You Make the Call - וקראהו

The initial purpose of this blog was to alert people to Dikduk-related issues in the פרשה in advance. (I realize that my repostings late Friday afternoon do not serve that purpose too well.) But I would like to tap the resources of this blog's knowledgeable readers for another related purpose. As I may have stated at the outset, I am charged with correcting for the laining in our shul. At the behest of the Rov, I try to keep the corrections only to those where the meaning of the word is certainly altered. I have definitely had my share of challenges from alert listeners and try to take them all seriously. So, if I have made a correction unnecessarily or missed a necessary correction, I'd like to get the opinion of the masses as to whether the correct action was taken.

Last week, מ"ב:ל"ח, the בעל קריאה said "vekarahu" instead of "ukra'ahu." The המון עם (or, dare I say, the ערב רב) in unison made a knee-jerk correction of the "ve" to an "u." I don't think anyone in their right mind could possibly argue that it was a necessary correction. But there's only so much I can do about that. But the problem was that (I believe both times) he said "karahu" instead of "kra'ahu." I did notice it at the time but perhaps in my frustration at the unnecessary correction of the "ve,"I neglected to correct it. And I was approached afterwards about it.

So the question is, was the meaning of the word changed? On the surface, it would appear that it was. Pronounced the way it was, it is very much like the word at the beginning of this week's פרשה - וקרהו. That is of the root קרה whereas last week's seems to be of the root קרא. However, of note here is that the תרגום on both words is identical - וִיעָרְעִנֵּיהּ. So what's the verdict?

Based on Elie's comment, it seems the word might be different but the meaning is the same. Nevertheless, this incorrect pronunciation essentially skips a letter (א) so I would deem this a correctable mistake.

Who's agitating my dots?

(מ"ג:כ"ו)

וַיָּבֹא יוֹסֵף הַבַּיְתָה וַיָּבִיאּוּ לוֹ אֶת הַמִּנְחָה

Any explanations available on the anomalous דגש in the א of ויביאו ?
It appears not.

Be strong!

(מ"א:נ"ז)

כִּי חָזַק הָרָעָב בְּכָל הָאָרֶץ

When properly pronounced, the above means "because the famine had strengthened in the whole land." The word חזק is used as a verb. However, if improperly pronounced חָזָק it is an adjective, meaning "the famine was strong." Very correctable, in my opinion.

From Eliyahu Levin on מקץ

בס"ד יום א לסדר מעט צרי ומעט דבש

למערכת שלום

רציתי לעורר על שני ניקודים בפרשת השבוע (מקץ) שרוב החומשים משתבשים בהם.

א. מא נ וליוסף יֻלַּד הלמ"ד בפתח. כן הוא לפי הדקדוק.

וכתב על זה המנחת ש"י: בכל הספרים הלמ"ד בקמץ גם נמסר עליו במ"ג [=במקראות גדולות, הכוונה לדפוס ונציה]. א.ל.] לית קמץ [= המקום היחיד במקרא שמילה זו מנוקדת בקמץ] וקשה שהוא כבן נפתלי ולב"א [=ולבן אשר, שהלכה כמותו בכל מקום לגבי בן נפתלי. א.ל.] בפתח, כפי מה שראיתי בחילופים שבדפוס. ואחר שכתבתי זה ראיתי ספר רב פעלים שכתב בלשון זה אבל וליוסף ילד שני בנים פתוח לב"א ולב"נ קמוץ. ומסורה אחרת מצאתי עליו ב' קמצין כי אדם לעמל יולד ודין [= קמץ בשני מקומות. האחד הפסוק באיוב ה ז כּי-אדם לעמל יוּלּד; והשני כאן]

לפי זה, חייבים לפרש את המסורה של ונציה שהיא לא מנתה את הפסוק באיוב כיון ששם יוּלָּד בכתיב מלא וי"ו.

מכל מקום המנחת שי מציין שהניקוד בקמץ הוא לפי בן נפתלי וכאמור אנו הולכים בכל מקום לפי בן אשר.

שתי המסורות שהמנחת שי מביא בעד הקמץ הן לפי בן-נפתלי.

