Thursday, November 17, 2011

A consistent explanation of shalshelet, across Tanach

Summary: Considering explanations for the shalshelet in our parashah, as well as across Tanach. Rav Kanievsky has a consistent midrashic explanation. I give a drier, more technical explanation.

Post: I spotted the following in Birkas Avraham on Chayei Sarah, upon the shalshelet on the first word of this pasuk:

יב  וַיֹּאמַר--יְהוָה אֱלֹהֵי אֲדֹנִי אַבְרָהָם, הַקְרֵה-נָא לְפָנַי הַיּוֹם; וַעֲשֵׂה-חֶסֶד, עִם אֲדֹנִי אַבְרָהָם.12 And he said: 'O LORD, the God of my master Abraham, send me, I pray Thee, good speed this day, and show kindness unto my master Abraham.


בפסוק (בראשית כד יב, ) ויאמר ה' אלקי
אדוני אברהם הקרה נא לפני וגו', כתב במדרש
  שכל טוב הוא אחד מן שבעה דברים
הנטעמים ב'שלשלת' , וכולם לדרשה. וזה, לפי
שהרים קולו ואמר כיון שהתחלת גמור עכ"ל

גם בס' קדושת לוי פר' וישב, פירש
השלשלת שעל (בראשית לט ח) וימאן ויאמר,
ששלשלת הוא הרמת קול, כאדם אשר ממאס
בדבר ומרים קול במיאוס הדבר ההוא עיי"ש

וראה בס'  טעמא דקרא לעיל בפר' וירא
עה"פ ( בראשית יט, טז) ויתמהמה, שנקוד עליו
שלשלת, שביאר בשם ספר אחד שכל שלשלת
מורה על הארכת הענין, ופירש כן גם כאן
שהאריך אליעזר בדבריו הרבה, אלא שלא
הספיק לסיים ובאה רבקה עיי"ש עוד

In the verse (Bereishit 24:12) ויאמר ה' אלקי  אדוני אברהם הקרה נא לפני וגו, the Midrash Sechel Tov writes, "this is one of seven words which have the trup of shalshelet, and all of them are for a derasha. And this one is to indicate that he [Eliezer] lifted his voice and said [to Hashem], 'Since You have begun, finish it.' "

So too in the sefer Kedushat Levi, parashat Vayeshev, he explains the shalshelet above (Bereishit 39:8)  וַיְמָאֵן--וַיֹּאמֶר that the shalshelet is a raising of voice, like a person who is disgusted with something and raises his voice in disgust over that thing, see there.

And see in Sefer Taama deKra [from Rav Chaim Kanievsky] upon the verse (Bereishit 19:16) ויתמהמה, that there is a shalsheles marked upon it, that he explained in the name of a certain sefer that every shalshelet informs about extending the matter, and he explains so as well here, that Eliezer extended his words a lot, but that he did not suffice to finish before Rivkah came, see inside for more."

Here is what Rav Chaim Kanievsky has to say on parashat Vayera, in Taama de-Kra:


ויתמהמה טעמו שלשלת ועוד ג״פ בתורה
ויאמר וימאן וישחט. וראיתי בספר א׳ דשלשלת
 מורה להארכת הענין ועפ״ז נראה לפרש את
 כולהו, ויתמהמה שהתמהמה יותר מהראוי,
ויאמר שהאריך בדבריו הרבה אלא שלא הספיק
 לסיים ובאת רבקה כמ״ש טרם כלה לדבר וגו.
 וימאן משום שמאן בתוקף הרבה שלא תפציר
 בו יותר, וישחט משום שהאריך בשחיטת

השלמים יותר מהעולה והחטאת כדי שיצא
 הרבה דם שהי׳ צריך להזות ממנו על התנוכים
 והבהונות [ואע״ג דבכל הזבחים קי״ל ביומא
 מ״ח א׳ דלכתחלה צריך לקבל כל הדם עי׳
 במאירי שם ל״ב ב׳ שאינו אלא מדרבנן. הערת
 ח״א]. ועוד ג׳ בנ״ך נבהלו בישעי׳ י״ג י״ל ע״פ
 מכילתא פ׳ שמעו עמים כעס של העכו״ם שאין
 בו רצון והוא בהלה ארוכה ע״ש. ויאמר בריש
 עמוס י״ל משום שנתנבא בזה זמן רב קודם
 ועי״ז הוחזק לנביא כמ״ש הגאון מלבי״ם ז״ל
 חה ו  דאמר באורך. ואמר לי׳ בעזרא ד׳ גבי כורש
 שאמר לדניאל שיטול כלי ביהמ״ק (והוא
 ששבצר כמ״ש בפסיקתא וברש״י) כדא׳ בילקוט
 אסתר פ׳ ותמאן שכשהי׳ כורש עדיין אצל
 נבוכדנצר א״ל דניאל שימלוך ויציא כלי
 ביהמ״ק וזה   ואמר לי׳ מזמן מרובה.



