לְהַֽעֲלֹ֥ת נֵ֖ר תָּמִֽיד
I think people automatically group the two words נר תמיד together in their minds and thus read it with a טפחא on להעלות and a מרכא on נר which is incorrect. It does change the meaning ever so slightly but I would never correct that on the spot. Maybe after the fact, I would point it out.
8 comments:
More likely the first posuk in Tetzaveh.
Ah, I knew it was somewhere else. Couldn't remember where. What do you mean "more likely?" It is a מרכא טפחא there as well.
More likely that the mistake comes from mis-reading/mis-laining Tetzaveh because that posuk is lained four times a year instead of one, and is studied in schools more so than the posuk in Emor.
I'm not sure I follow your logic. Misreading תצוה would not be the cause for misreading אמור. The cause, as I am suggesting, is familiarity with the "Ner Tamid." Misreading תצוה and misreading אמור are both consequences of the same cause.
You said: "I think that is what leads to a very popular misreading of a פסוק in אמור."
My point is this post belongs in Tetzaveh because it is the more frequently read. Obviously one would be likely to misread both pesukim equally, given the familiarity with the phrase "Ner Tamid". But a random sample of a miread occurence of this posuk is "more likely" to come from Tetzaveh.
We're both wasting too much time on this. Wasn't meant to be that deep.
אני מלמד זכות
א. יכולים לומר נר-תמיד סתם כצירוף מילים אף שמקורו מתצווה ואמור
ב. לפעמים מקום הטעמים במקום לא-צפוי יש מוקפים דווקא מילים כמו "לא" וכד' ולא עצם הביטוי וכו' אינני זוכר דוגמאות אבל יש
לימוד זכות על הבטוי "נר תמיד" יש כאן. אבל לימוד זכות על טעות הקריאה אין כאן.
Hard to understand why it wouldn't be a "correctable mistake" - it changes the meaning of תמיד from a directive of time (properly read) to a name of sorts - like the עולת תמיד. It would also change the meaning of נר from "flame" (or wick, or candle, or light etc.) if properly read to "flame of...".
Post a Comment