Hi Jason,
Jason Hare wrote: ↑Fri Nov 13, 2020 1:53 pm
According to the Stone Chumash, Rashi claims that she was around 130 years old when she gave birth to Moses as the result of a miracle. I'm not personally interested in miracle claims, especially when no such claim is explicitly made in the text of the Torah itself.
First, we need to look at what is said.
It's said that he married his aunt (in Numbers) - and that is what we need to accept (as opposed to "cousin").
About the age thing...
Rashi wrote the age according to what was written before him. And that age is a result of a calculation of:
1. Yocheved was born in Egypt at the arrival of Israel to Egypt.
2. Israel settled in Egypt for 210 years.
3. Moses was 80 when he took Israel out of Egypt.
=
Yocheved gave birth at age (210-80)=130.
But there are some commentators that say that we don't need to say that Yocheved was born at the arrival to Egypt, but she was born a few decades later, and so it could be calculated that she gave birth at age 80-90 or something like that.
You asked for an explicit claim in the text for a miracle, but remember that this text is lack details.
And anyway, since this birth is like a "holy birth" of a great person, it is not unlikely that this birth would occur in some unnatural way.
Jason Hare wrote: ↑Fri Nov 13, 2020 1:53 pm
It would be awesome if we had a mention of his given name from birth. Is it possible that Yochéved was so frightened that he would not survive that she didn't herself give him a name? We don't have any indication of a name for him other than Moses (despite the "seven names" claim).
Just to correct myself, I just checked, and he had 10 names (including Moses), and there is an 11th name that is written in another book.
But never mind about that.
There is an interpretation that says that the name Moses was given to him by his mother. I mean that the Daughter of Pharao asked the woman what to call him, then the woman (his mother) told her משה and explained to her that it means to "pull out" and that the Daughter of Pharao accepted that offer.
But also, never mind about that.
Jason Hare wrote: ↑Fri Nov 13, 2020 1:53 pm
I don't know what 15:17 means after מקדש, though.
Sorry for the trouble. It is Ex. 15:17
Jason Hare wrote: ↑Fri Nov 13, 2020 1:53 pm
I've never heard of hiphil verbs having a T form. What does that mean? You're using non-standard nomenclature, and I don't really know what you're trying to say.
I've never heard of a התאפעל stem. You're saying that
תִּתְאַיְצַב titʾay(ə)ṣaḇ reduced to
תֵּתַצַּב. I don't see how the initial syllable would have become open if that were the case. There's too much change to be explained: how
tit|ʾa- became
tē|ta-; why the entire vocalic structure of the א syllable would be lost. Why wouldn't it remain as
תִּתַּצַּב at the very least, to preserve the closed syllable even with the collapse? I don't see that this is really justifiable. It looks much more likely that the
י was simply not written (accidentally).
Once again, sorry about my usage of terms.
About the form, I will try to explain what I mean.
in the verb system, there are three types of forms.
1. Active
2. Passive
3. Reflexive & Mutual (This is what I called T)
In common Hebrew, only the Dageshed conjugation has these three forms.
1. Active - Piel (qittel)
2. Passive - Pual (quttal)
3. T form - Hitpael (hitqattel)
In Qal there are:
1. Active - paal (qatal)
2. Passive - pual (qutal-->quttal)
3. T form (rare) - hitpael (hitqatel)
1. Active - hiphil (hiqtil)
2. Passive - Huphal (huqtal)
3. T form (rare) - hittaphel/hittaphal (hitaqtel/hitaqtal)
So about the T form of Hiphil...
The H of the hiphil was "swallowed" in the previous T, that is why it is doubled.
for example, the word יִתָּכֵן or תִּתָּבָר - the ת is with Dagesh, and it is because of the H.
תִּתְהָבָר-->תָּתָּבָר
When there is a form when the T is not with Dagesh, then it means that the Hiphil uses the Aleph and not the H.
so in the word תְּתַחֲרֶה (the T is without Dagesh) it was:
תִּתְאַחֲרֶה -> the Aleph was drop because of the accent->
תִּתַחֲרֶה -> since the first syllable was opened, it is reduced->
תְּתַחֲרֶה
Now almost the same with root יצב
תּתְאַיְצַב -> the Y of יצב is always "swallowed" inside the צ ->
תִּתְאַצַּב -> the Aleph is dropped because of accent->
תִּתַצַּב -> in this case, instead of the first syllable being reduced, it expands and being wider to Tsere ->
תֵּתַצַּב
**when there is a collapse, there are three ways to deal with that:
1. closing the syllable with Dagesh in the next letter.
2. reducing the vowel to a mobile Sheva.
3. expanding the vowel and make it wider (as in תתצב).
Jason Hare wrote: ↑Fri Nov 13, 2020 1:53 pm
I've always called
׃ "sof pasuq" and
◌ֽ "silluq" (rather than "meteg") when paired with sof pasuq. Am I wrong in that? According to Wikipedia, the
◌ֽ is called both "silluq" and "sof pasuq," and the two dots that end the verse are not part of the trope system at all. I'm a bit confused on who to believe. That's not how I learned trope (הטעמים).
The Siluq is the mark, and usually, the two dots appear too.
But in the Allepo codex, for example, the two dots don't come often.
(in some other books there is a circle instead of two dots, or just one dot).
I read that there are a few books (even early ones) that in the books of Psalms-Proverbs-Job, they use to finish every verse at the end of the line and with two dots (with no Siluq).
But the Siluq would appear only if the word's accent syllable is not the last one.
But there is no need to go deep too much. the basic mark is the Siluq. And I think that the two dots were created more for the "eyes".