(כ"ה:ל"ט)
כִּכַּר זָהָב טָהוֹר יַעֲשֶׂה אתָהּ
When I first read this פסוק I thought I would be writing this post as an advisory. The first word of this pasuk seems to be connected to the following word. Therefore it should be pronounced as written above so that it means, "a block of pure gold" and not "a block, pure gold." תרגום אונקלוס seems to support this with his clear indication of סמיכות in translating ככרא דדהב.
However, the חומש I use which attributes its editing to Rabbi Mordechai Breuer, זצ"ל, has a קמץ under the כּ"ף. I must therefore assume that this is a matter of dispute.
This issue becomes more intriguing with the פסוק in (פרשת ויקהל (ל"ז:כ"ד. Whereas the פסוק in פרשת תרומה was rendered by אונקלוס as ככרא דדהב, in ויקהל it is ככרא דהב. Why would they be different?
Anonymous said...
בדפוס סביוניטה אין הבדל בין תרומה לויקהל
March 23, 2007 3:01 AM
Please see further informative comments by MG. Essentially, it appears the קמץ is more correct.
Also, please see the following extensive discussion from the fabulous weekly publication, תורת הקורא:
6 comments:
can't think about this now, but would there be a taam maphsik there if it is semikhut?
nice blog
forgot to sign the above:
-ari kinsberg
agmk.blogspot.com
See Rashi to parshas Titzaveh 29:30 that a tivir is "nimshach lifanav" even though it is a melech.
רציתי להוסיף שגרסת ברויאר ככר בקמץ
היא עיקר
מה שצוין תרגום סביוניטה הוא כאן
http://www.hebrewbooks.org/home.aspx
1) See Torah Temimah and the Netziv who make a big deal out of this supposed semichut
2) The more accurate manuscripts have a kamatz here (I believe only the 2nd Rabbinic Bible aka Bomberg's Mikraot Gedolot has a patach here and that's where all the "shul" chumashim got it from)
3) One cannot bring proof to the Mesorah from Onkelos
4) There are manuscript versions of Onkelos without the daled of semichut, and if I recall correctly those are the more accurate versions
5) Onkelos will use a semichut construct even when it's clear from the text that there is no semichut
A) Anonymous said...
can't think about this now, but would there be a taam maphsik there if it is semikhut?
B) Doniel said...
See Rashi to parshas Titzaveh 29:30 that a tivir is "nimshach lifanav" even though it is a melech.
"Nimshach Lefanav" doesn't mean in semichut; "hakohen" is not in semichut there, so that posuk isn't a proof.
In a three word phrase, as we have here ("Kikar Zahav Tahor"), where the first two words are in semichut and the third modifies the middle word, we find many times (in fact it's very common) that the first word gets a ta'am mafsik and the middle gets a taam mesharet, so the ta'amim are not a proof to semichut here.
I.E.: V'Chol Ziknei HaIr Hahee (Deut. 21:6)
Post a Comment