Friday, June 24, 2011

More Minchas Shai on Korach

Minchas Shai on Korach continues:

"ואל-כל -- there is a dash in the middle, not a shofar illuy in the word ואל." 

What does he mean by this? Well, to cite Wolf Heidenheim for the sake of defining a shofar illuy:
And even though munach and ilui are similar to one another, those which come before etnachta, zarka, and zakef -- and its mnemonic is Azaz -- are called ilui, while those before the remainder of melachim are munach. And some call the ilui a "shofar yashar" or "shofar holech".
Thus, it is a shared symbol with munach, which appears before etnachta, zarka and zakef. I underlined the pasuk, from a Chumash from 1482:

This would then either be a munach in el, or else, as above, a makef connecting the three words ואל כל עדתו in the zarka. It seems that Minchas Shai would call this, as well, a shofar illuy, though it is not part of the list that Heidenheim mentioned.

Here, from Bomberg's first Mikraos Gedolos, is the text with a shofar illuy.

So too in his second Mikraos Gedolos.

Minchas Shai continues, on pasuk 7:

"אש -- without a pasek {a vertical bar} after it; עליהן -- with a pasek."

Looking above at the two Chumashim I brought down, I don't see any pasek after the word אש to be removed, nor do I see it in any of Bomberg's works.

But in terms of עליהן, we have a kadma veazla on עליהן קטורת. And with the kadma, a conjunctive trup, on עליהן, if we wish to introduce some level of extra pause outside the regular system, we would need the pasek. Bomberg's second Mikraos Gedolos lacks this pasek. (The Leningrad Codex also lacks this pasek.) His first one, depicted above, has it.

Looking through all the chumashim I could find, I could not spot one with a pasek after the word אש, in need of correction.

Minchas Shai continues, on pasuk 9:

מכם -- the kaf has a dagesh.

That is, it is mikkem, rather than michem. Bomberg's first Mikraos Gedolos has this dagesh. So does his second, though the dot is very faint:

I have not checked everything, but it is possible that this is just marked because mikem over michem is an atypical word and thus deserves a note.

And then, on pasuk 10, Minchas Shai writes:

"בני לוי -- with no dagesh in the bet."

Through admittedly minimal searching, I was unable to find such an instance for correction. Maybe he is noting this difference because the other בני לויs in context do have a dagesh. This one lacks it because of the conjunctive accent and the mesharet trup immediately before it, but that might not have been obvious.

On pasuk 11:
תלונו --תלינו קרי
This is deserving of note, because it is a masoretic note having to do with krei vs. ketiv.

Finally, on pasuk 16:13:
כִּי תִשְׂתָּרֵר עָלֵינוּ גַּם הִשְׂתָּרֵר -- both of them with a sin rather than a shin.

This is prompted by a mess-up in Bomberg's second Mikraos Gedolos, which puts them both as shins:

No comments:


Blog Widget by LinkWithin