(מ"ב:י"ח)
זֹאת עֲשׂוּ וִחְיוּ
It is of utmost importance that the word עשו be pronounced properly and not עָשׂוּ . The word is meant to be a command but if improperly pronounced, it is a past tense verb. Basically, it is supposed to be "do," not "did."
This is one of those examples which can really be tough to call depending on the בעל קריאה. I have heard some who literally do not differentiate between a קמץ and a פתח. There isn't really much you can do in such a case. For those who do differentiate properly, it is important to keep on eye on constructs like these. This is hardly a unique case. Later in the פרשה we have מַלֵּא אֶת אַמְתְּחֹת הָאֲנָשִׁים אֹכֶל מ"ד:א, as well as וְאַתֶּם עֲלוּ לְשָׁלוֹם אֶל-אֲבִיכֶם מ"ד:י"ז at the very end. And in next week's פרשה as well: אֱמֹר אֶל אַחֶיךָ זֹאת עֲשׂוּ and וְאַתָּה צֻוֵּיתָה זֹאת עֲשׂוּ.
En garde!
Please post additional examples in the comments. If you point to the פסוק, I can insert the Hebrew.
4 comments:
I'm not sure what you were getting at with מַלֵּא אֶת אַמְתְּחֹת הָאֲנָשִׁים. Can you please clarify the potential danger there?
מַלֵּא is an imperative verb - fill 'er up, so to speak.
מָלֵּא would be an adjective - it is full. Although, one might contend that the word את clearly disambiguates מלא and it would have to be understood as a verb in context.
But the same cannot be said for the examples of עשו.
ב"ה
לא זכיתי להבין:
לקוראים בהברה אשכנזית אין שום בעי' מלכתחילה!
לקוראים בהברה ספרדית, לכאורה, אין שום פתרון!
אלא אם כן הכוונה שיש להבחים בין פתח (כלומר קמץ הנקראת כפתח) לחטף-פתח. אין הרבה שיודעים להבחין ביניהם
יעקב חיים יעקובוביץ
Why acc to Ashkenazim no problem? Shrikler just explained the problem
Post a Comment