V'kamu n'dareha

Mesorah
1

In the first parasha of Matot there are 3 p'sukim with similar wording in
their second halves:
30:5 and 30:12 - V'kamu kol n'dareha v'chol isar asher as'ra al nafshah
yakum.
30:8 - V'kamu n'dareha ve'esareha asher as'ra al nafshah yakumu.

In 30:5 and 30:12 the major division of the half pasuk is indicated by a
zakef katon on n'dareha. This is to be expected, as each of the two
phrases has its own verb.

In 30:8, however, there is a r'via on nedareha. The major division of the
half pasuk is not there but at the tipcha under nafshah. This is
surprising, as the result is that both v'kamu and yakumu refer to both
n'dareha ve'esareha. Two essentially identical verbs appear to be
unnecessary. A zakef katon on n'dareha would appear to be more logical in
this pasuk also.
Any explanation?

Danny

2

Is it possible that the that the second part if the פסוק is broken up like the first? (As it is in the other two.). Or that the absence of the words כל make it more likely not to have a זקף?

Zuki

3

R' Zuki,

Your first suggestion is interesting but it would need some support from
other places to show that the Mesorah sometimes forgoes the precise
division of p'sukim in favor of a more harmonious trop sequence.

I don't think that the absence of 'kol' is the reason for the r'via,
although the pashta on v'kamu would probably need to change to a munach to
allow a zakef on n'dareha.

Danny

‫בתאריך יום ב׳, 12 ביולי 2021 ב-0:19 מאת ‪Yitzchak Gottlieb‬‏ <‪
zukigottlieb@gmail.com‬‏>:‬

4

R’ Danny,

Breuer (chapter 15, 24) brings a long list of example where the precise division of the פסוקים is ignored in favor of other considerations. In addition, there a many cases of a מפסיק become a משרת, e.g. 10.3, and the reverse, sometimes (seemingly) for musical reasons. (Breuer brings these as well; see 2.74 and 2.75) There is even discussion that certain exceptional/unusual sequences are there to recall another פסוק that has similar wording and טעמים.

You are correct however, that I don’t have an example of an unusual sequence that exists for purposes of parallelism. I was hoping one of the other members would have a better source.

Zuki

5

R' Yitzchak M. Gottlieb wrote:

<<< Breuer (chapter 15, 24) brings a long list of example where the precise
division of the פסוקים is ignored in favor of other considerations. In
addition, there a many cases of a מפסיק become a משרת, e.g. 10.3, and the
reverse, sometimes (seemingly) for musical reasons. (Breuer brings these
as well; see 2.74 and 2.75) There is even discussion that certain
exceptional/unusual sequences are there to recall another פסוק that has
similar wording and טעמים. >>>

Thank you! I had wanted to ask about the singsong tune used for the Masa'os
(most of Perek 33).

In some of those travels, the Torah gives a few words about what happened
there, but in the others, these pesukim are very brief:

And they traveled from A [esnachta] and camped at B. [sof pasuk]
And they traveled from B [esnachta] and camped at C. [sof pasuk]
And they traveled from C [esnachta] and camped at D. [sof pasuk]
And they traveled from D [esnachta] and camped at E. [sof pasuk]

But as I heard it in two different minyanim this past Shabbos, that trop
seems totally ignored, and the pesukim are doubled up:

And they traveled from A and camped at B [esnachta] and they traveled from
B and camped at C. [sof pasuk]
And they traveled from C and camped at D [esnachta] and they traveled from
D and camped at E. [sof pasuk]

How can this be done? And by "how", I mean "how" is it okay to disregard
the trop in this manner.

We have many different sets of how to sing the various notes: for the
Torah, Haftara, Megilos, and so on. Although the exact sound of a given
note varies, their *meanings* are consistent - this one is a major break,
that one is a connector, and so on. (I believe the same is true for Az
Yashir; it is sung rather than read, but the trop is not distorted much, if
at all).) What is done at the Masa'os is very unlike what we will do this
week for Devarim 1:12, which is to read that pasuk with the Eicha trop. In
that case, each note keeps its meaning, but with a mournful tune. In
contrast, the meaning of the trop notes seems abandoned when we read the
Masa'os.

The only similar situation I can think of is the Aseres Hadibros, which has
two different sets of notes, with drastically different meanings. But I
have heard reasons for that, and I don't want to hijack the thread by
discussing those exact reasons. My question is this: ARE THERE reasons for
doubling up the pesukim of the masa'os, and for distorting it into a
singsong, and if so, what are those reasons?

Akiva Miller

6

But as I heard it in two different minyanim this past Shabbos, that trop seems totally ignored, and the pesukim are doubled up:

And they traveled from A and camped at B [esnachta] and they traveled from B and camped at C. [sof pasuk]
And they traveled from C and camped at D [esnachta] and they traveled from D and camped at E. [sof pasuk]

How can this be done? And by "how", I mean "how" is it okay to disregard the trop in this manner.

I don’t know a halakhic answer to this one. However, this variant is found in both Binder and Jacobson. I was surprised that the minyan I attended did *not* lein it in this fashion, but in the normal manner.

We have many different sets of how to sing the various notes: for the Torah, Haftara, Megilos, and so on. Although the exact sound of a given note varies, their *meanings* are consistent - this one is a major break, that one is a connector, and so on. (I believe the same is true for Az Yashir; it is sung rather than read, but the trop is not distorted much, if at all).

In several places, I have heard shirat ha-yam (within p’suqei d’zimra) sung to a western Sefardic tune. Due to the varying verse lengths, this tune sometimes blends verses together. I’ve also heard shirat ha-yam leined (on shabbat b’shallah) to a Turkish melody that does the same thing. Go figure.

Art Werschulz
agw@comcast.net
IL: +972 50-709-5525
US: +1 908-612-8140