2

Before the Psalm for the day at the end of Shacharis each day, we say a sentence, "Today is the Xth day of the week..." In that sentence is a word for Levites, and that word in Hebrew has a sheva under the lamed. Why is that sheva a sheva na? (All six siddurim I have checked show it as a sheva na: Artscroll, Koren, Metsuda, NeHalel, and the two reported here https://judaism.stackexchange.com/a/82836?noredirect=1.)

What rule is being followed that tells us that it is a sheva na?

Update: Two sefardic siddurim I checked showed this sheva as a sheva nach. Perhaps the sheva na pronunciation is only in ashkenaz siddurim.

Yehuda W
  • 8,153
  • 1
  • 18
  • 47
  • 1
    It's a mistake. הלוים is always Shva Nach. – Double AA May 15 '17 at 23:36
  • Do you want to know where the mistake happened (a historical question)? Or just the right way to say the word? – Double AA May 15 '17 at 23:53
  • @DoubleAA I am trying to understand the punctuation. An error never occurred to me. It rolls more easily of the tounge with a sheva na. – Yehuda W May 18 '17 at 18:49
  • @DoubleAA How could it be a mistake? It could not be a scribal error, since there is no written indication of a sheva na in early sources. (When did written indications of the sheva na start?) If what I just wrote is correct, why did both Artscroll and Koran make the same mistake? – Yehuda W May 19 '17 at 13:28
  • The mistake is putting the meteg under the hei which indicates a shva na. Probably some later editions didn't know that the meteg indicates shva na, so they added extras willy-nilly, misleading some later editions. But those who knew what they were doing didn't have a meteg. I don't know what you mean by 'rolls more easily off the tongue' but halwiyyim rolls just fine for me. – Double AA May 19 '17 at 17:52
  • @DoubleAA There is no meteg in the several siddurim I have looked at. What siddur are you looking at? – Yehuda W May 21 '17 at 01:23
  • I haven't checked any siddurim anytime recently. I showed you links below to accurate old tanakh texts – Double AA May 22 '17 at 11:46
  • I see the rules here: http://www.torahresource.com/Hebrew%20MP3/ShevaRules.pdf – CashCow May 22 '17 at 11:55
  • @CashCow By what rule is the sheva under the lamed a sheva na? – Yehuda W May 22 '17 at 13:16
  • @DoubleAA You write "הלוים is always Shva Nach" and "The mistake is putting the meteg under the hei which indicates a shva na" <-- That's wrong. Jacobson P267 gives two examples of Halviim.. 2 Chron 29:5 (no meteg), 2 Chron 24:5 (meteg). – barlop Aug 25 '20 at 20:44
  • @barlop Or Jacobson is wrong – Double AA Aug 25 '20 at 20:56
  • @DoubleAA well he has given chapter and verse so the ball is in the court of the one saying he's wrong. Note- I notice Feldheim tanach simanim has no meteg on either, so that would support you – barlop Aug 25 '20 at 20:58
  • @barlop I just looked up that verse and don't see a meteg https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/8/8c/Aleppo-fascimile3-Ketuvim.pdf/page58-1275px-Aleppo-fascimile3-Ketuvim.pdf.jpg Ball's in his court – Double AA Aug 25 '20 at 21:02
  • @barlop The publicly available scans of the Leningrad codex are unlcear on our word https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/9/98/Leningrad-codex-14-chronicles.pdf/page60-1275px-Leningrad-codex-14-chronicles.pdf.jpg Probably someone read a meteg there and that's where Jacobson is going from. It's not the first place he ignores the problems with the Leningrad Codex in his work; see revisions 5 and 8 at https://judaism.stackexchange.com/questions/36788/what-does-the-munach-say/36790 If anyone has access to the new color scans of the LC we could put this mistake to rest. – Double AA Aug 25 '20 at 21:12
  • @DoubleAA where the metegs come from in our chumashim is a mystery. our chumashim have a lot more metegs than the LC. (Note, mechon mamre's tanach with cantillation marks, doesn't have it either) – barlop Aug 25 '20 at 21:13

2 Answers2

1

If one looks in Ta'amei Hamikra from Rabbi Mordechai Breuer (p. 197) it states that all agree that a sheva is sounded (vocal - na) if there is a Hay Hayidaya with a meteg. Ben Asher ,in Sefer Dikdukay HaTa'aimin lists 18 exceptions to this rule though. From my initial reading of Dikdukai Shai (Shmuel Mandelbaum) it seems that the discrepancy is between the customs of Ashkenaz and Sefardim (see footnote 73 - p.191) I believe that is the reason you'll see differences between Tikun Simanim and Artscroll and others.

That being said, I have been researching the conclusive details of this elusive issue for many years and have spoken with a great deal of gedolei Torah with nothing to show for it...yet.

Shmuel Goldstein
  • 633
  • 5
  • 9
0

It could possibly be based on the 6th rule, or rule "ו" (vav) based on the א"ב (Aleph Bet) mnemonic of the rules of שוא נע (shva na). As stated by Yehuda Arye Gutman in his book ספר כללי טעמי המקרא page 17:

Any שוא (shva) that comes after a מתג (meteg) is a שוא נע (shva na).