מכל מקום כיון שכך בדפוס ונציה לא נעקר שיבוש זה מהספרים.

אם היה מקום לספק אם אמנם ספר החילופים דייק כאן ביחסו את הקמץ לבן-נפתלי ואת הפתח לבן אשר, הרי זכינו לעדות מפורשת בספר "מאורות נתן" של ר' יעקב הלוי ספיר. בשליחותו שאלו את חכמי ארם צובא לבדוק בכתר ארם צובא איך מנוקד שם. וז"ל מאורות נתן: יֻלָּד בקמץ? תשובה אינו כן אלא בפתח ומסר עליו מבחוץ [כלומר בגיליון] פתח. שלושה כתבי יד אחרים בריטיש לנינגרד וששון1 מנקדים פתח אף הם.

ב. מג יב הַמּוּשָׁב השי"ן בקמץ. כן הוא על פי הדקדוק. כאן אין שום מקור גם לא מנחת שי שתומך בקמץ. גם רוו"ה שניקד בפתח [ואחריו נגרר תנ"ך קורן] אינו מציין שכן ניקד יהב"י הנקדן. והוא מודה שרוב המקורות בעד קמץ אלא שלא רצה לשנות מדפוס ונציה.

מובטחני שלו ידע שבכתר ארם צובא מנוקד בקמץ הוא לא היה חולק עליו.

גם כאן זכינו לעדותו של ר"י ספיר במאורות נתן: המושב פתח? תשובה: אינו כן אלא בקמץ ונמסר עליו ב' [המקום השני: במדבר ה ח הַמּוּשָׁב בקמץ].

מעתה שומה עלינו לתקן: א. יֻלַּד בלמד פתוחה. ב. הַמּוּשָׁב בשי"ן קמוצה.

בכבוד רב ובברכה

אליהו לוין

דקדוקי פרשת מקץ והפטרת חנוכה

דקדוקי מילים וחלקם בעלי שינויי משמעות בפרשת מקץ ובהפטרה. אני נעזר בספר אם למקרא של ר' ניסן שרוני נר"ו. בתוספת הערות והדרכה לקורא מאורי טאניס נר"ו.

מא א הַיְאֹר היו"ד בשוא נח. טעם טפחא בתיבת וְהִנֵּה.

מא ה וַיִּישָׁן קמץ בזקף גדול, השי"ן מנוקדת בקמץ.

מא ח וַתִּפָּעֶם הטעם בפ"א מלעיל.

מא יב וַנְּסַפֶּר-לוֹ: מוטעם בקדמא-זקף [א"ה: מכונה מתיגה-זקף] או כפי שהוא מכונה בידי התימנים, דרבן.

מא יד וַיְחַלֵּף היו"ד בשוא נח והחי"ת בפתח – בנין פיעל. דין דומה גם לגבי וַיְגַלַּח יו"ד בשוא נח וגימ"ל בפתח.

מא יז הִנְנִי: על אף הקושי, נו"ן ראשונה בשווא נח

מא יט וְרַקּוֹת בָּשָׂר ברי"ש פתוחה, לא "וְדַקּוֹת בָּשָׂר" כבפסוק ג'.

מא כו חֲלוֹם אֶחָד הוּא׃ כבר נידון עניין הטעמים בפורום הגיגים, על פי רוֹב מוטעם טפחא-מרכא-סו"פ (ברויאר ואחרים), לפי "תורה קדומה" יש להטעים מרכא-טפחא-סו"פ (כך הוא בכל ספרי תימן). א"ה: ולמעשה נוהגים "על פי רוב".

מא כז 'הָרַקּוֹת' 'הָרֵקוֹת': יש לשים לב, פעם ראשונה הרי"ש בפתח ופעם שנייה בצירי.

מא ל שֶׁבַע השי"ן בגרש לא בקדמא.

מא לג יֵרֶא הטעם ברי"ש מלרע! הרי"ש בסגול לא בצירי.

מא לד 'וְיַפְקֵד': הוא"ו בשווא נע, וא"ו החיבור והפועל בעתיד, כן הוא הדבר בפסוק לה 'וְיִקְבְּצוּ' 'וְיִצְבְּרוּ'.

