaps do not realize some basic things.
I have noted that most of the disagreements between Ben Asher and Ben
Naftali are regarding the ge'aya. But this is not purely a disagreement
about how to write the text. The ge'ayot are very important for the proper
pronunciation of the Masoretic text according to the ba'alei Masorah.
Most printed text can be properly called non-Masoretic, because they
do not even attempt to put ge'ayot where the Masorah has them. Most
people have been trained to ignore the "metegs" in the printed text, and
properly so, because what is printed reflect the grammatical invention
of some rabbis, not the Masorah. Completely not the Masorah.
In real Masoretic texts, the "metegs" used in printed texts are almost
all absent. Instead, there are ge'ayot in certain places that make no
sense to a reader who grew up with the printed editions.
Very briefly, the function of the ge'ayot according to ancient Masoretic
treatices, such as Mahberet haTijan and Hidayat alQari is to lengthen and
stress a vowel. As such, it is common only in places where a normal reader
would read with no stress. Such places include, but are not limited to,
sh'wa's and words connected to following words with a maqqaf. The primary
stress on any word is where the trop is (although that may be a little
deceiving with trop that only are written at the very beginning or end
of the word). But the ge'aya will represent a secondary stress. English
speakers will understand this with words like laboratory produced as in
America: LAb'raTOry. The main stress is on the first syllable, with TO
having a secondary stress. In Masoretic terms, the trop would appear on
the LA, and a ge'aya on the TO.
When words are connected with a maqqaf, the first word loses its stress
and its vowel may b changed, because it is now considered part of a
larger word. In some cases, there is a secondary stress on the first word;
in others there is not.
In the pasuq we all say thrice daily, one can see the result:
- , - - .
I have attached a picture. Those receiving it through Mesorah@aishdas.org will not receive it. You can go to http://www.aleppocodex.org/aleppocodex.html and search for T'hillim 145 and magnify the sixth line from the bottom.
[To save you the effort of searching, I saved the attachment at
<http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/faxes/539-r_Psalms143-145.jpg> -micha]
In the massoretic text, both the words and i are attached
to the following word with a maqqaf. They both have ge'ayot on their
initial syllable, indicating that they are to be pronounced 'Enei and
NOten with the secondary stress on the first syllable. The word et,
on the other hand, has no stress at all.
In the pasuk
- , --
on the other hand, the last three words are all clumped together as a
word with 5 syllables, and with the stress on the last syllable and no
secondary stresses at all.
In the pasuk in Genesis 43:15, the first phrase of -
has the trop on the penultimate syllable of kesef and no ge'aya. That
means that the first word lacks any stress at all, and is pronounced
just as part of the Masoretic word umishnekKEsef.
Rabbi Dr. Seth Mandel
: When words are connected with a maqqaf, the first word loses its stress
: and its vowel may b changed, because it is now considered part of a
: larger word. In some cases, there is a secondary stress on the first word;
: in others there is not.
Tangent, but very much halakhah lemaaseh:
And in Shema, how many /l/ sounds do you make in "al-levavekha"?
Do you say both lameds with a pause mid-teivah (I prefer that to
modifying the meaning of the word "word"), or pronounce it like
a lamed-degushah?
Tir'u baTov!
-Micha
The G'moro seems to be pretty clear when it says "revach bein had'vekim." The Rambam brings it the same way:
ב,ט כיצד מדקדק,ייזהר שלא ירפה החזק ולא יחזק הרפה ולא יניד הנח ולא יניח הנד. לפיכך צריך ליתן ריוח בין כל שתי אותות הדומות שאחת מהן סוף תיבה והאחרת תחילת תיבה הסמוכה לה, כגון "בכל לבבך" קורא "בכל" ושוהה וחוזר וקורא "לבבך", וכן "ואבדתם מהרה", "הכנף פתיל".
If you need something between the d'veqim, letters that "stick" together, one cannot pronounce them as one doubled letter.
But this is a rule special for Q'S, apparently, derived from the requirement of "limmud tam," and so it may not necessarily apply to anything else. The R'DaQ claims that it is not only QS, but anything, and QS was just a place to be more careful. But the Masorah, in discussing two identical letters one after another in the word, implies that in some cases, one is "gol'lam yachad."
