The spelling of ויוציאנו

Summary: Is this a typo in Minchat Kohen, or does he reverse himself?

Post: In the beginning of Ki Tavo, we read:

8. And the Lord brought us out from Egypt with a strong hand and with an outstretched arm, with great awe, and with signs and wonders.

ח. וַיּוֹצִאֵנוּ יְ־הֹוָ־ה מִמִּצְרַיִם בְּיָד חֲזָקָה וּבִזְרֹעַ נְטוּיָה וּבְמֹרָא גָּדֹל וּבְאֹתוֹת וּבְמֹפְתִים:

In vaEtchanan:

21. You shall say to your son, "We were slaves to Pharaoh in Egypt, and the Lord took us out of Egypt with a strong hand.

כא. וְאָמַרְתָּ לְבִנְךָ עֲבָדִים הָיִינוּ לְפַרְעֹה בְּמִצְרָיִם וַיּוֹצִיאֵנוּ יְ־הֹוָ־ה מִמִּצְרַיִם בְּיָד חֲזָקָה:

In Chukat:

16. We cried out to the Lord and He heard our voice. He sent an angel, and he took us out of Egypt, and now we are in Kadesh, a city on the edge of your border.

טז. וַנִּצְעַק אֶל יְ־הֹוָ־ה וַיִּשְׁמַע קֹלֵנוּ וַיִּשְׁלַח מַלְאָךְ וַיֹּצִאֵנוּ מִמִּצְרָיִם וְהִנֵּה אֲנַחְנוּ בְקָדֵשׁ עִיר קְצֵה גְבוּלֶךָ:

Thus, according to the girsa in Judaica Press, we have:

Chukas: chaser chaser 

VaEschanan: malei malei

Ki Savo: malei chaser

where the former malei / chaser choice refers to the vav while the latter refers to the yud.

This is identical with what we have in the Leningrad Codex.

In Chukas (Bemidbar 20:16): וַיֹּצִאֵנוּ

In VaEschanan (Devarim 6:21): וַיּוֹצִיאֵנוּ

In Ki Savo (Devarim 26:8): וַיּוֹצִאֵנוּ

The Ramah (Rabbi Meir Abulafia) writes:

That is,

Chukat: chaser chaser

VaEtchanan: chaser malei

Ki Tavo: malei chaser

This differs from the Leningrad Codex and Judaica Press, in the middle one. Rather than malei malei, we have chaser malei.

Mechon-mamre, which reflects a Yemenite  text, has the same as the Ramah. Thus, in Chukas:

טז  וַנִּצְעַק אֶל-יְהוָה, וַיִּשְׁמַע קֹלֵנוּ, וַיִּשְׁלַח מַלְאָךְ, וַיֹּצִאֵנוּ מִמִּצְרָיִם; וְהִנֵּה אֲנַחְנוּ בְקָדֵשׁ, עִיר קְצֵה גְבוּלֶךָ.

16 and when we cried unto the LORD, He heard our voice, and sent an angel, and brought us forth out of Egypt; and, behold, we are in Kadesh, a city in the uttermost of thy border.

In Vaeschanan: 

כא  וְאָמַרְתָּ לְבִנְךָ, עֲבָדִים הָיִינוּ לְפַרְעֹה בְּמִצְרָיִם; וַיֹּצִיאֵנוּ יְהוָה מִמִּצְרַיִם, בְּיָד חֲזָקָה.

21 then thou shalt say unto thy son: 'We were Pharaoh's bondmen in Egypt; and the LORD brought us out of Egypt with a mighty hand.

And in Ki Savo:

ח  וַיּוֹצִאֵנוּ יְהוָה, מִמִּצְרַיִם, בְּיָד חֲזָקָה וּבִזְרֹעַ נְטוּיָה, וּבְמֹרָא גָּדֹל--וּבְאֹתוֹת, וּבְמֹפְתִים.

8 And the LORD brought us forth out of Egypt with a mighty hand, and with an outstretched arm, and with great terribleness, and with signs, and with wonders.

