Post: Minchas Shai writes:
What he means is that ורחץ בשרו occurs several times in Tanach, and four of those times it occurs without the intervening את, which would make it ורחץ את בשרו. Which are these?
See here in Minchas Shai on Metzora on Vayikra 15:13, which is the first of the four instances of the missing et. Here is a text with masoretic notes on the side, but I don't see the listing.
From Snunit:
ויקרא פרק ידThat is three. The fourth, I guess, is:
ויקרא פרק טו
- פסוק ט: וְהָיָה בַיּוֹם הַשְּׁבִיעִי יְגַלַּח אֶת-כָּל-שְׂעָרוֹ, אֶת-רֹאשׁוֹ וְאֶת-זְקָנוֹ וְאֵת גַּבֹּת עֵינָיו, וְאֶת-כָּל-שְׂעָרוֹ, יְגַלֵּחַ; וְכִבֶּס אֶת-בְּגָדָיו, וְרָחַץ אֶת-בְּשָׂרוֹ בַּמַּיִם--וְטָהֵר.
ויקרא פרק טז
- פסוק י"ג: וְכִי-יִטְהַר הַזָּב, מִזּוֹבוֹ--וְסָפַר לוֹ שִׁבְעַת יָמִים לְטָהֳרָתוֹ, וְכִבֶּס בְּגָדָיו; וְרָחַץ בְּשָׂרוֹ בְּמַיִם חַיִּים, וְטָהֵר.
- פסוק ט"ז: וְאִישׁ, כִּי-תֵצֵא מִמֶּנּוּ שִׁכְבַת-זָרַע--וְרָחַץ בַּמַּיִם אֶת-כָּל-בְּשָׂרוֹ, וְטָמֵא עַד-הָעָרֶב.
במדבר פרק יט
- פסוק ד: כְּתֹנֶת-בַּד קֹדֶשׁ יִלְבָּשׁ, וּמִכְנְסֵי-בַד יִהְיוּ עַל-בְּשָׂרוֹ, וּבְאַבְנֵט בַּד יַחְגֹּר, וּבְמִצְנֶפֶת בַּד יִצְנֹף; בִּגְדֵי-קֹדֶשׁ הֵם, וְרָחַץ בַּמַּיִם אֶת-בְּשָׂרוֹ וּלְבֵשָׁם.
- פסוק כ"ד: וְרָחַץ אֶת-בְּשָׂרוֹ בַמַּיִם בְּמָקוֹם קָדוֹשׁ, וְלָבַשׁ אֶת-בְּגָדָיו; וְיָצָא, וְעָשָׂה אֶת-עֹלָתוֹ וְאֶת-עֹלַת הָעָם, וְכִפֶּר בַּעֲדוֹ, וּבְעַד הָעָם.
- פסוק כ"ו: וְהַמְשַׁלֵּחַ אֶת-הַשָּׂעִיר, לַעֲזָאזֵל--יְכַבֵּס בְּגָדָיו, וְרָחַץ אֶת-בְּשָׂרוֹ בַּמָּיִם; וְאַחֲרֵי-כֵן, יָבוֹא אֶל-הַמַּחֲנֶה.
- פסוק כ"ח: וְהַשֹּׂרֵף אֹתָם--יְכַבֵּס בְּגָדָיו, וְרָחַץ אֶת-בְּשָׂרוֹ בַּמָּיִם; וְאַחֲרֵי-כֵן, יָבוֹא אֶל-הַמַּחֲנֶה.
ויקרא פרק כב
- פסוק ו: נֶפֶשׁ אֲשֶׁר תִּגַּע-בּוֹ, וְטָמְאָה עַד-הָעָרֶב; וְלֹא יֹאכַל מִן-הַקֳּדָשִׁים, כִּי אִם-רָחַץ בְּשָׂרוֹ בַּמָּיִם.
Naturally, the Samaritans add in the word et. This is harmonization across Torah, and adding in a helper word to explicitly mark the object. Thus, it is a typical emendation in the Samaritan text.
Minchas Shai continues, on the same pasuk, 19:7:
"ואחר יבא -- in Codex Hilleli: יבא, Yerushalmi יבוא. End quote. And in all the sefarim {we have} it is deficient, for it is not amongst the seven plene ones based on the masoret, and their mnemonic is in the Masora Magna in parashat Acharei Mot, and so wrote the Rama za"l."
The Samaritans have it plene, that is, malei vav, but this is just the sort of emendation they do, to improve clarity by introducing vowel letters.
There are 91 instances in Tanach of יבוא written plene, but here are the seven under discussion, which appear in the Torah:
Indeed, these are the four I identified in red above.
Next, Minchas Shai turns to pasuk 8, the same phrase, and same missing את. He tells:
"במים ורחץ בשרו במים - there are four missing et, and the sign is given over in the Masorah Magna on parashat Metzora."
More or less, the same as above.
Then, turning to pasuk 9:
"והיתה -- the vav has a gaaya."
So has mechon mamre:
Bomberg's first Mikraos Gedolos has it; so does his second. But presumably there is some other chumash which has it like Leningrad Codex. I won't bother finding it, since the Leningrad Codex is enough to establish it. Minchas Shai obviously saw it somewhere.
Then, on pasuk 12, Minchas Shai writes:
"השלישי השלישי -- both of them with a tevir."
So too Or Torah. This is what Leningrad Codex has, ad what mechon-mamre has. The first occurs before the etnachta and the second before the silluq. Each caused by the subsequent tipcha on the word shevii.
There is a masoretic note in this early text on the first occurrence of the word shlishi:
The masoretic note (not shown) reads שניהם בתביר.
I am unsure what the alternative it. And I don't see any alternative text. As such, I am not sure what prompts this comment. Now, I do see that in Ein Sofer, by Wolf Heidenheim:
he has the following note on the side:
Regarding השלישי, כל"מ במ"א. Based on his partial definition of roshei teivot, he can figure out that he means כל מקום מלא בר מן אחד. I would therefore guess that a similar prompt exists for the telisha. The word שלישי appears three times in this perek. In the third instance, there is no tevir, but rather a tipcha:
"ואחר יבא -- in Codex Hilleli: יבא, Yerushalmi יבוא. End quote. And in all the sefarim {we have} it is deficient, for it is not amongst the seven plene ones based on the masoret, and their mnemonic is in the Masora Magna in parashat Acharei Mot, and so wrote the Rama za"l."
The Samaritans have it plene, that is, malei vav, but this is just the sort of emendation they do, to improve clarity by introducing vowel letters.
There are 91 instances in Tanach of יבוא written plene, but here are the seven under discussion, which appear in the Torah:
בראשית פרק לבHere is the Masorah Gedolah from the Leningrad Codex (pg 135 in the PDF, bottom right of the page):
ויקרא פרק יא
- פסוק ט: וַיֹּאמֶר, אִם-יָבוֹא עֵשָׂו אֶל-הַמַּחֲנֶה הָאַחַת וְהִכָּהוּ--וְהָיָה הַמַּחֲנֶה הַנִּשְׁאָר, לִפְלֵיטָה.
- פסוק י"ב: הַצִּילֵנִי נָא מִיַּד אָחִי, מִיַּד עֵשָׂו: כִּי-יָרֵא אָנֹכִי, אֹתוֹ--פֶּן-יָבוֹא וְהִכַּנִי, אֵם עַל-בָּנִים.
ויקרא פרק יד
- פסוק ל"ד: מִכָּל-הָאֹכֶל אֲשֶׁר יֵאָכֵל, אֲשֶׁר יָבוֹא עָלָיו מַיִם--יִטְמָא; וְכָל-מַשְׁקֶה אֲשֶׁר יִשָּׁתֶה, בְּכָל-כְּלִי יִטְמָא.
ויקרא פרק טז
- פסוק ח: וְכִבֶּס הַמִּטַּהֵר אֶת-בְּגָדָיו וְגִלַּח אֶת-כָּל-שְׂעָרוֹ, וְרָחַץ בַּמַּיִם וְטָהֵר, וְאַחַר, יָבוֹא אֶל-הַמַּחֲנֶה; וְיָשַׁב מִחוּץ לְאָהֳלוֹ, שִׁבְעַת יָמִים.
במדבר פרק ח
- פסוק כ"ו: וְהַמְשַׁלֵּחַ אֶת-הַשָּׂעִיר, לַעֲזָאזֵל--יְכַבֵּס בְּגָדָיו, וְרָחַץ אֶת-בְּשָׂרוֹ בַּמָּיִם; וְאַחֲרֵי-כֵן, יָבוֹא אֶל-הַמַּחֲנֶה.
- פסוק כ"ח: וְהַשֹּׂרֵף אֹתָם--יְכַבֵּס בְּגָדָיו, וְרָחַץ אֶת-בְּשָׂרוֹ בַּמָּיִם; וְאַחֲרֵי-כֵן, יָבוֹא אֶל-הַמַּחֲנֶה.
- פסוק כ"ד: זֹאת, אֲשֶׁר לַלְוִיִּם: מִבֶּן חָמֵשׁ וְעֶשְׂרִים שָׁנָה, וָמַעְלָה, יָבוֹא לִצְבֹא צָבָא, בַּעֲבֹדַת אֹהֶל מוֹעֵד.
Indeed, these are the four I identified in red above.
Next, Minchas Shai turns to pasuk 8, the same phrase, and same missing את. He tells:
"במים ורחץ בשרו במים - there are four missing et, and the sign is given over in the Masorah Magna on parashat Metzora."
More or less, the same as above.
Then, turning to pasuk 9:
"והיתה -- the vav has a gaaya."
So has mechon mamre:
ט וְאָסַ֣ף ׀ אִ֣ישׁ טָה֗וֹר אֵ֚ת אֵ֣פֶר הַפָּרָ֔ה וְהִנִּ֛יחַ מִח֥וּץ לַֽמַּחֲנֶ֖ה בְּמָק֣וֹם טָה֑וֹר וְ֠הָֽיְתָה לַֽעֲדַ֨ת בְּנֵֽי־יִשְׂרָאֵ֧ל לְמִשְׁמֶ֛רֶת לְמֵ֥י נִדָּ֖ה חַטָּ֥את הִֽוא׃However, the Leningrad Codex is missing this gaaya, the short vertical bar under the heh:
Bomberg's first Mikraos Gedolos has it; so does his second. But presumably there is some other chumash which has it like Leningrad Codex. I won't bother finding it, since the Leningrad Codex is enough to establish it. Minchas Shai obviously saw it somewhere.
Then, on pasuk 12, Minchas Shai writes:
"השלישי השלישי -- both of them with a tevir."
So too Or Torah. This is what Leningrad Codex has, ad what mechon-mamre has. The first occurs before the etnachta and the second before the silluq. Each caused by the subsequent tipcha on the word shevii.
There is a masoretic note in this early text on the first occurrence of the word shlishi:
1491 | תנ"ך. תורה. רנ"א. ליסבון |
(אשבונה : דפוס אליעזר [טולידאנו], אב רנ"א). |
The masoretic note (not shown) reads שניהם בתביר.
