Shtayim/Shtei and Shnayim/Shnei

[Art Roth]

My son recently mentioned a conversation that took place 10-15 years ago between him and one of his former Bible professors at YU with whom he had remained in touch for awhile after his graduation, but at this point it's been quite a few years since the last time they had any contact with each other.  The topic of the conversation was the dageish in the tav of the feminine forms of the number two (shtayim, shtei, shteim esrei, etc.).  This dageish obviously violates the usual rules of diqduq, i.e., a sh"va under the first letter of a word is "always" na, and a beged kefet letter following a sh"va na should not have a dageish.

 

My son reported that his former professor told him the following.

    1. There is a mesorah that the sh"va under the shin is nax in these words, which explains the dageish at the expense of violating the usual rule about a sh"va under the first letter of a word.

    2. It is a reasonable guess (but without support from any historical evidence) that these words once started with an alef, e.g., ishtayim and ishtay --- and the dageish in the tav remained even after the alef dropped out.

    3. This mesorah does NOT extend to the the masculine forms of the same words (shnayim, shnei, shneim asar, etc.).  Hence, according to this professor, the feminine forms should be pronounced with a sh"va nax, but the corresponding masculine forms should be pronounced with a sh"va na.

 

I asked my son if the professor had supplied any written sources for this mesorah, and he responded that he doesn't remember whether a source was supplied (and if it was supplied, he doesn't remember what it was).

 

BASED ON MY SENSE OF LOGIC, I HAVE A GREAT DEAL OF DIFFICULTY BELIEVING #3 ABOVE.  It seems "obvious" to me that, e.g., the etymology of shtayim must be completely analogous to the etymology of shnayim, i.e., if shtayim came from ishtayim, then shnayim must have come from ishnaytim --- and the only difference would be that there's no residual dageish in the nun because nun is not a beged kefet letter.  

IN CONTRAST, I HAVE NO TROUBLE BELIEVING #1 AND #2 ABOVE.  It's true that a sh"va nax violates a rule about sh"va'im, but the alternative choice of a sh"va na violates a rule about d"geishim, and there's no reason for preferring one violation over the other.

IT FOLLOWS that I would be comfortable pronouncing both the masculine and feminine forms with a sh"va na or both with a sh"va nax, but I would be uncomfortable using a sh"va na only for the masculine forms.  As a cute side point that's not relevant to the issue at hand, it occurs to me that using a sh"va nax for the masculine forms would have the appealing effect of creating a difference in pronunciation between shnei (two of) and sh"nei (years of).

 

Any thoughts?  I'd love to see a source for this mesorah if it exists and to hear people's ideas about how to pronounce the sh"va. 

 

Art

[Shmuel Rabin]

See Redak in michlol, page kuf mem, quoting Ben Asher and Anshei mizrach:

ועוד דע לך כי כל שו״א נע וסמוך לה אחת מאותיות בג׳׳ד כפ׳׳ת

האות ההיא אשר הוא מבג׳׳ד כפ״ת תרפה ... זולתי מלת שתים,

שתי, לפיכך קורא בן אשר בראש המלה אל׳׳ף קודמת כדי שתהיה

השי׳׳ן נחה והיא אות גרונית גנובה כי כן קוראים אותה לפי שאינה

נכתבת , וכן קוראים אנשי מזרח גם כן אשתים, אשתי...

No word on shnei.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "leining" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to leining+u...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to lei...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/leining.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

[Giorgies E. Kepipesiom]

-----------------------------------------------

The only source I have is oral, from my master and teacher, Uncle Leib. The mesora he passes on is what he received. Shtei/Shteim/Shtayyim is an exception to the rule. But it is not certain which rule it is an exception to. The two possibilities:

 

1) The sh'va under the sheen is na as it should be, and this is an exception to the rule that BGDKFS following sh'va na is rafa.

 

2) The sh'va under the sheen is nach, and this is an exception to the rule that a sh'va under an initial letter must be na.

 

If hypothesis (1) be correct, then shnei/shneim/shnayyim are not affected. But if hypothesis (2) be correct, then it is reasonable (though by no means certain) that shnei/shneim/shnayyim would also share the exception, and the sh'va under the noon also nach. That's all I know. No written text, only my orally-received comments.

