The Exegetical Role of the Paseq ^

The paseq has received more attention than other signs accompanying the Biblical text in that many people have noted its occurrence. For example, in prayer books where some Biblical accents are marked, the paseq sign is seldom omitted even though other accent signs are not included 2. However, the exegetical value of the paseq has not been much noted, unlike Biblical accents whose value in interpreting Scripture is relatively widely acknowledged. For example, consider Rashi's commentary on Ex. 15:17 yy W^'K^ î2;1pQ. «"'n CDipo": The accent on it [the word CDipo] is a zaqef gadol which serves to separate it from the word expressing the Divine Name [ n] which follows

The paseq has received more attention than other signs accompanying the Biblical text in that many people have noted its occurrence.For example, in prayer books where some Biblical accents are marked, the paseq sign is seldom omitted even though other accent signs are not included 2. However, the exegetical value of the paseq has not been much noted, unlike Biblical accents whose value in interpreting Scripture is relatively widely acknowledged.For example, consider Rashi's commentary on Ex. 15:17 yy W^'K^ î2;1pQ.«"'n CDipo": The accent on it [the word CDipo] is a zaqef gadol which serves to separate it from the word expressing the Divine Name [ n] which follows it, SO that the translation is The sanctuary which Thy hands have established, O Lord'» 3. In this paper, we hope to give the reader an appreciation of the exegetical role of the paseq.
The paseq is one of the signs accompanying the Biblical text, although it does not belong to the accentuation system.It is marked as a vertical line, inserted in the space between two words.A paseq may come after a word having any of the conjunctive accents, and indicates a pause in the reading after that word.
There are a total of 587 paseq signs in the ( 21) prose books and (3) poetical books {Psalms, Proverbs and Job) of the Hebrew bible 4. Precisely 78, or about one tenth of these signs, occur where they do because of issues in understanding and comprehending a verse 5, and they comprise the subject of our discussion 6.
4 This is based on our list of the paseq as it occurs in the Leningrad Ms. known as B19a, dating to 1009.This is the most ancient complete manuscript of the entire Bible existing today, and is close to the version of Aaron Ben-Asher.
5 We cannot claim for certain to have discovered all instances in which the exegetical rule for the occurrence of a paseq is operative.There is no well-defined criterion for recognizing instances of this rule; moreover, interpreting biblical phrases is a subjective matter.Hence, there may be additional instances that fit the rule.
6 In the remaining instances in which it occurs, the paseq plays other roles.These include: 1) dividing a unit containing two or more conjunctive accents, such as rriDfp 1 ]f]^^.^..^ "m^m {Num.16:7); 2) separating a Holy Name from an adjacent word, as in: 'n 1 "^m^ (Ps.5:7); 3) separating identical or similar words, such as ünnpK 1 ürinni?(Gen.22:11); 4) separating two words in which the last letter of the first and the first letter of the next are both either lamed, mem, or nun, as in n^i^dh 1 ^'^.ynb(/ Chron.22:5).
(C) Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Científicas Licencia Creative Commons Reconocimiento (CC-BY) 4.0 Internacional http://sefarad.revistas.csic.eshas a conjunctive accent and the second one a disjunctive one.However, there are many instances in which the accents combine two words, treating them as a single unit, although in terms of their context in the verse, these words should be separated; in other words, the technical division of the words in a unit does not always reasonably accord with the contents of the unit 7.In such cases, an external indication is needed in order to improve the system of accentuation, and this function is served by the paseq.According to Aaron Ben-Asher's fourth rule in Diqduqei Ha-Te'amim, in the chapter on the paseq (Section 16), this sign serves: HDI^Q msn^i ,n^i^n it DI; IT n"'nn K' PCD ,n^Dn ]prh nnnD nrn 'rb'±7 ,nnin, i.e., 'to emend a word, so that it will not be slurred into the next, and to distinguish the meaning of a phrase, making it not conjunctive' «.
According to Aron Dotan, Ben-Asher's remarks constitute «explicit acknowledgement of an emendation in the syntactic system of accentuation.Thus, due to considerations of meaning and understanding, a paseq is inserted to separate words that according to the accents should be conjunctive» 9. Similarly, R. Moshe Aryeh wrote that it «serves to insert a break in the meaning of the matter at hand, and is like a disjunctive accent» lo.
