jewish continuity
jewish heritage
jewish people
jews of america
jewish community
jewish history
jewish culture
judaism kabala
jewish tradition
jewish life
torah parsha
jewish links
jewish interest
jewish humor
jews Israel


Subscribe - FREE!



Sharing and caring
on the Internet

In Recognition Of
Aish Hatorah
- Reconnecting Jews To Their Heritage

Preserving a near-lost legacy and heritage.
Sharing and Caring on behalf of Torah Judaism

A Drop Of Dikduk Archives
- Devarim

Devarim Perek 3:16: And to the Ruvayni and Gadi I gave from the Gilad.......... And I commanded you at that time saying, "Hashem gave you this land as an inheritance armed you should go before your brothers.

The Question: The tense of the Pesukim seems to change in the middle. In the first part and in most of Moshe's speach to Bnai Yisroel, the third person is used. In the Pesukim regarding Bnai Reuvain and Gad going in the front of the army the tense is changed to second person as if Moshe is speaking directly to them.

The Answer: Rashi for the reason of the above question says in Posuk 18 that Bnai Reuvain and Gad were there at the time and therefore the tense of the Posuk is second person since he was speaking directly to them.

The Question: This still does not answer the reason of the Posuk changing from third person to second. Why if Bnai Reuvain were there in the beginning why does it refer to them in third person?

The Ebn Ezra following the interpretation of Rav Shwab in Mayan Bais Hashoevah understands that the speech is being given to Shevet Reuvain and Gad. The reason for the second person tense being used is because when Bnai Gad and Reuvain went to conquer the land, they did so on behalf of all of Bnai Yisroel. They were the messangers to be the warriors for all of Bnai Yisroel. When he was speaking to them it was as if he was speaking to all of Bnai Yisroel. For this reason the second person tense is used since when he is speaking to Bnai Gad and Reuvain about going to war he is in essence speaking to all.

The Statement: Devarim Perek 3:19 "Rak Neshaychem Vetapchem Oomiknaychem" rather your wives and your children and your cattle. In both the words Tapchem and Miknaychem a Vav Hachibur is present to attach all the subjects that we are talking about.

The Problem: In Yehoshua Perek 1:14 the same subjects are mentioned without the Vav Hachibur before the word Tapchem. Why in Devarim does it place a Vav before the word Tapchem and not in Yehoshua?

The Solution: Rav Yakov Kamenetsky in his Sefer Emes L'Yakov explains the difference between the two places. Generally when we have three objects that are of the same importance the first two have no Vav followed by the last one which has a Vav. An example is the stones of the Choshen where it lists three stones and only the last one has a Vav Hachibur. Since all stones are equal the Vav Hachibur is put at the end of the list. In Sefer Yehoshua the people Yehoshua is addressing is the children of Gad and Reuvain and Menashe. They were guilty of equating the children with their cattle and material possessions as Rashi says Bamidbar 32:16. Therefore in Yehoshua the Vav Hachibur is at the end to tell us that the tribes held them all to be equal children wives and cattle.

In Devarim Moshe is addressing the entire people. He believes that the children and wives are not equal to the cattle but rather are more important therefore he places two Vavim in the Posuk. One by the word VeTapchem and one by Oomiknaychem to point out that they are not all equal. Wives and children are a much higher priority than the cattle.

In Bamidbar 32:26 when the tribes make the request for the other side of the Yarden the Posuk says: Tapaynoo Nashaynoo Miknaynoo Vechol Behemtaynoo. Again using the Posuk uses the Vav Hachibur only at the end. This is because the tribes equated all of the components of the list and therefore the Vav Hachibur is used only at the end.

The Statement: Perek 1:8 "BoUh Urshu Es Haaretz" Come and possess the land. Perek 1:24 "Vayifnoo Vayaloo Hahara" And they turned and went up to the mountain. In both instances the first word has a Taam that is a Mafsik. In the case of BoUh it is a Yesiv. In the case of Vayifnoo it is a Pashta which is a Mafsik also.

