A Drop Of Dikduk Archives
- Vayikra
The Statement: Vayikra Perek 4:31 Mayal Zevach Hashelamim. In this
case the Taam (accent) of the word Zevach is on the Zayin. The Taam
of the word Mayal is on the last syllable Al.
The Rule: Generally in Lashon Hakodesh the Taam (accent or cantillation)
of the word is on the last syllable. In Lashon Hakodesh two Taamim will
usually not be placed in a way that one will immediately follow the
other without a syllbable in between the two Taamim. Usually there will
be at least one syllable between the Taamim. If it is necessary we will
move the first word's Taam back one syllable in order to avoid having
the two Taamim following each other. This is called Nisog Achor (moving
back).
The Question: Why don't we move the Taam of Mayal back one syllable
in order to avoid having two Taamim directly following each other.
The Answer: When both words have a Taam Mesharays the rule of Nisog
Achor does not apply. In this example Mayal has the Taam of a Munach
as does the word Zevach. Since both words have a Taam Mesharays the
rule of Nisog Achor does not apply. Therefore the Taam of Mayal remains
on the last syllable eventhough it will be immediately followed by the
Taam of the word Zevach.
The Statement: Vayikra Perek 5:2 "Oh Venivlas Chaya Temaah Oh
Benivlas Behamah Temaah Oh Benivlas Sheretz Tamay" A person that
becomes impure from contact with a carcass of a wild animal or with
a carcass of an animal or a carcass of a creeping animal.
The Rule: This Posuk demonstrates the difference between the Taamim.
In this Posuk we have three identical words. Two times the Posuk says
Oh Benivlas and once it uses the words Oh Venivlas with a Vet as the
first letter.
The Reason: There are Taamim which are Melachim (kings) and Taamim which
are Mesharshim (servants). The Melachim are Taamim which indicate a
pause between the word that has a Melech and the following word. Generally
when the BGD CFS (Bet Gimmel Dalet Chaf Peh and Taf) letters are preceded
by an AHOY (Alef Heh Vav or Yud) as the last letter of the word preceding
it, the BGD CFS letters are left without a Dagesh. When the Taam is
a Melech, it indicates a pause between the words and the BGD CFS (Bet
Gimmel Dalet Chaf Peh and Taf) letter will receive a Dagesh. This is
called a Dagesh Kal as opposed to the Dagesh Hazak, which indicates
a missing letter or stress on a letter. The Dagesh Kal is not for the
purpose of making up any missing letters and therefore its name is Dagesh
Kal a lighter type of Dagesh which is just to make the reading easier
and more uniform. (From the Knah Vosem). The Mesharsim indicate a connection
between the two words. When the Taam is a Mesharays then if the following
words begin with a BGD CFS letter (Bet Gimmel Dalet Chaf Peh and Taf)
they will receive a Dagesh in the BGD CFS letter.
In this Posuk the Taam before the word Venivlas is a Telisha Ketana
that is a Taam Mesharays. Since preceding the Peh is a Taam Mesharays
the general AHOY preceding BGD CFS rule applies and the Pheh remains
soft without a Dagesh. In the other two examples the Taam preceding
the Benivlas is a Taam Melech. In one instance it is a Yesiv and in
the other instance it is a Zakef Godol that is also a Taam Melech and
causes the following letter to have a Dagesh Kal.
A Question: Why does the Torah use a Taam Mafsik on two of the examples
and a Taam Mesharays on the other?
A Little known fact: The suffix Nu that has a Dagesh in the Nun refers
to it or him. Without a Dagesh in the Nun it means our. Examples are
found many times in this week's Parsha. In Perek 3:1 Tamim Yakreevenu
"Complete you should bring it". The word Yakreevenu has a
Dagesh in the Nun indicating a reference to a third person or object.
See Ebn Ezra in Shmos Perek 1: 9 for the reason when referring to him
or it the suffix Nu has a Dagesh in the Nun as opposed to when it refers
to us that has no Dagesh
in the Nun.
The Statement: Vayikra Perek 5:7 "Shtay Sorim Oh Shnay Bnay Yonah"
Two turtledoves or two young doves.
The Rule: The Posuk uses the feminine form of two for the Torim and
the masculine form of two for the Bnay Yonah. This is because the word
Tor is feminine and therefore it receives the feminine form of two.
Although Yonah is also feminine, since the Posuk is referring to the
offspring of the Yonah which are the Bnay Yonah and are male, it uses
the masculine form of two which is Shnay.
The Question: If both Yonah and Tor are feminine, then why is the plural
form Torim and Yonim? The plural form would seem to be projecting a
masculine word and not a feminine word.
The Answer: There are certain words which include the whole species
such as Cheetah (wheat). In words such as these even the singular form
includes many. When these type of words want to express just one of
the species frequently they will say Cheetah Achas (one wheat). This
group of words when saying many of them use a word that would
seem to be a masculine plural. Eventhough they are feminine, these type
of words get a masculine suffix. Since these words always mean
many, whether they have the plural ending or not. The plural ending
is not to be seen as a plural of the singular but rather as a word all
of its own not merely the plural form of the singular. That is why the
word Chookah (law) becomes Chookim with a OO sound for it is a plural
of Chokewith a Cholom. In our case Tor becomes Torim with an Oh sound
for it is not merely a plural of the word Tor but a separate word that
means many doves.
