אפרתה, what is your real name?

 I figured I would reuse the name I used for a similar post on the city of יהץ/יהצה.

ל"ה"ט"ז

וַיִּסְעוּ מִבֵּית אֵל וַיְהִי־עוֹד כִּבְרַת־הָאָרֶץ לָבוֹא אֶפְרָתָה וַתֵּלֶד רָחֵל וַתְּקַשׁ בְּלִדְתָּהּ

It seems the clear that the meaning here is "to אפרת."

ל"ה:י"ט

וַתָּמָת רָחֵל וַתִּקָּבֵר בְּדֶרֶךְ אֶפְרָתָה הִוא בֵּית לָחֶם׃

This is the one that is hard to explain. The ending ה does not seem necessary. Especially, if you consider the פסוק in ויחי:

מ"ח:ז

אֲנִי בְּבֹאִי מִפַּדָּן מֵתָה עָלַי רָחֵל בְּאֶרֶץ כְּנַעַן בַּדֶּרֶךְ בְּעוֹד כִּבְרַת־אֶרֶץ לָבֹא אֶפְרָתָה וָאֶקְבְּרֶהָ שָּׁם בְּדֶרֶךְ אֶפְרָת הִוא בֵּית לָחֶם

The only plausible explanation I have heard is that this city has two valid names - אפרת and אפרתה - which seem to be somewhat interchangeable. This reality is actually supported by this contemporary news story regarding a dispute as to what the modern-day name of the city ought to be.

Appearances

This past shabbos (2014) we had the pleasure of a Bar Mitzvah boy with a wonderful, clear voice and very well-taught. There was one item which I apparently missed and was only later brought to my attention:

ל"ה:א לָאֵל הַנִּרְאֶה אֵלֶיךָ

He apparently said הַנִּרְאָה with a קמץ instead of a סגול. Of course, it is certainly wrong. The question is how wrong. What is the actual difference?

At this point I want to advertise a wonderful resource I have been making use of. For דקדוק enthusiasts and users of the popular mobile messaging platform WhatsApp, there is a WhatsApp group dedicated to discussions revolving around דקדוק and קריאת התורה. WhatsApp used to enforce a group limit of 50 and this group was maxed out but that limit was raised so there's room for more. You can contact me for more details if you are interested. Be aware, though, that discussions are generally in לשון הקדש.

So there was quite a debate about this on the group. Is it a difference of עבר/הווה? Is it זכר/נקבה? We went through a number of different פסוקים and debated the gender of the verb. Ultimately, however, it appears that it is actually a matter of עבר vs. הווה which is potentially a serious error. This matter is in fact discussed extensively in this essay. I am not familiar with the author but he seems to have quite an extensive library of דקדוד essays.

As is discussed in the essay, a קמץ would imply the past tense whereas the סגול would imply present. The question then arises - why is the present tense used when the phrase is clearly referring to the past. He does address this but in the end, I would suggest that it is reasonable to assume that since the error made actually transformed the word to the past, which is the actual meaning of the phrase as a whole, the error is not as egregious as once thought. Certainly, it should be corrected on the spot but perhaps forgivable after the fact.

This discussion ties in with another timely discussion involving the phrase נעשה נס in מעוז צור.

The Great דישון Confusion

Trying to follow עשו's three-dimensional family tree is hard enough. Following the offspring of שעיר החורי which follow the listing of עשו's is made equally difficult by the recurrence of the name דישן. Sei'ir named his fifth child דִשׁוֹן. Then, in a stunt mimicked by the Saskatchewan Roughriders and Ottawa Rough Riders of the Canadian Football League thousands of years later, he named his seventh child דִישָׁן. Both appear in ל"ו:כ"א and later on in ל. Fair enough. We let the CFL get away with it, we can let שעיר get away with it as well. However, the confusion grows when the פסוקים list the grandchildren of שעיר. In פסוק כ"ה, his fourth child, ענה, decides that there are simply not enough דישן's in the family and names his son דִּשֹׁן as well. But when the Torah lists the children of שעיר's fifth child (פסוק כ"ו), formerly referred to as דִשׁוֹן, he is referred to there as דִישָׁן. Two פסוקים later, his brother is called דִישָׁן as well. This is more confusing than the CFL (The CFL had eight teams; שעיר only had seven children.)

The גר"א suggests that the spelling of the names is dependent on the placement of the word in the פסוק. If the word appears at a principal stop, that is, either the end of the פסוק or the אתנחתא that signifies the principal pause in the פסוק, then it is written דִישָׁן. When it is not, it is written דִשׁוֹן. When we are introduced to them, the fifth son is at the beginning of the pasuk and thus is written דִשׁוֹן. The seventh is on the אתנחתא in the פסוק and thus, is written דִישָׁן. When listing their children, both appear in the middle of the פסוק and therefore, both were written דִישָׁן. The proof to this theory is that in דברי הימים א א:ל"ח both are written דִשׁוֹן because both are not at the end or middle of the פסוק.

