drash is really hyper-literalism, one suggestion is that this means that Avram's name will literally be made bigger. As we see in the first pasuk, God speaks to Avram, וַיֹּאמֶר ה אֶל-אַבְרָם. Later in the same parsha, in Bereishit 17:3-6, we see a transformation:
heh is added such that the beginning of the word still has av, "father," and the end of the word has ham, hinting at hamon. Speiser notes that linguistically the word means the same, with the medial heh being a secondary extension in a manner common in Aramaic. While the name means the same as it did initially, we have here a modification such that an additional sound significance it found.
The promise to increase Avram's name is thus a promise to give him all that will be promised in association with this name change - that he will be the father of a multitude of nations.
The midrash is thus really quite good. But the approach is decidedly midrashic, in that it takes
the word שם to be the literal name, and thus the increase is in the name.
An approach people would call more in line with peshat would not take שם so literally. Rather, שם has many other implications besides its basic meaning of name. Here, it means "renown," that is, that by which people know you. Thus, Avraham will be successful and, as a result, be well known. God will increase Avraham's renown.
Compare Bemidbar 16:2:
Devarim 25:6:
Rut 4:21). This is because שם here does not literally mean name, but rather "title" to inheritance.
The gemara (Yevamot 24a) actually discusses this. Everyone agrees that in actual practice one does not name the son after the deceased first husband, but rather that he inherits his portion. The brayta states that I would have thought that we should actually have named him after the deceased, but a gezera shava shows that it means inheritance. The gezera shava, or intra-Biblical comparison to determine lexical meaning, is to Bereishit 48:6:
Rava states: אע"ג דבכל התורה כולה אין מקרא יוצא מידי פשוטו הכא אתאי גזרה שוה אפיקתיה מפשטיה לגמרי, even though in general throughout Tanach, the Torah does not leave off of its basic meaning (pashteih), here, the gezera shava comes and uproots it entirely from its basic meaning.
Ignoring the continuation of the gemara (which seems stamaitic), Rava is seeming to assume that on a peshat level the verse means that he should actually be named the same name as the deceased, but there is a midrashic rule operating here which assigns another meaning. In general, application of midrashic rules add meaning but do not detract from the base meaning. That is, both ascend from the text and come to the level of actual practice that we call halacha. However, here, it does not.
This is really the defining text for me in terms of the meaning of אין מקרא יוצא מידי פשוטו. When there is a meaning that is not applied lehalacha, that is מקרא יוצא מידי פשוטו. And the other few gemaras that reference this rule also mean the same. Thus, the gemara in Shabbat means that the peshat understanding of a sword as an ornament is an example where the simple meaning of the text also arises to the level of actual practice, something that Rav Kahana did not realize.
This means that it is a misuse of the term when a medieval (or modern) exegete proposes an explanation counter to our received tradition, justifying it with the phrase אין מקרא יוצא מידי פשוטו. Rashbam, when proposing that the pesukim in Bereishit actually mean that day precedes night does not mean that אין מקרא יוצא מידי פשוטו, for he would never think to apply his reading to actual practice of halacha. Rather, מקרא יוצא מידי פשוטו. There is a peshat meaning of the verse, which according to him is that day precedes night. Still, our Sages apply a midrashic analysis to the text that here entirely uproots the meaning. In general we assume that all levels of meaning, peshat and derash contribute to halacha, but where we find that it does not, it is an exception to the rule. This also explains how Rava knew this was an exception to the rule. I have heard from a prominent rabbi that this was a tradition, that in this instance (of naming) the verse does go entirely out of its base-meaning. I disagree, and rather think it to be an analysis in which we know what the halacha is and know that, if this is indeed to be labelled peshat, we do not act like it. Thus מקרא יוצא מידי פשוטו has far broader application that this one case.
One could, of course, understand what the brayta is saying differently than Rava does. This application of gezera shava is not like many other examples. Here, we are learning from very similar context (shem and nachala) what the lexical meaning of the verse is, rather than taking a foreign meaning and ascribing it in another place. This is an atypical gezera shava, and one that does not operate on the level of drash, but rather on peshat. That is why the simplistic "literal" meaning is entirely disregarded and uprooted. And Rava may indeed mean that here, and this is why he considers it an exception to the rule.
Now that we see the wide range of the noun שם, let us turn to a nice example in parshat Haazinu. In Devarim 32:3:
- הַאֲזִינוּ matches וְתִשְׁמַע
- הַשָּׁמַיִם is a word-pair of הָאָרֶץ
- וַאֲדַבֵּרָה matches אִמְרֵי-פִי
However, I would put forth that there is in fact much more in A that parallels B. We have just been translating incorrectly.
שם does not mean "name" here. Rather, it means "renown, greatness." אֶקְרָא does not merely mean "read/say" but rather, as translated above, "proclaim." Thus:
- שֵׁם matches גֹדֶל.
- אֶקְרָא matches הָבוּ
- ה matches לֵאלֹקֵינוּ
We thus have a match for each term in A in B, and the reverse for the other elements.
It is not synonymous, though, but more synthetic parallelism. To move from Lowthe to Kugel and Alter, there is progression, development, and intensification from A to B.
In A, it is only one person (Moshe) who speaks. In B, it is everyone. But these are not two distinct events. The word כִּי shows causality. First it is Moshe proclaiming Hashem's greatness. Then, as a result, all of Israel joins in with Moshe, and so it is an intensification. In A, we have YKVK as Hashem's name. It is a form which does not allow the possessive. However, if we render it Adonai, "My Lord," is seems to be the singular, the Lord of the individual. The name of God Elokim is used in B, and this allows possession, and it is used. Rather than say Elokim, God, we see Elokeinu, "our God." We do not see Elokeichem, "your (m. pl.) God." This, perhaps, underscores how all of Israel is joining in with Moshe and together they are proclaiming God's praises.
No comments:
Post a Comment