Page:Jewish Encyclopedia Volume 1.pdf/204

158 Accents in HebrewAccident

TIIK .IKWISII

It should, of courso, he roiiu'iubcird llmt the deviations from tlic acccntiml iiitcrpR-trttiim which lire mt-t in riibl)inical (oninuiilariis were not always conscious transgressions. Tlic niinutiic of the accentuation were not always present to the mind of the commentators. Kut there are cases where the Accents arc avowedly disregarded (see Kimhi on IIo-

himsi'lf.

sea, xii. 12: ""V^^ '"?^. '?n« s^;-y_ -^2 i<« • in interprctin.:; Scripture we are not always bound bv the accents"; see also Lu/.zatto, " Prolegomeni,"

pp. 187

In

et fcq.).

3 there

Isa. xl.

is

a famous case where the ac-

CJP?? ^'P ^^i".) is unciuestionably right. Accordingly tlic Revised Version (text) tninslates:

centiation

" The voice of one that crietli. 'In the wilderness, "etc. The quotation of the verse in Mark. i. connects "in '


 * i

" with " the voice of one crying " (imThe New plying the accentuation '?;?? ^yp ^^P). Testament accentuation (hardly invented forthe occasion the liuucluation in the Septuagint is due to New Testament inlluence) is ])roliiilily nothing more than a haggadie interpretation of the kind so often met with in midrashic works. A puzzling accentuation which goes with the rendering of the Septuagint and Vulgate may be found in Isa. vii. 3: ^^;"' (et (J'li (ki'iiifliiti ext, Ltsuh fiUns tnua; r?^ see Baer's edition, " Additamenta," p. 67).

The Accents in the ordinary editions of the Bible are frequently inreliable. Baer's and Ginsburg's Bible editions (where also important variants are noted) are indispensable to one interested in Biblical accentuation.

the wilderness

{{sm|{{sc|BIBLIOGRAPHY:}} The oldest rules on the sut^ject of the Bil>Ueal Acpents miiy w. found in Ben Asher's treatise, "CT,. 0'";;9^, edited by liaer nnd strack, g§ lii-SS. 30-3.5, 41, 42, 47, Leipslo, 1S79. A treatise falsely ascribed to Judali ben

BH'am

(s-^iiT

P'lin, ed. Men'erus, Paris,

'*'i)

deals with the

subject at irreater length (the same treatise in Arabic may ho found in Wickes, I'nctkul Aecmtunlian.pf. KB i( .scr;.). In HayyuJ's '^'^C .?'? (ed. Null, pp Wi-IUtt, London, ISTOi there is found a chapter on the Accents, which, however, was not Mauut'l du written by the famous ^raumuirlan liiiiisetf. Lectcur Is the name driven by .1. Derenbourj? to a treatise on points of prannnar and Ma.sora, edited by him (Paris, 1871) from a Yemen tnanu.script ; it <-oi)tains rules on the Accents. A useful compilation from the works of early Jewish writers

on the prose Accents D'::;^Oi.

Hcuielheim,

is

I80.S.

Wolf Heidenheim's work, 'P?!?'!^ A few other treatises are men-

'I'o Christian writers of the si'venleenlh tioneij in Wickes. and ei^'hteenth ceutuiies (Huhlius, Wasmuth. spUztn-i-. and others) belonps the merit of fnrmulaiiiit: the in-itictple of halvlmi  i;!i 1(V4 ; compare also his Prulfoonuiii^ 177-llUi. Kwald (SS D-'i-UXI;

Ewald re.]ects the principle of haUintr, in the place of which be puts ills own principle of Iripartltlon ; the discussion is quite abstruse) and (_)lshausen (S^ 4t-r);J: einnpare the diagram for the prose Accents on pp. 98 and Ittt, which resembles the diagram ffiven above, g 4). Baer's treatise, ""t-^ r"!'i. Ri'Kletheim, IS-'^J, desen"es notice (compare alsJo Baer In DeMtzsch, ('y William Wickes. I'orthnl Acccntiintinn, t)xford, l-SHl ; idem, l'ri}se Avccutuatinth O.ford, 1SH7. Compare also .laphet, stir'"' ^'^y't- Oir Accoite der IIciU{ten Schrift^ Fninkfort-on-the-Main, ls11«5; Konig, fjcdankf. LauU uuri/i.-<rlirn ihlrik.inZ.D. .f.<i. n.r,X) rt seii.. im rt m/.; idem, (innnlzilttr drr l^rlm'tisrhin Accrut- }tnn VnkdUrhyr^ Freil)urg (Switzerland), isltti; idem. CnJU rlmini Frilntrndi-

