Is the second chirik in tzitzit , long or short? (And what's the reasoning)

[shmuel.fr...@gmail.com]

Is the second chirik in tzitzit , long or short?  (grammatically long/short, as opposed to phonetically)

In an earlier thread that was about Joel 4:4 and gemoo-luh-chem,  the subject moved to some other words,

 Meir wrote,  " tzitzit...the second chirik is long"    "a long vowel, but with the yod not written"

I understand that kamatz becomes short when in a closed unstressed syllable.. and so an open syllable, or some stress e.g. even a meteg(secondary stress), will make it long.

It looks to me like Chirik doesn't follow that rule, it looks like every Chirik isn't a Chirik yud, is short, regardless of whether there is stress or not for example  .  

Chronicles 2  6:21  Yitpalelu  looking at the Yit,  it's a shva nach on the tav.

Yihyeh   Gen 1:29   There is a chirik , not a chirik yud, and there's a meteg.   And the Heh has a shva nach. (as opposed to a vocal shva, in the case of heh a composite vocal shva)

The relevant part of the shva rule says that if the previous vowel is long and lacks primary stress,  then the shva is vocal.  

Both those examples there's no primary stress, and If those chiriks had been long, then the shva would've been vocal, 

So it seems to me that every chirik without yud, is short.

I don't know if that's correct?

And i'd be interested to know what is the case for Chirik Yud.  e.g. I see Jonah 4:11 Ni-nuh-veh  there's a chirik yud with a meteg and it's long. But are there any cases where a chirik yud is not grammatically long? Do we see it anywhere in a closed unstressed syllable and then is it short?

[Avi]

See  http://www.abaalkoreh.com/tzitzis-trope/ and listen to "Tzitzis - Trope Analysis " where he quotes an opinion that it is a long chirik which is written chaser.

Avi

[shmuel.fr...@gmail.com]

On Monday, August 14, 2017 at 3:38:48 AM UTC+1, Avi wrote:

See  http://www.abaalkoreh.com/tzitzis-trope/ and listen to "Tzitzis - Trope Analysis"  where he quotes an opinion that it is a long chirik which is written chaser.

Avi

Thanks. I listened though a relevant part is in hebrew and my hebrew isn't that good..  I can only make out some hebrew words here and there 

Showing third paragraph of the shema  In English he states "In parashas Shalach pasuk lamed ches [ Num 15:38] , , veasu lachem tzitzis,   Veasu has a kadma on top of the sin.  The word tzitzeees, there seems to be various opinions others see that there is no yud after the second tzaddi that would indicate that it is chaser, a chirik chaser. However, Reb Shabsi Sofer, quotes The Mizrachi, and says that the second tzaddi should be pronounced with a yud after it. The lashon is    

shalosh tam chaseirim                              (three,  malei, hasers  ?)

yud hasheniya al pi hamesora                                 (the second yud according to tradition)

veim kol zeh gam hachirik shetachat hatzaddik         ( (still?) also the hirik under the tzaddik)

hasheniya hoo                                                                     (the second)

tenua gedola                                                                         (is a long vowel)

kee maarichim boh mipnei  niginas hatam sheh betzaddik         (because... ?!)

he continues "so according to the mizrachi which reb shabsi sofer quotes, it should be pronounced male tzitzeet, even though there is no yud after the second tzaddik"

According to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cantillation      Maarich is a sephardi hebrew term for what ashkenazim refer to as Mercha.

I can't see what that last line of hebrew is at all...  I do'nt know if it's helpful if I translate what I can..   (because the maarichim/merchas, boh=come [mipnei=in front of, so, to the right of / earlier in the text]   so it is  neginas=sung? pronoucned..   malei, that is of the tzaddik.  

I don't see what plurality of mercha he might mean.    

Also, I know there is no shva in this word, but I am most interested in if such a rule or opinion as the one mentioned at that link, ever has an influence over a shva in any published tanach or siddur  that marks them. i.e. if a chirik written haser is in an unstressed syllable and considered to be a long vowel based on this rule/opinion, and thus the shva is na.

[bgg1]

Not having listened to the original, I will say that when I first read your transliteration of "maarichim" I assumed that this was a verb, namely, we lengthen, as opposed to a noun meaning multiple maarichs/merchas. Bo would be בו, not בא, and the whole phrase would mean "we lengthen (in) it [the sound/syllable]" It certainly makes sense in that context, although I will try to listen to it later to confirm.
Ben

[shmuel.fr...@gmail.com]

On Tuesday, August 15, 2017 at 8:21:16 AM UTC+1, bgg1 wrote:

Not having listened to the original, I will say that when I first read your transliteration of "maarichim" I assumed that this was a verb, namely, we lengthen, as opposed to a noun meaning multiple maarichs/merchas. Bo would be בו, not בא, and the whole phrase would mean "we lengthen (in) it [the sound/syllable]" It certainly makes sense in that context, although I will try to listen to it later to confirm.
Ben

Thanks, and yeah, you're right.. Maarichin-Lengthen/extend/make it take longer..  wasn't maarichim..  (clip is 3min 36sec, and it's 1min 10sec in, but no need to check.. i've checked and you're right it's maarichin).