 

GEK

 

[Avram Herzog]

Hi Art,

I learned from my esteemed teacher, Rabbi Howard Wein (no relation to Rabbi Berel Wein), himself a student of Rav Hirsch Isenberg, that the original word was either "eshtayim" or "shintayim".  

I've in recent years heard of the postulation that the shin of "shtayim" is a shva nach, but I haven't heard of the "mesorah" bit, rather that the dageish in the tav is proof of the shva nach.  It doesn't make sense to me at all.

KT,

Avi H

 

 

On 12/09/14, Art Roth<artj...@gmail.com> wrote:

 

My son recently mentioned a conversation that took place 10-15 years ago between him and one of his former Bible professors at YU with whom he had remained in touch for awhile after his graduation, but at this point it's been quite a few years since the last time they had any contact with each other.  The topic of the conversation was the dageish in the tav of the feminine forms of the number two (shtayim, shtei, shteim esrei, etc.).  This dageish obviously violates the usual rules of diqduq, i.e., a sh"va under the first letter of a word is "always" na, and a beged kefet letter following a sh"va na should not have a dageish.

 

My son reported that his former professor told him the following.

    1. There is a mesorah that the sh"va under the shin is nax in these words, which explains the dageish at the expense of violating the usual rule about a sh"va under the first letter of a word.

    2. It is a reasonable guess (but without support from any historical evidence) that these words once started with an alef, e.g., ishtayim and ishtay --- and the dageish in the tav remained even after the alef dropped out.

    3. This mesorah does NOT extend to the the masculine forms of the same words (shnayim, shnei, shneim asar, etc.).  Hence, according to this professor, the feminine forms should be pronounced with a sh"va nax, but the corresponding masculine forms should be pronounced with a sh"va na.

 

I asked my son if the professor had supplied any written sources for this mesorah, and he responded that he doesn't remember whether a source was supplied (and if it was supplied, he doesn't remember what it was).

 

BASED ON MY SENSE OF LOGIC, I HAVE A GREAT DEAL OF DIFFICULTY BELIEVING #3 ABOVE.  It seems "obvious" to me that, e.g., the etymology of shtayim must be completely analogous to the etymology of shnayim, i.e., if shtayim came from ishtayim, then shnayim must have come from ishnaytim --- and the only difference would be that there's no residual dageish in the nun because nun is not a beged kefet letter.  

IN CONTRAST, I HAVE NO TROUBLE BELIEVING #1 AND #2 ABOVE.  It's true that a sh"va nax violates a rule about sh"va'im, but the alternative choice of a sh"va na violates a rule about d"geishim, and there's no reason for preferring one violation over the other.

IT FOLLOWS that I would be comfortable pronouncing both the masculine and feminine forms with a sh"va na or both with a sh"va nax, but I would be uncomfortable using a sh"va na only for the masculine forms.  As a cute side point that's not relevant to the issue at hand, it occurs to me that using a sh"va nax for the masculine forms would have the appealing effect of creating a difference in pronunciation between shnei (two of) and sh"nei (years of).

 

Any thoughts?  I'd love to see a source for this mesorah if it exists and to hear people's ideas about how to pronounce the sh"va. 

 

Art

[Avram Herzog]

Hi,

If I understand Radak (thank you Shmuel for this) correctly, he is asserting that (acc. to Ben Asher) the word is indeed originally eshtayim, which, as I mentioned in my previous post, is what I learned, but that it should therefore still be pronounced that way!  Time to ask a baki who is a ben Eidot Mizrach to see if it's still done that way today.

Shmuel, does Radak mention anything about sh'nayim counterpart?

KT,

Avi H  

 

 

On 12/09/14, 'Shmuel Rabin' via leining<lei...@googlegroups.com> wrote:

 

See Redak in michlol, page kuf mem, quoting Ben Asher and Anshei mizrach:

ועוד דע לך כי כל שו״א נע וסמוך לה אחת מאותיותבג׳׳ד כפ׳׳ת

האות ההיא אשר הוא מבג׳׳ד כפ״ת תרפה ... זולתי מלתשתים,

שתי, לפיכך קורא בן אשר בראש המלה אל׳׳ף קודמת כדישתהיה

השי׳׳ן נחה והיא אות גרונית גנובה כי כן קוראיםאותה לפי שאינה

נכתבת , וכן קוראים אנשי מזרח גם כן אשתים, אשתי...