The Reason: The Shaarei Zimrah in Shaar 5 Paragraph 8 offers a very interesting rule in this week's Parsha. When we have two verbs one after the other generally the first is given a Taam Mesharayse and the second a Taam Mafsik such as "VaEkode VaEshtachaveh"

And I bowed and prostrated to Hashem in Breishis 24:48. This is the proper Taamim when both verbs relate to the subject equally. In this case the bowing and the kneeling both relate to Hashem and the Taam is a Mesharayse then Mafsik combination.   However if both verbs are not related to the subject but rather one is a preparation for the other such as "VaTemaher VaTear Kadah" And she hurried and emptied her pitcher, in Bereishis 24:20. In this instance the hurrying is a preparation for the second action emptying her pitcher. It is describing the preparation that was done for the second action. In cases such as these the first action "VaTemahar (she hurried) is given a Taam Mafsik (in this case a Revii) followed by VaTear (and she emptied) which is given a Taam Mesharays (a Munach).

In our Parsha too, "BoUh Urshu Es Haaretz" Come and possess the land the word BoUh is a preparation for the possessing of the land, therefore it also has a  Taam Mafsik (aYesiv) on the first action. Similarly "Vayifnoo Vayaloo Hahara" And theyturned and went up to the mountain also has a Taam Mafsik on the first action of turning since it is only a preparation for the going up the mountain.

The Exception: Devarim Perek 1: 21 "Aleh Raish KaAsher Debare Hashem" Go up and possess it as Hashem has spoken. In this instance the going up is a preparation or a first step in possessing the land. Yet the Taam is a Mesharayse followed by a Mafsik combination on the verbs. Aleh has a Munach followed with a Revii on the word Raish. Following the rule of the Shaarei Zimrah it should be a Mafsik on the first verb since it is only a preparation for the second action.

The Reason: The Shaarei Zimrah explains that when one action is a preparation for the next generally it is given a Mafsik then Mesharayse combination. An exception is given when the second verb does not follow with a Vav Hachibur. If the second word does not have a Vav Hachibur such as "Aleh Raish" then the rule is not followed but rather it is given a Taam Mesharayse then Mafsik combination.

    The Statement: Devarim 4:10 "Yom Asher Amadeta Lifnei Hashem Elokecha Bechorev" The day which you stood before Hashem in Horeb. The Taamim on the words Lifnei Hashem Elokecha Bechorev is a Munach Zarka and Munach Segol combination.

    The Reason: We have discussed the Munach Segol combination many times. Sometimes it is used to give stress since it is the third largest Mafsik in the Posuk. Only the Esnachta and Sof Posuk give more stress. Other times it may be used when the statement is seemingly unnecessary. In the instance here in this week's Parsha we have another scenario where the Munach Segol combination will be used. That is when the words should really be part of the Posuk beforehand. If the words would seem to be part of the preceding Posuk then the Taam may also be a Munach Segol combination.

    The Proof: Rashi on the words Yom Asher Amadeta states that these words belong in the previous Posuk. "That your eyes saw on the day that you stood before me on Har Sinai. Rashi is clearly connecting this Posuk with the previous Posuk.

    Shaarei Zimrah Shaar 6 Paragraph 7

The Statement: Devarim Perek 8:7 Mayveeacha El Eretz Tovah, Eretz Nachalay Mayim Ayanos. I am bringing you to a good land. A land filled with streams of water and springs.

The Rule: When an Esnachta is placed on a word such as Mayim (water) the Patach sounds changes to a Kamatz. The Esnachta that denotes a pause, stresses the syllable and makes it more pronounced.

The Question: In this Posuk the word Mayim has a Taam of a Zakef Katan and yet it is given a Kamatz instead of the usual Patach sound.

The Answer: Rav Yaakov Kamenetsky in his sefer Emes L'Yaakov explains the replacing of the Patach with a Kamatz. The structure of the Pesukim is that for three subsequent Pesukim the Torah will tell us the attributes and description of Eretz Yisroel. It will spend three Pesukim to describe the land to which Hashem will be bringing them. The secone part of our Posuk begins the description of Eretz Yisroel. It is as if a new Posuk is beginning after the Esnachta that will begin the long description of Eretz Yisroel. Since the Zakaf Katan is the largest pause in this "new" Posuk it receives a Kamatz on the word Mayim as if an Esnachta was the Taam.

