Wednesday, July 11, 2007

Pinchas: The Trup on UMinchatam

This should be somewhat serious, since as far as I know a baal koreh will take care at the least to have correct disjunctive vs. conjunctive accent (melech vs. mesharet), and this is more of an issue than substituting one disjunctive accent for another, or conjunctive accent for another.

Towards the end of parshat Pinchas, Shadal comments on the trup of the word uminchatam in Bemidbar 29:3:
ג וּמִנְחָתָם--סֹלֶת, בְּלוּלָה בַשָּׁמֶן: שְׁלֹשָׁה עֶשְׂרֹנִים לַפָּר, שְׁנֵי עֶשְׂרֹנִים לָאָיִל. 3 and their meal-offering, fine flour mingled with oil, three tenth parts for the bullock, two tenth part for the ram,
Or, with the trup:
ג וּמִ֨נְחָתָ֔ם סֹ֖לֶת בְּלוּלָ֣ה בַשָּׁ֑מֶן שְׁלֹשָׁ֤ה עֶשְׂרֹנִים֙ לַפָּ֔ר שְׁנֵ֥י עֶשְׂרֹנִ֖ים לָאָֽיִל׃

Shadal comments:
בעל מנחת שי כתב כי גם ומנחתם של ובחדש השביעי ( פסוק ט ) הוא בפשטא זקף, ובתנ"ך כ"י משנת ק"ז אשר ביד ר' מרדכי שמואל גירונדי מצאתי כל ומנחתם שבפרשה במרכא, ואולי כן נכון, כמו ( ויקרא כ"ג י"ג ) ונסכו יין רביעית ההין.

Thus, the Minchat Shai wrote that this one and the one in pasuk 9 has the word וּמִ֨נְחָתָ֔ם with a pashta and zakef, that is a zakef with a foretone. However, in a Tanach manuscript from the year 107 (which is 1240+107 = 1347) which is in the hands of R' Mordechai Shmuel Gerondi, he he found all the uminchatams in this parsha with a mercha, and perhaps this is correct, like in Vayikra 23:13:
יג וּמִנְחָתוֹ֩ שְׁנֵ֨י עֶשְׂרֹנִ֜ים סֹ֣לֶת בְּלוּלָ֥ה בַשֶּׁ֛מֶן אִשֶּׁ֥ה לַ֖ה' רֵ֣יחַ נִיחֹ֑חַ וְנִסְכֹּ֥ה יַ֖יִן רְבִיעִ֥ת הַהִֽין׃

There, at the end of the pasuk, there is a mercha on וְנִסְכֹּ֥ה and thus it is parallel to this present case. So perhaps such would be correct.

I should point out that the matter here is not just whether the accent on uminchatam is disjunctive or conjunctive -- the disjunctive accent of zakef is parallel to that of the tipcha on solet, which means that it branches off higher (read Wickes for an explanation of this phenomenon). Thus, if it is a zakef, then the division is:

and their meal-offering || fine flour | mingled with oil

where the || is the first split and the | is the second split, within that phrase.

On the other hand, if it is a mercha, then the division is:

and their meal-offering is fine flour || mingled with oil

The syntactic difference is that in the former, the meal-offering is "fine flour mingled with oil," while in the latter, the meal offering is "fine flour," with the added information that this meal offering of fine flour is "mingled with oil."

I am not convinced that Shadal's parallel is a great one, since he is comparing an adjective -- in the sense that it modifies what is done to the flour -- with a quantity -- how much wine. Still, a good example of this form.

No comments:


Blog Widget by LinkWithin