Biblical Hebrew Forum

[David Hamuel <davidhamuel AT sbcglobal.net>]

John,


The Babylonian Masorah has a dagesh mavhin which aim was to draw attention to 
some words that might be misunderstood ,or sometimes to indicate negative 
meaning, or just to indicate a different meaning.

This dagesh was very common, for example, with the name Elohim. That said, 
when the verse was about just any  elohim then the alef was with dagesh &  
the lamed with raphe;  any other elohim -- the alef was with raphe & the 
lamed with dagesh; but when both the alef and lamed were  with raphe then 
we're talking about G-D. In other words, there was a distinction between hol 
and kodesh (later on the alef wasn't at all with dagesh, but this would 
require an entire discussion).

Read: Kahle — zeitschrift fur die alttestamentliche wissenschaft (39, page 
237); Kahle —  Der Masoretische Text des Alten Testaments: Nach der 
Überlieferung der Babylonischen Juden ( pages 34-36); the Masora in the Cairo 
MS , Gottheil 14 (K4; Lm).

Moreover, this will explain Targum Onkelos:  The Decalogue, Exodus 20:  
elohim aherim is אלהא אחרן , whereas Leviticus 8: 19  elohim aherim is טעוות 
עממיא, or דחלן.
Again, there is a distinction between hol and kodesh when writing elohim.  

There's an abundance of literature:  familiarity with Rashi, Ramban,  and 
Rambam will reveal that they dealt with this issue one way or another; 
Theodor  Nöldeke — Compendious Syriac Grammar —  points out identical words, 
one with dagesh the other without, and each word meant something different.
Saadia Gaon in his extensive grammar material is also talking about the 
dagesh and raphe, and words with/without dagesh. 

And see for example Kitab al-Khilaf —  variants between ben Asher and ben 
Naftali; there was  a hilluf between them about Lo (lamed alef & lamed vav):  
Judges 15:5, ben Asher used raphe whereas ben Naftali used dagesh  to 
indicates negative meaning. 

Now see Psalms 72:20, the word KLW -- with dagesh; 1 Samuel 6:10,  the same 
exact word + nikkud, but without dagesh. 


> Article HE and no dagesh in second syllable.
> gn14:10,2 <HA/&ID.IYM>    
> gn15:10,15 <HA/CIP.OR> 

>From these samples I understand that you're having BHS, right? But these two 
>samples have dagesh.

The basic rule of the Article HE is : He + patach + dagesh hazak; each rule 
has an exception  to the rule;  for example,  before stressed ayin + kamats 
the he gets kamats instead of patach.

Don't forget that since we're dealing with BH you can't talk about nikkud 
without ta'amim!  To illustrate this point here's an identical example, but 
one with dagesh, the other without —  the word beshem(b$m):
Genesis 12: 8, Exodus 34: 5.

Best,

David Hamuel
Type Designer 
Biblical Hebrew, Grammar & Cantillation Expert

Los Angeles, CA — USA