Adapted, by permission, from Israel Yeivin, Introduction to the Tiberian Masorah, translated and edited by E. J. Revell. Copyright © 1980 by the Society of Biblical Literature.
A dagesh-like dot inside א or ה is called mappiq, and marks its letter as a consonant rather than a vowel (mater lectionis). Rafe on א or ה means “not mappiq,” just as on other letters, rafe means “not dagesh.” I.e. rafe marks א or ה as a vowel (mater lectionis) rather than a consonant. Mappiq and rafe on א and ה will be covered further in (i) and (ii) (#395) respectively.
A dagesh-like dot in waw is either a dagesh ḥazaq or a shureq dot. It is almost never hard to determine which of these meanings applies. It is almost never necessary to determine the meaning of a rafe on waw, because rafe is almost never used on waw. But, there are exceptional cases motivating the uses of “almost” above. In particular, the meanings of וּוּ and וֿוּ are unclear, and will be covered in (iii) (#396).
(i) He representing a consonant at the end of a word is marked by mappiq. He representing a vowel at the end of a word is generally (but not always) marked with rafe. In some manuscripts, consonantal he may be marked with mappiq even within a word, especially where it is pointed with shewa as
| בׇּהְּשַׁמָּה֙ | μL and μS |
| פְּדַהְּאֵ֖ל | μS |
| בְּתוֹכָֽהְּנָה׃ | μL10 |
Biblical references in this section: בׇּהְּשַׁמָּה֙ Lev 26:43, פְּדַהְּאֵ֖ל Nu 34:28, בְּתוֹכָֽהְּנָה׃ Ez 16:53.
(ii) Alef is marked with mappiq in four words in the Bible. Three derive from the root בוא:
| תָּבִ֣יאּוּ׀ לֶ֣חֶם |
| וַיָּבִ֥יאּוּ ל֛וֹ |
| וַיָּבִ֨יאּוּ לָ֜נוּ |
These three represent most of the cases in which these words are followed by an initially-stressed word starting with lamed. Possibly there was a tendency to slur over the alef in this situation. (The use of gaʿya to mark guttural-closed syllables may address a similar concern. See #354.)
The fourth and final case of alef with mappiq is
| רֻאּֽוּ׃ |
Possibly the mappiq here is intended to emphasize the need to use the glottal stop rather than a /w/ glide between the two /u/ vowels. (Compare with the contrary phenomenon in יִשְׁתַּחֲוּוּ covered in #396.)
In some manuscripts such as μC, mappiq is used to mark alef as a consonant in words other than the agreed-upon four described above. These additional cases of mappiq alef are more common where its value might be in doubt. E.g.:
| שְׁאַּלְתִּיאֵל֙ |
| בְּלוֹאֵּ֨י |
| קֹרְאֹּתַ֔יִךְ |
Non-consonantal alef is marked with rafe in nearly all manuscripts, but not consistently.
A few manuscripts, particularly μC and μS, often mark rafe on the alef in ישראל, i.e. יִשְׂרָאֵֿל . This may reflect a pronunciation in which a glottal stop was absent there.
Biblical references in this section: תָּבִ֣יאּוּ׀ לֶ֣חֶם Lev 23:17, וַיָּבִ֥יאּוּ ל֛וֹ Gen 43:26, וַיָּבִ֨יאּוּ לָ֜נוּ Ezra 8:18, רֻאּֽוּ׃ Job 33:21, שְׁאַּלְתִּיאֵל֙ Ḥag 1:1, בְּלוֹאֵּ֨י Jer 38:12, קֹרְאֹּתַ֔יִךְ Is 51:19.
(iii) Waw representing a consonant followed by shureq at the end of a word is often marked with a dot, possibly also indicating shureq. E.g.:
| וַיִּֽשְׁתַּחֲוּ֖וּ | μA, μL |
| טָוּ֖וּ | μB, μL |
| וְנִלְוּ֣וּ | μC |
This appears to indicate that this waw was assimilated to the following shureq, and pronounced as a long /u/ vowel, i.e. /wu/ became /uu/ or /u/. This phenomenon can occur not only at the end of a word but also within a word, as in the following words in μL, in which only a shureq remains:
| קְוּצּוֹתַ֖י | φ1, φ2 |
| קְוּצּוֹתָיו֙ | φ3 |
In some other cases, consonantal waw before shureq is marked not with a dot but with the rafe sign. E.g.:
| וְתַשְׁוֿ֑וּ | μC | |
| וְנִקְוֿ֨וּ | μL15 | ( μL וְנִקְוּ֨וּ ) |
It is not clear whether this rafe was intended to mark its waw as a consonant or a vowel.
Different ways of pronouncing consonantal waw are recorded in the Masorah also in
| וּפֻוָּ֖ה | μL | The waw follows a /u/ vowel. (φ4) |
| רִבְֿוָ֖ן | μL, μL13, μS1 | The Mp of μL has רבבן ק̇ בן אשר (as BHK). The Mp of μL13 has רוון ק̇. (φ5) |
Footnotes for this section:
φ1 I think ITM is implicitly contrasting μL with manuscripts that have waw with qibbuṣ here, e.g. קְוֻצּוֹתַ֖י in μS1.
φ2 In μL, there is quite possibly a qibbuṣ under the dotted waw in קְוּצּוֹתַ֖י, i.e. the word is quite possibly קְוֻּצּוֹתַ֖י . See page 424A, column 2, line 25 of 26. And see the MAM documentation.
φ3 I think ITM is implicitly contrasting μL with manuscripts that have waw with qibbuṣ here, e.g. קְוֻצּוֹתָיו֙ in μS1.
φ4 Here ITM doesn’t spell out what different way of pronouncing consonantal waw is shown by μL in וּפֻוָּ֖ה. It may be relevant that μL is an outlier in its use of a dot in וָּ֖ , with וּפֻוָ֖ה being the consensus pointing of this word.
φ5 Here ITM doesn’t spell out what different way of pronouncing consonantal waw is shown by רבבן and רוון, but I think it has to do with a pronunciation in which vet and waw have distinct sounds. In such a pronunciation, the two qere in the Mp notes he cites would be רִבְֿבָ֖ן and רִוְֿוָ֖ן . (I’m guessing that the rafe should be carried over “as is” when forming the pointed qere, but I’m not at all sure about that.)
Biblical references in this section: וַיִּֽשְׁתַּחֲוּ֖וּ Dt 29:25, טָוּ֖וּ Ex 35:26, וְנִלְוּ֣וּ Jer 50:5, קְוּצּוֹתַ֖י Song 5:2, קְוּצּוֹתָיו֙ Song 5:11, וְתַשְׁוֿ֑וּ Is 46:5, וְנִקְוֿ֨וּ Jer 3:17, וּפֻוָּ֖ה Gen 46:13, רִבְֿוָ֖ן Dan 7:10.
In most manuscripts, the rafe sign, a horizontal stroke above the letter, is used on the begad-kefat letters where they do not have dagesh. If two letters together both require rafe, the sign is generally only marked once, over the space between them. Rafe is also used to mark non-consonantal he and alef, as noted above. The rafe sign is not used consistently. It is used more often where there is some possibility of confusion, as with begad-kefat letters at the start of a word after a word ending with a vowel. But even there it is not marked consistently. Some manuscripts, such as μB, mark rafe very rarely. Others, such as μC and μS, mark it often.