The Statement: Devarim 7:13 "Degancha VeSiroshcha VeYitzhorecha" Your grain and your wine and your oil. The Taamim are a Kadmah VeAzlah over Degancha and a Munach Revii over VeSiroshcha VeYitzhorecha.

The Rule: Generally when a list of three objects is given, the first one receives a Taam which is a Mesharays followed by a Taam Mafsik and the last one is also a Taam Mafsik. An Example is Shmos 1:3 Yissachar, Zevulun and Binyamin, in this case the words are given a Taam Mesharays followed by two Mafsikim. Further examples of this may be found in Shmos 25:3 Zahav Vachesef Unechoshes the first Taam is a Marecha a Mesharays followed by a Tipcha which is a Mafsik under Vachesef. Another example is in Shmos 28:17-20 where it lists the stones of the Choshen. In each instance the first stone is given a Taam of Mesharays followed by the second stone having a Mafsik for a Taam.

The Problem: Why in the Posuk in this week's Parsha is Degancha given a Taam Mafsik of a Kadmah VeAzlah? Following the previous rule it should have a Taam Mesharays since it is the first of three articles to be listed.

The Solution: When the articles which are second and third are more closely related then the first two articles, then the Taamim will change. In this case since the second and third are more closely related they will be grouped together. In this instance since wine and oil are liquids as compared to wheat which is a solid the wine and oil are grouped together. Therefore in this instance the wine and oil are grouped separately and apart from the wheat. It is for this reason that the wheat is given a Taam Mafsik and the wine and oil are given a Mesharays and Mafsik combination.

The Proof: Devarim 28:51 the word Dagan is given a Mafsik followed by Tirosh VeYitzhor with a Mesharays Mafsik combination. The same is true in Chagai 1:11 and in Yirmiyah 31:11.

The Statement: Perek 17:8 "Ki Yepalay Memcha Davar" When it will be covered from
you something. The Taamim on the words Memcha Davar are a Kadmah V'Azlah.

The Rule: The Taamim are divided into two groups Melachim and Mesharsim. A Taam
which is a Melech will denote a pause after the word in which it appears. A Taam which is
a Mesharays will connect it to the following word.

In general when any word ends with a AHOY Alef Heh Vav or Yud and the next word
begins with a BGD CFS Bet Gimmel Dad Chaf Feh or Taf these letters will not take a
Dagesh and will have a soft sound. However, if the Taam is a Taam Melech that appears
in the word that ends in AHOY then the following word will begin with a Dagesh, the
harder sound.

The Taamim Kadma and Pashta appear to be the same. They sound the same and are
represented by the same symbol. Yet, the Kadma is a Mesharays and the Pashta is a Taam
Melech. This difference is significant when the word with the Pashta or Kadma ends in
AHOY and the following word is a BGD CFS word. For, if the Taam is a Kadma which is
a Taam Mesharays then the BGD CFS will remain soft and if the Taam is a Pashta which
is a Taam Melech then the BGD CFS will receive a Dagesh and have a hard sound.

To differentiate between the Pashta and Kadma the Pashta is always placed above the last
letter. This is even if the accent and Taam is read on a letter earlier in the word. In some
Chumashim, in this case, a second Pashta will be appear on the accented letter.

The Kadma on the other hand will not be placed on the last letter of the word. It is usually
placed on the second to last letter of the word, if the Taam of the word is at the end.
There are instances of a Kadma on the last letter of the word and one example is the
words Memcha Davar in this week's Parsha. In order to differentiate it from the Pashta
which would also appear on the last letter the Kadma is placed in the middle of the last
letter and not on the end of the last letter.

The Statements: Devarim Perek 21:11 Vechashakta Vah and Devarim 21:14 Eem Lo Chafatzta Bah.

