HAL

(ל"ב:ו)

ה לה' תגמלו זאת

[תשפ"א] In a year such as this (which we haven't had in 11 years) you get to hear האזינו many times and you will likely hear this word pronounced in different ways. It's not a definite consensus but the accepted reading of the word seems to be like the מנחת שי and should be read hal-ado... Two things to keep in mind are that the שוא under the למ"ד is נח - so not hale - and the פתח must be under the "virtual" אל"ף, not the למ"ד - so not ha-la-do.

You were shown

This week's parsha contains a number of familiar passages. One which might be slightly more familiar to those who daven נוסח ספרד is אַתָּה הָרְאֵתָ לָדַעַת כִּי ה' הוּא הָאֱלֹקים, "you have been shown, etc." Although the שוא under the רי"ש is indeed a שוא נח, it is important not roll over it completely and place the צירי under the רי"ש. In other words, it should be pronounced "har-ei-sa." If it is mispronounced "ha-rei-sa," it would seem that it might confuse the word to seem like it is of the root הריון. I will let the experts chime in on the actual gravity of the mistake, whether the alternate meaning is in fact true. But I think the correct pronunciation is indisputable.

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.

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.

Talented Locusts

Just wanted to highlight one of Elie's points below from last week but on this week's פרשה:

י:ו וּמָלְאוּ הלמ"ד בשוא נע, לא לקרוא וּמָלוּ

It is not absolutely essential to use the שוא נע. However, one must be very careful not to skip the שוא altogether and pronounce it וּמָלוּ. Surely, the locusts were not circumcising the Egyptians houses.

The Strange Thing about Frogs

As a general rule, a שוא under the first letter of a word will always be a שוא נע. Also, if a word is prefixed by a ה' הידיעה it will usually begin with a דגש in its first letter and the שוא will be a שוא נע. There are numerous exceptions to this rule (as there are to every rule, including the rule that every rule has exceptions.) One exception which is seen many times is הלוים which never has a דגש.

(As I understand it, there is a מחלוקת as to whether a שוא underneath one of these exceptions is נע or נח. The תיקון סימנים goes with נח.)

In וארא, we find another exception - צפרדעים. The צ doesn't get a דגש. However, there is something different about this exception. There is an exception to the exception. In ח:ב we find וַתַּעַל הַצְּפַרְדֵּע. Any suggestions as to why this is?

Reader answers:

MG said...

R' Yaakov Kaminetsky discusses this question in Emes LYaakov. He answers that "Tzfardea" is not of Hebrew origin, rather Egyptian, and in that language the Tzadi did not have the ability to receive a dagesh. Therefore even though it is preceded by a "Heh Hayidiah" it receives no dagesh. However the word "HaTzefardea" does not refer to "a frog" but to the "frog infestation", (as Rashi explains according to the Pshat)and this new word now follows the rules of Hebrew Dikduk, so the Tzadi receives a dagesh.

DECEMBER 15, 2008 11:34 PM

Shloime said...

The Radak in Michlol quotes this as being an exception.
A mem of a present tense piel doesn't take a dagesh. Not sure why.

I will eat, you will eat

כ"ז:י"ט

קֽוּם־נָ֣א שְׁבָ֗ה וְאָכְלָה֙ מִצֵּידִ֔י בַּעֲב֖וּר תְּבָרֲכַ֥נִּי נַפְשֶֽׁךָ

יעקב tells קוּם נָא שְׁבָה וְאָכְלָה מִצֵּידִי ,יצחק. Mispronouncing it וְאֹכְלָה would drastically change the meaning from the second-person "you shall eat" to the first-person "I shall eat," as evidenced by its use in פסוק כ"ה. Fortunately, our בעל קריאה last year was - what my son would call - an oy-er, and a very consistent one at that, so the mistake stood out and I was able to catch it. But this is a mistake that an oh-er could very easily get away with, unfortunately.

It should also be noted (as Elie did below) that וְאֹכְלָה has a שוא נע under the כ whereas וְאָכְלָה has a שוא נח.


A reader has cleverly pointed out:
An amusing mnemonic device: The pasuk states: "קוּם־נָ֣א שְׁבָ֗ה" and not קוּם שְׁבָ֗ה נָ֣א -- It is not a שוא נע!

(From) the Fats of the Land

The ברכה to יעקב begins ויתן לך האלהים מטל השמים ומשמני הארץ כ"ז:כ"ח. One might be tempted to translate the last phrase as "from the fats of the land," with the מ"ם as a prefix meaning "from." However, if that were the case, there should be a דגש in the שי"ן. But there is not. It therefore seems to be that the מ"ם is in fact part of the word - משמן. The same would apply in עשו's ברכה in פסוק ל"ט although it is harder to understand in context there.

 MG said...

The Minchas Shai brings down old manuscripts that in fact did have a dagesh in the shin, then dismisses these versions. He quotes the Eben Ezra and the Radak who both say that the "מ" of "מטל" applies to both words, implying that the "מ" of "משמני" is not one of שימוש. Then he quotes the Chizkuni who seems to imply that the "מ" is indeed a שימוש here.
עיין שם.

November 22, 2009 9:31 PM

To Afflict the Corrector

ח:ג וַיְעַנְּךָ

Need I say more? I think I do. Most people with even a slight דקדוק awareness will know that it is important to not pronounce this וַיַעַנְךָ. That would mean "and He answered you," rather than "and He afflicted you." You might hear some בעלי קריאה making the שוא very clear to show that they are saying it correctly. However, this too is incorrect. It is a שוא נח under the יו"ד. So the actual proper pronunciation would be: vay-a-ne-CHA. One has to be very careful to make the "Syllable Stop" before the פתח. I'm not sure if there is a better technical term for that but I'm going with it for now - the art of "pronouncing" the שוא נח such that it breaks the syllable such as in אַתָּה הָרְאֵתָ last week -  har-EI-sa, as opposed to ha-REI-sa.

Of course, the real problem becomes that the very correct pronunciation here is barely discernible from the very incorrect pronunciation, which makes my job all the more difficult. So, maybe pronouncing that שוא נע isn't such a bad idea after all.

As another reader has pointed out, the דגש חזק in the נ is another important differentiating factor. Properly executing it should remove all doubt as to whether the word has been pronounced correctly.

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.

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.)

Nothing to See but Fear Itself

(א:י"ז)

וַתִּירֶ֤אןָ הַֽמְיַלְּדֹת֙

This past שבת at מנחה, the gabbai made a very observant correction which he humbly chalked up to it being his son's Bar Mitzvah פרשה. The בעל קריאה pronounced it va-tir-ena, as opposed to va-ti-rena. In other words, he put the סגול under the א and pronounced it like a שוא under the ר. The סגול should be under the ר with the א being completely silent. The difference is ever so subtle but it clearly changes the meaning from the root of יראה to the root of ראיה. (See אבן עזרא and רשב"ם) A great catch indeed.

מגילת אסתר Advisory - Floor or coal?

(א:י)

עַל רִצְפַת בַּהַט-וָשֵׁשׁ

A couple of years ago, one of the readers of this blog pointed out to me a very subtle observation on the above word which I am certain is not at all well-known. The proper pronunciation is as above and the word means 'floor.' Probably due to the Hebrew word with which most are familiar, it is quite common to pronounce this word רִצְפַּת.

However, in ישעיה ו:ו we have the word רִצְפָּה meaning 'coal.' It is therefore very important that the word is pronounced properly. I would even suggest mentioning it to the בעל קריאה beforehand.

See the comments below for a lengthy discussion.

Recently, this word was the subject of discussion in the Dikduk WhatsApp group. One of the members suggested that the mispronunciation is not as drastic as first thought since the two words - floor and coal - actually really emanate from the same root רצף. To support this assertion, he pointed to שיר השירים ג:י - תוכו רצוף אהבה. There רש"י explains it as connected to the word for floor while מצודת ציון connects it to גחלת.

From his Sleep

One of the textbook examples often given of the smallest mistake which makes a world of difference is וַיִּיקַץ יַעֲקֹב מִשְּׁנָתוֹ, found in the first עליה of this week's פרשה. If the שוא נע is not pronounced under the ש, it changes the meaning of the word from "from his sleep" to "his learning," from the root of the word משנה, suggesting perhaps that יעקב אבינו, instead of awaking from his sleep, ceased to learn!

However, R' Binyamin Marwick points out that this mistake may not be as grave as it seems. First, we must accept that in judging whether a mistake changes the meaning of a word, we may only consider other words from לשון הקדש. We wouldn't worry that someone mispronounced a word and made it sound like a different English or French word. That said, we might also suggest that the realm of different words is limited to the Biblical lexicon. One might even suggest that it may be constrained to include only word forms found in תורה as נביאים and כתובים include a vastly expanded vocabulary. The evolved language, although it may still be considered לשון הקדש, would not figure into the equation. R' Marwick suggest that the word משנה referring to תורה study is of Talmudic origin and not a biblical word and therefore, this mistake need not be corrected.

Clarification of a שוא נע rule

As the Shabbos before my mother's yahrtzeit, I will lain this הפטרה from time to time. In 2014 was actually my first time laining הפטרת במדבר. (It did fall out this way three years prior but there was a בר מצוה in shul.) I came across something I thought odd and eventually discovered an interesting nuance of which I was not previously aware. Going through my other stuff on במדבר it appears Elie's post addresses almost the exact same issue. But I found it a little difficult to follow (probably my fault, not his) and so I thought I'd lay out in simpler English:

There are a number of reasons a שוא would be נע. There is a well-known mnemonic - א ב ג ד ה ו where each letter stands for a different rule. The ג stands for תנועה גדולה. If the שוא is preceded by a קמץ, for example (except if it's a קמץ קטן,) the שוא should be נע. However, I recalled that there is an exception to this rule. If the letter with the קמץ has a trop on it, it does not make the שוא נע. I was therefore puzzled when I saw in my תיקון:

  וְעָ֤נְתָה שָּׁ֙מָּה֙ כִּימֵ֣י נְעוּרֶ֔יהָ

The שוא under the נ of וענתה was shown to be נע. But what about the note on the ע?

I have the big monster of a תיקון סימנים which has a thorough discussion of the rules in the front. He goes into detail about this exception. Indeed, there is an exception to the exception. Not surprising in the world of דקדוק*. The trop only prevents the שוא נע if it is in its natural position. If the word were on its own, where would the note be? We see from דברים כ"ה:ט וְעָֽנְתָה֙ וְאָ֣מְרָ֔ה  that the natural accent is מלרע. In our case, it is pushed forward by the מלעיל accent on שמה and the rule of נסוג אחור. Since the מהפך on the נ is not its natural position, the שוא remains נע, just as it does in בראשית ל:ל"ג וְעָֽנְתָה־בִּ֤י צִדְקָתִי֙.

* I recently heard a great quote from R' Yaakov Kamenetsky: "In דקדוק, there are no exceptions. There are simply more rules."

ט"ו בשבט הגיע

Ok, I'm not sure why this has never bothered me as much as it has this year but that's just the way things go sometimes. It seems no matter where you go, where you turn, the name of this holiday is misspelled. Now, I have long believed that there can never be an absolute set of rules for Hebrew transliteration but I think the misspelling of this holiday speaks to a lack of understanding of one of the rules of דקדוק and so, while I stand on my soap box, I should probably take the opportunity to explain the situation.

So, for starters, I believe it should be Tu BiShvat. I have very rarely seen it spelled that way. I see plenty of B'Shevat, BeShevat, etc. Kudos to BaltimoreJewishLife.com for modifying the title of this article to reflect the correct spelling.

Interesting fact: Shevat is the only month in our calendar that begins with a שוא underneath the first letter. As a general rule (with very few exceptions) a שוא underneath the first letter of a word is a שוא נע. The common prefix for "in" or "of" is בְּ, with a שוא under the ב. So, six months ago we had Tu BeAv. However, there is a rule that a word may not begin with two consecutive שוא's. (One day, I plan to dedicate a post to why very often the change from a וְ to a וַ is not מעכב because of this rule.) So, to accommodate this rule the vowel underneath the ב becomes a חיריק. Consequently, because the ש is no longer the first letter, the שוא also becomes a שוא נח. And so we have BiShvat.