Thus he says that וּבְדֶרֶךְ לֹא-הָיָה means או בְדֶרֶךְ לֹא-הָיָה. Similar to what occurs in Shemot 21:15:
| טו וּמַכֵּה אָבִיו וְאִמּוֹ, מוֹת יוּמָת. {ס} | 15 And he that smiteth his father, or his mother, shall be surely put to death. {S} |
That is the clear case, and apparently Ibn Ezra is applying the same idea here as well. Thus, וּבְדֶרֶךְ לֹא-הָיָה means "or he was not on the road."
This is very difficult to grapple with. For what is Ibn Ezra saying? That if he was pure but on the road, or impure but not on the road, and does not bring the Pesach initially, he is liable to karet and is not eligible to bring the Pesach Sheni? That is surely not his intent. Surely he hold that both conditions are required! This is rough going, but we are compelled to say something like this. Earlier the pasuk stated:
Perhaps Ibn Ezra is saying this וְחָדַל לַעֲשׂוֹת הַפֶּסַח and וְנִכְרְתָה הַנֶּפֶשׁ הַהִוא (or וְהָאִישׁ) is distributive across the two conditions. Thus, the pasuk is stating that it is not the case that he is impure, yet he does this. Or, the negation of the other condition, so he is not on the road. And in each case, he still refrains from bringing the Pesach. Though when you think about it, of course in each case the other condition must also be true.
Shadal considers this a big mistake made in Ibn Ezra. It must be שלא היה טמא וגם לא היה בדרך, אז אם לא יעשה פסח, ייכרת. He attributes this mistake in Ibn Ezra to hurriedness, and criticizes Avi Ezer's supercommentary:
ובדרך לא היה : שלא היה טמא וגם לא היה בדרך, אז אם לא יעשה פסח, ייכרת. וראב"ע אגב שיטפיה לא דק, ופירש: ובדרך או בדרך. והמבאר הבין כי זה שיבוש גדול ונדחק ליישב דבריו ואמר שכוונתו ללמדנו קריאת וי"ו שורק בראש תבה (!!), והמעמר ראה והבין כי הבל המה הדברים הללו של המבאר, והתמיה עליו ופירש דברי ראב"ע על אמיתתם ולא ראה השיבוש היוצא מהם ולא הבין מה זה ועל מה זה נדחק המבאר לפרש כך
Ibn Ezra was not talking about the meaning of the vav, but the pronunciation of the vav. He is explaining that according to phonological principles, a vav sheva before the labials BMPV is transformed from "ve" to "OO." Thus, when Ibn Ezra wrote או בדרך he was making clear that it was pronounced OO. How do we make this work with the pasuk in sefer Shemot, וּמַכֵּה אָבִיו וְאִמּוֹ? The answer is that we are focused on the wrong vav. Not on the vav of veImo, but on the vav of umakei. And since that vav is followed by a mem, which is a labial, it is pronounced OO.
Needless to say, this seems extremely farfetched. How many shuruks are there until this place in parshas Behaalotecha, well into sefer Bemidbar, that in the middle of the fourth sefer he is compelled to explain this? Perhaps one could say that since there are three conditions, and an action, and all but this have vav sheva, one might think that the uvderech has some different role. Therefore he informs us no. But as noted, this is all quite farfetched. The better answer is that Ibn Ezra was not being precise.
But even this is difficult. For it occurs not just in Ibn Ezra, but also in Karaitic literature, in the work of Aharon ben Yosef (who was a bit after Ibn Ezra, but still is trying to make a point using the very same words). Would two normally deliberate commentators write this imprecise, and plain wrong, commentary? Aharon ben Yosef writes:
It looks to me like he defines bederech rechoka as one who does not reach Yerushalayim. Then, he has some lead-in words: umi shelo higia baAzara: uvderech lo haya . o bederech, kemp umakei aviv veimo.
Firstly, by putting that preceding phrase, umi shelo higia baAzara, which flows into o bederech, it seems clear that he is setting up a situation of alternatives. If we assume that as a commentator, using the same words, he has the same intent as Ibn Ezra, this should be sufficient to tell us that Avi Ezer is incorrect in making this a phonological point. Whether Shadal is right that Ibn Ezra is not being precise, or whether he has some intent that we cannot get to the bottom of, it surely is not a phonological claim being made here!
It seems that Aharon ben Yosef is understanding וְהָאִישׁ אֲשֶׁר-הוּא טָהוֹר means that he was pure and yet did not come to the temple court. The alternative is one who was not on a journey. Though surely sure a person should also presumably be pure. So it is difficult.
The supercommentary on Aharon ben Yosef also tries his hand at resolving this. I am not entirely persuaded by the explanation. I have to think about it some more, and experiment with other permutations. The binding of the forbearance to Pesach Sheni certainly seems to be linked to it, as Aharon ben Yosef takes pains to say that he forebears to bring either the first or the second.
He writes: "many ask on the Rav {=Aharon ben Yosef} that the vav of uvderech is in place of the word o {=or}. For behold it appears from the text that if he was pure and was on a long journey, or if he was not on a long journey but was impure, and forebears to bring the Pesach, he is not liable karet. Rather, if he is pure and was not on a long journey, then he is liable karet when he forebears to bring the Pesach offering. This is the question. And the answer is that the opinion of the Rav that it says "and he forbears to bring the Pesach" is not discussing the Pesach Rishon, but rather the Pesach Sheni. And his intent is that the man who is pure, but was on a long journey for the first Pesach. Or alternatively, was not on a journey but was impure for the first Pesach. And then he neglects to make the Second Pesach. Then, that person's soul will be cut off. And so says Ibn Ezra {the same thing as Aharon ben Yosef}, see there."
It seems troublesome and weak that each case is defined by the condition that was not the cause for missing Pesach Rishon. But there feels like there is something here, something I am still grappling with.
I would suggest the following permutation, and have greater confidence in this permutation than in any solution offered above (except perhaps my other suggestion)-- Avi Ezer's phonological one, Shadal's one that Ibn Ezra was imprecise, and the Karaite supercommentary that each case is defined by the presence of the other condition (he was pure means that he was pure but was a distance away). I would suggest instead that each alternative is a correction of the previous state. That is, beforehand there were two possible things holding him back from bringing the Korban Pesach the first time -- ritual impurity, and distance from Yerushalayim. Now we are talking about Pesach Sheni.
If
1) he had been impure for Pesach Rishon, but now is pure for Pesach Sheni, and thus, הוּא טָהוֹר
OR
2) he had been on a long journey for Pesach Rishon, but now is in Jerusalem for Pesach Sheni, and thus וּבְדֶרֶךְ לֹא-הָיָה
and yet he neglects to bring the Pesach Sheni, וְחָדַל לַעֲשׂוֹת הַפֶּסַח.
then he gets karet, וְנִכְרְתָה הַנֶּפֶשׁ הַהִוא.
Thus, it is two separate cases, paralleling the two separate cases above, where here, the monea' in each case had been removed.
I think this is able to be read into Aharon ben Yosef, and thus also into Ibn Ezra.
What gives me pause is what Aharon ben Yosef writes: venichresa: the karet is for one who has no excuse and does not do the Pesach in its time, whether the first Pesach or the second Pesach. Therefore, the lack of excuse would seem to be intended for both Pesach Rishon and Pesach Sheni, and the וְחָדַל לַעֲשׂוֹת הַפֶּסַח applies equally to both. Thus, I would revert back to my earlier explanation, where I talked of the phrase being distributive, and of each case being the negation of the case in the earlier verse, even though of course implicitly the other condition is also met.
Tzarich iyyun gadol.
No comments:
Post a Comment