How many are the days of your life, as question or exclamation?

Summary: There is a dispute whether kama is a question or exclamation. Ibn Caspi has a nice exchange with an elderly man about this, and also tries to claim that this is what the Anshei Knesset HaGedolah meant when they placed a gaaya (=zakef gadol) on the word. I investigate.

Post: When Pharaoh greets Yaakov for the first time, towards the end of Vayigash:

ח  וַיֹּאמֶר פַּרְעֹה, אֶל-יַעֲקֹב:  כַּמָּה, יְמֵי שְׁנֵי חַיֶּיךָ.

8 And Pharaoh said unto Jacob: 'How many are the days of the years of thy life?

This could either be a question or an exclamation. Rashi says nothing, which strongly suggests to me that he understands it as a question. Rashbam explicitly makes it a question:

פסוק ט 
מעט ורעים -
לפי שנראה יעקב בעיניו זקן יותר מדאי, ששאל לו: כמה ימי שני חייך?
השיב לו יעקב: מעט הם, אבל רעים הם ולכך אני נראה בעיניך זקן יותר מדאי. 

and Ramban also explicitly makes it a question:

ונראה לי כי יעקב אבינו זרקה בו שיבה והיה נראה זקן מאד, ופרעה תמה על זקנותו כי אין רוב אנשי זמנו מאריכים ימים כל כך, שכבר קצרו שנותם, ולכן שאל לו כמה ימי שני חייך, כי לא ראיתי כמותך זקן בכל מלכותי, אז ענה יעקב כי ימיו שלשים ומאת שנה, ואל יתמה בהם כי מעט הם כנגד שנות אבותיו שחיו יותר, אבל מפני היותם רעים בעמל ואנחה זרקה בו שיבה ונראה זקן מאד:

Baal HaTurim follows Ramban's lead, making it explicitly a question, though he provides a unique twist on the cause for Pharaoh's confusion which leads to the question:

ויאמר פרעה וגו' כמה ימי שני חייך.
תימא למה שאל לשני חייו, וכן יעקב למה
התאונן לו לומר מעט ורעים היו ימי שני חיי,
אלא שיעקב קפצה עליו הזקנה מרוב הצרות
שעברו עליו, ואמר לפרעה לגור בארץ באנו
כאלו מצפה עוד לחזור, על כן תמה פרעה ואמר
לא ראיתי זקן כמותך בכל ארצי, ועוד שאתה
מקוה לחיות עוד, שאתה אומר לשוב לארצך,
ולכן שאל כמה ימי שני חייך, ויעקב השיבו מה
שאני נראה כזקן לא מפני רוב השנים, שאין לי
אלא מאה ושלשים שנים, אלא שמעט ורעים
היו שני חיי, וקפצה עלי זקנה.

I am not entirely sure what to make of Sporno's comment of tamah:

פסוק ח
כַּמָּה יְמֵי שְׁנֵי חַיֶּיךָ. תָּמַהּ, כִּי לא הָיָה דָּבָר מָצוּי בְּמִצְרַיִם שֶׁיַּאֲרִיךְ אָדָם חַיִּים כָּל כָּךְ שֶׁיַּגִּיעַ לְפֶרֶק שֶׁהָיָה אָז יַעֲקב בּו, וְגַם שֵׂיבָה זָרְקָה בּו. 

This could be an explanation for his question, or else a general exclamation in wonder. See how Ramban also used the term tamah; and how Baal HaTurim did the same.

Shadal as well maintains it to be a question:

לפי שנראה יעקב בעיניו זקן יותר מדי, ששאל לו כמה ימי שני חייך

R' Yosef Bechor Shor is unclear, but I would guess means that Pharaoh asked:

כמה ימי שני חייך לפי שראה אותו
זקן, חשב כי רוב שנים היו לו

Meanwhile, Chizkuni appears to take the opposite position, writing:

ק(ח) כמה ימי שגי חייך • מאד אתה נראה זקן
ומלא ימים ויעקב השיבו אל תתמה על זה שהרי ימי
שני חיי מעט אלא ע"י שרעים היו ימי שני חיי אני
נראה זקן מרוב ימים

This is then an expression of wonder and surprise. And we might not even have noticed that this is as opposed to a question. After all, others speak of the wonder guiding to question.

Abarbanel as well, appears to explicitly assert that it is not a query. He compares it to {Iyov 7:19}:

יט  כַּמָּה, לֹא-תִשְׁעֶה מִמֶּנִּי;    לֹא-תַרְפֵּנִי, עַד-בִּלְעִי רֻקִּי.

19 How long wilt Thou not look away from me, nor let me alone till I swallow down my spittle?

Thus, it is not a query as to how many years in particular, but an expression of his wonder.

Now, to turn to Ibn Caspi. He writes:
ח) כמה ימי שני חייך. למה איחס לעצמי דבר
שמעתי מזולתי , וחלילה לי בכל ספרי , ודע כי זה מעט
בעלותי טודילא, ויהי בדרך במלון ויפגשגי זקן אחד מפרובנצא
וישאלני פרוש זה הפסוק ולא השיבותיו חדוש. ויאמר לי אני אתן לך
מתת, דע כי לא היה אמרו כמה בזה שאלה, רק דבר גוזמא, כטעם מה
רב טובך (תהילים ל״א כ'), כמה לא תשעה ממני (איוב ז׳ י׳ט), והעד
מה שהשיב לו מעט ורעים (פסוק ט׳), והענין בזה כי כאשר ראה פרעה
את יעקב כולו לבן גחין ההיא סבא, אמר כמה רבים שני חייך! אז
השיב לו יעקב לא אדוני, אבל מעט המה, אמנם נשברתי קדרתי
ושיבה זרקה בי כי היו רעים.


ואשיב להזקן, לא אומר כי זה פרוש טוב,
אבל אומר כי זה אמר יעקב או כון נותן התורה ,
טוב סחרך מסחר כסף , ומלתא ללבושוהי יקיר.


 אחרי כן שבתי
בשלום אל ביתי ועינתי בספרי התורה כמנהגי להגות בו
יומם ולילה , ומצאתי שכן למדוני אנשי כנסת הגדולה ששמו
עליו געיא שענינו מטעם יגעה שור (איוב ו׳ ה'), כלומר'
שהוא קריאה כטעם הגעיא אשר במלת אחתנו את היי (כ״ד ס'), ורבים כן


How many are the days of your life! -- Why should I attribute to myself something I heard from someone other than myself, and forfend for me to do so in all my sefer. And know that this happened just as I entered Todela, and I was on the road at an inn, and a certain elderly gentleman from Provence met me and asked me the explanation of this pasuk, and I did not respond to him with a novelty {but just explained it in its simple manner}. And he said to me, "I will give you a present. Know that he did not say "How" in this as a question, but rather as a matter of exaggeration, in the same manner as {Tehillim 31:20}:

כ  מָה רַב-טוּבְךָ,    אֲשֶׁר-צָפַנְתָּ לִּירֵאֶיךָ: פָּעַלְתָּ, לַחֹסִים בָּךְ;    נֶגֶד, בְּנֵי אָדָם.

20 Oh how abundant is Thy goodness, which Thou hast laid up for them that fear Thee; {N} which Thou hast wrought for them that take their refuge in Thee, in the sight of the sons of men!

and {Iyov 7:19}

יט  כַּמָּה, לֹא-תִשְׁעֶה מִמֶּנִּי;    לֹא-תַרְפֵּנִי, עַד-בִּלְעִי רֻקִּי.

19 How long wilt Thou not look away from me, nor let me alone till I swallow down my spittle?

{but interpreted in a different manner than the JPS translation, perhaps "how long has it been!"}.
And the proof is in what he {=Yaakov} responded to him, 

ט  וַיֹּאמֶר יַעֲקֹב, אֶל-פַּרְעֹה, יְמֵי שְׁנֵי מְגוּרַי, שְׁלֹשִׁים וּמְאַת שָׁנָה:  מְעַט וְרָעִים, הָיוּ יְמֵי שְׁנֵי חַיַּי, וְלֹא הִשִּׂיגוּ אֶת-יְמֵי שְׁנֵי חַיֵּי אֲבֹתַי, בִּימֵי מְגוּרֵיהֶם.

9 And Jacob said unto Pharaoh: 'The days of the years of my sojournings are a hundred and thirty years; few and evil have been the days of the years of my life, and they have not attained unto the days of the years of the life of my fathers in the days of their sojournings.'

and the matter in this is that when Pharaoh saw Yaakov, all white {...?}, he said "How much must be the days of your life!" Then, Yaakov responded to him, "No my master, but they are few, but I am broken in anguish, I am black {see the pasuk in Yirmeyahu from which this is drawn}, and old age was cast upon me for they were bad.


And I responded to the old man, do not say that this explanation is good, but rather say that this was what Yaakov said, or this was what the Giver of the Torah intended, your merchandise is better than merchandise of silver, and a word to he who wears it is dear. {J: I am not sure what it means. Nechama Leibowitz understands this as a rejection of the explanation. And so I suppose Ibn Caspi is rejecting the novelty, even though the explanation of the pasuk without this novelty is "boring". He wants to discover the original historical or authorial intent, and that is all that is important. And perhaps is suggesting that the old man likes it because he, too, is old.}


Afterwards, I returned in peace to my house, and I delved into the sifrei Torah as was my minhag, to contemplate it day and night, and I found that so {, in accordance with this novel peshat,} the Men of the Great Assembly taught us. For they placed above it {the word kamma} a gaaya, whose meaning is of the same as {Iyov 6:5}

ה  הֲיִנְהַק-פֶּרֶא עֲלֵי-דֶשֶׁא;    אִם יִגְעֶה-שּׁוֹר, עַל-בְּלִילוֹ.

5 Doth the wild ass bray when he hath grass? or loweth the ox over his fodder?

That is to say, that it is a calling, just as the gaaya in the word {Bereishit 24:60}

ס  וַיְבָרְכוּ אֶת-רִבְקָה, וַיֹּאמְרוּ לָהּ--אֲחֹתֵנוּ, אַתְּ הֲיִי לְאַלְפֵי רְבָבָה; וְיִירַשׁ זַרְעֵךְ, אֵת שַׁעַר שֹׂנְאָיו.

60 And they blessed Rebekah, and said unto her: 'Our sister, be thou the mother of thousands of ten thousands, and let thy seed possess the gate of those that hate them.'

and there are many like this {with the ga'aya lending this meaning}.

Now, there are a number of interesting things to say about this commentary by Ibn Caspi.

1) First, see what is written on a footnote, on the words ורבים כן. Yitzchak Halevi Last writes:


הפרוש היקר הוה כבר נמצא גם לפניו ברשב״ם ורמב״ן, ואחריו הרי״א
ובחזקוני ובהמכאר, בכ"ז ספורו זה מלא נועם מלא מוסר ודעת דרכיו להגדיל
:תפארת בעלי המסורה

But I don't know that I agree with his assertion that Rashbam and Ramban preceded Ibn Caspi in this explanation. As I noted above, they indeed note Pharaoh's being תמה at Yaakov's seeming or actual advanced age, but they also both claim that Pharaoh then asked this question as a result. If it is a question, then kamma is a question, not an exclamation.

And besides, if Rabman and Rashbam preceded him, Ibn Caspi would have known this, and cited them, rather than a random elderly Jew from Provence.

That ר"יא, that is, Rabbi Yitzchak Abarbanel, and Chizkuni, followed Ibn Caspi in saying this is more probable, as I discussed above. But then, Ibn Caspi would be the first of all these listed, which is noteworthy in and of itself.

2) Second, his attitude is noteworthy. Nowadays, and perhaps often then as well, people like a satisfying vort, even if it is ultimately not credible. Indeed, a few months ago I had spat with someone who frumly insisted that it didn't matter what the psukim, or Chazal, or Rishonim really meant, but that true Talmud Torah was accomplished when we read our own ideas into Chazal (!). But that trying to discover authorial, or original intent, is not Talmud Torah at all, but rather the work of a historian. I believe that this is nonsense, and that many, many Rishonim and Acharonim thought they were learning the original intent, worked towards that goal, and would be horribly insulted at a suggestion otherwise. But regardless, I think we have in Ibn Caspi an explicit statement that he regards authorial intent to be extremely important, and coming up with exciting novelties which were never the intent much less so, if at all.

3) We have here another instance of Ibn Caspi regarding the trup as dispositive. Since trup comes from Anshei Knesset Hagedolah (and as he says elsewhere, they received the {peshat} meaning via tradition from Moshe Rabbenu), the gaaya upon the word kamma is good evidence of what Pharaoh actually meant, or the intent of the Noten HaTorah.

4) Just to focus for a moment on his assertion that there is a gaaya on the word kamma -- In my Mikraos Gedolos, there is no such gaaya. The gaaya is a sort of meseg, and it simply is not on that word! And indeed, looking at the rules for where a meseg or gaayah should appear (see here in Wolf Heidenheim's Mishpetei HaTeamim, and also in Eliyahu Bachur's Tuv Taam), I don't see that it should appear there!

However, by gaaya, I think Rabbi Yosef Ibn Kaspi means the zakef gadol. Because looking at the two gaaya psukim he mentioned, we see that the words in question have a zakef gadol upon them. And a zakef gadol looks just like a zakef katon, but with a vertical line at its side. Now, in general, meteg and gaaya are sublinear, appearing under the word. But it appears that he considers this superlinear vertical bar to be a gaaya as well. (Unless he just considers the entire zakef gadol to be a gaaya. I favor my former guess.)

5) Is Ibn Caspi correct? Is it indeed true that this is the meaning of a zakef gadol, or a gaaya in general? From the limited things I have read, a gaaya is only a particular type of meteg, informing of the pronunciation of a na (to match the flavor of the nearby vowel). Although in general meteg is generally called a gaaya (according to Bachur, incorrectly). But the general meteg is used as a secondary stress marker, or to distinguish between homonyms which derive from different roots, or to distinguish between heh hatema and heh hayediah, etc. I didn't see it in use in the suggested manner. Nor is the word gaaya necessarily indicative that this is the purpose where it occurs over kamma. Indeed, if we follow Wickes, there are mechanical rules which lay out when a zakef katon is due and when a zakef gadol is due, having to do with whether there are any words preceding. So Ibn Caspi is most likely incorrect as to the Anshei Knesset HaGedolah's intent in placing the zakef gadol there. And given his strong favoring of original intent, if he were convinced of the mechanical operation of the trup in this context, he would surely retract.

Update: For now, suffice it to say that I misunderstood some of what Ibn Caspi was saying. I'll try to correct it briefly here, though I might dedicate a separate post to it as well.

4) As noted, gaaya does not appear. However, as I suspected from the other example, by gaaya Ibn Caspi means the zakef gadol. I guessed incorrectly that he referred to just the vertical bar. Rather, from his comments in Vaychi, he means the entire zakef gadol as a disjunctive accent.

5) There are two aspects to his commentary. One is the name of the trup sign. He has it as gaaya, and relates it to the pasuk in Iyov. I don't think that particular meaning is because it is a keriah, a calling. Rather, this trup sign appears due to mechanical meanings. However, he makes a separate point that as a disjunctive accent (melech), it means that this is a keria rather than a question. This may indeed have merit. It certainly is a much stronger point. I want to inspect other instances of kamma, and other instances of questions, where we might have different potential divisions. The reason I am uncertain is that Wickes' divisions at the front or end are based on part-of-speech, and it seems to me that the POS of kamma would be the same regardless of whether it is a question or exclamation.