Saturday, May 14, 2011

The dagesh in leimor, etcetera, in Behar

Summary: Expanding upon Minchas Shai on parashat Behar.

Post: Minchas Shai leads off:

בהר סיני -- "is petucha" 

In the gap before it. This is not to argue against any conflicting text, but to note where the petucha is, at the beginning of a sidra, I would guess.

לאמר -- the lamed has a dagesh {chazak}.

Perhaps we might have thought it would not because the preceding word is not משה, but סיני. Also, there is indeed no dagesh in Bomberg's second Mikraos Gedolos:

And indeed, the Leningrad Codex does not have a dagesh either:
25:1וַיְדַבֵּ֤ר יְהוָה֙ אֶל־מֹשֶׁ֔ה בְּהַ֥ר סִינַ֖י לֵאמֹֽר׃
Nor do the Teimanim, nor our modern Mikraos Gedolos. So it seems like we do not maintain like Minchas Shai in this.

Next, Minchas Shai notes the dagesh in the nun in innevei in pasuk 5, and states that it is for the beautification of the language:
25:5אֵ֣ת סְפִ֤יחַ קְצִֽירְךָ֙ לֹ֣א תִקְצ֔וֹר וְאֶת־עִנְּבֵ֥י נְזִירֶ֖ךָ לֹ֣א תִבְצֹ֑ר שְׁנַ֥ת שַׁבָּת֖וֹן יִהְיֶ֥ה לָאָֽרֶץ׃
He notes the parallel, also with the dagesh, in Devarim 32:32:
פסוק ל"ב: כִּי-מִגֶּפֶן סְדֹם גַּפְנָם,  {ר} וּמִשַּׁדְמֹת עֲמֹרָה:  {ס}  עֲנָבֵמוֹ, עִנְּבֵי-רוֹשׁ--  {ר} אַשְׁכְּלֹת מְרֹרֹת, לָמוֹ.
I would note that this is in line with the masoretic note on the side:

Note the first red underline. The circle above the word indicates a masoretic note, which I underlined on the side: ב' רוש, that there are only two occurrences of this word, and the other instance is followed by the word רוש.

As a side point, I'll note the cute derasha that Baal HaTurim makes, linking the two instances of this word:

ענבימו  ענבי רוש שאם
 תבצור  בשביעית  היו ענבי  רוש

Next on pasuk 5, on the word ולשכירך, he notes that in most precise manuscripts, it is spelled malei. (I'll note that the Samaritans, for their own reasons, pluralize many of the words, including this one, making it ולשכיריך, but this is not the same as this particular dispute.) In the margins, the masoretic note ליתא means that this is the only occurrence of the word, which it is, regardless of whether it is spelled malei or chaser.

Also in the image above, from Bomberg's second Mikraos Gedolos, the final red underline, note the kadma {/azla} fore-tone in the word ולבהמתך. Minchas Shai writes on this pasuk, 25:7:

ולבהמתך -- there is a maarich {=gaaya} in the lamed, rather than a geresh above it. And so it is to ב"א. 

I am note sure what ב"א is. Perhaps בן אשר?

For an example of a Tanach which has this gaaya, see here:

And yet, the Leningrad Codex has a kadma:
25:7וְלִ֨בְהֶמְתְּךָ֔ וְלַֽחַיָּ֖ה אֲשֶׁ֣ר בְּאַרְצֶ֑ךָ תִּהְיֶ֥ה כָל־תְּבוּאָתָ֖הּ לֶאֱכֹֽל׃
So too the Teimanim, and so to this more recent Mikraos Gedolos.

Next, on pasuk 25:9, on the word השביעי, Minchas Shai writes:

השבעי -- is chaser the {first} yud in all precise manuscripts, and in Codex Hilleli; and it is one of the deficient ones based on the masoret, and the mnemonic is given over in parashat Bo. And so wrote the Baal HaTurim, and as I wrote in the end of parashat Beshalach.

As we might expect, the Samaritans have this with a full spelling, with the yud intact.

And Vetus Testamentum there indeed gives a list of Jewish sefarim which have the yud. But those would simply be the ones Minchas Shai would consider non-meduyakim. (And lectio difficilior is in his favor.) Leningrad Codex, etc., all are chaser.

In terms of the Baal Haturim, here is what he says here:

בחדש השביעי חסר יוד
 כלומר  ששבע במצות

In pasuk 11,
25:11יוֹבֵ֣ל הִ֗וא שְׁנַ֛ת הַחֲמִשִּׁ֥ים שָׁנָ֖ה תִּהְיֶ֣ה לָכֶ֑ם לֹ֣א תִזְרָ֔עוּ וְלֹ֤א תִקְצְרוּ֙ אֶת־סְפִיחֶ֔יהָ וְלֹ֥א תִבְצְר֖וּ אֶת־נְזִרֶֽיהָ׃
, Minchas Shai notes that in the Tikkun Sefer Torah it is נזריה, but in Miftach, it is נזירה. (With the second yud missing.)

And the Rama writes explicitly that in ולא תבצרו את נזריה, it is missing the first yud and has the second yud; and see further in the Masoret.

If we look in the Masoret (say, in Bomberg's second Mikraos Gedolos), we find:

That is, that there are two in Tanach, one being chaser (namely, this one) and one being malei.

The one which is malei is in Eicha, perek 4:
פסוק ז: זַכּוּ נְזִירֶיהָ מִשֶּׁלֶג, צַחוּ מֵחָלָב; אָדְמוּ עֶצֶם מִפְּנִינִים, סַפִּיר גִּזְרָתָם. 
I would note that Baal HaTurim also notes that there are two, in the masorah. But he does NOT note any difference in spelling, and indeed, lists both as malei with two yuds.

(I wonder at the spelling נזירה for nezireha. This does not strike me as a normal, acceptable sort of chaser. The Samaritans naturally make it fully chaser, but in terms of Hebrew {=Jewish} variants, only נזיריה is listed in a number of manuscripts; the same in CD Ginsburg.)

On pasuk 14, וכי תמכרו, Minchas Shai writes that there is no piska. I am not sure who has a piska here. A piska would be a vacant space. Perhaps the Bomberg second edition Mikraos Gedolos has it here. It is a somewhat lengthy space preceding the pasuk, after all. And there seems to be a samech in CD Ginsberg.





No comments:


Blog Widget by LinkWithin