That is:

Chukat: chaser chaser 

VaEtchanan: chaser malei

Ki Tavo: malei chaser

This is a change, at Vaetchanan, from malei malei to chaser malei.

On parashat Vaetchanan, Minchat Kohen writes:

ויציאנו ג ומשניין כאתיהין וסי' וישלח

מלאך ויצאנו ממצרים חסר דחסר• ואמרת לבנך עבדים

היינו ויציאנו חסר ומלא ובמרא גדל ויוציאני מלא דמלא

If this is correct (there are questions), then we have:

Chukat: chaser chaser

VaEtchanan: chaser malei

Ki Tavo: malei malei

This differs from both of the above. A chart would at this time be in order.

In Chukat, he simply refers us to what he wrote on VaEtchanan. However, in Ki Tavo, Minchat Kohen writes something different:

Thus, he refers to the masoretic-type note he made in Vaetchanan, but also writes:

Ki Tavo: malei chaser

Assuming that this is the only change, and it is not that he inverted something, then he is saying the same as the Ramah and the Teimanim.

CD Ginsburg, IIRC, has a "democratic text", such that it does not reflect any one tradition. If so, it is rather unhelpful. But he has as follows:

Chukat: chaser chaser

VaEtchanan: chaser malei

Ki Tavo: malei chaser

Though in a footnote on Ki Tavo, he lists a bunch of texts with malei chaser, a bunch with chaser malei, and a bunch with malei malei.

Vetus Testamentum tells us the Samaritan text. This is unhelpful, because they consistently have it malei malei, which does not reflect any original text but rather the tendency to "fix" and improve the spelling of the text. Still, he has there a list of variant texts in Jewish sifrei Torah. And for Ki Tavo, beside the standard of malei chaser, he gives a bunch of chaser chaser, a bunch of malei malei, and a bunch of chaser malei. So, every possible combination exists for this one.

Meanwhile, on VaEtchanan, besides the Samaritan text being malei malei, which is no surprise, he gives texts with all the variants.

And in Chukas, besides the Samaritan text being malei malei, he gives variants for the Masoretic chaser chaser as all the possible variants.

What we would need to do, though, is arrange the numbers for each of these texts in some order, so as to find the pattern across all three spots. For example, I think text #75 is chaser malei for vaEtchanan (since it is not listed as divergent) and malei malei for Ki Tavo (as it is listed there as such a variant). But then, it has malei malei as well for Chukas. So we don't have a match in #74 for Minchat Kohen. But maybe another one would be a match.

Thus, to summarize:

	Leningrad Codex, Judaica Press	Ramah, Teimanim, Minchat Kohen (Ki Savo)	Minchat Kohen (vaEschanan)
Chukas	chaser chaser	chaser chaser	chaser chaser
vaEschanan	malei malei	chaser malei	chaser malei
Ki Savo	malei chaser	malei chaser	malei malei

Minchas Shai has what to say on Minchas Kohen. He writes:

ה) ויוצאנו  מלא

וא״ו וחסר יוד כמ*ש בפרשת חחת על פסוק וישלח מלאך

ויצאנו וכן הוא בהעתק הללי ובעל מנסת כהן כתב בפרשת

ואתחנן שזהו מלא דמלא ואינו אלא טועה ויוצא מדרך האמת

והוא עצמו סתר דבריו והודה על האמת שכתב כאן ויוצאנו

ג' בתורה ומשניין אתיהון וסימן בפר׳ ואתחנן ודין מלא וא״ו

וחסר יו״ד:

It indeed makes sense that Minchat Kohen would be establishing a sort of Masorah along the lines of column two. But would he err in writing the masorah? I suppose that is more likely than erring while talking about the specific pasuk, when discussing that particular pasuk in its own parashah. Unless he was accidentally inconsistent, basing himself at different times on different sefarim and forgetting the specifics of what he wrote in one place when he wrote the other. But it does seem that Minchas Shai is correct in his assessment.