Post: When the brothers see Yosef's approach from a distance, they note it to each other.
(The Teimanim and the Leningrad Codex have identical trup in pasuk 19 to what is pictured above.)
Shadal writes:
"Halazeh -- every halazeh indicates seeing him from a distance. And so too 'who is this man halezeh (earlier, 24:65 [when Rivkah first spies Yitzchak]) (Rashbam).
And it appears to me that a scribal error fell in the trup, and it appropriate to mark the words בעל החלומות with darga tevir. And it appears to me as well that the word הלזה, which is a grafting of the words הלאה זה ['further on is this'], does not refer here to the man, but rather to the place, as הנה הלזה ('there in that place) is the בעל החלומות, that he is coming. And according to this, הלזה is connected to הנה [at the start of the clause], and not with [the immediately preceding words] בעל החלומות. And according to this, it is fitting that it [meaning the word הנה] be marked with a trup of a lesser degree than tevir, which would be a geresh, as
הנה -- gershayim
בעל -- darga
החלומות -- tevir
הלזה -- tipcha
בא -- silluk
[See image.] That is to say, behold, in that place is the dreamer, that he is coming. And so see הנה השונמית הלז (II Melachim 4:25), 'behold the Shunamite is there, in that place."
I'd like to discuss the trup, and Shadal's competing suggestion, a bit more. The full pasuk, in plain text, is:
וַיֹּאמְרוּ אִישׁ אֶל אָחִיו הִנֵּה בַּעַל הַחֲלֹמוֹת הַלָּזֶה בָּא
The etnachta lops off the first part of the pasuk, attributing the speech, so we are left to parse:
הִנֵּה בַּעַל הַחֲלֹמוֹת הַלָּזֶה בָּא
The pasuk again, with trup, is:
What subdivides clauses ending in silluq (and equivalently, etnachta)? Depending on distance, measured in words, the zakef and tipcha. Here we only have tipcha, so it gives us:
הִנֵּה בַּעַל הַחֲלֹמוֹת הַלָּזֶה | בָּא
Within tipcha's clause, the dichotomy is marked by tevir, revii, and pashta, with the earlier appearing symbol marking the major dichotomy and the later appearing symbol marking the minor dichotomy. Therefore, the revii on הִנֵּה is lopped off first, making it:
הִנֵּה | בַּעַל הַחֲלֹמוֹת הַלָּזֶה
and finally, within the last three words, the tevir on בעל separating it off, into:
בַּעַל | הַחֲלֹמוֹת הַלָּזֶה
Shadal is correct that this is highly irregular. The word בַּעַל is a construct noun. It surely should be joined closely to הַחֲלֹמוֹת, and if you are going to separate off any word, it should be הַלָּזֶה. He says that it seems that this is a taus sofer. Instead, keeping the rest of the trup in place, one should place the tevir on החלמות, and a servus of darga on בעל. This would keep the words together.
This sounds more than plausible. It sounds quite convincing. Yet, he does not bring manuscript evidence to prove that his suggested emendation exists in any manuscript.
But Wickes writes the same thing, and indeed finds manuscript evidence to support it. Thus, William Wickes writes:
After establishing what he thinks is a scribal error and how he would correct it, Shadal proceeds to argue with the trup. He is not necessarily asserting that the different trup as it exists, as a revii, is a scribal error. Rather, he is arguing for a different understanding of the word הלזה, which would then cause a different appropriate trup marking.
He is stating (assuming that he works precisely with Wickes) that revii and tevir stand on the same level, so the הנה as it presently stands is marked off too early. If we use a lighter level trup, such as geresh/gershayim, which is used to mark the minor dichotomy of a tevir, then הנה will be marked off later.
Thus:
הִנֵּה בַּעַל הַחֲלֹמוֹת הַלָּזֶה | בָּא
and then
הִנֵּה בַּעַל הַחֲלֹמוֹת | הַלָּזֶה
because of the tevir. And then
הִנֵּה | בַּעַל הַחֲלֹמוֹת
All together:
הִנֵּה | בַּעַל הַחֲלֹמוֹת || הַלָּזֶה ||| בָּא
I am not so convinced that, with his understanding of הלזה, the revii is so inappropriate. But perhaps I don't fully understand the way trup intersects with the expected parse here.
4 comments:
>> He is stating (assuming that he works precisely with Wickes) that revii and tevir stand on the same level, so the הנה as it presently stands is marked off too early. If we use a lighter level trup, such as geresh/gershayim, which is used to mark the minor dichotomy of a tevir, then הנה will be marked off later. <<
>> I am not so convinced that, with his understanding of הלזה, the revii is so inappropriate. <<
I don't believe he is saying that revia and tevir are on the same level. That simply isn't true. He is saying that the word Henei and Halazeh are connected, and the posuk is really saying "Hinei Halazeh, Baal Hachalomos Ba" - Behold, over there, in that place, the Baal HaChalomos is coming. So Hinei and Halazeh are connected.
Thus he claims that revia is the wrong trup because it would be the first major dichotomy within the tipcha clause and would result in too great of a pause between Hinei and Halazeh, when the two words truly need to be connected.
With a geresh, a lower level trup, the two words become connected: Hineh (Baal Hachalomos) | Halazeh || Ba.
So that's why he can't use revia-darga-tevir-tipcha here; revia would not be connected to Halazeh in that case.
"I don't believe he is saying that revia and tevir are on the same level. That simply isn't true. "
Perhaps I was not precise enough. I was using different terminology. By "the same level", I don't mean the same level of ultimate pause. I meant the same level of creating a dichotomy for a clause ending in X.
zakef and tipcha stand on the same level, differing by distance from the etnachta or silluk.
tevir, revii, and pashta stand on the same level in marking a dichotomy in a clause ending in tipcha, differing only in distance from the tipcha.
See Wickes' chapter on tipcha for more info on this.
So why would you say that it simply isn't true?
As to the rest, I don't have the presence of mind at the moment to look it over and see if we are saying the same thing or not. Bli neder, I will look it over later.
kol tuv,
josh
in terms of the rest of the analysis, I think we are in agreement. My sentence following "All together" is essentially what you are stating.
To explain my last paragraph: What I am NOT convinced of, though, is that trup really works that way. That is, given that Ba is partitioned off first regardless, that Hineh can't bind distantly with Halazeh at the end even if we place the revii there and mark it off second. Given, again, that revii and tevir stand at the same "level" (see above comment), I remain unconvinced that it is not a purely **syntactic** division at this point, rather than some logical connectivity which influenced what is broken off first. Indeed, I have the same issue for a number of these sorts of trup divrei Torahs, where someone makes this sort of diyuk. (Wait for tomorrow's Ibn Caspi trup post for another example.)
Kol tuv,
Josh
Actually, come to think of it, I think we might be in slight disagreement.
Ba, according to both parsings, is knocked off first. That is the function of the tipcha.
What is left is then הִנֵּה בַּעַל הַחֲלֹמוֹת הַלָּזֶה.
Why then, should it matter, if we first knock off הַלָּזֶה or first knock off הִנֵּה from this greater phrase. (It might have to do with binding...)
kt,
josh
Post a Comment