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!
cited_by
cites
container_end_page 196
container_issue א/ב
container_start_page 194
container_title לשוננו
container_volume עח
creator הלבני, אפרים בצלאל
Halivni, Ephraim Bezalel
description 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.
format article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>jstor</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_jstor_primary_24704345</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><jstor_id>24704345</jstor_id><sourcerecordid>24704345</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-jstor_primary_247043453</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNqFT01Lw1AQjKBg0f4EYclFhRTTJmmNNxHFg0fvJUhF60ckycWbPyEhL2pptG0Q-pI_tHd_ifOS4lEP7y07szOzu661TMuyO1a_19_U2mE4Nk2z67juoWO31q445zd-5Ywl4ctZcFVDeHT86Ec3o4AufP-OvIgOSP9jXD8iLngCeEZAMoxJQAKgZKG4nPiTYzzJGXGp-gLdHLNxQy74HQ6TOqcErKiKUKZwTEF9ECdoKk4IXUq8hDTjL2iRmqOUmBZ1rhIvoIsbEwFSrbVs2jpeYECppaFWLmGZKFZ5ZciTiKoz1Taru3mmG_S73lxdUuDbg6rkQud036jP2qWB-_0iuqazrW1ce_fhqL2qW9rO2enlyXlnHEZ-MHwKbh-84HnYswembdmO9R__A8bu-xk</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Publisher</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype></control><display><type>article</type><title>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</title><source>JSTOR Archival Journals and Primary Sources Collection</source><creator>הלבני, אפרים בצלאל ; Halivni, Ephraim Bezalel</creator><creatorcontrib>הלבני, אפרים בצלאל ; Halivni, Ephraim Bezalel</creatorcontrib><description>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.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0334-3626</identifier><language>heb</language><publisher>האקדמיה ללשון העברית</publisher><subject>Remarks and Replies / הערות ותגובות</subject><ispartof>לשוננו, 2016-03, Vol.עח (א/ב), p.194-196</ispartof><rights>כל הזכויות שמורות לאקדמיה ללשון העברית, התשע"ו</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://www.jstor.org/stable/pdf/24704345$$EPDF$$P50$$Gjstor$$H</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://www.jstor.org/stable/24704345$$EHTML$$P50$$Gjstor$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,780,784,58238,58471</link.rule.ids></links><search><creatorcontrib>הלבני, אפרים בצלאל</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Halivni, Ephraim Bezalel</creatorcontrib><title>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</title><title>לשוננו</title><description>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.</description><subject>Remarks and Replies / הערות ותגובות</subject><issn>0334-3626</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2016</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><recordid>eNqFT01Lw1AQjKBg0f4EYclFhRTTJmmNNxHFg0fvJUhF60ckycWbPyEhL2pptG0Q-pI_tHd_ifOS4lEP7y07szOzu661TMuyO1a_19_U2mE4Nk2z67juoWO31q445zd-5Ywl4ctZcFVDeHT86Ec3o4AufP-OvIgOSP9jXD8iLngCeEZAMoxJQAKgZKG4nPiTYzzJGXGp-gLdHLNxQy74HQ6TOqcErKiKUKZwTEF9ECdoKk4IXUq8hDTjL2iRmqOUmBZ1rhIvoIsbEwFSrbVs2jpeYECppaFWLmGZKFZ5ZciTiKoz1Taru3mmG_S73lxdUuDbg6rkQud036jP2qWB-_0iuqazrW1ce_fhqL2qW9rO2enlyXlnHEZ-MHwKbh-84HnYswembdmO9R__A8bu-xk</recordid><startdate>20160301</startdate><enddate>20160301</enddate><creator>הלבני, אפרים בצלאל</creator><creator>Halivni, Ephraim Bezalel</creator><general>האקדמיה