Sunday, April 27, 2014

posts so far for parshat Emor

1. The parameters of Charum -- what is this blemish?

2. Does Ach only mean 'but'? Does it everThis is obviously a derasha rather than simple peshat. Because nowhere would we think to exclude some subset of the people. If anything, we would think only on Yom Kippur do we get atonement but not on other days.

3.  YUTorah on Emor


1.  Emor sources, 2012 edition -- further expanded.

2. The trup and parsing of מִקְרָאֵי קֹדֶשׁ --  Shadal wishes to interpret is against the trup. Read on and see if you can make heads or tails of it. I quite likely messed it up. So, currently, consider this a work in progress.

3. The trup on הַשַּׁבָּת הַשְּׁבִיעִת תִּסְפְּרוּ -- Shadal explains what the trup would have to be to support Rashi's parse of this famous pasuk.

4. The anomalous alef-dageish in ממושבותיכם תביאּו -- On a previous post on parashat Emor, Steg posed the following question: Any idea about the anomalous alef-dageish in ממושבותיכם תביאּו? It's fun to pronounce... I try to address this in this post.

5. YU Torah on parashat Emor

6. A literal eye for an eye -- according to Ibn Caspi, Ibn Ezra, Rambam, and Shadal. Plus, what is morally called for?

7. Precedence of a talmid chacham and a kohen gadol


  1. Emor sources -- further expanded. For example, many more meforshei Rashi.
  2. YUTorah on parashat Emor.
  3. יִקְרְח֤וּ written as יקרחה, etcetera -- Considering some Minchas Shais on parashat Emor.
  4. The kadma foretone in וְקִ֨דַּשְׁתּ֔וֹ, etcetera --  And whether it should be present. Again, elaborating upon Minchas Shai.
  5. בִבְתוּלֶ֖יהָ with two fricative vets, etcetera --  Continuing Minchas Shai on parashat Emor, Vayikra perek 21.
  6. Impure to the bone? Part ii --  Continuing a topic from last year on parshat Naso, about whether לטמי means bone or impure, and whether דאינשא should be present. 

  1. Emor sources -- revamped, with over 100 meforshim on the parasha and haftara.
  2. The tipecha on tisperu -- analyzing a suggestion that the trup indicates a division which corresponds to the halacha of counting 49 days rather than 50. I believe that it does not pan out.
  3. The difference between karet and ibud, and if there is such a difference, just because different pesukim utilize different terminology.
  4. When you cause to ascend the lamps -- What is bothering Rashi? He explains בְּהַעֲלֹתְךָ in a particular way in Behaalotecha, but is inconsistent elsewhere, in Emor, in explaining לְהַעֲלֹת נֵר תָּמִיד. Meanwhile the derasha is not initially on Behaalotecha. I consider Gur Aryeh, and then differ, and explain my own take on the matter.

