236	וְלָראוּבֵנִ֨י 1	v^e·la·ru·vé·ní	D3:16
242	עֽוֹז־ל֥וֹ 1	‘óz	Ps84:6
243	חֹ֥דֶשׁ 1	ḥó·desh	G29:14
245	כַּבֵּ֥ד	kab·béd	E20:11 1
246	שֶׁשְּׁזָפַ֖תְנִי 1	shesh·she·za·fat·ní shesh·sh^e·za·fat·ní 2	S1:6
255	בׇּהְשַׁמָּהֿ֙ 1	boh·sham·ma	L26:43
267	הַֽמְדַבֵּ֥ר	ha·m^e·dab·bér ham·dab·bér 1	G45:12
267	הַלְוִיִּֽם׃ 2	ha·l^e·viy·yim hal·viy·yim 3	2C24:5
267	בִּנְבִיאִ֔ים	bin·ví·’ím	re-unknown 4
268	וּֽדְמֵה־לְךָ֤	[not·provided] ud·mé-l^e·kha 1	S8:14
268	וּֽסְגֹ֥ר	[not·provided] us·gór 2	I26:20
268	וּֽבְשׇׁכְבְּךָ֖	u·v^e·shokh·b^e·kha uv·shokh·b^e·kha 3	D6:7
273	צׇהֳרָ֑יִם	tso·ho·ra·yim 1	I16:3
273	טׇהֳרָתֽוֹ׃	to·ho·ra·tó 2	L13:35
273	פׇּֽעֳל֔וֹ	po·‘o·ló 3	D32:4
273	מִֽמָּחֳרָ֔ת 4	mim·ma·ḥo·rat	G19:34
273	בָּ֣מֳתֵי	[not·provided] ba·mo·té 5	D32:13
274	רָאשִֽׁים׃ 1	ra·shím	G2:10
275	שָׁכָֽלְתִּי׃	sha·khol·tí sha·khal·tí 1	G43:14
275	יִשָּֽׁךְ׃	yish·shokh yish·shakh 2	D23:20
275	עָֽז׃	‘oz ‘az 3	G49:3 4
275	שְׁאָ֔לָה	sh^e·’o·la sh^e·’a·la 5	I7:11
275	יִטְרָ֔ף	yit·rof yit·raf 6	G49:27
276	עֵדְוֺתָ֤יו 1	‘éd·vó·tav ‘é·d^e·vó·tav 2	2K23:3
277	וְקֹוֵ֥י 1	v^e·kó·vé	Ps37:9
289	יְשִֽׂמְךָ֣	y^e·sí·m^e·kha y^e·sim·kha	G48:20
289	וְהוֹתִרְךָ֤ 1	v^e·hó·tí·r^e·kha v^e·hó·tir·kha 2	D28:11
289	גְּנֻֽבְתִ֣י	g^e·nu·v^e·tí g^e·nuv·tí	G31:39
291	וַיִּֽרְא֣וּ	vay·yí·r^e·’u vay·yir·’u	Js4:14
292	וַֽיְהִי־אֽוֹר׃	vay·hí vay·hí	G1:3
292	וַֽיְחִי־תֶ֖רַח	vay·ḥí vay·ḥí	G11:26
309	שְׁתֵּ֣י	shté sh^e·té 1	G4:19

Notes

236-1

236

וְלָראוּבֵנִ֨י 1

v^e·la·ru·vé·ní

D3:16

Jacobson points this word וְלָרֻאוּבֵנִ֨י, i.e. with a qubuts under the resh. In my opinion this is excessive adherence to ל because ל is anomalous here. No reader-friendly edition will be pointed that way. Editions without this qubuts, i.e. editions that are reader-friendly with respect to this particular issue, include Koren, Simanim, Keter Yerushalayim, the 1999 JPS HET, and Dotan’s BHL (main text). (As one would expect, the form with qubuts appears in Appendix A of Dotan’s BHL.)

242-1

242

עֽוֹז־ל֥וֹ 1

‘óz

Ps84:6

I have added ־ל֥וֹ. Also, I added the gaʿya in עֽוֹז.

243-1

243

חֹ֥דֶשׁ 1

ḥó·desh

G29:14

The word חֹ֥דֶשׁ seems like a weird choice. It seems like a word with qamats qatan would have been a better choice. Maybe קׇדְשִֽׁי׃ or similar? Here is the context in Jacobson:

The context is contrasting ultra-short vowels (i.e. ḥataf vowels) with short vowels, even though the table in question labels the short vowels as “normal” vowels. (The text leading into this table contrasts ultra-short vowels with “normal short” vowels, leading me to believe that in this context, the “normal” label in the table means “short but not ultra-short.”)

In this context, the question becomes: ḥataf segol is to segol as ḥataf qamats is to what? Or, equivalently, ḥataf pataḥ is to pataḥ as ḥataf qamats is to what? I think qamats qatan is the best answer.

Another argument in favor of qamats qatan is that the text leading into this table says “we do not use a separate symbol to distinguish the ultrashort from the normal short vowels.” But it then proceeds to show separate symbols for ḥataf qamats and its supposed normal short cousin, ḥolam. (These symbols being o and ó respectively.)