l*netorius. rthirihn I:i}rl,iri i(}if}idi n Acceui lialle-ou-lhe-Saale. lSi(7; Ackermnini, /3((ii )tt iltr BihU.sfhi'u Acrcntuntiou, l-'.h lift lit Berlin, isia; Xathim. Dir Toiizi irhrn in drr BO'cl. in Priigramni di r Tc. v.;

Ili'Iniliftrhi'ti,

Htnne It'

ulist

M

.

L.

M.

ENCYCLorKDIA

158

ACCENTS, MUSICAL VALUE C'ANI

OF.

See

111 li'N

ACCEPTANCE:

law, the assent by ono another, or to any act which becomes opeiative only by such assent in conmierce. the (|Uestion whether the as.seut has beeu given before the withdrawal of the olTcr or incomplete act aiises most fre(|in'nlly over "time contracts," wlicii two parties seek to agree upon buying, by cpiality or ijuanlily oidy. at a futui'e time goods or elTecIs mil identilied; as. so many bushels of red wlieat, so many imunds of iiu'ss beef. This class of contracts is voi Talmiidie law: no one may sell what he does not own at llie lime, for instance, a lisherman may not sell bis next haul, nor a son his share in a dying father's succession, nor may one who is still bargaining for the purchase of a field sell the lield to a third person (B.M. 16(r, /.). Exceptions to the rule an' allowed only on the score of a pressing emergency.

paily

an

111

nlVi-r

In

made by



The Mcihamnicdan law annids all such Sides or contracts as a species of gambling; but the Talmud seems to jn'oceed only on the technical ground that the ownership can not be transferred in the way which the law points out for each sjiecies of pro|ierty. But however helpless to enforce agreements of this kind human law might have been deemed by the old sages, they assure ti.s that " He who pmiislieri the genenillon of the Flood and the generation of the l>j>|.erNj. .11 will punish the liy his Word " Mlslmah B. M. iv. 2).

man who

does not stand

(

Even where a specific thing, whether lanil or chattel, is the subject of a bargain, the Talmudic law does not seem to distinguish between a sale and an "executory contract," that is. an agreement to sell and to buy, tlnnigh there are "purchases on condition." The question as to when the minds of buyer and seller have so far met that neither of Ihem "can go back " <'an be treated under the head of Ai.iknaTION only; for it is merely ii question of change of title (KixvAX), that is, as to what precise -nonient the title in the thing sold or exchanged vests in the buyer.

The older Roman law similarly did not recognize executory sales (or eiiiptin rt mtdili'o was a real not a consensual contract thatis, it became binding not by consent of the jiarlies alone, but by the bodily dolivery of he thing sold according to piescribed forms. The <|uestion of the acceptance by the wife of a bill of divorce written by the husband is extensively discussed in the Tjilmutl. Stiictly, delivery only is necessary. Scripture says, and h<: shall "give it in her hand" (l)eut. xxiv. 1). which, according to the oldest authorities, is comiilied with by putting it "on her roof, in her yard, or on her shed." even without her consent. Kor the reipiisites of delivery, and how the wife Ciiii hasten it by a volimtary acceptance through h<'r agent, see lirvoncK. A discussion very inucli like that about the bill of divorce is found in the Talmud, concerning the moment at which a deed of manumission becomes final; bul the rules in thi' twocases dilTer somewhat, because the iirinci]ile adopted in the Ilalakah assumes ihat the deed of manumission is in its nature wholly beneficial to the slave; while the dilivery of a bill of divorce is in its iiatui'c an imfrieudly act



I

(Git.

I'-V*).

This <|ucstion of Acceptance or finality is often complicated with thelaw of Aoencv; for when documents are sent by "messengers," that is, agents, or when the party who is to receive a document empowei's another to receive it, there is more room for dispute as to the moment of finality than when the two parties deal with each otlicr in person. L. N. D.