We have previously discussed the possible mix-up of כבש and כשב. Whether or not the two words mean the exact same thing, it definitely needs to be corrected. I actually had to do just that [תשע"ו] this past שבת when I'm pretty sure the בעל קריאה said שה כבשים instead of י"ד:ד - שה כשבים. But while I was contemplating that, something arose on the very next פסוק which I was unsure of. Someone claimed that instead of אַיָּל, a deer, he said אַיִל, a ram. Whether he did or he didn't is not particularly relevant at this point, I suppose, but it is worth pointing out how similar these two words are while they refer to two completely different animals. And by posting this now, hopefully it will jog my memory to be en garde in coming years.
skip to main |
skip to sidebar
An online דקדוק resource for גבאים, בעלי קריאה and דקדוק enthusiasts
2 comments:
אין גבול לטעויות אפשריות
ברור שהחלפת כבש-כבש
צריכה תיקון
כמו שאם יקרא רחל במקום כבשה או כשבה לא קרא נכון
וכן איִל
במקום אַיָּל שהוא מלרע
כשיש קורא כזה צריך להיות מוכנים לתקן מייד במקום
In the same Aliya, I noticed a word with a double oddity. In יד:טו we find הָרָחָ•מָה, which consists of for syllables but only uses kamatz, and is stressed mileil for no discernible reason. Michael Gutmann, an excellent קורא with KAJ roots suggested that the corresponding reference in שמיני (ויקרא יא:יח) uses הָרָחָם, without the ה suffix. Perhaps in ראה, it modified the form but kept the accent structure, stressing the same חָ in both references. That works make it a contorted milra, not an exception mileil. My father suggested a similar principle to explain the lack of a dagesh in the first gimmel of בשגגה. He considered it to שִגָגָתָם. A more formal version of the word word works use only kamatz, and the modification keeps the non-dagesh structure of the original, based on the concept in the אבן עזרא ויחד יתרו שמות יח:ט.
Post a Comment