In the manuscripts, rafe is used on other letters besides begad-kefat, mainly in the following categories.
1) Rafe is used after waw with shewa at the start of a word, especially with verb forms, as וְיִֿשְׁמַ֖ע and וְיִֿבֹ֣א (both in μA). This probably emphasizes the fact that waw consecutive is not being used, but the same phenomenon occurs with nouns, as וְיָֿדִ֖י and וְיִֿשְׁמָעֵ֣אל (both in μA). In manuscripts that often mark rafe, it may be marked not only after וְ but also after other consonants with shewa at the start of a word. E.g. rafe is marked after מְ and תְּ in מְנֻֿחָת֖וֹ (μC), מְלֵֿ֥א (μC), and תְּמִֿימָ֑ה (μS).
2) Rafe is used on a letter, particularly yod, which is pointed with shewa and has no dagesh, as וַיְֿבַקְשׁ֔וּ and שִׁלְֿח֣וּ (both in μA).
3) Rafe is used on nun in the first and third person pronominal prefixes, since the nun of the first person sometimes has dagesh, as פְּ֭דֵנִֿי and שַׂמְתַּ֣נִֿי (both in μA). (See Diqduqe ha-Ṭeʿamim (Dotan 1967, section 17).) However, in manuscripts that often mark rafe, we find that rafe is marked on nun even where there seems no likelihood of confusion, as לָנֿוּ , אֲנִֿי , and יִדְּעֹנִֿֿ֖י (μS).
4) Rafe is used on other letters where dagesh might be expected, as:
Examples of (a): שִׂ֣יחָה לִֽֿֿי׃ (μA), מֹ֣שְׁלָה לֿ֑וֹ (μA, μN), and יוֹרֶ֥ה שָֿׁ֖ם (μC).
Examples of (b): יִבֹּ֑לֿוּ (μA), לָ֤מָֿה (μA), שָׁ֣סֿוּ (μA, μL6), and מָ֣טֿוּ (μA).
Manuscripts that often mark rafe may also mark it on the letters ל, מ, or נ in other situations, as גְּמָלָֿ֖נוּ (μC), חֻמְֿצָתֽוֹ׃ (μC), and וְלִשְׁנִֿינָֿ֑ה (μS).
Biblical references in this section: וְיִֿשְׁמַ֖ע Is 42:23, וְיִֿבֹ֣א 1S 4:3, וְיָֿדִ֖י 1S 24:14, וְיִֿשְׁמָעֵ֣אל Jer 40:8, מְנֻֿחָת֖וֹ Is 11:10, מְלֵֿ֥א Jer 6:11, תְּמִֿימָ֑ה Lev 14:10, וַיְֿבַקְשׁ֔וּ Jud 6:29, שִׁלְֿח֣וּ Ps 74:7, פְּ֭דֵנִֿי Ps 119:134, שַׂמְתַּ֣נִֿי Job 7:20, יִדְּעֹנִֿֿ֖י Lev 20:27, שִׂ֣יחָה לִֽֿֿי׃ Ps 119:99, מֹ֣שְׁלָה לֿ֑וֹ Is 40:10, יוֹרֶ֥ה שָֿׁ֖ם Is 37:33, יִבֹּ֑לֿוּ 2S 22:46, לָ֤מָֿה Job 7:20, שָׁ֣סֿוּ Ps 44:11, מָ֣טֿוּ Ps 46:7, גְּמָלָֿ֖נוּ Is 63:7, חֻמְֿצָתֽוֹ׃ Ho 7:4, וְלִשְׁנִֿינָֿ֑ה Dt 28:37.
A word-initial begad-kefat letter is dagesh-free (and so may be marked with rafe) if it follows a word ending with an open syllable which has a conjunctive accent or maqqef. This rule is given in various masoretic sources such as Diqduqe ha-Ṭeʿamim (Baer-Strack 1879, #29) and Horayat ha-Qore p. 78 (Dérenbourg, 1870, p. 386). As a general rule, the vowel of the open syllable at the end of the first word of the pair is marked by a vowel letter (mater lectionis), i.e. marked with א, ה, ו, or י, so that the rule is referred to in treatises as סימן אוי״ה ובג״ד כפ״ת. It should, however, be noted that:
Biblical references in this section: נָחִ֥יתָ בְחַסְדְּךָ֖ Ex 15:13, וַיַּ֥רְא בָּלָ֖ק Nu 22:2.
The Masorah mentions a number of מבטלים: phenomena which nullify the general rule, giving a begad-kefat letter a dagesh despite coming after א, ה, ו, or י. (φ1) These מבטלים are mappiq, paseq, and deḥiq. They are described below.
1) Mappiq. Consider a word whose final syllable is closed by a consonantal ה, ו, or י. (φ2) Its final letter is said to be mappiq (מַפִיק), meaning, “pronounced.” (Indeed, if that letter is ה, it may even bear the mark that goes by the name mappiq.) Though its final syllable may look open at first glance, it is in fact closed, so a begad-kefat letter at the start of the next word is given a dagesh. (φ3) E.g.:
| mappiq ה (marked as such) | בְּצִדָּ֣הּ | תָּשִׂ֑ים |
| mappiq ו | יָדָ֣יו | תְּבִיאֶ֔ינָה |
| mappiq י | שָׂרַ֣י | גְּבִרְתִּ֔י |
| mappiq י via the qere | יְהֹוָ֣ה | בְּיִרְאָ֑ה |
| φ4 | ( אֲדֹנָ֣י ) | בְּיִרְאָ֑ה |
There are three exceptions (φ5) where, although the preceding syllable is closed by a waw or yod, the bet or tav that follows is nonetheless dagesh-free: (φ6)
| קַֽו־ | תֹ֖הוּ |
| שָׁלֵ֣ו | בָהּ֒ |
| אֲדֹנָ֥י | בָ֝֗ם |
In some versions of this rule, the yod cases are restricted such that dagesh only comes after pataḥ-yod or qameṣ-yod, and not after ḥolem-yod. For example this would yield גּ֣וֹי גָד֔וֹל rather than the usual גּ֣וֹי גָּד֔וֹל . This may reflect a tradition in which ḥireq was pronounced after final consonantal yod, as is marked in some manuscripts with expanded Tiberian pointing, as גּוֹיִ .
2) Paseq. If paseq (#283) separates the words, then the begad-kefat letter is given a dagesh. E.g.: (φ7)
| אֹת֣וֹ ‖ | בָּאֵשׁ֒ |
| עַל־עַמּ֤וֹ ‖ | כָּהֵם֙ |
3) Deḥiq (conjunctive dagesh). See #403.
Footnotes for this section:
φ1 Note that this is the naive form of the rule. The naive form of the rule is about the letter that ends the word. The full form of the rule is not about the letter that ends the word: it is about the openness of the syllable that ends the word.
φ2 א not mentioned in ITM; accident or on purpose?
φ3 Only the naive form of the rule is broken by such a dagesh. The full form of the rule is not about the letter that ends the word: it is about the openness of the syllable that ends the word.
