Darshening El Yisrael as Eil Yisrael

The Twelve Sons of Yaakov. Much Younger, of course.

Summary: Is this a revocalization for the sake of derash, or does it reflect their actual vocalization?

Post: Minchas Shai notes an interesting midrash on parashat Vaychi. In Bereishit 49:2:

2. Gather and listen, sons of Jacob, and listen to Israel, your father.

ב. הִקָּבְצוּ וְשִׁמְעוּ בְּנֵי יַעֲקֹב וְשִׁמְעוּ אֶל יִשְׂרָאֵל אֲבִיכֶם:

According to our Masoretic text, the word אֶל  has a segol under it, and it means "unto". This makes good sense, for this is the start of a section of Biblical poetry, which works on poetic parallelism, and we can establish a nice parallelism here. Looking at Targum Onkelos, we see endorsement of this vocalization. We have testimony in its favor, as well, from the Samaritan Targum and the Septuagint,

Yet, there is a somewhat strange midrash in Bereishit Rabba upon this word אֶל, where it is read with a tzeirei. Thus:

ושמעו אל ישראל אביכם רבי יודן ורבי פנחס
רבי יודן אמר:שמעו לאל ישראל אביכם.

ורבי פנחס אמר:אל הוא, ישראל אביכם. מה הקב"ה בורא עולמות.
אף אביכם בורא עולמות.

מה הקדוש ברוך הוא מחלק עולמות,
אף אביכם מחלק עולמות. 

There is a dispute between Rabbi Yuda and Rabbi Pinchas (two Amoraim of Eretz Yisrael). According to Rabbi Yudan, it seems, the juxtaposition makes for the extra word el, "to", but of course El, "God", is already in place. And so it is "Listen [to] the God of Yisrael your father".

In contrast, according to Rabbi Pinchas, it is to be read thusly: "Listen: A God, is Yisrael your father". Then, he explains how Yaakov is parallel in various aspects to Hashem.

It seems as though both take for granted that the word is El, God, but that they offer different means of interpreting the slight awkwardness. The first, that juxtaposition creates an implicit "unto", and the second, that the apposition of the two nouns creates an implicit "he is".

There are then two possibilities in understanding the nature of this dispute. Either reading אֵל instead of אֶל is derash, is which case it is a revocalization -- an al tikra; or else it stands in the background as assumed peshat, and the substance of the dispute is what to do with the juxtaposition. If the former, then this should not indicate how we should read it, for revocalization is common, but if the latter, then we are in the awkward position in which Chazal argue against the Masorah.

Some meforshim explain Rabbi Yudan as saying that we will read aleph lamed both as is pronounced and as this revocalization. Thus, we get אֶל אֵל, "unto God". If this is so, then it is evidence that a revocalization may well be in place. On the other hand, we need not say this. The juxtaposition alone may be enough to trigger this implicit "unto".

How could the tzeirei turn to a segol, or vice versa? Well, recall that while there were traditions of how to pronounce various Biblical texts, the orthography of nikkud, that is, the specific signs designating the vowels, were not invented until post-Talmudic times. And so the Masoretes wrote down what they heard. There is a distinction between tzeirei and segol in both Tiberian and Palestinian nikkud, but I would note that in texts with nikkud Palestini, it is fairly common to have different segol / tzeirei values than what we have in texts pointed with Tiberian nikkud. And compare with modern Israeli Hebrew, in which tzeirei and seghol are pronounced identically, as segol. And recall that אֵל is a closed syllable and that, phonologically speaking, a closed tzeirei is much closer to a segol than is an open tzeiri. (Try saying Eir from Eir veOnan, for the closed syllable, and then try saying Benei, sons of.) As such, perhaps this correct pronunciation was lost.