ללשון העברית</general><scope>P.Q</scope></search><sort><creationdate>20160301</creationdate><title>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</title><author>הלבני, אפרים בצלאל ; Halivni, Ephraim Bezalel</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-jstor_primary_247043453</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>heb</language><creationdate>2016</creationdate><topic>Remarks and Replies / הערות ותגובות</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>הלבני, אפרים בצלאל</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Halivni, Ephraim Bezalel</creatorcontrib><collection>JSTOR Hebrew Journals</collection><jtitle>לשוננו</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>הלבני, אפרים בצלאל</au><au>Halivni, Ephraim Bezalel</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>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</atitle><jtitle>לשוננו</jtitle><date>2016-03-01</date><risdate>2016</risdate><volume>עח</volume><issue>א/ב</issue><spage>194</spage><epage>196</epage><pages>194-196</pages><issn>0334-3626</issn><abstract>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.</abstract><pub>האקדמיה ללשון העברית</pub></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 0334-3626
ispartof לשוננו, 2016-03, Vol.עח (א/ב), p.194-196
issn 0334-3626
language heb
recordid cdi_jstor_primary_24704345
source JSTOR Archival Journals and Primary Sources Collection
subjects Remarks and Replies / הערות ותגובות
title 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
url http://sfxeu10.hosted.exlibrisgroup.com/loughborough?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2024-12-25T14%3A29%3A42IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-jstor&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=%D7%9C%D7%97%D7%96%D7%95%D7%A8%20%D7%95%D7%9C%D7%94%D7%AA%D7%9C%D7%97%D7%9C%D7%97%20Another%20Look%20at%20/%20%22%D7%9C%D7%97%D7%96%D7%95%D7%A8%20%D7%95%D7%9C%D7%94%D7%AA%D7%9C%D7%97%D7%9C%D7%97%22:%20%D7%A2%D7%99%D7%95%D7%9F%20%D7%97%D7%95%D7%96%D7%A8:%20%D7%94%D7%A2%D7%A8%D7%94%20%D7%A2%D7%9C%20%D7%9E%D7%90%D7%9E%D7%A8%D7%95%20%D7%A9%D7%9C%20%D7%A2%D7%9E%D7%A0%D7%95%D7%90%D7%9C%20%D7%9E%D7%A1%D7%98%D7%99%D7%99%20%22%D7%9C%D7%A9%D7%95%D7%A0%D7%95%D7%AA%20%D7%A0%D7%9B%D7%97%D7%93%D7%99%D7%9D%20%D7%91%D7%9B%D7%AA%D7%91%20%D7%99%D7%93%20%D7%A7%D7%90%D7%95%D7%A4%D7%9E%D7%9F%20%D7%9C%D7%9E%D7%A9%D7%A0%D7%94:%20%D7%94%D7%A0%D7%95%D7%A1%D7%97%D7%90%D7%95%D7%AA%20%D7%94%D7%9E%D7%97%D7%95%D7%A7%D7%95%D7%AA%20%D7%A9%D7%9C%20%D7%94%D7%A1%D7%95%D7%A4%D7%A8,%20%D7%97%D7%A9%D7%99%D7%91%D7%95%D7%AA%D7%9F%20%D7%95%D7%93%D7%A8%D7%9B%D7%99%D7%9D%20%D7%9C%D7%A9%D7%97%D7%96%D7%95%D7%A8%D7%9F%22,%20%D7%9C%D7%A9%D7%95%D7%A0%D7%A0%D7%95%20%D7%A2%D7%95%20(%D7%AA%D7%A9%D7%A2%22%D7%93),%20%D7%A2%D7%9E'%2079%E2%80%94105&rft.jtitle=%D7%9C%D7%A9%D7%95%D7%A0%D7%A0%D7%95&rft.au=%D7%94%D7%9C%D7%91%D7%A0%D7%99,%20%D7%90%D7%A4%D7%A8%D7%99%D7%9D%20%D7%91%D7%A6%D7%9C%D7%90%D7%9C&rft.date=2016-03-01&rft.volume=%D7%A2%D7%97&rft.issue=%D7%90/%D7%91&rft.spage=194&rft.epage=196&rft.pages=194-196&rft.issn=0334-3626&rft_id=info:doi/&rft_dat=%3Cjstor%3E24704345%3C/jstor%3E%3Cgrp_id%3Ecdi_FETCH-jstor_primary_247043453%3C/grp_id%3E%3Coa%3E%3C/oa%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_id=info:pmid/&rft_jstor_id=24704345&rfr_iscdi=true