Hebrew Research

Went to the Western Wall today and spent time in prayer. As I looked up in the wall I noticed several doves resting in crevices. I had a discussion about peace in Israel or Jerusalem. To be honest Jerusalem has not known real peace but for the most part my trip has been peaceful. The only real peace is having the Ruach HaKodesh in your soul. To be a completed Jew. That is real peace. Shalom friends. May you know real peace today and that there is only One God!

In Jerusalem

Very excited about being in Jerusalem at this time. There is such a great feeling in the air as Chanukah is just over for the Jews, and Christmas for the Christians took place yesterday.
We are content to relax today as it is Shabbos here until nightfall. I was thinking on the great differences in being here and in America.
    In America, the synagogues keep Shabbos on Friday evening until Saturday evening. If we wanted to keep Shabbos at the same time as Israel we would start on Saturday evening until Sunday evening. So in that respect those in America who celebrate the Lord on Saturday evenings and Sundays are in proper alignment with those in Israel. That is if we wanted to be legal about it all as some are. If it is a conviction then no stones are hurled from my corner...just saying.
     In the old days however, stones would be hurled at one who drove on Shabbos or just acted as a lawless person. So, I cannot see that the Apostles would not have kept with the custom. Some customs are good if they keep the peace. However when we begin to make customs law is when we get into problems as New Testament Christians.
     In saying that, I respect a New Testament Christian who does all they can do to please the Lord.
He is the one who will judge them in the end. I am not the judge of mankind. However in the church I and my husband do set up a standard according to the Word of God. That standard is a fence and marker for those who are interested in staying in the book. If it is true Biblical teachings a person desires then they do not have a problem with it.
     Those who have a problem with true Biblical teaching do not really have a problem with man, they have a problem with God. Not seeing Jesus clearly clouds a persons vision of who He is and what He really expects. The God who created the Universe and laid down the foundations of the earth has certain standards and guidelines for His people which are clearly defined in the Holy Bible.
     In the Holy Bible there are moral precepts to be kept. We do not as a people have a right to change those precepts according to our American desires and rights. The God we serve is not American. He is God of all creation. You may push for marriage rights and social reform but you can not push around the Almighty God of Abraham, Issac and Jacob.He will not stand for your nonsense.It is in respect of His precepts and His Holy Bible that we teach at "The Bible Church", just what it says without respect of persons. We refuse to allow a nation to change what we teach and preach. We need to stay in the book. If a person does not like what we preach, we maintain that we do not receive money from public grants to exist so do not come. No one is going to tell us we cannot preach and teach in His name. That is what was done to the early disciples, and it is happening in society today. We endeavor to keep the truth of God's precepts the same as the Bible teaches. We do not seek to quarrel with anyone but the pulpit we have been given by the Almighty God of heaven and earth is not for sale.

Back to Blogging

So busy with teaching classes and taking classes that I have had little time for Hebrew Research.
Today, I am turning over a new leaf....

Hebrew Help Kamatz Catan and Kamatz Gadol Article

Distinguishing between a Kamatz Gadol and Kamatz Katan

by MARK · in GENERAL

Background Needed to Understand this Article:

1) what a syllable is

2) what a consonant and vowel are

3) general understand of what a שוא נע נח

4) know that the accent is generally on the last syllable, and know that sometimes it changes

Introduction:

Of the twelve unique vowel signs the most misunderstood is the kamatz.  There are several factors which lead to confusion. One being that the kamatz is unique in that all other vowel signs only represent one sound but the kamatz represents two separate sounds, the kamatz gadol and kamatz katan. This factor prevents many people from realizing that this vowel sign produces two different sounds.

Another cause of confusion is that the reasons that cause a difference between the two are unfamiliar to most, even to those with a firm grasp of Hebrew grammar. Also, for those interested in learning the differences there are few clear resources.  The differences might be thought of as non-consequential and therefore trivial to learn but they’re important to know because of the role they play in correct pronunciation for all pronunciation systems and sometimes even the meaning of words.

