I am puzzled by what I find in several Jewish commentaries about Nahum
1.1. Both Rashi and Mahari-Qra are speaking about the word "Hazon" being
vocalized "with a qamets, unlike in Is. 1.1 where it has a Hatuph-Patah".
I don't understand this remark since in my Hebrew editions, the word
"hazon" in Nahum 1.1 _has_ a hatuph patah. What happens? Thank you,
Jean Valentin - Bruxelles - Belgique
/// netmail: 2:291/780.103
"Ce qui est trop simple est faux, ce qui est trop complexe est
"What's too simple is wrong, what's too complex is unusable"