The Question: Why in the first Posuk is the word Vah without a Dagesh in the Vet and in the second Posuk the word Bah receives a Dagesh Kal?

The Rule: When a word begins with a BGD CFS (Bet, Gimmel, Dalet, Chaf, Peh, or Saf) it usually will have a Dagesh sound. When a word ending with AHOY (Alef, Heh, Vav, or Yud) precedes the BGD CFS word the BGD CFS letters will not receive a Dagesh and will remain soft.

The Exception: When the BGD CFS word has an accent or Taam on the first syllable and the preceding word does not have the accent or Taam on the last syllable but rather there is an unaccented syllble that separates the two Taamim the AHOY rule will not apply. In this case the BGD CFS letter will have a Dagesh Kal. Since in the words Chafatzta Bah there is an unaccented syllabe separating the two Taamim that is caused by the Taam on Chafatzta not being on the last syllable, the word Bah receives a Dagesh Kal and has a hard sound.

The Question on the Exception: In Devarim Perek 22:19 "And they will punish him Mayah Chesef (one hundred silver)." In this case the accent is on the first syllable of Mayah which creates an unaccented syllable between the Taamim yet the word Chesef does not receive a Dagesh Kal in the Chaf.

The Exception to the Exception: If the Kamatz sound at the end of the word preceding the BGD CFS is part of the root or Shoresh of the word (such as in the case of Mayah) then the BGD CFS will remain soft even when there is a syllabe that separates the Taamim. If the Kamatz is not from the Shoresh such as in the case of Chafatzta where the Kamatz represents the pronoun "you" then the BGD CFS will receive a Dagesh Kal if there is a syllable between the Taamim.

The Statement: Devarim 22:24 "Al Dvar Asher Lo Tzaka Bair........ Al Dvar Asher Eenah Eishis Raayhu" And you should stone them and they will die. The woman because she did not scream in the city, and the man because he violated his freind's wife. And you should destroy the evil from your midst.

The Problem: The Taamim on the action that the woman does is different than the Taamim on the action that the man does. On the man's actions it says Al Dvar with a Marecha Tipcha combination connecting it to the following word Asher Eenah. This is in contrast to the woman's actions where the Taamim are a Pashta on the words Al Dvarfollowed by a Zakef Katan on the words Asher Lo Tzakah Bair. Why do the actions of the man have different Taamim then the actions of the woman.

The Solution: The Shaarei Zimrah in Shaar 5 Paragraph 9 explains the difference in Taamim. When referring to the reason why the man is killed a Marecha is used. The Marecha is a Taam Mesharays a Taam that does not denote any pause. That is because the punishment for the man who committed this sin is clear and concise. It was certainly a willfull act and needs no deep thought or investigation to find him guilty.   The punishment for the woman who committed such an act needs a bit more investigation. One must determine if she cried or was silent? Did it take place in the city or fields? For this reason the Taam is a Pashta which is a Taam Mafsik. The Taam Mafsik tells us that the punishment for the woman is not so simple. One must pause and investigate thoroughly before punishing her. Therefore the Taam on the Dvar which concerns the woman is a Pashta a Taam Mafsik to denote a pause or stop to contemplate.

The Statement: Devarim Perek 21:11 "Aishas Yefas Toar" a woman of beauty. Rashi notes that one is permitted to take in the course of war even a woman who has been previously married.

The Rule: In the Torah we have a concept of Semichos. It is used when a noun is leaning on or belongs to another noun. It is used in place of the word Shel which means belonging to. Semichos can be expressed in many ways sometimes with a Yud at the  end of the wordsuch as Bnai Yisroel "the children of Yisroel." It can be expressed by changing the vowels such as Bayit turning into Bays to show that the house belongs to someone. It can also be expressed by adding a Tav at the end of the word. Shenas Hamaasar "the year of tithes" instead ofusing the words Shanah shel Maasar.

