7

(Note: likely not relevant to those who Daven/read Hebrew with an Ashkenazi pronunciation.)

This Shabbos I was asked to lead Pesukei Dezimrah at a shul I was visiting, and I was given a Koren Siddur to daven from. I noticed that when I reached the Passuk of "כׇּ֥ל עַצְמוֹתַ֨י׀ תֹּאמַרְנָה֮ י״י֗ מִ֥י כָ֫מ֥וֹךָ מַצִּ֣יל עָ֭נִי מֵחָזָ֣ק מִמֶּ֑נּוּ וְעָנִ֥י וְ֝אֶבְי֗וֹן מִגֹּֽזְלֽוֹ׃" in Nishmat, they punctuated the first word (really letter) with a Kamatz Katan, to be read as "Kol". I found this interesting, as I had always been told that this was one of the exceptions to the general reading of "Kol" with a Kamatz Katan, and I had been taught to read it "Kal".

I looked into it in two ways:

  1. I consulted the commentaries on that Passuk (Tehillim 35:10), which confirmed what I had been taught (see Minchat Shai and Radak at the above link).
  2. I asked a didkduk expert, who told me that it's a Machlokes.

Now, I'm quite the dikduk novice, so please help me with this - who disagrees, and on what basis? Please give as much background as possible...

Hint: I see it is mentioned here backhandedly, although not with much detail.


Edit in honor of Rosh Chodesh Adar: To summarize my post with a quote from Megillat Esther (5:13):

ו"כל" זה איננו שוה לי

  • כל זה איננו חטוף כחבריו אלא נקרא בקמ"ץ רחב, כמו כל אחי רש שנאהו (שם יט ז). והשאר שהם נקודים קמ"ץ הם חטו"פים כלם זולתי אלו השנים. Radak. Seems to be masoret, he doesn't give a dikdukal rule – kouty Feb 5 at 6:35
  • In the Aleppo Codex the taam is there (left column, towards the middle of the column and row), and there's a note 'ב' בטע, meaning it's two times accented in this way. But if it's kamatz and accented, it can't be a kamatz katan. – Kazi bácsi Feb 5 at 7:01
  • 1
    @kazi "if it's kamatz and accented, it can't be a kamatz katan." Why not? General guidelines have exceptions. The Makkaf is also lost in Tehillim 47:5 which is indeed exceptional but that doesn't change the vowel. The bigger question is how anyone could think it's a Kamatz Gadol when it is a derivative of כֹּל. How would that make any sense? It's a clear change of meaning! (The answer is probably just blind fealty to made up medieval grammar laws) – Double AA Feb 5 at 12:41
  • 2
    +1 for your edit. Purim (kamatz) Katan Torah In Jest. – Joel K Feb 5 at 19:33
6

Newer editions of the Koren Tanach also mark kamatz katan, and they agree with the siddur and mark this one as kamatz katan as well. Here's what they have to say about it in the back:

באותו אופן הבדלנו בין הקמץ הרגיל לקמץ הקטן באמצעות סימן גדול לקמץ הקטן, למשל, חכמה. כידוע, ישנו הבדל בין מסורת הקריאה הספרדית לאופן הקריאה שהמליצה עליו האקדמיה. כל הקמצים שבהם ישנה מחלוקת, מסומנים בטעמי המקרא באמצעות געיה. משום כך, סימנו אותם כקמצים קטנים בהתאם להוראות האקדמיה. המקפידים על המסורה הספרדית, יקראו כל קמץ שיש בו געיה כקמץ רחב. (להרחבה ראו במאמר על שיטת הניקוד המופיע באתר ההוצאה, במדור "אותות".) ‏

Similarly we distinguished between a regular kamatz and a kamatz katan by using a bigger symbol for a kamatz katan, (example). As is known, there's a difference between the Sefaradi tradition and the recommendation of the Academy of the Hebrew Language. All of the kamatzim that fall under this disagreement have a gaya. Therefore, we marked them as kamatzim ketanim following the Academy's recommendation. Those who follow the Sefaradi tradition should read any kamatz with a gaya as a kamatz rachav. (For more information see an article on our website [thanks to Joel K for finding it!].)

The relevant part of the article is the bottom of page 3 - top of page 4.

כלל ידוע הוא, כי אות קמוצה שיש תחתיה געיה נקראת בקמץ רחב. וכן כתב ר׳ אליהו בן אשר הלוי אשכנזי (הבחור): ״כל קמץ שאחריו שוא נח נקרא קמץ חטוף כמו ח ָ כְ מ ָ ה, זָ כְ ר ָ ה לי אלדי (נחמיה ה, יט). ויהיה לך סימן כשאין מאריך אצל הקמץ. אבל זָ ֽ כְ ר ָ ה ירושלם (איכה א, ז) השוא הוא נע כי יש מאריך אצל הקמץ״. יש בסידור תיבות אחדות שבהן כלל זה דורש עיון: במזמור שיר חנוכת הבית (תהלים ל, ד) ִמּיְרִדי־בוֹר, בברכת השיר (נשמת כל חי) בפסוק (תהילים לה, י) ָּ֥כל ַע ְצמַֹתי תאמרנה, ובמכתם לדוד הנאמר בבית האבל (תהלים טז, א) ָׁ ֽש ְמֵ֥רִני אל. ‏

