The pesukim in Tehillim, once again, are:
Rashi:
32. They provoked [God] by the waters of Meribah, and Moses suffered because of them.because the prior pasuk, 32, refers to Bnei Yisrael, Hashem and Moshe. And thus the sudden introduction of Aharon to form the plural for himru is awkward. Of course, knowing parshas Chukas where both were accused of rebellion against Hashem's word -- עַל אֲשֶׁר-מְרִיתֶם אֶת-פִּי לְמֵי ,מְרִיבָה it becomes slightly easier, but it still strikes me as awkward.
33. For they rebelled against His spirit, and He uttered with His lips.
For they rebelled Moses and Aaron.
against His spirit with (Num. 20:10) “Hear now, you rebels!”
and He uttered with His lips an oath (Num. 20: 12): “Therefore you shall not bring this community, etc.”
However, as Shmuel pointed out on the prior post about the meaning of Tehillim, himru with that pattern of vowels is this hiph'il for meri, rebellion. But for the geminate, mrr, it would have to be something like heimeiru1.
This may be true -- and may be what compels Rashi, and particularly Ibn Ezra, into their reading of the pasuk. And we see Rashi on the daughter of Pharaoh stretching out her arm determine what must be peshat (arm rather than maidservant) on the basis of nikkud. (See here.) On the other hand, we have seen Shadal argue that nikkud is post-Talmudic, even though particular cases may reflect earlier traditions, and that therefore he feels entitled to revocalize words. And furthermore that even other meforshim, such as Rashi, Ibn Ezra, Radak, Abarbanel, Ramban, Rabbenu Bachya, etc., maintain the same thing, either about trup or nikkud. (Read that post and subsequent posts, translating Shadal's Vikuach.) And the people who put together the JPS translation were not grammatically naive. And other meforshim suggest, on a peshat level, what they suggest. So perhaps there is room for revocalization, or some wiggle room for grammatical irregularity here.
Even without revocalization, we will see that Radak (and his father) will propose that the root of himru is mrh, which means the same as mrd, and thus rebellion. (Unless I am misreading a resh as a daled, in which case it would indeed mean bitterness.) But even so, that it refers to what the Jews did to Moshe. As an alternative, Radak proposes mr, which means switching (presumably as in temurah), as which case it is Moshe and Aharon's action.
Eventually, I want to cover somewhat comprehensively what various meforshim say on this pasuk in Tehillim. But in this post, we focus on Radak.
Let us begin with the expanded Radak, which I found in kesav yad, where he says things which do not appear in Mikraos Gedolos, by quoting his father, Rabbi Yosef Kimchi, who was a biblical commentator and grammarian as well.
כִּי-הִמְרוּ אֶת-רוּחוֹ; וַיְבַטֵּא, בִּשְׂפָתָיו.In Mikraos Gedolos, Radak says the same thing, but without the detail given above. There it is shorter, but it essentially states the same thing. I made a graphic with many meforshim, but our focus here is Radak, in the center. He writes:
Radak writes: כִּי-הִמְרוּ אֶת-רוּחוֹ -- My master my father explained the pasuk as follows: For they himru {rebelled against, or might I, Josh, suggest that he means embittered} the spirit of Moshe, and he {=Moshe} uttered with his lips. And this {the utterance} was the trespass which Moshe, and Aharon with him, trespassed, that they said הֲמִן-הַסֶּלַע הַזֶּה" נוֹצִיא לָכֶם מָיִם {which is the second part of the pasuk which began שִׁמְעוּ-נָא הַמֹּרִים} that you prod us? It is not in our power until the One who Brings out water comes." For they thought that the Glory of God, yisbarach, would come upon the rock first, just as is stated by Refidim {the first incident of hitting the rock} {Shemot 17:6}
chorev {dry, hot} and extremely dry. And that which it states הִנְנִי עֹמֵד לְפָנֶיךָ שָּׁם עַל-הַצּוּר is that the Glory of God, yisbarach, will descend upon the rock, and that fire which touches {?} the rock will turn to water.
