On the Parasha: Toledot - Was Achuzat a Person or a Group?
(See my list of parshablog posts on Toledot here.)
Last Shabbat, I looked through Shadal on Toledot. Among the interesting points he made was whether Achuzat was a person.
The pasuk, at the satisfying location 26:26:
וַאֲבִימֶ֕לֶךְ הָלַ֥ךְ אֵלָ֖יו מִגְּרָ֑ר וַאֲחֻזַּת֙ מֵֽרֵעֵ֔הוּ וּפִיכֹ֖ל שַׂר־צְבָאֽוֹ׃
And Abimelech came to him from Gerar, with Ahuzzath his councilor and Phicol chief of his troops.
An alternative translation, from Metzuda, that conforms to Rashi’s explanation:
וַאֲבִימֶ֕לֶךְ הָלַ֥ךְ אֵלָ֖יו מִגְּרָ֑ר וַאֲחֻזַּת֙ מֵֽרֵעֵ֔הוּ וּפִיכֹ֖ל שַׂר־צְבָאֽוֹ׃
Avimelech came to Yitzchok from Gerar along with a group of friends and Pichol, his general.
Rashi writes:
ואחזת מרעהו —as the Targum renders it: וסיעת מרחמוחי which means a company formed from his friends, the מ meaning from סיעת ממאוהביו. There are some who explain that in מרעהו the מ is part of the noun מרע — just like (Judges 14:11) “Thirty companions (מרעים)” in the narrative of Samson — in order that the word ואחזת should be taken to be the construct state to מרעהו (the company of his friends). But it would not be a polite thing to speak thus of a king — the company of his friends — for if this were the meaning it would imply that he (Abimelech) took with him the whole company of his friends and that he had no more than one group of friends. For this reason it should be interpreted in the first way (that אחזת is not construct). And you need not be surprised at the ת of אחזת although the word is not in the construct state, for we have similar cases in Scripture: (Psalms 60:13) “help (עזרת) against the adversary”, and (Isaiah 51:21) “Drunken, (שכרת) but not with wine”.
ואחזת מרעהו —as the Targum renders it: וסיעת מרחמוחי which means a company formed from his friends, the מ meaning from סיעת ממאוהביו. There are some who explain that in מרעהו the מ is part of the noun מרע — just like (Judges 14:11) “Thirty companions (מרעים)” in the narrative of Samson — in order that the word ואחזת should be taken to be the construct state to מרעהו (the company of his friends). But it would not be a polite thing to speak thus of a king — the company of his friends — for if this were the meaning it would imply that he (Abimelech) took with him the whole company of his friends and that he had no more than one group of friends. For this reason it should be interpreted in the first way (that אחזת is not construct). And you need not be surprised at the ת of אחזת although the word is not in the construct state, for we have similar cases in Scripture: (Psalms 60:13) “help (עזרת) against the adversary”, and (Isaiah 51:21) “Drunken, (שכרת) but not with wine”.
Shadal disagrees, and says about this:
אחזת : שם אדם, כן דעת בעלי המסורה ורבנו סעדיה, היירונימוס , והמתרגם הסורי והאלכסנדרי ואחרים, וכן דעת ר' יהודה בבראשית רבא (ס"ד ח'), אלא שלדעתו אחזת מרעהו היה שמו, כלומר שהיה שמו מורכב משתי מילות על דרך דמשק אליעזר, רוממתי עזר (ד"ה א' כ"ה ד' ול"א), וזה רחוק בעיני, שתהיה מילת מרעהו בכנוי נסתר גם היא מן השם, ואולי טעות סופר נפלה במדרש וצ"ל : אחזת היה שמו.
To quote my blogpost from 2008 summarizing his point:
He says this is the position of the Baalei HaMasorah, of Rabbenu Saadiah Gaon {presumably in his Arabic Biblical translation}, Jerome, the Syrian translator {Peshitta}, the Alexandrian one {presumably Septuagint -- as we have here: "And Abimelech came to him from Gerara, and so did Ochozath his friend, and Phichol the commander-in-chief of his army."} and others. And so is the position of Rabbi Yehuda in Bereishit Rabba. Though in midrash Rabba, the name is purportedly אחזת מרעה. Shadal gives precedent in Damesek Eliezer for two names together for a person, but also suggests it is a typographical error.
What does Shadal mean that this is the position of the Baalei HaMasorah? That the trup indicates this.
How so? I read this Shadal in Daniel Klein’s translation this past Shabbat, and if I recall correctly, he pointed to the pashta being present instead of a munach.
To explain, there are disjunctive (dividing) and conjunctive (joining) cantillation symbols which repeatedly subdivide the verse, in a continuous dichotomy. Examples of disjunctive accents are etnachta, tipcha, zakef, and pashta. Examples of conjunctive accents are mercha and silluq. They work together to provide a prosodic parse of a verse, in a way that more or less conforms to a syntactic parse of the verse, via a continuous dichotomy.
Turn your head sideways and look at this prosodic parse tree that I generated based on the trup:
The pashta is a disjunctive accent that divides a clause ending in zakef katon. Therefore, וַאֲחֻזַּת֙ stands alone. We might say, just as the tipcha on וּפִיכֹ֖ל causes it to stand alone from שַׂר־צְבָאֽוֹ. It is a proper noun which the next word then modifies. If it were a construct form, as the -at ending might have indicated, or if “a group of friends” were a single unit, a conjunctive accent like munach as a servus would have been placed.
I get what Shadal is saying, but I think he is incorrect here. I have studied William Wickes’ analysis of how trup works in some depth. And, in two-word clauses, these disjunctive accents (of tipcha but also of pashta) are musical in nature, and act as a “fore-tone”.
From Wickes book, A treatise on the accentuation of the twenty-one so-called prose books of the Old Testament, page 75:
That is, usually the munach will appear as a servus. However, if the word is long, then for musical reasons, the pashta will appear as a foretone. He provides minimal pairs showing the contrast in the count of syllables until the accent. So, Av-ra-ham has three syllables while Av-ram has two. The longer Av-ra-ham merits putting the pashta on the preceding word. Similarly, bezot will either get a munach or a pashta depending on whether the next word is tei-da or te-dei-un.
In our case, וַאֲחֻזַּת֙ מֵֽרֵעֵ֔הוּ, the word is long, mei-rei-ei-hu, so it makes sense that the musical pashta will appear.
Shadal might still be right in interpreting the verse, but the trup neither helps nor hurts him.