Kamatz Katan in Print:

Some siddurim do however differentiate between the two.  One method of distinguishing the two is by printing a kamatz katan with a long vertical line.  Since this is counter intuitive to the name ‘kamatz katan,’ this method has been criticized as being confusing.  It’s also hard to discern the difference when reading quickly.  Another method used to differentiate is to bold the kamatz katan.  The advantage of this method is it easily focuses the attention of the reading to the more uncommon kamataz katan.  This method is commonly used in tikkunim.  Outside of siddurim and tikkunim the practice of differentiated in print between a kamatz gadol and kamatz katan are virtually nonexistent.

Differences in Pronunciation:

The differences in the pronunciation vary between Ashkenazi, Sefardi, and Temani pronunciation.  In the pronunciation of the vowel itself the difference is audible only for followers of the Sefardic tradition who pronounce a kamatz katan as a cholem, ‘o’ (IPA oʊ).  For Ashkenazim and Temanim there isn’t a difference in pronunciation of the letter itself, they both pronounce the kamatz katan the same as a kamatz gadol, ‘uh’. (IPA ʌ)

The type of kamatz plays a role in pronunciation of the word beyond just the vowel underneath the letter.  This is due to the fact that one of five rules which determine if a shva is a shva nach or shva na is if the based on if the preceding vowel is a long vowel or a short vowel.  The type of kamatz determines the type of shva.

←

A shva after the vowel will be	Type of Vowel
na	long
nach	short

A kamatz gadol is a long vowel making the following shva a shva na.  A kamatz katan is a short vowel making the following shva a shva nach.

Open and Closed Syllables:

Any syllable can be defined as either open or closed.  The description of being open or closed isn’t limited to syllables at the end of a sentence; it can also describe syllables in the middle of a word.

A “closed syllable” refers to a syllable that has a consonant after it.  The consonant ‘closes’ the sound of the syllable.  For example the word דָּג. The gimmel closes the sound of the kamatz before it.

An “open syllable” refers to a vowel that doesn’t have a consonant after it.  There isn’t a consonant to ‘close’ the sound of the vowel.  For example the word עָשִׁיתָ ends without a consonant “closing” the kamatz under the tav.

There are two different kinds of open syllables nach nirah and nach nister.  The word nach is derived from the root נוח meaning rest, to describe how the syllable ‘rests’ i.e. how it ends.

A nach nister is a type of open syllable that doesn’t have any letters written after the vowel sound.  Referring back to our example earlier, the tav of עָשִׁיתָ lacks any thing written after the final vowel sound.

In contrast, nach nirah is a type of open vowel that has an unpronounced letter after the vowel sound which ‘closes the vowel’ in writing but not in pronunciation. For example the resh in the word בָּרָא is pronounced with an open vowel, the kamatz under the reish.  The aleph isn’t pronounced but in writing it ‘closes off’ the vowel making it a nach nirah.  It’s referred to as a nach nirah because the ‘resting’ (or finishing) of the vowel is visible, nirah, in writing.  Non-consonant letters that close a vowel making a word end in a nach nirah are א, ה, כף סופית with a קמץ, or ת with a kamatz.

Diagram of Vowels Types:

Rules for Distinguishing:

After having established the difference in pronunciation and grammar it’s important to explain how one can grammatically distinguish between a kamatz gadol and kamatz katan.

In order for a kamatz to be a kamatz katan it has to meet two criteria: 1) the kamatz is closed syllable 2) the syllable is unaccented.  The following are five general rules for telling if a kamatz meets those requirements and is therefore a kamatz katan.

1.  A kamatz before a shva (and the letter with a kamatz doesn’t have a  טעםor מתג)

Example: קָרְבָּן

2.  A קמץ before a letter with a דגש

Example: שמות טו:ב עָזִּי

3.  A chataf kamatz is always a kamatz katan

Example: קֳדָשִׁים

4.  This rule only applies to two words connected by a מקף and the first word in the pair meets two conditions.  The first condition is that the penultimate letter has a kamatz and the second condition is that the word ends in a nach nirah.

Example: תִּזְכָּר-לָנוּ

5.   This rule only occurs with roots that have a ו”ו as the middle root like קום or גור or שוב. The change is a result of a ו”ו ההיפוך changing the word from future to past.  Each root letter takes a kamatz underneath and the second kamatz is a kamatz katan.