φ4 For cases after יְהֹוָה , like יְהֹוָ֣ה בְּיִרְאָ֑ה above, it may be helpful to think of the implied qere, אֲדֹנָי , whose final yod is consonantal.
φ5 These are real exceptions, i.e. these are exceptions to the full rather than naive form of the rule.
φ6 Indeed, rafe is used in some printed editions in these three cases, even if (as is usually the case) it is the edition’s policy to use rafe only in cases deemed exceptional.
φ7 I use a double vertical bar for paseq, to distinguish it from legarmeh.
Biblical references in this section: בְּצִדָּ֣הּ Gen 6:16, יָדָ֣יו Lev 7:30, שָׂרַ֣י Gen 16:8, יְהֹוָ֣ה Ps 2:11, קַֽו־ Is 34:11, שָׁלֵ֣ו Ez 23:42, אֲדֹנָ֥י Ps 68:18, גּ֣וֹי גָד֔וֹל Dt 4:8, אֹת֣וֹ ‖ Dt 9:21, עַל־עַמּ֤וֹ ‖ 1C 21:3, יְהֹוָ֣ה בְּיִרְאָ֑ה Ps 2:11.
Certain shewa-separated begad-kefat pairs at the start of the second word also nullify the rule. If the second word starts with בְב , בְפ , or כְכ , the initial bet or kaf has dagesh even if the preceding word ends with a vowel and has a conjunctive accent. (Note that these pairs would have identical or similar sounds, were it not for this exceptional dagesh.) E.g.:
| וַתִּתְפְּשֵׂ֧הוּ | בְּבִגְד֛וֹ |
| הֲלֹ֥א | כְּכַרְכְּמִ֖ישׁ |
| וְאִכָּבְדָ֤ה | בְּפַרְעֹה֙ |
When the initial bet or kaf does not have shewa, it is dagesh-free, as expected according to the general rule. E.g.:
| אִשָּׁ֥ה בִבְתוּלֶ֖יהָ |
When other pairs of identical or similar begad-kefat letters occur, even if the first has shewa, the first is usually dagesh-free, as expected according to the general rule. E.g.:
| (2× in this verse) | לֹא־ | תְתַעֵ֣ב |
| וּבְנֵ֣י | דְדָ֔ן |
Some manuscripts expand the set of applicable pairs beyond בְב , בְפ , or כְכ . They may include pairs such as בְמ and כְג in the set of pairs whose first letter gets dagesh even though the preceding word ends with a vowel and has a conjunctive accent. E.g. in the following words, we can see a bA/bN split on this issue, with bN including כְג in the set of applicable pairs:
| הֲלֹא֩ כְגַ֨עַת | ( bN כְּ ) |
A related quirk of bN deserves mention here, though it does not involve initial begad-kefat pairs. (It does involve initial kaf though.) According to the general rule, a begad-kefat letter is dagesh-free if it occurs at the start of a word following ויהי with a conjunctive accent. However the Sefer ha-Ḥillufim notes seven cases where ben Naftali gives a kaf a dagesh in such a situation. In three of these cases, the accent on ויהי is telisha qeṭannah. E.g.:
| וַיְהִי֩ כְהוֹצִיאָ֨ם | ( bN כְּ ) |
But in the other four cases the accent is another conjunctive. E.g.:
| וַיְהִ֣י כְשׇׁמְע֔וֹ | ( bN כְּ ) |
| וַיְהִ֣י כִשְׁמֹ֣עַ | ( bN כִּ ) |
Biblical references in this section: וַתִּתְפְּשֵׂ֧הוּ Gen 39:12, הֲלֹ֥א Is 10:9, וְאִכָּבְדָ֤ה Ex 14:4, אִשָּׁ֥ה בִבְתוּלֶ֖יהָ Lev 21:13, לֹא־ Dt 23:8, וּבְנֵ֣י Gen 25:3, הֲלֹא֩ כְגַ֨עַת Ez 17:10, וַיְהִי֩ כְהוֹצִיאָ֨ם Gen 19:17, וַיְהִ֣י כְשׇׁמְע֔וֹ Gen 39:15, וַיְהִ֣י כִשְׁמֹ֣עַ Jos 9:1.
Besides the categories noted in #400 and #401, there are a small number of exceptional cases in which the general rule is not followed. There is general agreement on seven of these cases, which are listed in most of the sources:
| 1, 2 | כִּֽי־גָאֹ֣ה | גָּאָ֔ה |
| 3 | מִ֥י | כָּמֹ֖כָה |
| 4 | יִדְּמ֣וּ | כָּאָ֑בֶן |
| 5 | וְשַׂמְתִּ֤י | כַּֽדְכֹד֙ |
| 6 | וְנִלְאֵ֥יתִי | כַּֽלְכֵ֖ל |
| 7 | וְחׇכְמָ֥ה | כְּחׇכְמַת־ |
In some of these seven cases, if the exceptional dagesh were not present, identical or similar consonant sounds would occur either:
In these cases, the exceptional dagesh may reflect a “need” to dissimilate these sounds.
Ben Asher alone adds one additional case to the agreed-upon seven cases above: (φ2)
| 8 ( bN גָ ) | ז֣וּ | גָּאָ֑לְתָּ |
Ben Naftali alone adds five additional cases to the agreed-upon seven cases above:
| 9 ( bA גְ ) | אֲדַרְגָּזְרַיָּא֩ | גְּדָ֨בְרַיָּ֤א דְּתָבְרַיָּא֙ |
| 10 ( bA גְ ) | אֲדַרְגָּזְרַיָּ֣א | גְּדָבְרַיָּא֩ דְּתָ֨בְרַיָּ֜א |
| 11 ( bA בַ ) | הַשְּׁמִינִ֣י | בַּחֲמִשָּֽׁה־ |
| 12, 13 ( bA פְ ) | שַׂבְּכָ֤א | פְּסַנְתֵּרִין֙ |
Cases 9 and 10 differ in accents only, and contain not only a disagreement ( גְּד / גְד ) but also an agreement: both bA and bN give a dagesh to the dalet of דְּתָבְרַיָּא . (φ3) This exceptional dagesh may reflect a “need” to dissimilate the sounds of the initial shewa-separated begad-kefat pair דְת , like the standard pairs covered in #401.
Footnotes for this section:
φ1 Arguably, case 3, מִ֥י כָּמֹ֖כָה (כּמכה), could be included here as well, since, famously, it contrasts with מִֽי־כָמֹ֤כָה (כֿמכה) at the start of the same verse:
| מִֽי־כָמֹ֤כָה בָּֽאֵלִם֙ יְהֹוָ֔ה מִ֥י כָּמֹ֖כָה נֶאְדָּ֣ר בַּקֹּ֑דֶשׁ |
φ2 Case 8, like cases 1, 3, and 4, is in the special section of Exodus 15 known variously as שירת הים, אז ישיר משה, or מי כמכה. So, this section has not only special layout and special musical motifs, but also a great concentration of exceptional uses of dagesh! (Also, case 2 is from Miriam’s song, which comes almost right after שירת הים.)
