Tuesday, March 23, 2021

נעשה

[While we're all getting ready for פורים, let's take a look back at חנוכה:]

In 2013 I posted:
I might have missed this one: someone came over to me at the end of the עליה to tell me that he was pretty sure that instead of וְכָל נַעֲשָׂה בַמַּרְחֶשֶׁת, he was pretty sure he heard נַעֲשֶׂה (with a סגול.) He was pretty certain that changed the tense to future, "let us do." I tried to suggest that perhaps נַעֲשֶׂה is simply the masculine version of  נַעֲשָׂה and still means "made." However, I don't think that is correct. In מעוז צור we say נַעֲשָׂה נס לשושנים. Even though נס is masculine, it is still נַעֲשָׂה. So it would appear that if he heard correctly, then it was in fact a serious error.

However, later that year I actually posted specifically about that line in מעוז צור and thanks to some reader feedback, it produced some interesting revelations as to the proper pronunciation. There are even more links to follow there. With much confusion surrounding the issue I think the one clear outcome is that this should definitely be corrected (in the laining, not in מעוז צור).

שלשלת


At the end of this week's parsha, we are described the ceremony of the consecration of the
 kohanim. As part of the proceedings, Moshe brought three korbanos: a chatas, an olah, and the eil hamiluim. In the pasuk that deals with the slaughtering of the last korban, (8:23), the note on the word "vayishchat" is the unique shalsheles, found only in four places in the Torah and three others in the rest of NA"CH.

R' Chaim Kanievsky explains why specifically this of the three korbanos has a shalsheles on the word "vayishchat." He says he saw in a sefer that a shalsheles denotes an extension or elongation of whatever word it is on. For instance, as Sedom was about to be destroyed, Lot lingered and did not go along with the angels. The pasuk (Bereishis 19:17) says "vayismahmah," with a shalsheles, for he lingered excessively.

Here, the other two korbanos required only a spilling of the blood on the mizbeiach. The last korban, however, in addition to the spilling of blood on the mizbeiach required also the putting of blood on the thumb and big toe of Aharon and his four sons. Therefore, Moshe required to deal at greater length with the slaughtering of this korban so that he could make sure enough blood was gathered for all the necessary tasks. This is why there is a shalsheles on the word "vayishchat."


Friday, March 19, 2021

נוסח ברכת האילנות

Since you are likely to be saying this ברכה without immediate access to a computer, I have uploaded an image which you can point your phone to containing the נוסח below.
Send this URL to your phone: http://tinyurl.com/ilanos


מאת ר' אלי בשם ר' יעקב לוינגר מתל אביב

הנוסח הקדוּם והראוּי לברכת האילנות, בלִבלוּבם בימי ניסן.

הברכה מובאת כבר באוסף ברכות הראייה מימי המשנה, וגם בתלמוד הבבלי בשני מקומות (ברכות מג ב; ר"ה יא א), ברוב עדי הנוסח כך: ברוך שלא חיסר בעולמו (או: מעולמו)כלום וברא בו בריות טובות ואילנות טובות (כדי) להתנאות בהן (או: מהן) בני אדם. זה גם קרוב לנוסח הגאונים (ספר הלכות גדולות סימן א - הלכות ברכות, פרק שישי, ד"ה אמר רב, מהדורת מכון ירושלים, ירושלים תשנ"ב- אבל שם חסר: אילנות טובות), הרי"ף ורש"י על אתר (ווילנא).

רש"י מסביר בפירושו על התלמוד כאן, את משמעות המילה להתנאות = ליהנות (בר"ה (ווילנא): להנות). לדעתו, הפועל להתנאות, (התפעל מהשורש נא"י ) שמשמעותו הנפוצה להתייפות/ להתקשט, מופיע כאן במובנו המשני והשאול: להפיק הֲנָאָה. כאילו נאמר כאן לְהִתְהַנּוֹת(=התפעל), או ליהנות (=נפעל) מהשורש הנ"י שגם השם הֲנָאָה נגזר ממנו.

