Friday, December 16, 2005

parshat Vayishlach:The ta'am 'elyon and ta'am tachton

The trup on a pasuk towards the end of parshat Vayishlach {Bereishit 35:22} is:

כב וַיְהִ֗י בִּשְׁכֹּ֤ן יִשְׂרָאֵל֙ בָּאָ֣רֶץ הַהִ֔וא וַיֵּ֣לֶךְ רְאוּבֵ֗ן וַיִּשְׁכַּב֙ אֶת־בִּלְהָה֙ פִּילֶ֣גֶשׁ אָבִ֔יו וַיִּשְׁמַ֖ע יִשְׂרָאֵ֑ל {פ}וַיִּֽהְי֥וּ בְנֵֽי־יַעֲקֹ֖ב שְׁנֵ֥ים עָשָֽׂר׃

which is a bit strange because there it a petucha, which starts a new section, in the middle of a pasuk.

There is an alternative trup, which does not have this problem:

כב וַיְהִ֗י בִּשְׁכֹּ֤ן יִשְׂרָאֵל֙ בָּאָ֣רֶץ הַהִ֔וא וַיֵּ֣לֶךְ רְאוּבֵ֔ן וַיִּשְׁכַּ֕ב אֶת־בִּלְהָ֖ה פִּילֶ֣גֶשׁ אָבִ֑יו וַיִּשְׁמַ֖ע יִשְׂרָאֵֽל׃ {פ}
וַיִּֽהְי֥וּ בְנֵֽי־יַעֲקֹ֖ב שְׁנֵ֥ים עָשָֽׂר׃

As I discuss in this post (Shnayim Mikra VeEchad Targum?) this is a result of the omission of the reading of the Targum on the first half of the verse. In shul they used to read a single verse and then read the Tagum, then read the next verse and then read the Targum, etc.. While we have Targum for both halves of the verse, in shul they did not read the Targum for this first half (since it contains somewhat "inappropriate" material to be translated for all to hear, especially those who might not truly understand it), and I discuss the sources in the aforementioned post. Instead, they would read both verses and only read aloud the Targum for the second.

The two different trup we have for the pasuk is the result of the application of the standard rules for division of the verse as laid down in Wickes. Since the pasuk ends in different places, the specific trup used to mark the divisions is different (since the trup chosen is based on the trup at the end of the phrase being subdivided).

Thus, the true, original trup division, which reflects true division into pesukim is the one which gives us two verses instead of one. Perhaps now that we are not reading aloud the Targum after each pasuk, there is no reason to choose the modified trup rather than the one that reflects the true division into pesukim.

Let us analyze the trup.

For both, the trup at the end is: וַיִּֽהְי֥וּ בְנֵֽי־יַעֲקֹ֖ב שְׁנֵ֥ים עָשָֽׂר. This is because all this trup is determined by the silluq at the end, on the word עָשָֽׂר, and since both trup agree that a pasuk ends here, there is no reason for dispute.

The one divergence which causes all the rest is on the word yisrael. The one we read in shul is יִשְׂרָאֵ֑ל while the alternate trup is יִשְׂרָאֵֽל. This is simply the question of whether the pasuk ends here, in which case we get silluq, or continues, in which case this is the best position for the major dichotomy of the verse, in which case we get etnachta.

Now every pasuk only gets a maximum of one etnachta, and so once we place this etnachta, and subdivision will need the trup that subdivides etnachta instead. Meanwhile, in the same position, for the pasuk in which we place silluq, we would place the etnachta. At least, that is what we should expect. This is not the case, however, for we place the etnachta on אָבִ֑יו in the short pasuk, and a zakef on אָבִ֔יו in the long pasuk. Since there is a preceding zakef in the short pasuk on the word הַהִ֔וא, and we can show based on the rules of trup that the הַהִ֔וא division happens first, these are being divided in different places. This is alright and expected. The major dichotomies are often determined logically (based on the meaning of the pasuk), while the minor dichotomies are determined mechanically based on syntax, and so the etnachta on אָבִ֑יו is a logical division, while the zakef on הַהִ֔וא is a syntactic division.

