Thursday, December 16, 2010

Darshening El Yisrael as Eil Yisrael

The Twelve Sons of Yaakov. Much Younger, of course.
Summary: Is this a revocalization for the sake of derash, or does it reflect their actual vocalization?

Post: Minchas Shai notes an interesting midrash on parashat Vaychi. In Bereishit 49:2:

2. Gather and listen, sons of Jacob, and listen to Israel, your father.ב. הִקָּבְצוּ וְשִׁמְעוּ בְּנֵי יַעֲקֹב וְשִׁמְעוּ אֶל יִשְׂרָאֵל אֲבִיכֶם:
According to our Masoretic text, the word אֶל  has a segol under it, and it means "unto". This makes good sense, for this is the start of a section of Biblical poetry, which works on poetic parallelism, and we can establish a nice parallelism here. Looking at Targum Onkelos, we see endorsement of this vocalization. We have testimony in its favor, as well, from the Samaritan Targum and the Septuagint,

Yet, there is a somewhat strange midrash in Bereishit Rabba upon this word אֶל, where it is read with a tzeirei. Thus:
ושמעו אל ישראל אביכם רבי יודן ורבי פנחס
רבי יודן אמר:
שמעו לאל ישראל אביכם.

ורבי פנחס אמר:
אל הוא, ישראל אביכם. מה הקב"ה בורא עולמות.
אף אביכם בורא עולמות.

מה הקדוש ברוך הוא מחלק עולמות,
אף אביכם מחלק עולמות. 

There is a dispute between Rabbi Yuda and Rabbi Pinchas (two Amoraim of Eretz Yisrael). According to Rabbi Yudan, it seems, the juxtaposition makes for the extra word el, "to", but of course El, "God", is already in place. And so it is "Listen [to] the God of Yisrael your father".

In contrast, according to Rabbi Pinchas, it is to be read thusly: "Listen: A God, is Yisrael your father". Then, he explains how Yaakov is parallel in various aspects to Hashem.

It seems as though both take for granted that the word is El, God, but that they offer different means of interpreting the slight awkwardness. The first, that juxtaposition creates an implicit "unto", and the second, that the apposition of the two nouns creates an implicit "he is".

There are then two possibilities in understanding the nature of this dispute. Either reading אֵל instead of אֶל is derash, is which case it is a revocalization -- an al tikra; or else it stands in the background as assumed peshat, and the substance of the dispute is what to do with the juxtaposition. If the former, then this should not indicate how we should read it, for revocalization is common, but if the latter, then we are in the awkward position in which Chazal argue against the Masorah.

Some meforshim explain Rabbi Yudan as saying that we will read aleph lamed both as is pronounced and as this revocalization. Thus, we get אֶל אֵל, "unto God". If this is so, then it is evidence that a revocalization may well be in place. On the other hand, we need not say this. The juxtaposition alone may be enough to trigger this implicit "unto".

How could the tzeirei turn to a segol, or vice versa? Well, recall that while there were traditions of how to pronounce various Biblical texts, the orthography of nikkud, that is, the specific signs designating the vowels, were not invented until post-Talmudic times. And so the Masoretes wrote down what they heard. There is a distinction between tzeirei and segol in both Tiberian and Palestinian nikkud, but I would note that in texts with nikkud Palestini, it is fairly common to have different segol / tzeirei values than what we have in texts pointed with Tiberian nikkud. And compare with modern Israeli Hebrew, in which tzeirei and seghol are pronounced identically, as segol. And recall that אֵל is a closed syllable and that, phonologically speaking, a closed tzeirei is much closer to a segol than is an open tzeiri. (Try saying Eir from Eir veOnan, for the closed syllable, and then try saying Benei, sons of.) As such, perhaps this correct pronunciation was lost.

The midrash actually continues with something relevant:
אלעזר בן אחוי אמר:מכאן זכו ישראל לקריאת שמע.
בשעה שהיה יעקב אבינו נפטר מן העולם קרא לשנים עשר בניו.
אמר להם: שמעו אל ישראל, שבשמים אביכם, שמא יש בלבבכם מחלוקת על הקב"ה!
אמר לו: (דברים ושמע ישראל אבינו כשם שאין בלבך מחלוקת על הקדוש ברוך הוא, כך אין בלבנו מחלוקת, אלא ה' אלהינו ה' אחד. אף הוא פירש בשפתיו ואמר: ברוך שם כבוד מלכותו לעולם ועד. 

I don't know that I like this punctuation, particularly the comma after Yisrael, but at any rate, look at this line in the above midrash:
אמר להם: שמעו אל ישראל, שבשמים אביכם, שמא יש בלבבכם מחלוקת על הקב"ה
"He said to them: Listen to the God of Israel who is in Heaven, your Father. Perhaps there is in your hearts a dispute with Hakadosh Baruch Hu?"

