Column #109. Contents of this weekly column are (mostly) based on the sefer: EIM LAMIKRA HASHALEIM, by R' Nissan Sharoni, Ashdod, a guide to correct pronunciation of Hebrew, specifically in davening and Torah reading.

Here's another letter on NASOG ACHOR and the rare DNA (double NASOG ACHOR, or as some would put it, the pseuso-double NASOG ACHOR).

DL writes...
... you mentioned that YA-am-du MA-yim (T’hilim 104:6) may not be a true example of DNA because the words are joined by a MAKAF. In fact, while many editions have a MAKAF and a secondary accent under YA-am-du, in the Aleppo Codex, which is the most accurate Masoretic manuscript of the Tanach ever compiled, and in modern editions based on it, there is no MAKAF. YA-am-du has its own TROP-mark, which although it looks just like a TIPCHA, is actually a TARCHA, which is a M’SHAREIT (conjunctive TAAM) in the system of TA’AMEI EMET. So YA-am-du MA-yim is a true example of DNA.

The same is true for another DNA caused by MA-yim, u-mi-MA-a’ma-kei MA-yim (T’hilim 69:15), and for YA-ar-fu TAL (D’varim 33:28). In all three cases, while many editions have a MAKAF, the Aleppo Codex (and at least one other Masoretic manuscript of the Ben Asher tradition in each case) has a separate TROP on the first word of the pair and no MAKAF. [Ed. note: Interesting that it is water - MA-yim and TAL (dew) - that are involved in these DNAs.]

(Back to DL) On the subject of NASOG ACHOR caused by MA-yim, here is a fascinating example: BO-kei’a MA-yim (Yeshayahu 63:12). It looks as if a MIL’EIL word (bo-KEI-a), which ought not to require NASOG ACHOR, has undergone NASOG ACHOR to place the accent on the third-to-last syllable, just like a rare DNA, but for no apparentreason. As you wrote, “Sometimes a word looks like a prime candidate for NASOGing ACHOR, but it doesn’t”. But the reverse, NASOGing ACHOR without reason, does not occur. So what is going on here?

I have heard an explanation that a PATACH G’NUVA in words such as RU-ach, ELO-ah and bo-KEI-a (a PATACH under a final guttural letter that is read as if it precedes the guttural), is not considered as a separate syllable, but is part of the previous syllable, the two adjacent vowels forming a diphthong. Hence, although these words appear to be MIL’EIL, they are in fact MIL’RA, and BO-kei’a MA-yim is a regular NASOG ACHOR situation from MIL’RA to MIL’EIL.

(What messes up this theory is that in most cases NASOG ACHOR does not occur in words with a PATACH G’NUVA, e.g. yo-DE’a TZA-yid in B’reishit 25:28 or ro-TZE’ach HU in Bamidbar 35:16.)

I wonder whether this has a practical consequence Towards Better Davening. Ought we to say in Ma’ariv, BO-ke’a YAM LIFNEI MOSHE instead of bo-KEI’a YAM?

I really don’t know.

Thank you DL for this addition to the DNA story. To people who are "into" this fine-tuning of pronunciation and DIKDUK, all this is no less fascinating than the discoveries of the double helix stucture and the four complementary bases, adenine and thymine or cytosine and guanine, of the other DNA.
EIN LAMIKRA HASHALEIM lists 17 verbs of the form AND YOU SHALL or AND I SHALL, which are all accented on the last syllable to indicate the tense-shift from past to future (or command), resulting from the VAV HAHIPUCH. Just two examples: v'ki-dash-TA (not v'ki-DASH-ta); v'ri-cham-TI (not v'ri-CHAM-ti). Careful attention must be paid to pronounce these words MILRA, because to accent the next-to-the-last syllable changes the meaning of the word from AND I WILL BE MERCIFUL to "and I was merciful", etc.

Here's another topic we've looked at in the past, but it fits for this Shabbat's reading to look at it again. Look at these words, with their TROP-marks. Read them over to yourself a few times, and pay attention to where you pause and for how long.

KOL H'O'SEH MELACHA B'YOM HA'SHABBAT MOT YUMAT
The backwards Z (or the angular S) under the word HA-OSEH is called a DARGA. The curved line with the dot inside the curve, under the word M'LACHA is called a T'VIR. These notes often come as a pair. The DARGA is a M'SHAREIT, meaning it leads its word to the following word without a pause, and makes its word part of a phrasewith the following word(s). The T'VIR is a MAFSIK, meaning that it is followed by a pause. In the case of T'VIR, the pause is slight. It is not as strong a pause as the one that follows the following pair of words, B'YOM HASHABBAT. They are TROPed with MERCHA (a M'SHAREIT) and TIPCHA (a MAFSIK of a higher category thanthe one the T'VIR is in). Properly read and paused, the words read ALL WHO DO M'LACHA <slight pause> ON SHABBAT DAY <longer pause> are SUBJECT TO A DEATH PENALTY.

The problem occurs because many people who read the Torah tend to pause for a longer time after the T'VIR than they do for the TIPCHA. This mistake is caused by the more elaborate melody of the DARGA-T'VIR combo than for the MERCHA-TIPCHA. The result in this case is, All who do m'lacha, on Shabbat they will be put to death. This is a distortion of the meaning of the pasuk. And, of course, should be avoided. The longer pause after the T'VIR is an extremely prevalent phenomenon and often requires retraining and re-education.

Here is the classic example of this problem, from the Maftir of Parshat Para.
HU YITCHATA VO BAYOM HA'SHLISHI U'V'YOM HA'SHVII YITHAR V'IM LO YITCHATA BAYOM HASHLISHI U'V'YOM HA'SHVII LO YITHAR
He (the one ritually defiled from contact with a dead body) is treated (with the potion of the Para Aduma ashes) on the third day and on the seventh day <pause> (and he then becomes) TAHOR (following the seventh day)...

Pausing longer after the T'VIR than after the TIPCHA will distort the meaning of the pasuk to: He is treated (sprinkled upon) on the third day, and on the seventh day he becomes TAHOR. NOT TRUE. He does NOT become TAHOR on the seventh day. He needs the PARA ADUMA POTION on both the third and the seventh day, in order to become TAHOR after the seven-day period (and after immersion in a MIKVA on the seventh day).

The second half of the pasuk has a very similar situation as the first half; its meaning can be distorted by sloppy pausing.

Don't think that it is just a careless BK (Baal Korei or Baal Kri'a) who can distort the meaning of the pasuk. Careless translators of the Chumash can do it too. Here's a correct translation in the Koren Tanach: If he purify himself with it on the third day and on the seventh day, he shall be clean...

And here's another translation (I won't mention which one): He shall purify himself with [the cow's ashes] on the third day, and on the seventh day he will become pure... TERRIBLE! (the second half of the pasuk is translated correctly, but that doesn't excuse to botched job on the first half of the pasuk.) But interesting that the TROP problem showed up in print.

[The Parshat Ki-Tisa Homepage]
[The TORAH tidbits Homepage] [How to use TORAH tidbits]
[About The OU/NCSY Israel Center] [About TORAH tidbits]
[www.ou.org]