B-Hebrew: The Biblical Hebrew Forum

I suspect that the uncalled for dagesh in the letter D of מאדמים M-ADAM-IYM, 'dyed red', of Ex. 25:5 is an an indication of a "masoretic" override of an earlier different reading.

Isaac Fried, Boston University

Isaac Fried wrote:I suspect that the uncalled for dagesh in the letter D of מאדמים M-ADAM-IYM, 'dyed red', of Ex. 25:5 is an an indication of a "masoretic" override of an earlier different reading.

Isaac Fried, Boston University

מְאָדָּמִים

Looks like it is a pual participle but one of those cases where the qamets hatuph is used instead of the qibbuts under the first radical. The piel and pual forms partly are indicated by the strengthen (dagash forte) the of middle radical (that is the explanation for the "uncalled for" dagesh). The מְ is typically used as the prefix of the participle.

1. So you are also of the opinion that the word was "originally" M-UDAM-IYM, with a qibbuts under the aleph, which would account for the dagesh. Is the qamets a scribal error, or was it placed there deliberately to accommodate a variant tradition?

2. I would discount the "strengthening" of the middle radical D. The inner dot, in my opinion, is merely a vestige of a pre NUQUD reading hint.

Isaac Fried, Boston University

Isaac Fried wrote:1. So you are also of the opinion that the word was "originally" M-UDAM-IYM, with a qibbuts under the aleph, which would account for the dagesh. Is the qamets a scribal error, or was it placed there deliberately to accommodate a variant tradition?

Gesenius indicates this verse and the occurrence of this word as an example in his topic # 52.4. Piel and Pual.

https://archive.org/stream/GeseniusHebr ... 5/mode/1up

1.So, also according to Gesenius the dot in the letter D is reason enough to assume that the qamarz under the letter aleph of M-ADAM should have been a qubbutz.
2. It is interesting that according to Gesenius the word T-RACX-EU of Ps. 62:4, which is with a qamatc under the letter R, and with a dot in the letter C, is possibly actually with a patax under the letter R.
3. I find it interesting that he thinks the plene writing of YULAD is a later addition, after the dot has been placed in the letter L.

Isaac Fried, Boston University

The vowel beneath the aleph is a qames hatuf, which is a short o-class vowel. It is not a qames, which is a long a-class vowel. This pointing fits perfectly with the Masoretic system. The presence of Mem at the front confirms a Pual.