To show all the divisions of the short pasuk:

1
וַיְהִ֗י בִּשְׁכֹּ֤ן יִשְׂרָאֵל֙ בָּאָ֣רֶץ הַהִ֔וא וַיֵּ֣לֶךְ רְאוּבֵ֔ן וַיִּשְׁכַּ֕ב אֶת־בִּלְהָ֖ה פִּילֶ֣גֶשׁ אָבִ֑יו וַיִּשְׁמַ֖ע יִשְׂרָאֵֽל׃

2
וַיְהִ֗י בִּשְׁכֹּ֤ן יִשְׂרָאֵל֙ בָּאָ֣רֶץ הַהִ֔וא וַיֵּ֣לֶךְ רְאוּבֵ֔ן וַיִּשְׁכַּ֕ב אֶת־בִּלְהָ֖ה פִּילֶ֣גֶשׁ אָבִ֑יו
וַיִּשְׁמַ֖ע יִשְׂרָאֵֽל׃

3
וַיִּשְׁמַ֖ע יִשְׂרָאֵֽל׃ may become
וַיִּשְׁמַ֖ע
יִשְׂרָאֵֽל׃
though this is unnecessary syntactically and is musically motivated.

the first part:
וַיְהִ֗י בִּשְׁכֹּ֤ן יִשְׂרָאֵל֙ בָּאָ֣רֶץ הַהִ֔וא
וַיֵּ֣לֶךְ רְאוּבֵ֔ן וַיִּשְׁכַּ֕ב אֶת־בִּלְהָ֖ה פִּילֶ֣גֶשׁ אָבִ֑יו

4
revii and pashta subdivide phrases ending in zakef, and so
וַיְהִ֗י בִּשְׁכֹּ֤ן יִשְׂרָאֵל֙ בָּאָ֣רֶץ הַהִ֔וא
is divided into
וַיְהִ֗י
בִּשְׁכֹּ֤ן יִשְׂרָאֵל֙ בָּאָ֣רֶץ הַהִ֔וא
and then
בִּשְׁכֹּ֤ן יִשְׂרָאֵל֙ בָּאָ֣רֶץ הַהִ֔וא
is divided into
בִּשְׁכֹּ֤ן יִשְׂרָאֵל֙
בָּאָ֣רֶץ הַהִ֔וא
and then all we have are conjunctive, rather than disjuctive trup (since each phrase has less than three words) and so they are subdivided no further.

Meanwhile, consider:
וַיֵּ֣לֶךְ רְאוּבֵ֔ן וַיִּשְׁכַּ֕ב אֶת־בִּלְהָ֖ה פִּילֶ֣גֶשׁ אָבִ֑יו
zakef and tipcha subdivide phrases ending in etnachta, and so we have:
וַיֵּ֣לֶךְ רְאוּבֵ֔ן
וַיִּשְׁכַּ֕ב אֶת־בִּלְהָ֖ה פִּילֶ֣גֶשׁ אָבִ֑יו
Then,
וַיִּשְׁכַּ֕ב אֶת־בִּלְהָ֖ה פִּילֶ֣גֶשׁ אָבִ֑יו
is divided into
וַיִּשְׁכַּ֕ב
אֶת־בִּלְהָ֖ה פִּילֶ֣גֶשׁ אָבִ֑יו
and then
אֶת־בִּלְהָ֖ה פִּילֶ֣גֶשׁ אָבִ֑יו
is divided into
אֶת־בִּלְהָ֖ה
פִּילֶ֣גֶשׁ אָבִ֑יו

So much for the short version of the pasuk.
Let us consider the long version:
כב וַיְהִ֗י בִּשְׁכֹּ֤ן יִשְׂרָאֵל֙ בָּאָ֣רֶץ הַהִ֔וא וַיֵּ֣לֶךְ רְאוּבֵ֗ן וַיִּשְׁכַּב֙ אֶת־בִּלְהָה֙ פִּילֶ֣גֶשׁ אָבִ֔יו וַיִּשְׁמַ֖ע יִשְׂרָאֵ֑ל {פ}וַיִּֽהְי֥וּ בְנֵֽי־יַעֲקֹ֖ב שְׁנֵ֥ים עָשָֽׂר׃