(See Emes L'Yakov on this Posuk from Rav Yakov Kamenetsky)
The Statement: Vayikra Perek 5:2 "Oh Venivlas Chaya Temaah Oh
Benivlas Behamah Temaah Oh Benivlas Sheretz Tamay" A person that
becomes impure from contact with a carcass of a wild animal or with
a carcass of an animal or a carcass of a creeping animal.
The Rule: This Posuk demonstrates the difference between the Taamim.
In this Posuk we have three identical words. Two times the Posuk says
Oh Benivlas and once it uses the words Oh Venivlas with a Vet as the
first letter.
The Reason: There are Taamim which are Melachim (kings) and Taamim
which are Mesharshim (servants). The Melachim are Taamim which indicate
a pause between the word that has a Melech and the following word. Generally
when the BGD CFS (Bet Gimmel Dalet Chaf Peh and Taf) letters are preceded
by an AHOY (Alef Heh Vav or Yud) as the last letter of the word preceding
it, the BGD CFS letters are left without a Dagesh. When the Taam is
a Melech, it indicates a pause between the words and the BGD CFS (Bet
Gimmel Dalet Chaf Peh and Taf) letter will receive a Dagesh. This is
called a Dagesh Kal as opposed to the Dagesh Hazak, which indicates
a missing letter or stress on a letter. The Dagesh Kal is not for the
purpose of making up any missing letters and therefore its name is Dagesh
Kal a lighter type of Dagesh which is just to make the reading easier
and more uniform. (From the Knah Vosem). The Mesharsim indicate a connection
between the two words. When the Taam is a Mesharays then if the following
words begin with a BGD CFS letter (Bet Gimmel Dalet Chaf Peh and Taf)
they will receive a Dagesh in the BGD CFS letter.
In this Posuk the Taam before the word Venivlas is a Telisha Ketana
that is a Taam Mesharays. Since preceding the Peh is a Taam Mesharays
the general AHOY preceding BGD CFS rule applies and the Pheh remains
soft without a Dagesh. In the other two examples the Taam preceding
the Benivlas is a Taam Melech. In one instance it is a Yesiv and in
the other instance it is a Zakef Godol that is also a Taam Melech and
causes the following letter to have a Dagesh Kal.
A Question: Why does the Torah use a Taam Mafsik on two of the examples
and a Taam Mesharays on the other?
A Little known fact: The suffix Nu that has a Dagesh in the Nun refers
to it or him. Without a Dagesh in the Nun it means our. Examples are
found many times in this week's Parsha. In Perek 3:1 Tamim Yakreevenu
"Complete you should bring it". The word Yakreevenu has a
Dagesh in the Nun indicating a reference to a third person or object.
See Ebn Ezra in Shmos Perek 1: 9 for the reason when referring to him
or it the suffix Nu has a Dagesh in the Nun as opposed to when it refers
to us that has no Dagesh in the Nun.
The Statement: Perek 8 Posuk 15 "Vayishchat Vayikach Moshe Es Hadam" And he
slaughtered it and Moshe took the blood. The Taam of the word Vayishchat is a Revii which
denotes a pause. Similarly the vowel sound is a Kamatz which also denotes a pause by the
word Vayishchat.
The Lesson: Similarly in Posuk 19 and in Posuk 23 the word Vayishchat also appears with
a Kamatz as a vowel along with a Taam Mafsik. In Posuk 19 it is an Esnachata and in Posuk
23 it is a Shalsheles followed by a Pesik. It would seem that the Posuk, by virtue of the
Taam Mafsik that appears regularly on the word Vayishchat, is connecting it to the
previous Posuk. The Taam is separating it from the second half of the Posuk reverting it
to the previous Posuk. It is teaching us that the Shechita was also done by Aharon. The
Shechita is connected to the Semicha of the previous Posuk. Just as the leaning of the
hands was done by Aharon so was the Shechita. Only from the receiving of the blood and
onward did Moshe participate.
The Question: In the Sifra it says that during the seven days of inauguration Moshe did
the service that a Kohen normally would have done. He did the Shechita and the sprinkling
of the blood (Zerikah). The Sifra clearly mentions that Shechita was one of the things
that Moshe did.
The Answer: Rashi in Mesheches Pesachim on 7b says that for the Pesach and other
sacrifices the owner must perform the work. As it says Vesamach (and he should lean)
Veshachat (he should slaughter). Rashi is telling us that in essence the owner is the one
who should do the Shechita of the Korban. Although Moshe was the one who did the Shechita
as the Sifra tells us, he was acting only as a messenger of Aharon concerning the
Shechita. He was an agent of Aharon to do this part of the Korban on his behalf. The
Vayishchat is attached to the previous Posuk because it was Aharon's responsibility.
Although Moshe performed the Shechitah it was on behalf of Aharon. It was from the
receiving of the blood and onward that Moshe acted as a Kohen doing the service in the
Mishkan. For this reason the Vayishchat is separate from the remaining part of the Posuk
because the Vayishchat of Moshe was different than the Vayizrok that he did. The Vayizrok
was as a Kohen and the Vayishchat was as a messenger of Aharon.
(Adapted from Emes L'Yakov by Rav Yakov Kamenetsky)
The Statement: Vayikra 7:23 "Kol Cheylev Shor Vechesev Vaayz Lo Sochaylu" Any
fat of the ox, sheep or goat you should not eat. The Taamim are a Marecha under the word
"Shor," Tevir under the word "Vechesev", and a Tipcha under the
word" Vaayz".
