Every so often, somebody emails or stops by to tell us that their davening has slowed down and improved because of things we point out in this column. That is wonderful, because this column, and Torah Tidbits in general is supposed to by more than somthing to read. It is our hope and prayer that many of the things in Torah Tidbits inspire and help towards better understanding and practice of many areas of Torah life. (And if we also put a smile on your face once in a while, that's good too.)
Look in Naso, 5:2 and 5:4. Look at two different things that happens to the word YI-SHALL'CHU. 

Y'SHALCHU • V'SHALCHU • VA'Y'SHALCHU

The word means They will/shall send (future tense). In 5:2, the prefixed VAV is a VAV HACHIBUR, a conjunctive VAV. The word now means AND THEY SHALL SEND OUT (still future tense). The VAV would ordinarily have a SH'VA, but before a SH'VAed YUD, the VAV gets a CHIRIK and the SH'VA under the YUD is dropped. The resulting word is VI-SHALL'CHA. In 5:4, the VAV is a VAV HAHIPUCH, the VAV that flips tense, in this case from future to past. It's usual vowel is a PATACH, and that is what we have here. The word is VAI-SHALL'CHA and it means AND THEY SENT OUT (past tense). The two words are not inter- changeable. Their meanings are different.

Now look at 5:15 KI MINCHAT K'NA-OT HU and 5:18 MINCHAT K'NA-OT HI (not hi like hello, hi like hee). In 5:15, the pronoun is masculine because its antecedent is KEMACH, the flour mentioned earlier in the pasuk. In 5:18, the pronoun is feminine because it refers to the MINCHA.

Now look at 5:24 V'HISHKA ET HA-ISHA - and he (the kohein) gave the women to drink. But in 5:27, It's V'HISHKAHHHH, with a MAPIK in the HEI, because the word is the verb to give to drink AND it includes the recipient of the drink, viz. the woman. 

These are little fine points, but once that are pointed out, we can appreciate the subtlety in them. At least, we hope they are appreciated. 

FEEDBACK
At least two TTreaders reacted to the comment in last week's TT about the pronunciation of the sedra and the Chumash - BAMIDBAR or B'MIDBAR, the former being the stand-alone form of "in the desert" and the latter being the "smichut" form, as in B'MIDBAR SINAI. They pointed out that there are other sedras whose names are in "smichut" form, and we keep them that way when we say the name of the sedra. SH'MOT, for example is a connective form, as in SH'MOT BNEI YISRAEL. But we don't call the sedra and Chumash SHEIMOT. Good point. So too with P’KUDEI (P’KUDIM), ACHAREI MOT (ACHAREI MAVET), B’HAR, (BAHAR), CHU- KAT (CHUKA), and MAS’EI (MASA’IM). So now I'm in favor of B'MIDBAR, the word as it appears in the Chumash. And what about the sedras with a HEI that we drop? Parshat HaMishpatim, etc.

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