במיעוטם של עדי הנוסח של התלמוד, בעיקר בכ"י של מסכת ראש השנה שנכתבו אחרי ימי רש"י, אנו מוצאים במקום להתנאות ç ליהנות. לא מצינו בעדי נוסח לפני ימי רש"י עם החלופה ליהנות! נדמה שלפנינו התהליך המוכר של הכנסת פירוש רש"י לגוף הטקסט התלמודי בידי המעתיקים וכך נולדה הגרסה ליהנות, החל מתקופת רש"י. פירוש רש"י בתלמוד מעיד על גרסת להתנאות שהייתה לפניו, אחרת לא היה מוסיף את פירושו.

גם רמב"ם גורס בברכה ב'משנה תורה' (אהבה, הלכות ברכות, פרק י, הלכה יג) להתנאות, כגאונים, הרי"ף ורש"י, אלא משמיט, בדומה לגאונים, את המילים ואילנות טובות וגרסתו ב"א ייי אמ"ה שלא חיסר בעולמו כלום וברא בו בריות טובות נאות כדי להתנאות בהם (או: בהן) בני אדם התקבלה, לפעמים בשינויים קלים, ברוב סידורי התימנים, כשיטתם לפסוק הלכה כרמב"ם.

הטקסט להלן: לפי הגרסה של הטור והשו"ע, או"ח, סימן רכו (פרט לשינוי בהם/בהן -ראה להלן), המתבססת על רוב הפוסקים הראשונים אחרי רש"י. בעקבותיהם של אלו הביאו את הגרסה כך גם רוב הפוסקים האחרונים, עם שינויים מזעריים ביניהם. נדמה שזה הנוסח הראוי לאומרו בעֲדוֹת ישראל שקבלו עליהן לפסוק הלכה כשו"ע.

הניקוד להלן: לפי יעב"ץ = ר' יעקב עֶמדֶין, בסידורו עמודי שמים, אלטונא, תק"ה/ח-1745/8 (ראה במהדורתו המחודשת, הוצאת אשכול, ירושלים תשנ"ג, ח"ב, עמ' קמ-הטקסט שם אינו בהכרח מידי יעב"ץ!) ובספרו לוח ארש (חלק א', סימנים תמה/ו בעמ' קלו/ז, מהדורת ר"ד יצחקי, אוצרנו, טורונטו תשס"א וראה הערות המהדיר שם, עמ' תנג, סימנים תתקיג-תתקיד ועמ' תצה/ו, סימן קעג).

הנוסח להלן מופיע אצל המחברים האשכנזים והספרדים ובסידוריהם, לפני שהגיהו אותם המדקדקים בגרמניה במאה ה-18, על-פי ה"דקדוק המקראי" כשיטתם:
ר' שלמה זלמן הענא (=רז"ה) בסידורו בית תפילה, דף עח ע"ב, יֶסְניץ תפ"ה-1725 [שינה: כּלוּםç דָבָר]
ור' יצחק סַטַנאָב בסידורו ויעתר יצחק, ברלין, תקמ"ה-1785, במדור עמק ברכה כט, שם
[שינה: אילנות טובות ç אילנות טובים ואת ניקוד לֵיהָנוֹת(=נפעל) ç לְהַנּות(=פיעל].
השינוי בהן ç בהם קדום מאוד (כך כבר בחלק מכ"י החשובים של רמב"ם, בטור ובשו"ע !). לאור רוב המקורות האחרים זה כנראה טעות-העתקה או -דפוס.

להלן באות עבה (ובצבע): המקומות ששינו המגיהים הנ"ל ובעטיים רוב הסידורים האשכנזיים המצויים בזמננו (תשס"ו) שאימצו את כל השינויים מהמאה ה-18 או את חלקם (אלה של רז"ה). יכול להיות שהמגיהים האלה הרשו לעצמם את השינויים הנקובים בגלל מִמצאם שגרסת השו"ע כבר סוטה בעצמה מהנוסח התלמודי המקורי.

