Minchat Shai, Bereishit 1:2

 Here is Bereishit 1:2:

וְהָאָ֗רֶץ הָיְתָ֥ה תֹ֙הוּ֙ וָבֹ֔הוּ וְחֹ֖שֶׁךְ עַל־פְּנֵ֣י תְה֑וֹם וְר֣וּחַ אֱלֹהִ֔ים מְרַחֶ֖פֶת עַל־פְּנֵ֥י הַמָּֽיִם׃

Minchat Shai writes:

ורוח אלהים. כתב בעל הטורים שנים דסמיכי הכא ואידך ורוח לבשה את עמשי (ד"ה א' י"ב) קרי ביה הכא נמי ורוח אלהים לבשה וגו'. ותימא גדולה על דבריו. כי אין דרך המסורת למסור סימן במה שלא נמצא בכתוב ולומר קרי ביה. ובלי ספק שנוסחא משובשת נזדמנה לפניו והנוסחא האמיתית היא ורוח אלהים לבשה את זכריה (ד"ה ב' כ"ד). וכן כתב מוהר"ר מאיר אנגיל במסורת הברית הגדול. ומה שנמסר בפ' ויקהל רוח אלהים ה' בלישנא. היינו כל הכתובים רוח אלהים בין בוא"ו בין בלא וא"ו כמו שמונה והולך שם:

To analyze this piece by piece. 

ורוח אלהים. כתב בעל הטורים שנים דסמיכי הכא ואידך ורוח לבשה את עמשי (ד"ה א' י"ב) קרי ביה הכא נמי ורוח אלהים לבשה וגו'. 

On the phrase  וְר֣וּחַ אֱלֹהִ֔ים, the Baal HaTurim writes in our digital edition:

"וְרוּחַ אֱלֹהִים" – ב' דסמיכי. הכא, ואידך: "וְרוּחַ אֱלֹהִים לָבְשָׁה אֶת זְכַרְיָה" (דברי הימים ב כד כ). קרי ביה הכא נמי: "וְרוּחַ אֱלֹהִים לָבְשָׁה". פירוש, שעל ידי לבושו אמר "וַיְהִי אוֹר", דכתיב בתריה: "וַיֹּאמֶר אֱלֹהִים יְהִי אוֹר". וזה הוא שדרשו רז"ל (ב"ר פרשה ג): ממעטה לבושו נבראת האורה.

And the spirit of God: [This phrase appears] two [times] as a relational [or possessive phrase]. Here, and the other one is (II Chronicles 24:20) "and the spirit of God clothed Zecharya." One could here too read [as if it was written], "and the spirit of God clothed;" the explanation [of which] is that because of His clothing, He said, "let there be light," after which is written, "and there was light." This is what our Rabbis, of blessed memory, expounded (Bereishit Rabbah 3:4), "from a little of his clothing, He created light."

But Minchat Shai has a different version of Minchat Shai, which he will propose to emend. Minchat Shai summarizes Baal HaTurim that, like a masoretic note, that there are two in construct form (the Spirit of God), namely here and I Divrei Hayamim 12:19, וְר֣וּחַ לָֽבְשָׁ֗ה אֶת־עֲמָשַׂי֮, "Then the spirit clothed Amasai". To explain, we should read it here as if it were "then the spirit of God clothed", etc.

ותימא גדולה על דבריו. כי אין דרך המסורת למסור סימן במה שלא נמצא בכתוב ולומר קרי ביה. 

And Baal HaTurim's words are astonishing, because it isn't the way of the Masoret to record a mnemonic about what is not found in the Scriptures and to say, "read it as if it said this".

ובלי ספק שנוסחא משובשת נזדמנה לפניו והנוסחא האמיתית היא ורוח אלהים לבשה את זכריה (ד"ה ב' כ"ד). 

And doubtless, a mistaken nusach came before the Baal HaTurim, while the true nusach would be to point to II Divrei Hayamim 24:20, which does have וְרוּחַ אֱלֹהִים לָבְשָׁה. 

(The digital text of Baal HaTurim, which corrected the pointed-to text, makes no sense, for why would we read a text which actually has veruach Elokim as if it said veruach Elokim?)

 וכן כתב מוהר"ר מאיר אנגיל במסורת הברית הגדול. 

So did Rabbi Meir Engel write in Masoret HaBrit HaGadol:

ומה שנמסר בפ' ויקהל רוח אלהים ה' בלישנא. היינו כל הכתובים רוח אלהים בין בוא"ו בין בלא וא"ו כמו שמונה והולך שם:

Meanwhile, regarding the masoretic note in parashat Vayakhel which reads רוח אלהים, there are five with this language, these are all the verses with רוח אלהים, whether with or without a vav, as he will enumerate and detail there.

