Friday, March 10, 2017

מגלת אסתר

Being in charge of correcting for the מגילה is a very scary task. It's enough that everyone is so uptight about making sure every syllable is pronounced correctly. What makes it worse is all the different שיטות and knowing what might be a mistake and what is not. I once was "right-hand man" (I might have stood on his left) for someone who chose to repeat the פסוק for every word that was a matter of significant dispute, not just להרוג ולאבד and לא עמד בפניהם.

On that note, the רב of our shul told me this past week he once heard someone read בפניהם and not go back. He was very troubled as he read in מנחת שי that לפניהם was in fact the more likely correct word. However, he later found in קסת הסופר by the בעל קיצור שלחן ערוך that בפניהם is in fact correct. Surprisingly, to support this assertion, he asserts that this is the way it is found in the Concordance!

So, anyone who has any advisories to offer, anything to look out for, please post.
For anyone who is not registered as a contributor, I have made a new link on the right to send questions or comments to be posted.

Thanks.

Here's a good one from MG in the comments:
A lesser-known mistake but one that I've heard: "צהלה ושמחה" - the first "ה" in "צהלה" is a חטף-פתח. If pronounced as a קמץ., it changes the meaning to a noun.

Please see more in the comments below:

12 comments:

Lion of Zion said...

"who chose to repeat the פסוק for every word that was a matter of significant dispute"

what are the other disputes?

happy purim

Shtikler said...

e.g.
וְהָמָן נִבְעַת
vs
וְהָמָן נִבְעָת

Lion of Zion said...

who disputes this?

Lion of Zion said...

i mean, is there a strong halakhic source for this dispute or good textual evidence to support both readings.

Shtikler said...

Honestly, it was over a decade ago and I really can't recall who the שיטות were. Anyone else care to pipe in?

ELIE said...

למעשה אפשר להכריע שהגירסא היא לפניהם בלמ"ד ולהרג בוי"ו
כך מוכח מהמסורה ומהמנחת שי
וכך יש עדות שכתוב בכתר ארם צובא
אפשר להכריע לכתוב כן במגילות ואין צורך בכפילות

Anonymous said...

Shtikler said...
e.g.
וְהָמָן נִבְעַת
vs
וְהָמָן נִבְעָת
אין צורך בזה
במהדורת ברויאר יש פתח ותו לא מידי

MG said...

Plenty of things to look out for. There are a few places where mileil vs. milrah make a difference in meaning.

A lesser-known mistake but one that I've heard: "צהלה ושמחה" - the first "ה" in "צהלה" is a chataf. If pronounced as a kamatz, it changes the meaning to a noun.

Also I know that many are not makpid on the dagesh chazak; but for those who are, there are a few places where that makes a difference as well.

Shtikler said...

Some examples would help.

MG said...

Ok. sure!
As far as mileil vs. milrah, the followng places would make a difference in meaning:
1:1, "המלך" is milrah.
1:1, "מהדו" is mileil.
1:17, "באה" is mileil.
2:13, "באה" is milrah.
2:14, "באה" is milrah.
2:14, "שבה" is milrah.
4:11, "וחיה" is milrah.
9:22, "נחו" is mileil.

There are also numerous instances of the וי"ו ההיפוך which one must be careful with. As just one example, we find the same word "ויכתב" in 1:19 with a שוא under the וי"ו implying עתיד, and then in 2:23 and again in 8:9 with a פתח implying עבר.

As far as dagesh chazak, here are two places that I remember offhand that require attention:
3:8, "להניחם", dagesh in the "נ"
5:14, "אמה", dagesh in the "מ"
(also again in 7:9).
Of course, the name "המן" should never be pronounced with a dagesh chazak, as that would change the meaning!
The examples I gave above from 1:1
("המלך" and "מהדו") also should be pronounced with the dagesh chazak to eliminate all ambiguity.

Gavriel said...

Perek 9, psukim 17 & 18

Specifically, ve'aso with a cholam on the sin as opposed to a kamatz.עָשָׂה וְעָשֹׂה Some texts had the trop under the sin, and only one dot on the upper left, not a double indicating a cholam on the sin. With only the one dot, indicating a sin, the tendency is for readers to pronounce the sin with a kamatz, ve'asa as opposed to ve'aso. Others clearly have two dots on the upper left of the sin, one for the sin and one for the cholam. None have a kamatz under the sin. The word is supposed to have a cholam, as far as I can tell. R' Jeremy Wieder informed me that he believes that the differences reflect different nomenclature. R. Breuer in his Tanakh as well as the Leningrad Codex use two dots when you have a sin semalit with a cholam; it may be that other texts use one for both. Either way, the word ועשה אותו יום משתה ושמחה is certainly supposed to be read with a cholam.

Anonymous said...

Rav Mordechai Breuer wrote about this and so did Jordan Penkower. They maintain that the historically correct versions are "lifneihem" and "velaharog."