Further thoughts on the etnachta in the last pasuk of Balak

As an update to an old dvar Torah from 2006, which spans Korach and Balak. The question there is whether much ado can be made of the fact that there is an etnachta rather than zakef in the last pasuk. I noted there that

The first is that the rules of trup are such that every pasuk is divided in two. This major dichotomy is most often marked by an etnachta, though on occasion it can be marked by a tipcha or zakef, two other disjunctive accents, when the point of division is extremely close to the end of the verse.

Thus, an etnachta is not at all out-of-the-ordinary in the middle of a verse, even if the same exact words were accented differently, with a zakef, in parshat Korach, in Bemidbar 17:14.

Dr. David Segal points out that in the Leningrad Codex, there is no etnachta on the verse, but rather it has a zakef, just as in Bemidbar 17:14. {Update: He was actually referring to a different pasuk in Vayikra, which had a zakef rather than an etnachta. And based on the conditions in that pasuk, he was arguing that an etnachta would be unexpected.}

And that based on Wickes (see e.g. page 63) a zakef is entirely expected. Even though other masoretic texts have an etnachta. So the question is a valid one, as zakef perhaps should be expected based on syllable count.

I agree to a large degree. Namely, even back then I noted that zakef and tipcha are acceptable in short pesukim. I did not think back then to apply that to this particular pasuk. (Wickes, if I understand him correctly, has it as a probability, rather than a hard rule, in which the farther the major dichotomy gets from the end of the pasuk, the more likely one is to have an etnachta.) If I understand him correctly, I think Dr. Segal makes a broader claim that based on syllable count, the zakef should be compelled, such that an etnachta if highly irregular.

But my problem was in large part with the framing. Thus, the devar Torah cast it as:

The esnachta is used to separate the two distinct thoughts. However, our pasuk seems to be one single thought.

Even if it is a single thought, a long enough pasuk will have a major dichotomy. And even with a zakef, it is a major dichotomy. The shift to etnachta is not problematic, and certainly not problematic for the reason given. (I can see an argument based on syllable count, but would such an appearance would not really bother me, since we can attribute it to a general tendency to mark the major dichotomy with etnachta.) And the appearance of etnachta does not really compel a different understanding of the pasuk, such as is proposed in the devar Torah (see inside).

Update: I presumably {update: indeed} got various details wrong, since I heard this about two weeks ago and wrote this from memory. Here is a clip of the Leningrad Codex which does have an etnachta.

Update: He was actually referring to a different pasuk in Vayikra, which had a zakef rather than an etnachta. And based on the conditions in that pasuk, he was arguing that an etnachta would be unexpected in this pasuk in Balak, based on word and/or syllable count. Such that therefore the question of why suddenly an etnachta is a good one, even if the answer given may be fanciful.

As I noted, I don't deny that there are instances in which there is no etnachta in a pasuk, nor did I deny it in the first place. I was somewhat inaccurate in the first place by not noting that this particular verse would be an instance where etnachta would be unexpected. But then, I am still not entirely convinced that it is so, since this choice may not be a regular rule but some function of probability may be involved (as is the way Wickes frames it). Further, that was not the way the question was framed in the original dvar Torah.

There, the question was framed as that since this run of words did not have an etnachta in another context -- where that other contexts was that it was half of a longer pasuk such that it really could not have an etnachta, something they apparently did not realize -- how could it have an etnachta in this pasuk -- where it composed the entirety of the pasuk. Such a question, as framed, is indeed quite off the mark, for the reasons I gave. And the answer was answering a non-question in an unconvincing way. And even if you pose the question based on these other criteria (of length of syllables), I am not convinced of the strength of the question, nor of the plausibilty of the answer.