לחזור ולהתלחלח Another Look at / "לחזור ולהתלחלח": עיון חוזר: הערה על מאמרו של עמנואל מסטיי "לשונות נכחדים בכתב יד קאופמן למשנה: הנוסחאות המחוקות של הסופר, חשיבותן ודרכים לשחזורן", לשוננו עו (תשע"ד), עמ' 79—105

Emmanuel Mastéy, in his article "Reconstructing Linguistic Forms in MS Kaufmann of the Mishnah" (Lešonenu 76 [2014]: 79—105), shows that in m. Niddah 7:2, the original scribe of MS Kaufmann used the form להתלחלח. This form was later changed to להיות לח. On the basis of the reconstructed fo...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:לשוננו 2016-03, Vol.עח (א/ב), p.194-196
Main Authors: הלבני, אפרים בצלאל, Halivni, Ephraim Bezalel
Format: Article
Language:Hebrew
Subjects:
Remarks and Replies / הערות ותגובות
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
Description
Summary:Emmanuel Mastéy, in his article "Reconstructing Linguistic Forms in MS Kaufmann of the Mishnah" (Lešonenu 76 [2014]: 79—105), shows that in m. Niddah 7:2, the original scribe of MS Kaufmann used the form להתלחלח. This form was later changed to להיות לח. On the basis of the reconstructed form להתלחלח, which is not known from any other source, Mastéy explains the Mishnah in a novel way, which differs from how it was understood by the Talmud and the commentaries. Mastéy strengthens his explanation by relying on the assumption that the verb חזר, when serving as an auxiliary verb, always indicates a repeated action. I do not agree with Mastéy's explanation. It fits neither the language nor the context of the mishnaic statement. Additionally the verb חזר, when serving as an auxiliary verb, can indicate continuation of a current state. Rather, the explanation of the Talmud and the commentaries is correct.
ISSN:0334-3626