(This is the 6th rule, because the מתג (meteg) looks like a "ו" (vav).)

A quick search for the word "הלוים" (haliviyim) in תנ"ך (Tanach) shows that the word has a מתג (meteg) or טעם (cantillation mark) by the "ה" (heh).

For example in Shemos 6:25, 38:21, Yayikra 25:32, 25:33, and many others.

Guest583
  • 9
  • 1
  • 1
    What text are you using that you see a meteg in those locations? – magicker72 May 16 '17 at 04:19
  • 1
    There's no meteg there in accurate texts – Double AA May 16 '17 at 04:29
  • I did the original search using Davka's Tanach App. Then checked those locations mentioned above in the Artsroll Stone Chumash and The Koran Tanach, both have a meteg under the "heh" in all four locations. I didn't check any others. – Guest583 May 16 '17 at 04:39
  • Those texts are mistaken. There shouldn't be a meteg on this word. See http://mechon-mamre.org/c/ct/c0408.htm and https://www.sefaria.org/Numbers.8.6 and the Aleppo Codex https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Aleppo-HighRes1-Torah.pdf&page=6 and the Leningrad Codex https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Leningrad-codex-04-numbers.pdf&page=14 – Double AA May 16 '17 at 13:15
  • @DoubleAA How can you tell from the 4 links you provide that it is or is not a sheva na? A sheva na and sheva nach look the same. – Yehuda W May 18 '17 at 18:40
  • @YehudaW In all those links there is no Meteg under the Hei – Double AA May 18 '17 at 18:41
  • @DoubleAA So, are you are saying that since there is no meteg under the preceding hei, the sheva na indication in ArtScroll and Koren and other siddurum is in error? If so, why are these siddurim all making the same error? – Yehuda W May 22 '17 at 13:15
  • @YehudaW We discussed this already above https://judaism.stackexchange.com/questions/82633/why-is-it-a-sheva-na-in-ha-leviyim?noredirect=1&lq=1#comment255393_82633 – Double AA May 22 '17 at 14:12
  • @DoubleAA You gave examples of the word appearing without a meteg. But those examples were not needed as the word as it appears in the siddurim has no meteg. What do those examples add? – Yehuda W May 22 '17 at 14:20
  • @YehudaW They show conclusively the word doesn't deserve a Meteg. How a Siddur printed it is irrelevant since they aren't known for precise grammar and usually skip on Metagim altogether. – Double AA May 22 '17 at 14:21
  • @DoubleAA So, you are saying that every siddur that denotes the sheva na is in error. (The siddurim I have looked at all agree.) I find that claim to be implausible and even immodest. If some siddurim took one approach and others took another approach I would find your claim of imprecise grammar to be more convincing. In contrast, I wonder if there is a legitimate reason for this sheva na, and seek that reason. – Yehuda W May 22 '17 at 14:30
  • 2
    @YehudaW Happy seeking. – Double AA May 22 '17 at 14:30
  • @DoubleAA I'm no expert on grammar, but a few chumashim I see online have the Meteg: 1 2. The second one is a german one claiming to be "מדויק בתכלית הדיוק". –  May 23 '17 at 21:11
  • @Ploni It can claim that all it wants, but it has another error a page later on page 100 where it puts a Merkha before a Munach (discussed at https://judaism.stackexchange.com/questions/71489/where-is-there-a-munach-legarmei-before-a-kadma?noredirect=1&lq=1#comment212823_71491 ) The fact is many Chumashim printed in the last few hundred years didn't have access to the great old texts and ended up confused about various things. I don't mean to impugn their efforts of course but everyone is limited by the information they have available. – Double AA May 23 '17 at 21:14
  • I'm not sure if this adds value, particularly being more than 6 years "late," but here's what I find in an edition of MAM, using the regular expression הַ.?לְוִיִּ.?ם. (That regular expression meaning, הַלְוִיִּם, but allowing there to be a mark (like an accent) on the he and/or the yod.) I find 206 instances of this pattern, where only 7 instances have any mark (other than the pataḥ) on the he. None of these marks are meteg (gaʿya). – bfd Sep 20 '23 at 15:38
  • 3 of the 7 marks on הַ are telisha gedolah. But these don't really "count" since they are not indicating stress in these cases since the stress is on the last syllable. (Accordingly, as is MAM's editorial policy, each of these 3 words has "stress helper" telisha gedolah on the yod.) – bfd Sep 20 '23 at 15:45
  • Perhaps more interestingly, the other 4 of the 7 marks are Unicode qadma, here representing the metigah part of the metigah-zaqef combination. (I.e., in all four cases there is a zaqef qatan on the yod.) Perhaps such a metigah might indicate a secondary stress on הַ. All four cases are vav-prefixed, i.e., they have the וְ prefix, making the full word וְהַ֨לְוִיִּ֔ם. – bfd Sep 20 '23 at 15:45