Tag Info

Hot answers tagged

11

This idea, that it's based on a mistaken expansion of 'בשב (meaning 'בשמואל ב) to mean בשבת, comes from R. Baruch Epstein's Mekor Baruch. However, it is demonstrably untrue. The custom of alternating between מגדיל on weekdays and מגדיל on Shabbos is mentioned by Avudraham, who lived in the 14th century. (He doesn't mention the custom of doing so on Yom Tov ...


10

As Seth noted, it's "עקיבא" in the standard-edition Bavli. However, it's "עקיבה" in the standard-edition Y'rushalmi. There may, for all I know, be exceptions to each of those statements. Aruch Hashulchan writes (about gitin) that there are reasons to write it either way and that both are fine. He then quotes the Maharshal and Taz as saying that (for gitin) ...


8

In the sefer נפוצות יהודה, the explanation is given as follows: Yitzchak represents מדת הדין. Since it was this that was responsible for the destruction of the temples and our exiles, the Tanach hints that eventually, מדת הדין will be dropped in favor of מדת הרחמים in the time of redemption. Since the redemption consists of four stages, as alluded to by the ...


7

Rashi is actually quoting here from Bereshis Rabbah 61. The question is, do we trust the midrash with the text of our sifrei torah, and "fix" the problem accordingly, or do we trust the vast majority of our texts and sifrei torah that have the word with two yud's? Beis Yosef (YD 275), who claims that this problem happens quite often, seems to say (correct ...


7

As mentioned here, different spellings of names that refer to the same person are not uncommon in Tanach. Deeper, esoteric meanings are associated with the changing of spellings. As a general rule, therefore, you will not find commentators of the p'shat approach that will address these spelling changes. In this case , the most famous answer is that of the ...


6

In this article by Gil Student titled "On the Text of the Torah", this and other textual issues are discussed. In the article (In the Aggadic Midrash section ) he proposes that it was actually pretty common practice for the Rabbis to deliberately "change" the word in order to drive home a homiletic point. from the article (please read it for context and ...


5

The Minchas Shai that msh210 referenced in his comment in turn refers to Paaneach Raza, who explains as follows (paraphrasing a lot): The letter yud symbolizes the holiness conferred on a Jew by circumcision and the associated weakening of carnal pleasure (compare Rambam, Moreh Nevuchim 3:49). Appropriately, then, Pinchas, who risked his life to punish ...


5

The Beis Shmuel in Even Ha'ezer says that with regards to Gitin there are two opinions. He suggests one should write with an hei, but if one normally signs with a aleph that is how he should write. There are different simanim for both names shown here. One famous siman is that the author of the "Or Zarua" saw in a dream the verse of "Or Zarua Latzadik ...


5

There is a book called Fixing God's Torah, Barry Levy. It deals with this Rashba. There is a Rebbi Akiva Aiger in Masechet Shabbat (55B) where he has a list of such issues. Also note, in the examples given above, they are letters that the gemara (Kiddushin 30A) says "we are not expert in full and defective spelling" i.e. the use of the vav. The yud is more ...


5

I'll address part of the question, viz: And in the case of Yerachmiel, where the spelling (not just the pronunciation) is different, does halachah recognize the popular spelling as valid for use in official documents like kesubos and gittin, or is the Biblical form supposed to be used? The former: halacha supports the popular spelling. Aruch Hashulchan ...


4

The names of Hashem which may not be erased are listed in Shulchan Oruch Yoreh Daioh 276 (9). Hashem is not one of them and so the hyphenated ("Hash-m") seems unnecessary.


4

I don't know how these words are said, I'm guessing the vowelization is גַרְעִינִין or גַרְעֵינִין or maybe גַרְעֵינְיָן? Either way, unless you're trying to be particularly makpid on pronunciation, ayin-tsere-malei or ayin-hirik-malei sound a lot like their aleph-based counterparts. Languages also tend to be forgiving when there's no easily-confusable ...


4

The grammatical function of the mapiq (which can occur with an alef as well as a he) is to indicate that the letter is a consonant. (The alternative is that the letter is mater lectionis indicating a particular vowel.) Whether a he-mapiq indicates possessive is a matter of context. The Divine name yod-he, for instance, is always spelled with a mapiq, ...


4

A quick search shows that יאל does not seem to appear in Tanach, nor in the Mishna or Gemara. Wikipedia does not acknowledge this variant spelling either for Yael, though it's the way they transliterate Yahel Ernesto Castillo Huerta's name into Hebrew, probabaly to differentiate it from Yael. It appears that Larry Gonick either made that up, was ...


