What parsing of זאת הפעם does Ibn Caspi reject, based on trup?

Summary: I don't think it is the one mentioned in the footnote, namely the traditional parse of 'this time a bone of a bone', rejected in favor of 'Adam said this time'. This does not work with Ibn Caspi's wording. Rather, I think that he is rejecting Shadal's parse of זאת referring to the אשה, in favor of the traditional parse.

Post: Adam is happy with the Woman whom God has given him. And so, we read in Bereishit:
וַיֹּאמֶר הָאָדָם זֹאת הַפַּעַם עֶצֶם מֵעֲצָמַי וּבָשָׂר מִבְּשָׂרִי לְזֹאת יִקָּרֵא אִשָּׁה כִּי מֵאִישׁ לֻקְחָה-זֹּאת


Ibn Caspi writes to reject one parse and to establish another parse, based on the trup:

"This time: behold, זאת refers to פעם, for so did the Men of the Great Assembly inform us, that this was the intent of the Giver of the Torah and he who wrote it."

This is a bit cryptic, though perhaps it would be less so if we were to understand it. I will be the first to admit that I don't understand it, at least at this point in this post. He is clearly referring to trup, but I know that I don't truly understand Ibn Caspi's theory of trup.

The footnote (4) reads:

"And his intent is that one should not connect זאת הפעם to {the next phrase} עצם מעצמי, for this is against the trup. And the intent it that זאת הפעם is not the statement of the man {Adam}, but rather the statement of the Torah {narrator}. That is to say, 'at this time, he said 'bone of my bone' ', for after this he called her Chava. So appears to me to be his intent, based on the words of the author of HaKsav veHakabbalah, see there."


Given that Rabbi Yakov Tzvi Meklenberg interprets the trup of the very same pasuk, and argues that a specific interpretation is against the trup, then it is a somewhat safe bet that he is saying a similar thing to Ibn Caspi. So let us examine HaKsav veHaKabbalah:

"This is not the statement of the Adam but rather the statement of the Torah. That is to say, 'at this time that she was brought before him, now he said, 'bone of my bone', etc., and he called her Woman.' But after that, at a different time, he called her by the name Chava, as is explained there. And therefore these two words are separated by a revii. And those who connect זאת הפעם עצם מעצמי to be a single statement oppose the trup."

I can see this reading, but I must declare that it feels extremely forced to read this into Ibn Caspi's words. For all that Ibn Caspi said was that זאת refers to פעם. But if we consider the two alternatives presented by haKsav veHaKabbalah, we see that in both instances זאת refers to פעם. Either 'this time' Adam speaks some words, or 'this time' bone of my bone. If Ibn Caspi were saying this, then he should speak more clearly about what זאת הפעם is a רמז to. Ibn Caspi remains cryptic, and forced, if this is his intent.

However, Ibn Caspi just opens up once we see Shadal, who presents and argues for the alternative. Shadal writes:

"זאת does not refer to פעם. For {if so} it should have said הפעם הזאת. Furthermore, if you explain it as 'this is the time' (in the same manner of all זה, זאת and אלה which is before a noun, including pronouns such as הוא, היא and הם) then the verse is not explained well. Rather זאת refers to אשה, and the word הפעם means 'tandem' {Josh: the Latin adverb meaning 'finally' or 'at length'}, as in {Bereshit 29:34}:

לד  וַתַּהַר עוֹד, וַתֵּלֶד בֵּן, וַתֹּאמֶר עַתָּה הַפַּעַם יִלָּוֶה אִישִׁי אֵלַי, כִּי-יָלַדְתִּי לוֹ שְׁלֹשָׁה בָנִים; עַל-כֵּן קָרָא-שְׁמוֹ, לֵוִי.

34 And she conceived again, and bore a son; and said: 'Now this time will my husband be joined unto me, because I have borne him three sons.' Therefore was his name called Levi.

and {Bereshit 30:20}

כ  וַתֹּאמֶר לֵאָה, זְבָדַנִי אֱלֹהִים אֹתִי זֵבֶד טוֹב--הַפַּעַם יִזְבְּלֵנִי אִישִׁי, כִּי-יָלַדְתִּי לוֹ שִׁשָּׁה בָנִים; וַתִּקְרָא אֶת-שְׁמוֹ, זְבֻלוּן.

20 And Leah said: 'God hath endowed me with a good dowry; now will my husband dwell with me, because I have borne him six sons.' And she called his name Zebulun.

and {Shemot 9:27}:

כז  וַיִּשְׁלַח פַּרְעֹה, וַיִּקְרָא לְמֹשֶׁה וּלְאַהֲרֹן, וַיֹּאמֶר אֲלֵהֶם, חָטָאתִי הַפָּעַם:  ה, הַצַּדִּיק, וַאֲנִי וְעַמִּי, הָרְשָׁעִים.

27 And Pharaoh sent, and called for Moses and Aaron, and said unto them: 'I have sinned this time; the LORD is righteous, and I and my people are wicked.

and so in German, ein mahl {literally: one time}. And also in Italian they say una volta {literally: one time} to express tandem. And behold the intent, at the end of the day, I have found myself an appropriate match {for translation} that זאת היא עצם מעצמי, etc, (Questa finalment e'). And so have I found as well to the author of HaRechasim Levik'ah."

In Shadal's translation to Italian, he renders it:
"E l'uomo disse: Questa finalment è osso della mie ossa, e carne della mia carne; questa deve chiamarsi Iscià [donna], poiche da Ish [uomo] fu tratta."

Changing 'finalment' to 'finalmente', this yields:
"And the man said, This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh, and this must be called Isha [woman], because of Ish [man] was it ."