One may ask why, instead of altering the accents of a verse, a paseq was inserted to emend the meaning implied by the syntactic division given by the accents.The answer is apparently related to the stage at which the paseq was determined.The accents of the Biblical text were not determined at a single moment, but rather evolved in several stages.The disjunctive accents are the most ancient, and the conjunctive ones more recent ^K Presumably, the system of disjunctive accents was known, firmly set, and not to be changed.When it came to perfecting and refining the system, the only option was to add another graphic sign, the paseq.
The examples which we shall present below, and many others of similar nature, support the assumption that ihQ paseq emends the parsing of a unit according to the accentuation system when the context requires that two words be separated.In some instances, a paseq is inserted to preclude an interpretation which might follow from parsing a unit according to the accents, and in others it helps to clarify the meaning.
To ascertain whether a paseq occurs according to the above rule, first we examined each example to see what interpretation follows, or would follow, from parsing the unit according to the accents.Then, we checked whether the paseq suggests an alternative parsing from that of the accents which would point to a different interpretation or preclude the interpretation that might follow from the accents.In the examples in which we ascribe exegetical significance to the paseq, we have attempted to substantiate our position by citing the Midrashim, the Targumim, and Biblical exegesis.
forms a new accent, munah legarmeh; whereas a paseq does not alter the significance of the conjunctive (munah) that precedes it.This ambiguity regarding a vertical line poses a problem, since the sign itself does not tell the reader which purpose it serves -a paseq or a disjunctive accent.Indeed, many people wrongly confuse the two accents.For ways of distinguishing these two signs, see HiMMELFARB The Paseq pp.Perhaps our exegetical rule should have been stated more broadly, to include a paseq that alludes to the existence of homilies on the unit whose component words are separated by the paseq.Such a use of the paseq is implied by the note in the Masorah Magna of the Leningrad manuscript (known as B19^), with regard to the paseq in "iCD^linK i DS} (/ Chron.1:24): «Why are the accents on this phrase different from the others?To indicate that Shem was a Priest» 12.We have not extended our rule in the wake of this masoretic note, since this note might simply be a homiletical interpretation 13; moreover, a rule stating that a paseq is inserted to allude to a homiletical interpretation would create an extremely broad category, subsuming the vast majority of instances of the paseq 14.
We begin our analysis with the example cited by Aaron Ben-Asher in his section on the paseq ^^K r\^'2r] mj^m'^T] n^"iKi KS-nniK n' ^D I wi^ {Gen.18:21).If one reads this verse according to its accents (without the paseq), the unit rb'D ISDI? can be interpreted in several ways: 1. rfiD can be the subject of the verb IÎDI?.Indeed, Saadia Gaon, Ibn Ezra and Sforno interpret rt^D as meaning D^ID, i.e., 'all of them'.As Ibn Ezra writes, «I believe it to mean, 'Let me see whether they all have done such evil as this'» i^.
2. rÒD can be the object of the verb ÌÌDI^, where n' ^D is taken to mean 'annihilation' (iv'po) and 'destruction', as in n'pb r\^m ''3 I D^inn-' PD^ «For I will make a full end of all the nations» {Jer.46:28).Dotan says that the inhabitants of Sodom «wrought destruction, rb'D Wï), as implied by the parsing of the accents (without ÛiQ paseq) ...»i6.Abarbanel comments, «the text means ... n^D wi!}, i.e., 'they wrought destruction upon their souls ...'» (end of V. 20) i^.
The exegetical opinions cited above are consonant with the parsing of the verse according to the accents.
It seems to us that the paseq has been inserted to preclude various interpretations that might follow from parsing according to the accents, and indicates a different interpretation from that documented by the accents i9.The paseq indicates that what we have here is not a single phrase, n^pD ICDP, but rather a RSV], both of which render this word as 'altogether'.Luzzatto rejects this interpretation, for «according to this reading there would be no sense in Abraham asking, "Wilt thou indeed sweep away the righteous with the wicked?".For how could it be that He would destroy the righteous with the wicked after having decided to investigate whether all had sinned?».
