[Mesorah] Kadchod

[David E Cohen]

It seems that the archives are not available online, so here it is from my
own e-mail archives:
________________________________________

David E Cohen to Mesorah 
8/12/07

In yesterday's haftarah, we read, "vesamti kadkhod shimshosayikh"
(Yesha`yahu 54:12).

I would have expected the first kaf to be soft, since the te`amim group it
together with the previous word, "vesamti," which ends with a vowel.  Yet
instead, it has a dageish.

I would have expected the second kaf to have a dageish kal, since it comes
after a sheva nach.  Yet instead, the dagesh is missing, and it is a soft
khaf.  (FWIW, the one other place where this word appears in Tanakh,
Yechezkeil 27:16, the dageish is there as expected.)

Does anybody have an explanation for why it says "vesamti kadkhod" instead
of "vesamti khadkod"?

As an aside, when I opened up my Mikra'os Gedolos (a reprint of one of the
classic editions) to see if perhaps the Radak says anything on the matter
(he doesn't), I found that the text printed there was exactly as I would
have expected it, on both counts -- khadkod!

--D.C.
________________________________________

T613K at aol.com to me, Mesorah 
8/12/07

So could it be that in some print editions there is just a mistake?

--Toby Katz
=============
________________________________________

David Cohen to T613K, Mesorah 
8/12/07

It could certainly be that the way Mikra'os Gedolos has it is simply a
mistake, made by somebody who assumed that it followed the normal rules, and
didn't notice that the manuscript he was copying from had it differently. 
 
Alternatively, it could be that there were manuscripts that had it this way.
It's not in the list of chilufei nuscha'os in Da`at Mikra, but that doesn't
mean it couldn't be the case.
 
In any case, Keter Aram Tzova has "kadkhod," so I'll work with the
assumption that that's the correct reading, and the question stands.
 
--D.C.
________________________________________

Dov Bloom to Mesorah 
8/12/07

I am fairly certain that this unusual case has to do with the ga'aya on the
dalet of the first syllable.

I am happy to give an opinion on Teamin or even pasekim, but ga'ayot are a
closed book to me.

Perhaps DB the elder can enlighten us.

If anyone understands Ga'ayot, or is somewhat less of an am-ha'aretz about
ga'ayot than I am, here are some references:

1) Yeivin in Mavoh La'Mesora HaTverianit discusses ga'ayot and says that
this is a phonetic ga'aya as opposed to a musical ga'aya (Section 214?).
Yeivin will claim this ga'aya does not make the shva a na', it is still a
shva nach.
 This is too bad, because if the shva was na', then we might more easily
understand why the first Kaf is dagush and the second rafe

2) I saw Baer quoted as saying the Ga'aya can come if the second syllable
starts with a BGD-KFT or a Gronit (as it does here)

3) Breuer has a category called "Ga'aya  Keveida lo sedira"  which this
seems to fall into.

4) The Minhat Shai has a whole "maamar ha-maarich"which takes about shvaim
and ga'ayot
________________________________________

Danny.Levy at teva.co.il to me, Mesorah 
8/14/07

This is one of the exceptions to the BGDKF"T rule.  You will find it
included in the list of exceptions in the Mesorah Gedolah on Daniel 5:11
(above the text in your Mikra'os Gelolos).   

Minchas Shai there in Daniel writes that reasons can be given for all the
exceptions but he does not give a reason for this one.  Many of the
exceptions are in Shiras Hayam and there he gives some interesting reasons
(see Minchas Shai on Sh'mos 15:11, 13 and 16). 

Danny Levy
________________________________________

Seth Mandel to Danny.Levy, me, Mesorah 
8/15/07

The hardmess of the first kef is older than that.  It is listed as one of
the 7 Ogerah cases -- i.e. exceptions to the normal rules -- in the
fragments of the ancient masoretic literature in Arabic that are supposed to
stem from Ben Asher himself.  Other examples classified as Ogerah are the 
first kaf in the first mi kamokha in Shirat haYam, as well as the hard gimel
in ga'ah and the hard kaf in yidd'mu ka'aven also in the Shira.
The second kaf, yesh d'varim b'go, and I do not have time to elaborate.  It
is better for me to turn this over to my elder, anyway...
Seth Mandel
________________________________________

Dr. B. Rosenberg to Mesorah, Seth, Danny.Levy, me 
8/15/07
 
The question of the second kaf [being rafah after a sh'va nach] is no major
problem at all. 
 
Surely not according to Rashi (see Tehillim 76,4, Re: Rish-pey v. Rish-fey)
and Ibn Ezra (see Moznayim, Offenbach Ed. Page 7a, Re: Ul-vinyomin nathan)
who neither consider nor mention such a rule at all. But also not according
to the Radak, who does indeed mention it as a rule, not without admitting
that it has quite a few yotze'im min ha'Klall (Michlol, Lyk Ed., page 140
a/b). Also Minchat Shay (Bamidbar 11,16) shares this view.
 
Later Medakdekim (and/or Maskilim!), who ignored the shita of the above
mentioned Gedole Hameforshim, and stated as an undisputable rule that any
sh'va before BGDKF"T must absolutely be na and not nach, have been rebuked
by R' Wolf Heidenheim (in his footnotes to Moznaym, quoted above) and
others. 
 
Berysz Rosenberg