פינחס - What's in a name?

... A יו"ד, that's what. In the תורה, the name פינחס is written מלא, thus rendering the שוא underneath the נו"ן a שוא נע. However, in שמואל, the son of עלי is פנחס without a יו"ד. Could it be that they are actually considered different names?

Lest one suggest that this might be a תורה-נביאים quirk like ירחו, in the very last פסוק of יהושע, it is written פינחס.

Last week, the בעל קריאה did not pronounce the שוא נע in פינחס so since he was reading it again anyway for מפטיר I brought this to his attention whereas I would never do so for or a regular שוא נע. (Happened again in תשפ"ד)

UPDATE: Based on Elie's comment, the above appears to be incorrect. Both names are really פינחס. But the one פנחס is an exception. So now the question is "Why?"

[תשפ"א] Just last week, my father, ע"ה, passed away at the age of 77. His name is ראובן פנחס. I'm not sure if this is common everywhere but in our family, it is spelled without the י.

A name that took ME by surprise

[תשס"ט]

Having yahrtzeit this week, I had the opportunity to lain  the הפטרה for בהר this past week - not a very common occurrence. I checked with my trusty ספר אם למקרא ולמסורת to see what I should be looking out for. I found quite an interesting tidbit on the name ירמיהו. There is a tendency to pronounce the name Yir-mee-ya-hu. However, it should be noted that the vowel under the מ is a שוא, not a חיריק. Therefore, it should be pronounced Yir-mƏ-ya-hu. I have to say, I was practicing it for quite a while and it is difficult on the tongue.

One Big Happy Family?

The recounting of the tribes and their various descendants generally follows a pretty steady pattern. The first name contains no prefix and the rest are prefixed with a למ"ד as follows: פלוני... לפלוני... לפלוני... וכו. An anomaly is found, however, in the children of גלעד. We find איעזר, לחלק, ואשריאל, ושכם, ושמידע, וחפר. The latter four are prefixed with a וי"ו. Why?

In a discussion within the דקדוק WhatsApp group, it was suggested that the explanation for this might lie in the turn of events at the end of the next week's פרשה in which the daughters of צלפחד are instructed that they must marry within the שבט in order that their father's portion of the land not end up belonging to another שבט. Perhaps these are the individuals, or the families of the individuals, who married those daughters. Since their families were ultimately intertwined, instead of the traditional למ"ד separating each name, a וי"ו החיבור is used to indicate that in the end, they were all one big family.

However, I recently discovered another anomaly for which I have no answer:

כ"ו:כ"ג

בְּנֵי יִשָּׂשכָר לְמִשְׁפְּחֹתָם תּוֹלָע מִשְׁפַּחַת הַתּוֹלָעִי לְפֻוָה מִשְׁפַּחַת הַפּוּנִי

All of the brothers

(כ"ז:ט-י)

וְאִם אֵין לוֹ בַּת וּנְתַתֶּם אֶת נַחֲלָתוֹ לְאֶחָיו

וְאִם אֵין לוֹ אַחִים וּנְתַתֶּם אֶת נַחֲלָתוֹ לַאֲחֵי אָבִיו

In the first פסוק one must be careful about לְאֶחָיו, to his brothers, not being pronounced לְאָחִיו, to his (singular) brother. However, the second פסוק contains a more dangerous possible mistake (by that, I mean that it is a mistake much easier to make and much harder to detect) and that would be לַאֲחִי אָבִיו instead of לַאֲחֵי אָבִיו, once again erroneously switching the plural to the singular.

Reader question: שבת בשבתו

A reader recently sent in this interesting question:

In this week's parsha, במדבר כח:י, the פסוק reads:

'עֹלַת שַׁבַּת בְּשַׁבַּתּוֹ וגו

Why is the סמיכות form (שַׁבַּת) used instead of שַׁבָּת?

Shaggy said...

We often employ the semichut construct at times for certain words, see Nechemia 9:14 "וְאֶת-שַׁבַּת קָדְשְׁךָ".
Similarly in Parshat Emor "מִשְׁפַּט אֶחָד יִהְיֶה לָכֶם".
Just a Masoretic quirk.

JULY 2, 2010 9:50 AM

מלבד

 I have, on many occasions, lauded the  ספר אם למקרא ולמסורת by Rav Nissan Sharoni as the quintessential encyclopedia that is a must have for any בעל קריאה. Aside from methodically going through every single aspect of דקדוק in an easy-to-read manner, he goes through every פרשה and הפטרה listing the various nuances that one needs to be careful of. Essentially, it just about renders this blog obsolete 😀. 

Every now and then, he will offer a very useful mnemonic to help navigate some tricky words. This week's was so cute that I had to share it. The קרבנות of each יום טוב contain a phrase beginning with the word מלבד. The problem is that the trop varies between instances. This is the trick Rav Sharoni offers to remember the proper notes:

• פסח: We lean to the left so the note on מלבד is a פשטא - like so מִלְּבַד֙
• שבועות: We received the לוחות so it is a גרשיים which looks like two tablets: מִלְּבַ֞ד
• ראש השנה: The תלישא looks like an apple dipped in honey: מִלְּבַד֩
• יום כפור: We received the second לוחות so, as with שבועות we find מִלְּבַ֞ד
• סוכות: We wave the לולב which looks like a פשטא, therefore מִלְּבַד֙
• שמיני עצרת: We use the same note as סוכות since there is still תשלומים for the חגיגה

You can read it for yourself here.

כבש vs כשב

This is a question I have had for some time and a reader recently brought it up with me again in person and pointed out that it is very applicable with פינחס coming up:

Is the mistaking of כבש for כשב (or vice-versa) a correctable mistake? While the words are different, their meanings are exactly the same. What say you?

UPDATE: Once again, the Dikdukian is rescued by its readers:

MG said...
According to the Malbim these two words do NOT have the exact same meaning, and might even be referring to two different "types" of sheep:
Link to ספר at HebrewBooks

However, as per my comment  below, the מסורת הש"ס to :שבת צב might imply otherwise. As well, I happened upon a ספר חותם תכנית written in the 1860's which asserts that they are the same here.

Additionally, the משנה ברורה קמ"ג:כ"ו (which was recently learned as part of the Dirshu דף היומי בהלכה program), based on מגן אברהם counts כשב/כבש as an example of a change in pronunciation without a change in meaning which would nevertheless necessitate putting the Torah back and laining from another.

Nevertheless, Jack Gross's comment is very poignant.  Whether there is a difference in meaning and whether this is a correctable mistake are likely two completely separate discussions. The difference in meaning might very well be debatable. But as for the קריאה aspect, it's simply a different word and the fact that it is almost the same is irrelevant. If the consonants are out of order, the word has not been pronounced properly and this needs to be corrected.
(Perhaps the same argument may be made regarding R' Marwick's position on בלילה הוא.)

5780: This topic is, in fact, covered by R' Michoel Reach in his recently published ספר מימיני מיכאל (available on Amazon.) With his permission, here is his entry for פרשת צו in which he points out that there is a very clear distinction to determine when the תורה will use כשב and when כבש. It all depends on the other animals that are being contrasted. Read below:
(or, since the viewing area might make this harder to read, it might be easier to follow this direct link.)