הסידורים הספרדיים שמרו בדרך כלל על הנוסח של שו"ע, אבל ניקדו חִסֵּר כדלהלן- שהוא חלופה תקינה לניקוד האשכנזים.
נרשם: בידי יעקב לוינגר, בעזרת חכמים מובהקים בתחום: הרב דוד יצחקי- בני ברק-כולל 'חזון איש', ד"ר חיים כהן-אונ' ת"א, הרב ד"ר דוד מישלוב- מושב חמד ועוד מומחים רבים-וכולם יעמדו על הברכה. פרופ' אהרן דותן מאונ' ת"א הביע את הסתייגותו מהנוסח המובא להלן, אבל לא פירט לפניי את נימוקיו. רשימה זו מהווה תקציר של מאמרי המורחב: 'גל גלגוליה של ברכת האילנות, בלבלובם בימי ניסן'.

בָּרוּך אַתָּה ה' אֱלֹקֵינוּ מֶלֶך הָעוֹלָם
(שֶלֹּא חִסַּר (בסידורי הספרדים: חִסֵּר
בְּעוֹלָמוֹ כְּלוּם וּבָרָא בוֹ בְּרִיּוֹת טוֹבוֹת וְאִילָנוֹת טוֹבוֹת לֵהָנוֹת בָּהֶן בְּנֵי אָדָם

Wednesday, March 10, 2021

תרשיש ושהם

(כ"ח:כ)
והטור הרביעי תרשיש ושהם וישפה

In the listing of the stones on the חושן there is a difference between the last row and the other three. The last row is "תרשיש ושהם וישפה" There is a וי"ו before the second stone as well as the third. In the other three rows, the וי"ו appears only before the last stone. משך חכמה points out that the reason for this is as we find in קריאת שמע, that certain groups of words have the first word beginning with the same letter as the next word like "על לבבכם" and therefore must be very carefully differentiated. So, too, here תרשיש and שהם have the same problem. Therefore, in order to differentiate between the two, told Moshe "תרשיש ושהם" so he would not get mixed up.


The difficulty is, however, that in (פקודי (ל"ט:י"ג the list does not contain a וי"ו before שהם. Although משך חכמה does make mention of this fact he does not clearly indicate why that is. ר' ברוך אפשטין, in ברוך שאמר, gives an answer. In ה', תצוה is talking to משה. Therefore, it was important there to differentiate between the two so that there is no confusion. In פקודי, however, the Torah is merely giving a recount of events so it was not imperative to place a וי"ו in the middle.

One of the members of the חבורה where I heard this brought up an interesting point. At the beginning of שמות we seem to find a similar phenomenon. When listing the sons of יעקב a וי"ו is only used for the last name in each פסוק. Except for א:ד, where there is a וי"ו before נפתלי. It would seem that this is to differentiate between the נו"ן at the end of דן and the נו"ן at the beginning of נפתלי. However, here it seems only to be giving a recount and there is no one speaking to anyone. I do not know an answer to that problem.
Any suggestions?

שם and שמה

(ל:י"ח)
ונתת שמה מים
(מ:ל)
ויתן שמה מים
(מ:ז)
ונתת שם מים
All three of the above פסוקים refer to the setting up of the כיור. The simple question is: What is the difference between שם and שמה?

As the comments below indicate, there doesn't seem to be any difference between the two. But this is always what I ask when I encounter things like this: "If there's a difference - what is it? If there's no difference - why are they different?"

ועשה בצלאל ואהליאב

"ועשה בצלאל ואהליאב" (Shemos 36:1)

There are two main types of וי"ו at the beginning of a word: a וי"ו החיבור and a וי”ו ההיפוך. A וי”ו החיבור links the word with that which preceded it, and a וי”ו ההיפוך switches the tense of a verb (and also implies sequence and order). The puzzling thing about all this, is that a וי”ו ההיפוך when switching a verb from past tense to future tense is punctuated in exactly the same manner as a וי"ו החיבור. Usually context can guide us to proper understanding, but sometimes context is not enough. A nice example of an ambiguous וי"ו is ועשה בצלאל ואהליאב. That וי"ו could be either a וי”ו ההיפוך or a וי"ו החיבור . תרגום אונקלוס and תרגום יונתןunderstand it to be a וי”ו החיבור and the אבן עזרא and רש"י מכות יב. understand it to be a וי”ו ההיפוך." There is a further מחלוקת between רש"י and the אבן עזרא regarding whether it is regular future tense or a command which has enough of a relationship with the future to be a possibility within a וי”ו ההיפוך which has switched a verb to future tense.
NOTE: See Weekly Shtikle's blog on the above פסוק.

