The Mishna:
בית שמאי אומרים מביאין שלמים ואין סומכין עליהן אבל לא עולות ובית הלל אומרים מביאין שלמים ועולות וסומכין עליהן:
Bet Shammai say you may bring peace-offerings and do not lean on them {on Yom Tov}, but {do not bring} burnt-offerings.
And Bet Hillel say you may bring both peace offerings and burnt-offerings, and lean on them.
Later, in the gemara, same page:
א"ר יוסי בי ר' בון רשב"ל הוה עבר קומי סדרא ושמע קלהון קראיי ההן פסוקא (דברי הימים א כט) ויזבחו לה' זבחים ויעלו עולות לה' למחרת היום ההוא אמר מאן דמפסק לה כב"ש מאן דקרי כולה כב"ה ניחא עולות למחרת היום ושלמים למחרת היום ואין שלמים באין כבית שמי
א"ר יוסי בי ר' בון דוד מת בעצרת והיו כל ישראל אוננין והקריבו למחר
R Yose bei Rabbi Bon said: Resh Lakish passed before the Bet Midrash and heard their voice reading the verse (Divrei Hayamim 19:21)
וַיִּזְבְּחוּ לַה זְבָחִים וַיַּעֲלוּ עֹלוֹת לַה, לְמָחֳרַת הַיּוֹם הַהוּא --פָּרִים אֶלֶף אֵלִים אֶלֶף כְּבָשִׂים אֶלֶף, וְנִסְכֵּיהֶם; וּזְבָחִים לָרֹב, לְכָל-יִשְׂרָאֵל.
"And they sacrificed sacrifices unto the LORD, and offered burnt-offerings unto the LORD, on the morrow after that day, even a thousand bullocks, a thousand rams, and a thousand lambs, with their drink-offerings, and sacrifices in abundance for all Israel;"
He said, one who pauses in it is like Bet Shammai, and one who reads all of it is like Bet Hillel.
{The gemara}: It is good if you say the burnt-offerings the next day (as Bet Shamai, that they could not be brought that day). But the peace-offerings?? Cannot peace offerings be brought that day even according to Bet Shamai!? [***]
Rabbi Yose bei Rabbi Bon said (explaining why even the Shalmim were not brought that day), King David died on the Atzeret (=Yom Tov) and all the people were Onenim (mourners, who could not bring a sacrifice) amd so they brought the next day.
My take: Where I had ***, I think it would have been much simpler had it simply said Bet Hillel (check girsaot!!!). That is, Bet Shamai are the ones who according to the parsing DID have that they brought peace-offerings that day! Perhaps (even with our text saying Bet Shamai) it IS asking according to Bet Hillel, and saying, why would *Bet Hillel* require both to be that day, if *even Bet Shamai* in the Mishna allows peace-offerings, and certainly Bet Hillel. (That is, cite the more stringent opinion.) Instead people start referring to what is mentioned in the end of the verse I cited above, in the non-bold text, and we end up with a more convoluted pshat all around. Let us stick with my slightly-forced pshat.
R Yose's answer would show why both were brought according to Bet Hillel, but according to Bet Shamai, only burnt-offerings were brought the next day.
What I have to bring to the table is my knowledge of trup. What does it mean pausing, or reading it all. And further, our masorah does not stop at the end of the bolded text in the citation (which was all the gemara referred to), so what does it mean pausing or reading it all? Does דמפסק mean making the *pasuk* end there, at the end of the bolded text? And דקרי כולה means reading to the end of the pasuk as we have in our Tanachs? Possible - the entire pasuk is not cited, so it is difficult to say דקרי כולה means reading all the pasuk. (On the other hand, דמפסק would then refer to the cited portion of pasuk, and reading it all would mean more than what is cited, and Resh Lakish was then perhaps commenting that the voices he heard reading the pasuk read it like Bet Shammai.) In the end, I rejected it because I could find no way to explain how Bet Shammai and Bet Hillel's opinions could be reflected in the alternate break for psukim (silluq).
Rather, here is what I think the gemara means, on the basis of my knowledge of the science of trup.
וַיִּזְבְּחוּ לַיהוָה זְבָחִים וַיַּעֲלוּ עֹלוֹת לַה, לְמָחֳרַת הַיּוֹם הַהוּא--פָּרִים אֶלֶף אֵלִים אֶלֶף כְּבָשִׂים אֶלֶף, וְנִסְכֵּיהֶם; וּזְבָחִים לָרֹב, לְכָל-יִשְׂרָאֵל.