I Say Yericho, You Say Yereicho

The city we know of us Jericho is commonly pronounced יְרִחוֹ. This is, in fact, how it is written in נ"ך*. However, in last week's פרשה and this week's, and in all other examples in the תורה it is written יְרֵחוֹ (with a צרי). Anyone have an explanation for the change?

*As per Anonymous' comment: It is written this way in יחושע, שמואל and מלכים (with the exception of מלכים ב כ"ה:ה) but in ירמיהו, עזרא, נחמיה and דברי הימים it is יְרֵחוֹ as well.

The Dead of the Plague

The following was apparently told over in a dream to his son by R' Shraga Feivel of Smargan. The last pasuk of this week's parsha (25:9) gives us the devastating death toll of the plague that followed B'nei Yisrael's intermingling with the Midyanites. There is an odd structure to the trop, notes, on this particular pasuk. The esnachta, which somewhat resembles a wishbone, indicates the primary stop in the middle of a pasuk. It usually concludes a thought. Take, for example, a few pesukim earlier (25:3) "Vayitzamed Yisrael leVa'al Pe'or, vayichar af HaShem beYisrael." And Yisroel clung to Ba'al Pe'or, and HaShem's wrath glowed upon Yisroel. The esnachta is used to separate the two distinct thoughts. However, our pasuk seems to be one single thought. In fact, a very similar pasuk earlier on (17:14) seems to classify such a statement as one thought. Why, then, is there an esnachta on the word bamageifah?

R' Feivel answers that this pasuk has in it a hidden meaning. Because of the terrible sin at Ba'al Pe'or, it was necessary to wipe out 24,000 of B'nei Yisrael. However, the gemara (Sanhedrin 105b) tells us that the period from the Shittim to the Gilgal (which encompasses this period,) was a period of goodwill during which HaShem did not become angry with B'nei Yisrael. Therefore, in order to lessen the blow of this plague, HaShem made it so that included in the 24,000 would be those who had reached their time to die anyway. This is expressed by the complete thought "Vayihyu hameisim bamageifah," and the dead ones, i.e. those who had reached their time to die, were in the plague. The pasuk then finishes off with a separate thought, tallying the total number of deaths in the plague.

I thought that perhaps this interpretation of the word meisim as those who were to die rather than those who died is in accordance with Rashi in parshas Ki Seitzei. Without getting into detail as to the meaning of Rashi, the pasuk warns to put a fence around one's roof so that you should not bring blood upon your house, "ki yipol hanofeil mimenu," if a faller were to fall from it. Rashi comments "Ki yipol hanofeil - ra'ui zeh lipol," the faller - one who deserved to fall. Here, too, we see a noun referring not to one to which something happened but one to whom this was destined to happen.

ויקח קרח

Chuck asked...

Someone asked my sister the first word of parashat Korach (va yi KACH) has its stress on the third syllable. He thinks the stress should be on the second syllable (va YI kach) based on tropp reasons or something.
Any thoughts? (We can start with if he's correct, and if so why.)

NOVEMBER 23, 2009 11:30 PM

MG said...

He's wrong. He thinks that the word "vayikach" should be "nasog achor" because the stress on "korach" is on the first syllable and we often push back a prior word's stress so as not to conflict with the second word. However, one exception to the rule is that nasog achor does not "jump" over a sheva nach or a dagesh chazak. Here the "kuf" has a dagesh and thus the stress remains on the last syllable. Happy to elaborate or give similar examples

Flee Market

A number of years ago, I let a mistake go which I have been wondering about. In ט"ז:ל"ד, the word נָסוּ should be pronounced NA-su with the accent מלעיל. However, it was mispronounced na-SU, מלרע. My compunctions are based on the possibility that moving the accent to the end would make the word derive from the root נסיון. However, I can't recall ever seeing such a word in form. It would be נִסוּ (with a חיריק.)

Thoughts?

Just do it! ... again

As we have discussed in פרשיות מקץ and ויגש, it is of utmost importance that the word עֲשׂוּ is pronounced with the חטף-פתח and not a קמץ which would change the word from a command to a past tense verb. The same is true, of course, in this week's פרשה in ט"ז:ו.

בעלי קריאה I have heard in the past are very careful to get this right. I also heard extra emphasis put on the פתח in תַלִּינוּ in פסוק י"א. It occurred to me that if mispronounced with a קמץ, the meaning would change there too from the root of תלונה, complaint, to לינה, sleeping.

I know the critics will probably jump on this and say that the דגש would disappear if it were קמץ and therefore it does not change the meaning. However, I have stated my opinion on this before. For a בעל קריאה who is actually careful with the דגש, perhaps that is a valid point. However, for the large majority who are not, the vowel is clearly the more dominant indicator.

What's different about אפרים?

This has bothered me for many years. The פסוקים enumerating the names of the spies are almost all identical in structure with the obvious exception of מנשה for whom it says למטה יוסף למטה מנשה. As such, the טעמים on the פסוקים are identical as well with the curious exception of אפרים. Instead of the זקף קטון as with the others, למטה אפרים has a מרכא-טפחא. Why?

I have heard a suggestion that perhaps the different tone is meant to indicate יחושע's ענוה. But I am not convinced. In pondering this issue I did come to an interesting discovery which may somehow be connected to the reasoning behind this. Of all of the sons of יעקב, the only one whose name is pronounced with the accent not on the last syllable is אפרים! Perhaps this affects how the פסוק needs to be noted.

As is often the case here, MG comes to the rescue:

MG said...

I've seen two answers for this. I'll leave out one of them because it has a more "Chasidish"/Drush slant.
Basically, this posuk is an exception because "Bin-Nun" is a "short" word (all the other names have more syllables). Because of that, we don't want to place a tipcha (pause/melech)immmediately prior, since that presents a slightly difficult flow of words. So we must have a mercha there, as that is the only possible meshares for a sof-posuk. Thus the tipcha (which is required to be in every single posuk at least once) gets moved to the word "Efroyim".

APRIL 23, 2009 5:43 PM

In my Humble Opinion...

Technically, this pet peeve is not connected to any פרשה in particular but for obvious reasons, it becomes more prevalent for פרשת בהעלותך. It's very simple - ענִווּת - the word simply does not exist, at least not in any authoritative source that I know of. The real word for humility found everywhere that counts, for example, the very end of משניות סוטה, is ענווה. Yet you will hear people everywhere use this word, even people who are normally careful to use proper דקדוק. Unfortunately, Google Translate does not agree with me. But that's probably because it has managed to slip into the language. How? My guess is that might be a sort of Yiddishism. Just like we have טליתים, שבתים and תעניתים when the real words are טליתות, שבתות and תעניות, many descriptive words tend to end with ות such as חסידות and התנגדות so it is assumed that the word for humility should as well. But... it doesn't.
If this word does exist somewhere and I simply haven't seen it, please correct me.

... and so MG has done in the comments. He cites two examples where the word is used by מהרש"א:

:מועד קטן ט"ז

.סוטה מ

So this is still a curious matter. Let's say the word is not used through the ראשונים and suddenly appears. Where did it come from? Indeed, לשון הקדש is an evolving language as seen throughout תנ"ך and history. We find new words arise that haven't been used before. But what makes this more puzzling is that there already exists a perfectly sufficient word in the language. Why create a new one?

To Make Travel

A friend of mine let me know that he was corrected by the Rav where he lained this past week on the following:

י:ב עֲשֵׂ֣ה לְךָ֗ שְׁתֵּי֙ חֲצֽוֹצְרֹ֣ת כֶּ֔סֶף מִקְשָׁ֖ה תַּעֲשֶׂ֣ה אֹתָ֑ם וְהָי֤וּ לְךָ֙ לְמִקְרָ֣א הָֽעֵדָ֔ה וּלְמַסַּ֖ע אֶת־הַֽמַּחֲנֽוֹת

He pronounced it וּלְמַסָּע with a קמץ under the ס. Kudos to the Rav for catching that. It's a big shul, too, so the בימה is not very close to his seat so that makes it even a better catch. If I'm not mistaken the correct pronunciation makes it a verb - to make the nation travel. However, the incorrect pronunciation would turn it into a noun, a journey, the singular of מסעי.

The Impure

The Torah recounts that as בני ישראל brought what would be their only קרבן פסח during their sojourn in the desert, there were individuals who were טמא מת and thus unable to participate. There is a discussion in the gemara (.סוכה כה) as to who in fact these individuals were. ר' יוסי הגלילי suggests they were the ones in charge of transporting יוסף's body. רבי עקיבא is of the opinion that it was מישאל and אלצפן who were instructed to remove נדב and אביהו bodies from the mishkan. Finally, רבי יצחק discounts the first two opinions and posits that these were individuals who had become tamei as a result of a מת מצוה.

It is somewhat intriguing that the approach taken in the גמרא is that there was something special and unique about this group. Although, it is not unusual for a midrashic source to fill in the blanks in a פסוק, even if there is no compelling evidence that there is something missing. However, there is a question to be asked on the first two opinions. Why is it that ר' יוסי and רבי עקיבא assume that these individuals were part of a single group, that they were all טמאי מת for the same reason? Could there not have been more than one cause for people to be טמא?

Perhaps they made an inference from the specific wording of the פסוק. The introduction to this story is as follows (9:6)

ויהי אנשים אשר היו טמאים לנפש אדם

One would have expected the פסוק to read "ויהיו" in the plural. But instead, the singular "ויהי" is used in reference to a group of people. Perhaps ר' יוסי and רבי עקיבא understand that the פסוק is specifically worded this way to convey that although there were a number of individuals were טמא, they were all טמא for the same reason.

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.

במדבר

For some time, when I would write my Weekly Shtikle (shameless cross-promotion) for this week's פרשה, I would write it Bemidbar since that is how it is pronounced correctly. However, one year a friend of mine sent me the following convincing argument which I have accepted:

While you are correct that in context the word is read Bemidbar, the name of the parsha is clearly Bamidbar. The custom has been to isolate the word or words that are the title and conjugate accordingly. This is why we have Tazriyah and not Sazriyah. Mishpatim and not HaMishpatim (since we do not use v'aileh and clarify it with asher ...). Devarim and not HaDevarim. Since the reference is to a specific desert (Sinai) the hay hayediyah is implemented. The names, according to tradition, are clearly not just the word or words of the beginning phrase.

פרשת במדבר

From Elie:

דיונים לשוניים
א. כתבת שהטעם בתיבת ונתתי (בהפטרת במדבר) נסוג אחור.
ואכן כך הוא בתנ"ך ברויאר, אמנם בתנ"ך קורן הוא במלרע (ומתג בנו"ן).
{וכשהפטרתי אשתקד בנביא מתוך תנ"ך ברויאר, המדקדק שבמקומנו (שקרא מתוך תנ"ך קורן) החזיר אותי לקרוא במלרע (שינוי משמעות!) וכך פעמיים ושלש עד שהראיתי לו שכן הוא בספרים מדוייקים מלעיל.}
וכן בפרשת השבוע שעבר: "ושלחתי דבר בתוככם" נסוג אחור בהברה סגורה.
האם תמיד יש נסוג אחור בהברה סגורה?

ודאתאן להכי, מהם כללי נסוג אחור?
לפני זמן רב ראיתי כללי נסוג אחור בהקדמת המדקדק ר' שמעון וייזר לתיקון קוראים הוצאת מישור, ואינני זוכר מה שראיתי.

שבת שלום.

בברכה
שמעון דוד קורץ
שלום רב
לר' שמעון דויד
ובכן באחד מהדפים כתבתי לסתור את הכלל שנמצא אצל רז"ה שאין נסיגת טעם להברה סגורה
מזה שמצאנו מילים עם וי"ו ההיפוך לעתיד נשארות מלעיל כשהן סמוכות לטעם.
למעשה נראה לקיים את הכלל הזה.
ויש כנראה הבדל בין השארת טעם מלעיל במילה שלולא ו' ההיפוך היא מלעילית,
ובין הסגת הטעם מסוף המילה להברה שלפניה כשהיא סגורה בשוא נח או בדגש.
הדבר הזה עלה בכמה מדיונינו.
עכשיו אם לא הסתבכת ממה שכתבתי עד עתה, ושלחתי דבר המילה ושלחתי היא מלעילית אלא שכדי להבחין בינה ובין עבר עם ו' החיבור מטעימים אותה מלרע.
אם יש סיבה כמו סמיכות הברות היא שבה לדינה. והזכירו שכך פסקו להלכה.
כללי נסוג אחור פחות או יותר מוכרים, קשה להגדיר אותם חד משמעית הלא תראה מה שהבאתי השבוע מהרב משולם מקרית ספר.
יש סתירה בין מחנה למחנה.
במחנה אני יכול להסביר שעל הטעם הנסוג ללכת דרך ארוכה יותר ו"לדלג" מעל שוא נע (חטף) ולכן אם הוא לא עושה כן אין כל כך קושיא.
למה אם כן והיתה לו נסוג? כי הוא עושה כן הרבה פעמים, אבל לסגת לסגורה אינו נסוג.
אני מעביר לכמה שבעבר דנו עמי על זה או על בדומה לזה.
אליהו

החילוק בין מחנה למחנה אמנם קשה, אבל מה שכתב ר' אליהו לגבי כללו של רז"ה 'אין נסיגה אחור להברה סגורה', כבר נתווכחתי עמו וטענתי את מה שהוא טוען כעת בדיוק, אם כי הוא טוען זאת בדרך אפשר: לעולם אין נסיגה אחור להברה סגורה. ומקרים כמו 'ושלחתי דבר' הם מילים שמוטעמות מעיקרן מלעיל, ורק ו"ו ההיפוך היא שהפכתן מלרע, והנסיגה אחור מחזירתן למצבן המקורי.
אותו חילוק, אבל בהגדרה מעט עמוקה יותר: הטעמת מלעיל הנוצרת מחמת נסיגה אחור אינה נחשבת כמלעיל גמור, כפי שכותב המנש"י ששוא הבא אחרי הטעמה כזו עדיין יהיה שוא נע [דוגמת 'כֽוֹכְבֵי אור' שהשוא הוא נע], אבל מילים מלעיליות גמורות דוגמת לַֽיְלָה, מַֽטָּה, לָקַֽחְתִּי, שָׁלַֽחְתִּי – השוא שאחרי ההטעמה הוא נח גמור משום שזו הטעמה מלאה.
כעת: הברה סגורה יכולה להיות מוטעמת למרות שהיא מנוקדת בתנועה קטנה [למרות שגם זה אינו שכיח כל כך, כי אם בפעלים ובאותן מילים שהזכרתי, אבל על פי רוב אין הברה סגורה מוטעמת נקודה בתנועה קטנה]. אבל מלעיל שאינו גמור – דהיינו המלעיל שנוצר מחמת נסיגה אחור – אינו בא בשום אופן בהברה סגורה. ולכן לא תתכן נסיגה אחור אל הברה סגורה
בברכה
יעקב לויפר
סטייה מהנושא קצת אבל על פי רוב אין הברה סגורה מוטעמת נקודה בתנועה קטנה בפעלים שכיח מאוד הברה מוטעמת בתנועה קטנה
אכל ישב נשבר, יש גם מילים של הברה אחת כמו דף או מס או הדס
הכלל שתנועה גדולה היא בהברה פתוחה לא מוטעמת
וקטנה בהברה סגורה לא מטעמת
החלק שלו הנכון הוא תנועה גדולה אינה בהברה סגורה לא מוטעמת.
ולכן שוא אחרי ת"ג לא מוטעמת הוא נע. יש לזה חריגים בארמית.
שאר הכלל הוא נטייה כללית והרבה מקומות שאינם מתנהגים לפי נטייה זו.

ב. שלום
ראיתי בספרו של ר' ניסן שרוני (אם למקרא השלם) את הכלל של הדגשת בג"ד כפ"ת בראש מלה, אף שהתיבה הקודמת מסתיימת בהברה פתוחה, כאשר ישנן שני עיצורים דומים או זהים והראשונה מנוקדת בשו"א (הוא קרא לכלל זה 'הדומות'). לדוג' "בשבתך בביתך"; לעניין זה ב' ופ' דומות ("איש יביא בפריו אלף כסף") {עוד הזכיר שם דעת א' הקדמונים (אינני זוכר כעת מיהו) שאף ב' ומ' דומות (ולשיטתו "כי במקלי" הב' דגושה).
אח"כ כתב שכלל זה אינו נוהג אחרי מלה קצרה, לדוג' "לא תתעב מצרי" וציין מקורו במ"ש.

כנראה הוכרח לפרש (המ"ש) כן, כי לא מצא הסבר אחר לרפיון התי"ו.
אך קשה ממה שכתב לעיל על "כי במקלי", ועוד קשה מפסוק בעזרא ה,יז דכתיב התם "די בבבל" בבי"ת
דגושה. (הייתי מעדיף למצוא דוגמה בעברית, אך חיפשתי ומצאתי רק 'כמעט הוכחה' טעם מפסיק, או מפיק)
[המ"ש לשיטתו, יכול לומר שדקדוק לשון ארמית שאני, כמו שכמדומני שראיתי שכתב לגבי תיבת דריוש בשו"א נח אחרי תנועה גדולה דדקדוק לשון ארמי אינו כלשון הקדש]

אמנם לענ"ד נראה, כי כלל זה של הדומות אינו שייך באות תי"ו; ואין לי הסבר אחר, חוץ מזה שאפשר לומר, כי כלל זה בא להקל על הלשון (וליתר דיוק, על השפתיים והחך) ואילו באות תי"ו אין זה כ"כ הכבדה על הלשון בקריאת שני תי"ו רפויים רצופים כשהראשונה בשו"א (כך לפחות אני מרגיש).

בברכה
שמעון דוד קורץ
זה הוזכר בקצרה באחד העלונים האחרונים בהערת שוליים על רשימת הדקדוקים (עיין בפרשת אמור על אשה בבתוליה).
שם זה נקרא אותיות צבותות.
אם יש לך גליון כי-תצא עיין מה שכתבתי על לא תתעב.
הכלל הזה אינו נכון אצל תי"ו.
למעשה מסתבר שגם בבי"ת וכ"ף הוא לא יהיה נכון אחרי מקף כך שכל הדיון מלא תתעב הוא מוטעה לענ"ד.
בעניין כי במקלי נדמה לי שרוו"ה מביא בזה בשם עין הקורא, יש בזה מחלוקת, אבל לפי ספרינו כלל זה נכון בב-ב ובב-פ אבל לא בב-מ.
לענין "כ"ף' יש דיון על כקול או על כגעת,
אגב דאגב יש ביהושוע ובשופטים המעשה עם עכסה בת כלב אשת עתניאל "ויהי בבואה" ביהושוע הוא עם פסק ולכן הבית דגושה כדין, בשופטים יש מונח רביע ללא פסק והבי"ת דגושה מדין צבותות.
אליהו

Life as we Know it

In the section dealing with our obligation to reach out and come to the aid of our neighbour, there is a glaring discrepancy, pointed out by Meshech Chachmah, in two adjacent pesukim. The first deals with the ger toshav, a non-Jew who has sworn off avodah zarah but is not subject to all of our mitzvos. We are commanded to support him in his time of need. The pasuk ends of, "vachai imach." The next pasuk, dealing with the prohibition of charging interest, ends of, "vechei achicha imach." The message seems almost the same but the word vachai turns into vechei.

Meshech Chachmah explains the difference between these two similar terms. One might summarize it as follows: Chei is to live whereas chai is life itself. We find the word chai used with respect to HaShem, as in "Chai HaShem," because He embodies everlasting life. The word chei is used with respect to more fleeting life, such as Yoseif's use of the term "chei Par'oah."

When we support our neighbour, the ger toshav, it is far more than providing financial stability. Since he has not accepted the full burden of all mitzvos, his sole source of "everlasting life" is his connection to our community. If we do not come to his aid, he will surely stray and give up the life he had chosen. Therefore, reaching out to him is indeed providing him with everlasting life.

The second pasuk refers to achicha, your Jewish brother. He therefore already merits the "everlasting life" by virtue of his service of HaShem and acceptance of all mitzvos, a pact he surely cannot alleviate himself of under any circumstances. Therefore, our financial support, however mandatory, is simply providing superficial, physical life. And so, the word chei is used instead. 

Hearing Los

A few years ago I was pondering what it means when there is a kri/ksiv when the kri and ksiv are homonyms. A prime example of this is when there is a kri/ksiv on the word lo when both the kri and ksiv are read lo, but one is spelled lamed aleph and the other lamed vav. While this issue has crept into my head several times, especially when the laining of the week would have an example, I never dedicated much time to pursuing the idea until recently. In the back of my head I kept wondering if the possible solution to this issue was something that could be a fundamental way of understanding lashon hakodesh.

There are certain languages that are considered to be tonal and others that are not. Being a tonal language means that the pitch which a speaker uses is not just helpful in understanding context and emotion, but even definition. For example, many tonal languages have homonyms found in the language that change meaning based on whether the speaker enunciates these words with a high pitch or low pitch tone. I began to consider that maybe lashon hakodesh is somewhat tonal in nature. It is important to note that there are very few homonyms in lashon hakodesh, but the tonal nature would be just as integral to the enunciation of any word, not just a homonym, as the proper vowels being used. Thus, if one were to say a word that should have a high pitch sound incorrectly, he may have spoken the word incorrectly and it might not have any meaning. It would be comparable to changing the vowels of a word without spelling a new word with the rearrangement such as spelling versus spilleng. Whereas, if it were a homonym that were spoken incorrectly, it could actually have a new meaning.