The only difficulty with this is that in דִישָׁן ,פסוק כ"ח appears on a טפחא note, not אתנחתא, an apparent violation of the גר"א's rule. To reconcile this problem, we must turn to אמת ליעקב in פרשת בהעלתך where he writes that when a פסוק does not contain an אתנחתא, the טפחא may take on the roll of the primary pause as in במדבר ט:ב and י"ג:ח. Here, too, the טפחא, in the absence of an אתנחתא, takes on the roll of the primary pause and turns דִשׁוֹן into דִישָׁן.

In the end, שעיר's fifth and seventh sons were both named דִשׁוֹן but that name changed to דִישָׁן based on the placement in the pasuk just as many other words have a vowel changed to a קמץ when at the end or middle of the פסוק. The גר"א, however, did not forget about ענה's son in פסוק כ"ה. He was also named דִשׁוֹן. But he was a different kind of a דִשׁוֹן. He was a דִשׁוֹן that didn't change despite the placement in the pasuk. So, here, and in דברי הימים א א:מ"א, even though his name falls on an אתנחתא, it is written דִשׁוֹן. That's one confusing family.

Qualification of the אהוי rule

I have recently been asked on a number of occasions regarding apparent exceptions to the אהוי rule which is that if a word ends with one of those letters, it will remove an expected דגש at the beginning of the next word. This is provided that the first word is connected to the second by means of a טעם משרת such as a מרכא, rather than a pausal note like an אתנחתא or טפחא.

The first example was in ויצא:

ל:טז ...וַתֹּ֨אמֶר֙ אֵלַ֣י תָּב֔וֹא

The י does not remove the דגש from the תּ even though it has a מונח which functions as a משרת.

Another example on which this question was raised was in אחרי מות:

יח:ה ...וָחַ֣י בָּהֶ֑ם

Again, the דגש remains in the בּ.

This phenomenon is interestingly observed in בחוקתי. The first mention of the word בחוקתי is on a טפחא which is a מפסיק anyway. But when it is mentioned in the negative portion, we find:

כו:טו וְאִם־בְּחֻקֹּתַ֣י תִּמְאָ֔סוּ

The מונח is a משרת but the תּ keeps its דגש.

It is important to forget about the actual letters for a moment. The essence of this rule is that it is applied when the first word ends with a vowel. This best way to understand this apparent anomaly is to observe a similar paradigm we find the English language with the letter Y. It can function as a consonant, as in yes or year, but can also be used as a vowel, as in the word gym or psychology. When the י extends a vowel sound, which would seem to be only after a צירי or חיריק, it functions as a vowel. However, after any other vowel, the function of the י is clearly a consonant, closing the syllable. Therefore, the אהוי rule would not apply. 

(Now, this applies to צירי and חיריק because they both end with a י sound. That is why the י is said to extend or fill the vowel. If one pronounces a חולם "oy," shouldn't it apply there, too, whereas if you pronounce it "oh," it would not. As per the comments below, דברים ד:ח וּמִי֙ גּ֣וֹי גָּד֔וֹל is a good example. If this theory is correct it would prove the "oy" pronunciation to be incorrect. But I'm not fully convinced myself.)

Come on, People! Part II

[5772] This past  שבת, after the shul's official מנחה, I was sticking around to learn a little when a group from a בר מצוה came in and started another מנין. They didn't really have someone to lain. I happen to know the first עליה of ויצא but there was someone else who "offered" so I let him do it. He definitely ran into some difficulty which I do not fault him for. But then he said וַיִּיקַץ יַעֲקֹב מִשְּׁנָתוֹ וַיֹּאמַר  - instead of וַיֹּאמֶר. Yes, imagine the horror! Unfortunately, someone in the crowd had the audacity to call out the correction - and he was quite adamant about it. I tried my hardest to drown him out and assert that it made no difference and he should just go on. But he actually went back and repeated the entire פסוק. It's bad enough to make such a correction under normal circumstances. But certainly, when the בעל קריאה is already nervous because he does not know it so well and is up there as a last resort - these corrections are more than unnecessary. I really wanted to go up to the "correcter" afterwards and kindly explain that the difference between וַיֹּאמַר and וַיֹּאמֶר is about the same as the difference between מִצְרָיִם and מִצְרַיִם. But I could not gather the courage.

Addnedum 5780: Someone actually asked me why it is not וַיֹּאמַר. We do sometimes see words take on the pausal form, even if not on an אתנחתא or סוף פסוק. (Incidentally, the actual trop on this word is a matter of dispute.) It turns out it's not so simple. Maybe I can cover it in another post.