φ3 So, arguably, there are nine rather than seven agreed-upon cases. I.e., arguably, we should include the end parts of cases 9 and 10 in the list of agreed-upon exceptions. We might list these agreements as follows, hiding the גְּד / גְד disagreement by limiting the pointing to the relevant end parts:
| גדבריָּ֤א דְּתָבְרַיָּא֙ |
| גדבריָּא֩ דְּתָ֨בְרַיָּ֜א |
Biblical references in this section: כִּֽי־גָאֹ֣ה Ex 15:1 and Ex 15:21, מִ֥י Ex 15:11, יִדְּמ֣וּ Ex 15:16, וְשַׂמְתִּ֤י Is 54:12, וְנִלְאֵ֥יתִי Jer 20:9, וְחׇכְמָ֥ה Dan 5:11, ז֣וּ Ex 15:13, אֲדַרְגָּזְרַיָּא֩ Dan 3:2, אֲדַרְגָּזְרַיָּ֣א Dan 3:3, הַשְּׁמִינִ֣י 1K 12:32, שַׂבְּכָ֤א Dan 3:5 and Dan 3:10, מִֽי־כָמֹ֤כָה Ex 15:11.
Consider a situation in which a pair of words (α, β) has the following properties:
In such a situation, the first letter of β may take a dagesh. This is referred to as a conjunctive dagesh. In the Masorah, this phenomenon is called deḥiq (דחיק) or ate meraḥiq (אתי מרחיק). In some sources, these names are used for two different categories of this phenomenon, but Dotan has recently suggested that the phenomenon itself was called ate meraḥiq, while the dagesh used to mark it was called deḥiq. Rules governing this phenomenon were formulated by Baer, but the practice of the best Biblical manuscripts has not yet been studied in detail.
The next two sections will cover the following classes of deḥiq:
(i) Deḥiq after segol. This is used:
| α | β | |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | אֵ֣לֶּה | לָּ֑ךְ |
| 2 | שָׂ֥דֶה | טּ֛וֹב |
| 2 | אִקָּ֥רֶה | כֹּֽה׃ |
| 2 (the only example ending in א) | תֵּ֥רֶא | יַּיִן֮ |
| 2 | עֹ֤שֶׂה | פְּרִי֙ |
| 3 | וּמִשְׁנֶה־ | כֶּ֛סֶף |
| 3 | תַּעֲשֶׂה־ | לְּךָ֣ |
| 3 ( bN לֿ ) | יִֽהְיֶה־ | לְּעָ֖ם |
| 3 | כֹּֽרֶה־ | שַּׁ֭חַת |
There are a few exceptions to the rule, as אֵ֥לֶּה פֹ֛ה .
Biblical references in this section: אֵ֣לֶּה Gen 33:5, שָׂ֥דֶה Ez 17:8, אִקָּ֥רֶה Nu 23:15, תֵּ֥רֶא Prov 23:31, עֹ֤שֶׂה Gen 1:11, וּמִשְׁנֶה־ Gen 43:15, תַּעֲשֶׂה־ Prov 24:6, יִֽהְיֶה־ Gen 48:19, כֹּֽרֶה־ Prov 26:27, אֵ֥לֶּה פֹ֛ה Dt 5:3.
(ii) Deḥiq after qameṣ. This is used:
Digging further into case (1) above, which is the case where α has penultimate stress normally, i.e. not via accent retraction:
| α | β | |
|---|---|---|
| 1a (deḥiq in a simple case) | עָלֶ֣יךָ | פָּ֑רֶץ |
| ↑ | הֶ֥רָה | נָּֽסוּ׃ |
| 1b (deḥiq even in resh) | מָחַ֤צְתָּ | רֹּאשׁ֙ |
| exception to 1a | תִּקְרֶ֥אנָה | לִ֖י |
| exception to 1a | קְרֶ֤אןָ | לִי֙ |
| exception to 1a (φ1) | עֵדְוֺתֶ֥יךָ | שַׂ֗שְׂתִּי |
| 1c (deḥiq even if β starts with shewa) | אַ֣רְצָה | כְּנַ֔עַן |
| ↑ | הִרְחִ֤יבָה | שְּׁאוֹל֙ |
| exception to 1c (φ2) | וַתִּקְרֶ֤אנָֽה | שְׁמוֹ֙ |
| 1d (no deḥiq if β starts with בְוְכְלְ) | יְדַעְתִּ֣יךָֽ | בְשֵׁ֔ם |
| ↑ | קְרָאתִ֥יךָֽ | בְצֶ֖דֶק |
| exception to 1d: deḥiq in לְךָ | חָלִ֨לָה | לְּךָ֜ |
| ↑ | לָקַ֥חְתָּ | לְּךָ֖ |
| exception to 1d: deḥiq for phonetic reasons (φ3) | וְלַ֥יְלָה | לְּ֝לַ֗יְלָה |
Digging further into case (2) above, which is the case where α has penultimate stress via accent retraction:
| α | β | |
|---|---|---|
| 2a | יָ֣לְדָה | בֵּ֔ן |
| ↑ | עָ֥רְבָה | לִּֽי׃ |
| ↑ | מָ֣לְאָה | גַּ֔ת |
| exception to 2a | נֹ֥סְסָה | בֽוֹ׃ |
| ↑ | מָ֪צְאָה | בַ֡יִת |
| ↑ | וּמָ֣חֲתָה | פִ֑יהָ |
| ↑ | רָ֣חֲקָה | מֶֽנִּי׃ |
| ↑ | מֹ֣שְׁלָה | ל֑וֹ |
| 2b | חָ֣רָה | לָ֔ךְ |
| ↑ | וְעָ֥שָׂה | פֶ֖סַח |
| ↑ | שִׂ֣יחָה | לִֽי׃ |
| ↑ | עָ֣נָה | בִ֔י |
Digging further into case (3) above, which is the case where α has maqqef:
| α | β | |
|---|---|---|
| 3a (deḥiq in a simple case) | גְּשָׁה־ | נָּ֥א |
| ↑ | שְׁבָה־ | פֹּ֖ה |
| ↑ | וְאֶדְרְשָׁה־ | בָּ֑הּ |
| ↑ | נִבְחֲרָה־ | לָּ֑נוּ |
| ↑ | נִתְּנָה־ | לּ֛וֹ |
| ↑ | אֲזַמְּרָה־ | לָּ֑ךְ |
| 3b (v-shewa after a long vowel) | יָלְדָה־ | לּ֥וֹ |
| ↑ | וְעָֽנְתָה־ | בִּ֤י |
| ↑ | אֵֽלֲכָה־ | לִּ֤י |
| 3c (v-shewa after phonetic gaʿya) | לֻֽקֳחָה־ | זֹּֽאת׃ |
| ↑ φ5 | אֲלַקֳּטָה־ | נָּא֙ |
| 3d (no deḥiq in exceptional cases) | סְאָה־ | סֹ֣לֶת |
| ↑ | מַחֲלָה־ | לֵ֑ב |
| ↑ | וְאַהֲבָה־ | שָׁ֑ם |
| ↑ | אֲשַׁלְּמָה־ | רָ֑ע |
| ↑ | נִשְׁאֲרָה־ | בִֽי׃ |
| ↑ φ6 | הׇשְׁלְמָה־ | לָֽךְ׃ |
Digging even further into case (3) above, which is the case where α has maqqef:
In the table below, we highlight some syllables to show that although there is a shewa right before the qameṣ, presumably it is silent, i.e. not attached to the qameṣ.
