5

In Vayikra 14:19, there are different versions of the trop, and unlike most of them, this difference causes a change in the meaning of the words:

וְכִפֶּ֕ר עַל־הַמִּטַּהֵ֖ר מִטֻּמְאָת֑וֹ

(zakef-gadol, tipcha, etnachta)

and he will bring atonement for (the one becoming pure from his impurity)

(This is the one I've seen in most places, including Artscroll and Mechon Mamre; Simanim ascribes it to the Keter and תאג' תורה קדומה [I have no idea what that is])

or:

וְכִפֶּ֥ר עַל־הַמִּטַּהֵ֖ר מִטֻּמְאָת֑וֹ

(mercha, tipcha, etnachta)

(and he will bring atonement for the one becoming pure) from his impurity

(Simanim gives this as the default, and Koren uses this one)

It's possible that this has halachic ramifications: if it's the first option, the Kohen should primarily concentrate on the tzaraat itself; if it's the second, he should focus on the lashon hara or whatever caused the tzaraat.

At the end of the day the two are linked, and I assume bedieved the korban would be valid anyway. I wouldn't call it a huge difference, but it's much larger than, for example, zeicher/zecher or lifneihem/bifneihem. Although changes of a letter have consequences for the validity of a Sefer Torah, I don't know of any other cases that result in a bigger change in meaning than this one.

  • Where do the two versions come from, and what are the arguments in each direction?
  • Does anyone specifically discuss the difference between them?
  • Is the difference in meaning significant enough that if you read the wrong one, you are not yotzei?
  • Have there been recommendations to read both? (I've never heard such a thing.)

(The practical aspect is moved here)

Community
  • 1
Heshy
  • 9,136
  • 1
  • 16
  • 35
  • possible dupe https://judaism.stackexchange.com/q/11290/759 https://judaism.stackexchange.com/q/30704/759 – Double AA Apr 24 '17 at 13:58
  • 1
    Why would we not deal with this like any other 'doubt' about the text of Tanakh: follow the majority of old reliable texts? Why is this worse than cases of different spellings, etc.? I don't understand what is different here. There are dozens of variations in Trop if you look around. Please edit to clarify. – Double AA Apr 24 '17 at 14:01
  • 2
    Q on the 2nd cited version: Do we elsewhere see verses that explicitly express: kapara from tumah? – Loewian Apr 24 '17 at 14:07
  • @Loewian Good point! Vayikra 16:16, maybe. Not really in Rashi, but the Ibn Ezra seems to say it's more general. וטעם וכפר על הקדש - להיות הדם כופר שלא ישחת בעבור טומאת הטמאים. I don't really get what he's saying though. – Heshy Apr 24 '17 at 14:19
  • I'm not following your explanation of the two definitions. I'm not suggesting an edit to your question, as it's prob. my lack of understanding how the trope yields these two definitions. Could you rephrase your main points? – DanF Apr 25 '17 at 16:13
  • @Loewian now that it's a year later: yes we do, twice, later in the parsha. 15:15 and, more explicitly, 15:30. Since they're nearby, this actually supports the mercha version. – Heshy Apr 19 '18 at 14:39
  • @Heshy I would also support the Mercha version, but because we never see the Mitaher called a "Mitaher Mitumaso", and if we would, it should be one of the first times that the word Mitaher appears (like 14:4,7), not randomly now. – רבות מחשבות Apr 20 '18 at 17:34
  • @רבותמחשבות yeah I was kind of leaning the same way, but on the other hand both the Keter (according to Simanim) and Leningrad have the zakeif gadol, and it doesn't seem right to move away from them. I have to lein tomorrow and I'm probably going to go with the zakeif, unless you can convince me otherwise in the next couple hours. I'm in a position of having to make a decision that affects whether the whole tzibbur is yotzei Krias Hatorah, and most of them don't even know it :(. I'm surprised this isn't more famous than zeicher zecher. It should be. – Heshy Apr 20 '18 at 17:48
  • @Heshy I will lein it with a mercha, as I have in the past. At the end of the day, the minhag (and Pesak of some Poskim) is not to worry about little changes like this, even if they change the meaning. Although my usual policy is to check the chumashim that the kahal has before, and lein what I see there in cases of conflict... – רבות מחשבות Apr 20 '18 at 18:07
  • @רבותמחשבות בלב איש ועצת ה' היא תקום! Turns out it was someone's bar mitzvah parsha and he wanted to do a couple aliyos, including this one. He used a mercha. – Heshy Apr 22 '18 at 12:21
  • @Heshy I asked a local dikduk expert who felt that even with a zakef katon, the breakdown would still be "(and he will bring atonement for the one becoming pure) from his impurity", although since then I thought of another factor וְהִזָּה עַל הַמִּטַּהֵר מִן הַצָּרַעַת שֶׁבַע פְּעָמִים... (14:7) – רבות מחשבות Apr 22 '18 at 13:32
  • I don't think that the Simanim Tikkun is saying that the Keter (i.e., the AC) has zaqef gadol. Whether you agree with me comes down to what you think the phrase ובתאג׳ תורה קדומה means. I think it means "and in an ancient taj Torah," which to me means an ancient Masoretic Torah manuscript. – bfd Jul 06 '23 at 18:13
  • [continuing] Yes, taj is just Arabic for crown, which is keter in Hebrew, but the two words have different usage, and my impression is that when people mean the AC, they use keter not taj. Anyway, we lack the definite article. I.e., I would translate this is "a taj" not "the Taj/Keter." We don't know which manuscript they are referring to since they are vague. Perhaps they don't get into specifics because they view their audience as primarily non-academic. – bfd Jul 06 '23 at 18:13

0 Answers0