A reader recently (5781) contacted me and provided a very clear analysis of different used of וַיֹּאמַר and when it might actually be מעכב:

My own observation is that one of the uses of  וַיֹּאמַר rather than וַיּאמֶר is stylistic, namely when an additional verb is assigned to the subject. Here are some examples:

 

בראשית יד:יט  וַיְבָרְכֵהוּ, וַיֹּאמַר:  בָּרוּךְ אַבְרָם 

בראשית יח: כג  וַיִּגַּשׁ אַבְרָהָם, וַיֹּאמַר

 במדבר כג:יב  וַיַּעַן, וַיֹּאמַר:  הֲלֹא, אֵת אֲשֶׁר יָשִׂים

שופטים כ:ד  וַיַּעַן הָאִישׁ הַלֵּוִי, אִישׁ הָאִשָּׁה הַנִּרְצָחָה--וַיֹּאמַר

 

This style is not followed, however, when ויאמר is followed by an infinitive, such as ל... or לו or אליו, as in:

 

 בראשית כז:לז  וַיַּעַן יִצְחָק וַיּאמֶר לְעֵשָׂו

 

 I found only one exception to this rule in Chumash, where even though there is another verb, plus no infinitive after the ויאמר, the nikud is וַיּאמֶר:

 

בראשית מ:יח  וַיַּ֤עַן יוֹסֵף֙ וַיֹּ֔אמֶר זֶ֖ה פִּתְרֹנ֑וֹ שְׁלֹ֙שֶׁת֙ הַסַּלִּ֔ים שְׁלֹ֥שֶׁת יָמִ֖ים הֵֽם:

 

(In the rest of Tanach, my Concordance tells me that there are 32 more instances of ויען...ויאמר, but I have not gone through them to see whether in those cases the ויאמר is always followed by an infinitive.)

 

But another use of vayoMAR vs. vayoMER might warrant correction in instances where וַיֹּאמַר occurs. When ויאמר is followed by a name, וַיֹּאמַר makes it very clear, by the pause, that the one named is not the one speaking, but part of the quote. This happens often when it’s Hashem or Elokim that is the word following ויאמר:

 

 בראשית יח:ג 

וַיֹּאמַר  ה' אִם-נָא מָצָאתִי חֵן בְּעֵינֶיךָ

 

Viz., it should not be understood as "And Hashem said, "If I have found favor in your eyes...". It should be read and understood as, "And he said, "Hashem, if I have found favor in your eyes...".

 

Another example:

בראשית טז:ח וַיֹּאמַר הָגָר שִׁפְחַת שָׂרַי אֵי-מִזֶּה בָאת

 

— וַיֹּאמַר tells you not to read the verse as saying, “And Hagar said, ‘Servant maid of Sarai, from where are you coming?” but rather, “And he said, “Hagar, servant maid of Sarai…’ ”

 

This example also shows that scripture uses וַיֹּאמַר for this purpose even when other indicators already make it clear. After all, the masculine ויאמר rather than the feminine ותאמר already makes it clear that it is not Hagar speaking.

 

In the pasuk you write about, וַיִּיקַץ יַעֲקֹב מִשְּׁנָתוֹ וַיֹּאמֶר אָכֵן יֵשׁ ה' במקום הזה, there is apparently no fear that one would think that "אכן" is the name of a person, so writing וַיֹּאמַר  would be unnecessary.

In conclusion, I stand by my assertion that the correction in this case was clearly unwarranted. However, my assertion that the difference between the two is universally insignificant was also equally faulty.

Different types of kissing

A reader recently asked me about the different forms of the word "to kiss" found in the תורה. As a simple illustration:

בראשית ל"ג:ד וַיִּשָּׁקֵהוּ

בראשית ל"ב:א וַיְנַשֵּׁק

There seem to be two different בנינים used. Is there a difference in meaning between the two or any reasoning behind why one would be used more than the other?

In תולדות we had:

  בראשית כ"ז:כ"ו גְּשָׁה נָּא וּשְׁקָה לִּי בְּנִי

Is that yet a third בנין or simply a conjugation of the first one above?

See comments below.

(From) the Fats of the Land

The ברכה to יעקב begins ויתן לך האלהים מטל השמים ומשמני הארץ כ"ז:כ"ח. One might be tempted to translate the last phrase as "from the fats of the land," with the מ"ם as a prefix meaning "from." However, if that were the case, there should be a דגש in the שי"ן. But there is not. It therefore seems to be that the מ"ם is in fact part of the word - משמן. The same would apply in עשו's ברכה in פסוק ל"ט although it is harder to understand in context there.

 MG said...

The Minchas Shai brings down old manuscripts that in fact did have a dagesh in the shin, then dismisses these versions. He quotes the Eben Ezra and the Radak who both say that the "מ" of "מטל" applies to both words, implying that the "מ" of "משמני" is not one of שימוש. Then he quotes the Chizkuni who seems to imply that the "מ" is indeed a שימוש here.
עיין שם.

November 22, 2009 9:31 PM

I will eat, you will eat

כ"ז:י"ט

קֽוּם־נָ֣א שְׁבָ֗ה וְאָכְלָה֙ מִצֵּידִ֔י בַּעֲב֖וּר תְּבָרֲכַ֥נִּי נַפְשֶֽׁךָ

יעקב tells קוּם נָא שְׁבָה וְאָכְלָה מִצֵּידִי ,יצחק. Mispronouncing it וְאֹכְלָה would drastically change the meaning from the second-person "you shall eat" to the first-person "I shall eat," as evidenced by its use in פסוק כ"ה. Fortunately, our בעל קריאה last year was - what my son would call - an oy-er, and a very consistent one at that, so the mistake stood out and I was able to catch it. But this is a mistake that an oh-er could very easily get away with, unfortunately.

