1) One can't really assume that one version of the gemara is definitive. It might be worthwhile to find a critical edition that compares numerous (pre-Vilna edition) manuscripts to see whether there are alternative versions of Berachot 17a.
2) I had thought מָרֵק was derived from ריק (empty), being a hif'il form. But I guess that only makes sense as a participle, not as an imperative.
3) What might be interesting with ריק is to look at what the ן in לרוקן is doing...
Well, I don't have access to Dikdukei Sefarim, but Steinsaltz mentions manuscript variations and didn't mention מחק for either Berachot or Yoma.
As far as רוקן - Klein isn't much help. He says there is a verb ריק meaning "to empty", and of course the adjective ריק meaning "emtpy" as well. Similarly there is an adjective ריקן meaning "emtpy", and from that adjective comes the verb רוקן - also meaning "to empty". Maybe it's a difference between Biblical and Post Biblical Hebrew - not sure.
what type of a file is the sefer hashorashim you linked to? i could not open it.
could you tell us more about the new mahzor you bought? i never heard of keter melucha.
rinat yisrael is nice because it marks kamatz katan/gadol and milel/milra
I think you have to install a plugin to view the file. I can only see it using Internet Explorer (not even Firefox with the IE tab.)
Keter Melucha is a Feldheim machzor, I think a smaller version of their Beit Rabban one. Nothing too special - has some commentary on the words, explanations of what to do - and for me, importantly, has some notation for shva na.
I do like Rinat Yisrael, but after using it for many years, it was nice to try something new this time.
Feldheim is even more illustrative on dikduk than Rinat Yisrael...
And see http://jnul.huji.ac.il/dl/books/...l/
bk0960070.htm for Sefer Hashorashim
Joel - What do you mean by "illustrative"?
And that link you provided, and provided a number of months ago, is the one Ari is talking about...
I know it's the same document: the link you provided from the blog post goes straight to the djvu plugin document. The link I posted above is am introductory page that the browser without plugin can view, and which links to the plugin download.
Illustrative was maybe a silly word, but I just mean that it marks features like sheva na, etc, following on from the tikkun simanim work (as well as word stress and kamats katan). Artscroll shows sheva na, but lacks kamats katan. Koren shows kamats katan but not stress or sheva. And to my knowledge Rinat shows stress, kamats katan but not sheva.
"Koren shows kamats katan but not stress or sheva."
it does show sheva na (at least in the mahzorim i have), but they distinguish it so poorly that it is difficult to see it without straining your eyes
Joel - Thanks for the note. I didn't actually go to the page...
The machzor I used, while published by Feldheim, didn't use the same marking system as Simanim. In principle I like Simanim, but I recently bought a siddur+chumash, and the siddur was full of mistakes. (I caught ones in kamatz katan / gadol, but I suppose there could have been in sheva as well.)
I actually only discovered that Koren marked kamatz and sheva this past Shabbat. How did I miss it for so long? First of all, as Ari said, the differences between kamatz katan and gadol, and shva na and nach are so slight, that it is very hard to see, particularly in my small siddur. But more so, because for some reason, Koren only marks those differences in sections that aren't taken from their Tanach. And since the question of ובשכבך in Shma is what got me interested in the first place, that's where I always check. So I never knew Koren marked anything at all...
"And since the question of ובשכבך in Shma "
what's the question?
The question is whether the first bet has a shva na, or a shva nach. I mentioned it here:
http://www.balashon.com/2007/08/...7/08/
schwa.html
What sort of mistakes in kamats katan/gadol? There are a number of cases where opinions vary, and Rinat does not always agree with Koren.
And you'll find the dispute of prefixing and sheva na is not exclusively found in וּ-. This is probably the most controversial, but if you open up Tehilas Hashem and many other siduurim, you'll find a sheva na marked after בִּ, לִ, etc. (So בִּכְבוֹדֶךָ to them would be bikhevodekha while others will insist on sheva nach: bikhvodekha.)
i never realized there was a debate over ובשכבך. why would it be na? there is a good article on the nach in this position by yalon that i mentioned in a comment to the original post.
Joel - The mistakes were in the Simanim siddur. There's no question they were mistakes - it was just sloppy typesetting / proofreading. A few examples:
a) In Ashrei, they have the alef in אכלם בעתו with a kamatz gadol (achlam instead of ochlam). In their Tanach, they get it right.
b) In Aleinu they have בגבהי with a kamatz gadol.
c) In the end of the Amidah, they have שם נעבדך with a kamatz gadol.
And there are other places where their mistakes aren't even consistent - they'll quote the same pasuk once one way, once another.
Mistakes with kamatz are easier for me to pick up since the grammar often obligates a correct pronunciation, and I've been paying attention to it in Rinat Yisrael for a while. I don't know if they make similar mistakes with shva.
Ari - The GR"A holds that it is na. Artscroll in later editions of their siddur changed their version to follow the GRA. According to the GRA, it needs to be a na because it comes after a meteg.
Hmm.... you're right. They're mistakes. =(
Commenting by HaloScan
