Wednesday, June 29, 2005

On the permissibility of circuses

Please Note: I reworked the material in this post, and added much more, at this post: On the permissibility of circuses, take 2.

{
Update: I'd like to thank Ploni Almoni for his insightful comments. I was wrong on several counts in my initial assessment, since I was lazy and did not look at the gemara inside. I still think that I am correct in the main, and that circuses are not modern circuses. I categorized circuses as places of gladiatorial combat. Indeed, they are primarily places of horse racing, but they offered other forms of entertainment offered as well, including gladiatorial combat involving men and beasts. I also offer an analysis of the gemara from an academic point of view. This (what I consider) careful reading of the gemara was prompted by Ploni's challenges, such that I felt I should treat it in some detail. I finally come to a (totally theoretical, not to be taken halacha limaaseh) conclusion. Please read the comments.
}

From the very end of the second perek of masechet Shabbat, on Shabbat daf 36a-b (Soncino translation):
For R. Hisda said: The following three things reversed their designations after the destruction of the Temple: [i] trumpet [changed to] shofar, and shofar to trumpet. What is the practical bearing thereof? in respect of the shofar [blown] on New Year. [ii] 'Arabah [willow] [changed to] zafzafah and zafzafah to 'Arabah. What is the practical bearing thereof? — In respect of the lulab [iii] Pathora [changed to] pathorta and pathorta to Pathora. What is the practical bearing thereof? — In respect of buying and selling. Abaye observed: We too can state: Hoblila [changed to] be kasse and be kasse to hoblila. What is the practical bearing thereof? In respect of a needle which is found in the thickness of the beth hakosoth, which if [found] on one side, it [the animal] is fit [for food]; if through both sides, it [the animal] is terefah. R. Ashi said, We too will state: Babylon [changed to] Borsif and Borsif to Babylon
Terminology is important, and terminology changes over time. Which is why R' Gil at Hirhurim, and others who wonder at this, make a tremendous mistake when equating modern circuses with ancient ones.

Rabbi Gil Student cites Avodah Zarah 18b (Soncino translation):
Our Rabbis taught: One should not go to theaters or circuses because entertainments are arranged there in honor of the idols. This is the opinion of R. Meir. But the Sages say: Where such entertainments are given there is the prohibition of being suspected of idolatrous worship, and where such entertainment is not given the prohibition is because of being in 'the seat of the scornful.'


And then applies it without comment to modern circuses. However, this was not the ancient definition of circus, just as the definition of zafzafah changed. An ancient circus involved gladiators, and animals fighting one another. {Update: An ancient circus involved events such as chariot racing as well as violent events such as "gladiatorial combats, spectacles in which bloodshed and brutality were not uncommon."}

In fact, there is a Midrash Rabba on Vayikra, parasha 13, that I saw several months ago that spoke of the reward for the righteous in the world to come. For not attending the ancient circuses Kanigin {animal fights}, God will reward them by making a circus Kanigin for them involving gladiatorial combat between the Leviathan and the Behemoth, and they will then eat of the flesh of these animals. In fact, I believe R' Gil referred to this midrash a while back when discussing the Rambam, and the immutability of the mitzvot, in terms of the question how they could eat the flesh of the Behemoth when it had been slain in a non-kosher manner by the Leviathan! (This midrash is strange to understand - why would tzadikim take pleasure in such violence - it it likely meant metaphorically.)
{Update: I originally remembered this as circuses, but as Ploni pointed out, it just mentions Kanigin. However, this is a good sample of the type of brutal entertainments the Romans enjoyed, and which, we shall see in a moment, was present as well at ancient circuses, accompanying the chariot races.}

When Chazal referred to כרקום קרקסיאות, It was not clowns, tightrope acrobats, trained lions doing tricks, etc.. Rather, it was a brutal and bloody performance for a brutal and bloody mob. {Update: This I feel is still true, even though chariot races happened as well.} This, it makes sense, is a moshav leitzim, seat of scorners.

But you need not turn to the midrash for this definition. Go to dictionary.com for the word "circus," and note that they cite the American Heritage Dictionary, which gives the following note:
Word History: The modern circus owes its name, but fortunately not its regular program of events, to the amusements of ancient times. The Latin word circus, which comes from the Greek word kirkos, “circle, ring,” referred to a circular or oval area enclosed by rows of seats for spectators. In the center ring, so to speak, was held a variety of events, including chariot races and gladiatorial combats, spectacles in which bloodshed and brutality were not uncommon. The first use of circus recorded in English, in a work by Chaucer written around 1380, probably refers to the Circus Maximus in Rome. Our modern circus, which dates to the end of the 18th century, was originally an equestrian spectacle as well, but the trick riders were soon joined in the ring by such performers as ropedancers, acrobats, and jugglers. Even though the circular shape of the arena and the equestrian nature of some of the performances are carried over from its Roman namesake, the modern circus has little connection with its brutal namesake of long ago.


Update: Do not miss the discussion in the comments, and my eventual explanation of the gemara! And please comment!

Update: Anonymous, in a comment, pointed me toward Tertullian's On Spectacles. It is worthwhile reading in order to really understand the gemara - what it means when it refers to idolatry in terms of the (perhaps dramatic) theater and the chariot races at the circus, what is meant by gladiatory contest, and other spectacles involved.

Other gems from On Spectacles: First, Tertullian speaks of an amphitheather, which according to dictionary.com (from American Heritage Dictionary):
[Middle English amphitheatre, from Latin amphithetrum, from Greek amphithetron : amphi-, amphi- + thetron, theater; see theater.]
refers to "An arena where contests and spectacles are held," and this is how Tertullian uses it. So when I mentioned in the comments that we do not necessarily know what is meant by "theater," this might be what they refer to.

Particularly check out chapter 3, where he gives a similar drash on the first pasuk in Tehillim, labelling it as a drash, as a level on top of pshat, even as he gets the "pshat" entirely wrong. Short citation:

Moreover, the other details also fit in well. For at the spectacles there is both sitting 'in the chair' (in cathedra) and standing 'in the way' (in via). For 'ways' (viae) they term both the gangways that run round the girding walls and the aisles that slope down the incline and divide the seats of the populace; in like manner is the very place for chairs in the curving gallery called 'chair' (cathedra).


Update: Indeed, on the theater count, Rashi appears to endorse the coliseum/amphitheater approach, over the dramatic theater approach. He says it is a palatin, and a gathering for sechok and latzon. This seems like the spectacles are being held in them. If so, this is a far cry from modern movie theaters.

Update: Please note, I have a new post on the subject, which is perhaps more comprehensive and hopefully more true. It is available here

Playing with the template

Since floating sidebar has stopped working, I switched to a different template. Will put things back gradually.

Tuesday, June 28, 2005

Midrashic Methods #1: Ribbuy (Inclusion)

The following for a class in Midrash (for beginners/intermediate -- and it's free!) that starts tomorrow for the Flame. To be held Wednesday nights at 7:15 at Congregation Adereth El, 135 East 29th Street at Lexington Avenue. I intend to focus throughout on midrashic methods, and specifically the justification for each midrashic method, how Chazal are attuned to context and tone of the prakim. I also want to do a lot of reading inside the prakim in Tanach to appreciate the pshat, drash, and the relationship between them, something often glossed over in midrash as verses are just taken as prooftext.
Spoilers follow:



m1

First middah: From a Ribbuy, how so?
The ribbuy utilized three terms. את, גם, אף.