  1. Shaving, as specifically for a meis? In part one, a possible peshat meaning; in part two, evidence from Yeshaya and Herodotus; in part three, evidence from Iyov and Yirmeyah.
  2. Emor sources -- links by aliyah and perek to an online Mikraos Gedolos, and links to many meforshim on the parshah and haftarah.
  3. Emor veAmarta -- is the duplication just normal Biblical style, or does it convey some special meaning?
  4. Where is the kohen's wife mentioned? Explicitly, implicitly, or not at all? And what is to be done for the married sister?
  5. The day after the Shabbat: what is it? First, why I think there is a compelling argument for the Rabbinic view, that it is the day after the first day of Yom Tov of Pesach. Second, why if we disagree with the rabbinic view, I would sooner adopt an explanation of it after the "week" of Pesach over the Karaite view. Third, the Karaite view, from Aharon ben Yosef, and my reaction to it. Fourth, Rav Shamshon ben Refael Hirsch's defense of the rabbinic position, based also on Rambam. Fifth, Shadal, and with him Ibn Ezra and Kuzari, that the Karaites are correct but that Saturday is just an example, but that it could be any day of Chazal's choosing. Still more planned, but we will see if I get to it.... Yes. Sixth, some concluding thoughts.
  6. Mum's the word -- grappling with the exclusion of maimed sacrifices and kohanim from the Temple service.
  1. LeNefesh lo yitamma beAmav, but which am and whose am? The class of deceased, or of potential actors? Rashi, Shadal, and my own suggestion. I assume in this post that it means the am of kohanim. This year (2009), I intend to offer a different suggestion.
  2. Covering one's sukkah with the arba minim, which might be based in part on a pasuk in parshat Emor. Part ipart iipart iiipart iv.
  • The Blasphemer Left -- But From Where?
    • It states vayetzei - but from where? Rashi: From the world. But which world? Of religiosity, from this world, from Olam haBa?
      Rabbi Levi says the same thing in Toledot about Esav. And refers to Golaith as well.
      Siftei Chachamim has a brilliant suggestion based on semichut, where olam is the immediately preceding word in our parsha. Of course, this is not the case elsewhere.
      An alternative, cited by Rashi: He went out, deriving from the contents of the previous parsha; or that he left the courtroom of Moshe, having lost his case. And some pointers as to what other textual cues spark this interpretation about a court case.
      Ibn Ezra says he left his tent. Perhaps he is reading emotion into this, based on his choice of prooftexts (Datan and Aviram), or perhaps not.
      Tg Yonatan explains that he left Egypt together with the Israelites, an explanation with great homiletic promise.
      Ramban associates it with the target location, betoch benei Yisrael.
      A discussion about what others do with betoch benei Yisrael. And a relation to the conversion of the blasphemer, or perhaps his father.
      Then, my own take on all of this, and the role of vayetzei.
  • No Punishment for Cursing/And Excusing the Woman Who Vows?
    • Cross-listed with Matot. A creative midrashic endeavor without the bounds of narrative and halachic derash.
  • Haftarat Emor: Yechezkel the Torah Scholar, Yechezkel the Prophet
    • Rather than harmonizing apparently contradictory laws between Torah and Yechezkel about who a kohen may marry, I point out what pesukim in Torah Yechezkel is apparently interpreting differently from Chazal. And argue that Yechezkel may do so as a Torah scholar, and not as a prophet. And Elu veElu. And hilchesa kebatrai, so we rely on Chazal's understandings of the same.

  • An "Eye" for an Eye: The Concept of Proportional Punishment
    • A discussion of "an eye for an eye" as it appears in parshat Emor. Chazal say it means monetary payment. I agree as a matter of peshat, not just derash. I examine the psukim in context, which is a contrast between the death penalty for one who murders a man, as opposed to monetary payment when one kills an animal. This contrast is repeated, framing the verses stating "an eye for an eye." One does not pay wergild for deliberately murdering a man, nor does one lose his life for killing an animal. We do see such payment in parshat Mishpatim if one's animal kills a man, and we see in the same chapter that there is monetary payment for injuring one's fellow (as opposed to being injured oneself). I made another analysis, coming to the same conclusion, for the "eye for an eye" mentioned in parshat Mishpatim.
  • The Blasphemer
    • A contrast between the Midrash which states that the Egyptian killed by Moshe in Egypt for striking the Hebrew was the father of the blasphemer, and that he had just slept with Shlomit, and the Midrash which states that when Moshe looked to and fro and saw there was no man, he saw into the future that there would be no descendant who would be part of the Jewish people. An obvious harmonization is that the reason Moshe looked for descendants was not that the merit of such descendants would save the Egyptian, who deserved what he got, but that by killing the Egyptian, he would be preventing said descendants from coming into being. This parallels the bloodguilt Kayin had not only for Hevel but for all of Hevel's descendants. Even had the blasphemer been an upright guy, he had already been conceived. I consider this idea and others in more detail on a post on parshat Shemot.
  • Is Blasphemy A Crime Even In America?
    • I note the case of a Hindu man suing a company for blaspheming Ganesh.
to be continued...

Wednesday, April 09, 2014

YUTorah on Acharei Mot

parsha banner

Articles on Acharei Mot
Parsha Sheets on Acharei Mot
Haftorah shiurim on Acharei Mot
New This Week

Tuesday, April 08, 2014

Acharei Mos: Why is the esnachta on לַפָּרֹכֶת?

The placement of the etnachta on the second pasuk in Acharei Mot seems a bit odd:

The etnachta usually marked the logical midpoint of the pasuk, yet this does not seem to be the case here. Namely, the etnachta is at the place of the double-dashes, [--]:
and the LORD said unto Moses: 'Speak unto Aaron thy brother, that he come not at all times into the holy place within the veil [--] before the ark-cover which is upon the ark; that he die not; for I appear in the cloud upon the ark-cover.
We should expect that it would appear after the word "ark", or after the phrase "that he die not", rather than in the middle of the description of the holy place.

Rabbi Yaakov Tzvi Mecklenburg, in his sefer haKsav vehaKabbalah, asks this very question:

He writes:

haKsav vehaKabbalah
"within the veil -- the author of the trup connected אֶל-פְּנֵי הַכַּפֹּרֶת [namely, the phrase immediately following the etnachta] with the end of the verse, rather than putting the break in the statement via the etnachta upon וְלֹא יָמוּת, for the primary reason that he should not come [there] is because of the revelation of the Divine Presence, and that is upon the ark-cover [kapores] between the cherubs. Therefore he placed the etnacha on the word לַפָּרֹכֶת."

I am not sure who רל"ש is. Anyone know?

Meanwhile, here is how Shadal addresses the issue:

"וְאַל-יָבֹא בְכָל-עֵת אֶל-הַקֹּדֶשׁ -- The trup assigned here is quite strange, for the etnachta should properly be under וְלֹא יָמוּת. [Josh: Here he rewrites the trup as it would be were the etnachta moved over.] And perhaps the position of the author of the trup is like Rabbi Yehuda [in Menachot 27b], that within the veil is a prohibition [punishable by lashes] while before the ark-cover is [punishable] by death:

 רבי יהודה אומר כל היכל כולו ומבית לפרכת בארבעים ואל פני הכפרת במיתה

'Rabbi Yehuda said: the entire heical as well as mibeit laparochet is with forty [lashes], while el penei hakapores is [punished] with death'. 

And it is further possible to say that perhaps, in the Second Temple, there was one who said that nowadays, that there is no ark and no ark-cover, it is fitting that it would be permitted to enter into the Holy of Holies. Therefore the Sages saw fit to split the statement in the verse as if it were two statements, namely 

  1. "that he come not at all times into the holy place within the veil" (even if there is no ark or ark-cover there, it is forbidden to approach there, and still)
  2. "before the ark-cover which is upon the ark" (do not come at all times) - "lest you die" -- 

[Thus] during the time that the ark is there, there is death, and at the time the ark is not there, there is not death, but there is still a prohibition [warning]. And the authors of the trup (who were after the closing of the Talmud) appointed the trup based on the reading which was received orally from the Sages of the Second Temple era."

I would note that the Chachamim in the gemara, as per the gemara's parsing, also separate the pasuk in an odd way:
רבנן סברי אל הקודש בלא יבא מבית לפרכת ואל פני הכפרת בלא ימות
ור' יהודה סבר אל הקודש ומבית לפרכת בלא יבא ואל פני הכפרת בלא ימות

The Malbim has the same idea as Shadal. In his commentary on the Sifra, HaTorah veHamitzvah, he writes the following.

"And the position of Rabbi Yehuda that מִבֵּית לַפָּרֹכֶת relates to the earlier part [of the verse], and also it is only with a warning [prohibition], and אֶל-פְּנֵי הַכַּפֹּרֶת alone falls under 'lest he die'. (And the author of the trup who pointed the etnachta upon the word לַפָּרֹכֶת, it appears that his position was like Rabbi Yehuda."
Meanwhile, William Wickes, in his book on the system of trup, on page 41-42, considers this pasuk to be one instance of many of a trup pattern which occurs during specification:

The red arrow points to where he mentions the specific pasuk:

In a lengthy footnote, #21, he discusses this pasuk and argues with Shadal, Malbim, Geiger and Dillman in attributing the trup to the interpretation of Rabbi Yehuda in Menachos. While he is not unwilling to say that trup, particularly strange trup, was influenced by Rabbinic interpretation, here he does not think it likely since Rabbi Yehuda is a daas Yachid. On the contrary, he suggests that perhaps Rabbi Yehuda drew on the trup (really caused by reason Wickes gave) in order to support his own unique position.

See also Rashi on Yoma 52b, d"h vayaalu olot kevasim:

If there is a nafka mina in disputes as to the proper trup, and if as Malbim and Shadal say, the trup is like Rabbi Yehuda, and if Rambam paskens like the Chachamim, should we change our trup to match?

Monday, April 07, 2014

posts so far for Acharei Mos

1. How do we get fasting from תְּעַנּוּ אֶת-נַפְשֹׁתֵיכֶם?

2. Who was the ish iti?


1. Acharei Mot sources -- further developed.

2. YUTorah on parshas Acharei Mos. And from 2013, YUTorah on Acharei Mot and Kedoshim.

3. Is marrying two sisters intrinsically or extrinsically obnoxiousWe consider the perspective of Rashi (intrinsically), Ibn Ezra (based on the land), and Ibn Caspi (who rejects Ibn Ezra and gives a rationalist reason for the prohibition). I suggest that it is extrinsically bad, based on intent and social mores.