| α | β | |
|---|---|---|
| 3e (no deḥiq if no v-shewa) | וּלְדׇבְקָה־ | בֽוֹ׃ |
| ↑ | צִוָּה־ | לָ֖נוּ |
| ↑ | אֽוֹיָה־ | לִ֭י |
| ↑ | עֶרְיָה־ | בֹ֑שֶׁת |
| ↑ | נָֽטָה־ | שָׁם֙ |
| 3f (misc. exceptions to 3e) | שִׁלְחָה־ | לּ֔וֹ |
| ↑ | וּבָ֖אתָ־ | שָּׁ֑מָּה |
| ↑ | וַתֹּאמַ֖רְנָה־ | לָּ֑הּ |
| ↑ | אִם־יֶשְׁךָ־ | נָּא֙ |
| 3g (exceptions to 3e common in some verb forms) | שִׁמְעָה־ | לִּ֑י |
| ↑ | וּשְׁקָה־ | לִּ֖י |
| ↑ | הָֽבָה־ | לִּ֣י |
| ↑ | אָֽרָה־ | לִּ֜י |
| ↑ | קָֽבָה־ | לִּי֙ |
| ↑ | וּלְכָה־ | נָּא֙ |
| ↑ | אוֹדִיעָה־ | נָּ֣א |
| ↑ | הַגִּֽידָה־ | נָּ֣א |
| ↑ φ7 | נֶגְדָה־ | נָּ֝֗א |
| 3h (deḥiq despite lacking both v-shewa and maqqef ) | הוֹשִׁ֘יעָ֥ה | נָּ֑א |
| ↑ | הַצְלִ֘יחָ֥ה | נָּֽא׃ |
Where β starts with a begad-kefat letter, deḥiq is used as on other letters, so that this deḥiq is regularly listed among the phenomena which nullify the rules that a begad-kefat letter at the start of a word is dagesh-free if it follows a word with a conjunctive accent that ends with an open syllable (#400).
Footnotes for this section:
φ1 It is unclear from what manuscript, if any, ITM gets this exceptional pointing ( שֿשתי ). Perhaps this pointing is from μA but the pointing is not clear there in μA. The consensus pointing is not exceptional: שּשתי ( עֵדְוֺתֶ֥יךָ שַּׂ֗שְׂתִּי ). See the MAM documentation.
φ2 I’m unsure whether or not ITM is implying that וַתִּקְרֶ֤אנָֽה שְׁמוֹ֙ is the only exception to 1c, or just an example of such an exception.
φ3 I’m unsure whether or not ITM is implying that וְלַ֥יְלָה לְּ֝לַ֗יְלָה is the only exception to 1d (other than לְךָ ), or just an example of such an exception.
φ4 I take this to mean that such a syllable could have gaʿya, in a context where the accent was not retracted.
φ5 Where’s the phonetic gaʿya?
φ6 Here ITM shows the pointing of μL, which lacks the expected deḥiq in לך. The pointing of μA has the expected deḥiq, i.e. μA has הׇשְׁלְמָה־לָּֽךְ׃ .
φ7 Here ITM presents this example as “And cf. α-β,” i.e. “And cf. נֶגְדָה־נָּ֝֗א.” I don’t know what motivates this “cf.” (confer/compare), but it is intriguing.
Biblical references in this section: עָלֶ֣יךָ Gen 38:29, הֶ֥רָה Gen 14:10, מָחַ֤צְתָּ Ḥab 3:13, תִּקְרֶ֥אנָה Rut 1:20, קְרֶ֤אןָ Rut 1:20, עֵדְוֺתֶ֥יךָ Ps 119:14, אַ֣רְצָה Gen 12:5, הִרְחִ֤יבָה Is 5:14, וַתִּקְרֶ֤אנָֽה Rut 4:17, יְדַעְתִּ֣יךָֽ Ex 33:12, קְרָאתִ֥יךָֽ Is 42:6, חָלִ֨לָה Gen 18:25, לָקַ֥חְתָּ 2S 12:9, וְלַ֥יְלָה Ps 19:3, יָ֣לְדָה Gen 19:38, עָ֥רְבָה Jer 31:25, מָ֣לְאָה Joel 4:13, נֹ֥סְסָה Is 59:19, מָ֪צְאָה Ps 84:4, וּמָ֣חֲתָה Prov 30:20, רָ֣חֲקָה Job 21:16 and Job 22:18, מֹ֣שְׁלָה Is 40:10, חָ֣רָה Gen 4:6, וְעָ֥שָׂה Nu 9:10, שִׂ֣יחָה Ps 119:99, עָ֣נָה Rut 1:21, גְּשָׁה־ Gen 27:26, שְׁבָה־ Rut 4:1, וְאֶדְרְשָׁה־ 1S 28:7, נִבְחֲרָה־ Job 34:4, נִתְּנָה־ 2K 25:30, אֲזַמְּרָה־ Ps 71:23, יָלְדָה־ Gen 21:3, וְעָֽנְתָה־ Gen 30:33, אֵֽלֲכָה־ Jer 5:5, לֻֽקֳחָה־ Gen 2:23, אֲלַקֳּטָה־ Rut 2:7, סְאָה־ 2K 7:1, מַחֲלָה־ Prov 13:12, וְאַהֲבָה־ Prov 15:17, אֲשַׁלְּמָה־ Prov 20:22, נִשְׁאֲרָה־ Dan 10:17, הׇשְׁלְמָה־ Job 5:23, וּלְדׇבְקָה־ Dt 11:22, צִוָּה־ Dt 33:4, אֽוֹיָה־ Ps 120:5, עֶרְיָה־ Mi 1:11, נָֽטָה־ Gen 33:19, שִׁלְחָה־ Ez 17:7, וּבָ֖אתָ־ 2K 9:2, וַתֹּאמַ֖רְנָה־ Rut 1:10, אִם־יֶשְׁךָ־ Gen 24:42, שִׁמְעָה־ Job 32:10, וּשְׁקָה־ Gen 27:26, הָֽבָה־ Gen 30:1, אָֽרָה־ Nu 22:6, קָֽבָה־ Nu 22:11, וּלְכָה־ Nu 22:17, אוֹדִיעָה־ Is 5:5, הַגִּֽידָה־ Gen 32:30, נֶגְדָה־ Ps 116:14 and Ps 116:18, הוֹשִׁ֘יעָ֥ה Ps 118:25, הַצְלִ֘יחָ֥ה Ps 118:25, וַתִּקְרֶ֤אנָֽה שְׁמוֹ֙ Rut 4:17, וְלַ֥יְלָה לְּ֝לַ֗יְלָה Ps 19:3.