את:
(Bereishit 21)
א וַה פָּקַד אֶת-שָׂרָה, כַּאֲשֶׁר אָמָר; וַיַּעַשׂ ה לְשָׂרָה, כַּאֲשֶׁר דִּבֵּר. 1 And the LORD remembered Sarah as He had said, and the LORD did unto Sarah as He had spoken.
If it had merely said פָּקַד שָׂרָה, I would have said that only Sarah had been remembered. Since it says את, it teaches that all those who were barren were remembered with her. And so it states:

ו וַתֹּאמֶר שָׂרָה--צְחֹק, עָשָׂה לִי אֱלֹהִים: כָּל-הַשֹּׁמֵעַ, יִצְחַק-לִי. 6 And Sarah said: 'God hath made laughter for me; every one that heareth will laugh on account of me.'
Discussion: see context, in preceding story and specifically verse. Also, how does verse 6 above show anything? Also, what alternatives could we have for using the word את?

Begin cite:

In a similar vein, you say (Mishlei 17):
כד אֶת-פְּנֵי מֵבִין חָכְמָה; וְעֵינֵי כְסִיל, בִּקְצֵה-אָרֶץ. 24 Wisdom is before him that hath understanding; but the eyes of a fool are in the ends of the earth.
If it had stated merely פְּנֵי, I would have said at only at his time. When it says את, it includes for his generations. And so it states (Mishlei 31):

כה עֹז-וְהָדָר לְבוּשָׁהּ; וַתִּשְׂחַק, לְיוֹם אַחֲרוֹן. 25 Strength and dignity are her clothing; and she laugheth at the time to come.

Discussion:
את as the marker of the object, as opposed to subject. The function of את in other situations.

Bereishit 4:
א וְהָאָדָם, יָדַע אֶת-חַוָּה אִשְׁתּוֹ; וַתַּהַר, וַתֵּלֶד אֶת-קַיִן, וַתֹּאמֶר, קָנִיתִי אִישׁ אֶת-ה. 1 And the man knew Eve his wife; and she conceived and bore Cain, and said: 'I have gotten a man with the help of the LORD.'
ב וַתֹּסֶף לָלֶדֶת, אֶת-אָחִיו אֶת-הָבֶל; וַיְהִי-הֶבֶל, רֹעֵה צֹאן, וְקַיִן, הָיָה עֹבֵד אֲדָמָה. 2 And again she bore his brother Abel. And Abel was a keeper of sheep, but Cain was a tiller of the ground.
What is the function of את in the first pasuk?
What is the function of את in the second pasuk?
(Midrashic hint: only Eve was created from Adam's rib/tail/back)

What is the function of את in Bereishit 22:3?

ב וַיֹּאמֶר קַח-נָא אֶת-בִּנְךָ אֶת-יְחִידְךָ אֲשֶׁר-אָהַבְתָּ, אֶת-יִצְחָק, וְלֶךְ-לְךָ, אֶל-אֶרֶץ הַמֹּרִיָּה; וְהַעֲלֵהוּ שָׁם, לְעֹלָה, עַל אַחַד הֶהָרִים, אֲשֶׁר אֹמַר אֵלֶיךָ. 2 And He said: 'Take now thy son, thine only son, whom thou lovest, even Isaac, and get thee into the land of Moriah; and offer him there for a burnt-offering upon one of the mountains which I will tell thee of.'
ג וַיַּשְׁכֵּם אַבְרָהָם בַּבֹּקֶר, וַיַּחֲבֹשׁ אֶת-חֲמֹרוֹ, וַיִּקַּח אֶת-שְׁנֵי נְעָרָיו אִתּוֹ, וְאֵת יִצְחָק בְּנוֹ; וַיְבַקַּע, עֲצֵי עֹלָה, וַיָּקָם וַיֵּלֶךְ, אֶל-הַמָּקוֹם אֲשֶׁר-אָמַר-לוֹ הָאֱלֹהִים. 3 And Abraham rose early in the morning, and saddled his ass, and took two of his young men with him, and Isaac his son; and he cleaved the wood for the burnt-offering, and rose up, and went unto the place of which God had told him.
begin cite.
גם: how does it include?
Shemot 12:31:

לא וַיִּקְרָא לְמֹשֶׁה וּלְאַהֲרֹן לַיְלָה, וַיֹּאמֶר קוּמוּ צְּאוּ מִתּוֹךְ עַמִּי--גַּם-אַתֶּם, גַּם-בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל; וּלְכוּ עִבְדוּ אֶת-ה, כְּדַבֶּרְכֶם. 31 And he called for Moses and Aaron by night and said: 'Rise up, get you forth from among my people, both ye and the children of Israel; and go, serve the LORD, as ye have said.
לב גַּם-צֹאנְכֶם גַּם-בְּקַרְכֶם קְחוּ כַּאֲשֶׁר דִּבַּרְתֶּם, וָלֵכוּ; וּבֵרַכְתֶּם, גַּם-אֹתִי. 32 Take both your flocks and your herds, as ye have said, and be gone; and bless me also.'
לג וַתֶּחֱזַק מִצְרַיִם עַל-הָעָם, לְמַהֵר לְשַׁלְּחָם מִן-הָאָרֶץ: כִּי אָמְרוּ, כֻּלָּנוּ מֵתִים. 33 And the Egyptians were urgent upon the people, to send them out of the land in haste; for they said: 'We are all dead men.'
If it had said "your flocks and your herds" I would have said he only gave them their sheep and cattle. Therefore the גם comes to include, and teaches us that he gave them a gift of his own and from his officers, in order to fulfil what is written (Shemot 10:25):

כד וַיִּקְרָא פַרְעֹה אֶל-מֹשֶׁה, וַיֹּאמֶר לְכוּ עִבְדוּ אֶת-ה--רַק צֹאנְכֶם וּבְקַרְכֶם, יֻצָּג: גַּם-טַפְּכֶם, יֵלֵךְ עִמָּכֶם. 24 And Pharaoh called unto Moses, and said: 'Go ye, serve the LORD; only let your flocks and your herds be stayed; let your little ones also go with you.'
כה וַיֹּאמֶר מֹשֶׁה, גַּם-אַתָּה תִּתֵּן בְּיָדֵנוּ זְבָחִים וְעֹלֹת; וְעָשִׂינוּ, לַה אֱלֹהֵינוּ. 25 And Moses said: 'Thou must also give into our hand sacrifices and burnt-offerings, that we may sacrifice unto the LORD our God.
Discussion: What is the function of גם on a pshat level? Could we omit it? What does it imply? (I would suggest eagerness - see next psukim about how eager they are to let them leave.) How does the midrash feed into this basic message? How does it feed into the contrast with the earlier pasuk?

begin cite
similarly, you say:
Dvarim 22:

כב כִּי-יִמָּצֵא אִישׁ שֹׁכֵב עִם-אִשָּׁה בְעֻלַת-בַּעַל, וּמֵתוּ גַּם-שְׁנֵיהֶם--הָאִישׁ הַשֹּׁכֵב עִם-הָאִשָּׁה, וְהָאִשָּׁה; וּבִעַרְתָּ הָרָע, מִיִּשְׂרָאֵל.
22 If a man be found lying with a woman married to a husband, then they shall both of them die, the man that lay with the woman, and the woman; so shalt thou put away the evil from Israel.
If it had not said גם I would have said that if she was liable and pregnant, we would wait for her until she gave birth. It comes to teach us with this גם to include the fetus, that we do not wait until she gives birth.