Minchat Shai, Bereishit 1:1

Here is Bereishit 1:1:

בְּרֵאשִׁ֖ית בָּרָ֣א אֱלֹהִ֑ים אֵ֥ת הַשָּׁמַ֖יִם וְאֵ֥ת הָאָֽרֶץ׃

Minchat Shai comments:

בְּרֵאשִׁית דגש הבי"ת עם טפחא תחת השי"ן. ב' רבתי. ובראש השיטה ובראש הדף וזו היא בי"ת של בי"ה שמ"ו. עיין ברבינו בחיי פ' בשלח וריקנאטי ריש פ' בראשית ובפי' שערי אורה למהר"ר מתתיה דלאקרט ז"ל במדה ראשונה על מלת ואת:

To analyze this, piece by piece.

דגש הבי"ת עם טפחא תחת השי"ן

The bet gets a dagesh. This is obvious and unsurprising, as a straightforward application of the rule that beged kefet at the start of a word will take a dagesh kal, indicating that it is the plosive rather than fricative. So, it is a bet rather than bhet.

עם טפחא תחת השי"ן.

Is this obvious, or are there contrary texts? I'll point to William Wickes (in A Treatise on the accentuation of the twenty-one so-called Prose books of the Old Testament), page 32, who asserts that the rules of trup, if only looking to the logical (followed by syntactic division) would have been other than what we have, but the etnachta is placed on Elokim for emphasis. Otherwise, presumably, the logical division would be on Bereishit. 

Once the etnachta is on Elokim, the syntactic division would separate of the PP (prepositional phrase) from the VP (verb phrase), and one or two words away from the etnachta, we can have a tipcha as the disjunctive accent. This all follows from a modern analysis of trup, which isn't necessarily what would motivate Minchat Shai. More likely, it is simply that this is the very first word of Tanach, so gets focus.

 ב' רבתי. ובראש השיטה ובראש הדף וזו היא בי"ת של בי"ה שמ"ו

An enlarged bet. And this is at the start of a line, at the start of a column. And this is the bet of the mnemonic of  בי"ה שמ"ו, (a quote of Tehillim 68:5) which are letters that start columns. These are:

YUD - Bereshit 49:8

HEH - Shemot 14:28

SHIN - dispute. See Minchat Shai to Vayikra 18:8

MEM - dispute. See Minchat Shai to Bemidbar 24:5

VAV - Devarim 31:28.

 עיין ברבינו בחיי פ' בשלח

This is to explain the masoretic note. Rabbenu Bachya on Shemot 14:28 begins:

הבאים אחריהם בים. משפט ס"ת להיות ששה בריש דפין והסימן הוא בי"ה שמ"ו. ואלו הם, ב'ראשית, י'הודה אתה יודוך, ה'באים אחריהם, ש'מור ושמעת, מ'צא שפתיך, ו'אעידה בם,

and Rabbenu Bachya proceeds to offer a reason. The SHIN would be Devarim 12:28, the MEM would be Devarim 23:24, and the YUD would be Devarim 31:28.

וריקנאטי ריש פ' בראשית

Recanati at the start of Bereshit discusses, from a kabbalistic perspective, why the Torah begins with the letter bet.

ובפי' שערי אורה למהר"ר מתתיה דלאקרט ז"ל במדה ראשונה על מלת ואת

And in Shaarei Ora, from Rabbi Matitya Delecrut (with R' Yosef Gikatillia), in the midda rishona, on the word ve'et.  (Another kabbalistic work. unsure what it says there.)

Minchas Shai introduces us to Ben Asher and Ben Naftali

Minchas Shai (Rabbi Yedidya Nortzi, 1560 – 1626), in a comment on the third pasuk of Bereishit, tells us about Ben Asher and Ben Naftali.

The pasuk in question is:

וַיֹּ֥אמֶר אֱלֹהִ֖ים יְהִ֣י א֑וֹר וַֽיְהִי־אֽוֹר׃

He writes:

"יְהִ֣י א֑וֹר -- with a galgal [Minchas Shai's term here for munach], rather than with a makef [connecting yehi to or, which would retain the etnachta]. So is it in an early printing and in the Sefardic sefarim. And so it is to Ben Asher. However, Ben Naftali has it without a galgal but with a makef. And this is the first distinction between them.

And these people [Ben Asher and Ben Naftali] were two heads of yeshivot in Masorah. The name of one of them was Yaakov ben Naftali and the name of the second was Aharon ben Asher. And Rabbi Avraham of Balmes  (d. Venice 1523) called him Moshe ben Ashem. And in the Shalshelet Hakabbalah [from Rabbi Gedalya ben Yosef Ibn Yachya, pg 32] it is written that

after the generation of Rabbenu Saadia Gaon, there were two great Sages who disagreed regarding many words in the Torah and their trup, and they were called Rabbi Aharon ben Moshe of the tribe of Asher, and Rabbi Moshe ben David from the tribe of Naftali.