The obvious question which the camp which understands it to be a
וי”ו החיבור (past tense) must deal with is that according to the plain reading of the text, בצלאל had not even gathered the donations yet, how could he have already done the work? Because of this issue, the אור החיים הקדוש explained that ועשה is referring to making the instruments necessary for the work and not referring to the actual work itself.

One final question: Why would the
תורה create this ambiguous וי"ו?

This is a question one could ask regarding many of the unclear parts of the
תורה system where ראשונים and אחרונים argue. The only possible answer is that the ambiguity is calculated to allow for both interpretations within the text.

Friday, March 5, 2021

Let your Soul not be Desolate

Although mistakes in the הפטרה might not be as serious, they tend to be more prevalent since the reader of the הפטרה tends to be less of a seasoned lainer (depending on the shul.) Unfortunately, there was one year I heard this done completely wrong every time. In the הפטרה of פרשת פרה, towards the end, there are numerous instances of the word נְּשַׁמָּה, meaning desolate. If it is mispronounced נְּשָׁמָה it refers to the soul. Two words, nearly indistinguishably similar whose meanings couldn't be further apart. It would be advisable, if you know who will be laining the הפטרה, to alert them to this in advance. Fortunately, our shul has acquired קלף's for all the הפטרות and now only actual בעלי קריאה lain it.

As MG points out in the comments - for those who are particular about pronouncing a דגש חזק - the דגש in the מ is also an important distinction between the two words.

Oops

I very often find myself focusing very closely on possible little mistakes that might go unnoticed and sometimes, the bigger mistakes fly over my ahead. Such was the case one פרשת פרה when I missed a biggy. Fortunately, it was in the הפטרה. In (יחזקאל ל"ו:ל), instead of פרי העץ, the בעל קריאה said פרי הארץ!! I heard murmurings and I knew I had missed something but I just wasn't sure what it was so I couldn't very well correct it.

I joked with people afterwards that perhaps it is not such a serious mistake. After all, if you make a בורא פרי האדמה on an apple, you are יוצא, right? It is still אדר.

נצי"ב and the Missing יו"ד

דברים ז:ג
וּבִתּ֖וֹ לֹא־תִקַּ֥ח לִבְנֶֽךָ...

A friend of mine showed me this intriguing piece in the העמק דבר this past שבת. I was left shrugging my shoulders. This same friend triggered the discussion that led to this post regarding יחיד ורבים. So this was somewhat of a continuation. But based on what we had previously discussed, I was certain that this word was indeed singular. Nevertheless, העמק דבר goes on to explain why it is plural
לא תקח לִבְנֶךָ. לְבִנְךָ מיבעי. ובא לרמז דהנושא גויה בכרת והיינו מיתה לפני זמנו. ונישאת לבנו השני. שהרי איסור אשת אח אין כאן. משום שאין קידושין תופשין בה:
I brought this up on the דקדוק WhatsApp group and a very knowledgeable member pointed out that this is part of a pattern with העמק דבר and pointed to three other instances where נצי"ב goes out of his way to explain the plurality of what would seem to be a singular noun:
שמות ז:כח וּבְעַמֶּ֔ךָ
שמות לג:יג  דְּרָכֶ֔ךָ
דברים לג:ח חֲסִידֶ֑ךָ
In some of these other instances, he declares that these words in fact have a "missing יו"ד, according to the מסורה." Intriguing, indeed.

To further the intrigue, a reader pointed out that נצי"ב would always sign his name נפתלי צביהודה, clearly omitting an obviously necessary יו"ד. Perhaps there is some connection to his position that the יו"ד doesn't have to be there, even it belongs there. Finally, this fascinating story illustrated how this bizarre practice might have actually saved his life!

Whys and Wherefores

The following thorough and intriguing write-up was submitted by a Dikdukian reader:

It is difficult to research a rule that apparently has no name.