Discussion: This is halachic or aggadic? How exactly is the גם functioning? How exactly is שְׁנֵיהֶם now functioning?

Before proceeding, one of my favorite גםs. Shemot 7:

י וַיָּבֹא מֹשֶׁה וְאַהֲרֹן, אֶל-פַּרְעֹה, וַיַּעֲשׂוּ כֵן, כַּאֲשֶׁר צִוָּה יְהוָה; וַיַּשְׁלֵךְ אַהֲרֹן אֶת-מַטֵּהוּ, לִפְנֵי פַרְעֹה וְלִפְנֵי עֲבָדָיו--וַיְהִי לְתַנִּין. 10 And Moses and Aaron went in unto Pharaoh, and they did so, as the LORD had commanded; and Aaron cast down his rod before Pharaoh and before his servants, and it became a serpent.
יא וַיִּקְרָא, גַּם-פַּרְעֹה, לַחֲכָמִים, וְלַמְכַשְּׁפִים; וַיַּעֲשׂוּ גַם-הֵם חַרְטֻמֵּי מִצְרַיִם, בְּלַהֲטֵיהֶם--כֵּן. 11 Then Pharaoh also called for the wise men and the sorcerers; and they also, the magicians of Egypt, did in like manner with their secret arts.
How do the two גםs function in pasuk 11?
(Midrash: Pharoah's wife, students of magicians.) What does this show about the role of גם?
Answer: of a like kind to that to which it is joined.
How does this fit into the mood of the perek?

begin cite:
אף to include, how?
II Kings 2:

יג וַיָּרֶם אֶת-אַדֶּרֶת אֵלִיָּהוּ, אֲשֶׁר נָפְלָה מֵעָלָיו; וַיָּשָׁב וַיַּעֲמֹד, עַל-שְׂפַת הַיַּרְדֵּן. 13 He took up also the mantle of Elijah that fell from him, and went back, and stood by the bank of the Jordan.
יד וַיִּקַּח אֶת-אַדֶּרֶת אֵלִיָּהוּ אֲשֶׁר-נָפְלָה מֵעָלָיו, וַיַּכֶּה אֶת-הַמַּיִם, וַיֹּאמַר, אַיֵּה ה אֱלֹהֵי אֵלִיָּהוּ; אַף-הוּא וַיַּכֶּה אֶת-הַמַּיִם, וַיֵּחָצוּ הֵנָּה וָהֵנָּה, וַיַּעֲבֹר, אֱלִישָׁע. 14 And he took the mantle of Elijah that fell from him, and smote the waters, and said: 'Where is the LORD, the God of Elijah?' and when he also had smitten the waters, they were divided hither and thither; and Elisha went over.
אַף-הוּא וַיַּכֶּה אֶת-הַמַּיִם teaches that greater miracles were wrought for Elisha in the splitting of the Jordan than for Eliyahu. That in the first time there was the merit of two righteous individuals, and in the second instance, a single righteous person's merit stood.

And so it states
ח וַיִּקַּח אֵלִיָּהוּ אֶת-אַדַּרְתּוֹ וַיִּגְלֹם וַיַּכֶּה אֶת-הַמַּיִם, וַיֵּחָצוּ הֵנָּה וָהֵנָּה; וַיַּעַבְרוּ שְׁנֵיהֶם, בֶּחָרָבָה. 8 And Elijah took his mantle, and wrapped it together, and smote the waters, and they were divided hither and thither, so that they two went over on dry ground.
ט וַיְהִי כְעָבְרָם, וְאֵלִיָּהוּ אָמַר אֶל-אֱלִישָׁע שְׁאַל מָה אֶעֱשֶׂה-לָּךְ, בְּטֶרֶם, אֶלָּקַח מֵעִמָּךְ; וַיֹּאמֶר אֱלִישָׁע, וִיהִי נָא פִּי-שְׁנַיִם בְּרוּחֲךָ אֵלָי. 9 And it came to pass, when they were gone over, that Elijah said unto Elisha: 'Ask what I shall do for thee, before I am taken from thee.' And Elisha said: 'I pray thee, let a double portion of thy spirit be upon me.'

Discussion:
What does the English expression "take up the mantle" mean?
What is the theme of this perek?
What is the import of two tzadikim vs. one? Suggestion: being solitary - now have to stand as own man, as opposed to being sidekick.
Note how both אף and the "double portion" connote extra.

begin cite:
So too you find 8 miracles by Eliyahu and 16 by Elisha.

Similarly, in Iyyov 37: (Note: Elihu's speech)

יא אַף-בְּרִי, יַטְרִיחַ עָב; יָפִיץ, עֲנַן אוֹרוֹ. 11 Yea, He ladeth the thick cloud with moister, He spreadeth abroad the cloud of His lightning;
This teaches that the clouds and the rain are harsh, and Hashem imposes {matriach} upon them. And how do we know that just as he imposes upon them to rain, so too he imposes upon them to stop, after it rains sufficiently? Therefore the word אף comes to include.

(A perush in parentheses: The meaning of this midda - that these three words - אף, גם, את. come always to include. And within this midrashic method is that every extra word or letter comes to include, except that the Tanna only mentioned something which is constant, since these three words include in every place that they are written. Meanwhile, the other words only include when they are extra. And the inclusion in all places is of the subject by which it is written. And this is of the 13 hermenutical methods of the matter which is learnt from its subject matter. and not of something which is not of its subject matter. And the rest of the words explaining the brayta in this method and in all of the remaining methods, with many examples, all is made clear at length in my sefer Midrash Tanaim. דרוש משם. And it requires investigation, for we do not find further that the word אף comes to include.)

Korach: How Many Tents?

Parshat Korach begins by listing the people involved in Korach's rebellion. Bemidbar 16:1:

א וַיִּקַּח קֹרַח, בֶּן-יִצְהָר בֶּן-קְהָת בֶּן-לֵוִי; וְדָתָן וַאֲבִירָם בְּנֵי אֱלִיאָב, וְאוֹן בֶּן-פֶּלֶת--בְּנֵי רְאוּבֵן. 1 Now Korah, the son of Izhar, the son of Kohath, the son of Levi, with Dathan and Abiram, the sons of Eliab, and On, the son of Peleth, sons of Reuben, took men;
But they quickly divide up. Korach leads a rebellion of people who wish to replace Aharon as Kohen Gadol, and who rise to the challenge the next day of attempting to offer incense. We see Moshe address Korach in this way:

ד וַיִּשְׁמַע מֹשֶׁה, וַיִּפֹּל עַל-פָּנָיו. 4 And when Moses heard it, he fell upon his face.
ה וַיְדַבֵּר אֶל-קֹרַח וְאֶל-כָּל-עֲדָתוֹ, לֵאמֹר, בֹּקֶר וְיֹדַע ה אֶת-אֲשֶׁר-לוֹ וְאֶת-הַקָּדוֹשׁ, וְהִקְרִיב אֵלָיו; וְאֵת אֲשֶׁר יִבְחַר-בּוֹ, יַקְרִיב אֵלָיו. 5 And he spoke unto Korah and unto all his company, saying: 'In the morning the LORD will show who are His, and who is holy, and will cause him to come near unto Him; even him whom He may choose will He cause to come near unto Him.
ו זֹאת, עֲשׂוּ: קְחוּ-לָכֶם מַחְתּוֹת, קֹרַח וְכָל-עֲדָתוֹ. 6 This do: take you censors, Korah, and all his company;

Moshe, meanwhile, deals with Datan and Aviram separately:

יב וַיִּשְׁלַח מֹשֶׁה, לִקְרֹא לְדָתָן וְלַאֲבִירָם בְּנֵי אֱלִיאָב; וַיֹּאמְרוּ, לֹא נַעֲלֶה. 12 And Moses sent to call Dathan and Abiram, the sons of Eliab; and they said: 'We will not come up;
We see also Korach's company is punished by Heavenly fire, while Datan and Aviram are swallowed up in the earth. What happens to Korach himself is not made clear, and is in fact a matter of seeming dispute between psukim -- but perhaps that would be a good subject for a later post.