245-1

245

כַּבֵּ֥ד

kab·béd

E20:11 1

The locale reference in Jacobson is Exod. 20:12, which is correct in BHS verse numbering. The locale reference I give here is Exod. 20:11 because that is correct for the Al-Hatorah edition of MAM, which is my source for the pointed Hebrew in the table above, and it is the source for the pointed Hebrew fed to my automatic transliteration algorithm.

246-1, 246-2

246

שֶׁשְּׁזָפַ֖תְנִי 1

shesh·she·za·fat·ní
shesh·sh^e·za·fat·ní 2

S1:6

246-1

Jacobson points this word שֶׁשֱּׁזָפַ֖תְנִי, i.e. with a ḥataf segol under the second shin. In my opinion this is excessive adherence to ל because ל is anomalous here. No reader-friendly edition will be pointed that way. Editions with a sheva instead of this ḥataf segol, i.e. editions that are reader-friendly with respect to this particular issue, include Koren and Keter Yerushalayim. Editions with ḥataf segol, i.e. editions adhering to ל, include the 1999 JPS HET and Dotan’s BHL (main text). So, although in general I would classify HET and BHL as fairly reader-friendly, with respect to this particular issue, whether by design or accident, I would call them non-reader-friendly.

246-2

This is not an “apples to apples” comparison: the transcriptions likely only differ because the source Hebrew differs for this word. See the note on the Hebrew.

255-1

255

בׇּהְשַׁמָּהֿ֙ 1

boh·sham·ma

L26:43

Shown with an explicit rafeh which is how it appears in MAM.

267-1

267

הַֽמְדַבֵּ֥ר

ha·m^e·dab·bér
ham·dab·bér 1

G45:12

This transcription difference represents a substantive issue. My transcription is based on the sheva distinctions in the Al-Hatorah edition of MAM. It is unclear whether Jacobson or Al-Hatorah represents the better choice of sheva quality here. Indeed it is unclear whether there is a single best choice: they may each represent two equally valid options.

267-2, 267-3

267

הַלְוִיִּֽם׃ 2

ha·l^e·viy·yim
hal·viy·yim 3

2C24:5

267-2

Jacobson points this word הַֽלְוִיִּֽם, i.e. with a gaʿya on הַ. MAM lacks such a gaʿya not only in this location (2Chr. 24:5) but in all locations where words ending in לְוִיִּם appear.

267-3

This is not an “apples to apples” comparison: the transcriptions likely only differ because the source Hebrew differs for this word. See the note on the Hebrew.

267-4

267

בִּנְבִיאִ֔ים

bin·ví·’ím

re-unknown 4

Jacobson does not provide a locale reference for בִּנְבִיאִ֔ים and I cannot find one. As such, perhaps לִנְבִיאִ֔ים in Amos 2:11 would be a better example, assuming it illustrates the same point?

268-1

268

וּֽדְמֵה־לְךָ֤

[not·provided]
ud·mé-l^e·kha 1

S8:14

Jacobson does not provide a technical transcription for this word. It is presented merely as one of 3 examples of words whose sheva “quality” is disputed. The question is: what the quality of a sheva following an initial shuruq where that shuruq is marked with a gaʿya? Jacobson does not explicitly state his preferred answer to this question. He does, however, later provide a transcription of one of these 3 words, וּֽבְשׇׁכְבְּךָ֖. That transcription has the sheva in question as vocal. So, if we had to infer his preference in general from that one transcription, we would infer his preference to be that the quality of such a sheva is vocal. This preference differs from the sheva quality chosen in the Al-Hatorah edition of MAM: Al-Hatorah has a silent rather than vocal sheva here.

268-2

268

וּֽסְגֹ֥ר

[not·provided]
us·gór 2

I26:20

See note on וּֽדְמֵה־לְךָ֤ (Songs 8:14).

268-3

268

וּֽבְשׇׁכְבְּךָ֖

u·v^e·shokh·b^e·kha
uv·shokh·b^e·kha 3

D6:7

Jacobson does not provide a technical transcription for this word when it first appears, on page 268. On page 268 it is presented merely as one of 3 examples of words whose sheva “quality” is disputed. See note on וּֽדְמֵה־לְךָ֤ (Songs 8:14). But Jacobson does provide a transcription later, on page 273.

273-1

273

צׇהֳרָ֑יִם

tso·ho·ra·yim 1

I16:3

Our transcription matches Jacobson’s 5a here, but this is not his preferred system: 5b is his preferred system.

I believe 5a corresponds to MAM’s “theoretical” (ד) qamats variant and 5b corresponds to MAM’s “Sephardic” (ס) qamats variant.

So this is really about Al-Hatorah using MAM’s ד qamats variant rather than having anything to do with a transcription difference.

For reference, Jacobson defines the rule of 5a as follows: “any kamats (except for the definite article prefix (ה׳ הַיְגִיעָה)) that immediately precedes a short kamats will itself become short.” Jacobson footnotes this rule with the citation “Breuer, Ta‘amey Ha-mikra, xvi.”

