Biblical Hebrew Forum

[Brak <Brak AT neo.rr.com>]

David Hamuel wrote:
> 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).
>   
Beautiful!!!!! YES!!! This is exactly what I am wanting to know. Let me 
ask two questions for clarification:
When you say "any other elohim" do you mean the elohim that are not G-D?
When you say "any elohim" do you mean G-D and/or the 'any other elohim' 
- meaning that the word would apply to either catagory?
So to summarize:
    ),:EL,OHIYM - G-D
    ),:EL.OHIYM - non-G-D god(s)
    ).:EL,OHIYM - any god(s)


> 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).
>   
Sadly I don't know German. :(
> 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.
>   
ps72:20,1 <K.FL.W.> Pual Perfect 3rd Person Common Plural of <KLH>
1s6:10,12 <K.FLW.> Qal Perfect, 3rd Person Common Plural of <KL)>

Another beautiful example!!!!!


> > 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.
>   
That was my point - that the presence of the dagesh in the beginning of 
the base morpheme doesn't always mean that the prefix HE is an article - 
or that the absence of such a dagesh means the prefix HE is 
interrogative. That was the reason behind my posting of that litany of 
examples - to show how common it was.

> 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$m):
> Genesis 12: 8, Exodus 34: 5.
>   
gn12:8,19 <B.:/$"M> Preposition / Common Noun, Masculine Singular of <$"M>
ex34:5,8 <B:/$"M> Preposition / Common Noun, Masculine Singular of <$"M>
The meaning of these words (both the prefix and the base) is the same.

> Biblical Hebrew, Grammar & Cantillation Expert
>   
I believe it! :)

If you have other examples like the first two, please give them.

THANK YOU AGAIN!!!!


B"H
John Steven