בעל צפון

 I was at a shiur this week where the name of this עבודה זרה was mispronounced as Ba'al Tzafon (with a קמץ under the צ). The מגיד שיעור corrected himself immediately but it got me thinking - what is the actual meaning of this name? If it is just the idol of the north, it should in fact be Tzafon. There is plenty of discussion in the commentaries about the fact that this was an עבודה זרה, but not so much the actual etymology of the name.

Someone in one of my WhatsApp Dikduk groups pointed me to a מדרש שכל טוב which explains that it is in fact a reference to the north but seems to indicate that it is similar to the word צפוני, northern, which does have a natural שוא under the צ. So the ending יו"ד is dropped but the שוא stays and that is how we have Tzefon.

While on the topic of this word, see כלי יקר דברים ב:ג regarding the connection between north, tzafon, and hidden, tzafun.

Leave us alone!

I have a new name for this - the Sneaky פתח.

When בני ישראל are faced with the ominous situation of having a sea on one side, and an invading Egyptian army on the other, some pretty harsh words are hurled in משה's direction. Among them is the statement, "הֲלֹא זֶה הַדָּבָר אֲשֶׁר דִּבַּרְנוּ אֵלֶיךָ בְמִצְרַיִם לֵאמֹר חֲדַל מִמֶּנּוּ וְנַעַבְדָה אֶת מִצְרָיִם" - this is what we told you in Egypt, "Leave us alone..." Special attention must be given to the word חֲדַל. In its correct form, it is the second-person imperative. However, if it is simply mispronounced חָדַל, it changes to the third-person past tense. A very subtle difference but a very serious change in meaning.

Exceptions Ahoy!

In general, the first letter of a word beginning with בג"ד כפ"ת will usually have a דגש. However, if the word is connected to the word preceding it and that word ends with a vowel sound, the דגש is removed. The letters that are capable of producing a vowel sound are א, ה, ו, י. I've always found AHOY to be the easiest mnemonic for this rule. There are two exceptions to this rule in the תורה and both are found in this week's פרשה. In fact, they are both in אז ישיר.

The first is טו:יא מִי-כָמכָה בָּאֵלִם ה', מִי כָּמכָה נֶאְדָּר בַּקּדֶשׁ. The first מִי-כָמכָה follows the rule. The second does not. מנחת שי cites two reasons for this. First, he says that since the name מיכה is the name of an עבודה זרה, it is not proper for the name to "appear" to be mentioned next to השם's name which it would if you were not to pause sufficiently between מי and כמכה. The second reason is an allegorical explanation in the name of ר' יוסף קרא. [Perhaps there is a difference between the two as to whether or not one should bother to go back if they slip up. According to the first approach, once you've said it, it's pretty much too late. But perhaps according to the second approach you do accomplish something by going back. Nevertheless, this should NOT be corrected in shul.]

The second example is טו:טז בִּגְדל זְרוֹעֲךָ יִדְּמוּ כָּאָבֶן. It should be כָאָבֶן. Once again, according to מנחת שי, we are afraid of an improper stringing of words. Without the דגש, it might sound like יִדְּמוּךָ אָבֶן, which would essentially be stating that a rock is comparable to חס ושלום ,השם. And while we are dealing with this particular phrase and the significance of the דגש, it is important to note - as pointed out to me by a reader - that the דגש in the דל"ת makes the accompanying שוא נע extremely important. Yidmu would be a word denoting similarity but the proper pronunciation - yidemu - denotes silence.

MG said...

The Mesorah Gedolah in Daniel perek 5 lists all the exceptions to the "AHOY" rule. In "Az Yashir" you have the two you mention plus 3 more: "Ga'oh Ga'ah" which appears twice (once in the Shira and once by Miriam) and also "Am zu Ga'alta" where the Gimmel has a dagesh even though it shouldn't. The Minchas Shai explains this last one as needing a dagesh because without a dagesh one might confuse the shoresh as being from the word "M'Go'al" which is derogatory.

DECEMBER 16, 2008 12:11 AM

'מקדש ה

Note not only the vowels but the trop as well in the following phrase from (טו:יז)

The meaning of this phrase is "The sanctuary, HaShem, which your Hands have established." The vowels and trop are very instrumental in establishing this as the meaning of the phrase. The note above מקדש is a separator, essentially putting a comma between it and the following word. If it were connected to the following word, it would read "The sanctuary of HaShem which you (whoever that is) have established." If one reads the word with a מרכא note, which is an easy, lazy mistake, it might serve to connect the words and distort the meaning.

Additionally, the קמץ under the דל"ת makes the word stand alone. If it were to be mistakenly pronounced מִקְּדַשׁ, that would also imply the connection with the following word. Needless to say, both mistakes are to be avoided. I wouldn't correct the trop but I'm not so sure about the vowel.

See further discussion in the comments:

Talented Locusts

Just wanted to highlight one of Elie's points below from last week but on this week's פרשה:

י:ו וּמָלְאוּ הלמ"ד בשוא נע, לא לקרוא וּמָלוּ

It is not absolutely essential to use the שוא נע. However, one must be very careful not to skip the שוא altogether and pronounce it וּמָלוּ. Surely, the locusts were not circumcising the Egyptians houses.

Better Not Butcher This One

There are two very similar words that appear in the passages dealing with the קרבן פסח but they must certainly be differentiated and depending on how well a בעל קריאה enunciates his vowels, it might be difficult to discern:

י"ב:ו וְשָׁחֲט֣וּ אֹת֗וֹ כֹּ֛ל קְהַ֥ל עֲדַֽת־יִשְׂרָאֵ֖ל בֵּ֥ין הָעַרְבָּֽיִם

This form is third-person plural future (via ו"יו ההיפוך), I.e. "they shall slaughter it."

י"ב:כ"א וְשַׁחֲט֥וּ הַפָּֽסַח

This is a second-person imperative command, I.e. "you, slaughter it!"

The Strange Thing about Frogs

As a general rule, a שוא under the first letter of a word will always be a שוא נע. Also, if a word is prefixed by a ה' הידיעה it will usually begin with a דגש in its first letter and the שוא will be a שוא נע. There are numerous exceptions to this rule (as there are to every rule, including the rule that every rule has exceptions.) One exception which is seen many times is הלוים which never has a דגש.

(As I understand it, there is a מחלוקת as to whether a שוא underneath one of these exceptions is נע or נח. The תיקון סימנים goes with נח.)

In וארא, we find another exception - צפרדעים. The צ doesn't get a דגש. However, there is something different about this exception. There is an exception to the exception. In ח:ב we find וַתַּעַל הַצְּפַרְדֵּע. Any suggestions as to why this is?

Reader answers:

MG said...

R' Yaakov Kaminetsky discusses this question in Emes LYaakov. He answers that "Tzfardea" is not of Hebrew origin, rather Egyptian, and in that language the Tzadi did not have the ability to receive a dagesh. Therefore even though it is preceded by a "Heh Hayidiah" it receives no dagesh. However the word "HaTzefardea" does not refer to "a frog" but to the "frog infestation", (as Rashi explains according to the Pshat)and this new word now follows the rules of Hebrew Dikduk, so the Tzadi receives a dagesh.

DECEMBER 15, 2008 11:34 PM

Shloime said...

The Radak in Michlol quotes this as being an exception.
A mem of a present tense piel doesn't take a dagesh. Not sure why.