No word on shnei.

On Tuesday, 9 December 2014, 10:37, Art Roth <artj...@gmail.com> wrote:

My son recently mentioned a conversation that took place 10-15 years ago between him and one of his former Bible professors at YU with whom he had remained in touch for awhile after his graduation, but at this point it's been quite a few years since the last time they had any contact with each other.  The topic of the conversation was the dageish in the tav of the feminine forms of the number two (shtayim, shtei, shteim esrei, etc.).  This dageish obviously violates the usual rules of diqduq, i.e., a sh"va under the first letter of a word is "always" na, and a beged kefet letter following a sh"va na should not have a dageish.

 

My son reported that his former professor told him the following.

    1. There is a mesorah that the sh"va under the shin is nax in these words, which explains the dageish at the expense of violating the usual rule about a sh"va under the first letter of a word.

    2. It is a reasonable guess (but without support from any historical evidence) that these words once started with an alef, e.g., ishtayim and ishtay --- and the dageish in the tav remained even after the alef dropped out.

    3. This mesorah does NOT extend to the the masculine forms of the same words (shnayim, shnei, shneim asar, etc.).  Hence, according to this professor, the feminine forms should be pronounced with a sh"va nax, but the corresponding masculine forms should be pronounced with a sh"va na.

 

I asked my son if the professor had supplied any written sources for this mesorah, and he responded that he doesn't remember whether a source was supplied (and if it was supplied, he doesn't remember what it was).

 

BASED ON MY SENSE OF LOGIC, I HAVE A GREAT DEAL OF DIFFICULTY BELIEVING #3 ABOVE.  It seems "obvious" to me that, e.g., the etymology of shtayim must be completely analogous to the etymology of shnayim, i.e., if shtayim came from ishtayim, then shnayim must have come from ishnaytim --- and the only difference would be that there's no residual dageish in the nun because nun is not a beged kefet letter.  

IN CONTRAST, I HAVE NO TROUBLE BELIEVING #1 AND #2 ABOVE.  It's true that a sh"va nax violates a rule about sh"va'im, but the alternative choice of a sh"va na violates a rule about d"geishim, and there's no reason for preferring one violation over the other.

IT FOLLOWS that I would be comfortable pronouncing both the masculine and feminine forms with a sh"va na or both with a sh"va nax, but I would be uncomfortable using a sh"va na only for the masculine forms.  As a cute side point that's not relevant to the issue at hand, it occurs to me that using a sh"va nax for the masculine forms would have the appealing effect of creating a difference in pronunciation between shnei (two of) and sh"nei (years of).

 

Any thoughts?  I'd love to see a source for this mesorah if it exists and to hear people's ideas about how to pronounce the sh"va. 

 

Art

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "leining" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to leining+u...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to lei...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/leining.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

[Ephraim]

While it is certainly logical and reasonable to assume that shtayim and shnayim have analogous and nearly identical etymologies, I do not think it unreasonable to think they do not.  

Absent a source indicating otherwise, one could postulate that eshn... was the original masculine form, and that the original feminine form was sht...  Maybe not as elegant, and arguably less likely,  but who says difference is necessarily only one letter rather than two

Ephraim

[AMK Judaica]

art,

which teacher? send him an email even if it was a long time ago.

i wouldn't swear to it, but i think my teacher at YU (steiner) said it is a sheva na?

**********
Ari Kinsberg
MA, PharmD, RPh, Certified Immunizer
Brooklyn, New York
**************
Click here to register as a bone marrow donor. Save a life.

---

Date: Tue, 9 Dec 2014 07:37:14 -0800
From: artj...@gmail.com
To: lei...@googlegroups.com
Subject: [leining] Shtayim/Shtei and Shnayim/Shnei

[Mordechai Kornbluth]

Etymology - in classical Arabic both masculine and feminine forms have what might be called a "prosthetic aleph" (ithnani / ithtani).
(The tha in Arabic corresponds to shin in Hebrew and tav in Aramaic, e.g. thalath / shalosh / telas (3) or thamanya / shemoneh / tmanei (8).)
But Hebrew doesn't have the exact same form, which is quite common. A good analogue is Arabic ibn (also an added aleph) > bn > ben in Hebrew. The aleph prevents two consonants in a row, while in Hebrew we put a vowel in between.
So in our case, Arabic ithnani > thnani > shnayim > shenayim in Hebrew.  I am writing a sheva as an "e" for clarity.
It sounds like the question is what's part of the transition into Hebrew--do we go all the way to shenayim / shetayim, or stop at shnayim / shtayim, or one of each (to avoid sheva na before a dagesh).
But that's unrelated to the etymology, which does have the aleph.
I have heard both ways from knowledgeable folks. I personally do shenei and shetei. I'm curious what a poll would show.
(Regarding Prof. Steiner, it might be related to his other work on dagesh kal: http://www.jstor.org/stable/30041012 )
Mordechai

[Mordechai Neeman]

Rabbi Mordechai Breuer with whom I davened for about 35 years insisted that shnayim has a shva na and shtayim has a shva nax.

Look at Breuer's Vayikra 23,17 the word Shtayim has a Ytiv which proves that it is a shva nax.

Mordechai Neeman

[Giorgies E. Kepipesiom]

On Wednesday, December 10, 2014 11:07:18 AM UTC-5, Mordechai Neeman wrote:

> Rabbi Mordechai Breuer with whom I davened for about 35 years insisted

> that shnayim has a shva na and shtayim has a shva nax. Look at Breuer's

> Vayikra 23,17 the word Shtayim has a Ytiv which proves that it is a shva nax.

 

Are you sure? And if yes,, it must be a misprint.. No sh'va, be it nach or na (or even a chatof), can have any kind of trop, y'siv or otherwise. Even as an exception, it is not possible. Y'siv is always intoned on the first letter of a word. But if it is a sh'va nach, what are you intoning it on? You cant chant a consonant (sheen) with a trop. The word "y'siv" itself is one of a number of trops whose name can never actually have that trop.

 

GEK

[Shmuel Rabin]

No it's not a misprint. The trop is printed on the shin, it doesn't mean the shin is chanted.

[Avram Herzog]

Hi,

To me, the placement of the yetiv in Rav Breuer's work proves nothing.  As has already been written, a yetiv is always placed at the onset of a word, just like a zarka and segol are placed at the end of a word.  

KT,

Avi Herzog 

[Jeremy Rosenbaum Simon]

A yetiv indicated that the accent is on the first (or only) syllable
of the word. Otherwise, the word gets a pashta. If the shin had a shva
na, the word would get a pashta, as a shva na counts as a syllable for
these purposes. Counting syllables in masoretic hebrew is very tricky,
and is not consistent from purpose to purpose. However, this week's
parsha has an example that proves the point in this exact context. See
38:25. The third word, ve-he, has a pashta. The only way this could be
is if ve- is a syllable and he is the second syllable of the word.

As for the word being a typo, R. Breuer certainly didn't consider it
so, and Leningrad has a yetiv there. It would be interesting to see
what Dotan and Bar Ilan have there, but I strongly suspect they have a
yetiv there as well.

Jeremy

Jeremy R. Simon, MD, PhD, FACEP
Associate Professor of Medicine at CUMC (Emergency Medicine)
Scholar-in-Residence, Center for Bioethics
Columbia University

[Avram Herzog]

Hi,

We're in agreement that a yetiv indicates that the accent is on the first syllable.  Here's where we disagree: I learned, and continue to believe, that a sh'va na is not a full syllable, and therefore cannot stand alone and is  connected to the next syllable.  IOW, it's not a t'nuah g'dolah (of course), nor a t'nuah k'tanah, but rather a chatzi t'nuah or reva t'nuah (two alternate terms I learned for a sh'va).  So for the purpose of a yetiv, sh'TAyim still stresses the technically first syllable.  By this definition, of course a sh'va na can't take the stress--it's not a complete syllable.

That's what I meant by, and maintain, that a yetiv on the word sh'tayim doesn't prove anything. 