מא מה צָֽפְנַת הצד"י בקמץ רחב והפ"א בשוא נע (במבטא ישראלי רגיל צַפנת). פַּעְנֵחַ העי"ן בשוא נח לא בחטף.

אָֽסְנַת האל"ף בקמץ רחב והסמ"ך בשוא נע (במבטא ישראלי רגיל אַסנת).

בַּת-פּוֹטִי פֶרַע השם "פוטי פרע" הוא בן שתי מילים. הערה, בספרי תימן הוא בן מילה אחת.

מא מו לפני פרעה מלך מצרים - טעם טיפחא בתיבה "לפני"
ויעבר בכל ארץ מצרים - טעם טיפחא בתיבה 'ויעבר'.

מא מז לִקְמָצִים טעם הסילוק כאן הוא ללא הכנה של טיפחא או מרכא טיפחא (מאריך טרחא) לפניו!

מא מח כָּל-אֹכֶל ׀ בניגון הטעמים של הספרדים עלולה המילה אֹכֶל להישמע מלרע עקב ניגון הפסק (הלגרמיה).

בֶּעָרים הבי"ת בסגול ומתג, יש לעמוד מעט בקריאתה להבדילה מהשווא שאז איננה מיודעת

מא נ יֻלַּד הלמ"ד בפתח!

מא נב 'עָנְיִֽי': העי"ן בקמץ קטן, נו"ן בשווא נח ויו"ד בחירק מלא - עונ-יי.

מא נג וַתִּכְלֶינָה מא נד וַתְּחִלֶּינָה אין להתבלבל בין המילים למרות הדמיון ביניהם!

מא נד הָיָה לָֽחֶם׃ טעם נסוג אחור לה"א הראשונה

מא נז כִּֽי-חָזַק הזי"ן בפתח, הקורא בקמץ משנה משמעות.

מב א תִּתְרָאֽוּ׃ הטעם באל"ף מלרע.

מב ד יִקְרָאֶנּוּ האל"ף בסגול ונון דגושה. אם יקרא אל"ף בצירי – משנה משמעות.

מב כא בְּהִתְחַנֲנוֹ הנו"ן הראשונה בשוא נע (לקרוא בחטף פתח לא מומלץ למי שקורא שוא נע בכל מקום כמו סגול).

מב כד וַיֶּאֱסֹר כאן האל"ף בחטף סגול, בפרשת ויגש (מו כט) ובפרשת בשלח (שמות יד ו) היא בשוא נח.

מב כה וַיְמַלְאוּ יו"ד בשוא נח; למד ללא דגש בשוא נח.

מב לח תֵּֽלְכוּ-בָהּ: געיה בתי"ו

מג ב שֻׁבוּ שִׁבְרוּ-לָנוּ מְעַט-אֹֽכֶל׃ תיבה 'שבו' בטפחא וכן הוא לקמן מד כה.

מג ו לָמָה הֲרֵעֹתֶם: 'למה' במלרע וכן הוא הדבר כאשר התיבה שלאחריה פותחת באחת מהאותיות הגרוניות (כולל שם השם)

מג י ׃ כִּי לוּלֵא הִתְמַהְמָהְנוּ התיבה 'כי' מוטעמת בטפחא.

מג יא נְכֹאת: האל"ף ללא תנועה, יש לקרא 'נְכוֹת'

מג יב הַמּוּשָׁב השי"ן בקמץ.

מג יח וַיִּֽירְאוּ הרי"ש בשוא נע, הקוראו בשוא נח מחליף במשמעות ראייה.

מג כה יֹאכְלוּ לָֽחֶם׃ טעם נסוג אחור ליו"ד

מג כו וַיָּבִיאּוּ: האל"ף דגושה אך אין לכך כל השפעה על אופן קריאתה

מג כט יָחְנְךָ: היו"ד בקמץ קטן

מד ד וְאָמַרְתָּ מלרע.

מד יז 'עָבֶד': העי"ן בקמץ אף על פי שאין היא מוטעמת באתנח או סו"פ. א"ה: שכיח מאוד, נקרא קמץ בז"ק [=זקף קטן].

