In biblical Hebrew:
When preceding an imperfect (future-form) verb to make it past tense, the vav has a patach.
However, that patach becomes a kamatz before an alef.
Otherwise, when the word is the last in a phrase and has its stress on the syllable after the prefixed vav, that vav has a kamatz.
If none of the above apply, the prefix has a sh'va, except ...
The Masoretic note you have is from the Leningrad Codex. However, the Aleppo Codex indicates in the masorah gedolah in Chronicles that there are 3 instances of the word (see also Mikraot Gedolot haKeter):
Ruth 1:1 (short):וַיְהִ֗י בִּימֵי֙ שְׁפֹ֣ט הַשֹּׁפְטִ֔ים וַיְהִ֥י רָעָ֖ב בָּאָ֑רֶץ וַיֵּ֨לֶךְ אִ֜ישׁ מִבֵּ֧ית לֶ֣חֶם יְהוּדָ֗ה לָגוּר֙ ...
For what it's worth, the Otzar of Roshei Teivot on Bar Ilan lists both שיחיה לאורך ימים טובים ארוכים and שיחיה לאורך ימים טובים אמן. I prefer the latter, because the former is redundant, as pointed out by @DoubleAA in a comment above.
However, the best evidence one could have in this situation is to see if this phrase was ever written out in full form. In ...
I don't think that the final ה indicates the cohortative here, but rather it is a paragogic ה- attached to a wayyiqtol form of the root מלט (nif`al). This type of ה is described in Joüon & Muraoka section 47d, and in Gesenius, section 49e (where Job 1:15 is explicitly cited).
The reason for the paragogic ה is unclear. J&M suggest it exists for ...
I'm not a Biblical Hebrew linguist at all but I hope this helpful.
All Hebrew words have a two or three letter root .
There are many Hebrew words with כפר as their roots. Some are listed below
• כופר - kofer: tar
• כופר - kofer: ransom
• כפורת - kaporet: the cover of the Holy Ark
• כפור - kfor: frost
• כפירה - kefira: to deny
• כפיר - kfir: a ...
My understanding here is that the masorah here is relating to the word שְׁפֹט / שְׁפוֹט without any prefixes.
That word does appear only twice in Tanach: here (spelled defective) and plene in II Chronicles 20:9
אִם־תָּב֨וֹא עָלֵ֜ינוּ רָעָ֗ה חֶרֶב֮ שְׁפוֹט֮ וְדֶ֣בֶר וְרָעָב֒ נַֽעַמְדָ֞ה לִפְנֵ֨י הַבַּ֤יִת הַזֶּה֙ וּלְפָנֶ֔יךָ כִּ֥י שִׁמְךָ֖ בַּבַּ֣יִת הַזֶּ֑ה ...
The Midrash Lekach Tov by R' Tuviah ben Eliezer teaches exactly the idea you have mentioned regarding the additional letter ה:
הביאה לי ציד [וגו'] ואברככה – מלא על שם העולם הזה שנברא בה"א. לכך הוסיף לו ה' ואברככה. שיתברך בזה ולא לעתיד.
Bring me some game [...] that I may bless you – [It is written with the] plene orthography, because of this world ...
I think, based on the question (which is slightly ambiguous) that the word would be מומר literally "someone who exchanged" (Judaism for something else).
This term is used to refer to someone who doesn't follow the Torah rules.
There are two general terms:
1) מומר לתאבון -someone who breaks the rules habitually out of desire.
This person knows that a ...
The words אתה and עתה both have "minor" pausal forms אַ֔תָּה and עַ֔תָּה, that occur only at lesser disjunctives: tipḥa x5, zaqef qaton x23, pashta x2, and revi'a x2; and in the poetic books: etnaḥ x4 and revi'a gadol x1. The full pausal forms never appear at these disjunctives.
Why other words do not have a minor pausal form, that I can't tell you....
While I'm loathe to get involved with transliterations here, "geh" looks much closer to accurate to me than "gay".
The general rule in Tanakh is a letter is only pronounced if it has a vowel mark. The exception to that rule is if it is a sheva nach on the last letter of the word, where it is usually omitted as obvious.
In your case we ...
In Talmud Yerushalmi Megillah Ms. Leiden (פרק א, משנה ח) there is a discussion of the names of G-d, which includes the the earliest spelling of the letter צ to my knowledge: צד'י בי'ת מצבאות.
Other early sources include manuscripts of Bavi Shabbat 12:3 ("צד'י"), Bereshit Rabbat 1:11 ("צאד'י"), Sefer Yetsirah 52 ("צד'י") and some ...
I believe (having heard this from teachers in elementary school) that this is independent of grammar and entirely dependent on layout. Where the ascender of the lamed is close enough to the descender of a letter (e.g. a kuf) in the line above to touch or cause confusion, the printer may use a different version of lamed with the ascender folded back.
From The Wisdom of the Hebrew Alphabet by Rabbi Michael Munk, page 189:
The proper name of the eighteenth letter of the Aleph-Beis is צדי, tzaddi, but is commonly called צדיק, tzaddik. According to Magen David, the tzaddik results from a run-on pronunciation of the two letters tzaddi kuf, which, when spoken rapidly, sounds like tzaddik-kuf. An additional ...
I don't know that there's any way to know what the Lechem Mishne intended. In Ecclesiastes (Koheles) 1:15 it's חֶסְרוֹן chesron (the only time either word appears in Tanach). In modern Hebrew it's חִסָּרוֹן chisaron (and חֶסְרוֹן chesron is the construct).
