Wednesday, April 13, 2011

The trup on הַשֹּׁכֵן אִתָּם בְּתוֹךְ טֻמְאֹתָם

Summary: The difference between our masorah in trup and that of the Teimanim. In this instance, there is no practical difference, according to the rules as explained by Wickes.

Post: In the beginning of parashat Acharei Mot, we read the following pasuk:

טז  וְכִפֶּר עַל-הַקֹּדֶשׁ, מִטֻּמְאֹת בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל, וּמִפִּשְׁעֵיהֶם, לְכָל-חַטֹּאתָם; וְכֵן יַעֲשֶׂה, לְאֹהֶל מוֹעֵד, הַשֹּׁכֵן אִתָּם, בְּתוֹךְ טֻמְאֹתָם.16 And he shall make atonement for the holy place, because of the uncleannesses of the children of Israel, and because of their transgressions, even all their sins; and so shall he do for the tent of meeting, that dwelleth with them in the midst of their uncleannesses.

The shochen would appear to be the Ohel Moed. The trup on this pasuk, in our Mikraos Gedolos, is:

Note the munach-zakef katon on hashochen itam. At Mechon Mamre, the same. They are mainly Yemenite Jews, so I would expect the that they are giving their tradition here. Yet they have:
טז וְכִפֶּ֣ר עַל־הַקֹּ֗דֶשׁ מִטֻּמְאֹת֙ בְּנֵ֣י יִשְׂרָאֵ֔ל וּמִפִּשְׁעֵיהֶ֖ם לְכָל־חַטֹּאתָ֑ם וְכֵ֤ן יַֽעֲשֶׂה֙ לְאֹ֣הֶל מוֹעֵ֔ד הַשֹּׁכֵ֣ן אִתָּ֔ם בְּת֖וֹךְ טֻמְאֹתָֽם׃

The Teimanim at have something slightly different (pg 152 in the PDF):

Note the tipcha under itam. On the bottom, a note about this:

Thus, in all the best manuscripts, there is no tevir, but rather a tipcha. I am not sure how one could place a tevir on the word itam, assuming the rest of the trup remains the same. For the expected servus of the tevir in itam would be darga, and the tevir on itam would simply have to precede a tipcha, placed on the word betoch. Thus, the trup on these last words, as best I could reconstruct according to the rules of trup, would have to be:
הַשֹּׁכֵן -- darga
אִתָּם -- tevir
בְּתוֹךְ -- tipcha
טֻמְאֹתָם - silluq

If it were not adjusted in this manner -- for example, if there were a mercha on the word betoch, then it violates the rules of trup and is certainly an error. But even as I outlined it above, the trup does not match any syntactic parse of the pasuk. Because the tipcha subdivides and then the tevir subdivides within that. So we would have:
הַשֹּׁכֵן אִתָּם בְּתוֹךְ טֻמְאֹתָם

הַשֹּׁכֵן אִתָּם בְּתוֹךְ

At this stage, it already does not make any syntactic sense. Then,

הַשֹּׁכֵן אִתָּם בְּתוֹךְ

would become:
הַשֹּׁכֵן אִתָּם

This is simply not a syntactic parse. So, I have not examined these erroneous Yemenite manuscripts to determine precisely what they say, but based on the description, any way we turn, it seems that it cannot be correct.

However, the parse given by the trup in the good Yemenite manuscripts works perfectly correctly. Examining the second half of the pasuk, after the etnachta:

וְכֵן -- mahpach
יַעֲשֶׂה -- pashta
לְאֹהֶל -- munach
מוֹעֵד -- zakef katon
הַשֹּׁכֵן -- mercha
אִתָּם -- tipcha
בְּתוֹךְ -- mercha
טֻמְאֹתָם -- silluq

In this instance, everything works out. Because zakef katon and tipcha divide at the same level, and so the earlier one takes hold first. And so we get:

וְכֵן יַעֲשֶׂה, לְאֹהֶל מוֹעֵד, הַשֹּׁכֵן אִתָּם, בְּתוֹךְ טֻמְאֹתָם

וְכֵן יַעֲשֶׂה, לְאֹהֶל מוֹעֵד
הַשֹּׁכֵן אִתָּם בְּתוֹךְ טֻמְאֹתָם

Then, within:
הַשֹּׁכֵן אִתָּם בְּתוֹךְ טֻמְאֹתָם

we divide on betoch, on the tipcha, and so get:
הַשֹּׁכֵן אִתָּם
בְּתוֹךְ טֻמְאֹתָם

Perfect! On one line, with || marking an earlier dichotomy than |, we have:

וְכֵן יַעֲשֶׂה לְאֹהֶל מוֹעֵד || הַשֹּׁכֵן אִתָּם | בְּתוֹךְ טֻמְאֹתָם

What about our (Ashkenazic) masorah? After all, we have zakef on itam, and the tipcha on betoch. Does this yield a different parse? It turns out to give an identical parse. Why? Because as I noted earlier, tipcha and zakef katon are identical division marks, both dividing something ending with silluq. The choice of tipcha or zakeif katon is determined entirely by word distance from the end of the silluq. One word before, tipcha. Two before, sometimes a tipcha and sometimes a zakef. Three words before, almost certainly a zakef. And so on until nine words before, where it is a segolta. And so, the specific trup is:

וְכֵן -- mahpach
יַעֲשֶׂה -- pashta
לְאֹהֶל -- munach
מוֹעֵד -- zakef katon
הַשֹּׁכֵן -- munach
אִתָּם -- zakef katon
בְּתוֹךְ -- tipcha
טֻמְאֹתָם -- silluq

We thus simply switched the trup on hashochen itam from the acceptable mercha tipcha to the more-expected but equivalent munach zakef katon. For the continuous dichotomy would be just as I drew above, and we would again end with:

וְכֵן יַעֲשֶׂה לְאֹהֶל מוֹעֵד || הַשֹּׁכֵן אִתָּם | בְּתוֹךְ טֻמְאֹתָם

What about that tipcha on the word betoch, as a replacement for mercha? Wickes would call that manifestation of tipcha, in this context, a foretone, and say that it is just musical in nature, rather than really marking some dichotomy.

I wonder if any of my readers have access to the "bad" Teimani manuscripts. I'd like to see what is actually present there.

1 comment:

Z said...

I purchased Wickes' book but I'm having a hard time understanding it. Maybe you could do a series as an introduction to help me and others understand the methodology he uses and the topic in general.


Blog Widget by LinkWithin