[Mesorah] us'ara / us'arahh

[D&E-H Bannett]

Last Shabbat morning my neighbor on the left asked how to 
understand the word us'arah in its two appearances in 
parashat Sh'mini. in 13:4 "us'ara lo hafakh lavan"  and in 
13:20 "us'arahh hafakh lavan" and why the chumash notes that 
the first one does not have a mappik in the hei.

He was not satisfied by the obvious answer that the absence 
of the mappik is the tradition and isn't meant to change the 
meaning, i.e., a sofer found it that way and copied it and, 
after many copiers and copies it became tradition. So I 
thought for a moment and supplied a replacement.


But first an additional comment,
 Later in the day I happened to see a copy in shul of 
Tidbits, the weekly in English by R' Phil Chernofsky of the 
OU.  He asked the same question and mentioned that it could 
be an omission that became a tradition. He then, as a good 
American, brought Art Scroll who translates the mappikless 
one as "the hair" and the mappiked one as "its hair".  My 
day was made, Art Scroll did it again.

I pointed out to left hand neighbor, who BTW, is a ra"m in 
the local yeshiva, that the word se'ar is a shem kibbutzi. 
It is in the singular and means the entire group of hairs, 
the same as in English it means, for example, a head of 
hair. The word s'ara means a single hair, one of the group 
known as hair. (I checked later in Even Shoshan who brings 
this meaning of s'ara from Tanakh. Mishna and Gemara.)

The s'arahh with mappik, thus means "its hair", the hair on 
the nega' turned white, as, the Americans will point out to 
me, is proved by Art Scroll.  The mappikless s'ara means 
that not a single hair, of the group of hairs on the nega', 
had turned white.

But Art Scroll's "the hair" doesn't necessitate that not 
even a single hair had turned white.  But that isn't what 
made my day.  To me, s'ara means "a single hair" not "the 
hair" with the definite article.


I'd appreciate it if someone checks with a knowledgeable 
kohen if the halakha requires that every single hair has not 
turned.

Before accepting my suggested solution, I should admit that 
the word se'ar is masculine and the word s'ara is feminine 
so, if I were correct, the Torah would have written "us'ara 
lo hafakh lavan" and "us'arahh haf'kha lavan". But it 
doesn't.

To help younger Ba'alei Kri'a to remember the mappikless 
us"ara, they can use the siman:  When the Torah says LO 
there is no mappik, when it doesn't say LO there is a 
mappik. Thus, instead of remembering the correct readings, 
they will need to also remember the siman.

And while I am on simanim, Torah readers must also know that 
near the end of parashat Tzav and near the beginning of 
parashat Sh'mini, we find the words tziveiti and tzuveiti. 
In Tzav, tziveiti comes before tzuveiti and, in Sh'mini, 
tzuveiti comes before tzuveiti.  In Tzav, the siman is 
"vayatzitzu". In Sh'mini it is "r'tzutzim".  For those not 
satisfied with remembering how read as well as the two 
simanin, I suggest remembering also one common siman for 
both parashot. It is "tzimtutuni" (as in Tehilim 88).


b'rukhim tihyu,

David