It should also be noted (as Elie did below) that וְאֹכְלָה has a שוא נע under the כ whereas וְאָכְלָה has a שוא נח.


A reader has cleverly pointed out:
An amusing mnemonic device: The pasuk states: "קוּם־נָ֣א שְׁבָ֗ה" and not קוּם שְׁבָ֗ה נָ֣א -- It is not a שוא נע!

My Master's Brother(s)

פרק כד contains two very similar phrases with one very important distinction which would seem to change the meaning:

כ"ז בַּדֶּרֶךְ נָחַנִי ה' בֵּית אֲחֵי אֲדֹנִי

מ"ח לָקַחַת אֶת בַּת אֲחִי אֲדֹנִי לִבְנוֹ

The first one seems plural and the second is singular. However, there are two points that trouble me about the above observation:

1) I cannot understand why it would be plural. It doesn't really make much sense in context.

2) The תרגום of both is אחוהי which would seem to imply singular on both counts. When תרגום translates אֲחֵי that is clearly plural, such as במדבר כ"ז:ד, he actually leaves the word untouched and translates as אֲחֵי.

Is it possible that even אֲחֵי is singular here? (And if so, perhaps does not need to be corrected.) And of course, if so, the next question would be why does the word change?

Update 2016: Based on Anonymous's comment below (the second one) question #2 is not a question at all. In looking into it further, I came up with a theory to address my first question. The first פסוק is אליעזר's actual private prayer. אברהם sent him to find a girl from his family, seemingly without any further direction. So in truth, he could have ended up at any of אברהם's relatives and that would have sufficed. He was praising השם for guiding him to "the house of [one of] his master's brothers," אחי being used more loosely as a general reference to all relatives.

When telling over the story to רבקה's family, however, he felt that wouldn't make them feel terribly special. Using the singular form implied that he was specifically pleased with having found a girl from this particular family.

Different forms of יירש

Previously, I have discussed the intricate difference between the ברכה given to אברהם after the עקידה and that given to רבקה before she departed to marry יצחק. However, I recently noticed that in וירא, the word is written וירש whereas in חיי שרה it is ויירש with two יו"דs. תרגום אונקלוס is identical. Any explanation for why they would be written differently?

באר שבע

The episode of the wells involving יצחק and אבימלך comes to a conclusion in באר שבע. However, it was called באר שבע before they got there. Then, after the covenant between יצחק and אבימלך, it is named באר שבע. Is this the same באר שבע as the one named by אברהם? If so, why did they name it the same name all over again?

רשב"ם writes that this was in fact a different באר שבע from the one in the times of אברהם. However, an interesting explanation is given by the ספורנו. He writes that the name in אברהם's time was בְּאֵר שָׁבַע. After the episode with יצחק and אבימלך, it was renamed to בְּאֵר שֶׁבַע. It is very interesting that this theory can not be disproved. Any time that the city is mentioned until now, it appears either at the end of a פסוק, or an אתנחתא. Even if it were בְּאֵר שֶׁבַע from before, the סגול would have always changed to a קמץ. So we have no way of knowing if it called בְּאֵר שָׁבַע because of its position in the פסוק or if it is because that is really its name. ספורנו writes that it was in fact its name since it was only named as such to reflect the vow that אברהם made. Now that it reflected the number seven as well, corresponding to the seven wells that were found, it was changed to בְּאֵר שֶׁבַע. 

One year, on ראש השנה, the בעל קריאה said בְּאֵר שֶׁבַע and I almost corrected him based on the ספורנו. But I didn't.

King #5

This week's פרשה features the epic battle between the short-handed four kings, אמרפל, אריוך, כדרלעמר and תדעל, and the five kings, ברע, ברשע, שנאב, שמאבר and... wait, was the name of the fifth king? When the five kings are mentioned, the last is "ומלך בלע היא צער". Rashi explains that the city of בלע was also known as צער. The פסוק could not be naming צער as the king of בלע because of the feminine "היא." If צער were the name of the king of בלע, it would have read " ומלך בלע הוא צער." So what was his name and why is it left out?

A number of answers are suggested. רמב"ן states that בלע was a small city and so the name of its king was left anonymous due to his relative insignificance. שערי אהרן points out that the names of the four other kings are apparently nicknames alluding to each one's wickedness as רש"י thoroughly explains. From the story of the destruction of סדום in next week's פרשה we learn that צער was the least wicked of the five wicked cities slated for destruction. Thus, the king's name is left out due to his relatively insignificant wickedness.

Surprisingly, however, חומת אנך and ספר הישר actually write that the name of the king was בלע. I am not sure how the grammar of the פסוק works and why this king is differently introduced than the others but this is the only offering I have found as to the actual name of the king.

Is it ko-yei or ko-vei?

