Biblical Hebrew Forum

["Joseph I. Lauer" <josephlauer AT hotmail.com>]

    Unfortunately I am relying solely on memory as I type, not having
Breuer's Mossad HaRav Kook Tanakh before me.  So, please read with care.
    I believe it has been stated (perhaps also in Breuer's essay in that
Tanakh) that the difference in the use of the Shewa and the Hataph-Patah is
attributable to the particular notation system from which the text/codex
derives and that the Hataph-Patah in one system was pronounced as the Shewa
in the other system (and as is generally done now).  If I remember
correctly, one of the "changes" that Breuer made in his Tanakh was to change
Hataph-Patah to Shewa because that is in accordance with the notation system
now in use, the other system having been "discarded".
    I also believe that one can see the remains of the old system in some
Siddurim that have a Hataph-Patah under the Resh in Borekhu in the morning
and evening prayers (and before the prayer for the Torah reading), while
other Siddurim have the Shewa.  In both cases, I have been informed, the
sound should be that of the Shewa Na.
    Joseph I. Lauer
    Brooklyn, New York

Yigal Levin wrote:

> In most primts that I've seen, the second letter (Sin) of the first word
> of Lev. 25:34, "usedeh" is vocalized with a Hataph-Patah; in Brauer and
> BHS it has a Shewa. Any guesses about the source of the unusual spelling?

Giuseppe Regalzi wrote:

> GKC (§ 10g, pp. 52-53) puts it this way:
>
> "Hateph-Pathah is found instead of simple Shewa (especially Shewa mobile),
> chiefly … (b) under initial sibilants after וּ copulative, e.g. וּזֲהַב Gn
> 2:12; cf. Jer 48:20; וּסֲחַר Is 45:14; וּשֲׂדֵה Lv 25:34; וּשֲׁקָה Gn
> 27:26; וּשֲׁמָע Nu 23:18, Is 37:17, Dn 9:18, cf. Ju 5:12, 1 K 14:21, 2 K
> 9:17, Jb 14:1, Ec 9:7—to emphasize the vocal character of the Shewa."
>
> See also Joüon-Muraoka, § 8a n. 4, p. 51.