At the end of each Parsha many Chumashim have the number of Pesukim that are in that Parsha. By Parshas Tzav they all say 96 which is the Gematria of Tzav צו. However if counted there are 97 Pesukim. Was this done since there are really 96 Pesukim and 2 of the Pesukim are really one, or since it was only off by one it was a cute Siman? Some other reason?

  • 4
    The gematria of Tzav plus the kolel is 97. – Fred Mar 22 '13 at 19:59
  • i have seen that the minchas shai on 8:8 discusses this. i never looked. – yehuda hasaga Mar 23 '18 at 20:08

This sefer suggests that according the author of the "Mesora", Vayikra 7:22 and 7:23 may be joined together, based on a Rambam (quoted by Shach YD 275:6) that differentiates the former Possuk from all other instances in the Torah. However he later notes (in his comments to the end of Sefer Vayikra) that if one adds up the totals written at the end each Parsha it falls one short from the total claimed for the entire book of Vayikra unless one counts Tzav as having 97 Pesukim.

Wikipedia claims that, "It is a widespread mistake that Parshas Tzav has 96 ("צו") Pesukim; an error that was even made its way into a number of Seforim. However in actuality there are 97 verses in the Parsha".

See also page 9 of this pdf.

  • Note the Sefer-totals are Israeli while the Parsha-totals are Babylonian, so that's not such an issue. (recall in Israel they didn't have the same Parshas since they read it over ~3 years) – Double AA May 16 '17 at 19:48

There is also the following probability:

The Masoretic note at the end of the parashah is "Tzav Siman" without the number of verses. The Masoretes specifically omitted the number of verses, because from the first word Tzav on the 2nd pasuk it is 96 verses exactly.

  • 1
    Interesting. Is this your own idea? While it fits locally, that’s not usually how these notes work. – DonielF Mar 13 '18 at 22:59
  • I remember seeing it somewhere, but I do not know the original source. Note the similarity to Pekudei 92 "bli kol" siman that some printer may have misread as "without a siman" and therefore left it out. @DonielF – sabbahillel Mar 13 '18 at 23:08
  • @sabbahillel You know the Bli Kol thing is basically a joke, right? This answer a cute idea, but it has absolutely zero basis in fact. – Double AA Mar 13 '18 at 23:19
  • @DoubleAA Gosh, I had heard that as an actual answer. Thanks for clearing that up. – DonielF Mar 14 '18 at 0:08
  • @DonielF The mnemonic is עזיה or סבכי judaism.stackexchange.com/a/82887/759 Original mnemonics are always names from Tanakh. Everything else is a later addition/substitution. – Double AA Mar 14 '18 at 0:45

You must log in to answer this question.

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