3

In Daniel 4:9 and 4:18, there is a sequence of te'amim that seems to me to be unusual:

ומז֨ון ‏לכלא֭־‏ב֑הּ

The first word is pointed with a qadma/azla, which (apart from here) is never a servus of a tipha (nor of an etnahta, if you think the following ta'am is not disjunctive).

William Wickes thinks that this pointing is incorrect (see here, and footnote 12 ad. loc.), although Rabbi Mordechai Breuer kept it in his "corrected text".

According to those who hold that the pointing with a qadma/azla is correct, what is the reason for this exception to the general rule? Do any Biblical commentators mention this1?


1 I have already checked my Miqra'ot Gedolot to no avail.

  • 1
    It's not a Tipcha. It's a Ma'alya. This would be the only place where we have a note serving a Ma'alya, so it's not impossible that Kadma is just the rule there. Like how Darga only serves Tipcha as the second Mesharet back. – Double AA Oct 10 '16 at 20:28
  • @DoubleAA How about Jer 2:31? – magicker72 Oct 10 '16 at 20:37
  • 1
    Personally, I like the suggestion espoused by Yochanan Breuer in this 1992 article, that that one is really representing a Tipcha for Ma'pel-Yah as two words, and the Ktiv doesn't agree with the Taam (really well done article). The Jer example is even more odd as there is no Melekh between the Tevir and the Etnachta. In the end the fact is we have so few examples to work with here it's nearly impossible to say something 100% definitively. – Double AA Oct 10 '16 at 20:47
  • Even if you want to argue for all of them being Tipcha you still have things to explain, like why Kafdha-Va is Rafeh, for instance (and why there is a makaf at all). – Double AA Oct 10 '16 at 20:53
  • @DoubleAA I agree. I'm not sure it will garner more answers this way, but I've updated the question to ask additionally for commentary on this phenomenon. – magicker72 Oct 10 '16 at 21:13

You must log in to answer this question.

Browse other questions tagged .