The Rule: When three things are listed; the first is given a Taam which is a Mesharays
followed by the second item of the list with a Taam which is a Mafsik. Examples of this
may be found in Shmos 25:3 Zahav Vachesef Unechoshes the first Taam is a Marecha a
Mesharays followed by a Tipcha which is a Mafsik under Vachesef. Another example is in
Shmos 28:17-20 where it liststhe stones of the Choshen. In each instance the first stone
is given a Taam of Mesharays followed by the second stone having a Mafsik for a Taam. If
the second item is closer in nature to the third item then the first, then the Taamim will
group the second and third item together.
The Problem: It would seem proper to group the Chesev (sheep)and Ayz (goat) together
since they are both of the thinner animal variety compared to the Shor (ox) which is from
the heavyanimal variety. Therefore it would be more logical that the Taam should be a
Tevir under the word Shor followed by a Marecha Tipcha combination under the Chesev and
Ayz.
The Solution: Rav Yakov Kamenetsky in Emes LaYakov suggests that the Taamim are in
accordance with a Drasha in Meseches Chullin 117A. The Gemorah determines that the fat of
the tail is not included in the prohibiton against fats because the nature of the
prohibition must be something that applies to ox sheep and goat equally. Therefore, since
neither a goat or an ox have a tail, the prohibition can not be extended to the tail for
it does not apply to all threeanimals. The Taamim are in accordance with this Drasha. The
Taam of the second animal the sheep is placed in between the Marecha Tipcha combination to
make them continuos as if they are all equal and dependent on one another, for all three
equally determine what is included in the prohibition against fats.
The Statement: Perek 6:8 Vehayrim Memenoo Bekoomtzo Mesoles Hamincha Umishamnah.
"And he will separate from it with his fist from the fine flour of the meal offering
and from its oil.
The Drasha: Rashi explains that from this Posuk we learn that the Kometz is taken from
an area of the Mincha that has a lot of oil. The Sifsei Chachamim offers one idea of where
this is derived from the Posuk.
The Other Idea: The Mesora says that this Posuk is one of the six places that the Posuk
should have used the word Memenah with a Heh at the end. In ordinary cases since the Posuk
mentions Soles and Shemen which are mixed together the word Memenoo that is Zachar
(masculine) would be used. According to the Mesorah the reason why it should have used the
word Memenah which is feminine is because the Posuk uses the word Soles todescribe
the word Mincha as the first thing mentioned in the Posuk. Since the word Soles is
Nekayvah (feminine) the Posuk should therefore say Memenah which is also Nekayvah.
The Drasha: Since the Posuk chooses to use the word Memenoo which is Loshon Zachar
(masculine) it is referring to the oil. It is telling us that the fistfull should be taken
from an area that has plenty of oil.
Adapted from Emes L'Yakov from Rav Yakov Kamenetsky
The Statement: Perek 11:2 and 11:3
In this week's Parsha the words Tocheloo and Tochayloo are used many
times. The word Tocheloo is accented on the last syllable, and the word
Tochayloo is accented on the syllable before the last. I saw in the
preface to the Tikun Hakorim from Rabbi Shmuel Reyachi a way for the
Baal Koreh to recognize which one is to be read Tocheloo and which is
to be read Tochayloo.
When the word Tocheloo is used, a word beginning with a Mem follows
it. This is because Tocheloo is used when the statement is incomplete.
When the statement stills needs to be explained and to be elaborated
on with examples, then the word Tocheloo is used.
When the word Tochayloo is used it is the end of the statement. The
word following Tochayloo does not begin with a Mem since the statement
has been completed and no further explanation is necessary
The Statement: Vayikra Perek 10:4 "Kirvu Oo-Seooh Es Acheichem"
Come close and carry your brothers. The Taam over the word Kirvu is
a Telisha Gedolah followed by a Gareshayim.
The Problem: The Taam is read first as a Gareshayim and then a Teslisha Gedolah. Why is
it written on the top of the letter in the reverse order?
The Solution: There are many Taamim that are written on parts of the word which may not
be where the accent or Taam should be read. For instance the Pashta is always written at
the end of the word regardless of where the Taam is actually read. There are many
instances where the Taam Pashta is read at the front of the word and yet the Pashta is
written at the end of the word. (In some texts two Pashtas are written one at the end and
one on the letter where the Taam should be read.) This was done to avoid confusion between
the Taamim of Kadma and Pashta which look the same but are in reality two different
Taamim. Therefore it was decided that the Pashta will always be written at the end of the
word and Kadma will be written on the letter where the Taam is read. A similar situation
existed many years ago with the Taamim of Telisha Ketana and Gedola. There was a time when
they had the same symbol and in order to differentiate between them, they wrote the
Telisha Gedola on the front of the word regardless of where it was actually read and the
Telisha Ketana was always written on the end of the word regardless of which letter it was
actually read with. This situation was letter rectified by placing a little line at the
end of the circle in different directions for the Telisha Gedola and Ketana. Nevertheless
the placement of the Taamim remained the same the Telisha Gedola was always placed in the
front of the word and Telisha Ketana in the end of the word. With this
background we now understand that although the Telisha Gedolah is written first on the
word, that is only a carryover from the days when it was necessary to differentiate
between the Telisha Gedola and Ketana. In reality it is read on the last letter as is the
case many times, even though it is written on the first letter.