הפטרת שבת חנוכה

זכריה ב יד רָנִּי הרי"ש בקמץ חטוף (קטן), הטעם בנו"ן מלרע. הִנְנִי הנו"ן בשוא נח.

ב טו וְשָׁכַנְתִּי מלרע וְהָיוּ לִי טעם נסוג אחור לה"א וְיָדַעַתְּ העי"ן בפתח.

ב טז וּבָחַר מלרע לא נסוג אחור.

ג ו וַיָּעַד הטעם ביו"ד.

ג ז וְגַם תִּשְׁמֹר אֶת-חֲצֵרָי טעם טפחא במילה "גם" מַהְלְכִים הה"א והלמ"ד בשוא. הראשון בה"א נח, והשני בלמ"ד נע.

ד א כְּאִישׁ אֲשֶׁר-יֵעוֹר מִשְּׁנָתֽוֹ טפחא במילה "כאיש" ובמילה "משנתו" דגש חזק בשי"ן (מלשון שֵׁינה).

ד ב וְגֻלָּהּ במפיק.

ראשון של ויגש

מד יח – וְאַל-יִחַר: הטעם ביו"ד מלעיל.

מד כה שֻׁבוּ שִׁבְרוּ-לָנוּ מְעַט-אֹֽכֶל׃ טעם טפחא בתיבת שֻׁבוּ

מד כז יָֽלְדָה-לִּי: געיה ביו"ד

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

Alephs and Ayins

The שולחן ערוך או"ח קכח:לג, based on the :גמרא מגילה כ"ד states that someone who cannot properly pronounce the letters, such as one who mispronounces an א as an ע or an ע as an א, should not go up to perform ברכת כהנים. The difficulty with this is that the פסוקים do contain an א but do not contain an ע. Why then would someone who mispronounces an ayin as an aleph be forbidden from performing ברכת כהנים?

רש"י in the גמרא seems to be sensitive to this issue. He gives a specific example of a grievous mispronunciation that would result with the exchange of an ע for an א. However, when explaining the opposite substitution, he writes simply that as a result of this substitution he will disqualify his prayers. This statement of רש"י is quite vague and requires further interpretation but it shows, nevertheless, that רש"י addressed the lack of an ע in ברכת כהנים.

The issue is dealt with further in the commentaries on the שולחן ערוך. The question is raised in באר היטב but no answer is given. מחצית השקל seems to suggest that this is not an issue as the גמרא is simply referring to one who confuses the two letters. Thus, as long as one of the substitutions is significant, it is a sufficient problem.

I suggest a possible explanation for the גמרא which may be the meaning of רש"י as well. After the כהנים complete the main part of ברכת כהנים, they recite an additional prayer which begins, "רבונו של עולם, עשינו מה שגזרת עלינו..." concluding with the פסוק:

הַשְׁקִיפָה מִמְּעוֹן קָדְשְׁךָ מִן-הַשָּׁמַיִם, וּבָרֵךְ אֶת-עַמְּךָ אֶת-יִשְׂרָאֵל, וְאֵת הָאֲדָמָה, אֲשֶׁר נָתַתָּה לָנוּ--כַּאֲשֶׁר נִשְׁבַּעְתָּ לַאֲבֹתֵינוּ, אֶרֶץ זָבַת חָלָב וּדְבָשׁ

Pronouncing the ע of נשבעת as an א would drastically change the meaning from "you have sworn" to sounding something like נִשְׁבָּתָּ, "you have been taken captive." Although this is not part of the actual blessings of the כהנים, perhaps it is a serious enough mispronunciation to forbid a כהן from performing ברכת כהנים.

Another suggestion made by Snag in the comments is that the real שם המפורש used in the בית המקדש might contain an ע. But that doesn't fit with רש"י and also doesn't account for why we would still be particular about this today.

להבדיל

As I have discussed in a different forum, the essence of פרשת שמיני is one word - להבדיל, do differentiate. Towards the end of the פרשה, in פרק י"א that manifests itself in a דקדוק sense as well. There are two sets of words which appear very similar but must be pronounced differently so that they take on their proper meaning:

1)

לד  מִכָּל־הָאֹ֜כֶל אֲשֶׁ֣ר יֵאָכֵ֗ל 

Here, אכל means food items.  