  1. Achrei Mos sources -- further expanded.
  2. Is there a vav in וְעַל הַכֹּהֲנִיםYes and no. Is there some way of deciding between these competing masorahs?
  3. The trup on הַשֹּׁכֵן אִתָּם בְּתוֹךְ טֻמְאֹתָם -- The difference between our masorah in trup and that of the Teimanim. In this instance, there is no practical difference, according to the rules as explained by Wickes.
  4. Was Ibn Ezra killed by demons?  So goes the story, showing how Ibn Ezra got his comeuppance, after claiming that demons did not exist. Though whether he actually claimed this is uncertain. I don't really believe the story, though.
  5. Et zachar vs. Ve'et zachar --  Another analysis of the absence or presence of a leading vav. In this instance, our Masoretic text is supported by the Samaritan text.
  6. YUTorah on parashat Acharei Mot.

  1. Achrei Mot sources -- revamped, with over 100 meforshim on the parasha and the haftara, organized by sections, such as Rashi's supercommentators.
  2. What are 'their statutes'? Further thoughts -- Further thoughts on what was meant by the statutes we are not meant to follow, in parashat Acharei Mot. I consider the idea of mandated mariages, as well of prohibited marriages. In particular, if the places they left and they places they went also defined prohibited relations, but differently that Biblical law, one might be prone to thinking of Biblically prohibited relations as not true incest. Therefore, the instruction not to follow intheir statutes, but in our own.

  1. Acharei Mos sources -- links by aliyah and perek to an online Mikraos Gedolos, as well as a slew of meforshim on the parsha and haftara.
  2. Why mention that it was after the death of Aharon's two sons? -- and whether on a peshat level there is some connection, more than chronological proximity, between that tragic event and the instructions to the kohanim.
  3. What are "their statutes"? In plural, when the only statute seems to be Molech. Shadal suggests positive instructions regarding marrying these Torah-forbidden relatives, in situations akin to yibbum. I suggest an alternative, in which these particular set of relatives are considered fair game, and permitted, within the statutes of different societies.

  4. Did the designated man live out the year? The midrash brought down and expanded by Chizkuni, about how he did not, and how they therefore chose someone destined to die anyway that year. And some analysis of how this midrash might have formed.
  5. My theory about the runaway scapegoat, and how this could have been a Sadducee trick, year after year, in order to fulfill the Yom Kippur ritual in accordance with their own interpretation. And the text of the Yerushalmi I am basing this theory on.
  6. You can also check out DovBear's extensive blogging this year about the goat to Azazel.
  • Goral LaAzazel
    • Two issues: It looks like idolatry, and why do we push it off a cliff when the pasuk says to send it into the wilderness? Rashi, Shadal, and Aharon ben Yosef solve this in their own ways.
  1. The Goat to Azazel
    • may look like syncretism, but it really is sending it off to a place. Compare with the next perek which requires bringing sacrifices to the Ohel Moed as opposed to the demons of the field. A comparison to the birds of the metzorah. And a possible Sadducee trick of "losing" the goat in the wilderness before being able to push it off the cliff.
  2. דמו בנפשו
    • and how Ibn Ezra's comment on this verse is not evidence of ruach hakodesh showing knowledge of oxygenated vs. non-oxygenated blood. An excerpt:

      He noted that this commentary by Ibn Ezra seems to recognize a modern medical fact - that there is a dual circulation , one of oxygenated blood (blood carrying oxygen, the oxygen obtained from the lungs) and unoxygenated blood. Further, as we know, the oxygenated blood is pumped out of the left side of the heart, and the unoxygenated blood comes in to the right side of the heart. Ibn Ezra thus seems to know of arteries, which carry oxygenated blood, and veins, carrying unoxygenated blood.

      This would be astounding, for Ibn Ezra was born in 1092 and passed on in 1167, and it was only in 1628 that William Harvey suggested the modern model.
      I show why this assertion is incorrect.
  3. Speak, Speak
    • But say what?