The funny thing is it doesn't say why lengthen it!

[MP]

> kee maarichim boh mipnei  niginas hatam sheh betzaddik         (because... ?!) <

and

> it doesn't say why lengthen it! <

The "why" is the "mipnei..." phrase Shmuel quoted as "niginas hatam sheh betzaddik" -- more likely, the transliteration is closer to "n'ginas hata'am sheb'*tzadi[q]*", i.e. "the trope on the [second] TZADI[Q] [letter]."  Another way of saying this, I believe, is that the 2nd/last syllable is graced with a ta'am/trope, hence it must be lengthened/stressed, and a stressed chiriq is considered a t'nuah g'dolah even if it's chaseir (missing the yud).

FWIW, as I noted not that many days ago on this forum, the inverse also applies, i.e. an unstressed chiriq would be considered a t'nuah q'tanah even if it's malei (followed by a yud)...at least, I think it applies to this word's first syllable, the "tzi" in tziTZIS.

[Avram Herzog]

Hi,

I've always been bothered by Rashi's g'matria (or more exact, quoted by Rashi), that the word tzitzit = 600.  No, it doesn't, as it's written chaseir and is really only 590.  But perhaps the "malei written as chaseir" was utilized in adding up to 600!  This may be a stretch, but it would be pretty cool if that was the logic here.

Avi H

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

[Meir]

     If an unstressed chirik malei is a tenua ketana, why is there never a dageish chazak in the following letter, and why is every sheva which follows such a chirik a sheva na? (Of course, the second question could be answered by claiming that the meteg renders it stressed, but I believe the stress is because the sheva is na, rather than the sheva being na because of the stress.)

Meir

---

From: lei...@googlegroups.com <lei...@googlegroups.com> on behalf of MP <the6...@gmail.com>
Sent: Tuesday, August 15, 2017 9:28 PM
To: leining
Subject: [leining] Re: Is the second chirik in tzitzit , long or short? (And what's the reasoning)

 

[Giorgies E. Kepipesiom]

On Wednesday, August 16, 2017 at 8:34:56 AM UTC-4, meir b. wrote:

> If an unstressed chirik malei is a tenua ketana, why is there never a dageish chazak

> in the following letter, and why is every sheva which follows such a chirik a sheva na?

Not 100% true. I did find one unstressed chirik molei followed by a dogeish chozok. Divrei HaYomim Beis 31:7 liysod. unstressed chirik under the lomed, and a dogeish in the samach.

Regarding shvo following such chirik, Donieil 2:49 avidto, veis has a stressed chirik molei, but the following doled (rafo) is marked with shvo noch in Simonim (though perhaps Aramaic is different). See also Ezro 5:8 m'dinto and vaavidto. Shof'tim 11:35 hoyis (though to be fair, the shvo noch is under a final letter).

GEK

whishing everyone good writing and sealing. 

[Jeremy Rosenbaum Simon]

Yes, but liysod is not a real chirik malei. The ups is part of the root word, and simply lost its nikkud for phonological reasons. 

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.

[shmuel.fr...@gmail.com]

On Wednesday, August 16, 2017 at 2:28:11 AM UTC+1, MP wrote:

FWIW, as I noted not that many days ago on this forum, the inverse also applies, i.e. an unstressed chiriq would be considered a t'nuah q'tanah even if it's malei (followed by a yud)...at least, I think it applies to this word's first syllable, the "tzi" in tziTZIS.

Do you recall which thread that was?  (I'd like to read over that discussion)

Ta

[MP]

Shmuel asked:

> Do you recall which thread that was? (I'd like to read over that 

discussion) <

Thread "What shva rule is Feldheim using for Joel 4:4 גְּמֻֽלְכֶ֖ם gemoo-luh-chem (considering that kubutz is short and there is no nasog achor)" (and also see a search of "tzitzis" in Leining).

[shmuel.fr...@gmail.com]

In the gemooluhchem thread,  you wrote quoting Giorgies from a different thread זְבֻל    (the zvul thread was started June 15th 2017)  

There are two big differences between what Giogies wrote and what you have written here  

a)Giorgies wrote regarding a shuruk and I suppose this applies to a chirik too, that the accent gets cut off  "when the syllable is unaccented and closed"  

b)Giorgies wrote that "this is by biology, not by tradition"

What you(MP) wrote here is quite different, you(MP) wrote  "an unstressed chiriq would be considered a t'nuah q'tanah even if it's malei (followed by a yud)"

And bear in mind also this is in the context of the effect on the shva.

I don't think you mean to contradict what Giorgies said, since after you quoted him saying it, you wrote "Now we're talking :).",  but it seems to me that what you wrote here contradicts  what he said in two ways.

You contradict 'a' because you say nothing about open/closed.  So for example if a chirik were in an unstressed open syllable, i.e. not in a closed unstressed syllable, then Giorgies would say it's still a tenia gedolah, whereas if we go by what you said  it'd be a tnua katana..  Perhaps you actually agree with Giorgies but missed out the crucial point about open.closed?