מ  וְהָֽאֹכֵל֙ מִנִּבְלָתָ֔הּ

Here, אכל refers to a person who eats.

The trop is included to stress the difference in accent. The first is pronounced with a סגול and מלעיל. The second is with a צירי and מלרע.

2)

מג וְלֹא תִטַּמְּאוּ is with a חיריק meaning "do not become טמא," whereas
מד וְלֹא תְטַמְּאוּ is with a שוא meaning "do not make טמא."

Both are definitely correctable. I once heard someone get the vowel right but the accent wrong on #1 (or vice versa, can't remember) and I corrected it on the spot.

מגילת אסתר Advisory - Floor or coal?

(א:י)

עַל רִצְפַת בַּהַט-וָשֵׁשׁ

A couple of years ago, one of the readers of this blog pointed out to me a very subtle observation on the above word which I am certain is not at all well-known. The proper pronunciation is as above and the word means 'floor.' Probably due to the Hebrew word with which most are familiar, it is quite common to pronounce this word רִצְפַּת.

However, in ישעיה ו:ו we have the word רִצְפָּה meaning 'coal.' It is therefore very important that the word is pronounced properly. I would even suggest mentioning it to the בעל קריאה beforehand.

See the comments below for a lengthy discussion.

Recently, this word was the subject of discussion in the Dikduk WhatsApp group. One of the members suggested that the mispronunciation is not as drastic as first thought since the two words - floor and coal - actually really emanate from the same root רצף. To support this assertion, he pointed to שיר השירים ג:י - תוכו רצוף אהבה. There רש"י explains it as connected to the word for floor while מצודת ציון connects it to גחלת.

Something else that was "hidden" in the מגילה

While others might have been having more mainstream הערות or simply paying attention to the מגילה, I had the following observation:

(ט:י"ב)

ומה שאלתך וינתן לך ומה בקשתך עוד ותעש

Certainly, the word שאלה is feminine. Therefore, we would expect the פסוק to read ומה שאלתך ותנתן לך just as ותעש is in feminine form due to בקשה being feminine. I believe the following must be the explanation: If someone requests something, it is certainly possible to perform the request. However, if someone asks for something, you cannot give them "their asking." Rather, you give them the thing which they asked for. Therefore, we treat this as if there were a hidden word, perhaps as follows: ומה שאלתך וינתן הדבר לך and that is why it is masculine.

However, as MG points out in the comments, even בקשה switches seemingly to masculine earlier on in the מגילה. The אבן עזרא says there that it is referring to a hidden דבר. So my explanation for the gender change was correct. But my distinction between בקשה and שאלה apparently was not.

Recently, the following excerpt was posted in the Dikduk WhatsApp group which addresses this question:

מגלת אסתר

Being in charge of correcting for the מגילה is a very scary task. It's enough that everyone is so uptight about making sure every syllable is pronounced correctly. What makes it worse is all the different שיטות and knowing what might be a mistake and what is not. I once was "right-hand man" (I might have stood on his left) for someone who chose to repeat the פסוק for every word that was a matter of significant dispute, not just להרוג ולאבד and לא עמד בפניהם.

On that note, the רב of our shul told me this past week he once heard someone read בפניהם and not go back. He was very troubled as he read in מנחת שי that לפניהם was in fact the more likely correct word. However, he later found in קסת הסופר by the בעל קיצור שלחן ערוך that בפניהם is in fact correct. Surprisingly, to support this assertion, he asserts that this is the way it is found in the Concordance!

So, anyone who has any advisories to offer, anything to look out for, please post.

For anyone who is not registered as a contributor, I have made a new link on the right to send questions or comments to be posted.

Thanks.

Here's a good one from MG in the comments:
A lesser-known mistake but one that I've heard: "צהלה ושמחה" - the first "ה" in "צהלה" is a חטף-פתח. If pronounced as a קמץ., it changes the meaning to a noun.