"And he lingered -- its trup is shalshelet. And there are an additional 3 times in the Torah, namely ויאמר וימאן וישחט. And I saw in a certain sefer that the shalshelet informs about the extension of the matter. And based on this, it seems that one can explain all of them. ויתמהמה, that he [=Lot] lingered more than was fitting. ויאמר, that he [=Eliezer] extended his words a lot, such that he did not finish before Rivkah arrived, as is stated, טרם כלה לדבר, 'he had not yet finished speaking [when Rivkah came].' וימאן, that he refused with much vigor [the advances of Potifar's wife], that she should plead with him more. וישחט [in Vayikra 8:23], because he extended in the slaughtering of the peace-offering more than for the burnt-offering or the sin-offering, in order that much blood would come out, for he [=Moshe] needed to sprinkle from it on the ear-tips, thumbs, and toes [of Aharon and his sons]. (And though by all the Zevachim, we establish in Yoma 48a that lechatchila one needs to receive all the blood, see in the Meiri there, 32b that this is only a Rabbinic requirement. The insight of the Chazon Ish.) And a further three [instances of shalshelet] in Nach. נבהלו in Yeshaya 13:8:
ח וְנִבְהָלוּ--צִירִים וַחֲבָלִים יֹאחֵזוּן, כַּיּוֹלֵדָה יְחִילוּן; אִישׁ אֶל-רֵעֵהוּ יִתְמָהוּ, פְּנֵי לְהָבִים פְּנֵיהֶם.8 And they shall be affrighted; pangs and throes shall take hold of them; they shall be in pain as a woman in travail; they shall look aghast one at another; their faces shall be faces of flame.
one can say based on the Mechilta, explaining: The nations heard -- the fury of the gentiles, that there was no razton, and it was a lengthy confusion, see there.

ויאמר, in the beginning of Amos {1:2}:
ב וַיֹּאמַר--ה מִצִּיּוֹן יִשְׁאָג, וּמִירוּשָׁלִַם יִתֵּן קוֹלוֹ; וְאָבְלוּ נְאוֹת הָרֹעִים, וְיָבֵשׁ רֹאשׁ הַכַּרְמֶל. {פ}2 And he said: the LORD roareth from Zion, and uttereth His voice from Jerusalem; and the pastures of the shepherds shall mourn, and the top of Carmel shall wither. {P}
There is to say that he prophesied in this a long time beforehand, and via this he was established as a prophet, as the Gaon Malbim wrote, za'l, and this is a ויאמר at length. 

And וַאֲמַר-לֵהּ {of Ezra 5:15:}

טו וַאֲמַר-לֵהּ--אלה (אֵל) מָאנַיָּא, שֵׂא אֵזֶל-אֲחֵת הִמּוֹ בְּהֵיכְלָא דִּי בִירוּשְׁלֶם; וּבֵית אֱלָהָא, יִתְבְּנֵא עַל-אַתְרֵהּ. {ס}15 and he said unto him: Take these vessels, go, put them in the temple that is in Jerusalem, and let the house of God be builded in its place. {S}

in Ezra 4 {really, 5}, via Cyrus who said to Daniel to take the vessels of the Temple (and this [=Daniel] is 
Sheshbazzar {mentioned in the next pasuk}), as is written in the Pesikta and in Rashi) as appears in Yalkut Esther, p. {?} ותמאן, that when Cyrus was still by Nebuchadnezzar, Daniel said to him that he would rule and bring out the vessels of the Temple. And this is וַאֲמַר-לֵהּ from a long time."


Thus, one can read this particular type of interpretation into every verse which has a shalshelet. Still, I don't think it is necessary. See my discussion from 2005 of the seven shalshelets in Tanach. While Wickes is even of the belief that there is a midrashic motivation of some sort for these unique seven times in Tanach, I don't think it is necessary to say this at all.

Why not? Well, a shalshelet is just a modified segolta. A segolta is the form a zakef takes when it is a sufficient number of words away from the etnachta or silluq. And a segolta usually takes a zarka before it. Where it appears at the head word, such that the preceding word cannot be a zarka, then the segolta is instead a shalshelet. This can be understood to function on purely musical grounds. Now, why not just have a zakef, instead of inventing a new trup symbol for just seven instances? [This, now, is my own insight.] Because it is part of a system of trup, and there is already a distinction between zakef katon and zakef gadol, where the zakef gadol cannot have a munach in the word before it. So, it should exist even by this early zakef, the segolta. Who cares that the occurrence is so rare? The system set up such an expectation, which only manifests in such a rare occurrence. Thus, a shelshelet is just the zakef gadol variant of the segolta.

14 comments:

S. said...

IMO the exaggerated way it is read in the Ashkenazic tradition encourages the assumption that it is intended to hint something. I confess that I am unfamiliar with how the other traditions read it, but I have heard that it is far less dramatic sounding. If anyone can confirm or deny that, it would be great.

Anonymous said...

Meir says
thanks for replying on R Slifkin's blog.
A pity I have to come here and he is not prepared to let me have my say there. Anyway I asked two questions there. Are you prepared to answer them.

joshwaxman said...

I cannot guarantee that I will continue replying indefinitely. but, you asked:

Let us say you believe magic existed can you explain it. Next question when do think magic or similar unexplained phenomenons stopped happening. For example 'lo yachvol raichaim vorochev'. How the meforshim exAplain it. Or do you think someone can still do that today.