An integral part of laining is the fact that the words are read with a specific cantillation, trop. The nature of trop is such that it forces the reader to read the text with proper perspective. Many times the trop forces the reader to take pauses in places that had the reader continued reading without pause he would have misunderstood the verse. In this fashion the trop helps keep the proper punctuation in place. Perhaps, trop also forces the reader to enunciate with proper pitch in order to give that element to the word. Trop forces the reader to sound some words in higher pitch than others.

In order to test this hypothesis I decided to research the occurrences of kri/ksiv on the word lo as mentioned above. (Note: From this point on I will refer to lo with an aleph as aleph and lo with a vav as vav.) There are eighteen examples in tanach when there is a kri/ksiv with the kri being vav and the ksiv being aleph. The following cantillation marks can be found on the words being discussed: esnachta, munach, mahpach, tipcha, mercha (including one with a makaf to the following word containing a mercha), and sof pasuk (connected to the sof pasuk via makaf). I then decided to see how many alephs there were with the above trop. I was hoping to find very few or no alephs with this trop and a disproportionate amount of vavs that would. The theory would then be supported since it would then seem that the trop is adding the tonal element and although the word is written aleph it is sounded vav due to the trop. This would then prove that the kri adds the tonal element and although the word is written as aleph, the ksiv, it is read as vav, the kri.

The research did not show the anticipated results, but it showed something extremely interesting. I actually found the opposite of what I had anticipated to be true. With alephs I found the above mentioned trop occurred a total of two-thousand five-hundred and nineteen times. When I looked for similar vavs I found that there were only four times that they had the above trop. I found that to be somewhat astounding as such a staggering difference clearly displays that the alephs with that trop is normal and that the vavs are exceptions. If it was normal for the vavs one should see a much higher rate of having these cantillations. I also found it notable that all four exceptions can be found in Sefer Yirmiyah. Although one can come up with many theories as to why this is the case, that is not the purpose of this writing.

Just to be certain, I then took the examples when the ksiv is vav and the kri is aleph and found that there are only two cases like that in tanach. Interestingly, both are found in Sefer Shmuel and one has a pashta and the other is attached to a word with a kadma. When looking at the alephs that had these markings I found only one such occurrence. However, the vavs can be found with these markings one-hundred and two times. The one exception mentioned above is found in Sefer Devarim.

It would seem that the trop clearly does not reflect the kri rather it is an element of the ksiv. It is uncertain whether this is some function of trop or if it is an issue of lashon hakodesh being somewhat tonal, but it is fascinating to notice that trop does not reflect the kri. In today’s day and age it is certainly unreasonable to correct the shaliach tzibbur if he makes a mistake in trop with regard to a kri/ksiv of this nature or any other word, since we find no halachic precedent to do so. Perhaps, even when they were more attune to these issues they were only lechatchila and preferred, but not absolute ways of reading. Or, perhaps since we are not so familiar with these changes to the words we only correct items that are noticeably different to the populace.

Regarding the first question, how does one practically read a kri/ksiv that has the kri and ksiv as homonyms, I am still not one-hundred percent sure of the answer. Maybe kri means the intention and thought of the reader, so if in his head he was thinking aleph then it is an aleph. Again, I am not familiar with any source stating that if the shaliach tzibbur mentions he intended the wrong word that he must go back to that earlier place. So, I guess I am open to suggestion.

The following were the kri/ksiv cases with aleph as ksiv: Shemos 21:8, VaYikra 11:21 and 25:30, Shmuel 1 2:3, Shmuel 2 16:18, Melachim 2 8:10, Yeshaya 9:2, 49:5 and 63:9, Iyov 6:21, 13:4 and 41:4, Mishlei 19:6 and 26:1, Tehillim 100:1 and 139:16, Ezra 4:2, Divrei HaYamim 1 11:20.

The exceptions were: Yirmiyah 48:12, 49:1, 49:31 and 50:32.

The following were the kri/ksiv cases with vav as ksiv: Shmuel 1 2:16 and 20: 2.

The exception was: Devarim 32:29.

How lo can you go?

A follow-up to Ari's post on Los.

In this week's parsha, (25:29-30) the special laws of the sale of a house in a walled city are discussed. רש"י points out that the laws specifically concern a city that had a wall in the time of יהושע. This, explains רש"י, is based on a דרשה of חז"ל on a קרי/כתיב in פסוק ל. The house is referred to as being in a "עיר אשר לא חומה." The word lo is written לא, suggesting that it is a city with no wall. But it is read as לו (whatever the difference is between the two,) which implies a city that has walls. חז"ל learn from here, even though it doesn't have now, if it had before, i.e. at the time of יהושע, then it is subject to the special laws.

ר' צבי פסח פרנק in הר צבי explains why the קרי and כתיב were set up the way they were (as opposed to the other way around.) The פסוק is referring to a city that is not currently walled. That is why it is written לא. The written text is what we see with our eyes. We see לא because we see that there is no wall. But the קרי is what we hear. We hear that there was a wall before in the time of יהושע and that's why it is read לו.

Even Lo-er

Yet another interesting thought on this פסוק. Dr. Mehullam Klarberg discusses the issue with לו being masculine and apparently referring to עיר which is feminine:

Habayit asher ba'ir asher lo (spelled with Alef [meaning 'not'], but read lo spelled with Vav! meaning ['it has']) choma (Levit 25:30) ('the house which is in the city which has a wall'): The Masora says 'There are 16 written similarly with Alef and read with Vav.' Following both the ketiv ('written') and the kere ('read!') Torat Kohanim explains, 'Even though it does not now [have a wall] but it did have previously.' In a passage of Rashi (11th century) (in most editions this passage appears in brackets and the editor of Torat Chayim, Rabbi Ch. D. Chavel, points out that it did not appear in the first edition of Rashi), both the Masora and the Torat Kohanim are quoted and it is pointed out that the word ir ('city') is feminine so the pronoun referring to it should have been la (spelled with a mapik ('pronounced') Heh meaning ['she has']), and explains that because the written form is lo (spelled with Alef) they tikenu ('fixed') lo in the Masora, one form similar to the other form. According to this passage in Rashi, the Masora has abandoned the requirement for masculine-feminine agreement between a noun and its pronoun (which is obligatory in Hebrew), for the sake of 'one form similar to the other form!' Is it 'fixed' thereby? Research is required to determine the origin and status of this passage in Rashi.

Chizekuni (13th century) (who may or may not have been aware of the above passage in Rashi) is also concerned with the non-agreement of ir and lo. He writes that the word lo refers to sadeh ('field'), which is masculine and, he argues, is understood in the sentence even though it does not occur there. We have had discussion of words implied in sentences as explanations for apparent none agreement elsewhere (Morsels, Emor 5762). 