The Shaarei Zimrah in Shaar 3 Paragraph 3 also says that both the Gareshayim and
Telisha should be read on the Shoorook Beis of the word. He states that although it is two
Taamim on one syllable nevertheless that is the way it should be done. He cites a
precedent for doing this from another instance of Gareshayim and Telisha on one word which
is on the word Zeh in Breishis 5:29. In that instance there is just one syllable and yet
both Taamim are read on the same syllable. Therefore Kirvu should be no different and both
Taamim are read on the syllable of VOO of Kirvu.
The Baal Haturim explains the lesson of the two Taamim on one word. (I personally fail
to see what the connection is between the two Taamim and the Medrash and welcome any
input, but thought I would quote his explanation, to explain this unique phenomenon of two
Taamim on one word) He says that this is to tell us that they did not actually carry them
out but rather took a spear and dragged them out with the spear instead of entering the
Heichal.
The Statement: Perek 10:19 "Vaachalti Chatas Hayom" And if I ate from the
Chatas today.
The Rule: The word Achalti means I ate. It is past tense. If it is preceded by a Vav it
can have two possible meanings. 1) And I ate. In this case the Vav is a vav Hachibur
connecting the word with the previous part of the Posuk. 2) And I will eat. In this case
the Vav is a vav Hahipuch changing the tense of the word from past tense to future tense.
Rashi explains the word in our Posuk to be of the first category a Vav Hachibur. The
Vav is connecting the word with the beginning of the Posuk.
The Proof: One of the ways to tell which category the Vav is from, is by the accent
mark or the Taam of the word. If the Taam is on the last syllable of the word it is a Vav
Hahipuch that is changing the tense of the word. If the accent or Taam is not on the last
part of the word it is a Vav Hachibur.
In our case the Taam is on the Chaf of Achalti. It is not on the last syllable of the
word. This is an indication that the word Vaachalti is of the first group a Vav Hachibur
and not one that is changing the tense of the word.
The Statement: Tahor Hoo "He is pure." The Taam is on the last syllable of
the word Tahor.
The Rule: Generally in Lashon Hakodesh the Taam (accent or cantillation) of the word is
on the last syllable. In Lashon Hakodesh two Taamim will usually not be placed in a way
that one will immediately follow the other without a syllbable in between the two Taamim.
Usually there will be at least one syllable between the Taamim. If it is necessary we will
move the first word’s Taam back one syllable in order to avoid having the two Taamim
following each other. This is called Nisog Achor (moving back).
The Question: In the case of Tahor why don’t we move the Taam back one syllable in
order to be able to have a syllable in between the Taam of Tahor and the Taam of Hoo?
The Answer: Nouns or adjectives that end in a Nach Nireh (an implied Shvah Nach) and
the Nach Nireh is preceded by a Tenuah Gedolah do not have the Taam moved back. Therefore
the Taam will remain on the last syllable of Tahor and not be moved to a preceding
syllable.
The Reason: A Tenuah Gedolah may not precede a Nach Nireh unless the Tenuah Gedolah
receives a Taam.The general rule is that a Tenuah Gedolah followed by a Shvah is a Shvah
Naah. The only way for the Tenuah Gedolah to be followed by a Shvah that is Nach or a Nach
Nireh is to give the Tenuah Gedolah the Taam. Therefore, the Taam remains on the Tenuah
Gedolah that precedes the Nach Nireh and can not be moved back one syllable.
The Statement: In Vayikra 13:49 and 13:51 it says "Oh Va-shsi Oh Vaw-Ayrev" -
In the warp or woof threads with a Patach and a Kamatz under their respective letter Vays.
The Problem: In Vayikra 13:48 it says "Oh Vi-shsi Oh Ve-Ayrev." In this
instance the word Vi-shsi is punctuated with a Chirik under the Vays of Vi-shsi and a Shva
under the Vays of Ve-Ayrev. Why here does it use a Chirik and in the other instances it
uses a Kamatz or a Patach?
The Solution: Let us first examine the difference between the words Va-shsi and
Vaw-Ayrev in Vayikra 13:49. Why is one a Kamatz and one a Patach? The letter Vays usually
means "in" and is usually spelled with just a Shva underneath. When we wish to
write "In the" we should really write a Vays followed by a Heh with a Patach
vowel sound. The Vays would mean "in" and the Heh would mean "the." In
Loshon Hakodesh we combine them both into one letter Vays with a Patach vowel to mean
"In the". Generally when we wish to say "in the" we use the Vays
Patach to mean "in the". However, if the following letter is an Ayin then we do
not use the Vays Patach but rather Vays Kamatz to mean "in the." In this
instance the first word Va-shsi the Vays is followed by a Shin and therefore is just a
plain Vays Patach. In the second word Va-Ayrev the Vays is followed by an Ayin and
therefore the sound under the Vays is a Kamatz instead of the usual Patach. In Vayikra
13:48 "Oh Vi-shsi Oh Ve-Ayrev" we are not using the prefix "in the,"
rather they are using the prefix "in," as is indicated by the fact there is no
sign of a Patach under the Vays. This is because these are just details in the Posuk that
are describing the words La-Pishtim and La-Tsemer that follow. The Vi-shsi and Ve-Ayrev
are merely aids to tell us where on the cloth was the plague found. (See Rashi that
explains La-Pishtim and La- Tsemer to mean of wool and linen) Since the words are just
part of a description of another word they do not get the Patach sound which indicates
importance.
This is in contrast to the Posuk in Vayikra 13:49 and 13:51 where it says, "Oh
Va-shsi Oh Vaw-Ayrev" with a Patach and a Kamatz under their respective letter Vays.
In these Pesukim, the words Oh Va-shsi Oh Vaw-Ayrev stand alone. There is no word that is
in their proximity that they are describing. Therefore since they are independent, not
adjectives to another word, they have a Kamatz or the equivalent of a Kamatz as their
vowel sound.
The Statement: Perek 14:11 Velakach Hakohen Hametahare Es Haeesh Hameetahare.
The Kohen who is purifying should take the man who is being purified.
In the first word Hametahare the Mem has a Shva as its vowel sound. In the second
Hameetahare of the Posukm, the vowel sound is a Chirik under the Mem.
The Reason: The word Hameetahare with a Chirik is from the Hispael form of verbs. This
form of word is used for an action that 1) one is doing to himself 2) an action that two
people are doing jointly 3) when a subject is having something done to him. In all three
instances the Hispael form of the verb may be used.
In the case of the word Meetahare it is also from the Hispael form of verbs. The person
is having something done to himself by someone else. He is being purified by the Kohen who
is doing the purification process. In the case of the word Meetahare the Taf of the
Hispael form is replaced and a Dagesh is added to the word in the Tes in its place. (See
Ebn Ezra on Posuk 14:4 that explains the Meetahare in this way.)
The word Metahare with a Shva is from the Binyon of Peale. This Binyon expresses an
action be done in a very strong and intentional manner. In this case the word
Metahare with a Shva is from the Peale form. It means he is doing something intently. In
our case the Kohen is doing something. He is making the other person pure. In the Peale
form the first letter Mem takes a Shva as its vowel sound.
In both instances the Mem is to tell us the verb is being used in the present tense.
Parshas Acharei Mos
The Statement: Vayikra Perek 17:3-4 Eesh Eesh Mebais Yisroel Asher Yishchat Shor Oh
Chesev Bamachaneh Oh Asher Yishchat Michutz Lamachaneh. V'el Pesach Ohel Moed Lo Heveioh
Lehakriv Korban Lashem Lifnei Mishkan Hashem Dam Yachashev Laeesh Hahoo Dam Shafach
Venichros Haeesh Hahoo Mekerev Amoh.
Any man from the house of Yisroel who will slaughter an ox, or a sheep, or a goat in
the camp, or who will slaughter outside the camp. And to the entrance of the Ohel Moed he
did not bring it as an offering to Hashem before the Mishkan of Hashem it shall be
considered as blood for that man, he has spilled blood and that man shall be cut off from
his people.
In Posuk 4 the words are read Dam Shafach with a Kamatz under the Pheh of Shafach.
The Rule: Words that have the middle letter of the Shoresh with a Patach and have the
Taam of an Esnachata or Sof Posuk change their vowel sound. Instead of having the Patach
sound it will be given a Kamatz. This is because of the emphasis put on these words since
they are ending a thought. This is true by the Taamim of Esnachta and Sof Posuk because
they denote the most significant pause and break in the Posuk.
The Question: In Posuk 4 why are the words Dam Shafach given a Kamatz instead of a
Patach. The Taam is only a Zakaf Katan and does not have the power to change the Taam from
a Patach to a Kamatz.
The Answer: Rav Yakov Kamenetsky explains that the first section of Posuk 4 is really a
continuation of Posuk 3. In Posuk 3 it tells about one who slaughters outside of the camp
and Posuk 4 continues by saying he did not bring it to the Ohel Moed. Posuk 3 and 4 are
really joined together and considered one Posuk until the Esnachta in Posuk 4. It is as if
the first part of the Posuk is attached to Posuk 3 and Posuk 4 begins only after the
Esnachta. Since from the Esnachta until the end of Posuk 4 the greatest break is the Zakaf
Katan it is granted the status of an Esnachta or Sof Posuk. Since it has the status of an
Esnachta or Sof Posuk it can also change the Patach of Shafach to a Kamatz.
The Statement: Vayikra 19:26 "Mozenai Tzedek" Correct scales you should have.
The Problem: Generally in Loshon Hakodesh the accent is on the last letter of the word.
In the word Mozenai the accent and Taam is under the Mem in the beginning of the word. Why
doesn't the accent go under the last letter of Mozenai?
The Solution: This brings us to one of the rules of Dikduk called Nasog Achor. When a
situation exists where the second word has the accent and Taam on the first syllable such
as in this case the accent and Taam of Tzedek is on the first syllable. If there is no
syllable between where the Taam should be in the first word and the accent on the second
word the Taam of the first word is moved back a syllable. Normally Mozenai would have a
Taam on the last letter. In this instance it can not be placed there since there would be
no syllable in between the Taam of Tzedek and the Taam of Mozenai. Therefore the Taam of
Mozenai is moved back to the beginning of the word. It is for this reason that the Taam
and accent of Mozenai appear on the beginning of the word.
Generally words that are nouns and end with a Tnuah Ketanah are accented on the first
letter and are good candidates for the Nasog Achor rule we have mentioned. This is
providing that the last letter of the word is not a silent Heh. words such a Ohel or
Tzohar are accented on the first letter of the word. Sadeh is not accented generally on
the first letter since it ends with a silent Heh eventhough the last syllable is a Tnuah
Ketanah.
The Statement: Vayikra 19:26 "Mozenai Tzedek" Correct scales you should have.
In this Posuk the word Mozenai has the Taam of Darga on the first letter, the Mem.