I am unsure what the alternative it. And I don't see any alternative text. As such, I am not sure what prompts this comment. Now, I do see that in Ein Sofer, by Wolf Heidenheim:
| 1818 | תנ"ך. תורה. תקע"ח. רדלהים |
| חומש מאור עינים : והיו לאורות ס' עין הקורא וס' עין הסופר / מדויק .. ומסדר ... מאתי וואלף ... היידנהיים. | |
| רעדלהיים : ו' היידנהיים, תקע"ח-תקפ"א. |
he has the following note on the side:
Regarding השלישי, כל"מ במ"א. Based on his partial definition of roshei teivot, he can figure out that he means כל מקום מלא בר מן אחד. I would therefore guess that a similar prompt exists for the telisha. The word שלישי appears three times in this perek. In the third instance, there is no tevir, but rather a tipcha:
יט וְהִזָּ֤ה הַטָּהֹר֙ עַל־הַטָּמֵ֔א בַּיּ֥וֹם הַשְּׁלִישִׁ֖י וּבַיּ֣וֹם הַשְּׁבִיעִ֑י וְחִטְּאוֹ֙ בַּיּ֣וֹם הַשְּׁבִיעִ֔י וְכִבֶּ֧ס בְּגָדָ֛יו וְרָחַ֥ץ בַּמַּ֖יִם וְטָהֵ֥ר בָּעָֽרֶב׃
9 comments:
I am almost certain the pasuk reference 9 on "V'hay'sah - vav b'gaya" is a printer's error and Minchas Shai really meant the v'hay'sah in pasuk 10, where Leningrad does have a g'aya. Minchas Shai didn't actually write the pasuk numbers before the "dibur hamischil."
As for Machon Mamre, its pasuk 9 meseg is on the hei, not on the vav.
thanks. an interesting idea.
i tried to disambiguate by looking at Tikkun Soferim, to see how R' Shlomo Dubno understand Minchas Shai. But alas, while he often cites Minchas Shai, here he doesn't.
http://jnul.huji.ac.il/dl/books/djvu/1838482-4/index.djvu?djvuopts&thumbnails=yes&zoom=page&page=74
though both of 9 and of 10 have the gaaya.
I have the following difficulty of it being 10 to the exclusion of 9. We know Minchas Shai responds to, and corrects, a number of contemporary chumashim and mikraos gedolos. among them are Bomberg's MG#1 and MG#2, which he's corrected in the past. so he knows texts which have the gaaya in #9. if he thought והיתה of pasuk 9 should not have a gaaya, i would have expected him to make note of it, (and surely not to give an ambiguous statement which could be taken as an endorsement).
he isn't rejected leningrad, since he didn't have access to it. that is why my guess is that he found the lack of gaaya in some small minority of texts, and rejected it.
(i'd also like to see if we can find any variance in the gaaya in #10. that could justify the need for such a statement.)
kol tuv,
josh
also, check out this copy of Minchas Shai, with the pesukim printed together with Minchas Shai, I think from under his hand. he has the gaaya in both pesukim:
http://hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=19706&st=&pgnum=176
kol tuv,
josh
Don't you mean "A _tevir_ in each shlishi"???
yes. thanks.
i'll correct the post title.
kol tuv,
josh
Neither MG1 nor MG2 have a gaya in the "vav" of v'haysah, but on the hey, both in verse 9 and verse 10. So MS is correcting them no matter which verse he is referring to.
I therefore suggested that he is probably referring to verse 10, which would make MS in agreement with Leningrad codex, and not verse 9, for which there does not seem to be another source for a gaya on the vav.
(The fact that Leningrad does not have a gaya in verse 9, unlike MG1 and MG2, is of no concern, as this is a "gaya kala" - i.e. before shva (or before an unaccented syllable) which according to Breuer's book is in the category of "reshut" and its absence is not an indication of machloket, unlike a gaya on a shvaite letter, which is fixed.)
As for what I wrote "Minchas Shai didn't actually write the pasuk numbers," that was based on the introduction to Betzer's critical edition of MS, which was printed from the original manuscripts of MS.
To further clarify, I never suggested that MS disagreed with the gaya on the hey in verse 9. What I wrote was only that I doubt MS would intimate there is one on the vav.
wow! i overlooked that vav/heh bit. i need a little more time to think about this.
thanks,
josh
If this at all matters, my ShZNetter Miqraos G'dolos lists a Masoretic "havav b'ga'ya" note only re the verse-10 "v'haysa."
Post a Comment