Malbim (19th century) (who probably was aware of the above passage in Rashi and its problematic status) is also concerned with the non-agreement of ir and lo. He argues that lo refers to bayit. One should see the words asher ba'ir ('which is in the city') as parenthetical and read habayit . asher lo choma directly. According to Malbim the question disappears. There is no problem with lo. 

For my part, I'm not sure how the proposed alternative understandings of לו actually jive with what the פסוק is trying to say. A house that has a wall? What house doesn't have a wall? It is clear that we are talking about a walled city so how is it appropriate to attach the word לו to anything other than עיר?

Stand up, goat

(ט"ז:י)

וְהַשָּׂעִיר אֲשֶׁר עָלָה עָלָיו הגּוֹרָל לַעֲזָאזֵל יָעֳמַד חַי

The above bolded word is translated "shall be made to stand." However, if it is mispronounced יַעַמֹד it would mean simply that the goat "shall stand" (on its own.) Beware.

מטמאת - Watch that plural!

(ט"ז:ט"ז)

וְכִפֶּר עַל הַקּדֶשׁ מִטֻּמְאֹת בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל

(ט"ז:י"ט)

וְטִהֲרוֹ וְקִדְּשׁוֹ, מִטֻּמְאֹת בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל

With these and any other instances, it is of utmost importance that it is not pronounced מִטֻּמְאַת, which would change it from plural to singular.

(It should also be noted that while the שוא under the מ is a שוא נח, it is important to create a separation between the מ and א so that the א doesn't disappear and it is pronounced as if it is מטמות, i.e. it should be mitum-os, not mitu-mos.)

A Revealing Note

This seems to have come up fairly often so I should probably address it in a post. Every now and then, a בעל קריאה will mix up תְגַלֶּה (with a סגול) and תְגַלֵּה (with a צירי.) This comes up many times in אחרי מות and again in קדושים as well. I have seen people get rather antsy about this. However, (please correct me if I'm wrong) there is absolutely no difference whatsoever. The only factor that determines the נקוד under the ל is that it will get a צירי if it is at the end of a פסוק or on an אתנחתא. Otherwise, it will be a סגול. This should never be corrected by anyone on the spot.

הגיענו - הגדה vs יגיענו

כן ה' אלוקינו יגיענו למועדים ולרגלים אחרים

In just about all the הגדות I've seen, the נוסח of the ברכה at the end of מגיד is as above. However, in אבודרהם and רבינו סעדיה, as well as the הגדות מדויקות you will find the word יגיענו substituted with הגיענו. This version seems more correct considering the context. The entire ברכה is in the second person. Why would we change to the third person with יגיענו? Furthermore, it seems this portion of the ברכה is meant as a request. The word הגיענו is certainly לשון בקשה whereas the word יגיענו seems to be merely a statement of fact. Why is it that almost all הגדות have this version?

Don't sell the goat

I don't usually cover Aramaic דקדוק and I cannot claim to know terribly much about it but it seems the entire world sings חד גדיא pronounced thusly: חד גדיא, חד גדיא דְזַבִּין אבא בתרי זוזי It's a tricky word because almost the same word is used for buying as for selling. However, it seems from the הגדות מדויקות that the proper pronunciation is in fact דִזְבַן. I haven't done too much research on this but I know someone who has. The Haggada of Rabbi Jonathan Sacks by Koren Publishers also has דִזְבַן.

שבת הגדול

This Shabbos, the last Shabbos before Pesach, is called שבת הגדול - the great Shabbos. Or is it? Have no fear. I am certainly not doubting that it is שבת הגדול. But is that really what the term means? Shabbos is found all over Tana"ch as being feminine. Therefore, the term for the great Shabbos should have been Shabbos HaGedolah. One is lead to believe that the term Shabbos HaGadol must truly mean the Shabbos of the Gadol. Incidentally, this would change the pronunciation from Shabbos to Shabbas. So if it is the Shabbos of the Gadol - what does that mean?

I have heard a number of answers on this subject but I found many to be unsatisfactory. There seem to be two viable options. First, perhaps the term skips a word. It is the Shabbos of "something" great. This is most commonly used to refer to it as the Shabbos of the great miracle that was entailed in B'nei Yisroel's gathering of the Korban Pesach unharmed. (For an alternate approach to what that something might be see this post.)

I heard in the name of R' Yaakov Kaminetzky that the term is not meant to be a gramatical conjugation but rather, it follows the same pattern as Shabbas Chazon, Shabbas Nachamu and Shabbas Shuvah. It is merely referring to a significant word in the haftarah for this occasion. In our case, it is a reference to the end of the Haftarah, when HaShem proclaims, (Malachi 3:23) "Hinei anochi sholei'ach lachem es Eliyah HaNavi lifnei bo yom HaShem hagadol vehanora." This pasuk refers to the coming of Eliyahu HaNavi before the great and awesome day of HaShem - the ultimate redemption. Shabbas HaGadol is a direct reference to the word hagadol in this pasuk.

This approach gives great significance to the name and plays beautifully into the theme of the day. Whereas Chazon, Nachamu and Shuvah are all the first words of their respective haftaros, HaGadol is not, certainly indicating a special meaning. Just as this pasuk in the Haftarah gets us ready for the ultimate redemption, on this Shabbos we are readying ourselves for the celebration of the great redemption from Egypt. This pasuk gets us in the geulah mood which allows us to better appreciate the seder and its geulah theme.

Please see the comments for further discussions on the gender of שבת and some of the opinions not fully discussed here.

White Hair

The beginning of this week's פרשה contains many instances of the מפיק ה, indicating the female, third-person possessive. The proper pronunciation of these is more critical than usual as we find the word טהרה both with and without. The absence of an expected מפיק ה would certainly change the meaning. There is another such instance later on. In the discussions of the various laws of צרעת, there are a number of references to hair. In 13:20, when the כהן observes the white hair, the word ושערהּ has a מפיק ה as expected, indicating that its hair turned white. However, earlier on, (13:4) in reference to hair that has not turned white, we find the very same word without a מפיק ה. Most חומשים go out of their way to call attention to this apparent anomaly.

I had originally thought that this was simply another one of the many grammatical anomalies found in the תורה, such as the missing דגש in the שׂ of the last word of פסוק י in this very פרק. However, I found a very logical explanation for this in משך חכמה. In the later reference to the hair, rewinding to the beginning of the paragraph reveals that the subject is בשר, flesh. That is why ושערהּ is punctuated in the possessive form, because the hair emanates from the flesh. However, the subject of the earlier pasuk is עור, the skin. Although the hair appears to be coming from the skin, in truth, it comes from the flesh underneath it so the non-possessive form without the מפיק ה is used.

A reader offered the following alternative approach which seems more plausible, partially due to MDJ's question in the comments:

Note that “Hair” in English has two separate connotations – either referring to individual strand of hair, or to a collection of strands. I suggest se’ara (the fem. Form) has the former meaning, and se’ar (masc.) the latter.
When we describe a situation where white hair has appeared, it may be a minimal amount or (more typically) an entire section, so “hair” is used in the collective sense.When we describe the opposite situation, we say not one strand of hair has turned white.
Thus:In 13:3 which speaks of some hair turning white, the masculine form se’ar is used.In 13:4, the condition described is that no hair (not even a minimal number of individual strands) has turned white – so the feminine form denoting a strand is used.And in 13:20, which (like 13:3) speaks of some of “its” hair having turned white, we are back to the masculine form, but with a feminine possessive suffix added.