The Rule: When a Shva is on a letter that immediately follows a Tenuah Gedolah the Shva
is a Shva Naah.
However if the Tenuah Gedolah letter has a Taam, then the Shva is a Shva Nach. Such
examples are in Bereishis 30:8 Yacholti. In this case although the Shva follows the Tenuah
Gedolah of a Cholom on the Chaf, it is still a Shva Nach. This is because the Taam of the
word Yacholti is on the Tenuah Gedolah, the Chaf. Since the Tenuah Gedolah has a Taam on
it the Shva following it does not become a Shava Naah but is a Shva Nach.
The Exception: This only applies to words accented in their proper and normal places.
This is to say, only when the accent is on the usual place which is the last syllable of
the word, does this rule apply. Therefore in our case the word Mozenai although the Taam
is on the Tenuah Gedolah the Shva is a Shva Naah since the Taam is not in its usual place
it has been moved up to the first letter of the word because of the Nasog Achor rule.
The Statement: Vayikra Perek 19:6 Pigul Hoo "It is rejected." The Taam is on the last syllable of the word Pigul.
The Rule: Generally in Lashon Hakodesh the Taam (accent or cantillation) of the word is on the last syllable. In Lashon Hakodesh two Taamim will usually not be placed in a way that one will immediately follow the other without a syllbable between the two Taamim. Usually there will be at least one syllable between the Taamim. If it is necessary we will move the first word's Taam back one syllable in order to avoid having the two Taamim following each other. This is called Nisog Achor (moving back). The Question: In the case of Pigul why don't we move the Taam back one syllable in order to be able to have a syllable between the Taam of Pigul and the Taam of Hoo?
The Answer: Nouns or adjectives that end in a Nach Nireh (an implied Shvah Nach) like the word Pigul,and the Nach Nireh is preceded by a Tenuah Gedolah do not have the Taam moved back. Therefore the Taam will remain on the last syllable of Pigul and not be moved to a preceding syllable.
The Reason: A Tenuah Gedolah may not precede a Nach Nireh unless the Tenuah Gedolah receives a Taam.The general rule is that a Tenuah Gedolah followed by a Shvah is a Shvah Naah. The only way for the Tenuah Gedolah to be followed by a Shvah that is Nach or a Nach Nireh is to place the Taam on the Tenuah Gedolah. Therefore, the Taam remains on the Tenuah Gedolah that precedes the Nach Nireh and cannot be moved back one syllable.
The Statement: Vayikra 22:10 "V'chal Zar Lo Yochal Kodesh" And every stranger
(non-Cohen) may not eat from the holy food. The word Yochal is accented on the first
syllable which is the Yo part of the word. In the same Posuk are the words "V'sachir
Lo Yochal Kodesh." Once again the word Yochal is accented on the first syllable.
The Reason: Although usually a word is accented on the last part of the word, in this
instance the accent is moved to the first syllable because of the Nasog Achor rule. This
rule states that in order to avoid having two accented syllable next to each other we move
the accent on the first word back one syllable. In this case since the accent on the word
Kodesh is on the first syllable and the accent on Yochal would normally be on the last
part of the word, the accents of the two words would be next to each other. In order to
avoid the two accents being next to each other we move the accent on the word Yochal to
the beginning of the word. In this way there is a syllable between the two accented
syllables.
The Question: In Vayikra 22:14 we find the words "V'Eesh Ki Yochal Kodesh",
with a different Taam and accent on the word Yochal. In this instance the Taam and accent
is on the last part of the word Yochal. Why in this instance don't we move the Taam and
accent back one syllable in order to avoid two consecutive syllables with accents on them?
The Answer: The reason for the difference is because of the word that is before Yochal.
In the first two instances it is the word Lo that precedes the Yochal. There is no Taam or
accent on the word Lo and therefore even when we move the accent up a syllable because of
Nasog Achor there is still an unaccented syllable between the accented syllable of Yochal
and the accented syllable of Zar or Sachir.
In the case of "V'Eesh Ki Yochal Kodesh" the word Ki has a Meseg. This makes
it is an accented syllable. If we were to move the Taam and accent of Yochal up one
syllable like the Nasog Achor rule dictates we would be faced with a new problem. The new
problem would be there would be no syllable between the accent of Yochal and the accent of
Ki. The very situation that Nasog Achor tries to avoid, by moving up the Taam one syllable
it would be creating. Therefore since implementing the Nasog Achor rule would be
correcting one problem but creating another problem we don't apply the Nasog Achor rule.
Therefore the Taam in this instance remains on the last syllable of the word Yochal which
is its normal pronunciation.
The Statement: Vayikra 21:13 "Vehoo Eesha Vivsuleha Yikach" and he (the Kohen
Gadol) must take a virgin for a wife.
The Problem: Why does the word Vivsuleha begin with a Vet and not a Bet?
The Solution: You are probably all patting yourselves on the back claiming that this is
a simple one. The general rule of thumb is when BGD CFS is preceded by AHOY then the
BGD CFSbecomes soft. To put it in understandable terms when the letters "Bet"
"Gimmel" "Dalet" "Chaf" "Pay" or "Saf"
are in the beginning of a word and are preceded by any one of the letters "Alef"
"Heh" "Vav" or "Yud" at the end of the previous word, then
the BGD CFS loses its Dagash and becomes soft. Therefore for example, Bnai Yisroel when
preceded by the word "Mipnei" from before, becomes Vnai Yisroel since the word
preceding Bnai ends in a Yud.