1
As mentioned above, the etnachta divided the pasuk, so the first half is:
וַיְהִ֗י בִּשְׁכֹּ֤ן יִשְׂרָאֵל֙ בָּאָ֣רֶץ הַהִ֔וא וַיֵּ֣לֶךְ רְאוּבֵ֗ן וַיִּשְׁכַּב֙ אֶת־בִּלְהָה֙ פִּילֶ֣גֶשׁ אָבִ֔יו וַיִּשְׁמַ֖ע יִשְׂרָאֵ֑ל

2
zakef and tipcha subdivide phrases ending in etnachta, so we have:
וַיְהִ֗י בִּשְׁכֹּ֤ן יִשְׂרָאֵל֙ בָּאָ֣רֶץ הַהִ֔וא
וַיֵּ֣לֶךְ רְאוּבֵ֗ן וַיִּשְׁכַּב֙ אֶת־בִּלְהָה֙ פִּילֶ֣גֶשׁ אָבִ֔יו וַיִּשְׁמַ֖ע יִשְׂרָאֵ֑ל

3
revii and pashta subdivide phrases ending in zakef, so we divide
וַיְהִ֗י בִּשְׁכֹּ֤ן יִשְׂרָאֵל֙ בָּאָ֣רֶץ הַהִ֔וא
into:
וַיְהִ֗י
בִּשְׁכֹּ֤ן יִשְׂרָאֵל֙ בָּאָ֣רֶץ הַהִ֔וא
and then divide
בִּשְׁכֹּ֤ן יִשְׂרָאֵל֙
בָּאָ֣רֶץ הַהִ֔וא

which is an identical to the one we had in the short pasuk.

Meanwhile, how shall we subdivide וַיֵּ֣לֶךְ רְאוּבֵ֗ן וַיִּשְׁכַּב֙ אֶת־בִּלְהָה֙ פִּילֶ֣גֶשׁ אָבִ֔יו וַיִּשְׁמַ֖ע יִשְׂרָאֵ֑ל?
subdividing an etnachta, as we mentioned, is done by tipcha and zakef, so we have:
וַיֵּ֣לֶךְ רְאוּבֵ֗ן וַיִּשְׁכַּב֙ אֶת־בִּלְהָה֙ פִּילֶ֣גֶשׁ אָבִ֔יו
וַיִּשְׁמַ֖ע יִשְׂרָאֵ֑ל

which gives us similar division to the one we had in the short pasuk, once we knocked off the first zakef.

וַיִּשְׁמַ֖ע יִשְׂרָאֵ֑ל is divided into
וַיִּשְׁמַ֖ע
יִשְׂרָאֵ֑ל
the same as before.

4
We now divide
וַיֵּ֣לֶךְ רְאוּבֵ֗ן וַיִּשְׁכַּב֙ אֶת־בִּלְהָה֙ פִּילֶ֣גֶשׁ אָבִ֔יו
revii and pashta subdivide phrases ending in zakef, so we subdivide
וַיֵּ֣לֶךְ רְאוּבֵ֗ן
וַיִּשְׁכַּב֙ אֶת־בִּלְהָה֙ פִּילֶ֣גֶשׁ אָבִ֔יו

then, we subdivide וַיִּשְׁכַּב֙ אֶת־בִּלְהָה֙ פִּילֶ֣גֶשׁ אָבִ֔יו into
וַיִּשְׁכַּב֙
אֶת־בִּלְהָה֙ פִּילֶ֣גֶשׁ אָבִ֔יו

and then subdivide אֶת־בִּלְהָה֙ פִּילֶ֣גֶשׁ אָבִ֔יו into
אֶת־בִּלְהָה֙
פִּילֶ֣גֶשׁ אָבִ֔יו

Thus, the subdivisions are identical. What differs is the specific trup, and this, as mentioned above, is a result of each trup being determined by the trup at the end of the phrase it is subdividing.

2 comments:

John said...

"The major dichotomies are often determined logically (based on the meaning of the pasuk), while the minor dichotomies are determined mechanically based on syntax, and so the etnachta on אָבִ֑יו is a logical division, while the zakef on הַהִ֔וא is a syntactic division."

No, הַהִ֔וא is a logical division.
The reason for the difference in division between טעם עליון and טעם תחתון can be found in:
פרקי מועדות by Harav Mordechai Breuer, p. 395, footnote 23.

Lion of Zion said...

i think rav breuer has a chapter on tis in his כתר ארם צובה book

LinkWithin

Blog Widget by LinkWithin