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)

Flee Market

A number of years ago, I let a mistake go which I have been wondering about. In ט"ז:ל"ד, the word נָסוּ should be pronounced NA-su with the accent מלעיל. However, it was mispronounced na-SU, מלרע. My compunctions are based on the possibility that moving the accent to the end would make the word derive from the root נסיון. However, I can't recall ever seeing such a word in form. It would be נִסוּ (with a חיריק.)

Thoughts?

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.)

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.

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.

You Make the Call - אבל מצרים

From 2010:
Last week, the בעל קריאה said אֵבֶל מצרים instead of אָבֵל מצרים. I did correct it on the spot but it occurred to me afterward that perhaps it is only אָבֵל because of סמיכות in which case, I don't think it is a critical mistake absolutely requiring correction. Is that the case?

But I was wrong:

elie said...

המילה אָבל מצרים אינה לשון אבלות
יש עוד מקומות כמו אָבל השיטים
לכן כשקרה אֵבל הוא עשה טעות חמורה

DECEMBER 24, 2010 2:47 AM

Different ways to wake up?

This past שבת, for the following פסוק:

ט:כ"ד וַיִּיקֶץ נֹחַ מִיֵּינוֹ

the בעל קריאה mistakenly said וַיִּיקַץ as it is in the beginning of ויצא and מקץ.
I corrected him out of reflex but later wondered what exactly is the difference between the two. As I always ask: If there's a difference, what is the difference. If there is no difference, why are they different?

Once again, Dikdukian is saved by its knowledgeable readers. Yaakov Gross explains:

The later examples (accent on ultimate syllable, with פתח) are the normal form. The first example (accent on penult, final vowel סגול) is נסוג אחור, because it leads into נח whose first syllable is accented; that shift of accent causes a change in the final syllable’s vowel. (The shift in accent is very common with וי"ו ההיפוך, and that often leads to a change of vowels as well. A very familiar example is ויברך (in ויכולו): accent move to ב, and vowel of ר changed from צירי to סגול.

Another reader, however, pointed me to a רשב"ם at the very last פסוק of בראשית which indicates that וַיִּיקֶץ (here) is the passive form. Based on that, he (the reader) suggests the following:

Rasbam explains that with a segol it means a passive form, similarly to vayussam (and he was put), and he compares it to vayiketz (which in this case means he got woken up, while vayikatz means "he woke up". Look into targum yonasan and you'll see that he is wondering who told Noiach what his younger son did to him. And he says that he was informed about it by a dream. But following Rashbam's pshat there is no kushiah. According to both opinions about what he did to Noiach, if we translate vayiketz "he got woken up", it was obviously what was done to him that woke him up, so clearly he knew who did it and what he did.

נעשה

[While we're all getting ready for פורים, let's take a look back at חנוכה:]

In 2013 I posted:
I might have missed this one: someone came over to me at the end of the עליה to tell me that he was pretty sure that instead of וְכָל נַעֲשָׂה בַמַּרְחֶשֶׁת, he was pretty sure he heard נַעֲשֶׂה (with a סגול.) He was pretty certain that changed the tense to future, "let us do." I tried to suggest that perhaps נַעֲשֶׂה is simply the masculine version of  נַעֲשָׂה and still means "made." However, I don't think that is correct. In מעוז צור we say נַעֲשָׂה נס לשושנים. Even though נס is masculine, it is still נַעֲשָׂה. So it would appear that if he heard correctly, then it was in fact a serious error.

However, later that year I actually posted specifically about that line in מעוז צור and thanks to some reader feedback, it produced some interesting revelations as to the proper pronunciation. There are even more links to follow there. With much confusion surrounding the issue I think the one clear outcome is that this should definitely be corrected (in the laining, not in מעוז צור).

You Make the Call - וקראהו

The initial purpose of this blog was to alert people to Dikduk-related issues in the פרשה in advance. (I realize that my repostings late Friday afternoon do not serve that purpose too well.) But I would like to tap the resources of this blog's knowledgeable readers for another related purpose. As I may have stated at the outset, I am charged with correcting for the laining in our shul. At the behest of the Rov, I try to keep the corrections only to those where the meaning of the word is certainly altered. I have definitely had my share of challenges from alert listeners and try to take them all seriously. So, if I have made a correction unnecessarily or missed a necessary correction, I'd like to get the opinion of the masses as to whether the correct action was taken.

Last week, מ"ב:ל"ח, the בעל קריאה said "vekarahu" instead of "ukra'ahu." The המון עם (or, dare I say, the ערב רב) in unison made a knee-jerk correction of the "ve" to an "u." I don't think anyone in their right mind could possibly argue that it was a necessary correction. But there's only so much I can do about that. But the problem was that (I believe both times) he said "karahu" instead of "kra'ahu." I did notice it at the time but perhaps in my frustration at the unnecessary correction of the "ve,"I neglected to correct it. And I was approached afterwards about it.

So the question is, was the meaning of the word changed? On the surface, it would appear that it was. Pronounced the way it was, it is very much like the word at the beginning of this week's פרשה - וקרהו. That is of the root קרה whereas last week's seems to be of the root קרא. However, of note here is that the תרגום on both words is identical - וִיעָרְעִנֵּיהּ. So what's the verdict?

Based on Elie's comment, it seems the word might be different but the meaning is the same. Nevertheless, this incorrect pronunciation essentially skips a letter (א) so I would deem this a correctable mistake.

This is the time

You make the call:

It was a pretty breezy Purim as far as the מגילה goes. However, there was one thing I was a little unsure of. At night, the בעל קריאה said ד:י"ד וּמִי יוֹדֵעַ אִם לָעֵת כָּזֹאת הִגַּעַתְּ לַמַּלְכוּת instead of לְעֵת. I let it go. My thinking was that the term as a whole is a definite, even if לְעֵת is indefinite. What do you say?

I would also say that in the back of my mind, I hoped that there was actually another גרסא that had לָעֵת. I have been using an Artscroll Megillah for the last while. But I have realized that it might not be as מדוקדק as I would like. Can anyone recommend a readily available new מגילה which is known to be מדוקדק?

Thanks.

תשפ"ד Update:

This came up again tonight and I actually corrected it. Although, my position has not changed that this doesn't ultimately change the meaning. 

I could use a rest

Tonight (פורים תשע"ז) I made a correction on a split-section decision which I wasn't sure really changed the meaning.

ט:כ"ב כַּיָּמִ֗ים אֲשֶׁר־נָ֨חוּ

The בעל קריאה pronounced it na-CHU, with the accent on the last syllable. I know that the שורש of נח - or whatever it should be in full form - is a very tricky one with words sounding very similar but meaning completely different things. For example, see שולחן ערוך או"ח כ"ה:ז ובמשנה ברורה. So I corrected on the spot. Any thoughts as to whether it changes the meaning?

I Would Have Made a Party

 ל"א:כ"ז

לָ֤מָּה נַחְבֵּ֙אתָ֙ לִבְרֹ֔חַ וַתִּגְנֹ֖ב אֹתִ֑י וְלֹא־הִגַּ֣דְתָּ לִּ֔י וָֽאֲשַׁלֵּחֲךָ֛ בְּשִׂמְחָ֥ה וּבְשִׁרִ֖ים בְּתֹ֥ף וּבְכִנּֽוֹר׃ 

I'm 95% sure about this but just wanted to put it out there just in case: the בעל קריאה said וַאֲשַׁלֵּחֲךָ֛ (with a פתח under the ו.) I corrected it on the spot. I'm pretty sure it would change the meeting from "I would have sent you away" in the past to "I will send you away" in the future. (To go into more detail, to convey the future, you would have tacked on a וי"ו with a שוא at the beginning. However, the חטף פתח under the אל"ף is like a שוא and since you can't begin a word with two שואs, the וי"ו would get a פתח.)