And now, they thought as well that God yisbarach would do the same, just as He did in Refidim. Therefore, he {=Moshe} said הֲמִן-הַסֶּלַע הַזֶּה נוֹצִיא לָכֶם מָיִם. And with this, they trespassed, for it would have been a greater glorification had the rock given forth water without the descending of fire upon it, and meanwhile, He {=Hashem} had not to you {should be "them"} הִנְנִי עֹמֵד לְפָנֶיךָ שָּׁם עַל-הַצּוּר as He had said in Refidim.
And the explanation of ki himru is that they rebelled against {מרדו} the spirit of Moshe{but again, I, Josh, would suggest to read it "made bitter"}, in prodding him until he said הֲמִן-הַסֶּלַע הַזֶּה נוֹצִיא לָכֶם מָיִם. And the root of himru is mrh, and it is so that mrh and mrd {suggest mrr} have the same meaning. And so too מֹרַת רוּחַ {in Bereishit 26:35, describing what the wives of Esav were to Yitzchak and Rivkah} is in this matter.{And indeed, we see it paired with ruach, just as here.}
לה וַתִּהְיֶיןָ, מֹרַת רוּחַ, לְיִצְחָק, וּלְרִבְקָה. {ס} 35 And they were a bitterness of spirit unto Isaac and to Rebekah.
And there is {alternatively} to explain that himru has a connotation of mar, whose implication is changing of the command, and switching of the thing {they were to do}. {Perhaps as in meri, or perhaps as temurah.} And then כִּי-הִמְרוּ would refer to Moshe and Aharon, and {they humru} to the Spirit of Heaven, and the thing He had said to them, "and you shall speak to the rock," while they hit. "And He uttered with His Lips" would be God Yisbarach, {the utterance being} that they would not enter the land because of that sin.
In the translations above, I remained true to the text as written. Yet I remain fairly uncomfortable with the translation. Specifically, I think that it would read much more straightforwardly were we to replace every occurrence of mrd with mrr. Specifically, the idea that they himru Moshe's ruach by prodding him until he uttered seems more to me that they embittered his spirit. Also, Radak compares it to morat Ruach, as in וַתִּהְיֶיןָ, מֹרַת רוּחַ, לְיִצְחָק, וּלְרִבְקָה. There, it seems fairly difficult for me to say that this means mered, rebellion. Indeed, the standard translation is bitterness of spirit. And daled and resh are fairly close in Hebrew, such that this all might well be a scribal error. If so, it is better detected in the fuller version of the ktav yad which mentions the morat ruach.כִּי-הִמְרוּ -- for they himru the spirit of Moshe, and he {=Moshe} uttered with his lips. And this is the trespass which he, and Aharon with him, trespassed, that they said הֲמִן-הַסֶּלַע הַזֶּה נוֹצִיא לָכֶם מָיִם. And the explanation of ki himru is that they rebelled {embittered?} when they prodded him until he said הֲמִן-הַסֶּלַע הַזֶּה נוֹצִיא לָכֶם מָיִם. And the root of himru is mrh, and mrh and mrd are one matter. And there is to explain ki himru as a matter of mar, which is an implication of changing the command and switching the instruction. And the explanation is ki himru Moshe and Aharon the Spirit of Hashem, and the instruction that he said to them, "and you shall speak to the rock," while they hit it. "And He uttered with His Lips" refers to God yisbarach, that they would not enter the land because of this sin.
I am extremely convinced that one should make this girsological correction. And this will become even more evident when I discuss the next commentator on Moshe's sin, on this pasuk in Tehillim -- Rabbi Yosef Chayyun.
At any rate, the first peshat Radak gives is that Israel were the actors in himru against Moshe's spirit, and Moshe did the uttering. The specifics of the meaning of himru we might even place as beside the point.
BeEzrat Hashem, other meforshim later.
____
1 Though he then notes that it may work out if one believes in the existence of two-letter roots.
No comments:
Post a Comment