I refer to what some colloquially refer to as the "למה" rule, because it is perhaps best illustrated with a handful of examples in which למה is used twice in close succession, once מלעיל and once מלרע (e.g., Shemot 5:22; Shemot 32:11-12 -- you know it from ויחל on a תענית צבור). The rule is that an otherwise מלעיל word becomes מלרע before a word that begins with an א, ה, or ע (of course, HaShem's name spelled with a י is pronounced with an א and therefore triggers the rule).

R. Yaakov Kamenetsky refers to the rule often in his ספר אמת ליעקב but generally as "that rule I have cited many times." Paul Jouon, in his well-regarded grammar written with T. Muraoka, calls it "hiatus" (a not uncommon grammatical process) but admits the name is less than ideal.

None of this sheds much light on the details of the rule itself. Jouon does mention that the word in question must end in an open syllable, but are there any other environmental factors?

Consider these examples (or nonexamples): 

  1. Bamidbar 11:8: שָׁטוּ֩ הָעָ֨ם וְלָֽקְט֜וּ... There is some disagreement about this one, as indicated in many חומשים that mark it as מלעיל but other sources, including מנחת שי and אמת ליעקבthat say it follows the rule and is מלרע. Those who say it is מלעיל claim that that is true to the meaning of the word, but we see other instances where the rule overrides that consideration (e.g., זָד֖וּ עֲלֵיהֶֽם Shemot 18:11). Nevertheless, it is unusual to see Koren and others mark מלעיל if it should be מלרע. My thought was that perhaps the rule is blocked with a תלישה (big or small), as seen in ...
  2. Bamidbar 16:7: וְשִׂימוּ֩ עֲלֵיהֶ֨ן קְטֹ֜רֶת where ושימו is marked (in every חומש I've seen that double-marks the תלישה in such a case) as מלעיל. But is טעם part of the environment that blocks the rule? Consider also ...
  3. Shemot 25: 24: וְצִפִּיתָ֥ אֹת֖וֹ זָהָ֣ב טָה֑וֹר... R. Kamenetsky says it is מלרע because of "that rule." Conveniently, the word doesn't show up elsewhere (without an א afterward) for comparison, supporting R. Kamenetsky's view by default. But what of other ל-ה verbs that don't trigger the rule, such as the very common ועשית? I had surmised merely that a ל-ה verb doesn't trigger the rule, and thus that the שורש of וצפית is not צפה as otherwise expected. And, in fact, other ל-ה verbs like וראית are still מלעיל before an א (Shemot 33:23, Devarim 4:19, the latter with a תלישה, fwiw). Further, the problem for the other view is that is doesn't explain why ועשית is often followed by an א and yet remains מלעיל (as in Shemot 27:1וְעָשִׂ֥יתָ אֶת־הַמִּזְבֵּ֖חַand we see וצפית as מלרע followed by את in 26:29). The other question here is possible interaction between this rule and that of וי"ו ההיפוך in עתיד/צווי -- but clearly R. Kamenetsky is saying the rule occurs here without saying why it doesn't in other seemingly like situations.

So what are the other environmental conditions that trigger/block the rule? I might like to write down each instance the rule shows up to see what's missing, but perhaps someone has done that already or has the software to find out quickly...?

יעשה vs. תעשה

From Ephraim Stulberg:
(ל"א:ט"ו)
שֵׁשֶׁת יָמִים יֵעָשֶׂה מְלָאכָה

In the above פסוק, where we are told that "for six days shall work be performed." The passive "יֵעָשֶׂה" is of course masculine, in spite of the fact that its subject is the feminine "מְלָאכָה". And so follows the question: What's up with that?

R, Yaakov Kamenetsky observes that in many instances in which the word "כל", or "all", is used to modify a noun, the gender of the verb/adjective used to describe even a feminine noun will be masculine. Thus, in פרשת בא, we have the phrase (כָּל מְלָאכָה לא יֵעָשֶׂה בָהֶם" (י"ב:ט"ז", where the masculine "יֵעָשֶׂה" refers back to the word "כל" more than it does to the feminine "מְלָאכָה". R' Kamenetsky suggests that the verse in כי תשא is to be read as though the word "כל" were present. R' Kamenetsky also quotes the opinion of a certain R' Nathan, who appears to have been some sort of confederate of his back in Lithuania, who explains the incidence in בא by positing a rule in which the gender of passively constructed verbs does not necessarily correspond to the gender of their related nouns. R' Kamenetsky is somewhat dismissive of this suggestion, though it clearly solves the question in כי תשא much more effectively.The truth is that R' Nathan's suggestion had already been anticipated by an earlier authority, namely רד"ק, in his comments on מלכים א ב:כ"א:

וַתּאמֶר יֻתַּן אֶת אֲבִישַׁג הַשֻּׁנַמִּית לַאֲדנִיָּהוּ אָחִיךָ לְאִשָּׁה

He explains that when the passive voice is employed, it creates a sort of gap between noun and verb. רד"ק reads the verse in מלכים as follows: "It shall be given, namely Avishag the Shunamite, to Adoniyahu". Likewise, we would read: "For six days it shall be done, namely 'work'". Actually, this is not very different from the explanation given by R' Kamenetsky. R' Kamenetsky makes the important point of noting that the phenomenon is not limited to the נפעל, and that it really applies in any case where a neuter noun is employed. However, R' Nathan's point is also crucial, for it recognizes that this phenomenon will be much more prevalent in cases in which the נפעל is utilized, thus creating an implicit break between subject and verb which is filled by the invisible neuter.

No More Drinking

Another episode of You Make the Call:

One time, the בעל קריאה, when laining ל"ג:ד וְלֹא שָׁתוּ אִישׁ עֶדְיוֹ עָלָיו put the accent on the last syllable of שתו rather than the first. Usually, I am not a real stickler for accents and I let them fly when it isn't a glaring change of meaning. But here it would seem to completely change the word from "put" to "drink." So, I corrected it on the spot.

As per MG in the comments, I believe it was the right call.

Minimizing Sin

ל"ד:ט וְסָלַחְתָּ לַעֲו‍ֹנֵנוּ וּלְחַטָּאתֵנוּ וּנְחַלְתָּנוּ 

As per a comment in this other post, it is important to be careful to not pronounce it וּלְחַטֹּאתֵנוּ, with a חולם on the ט. This would change it from singular to plural. As I've mentioned elsewhere, in situations like this, I appreciate the "oy-ers." It makes it much easier to discern if it has been pronounced properly or not.

Need to bring this up

ל"ב:ז אֲשֶׁר הֶעֱלֵיתָ מֵאֶרֶץ מִצְרָיִם
ל"ג:א אַתָּה וְהָעָם אֲשֶׁר הֶעֱלִיתָ מֵאֶרֶץ מִצְרָיִם 

There was a בר מצוה laining and he said הֶעֱלֵיתָ with a צרי the second time and I corrected it as a knee-jerk reaction. However, looking at the two words, I can't tell that there is any actual difference between the two. The תרגום is essentially the same. So, as I always do in these situations, I ask: If there is a difference, what is it? And if there is no difference, why are they different?

קול ענות

(ל"ב:י"ח)
וַיּאמֶר אֵין קוֹל עֲנוֹת גְּבוּרָה וְאֵין קוֹל עֲנוֹת חֲלוּשָׁה קוֹל עַנּוֹת אָנכִי שׁמֵעַ

The pronunciation of the דגש חזק is an art which has fallen largely out of practice. Even amongst the best of בעלי קריאה I have heard few who actually still do. More often the not, the דגש does not change the meaning of the word in and of itself. However, one of my Rebbeim in ישיבת אור ירושלים once pointed out to me that in the above פסוק, the דגש diffrentiates between two words in the very same pasuk!

משה רבינו is answering יהושע that he does not hear the sound of the (victorious) outcry of the mighty, nor the (defeated) outcry of the weak. In those first two instances, the word ענות is from the verb לענות, to answer or to exclaim. Rather, says משה רבינו, it is the call of blasphemy, as רש"י explains, which afflict the souls of those who hear them. Here, the word ענות is from the word ענוי, affliction. Clearly, there are two different words in this pasuk and the only to diffrentiate between the two is with the pronunciation of the דגש.