tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5589564.post2989064605999580041..comments2024-03-05T21:22:43.426-05:00Comments on parshablog: A tevir in each shlishi, and other Minchas Shais on Chukasjoshwaxmanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03516171362038454070noreply@blogger.comBlogger9125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5589564.post-32870038639934547172012-06-26T14:37:08.684-04:002012-06-26T14:37:08.684-04:00If this at all matters, my ShZNetter Miqraos G'...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."MPhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05881354246354816814noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5589564.post-38595130097988549902011-07-01T19:06:13.732-04:002011-07-01T19:06:13.732-04:00wow! i overlooked that vav/heh bit. i need a littl...wow! i overlooked that vav/heh bit. i need a little more time to think about this.<br /><br />thanks,<br />joshjoshwaxmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05149022516101476797noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5589564.post-59145014664197129092011-07-01T18:41:52.505-04:002011-07-01T18:41:52.505-04:00To further clarify, I never suggested that MS disa...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.Shmuelnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5589564.post-7342216674123393222011-07-01T18:37:48.869-04:002011-07-01T18:37:48.869-04:00Neither MG1 nor MG2 have a gaya in the "vav&q...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. <br /><br />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.<br /><br />(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.)<br /><br />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.Shmuelnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5589564.post-67582745026264390402011-06-30T10:13:16.500-04:002011-06-30T10:13:16.500-04:00yes. thanks.
i'll correct the post title.
kol...yes. thanks.<br />i'll correct the post title.<br /><br />kol tuv,<br />joshjoshwaxmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05149022516101476797noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5589564.post-31436941826576747692011-06-30T09:51:15.335-04:002011-06-30T09:51:15.335-04:00Don't you mean "A _tevir_ in each shlishi...Don't you mean "A _tevir_ in each shlishi"???Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5589564.post-48029570689078962602011-06-30T07:07:51.554-04:002011-06-30T07:07:51.554-04:00also, check out this copy of Minchas Shai, with th...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:<br />http://hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=19706&st=&pgnum=176<br /><br />kol tuv,<br />joshjoshwaxmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05149022516101476797noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5589564.post-3209622570586518512011-06-30T06:48:22.020-04:002011-06-30T06:48:22.020-04:00thanks. an interesting idea.
i tried to disambigu...thanks. an interesting idea.<br /><br />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. <br /><br />http://jnul.huji.ac.il/dl/books/djvu/1838482-4/index.djvu?djvuopts&thumbnails=yes&zoom=page&page=74<br /><br />though both of 9 and of 10 have the gaaya.<br /><br />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).<br /><br />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.<br /><br />(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.)<br /><br />kol tuv,<br />joshjoshwaxmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05149022516101476797noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5589564.post-26397196485478372002011-06-29T23:56:46.539-04:002011-06-29T23:56:46.539-04:00I am almost certain the pasuk reference 9 on "...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."<br /><br />As for Machon Mamre, its pasuk 9 meseg is on the hei, not on the vav.Shmuelnoreply@blogger.com