This seem to come up as a hot topic every year regarding the הפטרה:

ישעיה מ:ל"א

וְקוֹיֵ֤ ה' יַחֲלִ֣יפוּ כֹ֔חַ

Where does the צירי fall? Under the ו"ו or the יו"ד? The מנחת שי is very clear that it is under the יו"ד and therefore, pronounced v'ko-yei. However, there is a very similar פסוק in תהלים ל"ז:ט:

כִּֽי־מְ֭רֵעִים יִכָּרֵת֑וּן וְקֹוֵ֥י ה' הֵ֣מָּה יִֽירְשׁוּ־אָֽרֶץ׃

There, the מנחת שי says it is under the וי"ו. He quotes the אבן עזרא which he understands to hold the opposite. I don't fully understand it but if that is the case, this might very well remain a matter of dispute and if so, perhaps no need to make a fuss over it. But one should probably go with the מנחת שי. Also, a reader provided me with evidence that according to the כתר ארם צובה, the צירי is under the יו"ד in ישעיה.

There is an interesting twist in this matter with the influence of contemporary Jewish music. There is a popular song by Dedi ע"ה which probably leads to the "misconception" of many that it should be pronounced v'kovei. 

Also, I recently saw that Artscroll (in one specific version - they are not always consistent) has the צירי under the ו"ו.

Noach's three sons are...

If you ask most kids to name נח's three sons, you will almost certainly be told שֵׁם חָם and יָפֶת But of course, his name is only יָפֶת when it is at the end of the פסוק or on an אתנחתא. But in truth, his name was יֶפֶת as in י:ב.

It's always fun and interesting (and sometimes disappointing) every year seeing what my kids are taught in school.

Different ways to wake up?

This past שבת, for the following פסוק:

ט:כ"ד וַיִּיקֶץ נֹחַ מִיֵּינוֹ

the בעל קריאה mistakenly said וַיִּיקַץ as it is in the beginning of ויצא and מקץ.
I corrected him out of reflex but later wondered what exactly is the difference between the two. As I always ask: If there's a difference, what is the difference. If there is no difference, why are they different?

Once again, Dikdukian is saved by its knowledgeable readers. Yaakov Gross explains:

The later examples (accent on ultimate syllable, with פתח) are the normal form. The first example (accent on penult, final vowel סגול) is נסוג אחור, because it leads into נח whose first syllable is accented; that shift of accent causes a change in the final syllable’s vowel. (The shift in accent is very common with וי"ו ההיפוך, and that often leads to a change of vowels as well. A very familiar example is ויברך (in ויכולו): accent move to ב, and vowel of ר changed from צירי to סגול.

Another reader, however, pointed me to a רשב"ם at the very last פסוק of בראשית which indicates that וַיִּיקֶץ (here) is the passive form. Based on that, he (the reader) suggests the following:

Rasbam explains that with a segol it means a passive form, similarly to vayussam (and he was put), and he compares it to vayiketz (which in this case means he got woken up, while vayikatz means "he woke up". Look into targum yonasan and you'll see that he is wondering who told Noiach what his younger son did to him. And he says that he was informed about it by a dream. But following Rashbam's pshat there is no kushiah. According to both opinions about what he did to Noiach, if we translate vayiketz "he got woken up", it was obviously what was done to him that woke him up, so clearly he knew who did it and what he did.

Take it Easy

ח:ח

וַיְשַׁלַּ֥ח אֶת־הַיּוֹנָ֖ה מֵאִתּ֑וֹ לִרְאוֹת֙ הֲקַ֣לּוּ הַמַּ֔יִם מֵעַ֖ל פְּנֵ֥י הָֽאֲדָמָֽה

A number of years ago, I was confronted by someone after this עליה declaring that the בעל קריאה had mispronounced this word by putting the emphasis on the last syllable, ha-ka-LU, as opposed to the proper pronunciation, ha-KA-lu. He was not wrong. However, this well-meaning Israeli fellow then offered to "teach me some עברית" and explained that with that incorrect pronunciation, the meaning is changed from "decrease or lighten" to "roasted" as in ויקרא ב:י"ד.

I wasn't quite sure what to answer it at the time. We did not go back and repeat it, that is for sure. I did consult the WhatsApp דקדוק group and the answer I got was that if it were of the root meaning to roast, the ק would have a קמץ, not a פתח. That put me at ease after getting roasted for not correcting it. Nevertheless, one should definitely be careful to put the accent on the correct syllable.

Geshem vs. Gashem

Ironically, this is slightly related to another discussion on this week's פרשה.
I have this funny feeling that this might be one of the very first questions asked of אליהו נביא - geshem or gashem? Fortunately, I don't have to do any of the research on this because Rabbi Yehuda Spitz has done it already.
Check it out!

הרחמן הוא יקים

According to the comment by Elie on this previous post, the proper pronunciation of the last word of the addition at the end of ברכת המזון for סוכות is הַנֹּפֶלֶת, and not the customary הַנֹּפָלֶת. I'd be interested to hear of what sort of funny looks you get when you sing the popular R' Shlomo Carlebach tune with the apparently proper pronunciation. Please post any interesting stories in the comments.