Some scholars (Yequtiʾel ha-Naqdan, Heidenheim, Baer) state that deḥiq is used not only where the first syllable of β is stressed, but also where that syllable has gaʿya-OSR (#326). In the early manuscripts, deḥiq is used in a few such situations. E.g.:
| α | β |
|---|---|
| וְיָרֵ֥אתָ | מֵּֽאֱלֹהֶ֖יךָ |
| וְעָשִׂ֤יתָ | סִּֽירֹתָיו֙ |
| צָפַ֢נְתָּ | לִּֽירֵ֫אֶ֥יךָ |
| עָשִׂ֤יתָ | לִּֽירִיחוֹ֙ |
| וְעָשִׂ֨יתָ | קְּעָרֹתָ֜יו φ1 |
As a general rule, however, the deḥiq is absent if the first syllable of the word could have gaʿya. E.g.:
| α | β |
|---|---|
| שָׁ֣מָּה | קָֽבְר֞וּ |
| אָשִׁ֤ירָה | לַֽיהֹוָה֙ |
| וְכִעֲסַ֤תָּה | צָֽרָתָהּ֙ |
| כּוֹנַ֣נְתָּ | מֵֽישָׁרִ֑ים |
Literature. Baer 1880, Dotan, 1969.
Footnote for this section:
φ1 I’m not clear why ITM lists וְעָשִׂ֨יתָ קְּעָרֹתָ֜יו as an example here. Unlike the other examples listed here, it lacks the gaʿya under discussion. Perhaps it is listed here only because it could have such a gaʿya? I.e. perhaps it is listed here only because וְעָשִׂ֨יתָ קְּעָֽרֹתָ֜יו is possible? It is also unlike the other examples in that its first syllable starts with a shewa. But that makes it stand out from the other examples far less than its lack of gaʿya. In ITM, this example is introduced by “also,” which is atypical in lists of examples in ITM. Perhaps this “also” subtly acknowledges these issues?
Biblical references in this section: וְיָרֵ֥אתָ Lev 19:14 and Lev 19:32, וְעָשִׂ֤יתָ Ex 27:3, צָפַ֢נְתָּ Ps 31:20, עָשִׂ֤יתָ Jos 8:2, וְעָשִׂ֨יתָ Ex 25:29, שָׁ֣מָּה Gen 49:31, אָשִׁ֤ירָה Ex 15:1, וְכִעֲסַ֤תָּה 1S 1:6, כּוֹנַ֣נְתָּ Ps 99:4, וְעָשִׂ֨יתָ קְּעָרֹתָ֜יו Ex 25:29.
If a word with penultimate stress has a conjunctive accent and ends with an open syllable, deḥiq is sometimes used under circumstances other than those listed above. These fall into several classes, but there are not many examples in any of them. The classes are:
(i) After qameṣ. In a few cases, where α ends with qameṣ, deḥiq is used in the first letter of β even where β’s second syllable is stressed rather than its first. In most cases β’s first syllable is open. E.g.:
| שְׂפָתֶ֣יהָ | נָּע֔וֹת | |
| אַחֲרֶ֣יךָ | נָּר֑וּצָה | |
| עָבִ֣יתָ | כָּשִׂ֑יתָ | |
| אָבִ֣יךָ | קָּנֶ֔ךָ | |
| deḥiq used for phonetic reasons | הִרְגִּ֣יעָה | לִּילִ֔ית |
In a few cases β’s first syllable is closed. E.g.:
| גָּאַ֣לְתָּ | בִּזְר֣וֹעַ |
| אֵלֶ֣יךָ | תִּלְאֶ֑ה |
The deḥiq may even be used when the stress is as late as the third syllable, as
| וַיְשִׂימֶ֤הָ | תֵּל־עוֹלָם֙ |
Biblical references in this section: שְׂפָתֶ֣יהָ 1S 1:13, אַחֲרֶ֣יךָ Song 1:4, עָבִ֣יתָ Dt 32:15, אָבִ֣יךָ Dt 32:6, הִרְגִּ֣יעָה Is 34:14, גָּאַ֣לְתָּ Ps 77:16, אֵלֶ֣יךָ Job 4:2, וַיְשִׂימֶ֤הָ Jos 8:28.
(ii) After long vowels other than qameṣ. Where α ends with a long vowel other than qameṣ, deḥiq is sometimes marked when β has initial stress, as
| וַאֲנַ֥חְנוּ | קַּ֝֗מְנוּ |
| יִסְּרַ֣נִּי | יָּ֑הּ |
| קָרָ֣אתִי | יָּ֑הּ |
This occurs most often where shewa precedes the stress. E.g.:
| ק֤וּמוּ | צְּאוּ֙ |
| תַּשְׁבִּ֥יתוּ | שְּׂאֹ֖ר |
| הָיִ֤יתִי | שְּׂחֹק֙ |
(iii) Other situations. Deḥiq is used in a few cases that do not fit any of the rules given above. E.g.: (φ1)
| הִשְׁמִ֥יעוּ | זְּעָקָ֖ה |
| חֶלְבָּ֥מוֹ | סָּגְר֑וּ |
| יָבִ֣ינוּ | סִּירֹתֵכֶ֣ם |
| הִנֶּ֣ה | נָּא־אֲדֹנַ֗י |
| אֲנַסֶּ֤ה | נָּא־רַק־הַפַּ֙עַם֙ |
Footnote for this section:
φ1 I give both of the last two examples explicitly: הִנֶּ֣ה נָּא־אֲדֹנַ֗י and אֲנַסֶּ֤ה נָּא־רַק־הַפַּ֙עַם֙ . But ITM gives only the next-to-last example explicitly. It gives the last two examples as הִנֶּ֣ה נָּא־אֲדֹנַ֗י “and the similar case in Jud 6:39.”
Biblical references in this section: וַאֲנַ֥חְנוּ Ps 20:9, יִסְּרַ֣נִּי Ps 118:18, קָרָ֣אתִי Ps 118:5, ק֤וּמוּ Gen 19:14, תַּשְׁבִּ֥יתוּ Ex 12:15, הָיִ֤יתִי Lam 3:14, הִשְׁמִ֥יעוּ Jer 48:4, חֶלְבָּ֥מוֹ Ps 17:10, יָבִ֣ינוּ Ps 58:10, הִנֶּ֣ה Gen 19:2, אֲנַסֶּ֤ה Jud 6:39, הִנֶּ֣ה נָּא־אֲדֹנַ֗י Gen 19:2, אֲנַסֶּ֤ה נָּא־רַק־הַפַּ֙עַם֙ Jud 6:39.
As a general rule, dagesh is used in the first letter of a word following מַה , unless this letter is yod with shewa.
| מַה־יְדַבֵּֽר׃ | |
| מַה־יְצַוֶּ֥ה | |
| מַה־יְּדִיד֥וֹת | exception: dagesh used unexpectedly |
| מַה־שְׁתֵּ֞י | exception: dagesh absent unexpectedly |
| מַה־לַתֶּ֥בֶן | ↑ |
Biblical references in this section: מַה־יְדַבֵּֽר׃ Jer 5:15, מַה־יְצַוֶּ֥ה Nu 9:8, מַה־יְּדִיד֥וֹת Ps 84:2, מַה־שְׁתֵּ֞י Zech 4:12, מַה־לַתֶּ֥בֶן Jer 23:28.
