בִבְתוּלֶ֖יהָ with two fricative vets, etcetera

Summary: Continuing Minchas Shai on parashat Emor, Vayikra perek 21.

Post: Minchas Shai on parshas Emor continues.

Minchas Shai wrote:

On pasuk 13, he takes pains to point out that the bets at the beginning of בִבְתוּלֶ֖יהָ  are vets, that is fricative v rather than plosive b. For the (famous) rule that when we have two beged kefet letters adjoining one another, when they are from the same place of articulation, that the first of them has a dagesh even though the preceding word ends in one of the letters אהוי, thus ending in a vowel -- that rule only applies when the first of the two letters has a sheva, such as Vayikra 25:53: לֹֽא־ יִרְדֶּ֥נּֽוּ בְּפֶ֖רֶךְ לְעֵינֶֽיךָ. So write all the grammarians except for the Mikneh Avraham, who wrote regarding isha bivtuleha that there is a dagesh, and his words require consideration in their place. And see what I write in I Divrei Hayamim 7:23. {Thanks to the commenter 'Minchas Shy' in the comment section for clarifying this sentence.}

I don't know where Mikneh Avraham writes this, but here is where he gives the general rule, that it is only where there is a sheva.

The Leningrad Codex has it with two vets, as do the Teimanim. Thus:

21:13וְה֕וּא אִשָּׁ֥ה בִבְתוּלֶ֖יהָ יִקָּֽח׃

Why does Minchas Shai take pains to write all this? Not just because of the Baal Mikneh Avraham. Rather, because Bomberg's Mikraot Gedolot have it with a leading dagesh in the bet:

Next, Minchas Shai discusses Vayikra 21:15, which reads:

וְלֹֽא־יְחַלֵּ֥ל זַרְע֖וֹ בְּעַמָּ֑יו כִּ֛י אֲנִ֥י יְהוָ֖ה מְקַדְּשֽׁוֹ׃

Minchas Shai notes that in the word בְּעַמָּ֑יו, there is a patach under the ayin and a dagesh chazak in the mem. This makes sense, since the patach is a short vowel, in an unstressed syllable. Such syllables  need to be closed by a consonant, and so the dagesh chazak in the mem geminates (doubles) it, such that it is the close of the previous syllable and the beginning of the next syllable. I don't know what sparked this comment by Minchas Shai. Bomberg's second Mikraos Gedolos, first Mikraos Gedolos, and Chumash all have the patach and the dagesh. I am not about to search through all printed and handwritten texts, but I would guess that some text Minchas Shai saw had a kamatz under the ayin and no dagesh in the mem; or alternatively, a patach under the ayin and yet no dagesh in the mem. Otherwise, this is simply too obvious a grammatical and masoretic point.

Next, on Vayikra 21:16, which is the beginning of a next section ("parsha"), starting with vaydaber, Minchas Shai notes that it is a setuma. Why mention it? Perhaps he mentions each and every petucha and setuma. We'll have to see. But Bomberg's second  Mikraos Gedolos, and Chumash get it right, as a setuma, so he is not correcting that.

However, Bomberg's first Mikraos Gedolos indeed has it as a petucha, and so it is likely that Minchas Shai is correcting that (among others, perhaps).

I would note that this Mikraos Gedolos is not alone in assigning this a psucha. The Leningrad Codex, a rather authoritative source, also has this as a petucha:

וְלֹֽא־יְחַלֵּ֥ל זַרְע֖וֹ בְּעַמָּ֑יו כִּ֛י אֲנִ֥י יְהוָ֖ה מְקַדְּשֽׁוֹ׃ פ 
21:16וַיְדַבֵּ֥ר יְהוָ֖ה אֶל־מֹשֶׁ֥ה לֵּאמֹֽר׃ 21:17דַּבֵּ֥ר אֶֽל־אַהֲרֹ֖ן לֵאמֹ֑ר אִ֣ישׁ מִֽזַּרְעֲךָ֞ לְדֹרֹתָ֗ם אֲשֶׁ֨ר יִהְיֶ֥ה בוֹ֙ מ֔וּם לֹ֣א יִקְרַ֔ב לְהַקְרִ֖יב לֶ֥חֶם אֱלֹהָֽיו׃

The Taimanim have it as setuma, though.

It makes sense to check the Rambam, Hilchos Sefer Torah, 8:8, on this:

ויאמר ה' אל משה אמר אל הכהנים, שתיהן פתוחות; והכהן הגדול, וידבר דדבר אל אהרן, שתיהן סתומות;

We would naturally expect Yemenite Jews to follow the Rambam. And we would also expect Minchas Shai to correct a text to match the masorah put forth by the Rambam. After all, the Rambam is a pretty solid halachic pillar. And the Rambam, in turn, established these setumot and petuchot in accordance with the best Masoretic text of his day, the Aleppo Codex.

Alas, people edited their editions of Rambam's Mishneh Torah to match their own local traditions. That is how the Mishneh Torah says 70 lines in Haazinu, while the Aleppo Codex Rambam claims is his basis has 67. If so, perhaps we should consult the Aleppo Codex on parashat Emor just to be sure.

Alas, again, for the beginning of the Aleppo Codex, including parshat Emor, has been lost! If so, this is either a dispute between the Aleppo Codex and the Leningrad Codex, even though both are  of the Ben Asher school, even though the Leningrad Codex was corrected against the Aleppo Codex; or else, their was an editing and corruption of the text of the Rambam.

{Update: As 'Minchas Shay', the commenter, notes in the comment section:

It should be no surprise that Leningrad doesn't match the Keter; there are dozens of places where Leningrad differs from the Keter with respect to petuchot/setumot. Neither do they match with respect to the form of Shirat Ha'azinu.
Although we don't have the Keter, we do have eye-witness testimony on petuchot and setumot (Yellin et al.) 

Thanks! If so, we can readily stand by the petuchot and setumot as listed in the Rambam. On the other hand, the Leningrad Codex is still a fine codex, and I don't know that we can say that those masoretic texts which follow it are wrong.}

Minchas Shai next turns to Vayikra 21:21, to note that there is a dagesh in the word yiggash.  Again, I am not sure what manuscript lacked it, if any, to prompt Minchas Shai, for the second Mikraos Gedolos has it, albeit someone faint, in both yigesh-es in the pasuk, and in the other two aforementioned Bomberg works, it is clearly there as well.

Finally for perek 21, on pasuk 23 Minchas Shai writes that the word Ani should have a mercha. None of the three Bomberg works I referred to has any different, and the Leningrad Codex and the Teimanim have a mercha as well.