The kadma foretone in וְקִ֨דַּשְׁתּ֔וֹ, etcetera

Summary: And whether it should be present. Again, elaborating upon Minchas Shai.

Post: In a prior post, I presented some of Minchas Shai from the beginning of Emor. Here this presentation continues.


Minchas Shai writes, on Vayikra 21:7, that there is no mappik in the heh of veIsha, and that there is a dagesh (kal) in the gimel of the following word. What prompts this is an error in the Mikraos Gedolos he is looking at.

The correct reading is indeed, as he writes:

אִשָּׁה זֹנָה וַחֲלָלָה לֹא יִקָּחוּ, וְאִשָּׁה גְּרוּשָׁה מֵאִישָׁהּ לֹא יִקָּחוּ:  כִּי-קָדֹשׁ הוּא, לֵאלֹהָיו.

In the second edition Mikraos Gedolos, this is what we find:

As you can see by the first red underline, there is a mapik in the heh of veIshah. This is obviously an error, and is most likely influenced by the following word, מֵאִישָׁהּ where there should indeed be a mapik hei, since it means "her husband".

What is the reason for noting that the gimel in the following word, גְּרוּשָׁה, has a dagesh? After all, even this Mikraot Gedolot got it right! The answer, I think, is that with a mapik, the dagesh in גְּרוּשָׁה is obvious. For the heh is consonantal, and so we would have a dagesh in the gimel of the following word because beged kefet in the beginning of a word has a dagesh. But the exception to this is if the previous word ends with ehevi, אהוי, where the heh is without a mapik. In such a case, this previous word is really ending with a vowel. וְאִשָּׁה without a mapik hei ends in a vowel. If so, we would not expect the dagesh kal there. So why do we have it? Because that is only the case when there is a conjunctive, connecting accent on the previous word. In this case, there is a tevir on the word וְאִשָּׁה, so there is a disjunctive, separating accent. And so, we would still have the dagesh kal.

To cite the Leningrad Codex:
21:7אִשָּׁ֨ה זֹנָ֤ה וַחֲלָלָה֙ לֹ֣א יִקָּ֔חוּ וְאִשָּׁ֛ה גְּרוּשָׁ֥ה מֵאִישָׁ֖הּ לֹ֣א יִקָּ֑חוּ כִּֽי־קָדֹ֥שׁ ה֖וּא לֵאלֹהָֽיו׃

From the image above, it looks like that Mikraos Gedolos placed a mercha rather than a tevir on וְאִשָּׁה. I don't know why Minchas Shai does not correct this.Maybe I am misreading it, and it really is a tevir. I might see a faint dot there. Bomberg's first Mikraos Gedolos certainly has a tevir there -- though it also lacks the mapik.

Minchas Shai writes on the next pasuk, Vayikra 21:8, that the kuf of וְקִ֨דַּשְׁתּ֔וֹ has no kadma on it. Once again, this is a correction of the second Mikraot Gedolos. See my second underline:

Despite Minchas Shai's correction, our modern Mikraot Gedolot have the kadma foretone as well. And indeed, the Teimanim have the kadma foretone as well:

ח וְקִ֨דַּשְׁתּ֔וֹ כִּֽי־אֶת־לֶ֥חֶם אֱלֹהֶ֖יךָ ה֣וּא מַקְרִ֑יב קָדֹשׁ֙ יִֽהְיֶה־לָּ֔ךְ כִּ֣י קָד֔וֹשׁ אֲנִ֥י יְהוָ֖ה מְקַדִּשְׁכֶֽם׃

Minchas Shai writes in accordance with the Leningrad Codex:

21:8וְקִדַּשְׁתּ֔וֹ כִּֽי־אֶת־לֶ֥חֶם אֱלֹהֶ֖יךָ ה֣וּא מַקְרִ֑יב קָדֹשׁ֙ יִֽהְיֶה־לָּ֔ךְ כִּ֣י קָד֔וֹשׁ אֲנִ֥י יְהוָ֖ה מְקַדִּשְׁכֶֽם׃

(See C.D. Ginsburg on this kadma or lack, and on the subsequent word ki.)

I must say that I would have expected the kadma foretone. Typically, the zakef katon must have a servus. If it appears on the first word like this, it would either become a zakef gadol, or else would have a kadma mark earlier as a fore-tone. Despite it being rather atypical, I think it is still possible. And given that it is possible and comes from a rather authoritative masoretic text, I would suppose we should lend it great credence.

On that same pasuk, Vayikra 21:8, Minchas Shai continues that the word ki should be with a maarich rather than a tevir. Looking once again at the Mikraos Gedolos he is correcting, we see that it is the word ki right after the underlined vekidashto:

Indeed, the Leningrad Codex and Mechon Mamre do not have a tevir there. But instead they have a makef.

21:8וְקִדַּשְׁתּ֔וֹ כִּֽי־אֶת־לֶ֥חֶם אֱלֹהֶ֖יךָ ה֣וּא מַקְרִ֑יב קָדֹשׁ֙ יִֽהְיֶה־לָּ֔ךְ כִּ֣י קָד֔וֹשׁ אֲנִ֥י יְהוָ֖ה מְקַדִּשְׁכֶֽם׃

Is this what Minchas Shai means? I believe that maarich is what he calls mercha. Perhaps he is saying this. Or alternatively, in masoretic works maarich refers either to gaaya or to the opposite of makef, as a munach. See the discussion in Wickes here.

On Vayikra 21:10, Minchas Shai notes a gaaya in the aleph, not present in Bomberg's Mikraos Gedolos, but present in good manuscripts from Sefarad. Indeed, the Leningrad Codex has this:

21:10וְהַכֹּהֵן֩ הַגָּד֨וֹל מֵאֶחָ֜יו אֲ‍ֽשֶׁר־יוּצַ֥ק עַל־רֹאשׁ֣וֹ ׀ שֶׁ֤מֶן הַמִּשְׁחָה֙ וּמִלֵּ֣א אֶת־יָד֔וֹ לִלְבֹּ֖שׁ אֶת־הַבְּגָדִ֑ים אֶת־רֹאשׁוֹ֙ לֹ֣א יִפְרָ֔ע וּבְגָדָ֖יו לֹ֥א יִפְרֹֽם׃