The Answer: In our Posuk the Torah uses the words Aishas Yefas Toar. The word Aishas is a Somuch or a leaning word. It should be connected to the next word and show subordination to the word thatl follows. Yet the words Yefas Toar (beauty) are not connected to the word Aishas. Therefore Rashi understood that the word  Aishas isindependent. It is a Somuch to a word that is not in the Posuk, it is leaning on the word Eesh man which is not in the Posuk. The Posuk is saying that even if she is an Aishas Eesh previously married she may still be taken in the war. The word Eesh is  self understood. The word Aishas is a Somuch attached to the word Eesh and the word Eesh isself understood.

The Proof: One may see this from the Taam also. The Taam under the word Aishas is a Tipcha which is a Taam Mafsik. This tells us that the word Aishas is not attached to the word Yefas Toar as is usually the case in a Somuch situation. In our case since the word Aishas is not Somuch to the following word the Taam does not connect them.

Ki Savo

The Statement: Perek 28:63 Vehayah KaAsher Sos Hashem Aleychem Lehaytev Eschem Ooleharbos Eschem Kayn Yasis Hashem Aleychem LeHaavid Eschem. "And it will be just as Hashem your G-d rejoiced over you to be good to you and to multiply you, so Hashem will cause them to rejoice over you to destroy you." Rashi explains Kayn Yasis that Hashem will cause your enemies to be happy that you are being destroyed

The Rule: The Shoresh of the word Sos (to rejoice) is Sin Vav Sin, Sos. When used in the past tense such as he was happy we say Hoo Sas with a Kamatz under the first Sin. In future tense we say Hoo Yasoos he will be happy. An similar example is the word Kom which means to arise. In the past tense it is Hoo Kam he arose and in the future it is Hoo Yakoom he will arise.

The Problem: In our Posuk when referring to the future the word is Yasis not Yasoos which would be the way of saying the future tense he will be happy.

The Answer: In our Posuk the Torah uses the word Yasis which is Loshon Hipheel. Hipheel is the Binyan which refers to a subject causing something or someone else to do something. In our case the word Yasis is from the Binyan Hipheel. It is not referring to Hashem rejoicing but rather the actions of Hashem will cause others to rejoice. Rashi is explaining the Posuk with the Gemorah in Megilah 10b that says that Hashem is never happy when our enemies are being punished and certainly not when Bnai Yisroel are being punished. The Gemorah derives this from the change of the word from the simple past tense to a future tense of Hipheel. The change reflects that Hashem is not the one rejoicing but rather his actions will cause others to rejoice.

    The Statement: Devarim 31:28 "V'Aedah Bam Es Hashamayim V'es Haretz" And I will have the heaven and earth say testimony concerning them.

    The Rule: When a word beginning with a Bet is preceded by a word endingwith AHOY (Aleph Heh Vav or Yud) then the Bet turns to a soft sound and takes a Vet sound.

    The Problem: In this case why does the word Bam begin with a Bet? Sincethe preceding word "V'Aedah" ends with a Heh the following word "Bam" should begin with the soft Vet sound and be "Vam." 

    The Solution: 1) When the first in a group of words should have the Taamand accent on the last syllable, 2) and the second word has the Taam and accent on the first letter and 3) there is no syllable in between, then the Nasog Achor rule applies.

    The rule called Nasog Achor says that in this situation, instead of putting the Taam and accent on the last syllable of the first word we move it back one syllable. The Taam of the word V'Aedah should really be on the last syllable but since the Taam on the following word Bam is on the first letter therefore the Taam on V'Aedah is movedback a syllable. The Taam is therefore under the E of V'Aedah. In cases where the Nasog Achor rule is used the rule that turns a Bet to a Vet does not apply. This causes the Bam to keep it's hard Bet sound instead of turning to Vet sound.


    The Statement: Perek 30:3 Veshav Hashem Elokecha Es Shevooscha. And Hashem will bring back your captured ones.