KT,

Avi H

[Jeremy Rosenbaum Simon]

Unfortunately, unless you get very deeply into the tiberian
linguistics/masorah, you cannot figure out what counts as a syllable
for what purposes. For many purposes, shva na doesn't count, and this
is the simple answer everyone is taught. However, with all due respect
to you and your teachers, it is simply not true across the board, and
this is one place where it is not.

Jeremy

[Giorgies E. Kepipesiom]

On Wednesday, December 10, 2014 11:45:57 AM UTC-5, Shmuel Rabin wrote:

> No it's not a misprint. The trop is printed on the shin, it doesn't mean the shin is chanted.

 

A y'siv is always placed under the first letter (actually, in most chumoshim it is printed a bit to the right of underneath the first letter, so as not to confuse it with mahpach); just like the t'lisho g'dolo. But unlike the t'lisho, which may be chanted on a later syllable, the y'siv is always chanted on the first letter. Or is that not correct? Can you cite another occurrence of the y'siv trop under a letter with a sh'va?

 

GEK

[Jeremy Rosenbaum Simon]

It is always chanted on the first syllable, not the first letter as
such. However, since, for these purposes, a shva na counts as a
syllable, there is no other circumstance in which a yesiv could appear
with a shva. Although a shva is a syllable for this purpose, it still
can be accented, and thus still can't take a ta'am. This is can only
appear with a shva if the shva in the beginning of the word is nach,
which is here or nowhere. So the question is, does shtei/shtyaim/etc.
have a yesiv elsewhere. I don't know, but it shouldn't be too hard to
check for those on this list with the appropriate software.
JEremy

> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "leining" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> email to leining+u...@googlegroups.com.
> To post to this group, send email to lei...@googlegroups.com.
> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/leining.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

[Shmuel Rabin]

In Yechezkel 1:11 (haftara for Shavuos).

> email to leining+unsub...@googlegroups.com.

> To post to this group, send email to lei...@googlegroups.com.
> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/leining.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.



--
Jeremy R. Simon, MD, PhD, FACEP
Associate Professor of Medicine at CUMC (Emergency Medicine)
Scholar-in-Residence, Center for Bioethics
Columbia University

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "leining" group.

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to leining+unsub...@googlegroups.com.

[Giorgies E. Kepipesiom]

On Wednesday, December 10, 2014 2:32:56 PM UTC-5, Shmuel Rabin wrote:

 

> In Yechezkel 1:11 (haftara for Shavuos).

 

I meant is there any other occurrence of a trop under a letter with a schva, in a word other than sh'ayyim. And are there other examples of y'siv that are not chanted on the first letter (first letter, not merely first syllable). I was taught that even the word "y'siv" could not take a y'siv trop because the y'siv trop is always chanted on the first letter, and the first letter of y'siv" has a shva. Similar to the wird "geireish" could not have a geireish trop because the word geireish (like nearly all words ending in a closed syllable with t'nua g'dola) is accented milra, and the geireish  trop is always chanted on the mileil syllable. And the word geirshayyim could not have a geirshayyim trop because the word geirshayyim (like all words ending in "ayyim" to indicate a pair) is accented mileil, and the geirshayyim trop is always chanted on the milra syllable. And the word pair dargo-s'vir could not have the trop-pair dargo-s'vir, because the word pair dargo-s'vir has only a shva na between the two accented syllables ("go" and "vir), whilst the trop-pair dargo-s'vir must have at least one full syllable plus at least a shva na between the dargo syllable and the s'vir syllable.

 

So besides the word shtayyim (which has other issues besides a ysiv), are there other words that violate the y'siv rule?

 

GEK

 

GEK

[Jeremy Rosenbaum Simon]

As I explained there cannot be. However, we already know from masoretic sources that shtayim is a unique word, so the absence of other examples is hardly surprising. 

--

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "leining" group.

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to leining+u...@googlegroups.com.

[Mordechai Neeman]

Rabbi Breuer insisted that at Vayikra 23,17 it is a Ysiv. I admit that the way to do it as by adding another note for the sh, thus it is not a proper Ysiv. It sounds more like a pashta.

