Trup and Peshat in the judgement of Sodom

Summary: How some Rishonim takes cues from the trup in how to parse the pasuk.

Post: When Hashem decides to descend and investigate the situation in Sodom, we read:

How should we translate this? Rashi writes:

whether according to her cry: [i.e., the cry] of the land.		הכצעקתה: של מדינה:
which has come to Me, they have done: And [if] they remain in their state of rebellion, I will wreak destruction upon them, but if they do not remain in their state of rebellion, I will know what I will do, to punish them with suffering, but I will not destroy them. Similar to this we find elsewhere (Exod. 33:5):“But now, leave off your ornament from yourself, so that I may know what to do to you.” Therefore, there is a pause marked by the cantillation sign of a פּסִיק (|) between עָשָׂוּ and כָּלָה, in order to separate one word from another. Our Sages, however, interpreted הַכָּצַעִקָתָה to refer to the cry of a certain girl, whom they killed with an unusual death because she gave food to a poor man, as is delineated in [chapter] Chelek. (Sanh. 109b)		הבאה אלי עשו: ואם עומדים במרדם כלה אני עושה בהם. ואם לא יעמדו במרדן, אדעה מה אעשה להפרע מהן ביסורין ולא אכלה אותן. וכיוצא בו מצינו במקום אחר (שמות לג ה) ועתה הורד עדיך מעליך ואדעה מה אעשה לך, ולפיכך יש הפסק נקודת פסיק בין עשו לכלה, כדי להפריד תיבה מחברתה. ורבותינו דרשו הכצעקתה, צעקת ריבה אחת שהרגוה מיתה משונה על שנתנה מזון לעני, כמפורש בחלק (סנהדרין קט ב):

If I understand Rashi correctly, what he is saying is as follows. There certainly was evil behavior in the past, and this is the tzaaka of the land. Now, in descending, Hashem is putting them to the test. What will they do in the immediate future. Will they remain in a rebellious state? If they do -- asu, then destruction, kala. Therefore, there is a pesik, the vertical bar, indicating a light break. If not for that pesik, since the munach under asu is a mesharet, a conjunctive accent, it would have read asu kala. What would this mean? Perhaps that "they have done/will do destruction". Gur Aryeh explains that we might have otherwise selected the meaning of kala as it appears in Shemot 11:1, considering Rashi's comment on that verse:

1. The Lord said to Moses, "I will bring one more plague upon Pharaoh and upon Egypt; afterwards he will let you go from here. When he lets you out, he will completely drive you out of here.		א. וַיֹּאמֶר יְ־הֹוָ־ה אֶל מֹשֶׁה עוֹד נֶגַע אֶחָד אָבִיא עַל פַּרְעֹה וְעַל מִצְרַיִם אַחֲרֵי כֵן יְשַׁלַּח אֶתְכֶם מִזֶּה כְּשַׁלְּחוֹ כָּלָה גָּרֵשׁ יְגָרֵשׁ אֶתְכֶם מִזֶּה:
completely: Heb. כָּלָה [Onkelos renders: גְמִירָא. כָּלָה is therefore the equivalent of] כָּלִיל, complete. [I.e.,] He will let all of you out.		כלה: גמירא, (כלה) כליל, כולכם ישלח:

Thus, if all of them sin. Compare, perhaps, to the local pasuk in Bereishit 19:4:

4. When they had not yet retired, and the people of the city, the people of Sodom, surrounded the house, both young and old, the entire populace from every end[of the city].

ד. טֶרֶם יִשְׁכָּבוּ וְאַנְשֵׁי הָעִיר אַנְשֵׁי סְדֹם נָסַבּוּ עַל הַבַּיִת מִנַּעַר וְעַד זָקֵן כָּל הָעָם מִקָּצֶה:

Where the entire populace perpetrates this evil deed. But because of the pesik, that vertical bar, we instead understand it as "if they do" as they have done, then I will do "destruction".

How does the pasuk end? With  וְאִם לֹא אֵדָעָה. Rashi explains that this means that if they don't "do" in the future by continuing in their evil ways, then "I will know" what to do, which is punishing them with suffering rather than כלה, utter destruction.

Ibn Ezra disagrees. He writes:

[יח, כא]
ויש אומרים:
הכצעקתה הבאה אלי -א"כ עשו - אעשה בהם כלה.

ואם לא אדעה -ארחם אותם.
וכן יפרשו: וידע אלהים.
ועל דעתי פירושו: אראה אם עשו כולם כרעה הזאת, כי האמת שהכל ידע כל חלק, על דרך כל. ולא על דרך חלק והעד כי זה הפירוש הוא האמת ואם הוא סוד גדול שאמר אברהם...ש

His yesh omerim is Rashi, with the modification the eida'ah means explicitly mercy. Yet Ibn Ezra himself explains the כלה as kullam, "all of them". It seems that he would look to Shemot 11:1 and its use of כלה. In this alternate theory which Ibn Ezra endorses, the meaning of ואם לא אדעה is "and if not" that all of them are doing it, "I will know". And this due to a limitation on Hashem's Divine Knowledge, self-imposed such that there is e.g. a distinction between hashgacha peratit and hashgacha kelalit. The אדעה  might then distribute across the positive and negative clauses, or else could work only on the negative clause.

