| bcv (tanach.us) | Ex20:13 |
| bcv (Mwd) | Ex20:13 |
| ab-uword | תִּֿרְצָ֖+צֽח׃ תִּרְצָ֖+צֽח׃ |
| ab-word | T.,IR:CF7375X00 T.IR:CF7375X00 |
| auto desc | remove rafeh from tav |
| diff type | remove rafeh: אֿ to א |
| page | 043A |
| col-guess-and-line-guess | 3 27.0 |
UXLC rejected all rafeh-removing WLC changes.
In WLC 4.22, all 12 rafeh marks of 4.20 were removed. Seven of those rafeh marks were in the Decalogues. This is one of those seven.
The utility of the other five rafeh marks was debatable, since they merely marked letters where dagesh/mapiq might have been expected. Those rafeh marks expressed something like “this letter is intentionally left blank” if “blank” is taken to mean “free of dagesh/mapiq.”
In contrast, the utility of these seven rafeh marks was less debatable. These seven marks meant something quite different than those other five. We could say that these seven rafeh marks modulated the meaning of the dagesh present on the same letter. These rafeh marks expressed something like “the dagesh below applies to only one of the cantillations.”
In other words, whereas the five non-Decalogue rafeh marks merely reassure the reader that “this letter is intentionally left blank,” these seven rafeh marks tell the reader something like “this letter is contextually left blank.”
As documented on page xiv of its Foreword, Dotan’s BHL does not include any rafeh marks. This does not, as the WLC 4.22 documentation suggests, support the removal of these seven Decalogue rafeh marks. BHL presents the Decalogues in split rather than combined form, so these rafeh marks would have the usual meaning, of debatable utility, in the lower cantillation. So, the lack of rafeh marks in BHL’s (four) Decalogues says nothing one way or another about the utility of rafeh marks in WLC’s (two) Decalogues.
The WLC 4.22 documentation cites not only BHL but also BHQ in support of its decision to remove all rafeh marks. The comparison with BHQ is more relevant, since BHQ, like WLC, presents the Deuteronomy Decalogue in combined rather than split form. (The Exodus fascicle of BHQ has not yet been released.)
Yet, I don’t consider BHQ’s lack of Decalogue rafeh marks to be a precedent to be cited for support. Rather, I see BHQ’s lack of Decalogue rafeh marks as yet another piece of evidence pointing to BHQ’s rather casual (or at least inconsistently serious) attitude towards details of niqqud. Here we see BHQ not only failing to improve upon BHS but in fact taking a step backwards. I advise WLC to not follow BHQ in this regression, i.e. I advise WLC to restore these 7 Decalogue rafeh marks in some future version.