Mordechai Neeman

[Giorgies E. Kepipesiom]

On Wednesday, December 10, 2014 4:06:56 PM UTC-5, Mordechai Neeman wrote:

> Rabbi Breuer insisted that at Vayikra 23,17 it is a Ysiv. I admit that the way to do

> it as by adding another note for the sh, thus it is not a proper Ysiv. It sounds more
> like a pashta.

 

If it sounds like a pashta, perhaps it IS a pashta, RMB's insistence notwithstanding. Though the BHL does have a y'siv, in most chumashim it is a pashta (or double pashta, to indicate mileil). But then thre is Yechzkeil, where all 9save a few siddhurim) have the anomalus y'siv.

 

GEK

[Shmuel Rabin]

It doesn't depend on Breuer's insistence. It depends on whether you always follow the Keter.

Personally I don't see much nafka minah from all this. Pashta and Yesiv are pretty much the same trop anyway for practical purposes.

[Giorgies E. Kepipesiom]

On Wednesday, December 10, 2014 4:54:52 PM UTC-5, Shmuel Rabin wrote:

> It doesn't depend on Breuer's insistence. It depends on whether you always follow the Keter.

 

But we are missing the Keter on on nearly all of chumosh. All we have is RMB's insistence that the keter has y'siv in Vayikro.

 

GEK

[Art Roth]

I never dreamed that my post would generate so much debate.   That's great!  I've learned a lot, and thanks to everyone who posted.

 

I loved Mordechai Kornbluth's thorough and informative posting about the etymology.  I agree with him that all 3 possibilities are reasonable based on that etymology.

 

Shmuel Rabin's quote from the Radaq is EXTREMELY interesting, and I consider it a strong argument in favor of a sh"va nax in shtayim --- but it says nothing about shnayim.  You could legitimately interpret the Radaq either way about shnayim, i.e., you could argue that he would have explicitly mentioned shnayim as well as shtayim if his argument applied to both, or you could argue that he mentioned only one form and considered the other one to be obviously analogous.

 

The overall discussion seems to lean strongly towards sh"va nax for shtayim, but shnayim is much less clear, and reasonable arguments have been made both ways.  There's certainly not enough convincing evidence either way to induce me to change what I've been doing all along (sh"va nax on shnayim as well as shtayim).

 

The discussion of the y"tiv is interesting. 

    1. Everyone seems to agree that the majority of Tana"khim have a y"tiv in Y"xezqeil --- but every Tana"kh on my shelf (which does not include Breuer) has a pashta.  Do all of my Tana"khim represent the minority view on this?

    2. Given that Breuer insists that shtayim has a sh"va nax, I'm not surprised that he has a y"tiv in Vayiqra, but (again) all of my xumashim and Tana"khim have a pashta.

    3. I don't agree with my friend Avi H. that the y"tiv on shtayim doesn't prove anything.  I agree that there are no other words with a y"tiv on any kind of sh"va (na or nax), so this word is a one-of-a-kind exception no matter how we pronounce the sh"va.  Nevertheless, I agree with Jeremy Simon that the y"tiv (if that's indeed the trope) argues for a sh"va nax.  I have no opinion on whether a sh"va na counts as a syllable in this context --- Jeremy says yes and Avi says no.  But regardless whether or not the sh"va counts as a syllable, it's logical to assume that even a known one-of-a-kind exception will deviate as little as possible from the usual rules --- and it's obvious that a sh"va nax would deviate from the usual y"tiv rules far less than a sh"va na.

 

Although I agree with Jeremy's contention that if the trope is a y"tiv, it has to be a sh"va nax, I think his "proof" of it (v"hi in B"reishit 38:25) is far off the mark.  V'hi has a qadma (not either a pashta or a y"tiv) and its context with respect to the rest of the trope in the pasuq (before a mahapakh) would not be at all conducive to either a pashta or y"tiv.  However, there are other good examples that illustrate Jeremy's point.  One of them is the word b"etzem (in the phrase b"etzem hayom haze), which occurs with a pashta four times --- B"reishit 17:23 and 26 and Sh"mot 12:17 and 41.  B"reishit 17:26 is probably the best of these examples because it's at the beginning of a pasuq rather than after a revi`i. 

