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.

Tough Day at the Office

[From תשע"ג]

Last week was an interesting one, to say the least.

First, at the beginning of כ"ו:י"ט, the בעל קריאה committed the capital crime of say וְלְתִתְּךָ instead of וּלְתִתְּךָ. What could be worse than that? I'll tell you what - half the shul correcting him! I really actually had an urge to tell him to specifically go back and say it wrong again. But I resisted the urge. Of course, later, כ"ט:ד, when he said וְאוֹלֵךְ instead of וָאוֹלֵךְ - not a peep! (Don't worry I did correct that one.)

My oversight of the קריאה has its pros and cons for the בעלי קריאה. On the one hand, they have to deal with me. But on the other, they don't have to deal with anyone else. Case in point: as soon as the עליה with the תוכחה was complete, a well-meaning individual raced to the בימה to insist to the בעל קריאה that in כ"ח:ס"ח he had said וְהֵשִׁיבְךָ instead of וֶהֱשִׁיבְךָ. He just looked at him, pointed at me and said, "Talk to him." I believe he was right. That was what it sounded like. However, I proceeded to convince him that there is actually no change in meaning and thus, it did not warrant a correction. Any objections? We certainly agreed that the vowel under the ו was inconsequential. I'm no expert when it comes to conjugation. But I pointed out that in a shorter form, there is a צירי under the ה, as in וְהֵשִׁיב אֶת הַגְּזֵלָה. My guess is that the elongation of the word "softens" the vowel into a סגול. (As confirmed more elegantly by Elie in the comments)

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

ויקח קרח

Chuck asked...

Someone asked my sister the first word of parashat Korach (va yi KACH) has its stress on the third syllable. He thinks the stress should be on the second syllable (va YI kach) based on tropp reasons or something.
Any thoughts? (We can start with if he's correct, and if so why.)

NOVEMBER 23, 2009 11:30 PM

MG said...

He's wrong. He thinks that the word "vayikach" should be "nasog achor" because the stress on "korach" is on the first syllable and we often push back a prior word's stress so as not to conflict with the second word. However, one exception to the rule is that nasog achor does not "jump" over a sheva nach or a dagesh chazak. Here the "kuf" has a dagesh and thus the stress remains on the last syllable. Happy to elaborate or give similar examples

What's different about אפרים?

This has bothered me for many years. The פסוקים enumerating the names of the spies are almost all identical in structure with the obvious exception of מנשה for whom it says למטה יוסף למטה מנשה. As such, the טעמים on the פסוקים are identical as well with the curious exception of אפרים. Instead of the זקף קטון as with the others, למטה אפרים has a מרכא-טפחא. Why?

I have heard a suggestion that perhaps the different tone is meant to indicate יחושע's ענוה. But I am not convinced. In pondering this issue I did come to an interesting discovery which may somehow be connected to the reasoning behind this. Of all of the sons of יעקב, the only one whose name is pronounced with the accent not on the last syllable is אפרים! Perhaps this affects how the פסוק needs to be noted.

As is often the case here, MG comes to the rescue:

MG said...

I've seen two answers for this. I'll leave out one of them because it has a more "Chasidish"/Drush slant.
Basically, this posuk is an exception because "Bin-Nun" is a "short" word (all the other names have more syllables). Because of that, we don't want to place a tipcha (pause/melech)immmediately prior, since that presents a slightly difficult flow of words. So we must have a mercha there, as that is the only possible meshares for a sof-posuk. Thus the tipcha (which is required to be in every single posuk at least once) gets moved to the word "Efroyim".

APRIL 23, 2009 5:43 PM

פרשת במדבר

From Elie:

דיונים לשוניים
א. כתבת שהטעם בתיבת ונתתי (בהפטרת במדבר) נסוג אחור.
ואכן כך הוא בתנ"ך ברויאר, אמנם בתנ"ך קורן הוא במלרע (ומתג בנו"ן).
{וכשהפטרתי אשתקד בנביא מתוך תנ"ך ברויאר, המדקדק שבמקומנו (שקרא מתוך תנ"ך קורן) החזיר אותי לקרוא במלרע (שינוי משמעות!) וכך פעמיים ושלש עד שהראיתי לו שכן הוא בספרים מדוייקים מלעיל.}
וכן בפרשת השבוע שעבר: "ושלחתי דבר בתוככם" נסוג אחור בהברה סגורה.
האם תמיד יש נסוג אחור בהברה סגורה?

ודאתאן להכי, מהם כללי נסוג אחור?
לפני זמן רב ראיתי כללי נסוג אחור בהקדמת המדקדק ר' שמעון וייזר לתיקון קוראים הוצאת מישור, ואינני זוכר מה שראיתי.

שבת שלום.

בברכה
שמעון דוד קורץ
שלום רב
לר' שמעון דויד
ובכן באחד מהדפים כתבתי לסתור את הכלל שנמצא אצל רז"ה שאין נסיגת טעם להברה סגורה
מזה שמצאנו מילים עם וי"ו ההיפוך לעתיד נשארות מלעיל כשהן סמוכות לטעם.
למעשה נראה לקיים את הכלל הזה.
ויש כנראה הבדל בין השארת טעם מלעיל במילה שלולא ו' ההיפוך היא מלעילית,
ובין הסגת הטעם מסוף המילה להברה שלפניה כשהיא סגורה בשוא נח או בדגש.
הדבר הזה עלה בכמה מדיונינו.
עכשיו אם לא הסתבכת ממה שכתבתי עד עתה, ושלחתי דבר המילה ושלחתי היא מלעילית אלא שכדי להבחין בינה ובין עבר עם ו' החיבור מטעימים אותה מלרע.
אם יש סיבה כמו סמיכות הברות היא שבה לדינה. והזכירו שכך פסקו להלכה.
כללי נסוג אחור פחות או יותר מוכרים, קשה להגדיר אותם חד משמעית הלא תראה מה שהבאתי השבוע מהרב משולם מקרית ספר.
יש סתירה בין מחנה למחנה.
במחנה אני יכול להסביר שעל הטעם הנסוג ללכת דרך ארוכה יותר ו"לדלג" מעל שוא נע (חטף) ולכן אם הוא לא עושה כן אין כל כך קושיא.
למה אם כן והיתה לו נסוג? כי הוא עושה כן הרבה פעמים, אבל לסגת לסגורה אינו נסוג.
אני מעביר לכמה שבעבר דנו עמי על זה או על בדומה לזה.
אליהו

החילוק בין מחנה למחנה אמנם קשה, אבל מה שכתב ר' אליהו לגבי כללו של רז"ה 'אין נסיגה אחור להברה סגורה', כבר נתווכחתי עמו וטענתי את מה שהוא טוען כעת בדיוק, אם כי הוא טוען זאת בדרך אפשר: לעולם אין נסיגה אחור להברה סגורה. ומקרים כמו 'ושלחתי דבר' הם מילים שמוטעמות מעיקרן מלעיל, ורק ו"ו ההיפוך היא שהפכתן מלרע, והנסיגה אחור מחזירתן למצבן המקורי.
אותו חילוק, אבל בהגדרה מעט עמוקה יותר: הטעמת מלעיל הנוצרת מחמת נסיגה אחור אינה נחשבת כמלעיל גמור, כפי שכותב המנש"י ששוא הבא אחרי הטעמה כזו עדיין יהיה שוא נע [דוגמת 'כֽוֹכְבֵי אור' שהשוא הוא נע], אבל מילים מלעיליות גמורות דוגמת לַֽיְלָה, מַֽטָּה, לָקַֽחְתִּי, שָׁלַֽחְתִּי – השוא שאחרי ההטעמה הוא נח גמור משום שזו הטעמה מלאה.
כעת: הברה סגורה יכולה להיות מוטעמת למרות שהיא מנוקדת בתנועה קטנה [למרות שגם זה אינו שכיח כל כך, כי אם בפעלים ובאותן מילים שהזכרתי, אבל על פי רוב אין הברה סגורה מוטעמת נקודה בתנועה קטנה]. אבל מלעיל שאינו גמור – דהיינו המלעיל שנוצר מחמת נסיגה אחור – אינו בא בשום אופן בהברה סגורה. ולכן לא תתכן נסיגה אחור אל הברה סגורה
בברכה
יעקב לויפר
סטייה מהנושא קצת אבל על פי רוב אין הברה סגורה מוטעמת נקודה בתנועה קטנה בפעלים שכיח מאוד הברה מוטעמת בתנועה קטנה
אכל ישב נשבר, יש גם מילים של הברה אחת כמו דף או מס או הדס
הכלל שתנועה גדולה היא בהברה פתוחה לא מוטעמת
וקטנה בהברה סגורה לא מטעמת
החלק שלו הנכון הוא תנועה גדולה אינה בהברה סגורה לא מוטעמת.
ולכן שוא אחרי ת"ג לא מוטעמת הוא נע. יש לזה חריגים בארמית.
שאר הכלל הוא נטייה כללית והרבה מקומות שאינם מתנהגים לפי נטייה זו.

ב. שלום
ראיתי בספרו של ר' ניסן שרוני (אם למקרא השלם) את הכלל של הדגשת בג"ד כפ"ת בראש מלה, אף שהתיבה הקודמת מסתיימת בהברה פתוחה, כאשר ישנן שני עיצורים דומים או זהים והראשונה מנוקדת בשו"א (הוא קרא לכלל זה 'הדומות'). לדוג' "בשבתך בביתך"; לעניין זה ב' ופ' דומות ("איש יביא בפריו אלף כסף") {עוד הזכיר שם דעת א' הקדמונים (אינני זוכר כעת מיהו) שאף ב' ומ' דומות (ולשיטתו "כי במקלי" הב' דגושה).
אח"כ כתב שכלל זה אינו נוהג אחרי מלה קצרה, לדוג' "לא תתעב מצרי" וציין מקורו במ"ש.

כנראה הוכרח לפרש (המ"ש) כן, כי לא מצא הסבר אחר לרפיון התי"ו.
אך קשה ממה שכתב לעיל על "כי במקלי", ועוד קשה מפסוק בעזרא ה,יז דכתיב התם "די בבבל" בבי"ת
דגושה. (הייתי מעדיף למצוא דוגמה בעברית, אך חיפשתי ומצאתי רק 'כמעט הוכחה' טעם מפסיק, או מפיק)
[המ"ש לשיטתו, יכול לומר שדקדוק לשון ארמית שאני, כמו שכמדומני שראיתי שכתב לגבי תיבת דריוש בשו"א נח אחרי תנועה גדולה דדקדוק לשון ארמי אינו כלשון הקדש]

אמנם לענ"ד נראה, כי כלל זה של הדומות אינו שייך באות תי"ו; ואין לי הסבר אחר, חוץ מזה שאפשר לומר, כי כלל זה בא להקל על הלשון (וליתר דיוק, על השפתיים והחך) ואילו באות תי"ו אין זה כ"כ הכבדה על הלשון בקריאת שני תי"ו רפויים רצופים כשהראשונה בשו"א (כך לפחות אני מרגיש).

בברכה
שמעון דוד קורץ
זה הוזכר בקצרה באחד העלונים האחרונים בהערת שוליים על רשימת הדקדוקים (עיין בפרשת אמור על אשה בבתוליה).
שם זה נקרא אותיות צבותות.
אם יש לך גליון כי-תצא עיין מה שכתבתי על לא תתעב.
הכלל הזה אינו נכון אצל תי"ו.
למעשה מסתבר שגם בבי"ת וכ"ף הוא לא יהיה נכון אחרי מקף כך שכל הדיון מלא תתעב הוא מוטעה לענ"ד.
בעניין כי במקלי נדמה לי שרוו"ה מביא בזה בשם עין הקורא, יש בזה מחלוקת, אבל לפי ספרינו כלל זה נכון בב-ב ובב-פ אבל לא בב-מ.
לענין "כ"ף' יש דיון על כקול או על כגעת,
אגב דאגב יש ביהושוע ובשופטים המעשה עם עכסה בת כלב אשת עתניאל "ויהי בבואה" ביהושוע הוא עם פסק ולכן הבית דגושה כדין, בשופטים יש מונח רביע ללא פסק והבי"ת דגושה מדין צבותות.
אליהו

Life as we Know it

In the section dealing with our obligation to reach out and come to the aid of our neighbour, there is a glaring discrepancy, pointed out by Meshech Chachmah, in two adjacent pesukim. The first deals with the ger toshav, a non-Jew who has sworn off avodah zarah but is not subject to all of our mitzvos. We are commanded to support him in his time of need. The pasuk ends of, "vachai imach." The next pasuk, dealing with the prohibition of charging interest, ends of, "vechei achicha imach." The message seems almost the same but the word vachai turns into vechei.

Meshech Chachmah explains the difference between these two similar terms. One might summarize it as follows: Chei is to live whereas chai is life itself. We find the word chai used with respect to HaShem, as in "Chai HaShem," because He embodies everlasting life. The word chei is used with respect to more fleeting life, such as Yoseif's use of the term "chei Par'oah."

When we support our neighbour, the ger toshav, it is far more than providing financial stability. Since he has not accepted the full burden of all mitzvos, his sole source of "everlasting life" is his connection to our community. If we do not come to his aid, he will surely stray and give up the life he had chosen. Therefore, reaching out to him is indeed providing him with everlasting life.

The second pasuk refers to achicha, your Jewish brother. He therefore already merits the "everlasting life" by virtue of his service of HaShem and acceptance of all mitzvos, a pact he surely cannot alleviate himself of under any circumstances. Therefore, our financial support, however mandatory, is simply providing superficial, physical life. And so, the word chei is used instead. 

Hearing Los

A few years ago I was pondering what it means when there is a kri/ksiv when the kri and ksiv are homonyms. A prime example of this is when there is a kri/ksiv on the word lo when both the kri and ksiv are read lo, but one is spelled lamed aleph and the other lamed vav. While this issue has crept into my head several times, especially when the laining of the week would have an example, I never dedicated much time to pursuing the idea until recently. In the back of my head I kept wondering if the possible solution to this issue was something that could be a fundamental way of understanding lashon hakodesh.

There are certain languages that are considered to be tonal and others that are not. Being a tonal language means that the pitch which a speaker uses is not just helpful in understanding context and emotion, but even definition. For example, many tonal languages have homonyms found in the language that change meaning based on whether the speaker enunciates these words with a high pitch or low pitch tone. I began to consider that maybe lashon hakodesh is somewhat tonal in nature. It is important to note that there are very few homonyms in lashon hakodesh, but the tonal nature would be just as integral to the enunciation of any word, not just a homonym, as the proper vowels being used. Thus, if one were to say a word that should have a high pitch sound incorrectly, he may have spoken the word incorrectly and it might not have any meaning. It would be comparable to changing the vowels of a word without spelling a new word with the rearrangement such as spelling versus spilleng. Whereas, if it were a homonym that were spoken incorrectly, it could actually have a new meaning.

An integral part of laining is the fact that the words are read with a specific cantillation, trop. The nature of trop is such that it forces the reader to read the text with proper perspective. Many times the trop forces the reader to take pauses in places that had the reader continued reading without pause he would have misunderstood the verse. In this fashion the trop helps keep the proper punctuation in place. Perhaps, trop also forces the reader to enunciate with proper pitch in order to give that element to the word. Trop forces the reader to sound some words in higher pitch than others.

In order to test this hypothesis I decided to research the occurrences of kri/ksiv on the word lo as mentioned above. (Note: From this point on I will refer to lo with an aleph as aleph and lo with a vav as vav.) There are eighteen examples in tanach when there is a kri/ksiv with the kri being vav and the ksiv being aleph. The following cantillation marks can be found on the words being discussed: esnachta, munach, mahpach, tipcha, mercha (including one with a makaf to the following word containing a mercha), and sof pasuk (connected to the sof pasuk via makaf). I then decided to see how many alephs there were with the above trop. I was hoping to find very few or no alephs with this trop and a disproportionate amount of vavs that would. The theory would then be supported since it would then seem that the trop is adding the tonal element and although the word is written aleph it is sounded vav due to the trop. This would then prove that the kri adds the tonal element and although the word is written as aleph, the ksiv, it is read as vav, the kri.

The research did not show the anticipated results, but it showed something extremely interesting. I actually found the opposite of what I had anticipated to be true. With alephs I found the above mentioned trop occurred a total of two-thousand five-hundred and nineteen times. When I looked for similar vavs I found that there were only four times that they had the above trop. I found that to be somewhat astounding as such a staggering difference clearly displays that the alephs with that trop is normal and that the vavs are exceptions. If it was normal for the vavs one should see a much higher rate of having these cantillations. I also found it notable that all four exceptions can be found in Sefer Yirmiyah. Although one can come up with many theories as to why this is the case, that is not the purpose of this writing.

Just to be certain, I then took the examples when the ksiv is vav and the kri is aleph and found that there are only two cases like that in tanach. Interestingly, both are found in Sefer Shmuel and one has a pashta and the other is attached to a word with a kadma. When looking at the alephs that had these markings I found only one such occurrence. However, the vavs can be found with these markings one-hundred and two times. The one exception mentioned above is found in Sefer Devarim.

It would seem that the trop clearly does not reflect the kri rather it is an element of the ksiv. It is uncertain whether this is some function of trop or if it is an issue of lashon hakodesh being somewhat tonal, but it is fascinating to notice that trop does not reflect the kri. In today’s day and age it is certainly unreasonable to correct the shaliach tzibbur if he makes a mistake in trop with regard to a kri/ksiv of this nature or any other word, since we find no halachic precedent to do so. Perhaps, even when they were more attune to these issues they were only lechatchila and preferred, but not absolute ways of reading. Or, perhaps since we are not so familiar with these changes to the words we only correct items that are noticeably different to the populace.

Regarding the first question, how does one practically read a kri/ksiv that has the kri and ksiv as homonyms, I am still not one-hundred percent sure of the answer. Maybe kri means the intention and thought of the reader, so if in his head he was thinking aleph then it is an aleph. Again, I am not familiar with any source stating that if the shaliach tzibbur mentions he intended the wrong word that he must go back to that earlier place. So, I guess I am open to suggestion.

The following were the kri/ksiv cases with aleph as ksiv: Shemos 21:8, VaYikra 11:21 and 25:30, Shmuel 1 2:3, Shmuel 2 16:18, Melachim 2 8:10, Yeshaya 9:2, 49:5 and 63:9, Iyov 6:21, 13:4 and 41:4, Mishlei 19:6 and 26:1, Tehillim 100:1 and 139:16, Ezra 4:2, Divrei HaYamim 1 11:20.

The exceptions were: Yirmiyah 48:12, 49:1, 49:31 and 50:32.

The following were the kri/ksiv cases with vav as ksiv: Shmuel 1 2:16 and 20: 2.

The exception was: Devarim 32:29.

How lo can you go?

A follow-up to Ari's post on Los.

In this week's parsha, (25:29-30) the special laws of the sale of a house in a walled city are discussed. רש"י points out that the laws specifically concern a city that had a wall in the time of יהושע. This, explains רש"י, is based on a דרשה of חז"ל on a קרי/כתיב in פסוק ל. The house is referred to as being in a "עיר אשר לא חומה." The word lo is written לא, suggesting that it is a city with no wall. But it is read as לו (whatever the difference is between the two,) which implies a city that has walls. חז"ל learn from here, even though it doesn't have now, if it had before, i.e. at the time of יהושע, then it is subject to the special laws.

ר' צבי פסח פרנק in הר צבי explains why the קרי and כתיב were set up the way they were (as opposed to the other way around.) The פסוק is referring to a city that is not currently walled. That is why it is written לא. The written text is what we see with our eyes. We see לא because we see that there is no wall. But the קרי is what we hear. We hear that there was a wall before in the time of יהושע and that's why it is read לו.

Even Lo-er

Yet another interesting thought on this פסוק. Dr. Mehullam Klarberg discusses the issue with לו being masculine and apparently referring to עיר which is feminine:

Habayit asher ba'ir asher lo (spelled with Alef [meaning 'not'], but read lo spelled with Vav! meaning ['it has']) choma (Levit 25:30) ('the house which is in the city which has a wall'): The Masora says 'There are 16 written similarly with Alef and read with Vav.' Following both the ketiv ('written') and the kere ('read!') Torat Kohanim explains, 'Even though it does not now [have a wall] but it did have previously.' In a passage of Rashi (11th century) (in most editions this passage appears in brackets and the editor of Torat Chayim, Rabbi Ch. D. Chavel, points out that it did not appear in the first edition of Rashi), both the Masora and the Torat Kohanim are quoted and it is pointed out that the word ir ('city') is feminine so the pronoun referring to it should have been la (spelled with a mapik ('pronounced') Heh meaning ['she has']), and explains that because the written form is lo (spelled with Alef) they tikenu ('fixed') lo in the Masora, one form similar to the other form. According to this passage in Rashi, the Masora has abandoned the requirement for masculine-feminine agreement between a noun and its pronoun (which is obligatory in Hebrew), for the sake of 'one form similar to the other form!' Is it 'fixed' thereby? Research is required to determine the origin and status of this passage in Rashi.

Chizekuni (13th century) (who may or may not have been aware of the above passage in Rashi) is also concerned with the non-agreement of ir and lo. He writes that the word lo refers to sadeh ('field'), which is masculine and, he argues, is understood in the sentence even though it does not occur there. We have had discussion of words implied in sentences as explanations for apparent none agreement elsewhere (Morsels, Emor 5762). 

Malbim (19th century) (who probably was aware of the above passage in Rashi and its problematic status) is also concerned with the non-agreement of ir and lo. He argues that lo refers to bayit. One should see the words asher ba'ir ('which is in the city') as parenthetical and read habayit . asher lo choma directly. According to Malbim the question disappears. There is no problem with lo. 

For my part, I'm not sure how the proposed alternative understandings of לו actually jive with what the פסוק is trying to say. A house that has a wall? What house doesn't have a wall? It is clear that we are talking about a walled city so how is it appropriate to attach the word לו to anything other than עיר?

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.

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.

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.

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?

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:

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.

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.