5

There are two paragraphs in the Torah where the word mezuzos appears. The first, in Vaeschanan (6:9), is written with a kubutz (no vav)- מְזֻזוֹת . The second, in Eikev (11:20), it is written with a shuruk- מְזוּזוֹת.

Rashi to 6:9) writes that lack of vav hints that we only place the mezuza on one of the doorposts.

Some chumashim with Rashi that I have looked at have Rashi with a different text- מְזוּזת (maor mikraos gedolos) or מְזֻזת (artscroll) - implying that the grammatically singular writing hints that we only place the mezuza on one of the doorposts.

Others (newer version of the "shul chumash" and this older version of mikraos gedolos) have our text (מְזֻזוֹת) implying that the distinction is made between 1 vav and 2.

Does anyone talk about this Rashi or about the vav difference?

Improve this question

1 Answer 1

Reset to default
5

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

Improve this answer
1
  • 1
    Nice find. The new reading based on the Mordechai would be like the Sifsei Chachamim's rejected yesh mefarshim (maybe rejected because it's not lehalacha) and would explain Rashi's text. In fact, since Rashi is unconcerned about psak and is merely quoting an opinion that darshans the vav chaser, perhaps Rashi did have our masores (shuruk/cholam chaser), but quoted his girsa in the gemara (kubutz/cholam chaser) because it was there! Would you care to sum up your answer in writing?
    – YDK
    Apr 19, 2012 at 16:00

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .