Hi Ari,
Your questions are intriguing. It may be that GKC sect. 130 provides the answer.
Here is a passage from that section (130a) that may help explain the occurrence in Num 28:10.
"The construct state, which, . . . primarily represents only the immediate government by one substantive of the following word (or combination of words), is frequently employed in rapid narrative as a connecting form, even apart from the genitive relation; so especially . . ."
This then leads into a discussion of places where this occurs with the preposition B.. Perhaps this explains what is happening in Num 28:10. Perhaps, then, the Masoretes were simply inconsistent in the way they pointed the same construction in Isa 66:23.
Also in the same section (130e), there is a listing of places where there is a simple apposition without a genitival relationship, yet the first word in the apposition is pointed as if in construct.
I hope this helps. If you don't have access to GKC and want some more information, please contact me.
Blessings,
Jerry
The following examples of שבת have a patah under the bet rather than the expected kamatz:
2. Numbers: 28:10
עֹלַ֥ת שַׁבַּ֖ת בְּשַׁבַּתּ֑וֹ עַל-עֹלַ֥ת הַתָּמִ֖יד וְנִסְכָּֽהּ׃ פ
4. Chronicles I: 9:32
וּמִן-בְּנֵ֧י הַקֳּהָתִ֛י מִן-אֲחֵיהֶ֖ם עַל-לֶ֣חֶם הַֽמַּעֲרָ֑כֶת לְהָכִ֖ין שַׁבַּ֥ת שַׁבָּֽת׃
Some references list these occurrences under a construct rubric, which explains the patah. But why is there a construct state here? And regarding the first example, why does the identical phrase
2. Isaiah: 66:23
וְהָיָ֗ה מִֽדֵּי-חֹ֙דֶשׁ֙ בְּחָדְשׁ֔וֹ וּמִדֵּ֥י שַׁבָּ֖ת בְּשַׁבַּתּ֑וֹ יָב֧וֹא כָל-בָּשָׂ֛ר לְהִשְׁתַּחֲוֹ֥ת לְפָנַ֖י אָמַ֥ר ה'׃
have a kamatz?
Thank you,
Ari
**********
Ari Kinsberg
MA, PharmD, RPh, Certified Immunizer
Brooklyn, New York
**************
Click here to register as a bone marrow donor. Save a life.
_______________________________________________
b-hebrew mailing list
b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew
Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.