But alas all is not so simple. We also learned that when the first two letters of the
second word are the same, then the word begins with a Dagesh in the first letter. This is
true even if the preceding word ends with an AHOY. An example is Vatispesayhu Bevigdoh of
Parshas Vayeshev. (see Drop of Dikduk there) In that case, although the last letter of the
previous word is a Vav, since the first two letters are the same, the first takes a hard
sound and becomes a Bet. If so why does Vivsuleha begin with a soft sound since it has two
of the same letter in the beginning of the word?
The rule that when two Vet begin the following word, the rules of BGD CFS do not apply
is limited to a specific Vet starting the next word. Only when the Vet has a Shva vowel
sound then the Vet will receive a Dagesh and become a Bet. If it has another vowel sound
such as a Chirik as Vivsuleha has then it will follow the ordinary BGD CFS rule and will
remain a Vet if preceded by an AHOY.
The Statement Vayikra 22:10: "Toshav Cohen Lo Yochal Bo" The resident of a
Cohen may not eat of it. (The Terumah) The word Toshav in this Posuk is with a Patach
under the Shin.
The Explanation: In Loshon Hakodesh there is a concept of Somuch. When one word
explains and describes another word it is called a Somuch. It is as if the words are
leaning on each other. It is particularly true by words that show ownership such as the
house of Avrohom. In Loshon Hakodesh it is very rare that the word Shel (of) is used
therefore the use of Somuch words is very common. For instance, to say the house of
Avrohom we could say Bayis Shel Avrohom or we could use a Somuch and say Base Avrohom. In
cases where a Somuch is used then the vowels are changed also. An example is the case of
the word Bayis that changes to Base, changing from a Patach to a Tzeiray. In the case of a
word with a Kamatz sound the Kamatz will change to a Patach when it is a Somuch.
The Reason: In this Posuk the words Toshav Cohen mean the resident of the Cohen. The
fact that the word uses a Patach instead of a Kamatz alludes to the fact that it is a
Somuch and showing possession to the Cohen. The word Toshav with a Kamatz would mean that
the Cohen himself is a resident.
The Warning: When reading the Torah it is important to read the word Toshav with the
Patach If one reads it with a Kamatz it will have an entirely different meaning then was
intended in the Torah.
The Statement: Vayikra 25:8 Vesafarta Lecha Sheva, and Yemay Sheva Shabsos Shanim. In both instances the Taam of the word Sheva is on the first syllable. In both cases the Taam of the word before Sheva is on the last syllable.
The Rule: Generally in Lashon Hakodesh the Taam (accent or cantillation) of the word is on the last syllable. In Lashon Hakodesh two Taamim will usually not be placed in a way that one will immediately follow the other without a syllable between the two Taamim. Usually there will be at least one syllable between the Taamim. If it is necessary we will move the first word's Taam back one syllable in order to avoid having the two Taamim following each other. This is called Nisog Achor (moving back). The Problem: In the case of Sheva in this Posuk the Taam of the word before precedes immediately the Taam of the word Sheva.
The Reason: Taamim are divided into two categories Taamim Mafsikim and Taamim Mesharsim. The Taamim Mafsikim denote a pause after the word. The Taamim Mesharsim denote that the word is connected to the following word. The commentaries divide the Taamim Mafsikim into four categories. Each category denotes a different level of pause between the words.
The Taam before the word Sheva in one instance is a Pashta and in one instance is a Revii. Both of these Taamim are Taamim Mafsikim. In cases where the first word's Taam is a Taam Mafsik then the following word may have the Taam even on a syllable immediately following the Taam on the first word.
The Logic: Two Taamim generally will not follow immediately one after the other so that the reader will have time to pause between the stressed syllables. When a pause is going to be made because of the fact the first word has a Taam Mafsik then two Taamim can follow each other.
The Statement: Vayikra 25:6 "Ool-Avdecha Ve-LaAmasecha Ve-LiScherecha" And to
your servant and to your maid servant and to your hired worker.
The Problem: Why does the Lamed take on three different vowel sounds in these examples.
In the first word the Lamed is given a Shva, in the second a Patach, and in the third a
Chirik.
The Solution: In general a Lamed in the beginning of a word is given a Shva. There are
some exceptions to this rule. For instance if the first letter of the root word begins
with a Shva then the Lamed can not have a Shva sound. This is because two Shva sounds may
not appear in the beginning of a word. If the word begins with a Shva then the Lamed will
be given a Chirik sound. Thus the word Ve-LiScherecha, since the root word begins with a
Shva the Lamed must be given a Chirik sound. Ool-Avdecha is easy to understand for it has
the standard Shva under the Lamed.
This leaves us to explain Ve-LaAmasecha and the reason for the Lamed having a Patach as
it's vowel sound. The first root letter is an Aleph with the vowel sound Chataf Patach. A
Chataf Patach is a vowel sound which contains the qualities of a Shva and the qualities of
a Patach in some ways. When Chataf Patach is the vowel sound of the first letter of the
root word then the Lamed preceding is given a Patach sound. Perhaps it can not be given
the standard Shva sound for then the word would have as it's beginning two Shva sounds
(the Lamed and the Aleph) for in this respect the Aleph with it's Chataf Patach vowel
sound is viewed like a Shva.
The Statement: Vayikra 26:17 "VeNeegaftem Lifnei Oyvaychem" And you will be
struck down before your enemies. Rashi when translating this Posuk brings the Toras
Cohanim that understands the Posuk in a different way than the traditional translation.