That is, I would read this midrash by Eleazar ben Achoi as saying that avichem does not modify Yaakov, but rather modifies God. See Etz Yosef, who appears to agree with my reading: 'This is its explanation -- and listen that the God of Israel who is in heaven is your Father.'

There are presumably other ways of reading this, in which שבשמים אביכם means that Yaakov is (or perhaps soon will be) in Heaven, but it feels more awkward to me. And we already have this setup of El as God from the immediately preceding discussion. If we read it the former way, then Chazal consistently argue on our Masorah (and perhaps we should change it). If the latter, then it might be evidence that el means unto rather than a shem Hashem. Although we could still say that the word El there is what sparks the later part of Yaakov's statement, שמא יש בלבבכם מחלוקת על הקב"ה.

It is difficult, IMHO, though not impossible, to maintain a masorah against unanimous Chazal. (Unless someone knows of another source in Chazal that takes it another way...) Is masorah the encoding written down in a set period, and a kept tradition since then, such that we should not deviate, but rather preserve this? Or is it supposed to reflect the true meaning of the pasuk, as understood by Chazal, such that we should consider this evidence of a corrupted tradition in our Masorah along the way, and so correct it?

I will close with a neat resolution of the problem which I was saving for the end. We can assert that even Chazal had a segol in place yet understood it as God. How so? Well, here is the pasuk again:


ב  הִקָּבְצוּ וְשִׁמְעוּ, בְּנֵי יַעֲקֹב; וְשִׁמְעוּ, אֶל-יִשְׂרָאֵל אֲבִיכֶם.2 Assemble yourselves, and hear, ye sons of Jacob; and hearken unto Israel your father.


Note the makef -- the horizontal stroke -- connecting el to Yisrael. This indicates that there is no trup, and no independent stress, on the word el. Let us assume for a moment that the word means  אֵל, God. When the stress shifts on other words in this pattern, the tzeirei changes to a segol. For example, the word for "son", bein, has a tzeirei when it stands alone, but if adjoined to the next word (and this can happen if it is the construct), then it would become a segol. Thus:

ו  לְשִׁמְעוֹן, שְׁלֻמִיאֵל בֶּן-צוּרִישַׁדָּי.6 Of Simeon, Shelumiel the son of Zurishaddai.

So too the word leich. With the makeif, it can become lech. Thus:

א  וַיֹּאמֶר ה אֶל-אַבְרָם, לֶךְ-לְךָ מֵאַרְצְךָ וּמִמּוֹלַדְתְּךָ וּמִבֵּית אָבִיךָ, אֶל-הָאָרֶץ, אֲשֶׁר אַרְאֶךָּ.1 Now the LORD said unto Abram: 'Get thee out of thy country, and from thy kindred, and from thy father's house, unto the land that I will show thee.


If so, perhaps everyone, including Chazal, agree it should be pronounced with a segol. However, they have either an understanding or a tradition that this word  אֶל  is kodesh, and that it refers to Hashem. This could have halachic ramifications in terms of kavana that a sofer or baal koreh must have.

10 comments:

mevaseretzion said...

Very interesting -- I came up with your neat resolution while reading your post as well :)

YOu day that it is difficult to maintain a masorah against unanimous chazal. Perhaps I am misunderstanding you, but does not Tosafot in Shabbat נה: explicitly state that our masorah and our chazal disagree in some places, and yet we do not change our texts to reflect the chazal? (Rashba takes a different opinion than Tosafot in this.) Would this Tosafot not disagree with your statement "such that we should consider this evidence of a corrupted tradition in our Masorah along the way, and so correct it"?

On the other hand, Rashba would agree with you (at least in maamrei chazal that relate to halacha and not aggada...).

mevaseretzion said...

Just correcting some typos in my above comment:

Very interesting -- I came up with your neat resolution while reading your post as well :)

You say that it is difficult to maintain a masorah against unanimous chazal. Perhaps I am misunderstanding you, but does not Tosafot in Shabbat נה: explicitly state that our masorah and our chazal disagree in some places, and yet we do not change our texts to reflect the chazal? (Rashba takes a different opinion than Tosafot in this.) Would this Tosafot not disagree with your statement "such that we should consider this evidence of a corrupted tradition in our Masorah along the way, and so correct it"?

On the other hand, Rashba would agree with you (at least in maamrei chazal that relate to halacha and not aggada...).

joshwaxman said...

indeed, a great source -- though Tosafot says that they disagree without explicitly saying which one should win:
מעבירם כתיב. הש"ס שלנו חולק על ספרים שלנו שכתוב בהם (מעבירים) וכן מצינו בירושלמי בשמשון והוא שפט את ישראל ארבעים שנה מלמד שהיו פלשתים יראים ממנו כ' שנה אחר מותו כמו בחייו ובכל ספרים שלנו כתיב כ' שנה (שוסטים טז):

thus, the "and yet we do not change our texts" is not really explicitly there.