While the application of this rule would seem limited it occurs several times in the Torah like in בראשית כד:סא with the word וַתָּקָם

This form doesn’t exist in Modern Hebrew because it lacks the ו”ו ההיפוך.

What causes a Kamatz Katan:

After discussing the differences between a קמץ גדול and קמץ קטן and how to distinguish them it’s worthwhile to understand what causes a קמץ קטן.

Why Rule 1 Produces a Kamatz Katan:

Many regular nouns, mostly segolate nouns, change their spelling when put into their plural forms () or possessive suffixes are added (e.g. חַרְבּוֹ חֶרֶב+וֹ←).  This change in spelling is normally occurs without complication. A problem does arise however with spelling changes involving a cholem, the cholem changes to a kamatz.  When the cholem becomes a kamatz it comes before a shva nach and in an unstressed position, resulting in fulfilling both criteria for a kamatz katan. For example, אֹזֶן, when a possessive suffix is added forms  .אָזְנוֹ Notice how the vowel under the first letter which was a חולם is now קמץ.

Why Rule 2 Produces a Kamatz Katan:

A similar phenomenon occurs with the word עֹז changed into the possessive form becoming עָזִּי.  Notice again a letter that had a cholem now has a קמץ.  The kamatz comes before a zayin with a dagesh chazak.  A dagesh chazak acts as a doubled consonant, the first of which is nach, as if it were written עָזְזִי.  Therefore the dagesh chazak makes it as ifthe kamatz was before a shva nach.

We see that the second rule could be thought of as an extension of the first rule.  That by having a kamatz before a letter with dagesh it’s as if the kamatz is before a shva nach.

Why Rule 3 Produces a Kamatz Katan:

The word קֹדֶשׁ has a חולם above the ק.  When changed into the plural it becomes קֳדָשִׁים.  The kamatz underneath the kuf is a chataf kamatz, which is always a kamatz katan.  The question that logically follows is why did the cholem change into a chataf kamatz.

In short, this change is very similar to the way nekudos change when conjugating other words.  For example לוֹמְדִים ← לוֹמֵד.  The tzere becomes a shva when conjugated.  Similar verbs will follow this pattern, the second root letter will take a shva.  However, a problem occurs when the letter that is supposed to take a shva is a guttural letter (א ה ח ע), there is rule that a guttural letter can’t have a shva underneath it.  Instead, a shva combines with another symbol making a chataf, ֱ ֲ ֳ.  In the case of שׁוֹאֵל becoming שׁואֲלִים.

שׁואֲלִים ← שׁוֹאֵל

In a similar case, דַּבַר changes to דְּבָרִים.  The patach underneath the daled changed to a shva.  When a similar word such as קֹדֶשׁ is conjugated, a shva should be placed underneath the first letter.  However, since it’s guttural, the shva underneath the guttural combines with a kamatz forming a chataf kamatz.  What previously was a cholem is not a kamatz katan.

Why Rule 4 Produces a Kamatz Katan:

The first word if not connected with a מקף would be would have the accent on the last syllable.  When it’s connected to another word the accent shifts to the second word.  The fulfills the criteria of a kamatz katan occurring in an unaccented syllable.  If the first word also ends in a nach nistar it’s fulfilled both criteria and is a kamatz katan.

One still might wonder why the kamatz under the khof of כל is a kamatz to begin with.   Words often change their spelling when they are in their smichut form.  Words connected with a מקף are also put into their smichut forms.  For example, the regular spelling of ‘כֹּל,’ but when combined with a מקף changes to its smichut spelling, כָּל. For example בְּכָל-לְבָבְךָ.  The kamatz of כל also fulfills both criteria, its unaccented because the accent has shifted to the second word and it ends in a nach nira, the lamed closes the sound.

Why Rule 5 Produces a Kamatz Katan:

In a word similar to וַתָּקָם the kamatz underneath the kuf is

Generally, in Hebrew the accent is on the last sound of a word.  יָקוּֽם.  But when a word has a ו”ו ההיפוך the word becomes מלעיל i.e. the accent moves to the penultimate vowel,  .וַתָּֽקָםThe last kamatz now fulfills both criteria for a kamatz katan, closed and unaccented.

The word is מלעיל (the accent isn’t on the last syllable) because of the ו”ו ההיפוך.

