Once again I find myself in the position of defending the Holy Minchas Shai. To be clear, he is of the opinion that the placement of the paseik (p'sik?) is correct, so I'm not really sure why you think you have a "say" in this ancient dispute, as if your opinion on the Mesorah carries any weight.
You are misinterpreting the reason for the p'sik, and that is leading you to simply bark up the wrong tree. Nowhere does the Minchas Shai say that the p'sik is due to the need to divide the divine name from something it should "not be associated with". That is a faulty understanding of the Mesorah. The fact is that throughout the Torah, the word "Elohim", if it is kodesh, must always have a Ta'am Melech, never a Ta'am Meshares. This is out of respect for the divine name, to have a slight pause, not for any reasons of juxtaposition. If the word "elohim" needs to have a Ta'am Meshares for whatever reason, we put a p'sik after the word "Elohim", forcing a pause and having the same effect as if it were a Ta'am Melech. Thus: נַפְתּוּלֵי אֱלֹהִים | נִפְתַּלְתִּי
for example. The word Elohim, which has a Ta'am Meshares (Darga) needs a p'sik. This is true for every single instance of the word "elohim" in the Torah, provided it is kodesh.
In our case, the Minchas Shai maintains that this instance of "elohim" is kodesh, which it is hard to argue with ("Prince of God" is way more plausible than "Mighty Prince" - we do not find "elohim" used as an adjective). The example the Minchas Shai then gives from the pasuk in VoEschanan, again, is a case where the word "elohim" has a Ta'am Meshares (Mahpach) and therefore must have a p'sik. Nothing to do with juxtoposition or textual confusion. Looking at it that way, the Minchas Shai is more than justified in deciding that the p'sik is necessary here.

thanks for the clarification of the reason. i stand corrected.

even though i may often be wrong, it is my philosophy that as a matter of limmud Torah, i *will* try to have a say. i am not laining on the basis of this; i am not paskening on the basis of it. but as limmud hatorah, trying to come to a conclusion, and grappling with the texts and ideas, are precisely what we should be doing. this is not the same as "carries any weight," if you prefer.

"we do not find "elohim" used as an adjective"
see for example the disputes over whether ruach elohim means mighty wind or the Spirit of Hashem. in this instance, the JPS translation of this pasuk is indeed "mighty prince." indeed, we find elohim used as an adjective often.

also, rules are one thing, and texts are another. texts might be formed by the application of the rules, but if ALL the masoretic texts, including the standard Codexes have it without paseik, then who says we should decide in favor of a minority text applying the rule over others that do not.

thanks for the background info though, in terms of meshareis. you are correct. i will rethink this.

kol tuv,
josh

i rewrote that section of the post with your correction in mind. please let me know what you think.

thanks again,
josh

the text in minhat shai's holograph ms. (as published by betzer) is vey different than the one you post (e.g., divided into 2 separate dibbur mathil, the second of which might be a later interpolation; no reference to lonzano or the vaethanan pasuk; etc.), although i'm too confused right now to see how how/if it changes what you conclude.

anyway, the mss. used by rav breuer for his edition all lack it. he does list minhat shai as having it, but with a question mark (but unfortunately with no explanation).
perlman, masorah, v. 3, p. 4 notes that this pasuk does not appear in the lists of pasek in ginsburg (masorah?), v. 5, p. 271 and v. 2, p. 200 (with many examples of elokim). also v. 5, p. 54 says not in most taj.

in his earlier פיסוק טעמים במקרא p. 78, r. breuer has it *with* the pasek. i can't check his later טעמי המקרא (left it in the car), but i'll bet it's without it.

also, i think there is a pause after elokim here regardless of whether or not there is a actually pasek in the text, as the מהפך here instead of of a מפסיק is one of the תמורות (and see the parsing in perlman, ספר בראשית מפוסק)

thanks. fascinating. and i see what you mean about the mahpach. i wonder if the fact that there would be a pause anyway is another reason the pasek would not have occurred, even though this would have been non-obvious. if so, this would be another reason for favoring lack of pasek, under lectio difficilior.

in terms of pasek and its cause, what do you think? is it actually the case that every Elokim has a pause or a pasek? since after all, Wickes gives counterexamples, as well as reasons such as I gave for particular examples, of Pasek Euphemisticum...

kol tuv,
josh

Obvious counter examples to Minchas Shai's rule:
Gen. 1:25 (first occurrence)
Gen. 8:1 (second occurrence)
Gen. 35:9

Examples of with mahpach and nonetheless pasek are:
Gen. 1:5
Gen. 1:10 (first occurrence)
Gen. 1:27 (first occurrence)
Gen. 21:17 (second occurrence)
Gen. 46:2
and of course Minchas Shai's example:
Deut. 4:32

" to Minchas Shai's rule"
of course, to be fair, this is Minchas Shy's rule, and not necessarily Minchas Shai's. it is possible i was right the first time i wrote it, that Minchas Shai is considering the Paseik Euphemisticum.

"Examples of with mahpach and nonetheless pasek are"
i haven't examined them inside yet, but again as a defense (this time of Lion of Zion), how many of those are "converted" from an original disjunctive accent?

thanks,
josh

My understanding is that the possible meanings of the phrase are 1. prince of God - which would be kodesh, and 2. prince of a god - which would be chol. The reason for opinion that the chol meaning is correct is that that is more likely what the bnei cheit, not being monotheists, would have said.

excellent point. i'm going to adopt it, if you don't mind, and then consider the three possibilities as:

1- prince of God.
2- prince of the idolatrous pantheon.
3. mighty prince (like naftulei elohim niftalti).

thanks!
josh

it seems that the following rule holds:
if the word "Elokim" is followed by a pasek, then it is kodesh. (necessary but not sufficient condition)

One exception(?):
Numbers 22:20
Here the word is considered safek kodesh by the Masora.

It's davka when a mersharet comes instead of a mafsik that a paseik is most likely to occur, as otherwise it is not mafsik at all. Breuer's Taamei Hamikra brings many examples of this.