Rashi understands the Posuk according to the Toras Cohanim to be saying that death through
a plague will strike you down inside your homes, and enemies will surround you on the
outside.
The Beer Rechovos elaborates on this explanation of the Posuk by following some basic
Dikduk rules.
The word VeNeegaftem has a Dagesh in the Gimmel. This is to make up for a missing
letter. A Dagesh is used to inform us that a letter was taken out of this word. The word
Neegaf is a form of Niphal. Niphal refers to the object that is receiving the action. In
this case since the root word is Neegaf which begins with a Nun and the Niphal form also
has a Nun in the beginning of the word one Nun is left out and replaced with a Dagesh in
the Gimmel.
The Problem: If the word Neegaftem is the Niphal form and is receiving an action from
something else then the word should be VeNeegaftem MayOyvaychem that you will be struck
from your enemies.
The Answer: The striking will not take place from your enemies but rather from a plague
that will strike from within. The word VeNeegaftem stands alone and is not attached to the
Lifnei Oyvaychem. Lifnei Oyvaychem is to be understood as an independent statement
referring to the surrounding of the Jews by their enemies.
The Statement: Vayikra 26:3 VeEem Bechukosai Taylaychoo Ves Mitzvosay
Tishmoroo VaAseesem Ohsam. If you will go in my decrees and observe my commandments and
perform them.
Rashi Explains: The first part of the Posuk "VeEm Bechukosai Taylaychoo is not
referring to the fulfillment of Mitzvos for at the end of the Posuk it refers to the
fulfillment of Mitzvos. Rather the first part VeEm Bechukosai Taylaychoo is referring to
toiling in Torah. The second part of the Posuk Ves Mitzvosay Tishmoroo VaAseesem Ohsam is
referring to learning for the purpose of preparing for the fulfillment of the Mitzvos.
The Taamim: One may derive this explanation from the Taamim of the words. Generally an
Esnachta is used to divide the Posuk into two statements. An Esnachta may also be used to
separate between two types of actions in the Posuk. In this case the Esnachta is used to
differentiate between the Bechukosai Taylaychoo which is toiling in Torah and the
Mitzvosay Tishmoroo which refers to learning as a preparation for doing Mitzvos. The
Esnachta separates the two actions and identifies them as different and distinct types of
learning. Furthermore had the Esnachta been placed after Mitzvosay Tishmoroo the VaAseesem
Ohsam would have been referring back to both actions. Now that the Esnachta is placed
after Bechukosai Taylaychoo the words VaAseesem Ohsam refer only to Mitzvosay Tishmoroo
for it is the type of learning that prepares one for VaAseesem Ohsam, the doing of
Mitzvos.
The Statement: Vayikra 27:9 "Ve-eem Behayma Asher Yakrivoo Memenah Korban
Lashem" And if the animal is from the ones which may be brought as a sacrifice to
Hashem.
The Other Statement: Vayikra 27:11 "Ve-eem Kal Behayma Temayah Asher Lo Yakrivoo
Memenah Korban Lashem" And if the animal is from the impure ones which may not be
brought as a sacrifice to Hashem.
The Problem: The Taamim on both Pesukim are almost identical. In the first Posuk the
Ve-eem Behayma has a Zakaf Katan combination. In the second Posuk it is a Kadma on Ve-eem
followed with a Zakaf Katan on the Kal Behayma Temayah. The end of the first Posuk
"Yakrivoo, Memenah, Korban, Lashem" and the end of the second Posuk "Lo
Yakrivoo, Memenah, Korban, Lashem" both end in the same way. Both end in a Darga,
Tevir, Tipcha, Sof Posuk combination. Which leads us to wonder why in the first Posuk the
word Asher has a Kadma as it's Taam and in the second Posuk the word Asher has a Telisha
Gedolah as it's Taam? The Taamim of the two Pesukim are so similar why suddenly does the
Taam change on the word Asher?
The Solution: We have mentioned many times before, a difference between Taamim. Some
are Mesharsim and some are Melachim. The Melachim represent a pause or a stress on the
word while a word that is a Mesharays leads up or is a servant to the following word. The
Kadma is a Mesharays while the Telisha Gedolah is a Melech. In the first Posuk which is in
regard to the donation of an animal which may be used as a sacrifice the Torah uses a
Mesharays. This is to allude to the fact that to donate a pure animal there are no
stipulations. It is to be used directly for a sacrifice. Therefore the Taam is a Mesharays
a Taam that has no stress, for there is no hindrance to it being brought as a Korban.
There are no obstacles to it becoming holy.
In the case of the donation of the impure animal which will not be used as a Korban the
Torah uses a Melech as it's Taam. This is to show stress. That it is not an easy task to
donate an impure animal. It will have a difficult process. It will have to be appraised
for it's value. It may be redeemed with an added fee levied on the one who redeems it. The
donation of a non-Kosher animal is complicated, not easy and simple like the Kosher animal
which is brought as a Korban. Therefore the Torah uses a Melech Taam such as the Telisha
Gedolah to point out this difficult process.
From the Sharei Zimrah Shaar 5 Paragraph 9
|
![[RWB]](../../images/rwb.gif){kind=small}
![[JewishAmerica]](../../images/jalogoan.gif)
![[bar]](../../images/logobar3.gif){kind=small}
![[Home]](../../images/jahome.gif)