      The problem is that we have the first pasuk saying that Hashem spoke to Moshe, but we are not told what He said. The second verse says that Hashem spoke to Moshe and states the contents of Hashem's speech.
      Two midrashic explanations, and then attempts at peshat explanations.
    1. BeDibur Echad: (this includes reference to the issur Bamot in parashat Acharei Mot and a related, slightly opposing laws in sefer Devarim)
      Different accounts, different perspectives
    2. A link to an Opinion Journal article: "These United States - Will same-sex marriage lead to incest and polygamy? Let's hope so!"
    3. Nadav and Avihu vs. Korach's Edah (also see posts on parshat Shemini on this)
      1. How the descriptions of act and death are similar, so perhaps the sin is similar. Yet the midrash directly contradicts this presumption. And how it does so.
    4. Seirim: post I, post II, post III.
      1. What were they and what were their role in the Israelite mind. In retrospect, I could have done these better...
    5. to be continued

    Sunday, April 06, 2014

    Who was the ish iti?

    יַד-אִישׁ עִתִּי?
    In Acharei Mot, in discussing the seir hamishtalaech, we find that the ish iti is the one who brings the goat to Azazel.

    Vayikra 16:21:

    כא  וְסָמַךְ אַהֲרֹן אֶת-שְׁתֵּי יָדָו, עַל רֹאשׁ הַשָּׂעִיר הַחַי, וְהִתְוַדָּה עָלָיו אֶת-כָּל-עֲו‍ֹנֹת בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל, וְאֶת-כָּל-פִּשְׁעֵיהֶם לְכָל-חַטֹּאתָם; וְנָתַן אֹתָם עַל-רֹאשׁ הַשָּׂעִיר, וְשִׁלַּח בְּיַד-אִישׁ עִתִּי הַמִּדְבָּרָה.
    21 And Aaron shall lay both his hands upon the head of the live goat, and confess over him all the iniquities of the children of Israel, and all their transgressions, even all their sins; and he shall put them upon the head of the goat, and shall send him away by the hand of an appointed man into the wilderness.

    I agree that the most straightforward meaning of Ish Iti is the man appointed for this task.

    Rabbi Yonah Ibn Janach (995-1050) in Sefer Hashorashim gives the following explanation, based on other pesukim in Tanach in which the word is used associated with people:
    איש עתי: חכם ובקי בדינים, יודע מה שיעשה בשעה
     ההיא, מל׳ יודע בינה לעתים (דה״א י״ב, ל״ג) וכן יודעי
     העתים (אסתר א׳ י״ג). (סה״ש 361).

    "איש עתי -- a scholar and expert in the laws, who knows what to do at the time, from the language of [I Divrei Hayamim 12:33]:

    לג  וּמִבְּנֵי יִשָּׂשכָר, יוֹדְעֵי בִינָה לַעִתִּים, לָדַעַת, מַה-יַּעֲשֶׂה יִשְׂרָאֵל--רָאשֵׁיהֶם מָאתַיִם, וְכָל-אֲחֵיהֶם עַל-פִּיהֶם.  {ס}33 And of the children of Issachar, men that had understanding of the times, to know what Israel ought to do; the heads of them were two hundred; and all their brethren were at their commandment. {S}

    and [Esther 1:13]:

    יג  וַיֹּאמֶר הַמֶּלֶךְ, לַחֲכָמִים יֹדְעֵי הָעִתִּים:  כִּי-כֵן, דְּבַר הַמֶּלֶךְ, לִפְנֵי, כָּל-יֹדְעֵי דָּת וָדִין.13 Then the king said to the wise men, who knew the times--for so was the king's manner toward all that knew law and judgment;


    End quote.

    Though to argue against this, there might be a difference between yode'ei haitim and ish iti.