The midrash actually continues with something relevant:

אלעזר בן אחוי אמר:מכאן זכו ישראל לקריאת שמע.
בשעה שהיה יעקב אבינו נפטר מן העולם קרא לשנים עשר בניו.
אמר להם: שמעו אל ישראל, שבשמים אביכם, שמא יש בלבבכם מחלוקת על הקב"ה!
אמר לו: (דברים ו) שמע ישראל אבינו כשם שאין בלבך מחלוקת על הקדוש ברוך הוא, כך אין בלבנו מחלוקת, אלא ה' אלהינו ה' אחד. אף הוא פירש בשפתיו ואמר: ברוך שם כבוד מלכותו לעולם ועד. 

I don't know that I like this punctuation, particularly the comma after Yisrael, but at any rate, look at this line in the above midrash:

אמר להם: שמעו אל ישראל, שבשמים אביכם, שמא יש בלבבכם מחלוקת על הקב"ה

"He said to them: Listen to the God of Israel who is in Heaven, your Father. Perhaps there is in your hearts a dispute with Hakadosh Baruch Hu?"

That is, I would read this midrash by Eleazar ben Achoi as saying that avichem does not modify Yaakov, but rather modifies God. See Etz Yosef, who appears to agree with my reading: 'This is its explanation -- and listen that the God of Israel who is in heaven is your Father.'

There are presumably other ways of reading this, in which שבשמים אביכם means that Yaakov is (or perhaps soon will be) in Heaven, but it feels more awkward to me. And we already have this setup of El as God from the immediately preceding discussion. If we read it the former way, then Chazal consistently argue on our Masorah (and perhaps we should change it). If the latter, then it might be evidence that el means unto rather than a shem Hashem. Although we could still say that the word El there is what sparks the later part of Yaakov's statement, שמא יש בלבבכם מחלוקת על הקב"ה.

It is difficult, IMHO, though not impossible, to maintain a masorah against unanimous Chazal. (Unless someone knows of another source in Chazal that takes it another way...) Is masorah the encoding written down in a set period, and a kept tradition since then, such that we should not deviate, but rather preserve this? Or is it supposed to reflect the true meaning of the pasuk, as understood by Chazal, such that we should consider this evidence of a corrupted tradition in our Masorah along the way, and so correct it?

I will close with a neat resolution of the problem which I was saving for the end. We can assert that even Chazal had a segol in place yet understood it as God. How so? Well, here is the pasuk again:

ב  הִקָּבְצוּ וְשִׁמְעוּ, בְּנֵי יַעֲקֹב; וְשִׁמְעוּ, אֶל-יִשְׂרָאֵל אֲבִיכֶם.

2 Assemble yourselves, and hear, ye sons of Jacob; and hearken unto Israel your father.

Note the makef -- the horizontal stroke -- connecting el to Yisrael. This indicates that there is no trup, and no independent stress, on the word el. Let us assume for a moment that the word means  אֵל, God. When the stress shifts on other words in this pattern, the tzeirei changes to a segol. For example, the word for "son", bein, has a tzeirei when it stands alone, but if adjoined to the next word (and this can happen if it is the construct), then it would become a segol. Thus:

ו  לְשִׁמְעוֹן, שְׁלֻמִיאֵל בֶּן-צוּרִישַׁדָּי.

6 Of Simeon, Shelumiel the son of Zurishaddai.

So too the word leich. With the makeif, it can become lech. Thus:

א  וַיֹּאמֶר ה אֶל-אַבְרָם, לֶךְ-לְךָ מֵאַרְצְךָ וּמִמּוֹלַדְתְּךָ וּמִבֵּית אָבִיךָ, אֶל-הָאָרֶץ, אֲשֶׁר אַרְאֶךָּ.

1 Now the LORD said unto Abram: 'Get thee out of thy country, and from thy kindred, and from thy father's house, unto the land that I will show thee.

If so, perhaps everyone, including Chazal, agree it should be pronounced with a segol. However, they have either an understanding or a tradition that this word  אֶל  is kodesh, and that it refers to Hashem. This could have halachic ramifications in terms of kavana that a sofer or baal koreh must have.