Jeremiah 17:8 has two versions of the word ירא~יִרְאֶה in kere and ketiv, implying two readings, one as "see" and one as "fear."
On Zephaniah 3:15 there are two versions of the word ת(י)ראי circulating in the manuscripts (see Minchat Shai).
Onkelos has a habit of translating מֹרָא גָּדֹל as if it meant "sight" despite being ...
In his book on Tiberian Hebrew (pp. 135ff), Geoffrey Khan suggests that in fact, the dot in the aleph is to be pronounced as a doubling of the consonant, not simply as a sign that the aleph should be read as a consonant. In other words, he suggests that the dot in the aleph is in fact a dagesh hazak, not a mappik.
His arguments are based on the following ...
I wrote a dvar Torah on this subject for this past Shavuot with some original chidushim, posted here:
It All Started With a Little Dot
By Alan A. Mazurek, MD
First a little grammar lesson (so please bear with me, and don’t fall asleep; it is after all Shavuot night!)
It was several years ago and I went to Larry Schiffman’s dikduk (grammar) class after ...
About 4-5 years ago I had a conversation with a Baal Koreh about why the Bet on the word וַיַּ֥רְא בָּלָ֖ק was not a Vet. I did some research and retyped the answer and others in a short summary form. It's not extensive, but should suffice for all the exceptions. For more details, I would suggest כללי טעמי המקרא - פרק
In general, the “Pirate” letters - ...
Rav Aharon Lopiansky, in his amazing siddur called Aliyos Eliyahu, has a section on the bottom called Mesores HaTefillah. There he explains the sources for the parts of the siddur, and variant readings.
On the word למנצח, he writes:
מ' בשווא נח עפ"י כתר ארם צובה וברוו"ה שווא נע
The Mem has a resting sheva, according to the Aleppo Codex. Rav Wolf ...
Your premise is wrong. The place of dagesh doesn't determine the accented syllable. If you check the famous verse from Chana's story (Samuel I 2:1), it contains a similar verb from the hitpael group:
וַתִּתְפַּלֵּ֤ל חַנָּה֙ וַתֹּאמַ֔ר עָלַ֤ץ לִבִּי֙ בַּֽיהוָ֔ה רָ֥מָה קַרְנִ֖י בַּֽיהוָ֑ה רָ֤חַב פִּי֙ עַל־א֣וֹיְבַ֔י כִּ֥י שָׂמַ֖חְתִּי בִּישֽׁוּעָתֶֽךָ׃
No, it is not correct. Andersen tries to apply the structure within the noncontiguous parallelism (AB-AB) but for this he has made the hebrew LO (not) a positive marker, indicating a rhetorical question.
A' "I am Yhwh" (v.2).
B' "And I made myself known to Abraham, to Isaac, and to Jacob as El
A' "And my name is Yhwh";
A dot in a Hebrew letter indicates a strengthening of the sound of the letter.
For letters that have two ways of reading them, the dot indicates it's the 'harder' version that is to be used here.
In the letters בגדכפת the mark doing that is called a "dagesh kal" or "dagesh lene" or "weak dagesh" and it means to use the plosive version of the letters ...
See Rashi ad loc (citing Yalkut Shimoni):
אמר רבי אלכסנדרי: אמר דוד, אם אני בורר לי החרב עכשיו, ישראל אומרים הוא בוטח בגבוריו, שהוא לא ימות והאחרים ימותו, ואם אני בורר הרעב, יאמרו בוטח הוא בעושרו, אברר לי דבר שהכל שוין בו
Rabbi Alexandri says that David said: If I choose the sword now, the Jewish people will say that "he is relying on his warriors, ...
Here's one place...
It says in Zecharia 4:14
וַיֹּ֕אמֶר אֵ֖לֶּה שְׁנֵ֣י בְנֵֽי־הַיִּצְהָ֑ר הָעֹמְדִ֖ים עַל־אֲד֥וֹן כָּל־הָאָֽרֶץ׃
And he said, “These are the two anointed dignitaries who attend the Lord of all the earth.”
And Rashi over there writes:
שני בני היצהר. יצר טוב ויצר הרע מתהפך לטוב בזכות התורה
A good inclination, and a bad inclination can ...
Ibin Ezra indicates that the plural is the normal form for a stage of life:
זקונים כלם לשון זכרים רק בחורותיך יצא מן הדרך.
We find "(days of) lads" "youths" "elders" all of them in masculine plural, and only "bachelors" is an exception (being grammatically feminine plural).
I put in links to the ...
See Shulchan Aruch Orach Chaim 690:14 who brings two opinions. One that simply says that we don’t make a fuss about mistakes, and a yesh omrim which limits this to mistakes which don’t change the meaning.
So it would seem that according to both opinions, a mistake in the ta’amim would not be corrected.
I'm not sure about purposeful examples, but there are plenty of examples of semantic ambiguity which is only clarified by the cantillation.
One classic example is Genesis 39:17, the second clause.
בָּֽא־אֵלַ֞י הָעֶ֧בֶד הָֽעִבְרִ֛י אֲשֶׁר־הֵבֵ֥אתָ לָּ֖נוּ לְצַ֥חֶק בִּֽי׃
The translation when factoring cantillation is: "He came to me — that Hebrew slave ...
As noted by Rashi to Bereishit 29:6, when the stress is on the penultimate syllable, the word is in the third person feminine singular perfect (past) tense, "it came". When the stress is on the final syllable, it is a (present tense) feminine singular participle, "is coming".
So it seems that ArtScroll are translating as follows: