Zachar Amaleik? What was he smoking?

In the portion read for Parshas Zachor we find the commandment תמחה את זכר עמלק, wipe out the remembrance of Amaleik. The gemara (בבא בתרא כא) relates a rather bizarre incident where Yoav, David HaMelech's general was sent to destroy Amaleik. He returns, having wiped out all of the males. When he is confronted by David HaMelech as to why the others were allowed to live, he declares that he was taught "Timcheh es zachar Amaleik," wipe out the males of Amaleik. Needless to say, Yoav was not very happy when he found out he had been taught wrong.

It is indeed quite difficult to understand how the mesorah could be so skewed as to totally misunderstand and misrepresent this pasuk. I heard an interesting insight into this mistake from the footnotes of the מעשה רב. Yoav's rebbe never thought that the word was pronounced "zachar." Rather, this error was a result of a misunderstanding of the possessive form of zachar."

The word for smoke is "ashan." The vowelization of this word is the same as "zachar." However, when the Torah describes Har Sinai and describes how its smoke rose like the smoke of a furnace, the term used is "eshen hakivshan." Clearly, when the word "ashan" is used in the possessive, both kamatzim are converted to segolim. Yoav's rebbe read the pasuk "timche es zecher Amaleik," and understood that zecher was the possessive form of zachar. He therefore mistakenly taught Yoav that the commandment is to wipe out only the males of Amaleik.

Addendum:

A rebbe of mine, R' Aryeh Leib Lopiansky has recently published an extensive discussion on this topic and what the true pronunciation of the tzeirei actually should be.

Read here:

Clear the halls!

Over חנוכה we will be reciting על הניסים numerous times - probably more than 30. As we describe the process following the military victory, we say "ופנו את היכלך". It is rather important to put the stress on the right syllable in ופנו. When properly pronounced with the accent on the last syllable, u-fi-NU, it means "and they cleared out." However, if pronounced with the accent on the previous syllable, u-FI-nu, it would literally mean "and our mouths." (It is possible that the laws of context might make this a less serious error but there's nothing wrong with doing something right!)

Also, another reader pointed out:

Of course, if one is precise in pronunciation, there are 2 other differences between the words.  The word for “mouth” is spelled with a chirik malei, which is pronounced differently than the chirik chaser in “clean.”  And, what goes along with that is that the nun in “clean” has a dagesh, while the nun in “mouth” is rafah – those 2 nuns are also pronounced differently.

On a related note from another reader:

We will also say Hallel many times. Hodu is a country on the Indian subcontinent. HoDU means give thanks.

נעשה נס - Correction

In one of the more sung verses of מעוז צור we have the phrase נעשה נס לשושנים. In every text I've seen, it is written נַעֲשָׂה. However, I have heard it sung many times נַעֲשֶׂה, with a סגול. (I'm pretty sure I even remember Uncle Moishy singing it that way! Gasp!) I'm quite certain that is incorrect. For it to be past tense, even though נס is masculine, it would have to be נַעֲשָׂה. With a סגול it would mean "let us do," in the future.

Based on some reader feedback, it appears I have to recant. It appears the סגול might actually be correct.

Yaakov Gross wrote:

The reading with segol appears to be correct.  Consider a regular Kal verb, say G M R (to complete), in the Nif’al:Nigmar with a patach is Perfect (aka “past”): it became depleted, it was completed;with a kamatz, it’s the present participle: it is completed. For nachei lamed he, the Perfect has segol in place of patach. Thus, laaseh nes – “a miracle was wrought”.Whereas the present participle keeps the kamatz, so na’asah would be “a miracle is being wrought”

Some interesting sources from another reader:

See נחמיה ה:י"ח and ישעיה כ"ו:י"ח and contrast with ויקרא ז:ט.   

See also אבן עזרא בראשית א:כ"ו and י"ב:ז.

However, in a separate discussion, I was shown this extensive write-up on this very issue which seems to suggest the other way around and that the קמץ is correct.

Wordsthatsticktogether

It is interesting that the first עליה of ויצא seems to contain an usually high instance of words that can stick together and thus, should be carefully separated by the בעל קריאה:

ויצא יעקב

וילך חרנה

וישם מראשתיו

סולם מוצב

They actually all appear in the fist עליה during the week.

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.

Complete it.

לבן commands מַלֵּא שְׁבֻעַ זֹאת, complete this week. If it is simply mispronounced מָלֵא (with a קמץ instead of a פתח) that would completely change the meaning of the word from the imperative verb "complete" to the adjective, complete. If the בעל קריאה is one who discerns well between פתח and קמץ - and they should - this should definitely be corrected.

I am not an expert on the דגש but I know someone will correct me if I'm wrong but there probably is no דגש in the adjective version of the word so that is another differentiation (if applicable) to watch out for.

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.)