תרגום המילה כבוס

יג נח אֲשֶׁר תְּכַבֵּס וְסָר מֵהֶם הַנָּגַע וְכֻבַּס שֵׁנִית וְטָהֵר׃ ת"א: דתחור ויעדי מנהון מכתשא ויצטבע תנינות וידכי.

הזכרנו כבר כמה פעמים את דברי רש"י כאן. מגיליון בהעלותך: ח ז וְכִבְּסוּ בִגְדֵיהֶם תרגום אונקלוס: ויחוורון לבושיהון. והנה בסוף פרשת תזריע (ויקרא יג נח) פרש רש"י: וְכֻבַּס שֵׁנִית ־ לשון טבילה. תרגום של כבוסין שבפרשה זו לשון ליבון׃ "ויתחוור"; חוץ מזה, שאינו לליבון אלא לטבול, לכך תרגמו׃ "ויצטבע"; וכן כל כבוסי בגדים שהן לטבילה, מתרגמין׃ "ויצטבע".

בפשטות כבוס הבגדים כאן [בפרשת בהעלותך] הוא לטהרה ולא לנקיון, כך מוכיח סוף הפסוק והטהרו. ולכן היה צפוי לפי הכלל של רש"י בסוף תזריע לתרגם ויצבעון (השווה עם לשון המקרא וּבְטַל שְׁמַיָּא יִצְטַבַּע דניאל ד יב). שאלה זו אפשר לשאול בשני מקומות נוספים: א. שמות יט י וְכִבְּסוּ שִׂמְלֹתָם; במדבר לא כד וְכִבַּסְתֶּם בִּגְדֵיכֶם, בשני המקומות ההם כמו כאן אף שלפי פשוטו מדובר בטהרה מתורגם לשון חוור. עיין בהעמק דבר ובמשך חכמה במקומות האלה (או בחלקם), גם הספר שערי אהרן דן בשאלה זו. שמעתי בשם הרב דויד צבי הילמן, וזה תוכן דבריו: התרגום מצד אחד משתדל לפרש פשוטו של מקרא, מצד שני אין הוא מתרגם בניגוד לתורה שבעל פה. ולכן אם התורה קוראה לטבילת בגדי הלובש בשם כיבוס – המתרגם מתרגמו בלשון צבע כמו שהבאנו מהארמית המקראית (לשון הרטבה), בשלושת המקומות היוצאים מן הכלל אין דין שנוהג לדורות אלא מעשה שהיה. כאן התרגום חוזר לכללו לפרש פשוטו של מקרא, כבוס לשם ניקיון. עד כאן מפרשת בהעלותך.

דקדוקי פרשת תזריע והחודש

דקדוקי קריאה בפרשת תזריע, במפטיר החודש, בהפטרת החודש, ובראשון של מצֹרע.
תזריע היא הפרשה הקשה ביותר לקריאה שיש. אולי אפילו קשה יותר מויקרא, אם כי לא אתווכח עם אף אחד שיחשוב הפוך ממני.
קריאה או קריעה? בא נאמר שהמפטיר הוא סוג של נחמה לעומת הפרשה עצמה. נדמה לי שבשנה שעברה ספרתי משהו כמו 18 פסוקים המתחילים ב"וראה הכהן" או "וראהו הכהן". כמעט בלתי אפשרי לזכור את כולם ללא כל עזרה.
יב ב וְיָלְדָה: אי הקפדה על השווא נע בלמ"ד משבשת את המשמעות. וְטָֽמְאָה: המ"ם בשוא נע, והאל"ף צריכה להישמע. לא לקרוא וְטָמָה. וכן בפסוק ה.
יב ד בִּדְמֵי טָהֳרָהֿ: אין מפיק בה"א. יְמֵי טָהֳרָֽהּ׃ הה"א מופקת[1].
יב ה עַל-דְּמֵי טָהֳרָֽהֿ׃ אין מפיק בה"א.
יב ו וּבִמְלֹאת: הלמ"ד בחולם והאל"ף אינה מונעת. יְמֵי טָהֳרָהּ: הה"א מופקת.
יג ד וּשְׂעָרָהֿ: אין מפיק בה"א.
יג ה לֹא-פָשָׂה: שׂי"ן שמאלית
יב ב וְיָלְדָה: אי הקפדה על השווא נע בלמ"ד משבשת את המשמעות. וְטָֽמְאָה: המ"ם בשוא נע, והאל"ף צריכה להשמע. לא לקרוא וְטָמָה. וכן בפסוק ה.
יב ד בִּדְמֵי טָהֳרָהֿ: אין מפיק בה"א. יְמֵי טָהֳרָֽהּ׃ הה"א מופקת.
יב ה עַל-דְּמֵי טָהֳרָֽהֿ׃ אין מפיק בה"א.
יב ו וּבִמְלֹאת: הלמ"ד בחולם והאל"ף אינה מונעת. יְמֵי טָהֳרָהּ: הה"א מופקת.
יג ג הוּא: יש לשים היטב בכל הפרשה מתי מנוקד הוּא ומתי מנוקד הִוא!
יג ד וּשְׂעָרָהֿ: אין מפיק בה"א.
יג ה לֹא-פָשָׂה: שׂי"ן שמאלית
יג ו כֵּהָה: הה"א בקמץ.
יג ח וְטִמְּאוֹ: המ"ם בשוא נע, והאל"ף צריכה להשמע. לא לקרוא וְטִמּוֹ. וכן בהמשך.
יג יא בַּשְׂאֵֽת׃ השׂי"ן בשוא נח ללא דגש; אין לבלוע את האל"ף, לא בַּשֵׂת.
יג טז וְנֶהְפַּךְ: הה"א בשווא נח והפ"א בדגש קל וכן הדבר בהמשך
יג יט אוֹ בַהֶרֶת לְבָנָה אֲדַמְדָּמֶת: טעם טפחא בתיבת בַהֶ֖רֶת
יג כט בְּרֹאשׁ אוֹ בְזָקָֽן׃ הבי"ת בשווא, בלתי מיודע, יש להיזהר מלקרוא בפתח
יג לב וְלֹא-הָיָה בוֹ: טעם נסוג אחור לה"א הראשונה
יג לז צָֽמַח-בּוֹ: געיה בצד"י, יש לקרוא בהעמדה קלה שם
יג לט בֶּהָרֹת כֵּהוֹת לְבָנֹת: טעם טפחא בתיבת בֶּהָרֹת
יג מב נֶגַע לָבָן אֲדַמְדָּם: טעם טפחא בתיבת נֶגַע
יג מה פְרֻמִים פָרוּעַ: הפ"א בשתיהן רפויה. יַעְטֶה: העי"ן בשווא נח אך אין להבליעו כי אז יישמע כלשון 'הטייה'. וְטָמֵא ׀ טָמֵא יִקְרָֽא׃ פסק בין התיבות וְטָמֵא – טָמֵא, יש להפסיק מעט בין הראשונה לשנייה
יג מח בְעֵרֶב: הבי"ת בשווא, לא מיודע, בשונה מההמשך שאז היא בקמץ: בָעֵרֶב
יג מט וְהָרְאָה: הה"א בקמץ קטן, והרי"ש בשוא נח. להיזהר מהבלעת האל"ף, לא וְהוֹרָה ולא וְהָרָה!
יג נא אֲשֶׁר-יֵעָשֶׂה: היו"ד בצירי
מפטיר שבת החודש שמות יב:
יב ג בֶּעָשֹׂר: העמדה קלה בבי"ת להדגשת הסגול המורה על מיודע. וְיִקְחוּ: וא"ו החיבור בשווא נע, לשון עתיד
יב ז וְנָתְנוּ: מרכא בנו"ן כטעם משנה. הַבָּתִּים: דגש חזק בתי"ו (אחד מן היוצאים מן הכלל), יש להטעים מעט את הבי"ת בגלל המונח על אף האי נוחות שבדבר.
יב יא וְכָכָה: הטעם בכ"ף הראשונה מלעיל. כדי למנוע טעות סומנה זרקא בכמה חומשים גם בכ"ף הראשונה.
יב יד תְּחָגֻּֽהוּ׃ החי"ת בקמץ חטוף (קטן).
יב טו מִיִּשְׂרָאֵל: היו"ד בחירק ודגש חזק, אין לקרוא מיאישראל
יב טז לֹא-יֵעָשֶׂה ... יֵאָכֵל: היו"ד בצירי וגעיה אחריו המורה על העמדה שלא יישמע 'יַעשה' וישנה משמעות.