נראה שבעלי המסורה לא כיוונו במקומות אלו להנעת השווא. הגעיה של ״מירדי בור״ מסמנת שהטעם במילה ״מירדי״ נסוג אחור, ולפי כללי הטעמים המילה ״כל״ נחשבת כמוקפת למילה ״עצמותי״, אף שהמקף לא נכתב. לדעת חוקרי המסורה, הגעיה שב״שמרני אל״ תכליתה מוזיקלית ולא הנעת השווא (׳געיה כבדה׳). משום כך נהגנו בהם כדעתו של ר׳ מנחם די לונזאנו, שבכלל דבריו — דברינו, שיש לקרוא בפסוקים אלו קמץ קטן. ‏

It's a known rule that a letter with a kamatz and a gaya is read with a kamatz rachav. And similar R' Eliyahu Ben Asher Halevi Ashkenazi "Any kamatz that has a sheva nach after it is read as a kamatz katan, and you know that's the case when there's no gaya next to the kamatz, for example חכמה, זכרה-לי אלהי. But in זכרה ירושלים there's a gaya next to the kamatz so it's a sheva na." There are a few cases in the siddur where this general rule needs further explanation. For example מירדי בור, כל עצמותי, שמרני אל.

It seems that the mesorah here doesn't mean that the sheva is a sheva na. In the case of מירדי-בור it indicates that the word is nasog achor. The rules of trop indicate that כל is connected to עצמותי, even though the makaf isn't written. According to masoretic scholars, the gaya in שמרני אל is musical and doesn't indicate a sheva na, and is known as a gaya keveidah. Therefore we've treated them following R' Menachem de Lunzano, whose opinion includes our recommendation that these words should be read with a kamatz katan.

Note that both כל עצמותי and the similar pasuk in Mishlei, כל אחי-רש have a mercha on כל serving an azla legarmeih on the עצמותי/אחי-רש, which is unusual. The normal case is to have a mahpach there instead. Another example is Iyov 14:5 (found with the help of the introduction to Daat Mikra Tehillim). The word with the mercha there is אם, also a small word. Tehillim 47:5, mentioned by Double AA in the comments to the question, seems to be another example, this time involving a mercha followed by a regular azla. As far as I understand this is what they mean about an "unwritten makaf".

  • There are 4 exceptions with את judaism.stackexchange.com/a/57852/759 – Double AA Feb 8 at 12:59
  • @DoubleAA of the 3 that are relevant here (the one in Iyov is the opposite, אֵת with a makaf), all of them have a mercha, though not always with a pashta after it. Does every mercha indicate a virtual makaf? I find that hard to believe. But there's definitely a pattern. – Heshy Feb 8 at 16:14
  • just fyi on the next page of dikdukei taamim is where he lists the three exceptions for כל. – Double AA Feb 8 at 16:40
1

Being that others seem opposed to posting this for some reason, I wanted to make one more simple note about this Machlokes which answers the question:

In footnote 26 of the Koren article linked above, it records Di Lonzano's back and forth with Minchat Shai about this question. Di Lonzano suggests that a reason for the reading of "Kal" here would be that the nikkud should actually be a Patach, and that the word does not mean "all" (which in his opinion would be read as a Kamatz Katan), but rather comes from the Shoresh of Kilah/Kalah, or completing/finishing (similar to "Tzav Et Benei Yisrael", which comes from the root of Tzivah).

(This would be similar to וכל בשליש עפר הארץ, which also does not mean "all", as per all of the mefarshim there.)

Thus, it is possible that the original Machlokes came from the understanding of the meaning of the words in each of these exceptional contexts.

  • Ok, I see now why you were so insistent on this point. That's not how I understood the footnote at all. I thought he was saying "A lot of people read this as a kamatz, which makes it sound like (וקרוב הדבר) it means destruction [especially with a Sefaradi pronunciation of kamatz rachav the same as patach]". I was taking for granted that nobody actually thinks that's what it means. I see your read, I just can't make sense of the pesukim under that interpretation. Especially the one in Tehillim. – Heshy Feb 6 at 14:47
  • Can you translate the phrase according to that meaning? How are there two verbs finish and saying and only one subject bones? And bones is plural so the verb should be plural too like כָּלּ֥וּ תְפִלּ֑וֹת דָּ֝וִ֗ד בֶּן־יִשָֽׁי׃ – Double AA Feb 6 at 14:49
  • @DoubleAA I think grammatically it can work. It's a stretch, but the one in Mishlei could mean "[Hashem,] destroy the brothers of the poor man who hate him [because they're violating פתח תפתח את ידך etc.]". But trying to apply that to Tehillim doesn't make sense. – Heshy Feb 6 at 15:03

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .