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.

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?

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.)

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.

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.

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.

יעשה vs. תעשה

From Ephraim Stulberg:

(ל"א:ט"ו)

שֵׁשֶׁת יָמִים יֵעָשֶׂה מְלָאכָה

In the above פסוק, where we are told that "for six days shall work be performed." The passive "יֵעָשֶׂה" is of course masculine, in spite of the fact that its subject is the feminine "מְלָאכָה". And so follows the question: What's up with that?

R, Yaakov Kamenetsky observes that in many instances in which the word "כל", or "all", is used to modify a noun, the gender of the verb/adjective used to describe even a feminine noun will be masculine. Thus, in פרשת בא, we have the phrase (כָּל מְלָאכָה לא יֵעָשֶׂה בָהֶם" (י"ב:ט"ז", where the masculine "יֵעָשֶׂה" refers back to the word "כל" more than it does to the feminine "מְלָאכָה". R' Kamenetsky suggests that the verse in כי תשא is to be read as though the word "כל" were present. R' Kamenetsky also quotes the opinion of a certain R' Nathan, who appears to have been some sort of confederate of his back in Lithuania, who explains the incidence in בא by positing a rule in which the gender of passively constructed verbs does not necessarily correspond to the gender of their related nouns. R' Kamenetsky is somewhat dismissive of this suggestion, though it clearly solves the question in כי תשא much more effectively.The truth is that R' Nathan's suggestion had already been anticipated by an earlier authority, namely רד"ק, in his comments on מלכים א ב:כ"א:

וַתּאמֶר יֻתַּן אֶת אֲבִישַׁג הַשֻּׁנַמִּית לַאֲדנִיָּהוּ אָחִיךָ לְאִשָּׁה

He explains that when the passive voice is employed, it creates a sort of gap between noun and verb. רד"ק reads the verse in מלכים as follows: "It shall be given, namely Avishag the Shunamite, to Adoniyahu". Likewise, we would read: "For six days it shall be done, namely 'work'". Actually, this is not very different from the explanation given by R' Kamenetsky. R' Kamenetsky makes the important point of noting that the phenomenon is not limited to the נפעל, and that it really applies in any case where a neuter noun is employed. However, R' Nathan's point is also crucial, for it recognizes that this phenomenon will be much more prevalent in cases in which the נפעל is utilized, thus creating an implicit break between subject and verb which is filled by the invisible neuter.

No More Drinking

Another episode of You Make the Call:

One time, the בעל קריאה, when laining ל"ג:ד וְלֹא שָׁתוּ אִישׁ עֶדְיוֹ עָלָיו put the accent on the last syllable of שתו rather than the first. Usually, I am not a real stickler for accents and I let them fly when it isn't a glaring change of meaning. But here it would seem to completely change the word from "put" to "drink." So, I corrected it on the spot.

As per MG in the comments, I believe it was the right call.

קול ענות

(ל"ב:י"ח)
וַיּאמֶר אֵין קוֹל עֲנוֹת גְּבוּרָה וְאֵין קוֹל עֲנוֹת חֲלוּשָׁה קוֹל עַנּוֹת אָנכִי שׁמֵעַ

The pronunciation of the דגש חזק is an art which has fallen largely out of practice. Even amongst the best of בעלי קריאה I have heard few who actually still do. More often the not, the דגש does not change the meaning of the word in and of itself. However, one of my Rebbeim in ישיבת אור ירושלים once pointed out to me that in the above פסוק, the דגש diffrentiates between two words in the very same pasuk!

משה רבינו is answering יהושע that he does not hear the sound of the (victorious) outcry of the mighty, nor the (defeated) outcry of the weak. In those first two instances, the word ענות is from the verb לענות, to answer or to exclaim. Rather, says משה רבינו, it is the call of blasphemy, as רש"י explains, which afflict the souls of those who hear them. Here, the word ענות is from the word ענוי, affliction. Clearly, there are two different words in this pasuk and the only to diffrentiate between the two is with the pronunciation of the דגש.

Whys and Wherefores

The following thorough and intriguing write-up was submitted by a Dikdukian reader:

It is difficult to research a rule that apparently has no name.

I refer to what some colloquially refer to as the "למה" rule, because it is perhaps best illustrated with a handful of examples in which למה is used twice in close succession, once מלעיל and once מלרע (e.g., Shemot 5:22; Shemot 32:11-12 -- you know it from ויחל on a תענית צבור). The rule is that an otherwise מלעיל word becomes מלרע before a word that begins with an א, ה, or ע (of course, HaShem's name spelled with a י is pronounced with an א and therefore triggers the rule).

R. Yaakov Kamenetsky refers to the rule often in his ספר אמת ליעקב but generally as "that rule I have cited many times." Paul Jouon, in his well-regarded grammar written with T. Muraoka, calls it "hiatus" (a not uncommon grammatical process) but admits the name is less than ideal.

None of this sheds much light on the details of the rule itself. Jouon does mention that the word in question must end in an open syllable, but are there any other environmental factors?

Consider these examples (or nonexamples): 

1. Bamidbar 11:8: שָׁטוּ֩ הָעָ֨ם וְלָֽקְט֜וּ... There is some disagreement about this one, as indicated in many חומשים that mark it as מלעיל but other sources, including מנחת שי and אמת ליעקב, that say it follows the rule and is מלרע. Those who say it is מלעיל claim that that is true to the meaning of the word, but we see other instances where the rule overrides that consideration (e.g., זָד֖וּ עֲלֵיהֶֽם Shemot 18:11). Nevertheless, it is unusual to see Koren and others mark מלעיל if it should be מלרע. My thought was that perhaps the rule is blocked with a תלישה (big or small), as seen in ...
2. Bamidbar 16:7: וְשִׂימוּ֩ עֲלֵיהֶ֨ן קְטֹ֜רֶת where ושימו is marked (in every חומש I've seen that double-marks the תלישה in such a case) as מלעיל. But is טעם part of the environment that blocks the rule? Consider also ...
3. Shemot 25: 24: וְצִפִּיתָ֥ אֹת֖וֹ זָהָ֣ב טָה֑וֹר... R. Kamenetsky says it is מלרע because of "that rule." Conveniently, the word doesn't show up elsewhere (without an א afterward) for comparison, supporting R. Kamenetsky's view by default. But what of other ל-ה verbs that don't trigger the rule, such as the very common ועשית? I had surmised merely that a ל-ה verb doesn't trigger the rule, and thus that the שורש of וצפית is not צפה as otherwise expected. And, in fact, other ל-ה verbs like וראית are still מלעיל before an א (Shemot 33:23, Devarim 4:19, the latter with a תלישה, fwiw). Further, the problem for the other view is that is doesn't explain why ועשית is often followed by an א and yet remains מלעיל (as in Shemot 27:1, וְעָשִׂ֥יתָ אֶת־הַמִּזְבֵּ֖חַ, and we see וצפית as מלרע followed by את in 26:29). The other question here is possible interaction between this rule and that of וי"ו ההיפוך in עתיד/צווי -- but clearly R. Kamenetsky is saying the rule occurs here without saying why it doesn't in other seemingly like situations.

So what are the other environmental conditions that trigger/block the rule? I might like to write down each instance the rule shows up to see what's missing, but perhaps someone has done that already or has the software to find out quickly...?

Need to bring this up

ל"ב:ז אֲשֶׁר הֶעֱלֵיתָ מֵאֶרֶץ מִצְרָיִם
ל"ג:א אַתָּה וְהָעָם אֲשֶׁר הֶעֱלִיתָ מֵאֶרֶץ מִצְרָיִם 

There was a בר מצוה laining and he said הֶעֱלֵיתָ with a צרי the second time and I corrected it as a knee-jerk reaction. However, looking at the two words, I can't tell that there is any actual difference between the two. The תרגום is essentially the same. So, as I always do in these situations, I ask: If there is a difference, what is it? And if there is no difference, why are they different?