16 Diqduqei p. 245.1^ R. Samson Raphael HIRSCH interprets the passage similarly: «... Had they sinned so much that they led to their own annihilation ...».Y. L. KERINKSY cites Abarbanel (only where he says «one may interpret»): «"So then, you, the angels, bring about destruction, that is to say, you cause destruction and utter annihilation to Sodom and Gomorrah, whence you have been sent"; according to this interpretation, the word i C!?i J is a plural command, that they bring about destruction, even though the pointing of the vowels does not go along with this, and should have been with a h at af pat ah» (Qarnei 'Or, an explication of Ibn Ezra's commentary, Pentateuch with Mehoqaqei Yehudah commentary on Ibn Ezra [Bnei Braq 1961] p. 28).
18 So, too, we find in E. A. SPEISER, Genesis'^ (Anchor Bible) (New York 1964): 'at all'.Sforno, however, cites this verse as proving his interpretation in the sense of 'all of them'.
19 In Luzzatto's opinion, «The paseq serves to provide a space between the two words, so that 7]b'D not be understood as the object of the verb, ... but as the adverb».We find Luzzatto's remark puzzling.Whether vh'D is an object or an adverb, it should still be connected with the verb, not separated from it; so his explanation that the paseq provides a break between the two words seems somewhat out of place.R. BREUER follows Luzzatto's interpretation of the verse, but does not take up his explanation of the role of the paseq.In (C) Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Científicas Licencia Creative Commons Reconocimiento (CC-BY) 4.0 Internacional http://sefarad.revistas.csic.esconditional statement, in which w^ belongs to the conditional clause and rb'D is the response to the condition.A similar structure is found in the continuation of the verse K' r^-DKi niJiK, 'And if not, I will know' (even though the tippeha which appears as a foretone accent has no syntactic significance).On this verse, Ben-Yehuda wrote in his dictionary, «n^D ... stands on its own as an interjection, meaning 'I shall destroy and annihilate'» 20.Perhaps the dagesh in n^D is further evidence that these words were traditionally separated.
Further support for our approach may be found in the Midrash: «The Holy One, blessed be He, said, "I shall go down and see, whether it is as her cry that comes up to me -if the people of Sodom have indeed done as this maiden has cried, I shall overturn [Sodom so that] her foundations are up and her face down"» 21.
Similar interpretations are found in Rashi, Rashbam, Ibn Ezra (citing «others») and Radak.We read in Rashi: «ni^nn" "w^ 'bK: 'Whether they have done [according to the cry of her] which is come unto me' -If they persist in their rebellious ways, an end (n^D) will I make of them ... For this reason, there is a pDDH nnip] -a pause punctuated by a nequdah 22-between IÎD5; and n' PD, in order to separate one word from the other» 23.Elazar TouiTOU says, «The remark about the accentuation system is taken from Rashbam's commentary: "A paseq is inserted to separate the words"».23 Luzzatto disagrees with Rashi: «Rashi's argument based on the accent between icyp and TÒ'D is not valid, for even if it were legarmeh, it is still the least of the disjunctives, and how could it have greater force than the tippehai Moreover, it is not a munah legarmeh, for it is not followed by another munah; hence it is none other than a paseq, which has no force in the matter of parsing phrases, but was inserted to instruct one to pause in the read- The Targumim on this verse confirm that interpretations based on the accents or the paseq, which prevailed in the Middle Ages, also were current in earlier times.The Jerusalem targumim read ?h'DIÎDI? together as a phrase meaning 'they have made a complete end'.Tar gum Onqelos separates the words and reflects the instruction of the paseq: «if they have wrought as their complaint which has come up before me, I shall do utterly with them».
In the next group of examples the paseq separates the «said» from the actual content of the utterance.

]DK I iDKn (/ Kings 1:36).
In all these examples, reading according to the accents contradicts the logical phrasing, since a disjunction is called for between the «said» and the contents of the utterance.The paseq emends the parsing of the accents and indicates that one should separate the words so that the reading fits the accepted rules of syntax.