Trup always breaks the verse into two parts, and each of the subparts into two parts, etc., until such time that a subpart has only one or two words, or until a certain level of subdivision has been reached. The major dichotomy of the verse, which breaks it into two parts, is the etnachta on the word וְנִסְכֵּיהֶם. Thus we have two parts:
וַיִּזְבְּחוּ לַיהוָה זְבָחִים וַיַּעֲלוּ עֹלוֹת לַה, לְמָחֳרַת הַיּוֹם הַהוּא--פָּרִים אֶלֶף אֵלִים אֶלֶף כְּבָשִׂים אֶלֶף, וְנִסְכֵּיהֶם
and
וּזְבָחִים לָרֹב, לְכָל-יִשְׂרָאֵל.
The second part of the verse is divided by tipcha at לָרֹב into two parts:
וּזְבָחִים לָרֹב
and
לְכָל-יִשְׂרָאֵל
So much for the second part of the pasuk - it was well demarcated by the semicolon and comma, but this whole second part after the etnachta is not of concern to us.
The first part of the pasuk:
וַיִּזְבְּחוּ לַיהוָה זְבָחִים וַיַּעֲלוּ עֹלוֹת לַה, לְמָחֳרַת הַיּוֹם הַהוּא--פָּרִים אֶלֶף אֵלִים אֶלֶף כְּבָשִׂים אֶלֶף, וְנִסְכֵּיהֶם
is divided into two parts at the word הַהוּא by a segolta, which is a form of zakef. Thus it is divided into two parts where there is the -- symbol, into
a)
וַיִּזְבְּחוּ לַה זְבָחִים וַיַּעֲלוּ עֹלוֹת לַה, לְמָחֳרַת הַיּוֹם הַהוּא
and
b)
פָּרִים אֶלֶף אֵלִים אֶלֶף כְּבָשִׂים אֶלֶף, וְנִסְכֵּיהֶם
We do not care about [b] for now.
[a] is divided into two parts by the Revii at the second occurence of the word לַה, that is, at the comma, into
a1)
וַיִּזְבְּחוּ לַה זְבָחִים וַיַּעֲלוּ עֹלוֹת לַה
and
a2)
לְמָחֳרַת הַיּוֹם הַהוּא
[a2] has only servus trup then, and so it not subdivided.
[a1] then is divided into two parts by the telisha gedola at זְבָחִים, into
a1i)
וַיִּזְבְּחוּ לַה זְבָחִים
and
a1ii)
וַיַּעֲלוּ עֹלוֹת לַה
[a1ii] has a minor dichotomy in between the telisha gedolah and the Revii, and this is marked by a geresh and its servus kadma.
What does this all mean?? Well, after the major dichotomy by the etnachta, the second dichotomy was the segolta, by the word הַהוּא. Thus, everything in the first part of the pasuk belongs (is subject) to that phrase, which is modified by לְמָחֳרַת הַיּוֹם הַהוּא. Thus, both the peace-offerings and the burnt-offerings are brought the next day. Thus, the verse's trup (cantillation) is in accordance with Bet Hillel.
The alternative would have been that after the major dichotomy by the etnachta, the second dichotomy would have been by the word זְבָחִים. Based on the distance from the etnachta, the trup on that word would have also been a segolta (an interesting excercise would be to redesignate the trup in this way, and see what the rest of the trup would be). Then, bringing the peace-offerings would have been one segment, and the rest of the verse up to the etnachta would have been the second segment, all describing what was done with the burnt-offerings. (The current trup does not support this division because זְבָחִים has a telisha gedola which subdivides a section ending with Revii which in turn subdivides a section ending with Zakef (where here the Zekef=Segolta). This alternative trup would accord with Bet Shammai.
How does this fit in with the words of the gemara? Well, one who pauses in it, that is, within the words cited, has the primary pause (at Zevachim) accords with Bet Shammai. And one who reads it all - that is, there are pauses in there, but those are lesser pauses, and subservient to the pause at the end of the phrase at הַהוּא, so one reads it all as one half of the verse's secondary dichotomy, (that is, like we read it) accords with Bet Hillel.
This actually reads very well, even though it may not seem so to the causual reader because of the use of complicated and unfamiliar terminology to describe the trup theory behind it. But for one who is familiar with it, it is very intuitive and fits in well with the wording of the gemara.
Thus, perhaps, proof that the system of trup, if not the specific orthographic signs of Trup (see Shadal's Vikuach Al Chochmat HaKabbalah about the Zohar and Zarka), did in fact exist in the time of the Talmud.
Alternatively, that those who assigned the trup were aware of Bet Hillel vs. Bet Shammai's alternative parsing of the pasuk and correctly chose Bet Hillel. But the gemara certainly seems to assume some form of subdivision of text, at a lower level than just psukim (=silluq)!
No comments:
Post a Comment