[Josh: note that the quote actually begins, בדור הזה היה לפי דעתי...]

And we rely on the reading of Ben Asher. And so did the Rambam za'l [Mishneh Torah, Hilchot Sefer Torah, 8:5] rely upon him, and this is like the custom of the Westerners. And the Easterners rely on the reading of Ben Naftali. And this is an important rule in the Scriptures. Therefore, know this, and I will not need to repeat it in every place."

End quote of Minchas Shai. As to why Minchas Shai refers to this as a galgal, William Wickes addresses this in his Ṭaʻame 21 sefarim: a treatise on the accentuation of the twenty-one so-called Prose Books of the Old Testament, in a footnote beginning on the bottom of page 23. Wickes writes:

I suppose we can see some of that angle rounded off in the Munach when we look at the Leningrad Codex:

Here is a larger context for Wickes' statement, where he describes the various names associated with the Munach.

Update: Interestingly, in the Minchas Shai edition by Tzvi Betzer, he notes that this is not mentioned in the standard list of differences between Ben Naftali and Ben Asher manuscripts, and so he must have found this in some manuscript list of differences:

חילוף ראשון שביניהם: החילוף הזה אינו נזכר בחילופים - ד, וכנראה מצא אותו נורצי ברשימת חילופים בכתב־יד.

Minchas Shai on parshat Ki Tavo, pt i

Minchas Shai on parashat Ki Tavo begins as follows:

1) He writes that the sidra of Ki Tavo begins with a petucha gap.

2) He writes that אשר has a pashta. As opposed to what? Since this is often a response to Bomberg's Mikraos Gedolos, correcting the multiple errors, we should examine it, just to be sure that there is not something else there. Looking at Bomberg's first Mikraos Gedolos (pg 252), it has a pashta:

So too in Bomberg's second Mikraos Gedolos (pg 441), the word אשר has a pashta:

Presumably, then, the reason to note that אשר in the first pasuk has a pashta is that one might have made a mistake. That mistake would be to confuse it with a kadma. In the second pasuk of Ki Tavo, there are two instances of אשר, and each is marked with a kadma. The pashta and kadma look alike, but the pashta always appears on the very last letter of the word, while the kadma appears over the letter starting the stressed syllable. So, for a kadma, the symbol appears on the ש while for a pashta the symbol appears on the ר.

3) He also notes that in the phrase וְיָשַׁ֥בְתָּ בָּֽהּ, there is a dagesh in the bet. This too appears in Bomberg's Mikraos Gedolos correctly.

The purpose of pointing the dagesh out is that we might have erroneously thought that the dagesh should not appear there. After all, the previous word ended in a vowel (thus, an open syllable) and the trup symbol on that previous word, a mercha, was a joining, conjunctive, trup. While in the general case, the letters בגת כפת receive a dagesh kal  at the beginning of a word or after a sheva nach, the exception is where the previous word ended in an open syllable (usually the letters אהוי, but a kamatz under a ת also works) and there in a conjunctive trup. So we would expect no dagesh here.

An example of this from Ki Tavo is in this perek, pasuk 11:

וְשָֽׂמַחְתָּ֣ בְכָל־הַטּ֗וֹב

There is no dagesh in the ב because of the kametz under the ת, and because the trup symbol on that previous word is a munach, a conjunctive trup.

So why is there a dagesh placed in the ב in the first pasuk? The critical difference is that in וְשָֽׂמַחְתָּ֣ בְכָל־הַטּ֗וֹב, the trup symbol and thus the stress is on the very last syllable. However, in the וְיָשַׁ֥בְתָּ בָּֽהּ the trup symbol and thus the stress is on the penultimate (second to last) syllable.

That is, in וְיָשַׁ֥בְתָּ בָּֽהּ, the trup symbol and stress was moved from its normal place on the last syllable so as to prevent two stressed syllables in a row (veyashavTA BAH). That is called nasog achor. In such a case, the rule of dechik is that the first letter of that following word gets a dagesh chazak, which geminates (doubles) it.

So that means that the dagesh in the ב is a dagesh chazak, which both geminates it and renders it a plosive (bet) rather than fricative (vet), rather than being merely a dagesh kal, which would have also rendered it a plosive.

The Semag's strange girsa of וְכִי תָבֹא בְּקָמַת רֵעֶךָ

(Cross-posted to Girsology.)