It is interesting that Ibn Ezra does not pay heed to the trup evidence provided by Rashi. It seems from this and other instances (see Shadal's Vikuach) that trup is not dispositive, so that attitude may be the cause. Alternatively, that he doesn't consider the pesik to be sufficient evidence.

Meanwhile, Shadal discredits the specific trup evidence Rashi provided. He writes:

הכצעקתה: אי אפשר לפרש אם כצעקתה עשו, אעשה בהם כלה, כי לא תבוא הה"א להורות על תנאי (עיין מה שכתבתי ב"בכורי העתים" תקפ"ט עמוד צ"ד וצ"ה); ומה שהביא רש"י ראיה מן הטעם שבין עשו לכלה, איננו ראיה, שהרי אף אם היה זה לגרמיה, לא היה אלא הפחות שבמפסיקים, ואיך יהיה כוחו גדול מכוח הטפחא? וכל שכן שאין זה מונח לגרמיה, כי אין אחריו מונח אחר, ואינו אלא פסק, שאין לו שום כוח בענין נתוח המאמרים, אבל הונח להורות הפסקה בקריאה, לסיבות פרטיות, אשר אין בהן כוח לתת מקום לטעם מפסיק, כגון פגישת שתי אותיות שוות (להגדיל למעלה, דברי הימים א כ"ה ה'), או מילות דומות (אברהם אברהם למטה כ"ב י"ח, קדוש קדוש ישעיה ו' ג, והמול ימול למעלה י"ז י"ג), ופגישת שמות הקודש עם מילות חול בלא מפסיק ביניהם, ובאלה יבוא פסק להבדיל בין הקודש ובין החול (ויקרא אלהים לאור יום למעלה א' ה', וינגע ה' את פרעה למעלה י"ב י"ז); או ליתן ריוח בין שתי מילות, שמליצתן קצרה וצריך להבין דבר מה בין זו לזו, או שאחת מהן מקבלת שני פירושים, ועל ידי ההפסקה ירוחק אחד מהם, כגון הבכור נדב (במדבר ג' ב'), שענינו הבכור היה נדב, או הוא נדב, או שמו נדב, וכן באש לילה (דברים א' ל"ג), שענינו באש בלילה; וכן כאן עשו כלה, הכוונה עשו בהחלט ובא הפסק ליתן ריוח בין שתי המילות, שלא יובן שכלה הוא היה המושא, על דרך כי אעשה כלה בכל הגוים (ירמיה מ"ו כ"ה), אבל יובן שהוא תואר הפועל (על דרך באש לילה), כמו כלה גרש יגרש אתכם מזה (שמות י"א א'), וזה קרוב לפירוש ספורנו, ולא כפירושו ממש, כי הוא פירש עשו כולם, שאין ביניהם מוחה, וקרובים לזה דברי ראב"ע, ולפי זה לא היה מקום לאברהם שישאל, האף תספה צדיק עם רשע, כי איך ייתכן שיכרית צדיק עם רשע אחר שכבר גזר לבדוק אם כולם חטאו?

הַכְּצַעֲקָתָהּ -- It is not possible to explain "if like her cry they do, then I will perform destruction upon them", for the heh does not come to inform that there is a condition. {Josh: I didn't look to what he wrote in Bikkurei HaIttim, but if he is concerned about the full patach rather than chataf patach, that could be explained as promotion because of the sheva under the kaf. It might be something more nuanced, though.} ?

And that which Rashi bring a proof from the trup {of pesik} between asu and kala, this is not a proof, for behold, even if it were a munach legarmeih {a stronger pausal accent which appears in a clause ending in revii -- he entertains this possibility because it is orthographically identical to what we have in the pasuk, which is a munach under the word asu followed by a vertical bar}, this is only the least of the disjunctive accents {for Shadal maintains that there are levels of pause, rather than like modern understanding of them as a series of disjunctive accents}, and so how could its force be greater than the force of the tipcha {which appears under the word eilay}?!

{Josh: To interject: The way Shadal apparently understands Rashi is as follows. Consider the trup once again:


There is disjunctive accent under eilay, in the form of tipcha, and disjunctive accent under asu, in the form of either pesik or else munach legarmeih. He takes Rashi to mean that the word asu divides off first to make:
"If in accordance with the cry which comes to Me they do || then destruction". This requires reading past the tipcha.

However, we could parse it slightly differently, I think: "I will descend and see: Is it like the cry which comes before me? If they do, then destruction. And if not, then I will know how to deal with them." This does not require reading past the tipcha.

Anyway, back to Shadal.
}

And all the more so, since this is not the munach legarmeih,  for there is no munach after it, and it only a pasek, which has no manner of divisive power in splitting statements, but is rather placed there do inform of a slight pause in reading, for various causes, which do not have force to place something there for divisive purpose, such as the juxtaposition of two identical letters (e.g. להגדיל למעלה), or similar words (e.g. אברהם אברהם, קדוש קדוש, and המול ימול), and juxtaposition of holy names with non-holy names without a break between them. And in these the pasek comes to divide between the holy and profane (e.g. ויקרא אלהים לאור יום , and וינגע ה' את פרעה); or to place distance between two words whose flow {?} is short, and one needs to understand the matter what is between this and that, or that one of them can take two interpretations, and via the slight break one of them is distanced, such as הבכור נדב, where the meaning is that the firstborn is Nadav, or that he is Nadav, or his name is Nadav. And so too באש לילה, where the meaning is "in fire in the night"; and so too here, עשו כלה, the intent is that "they do completely", and the pasek comes to place a distance between the two words, so that one will not misunderstand and take כלה to be the object, in the same way as כי אעשה כלה בכל הגוים, but will instead understand that it is an adverb (in the same manner as באש לילה) just as it is an adverb in Shemot 11:1,  כלה גרש יגרש אתכם מזה {describing how he will drive them away}. And this is close to the commentary of Sporno, though not entirely like his commentary, for he explains that "they all do", that there is no objector among them. And close to this are the words of Ibn Ezra. And according to this, there was no place for Avraham to ask "will you even destroy the righteous with the wicked?" for how is it possible to destroy the righteous with the wicked if He already decreed to investigate if all of them would sin?!"

Wickes also marks this as the paseq distinctivum, to show that this is not in its general sense of the accusative. I don't know that this would necessarily rule out Rashi, though.

And one can argue that since there are only two words in the clause, after the tipcha divided off, it is a full intended pause but that no regular pause could appear in that place any more, since a clause of three words is required to place a regular disjunctive accent. Wickes does list cases where it serves in place of a full pause, where the regular dichotomy fails for other reasons.

Meanwhile, Ibn Caspi derives a similar lesson from the trup, but from the tipcha under veIm lo. He writes:

וְאִם-לֹא, אֵדָעָה -- "Once the Men of the Great Assembly have placed a tarcha {=tipcha} on the word lo, its intent in my opinion is "if they do, or not", just as in {Chayei Sarah, in Bereishit 24:21}:
 כאוְהָאִ֥ישׁ מִשְׁתָּאֵ֖ה לָ֑הּ מַֽחֲרִ֕ישׁ לָדַ֗עַת הַֽהִצְלִ֧יחַ יְהוָ֛ה דַּרְכּ֖וֹ אִם־לֹֽא׃


and so too it is written earlier {in Vayeira, Bereishit 18:15}:
 טווַתְּכַחֵ֨שׁ שָׂרָ֧ה ׀ לֵאמֹ֛ר לֹ֥א צָחַ֖קְתִּי כִּ֣י ׀ יָרֵ֑אָה וַיֹּ֥אמֶר ׀ לֹ֖א כִּ֥י צָחָֽקְתְּ׃


and in each of these is a tarcha.And they {thus} said that אֵדָעָה is a separate idea, by itself, and so is it written {in Noach, in Bereishit 9:2}:
ב וּמוֹרַֽאֲכֶ֤ם וְחִתְּכֶם֙ יִֽהְיֶ֔ה עַ֚ל כָּל־חַיַּ֣ת הָאָ֔רֶץ וְעַ֖ל כָּל־ע֣וֹף הַשָּׁמָ֑יִם בְּכֹל֩ אֲשֶׁ֨ר תִּרְמֹ֧שׂ הָֽאֲדָמָ֛ה וּֽבְכָל־דְּגֵ֥י הַיָּ֖ם בְּיֶדְכֶ֥ם נִתָּֽנוּ׃


where it is cut off, by itself, as if it said "in your hands". And the intent in this 

is that "I will see... and I will know", for these are two types of truths, that is to say that which is sensory and that which is comprehended. And the trustworthy evidence of this is {Shemot 2:25}:
 כה וַיַּ֥רְא אֱלֹהִ֖ים אֶת־בְּנֵ֣י יִשְׂרָאֵ֑ל וַיֵּ֖דַע אֱלֹהִֽים׃


And all this is via the means of "the Torah speaks in the language of mankind"; and these are weighty matters."

While I am not convinced by the proof of the tipcha, because evidently Ibn Caspi had a different theory of trup that we have -- I don't see that the tipcha has a consistent meaning of this sort -- and because I would not have expected the etnachta in this place, preceding the tipcha. Yet, I still like elements of his theory. Foremost, I like his understanding of אֵדָעָה, as echoing the investigation earlier in the pasuk. And I think, like Rashi, that this is investigation whether or not they are doing this. How to understand כלה is another matter entirely, but even in this I lean heavily towards Rashi. The author of the trup might be saying something different, though.