At long last {play on words fully intended!} we can understand Ibn Caspi's comment. Once again, he said:


זאת refers to פעם. As opposed to what? As opposed to אשה! And indeed, as we shall see, the trup does support it, because there is conjunctive trup joining זאת with הפעם, where we would have expected disjunctive trup had they been intended separate. And

So now we have three competing theories of how to parse the pasuk. We should flesh each of them out and consider how, and if, they work together with the trup.

What is the trup on the pasuk? This:

There is a segolta on האדם, which has the value of zakef. There is a zakef katon on מעצמי, which has a value of zakef. And there is a tipcha  of ובשר, which has the value of zakef, though in this case, it is just a foretone preceding the etnachta. There is a zakef on אשה, and a tipcha on מאיש. There constitute the first level of division, breaking up clauses ending in etnachta or silluq.

Within the second level, the revii on הפעם and the yetiv on עצם each separate off clauses ending in zakef (the one on מעצמי); so too the pashta on לזאת, separating it off from the clause ending in אשה.

Therefore, if we were to parse the pasuk based on the trup, we would end up with:
וַיֹּאמֶר הָאָדָם זֹאת הַפַּעַם עֶצֶם מֵעֲצָמַי וּבָשָׂר מִבְּשָׂרִי לְזֹאת יִקָּרֵא אִשָּׁה כִּי מֵאִישׁ לֻקְחָה-זֹּאת

The etnachta divides the verse in half, so it becomes:
וַיֹּאמֶר הָאָדָם זֹאת הַפַּעַם עֶצֶם מֵעֲצָמַי וּבָשָׂר מִבְּשָׂרִי
לְזֹאת יִקָּרֵא אִשָּׁה כִּי מֵאִישׁ לֻקְחָה-זֹּאת

Looking just as the first half of the verse, the zakef level divisions divide in order (for otherwise, they would not be subdividing a clause which ends in etnachta). So,


וַיֹּאמֶר הָאָדָם זֹאת הַפַּעַם עֶצֶם מֵעֲצָמַי וּבָשָׂר מִבְּשָׂרִי

becomes:
וַיֹּאמֶר הָאָדָם
זֹאת הַפַּעַם עֶצֶם מֵעֲצָמַי וּבָשָׂר מִבְּשָׂרִי

Looking at the second clause, it subdivides at the zakef into:
זֹאת הַפַּעַם עֶצֶם מֵעֲצָמַי
וּבָשָׂר מִבְּשָׂרִי

Looking at the first clause, it now subdivides at the revii into:
זֹאת הַפַּעַם
עֶצֶם מֵעֲצָמַי

There are some further subdivisions, but this captures the most important points. Trup often divides in the first place, at etnachta, on logical grounds, but subsequently subdivides on purely syntactic grounds.

Let us consider each of the three options of parsing the pasuk.

#1: The typical, traditional, parse, in which זֹאת הַפַּעַם is Adam speaking and saying that this time she is bone of my bone. This seems to work with the trup, in accordance with a modern, William Wickes-based understanding. There is a division at the segolta, marking off וַיֹּאמֶר הָאָדָם from the rest, which means that everything which follows is part of the quote. And even if זֹאת הַפַּעַם were modifying his speech, I would have expected it to be next marked off, at the zakef level, leaving עֶצֶם מֵעֲצָמַי וּבָשָׂר מִבְּשָׂרִי to be subdivided. (Except of course that the subdivisions are probably motivated by syntactic concerns, such as what it a noun phrase and what is a prepositional phrase.) But the reading does seem to work well with the trup.

#2: The suggestion of haKsav vehaKabbalah, also read into Ibn Caspi. This was that זאת הפעם is modifying וַיֹּאמֶר הָאָדָם. This time, relates the Torah, Adam said X. I don't believe that this is supported by a modern, William Wickes-based understanding of trup. At the least, a Wickes-based understanding does not compel such a reading. After all, וַיֹּאמֶר הָאָדָם is separated off first, by the segolta (a type of zakef). To divide it as he is suggesting, we should have a zakef on הפעם, and then a revii on האדם to subdivide that clause. The revii is a disjunctive, dividing trup, but it divides too far down the parse tree to impel the meaning haKsav vehaKabbalah attributes to it.

Of course, different people have different theories of trup, and an earlier theory of trup might make a lot more of the revii, and ignore the zakef/segolta.

#3: The parse of Shadal, and rejected by Ibn Caspi on the grounds of trup. This was that זאת refers to the אשה, and הפעם is a separate statement, corresponding to Latin 'tandem'. Ibn Caspi's objection is the munach on זאת, which is a conjunctive, joining, accent. Therefore, זאת הפעם stands together.

This is a pretty strong argument. Now, Shadal does not believe that trup is dispositive. He feels that a pashtan is allowed to argue against trup, and that many pashtanim indeed did so. This is in part because trup is not halacha leMoshe miSinai but was written by an fairly early and brilliant commentator. One should pay heed to the trup, as one would pay heed to many other meforshim but, at the end of the day, one may argue against the trup.

Still, Shadal often comments on the repercussions of trup, yet he does not do so here. It may be that he does not feel that his interpretation violates the trup. I don't know that Shadal shares Wickes' theory precisely. But maybe we could say that since there is distant binding of זאת, and both זאת and הפעם are modifying something later, they were put first into a single group, and that two words together are often not then separated. And Wickes mentions that pronouns such as זה are often not considered important enough to separate by themselves. Still, I think that there is some level of violation of the trup, and that זאת should have indeed been separated off first, with a zakef, or at the least a revii or pashta.