4

The Minchas Shai does, he brings different readings and see from the words acher kach matzati B'Mordichai(pg 32) but better to see the whole thing. http://hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=14036&st=&pgnum=32


4

Well, presumably Rashi had a different version. The question is — and is asked by the Mizrachi and the Minchas Shay — that no extant m'sora agrees with him. They offer no answer.


4

In the standard Vilna edition of the Talmud Bavli it is spelled עקיבא with an Alef at the end. I'm not sure how much more authoritative a source you're looking for.


4

I am not an expert in Biblical Hebrew grammar, but it would seem based on the below commentary of the Torah Temimah that it has to do with the vowelization of the word throughout Tanach. The mem is generally vowellized with a chirik, and therefore does not need to be written with a yud to be pronounced properly, but in some cases it is not vowellized this ...


3

I like Alex's answer. I would suggest that, according to the Zohar, it is quite possible that only one Pinchas (the one in Parshat Pinchas with the small yud) in the Torah is written plene, that is, malei yud. And all others it is written deficient, that is, chaser. See my two posts (here and here) on this matter, basically presenting Minchas Shai on ...


3

Rashi's text is not necessarily better than ours. More problematic is the couple of places where its clear that the gemara has a slightly different text than we do. (For example, in Mes. Sukkah the Gemara has a different number of 'vavs' in "sukkos".) Most, if not all, of the rishonim who discuss this issue say the text of the Torah should be changed to ...


3

I always learned that yes people mistook it saying Shmuel Bet (22:51) instead of Tehillim (18:51) (the pasuk appears twice, with this small change) and started saying it on Shabbat. However I found this source which says that the study of Ketuvim was forbidden on Shabbat and therefore the Shmuel verse had to be recited instead of the Tehillim verse, and ...


2

I found a link here that quotes the following: This passage includes the words magdil y'shuot malko. On Sabbaths, festivals, and Rosh Hodesh, the word magdil is changed to migdol. Various explanations for this have been given (O.H. 189 in M.A. 1). The verse in question comes from Psalm 18:51, where magdil is used. However, in 2 Samuel 22:51, where Psalm ...


2

According to the Zohar, 10:304: Rabbi Yehuda said: In "the sound of the Shofar," the word "Shofar" is spelled without the letter vav, for it has the same meaning as in the verse, "It pleased (Heb. shafar) Daryavesh" (Daniel 6:1) and in the verse, "O king, let my counsel be acceptable (Heb. yishpar) to you" (Daniel 4:24) and the verse, "I thought it good ...


2

I did a computer search and can't find anywhere in Tanach where the word is spelled with a yud. However, it's often spelled that way in Mishna (ex: Berachos 4:2, 4:4) and other Rabbinic writings, at least according to our commonly printed versions. In modern Hebrew, the convention is generally to place a 'yud' in a word if you're otherwise not using vowels, ...


2

My concordance (Even-Shoshan) reports that there are only four places in Tanach where "Yerushalayim" has the yud between the lamed and mem. One is in the book of Esther ("who had been exiled from Yerushalayim"); once in Jeremiah ("v'samti es yerushalayim le'iyim"); once in II Chronicles, and I don't recall the last one off the top of my head. But look it up ...


2

Even though we do not have this extra 'vav' in our Sifrei Torah, and even though the Minchas Shai who was a contemporary of the Ramban states that he has never seen a Sefer Torah with this extra 'vav', nevertheless, the fact is not only did Rashi have it, but also the Ibn Ezra and the Chizkuni. Therefore, it would be useful to try and understand why the ...


2

I'm not sure what light you want shed on this other than not to trust the Mikraot Gedolot for fine issues of proper nusach hamikra. The Aleppo, Leningrad, Bodmer, Damascus, and Cairo Codices (9th to 12th centuries) all have a כ. Bomberg's Mikraot Gedolot (2nd edition, 16th century, seen below) has a ב. Bomberg's edition is notorious for small errors, but its ...


1

For what's its worth, here's the version from the Dead Sea Scrolls: See it here: http://dss.collections.imj.org.il/isaiah?id=17:11#8:11 So that version, also has the word spelled with a "kaf".


1

That's not a dageish, though it's a logical mistake to make because it looks exactly like one. That's called a mapik and occurs in a hei at the end of a word. It almost always means feminine possessive, though it also appears in the short divine name beginning with yud. It also appears that you have found some examples of non-feminine possessive; "elo-aH ...



Only top voted, non community-wiki answers of a minimum length are eligible