Please see more in the comments below:

This is the time

You make the call:

It was a pretty breezy Purim as far as the מגילה goes. However, there was one thing I was a little unsure of. At night, the בעל קריאה said ד:י"ד וּמִי יוֹדֵעַ אִם לָעֵת כָּזֹאת הִגַּעַתְּ לַמַּלְכוּת instead of לְעֵת. I let it go. My thinking was that the term as a whole is a definite, even if לְעֵת is indefinite. What do you say?

I would also say that in the back of my mind, I hoped that there was actually another גרסא that had לָעֵת. I have been using an Artscroll Megillah for the last while. But I have realized that it might not be as מדוקדק as I would like. Can anyone recommend a readily available new מגילה which is known to be מדוקדק?

Thanks.

תשפ"ד Update:

This came up again tonight and I actually corrected it. Although, my position has not changed that this doesn't ultimately change the meaning. 

Bigsan and ...

This post will probably be of little interest to those who lain in הברה ספרדית.

I'm not sure why but this year, my "pet peeve" energies have been spent on the widespread misconception that מרדכי was אסתר's uncle. It states explicitly twice that they were cousins but everyone seems to teach that he was her uncle. (Also see this article on the subject.)

Anyway, another part of the story the kids tend to know very well is that of Bigsan and Seresh. Now for the younger kids, it is always a challenge to remember the difference between Seresh and Zeresh, Haman's wife. But it doesn't have to be that hard!

The geniuses at Kol Rom have just released [many years ago] Megillas Lester, a brilliantly executed 3D-animated film revolving around the story of the מגילה. They put up a number of fascinating behind the scenes video and one of them discusses where they went specifically with חז"ל and when artistic license was used. He discusses something that never occurred to me. The name of the second guard was actually Teresh. It never appears that way in the מגילה because it is always preceded by a וי"ו. I've included the video below (jumping to the important part):

Not that kind of oil

From תשע"ד:

Rather hot of the press - not the oil press, just had to make this correction tonight and figured it would be a good idea to bring it to everyone's attention.

ב:י"ב ששה חדשים בשמן המר

The phrase that appears a number of times in the תורה is שמן המאור so it is easy to mistakenly use that term here but it obviously completely changes the meaning. I highly doubt the king would have fancied a woman who smelled like olive oil. Some of you might be thinking "oh come on, that's obvious." Well, I'll have you know that while I corrected it immediately, no one else in the entire shul even flinched, from what I could tell. So keep an eye/ear out for this one.

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?

Balaila hu

During K'rias Hamegillah, I thought I heard the Ba'al K'riah say "Balaila hu" instead of "Balaila hahu". [The person whose job it is to correct insists otherwise] I decided not to reread that word in my Megillah for two reasons.

Number One: There is really no difference in meaning. The Radak writes in Michlol (pg 42) that a "heh hayediah" modifying a noun and an adjective (2 words read together) can be placed on the first , second or both words. [hence the machlokes Rav Shabsai Sofer and Matteh Moshe about "bizman haze"vs. "baz'man haze"] So grammatically "balaila hu" means the same thing as "balaila hahu." [The "beis" includes within it a "heh hayediah," hence the patach, and dagesh chazak in the lamed]

Number Two: There are 4 places in Tanach where "balaila hahu" is written "balaila hu". [B'reishis 19:33, 30:16, 32:23;Shmuel I 19:10] so even if there was a change in meaning, one might argue that where exceptions to the rule exist, one need not correct the mistake, as its correct meaning is still within the realm of possibe interpretation.

Fighting the Good Fight

One of the more serious mistakes a בעל קריאה can make when reading the מגילה is actually not in the מגילה itself. This hit me one year when I heard this mistake made and unfortunately, did not have the reflexes to correct it on the spot. After we finish the מגילה we make the ברכה of הרב את ריבנו, He who fights our fights. The proper pronunciation is, of course, הָרָב. But when mispronounced הָרַב, I believe that means "He who increases our fights." (Or, Elie suggests in the comments that perhaps it might have a different meaning.) That's not a good thing at all. Honestly, if I hear this again, I would try to correct it ... unless someone thinks otherwise.

Zachar Amaleik? What was he smoking?