Minimizing Sin

ל"ד:ט וְסָלַחְתָּ לַעֲו‍ֹנֵנוּ וּלְחַטָּאתֵנוּ וּנְחַלְתָּנוּ 

As per a comment in this other post, it is important to be careful to not pronounce it וּלְחַטֹּאתֵנוּ, with a חולם on the ט. This would change it from singular to plural. As I've mentioned elsewhere, in situations like this, I appreciate the "oy-ers." It makes it much easier to discern if it has been pronounced properly or not.

נר תמיד

There is a custom to include a light in every shul which is on constantly, called a נר תמיד. Most people are aware of this. So what's the problem? I think that is what leads to a very popular misreading of a פסוק at the beginning of תצוה which is also found in אמור.

 לְהַֽעֲלֹ֥ת נֵ֖ר תָּמִֽיד

I think people automatically group the two words נר תמיד together in their minds and thus read it with a טפחא on להעלות and a מרכא on נר which is incorrect. It does change the meaning ever so slightly but I would never correct that on the spot. Maybe after the fact, I would point it out.

שם and שמה

(ל:י"ח)

ונתת שמה מים

(מ:ל)

ויתן שמה מים

(מ:ז)

ונתת שם מים

All three of the above פסוקים refer to the setting up of the כיור. The simple question is: What is the difference between שם and שמה?

As the comments below indicate, there doesn't seem to be any difference between the two. But this is always what I ask when I encounter things like this: "If there's a difference - what is it? If there's no difference - why are they different?"

Of plurals and singulars

As part of the process of producing the priestly vestements, פסוק כ"ח:מ commands "ולבני אהרן תעשה כתנות", and for the sons of Aharon you shall make tunics. This can be interpreted in two ways - one tunic for each כהן or many tunics for each כהן. This is the subject of a dispute in ירושלמי יומא ג:ו. The רבנן hold two tunics for each כהן and ר' יוסי holds one tunic for each כהן suffices.

In the .גמרא מגילה ז we find רב יוסף learns that when it says in מתנות לאביונים in מגילת אסתר it means 2 total מתנות for 2 אביונים - only one for each poor person. טורי אבן in חגיגה and אבני שהם in מגילה (same author) comment that this גמרא goes like ר' יוסי in the ירושלמי who holds one tunic for each כהן. However, asks מצפה איתן in מגילה, from תוספות in .חגיגה ג we see that the הלכה in regards to the dispute in the ירושלמי is like the רבנן - two tunics for each כהן. If רב יוסף in מגילה is going only according to ר' יוסי then it is not in accordance with הלכה!

מצפה איתן answers from פרי חדש אורח חיים תרצ"ד who writes that if the פסוק had written "ולאביונים מתנות" then it would have implied two to each but now that it says it the other way around it only means one to each. Therefore, the rule is that if the subject is written before the object then it may imply that to these subjects you will give (plural) objects to each. That then is the subject of dispute in ירושלמי where the פסוק in question is "ולבני אהרן תעשה כתנות", the subject coming before the object. However, with מתנות לאביונים where the object comes first, it means that these objects shall be distributed amongst the following subjects and everyone will agree that it is one per person. [This also explains why the גמרא in יומא entertains the possibility that there were two lots on each goat in the יום כפור procedure because the pasuk is "על שני השעירים גורלות," the subject before the object.]

תרשיש ושהם

(כ"ח:כ)

והטור הרביעי תרשיש ושהם וישפה

In the listing of the stones on the חושן there is a difference between the last row and the other three. The last row is "תרשיש ושהם וישפה" There is a וי"ו before the second stone as well as the third. In the other three rows, the וי"ו appears only before the last stone. משך חכמה points out that the reason for this is as we find in קריאת שמע, that certain groups of words have the first word beginning with the same letter as the next word like "על לבבכם" and therefore must be very carefully differentiated. So, too, here תרשיש and שהם have the same problem. Therefore, in order to differentiate between the two, 'ח told Moshe "תרשיש ושהם" so he would not get mixed up.

The difficulty is, however, that in (פקודי (ל"ט:י"ג the list does not contain a וי"ו before שהם. Although משך חכמה does make mention of this fact he does not clearly indicate why that is. ר' ברוך אפשטין, in ברוך שאמר, gives an answer. In ה', תצוה is talking to משה. Therefore, it was important there to differentiate between the two so that there is no confusion. In פקודי, however, the Torah is merely giving a recount of events so it was not imperative to place a וי"ו in the middle.

One of the members of the חבורה where I heard this brought up an interesting point. At the beginning of שמות we seem to find a similar phenomenon. When listing the sons of יעקב a וי"ו is only used for the last name in each פסוק. Except for א:ד, where there is a וי"ו before נפתלי. It would seem that this is to differentiate between the נו"ן at the end of דן and the נו"ן at the beginning of נפתלי. However, here it seems only to be giving a recount and there is no one speaking to anyone. I do not know an answer to that problem.

Any suggestions?

The Lord and the Rings

If you can give me a consistent explanation for this, I just might consider bringing your clothes to the bathhouse for you (:סנהדרין ס"ב). I noticed a very intriguing discrepancy in the תורה's description of the rings that were affixed to the various vessels that required them. In some instances, no specific purpose was given for the rings but in most cases, it was stated that the purpose of the rings was to house the staves. I have constructed a table (without rings) detailing the exact wording for each vessel for both the commandment and the actual manufacturing.

עשיה	צווי
(ל"ז:ג)--	(כ"ב:י"ב)--	ארון
בָּתִּים לַבַּדִּים (ל"ז:י"ד)	לְבָתִּים לְבַדִּים (כ"ה:כ"ז)	שלחן
לְבָתִּים לְבַדִּים (ל"ז:כ"ז)	לְבָתִּים לְבַדִּים (ל:ד)	מזבח הזהב
בָּתִּים לַבַּדִּים (ל"ח:ה)	(כ"ז: ד)--	מזבח החיצון

I have accentuated the problematic portion of the word, namely the vowel underneath the למ"ד which seems to change inexplicably. Any ideas?

ונהפוך הוא

This week's פרשה contains many commands and thus, many instances of a וי"ו ההיפוך which changes the accent on the word. There seem to be a number of instances where the accent is not changed due to the נסוג אחור rule. Additionally, it seems the word ועשית, which appears numerous times, can never have the accent on the last syllable. As some have mentioned in the comments, this is due to the נחי ל"ה rule, which is discussed briefly here in אם למקרא ולמסורת.

In general, I do not correct misplaced accents for reasons I would like to discuss another time. (See אמת ליעקב on שו"ע הלכות קריאת התורה.) However, I don't think it would be unreasonable to do so. Nevertheless, in those cases when the accent is not changed for circumstantial reasons, like ועשית, (I.e. if someone said ve-a-see-SA instead of ve-a-SEE-sa) I find it very hard to justify a correction.

ככר זהב

(כ"ה:ל"ט)

כִּכַּר זָהָב טָהוֹר יַעֲשֶׂה אתָהּ

When I first read this פסוק I thought I would be writing this post as an advisory. The first word of this pasuk seems to be connected to the following word. Therefore it should be pronounced as written above so that it means, "a block of pure gold" and not "a block, pure gold." תרגום אונקלוס seems to support this with his clear indication of סמיכות in translating ככרא דדהב.

However, the חומש I use which attributes its editing to Rabbi Mordechai Breuer, זצ"ל, has a קמץ under the כּ"ף. I must therefore assume that this is a matter of dispute.

This issue becomes more intriguing with the פסוק in (פרשת ויקהל (ל"ז:כ"ד. Whereas the פסוק in פרשת תרומה was rendered by אונקלוס as ככרא דדהב, in ויקהל it is ככרא דהב. Why would they be different?

Anonymous said...
בדפוס סביוניטה אין הבדל בין תרומה לויקהל
March 23, 2007 3:01 AM


Please see further informative comments by MG. Essentially, it appears the קמץ is more correct.

Also, please see the following extensive discussion from the fabulous weekly publication, תורת הקורא:

Watch out for that קמץ

(כ"ה:מ)

אֲשֶׁר אַתָּה מָרְאֶה בָּהָר

The severity of this possible mistake is spelled out clearly in רש"י. Again, this is an easy mistake to make and a difficult one to catch. מָרְאֶה is a strange word you don't see very often. The natural inclination will be to read it מַרְאֶה but that completely changes the word from meaning "shown (by another)" to "show (to others.)" Be aware!

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.

Many who fear God

(יח:כא)

וְאַתָּה תֶחֱזֶה מִכָּל-הָעָם אַנְשֵׁי-חַיִל יִרְאֵי אֱלהִים

One should be very careful with the above bolded word. The proper pronunciation is "yir-AI," with specific emphasis on the חיריק under the יו"ד and the separation of the first and second syllables. It is very easy to mispronounce this word as if it were יְרֵא - a lazy חיריק can easily turn into a שוא and the צירי under the אל"ף can easily be mistakenly placed under the רי"ש. This mistake will change the word from plural to singular. [Although perhaps one might suggest that it is clear from אנשי חיל that we are referring to a plural entity.]

I have been asked on a number of occasions if there is a difference in the exact pronunciation of a חיריק חסר and a חיריק מלא. I believe that "by the rules" there likely should be a subtle difference in the strength of the "ee" sound if there is no יו"ד. However, I usually suggest that it is far too risky to try to differentiate. I have a separate blurb about how we tend to pronounce a שוא two different ways, depending on the context and it should probably be one or the other. But my real point here is that if you try to soften a חיריק it will get too close to a שוא and the above point is a perfect example of why that is not worth the risk and better to pronounce all חיריקs the same.

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.

לצאת

(י"ט:א)
בַּחדֶשׁ הַשְּׁלִישִׁי לְצֵאת בְּנֵי-יִשְׂרָאֵל

It was early on a שבועות morning when, after staying up all night, I needed to be alert enough to correct the בעל קריאה when he pronounced the above bolded word לָצֵאת. In its correct form, the word means "to (since) the exit of," but as it was mispronounced, it is simply the infinitive, to exit.

This surely seems to be a change in meaning. However, even the word itself seems to change meaning, if the context of the word implies the proper meaning, this may render the mistake forgivable. In our case, there seems to be no logical understanding of the pasuk with the word לָצֵאת. Perhaps, then, this mistake is not as grave as it seems. [However, I would still correct it on the spot.]



Furthermore, commenter Elie points out the following:
מה תאמרו על תחילת הפטרת בוא
לָבוא נבוכדראצר וגו'
וזה ברור שהוא כמו כאן לצאת 
אע"פ שמנוקד בקמץ
That being said, we do find the word with the same meaning with a פתח under the ל. So perhaps even the meaning does not change.

On top of Old Smokey...

(י"ט:י"ח)

וְהַר סִינַי עָשַׁן כֻּלּוֹ

As רש"י writes on this pasuk, there is a very distinct difference between עָשַׁן and עָשָׁן. The true meaning of the פסוק is that הר סיני was smoked i.e. covered in smoke. If read incorrectly with two קמצים it would imply that the mountain was all smoke. In short, the difference is whether the word is a verb or a noun.

If a בעל קריאה is not clear in differentiating his קמץ from his פתח (I've met a few of those in my day,) then this error might go unnoticed.

רם ונשא

From Eliyahu Levin regarding this week's הפטרה:

ישעיה ו א וָאֶרְאֶ֧ה אֶת-אֲדנָ֛י יֹשֵׁ֥ב עַל-כִּסֵּ֖א רָ֣ם וְנִשָּׂ֑א

שאלה שהגיעתני: אומרים בשחרית לשבת ויום טוב: המלך היושב על כסא רם ונשא. האם המלך הוא רם ונשא או הכסא? מצאתי שההזכרה היחידה בכל תנ"ך של כסא רם ונשא היא בהפטרת השבוע ושם הרד"ק והמלבי"ם חולקים אם הרם ונשא הוא על השם או על הכסא. מה יסוד מחלקותם?

ר' משה ארנד: שלום!

ההמשך בשחרית בשבת הוא שוכן עד וכו', ברור שהכוונה לפסוק מהפטרת יו"כ, וא"כ יתכן שגם הרם ונשא שנזכר הוא מהפסוק הקודם שם (ישעיה נ"ז למנינם): כי כה אמר רם ונשא שוכן עד וקדוש שמו מרום וקדוש אשכון, וזה אומר שיש לפסק: המלך היושב על כסא, רם ונשא וכו'. אני אומר זאת בגדר אפשר. ומה שהחזנים והקהלות נוהגים להתחיל החזנות מהאמצע (ויש שמחליפים שם חזן) לא מסתדר עם הבנה זו.

תשובתי: נראה שמצאנו רם ונשא גם בהפטרת יום כיפור למשל ישעיהו נז,טו: כִּי֩ כֹ֨ה אָמַ֝ר רָ֣ם וְנִשָּׂ֗א ולכן יתכן שגם כאן זה הקב"ה, מאידך[1] הפשטות היא עַל-כִּסֵּ֖א רָ֣ם וְנִשָּׂ֑א כלומר הכסא גבוה (מהטעמים אין הכרעה חד משמעית אבל נוטה לטובת הכסא).

ר' יעקב לויפר: מדוע ר' אליהו אתה אומר שאין הכרעה מהטעמים, ועוד סבור שהם נוטים לטובת הכסא?

הנה ההטעמה: וָאֶרְאֶ֧ה אֶת-אֲדנָ֛י יֹשֵׁ֥ב עַל-כִּסֵּ֖א רָ֣ם וְנִשָּׂ֑א

אם הטעמים סוברים ש'רם ונשא' הוא תואר של הכסא, היה ראוי שיטעימו את השם בזקף, ההטעמה הזאת דווקא מראה ש'רם ונשא' מוסב אל השם, כדרך שציין אליהוא ב'זוטות לפרשת יתרו' כי ההטעמה יֵרֵ֧ד ה֛' לְעֵינֵ֥י כָל-הָעָ֖ם עַל-הַ֥ר סִינָֽי׃ (שמות יט יא) מוכיחה כי 'על הר סיני' מוסב על 'ירד ה' ולא על 'כל העם'.

יעקב לויפר

תשובתי: מעניין, יענו: וָאֶרְאֶ֧ה אֶת אֲ-דנָ֛י [יֹשֵׁ֥ב עַל-כִּסֵּ֖א] רָ֣ם וְנִשָּׂ֑א

לא חשבתי על זה, אבל סוף סוף יש טרחא (כלשון אליהוא) במילה כסא,

אבל עם הדוגמה מ"על הר סיני" קשה לי להתווכח.

טוב אכנס להגיגים.

יעלו"י: מה אתה רואה בטרחא? הרי היא מפסיקה יותר מהתביר, לפיכך: ואראה את ה' יושב על כסא - רם ונשא [ה'].

אם היו מבינים 'כסא רם ונשא' היו מציבים זקף במקום התביר, ואז היה מתקבל הפיסוק 'ואראה את ה' - יושב על כסא רם ונשא'.

תשובתי: אנסה להסביר: כיון שכסא בטרחא הבנתי שכל הקטע לפניו [וָאֶרְאֶ֧ה אֶת-אֲדנָ֛י יֹשֵׁ֥ב] טפל אליו ו"רם ונשא" תיאור הכסא.

אליהוא: אכן, שני הפסוקים בישעיה ו' ונ"ז יוצרים רושם שהקב"ה הוא אכן רם ונשא, ואין מה לדבר על הכסא.

אלא מה, יתכן לפרש את הביטוי 'רם ונשא' כתואר 'לא חשוב' שנדחק מעבר למפסיק החזק (טרחא).

