And the days was

Although the פרק recounting the generations from אדם to נח seems somewhat repetitive, I noticed an interesting discrepancy this year. For most, the grand tally of their years lived begins ...ויהיו כל ימי. However, for חנוך it says ה:כ"ג ויהי כל ימי חנוך. I first thought the change might be related to חנוך's early exit. But the same wording is found later for למך as well. I have to admit, I haven't looked very hard to see if this is addressed anywhere. Any ideas?

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.

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.]

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.

Plurals and Singulars

I was recently asked about the words עַמְּךָ and עַמֶּךָ which appear interchangeably in this week's פרשה. They are even found right next to each other in two adjacent פסוקים. If you look at these פסוקים, particularly the ones dealing with מכת צפרדע, there are many words that end with either a שוא or a סגול followed by כ"ף סופית. The exact nature of these words can be somewhat confusing and some explanation is definitely in order.

As I've stated on other occasions, one of the challenges as corrector is not as much correcting the בעלי קריאה as it is explaining to common folk when a correction is not warranted. The case of עַמְּךָ / עַמֶּךָ is one that is likely to trigger a knee-jerk correction but I don't believe it would be necessary. The word is actually the same but it changes to עַמֶּךָ in the pausal form (אתנחתא, סוף פסוק, etc.)

The basic rule to keep in mind for the other similar words is as follows: a סגול followed by a י and then ךָ, such as עֲבָדֶיךָ, is plural. If the י is not present, such as מִטָּתֶךָ, then it is simply singular in the pausal form. 

This being the case, I would suggest that the only example in which a correction would be required if the word was read in the wrong way would be if it is written in plural and pronounced as singular, such as if עֲבָדֶיךָ was pronounced as עַבְדְךָ. But in any other case, it can be suggested that there isn't an actual change in meaning.

However, see The נצי"ב and the Missing יו"ד for some intriguing further discussion.

לשון יחיד ורבים

From Eliyahu Levin:

ט לא שאלה שהגיעה אלי בשנה שעברה מנויורק:

Rav Eliyahu, Shalom UVracha -Please excuse me for writing to you in Loazeet, but please feel free to reply in Leshon HaKodesh.First of all, thank you very much for your wonderful material!I would really appreciate your help with the following question that someone asked me:
ל"א והפשתה והשעורה, נוכתה: כי השעורה אביב, והפשתה גבעול ל"ב והחיטה והכוסמת, לא נוכו: כי אפילות, הנה :
Why is the first pasuk singular (נוכתה) and the second pasuk plural (נוכו)?Thank you very much! Chazak VeEmatz !משה שמואל וייס Moshe S. Weiss
Thank you very much!

גם מי שאינו מבין אנגלית יבין את השאלה, מ"ש חטה וכוסמת שלא נכו בלשון רבים, ומ"ש פשתה ושעורה שנכתה בלשון יחיד.
אינני בטוח שיש סיבה מחלקת.
אולי לפשתה יש טעם משלה – אביב, ולשעורה טעם אחר - גבעול משא"כ חיטה וכוסמת שיש להם טעם משותף.
תשובת אפ"ר (אוריאל פרנק:: אינני בטוח ש"נוכתה" הוא לשון יחיד. השוה "בנות צעדה" והכתיב "ידינו לא שפכה" וכמ"שכ על כך בעבר. ע"כ תשובת אוריאל.
מעניין מאוד היום עיינתי בספר של זיידל על צורות רבים משונות. עדיין צריך להסביר למה המעבר לצורת רבים "סטנדרטית".

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.

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.

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.)

Shepherd(s)

(מ"ו:ל"ב)

וְהָאֲנָשִׁים רֹעֵי צֹאן

(מ"ו:ל"ד)

כִּי־תוֹעֲבַת מִצְרַיִם כׇּל־רֹעֵה צֹאן

(מ"ז:ג)

רֹעֵה צֹאן עֲבָדֶיךָ

As evidenced by the first two quotes, רעי with a י is used for the plural whereas the singular has רעה with a ה. How then are we to understand the third quote? Clearly, it is being stated in the plural. Why is it רעה and not רעי?

Pain in the Neck

After יוסף reveals his identity to his brothers, he and his only full brother, בנימין, embrace each other. The pasuk (45:14) recounts that יוסף fell upon בנימין’s neck and cried, while בנימין cried on יוסף’s neck as well. Although, it is simply understood that they were crying tears of joy, רש"י quotes the :גמרא מגילה ט"ז stating that יוסף cried on בנימין’s neck over the two temples that would be built in בנימין’s portion of ארץ ישראל and ultimately destroyed, while בנימין was crying over the משכן in שילה which was in יוסף’s portion and would ultimately meet the same fate.

There is a discussion among the commentaries concerning the logistics of this גמרא. Some suggest that the plurality of the word neck with regards to צוארי בנימין, is what led the גמרא to interpret it as referring to two temples. However, this approach is disregarded for two reasons. First, it is not uncommon for the Torah to refer to the neck in plural, just as it always does with the face. Many commentaries (רד"ק, רבינו בחיי, חזקוני, העמק דבר) interpret “צוארי” to simply refer to the two sides of the neck. Moreover, the word used in regards to יוסף’s neck, “צואריו,” is also plural. In the end, the only sensible approach among the commentaries on רש"י seems to be that, although יוסף cried with all his other brothers as stated clearly in the following pasuk, the necks are only mentioned with בנימין. This indicated that there was something special about the crying with בנימין. The fact that יוסף cried over two temples while בנימין cried over only one משכן is purely incidental, as it were. It just so happened that two temples were built in בנימין’s portion and one משכן in יוסף’s but it has no relation to the grammar of the pasuk.

Although in רש"י’s version of the גמרא, there is no indication that the plurality of necks plays any part in the drashah, the text of the מדרש בראשית רבה צ"ג:י"ב, seems to indicate that it did when it asks, “did בנימין have two necks?” שערי אהרן offers a viable approach to justify the מדרש. The word “צואריו,” translated literally, can only mean the many necks of one person. However, the word “צוארי” can be used to mean the many necks of one person or the many necks of many people. It is this point that lead the מדרש, and perhaps the גמרא as well, to infer that יוסף was crying over two tragedies, and בנימין over one.

See the comments below and a link to a fascinating discussion on this by R' Wolf Heidenheim in his ספר מודע לבינה.
I understand his questions but he loses me a little when answering them. If I understand correctly, in a nutshell: Tzavarav is plural, which is normal. Tza-va-rei would also have been plural and normal. But the word as it is written, tza-ve-rei, with a שוא, is the possessive form of tzaverayim which would mean not many necks but exactly two. This is what is driving the inference of the מדרש.

Plural of מקוה

Check out this recent post over at Daily Leaf. In a nutshell - what is the proper plural form of מקוה?