In the middle of parshat Ki Teitzei [Devarim 23:25-26], we read:

כה  כִּי תָבֹא בְּכֶרֶם רֵעֶךָ, וְאָכַלְתָּ עֲנָבִים כְּנַפְשְׁךָ שָׂבְעֶךָ; וְאֶל-כֶּלְיְךָ, לֹא תִתֵּן.  {ס}	25 When thou comest into thy neighbour's vineyard, then thou mayest eat grapes until thou have enough at thine own pleasure; but thou shalt not put any in thy vessel. {S}
כו  כִּי תָבֹא בְּקָמַת רֵעֶךָ, וְקָטַפְתָּ מְלִילֹת בְּיָדֶךָ; וְחֶרְמֵשׁ לֹא תָנִיף, עַל קָמַת רֵעֶךָ.  {ס}	26 When thou comest into thy neighbour's standing corn, then thou mayest pluck ears with thy hand; but thou shalt not move a sickle unto thy neighbour's standing corn. {S}

Minchas Shai writes regarding this: 

כִּי תָבֹא בְּקָמַת רֵעֶךָ -- in Sema'g [Sefer Mitzvot Gedolot] the volume on Lavin, siman 183, the following language is written:

It is written in parashat Ki Teitzei, כִּי תָבֹא בְּקָמַת רֵעֶךָ etc., and [תניא] we learn in a brayta, בְּיָדֶךָ and not with a sickle or a scythe. And just as it warned the worker not to grab the standing grain and eat eat, except by hand, so did it warn by a vineyard not to harvest for his [own] eating with something with which one usually harvests, for behold, they are juxtaposed one to the other, and this is even according to Rabbi Yehuda that we don't darshen semuchin [juxtapositions], in Mishneh Torah [meaning sefer Devarim], he does darshen semuchin. And furthermore, since it is written [in pasuk 25] כִּי תָבֹא בְּכֶרֶם רֵעֶךָ, and it is written וְכִי תָבֹא בְּקָמַת רֵעֶךָ, the vav [of וְכִי] adds on the first matter, and we learn one from the other." However, in Sefardic sefarim, there is no vav present.

End quote [of Semag].

And I am wondrously astonished at this, for I have not seen nor heard in my days that there is a dispute in this matter, neither in the Bavli nor Yerushalmi. And if someone should whisper to you that we don't know the facts of the matter clearly [such that this introduces uncertainty], tell him that from the Masoret we know that it is written without a vav, and the Gadol HaDor has said it -- and who is this? Rama  [Rabbi Meir Abulafia] who wrote this in his Masorot, that within the entire sefer Devarim, the beginning of each pasuk is כִּי except for eight instances in which the beginning of the pasuk is וְכִי. And the sign is ... [then he lists the eight pesukim. Those eight pesukim are, in the same order:

דברים פרק יד

• פסוק כ"ד: וְכִי-יִרְבֶּה מִמְּךָ הַדֶּרֶךְ, כִּי לֹא תוּכַל שְׂאֵתוֹ--כִּי-יִרְחַק מִמְּךָ הַמָּקוֹם, אֲשֶׁר יִבְחַר יְהוָה אֱלֹהֶיךָ לָשׂוּם שְׁמוֹ שָׁם:  כִּי יְבָרֶכְךָ, יְהוָה אֱלֹהֶיךָ. 

דברים פרק טו

• פסוק י"ג: וְכִי-תְשַׁלְּחֶנּוּ חָפְשִׁי, מֵעִמָּךְ--לֹא תְשַׁלְּחֶנּוּ, רֵיקָם. 
• פסוק כ"א: וְכִי-יִהְיֶה בוֹ מוּם, פִּסֵּחַ אוֹ עִוֵּר, כֹּל, מוּם רָע--לֹא תִזְבָּחֶנּוּ, לַיהוָה אֱלֹהֶיךָ. 

דברים פרק יח

• פסוק ו: וְכִי-יָבֹא הַלֵּוִי מֵאַחַד שְׁעָרֶיךָ, מִכָּל-יִשְׂרָאֵל, אֲשֶׁר-הוּא, גָּר שָׁם; וּבָא בְּכָל-אַוַּת נַפְשׁוֹ, אֶל-הַמָּקוֹם אֲשֶׁר-יִבְחַר יְהוָה. 
• פסוק כ"א: וְכִי תֹאמַר, בִּלְבָבֶךָ:  אֵיכָה נֵדַע אֶת-הַדָּבָר, אֲשֶׁר לֹא-דִבְּרוֹ יְהוָה. 

דברים פרק יט

• פסוק י"א: וְכִי-יִהְיֶה אִישׁ, שֹׂנֵא לְרֵעֵהוּ, וְאָרַב לוֹ וְקָם עָלָיו, וְהִכָּהוּ נֶפֶשׁ וָמֵת; וְנָס, אֶל-אַחַת הֶעָרִים הָאֵל. 

דברים פרק כא

• פסוק כ"ב: וְכִי-יִהְיֶה בְאִישׁ, חֵטְא מִשְׁפַּט-מָוֶת--וְהוּמָת:  וְתָלִיתָ אֹתוֹ, עַל-עֵץ. 

דברים פרק כג

• פסוק כ"ג: וְכִי תֶחְדַּל, לִנְדֹּר--לֹא-יִהְיֶה בְךָ, חֵטְא. 

]

End quote of Minchas Shai.

We can see the Semag in full here, in the second paragraph (183) on the right hand side:




The author of Sefer Mitzvos Gedolos, namely Rabbi Moshe ben Yaakov of Coucy, was a French Tosafist in the first half of the 13th century.

Here is the Likutei HaMasoret from the Rama, Rabbi Meir Abulafia, just as Minchas Shai recorded it. However, since the Rama lived and operated in Spain and so would naturally describe the state of Sefardic precise texts, and the Semag explicitly says that the Sefardic texts don't have this, this might be of limited utility. Obviously Minchas Shai maintains that it is an effective Masoret. At any rate, at the end of Masoret Seyag Lechachma, here is what we find:

Looking to Vetus Testamentum to see if there is any text with וכי in this pasuk, there is nothing. Namely, he lists Cod 300, but that is Minchas Shai!

When we look up at the end of Vetus Testamentum to see what this text is, we see that #300 is a printed text, and more specifically, is Minchas Shai's commentary. As the author explains here:

:

Cod. 300, Biblia impressa, merito celibratissima, Minchath Shai; de quo jam fusius egi, $62. Addam tantum, Notas hic effe signitas 300; Textum vero, 300 T.

I don't speak Latin, so here is my best guess (with a little help from Google Translate.)

Bible, printed, deservedly celebrated, Minchath Shai; of which I have done already in more detail, $ 62. I will show his comments as 300; The text, itself, as 300 T.

Here is the printed TaNaCh with Minchas Shai, with text כי and comment from Minchas Shai about the Semag and וכי:

The spelling of פְצוּעַ-דַּכָּא

In Ki Teizei, in Devarim 23:3, we read the law of the petzua daka. The following is from Mechon-Mamre, which records the Yemenite tradition:

ב  לֹא-יָבֹא פְצוּעַ-דַּכָּא וּכְרוּת שָׁפְכָה, בִּקְהַל ה.  {ס}

2 He that is crushed or maimed in his privy parts shall not enter into the assembly of the LORD.{S}

This spelling of דַּכָּא is in line with the Ashkenazic texts here, but differs from the Sefardim Masoretic texts (as noted here:

)

Here we first present Minchas Shai. Then, many of the sources he cites. Then, some other Masoretic texts (Leningrad Codex, Lisbon Codex, Codex Hilleli). Finally, we discuss how we would decide, if it were up to us.

Minchas Shai writes:

"פְצוּעַ-דַּכָּה -- I am feeble and sore crushed^[1] that I should know how to sustain with words him that is weary^[2] if it is written דַּכָּא with an aleph or with a heh. And I asked the scribes and there was none who could relate it to me^[3]. And in the printed texts, as well as many early manuscript texts, it is written דַּכָּא with an aleph. And in all of there, there is an associated Masorah of: 'דַּכָּא, there are three. And as a sign: פְצוּעַ-דַּכָּא; and וְאֶת-דַּכָּא וּשְׁפַל-רוּחַ; and תָּשֵׁב אֱנוֹשׁ עַד-דַּכָּא. [That is, Devarim 23:2, Yeshaya 57:15, and Tehillim 90:3, and all spelled with an aleph.]

And so is the position of the Radak, for in Shorashim, shoresh דכה, with a heh, there is not a single one of them, while in shoresh דכא with an aleph, he brings all three of them.

However, in Codex Hilleli, it is written דַּכָּה, with a heh. And this [variation] was the intent of the author of Meir Netiv [R' Yitzchak ben Kelonomus Natan, author of the first Hebrew Concordance],  who brings the latter two in the shoresh of דכא and this one [in Ki Teitzei] he writes with a heh in the shoresh דכה.

And so did I see in a quite old and precise manuscript, and the Masorah upon it was as follows:

 דכה ג' ב' כתיב ה"א וחד כתיב באל"ף וסימן לא יבא פצוע דכה. ואת דכה ושפל רוח. תשב אנוש עד דכא. חד בתורה חד בנביאים חד בכתובים.

[That is:] דכה, there are three. Two are written with a heh and one is written with an aleph, and the sign is לא יבא פצוע דכה. ואת דכה ושפל רוח. תשב אנוש עד דכא. One in Torah, one in Neviim, and one in Ketuvim. [Note this one has two with a heh.]