    Friday, April 04, 2014

    posts so far for parashat Metzora

    1. The cause for metzora

    2. YUTorah for Metzora


    1. YUTorah on Tazria - Metzora.

    2. Metzora sources, 2012 edition.

    3. YUTorah on Tazria - Metzora for 2013.


    1. Metzora sources -- further expanded. For example, many more meforshei Rashi.
    2. Should our masoretic text read וְהַנּוֹשֵׂא as malei or chaser? As a followup to the 2010 post, with some more evidence as to Samaritan and Jewish readings, and an interesting tie-in to the Samaritan practices mentioned in the Mishna.
    3. YU Torah on parashat Metzora
    4. Darshening Rashi's wording of לעוף טמא -- Gur Aryeh correctly points out that something is a silly diyuk. Levush HaOrah defends the diyuk, but I agree with Gur Aryeh on this.
    1. Metzora sources -- revamped. With over 100 meforshim on the parsha and haftara, organized by topic.
    2. Are the Samaritans right in how to spell veHanoseiIn parashat Metzora, a Samaritan Torah variant recommends itself, for going against the grain of the typical Samaritan emendation. A gemara darshens like the Samaritan Torah, but against the Masoretic text, and this befuddles Rashi, who is unaware of the Samaritan variant. Or Torah and Minchas Shai step up to the plate and offer explanations of the gemara, forced to varying degree. Still, the most likely answer is that Chazal, here, were darshening the Samaritan text.
    3. The cedar, the strip of crimson, and the hyssop -- Why sprinkle the leper using these three? We might say that this is a chok, and we have know way of knowing. Or that it is a chok, and so there is no purpose, other than to fulfill the arbitrary Command of the King. Or we could suggest that it has some magic, or mystical power. I am not sure can really say that this is a cure for the leper, for this happens after the kohen determines he has been cured, but perhaps this is an additional cure, after the disappearance of the physical symptoms, in which case these items have some natural herbal impact on the condition. (Tanchuma does say לפיכך מתרפא על ידי אזוב.) Or else each of these three might symbolize something. If the last is true, then we can derive meaning from their use in this ceremony.
    • Metzorah sources -- great for preparing shnayim mikra. links by perek and aliyah to an online Mikraos Gedolos, plus a slew of meforshim on the parsha and haftara.
    • The Goat to Azazel
      • On Acharei Mot. In which I relate it the second bird of the korban of the metzorah.
    to be continued...

    Thursday, April 03, 2014

    Ish and Isha

    I'll solve this problem with just a dash of kefirah!

    According to Torah (Bereishit 2:23), the word אשה is derived from איש. Thus:
    כג  וַיֹּאמֶר, הָאָדָם, זֹאת הַפַּעַם עֶצֶם מֵעֲצָמַי, וּבָשָׂר מִבְּשָׂרִי; לְזֹאת יִקָּרֵא אִשָּׁה, כִּי מֵאִישׁ לֻקְחָה-זֹּאת.23 And the man said: 'This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh; she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man.'

    This is strange anyway because he was an איש and אשה already would be the natural feminine form of the word איש, so positing that it is because she was taking out of איש seems unnecessary. Like פר and פרה, where the פרה was not taken out of the cow. Is this the very first feminine noun?

    But a bigger problem seems that אשה is a cognate of אתתה, and the feminine form of אנש, with the dagesh in the ש representing the assimilated nun. As discussed on the Balashon blog at length (and see the entire post, it is good), quoting Horowitz in How the Hebrew Language Grew:
    Strange and unbelievable as it seems the word אשה has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with the word איש. In אשה in the first place a nun has fallen out; the word is really אנשה (insha). The plural נשים gives some hint of that. The really important fact, though, is that the shin of אשה is really a tav. In Aramaic the word for woman is either אתא or more commonly אתתא.
    We could posit all sorts of answers, such as that the etymology was based on assonance, and that is therefore OK. Or that this etymology in the Torah is fanciful. Or that Adam HaRishon didn't learn dikduk in Yeshiva Shem veEiver, because that was considered to secular a subject.

    But here, I will handily solve the problem by asking a pointed question or two about the Biblical text. Where in the world did that yud come from in the word איש? Yud was a consonantal letter, and only later adopted as one of the imot hakeriah (matres lectiones).

    And where in the world did that dagesh come from in the word אשה? The orthography of those points were only introduced post-Talmudically, just like nikkud and trup. Sure, it might well have reflected something about the pronunciation at the time the Masoretes wrote down that dagesh, but that pronunciation does not necessarily go all the way back to the time of the Sinai.

    The dagesh, when it was written, reflected a gemination of the sound, a doubling of the letter, which indeed reflects the assimilation of the nun and relatedly the closing of the short vowel chirik which preceded it, since a short-voweled unstressed syllable needs closing. But why not put in a yud into אישה and remove the dagesh from the shin?

    All of a sudden, the Biblical etymology works!

    So, you are making an etymology of אשה based on later insertions into the text and based on assumptions of the pronunciation and spelling of the words, and then asking about the veracity of the text? That won't work.

    YUTorah for parashat Metzora

    parsha banner

    Articles on Metzora 
    Parsha Sheets on Metzora
    Haftorah shiurim on Metzora
    New This Week


    Blog Widget by LinkWithin