Friday, March 10, 2017

מגילת אסתר Advisory - Floor or coal?

Here's one to get you started:

(א:י)
עַל רִצְפַת בַּהַט-וָשֵׁשׁ

A couple of years ago, one of the readers of this blog pointed out to me a very subtle observation on the above word which I am certain is not at all well-known. The proper pronunciation is as above and the word means 'floor.' Probably due to the Hebrew word with which most are familiar, it is quite common to pronounce this word רִצְפַּת.

However, in ישעיה ו:ו we have the word רִצְפָּה meaning 'coal.' It is therefore very important that the word is pronounced properly. I would even suggest mentioning it to the בעל קריאה beforehand.

See the comments below for a lengthy discussion.

18 comments:

Ari Kinsberg said...

another mistake i've heard is reading the sheva as na (because it is followed by a fricative?)

Anonymous said...

This is completely wrong. The peh is rafah because of the ma'arich on the first syllable, which renders the sheva a "sheva na". Minchas Shai points this out in his comments on the verse, and elaborates elsewhere (follow his "links"). Ritspa with a strong peh can also mean floor - see Yehezkel 40:17.

3.141592653589793238462643383279502884197169399375 said...

Actually I think it is a sheva na.

Shtikler said...

I actually was also under the impression that it was a שוא נע. However, I looked in the תיקון סימנים, the modern pseudo-authority, and they did not have it such. However, I'll certainly take your word on it.
As far as the quote from יחזקאל -
!!משם ראיה
The פ"ה there is רפה as well!

Anonymous said...

1) "However, I looked in the תיקון סימנים, the modern pseudo-authority . . ."

among the changes btw the 2nd and 3rd eds. of simanim is the nah here is replaced by a na (presumably following minhat shai). i wish he would have included a preface explaining why he makes certain changes. was it a typo in earlier eds. or new research?

2) "The peh is rafah because of the ma'arich on the first syllable, which renders the sheva a "sheva na"."

the ge'aya (i assume that is what you mean by maarich) is very confusing to me and it is one of my current projects. but this what i would say:

iirc, i was taught in school that the ge'ayah is a visual representation. it in of itself has not power to "cause" anything to happen, including making a sheva na. the value of a sheva is determined by the 5 classic rules, none of which apply here (i.e., here it is under an ungeminated letter that follows a short vowel). also, iirc (but i'm not sure) r. breuer in his writings about the 10 classes of geayot mentioning that a geaya has an effect on a sheva following a short vowel.

as i mentioned above, i don't think a geaya "causes" a sheva na (e.g., hatzfarde'im, havrakhah, etc.). but to focus on words similar to ritzfat (where the pretonic syllable has a ge'aya but is closed with a sheva nah), compare with tadshe, yihyu/yihye/etc. (very difficult for me to pronounce, but that's the way it is), alva, sharshot, mishkhu, mixyat, vishti and others (thank god for the keter cd-rom). in none of these examples do we read the sheva as na because of the geayah, so why do so in ritzfat?

finally, i think a sheva na usually represents a historically long vowel. what would it be in this case?

(the problem with my understanding of ritzfat as 2 closed syllables [and the other examples i gave] is that i don't remember r. breuer menionting such a class in his writings on the geaya.)

purim same'ah!

-ari kinsberg
agmk.blogspot.com

Anonymous said...

"also, iirc (but i'm not sure) r. breuer in his writings" == "also, i don't remember (but i'm not sure) r. breuer in his writings"

-ari kinsberg
agmk.blogspot.com

Anonymous said...

minhat shai on Yehezkel 40;17 actually makes your distinction between the two vocalizations/meanings of ritzpah. Bizarre. My prehistoric tanakh has a dagesh for "floor", as does my version of radaq's Shorashim.

elie said...

מי שציין לספר השורשים של הרד"ק צריך לדעת
שניקוד המילים שם איננו של הרד"ק אלא של גזניוס (שונא ישראל)ולכן אם לא כתוב בפנים הרד"ק שיש דגש אין זה כלום
לכל היותר זו גירסת גזניוס האנטישמי! ותו לא מידי

Yehudha said...