 

Lastly, I can't resist poking a bit of good-natured fun at GEK's exaggeratedly "Ashkenozis" transliterations, which we are all used to by now.   Let me emphasize that I enjoy his postings, which usually exhibit a tremendous amount of knowledge and make very worthwhile contributions to this forum.  Nevertheless, I think the "Ashkenozis" has been carried to an almost absurd extreme this time.  I can understand it when he writes dargo-s'vir, on the grounds that the alef at the end of darga cancels the dageish in the tav of t"vir.  But I have a hard time keeping a straight face when I see this notion extended to the point where he writes s'vir even when it's not preceded by the word darga (or dargo).

 

Art

[Jeremy Rosenbaum Simon]

You are right, of course. It is a kadma and is irrelevant to the point
at hand. I was too eager to see a relevant source in this weeks parsha
and was sloppy. Thank you for finding a better example. (Though I am
not sure why being after a revi'i or at the beginning of a pasuk is
relevant.
Jeremy

> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "leining" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> email to leining+u...@googlegroups.com.
> To post to this group, send email to lei...@googlegroups.com.
> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/leining.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

[Jeremy Rosenbaum Simon]

I should also say that while I often find GEK's transliterations
extreme, s'vir is not one of them. If you learned the names of the
trup from the chart by singing it for months before you ever started
leining, it is reasonable to think of the names as you sang them as
"the" names of the trup. It is much like saying Noach's son is Yafet.
Of course, in general, the name is Yefet, but we all learned it as
Yafet before we realized that this was just a special case, and keep
saying Yafet even though it is "wrong." So too, here.

Jeremy

On Wed, Dec 10, 2014 at 11:34 PM, Art Roth <artj...@gmail.com> wrote:

[Shmuel Rabin]

S'vir may not be extreme but it is very severe :)

> email to leining+unsub...@googlegroups.com.

> To post to this group, send email to lei...@googlegroups.com.
> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/leining.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.



--
Jeremy R. Simon, MD, PhD, FACEP
Associate Professor of Medicine at CUMC (Emergency Medicine)
Scholar-in-Residence, Center for Bioethics
Columbia University

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "leining" group.

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to leining+unsub...@googlegroups.com.

[Meir]

But is it mistabeir?

---

Date: Thu, 11 Dec 2014 07:00:10 +0000
From: lei...@googlegroups.com
To: lei...@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: [leining] Re: Shtayim/Shtei and Shnayim/Shnei

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to leining+u...@googlegroups.com.

[Shmuel Rabin]

I'm going into a hispaalus from your grammar

[hobstfeld]

Wanted to add that Ibn Ezra's and Rashbam's comments at Ex. 15:17 discuss this issue.

[Jeremy Rosenbaum Simon]

Ibn Ezra is relevant, but the rashbam doesn't seem to be.

--

[Meir]

     Even more relevant is what Ibn Ezra writes in his Sefer Tzachut, that there are some who pronounce the word as though it begins with an alef, making the sheva under the shin nach, and justifying the dageish kal in the tav,  thus maintaining the universality of the rule of no dageish kal after a sheva na.  However, he says, what will they do with the word "mishetei" in the final pasuk in Yonah, which, he contends, has a dageish in both the shin and the tav, with no room for an alef genuva.
 
     It should be noted, though (as the Minchat Shai in Yona points out), that there is no source which has a dageish in that shin.
 
Meir

 

---

From: jr...@nyu.edu
Date: Tue, 16 Dec 2014 18:37:28 -0500

Subject: Re: [leining] Re: Shtayim/Shtei and Shnayim/Shnei

To: lei...@googlegroups.com

[Giorgies E. Kepipesiom]

On Thursday, December 18, 2014 11:12:38 AM UTC-5, meir b. wrote:

> It should be noted, though (as the Minchat Shai in Yona points out),
> that there is no source which has a dageish in that shin.

But why not? Shouldn't there be a dogaysh after the mem in place of the missing noon (the mem prefix being an abbreviation for min)?

GEK

[Meir]

     Apparently, we can live with asheva nach at the beginning of a word (shtayim and shteim) but not with a sheva nach under aletter with a dageish. Hence, if the shin had a dageish, there is no justification for the dageish kal in the tav.