And in the very same language was the Masorah as well in that same sefer, in Tehillim.

And the author of Or Torah brought the two positions and did not decide between them. These are his words:

דכה with a heh is written in all Sefardic sefarim, and so wrote the Rama [Rabbi Meir Abulafia] za'l. And I was astonished at the Meiri who does not mention it, but in three early ones [sefarim?] I found דכא with an aleph, and in two of them there was an explicit Masorah of

 ג' וכתיבין א',  

'there are three and they are written with an aleph.'

End quote [from Or Torah].

And if I were fit to decide, I believe that I would hold like the Rama za'l [that it is with a ה], for in all matters of this sefer we act like him, for he is a man upon whom to rely, he is certainly precise and one can find to establish the matter upon him [...]. And all the more so that the Sefardim sefarim support him. I as well endeavored and found this [with a heh] in several good and reputable sifrei Torah. And so wrote Rav Yosef haCohen in Simanei HaMasorot, that דכה in the Torah is with a heh, and a sign is לא יבא פצוע דכה.

Some time after I wrote all this, the sefer Masoret Seyag LaTorah from the Rama za'l came to my hands. And since all his words, written in judgement and straightforwardness [?] are dear to me, I will record them here, and these are they:

לא יבא פצוע דכה -- in most precise nuschaot, there is a heh written at the end of the word, and the Masorah which is given upon it is: 'there are three, three written with an aleph and one written with a heh. And the sign is פצוע; ושפל רוח; תשב אנוש. The middle one is written with a heh.' We may deduce that where the Torah has written with an aleph?! It is a scribal error, and the Masorah is not that such is in the מציעא (middle one) but rather the פציעא [the case of פצוע], and it was the scribe who messed it up. And such is logical, for all of them have thenusach of ואת דכא ושפל רוח, written with an aleph, and if the middle [מציעא] is with a heh, well this is the middle one! Rather, we may certainly deduce as we said. And we have found a precise Masorah which states about it: 'three, one written with a heh and two with an aleph; of the Torah is written with a heh.' And in another Masoret it is implied that all of them are written with an aleph, and it is an error.

End quote [of Rama].

He who saved those of crushed [דכאי] spirit from darkness to light, to revive the spirit of the low and the hearts of the crushed, Amen."

End quote of Minchas Shai.

We can now examine some of the sources which Minchas Shai quoted. First off, here is the Rama, entry דכה, in Masoret Seyag LaChachma:

Here is Radak, in Sefer Shorashim. Look in the second column, at the top, where I have underlined in red all three pesukim spelled with an aleph.

Here is the Concordance, that is, Meir Netiv, by R' Yitzchak ben Kelonomus Natan. I've underlined in red the two examples of דכא in Nach, spelled with an aleph, as well as the דכה in Torah, spelled with a heh.

Here is Or Torah:

Here is Codex Hilleli, pg 489:

The Masorah Gedolah, on the bottom, reads:

דכא -- There are three. One is written with a heh and two written with an aleph. And their sign is לא יבא פצוע דכה, which is written with a heh. ואת דכה ושפל רוח. תשב אנוש עד דכא. [I can’t make out the text further at this point, but I assume it states ‘is written with an aleph’.]

.

Here is the Lisbon Codex, page 376:

The Masorah Gedolah on top reads:

There are three, one written with a heh and two written with an aleph. And their sign is

לא יבא פצוע דכה. ואת דכה ושפל רוח להחיות רוח שפלים. תשב אנוש עד דכא.

The first one is with a heh.

And here is the Leningrad Codex, page 229:

The Masorah Gedolah, up top, reads:

דכא -- there are three: לא יבא פצוע דכא. ואת דכה ושפל רוח. תשב אנוש עד דכא.

Looking at the Samaritan text of the Torah, we find the following (pg 222):

The text on the left is the Samaritan and the text on the right is the Masoretic text. Since they have דכה on the right and the text on the left has simply dashes, that means that the Samaritan text here agrees with דכה as the spelling.

At the bottom of the page, he has a write-up of variant texts. There are no Samaritan texts, but there are a bunch of Masoretic variants, and some discussion:

Hac voce דכה vel דכא (unà eum ויהי vel ויהיו Gen. 9,29)  distinguunt quidam Rabbini codices MStos Hispanicos a Germanicis. Ait Rabbi Menachem de Lonzano, in Or Torah (658) se invenis דכה omnibus libris Hispanicis. Et in prolixa annotatione Bibl. 300, variae pro lectione utraque adducuntur auctoritates: adeo ut pie precetur editor, Rabbi Yedidya Solomon Norzi, המושיע דכאי רוח ישים מחושך לאור, etc.