In the Yemenite tradition the shewa after a ge'aya is pronounced na' even when there is a tenu'a qetana. That's why they say "lamanasseyah" instead of the Sepharadi "lamnasseyah"

ELIE said...

יש כאן טעות
במדויקים כמו כתר ארם צובא ולינגראד אין געיא בלמ"ד של "למנצח" וממילא השוא נח
זה נוגע למעשה בהפטרת היום השני של שבועות בחו"ל
אבל הטעות היא אחרת עד כמה שידוע לי המדקדק התימני מהרי"ץ
מציין הרבה פעמים געיא (מתג) ואחריה שוא נח
אין הבדל בין הספרדים לתימנים בעניין הזה
ובדרך אגב גם הלוים הלמ"ד בשוא נח ואין געיא בה"א
אבל גם בחומשים שיש געיא השוא הוא נח
כי לא געיא יש בכוחה להפוך שוא נח לנע

Lion of Zion said...

i'm looking over the leining now in the pseudo-breuer tikkun. for what it's worth, here it is a sheva na
(i say pseudo and for what's it worth because i'm not sure what his involvement in this edition was)

happy purim

ELIE said...

יש כ"י שיש בהם חטף פתח בצד"י
וזה מוכיח על שוא נע ודאי

Bar Bar Avraham said...

Anonymous 3:09 pm is right on both counts of a- feih rafah (and shva na3 - na, meaning raw as in raw meat in lo tokhelu mimenu na) and b- ritzpah meaning floor as well as burning coal.
In my own girssa deyanquta, sefarad-yerushalmi, it is read: "reessefat bahatt vashesh...."
I may be totally wrong on the following:
could the reason of the feh being refuyah, is the fact that it is one of the bege'd kefe't letters which if coming before the tav, renders reessefat a millah nismekhet to bahat?
Hizqu ve imtsu for a very nice and usefull blog.

Bar Bar Avraham said...

Reb Ari,
I just read your posting of 4:13 AM
in our tradition, the ga3ya does turns the sheva to na3.
hatzfarde'im this one comes once as na3 (hatzefarde3eem) and the rest -many times- as na7 (hatzfarde3eem).
mishkhu- mishekhu uq7u lakhem tzon, is how we read it. sefarad yerushalmi.

ELIE said...

לכבוד בר בר אברהם,
יש מחלוקת על מילים כמו סלכה משכו וכד' שיש בהן געיא (או מתג או מאריך),
יש על זה במאמר המאריך במנחת שי
(אם אין לך, תוכל להוריד את כל המנחת שי מhebrewbooks)
לפי הכללים של ברויאר שהוזכרו כאן
נראה יותר שאלה שואים נחים.
בעניין הסמיכות לבהט, לא נראה שזה מה שגורם לרפיון הפ'.
אבל אולי סיבת הרפיון כדי להבדיל בן רצפה במובן גחלת, ובין רצפת הבית.
פילגש שאול רצפה בת איה כנראה נקראה על שם גחלת.
יש חוברת של בערך חצי מגה (500kb) על עניני המגילה של אוריאל פרנק, מי שרוצה יכול לפנות אליeliyahule@gmail.com

bar bar avraham said...

תודה רבה אלי על ההערה וההפניה
הורדתי את הספרון ואף הדפסתי אותו
עכשיו מי יתן ויהיה לי זמן בקרוב לעיין בו
אני מוצא את עצמי כתאורו של ריה'ל
עבדי זמן עבדי עבדים הם /
:-)

student613 said...

Is the question of the shva in רצפת similar to the shva in ובשכבך ?
I had heard people in Shma saying ובשכבך with a shva na because of the meseg, and וקשרתם and וכתבתם and ובקומך with a shva nach because a vav in the beginning of a word is a tnua ktana.

Shtikler said...

student613,
Please see this post which discusses ובשכבך. See the comments by Elie where he asserts that the שוא נע which is seen in Artscroll siddurim is in fact incorrect.