Dagesh is used in the first letter of a word β following זֶה when the two words are are joined by maqqef, and (for the most part) where β is initially stressed. E.g.:
| זֶה־לִּ֞י | simple |
| זֶה־בְּנִ֥י | starting with shewa |
| זֶה־שְּׁמִ֣י | ↑ |
| וְזֶה־לְּךָ֣ | both starting with shewa |
There are only two cases where dagesh is used despite β lacking initial stress:
| וְזֶה־פִּרְיָֽהּ׃ |
| וְזֶה־מִּזְבֵּ֥חַ |
In all other cases, dagesh is not used if β lacks initial stress. E.g.:
| זֶה־יִֽהְיֶ֥ה |
| זֶֽה־יָ֝דַ֗עְתִּי |
Biblical references in this section: זֶה־לִּ֞י Gen 31:41, זֶה־בְּנִ֥י 1K 3:23, זֶה־שְּׁמִ֣י Ex 3:15, וְזֶה־לְּךָ֣ Ex 3:12, וְזֶה־פִּרְיָֽהּ׃ Nu 13:27, וְזֶה־מִּזְבֵּ֥חַ 1C 22:1, זֶה־יִֽהְיֶ֥ה Jos 15:4, זֶֽה־יָ֝דַ֗עְתִּי Ps 56:10.
In the pair מֹשֶׁה לֵּאמֹר , dagesh is used in the lamed if משה has a conjunctive accent. (φ1) In some manuscripts, such as μP, dagesh is used in the lamed of לאמר even after a word ending with a closed syllable. E.g.: (φ2, φ3)
| אֵלַ֣י | לֵּאמֹ֔ר |
| שֵׁנִ֣ית | לֵּאמֹ֔ר |
This dagesh appears to be used to emphasize the division between the words of these pairs.
Footnotes for this section:
φ1 In the great majority of cases the conjunctive accent is merka serving silluq in the phrase אֶל־מֹשֶׁ֥ה לֵּאמֹֽר׃ . Compare with אֶל־מֹשֶׁ֖ה לֵאמֹ֑ר.
φ2 In ITM, Babylonian vowel signs are used for these examples. Presumably this was easy to do, since all pointing in ITM was done by hand! In contrast, my pointing is done using a font supporting only Tiberian signs. Luckily, the type of pointing is irrelevant to the issue at hand. All we miss is the ability to impart some of the “feel” of the manuscript in question, μP.
φ3 Here ITM gives the locale Jer 1:4 for אל֣י לאמ֔ר , but I find it only at Jer 1:11. At Jer 1:4 I find only אל֥י לאמֽר׃ .
Biblical references in this section: אֵלַ֣י Jer 1:11, שֵׁנִ֣ית Jer 1:13, אֶל־מֹשֶׁ֖ה לֵאמֹ֑ר Nu 17:27 and Nu 32:25, אל֥י לאמֽר׃ Jer 1:4.
In the pair וַיֹּאמְר֣וּ לֹּ֔א , dagesh also appears to be used to emphasize the division between the words. Compare with וַיֹּ֩אמְרוּ֩ ל֨וֹ , where the pair is connected (φ1) and dagesh is not used.
Consider the pair וַיֹּאמֶר לֹא where ויאמר has a conjunctive accent. (There are five such pairs in the Bible. (φ2)) The division between ויאמר and לא (which contrasts with the connection of the similar-sounding pair וַיֹּאמֶר לֹו ) is usually emphasized by a gaʿya on mem and a paseq (#325). The Masorah records that ben Naftali uses dagesh in לא in two of the five cases, but in the other three cases bN agrees with bA, leaving לא dagesh-free. It is reported that bN similarly used dagesh in the lamed of כִּ֣י׀ לֹּ֗א . The dagesh in all these cases presumably serves to emphasize the division between the words.
In four cases, the lamed of לא in the pair לא לו has dagesh. E.g.: (φ3)
| רִ֥יב לֹּא־לֽוֹ׃ | |
| כִּ֛י לֹּ֥א ל֖וֹ | (after a disjunctive) |
This dagesh is presumably intended to distinguish לא from לו. In the pair לו לא, i.e. in the pair with the opposite order, no dagesh is used.
Footnotes for this section:
φ1 I read “connected” here to mean “presumably intended to be pronounced in a connected fashion.”
φ2 Those five cases are as follows:
| וַיֹּ֥אמֶֽר ‖ לֹ֖א | μA | gaʿya | paseq |
| וַיֹּ֣אמֶֽר ‖ לֹ֔א | μA | ↑ | ↑ |
| וַיֹּ֥אמֶֽר ‖ לֹֽא׃ | μA | ↑ | ↑ |
| וַיֹּ֥אמֶר ‖ לֹ֖א | μL | no gaʿya? | ↑ |
| וַיֹּ֣אמֶר׀ לֹ֗א | μA | no gaʿya | legarmeh |
It is hard to say whether μL has a gaʿya or not in case 4 of 5 (Gen 18:15). Each of the three dots of the segol is visible but faded. Also visible but faded is a fourth small mark to the left of (“after”) the segol. This fourth small mark might be (the remains of) a gaʿya but it is hard to say.
φ3 The other two of the four cases are as follows:
| מִשְׁכָּנ֥וֹת לֹּא־לֽוֹ׃ |
| הַמַּרְבֶּ֣ה לֹּא־ל֔וֹ |
Biblical references in this section: וַיֹּאמְר֣וּ לֹּ֔א Gen 19:2 and 1S 8:19, וַיֹּ֩אמְרוּ֩ ל֨וֹ Jud 18:19 and Est 6:13, כִּ֣י׀ לֹּ֗א 1S 16:7, רִ֥יב לֹּא־לֽוֹ׃ Prov 26:17, כִּ֛י לֹּ֥א ל֖וֹ Gen 38:9, וַיֹּ֥אמֶֽר ‖ לֹ֖א 1K 2:30, וַיֹּ֣אמֶֽר ‖ לֹ֔א 1K 11:22, וַיֹּ֥אמֶֽר ‖ לֹֽא׃ Jud 12:5, וַיֹּ֥אמֶר ‖ לֹ֖א Gen 18:15, וַיֹּ֣אמֶר׀ לֹ֗א Jos 5:14, מִשְׁכָּנ֥וֹת לֹּא־לֽוֹ׃ Ḥab 1:6, הַמַּרְבֶּ֣ה לֹּא־ל֔וֹ Ḥab 2:6.
In cases where the same letter ends one word and starts the next, dagesh is not generally used in early Tiberian manuscripts. However, the Masorah records that ben Naftali used dagesh in the first nun of נוּן in the pair בִּן־נוּן , i.e., ben Naftali’s pointing was בִּן־נּוּן while ben Asher did not use dagesh in that nun. In a few manuscripts, such as μL, dagesh is sometimes used on the first letter of the second word in pairs like וַיִּתֶּן־לּ֖וֹ , where the first word ends with nun, and the second word begins with lamed. So also וַיִּתֶּן־לּ֤וֹ in the JTS manuscript 226. On וְיִתֶּן־לִ֗י אֶת־מְעָרַ֤ת הַמַּכְפֵּלָה֙ , Redaq (רד״ק) (Qimḥi) noted (Miklol 72b) “The nun can be assimilated (φ1) to the lamed of לִי .” It appears, then that this dagesh also serves to emphasize the division between the two words to avoid the assimilation of the nun.