Finally, if it were up to me, what would I decide would be the proper version? I would lean heavily towards דַּכָּה with a heh. This even though the Leningrad Codex and the Teimanim have with an aleph. This because I am a strong believer in the entropy of the Masoretic text. That is, spelling the word with an aleph and with a heh are both perfectly fine, from a spelling perspective. There are numerous items under both roots in the Concordance. And with these three words scattered across Tanach, I would be suspicious of a regularization of the spelling. Sure, some words are spelled regularly, but if given the choice, a variation in spelling seems more likely. It is a scribe impelled by a harmonizing instinct who would, quite understandably, change דַּכָּה into דַּכָּא. This would be a movement away from the seemingly-incorrect original. However, there is no such motivation for a scribe to change it in the opposite direction.

I would add that I am suspicious of Rama’s emendation of the Masoretic note, where he changes מציעא into פציעא. It is quite a clever sevara. However, we see that contrary to Rama’s assertion, some texts indeed, have the דכה in Yeshaya with a heh -- see the beginning of Minchas’s Shai’s discussion, where he brings such a masorah:  דכה ג' ב' כתיב ה"א וחד כתיב באל"ף וסימן לא יבא פצוע דכה. ואת דכה ושפל רוח. תשב אנוש עד דכא. חד בתורה חד בנביאים חד בכתובים. And furthermore, see how in the Lisbon Codex, the Masorah talks about the first, קדמ’ ש. In such context, we see that talking about the first, middle, or last, makes sense. But if so, we could have such entropy while maintaining an aleph in the pasuk in Devarim.

---

[1] a reference to Tehillim 38:8, which makes use of the root דכא

[2] a reference to Yeshaya 50:4

[3] a reference to Bereishit 41:24

The deficient צַדִּיקִם

(Cross-posted to Girsology.)

There is a girsological error in parshat Shofetim in my Mikraos Gedolos, in the second pasuk of the parsha. The pasuk (Devarim 16:19) reads:

While this reads צַדִּיקִים, it should read צַדִּיקִם, without the second yud. The reason I say this is the following comment from Minchas Shai:

"צַדִּיקִם -- In He'etek Hilleli and in all the precise sefarim it is missing the second yud. And so too in the Masores: In the entire Torah, it [the word צַדִּיקִם] is deficient in the second yud, except for one case, which is plene and plene [in that both yuds are present], namely וִיסַלֵּף דִּבְרֵי צַדִּיקִים of parshat Mishpatim, [Shemos 23:8

You shall not accept a bribe, for a bribe will blind the clear sighted and corrupt words that are right.

ח. וְשֹׁחַד לֹא תִקָּח כִּי הַשֹּׁחַד יְעַוֵּר פִּקְחִים וִיסַלֵּף דִּבְרֵי צַדִּיקִים:

]
as I wrote in parshas vaEschanan."

It is understandable how the yud was introduced here as a typographical error, rather than relying on a Masorah from one of the not-so-precise sefarim. The more common spelling of all masculine plurals in Biblical Hebrew is with the yud in the ים suffix. While there are plenty of words which are chaser [deficient] yud or vav, it is not so common in the morphological endings. Also, the very phrase in question, וִיסַלֵּף דִּבְרֵי צַדִּיקִים, appears elsewhere malei [plene].

Since we have access to Codex Hilleli (pg 475), we can see this very spelling of צַדִּיקִם, and this very Masoretic note, as a Masoreh Ketanah:

As far as I can tell, the full text of the masoretic note does not appear as stated by Minchas Shai, at least here. I think it reads:

כל אורייתא חסר בר מן א' מלא 

"The entire Torah has it [the second yud] deficient, except for one which is plene." 

So too the Lisbon Codex (pg 368):

And an identical Masoretic note.

The Leningrad Codex has identical deficient spelling:

Namely, on pg 223:

So too the Teimanim. To cite Mechon-Mamreh:

טז,יט לֹֽא־תַטֶּ֣ה מִשְׁפָּ֔ט לֹ֥א תַכִּ֖יר פָּנִ֑ים וְלֹֽא־תִקַּ֣ח שֹׁ֔חַד כִּ֣י הַשֹּׁ֗חַד יְעַוֵּר֙ עֵינֵ֣י חֲכָמִ֔ים וִֽיסַלֵּ֖ף דִּבְרֵ֥י צַדִּיקִֽם׃

לָא תַּצְלֵי דִּין, לָא תִּשְׁתְּמוֹדַע אַפִּין; וְלָא תְּקַבֵּיל שֻׁחְדָּא--אֲרֵי שֻׁחְדָּא מְעַוַּר עֵינֵי חַכִּימִין, וּמְקַלְקֵיל פִּתְגָמִין תְּרִיצִין.

