Grammar:Syntax/0

Syntax

This topic has not yet undergone editorial review

מקרא מסורס

One normally expects a clause to modify the words that immediately precede or follow it. However, in Tanakh this might not always be true, and sometimes to properly understand a verse, one must invert the word order. Commentators refer to this phenomenon as a "מקרא מסורס",‎¹ literally: "a castrated text", as one must "cut" a certain clause from its written place and move it to a different place in the verse for the verse to make sense. [Today, one might refer to this as a dangling or misplaced modifier.] In many cases, there might be ambiguity, with some commentators suggesting that the verse be best understood by rearranging the word order and others leaving it as is.

Examples

• Bereshit 15:13 ("כִּי גֵר יִהְיֶה זַרְעֲךָ בְּאֶרֶץ לֹא לָהֶם וַעֲבָדוּם וְעִנּוּ אֹתָם אַרְבַּע מֵאוֹת שָׁנָה") - As several verses imply that the nation was not enslaved for 400 years, see Ramban Bereshit 15:13About R. Moshe b. Nachmanthat the words "400 years" in our verse modiify the phrase "גֵר יִהְיֶה זַרְעֲךָ" rather than "וַעֲבָדוּם וְעִנּוּ אֹתָם".  The verse foretells that the nation was to wander in exile for 400 years but does not specify the duration of the actual enslavement.  For further discussion of the length of the Egyptian bondage, see Duration of the Egyptian Exile.
• Bereshit 39:17 (בָּא אֵלַי הָעֶבֶד הָעִבְרִי אֲשֶׁר הֵבֵאתָ לָּנוּ לְצַחֶק בִּי) – See RashiBereshit 39:17About R. Shelomo Yitzchaki and R. WesselyBereshit 39:17About R. Naftali Herz Wessely that the words "לְצַחֶק בִּי" modify "בָּא אֵלַי" and not "אֲשֶׁר הֵבֵאתָ לָּנוּ".  Mrs. Potiphar is not saying that her husband brought them a slave in order that he mock her,  but that the slave he brought them came upon her to mock her.
•  Bereshit 41:57 (וְכׇל הָאָרֶץ בָּאוּ מִצְרַיְמָה לִשְׁבֹּר אֶל יוֹסֵף) – See Rashi Bereshit 41:57About R. Shelomo Yitzchakiand RashbamBereshit 41:57About R. Shemuel b. Meir that the words of the verse should be rearranged to read "וְכׇל הָאָרֶץ בָּאוּ מִצְרַיְמָה  אֶל יוֹסֵף לִשְׁבֹּר".   Cf. Chizkuni Bereshit 41:57Bereshit 41:57About R. Chizkiyah b. Manoachthat, here, the word "אל" means "from", pointing to similar usage in Bereshit 30:39.
• Shemot 12:15 (כׇּל אֹכֵל חָמֵץ וְנִכְרְתָה הַנֶּפֶשׁ הַהִוא מִיִּשְׂרָאֵל מִיּוֹם הָרִאשֹׁן עַד יוֹם הַשְּׁבִעִי) – See Ibn Ezra that the verse should read as if written "כׇּל אֹכֵל חָמֵץ מִיּוֹם הָרִאשֹׁן עַד יוֹם הַשְּׁבִעִי וְנִכְרְתָה הַנֶּפֶשׁ הַהִוא מִיִּשְׂרָאֵל ".
• Yeshayahu 2:20 (יַשְׁלִיךְ הָאָדָם אֵת אֱלִילֵי כַסְפּוֹ וְאֵת אֱלִילֵי זְהָבוֹ אֲשֶׁר עָשׂוּ לוֹ לְהִשְׁתַּחֲוֺת לַחְפֹּר פֵּרוֹת וְלָעֲטַלֵּפִים) – See R"Y KaraYeshayahu 2:20About R. Yosef Kara, R"E of BeaugencyYeshayahu 2:20About R. Eliezer of Beaugency, and others that the words "לַחְפֹּר פֵּרוֹת וְלָעֲטַלֵּפִים" modify the word "יַשְׁלִיךְ" (in the future people will throw their idols to the bats and moles). Cf.RashiYeshayahu 2:20About R. Shelomo Yitzchaki that the phrase modifies "לְהִשְׁתַּחֲוֺת", with the implication being that the person will throw away the idols he had made to worship in the image of moles and bats.
• Malakhi 3:17 ("וְהָיוּ לִי אָמַר י״י צְבָאוֹת לַיּוֹם אֲשֶׁר אֲנִי עֹשֶׂה סְגֻלָּה") – See Ibn EzraMalakhi First Commentary 3:17About R. Avraham ibn Ezra that the verse should read as if written "וְהָיוּ לִי סְגֻלָּה אָמַר י״י צְבָאוֹת לַיּוֹם אֲשֶׁר אֲנִי עֹשֶׂה", with "סְגֻלָּה" connected to "וְהָיוּ לִי". Those who fear Hashem will be for Him a treasure.  Cf. RashiMalakhi 3:17About R. Shelomo Yitzchaki that the verse should be read as written; the day of judgment is a day that Hashem had stored away for each person reaps his due.

Scope ambiguity

A similar phenomenon to the above are the many verses in which, despite the fact that the word order of the verse should be maintained, there is nonetheless ambiguity regarding the scope of a certain modifier or phrase (i.e. it unclear if it modifies the immediately preceding word/phrase or an earlier one) .

Examples²

• Bereshit 3:8 (""וַיִּשְׁמְעוּ אֶת קוֹל י"י אֱלֹהִים מִתְהַלֵּךְ בַּגָּן ) –  It is not clear whether the verb " מתהלך" modifies Hashem's voice which "went out" through the garden (R. Chalfon in Bereshit Rabbah, Ibn Ezra),³ Hashem Himself (R. Abba b. Kahana in Bereshit Rabbah, Rashi), or the man (Ibn Janach, Reconstructed Rashbam).⁴
• Bereshit 10:21 ("וּלְשֵׁם יֻלַּד גַּם הוּא אֲבִי כׇּל בְּנֵי עֵבֶר אֲחִי יֶפֶת הַגָּדוֹל") – The referent of the word "הַגָּדוֹל" (elder) is unclear; does it refer to Shem mentioned at the beginning of the verse (opinion in RadakBereshit 10:21About R. David Kimchi, RambanBereshit 10:21Bereshit 15:13About R. Moshe b. Nachman) or to Yefet, mentioned right beforehand (RashiBereshit 10:21About R. Shelomo Yitzchaki, opinion in Ibn EzraBereshit First Commentary 10:21Esther First Commentary 6:8About R. Avraham ibn Ezra)? According to the first possibility the phrase reads: "Shem... the older brother of Yefet", while according to the second, it reads: "Shem... the brother of the eldest, Yefet". The different readings have obvious ramifications in determining the birth orders of Noach's sons.  To see how the two possibilities impact one's understanding of the story of Noach's cursing of Canaan, see Cursing Canaan.
• Shemot 15:10 (צָלְלוּ כַּעוֹפֶרֶת בְּמַיִם אַדִּירִים) – It is unclear if the word "אַדִּירִים" has narrow scope and serves as an adjective describing the mighty waters in which the Egyptians sunk like lead (RashbamShemot 15:10Esther 6:8About R. Shemuel b. Meir), or if it has broad scope and is the subject of the verb "צללו", in which case the clause would read: "the mighty ones sank like lead in water" (SfornoShemot 15:10About R. Ovadyah Sforno).
• Bemidbar 10:29 (וַיֹּאמֶר מֹשֶׁה לְחֹבָב בֶּן רְעוּאֵל הַמִּדְיָנִי חֹתֵן מֹשֶׁה) – The words "חֹתֵן מֹשֶׁה" might have local scope and refer back to Reuel, or wide scope and speak of Chovav.  For discussion and the ramifications of each reading, see Yitro – Names.
• Esther 6:7-8 ("יָבִ֙יאוּ֙ לְב֣וּשׁ מַלְכ֔וּת אֲשֶׁ֥ר לָֽבַשׁ־בּ֖וֹ הַמֶּ֑לֶךְ וְס֗וּס אֲשֶׁ֨ר רָכַ֤ב עָלָיו֙ הַמֶּ֔לֶךְ וַאֲשֶׁ֥ר נִתַּ֛ן כֶּ֥תֶר מַלְכ֖וּת בְּרֹאשֽׁוֹ") – The referent of the word "רֹאשֽׁוֹ" is ambiguous, leading commentators to debate upon whose head the royal crown was placed.  The word might refer to the horse (Ibn EzraEsther First Commentary 6:8About R. Avraham ibn Ezra)⁵ or to the king (R. Yosef NachmiasEsther 6:8About R. Yosef Nachmias⁶ and RashbamShemot 15:10Esther 6:8About R. Shemuel b. Meir).⁷

¹ Rashi uses the term over 30 times (see here). Elsewhere he and others might instead say "סרסהו"  or "סרסהו ודורשהו". [See Chizkuni who uses the former formulation 20 times.]  Others note the phenomenon by simply pointing out that a certain term modifies a word that we might not have originally thought it did, using the language of: "x" דבק עם "y".  [See Ibn Ezra who uses this language quite often.]

² Many of the examples brought below have been collected and analyzed by Dr. Shani Tzoref for "Lishma", where she explores 12 cases of syntactic ambiguity in Tanakh, delving into medieval Jewish commentaries related to each. textual ambiguity.

³ Ibn Ezra points to Yirmeyahu 46:22 and Shemot 19:19 as other cases where a voice is said to "go".

⁴ This reading must posit that the verse is missing a preposition and must mean "[when the man] was walking" or the like.

⁵ Ibn Ezra suggests that there was a practice to place a crown on the king's horse to mark it is as his.

⁶ R. Nachmias reads "אֲשֶׁר" as "כאשר", so that the full verse would read: "Let them bring royal clothing that the king has worn, and the horse upon which the king has ridden when the royal crown was placed on his head."  In other words, Haman is suggesting to take the horse that the king had ridden on the day of the king's coronation.

⁷ Rashbam switches the word order of the last clause so that it reads: וכֶּ֥תֶר מַלְכ֖וּת אֲשֶׁ֥ר נִתַּ֛ן בְּרֹאשֽׁוֹ ("and the royal crown that was put on his head"). Haman is suggesting that the man whom the king wants to honor not only ride on the king's horse but also be adorned with the royal crown that the king has worn. According to this position it is surprising that the crown is not mentioned in the continuation. One could explain that it is simply assumed, or that though the king agreed to the other suggestions of Haman, he was not willing for someone else to wear his crown.