Rabbi Dr. Seth Mandel
This is what the מנחת שי has to say about בכל-לבבך:
כשאמרו רז"ל שצריך לחתן ריוח בין הדבקים לא אמרו להפסיק שלא לתת מקף בין שני
הלמדין כאשר הוא, שאם יקרא אותו בלי מקף יהיה נקוד בחולם, וזה לא אמרו רז"ל
להחליף התנועות אשר נתנו למשה מסיני *) אלא אף על פי שיקראם במקף יתן ריוח
והבדל ביניהם שידמה כי שני למדין קרא (מכלול דף צ"ו וכן כל כיוצא בזה
The footnote reads:
עיין בספר הכוזרי מאמר ג סימן ל ובספר מסורת המסורה למדקדק הגדול ר' אלי' בחור
וגם מטפחת ספרים להגאון מו"ה יעב"ץ ד"ה א"פ
EMT
It still seems to me that the Rambam's description of what Chazal mean is the most authenic, and it is certainly the oldest.
As all the nos'ei kelim noted, the Ra'avd's comment on the Rambam, although equally old, can teach us nothing. The Ra'avad made his comment on the background of his pronunciation. Although it is easy for a linguist to see what the Ra'avad's pronunciation of Hebrew must have been like, it is nothing like any of the pronunciations we have today.
Rabbi Dr. Seth Mandel
Rabbinic Coordinator
The Orthodox Union
Voice (212) 613-8330 Fax (212) 613-0718 e-mail mandels@ou.org
R' Seth,
In your example
עֵינֵי-כֹל אֵלֶיךָ יְשַׂבֵּרוּ, וְאַתָּה נוֹתֵן-לָהֶם אֶת-אָכְלָם בְּעִתּוֹ.
the g'aya on EInei-CHOL is understandable as a sort of Nasog Achor, but why
is it NOtein-laHEM rather than noTEIN-laHEM? Not only do the words not
have adjacent stressed syllables, but long closed syllables such as TEIN
almost invariably have a ta'am or at least a g'aya.
There was a similar strange g'aya on words joined by a maqaf in last week's
parsha: vinYAmin-aKHIV (Gen 45:14) rather than vinyaMIN-aKHIV (although MIN
is not a long closed syllable).
Might the explanation be that when two words are joined by a maqaf, the
first one loses its stress as you wrote, and then it is able to receive a
g'aya if the new large word has a suitable syllable (in these cases a
g'aya qala on the open syllable) even if the result is totally foreign to
the word when not joined by a maqaf?
Danny Levy
Your second explanation is closer to the truth, but it is not accurate. The first word loses its stress. Where the secondary stress reappears is by no means certain or subject to hard and fast rules; it is a matter of the Masorah, which is why Ben Asher and Ben Naftali argue about so many ge‘ayot. And it appears in all sorts of unexpected places. Very often on a sh'wa. Unfortunately, the page I sent you does not have the last pasuk of T'hilla l'David, or you would see a ge‘aya on the sh'wa of y'dabber-pi. In the page I sent, you can see one in the preceding kapital, 3 lines before the bottom: miyyad b'ne-nekhar, with a ge‘aya next to the sh'wa.
Rabbi Dr. Seth Mandel
Rabbinic Coordinator
The Orthodox Union
Voice (212) 613-8330 Fax (212) 613-0718 e-mail mandels@ou.org
Besides, the "rules" for a meteg qal can scarcely be called rules. They are inventions of later grammarians. A "meteg qal" is very rare in the Aleppo Codex of Ben Asher. You can look at the page I sent, where there are dozens of places where a "meteg qal" would occur, and I don't think that there is a ge‘aya in any of them.
The ge‘ayot appear in closed syllables in the Masoretic texts quite often. In T'hilla l'David you can see two of them in the mem pasuk: both in malkhutkha and in umemshalt'kha in the syllables beginning with mem, both of which are closed according to the Masorah.
Rabbi Dr. Seth Mandel
Rabbinic Coordinator
The Orthodox Union
Voice (212) 613-8330 Fax (212) 613-0718 e-mail mandels@ou.org
Let me be clear that I am not saying that in the Masoretic mss. there are no examples of Meteg qal. There are some. But not many, and especially few in the Aleppo Codex. Many of the ones that are in the Codex are there for reasons that are different from the "rules" of a meteg qal.
Rabbi Dr. Seth Mandel
Rabbinic Coordinator
The Orthodox Union
Voice (212) 613-8330 Fax (212) 613-0718 e-mail mandels@ou.org