What I wish to address here is an unusual trup - cantillation - on two of the psukim - namely, psukim 24 and 27.

כג וַיְדַבֵּר יְהוָה, אֶל-מֹשֶׁה לֵּאמֹר. 23 And the LORD spoke unto Moses, saying:
כד דַּבֵּר אֶל-הָעֵדָה, לֵאמֹר: הֵעָלוּ, מִסָּבִיב, לְמִשְׁכַּן-קֹרַח, דָּתָן וַאֲבִירָם. 24 'Speak unto the congregation, saying: Get you up from about the dwelling of Korah, Dathan, and Abiram.'
כה וַיָּקָם מֹשֶׁה, וַיֵּלֶךְ אֶל-דָּתָן וַאֲבִירָם; וַיֵּלְכוּ אַחֲרָיו, זִקְנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל. 25 And Moses rose up and went unto Dathan and Abiram; and the elders of Israel followed him.
כו וַיְדַבֵּר אֶל-הָעֵדָה לֵאמֹר, סוּרוּ נָא מֵעַל אָהֳלֵי הָאֲנָשִׁים הָרְשָׁעִים הָאֵלֶּה, וְאַל-תִּגְּעוּ, בְּכָל-אֲשֶׁר לָהֶם: פֶּן-תִּסָּפוּ, בְּכָל-חַטֹּאתָם. 26 And he spoke unto the congregation, saying: 'Depart, I pray you, from the tents of these wicked men, and touch nothing of theirs, lest ye be swept away in all their sins.'
כז וַיֵּעָלוּ, מֵעַל מִשְׁכַּן-קֹרַח דָּתָן וַאֲבִירָם--מִסָּבִיב; וְדָתָן וַאֲבִירָם יָצְאוּ נִצָּבִים, פֶּתַח אָהֳלֵיהֶם, וּנְשֵׁיהֶם וּבְנֵיהֶם, וְטַפָּם. 27 So they got them up from the dwelling of Korah, Dathan, and Abiram, on every side; and Dathan and Abiram came out, and stood at the door of the

כג וַיְדַבֵּ֥ר יְהוָ֖ה אֶל־מֹשֶׁ֥ה לֵּאמֹֽר׃
כד
דַּבֵּ֥ר אֶל־הָֽעֵדָ֖ה לֵאמֹ֑ר הֵֽעָלוּ֙ מִסָּבִ֔יב לְמִשְׁכַּן־קֹ֖רַח דָּתָ֥ן וַֽאֲבִירָֽם׃
כה וַיָּ֣קָם מֹשֶׁ֔ה וַיֵּ֖לֶךְ אֶל־דָּתָ֣ן וַֽאֲבִירָ֑ם וַיֵּֽלְכ֥וּ אַֽחֲרָ֖יו זִקְנֵ֥י יִשְׂרָאֵֽל׃
כו וַיְדַבֵּ֨ר אֶל־הָֽעֵדָ֜ה לֵאמֹ֗ר ס֣וּרוּ נָ֡א מֵעַל֩ אָֽהֳלֵ֨י הָֽאֲנָשִׁ֤ים הָֽרְשָׁעִים֙ הָאֵ֔לֶּה וְאַֽל־תִּגְּע֖וּ בְּכָל־אֲשֶׁ֣ר לָהֶ֑ם פֶּן־תִּסָּפ֖וּ בְּכָל־חַטֹּאתָֽם׃
כז וַיֵּֽעָל֗וּ מֵעַ֧ל מִשְׁכַּן־קֹ֛רַח דָּתָ֥ן וַֽאֲבִירָ֖ם מִסָּבִ֑יב וְדָתָ֨ן וַֽאֲבִירָ֜ם יָֽצְא֣וּ נִצָּבִ֗ים פֶּ֚תַח אָֽהֳלֵיהֶ֔ם וּנְשֵׁיהֶ֥ם וּבְנֵיהֶ֖ם וְטַפָּֽם׃

In pasuk 24, it is לְמִשְׁכַּן־קֹ֖רַח דָּתָ֥ן וַֽאֲבִירָֽם. That is, there is a makef connecting the word לְמִשְׁכַּן to the word קֹרַח. Also, there is a tipcha, a disjunctive accent, dividing Korach from Datan and Aviram. This is somewhat strange. While we might expect a disjunctive accent on first item of a list of three, why make the dash - the makef - between the first two words? If you want a conjunctive accent, we would expect the typical servus - that is, the mercha! Indeed, the presence of the makef suggests a stronger connection between the two words.

The same occurs in pasuk 27. We have מִשְׁכַּן־קֹ֛רַח דָּתָ֥ן וַֽאֲבִירָ֖ם מִסָּבִ֑יב. Again, there is a makef between מִשְׁכַּן and קֹרַח, making it into almost a single word. A tevir occurs on the word קֹרַח, marking it with a disjunctive accent which separates it from Datan and Aviram in the clause. We would expect, rather than the makef, a conjunctive accent, or servus, on the word מִשְׁכַּן - either a darga or a munach. Again, the trup seems to group מִשְׁכַּן and קֹרַח as a unit, and one apart from Datan and Aviram.

How would this make sense? I would put forward the following. The general translation of these phrases is "the dwelling of Korach, Datan, and Aviram." This suggests one tent belonging to all three, or else better, three tents - one for Korach, one for Datan, and one for Aviram. The word מִשְׁכַּן is the same in both absolute and construct form, and here it operates in construct form, to denote possession.

Instead, I would posit that the word קֹרַח does not function as that which possesses the מִשְׁכַּן, but rather as an adjective. Thus, מִשְׁכַּן־קֹרַח is a Korachite dwelling. The word קֹרַח is separated from Datan and Aviram by a disjunctive accent and joined to מִשְׁכַּן by a makef to show that while Datan and Aviram are related to מִשְׁכַּן as the possessors, קֹרַח is even more closely related as the adjective.

What is a Korachite dwelling? Well, this entire thing was Korach's rebellion, and Datan and Aviram are somewhat tangential elements of that rebellion. It is possible that the rebels gathered, discussed, commiserated, and strategized in some meeting place, and that place was the dweeling place(s) of Datan and Aviram.

The full translation would then be:

כג וַיְדַבֵּר ה, אֶל-מֹשֶׁה לֵּאמֹר. 23 And the LORD spoke unto Moses, saying:
כד דַּבֵּר אֶל-הָעֵדָה, לֵאמֹר: הֵעָלוּ, מִסָּבִיב, לְמִשְׁכַּן-קֹרַח, דָּתָן וַאֲבִירָם 24 'Speak unto the congregation, saying: Get you up from about the Korachite dwelling of Dathan and Abiram.'
This would then explain in fulfilling Hashem's command in the next pasukim, we only see mention of Datan and Aviram:

כה וַיָּקָם מֹשֶׁה, וַיֵּלֶךְ אֶל-דָּתָן וַאֲבִירָם; וַיֵּלְכוּ אַחֲרָיו, זִקְנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל. 25 And Moses rose up and went unto Dathan and Abiram; and the elders of Israel followed him.
כו וַיְדַבֵּר אֶל-הָעֵדָה לֵאמֹר, סוּרוּ נָא מֵעַל אָהֳלֵי הָאֲנָשִׁים הָרְשָׁעִים הָאֵלֶּה, וְאַל-תִּגְּעוּ, בְּכָל-אֲשֶׁר לָהֶם: פֶּן-תִּסָּפוּ, בְּכָל-חַטֹּאתָם. 26 And he spoke unto the congregation, saying: 'Depart, I pray you, from the tents of these wicked men, and touch nothing of theirs, lest ye be swept away in all their sins.'

Note that he is not talking here to Datan and Aviram directly, but to the congregation that is there, that is, people who might associate with them in this Korachite rebellion. If he is warning the people in all these tents, and it meant Korach's tent as well, shouldn't it say that he went to Korach as well. Why only Datan and Aviram? It seems these is the only dwelling he went to.

Further, does Korach live right next to Datan and Aviram? Perhaps, as Korach was a Levite, and there was no individual Levite encampment, but perhaps not.

It continues:

כז וַיֵּעָלוּ, מֵעַל מִשְׁכַּן-קֹרַח דָּתָן וַאֲבִירָם--מִסָּבִיב; וְדָתָן וַאֲבִירָם יָצְאוּ נִצָּבִים, פֶּתַח אָהֳלֵיהֶם, וּנְשֵׁיהֶם וּבְנֵיהֶם, וְטַפָּם. 27 So they got them up from the Korachite dwelling of Dathan and Abiram, on every side; and Dathan and Abiram came out, and stood at the door of their tents, with their wives, and their sons, and their little ones.
כח וַיֹּאמֶר, מֹשֶׁה, בְּזֹאת תֵּדְעוּן, כִּי-ה שְׁלָחַנִי לַעֲשׂוֹת אֵת כָּל-הַמַּעֲשִׂים הָאֵלֶּה: כִּי-לֹא, מִלִּבִּי. 28 And Moses said: 'Hereby ye shall know that the LORD hath sent me to do all these works, and that I have not done them of mine own mind.
Note that even though Moshe is threatening them now at מִשְׁכַּן־קֹרַח besides the mishkan of Datan and Aviram, only Datan and Aviram, their wives, and their sons come out. Korach does not come out, and his family does not come out. I think this makes sense, since this is not the tent of Korach. It is the dwelling(s) of Datan and Aviram.

It then continues:

לא וַיְהִי, כְּכַלֹּתוֹ, לְדַבֵּר, אֵת כָּל-הַדְּבָרִים הָאֵלֶּה; וַתִּבָּקַע הָאֲדָמָה, אֲשֶׁר תַּחְתֵּיהֶם. 31 And it came to pass, as he made an end of speaking all these words, that the ground did cleave asunder that was under them.
לב וַתִּפְתַּח הָאָרֶץ אֶת-פִּיהָ, וַתִּבְלַע אֹתָם וְאֶת-בָּתֵּיהֶם, וְאֵת כָּל-הָאָדָם אֲשֶׁר לְקֹרַח, וְאֵת כָּל-הָרְכוּשׁ. 32 And the earth opened her mouth and swallowed them up, and their households, and all the men that appertained unto Korah, and all their goods.
"All the men that appertained to Korach" does not mean Korach, his wife, and his children. It means Datan, Aviram, and all the Korachite men - those who identified with the rebellion and were gathered in the Korachite tent.

Indeed, we know that the sons of Korach did not die, from Bemidbar 26:11:

ט וּבְנֵי אֱלִיאָב, נְמוּאֵל וְדָתָן וַאֲבִירָם: הוּא-דָתָן וַאֲבִירָם קרואי (קְרִיאֵי) הָעֵדָה, אֲשֶׁר הִצּוּ עַל-מֹשֶׁה וְעַל-אַהֲרֹן בַּעֲדַת-קֹרַח, בְּהַצֹּתָם, עַל-ה. 9 And the sons of Eliab: Nemuel, and Dathan, and Abiram. These are that Dathan and Abiram, the elect of the congregation, who strove against Moses and against Aaron in the company of Korah, when they strove against the LORD;
י וַתִּפְתַּח הָאָרֶץ אֶת-פִּיהָ, וַתִּבְלַע אֹתָם וְאֶת-קֹרַח--בְּמוֹת הָעֵדָה: בַּאֲכֹל הָאֵשׁ, אֵת חֲמִשִּׁים וּמָאתַיִם אִישׁ, וַיִּהְיוּ, לְנֵס. 10 and the earth opened her mouth, and swallowed them up together with Korah, when that company died; what time the fire devoured two hundred and fifty men, and they became a sign.
יא וּבְנֵי-קֹרַח, לֹא-מֵתוּ.
11 Notwithstanding the sons of Korah died not. {S}
We are told there that the sons of Korach did not die because that section is genealogical in nature, and so we need to know that the chain of Korach was not cut off. (Indeed, I had a Rebbe in high school who traced his lineage son after son all the way to Korach.)

But it is to be expected that the sons of Korach did not die. There is a midrash about how they did not die, but stay in a suspended part of Gehinnom after being swallowed up. However, it is readily apparent, I think, on a pshat level, that they did not die nor were swallowed up, because they were not in the dwelling place that was swallowed up. Only the dwelling place of Datan and Aviram was involved in this incident, as we see that only Datan, Aviram, and family emerged from the tent involved. Korach's tent was located elsewhere, and so it was not swallowed up.

This will also resolve the famous ambiguity of whether Korach met his untimely demise with those offering incense or with those who were swallowed up. Since it was not Korach's tent involved, and since only Datan and Aviram and their family are mentioned as emerging from the tent, it would seem obvious that Korach was not swallowed up, but died by the heavenly fire.