In the portion read for Parshas Zachor we find the commandment תמחה את זכר עמלק, wipe out the remembrance of Amaleik. The gemara (בבא בתרא כא) relates a rather bizarre incident where Yoav, David HaMelech's general was sent to destroy Amaleik. He returns, having wiped out all of the males. When he is confronted by David HaMelech as to why the others were allowed to live, he declares that he was taught "Timcheh es zachar Amaleik," wipe out the males of Amaleik. Needless to say, Yoav was not very happy when he found out he had been taught wrong.

It is indeed quite difficult to understand how the mesorah could be so skewed as to totally misunderstand and misrepresent this pasuk. I heard an interesting insight into this mistake from the footnotes of the מעשה רב. Yoav's rebbe never thought that the word was pronounced "zachar." Rather, this error was a result of a misunderstanding of the possessive form of zachar."

The word for smoke is "ashan." The vowelization of this word is the same as "zachar." However, when the Torah describes Har Sinai and describes how its smoke rose like the smoke of a furnace, the term used is "eshen hakivshan." Clearly, when the word "ashan" is used in the possessive, both kamatzim are converted to segolim. Yoav's rebbe read the pasuk "timche es zecher Amaleik," and understood that zecher was the possessive form of zachar. He therefore mistakenly taught Yoav that the commandment is to wipe out only the males of Amaleik.

Addendum:

A rebbe of mine, R' Aryeh Leib Lopiansky has recently published an extensive discussion on this topic and what the true pronunciation of the tzeirei actually should be.

Read here:

A Wise Correction

ל"ה:כ"ה

וְכׇל־אִשָּׁה חַכְמַת־לֵב בְּיָדֶיהָ

ל"ה:ל"ה

מִלֵּא אֹתָם חׇכְמַת־לֵב

The word conglomerate highlighted in the above two פסוקים looks to be almost identical. However, the vowel underneath the ח is very crucial and amounts to change in meaning which I would say is definitely correctable - if you can catch it. The second instance - a term that is found often in these פרשיות - is a noun meaning wisdom (or wise-heartedness, to be a bit more precise.) The first, however, is an adjective, essentially the feminine version of חכם לב. This might be difficult to discern, depending on the degree to which the בעל קריאה accurately discerns between a פתח and קמץ. I know this came up recently - I just can't remember if I caught it or missed it.

I suppose a case could be made that if the first one is pronounced incorrectly, it still has the same basic meaning - a wise-hearted woman vs. a woman of wise-heartedness - and would be okay if not corrected.

ועשה בצלאל ואהליאב

"ועשה בצלאל ואהליאב" (Shemos 36:1)

There are two main types of וי"ו at the beginning of a word: a וי"ו החיבור and a וי”ו ההיפוך. A וי”ו החיבור links the word with that which preceded it, and a וי”ו ההיפוך switches the tense of a verb (and also implies sequence and order). The puzzling thing about all this, is that a וי”ו ההיפוך when switching a verb from past tense to future tense is punctuated in exactly the same manner as a וי"ו החיבור. Usually context can guide us to proper understanding, but sometimes context is not enough. A nice example of an ambiguous וי"ו is ועשה בצלאל ואהליאב. That וי"ו could be either a וי”ו ההיפוך or a וי"ו החיבור . תרגום אונקלוס and תרגום יונתןunderstand it to be a וי”ו החיבור and the אבן עזרא and רש"י מכות יב. understand it to be a וי”ו ההיפוך." There is a further מחלוקת between רש"י and the אבן עזרא regarding whether it is regular future tense or a command which has enough of a relationship with the future to be a possibility within a וי”ו ההיפוך which has switched a verb to future tense.

NOTE: See Weekly Shtikle's blog on the above פסוק.

The obvious question which the camp which understands it to be a וי”ו החיבור (past tense) must deal with is that according to the plain reading of the text, בצלאל had not even gathered the donations yet, how could he have already done the work? Because of this issue, the אור החיים הקדוש explained that ועשה is referring to making the instruments necessary for the work and not referring to the actual work itself.

One final question: Why would the תורה create this ambiguous וי"ו?

This is a question one could ask regarding many of the unclear parts of the תורה system where ראשונים and אחרונים argue. The only possible answer is that the ambiguity is calculated to allow for both interpretations within the text.