Behar: Chizkuni's Misunderstood Mnemonic

In the sidra of Behar, we have a word vocalized in two different ways. First, in Vayikra 25:23:

וְהָאָ֗רֶץ לֹ֤א תִמָּכֵר֙ לִצְמִתֻ֔ת כִּי־לִ֖י הָאָ֑רֶץ כִּֽי־גֵרִ֧ים וְתוֹשָׁבִ֛ים אַתֶּ֖ם עִמָּדִֽי׃

But the land must not be sold beyond reclaim, for the land is Mine; you are but strangers resident with Me.

but a bit later, in pasuk 30:

וְאִ֣ם לֹֽא־יִגָּאֵ֗ל עַד־מְלֹ֣את לוֹ֮ שָׁנָ֣ה תְמִימָה֒ וְ֠קָ֠ם הַבַּ֨יִת אֲשֶׁר־בָּעִ֜יר אֲשֶׁר־[ל֣וֹ] (לא) חֹמָ֗ה לַצְּמִיתֻ֛ת לַקֹּנֶ֥ה אֹת֖וֹ לְדֹרֹתָ֑יו לֹ֥א יֵצֵ֖א בַּיֹּבֵֽל׃

If it is not redeemed before a full year has elapsed, the house in the walled city shall pass to the purchaser beyond reclaim throughout the ages; it shall not be released in the jubilee.

We can think about the grammatical implications of this — is this a definite vs. indefinite article. Regardless, this is a different in vowels, and Masoretes are interested in it.

Chizkuni often deals with Masoretic issues. Here is what he writes in each verse. On the former:

and on the latter:

Ignore Eliyahu Munk’s translation for the moment. Here is my own for the former:

לִצְמִתֻ֔ת — with a chirik, its companion is lAtzmitut [in the latter verse] It’s mnemonic [to the present lamed chirik] is כִּי־לִ֖י הָאָ֑רֶץ.

That is, this verse continues with כִּי־לִ֖י הָאָ֑רֶץ, for “li”. And that will remind us that in לצמיתת, it is also pronounced li.

This is matched by his comment on the latter, which I would render as:

לא) חֹמָ֗ה לַצְּמִיתֻ֛ת) — with a patach [that is, beginning with lamed patach], and it has it’s companion [in the earlier verse]. And its mnemonic [to the la here is] לַקֹּנֶ֥ה אֹת֖וֹ.

That is, the next phrase also begins with the lamed patach sound. Masoretes often make such mnemonics to distinguish like cases, so that they don’t lose their unique features.

Note: I don’t know that I am translating this correctly, in terms of חבירו סימנו. It could separately means that its companion in the same verse is also its mnemonic. It is slightly harder to fit this into the second comment.

Regardless, that isn’t exactly what Eliyahu Munk does here in his translation. Well, he does better in the second instance, where he wrote:

לא חמה לצמיתת בפת״‎ח וחברו סימנו לקנה אתו.

לו חומה לצמיתות, “which (city) has a wall will be his (the purchaser’s) in perpetuity.” The vowel under the letter ל in לצמיתות is a patach, just as the vowel under the letter ל under the word לקונה אותו, at the end of the verse.

The insertion of (the purchaser’s) is not something that Chizkuni stresses in this particular comment — more on this in a bit. Also, he does not note that this is a mnemonic. The reader might think there is some causative factor in play between the two lamed-patachs.

However, Eliyahu Munk’s translation of the former is:

לצמיתות, the vowel under the prefix ל sometime is a chirik, not a patach as in verse 30, to show that the vowel in that verse refers to the purchaser, whereas here it refers to the seller.

Here, he omits several words, about כִּי־לִ֖י הָאָ֑רֶץ, and how it is a mnemonic, or implicitly, how it matches. Also, we might now see the reason for his stress of (the purchaser). He thinks that the grammar — the patach or the chirik in each is to designate the buyer (purchaser) or the seller. But I don’t think that this is Chizkuni’s point at all; rather, Eliyahu Munk might have misunderstood the purpose of סימנו לקונה, thinking that it means that it designates that it is for the koneh, rather than that it is a mnemonic.