They are correct, sir!

כ"ז:ז כֵּן בְּנוֹת צְלָפְחָד דֹּבְרֹת

ל"ו:ה כֵּן מַטֵּה בְנֵי יוֹסֵף דֹּבְרִים

A friend of mine pointed out the glaring similarity between these two פסוקים which are obviously closely related. But, additionally, he pointed out, why is דובר used instead of the more common מדבר. Any thoughts?

Binny said...

kal vs. nifal
I assume it is to show that they did not present their argument in a harsh manner. These are not the only pplaces where that verb form is found in kal.

Anonymous said...

Binny: you mean Kal vs. Piel...

ELIE said...

אבל בתחילה כתוב ויקרבו ראשי האבות...ויְדַבְּרו ולא ויִּדְברו
אבל בפרשת פינחס לא כתוב על
בנות צלפחד ותדברנה
לכן אולי נאמר בדרך של ביני
בנות צלפחד ביקשו יפה לא בתקיפות ולכן כתוב שם דוברות
וכדי להשוות כתוב כך גם על מטה יוסף

The Cold has Passed

This past shabbos (5777) I did not daven in my normal venue and therefore, was not in my usual position to correct. There were two faulty accents which unfortunately went completely uncorrected. The first was at the end of מטות:

ל"ב:ל"ח וַיִּקְרְא֣וּ בְשֵׁמֹ֔ת אֶת־שְׁמ֥וֹת הֶעָרִ֖ים אֲשֶׁ֥ר בָּנֽוּ

The בעל קריאה put the accent on the first syllable, BA-nu, instead of the second, ba-NU. This changes the meaning from "built" to "us" or "among us."

Then, in מסעי:

ל"ד:ד וְנָסַ֣ב לָכֶם֩ הַגְּב֨וּל מִנֶּ֜גֶב לְמַעֲלֵ֤ה עַקְרַבִּים֙ וְעָ֣בַר צִ֔נָה

Here, the accent was mistakenly placed on the last syllable, tzi-NAH. It must be on the first syllable, TZI-nah. The real meaning is "to Tzin." However, the way it was pronounced, it would seem to mean "and the cold passed," or "the shield has passed," as in תהלים צ"א:ד.

Whose tribe is it anyway?

(ל"ו:ט)

וְלֹא תִסֹּב נַחֲלָה מִמַּטֶּה לְמַטֶּה אַחֵר

A slightly embarassing story: A number of years ago, I was all ready for this פסוק and when the בעל קריאה pronounced it לְמַטֵּה אַחֵר I pounced on him and corrected him. One of the גבאים then corrected me and showed me that his חומש clearly said לְמַטֵּה.

First, let me clarify my position. When I was going over the פרשה the night before, I noticed that the תרגום of למטה אחר was "לשבטא אחרנא". This would mean that the term is translated as "another tribe." Pronouncing it לְמַטֵּה would give it סמיכות and it would then be understood as "the tribe of another. If that were the proper form, the תרגום would have been "לשבטא דאחרנא." The former also seemed to be the more intuitive understanding of the words. I was therefore quite confident that this was the right pronunciation and לְמַטֵּה would distort the meaning of the word.

It turns out I wasn't completely wrong. As the ספר אם למקרא (which I was finally able to score for myself but I see it is also available on Hebrew Books) points out, there is a מחלוקת as to how this word is to be pronounced. Indeed, R' Breuer, on whom my חומש was based, says it should be לְמַטֶּה . But there are others who disagree. The בעל קריאה actually called me in the middle of the week to acknowledge this and stated that had he known, he would have made sure to pronounce it לְמַטֶּה in accordance with R' Breuer.

Nevertheless, when פ' מסעי comes around every year, I make sure to keep my mouth shut on this פסוק.

The First עליה in מסעי

Although this is not a דקדוק issue per se, it does pertain to קריאת התורה and would be the most appropriate of my blogs to cover it.

When מטות and מסעי are read together, the עליה which joins the two פרשיות does not end at שני of מסעי but rather, it continues until שלישי. There seems to be good reason for this. מגן אברהם תכ"ח:ח cites צרור המור, stating that one must not make a break in the middle of the מסעות, the פסוקים dealing with the list of בני ישראל's resting points in the מדבר. The reason for this is that there are 42 venues, corresponding to one of the Divine names.

For 21 years leading up to 2005, this was not an issue, at least in חוץ לארץ. It came up in 2005, 2008, 2011 and now 2014 but once again will become dormant for 21 years.

When we read מסעי on its own, where do we end the first עליה? Most חומשים have שני planted smack in the middle of the מסעות. Is this not in direct contradiction with the מגן אברהם? Perhaps this issue arises already the שבת before. What do we do at מנחה and then on Monday and Thursday? Does the כהן read all the way until שלישי? There are definitely times (עקב, for example) when dancing around illegal stopping points causes us to read an abnormally large chunk, and sometimes (ואתחנן for example) even past שני, even on Monday and Thursday.

With regards to מנחה on שבת and Monday and Thursday, it appears מנהג אשכנז is not to be bothered by this. Even the מגן אברהם would agree that if we are not ultimately reading all 42 of the מסעות, there is no need to ensure they are contiguous. Nevertheless, מנהג ספרד and מנהג חב"ד is to be cautious of this even then. The לוי reads all of the מסעות and the ישראל reads 4 more פסוקים. The מנהג of Munkatcher and Barditchever חסידים is to go one step further and have the כהן read it all, so as not to stop after the very first פסוק of ויסעו מרעמסס. Those who have the כהן stop there would reason that ויסעו בני ישראל מרעמסס is repeated again and thus, the 42 מסעות are still contiguous.

However, the proper procedure on Shabbos is still up for discussion. It is not clear whether the conventional stopping point found in most חומשים should be ignored on account of the צרור המור. This issue should be brought up with your local Rav and as early as possible to give time for necessary investigation. It seems there are two options if one is to adhere to the צרור המור. The entire list of the מסעות can be read by either the כהן or the לוי.