Other Methods of Distinguishing:

As a rule, most kamatzim are kamatzim gedolim.  Another rule is that if a trope or a meteg is on a kamatz it will always be a kamatz gadol (גר”א).  This is because a trope or meteg means the kamatz is accented and a kamatz katan can only occur in an unaccented syllable.

A trick can be used to determine the type of kamatz. If a siddur marks the difference between a shva na and shva nach by any means (a common methods are bolding the shva or by placing a symbol above a shva that is na). If the shva after a kamatz is nach the kamatz will be a kamatz katan.

Rethinking Israelite Samaritans and their Diaspora by Dr. Eli Lizorkin-Eyzenberg.........some things to think about.

20

AUG

2012

Rethinking Israelite Samaritans and their Diaspora

Posted by Dr. Eli Lizorkin-Eyzenberg

11 Comments

The sources present us with at least two vastly different histories of the Samaritans. On the side of the Samaritan sources, we only have the Samaritan Pentateuch. Other Samaritan documents are simply dated too late, from the 10th century C.E. They are therefore problematic from the standpoint of historical reliability. Some documents date from as early as the 4th century. Jewish evidence is slightly better, but is either late (3rd – 6th centuries) and/or anti-Samaritan in nature. In other words, the problem in Israelite Samaritan studies resides in the lack of reliable historical sources that could give a clear picture of Samaritan life and theology in the time of Jesus. Some level of clarity can nevertheless be established.

First, let us look at what we know would be agreed by both the Israelite Samaritan and the Israelite Jewish groups. These things are mainly concerned with issues of Samaritan self-definition:

1)      The Samaritans referred to themselves Bnei Israel (Sons of Israel) or God’s people Israel.

2)      Samaritans were a sizable group of people who believed themselves to be the preservers of the original religion of ancient Israel. The Samaritan population, including the Diaspora population, was very large by the standards of the time and was comparable to the population of their Jewish counterparts.

3)      As was mentioned already, Samaritans believed that the center of Israel’s worship ought to have been Mt. Gerizim rather than Mt. Zion. They argued that this was the site of the first Israelite sacrifice in the land (Deut.27: 4) and that it continued to be the center of the sacrificial activity of Israel’s patriarchs. The place where blessings were pronounced by the ancient Israelites was also believed to be identical with Bethel and Mt. Moriah.

4)      The Samaritans essentially had a fourfold creed: 1) One God (Yahweh), 2) One Prophet (Moses), 3) One Book (Pentateuch) and 4) One Place (Mt. Gerizim).

5)      The Samaritans believed that the people who called themselves “the Jews” had taken the wrong path in their religious practice by importing novelties into the land during the return from the Babylonian exile. Together with their rejection of Zion, Samaritans rejected the leading role of the Davidic dynasty in Israel, because of its strong connection with Jerusalem.

To receive more information about learning Biblical Languages with Hebrew University of Jerusalem/eTeacher Biblical program online at affordable cost, please, click here.

Now that we have made a partial summary of the undisputed history and beliefs of the Samaritans, let us turn to the Jewish version of that same history. This record essentially comes to us from the twoTalmuds, Josephus, and another largely Jewish source – the New Testament.

1)      Samaritans were a theologically and ethnically mixed people group. They believed in One God. Moreover, they associated their God with the God who gave the Torah to the people of Israel. The Samaritans are genetically related to the remnants of the Northern tribes who were left in the land after the Assyrian exile, but they intermarried with Gentiles who were relocated to Samaria by the Assyrian Emperor. This act of dispossession and transfer from their homeland was done in a strategic attempt to destroy the people’s identity. This strategy was successful.

2)      In the Jewish rabbinical writings, Samaritans are usually referred to by the term “Kuthim.” The term is most likely related to a location in Iraq from which the non-Israelite exiles were imported into Samaria (2 Kings 17:24). The name Kuthim or Kuthites was used in contrast to the term “Samaritans” which means the keepers of the Law. The Jewish writings emphasized the foreign identity of Samaritan religion and practice in contrast to the true faith of Israel that they now saw as developing Rabbinical Judaism. Though rabbinic literature evaluated the Samaritans in a largely negative light, rabbinic portrayals of the Samaritans were not exclusively negative. The literature shows that, for the Rabbis, the presence of the Shomrim (The Samaritans – the keepers of the Torah) was a challenge to be seriously reckoned with. Undoubtedly there was continuing polemical interaction, especially after the fall of Jerusalem.

