Sunday, March 24, 2024

I could use a rest

Tonight (פורים תשע"ז) I made a correction on a split-section decision which I wasn't sure really changed the meaning.
ט:כ"ב כַּיָּמִ֗ים אֲשֶׁר־נָ֨חוּ
The בעל קריאה pronounced it na-CHU, with the accent on the last syllable. I know that the שורש of נח - or whatever it should be in full form - is a very tricky one with words sounding very similar but meaning completely different things. For example, see שולחן ערוך או"ח כ"ה:ז ובמשנה ברורה. So I corrected on the spot. Any thoughts as to whether it changes the meaning?


Unknown said...

NaCHU is "they led", shoresh nun ches yud (or nun ches hei) as in the beginning of beshalach velo nacham elokim. So you were right to correct.

Gavriel said...

What about ופני המן חפו at the end of ז:ח - if CHA-phu is said instead of cha-PHU? I’m inclined to think that the context makes things clear, since פני המן is the object and not the subject.

Rav Sean Gorman said...

Note here as well that the word אשר in this case is מוקפת to נחו. The reason for this is the מלעיל of נחו. Further into the verse, we find the word אשר marked with a תלישא קטנה. In the first case, the only solution would be to go with נסוג אחור, which cannot happen due to the שוא. I think that the difference in the second case is that the word נהפך is מלרע. That allows for a טעם instead of a מקף.