חג שמח

A Happy Ending

During this time, between ראש השנה and יום כפור , the common greeting seems to be גמר חתימה טובה. (According to a shiur הרב יעקב משה קולפסקי, זצ"ל used to say over, it might still be appropriate to use the popular pre-ראש השנה greeting, כתיבה וחתימה טובה. But אין כאן מקום להאריך.) However, the gender of this greeting puzzles me. What is it that we are wishing? Should it be a גמר of a חתימה טובה? Or, are we wishing that the גמר חתימה be a good one? The shortened version of this greeting, גמר טוב, would seem to indicate that it is the latter. If so, should the greeting not be גמר חתימה טוב?!

It could be that the general public is thrown off by the word חתימה to think that the term, as a whole is feminine. Nevertheless, see this Kashrus Kurrents article and footnote 1 regarding proper grammar vs. common convention.

[תשפ"א] Also, thanks to a reader for pointing me in the direction of this אוצר החכמה discussion which seems to suggest that the greeting in this form  is erroneous and really, the more common and correct greeting from the previous generations is simply חתימה טובה.

Well, whatever the proper gender is - it should all be for the good!

HAL

(ל"ב:ו)

ה לה' תגמלו זאת

[תשפ"א] In a year such as this (which we haven't had in 11 years) you get to hear האזינו many times and you will likely hear this word pronounced in different ways. It's not a definite consensus but the accepted reading of the word seems to be like the מנחת שי and should be read hal-ado... Two things to keep in mind are that the שוא under the למ"ד is נח - so not hale - and the פתח must be under the "virtual" אל"ף, not the למ"ד - so not ha-la-do.

Remember us for the good

One of the lines of אבינו מלכנו is:

אבינו מלכנו זכרנו בְּזִכָּרוֹן טוב לפניך

Above is how it appears in most מחזורים. However, I have found in the סדור רנת ישראל and in the recently released מחזור מקראי קודש from רב אהרן לופיאנסקי slightly differently, זכרנו בְּזִכְרוֹן טוב לפניך, apparently putting סמיכות between זכרון and טוב.

(The Koren Sacks siddur has זִכְרוֹן as well.)

Any thoughts?

Please see the comments.

Nitzavim Takes it on the Nee

Alternate Title: The Knights who (don't) say NEE

I try not to be too nit-picky about transliterations. But this week's פרשה is very often mispronounced and mistransliterated Netzavim. It is חיריק under the ו so it should be Nitzavim. Hey, I'm just standing up for what's right. (You see what I did there?)

Tough Day at the Office

[From תשע"ג]

Last week was an interesting one, to say the least.

First, at the beginning of כ"ו:י"ט, the בעל קריאה committed the capital crime of say וְלְתִתְּךָ instead of וּלְתִתְּךָ. What could be worse than that? I'll tell you what - half the shul correcting him! I really actually had an urge to tell him to specifically go back and say it wrong again. But I resisted the urge. Of course, later, כ"ט:ד, when he said וְאוֹלֵךְ instead of וָאוֹלֵךְ - not a peep! (Don't worry I did correct that one.)

My oversight of the קריאה has its pros and cons for the בעלי קריאה. On the one hand, they have to deal with me. But on the other, they don't have to deal with anyone else. Case in point: as soon as the עליה with the תוכחה was complete, a well-meaning individual raced to the בימה to insist to the בעל קריאה that in כ"ח:ס"ח he had said וְהֵשִׁיבְךָ instead of וֶהֱשִׁיבְךָ. He just looked at him, pointed at me and said, "Talk to him." I believe he was right. That was what it sounded like. However, I proceeded to convince him that there is actually no change in meaning and thus, it did not warrant a correction. Any objections? We certainly agreed that the vowel under the ו was inconsequential. I'm no expert when it comes to conjugation. But I pointed out that in a shorter form, there is a צירי under the ה, as in וְהֵשִׁיב אֶת הַגְּזֵלָה. My guess is that the elongation of the word "softens" the vowel into a סגול. (As confirmed more elegantly by Elie in the comments)

Shiluach Ha...

This week's פרשה contains one of my דקדוק pet peeves. The mitzvah of sending away the mother bird is very commonly referred to as "Shiluach haKan." However, the word is "kan" in the pasuk only because of סמיכות. When referring to the mitzvah, the proper term should be "Shiluach HaKein."

However, I was very intrigued to find this point actually discussed in this article by R' Zvi Goldberg of the Star-K. See footnote #1 (it's linked at the very beginning.)

Shva vs. Kamatz?

In this week’s Parsha, the pasuk states (Devarim 24:6),

"לא יחבל רחים ורכב וגו'"

Tosefos discuss how there are actually two separate prohibitions, one for the רחים and one for the רכב. In the course of their discussion Tosefos mention that there was a possibility that some opinions could have thought that there was actually only one prohibition for the two, but since ורכב is written with a חטף it shows that these words are somewhat separated and are to be considered as two independent prohibitions. (Tosefos Menachos 58b) The Yaavetz mentions that Tosefos are referring to the lack of a שוא when they say חטף. (Yaavetz Menachos 58b)

The Rashash questions Tosefos’ assertion based on Targum Lashon Ivri (chapter 34). The rule as mentioned there, is that when the trop under the last word of a list of two or more items has a hard pause then the ו takes a קמץ instead. Based on this rule the lack of a שוא is not something that connotes a separation in our pasuk since וָרָכֶב clearly has an esnachta beneath it. Rather, it shows that the items are separated and that this is the last of the list. (Rashash Bava Metziah 115b)

I was wondering if one could possibly answer on Tosefos’ behalf that even though linguistically the pasuk does not demonstrate that two as being separate, on a level of drush one can see that they are. The Torah was given with an esnachta in this place instead of another trop formulation from the pasuk. The pronunciation conjures up the idea of the words being separate even if the actual reading does not mean that. Therefore, one can assume the words have a level of separation to the point that they can be considered independent prohibitions.