Meir

---

Date: Sun, 21 Dec 2014 08:51:51 -0800
From: kepip...@hotmail.com
To: lei...@googlegroups.com

Subject: Re: [leining] Re: Shtayim/Shtei and Shnayim/Shnei

[Shmuel Goldstein]

I'm revisiting this issue even though it is quite old.  After many years, I thought it was safe to say that the words of שְׁתֵּי, שְׁתֵּים, שְׁתַּיִם have a Sh'va Nach (resting Sh'va). But after reading through the details of Dikdukei Shai (see here) and all the footnotes citing numerous sources, it seems clear that I was wrong and that it is a Sh'va Na (going Sh'va).  The Dagesh in the ת obviously violates the usual rules of Dikduk, i.e., a Sh'va under the first letter of a word is "always" Na, and a "BEGED KEFET" letter following a  Sh'va Na should not have a Dagesh.

I would LOVE any feedback on this.  

[Avram Herzog]

Hi Shmuel,

Neither approach is "wrong," insofar as this is subject to unresolved debate.  Here are the stages of the debate as I learned it:

a. The original word (the female form) was either אשתים, עשתים, or שנתים (eshtayim or shintayim).  This would render the shin a shva nach.

b. The original word was eventually shortened to the word we have now.  The result is "c" and "d" below:

c. The opinion that the shva nach remains, even though it breaks the rules of nikkud, as this was the original pronunciation of that shva, or:

d. The opinion that the shva switches to a sh'va na, as it must fit the rules of nikkud.

The above also explains the origin of the dageish in the tav.

With regard to the male form, there is further debate, as follows:

a. Does שנים follow שתים (does what happens to one happen to the other), as they are a pair ?; or:

b. Does it not, as there is no need to treat it the same way?

All of this is what I learned many moons ago, and have seen sporadically in various writings over the years.  I have no sources at my fingertips right now.

Have a great day!

Avi Herzog

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/leining/71816ee6-2f02-465d-817c-2b7767b42f42n%40googlegroups.com.

[aryeh wiener]

This mahloket goes back to the earliest Masoretic sources and will never be resolved.

Pick your approach and stick with it.

Aryeh Wiener

On Sun, Oct 18, 2020 at 11:52 PM Shmuel Goldstein <reb...@gmail.com> wrote:

I'm revisiting this issue even though it is quite old.  After many years, I thought it was safe to say that the words of שְׁתֵּי, שְׁתֵּים, שְׁתַּיִם have a Sh'va Nach (resting Sh'va). But after reading through the details of Dikdukei Shai (see here) and all the footnotes citing numerous sources, it seems clear that I was wrong and that it is a Sh'va Na (going Sh'va).  The Dagesh in the ת obviously violates the usual rules of Dikduk, i.e., a Sh'va under the first letter of a word is "always" Na, and a "BEGED KEFET" letter following a  Sh'va Na should not have a Dagesh.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/leining/71816ee6-2f02-465d-817c-2b7767b42f42n%40googlegroups.com.

--

-Aryeh

[S. Goldstein]

After researching this further, based on the majority of Dikduk experts (as detailed in Dikdukei Shai), the words:  שְׁתֵּי, שְׁתֵּים, שְׁתַּיִם, the Sh’va under the שׁ is pronounced. The Dagesh (dot) inside the תּ, violates the usual rules of grammar which state that the letters of:  בּ גּ דּ - כּ פּ תּ following a “Going Sh’va” should not have a Dagesh - yet in these words it does! Also see Sefer Michlol (page 140 or 191) from Rabbi Dovid Kimchi - Radak [1160–1235], where he writes that the original form of these words starts with an Alef as in אֶשְׁתַּיִם, אֶשְׁתֵּי (this is considered as another example of a “Stolen Alef”). At one time, Jewish communities (Anshei Mizrach) in the Middle East and North Africa had custom to pronounce it this way. However, it is now customary to pronounce it as a “Going Sh’va” - i.e., vocal. For more details, see Dikdukei Shai - S. Mandelbaum (1999) - סימן ה pg. 149-152.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/leining/CAOewEFABgJNbj76HOaH%3DF4%2BgS3tFb60Buhw2o%3D16hKeKZpngCg%40mail.gmail.com.