The Age of Trup -- part iii

In previous posts, Shadal established that both Rashi and Rashbam pay heed to trup and nikkud, yet do not hold back from writing an explanation which is at odds with the trup or the nikkud. He now turns to do the same for Ibn Ezra.

And so too the Rabbi Avraham Ibn Ezra, even though in the beginning of sefer Moznayim he wrote:

"I adjure you to go after to author of the cantillation, and any explanation which in not in accord with the cantillation one should not want nor should one listen to it."

And also in the end of the sefer Tzachot, he wrote:

"There are many commentators who posit that the divider {hamafsik, the one who wrote the cantillations} erred, and they do not say correctly, etc., and the rule is that there was no greater Sage such as the Divider after him. For behold we see in all of Scriptures that he only divided in the fitting place."

And so too in the beginning of Yeshaya he wrote:

"It is a great fundamental to keep {/preserve} the way of the cantillation marks."

Behold, with all this, he did not hold back from explaining many verses not in the way of the cantillation marks. Such as {in Lech Lecha, in Bereishit 13:13}

יג וְאַנְשֵׁי סְדֹם, רָעִים וְחַטָּאִים, לַה, מְאֹד.

13 Now the men of Sodom were wicked and sinners against the LORD exceedingly.

he explains רָעִים to people and חַטָּאִים to Hashem.

{That is, as if it were broken up as וְאַנְשֵׁי סְדֹם רָעִים and then וְחַטָּאִים לַה. But the etnachta is on וְחַטָּאִים, separating it from לַה מְאֹד, with the implication that both the raim and chataim are to Hashem.}

And so too {in Toledot, on Bereshit 25:25}

כה וַיֵּצֵא הָרִאשׁוֹן אַדְמוֹנִי, כֻּלּוֹ כְּאַדֶּרֶת שֵׂעָר; וַיִּקְרְאוּ שְׁמוֹ, עֵשָׂו.

25 And the first came forth ruddy, all over like a hairy mantle; and they called his name Esau.

he wrote:

And the word כְּאַדֶּרֶת is not in construct form, but rather its meaning is that it is all hairy, like a mantle.

{And this is against the trup since the disjunctive trup of tipcha is on כֻּלּוֹ and the etnachta on שֵׂעָר, thus making it:
Kulo || KeAderet Sei'ar

But if as Ibn Ezra, we should join Kulo KeAderet together, separating that phrase from Sei'ar.
}

And so too {in Miketz, in Bereishit 41:57}:

נז וְכָל-הָאָרֶץ בָּאוּ מִצְרַיְמָה, לִשְׁבֹּר אֶל-יוֹסֵף: כִּי-חָזַק הָרָעָב, בְּכָל-הָאָרֶץ.

57 And all countries came into Egypt to Joseph to buy corn; because the famine was sore in all the earth.

he explains "and all countries came to Egypt to Yosef to buy grain." (And so too explains the Rashbam.)

{There is a zakef katon on Mitzrayma, a tipcha on lishbor, and an etnachta on el-Yosef, but I do not personally see why this explanation is against the trup. But perhaps I have a different theory of trup, or do not understand his intent. But I think his intent is that the first dichotomy should be on lishbor if so, because the people would be coming to Egypt to get the grain. In which case we would still have the tipcha on lishbor, but we would have a tevir on Mitzrayma rather than the zakef gadol, with the effect that the division would be:
וְכָל-הָאָרֶץ בָּאוּ מִצְרַיְמָה | לִשְׁבֹּר || אֶל-יוֹסֵף
rather than
וְכָל-הָאָרֶץ בָּאוּ מִצְרַיְמָה || לִשְׁבֹּר | אֶל-יוֹסֵף
as we have it.

For Shadal, in his commentary on Torah, writes:

לשבר אל יוסף : אין לסרס המקרא נגד הנגינות כי הבאים לא היתה כוונתם ללכת אל יוסף, אלא לילך למצרים ( אא"א ), ושיעור הכתוב לפי זה ולפי הטעמים כך הוא : וכל הארץ באו מצרימה, ואח"כ הכתוב מוסיף שתי הודעות שהיתה כוונת ביאתם כדי לשבור, ושהיתה ביאתם אל יוסף דוקא

}

And so too on {Pinchas, Bemidbar 26:10}

י וַתִּפְתַּח הָאָרֶץ אֶת-פִּיהָ, וַתִּבְלַע אֹתָם וְאֶת-קֹרַח--בְּמוֹת הָעֵדָה: בַּאֲכֹל הָאֵשׁ, אֵת חֲמִשִּׁים וּמָאתַיִם אִישׁ, וַיִּהְיוּ, לְנֵס.

10 and the earth opened her mouth, and swallowed them up together with Korah, when that company died; what time the fire devoured two hundred and fifty men, and they became a sign.

He said that וְאֶת-קֹרַח is not connected with וַתִּבְלַע אֹתָם, but rather with בְּמוֹת הָעֵדָה.

{And looking at the trup, there is an etnachta on הָעֵדָה, a tipcha קֹרַח, and a tevir on אֹתָם, such that the phrase made is וַתִּבְלַע אֹתָם וְאֶת-קֹרַח followed by בְּמוֹת הָעֵדָה, and against how Ibn Ezra explains it.}

And so too on "Arami Oved Avi," {in parshat Ki Tavo} he explains it as in line with Rashbam.
{As "A wandering Aramean was my father, and this is against the trup, which has the disjunctive trup of pashta separating Arami from Oved Avi.}

And so too {in Haazinu, Devarim 32:5}:

ה שִׁחֵת לוֹ לֹא, בָּנָיו מוּמָם: {ס} דּוֹר עִקֵּשׁ, וּפְתַלְתֹּל. {ר}

5 Is corruption His? No; His children's is the blemish; a generation crooked and perverse.

he explains it as if it said "towards Him corrupted, a crooked generation, who are not his children." {Thus joining לֹא to בָּנָיו, which is against the trup which has a tipcha on לֹא.}

And so too on the verse {in Reeh, in Devarim 16:6}

ו כִּי אִם-אֶל-הַמָּקוֹם אֲשֶׁר-יִבְחַר ה אֱלֹהֶיךָ, לְשַׁכֵּן שְׁמוֹ--שָׁם תִּזְבַּח אֶת-הַפֶּסַח, בָּעָרֶב: כְּבוֹא הַשֶּׁמֶשׁ, מוֹעֵד צֵאתְךָ מִמִּצְרָיִם.

6 but at the place which the LORD thy God shall choose to cause His name to dwell in, there thou shalt sacrifice the passover-offering at even, at the going down of the sun, at the season that thou camest forth out of Egypt.

he wrote that "at the season that thou camest forth out of Egypt" refers to Pesach, for at the season of the springtime month they left Egypt, and it is not associated with "at the going down of the sun." And behold, according to his words, we should read שָׁם תִּזְבַּח אֶת-הַפֶּסַח בָּעָרֶב כְּבוֹא הַשֶּׁמֶשׁ with a yetiv on שָׁם, a zakef on הַפֶּסַח, a tipcha on בָּעָרֶב, and an etnachta on הַשֶּׁמֶשׁ, and with a segol segol pattern on בָּעֶרֶב and a kametz segol pattern on הַשָּׁמֶשׁ.
{See image for clearer picture of above. That is, the etnachta with pausal form should be on hashamesh rather than on baerev, because that is how it associates.}

And there are many like this in his commentary.