Footnote for this section:
φ1 Meaning, “can be accidentally assimilated”?
Biblical references in this section: וַיִּתֶּן־לּ֖וֹ Gen 24:36, וַיִּתֶּן־לּ֤וֹ 1K 11:19, וְיִתֶּן־לִ֗י אֶת־מְעָרַ֤ת הַמַּכְפֵּלָה֙ Gen 23:9.
In most early manuscripts, dagesh is not used after a guttural pointed with simple shewa. The Sefer ha-Ḥillufim reports that ben Naftali used dagesh in the qof of יַעְקֹּ֔ב , and dagesh is used here in μC and μL15. Some manuscripts occasionally show dagesh in this situation, e.g.:
| פַּעְנֵּ֒חַ֒ | μS |
| יֶאְשָּׁ֑מוּ | μN |
| לַחְמְּךָ֖ | μN |
(Note the third meaning given for the term dagesh (דגש) in #132.)
(It is noteworthy that the dagesh sign is used quite commonly in some Palestinian manuscripts in the situations covered here and in #413. See Revell, 1970, p. 77.)
Biblical references in this section: יַעְקֹּ֔ב Jer 9:3, פַּעְנֵּ֒חַ֒ Gen 41:45, יֶאְשָּׁ֑מוּ Ho 10:2, לַחְמְּךָ֖ Ez 4:15.
What is the function of dagesh in its special uses covered in #403 and beyond? Its function seems to be analogous to that of gaʿya and paseq since it is used in situations similar to those in which gaʿya and paseq may be used. Gaʿya and paseq indicate that words are separated and the reading slowed down.
This comparison suggests that dagesh is used, like gaʿya and paseq, to mark separation. In cases where the need to emphasize separation became apparent, the Masoretes sometimes used paseq for this purpose, sometimes dagesh, and sometimes gaʿya (particularly before gutturals). It can, then, be assumed that dagesh is intended to emphasize separation not only in cases like וַיֹּאמֶר לֹא , but also where deḥiq is used after qameṣ, and possibly also after segol.
Biblical references in this section: עָלֶ֣יךָ פָּ֑רֶץ Gen 38:29, עֲבָדֶ֥יךָֽ אֵ֛לֶּה 2K 1:13, וּבָ֖אתָ־שָּׁ֑מָּה 2K 9:2, וּבָ֖אֽוּ־שָׁ֑מָּה Ez 11:18.
What is the phonetic value of dagesh in its special uses covered in #403 and beyond? Its phonetic value is uncertain. Is it simply a diacritic used to separate words, slowing the reading down, or does it have some phonetic value, i.e. does it indicate some particular pronunciation? Dagesh generally indicates some particular pronunciation, indicating either that a begad-kefat letter represents a stop, or that a consonant should be doubled. So it is likely that dagesh would have one of these two phonetic values in these special uses as well. Since these special uses of dagesh are not restricted to begad-kefat letters, the more fitting of the two possible phonetic values is doubling. So, it is likely that these special uses represent dagesh ḥazaq.
This is easy to accept in cases where the dagesh is used after a short vowel, pataḥ or segol, as with:
There is no problem in understanding dagesh here as indicating doubling: /maz-zɛh/, /yəṣawwɛl-lɔk/. (φ2)
In some other cases, however, this view seems less acceptable. In וַיֹּ֣אמֶר׀ לֹּ֗א , ben Naftali’s dagesh in the lamed cannot mark the preceding syllable, מֶר , as closed, since it is already closed by resh, and the word has a disjunctive accent, legarmeh (#278). The situation is similar in מִשְׁכָּנ֥וֹת לֹּא־לֽוֹ for here again the dagesh in the lamed cannot mark the preceding syllable, נוֹת , as closed, since it is already closed, in this case by tav. In the same way, it is hard to accept that deḥiq after a long vowel marks the preceding syllable as closed. E.g.:
| יָֽלְדָה־לּ֖וֹ | /yɔldɔl-ló/? |
| ק֤וּמוּ צְּאוּ֙ | /qúmuṣ ṣŭʾú/? φ3, φ4 |
(A closed syllable with a long vowel normally only occurs as a word-final stressed syllable.)
How can we resolve these issues while still continuing to assume that the dagesh indicates doubling in these cases? We can resolve them as follows. Rather than closing one syllable and starting the next, as in קִטֵּל /qiṭ·ṭel/, we can view both parts of the doubled consonant as starting its “home” syllable. This yields /wayyómer lló/, /yɔldɔ-lló/, /qúmu ṣṣŭʾú/, etc. In this situation, presumably, the long vowel of the preceding syllable need not be shortened.
Footnotes for this section:
φ1 This example, מה־זה, is perhaps “too cute” because, confusingly:
The situation is even worse in ITM than it is here, because, confusingly, ITM does not provide the pointed Hebrew for this example. It merely provides the phonetic transcription /maz-zɛh/ for this example, leaving the reader to back-infer what pointed Hebrew is being implied.
φ2 Here ITM uses the generic shewa /ə/ rather than the specific /ă/. I.e., here יְצַוֶּה־לָּ֑ךְ is transcribed as /yəṣawwɛl-lɔk/ rather than /yăṣawwɛl-lɔk/. I mention the alternative of /ă/ because at least in theory, it is the sound of initial shewa. See #336.
φ3 The vocal shewa in ק֤וּמוּ צְּאוּ֙ is notated with /ŭ/: the Latin small letter “u” with breve (a cup-shaped above-mark). This represents a short /u/ sound. One might wonder why /ŭ/ is used rather than the generic shewa /ə/. This answer is that, according to masoretic theory at least, before gutturals, the shewa was pronounced as a short vowel of the same quality as the vowel sound after the guttural (#336). In the case of ק֤וּמוּ צְּאוּ֙ , this means, specifically, that the shewa in צְּ was pronounced as a short /u/ since it comes before a guttural (א) and the vowel sound after that guttural is a /u/ sound. In other words, the general rule is:
| simple vocal shewa | guttural | vowel sound V |
| is pronounced | ||
| vowel sound “short V” | guttural | vowel sound V |
So we can apply the rule specifically as follows:
| simple vocal shewa | alef | shureq |
| is pronounced | ||
| /ŭ/ | /ʾ/ | /u/ |
φ4 Here ITM transcribes with a dash, i.e. as /qúmuṣ-ṣŭʾú/. I removed this dash, since there is no maqqef. But it is possible that this dash meant something other than maqqef.
Biblical references in this section: מַה־זֶּ֛ה Gen 27:20, יְצַוֶּה־לָּ֑ךְ Ps 91:11, יֵעָ֥שֶׂה לּֽוֹ Ex 21:31, וַיֹּ֣אמֶר׀ לֹּ֗א Jos 5:14, מִשְׁכָּנ֥וֹת לֹּא־לֽוֹ Ḥab 1:6, יָֽלְדָה־לּ֖וֹ Gen 24:47, ק֤וּמוּ צְּאוּ֙ Ex 12:31, זֶה־לִּ֞י Gen 31:41.