    The Problem: The word Shav is from those words that in the Shoresh form have a Vav as the middle letter but lose the Vav when referring to the action being done. As we discussed last week the word Kam which means to arise is another example. In the past tense it is Hoo Kam (missing the Vav) he arose and in the future it is Hoo Yakoom he will arise. In both these cases it refers to an action that he has performed or is performing presently regarding himself. This is called a Poel Omed. The action that is being done is not being received by any other party other than the one doing the action. That would be the meaning of the word Veshav, and he returned, where noone else is receiving the action.   It would seem in our Posuk it is the captives that are receiving the action. They are being returned by Hashem. They are the subjects of a Poel Yotze, a verb that is directed to them, for they are being returned. If that is the case, the verb should be from the Hepheel group since it is causing something to happen to someone else. The word should be Vehayshiv with a Heh as a prefix as is the nature of the Hepheel group.

    The Answer: Rashi explains that the reason the Torah uses the form of the verb which is not Hepheel is to tell us that Hashem's Shechina is also in Golus and will return with the Jewish people when we are redeemed. Veshav is referring to the Shechina itself that it too will return. If this is the case then the Posuk is saying Veshav Hashem Elokecha And Hashem will return Es Shevoosch with your captives. The Es is not saying that whom he will bring back, but rather is being used in the Posuk in place of the word with. An example of this is the first Posuk in Sefer Shmos: "These are the names of the children of Yisroel that came to Mitzrayim Ays Yakov". In this Posuk the word Ays means with. These are the names of the children that came with Yakov to Mitzrayim.

    An interesting fact: The Vilna Gaon in Bereishis Perek 1:1 on the word Ays Hashamayim explains that the word Ays can be one of two forms. One is from the   Shores Ohs and theVav in the middle disappears when used as a verb. This is the Es or Ays that is used as part of the Binyan Hipheel that refers to an action being done to something else. There is another type of Ays or Es which is from the Shoresh Eetas and is from the group of words with double letters as part of its Shoresh. This type of Es or Ays is the one that means with or together with. It is for this reason that we say Ohscha which means you. When we say with you we say Eetcha. This is because they come from different roots. The root of Ohscha is Ohs and drops its Vav when being used as Es or Ays. The root of the word Eetcha is Alef Taf Taf. It drops a Taf when being used in the Es or Ays form.

The Statement: Devarim 32:12 "Hashem Baddad Yanchenu" Hashem alone will lead them.

The Argument: In the commentaries there is a difference of opinion as to what the word Baddad (alone) is referring to. In the Ebn Ezra the understanding is that the alone is referring to Hashem. That Hashem will lead the Jewish people without aid from anything else. As the Posuk says: By the word of Hashem they will travel and by the word of Hashem they will camp. The Rashbam also understands the word alone referring to Hashem. That Hashem alone took them out of Mitzvayim.  Rashi understands the Baddad of the Posuk referring to the travels of Yisroel. That when they traveled they were secure. They were confident and sure of their traveling. In this interpretation the Baddad is referring to the travels. The Ebn Ezra also brings the possibility of the word Baddad referring to the Jewish people and not referring to Hashem, as the previous commentaries explain the words.

The Proof: It would seem that the Taamim would follow the interpretation of Rashi that the Baddad is referring to the travels of Bnai Yisroel. The Taamim is a Tipcha which is a Taam Mafsik on the word Hashem. This would seem to say that the word   Baddad is notattached or explaining the word Hashem but rather explaining the word Yanchenu and telling us that the travels of Yisroel were secure. The Taamim would seem to follow the explanation of Rashi.

Return To A Drop Of Dikduk



In Loving Memory Of Our Father, Mr. Joseph Black (Yosef Ben Zelig) O"H
In Loving Memory Of Our Mother, Mrs. Norma Black (Nechama Bas Tzvi Hirsh) O"H


Rabbi General's Warning: Unbridled web surfing is not recommended. Navigate the web with caution. Use the Internet in a way so that it enhances quality of life for yourself as a person, as a family member, and as a member in society. The Internet can enhance the mastery of Torah knowledge and it can also interfere. If you are able to study in a Bet Medrash at this time then you should do so right now.

© 1996- by Harlan Black, JewishAmerica. All rights reserved.