Biblical Hebrew Forum

[Yitzhak Sapir <yitzhaksapir AT gmail.com>]

Peter Kirk wrote:
> >
> >There is a dagesh in the qof, as was already pointed out. ...
> >
> 
> But only in some manuscripts. That is what caused the problem. Karyn was
> looking at standard scholarly editions which are based on the Leningrad
> Codex, and that seems to have the dageshless qof - which is probably an
> error.

According to Imanuel Tov's Introduction to Textual Criticism, 1989, p. 37: 
"The
Leningrad Codex from 1009 was proofread against a manuscript of Ben Asher -- 
so 
it says -- and its content is indeed close to the Aleppo manuscript. 
This is the
most complete source loyal to the Ben Asher tradition ..."  So it is
not thought to
be copied from Aleppo.  It is claimed to be proofread against a
manuscript that was
proofread by the proofreader of the Aleppo Codex.  (The copying and 
proofreading
were separate tasks that were done by different people).

It is not necessry to have a dagesh there.  That is, not if you don't
read a Piel, and
a Piel is not necessary.  I pointed out this could be a Qal form.  In
fact, Radak's
comment on the qamatz hataf suggests that the Piel form is not so perfect.  On
the other hand, the qamatz hataf could represent a shortening of the vowel 
from
an "o" vowel (such as in "elqot" -- compare to e$mor).  

Now we are left with the question on the dagesh in the tet.  This is
why I brought
the Hanukka example.  The tet here has an accent, and it follows two 
otherwise 
open syllables with short vowels, just like Hanukka.  See also Hamulla
Jer 11:16,
Ez 1:24, Ma(a$aqqa Isa 33:15, Prv 28:16.  Jer 11:16 has a long vowel in 
Hamulla
but it seems to be simply a Qri for the short vowel form.  I guessed
the issue is
related to the length of the vowels and the accent.  And such a thing
would explain
the dagesh in the tet, if my wild guess at the rule in operation is
correct.  I would
want to find the rule first in a grammar, but it seems to me that the
same rule is
governing all the above cases.

In light of all of these, I think there is evidence to claim the
non-dagesh form is
more original:
1) There are 22 uses of Piel of this root in the Bible compare to 14
Qals.  But in
the Torah, there are 11 Qals compared to only 4 Piels.  So the Qal is the 
form 
most present in the Torah.  This is reasonably the earliest part of
the Bible for
which vocalization was fixed, and the one whose vocalization would
have been most carefully checked.  The Qal form figures in Ruth 2:8. 
One may also
investigate in this connection the verb forms in Aramaic, Ugaritic,
and Akkadian,
where this root is also present, to see if a Qal was originally more 
widespread.
2) This leaves us with two apparently equal forms.  A Qal form and a
Piel form.
But, the Piel form seems to be problematic in this case (Ruth 2:2) in
that it was
apparently expected the tsere of the Piel would have become a hataf patah not 
a 
hataf qamatz.  On the other hand, the hataf qamatz seems to be more easily 
explained on the basis of a Qal form.
3) Since the hataf qamatz is present in both versions (Leningrad and
Aleppo), this
suggests that Aleppo also had at the base of its tradition a Qal form, which 
was
"corrected" to the Piel form, perhaps because the Qal form of LQT. gave way to
the Piel in later Hebrew.

To conclude if this line of argument is correct, I'd look at:
1) The other languages where the root is present (Ugaritic, Akkadian, 
Aramaic),
to see what verb forms are used there.
2) Try to find another example of a "middle-o" Qal that reduces to a
hataf qamatz.
3) Identify the rule in operation for the dagesh in tet.

Yitzhak Sapir