The Age of Trup -- part vi

Continuing Shadal's Vikuach Al Chochmat haKabbalah. So far, we have covered what several classic commentators say about trup and nikkud, and whether one can argue on it. Shadal has discussed Rashi, Rashbam, Ibn Ezra, Ramban, and Rabbenu Bachya. Now he turns to Abarbanel and Radak.

Besides for my translation and commentary, the Hebrew text itself is a novelty online, because due to a scanning error, two pages, which include this text, is missing from the Vikuach Al Chochmat haKabbalah in the unsorted bin at SeforimOnline.

And Don Yitzchak Abravanel, in parashat Bereishit (question 2), complains about Ralbag and says

"And he, if so, claims that the author of the trup erred."

Thus, according to his opinion, it is not fitting to do so. And with all this, upon {the verse in parshat Vayera, in Bereishit 18:21}:

כא אֵרְדָה-נָּא וְאֶרְאֶה, הַכְּצַעֲקָתָהּ הַבָּאָה אֵלַי עָשׂוּ כָּלָה; וְאִם-לֹא, אֵדָעָה.

21 I will go down now, and see whether they have done altogether according to the cry of it, which is come unto Me; and if not, I will know.'

he writes "and it will be, according to this explanation, the word עָשׂוּ is an imperative second person plural," even though the vowel points are against it.

And so too he says that Shem, son of Noach, was older than his brothers. And he is unconcerned for what is written {in parshat Noach, in Bereishit 10:21}:

כא וּלְשֵׁם יֻלַּד, גַּם-הוּא: אֲבִי, כָּל-בְּנֵי-עֵבֶר--אֲחִי, יֶפֶת הַגָּדוֹל

21 And unto Shem, the father of all the children of Eber, the elder brother of Japheth, to him also were children born.

with a tipcha on achi {which separates "brother" from "Yefet the elder"}.

And so too on the verse {in parshat Bereishit, on Bereishit 3:10:}

י וַיֹּאמֶר, אֶת-קֹלְךָ שָׁמַעְתִּי בַּגָּן; וָאִירָא כִּי-עֵירֹם אָנֹכִי, וָאֵחָבֵא.

10 And he said: 'I heard Thy voice in the garden, and I was afraid, because I was naked; and I hid myself.'

he moves the etnachta from בַּגָּן to place it under וָאִירָא.

And so too by {Bereishit 17:13}:

יג הִמּוֹל יִמּוֹל יְלִיד בֵּיתְךָ, וּמִקְנַת כַּסְפֶּךָ; וְהָיְתָה בְרִיתִי בִּבְשַׂרְכֶם, לִבְרִית עוֹלָם.

13 He that is born in thy house, and he that is bought with thy money, must needs be circumcised; and My covenant shall be in your flesh for an everlasting covenant.

he does not worry about the sof pasuk.

And so too, {on Bereishit 14:23, parshat Lech Lecha:

כג אִם-מִחוּט וְעַד שְׂרוֹךְ-נַעַל, וְאִם-אֶקַּח מִכָּל-אֲשֶׁר-לָךְ; וְלֹא תֹאמַר, אֲנִי הֶעֱשַׁרְתִּי אֶת-אַבְרָם.

23 that I will not take a thread nor a shoe-latchet nor aught that is thine, lest thou shouldest say: I have made Abram rich;

}

he moves the etnachta from מִכָּל-אֲשֶׁר-לָךְ and places it upon שְׂרוֹךְ-נַעַל.

And there are many such examples with it.

But Radak explicitly reveals his thoughts in Hoshea 12 {12:

יב אִם-גִּלְעָד אָוֶן אַךְ-שָׁוְא הָיוּ, בַּגִּלְגָּל שְׁוָרִים זִבֵּחוּ; גַּם מִזְבְּחוֹתָם כְּגַלִּים, עַל תַּלְמֵי שָׂדָי.

12 If Gilead be given to iniquity becoming altogether vanity, in Gilgal they sacrifice unto bullocks; yea, their altars shall be as heaps in the furrows of the field.

}
and wrote "not all the meanings of the explanations go in accordance with the meanings of the pointing {here, trup pointing}.

{Radak's full words there are:

רד"ק הושע פרק יב פסוק יב

אך שוא היו - נוכל להדביקו למעלה שיהיה טעמו על גלעד שזכר ויהיה הענין כפול במלות שונות
או יהיה טעמו דבק עם בגלגל ואע"פ שהזקף במלת היו אין כל טעמי הפירושים הולכים אחרי טעמי הנקוד

The etnachta is on זִבֵּחוּ, and the division given by trup is:
אִם-גִּלְעָד אָוֶן | אַךְ-שָׁוְא הָיוּ || בַּגִּלְגָּל | שְׁוָרִים זִבֵּחוּ
Thus, the first peshat, in which אַךְ-שָׁוְא הָיוּ associates with אִם-גִּלְעָד אָוֶן, accords with the trup. Thus, using poetic duplication, it refers to Gilead twice.
In the second peshat, אַךְ-שָׁוְא הָיוּ associates with בַּגִּלְגָּל. This would also be poetic parallelism, of another sort. But it would be against the division provided by the trup.
Yet, Radak says that not every explanation needs to accord with the trup.}