Some tangential sources to this issue:
Or Torah, and often following him, Minchas Shai, explains the many divergences of Zohar and the masorah as the Zohar simply making the derasha "as if" the text had said X instead of Y. I don't buy this, but at the least the *claim* is that they never meant that the sefer Torah text should say otherwise. I think that a widespread background understanding, rather than the substance of the derasha, should be different.

The same for an occasional derash, perhaps. I've shown how certain (aggadic) midrashim are based on Samaritan variants. It could be that whoever made the derasha used his *vulgar* text, which had been corrupted, but we still maintain the text as found, e.g, in the sefer Torah which was in the azara. It is possible to say this for *consonantal text*, where such variants are found. But for nikkud, since the orthography had not yet been invented, ALL we have for our masorah is what was passed from person to person, which indicates to me Chazal. Even the Samaritan text only has consonants. So, this strikes me as different from the case Tosafot is discussing, and more akin to the question in the gemara about the proper vocalization of the beginning of Shir Hashirim (1:2), whether כִּי-טוֹבִים דֹּדֶיךָ מִיָּיִן should be dodecha or dodayich.

There is also the Rashi about whether cows were Zevachim that talks about a halacha le'maasah about how the trup should be, which indicates that peshat as understood by Chazal determines masorah.

But yes, it would feed into all of this. Thanks.

(do you know where i would find this rasha, btw?)

kt,
josh

mevaseretzion said...

Fascinating -- where is that Rashi? I would like to see it.

I agree the tosafot does not explicitly state we follow our mesorah, however, that is the implication, in that he did not feel the need to correct the text of his Sefarim based on the text evident in the talmud.

As for the source of the Rashba, I can't provide an exact source as I am not in a library, unfortunately (this is the misfortune of בזעת אפיך תאכל לחם, that I am most often not in a library :)).

However, a google search of 'Rashba Masoretic Text' uncovered a Hakira article by Avrohom Lieberman (see here) which quotes on this general subject the Teshuvat Harashba from MossadRK vol1 pp 177-184. Also, see a book by Yonatan Kolatch (not sure who he is) called Masters of the Word,which quotes a "Rashba in a responsum attributed to Ramban, no.232". Perhaps these sources will lead to the Rashba we are discussing. Please let me know if you find the actual source.

It is interesting to note that the Rashba was against even the concept of תקוני סופרים as such, and saw them as כנה הכתוב (see the Hakira article for more on this), and it seems apropos of his stance on philosophy and (to use an anachronistic term for Rashba) מחקר, that he would see the Talmud as preserving the absolute masorah, from God's mouth, perfectly preserved, to us, and thus support, in specific cases, actual emendation of our sefarim to match our Talmud.

mevaseretzion said...

Upon further research (the internet is a great thing), I found the source of the Rashba. It is indeed the teshuva המיוחסת לרמב"ן, and the line in question can be found in Tehilla LeMoshe (p 299), in the Essay by Dr Leiman (Masorah and Halakha: A Study in Conflict): ומכל מקום בכל מה שבא בתלמוד דרך עיקר דין... בזה ודאי מתקנין.

mevaseretzion said...

Here is the link:

http://books.google.com/books?id=chJu8owjB2sC&lpg=PA293&ots=ZYXtHvueIm&dq=Rashba%20masoretic%20text&pg=PA299#v=onepage&q=Rashba%20masoretic%20text&f=false

Also, I would like to ensure that no one reads my comment about the Rashba's views on תיקוני סופרים as in any way disrespectful of the Rashba. To that end, I would take out my words "from God's mouth", which are a bit crass and certainly do not convey the respect due to this Torah giant. (JW -- if you can edit that out in my original comment, please do.)

joshwaxman said...

thanks! i'll check it out.

alas, i can't edit comments on blogger. i can remove them entirely, if you want, in which case, you could repost.

in terms of the rashi, it is on Zevachim daf 52b.

rashi writes:

ויעלו עולות כבשים - ונ"מ לפסוק כאן את הטעם באתנחתא או דילמא אידי ואידי פרים ואין אתנחתא בטעם עולות אלא טעם גרש ויעלו עולות כדי שיתחבר לשל אחריו:

kol tuv,
josh

joshwaxman said...

oops! i meant yoma 52b. iirc also chagiga 6b.

joshwaxman said...

see also point #6 here.
kt,
josh

mevaseretzion said...

Yes, that is a remarkable Rashi.

I will check out your Vayigash post later on...

Yashar Koach.

mz

LinkWithin

Blog Widget by LinkWithin