האשה וילדיה

(כ"א:ד)

האשה וילדיה תהיה לאדניה

In בבא קמא נד., the גמרא discusses the use of a singular verb in reference to plural subjects as acceptable in תנ"ך. However, in all of the examples discussed there the verb precedes the subjects. However, the above פסוק demonstrates that it can occur in the reverse as well. One would have expected the פסוק to read האשה וילדיה יהיו לאדניה but apparently תהיה suffices.

Three strikes and you're out

... well, one strike, really. Saw this in the דקדוק WhatsApp group recently:

דבר יפה שראיתי בתיקון קוראים סימנים:
שארהּ - מפיק הא.
כסותהּ - מפיק הא.
ועונתהּ - מפיק הא.
ואם שלש אלה לא יעשה להּ - כלומר: מי שלא יבטא את שלשת המפיקים, אז - ויצא חינם אין כסף - לא ישלמו לו משכורת על הקריאה...

The Ox and his Friend

One of the laws dealt with in this week's פרשה is that of damages incurred when one's animal gores another. The פסוק says אבן עזרא .כ"א:ל"ה - וכי יגף שור איש את שור רעהו explains these words as follows: And if the ox of a man gores the ox of his (this man's) friend. However, he brings an alternative explanation from קראי by the name of בן זוטא. He interprets: And if the ox of a man gores his (the ox's) friend - another ox. אבן עזרא rejects this ridiculous interpretation based on the trop of the פסוק which clearly indicates that it should be read otherwise. Besides, adds the אבן עזרא sharply, an ox has no friends - except for בן זוטא!

It is not often that a pshat in a ראשון on חומש will have one rolling in laughter but this one did it to me. However, אבן עזרא's sharp attack on בן זוטא is not so clear. Daniel Scarowsky, ז"ל, once pointed out to me that we find in the 'משניות בבא קמא פרק ה (bottom of :מח):
"...שור שהיה מתכון לחברו" an ox that had intention to gore 'his friend.' It seems the ox is not the social outcast the אבן עזרא had perceived him to be. But Daniel explained that the answer must be that there is a difference between the term רֵע used in our פסוק, and the term חבר used in the חבר .משנה comes from the root meaning connection. A חבר is merely one who has a specific connection with the other. This connection may be as simple as both being oxen. A רֵע, a term used to denote a more serious friendship, implies a deeper connection which an ox does not have. Except, of course, with בן זוטא.

Answer vs. Torture

(כ"ב:כ"ב)

אִם עַנֵּה תְעַנֶּה אתוֹ

(כ"ג:ב)

וְלא תַעֲנֶה עַל רִב לִנְטת

If the two פסוקים above are read without vowels, it appears the same word appears both times. However, they are clearly two separate words. תְעַנֶּה means to torture. תַעֲנֶה means to answer. Keep an ear out for this one - it's easy to miss.

Thanks to ba in the comments, here is a nice list of words in תנ"ך that are the same but different.

Give it to me

(כ"ב:כ"ט)

בַּיּוֹם הַשְּׁמִינִי תִּתְּנוֹ לִי

The above bolded word, when pronounced correctly, is translated, "you (singular) shall give it to me." If mispronounced תִּתְּנוּ it means, "you (plural) shall give to me." Certainly correctable!

Tricky Vowels

כ"א: כ"ט וְאִם שׁוֹר נַגָּח הוּא

כ"א:ל"ו אוֹ נוֹדַע כִּי שׁוֹר נַגָּח הוּא

The vowels here are very important. If the קמץ and פתח are flipped, the word takes on a totally different meaning. נָגַח, the incorrect pronunciation, is a verb, gored in the past tense. But the proper pronunciation, נַגָּח, is a noun meaning a goring ox. We find this construct in numerous other places such as גַמָל meaning not a camel but one who rides camels.

It just so happens that my son is now learning the סוגיא of שור מועד in school so this observation was particularly on my mind.

Jewish Milk

I once saw an article about חלב ישראל and decided to post this. A friend of mine pointed out to me once that the common pronunciation of this term, Cholov Yisroel, is actually incorrect. Due to סמיכות (which I'm not 100% certain of, see comments) it should be chaleiv Yisrael as in לא תבשל גדי בחלב אמו. I've always wanted to try some funny "proper דקדוק" social experiments - like have everyone use that term in public and see what kind of reactions you get, and the one I suggested on another occasion.

By the Thousands

 In the עשרת הדברות, we have (כ:ו) וְעֹשֶׂה חֶסֶד לַאֲלָפִים There is a פתח under the ל. Now, under normal circumstances, a ל+פתח indicates the definite - to the, a short form of לְהַ, whereas ל+שוא would indicate the indefinite - to a. However, those rules change when the main word begins with a שוא or חטף. Since a word may not begin with two שואs, the פתח is used for the indefinite, whereas, in this case the definite would be indicated by a ל+קמץ. In a previous year, I corrected the בעל קריאה when he said לָאֲלָפִים.

Curiously, in just a couple of weeks, we will read the י"ג מידות in כי תשא. There we find (כ"ד:ז) נֹצֵר חֶסֶד לָאֲלָפִים. Why does it change from לַאֲלָפִים to לָאֲלָפִים, from thousands to the thousands?

I posed this question to a WhatsApp Dikduk group. The sum of the answers I received amounts to the following: In the עשרת הדברות, the "the" is not necessary because thousands is immediately qualified by אוהבי ולשומרי מצותי. When אלפים is used in the י"ג מדות is referencing "the know" thousands, as previously explained. That is why it is in the definite form.

בעל צפון

 I was at a shiur this week where the name of this עבודה זרה was mispronounced as Ba'al Tzafon (with a קמץ under the צ). The מגיד שיעור corrected himself immediately but it got me thinking - what is the actual meaning of this name? If it is just the idol of the north, it should in fact be Tzafon. There is plenty of discussion in the commentaries about the fact that this was an עבודה זרה, but not so much the actual etymology of the name.

Someone in one of my WhatsApp Dikduk groups pointed me to a מדרש שכל טוב which explains that it is in fact a reference to the north but seems to indicate that it is similar to the word צפוני, northern, which does have a natural שוא under the צ. So the ending יו"ד is dropped but the שוא stays and that is how we have Tzefon.

While on the topic of this word, see כלי יקר דברים ב:ג regarding the connection between north, tzafon, and hidden, tzafun.