Two of a kind

In the beginning of the פרשה, י"ז:ו, regarding the giving of capital punishment, the pasuk says "על פי שנים עדים...", that we require at least two witnesses. Later on, (י"ט:ט"ו), regarding monetary matters, it states "על פי שני עדים...", again that two witnesses are required. Although the words שנים and שני both seem to mean 2, there is still a difference between the two. What is the difference, and why is one used over the other in each instance?

נצי"ב writes, in העמק דבר, that שני means two identical objects whereas שנים doesn't mean 2, but rather a pair. In ירושלמי סנהדרין, quoted in the .רא"ש כ"ג, it says that if two witnesses give absolutely identical testimony, they must be investigated further for something is a little suspicious. It is told that the גר"א would disqualify witnesses who gave absolutely identical testimony based on a משנה in סנהדרין. Therefore, with regards to capital cases, since there is a requirement to deeply investigate the witnesses (דרישה וחקירה), it says שנים, because identical testimony is not accepted. But in monetary matters, where there is no requirement of דרישה וחקירה, it says שני, because they are allowed to be identical.

[I was once asked why when we count the omer we say שני שבועות or שני ימים instead of שבועיים or יומיים. I answered based on the above, that שבועיים or יומיים would mean a pair of weeks, or a pair of days and therefore, would not be a real counting of two and for the sfira, we require a genuine count.]

מהרי"ל דיסקין offers an alternate explanation. The word שנים means not only two, but two at the same time. Just as רגליים or ידים refers to a presence of two hands or feet, שנים means two together. Therefore, for capital matters, it says שנים because the two witnesses must be present together. Two witnesses who observe a capital crime, but don't see each other are not valid witnesses. This is referred to in the gemara as עדות מיוחדת. However, for monetary matters, עדות מיוחדת is still valid. So the תורה wrote שני instead of שנים over there.

ר' יעקב Kaminetzky, in אמת ליעקב offers yet another approach. He suggests that the proper wording would usually be שני עדים. However, the :גמרא סוטה ב teaches that the word עד by itself implies two witnesses - because only the testimony of two witnesses is valid - unless the תורה makes it clear that it means one. Therefore, I might have thought that שני עדים means that two groups of two witnesses are required to build a capital case. Therefore, the term שנים עדים is used, implying שנים שהם עדים, two individuals who are witnesses, to dispel any such notion. Then, once it is clear that capital cases do not require two groups but rather simply two individuals, it is obvious that no more is needed for monetary cases and so the conventional wording, שני עדים, is used.

Clean Blood

In פרשת שופטים, there are four instances where the term דם נקי, or a variation thereof, appears. If the vowel underneath the ד is a פתח, it would indicate סמיכות and the translation would be, "the blood of a clean (innocent) person." If it were a קמץ, it would simply mean clean blood. Although one might argue that the connotation is ultimately the same, I would say this is still a rather significant difference. Oh, wouldn't it be nice and simple if it were always the same. Alas, not only is it not always the same, there is not always 100% clarity as to which way it should be pronounced.

In שופטים, we have the following:

י"ט:י וְלֹ֤א יִשָּׁפֵךְ֙ דָּ֣ם נָקִ֔י
י"ט:י"ג וּבִֽעַרְתָּ֧ דַֽם־הַנָּקִ֛י

כ"א:ח וְאַל־תִּתֵּן֙ דָּ֣ם נָקִ֔י
כ"א:ט וְאַתָּ֗ה תְּבַעֵ֛ר הַדָּ֥ם הַנָּקִ֖י

The latter three appear to be undisputed. However, someone came over to me about the first one suggesting the בעל קריאה had said it wrong. I was certain he had not. But sure enough his (Artscroll) חומש had a פתח while mine (חורב) had a קמץ. I have embedded a snippet from the ספר אם למקרא למסורת below which should bring some clarity to the subject.

(Or, now that it is available on HebrewBooks.org, you can view it here.)

Oh, Deer!

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.

To Afflict the Corrector

ח:ג וַיְעַנְּךָ

Need I say more? I think I do. Most people with even a slight דקדוק awareness will know that it is important to not pronounce this וַיַעַנְךָ. That would mean "and He answered you," rather than "and He afflicted you." You might hear some בעלי קריאה making the שוא very clear to show that they are saying it correctly. However, this too is incorrect. It is a שוא נח under the יו"ד. So the actual proper pronunciation would be: vay-a-ne-CHA. One has to be very careful to make the "Syllable Stop" before the פתח. I'm not sure if there is a better technical term for that but I'm going with it for now - the art of "pronouncing" the שוא נח such that it breaks the syllable such as in אַתָּה הָרְאֵתָ last week -  har-EI-sa, as opposed to ha-REI-sa.