Rabbi Meir Abulafia (1170-1244), the Rama, wrote about this phenomenon in the sefer Masores Seyag Lachochma:

"צַדִּיקִם -- the first yud is plene and the last yud is written deficient. And all צַדִּיקִם and הַצַּדִּיקִם in the Torah are like it, except for one which is plene and plene, with two yuds, and this is וִיסַלֵּף דִּבְרֵי צַדִּיקִים."

The marginal note mentions that this is in "Mishpatim there", meaning Shemos 23:8. (But I wonder if these marginal note, referring to the specific parsha, were from the Rama or from the one who brought the manuscript to print, Rabbi Yaakov HaLevi of Polonia:

The note itself, which only highlights the phrase וִיסַלֵּף דִּבְרֵי צַדִּיקִים, is ambiguous, in that perhaps it refers to the phrase in Mishpatim, perhaps in Shofetim, or perhaps in both. But assuming it is from the Rama himself, then it is unambiguous.)

Looking at Vetus Testamentum (pg 217) to see what the Samaritans have, we should not be surprised that they have both yuds. This is characteristic of the Samaritan text, to eliminate any awkward and unregularized spelling. The Samaritan text is on the left:

On the bottom of the page is a listing of variant manuscripts. Interestingly enough, there appear some Samaritan manuscripts in which the first yud is missing, as צדקים! For the Hebrew (meaning Jewish, rather than Samaritan), there is only one such צדקים, and a large number of instances of צדיקים:

Some more Minchas Shai on Megillat Esther.

In Esther 1:4:

ד  בְּהַרְאֹתוֹ, אֶת-עֹשֶׁר כְּבוֹד מַלְכוּתוֹ, וְאֶת-יְקָר, תִּפְאֶרֶת גְּדוּלָּתוֹ; יָמִים רַבִּים, שְׁמוֹנִים וּמְאַת יוֹם.

4 when he showed the riches of his glorious kingdom and the honour of his excellent majesty, many days, even a hundred and fourscore days.

Minchas Shai writes:

בְּהַרְאֹתוֹ -- is chaser vav [J: after the aleph].

וְאֶת-יְקָר -- Ibn Ezra in Sefer Tzachot brings this example amongst those with patach (יְקַר) and so wrote Rabbi Yehuda, that it has a patach, because it is a construct form [the honor of his excellent majesty]. And Rabbi Yona [Ibn Janach] wrote that it has a kametz (יְקָר). And it is written in the Michlol [of Radak] page 198 that so is found in precise sefarim with kametz, and so does the author of the Masoret bring it [in the list] with those with kametz yet are in construct form. And in the Shorashim [of Radak] he wrote 'and we found it in a few precise sefarim with a kametz and in a few of them with a patach.

תִּפְאֶרֶת גְּדוּלָּתוֹ -- [Josh: to interject, an וּ is a long vowel, while an ֻ is a short vowel. Long vowels are often in closes syllables, meaning consonant vowel consonant, while long vowels are often in open syllables, meaning consonant vowel. The hard dagesh in the lamed is an example of gemination, meaning the doubling of the consonant, so that the lamed serves as both the close of the previous syllable and the start of the next syllable. This seems strange, for why geminate the lamed to close the previous syllable, when the previous vowel is long? On to Minchas Shai.] In the precise texts, the lamed has a dagesh [to geminate it] and [yet, before it the vowel /oo/]  is melei vav [making it a long syllable]. And there is a Masorah upon it that there is none other found.

And Rabbi Eliezer of Germeiza [the Rokeach] wrote [about this unexpected vav]: גְּדוּלָּתוֹ  is malei vav, for on every day he [Achashverosh] would show them six of his tisboriyot, that is to say, storehouses. And so too is שְׁמוֹנִים malei [Josh: it occurs 8 times malei and 14 times chaser in Tanach] to teach that they were 'full' [to be able] to show six storehouses every day. End quote.

And this is in accordance with the words of the Sages in Shemot Rabba perek 9 and Midrash Esther Rabbati: Six nisin would he open and show them every day. And the meaning of nisin, R' Naftali explains as types of rooms, and in Matnat Kehuna he explains storehouses, and in Yalkut it is gores it as tishboryot, and these are storehouses, and in another lengthy Targum I found written explicitly [in Aramaic] 'six treasuries he showed to them'. And in parashat Vaera, it is gores it as nisin. And deduces six from that which is written [six terms]:

1. עֹשֶׁר
2.  כְּבוֹד
3.  מַלְכוּתוֹ
4. וְאֶת-יְקָר
5. תִּפְאֶרֶת
6. גְּדוּלָּתוֹ

Behold there are six. And so is evident from the long Targum."

I'll just add that this is the classic approach of remez, to find additional Scriptural allusion to details which were already darshened by more classic means.
a