ואז עדיין ניתן לטעון כי הכסא גם הוא רם ונשא.

ועוד, חיזוק לרעיון מן ההקשר. הרי כאשר אומרים שהקב"ה יושב על כסא רם ונשא יש פה האנשה נחמדה. אבל כאשר אומרים שהוא רם ונשא וגם יושב על כסא, מה טעם האמירה שהוא יושב על כסא? האנשה לשמה?!

לכן, הנח להם ישראל שחושבים שהכסא רם ונשא.

אך דעו נא, כי גם מאן שסבר כי הכסא רם ונשא צריך לקרא בהפסק אחרי 'כסא', כי הרי כן קרא גם ישעיה.

בברכת התורה

אליהוא

ליאור יעקובי: קוגוט מביא את דעת שד"ל שת"י ובעל הטעמים עזבו את הפשט מסיבה תאולוגי.

וקוגוט דוחה אותו ע"פ המדרש:

מדרש תנאים לדברים פרק יד

כיוצא בו אתה אומר (ישע' ו א) בשנת מות המלך עזיהו ואראה את ה' יושב על כסא רם ונשא ואין אנו יודעין אם הכסא רם ונשא ואם המקום ת"ל (שם נז טו) כי כה אמר רם ונשא:

הרי דיון ע"פ הפסוק השני. ע"כ ליאור.

אחד המגיבים בהגיגים: לרגל המשא ומתן עיינתי בכתוב, ועלתה לי תמיהה אחרת, כי הנה כתוב כי כה אמר רם ונשא שכן עד וקדוש שמו מרום וקדוש אשכון.

והנה אנו אומרים שוכן עד מרום וקדוש שמו. מהיכן המקור ש"מרום" וקדוש שמו?

כוכב דויד: בפסוק בישעיהו נז, טו, על פי הטעמים:

כִּי כֹה אָמַר רָם וְנִשָּׂא, שֹׁכֵן עַד וְקָדוֹשׁ שְׁמוֹ, מָרוֹם וְקָדוֹשׁ אֶשְׁכּוֹן.

כלומר ה' הוא שוכן עד, שמו קדוש, והוא אמר שהוא ישכון, כלומר שהוא שוכן ב'מרום' (העתיד משמעותו הווה, כמו הנה לא ינום ולא ישן שומר ישראל).

לפיכך הפיסוק הנכון הוא:

שׁוֹכֵן עַד, מָרוֹם; וְקָדוֹשׁ שְׁמוֹ. – כלומר, ה' הוא שוכן עד (כבפסוק),

הוא שוכן גם במרום (כדבריו בסוף הפסוק),

וענין אחר - קדוש שמו (כבפסוק). ע"כ.

פרו' שמחה קוגוט: היכן אמור להתפרסם הוויכוח המצורף? ב"היבטים" הקרוב? אכן דנתי בפסוק זה בספרי על הטעמים והפרשנות בעמ' 139, 216, 238 ואין בוויכוח כאן אף לא פרט אחד שלא הובא שם (זולתי ההבנה השגויה של כוונת הטעמים המוצגת בסוגרים ע"י הרב אליהו ונדחית בצדק ע"י הרב לויפר).

אשר לציטוט הפסוק בשחרית של שבתות וחגים -- דומה שזו דוגמה נוספת להשתלטות המנגינה הרווחת על התוכן, ומוטב שהחזנים ישתלטו על המנגינה ויכפו עליה את ההפסקות הנכונות.

בברכה חמה, שמחה קוגוט

עתה נביא את דברי המפרשים.

ר' יוסף קרא: אע"פ שמקום ישיבתו על כסא רם ונשא, ראיתי ששוליו מלאים את ההיכל.

ראב"ע: רם ונשא - תואר הכסא, לא כאשר אמרו רבים. והטעם, שהוא למעלה מהחיות, כאשר אפרש בספר יחזקאל.

גם רד"ק ור' אליעזר מבלגנצי מפרשים שהכסא הוא רם ונשא. וגם הגר"א בפירושו על ישעיה.