Biblical Hebrew Forum

["Silberman, Alfred" <alfred.silberman AT baesystems.com>]

Whether this shewa is to be considered a shewa na or shewa nax was a very
controversial and heated topic amongst Jewish Grammarians in the beginning
of the 18th century. In practice today there exist followers of both
opinions.

Here is an excerpt of my take on this topic taken from my book (Sefer Amelim
BaTorah): 

                6.3     Words beginning with a melopim
                                That a melopim at a beginning of a word
cannot be considered as a short vowel but comes closer to a semi-vowel can
be proven by the following:

                        1.      A sheva which follows this melopim does not
engender a Dagesh Qal in a following BGD KPT letter. This would indicate -
following the statements in section 6.2 above -  that the sheva is mobile
and that the melopim is not a regular Tenuah Qetanah.

                        2.      In the entire Tanakh there does not exist a
guttural letter with a silent sheva following such a melopim. 

                                Where such a sequence would have been
indicated, the guttural letter receives a xataf vowel instead of the sheva
and the preceding vav is marked with the short vowel corresponding to the
xataf - same rules that are used for a sheva at the start of a word. This
also indicates that the sheva in this position is mobile, something which is
not allowable with a guttural letter. The mobile sheva in this position
proves that the melopim is not a regular Tenuah Qetanah.

                        3.      A Dagesh Xazaq, if normally required by the
rules of grammar in the letter following an initial melopim, is always
omitted. The reason for this is that the rules for a Dagesh Xazaq do not
allow a Dagesh Xazaq on the first syllable of a word. If the melopim were a
regular Tenuah Qetanah then there would be no reason for a Dagesh Xazaq not
to exist in this position. However, this is not the case. There is never a
Dagesh Xazaq in this position. Thus, the word -Uthenu [and give (pl.) as in
Gen 34:12] - exists not the form -Uttenu- which would be required if the
melopim were a regular Tenuah Qetanah.

                        4.      The structure of the piyyutim written by the
Sephardi poets assumes that the melopim is not a short vowel but closer to
the sheva as a non-vowel. See Encyclopedia Judaica P - 1212 bottom for
details on the structure of the rhythm.

                                For example, the Piyut Akdamos [read on
Shevuoth] is structured so that each verse has 10 syllables corresponding to
the Ten Commandments. This is only true if the melopim at the beginning of
the word is not counted as a syllable. (The verses that do not conform to
this rule have an incorrect version in one of the words - see Artscroll
Akdamus.)

                                Also, the rules governing the use of the
metheg indicate that it is not a vowel. The following is a quote from the
Mishpetei HaTeamim:

                                [In Hebrew - omitted here]

                                5.      The rule for the usage of a
conjunctive cantillation with a tevir depends on the number of syllables
that exist between the previous accent and that of the word with the tevir.
If there is no more than one syllable then the servant cantillation is a
merekha. If there is more than one then the servant cantillation is a darga.
We can now pose the question; what servant is used in Tanakh if the only
separation between the two accents is a melopim followed by a sheva?

                                        We would expect the answer to be
always a merekha if the melopim is a short vowel followed by a silent sheva
constituting a single syllable. There is then only one syllable between the
two accented syllables. However, we can expect the answer to be ambiguous if
the melopim is less than a short vowel since there is now more than one
syllable but not quite two syllables between the two accented syllables
since neither is really a full vowel. 

                                        A computer check of the entire
Tanakh (provided to me by Dr. Jim Price) shows that there are a total of ten
instances where such a condition exists. Eight of these use a merekha, one
of these uses a darga and in the other location there is a dispute on
whether a merekha or a darga is used.

                                        The ten locations are:
                                        Bereishis 1:28          merekha
                                        Bamidbar 13:27          merekha
                                        Devarim 31:4            merekha
                                        Melakhim 2 8:17         dispute
                                        Yeshayahu 14:22         merekha
                                        Yeshayahu 19:20         merekha
                                        Daniyel 6:16            merekha
                                        Daniyel 11:38           merekha
                                        Divrei HaYomim 2 21:5   merekha
                                        Divrei HaYomim 2 33:21  darga

Alfred Silberman