The problem with this is firstly that only 250 people are mentioned as dying by Divine fire. Back in perek 16:
לה וְאֵשׁ יָצְאָה, מֵאֵת ה; וַתֹּאכַל, אֵת הַחֲמִשִּׁים וּמָאתַיִם אִישׁ, מַקְרִיבֵי, הַקְּטֹרֶת.
35 And fire came forth from the LORD, and devoured the two hundred and fifty men that offered the incense.
Now, this could simply be an approximate summary. Korach's company to offer incense was indeed 250, plus him, so the omission of him could just be an issue of narrative style. Further, we know that he was intended to go with them to offer incense:
ה וַיְדַבֵּר אֶל-קֹרַח וְאֶל-כָּל-עֲדָתוֹ, לֵאמֹר, בֹּקֶר וְיֹדַע ה אֶת-אֲשֶׁר-לוֹ וְאֶת-הַקָּדוֹשׁ, וְהִקְרִיב אֵלָיו; וְאֵת אֲשֶׁר יִבְחַר-בּוֹ, יַקְרִיב אֵלָיו. 5 And he spoke unto Korah and unto all his company, saying: 'In the morning the LORD will show who are His, and who is holy, and will cause him to come near unto Him; even him whom He may choose will He cause to come near unto Him.
ו זֹאת, עֲשׂוּ: קְחוּ-לָכֶם מַחְתּוֹת, קֹרַח וְכָל-עֲדָתוֹ. 6 This do: take you censors, Korah, and all his company;
ז וּתְנוּ בָהֵן אֵשׁ וְשִׂימוּ עֲלֵיהֶן קְטֹרֶת לִפְנֵי יְהוָה, מָחָר, וְהָיָה הָאִישׁ אֲשֶׁר-יִבְחַר ה, הוּא הַקָּדוֹשׁ; רַב-לָכֶם, בְּנֵי לֵוִי. 7 and put fire therein, and put incense upon them before the LORD to-morrow; and it shall be that the man whom the LORD doth choose, he shall be holy; ye take too much upon you, ye sons of Levi.'
Perhaps this could also be dismissed as Biblical style, but it truly seems to me that Korach was expected to be among those offering incense.

The second problem is later, in Bemidbar 26:10:

ט וּבְנֵי אֱלִיאָב, נְמוּאֵל וְדָתָן וַאֲבִירָם: הוּא-דָתָן וַאֲבִירָם קרואי (קְרִיאֵי) הָעֵדָה, אֲשֶׁר הִצּוּ עַל-מֹשֶׁה וְעַל-אַהֲרֹן בַּעֲדַת-קֹרַח, בְּהַצֹּתָם, עַל-ה. 9 And the sons of Eliab: Nemuel, and Dathan, and Abiram. These are that Dathan and Abiram, the elect of the congregation, who strove against Moses and against Aaron in the company of Korah, when they strove against the LORD;
י וַתִּפְתַּח הָאָרֶץ אֶת-פִּיהָ, וַתִּבְלַע אֹתָם וְאֶת-קֹרַח--בְּמוֹת הָעֵדָה: בַּאֲכֹל הָאֵשׁ, אֵת חֲמִשִּׁים וּמָאתַיִם אִישׁ, וַיִּהְיוּ, לְנֵס 10 and the earth opened her mouth, and swallowed them up together with Korah, when that company died; what time the fire devoured two hundred and fifty men, and they became a sign.
יא וּבְנֵי-קֹרַח, לֹא-מֵתוּ.
11 Notwithstanding the sons of Korah died not. {S}
The problem is that the verse is somewhat ambiguous. One could parse it: And the earth opened her mouth and swallowed them - and Korach was with the death of the congregation {of incense offerers}, when the fire devoured 250 men, and they became a sign.

Alternatively, one could parse it: And the earth opened her mouth and swallowed them up together with Korach, when that congregation died {either the swallowed-up congregation mentioned as "the men appertaining to Korach" or more likely, based on the parallel word eda to the beginning of Bemidbar 16, as well as the end of the current, the congregation destroyed by fire}, when the fire devoured 250 men, and they became a sign.

It seems to me that the trup, cantillation, favors the second rendition - the one we do not want, that suggests that Korach was swallowed up:

ט וּבְנֵ֣י אֱלִיאָ֔ב נְמוּאֵ֖ל וְדָתָ֣ן וַֽאֲבִירָ֑ם הֽוּא־דָתָ֨ן וַֽאֲבִירָ֜ם קרואי (קְרִיאֵ֣י) הָֽעֵדָ֗ה אֲשֶׁ֨ר הִצּ֜וּ עַל־מֹשֶׁ֤ה וְעַֽל־אַהֲרֹן֙ בַּֽעֲדַת־קֹ֔רַח בְּהַצֹּתָ֖ם עַל־ה׃
י וַתִּפְתַּ֨ח הָאָ֜רֶץ אֶת־פִּ֗יהָ וַתִּבְלַ֥ע אֹתָ֛ם וְאֶת־קֹ֖רַח בְּמ֣וֹת הָֽעֵדָ֑ה בַּֽאֲכֹ֣ל הָאֵ֗שׁ אֵ֣ת חֲמִשִּׁ֤ים וּמָאתַ֨יִם֙ אִ֔ישׁ וַיִּֽהְי֖וּ לְנֵֽס׃
יא וּבְנֵי־קֹ֖רַח לֹא־מֵֽתוּ׃

There is an etnachta on the word עֵדָ֑ה, which functions to separate it from the remainder of the verse. Further, there is tevir on the word אֹתָ֛ם, and this is a disjunctive accent which separates it slightly from "and Korach in the death of the congregation."

י וַתִּפְתַּ֨ח הָאָ֜רֶץ אֶת־פִּ֗יהָ וַתִּבְלַ֥ע אֹתָ֛ם וְאֶת־קֹ֖רַח בְּמ֣וֹת הָֽעֵדָ֑ה || בַּֽאֲכֹ֣ל הָאֵ֗שׁ אֵ֣ת חֲמִשִּׁ֤ים וּמָאתַ֨יִם֙ אִ֔ישׁ וַיִּֽהְי֖וּ לְנֵֽס

then

י וַתִּפְתַּ֨ח הָאָ֜רֶץ אֶת־פִּ֗יהָ וַתִּבְלַ֥ע אֹתָ֛ם וְאֶת־קֹ֖רַח || בְּמ֣וֹת הָֽעֵדָ֑ה

then


י וַתִּפְתַּ֨ח הָאָ֜רֶץ אֶת־פִּ֗יהָ וַתִּבְלַ֥ע אֹתָ֛ם || וְאֶת־קֹ֖רַח

Thus, first we had "the earth opened its mouth and swallowed them and Korach in/during the death of the congregation." Then, we had "the earth opened its mouth ans swallowed them and Korach." Then, we had "the earth opened its mouth and swallowed them." This all seems to group Korach with them in being swallowed.

On the other hand, it seems that "in/during the death of the congregation" refers to the dying by Divine fire mentioned at the end of the verse, and yet it precedes the etnachta. Thus, the fact that Korach precedes the etnachta break is not a total disaster.

Still, I would have expected the etnachta there. And even if we keep the etnachta in place, I would want a zakef gadol on the word otam, rather than the tevir. The difference between these two cantillations is that the zakef subdivides a clause ending in etnachta, while tevir subdivides a clause ending in tipcha. If there were a zakef on otam, it would have been:

First "the earth opened its mouth and swallowed them and Korach in/during the death of the congregation." Then, "the earth opened its mouth and swallowed them" plus a second clause "and Korach in/during the death of the congregation." Instead, we have what I first described in terms of order of subdivision.

Perhaps the two trup are arguing with one another. While trup is really early, it is not miSinai.

Returning for a moment to the original trup discussion - that of the makef and mishkan Korach - I would note that the trup does indeed answer these difficulties of why Korach and his family did not emerge from his dwelling, and why the sons of Korach did not die, but on the other hand, perhaps this is why this particular trup came about in the first place - to resolve these questions.

In the end though, I believe that this interpretation is what the trup in perek 16 aims at, and I think that the trup does in fact accurately render the original intent, which was "Korachite tent."

Monday, June 27, 2005

Posts so far for parshat Korach

Year 1:
Year 2

to be continued...

Sunday, June 26, 2005

Dav Yomi: What Was The Mark?

I posted last Friday about the instances of Ktav Ivri {Paleo-Hebrew script} in the gemara and Tanach. One I mentioned was a Yerushalmi which spoke of the ayin and tes on the luchot in which the centers suspended miraculously, as opposed to the Bavli which has samach and mem sofit, the difference being that one refers to Ktav Ashurit and one refers to Ktav Ivri.

I also referred to the psukim in Yechezkel of making a mark (tav) on people's foreheads. It turns out this pasuk is mentioned on today's daf (Shabbat 55a).

ד וַיֹּאמֶר ה, אֵלָו, עֲבֹר בְּתוֹךְ הָעִיר, בְּתוֹךְ יְרוּשָׁלִָם; וְהִתְוִיתָ תָּו עַל-מִצְחוֹת הָאֲנָשִׁים, הַנֶּאֱנָחִים וְהַנֶּאֱנָקִים, עַל כָּל-הַתּוֹעֵבוֹת, הַנַּעֲשׂוֹת בְּתוֹכָהּ. 4 And the LORD said unto him: 'Go through the midst of the city, through the midst of Jerusalem, and set a mark upon the foreheads of the men that sigh and that cry for all the abominations that are done in the midst thereof.'
ה וּלְאֵלֶּה אָמַר בְּאָזְנַי, עִבְרוּ בָעִיר אַחֲרָיו וְהַכּוּ: על- (אַל-) תָּחֹס עיניכם (עֵינְכֶם), וְאַל-תַּחְמֹלוּ. 5 And to the others He said in my hearing: 'Go ye through the city after him, and smite; let not your eye spare, neither have ye pity;
ו זָקֵן בָּחוּר וּבְתוּלָה וְטַף וְנָשִׁים תַּהַרְגוּ לְמַשְׁחִית, וְעַל-כָּל-אִישׁ אֲשֶׁר-עָלָיו הַתָּו אַל-תִּגַּשׁוּ, וּמִמִּקְדָּשִׁי, תָּחֵלּוּ; וַיָּחֵלּוּ בָּאֲנָשִׁים הַזְּקֵנִים, אֲשֶׁר לִפְנֵי הַבָּיִת. 6 slay utterly the old man, the young man and the maiden, and little children and women; but come not near any man upon whom is the mark; and begin at My sanctuary.' Then they began at the elders that were before the house.

Now, one can take this as a random mark, but perhaps one should take it as a mark inspired by the letter which bears the same name. In Ktav Ashuri this looks like ת, which is strange for a mark. But in Ktav Ivri it looks like an X.

On the daf, they seem to understand it as referring to the letter, making statements like "from aleph to tav," though this might be dismissed as concrete proof since they are after all making drashot, and a drasha can rely on such a "homonym."

But, this transforms it from being just the pesukim in Yechezkel as that which one needs to know Ktav Ivri to understand, into the gemara in Shabbat 55a.

Friday, June 24, 2005

The Value of Learning Ktav Ivri

Apropos Missisipi Fred Macdowell's question (click through to see his picture) whether there is any value of non-academic types knowing Ktav Ivri (Paleo-Hebrew), I would say yes. The more familiar one is with realia, the better one can understand gemara and Tanach as it was intended.

There is a discussion of how in the Ten Commandments, engraved through and through on two tablets, the samach and mem sofit were miraculous, in that the middle portion had to have floated (Shabbat 104a and Megilla 2b-3a). How to understand the Yerushalmi that has instead "ayin and tes?" You need to know Ktav Ivri (in which these two letters are circular - the ayin looks like a samach, and the tes looks like an X inside an O, in what seems a modification of the letter tav) - to really understand this - and it is clear that Chazal knew Ktav Ivri.

Also, to understand Yechezkel 9:4 and 9:6 about the "mark," the "tav" made on people's foreheads. Does this mean a random mark? Does this mean something that looks like the Ktav Ashuri ת? It makes a lot more sense when you know the Ktav Ivri Tav looks like an X.

You never know when arcane knowledge can be useful.

Update: Plus, everyone should be able to read Joseph of Aramathea's inscription on the cave wall in Monty Python and the Quest for the Holy Grail! :)

Shlach: The Ten Trials

In parshat Shlach, Hashem complains that the Israelites have tested him ten times. In Bemidbar 14:20-23:

כ וַיֹּאמֶר ה, סָלַחְתִּי כִּדְבָרֶךָ. 20 And the LORD said: 'I have pardoned according to thy word.
כא וְאוּלָם, חַי-אָנִי: וְיִמָּלֵא כְבוֹד-ה, אֶת-כָּל-הָאָרֶץ. 21 But in very deed, as I live--and all the earth shall be filled with the glory of the LORD--
כב כִּי כָל-הָאֲנָשִׁים, הָרֹאִים אֶת-כְּבֹדִי וְאֶת-אֹתֹתַי, אֲשֶׁר-עָשִׂיתִי בְמִצְרַיִם, וּבַמִּדְבָּר; וַיְנַסּוּ אֹתִי, זֶה עֶשֶׂר פְּעָמִים, וְלֹא שָׁמְעוּ, בְּקוֹלִי. 22 surely all those men that have seen My glory, and My signs, which I wrought in Egypt and in the wilderness, yet have put Me to proof these ten times, and have not hearkened to My voice;
כג אִם-יִרְאוּ, אֶת-הָאָרֶץ, אֲשֶׁר נִשְׁבַּעְתִּי, לַאֲבֹתָם; וְכָל-מְנַאֲצַי, לֹא יִרְאוּהָ. 23 surely they shall not see the land which I swore unto their fathers, neither shall any of them that despised Me see it.
Rashi cites Chazal on this:
these ten times Twice at the [Red] sea, twice with the manna, twice with the quails…, as is stated in Tractate Erechin 15a.
I would posit that this approach is midrashic, in that it takes the text at face value. Midrash is categorized by being hyper-literal, whereas pshat will often not take statements as absolutely. In this case, Chazal try to identify which ten trials the pasuk refers to, where the pasuk did not identify them, and where it is in fact difficult to figure out which ones they are.

One might say that Hashem did not mean literally ten. Ten is a representative number for many instances. (Indeed, Ibn Ezra suggests it was used because it is the first number which is a collection of ones.)

This distinction can be forced into a dispute between Rabbi Akiva and Rabbi Yishmael. Rabbi Akiva would take doubled words (examples: הענק תענק, נתן תתן, פתח תפתח, עשר תעשר) as extra, and thus coming to teach something additional, on a midrashic level. Rabbi Yishmael, conversely, held that dibra Torah kelshon benei Adam - the Torah speaks in the language of mankind - and thus, this duplication of language is not a significant distinction or irregularity that it should prompt a midrash. Thus, Rabbi Yishmael, who does not insist on the absolute and maximal significance of each word, takes a non-midrashic approach. Similarly here, saying that "ten" does not mean "ten" may well be the non-midrashic approach.

One should be more prone to say that this is so based on the fact that this is direct speech from Hashem, as opposed to description of law, or narration. Further, it is part of a complaint expressing exasperation. Think of "If I've told you once, I've told you a thousand times!"

We have a parallel instance of "ten" being used in this way, perhaps. In Bereishit 31:7:

ו וְאַתֵּנָה, יְדַעְתֶּן: כִּי, בְּכָל-כֹּחִי, עָבַדְתִּי, אֶת-אֲבִיכֶן. 6 And ye know that with all my power I have served your father.
ז וַאֲבִיכֶן הֵתֶל בִּי, וְהֶחֱלִף אֶת-מַשְׂכֻּרְתִּי עֲשֶׂרֶת מֹנִים; וְלֹא-נְתָנוֹ אֱלֹקִים, לְהָרַע עִמָּדִי. 7 And your father hath mocked me, and changed my wages ten times; but God suffered him not to hurt me.
ח אִם-כֹּה יֹאמַר, נְקֻדִּים יִהְיֶה שְׂכָרֶךָ--וְיָלְדוּ כָל-הַצֹּאן, נְקֻדִּים; וְאִם-כֹּה יֹאמַר, עֲקֻדִּים יִהְיֶה שְׂכָרֶךָ--וְיָלְדוּ כָל-הַצֹּאן, עֲקֻדִּים. 8 If he said thus: The speckled shall be thy wages; then all the flock bore speckled; and if he said thus: The streaked shall be thy wages; then bore all the flock streaked.

The midrash will take on the difficult task of identifying the ten times. Further, Rashi there says monim means ten, so the wages were actually changed 100 times.

But, the pshat approach may well be that "ten" means "many instances," and is being used there in direct speech and expressing exasperation. Ibn Ezra makes a similar comment there.

Please note this is an entirely different issue than that of 600,000 people leaving Egypt. A few weeks ago, Hirhurim had a post about how archaeological evidence did not currently support the idea of people leaving Egypt in those numbers, to which I responded in this post. In the comments at Hirhurim, some were suggesting that the number was intended to be metaphorical, meaning "a lot." As a matter of pshat, this seems unlikely, given that there are psukim up about how the Hebrews in Egypt were fruitful and multiplied at such a rate that the Egyptians were frightened, and further based on the fact that there are counts of each individual tribe, and the counts add up to the approximately 600,000. No - it does not strike me as pshat, nor as good drash. Here, however, the number being symbolic, representing many instances, may well be good pshat, for the reasons mentioned above.

Thursday, June 23, 2005

The Nucular Option

Town Crier is upset that Bush "still can't pronounce the stupid word!"

Long exceprt from a Slate article by Kate Taylor {bolding mine}:
Changing "nu-clee-ar" into "nu-cu-lar" is an example of what linguists call metathesis, which is the switching of two adjacent sounds. (Think of it this way: "nook le yer" becomes "nook ye ler.") This switching is common in English pronunciation; you might pronounce "iron" as "eye yern" rather than "eye ron." Why do people do it? One reason, offered in a usage note in the American Heritage Dictionary, is that the "ular" ending is extremely common in English, and much more common than "lear." Consider particular, circular, spectacular, and many science-related words like molecular, ocular, muscular.

Bush isn't the only American president to lose the "nucular" war. In his "On Language" column in the New York Times Magazine in May 2001, William Safire lamented that, besides Bush, at least three other presidents—Eisenhower, Carter, and Clinton—have mangled the word.

In fact, Bush's usage is so common that it appears in at least one dictionary. Merriam-Webster's, by far the most liberal dictionary, includes the pronunciation, though with a note identifying it as "a pronunciation variant that occurs in educated speech but that is considered by some to be questionable or unacceptable." A 1961 Merriam-Webster's edition was the first to include "nucular"; the editors received so many indignant letters that they added a usage note in the 1983 version, pointing out its "widespread use among educated speakers including scientists, lawyers, professors, congressmen, U.S. cabinet members, and at least one U.S. president and one vice president." They even noted its prominence among "British and Canadian speakers."
and she also cites in full Webster's standard response to readers who complain about listing nucular as an alternate pronunciation {again, bolding mine}:

We do not list the pronunciation of "nuclear" as \'nü-ky&-l&r\ as an "acceptable" alternative. We merely list it as an alternative. It is clearly preceded by the obelus mark \÷\. This mark indicates "a pronunciation variant that occurs in educated speech but that is considered by some to be questionable or unacceptable." A full description of this can be found in the Guide to Pronunciation on our website at http://www.m-w.com/pronguid.htm. We are definitely not advocating that anyone should use the pronunciation \'nü-ky&-l&r\ or that they should abandon the pronunciation \'nü-klE-&r\.

To say "the word is spelled (x), and therefore should be pronounced (y)" doesn't make any sense. Spelling is not a legitimate basis for determining pronunciation, for the following reasons:

1) English spelling is highly irregular. For example, "move", "dove", and "cove" are spelled similarly but pronounced differently. Likewise, "to", "too", and "two" are spelled differently and pronounced the same.

2) English spelling is frequently based on factors besides pronunciation. For example, the "c" represents three different sounds in "electrical", "electricity" and "electrician", but is spelled the same in all to show that the words are related.

3) Most importantly, spoken language is primary, not written language. Speaking is not the act of translating letters into speech. Rather, the opposite is true. Writing is a collection of symbols meant to represent spoken language. It is not language in and of itself. Many written languages (Spanish, Dutch, etc.), will regularly undergo orthographic reforms to reflect changes in the spoken language. This has never been done for English (the spelling of which has never been regularized in the first place), so what we use for written language is actually largely based on the spoken language of several centuries ago.

All of the entries in our dictionary (pronunciation, meanings, etc.) are based on usage. We have an extensive collection of files which date back to the 19th century. Language is changing all of the time in all respects, and any dictionary which purports to be an accurate description of the language in question must be constantly updated to reflect these changes. All words were pronounced differently at some time in the past. There is simply no scholarly basis for preferring one pronunciation over another. To not list all pronunciation variants would be irresponsible and a failure of our mission to provide a serious, scholarly, record of the current American English language.

I've encountered such metathesis often enough when studying dialectal variants, such as Galilean Aramaic.

Update:
I recall reading, a while back, an article by a nuclear physicist who stated that he and his colleagues pronounced the word "nucular." Cannot find it at the moment, though.

Also, I cannot imagine that Bush does not know that people criticize and make fun of his pronunciation of the word "nuclear." Surely his advisors know. So how come he has not modified his pronunciation? This should be easy enough to do.

I think that firstly, they know how it drives the liberals nuts, which might be reason enough to do it. (To cite the Jib-Jab song: You can't say nuclear, that really scares me.) On the flip side, Bush is great at appearing down-to-earth and folksy, where his opponent John Kerry had a problem with seeming elitist. With this pronunciation, Bush identifies with his base in the Midwest and South. They think: "He's one of us!" I believe this issue was likely discussed and his advisors recommended that he keep the pronunciation.

Secondly, as stated earlier, this is a (regional) dialectal difference. (Think of the famous line from a Brooklyn fan when baseball player Wade Hoyt was injured: Hert's Hoyt!) His opponents have made a big deal of it, that this shows that he is ignorant. To change now would be to reinforce the idea that it is in fact a totally incorrect pronunciation. And, while admitting you are wrong when you actually are wrong and when it really matters is a good thing to do, it is not necessarily the smartest thing to do when you are not really wrong, when it does not really matter, and when your opponents will seize upon this to make you look foolish.

LinkWithin

Blog Widget by LinkWithin