Of course, the real problem becomes that the very correct pronunciation here is barely discernible from the very incorrect pronunciation, which makes my job all the more difficult. So, maybe pronouncing that שוא נע isn't such a bad idea after all.

As another reader has pointed out, the דגש חזק in the נ is another important differentiating factor. Properly executing it should remove all doubt as to whether the word has been pronounced correctly.

Those Bad Egyptians

In the beginning of the פרשה we are promised ז:ט"ו וְכָל־מַדְוֵי֩ מִצְרַ֨יִם הָרָעִ֜ים אֲשֶׁ֣ר יָדַ֗עְתָּ לֹ֤א יְשִׂימָם֙ בָּ֔ךְ וּנְתָנָ֖ם בְּכָל־שֹׂנְאֶֽיךָ, we will not be subjected to "madvei Mitzrayim hara'im".  It seems that most of the meforshim explain it to mean the bad sicknesses of Mitzrayim. However, a while back, it seemed to me that the notes in the pasuk suggest otherwise. The notes קדמא and אזלא are often together and when they are, they join the two words. The notes קדמא and אזלא appear on the words מצרים and רעים. It would seem, therefore, that the word רעים is describing מצרים and it means the sicknesses of the bad Egyptians. This in fact, would seem to be the way that the תרגומים translate it. אונקלוס is slightly ambiguous but תרגום יונתן seems clear.

However, I was very soon notified by my friend, Ari Brodsky that my assumption on the טעמים was incorrect:

I disagree with the suggestion from the te'amim.  If I'm not mistaken, there

is a telisha ketana on the word madvei.  A telisha ketana is a mesharet,

just as is the kadma.  If I remember correctly from what I read in Rav

Breuer's book Ta'amei Hamikra beKaf Alef Sefarim uveSifrei Eme"t, he

explains that when you have the sequence telisha ketana - kadma - azla,

there is no way to tell from the te'amim whether the word with the kadma is

more closely connected to the word with the azla, or to the word with the

telisha ketana.  It could be either way.  (I'm not saying that there's

anything wrong with understanding it the way the Targumim do, I'm just

saying that you can't prove it either way from the ta'amei hamikra in this

case.)

To make a מתנגד cringe

Funny story:

A couple of years ago, I was in ארץ ישראל during this week and I found myself davening in a chassidishe מנין. When the בעל קריאה got to the following פסוק:

ח:ט אֶרֶץ אֲשֶׁר לא בְמִסְכֵּנֻת תּאכַל בָּהּ לֶחֶם

he "mistakenly" pronounced the word miskenus. A voice from the back called out in correction "Miskenis!"

I remember thinking to myself, "Leave him alone, he actually pronounced it right the first time."

Days of Past Future

ספר דברים by nature is full of challenges relating to the tense of verbs. There was one that slipped by me a few years ago. It's not that I didn't catch it, just that I failed to correct it on the spot after deliberating in my mind. Not sure which is worse.

משה רבינו relates (א:י"ג) that he instructed the nation to gather wise men וַאֲשִׂימֵם בְּרָאשֵׁיכֶם. Although this is being related in the past, he is stating that he said in the past that he will place these men as heads of the nation - in the future. The בעל קריאה mistakenly put a קמץ under the וי"ו of ואשימם which I am pretty sure would change it from future to past. This is an easy mistake to make as everything which follows is indeed in the past tense. This is also tricky to catch since the difference between the וי"ו ההיפוך and the regular וי"ו is a שוא and a קמץ or פתח. But here it ends up being a difference between a קמץ and פתח. (See the comment by Bezalel for more detail as to why this ends up being more tricky.)

Hopefully recording this now will help me be more mindful of it in future years.

יהצה, what is your real name?

In this week's פרשה, we find בני ישראל are confronted militarily by סיחון. The פסוק states כ"א:כ"ג ויבא יהצה. The question is, what was the name of the place? Was it יהץ and the pasuk is stating that he came to יהץ and the suffix ה implies to? Or is the name of the place actually יהצה?

The הפטרה appears to settle this quite unequivocally. In שופטים י"א:כ it states ויחנו ביהצה. That seems quite clear that the name of the place is יהצה. However, shockingly, אונקלוס in our פרשה renders ואתא ליהץ (as well as in דברים ב:לב)!!

תרגום יונתן in שופטים renders ושרו ביהצה.

Thank you to R' Ari Storch for pointing this out.

elie said...

ישעיה טו ד
ירמיה מח לד
!!!יהץ!!!

JUNE 19, 2010 2:40 PM

MG said...

This question is asked in the Sefer Derech Sicha (questions to R' Chaim Kanievsky by one of his talmidim). R' Chaim answers simply that the name evolved to יהצה by Yiftoch's time. Targum Onkelos, although written later, used the name that existed in the time of Moshe, which was יהץ.

JUNE 19, 2010 10:04 PM