3)      The Judea-centred Israelites (the Jews) believed that not only did the Samaritans choose to reject the words of the prophets regarding Zion and David’s family; they also deliberately changed the Torah itself to fit their theology and heretical practices. One of the insights that can be gained from comparing the two Pentateuch’s, the Torah of the Samaritans and the Torah of the Jews, is given here as an illustration. The Samaritan text reads much better than the Jewish one. In some cases, the stories in the Jewish Torah seem truncated, with wandering logic and unclear narrative flow. In contrast, the texts of the Samaritan Torah seem to have a much smoother narrative flow. On the surface, this makes the Jewish Torah problematic. Upon further examination, however, this could lead to an argument for the Samaritan Pentateuch being a latter revision or editing of the earlier Jewish text. However, in the light of Qumran discoveries that show agreement between the Samaritan and Qumran texts, a case can also be made for editing of an older text made by the Jews as well.

One of the reasons for only considering the Gospel of John according to its traditional interpretation has to do with a lack of familiarity with the large body of Samaritan scholarship. This scholarship shows the Israelite Samaritans were as much included under the inner-Israelite umbrella as the rest of what is today – referred to as Jewish movements of the Second Temple period. If the reader uncritically accepts the definition of who the Israelite Samaritans were from anti-Samaritan sources such as the writings of Josephus; it would be impossible to see what we are suggesting. On the other hand, if the Ancient Samaritans are also allowed the right of self-definition and therefore placed on the map of Israelite movements in the time of Jesus, this would open a way for a completely different reading of the Gospel of John. (For a very serious student of Israelite polemic, please, visit this page.)

To receive more information about learning Biblical Languages with Hebrew University of Jerusalem/eTeacher Biblical program online at affordable cost, please, click here.

© By Eli Lizorkin-Eyzenberg, Ph.D.

To sign up for weekly posts by Dr. Eli, please, click here. It is recommend by Dr. Eli that you read everything from the begining in his study of John. You can do so by clicking here - “Samaritan-Jewish Commentary”.

Apps for learning Hebrew

There are some really good apps available on Google Chrome for Hebrew Study.
I downloaded several apps that have good reviews of vowels and different things.
If you are interested and have a smart phone or a computer that enables apps
Windows 8 or higher then you will enjoy having this to add to your study helps.
Just go to the google apps store and download. If you have the Google Chrome browser
there is a function that helps you to download it directly.
Happy studies.
Shalom
Sis. Klein

Ugaritic Research......Here is a link

The following is some information about Ugaritic writing :

http://www.mazzaroth.com/ChapterThree/UgariticWriting.htm

Writing in the time of Moses lecture by Dr. Alan Milliard

We were very blessed to be able to attend a lecture seminar that included Dr. Alan Milliard last weekend. The following is a lecture done by him at Lanier Theological Library in Houston, Texas.
The subject is Moses and writing in his time supported by Bible and archeology.
http://vimeo.com/54627118

Writing and Reading in the time of Jesus

Here is a link to a very good article written by Alan Millard, Rankin Professor of Hebrew & Ancient Semitic Languages, The University of Liverpool. It gives support to historic documented literacy of the common people during this time period. He does have a lecture book available which is paper back and I am sure is worth the price, but as for myself I cannot see paying this amount for a paperback book unless it would be a text book.We already have a home library of about 4000 titles which is notably down from the 9000 previously owned by Dr. Klein:) For those of you who are interested though it is available on Amazon.

http://www.bibleinterp.com/articles/Millard_Jesus.shtml

Great article on" Who Really Invented the Alphabet" Worth your time reading!

Not only is the following article good but the rebuttal is good as well. This is worth reading.
http://www.biblicalarchaeology.org/scholars-study/who-really-invented-the-alphabet—illiterate-miners-or-educated-sophisticates/

The Aleppo Codex

While researching this evening I decided to look for some online resources. I found an awesome online site for the Aleppo Codex that I would like to share that may be of interest to new Hebrew Scholars.
http://www.aleppocodex.org/newsite/index.html