You contradict 'b' because if it's just biology / how the mouth naturally pronounces it, there's not much reason to say it should have any knock on grammatical effect on determining a shva.  If you refer to the first sentence of my post, you see I was asking about grammatically long/short, so its effect on the shva, not or not just a phonetic question about whether the vowel comes out long/short in the mouth. I'm talking about grammatically its ramifications on the shva.

[MP]

Shmuel, it seems to me that in terms of the written form (what I would call "orthography"), such as whether a dageish [chazaq] occurs in the following consonant or whether the sh'va that follows is na', generally a chiriq malei is considered like a t'nuah g'dolah; and the exceptions (such as those noted by R'GEK) prove the general rule; and, similarly, a mafsiq that comes immediately before a stronger mafsiq (e.g. a tipcha just before a silluq or a t'vir just before a tipcha) is still orthographically a mafsiq in that, for example, a dageish qal in the initial consonant of the stronger-mafsiq word is not elided (an exception can be seen in Lev 7:23, where the conjunctive vav in the mil'eil word graced with a t'vir within the three-word series has a sh'va even though generally, e.g. Gen 8:22, such a vav would have a qamatz), even though in terms of pisuq-t'amim that first/weaker mafsiq is like a m'shareis in that it usually does not break the phrase up.  In responding regarding the quoted opinion at abaalkoreh.com, I was concentrating on the pronunciation, not the orthography.

All the best from

Michael Poppers * Elizabeth, NJ, USA

[shmuel.fr...@gmail.com]

On Tuesday, August 29, 2017 at 2:20:10 AM UTC+1, MP wrote:

Shmuel, it seems to me that in terms of the written form (what I would call "orthography"), such as whether a dageish [chazaq] occurs in the following consonant or whether the sh'va that follows is na', generally a chiriq malei is considered like a t'nuah g'dolah; and the exceptions (such as those noted by R'GEK) prove the general rule; and, similarly, a mafsiq that comes immediately before a stronger mafsiq (e.g. a tipcha just before a silluq or a t'vir just before a tipcha) is still orthographically a mafsiq in that, for example, a dageish qal in the initial consonant of the stronger-mafsiq word is not elided (an exception can be seen in Lev 7:23, where the conjunctive vav in the mil'eil word graced with a t'vir within the three-word series has a sh'va even though generally, e.g. Gen 8:22, such a vav would have a qamatz), even though in terms of pisuq-t'amim that first/weaker mafsiq is like a m'shareis in that it usually does not break the phrase up.  In responding regarding the quoted opinion at abaalkoreh.com, I was concentrating on the pronunciation, not the orthography.

All the best from

Michael Poppers * Elizabeth, NJ, USA

Thanks.

I will look into the meshares(I guess conjunctive trope?) and mafsiq(I guess disjunctive trope?).. I've heard Jacobson's book is good, i've ordered it

I know mercha tipcha work together as conjunctive and disjunctive, respectively.. 

how would you classify meteg?  (mesharet? mafsiq?)

I see you have an article on mafsiqim  https://sites.google.com/site/torahreading/mafsiqim

Are there also levels of mersharetim? 

[MP]

> I will look into the meshares(I guess conjunctive trope?) and mafsiq(I guess disjunctive trope?).. I've heard Jacobson's book is good, i've ordered it <

I'm sure other listmembers can help recommend basic books on t'amim.  If you understand basic Ivrit, I would recommend R'Reiachi's "Tuv-Ta'am" book (which helps the reader with more than just the t'amim).  (Note1: R'Reiachi of Machon Simanim is the author/editor of "Tiqun 'Simanim'" and related "Simanim" books; Note2: many years prior to R'Reiachi, R'Eliyahu "haBachur" authored a "Tuv-Ta'am" manuscript.)

> I know mercha tipcha work together as conjunctive and disjunctive, respectively.. 

how would you classify meteg?  (mesharet? mafsiq?) <

Other listmembers have far more expertise than I on the subject of the "meteg"; but I don't know of any expert who classifies it in the set of t'amim.

> I see you have an article on mafsiqim  https://sites.google.com/site/torahreading/mafsiqim

Are there also levels of mersharetim?  <

I did indeed create that Webpage from others' expertise.  We see from BT M'gilah 3a that "pisqei t'amim" are miSinai, and RaShY ad loc. says about "pisqei hat'amim", "The trope is (lit. notes are) called 't'amim'"; certainly, knowing the mafsiqim and how they work to create phrases is important.  The m'shar'sim are also part of the trope, but they do not create phrases, and I'm not aware of any expert who outlines a hierarchy of m'shar'sim.

A gut'n Shabbes/Shabbas Shalom

and all the best from

Michael Poppers * Elizabeth, NJ, USA

[Shmuel Goldstein]

See Minchas Shai here (in Hebrew) for a detailed answer. 

On Sunday, August 13, 2017 at 10:25:25 AM UTC-4, shmuel.fr...@gmail.com wrote: