Of course I often digress along the way. These digressions are worthy of being posts in their own right, but I do not have the time.
In parshat Emor, we are introduced to the blasphemer. The English translation prejudices us somewhat, so disregard it for now. Vayikra 24:10:
vayeitzei yaakov mi-be`er sheva, Yaakov left from Beer Sheva. Vayelech has the connotation of destination. Thus it continues vayelech Charana, and he went to Charan. It is striking that it simply states וַיֵּצֵא and leaves it at that.
This is the prompt. Rashi, who is a pashtan who we consider a darshan based on modern definitions of peshat and derash, cites a few "midrashic" explanation of this strange construct. Namely, Rabbi Levi said that "he went from his world."
Just an interjection: from which world?
perhaps of religiousity, perhaps from Olam HaBa, by sinning, or perhaps from his life in this world.
I would note that Rabbi Levi says exactly the same thing in parshat Toldot, namely meOlamo yatza, but he says it on Bereishit 25:34, after Esav sells and despises his birthright:
Note a variant of Rabbi Levi's statement from the one cited from Torat Kohanim is one in Midrash Rabba 32:3, which continues by citing a verse similar in nature as an example:
מהיכן יצא?
ר' לוי אמר: יצא מעולמו, כמה דאת אמר: (ש"א י"ז): ויצא איש הבינים.
ר' לוי אמר: יצא מעולמו, כמה דאת אמר: (ש"א י"ז): ויצא איש הבינים.
That is, it cites the pasuk by Goliath, who insults the Israelites and in the process insults God. We see this from David's characterization: (See Shmuel Aleph 17)
If this verse is to be read in the same light, what does Rabbi Levi mean? He can mean that Goliath sinned with his insults, or perhaps that he will take leave of the world by dying. Thus, I will leave the meaning of Rabbi Levi's statement up from grabs until such time as a have enough time, and recall, to research the general meaning of this phrase.
Siftei Chachamim has a brilliant and insightful, though I am not certain true, explanation of Rabbi Levi's derivation. Namely, Rabbi Levi relied on semichut. Since a source location is not given, we look to what is immediately preceding. To cite the previous pasuk, in order to provide context:
semichut from the previous parsha, which we shall see in a moment is exactly what Rabbi Levi's disputant, Rabbi Berechia, does. On the other hand, there is no such context of semichut by Esav selling the birthright, so we will have a situation of inconsistency of derasha, which is not optimal, though of course possible. That Rabbi Levi in the Midrash Rabba version cites the pasuk about Goliath suggests an alternate derivation - that this is an acceptable sense of vayeitzei, or in Esav's case, vayelech, when it stands alone without an NP complement designated from where or to where. It also suggests learning implication of verbs from their use elsewhere in Tanach, a sort of informal gezeira shava (though I think the original), which is clearly an alternate derivation to that of Siftei Chachamim. However, often derivations can work in tandem, reinforcing one another.
Rashi cites another explanation, that of Rabbi Berechia. Namely, he went out from the previous parsha (section bracketed by petuchot and setumot). That section is:
The blasphemer mocked, since kings eat warm fresh bread every day while God is relegated to eating 9 day old bread. That led him eventually to blaspheme. Once again, looking to context to explain the same problem - from whence did the blasphemer leave?
Rashi also cited another midrashic explantion, that he left the courtroom of Moshe. He was upset at losing the verdict about living within Dan, the tribe of his mother. Analyzing how midrashim fit together based on a lot of scriptural cues is something I like to do, but would be too much of a digression here. Perhaps a later post. Just some pointers. The word בַּמַּחֲנֶה in the וַיִּנָּצוּ בַּמַּחֲנֶה. The word וַיִּנָּצוּ carrying the implication of a legal fight. The statement וְהוּא בֶּן-אִישׁ מִצְרִי בְּתוֹךְ בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל giving the unique legal situation and problem, together with his claim. Perhaps וַיָּבִיאוּ אֹתוֹ אֶל-מֹשֶׁה in the next verse. The otherwise unnecessary statement וְשֵׁם אִמּוֹ שְׁלֹמִית בַּת-דִּבְרִי לְמַטֵּה-דָן. The connotation of shem to mean nachalah clearly on a peshat level in other contexts. Enough said. There is plenty of fodder here for analysis. Never think a midrash is pat, or that it creates details yesh meAyin.
Ibn Ezra has a simple answer. He left his tent. Ibn Ezra cites a verse of people leaving their tents.
Perhaps, one should not think this is a mere leaving of tents. Ibn Ezra's choice of verse may show the emotional implication of leaving. He cites Bamidbar (deliberate spelling) 16:27:
left his tent and rebelled against God. At least this is one way to read Ibn Ezra. Otherwise, he just left his tent, because where else would he be leaving from?
Alternatively, Ibn Ezra reads no emotion into it. Rather, this is an observation of how the word vayeitzei reflects life in the wilderness. Since the source from which he left is left implicit, we must look within Tanach, within the same situation, and see from another narrative section that people left from tents, so it is in association with homes that this verb occurs. I believe this detached reading of Ibn Ezra to be more accurate.
Targum Yonatan has a great answer, and it has great homiletic possibilies. He left froim Egypt. Pesumably this means he left from Egypt with the other Israelites (perhaps connecting this to בְּתוֹךְ בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל later in the verse), or else is explanatory, that this man comes from somewhere - namely, he left Egypt in the Exodus, since he had an Israelite mother. The homiletic possibilities stem from the emphasis of the verse on the fact that the blasphemer is ungracious and unaffected by witnessing the miracles and loving-kindness directed towards the Israelites (and him) as he left Egypt.
Ramban has a compelling answer, in that we may omit the source location, which is implicit, and the word וַיֵּצֵא is to be connected with בְּתוֹךְ בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל later in the verse. Thus he went out in public. From where he went out - well, it obviously must have been from a private location, presumably a house or tent. He cites another example of this, where source location is not specified while destination is, when Mordechai went out into the midst of the city. Esther 4:1:
| א וּמָרְדֳּכַי, יָדַע אֶת-כָּל-אֲשֶׁר נַעֲשָׂה, וַיִּקְרַע מָרְדֳּכַי אֶת-בְּגָדָיו, וַיִּלְבַּשׁ שַׂק וָאֵפֶר; וַיֵּצֵא בְּתוֹךְ הָעִיר, וַיִּזְעַק זְעָקָה גְדוֹלָה וּמָרָה. | 1 Now when Mordecai knew all that was done, Mordecai rent his clothes, and put on sackcloth with ashes, and went out into the midst of the city, and cried with a loud and a bitter cry; |
How do other commentators make sense of בְּתוֹךְ בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל? The connection to the verb וַיֵּצֵא is not immediately obvious, since it is distanced by several words. We might read בְּתוֹךְ בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל in another light.
Namely, Rashi explains that בְּתוֹךְ בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל means that he converted. Who converted? The standard assumption is that Rashi means that the blasphemer converted. Why would conversion be necessary? Did he not have an Israelite mother? And did not everyone "convert" at Mt. Sinai? See Siftei Chachamim for an explanation of this subject. In part we might view this as a defense. After all, Rashi, adopting a closed-canon approach, explains that the Egyptian father was the Egyptian man Moshe smote in Egpyt.
Digression to explain this excellent midrashic connection. Firstly, in both cases the phrase ish mitzri is used. In Shemot 2:14:
is identified. וְשֵׁם אִמּוֹ שְׁלֹמִית בַּת-דִּבְרִי, לְמַטֵּה-דָן.
End digression within digression.
I would suggest that perhaps Rashi is stating that the Egyptian father is the one who converted, rather than the blasphemer. That is, the phrase is וְהוּא בֶּן-אִישׁ מִצְרִי, בְּתוֹךְ בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל. To whom, and to what, does בְּתוֹךְ בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל. We had assumed that Rashi meant that it attached to vehu. I posit it attaches to ish mitzri. This is an Egyptian man from amongst the Israelites.
The benefit of this is that we do not have a case of rape. We do not have a case of seduction. We do not have a case of intermarriage. Rather, the Egyptian properly converted and married Shlomit. However, as a convert, he had no tribal affiliation. Beautiful.
Note this accords with Ibn Ezra on a different word in this verse. He states on בֶּן-אִישׁ מִצְרִי - mityahed, that he converted. Presumably Ibn Ezra refers to the Egyptian father, not the blasphemer. Does Ibn Ezra read this phrase the same way Rashi does? I would suggest that yes, indeed he does!
Note that this interpretation of Rashi is in conflict with what he said just above, that the father was the Egyptian taskmaster killed by Moshe! Indeed, I believe it is a contradiction, and Rashi presents both a midrashic explanation and a peshat based interpretation side by side, just as he often does.
Another one who similarly interprets בְּתוֹךְ בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל is Targum Yonatan. He states viledat bar bego benei yisrael, that the Egyptian taskmaster killed an Israelite (interesting twist on the midrash not often emphasized!) and had sex with wife, and had a son within the Benei Yisrael. Thus the phrase is connected with the birthing, the having of the son, and not with the word וַיֵּצֵא.
Thus, we may array the mighty army of Rashi, Ibn Ezra, and Targum Yonatan, who all divorce וַיֵּצֵא from בְּתוֹךְ בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל, against Ramban, who connects the two quite convincingly.
(Of course, Ibn Ezra might agree with Ramban. We cannot really tell based upon what he wrote explicitly. See what I wrote above though.)
And, whether we connect the two can lead us to whether we need to grant one or both of the two a different explanation.
My Solution
The above is my initial analysis of the commentators. Each has pros and cons. Now I present my own take on the pasuk, in which I suggest an alternative.
From where did the blasphemer leave? He didn't. And the verse does not say that he does. The word וַיֵּצֵא is empty.
Let me explain. There is a related word, halach, which sometimes means travelled, and sometimes serves another, special purpose. It modified another verb, suggesting that it is a continuous action. Thus, in I Shmuel 2:26:
| כו וְהַנַּעַר שְׁמוּאֵל, הֹלֵךְ וְגָדֵל וָטוֹב: גַּם, עִם-יְהוָה, וְגַם, עִם-אֲנָשִׁים. {פ} | 26 And the child Samuel grew on, and increased in favour both with the LORD, and also with men. |
You might dispute this one, but anyway, from the fight with Goliath in I Shmuel 17:41:
In II Shmuel 3:1:
| א וַתְּהִי הַמִּלְחָמָה, אֲרֻכָּה, בֵּין בֵּית שָׁאוּל, וּבֵין בֵּית דָּוִד; וְדָוִד הֹלֵךְ וְחָזֵק, וּבֵית שָׁאוּל הֹלְכִים וְדַלִּים. {ס} | 1 Now there was long war between the house of Saul and the house of David; and David waxed stronger and stronger, but the house of Saul waxed weaker and weaker. {S} |
There are many many other such examples, which you may feel free to explore on your own. Thus holech does not always describe its own action, but may support another action.
I will now claim, and support the claim, that vayeitzei can also serve as a support verb. It is used in the resumptive case, when one wants to convey action, but must digress with some lengthy element, before resuming.
Thus, vayeitzei is not connected with betoch benei yisrael. Rather, it is connected with וַיִּנָּצוּ (or perhaps even with וַיִּקֹּב in the next verse.) One of the participants in this action, the son of the Israelite woman, needed a deep introduction, so once he is mentioned, the verse digresses to give further details. The action resumes in וַיִּנָּצוּ.
Or somewhat more awkwardly, but better syntactically (since number then matches), the action resumes with וַיִּקֹּב, which after all was what we wanted to get to. The digression then not only includes the background of the person but the background of the action.
Thus, וַיֵּצֵא does not stand alone denoting leaving, nor is is connected with בְּתוֹךְ בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל, but rather served as an auxiliary verb to introduce the subject when there is a lengthy description of the subject, or some other necessary digression.
Meanwhile, בְּתוֹךְ בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל could attach as it does in my Ibn Ezra/Rashi interpretation.
The current verse is perhaps not the best place to argue for this construction of the auxiliary vayeitzei. Let me present another two, where it is perhaps clearer.
The best example, I would think, is in Shemot 2:1, though with the word vayelech serving in this role:
| א וַיֵּלֶךְ אִישׁ, מִבֵּית לֵוִי; וַיִּקַּח, אֶת-בַּת-לֵוִי. | 1 And there went a man of the house of Levi, and took to wife a daughter of Levi. |
vayyiqqah amram et Yocheved leIsha
or the equivalent.
However, once we call him an ish miBet Levi, a man from the house of Levi, we have a complex Noun Phrase, involving a noun specifier, a Prepositional Phrase, a preposition, another noun phrase, a noun specifier and Noun Phrase complement, and finally a noun. (Just describing the X-bar tree construction of the NP.)
Once we have all this intervening syntactic structure, we want to help this out by using the auxiliary. Thus, we introduce the fact that there is an action and that there is a subject. Vayelech Complex-Subject
then we resume with Verb Object, Vayikach Object.
Otherwise, what will we say to explain the exact meaning of vayelech? Did he leave somewhere? Is he going somewhere. The fact that it states וַיֵּלֶךְ אִיש מִבֵּית לֵוִי does not mean that he left the physical house of Levi with Levi's daughter, though that would make an awesome midrash! Rather, it is as I said.
Another possible example of this, with the word vayeitzei, is in parshat Vayeitzei. In Bereishit 28:10:
| י וַיֵּצֵא יַעֲקֹב, מִבְּאֵר שָׁבַע; וַיֵּלֶךְ, חָרָנָה. | 10 And Jacob went out from Beer-sheba, and went toward Haran. |
All of this is of course speculative.
In terms of which I think is correct, I believe all are possible and have merit. Simplest of course is Ramban, but I just love the Ibn Ezra as vayeitzei = leaving unspecified location and Ibn Ezra/Rashi reconstruction for the meaning of betoch benei yisrael.
No comments:
Post a Comment