הפטרת החודש, יחזקאל מה:
יז וְהַנֵּסֶךְ נו"ן בצירי. וּבֶחֳדָשִׁים: העמדה קלה בבי"ת להבחין בין מיודע בסגול ללא מיודע בשווא וכן הוא בהמשך מו ג
חָג החי"ת בקמץ כא שְׁבֻעוֹת: השי"ן בשווא ולא בקמץ
מו ח וּבְבוֹא: בי"ת ראשונה בשווא נח על אף הקושי וכן הוא בפס' ט
מו ט נִכְחוֹ: הכ"ף בשווא נח על אף הקושי
מו י וּבְצֵאתָם יֵצֵֽאוּ׃ בכל הדפוסים וכתבי היד החוץ-תימניים הידועים הגירסא וּבְצֵאתָם, ובכללם כתר ארם צובא[2].
מו יב וּפָתַֽח לוֹ: טעם נסוג אחור לפ"א
מו יז וְהָיְתָה לּוֹ: טעם נסוג אחור לה"א, עם זאת השוא ביו"ד נע, ודגש חזק בלמ"ד מדין אתי מרחיק. וְשָׁבַת: הבי"ת רפה, פועל לשבות בלשון עבר

ראשון של מצורע
יד ב הַמְּצֹרָע מ"ם דגושה ושווא נע.
יד ד לַמִּטַּהֵר: המ"ם בחירק חסר והטי"ת דגושה.
יד ה וְשָׁחַט אֶת-הַצִּפּוֹר הָאֶחָת: טעם טפחא בתיבה וְשָׁחַט וכן הוא בהמשך בפסוק כא
יד ו עַל הַמַּיִם הַֽחַיִּֽים׃ טעם טפחא בתיבה עַל
יד ח וְאַחַר יָבוֹא אֶל-הַֽמַּחֲנֶה: טעם טפחא בתיבה וְאַחַר
יד ט יְגַלַּח הלמ"ד בפתח. יְגַלֵּחַ: הלמ"ד בצירי חי"ת בפתח גנובה.
יד י וְכַבְשָׂה: הכ"ף פתוחה.
יד יא וְהֶעֱמִיד: העמדה קלה בה"א למנוע הבלעת הגרונית החטופה. הַֽמְטַהֵר: זהו המקום היחיד בפרק בו המ"ם מנוקדת בשווא נח[3]
[1] כאשר מדובר בדמיה של האישה אז ללא מפיק בה"א, כאשר מדובר בימים, אז הה"א במפיק ולסיכום: ראשונה ושלישית הה"א ללא מפיק, שנייה ורביעית, במפיק.
[2] לפי תורה קדומה צריך להיות 'ובדרכם יצאו' על פי כתבי יד תימניים.[3] לפי הכלל בסוף תנ"ך ברויאר מוסד הרב קוק שגעית ה"א במילה בעלת טעם מפסיק משאירה שווא נח. הערה נוספת, בשוא הכוונה לכהן ולא לאדם הבא להטהר שאז מנוקד בחירק חסר.

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.

Let your Soul not be Desolate

Although mistakes in the הפטרה might not be as serious, they tend to be more prevalent since the reader of the הפטרה tends to be less of a seasoned lainer (depending on the shul.) Unfortunately, there was one year I heard this done completely wrong every time. In the הפטרה of פרשת פרה, towards the end, there are numerous instances of the word נְּשַׁמָּה, meaning desolate. If it is mispronounced נְּשָׁמָה it refers to the soul. Two words, nearly indistinguishably similar whose meanings couldn't be further apart. It would be advisable, if you know who will be laining the הפטרה, to alert them to this in advance. Fortunately, our shul has acquired קלף's for all the הפטרות and now only actual בעלי קריאה lain it.

As MG points out in the comments - for those who are particular about pronouncing a דגש חזק - the דגש in the מ is also an important distinction between the two words.

Oops

I very often find myself focusing very closely on possible little mistakes that might go unnoticed and sometimes, the bigger mistakes fly over my ahead. Such was the case one פרשת פרה when I missed a biggy. Fortunately, it was in the הפטרה. In (יחזקאל ל"ו:ל), instead of פרי העץ, the בעל קריאה said פרי הארץ!! I heard murmurings and I knew I had missed something but I just wasn't sure what it was so I couldn't very well correct it.

I joked with people afterwards that perhaps it is not such a serious mistake. After all, if you make a בורא פרי האדמה on an apple, you are יוצא, right? It is still אדר.

שלשלת

At the end of this week's parsha, we are described the ceremony of the consecration of the kohanim. As part of the proceedings, Moshe brought three korbanos: a chatas, an olah, and the eil hamiluim. In the pasuk that deals with the slaughtering of the last korban, (8:23), the note on the word "vayishchat" is the unique shalsheles, found only in four places in the Torah and three others in the rest of NA"CH.

R' Chaim Kanievsky explains why specifically this of the three korbanos has a shalsheles on the word "vayishchat." He says he saw in a sefer that a shalsheles denotes an extension or elongation of whatever word it is on. For instance, as Sedom was about to be destroyed, Lot lingered and did not go along with the angels. The pasuk (Bereishis 19:17) says "vayismahmah," with a shalsheles, for he lingered excessively.

Here, the other two korbanos required only a spilling of the blood on the mizbeiach. The last korban, however, in addition to the spilling of blood on the mizbeiach required also the putting of blood on the thumb and big toe of Aharon and his four sons. Therefore, Moshe required to deal at greater length with the slaughtering of this korban so that he could make sure enough blood was gathered for all the necessary tasks. This is why there is a shalsheles on the word "vayishchat."