In the first two examples, reading '^m:^ or IQKI -'and he said'-in conjunction with the word K'^, as is indicated by the accents, is likely to sound like i':' -'to him'-the more frequent phrase in Scripture.Thus, there could be a misunderstanding, since K' ^ and Í7 are pronounced alike.As R. Judah ibn Hayug ing, for private reasons».Luzzatto's approach should be rejected, we believe, in view of the accumulated evidence indicating that the paseq does play a role in parsing phrases.As for Luzzatto's interpretation of the verse, he too agrees that «the deeper meaning of Scripture is none other than as Rashi says, ... however, in my opinion, the deduction does not follow by explicit indication, but only by way of intimation ...».
24 The accents here diverge from the rules of accentuation.In general, a pashta will not occur before a yetiv unless a revia' precedes both; yet here we have: ]ñn nnp ^3^t^ i ipxi.The Miqra'ot Gedolot (Pardess), for example, place a zaqef on the word i'^, thus making it fit the rule of accentuation.As R. BREUER notes I Sam. 2:16,in  In these examples, the context also makes f) a possible reading.For example, in / Sam.2:16, regarding the man offering the sacrifice it is written, rn^n npD '^Vnpi n' p.iin 'D?D l^^pfp: nèj? •^gjQî, 'Let them first burn the fat, and then take as much as thy soul desires'.According to the ketiv, Scripture say i':' "iDKi, 'and he said to him', i.e., to the man offering the sacrifice.Indeed, this is how it is rendered in Targum Jonathan', and Radak notes, «It is written with a waw, but the reading {qere) is with an aleph, and both are correct in the context».
The paseq separates the «said» from the negative, «no», in order to preclude the interpretation that would follow from parsing according to the accents.The pause in the reading, due to the paseq, underscores that the word in question is the negative K'?, 'no', and not the preposition Í7, 'to him' 26.
Let us examine the third example: "^^r^n-nij; i^i:iri';-in "(n^y^ ]FI "^^Qn ''^^ç 'fp^ 'f] ^m: 15 ]m 1 noKn.Reading according to the accents, the words of Benaiah son of Jehoiada comprise two independent sentences.The first is «Amen», and the second, «So say the Lord».The syntactic structure given by the accents implies an interpretation like the one found in the New English 25 Ibn Ezra comments on Ex. 21:8, beginning with n^n DX: «Also cf. the Mishnah, Sotah 5:5: ^n^K t> 'ibi^p'-p' 'Though, he slay me, yet will I look with hope to Him'.But it is still ambiguous whether this means "I am looking to him (iby or "I am not (K'P) looking"».
26 Aside from the paseq, Ben-Naphtali puts a dagesh in the lamed of K' P in two places.Josh.5:14 and Judg.12:5 (according to Mishael BEN UZZIEL, Sefer Ha-Hilufim: Kitcib Al-Khilãf... [Jerusalem 1965] pp.24-25).R. BREUER believes that «the dagesh, ... too, is inserted to make a separation or distinction» («Towards Answering Problems in Accentuation and Vocalization of the Bible» [Heb.],Leshonenu 44 [1980] pp.243-262: p. 259).Similarly, in three instances -Judg.12:5, / Kings 2:30, and 11:22-there is a ga'yah in the second syllable of the iQKn.which is followed by Kb.Israel YEIVIN believes that, «the accentuators wished to separate the two words in the phrase, as well as to draw a distinction between this unit of two words and the more frequent phrase, 1' :' "iDK"!.They were not satisfied with the paseq between the two words, and added a ga'yah at the end of the first word or a dagesh at the beginning of the second» {The Aleppo Codex of the Bible: A Study of its Vocalization and Accentuation [Jerusalem 1968] p. 191).
These interpretations are consonant with the characteristic way in which accentuation makes a syntactic distinction in Scriptural renditions of speech between one utterance and two utterances.In a single utterance, the primary division of the phrase is after the introduction; in two utterances, the primary division is between the two utterances 28.So, too, in the verse at hand the primary division, indicated by the atnah, does not follow the introductory word, "iQ^n, but rather the first utterance, ]DK.
Perhaps the paseq precludes the interpretation that follows from parsing by the accents, and indicates a different grouping of the words: I^^JDH "'HK 'ÌI^^K 'n IÙK' p ]DK| \IÙK') ... ]FT| .In other words, ]DX is associated with the phrase that follows it, and indicates neither an affirmative response nor Benaia's consent to what the king had said; rather, 'n IDK"' p ]DK means 'Would the Holy One, blessed be He, give his confirmation and consent to what the king has said'.This agrees with Ralbag's comment, «n "IDK" p ]DÍ< ... is a prayer that it would be the will of the blessed Lord that the issue be settled thus ...»29.
27 A similar rendition is given by J. GRAY, / and II Kings (OTL) (London 1964).
28  53 (1989) pp. 157-192: pp. 172-173, we may presume that due to the relatively great length of this phrase (7 words) it was parsed in the characteristic manner of the accentuation system, which is different from the division according to its immediate components.
29 Compare: 'n r\m: ]3 ]âi< x^ÍDn rrp-i" ì?5Kh.{Jer.28:6).According to the parsing of the accents, this is a single utterance, since the primary division is on the word with the zaqef katan («prophet»).This means that Jeremiah was not answering «Amen» to the words of Hananiah, which were the prophetic utterance of a false prophet, but rather it was expressing the hope that 'n nm^ ]3 ]dK, that the Lord would indeed do so.Also see Malbim's commentary on this verse.When these words are read according to the accents, one might think that each pair together constitute one item.The absence of the conjunction waw before the second word is likely to reinforce this impression.The paseq precludes the reading that would follow from parsing according to the accents, and indicates a pause between the two words in order to stress that Scripture is listing two items.
In the first example, the paseq separates two items in a list of place names.If one were to combine inm with nnin, as indicated by the accents without the paseq, one might think that the reference is to a single city, Hazor, having the adjective nnnn, 'New'.Indeed, this is Loewenstamm's understanding: «The name of a place in the Judean Desert, ... meaning New Hazor» ^o.The paseq indicates that the text is listing two places, one of them Hazor, and the other, Hadattah3i.
Perhaps the accentuators thought that Hazor Hadattah was a single place, since the list -nlhp^ nnnn i "ii:^m-does not break after the first item, even though the accentuators tended to join an item without a conjunctive waw to an item which follows with a conjunctive waw; for example, njpni nP55 ]'^r¡ (Josh. 15:57).However, this is only a conjecture.Another possibility is that the accentuators preferred to divide the unit in a ratio of the greater part to the part (2:1), in order to make this list resemble the structure of most of the lists in the section 32.
In the next two examples, the paseq separates two items in lists of animals.In Example 2, if one were to read mi, 'snake,' with 2^"i CD, as indicated by the accents without the paseq, one might think that « = ] " i C D is an adjective describing snake, as indeed one finds in Targum Onqelos and Targum Jonathan: 'venomous serpents'.Also compare D^éntçjn wmij] {Num.21:5)33.
The paseq here, however, indicates that the text is referring to two animals, one of them a ©n], a snake, the other a =^12;, a specific kind of snake; note, for comparison =]éirp s^ntçi/ni;2K {Isa.30:6).
In Example 3, inDi ]nin might be taken as one sort of animal: a male bull, since ]nD"7 in Aramaic can mean either male or ram 34.However, since a bull is by definition male, logic would indicate that the word in question must mean ram.This conclusion is supported by the paseq, which groups the words so as to indicate that we are dealing with two kinds of animals, bulls and rams.Also cf. 1 ]nQKi X7?T\ I' TlIn ^n^ {Ezra 6:9).
In Example 4, the paseq separates two items in a hst of people, indicating that these are two names, not one.If one reads according to the accents without the j^a^eç, the name 'npâ might be viewed as the adjective nb?, 'his first-born', describing Dpnîi? as one reads in the next verse: T^DB D'^ÌK, 'Ulam was his first-born' (/ Chron.8:39)35.
the next set of examples, the presence of the paseq can be explained by rules other than that of exegesis.
The first example comes from a passage discussing laws of the leper: DstD-bi;i 1)^% n^p;", IÜK"ÍI/D"'P"ÍS vr}\ vi^B mij] ^"^W P^"i^ni Kip*' KDÇ I Kpçi HDi?!.According to the accents the repeated word should be understood as the utterance that the leper is to say.Targum Onqelos says, «"Do not make yourselves impure; do not make yourselves impure", h*e shall call out»; Targum Jonathan says, «The herald shall proclaim, "keep away, keep away from the impure"».
The paseq has been inserted here to tell us not to parse the verse according to the accents, but rather as follows: K D C D KDCDI K"ip\ In other words, the subject of the sentence is KDDI, and the object, KOCD.Indeed, this is the interpretation of Sifra {Nega'im 12): «^np' KDH) ^QCDi means 'keep away'.We only have explicit reference to this [lepers]; so how do we know [the text] includes other unclean persons as well?We learn it from, "the unclean shall cry unclean"».Malbim comments on Sifra, «The repetition salem (Paris 1973), which says, «Azrikam son premier-né».We take exception to the approach of these translations since they do not adhere to the vocaHzation of Scripture and are based on a hypothetical emendation of the vocalization (lower criticism).
of unclean, unclean and the hne a pause \paseq] inserted after the first unclean by the accentuators has been explained by the Sages to mean that the first unclean is the subject, and the next the predicate; in other words, every unclean person shall cry and announce that he is unclean» (s.155).Thus, in view of the paseq, the word KQt Di does not refer to the leper, the subject of the unit governed by the atnah, but rather is a subject without a definite article, and indicates any unclean person 37.
This paseq also fits another rule, which requires that two words which are alike be separated.Now let us look at the second example: ri 1 T\B)^ù-bì^_ TÌI^Ì^ Knp"! DÓI''i^'Dn ipi? õiK.If one reads according to the accents without the paseq, one might think that the phrase under consideration is a construct state, even though HBKD-'^ÌÌ is vocalized as independent.Indeed, this is how Luzzatto interprets the verse: «T am the one who stands day and night on the watch-tower of the Lord', where nsKQ is dependent on the following noun, contrary to its vocalization 38».This meaning is likely to be viewed as blasphemous, as Luzzatto points out: «The masses found it difficult to view God as having a watch-tower, as if He must stand on a watch-tower to see what is transpiring on Earth».
The paseq precludes the interpretation that follows from the accents and indicates a different way of parsing the phrase: I DDT TDH "îDr "DDK H | iHBii^D-' Pi? |.In Other words, one should read n as a word of address, belonging to the remainder of the verse, as Rashi explains: «" n naii^r^-'^]:": 'Lord ('n), my God, I stand on the watch-tower all day long'» 39.
Perhaps the paseq has been inserted to indicate that na^p-^r should be read with the words preceding it:|nDHD-'7i; nn^^firipT|.Such a reading accords with Radak's commentary: «"^npn": (C) Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Científicas Licencia Creative Commons Reconocimiento (CC-BY) 4.0 Internacional http://sefarad.revistas.csic.eswatchman called, "Lion on the watch-tower", comparing Media and Persia to a lion standing on the watch».
There is another rule that can be cited to explain this occurrence of the paseq: that a paseq is inserted to separate the Holy Name from a word adjacent to it.
Let us take a close look at the last example: 2n¡pn i nnjpn ^p np; n IDÜD-'PK.Parsing according to the accents, the double words indicate repetition for reinforcement, as understood by Tar gum Onqelos: icn^^'^n -y^p-^ ^D; Whoever approaches closely» 40.
The paseq has been inserted to preclude the understanding of the verse that follows from parsing according to the accents, as Ha-Neziv writes: «There is a disjunctive sign between iipr] nnpn to teach us that these two words do not have the same meaning» 41.ThQ paseq indicates a different parsing of the phrase: Rashi comments, «We are all entitled to enter the courtyard of the Tent of Meeting, but he who brings himself closer than his fellows and enters the Tent of Meeting shall die».Two supercommentators have elaborated on Rashi's remark.R. E. Mizrahi points out that there are two distinct verbs here: «The first nnpn is interpreted as drawing near to the courtyard of the Tent of Meeting, and the second nipn as drawing near within the tent».The Maharal (Gur Aryeh), in contrast, attributes each of the words to a different subject: «What he means to say is, "of all those who draw near, he who draws nearer than his fellow"; for we are all entitled to enter, but he who brings himself closer shall die».
It seems to us that the first 2ipn is a participle, and the second innpn, a verb.This is also how Luzzatto interprets the verse: «This is not a repetition of the same word, but is like the phrase, "should the one who falls fall from it", or like "should a dying person die on him", ... likewise, here the meaning is 40 Similarly, M. NOTH, Numbers (OTL) (London 1968), renders this verse: «Every one who comes near, who comes near to the tabernacle of the Lord ...».
41 Likewise, Ha-Ketav Ve-H a-Kabbalah writes, «This should not be interpreted as a repetition of the verb in order to strengthen the meaning, ... since there is a paseq after the first mpn».At the end of his remarks, Luzzatto rightly notes, «one cannot deny that this interpretation does not agree with the cantillation», since his commentary suits the reading indicated by the paseq, which emends the parsing according to the cantillation, i.e., the accents.
This occurrence of the paseq can also be explained by another rule, which states that a paseq is required in a «non-final» unit, i.e., in a unit having two or more conjunctive accents before a disjunctive accent, which needs further division by a disjunctive accent.
In summary, in the examples presented above, as in many other similar instances of the paseq, we did not hesitate to present interpretations based on the paseq, when these are supported by the Midrashim, Targumim, and exegetical works.It seems to us that one should prefer interpretations of Scripture based on written signs, i.e., on the accents and the paseq.This preference is based on two factors: 1.The generally accepted supposition that in setting the accents and paseq signs in the text, the accentuators documented an ancient reading of Scripture 42; and that this reading itself also indicates a way of interpreting the text.
2. «This interpretation, which expresses one of the seventy faces of the Torah, is attested by the giver of the Torah or its Sages; whereas the veracity of all other interpretations is subject to doubt» 43.

SUMMARY
It is well-known that the Biblical accents have an exegetical value in interpreting Scripture.The ocurrences of the paseq -a vertical line which is inserted in the space between two words but does not belong to the accentuation system-have been noted by many scholars, but few are aware of its exegetical value in Scripture.This article discusses the exegetical role of the paseq, i.e., instances in which a paseq appears because of questions of meaning and understanding.Following Aaron Ben-Asher, we assume that the paseq emends the parsing of a verse according to the accents, where two words must be separated due to the meaning.In the examples illustrating our hypothesis, first we examine the interpretation that follows from parsing according to the accents.Then, in view of the appearance of a paseq, we suggest a different division of the words and show how the new parsing implies a different interpretation or precludes the interpretation that follows from the accents.In the examples in which the paseq is given exegetical significance, we attempt to sub-stantiate our position by citations from Midrashim, 3-4. 11 Cf. A. DOTAN, «On the History of the Emergence of the Accentuation System» [Heb.], in Mehqarim Be-Lashon, ed.Moshe BAR-ASHER, Vols.II-III (Jerusalem 1987) pp.355-365, for a study of the chronological development of the Tiberian system of accentuation.Also, cf.R. Mordechai BREUER'S response, «On the Emergence of the Accentuation System» [Heb.],Leshonenu 53 (1990) pp.203-213.(C) Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Científicas Licencia Creative Commons Reconocimiento (CC-BY) 4.0 Internacional http://sefarad.revistas.csic.es («Concerning the Presumed Original Version of Rashi's Commentary on the Pentateuch» [Heb.],Tarbiz 56 [1987] pp.211-242: p. 220).

44
Massoreth Ha-Massoreth of Elias Levita, with an English translation and critical notes by C. D. GINSBURG (New York 1968) pp.88, 90.(C) Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Científicas Licencia Creative Commons Reconocimiento (CC-BY) 4.0 Internacional http://sefarad.revistas.csic.es Dots are used to indicate paseq signs in texts pointed according to the Palestinian Vocalization System (cf.HIMMELFARB The Paseq pp.59-60), but one should not assume that Rashi had this in mind.