Thursday, January 17, 2008

Some Interesting (Or Boring) Points On Az Yashir

From Shemot 15:

ח וּבְרוּחַ {ר} אַפֶּיךָ נֶעֶרְמוּ מַיִם, {ס} נִצְּבוּ כְמוֹ-נֵד {ר} נֹזְלִים; {ס} קָפְאוּ תְהֹמֹת, בְּלֶב-יָם. {ס} 8 And with the blast of Thy nostrils the waters were piled up--the floods stood upright as a heap; the deeps were congealed in the heart of the sea.
The trup on the word נֶעֶרְמוּ reveals the stress:

ַ ח וּבְר֤וּחַ {ר}
אַפֶּ֨יךָ֙ נֶ֣עֶרְמוּ מַ֔יִם {ס} נִצְּב֥וּ כְמוֹ־נֵ֖ד {ר}
נֹֽזְלִ֑ים {ס} קָֽפְא֥וּ תְהֹמֹ֖ת בְּלֶב־יָֽם׃

The stress is on the first syllable, ne. This is one of a very small group of words with this type of stress, not milera and not mile'el, but rather with primary stress two syllables away from the last syllable. The cause of this, to my mind, is that the full seghol under the ayin was promoted from being a chataf segol (and we cannot have two shevas in a row). As such, for some reason, when deciding to primary stress, it was considered a sheva, and so the stress was placed mile'el on the nun.

Two pesukim later:
י נָשַׁפְתָּ {ר} בְרוּחֲךָ, כִּסָּמוֹ יָם; {ס} צָלְלוּ, כַּעוֹפֶרֶת, בְּמַיִם, {ר} אַדִּירִים. {ס} 10 Thou didst blow with Thy wind, the sea covered them; they sank as lead in the mighty waters.
In some texts when printing Az Yashir, they put a chataf patach under the first lamed. This is convention used to denote that the sheva under the first lamed is a sheva na, since when you have two identical or similar letters following one another, the sheva becomes na. This does not mean you have to pronounce it as a chataf patach. Except for the places where they pronounce every sheva na as a chataf patach.

A bit later:
טז תִּפֹּל עֲלֵיהֶם אֵימָתָה {ר} וָפַחַד, {ס} בִּגְדֹל זְרוֹעֲךָ יִדְּמוּ כָּאָבֶן: {ס} עַד {ר} יַעֲבֹר עַמְּךָ ה, {ס} עַד-יַעֲבֹר עַם-זוּ {ר} קָנִיתָ. {ס} 16 Terror and dread falleth upon them; by the greatness of Thine arm they are as still as a stone; till Thy people pass over, O LORD, till the people pass over that Thou hast gotten.
The first half of this pasuk, תִּפֹּל עֲלֵיהֶם אֵימָתָה וָפַחַד, בִּגְדֹל זְרוֹעֲךָ יִדְּמוּ כָּאָבֶן is featured in kiddush levana. But not only that, but also the pasuk with the words reversed are featured in kiddush levana as well.

I suppose it still makes some sense in reverse (though with some problems). But the nikkud is off. Specifically, בִּגְדֹל זְרוֹעֲךָ makes sense forward, for it is the construct form, which reduces the vowel under the gimel to a sheva. But in reverse, בִּגְדֹל וָפַחַד , why is there a sheva there. Less problematic, why maintain the kametz in וָפַחַד when it is not following אֵימָתָה? I suppose there is not really room for such grammatical questions on what is simply a liturgical construction.

On the first two pesukim:
א אָז יָשִׁיר-מֹשֶׁה וּבְנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל אֶת-הַשִּׁירָה הַזֹּאת, לַה', וַיֹּאמְרוּ, {ר} לֵאמֹר: {ס} אָשִׁירָה לַה' כִּי-גָאֹה גָּאָה, {ס} סוּס {ר} וְרֹכְבוֹ רָמָה בַיָּם. {ס} 1 Then sang Moses and the children of Israel this song unto the LORD, and spoke, saying: I will sing unto the LORD, for He is highly exalted; the horse and his rider hath He thrown into the sea.
ב עָזִּי וְזִמְרָת יָהּ, וַיְהִי-לִי {ר} לִישׁוּעָה; {ס} זֶה אֵלִי וְאַנְוֵהוּ, {ס} אֱלֹהֵי {ר} אָבִי וַאֲרֹמְמֶנְהוּ. {ס} 2 The LORD is my strength and song, and He is become my salvation; this is my God, and I will glorify Him; my father's God, and I will exalt Him.
I would read a deliberate contrast in pasuk 1 between Hashem, who is highly exalted -- כִּי-גָאֹה גָּאָה and the horse and are thrown into the sea from their previous normal state (though not explicitly thrown down) -- רָמָה בַיָּם. Yet at the same time there are echoes of parallelism in the word רָמָה, for רָמָה can also mean raised up. And to promote this parallelism, note the word וַאֲרֹמְמֶנְהוּ at the end of the next pasuk.

In pasuk 9:
ט אָמַר {ר} אוֹיֵב אֶרְדֹּף אַשִּׂיג, {ס} אֲחַלֵּק שָׁלָל; תִּמְלָאֵמוֹ {ר} נַפְשִׁי-- {ס} אָרִיק חַרְבִּי, תּוֹרִישֵׁמוֹ יָדִי. {ס} 9 The enemy said: 'I will pursue, I will overtake, I will divide the spoil; my lust shall be satisfied upon them; I will draw my sword, my hand shall destroy them.'
I think the long initial run of alephs is deliberate. Only the last three are because of their grammatical construction, and so all of them are them for the sake of alliteration.

In a similar vein, I think that the repetition of nun initial words in the previous pasuk was also deliberate.
ח וּבְרוּחַ {ר} אַפֶּיךָ נֶעֶרְמוּ מַיִם, {ס} נִצְּבוּ כְמוֹ-נֵד {ר} נֹזְלִים; {ס} קָפְאוּ תְהֹמֹת, בְּלֶב-יָם. {ס} 8 And with the blast of Thy nostrils the waters were piled up--the floods stood upright as a heap; the deeps were congealed in the heart of the sea.

In pasuk 3:
ג ה, אִישׁ מִלְחָמָה; ה, {ר} שְׁמוֹ. {ס} 3 The LORD is a man of war, The LORD is His name.
This should certainly not be taken as any evidence of Hashem taking human form. It is idiomatic, and furthermore, ish milchama should be taken as a single entity, to be translated "warrior." Don't deconstruct it.

No comments:

LinkWithin

Blog Widget by LinkWithin