Tzav: Was a Copper Vessel Purged and Rinsed With Water?

Or was it purged, and rinsed with water?

In the beginning of parshat Tzav we read:

וּכְלִי־חֶ֛רֶשׂ אֲשֶׁ֥ר תְּבֻשַּׁל־בּ֖וֹ יִשָּׁבֵ֑ר וְאִם־בִּכְלִ֤י נְחֹ֨שֶׁת֙ בֻּשָּׁ֔לָה וּמֹרַ֥ק וְשֻׁטַּ֖ף בַּמָּֽיִם׃

but Shadal suggests we should instead read:

וּכְלִי־חֶ֛רֶשׂ אֲשֶׁ֥ר תְּבֻשַּׁל־בּ֖וֹ יִשָּׁבֵ֑ר וְאִם־בִּכְלִ֤י נְחֹ֨שֶׁת֙ בֻּשָּׁ֔לָה וּמֹרַ֖ק וְשֻׁטַּ֥ף בַּמָּֽיִם׃

which would correspond to the following:

The difference is as follows. According to the first parse, umorak v'shutaf is a single subphrase, with bamayim distributing across it. The implication is that the water is the mechanism for both the purging and the rinsing. According to the second parse, which is formed by switching the mercha and tipcha in the last three words, then umorak is a subphrase by itself while v'shutaf bamayim is a separate subphrase. Then, bamayim would not go on the purging. Shadal likes this second parse because he holds the purging would have been done with sand, not water, and even if there was water mixed with the sand, it would be the sand that would be effecting the purge. Thus, he writes:

נ " ל כי מילת ומרק צריכה טפחא , כי השטיפה היא במים אבל המירוק איננו במים אלא בחול או בדבר אחר , ואף אם מערבין קצת מים בחול , חאין המים עיקר , אלא החול , ועיין למהט י " ב ב '.

I am not so sure. Wickes discusses the syntactic dichotomy as something separate from the logical dichotomy. The logical dichotomy is the main dichotomy of the verse and is drawn on logical grounds. All subsequent dichotomies are drawn on the basis of syntax. And on page 49, he describes how where a verb leads a clause, the syntactic dichotomy lies at the end of the clause. This might be true regardless of specific content. And on page 56 he discusses two verbs. He says that two verbs in construction are joined by the accents. And his first example, from Bemidbar 22:31 is vayikod vayishtachavu || leapav. And it seems to me that le`apav clearly modifies only vayishtachavu but not vayikod. And while he gives other examples, where emphasis drives separation of the two verbs, it is quite possible that this local case in parashat Tzav is not such a case.