Friday, March 10, 2017

Balaila hu

During K'rias Hamegillah, I thought I heard the Ba'al K'riah say "Balaila hu" instead of "Balaila hahu". [The person whose job it is to correct insists otherwise] I decided not to reread that word in my Megillah for two reasons.

Number One: There is really no difference in meaning. The Radak writes in Michlol (pg 42) that a "heh hayediah" modifying a noun and an adjective (2 words read together) can be placed on the first , second or both words. [hence the machlokes Rav Shabsai Sofer and Matteh Moshe about "bizman haze"vs. "baz'man haze"] So grammatically "balaila hu" means the same thing as "balaila hahu." [The "beis" includes within it a "heh hayediah," hence the patach, and dagesh chazak in the lamed]

Number Two: There are 4 places in Tanach where "balaila hahu" is written "balaila hu". [B'reishis 19:33, 30:16, 32:23;Shmuel I 19:10] so even if there was a change in meaning, one might argue that where exceptions to the rule exist, one need not correct the mistake, as its correct meaning is still within the realm of possibe interpretation.

4 comments:

Anonymous said...

R' Reuven Margolios includes this phrase among many in which the last letter of the preceding word is also to be read as the first letter of teh next word.

Doniel said...

See Rashi in Vayetze 30:16. I think it is likely that every place it says it this way a similar drasha is meant. I would most certainly correct this mistake.

Binny said...

The Mishna Brura states (O"Ch 142:4)that even if one leaves out a letter of a word, as long as it does not change the meaning of the word, one need not correct the mistake. He is basing his p'sak on the Elyah Rabba and Pri Chadash. In this case, assuming that the Radak is correct, there is no change in meaning and therefore it should not be corrected.

Doniel said...

One has to be careful how liberally to use that Mishna Berura since, as he himself notes in the Biur Halacha, the Gra holds everything has to be corrected, even it the meaning does not change. Since the Radak is not addressing our case directly, and since we have a precedent where Rashi incorporates Chazal's drasha into his pirush, I still maintain that it should be corrected. Perhaps after the fact one can rely on the Radak not to go back.