Jacobson defines the rule of 5b as follows: “a kamats in an open syllable is long, no matter what comes after it.” Jacobson footnotes this rule with “This is the prevalent view in the Sephardic tradition.”

273-2

273

טׇהֳרָתֽוֹ׃

to·ho·ra·tó 2

L13:35

See note on צׇהֳרָ֑יִם (Isa. 16:3).

273-3

273

פׇּֽעֳל֔וֹ

po·‘o·ló 3

D32:4

See note on צׇהֳרָ֑יִם (Isa. 16:3).

273-4

273

מִֽמָּחֳרָ֔ת 4

mim·ma·ḥo·rat

G19:34

Jacobson points this word מִֽמָּ֣חֳרָ֔ת, i.e. with a munaḥ under the second mem. Jacobson does not provide a locale reference for this word and I cannot find one with this particular munaḥ pointing. As such, perhaps מֵאׇ֣הֳלֵיהֶ֔ם in Josh. 3:14 would be a better example, assuming it illustrates the same point?

Getting back to this mysterious מִֽמָּ֣חֳרָ֔ת, in Jacobson this word’s second mem is pointed with a qamats that should be interpreted as ambiguous with regard to the gadol/qatan distinction. This pointing is expected since in Jacobson the qamats mark is always intentionally ambiguous. In the table above, in this and all other cases, we show MAM’s pointing, which distinguishes qamats “quality” (gadol/qatan). In particular, in the table above, we show MAM’s pointing for the Sephardic (ס) variant of this word. In this variant, the second mem is pointed with qamats gadol.

In Jacobson, this word is is discussed in the body text as if it had already been mentioned (e.g. as if it had already appeared in the table above) but it has not already been mentioned. Here is the context in Jacobson:

273-5

273

בָּ֣מֳתֵי

[not·provided]
ba·mo·té 5

D32:13

Although Jacobson does not provide a technical transcription for this word, judging from context, ba·mo·té is implied (as opposed to bo·mo·té).

274-1

274

רָאשִֽׁים׃ 1

ra·shím

G2:10

Jacobson points this word רָאשִׁים, i.e. without an accent.

275-1

275

שָׁכָֽלְתִּי׃

sha·khol·tí
sha·khal·tí 1

G43:14

This transcription difference represents a substantive issue. Jacobson notes this as one of five exceptions to the phonological approach. Here is the context in Jacobson:

275-2

275

יִשָּֽׁךְ׃

yish·shokh
yish·shakh 2

D23:20

See note on שָׁכָֽלְתִּי׃ (Gen. 43:14).

275-3, 275-4

275

עָֽז׃

‘oz
‘az 3

G49:3 4

275-3

See note on שָׁכָֽלְתִּי׃ (Gen. 43:14).

275-4

Jacobson also provides the locale reference 2 Sam. 22:18

275-5

275

שְׁאָ֔לָה

sh^e·’o·la
sh^e·’a·la 5

I7:11

See note on שָׁכָֽלְתִּי׃ (Gen. 43:14).

275-6

275

יִטְרָ֔ף

yit·rof
yit·raf 6

G49:27

See note on שָׁכָֽלְתִּי׃ (Gen. 43:14).

276-1, 276-2

276

עֵדְוֺתָ֤יו 1

‘éd·vó·tav
‘é·d^e·vó·tav 2

2K23:3

276-1

Jacobson points this word עֵדְוֹתָ֤יו, i.e. with what looks like a ḥolam malei dot on the vav even though a consonant sound rather than a vowel sound is required here. Presumably this odd pointing is to show that in some non-reader-friendly editions there can be ambiguity as to whether a ḥolam dot on a vav is a ḥolam malei dot or a ḥolam ḥaser dot. In the table above, in this and all other cases, we show MAM’s pointing, which distinguishes ḥolam dot “quality” (ḥaser/malei) on vav. Of course, to actually see these distinctions, a reasonably-capable font is required.

276-2

277-1

277

וְקֹוֵ֥י 1

v^e·kó·vé

Ps37:9

Jacobson points this word וְקוֵֹ֥י, i.e. with what looks like a ḥolam malei dot on the vav even though the vav is already carrying tsere and merkha. Presumably this odd pointing is to show that in some non-reader-friendly editions, the ḥaser/malei ambiguity of the ḥolam dot can reach all the way back to the letter before the vav, which in this case is a qof.

Presumably Jacobson includes this odd pointing and that of עֵדְוֹתָ֤יו in order to show that that there may be no typographic distinctions between the following three cases:

ḥolam ḥaser dot on a letter before a vav
ḥolam malei dot on a vav
ḥolam ḥaser dot on a vav

(Or, even when such distinctions exist, they may be hard to observe.)

289-1, 289-2

289

וְהוֹתִרְךָ֤ 1

v^e·hó·tí·r^e·kha
v^e·hó·tir·kha 2

D28:11

289-1

MAM does not have the gaʿya under tav that is at issue here, though MAM does note some manuscripts that do have it.

289-2

This is not an “apples to apples” comparison: the transcriptions likely only differ because the source Hebrew differs for this word. See the note on the Hebrew.

309-1

309

שְׁתֵּ֣י

shté
sh^e·té 1

G4:19