Why should we accept that assumption, that magic existed? Certain Rishonim deny that magic existed, and explain the pesukim in different manners. I mean, your goal seems to be to (1) establish magic existed, and then (2) establish that it does not exist today, yielding proof that (3) nature changed. But if you cannot definitively prove (1), then you don't have any proof whatsoever.

So I'll respond, but I don't see how this can progress any further if you haven't conclusively demonstrated (1).

What do you mean can I explain the magic that existed? Do you mean the mechanisms of it? Am I a magician that I should know how it worked? I can imagine all sorts of explanations, from the natural to the supernatural.

And why should I pinpoint the precise year magic "stopped working"? How does that help? Any answer would be random, not to mention irrelevant. And you are assuming it "stopped working". How do you know that this is true? Maybe it still works today, but you are just not a good enough magician.

Anonymous said...

Meir says
It seems you didnt read all I wrote there. I mentioned a posuk which mentions something similar to magic. This has been recorded by many and seems to be true. I cannot believe it can be done today. But it was mentioned not that long ago.
I am trying first of all to prove that the world did not used to be 'rationalist'.(bad english). Things happened what today cannot be explained.

S. said...

There are many societies which practice magic today, same as they did hundreds and thousands of years ago. Is your contention that it used to work, but now it doesn't? So why do they still practice it?

Z said...

Rabbi Josh,

Again I repeat my request for a series of posts explaining the trup system as per Wickes. I have the book and really tried but the archaic language and unfamiliar references caused me to give it up. I think it would be very interesting and useful to many people. Any votes?

Jr said...

Meir:

Take a look in tiferes yisroel Sanhedrin ch. 7 boaz letter ג׳ regarding the cessation of magic.

Anonymous said...

Meir replies
Thanks
There are different degrees of 'magic'. Perhaps I should really term it supernatural.In seforim like 'yes manchilin' written in the same age as him, mention it. I shall repeat my example. of 'reychaim v'rochev' which was 'easy' and very common. I am not aware of anyone being able to do it today. It cannot be that it is just forgotten.

joshwaxman said...

Meir:
"It seems you didnt read all I wrote there."

No, I read it, and responded to it. That Rishonim (such as Rambam) didn't believe in magic is sufficient.

I mentioned a posuk which mentions something similar to magic.
No, you didn't. You mentioned a pasuk which has a simple peshat of not taking the upper and lower millstone. And you mentioned that "meforshim" interpret this as a sort of witchcraft. To be more precise, certain meforshim, such as Targum Pseudo-Yonatan, interpret that pasuk as referring to a type of witchcraft preventing a couple from having children.

Do you think the Rishonim who deny witchcraft have a ready answer to this, or not? I would guess they would.

Here are two possibilities:
1) How early is this interpretation by some meforshim? Is it in the words of Chazal (=Tannaim and Amoraim), or is it later? Is it possible that these rationalist Rishonim would simply disagree with this interpretation of the pasuk? The meforshim who interpreted the pasuk as referring to magic wrongly believed in the reality of magic.

2) Is it possible that the intent is a prohibition to engage in witchcraft even though the Torah knows that such witchcraft would in fact be ineffective? Since the practitioner believes in it, he is engaging in theologically wrong and "mean" activity, which could be encompassed under a Biblical command.

This has been recorded by many and seems to be true. I cannot believe it can be done today.
To be glib, maybe this is then a problem in your Emunah. Perhaps even had you lived back when these reports existed, you would have disbelieved it.

There are many reports of magic today. For one example, see Koru, which is a belief that one's genitals are shrinking away. Scroll down to the example in Africa, which associated it with witchcraft.

Since late 1996, a small-scale epidemic of genital shrinking was reported in West African nations. Victims in the African outbreaks often interpreted the experience as genital theft, accusing someone with whom they had contact of "stealing" the organ and the spiritual essence, causing impotence. The perceived motive for theft was associated with local occult belief, the witchcraft of juju, to feed the spiritual agency or to hold the genital for ransom. Social representations about juju constitute consensual realities that propose both a means and motivation for genital-shrinking experience.

Do you disbelieve the modern reports of this phenomenon? Why?

Finally,
I shall repeat my example. of 'reychaim v'rochev' which was 'easy' and very common.
Even if we say it did exist then, how do you know how 'easy' it was? And even 'easy' things can be forgotten, if the precise details are forgotten. If you need to leap 3 times on your left leg and THEN stick out your thumb at a right angle, and you don't know that detail... or because it works via supernatural kochot hatuma, which modern kabbalists protect us from via their spiritual battles on high.

I am not aware of anyone being able to do it today.
Now that you know about the Africans, do you believe it?

kol tuv,
josh

Anonymous said...

Thanks
I am not the one who says it is common, but the pirush yonasan does. I also quoted yesh manchilin who corresponded with the noda b'yehuda.
I find it difficult to 'not' believe it existed.
My point is that in the olden times not everything could be explained like it can today. Be serious modern kaballists!
Not sure why your Koru cant be some sort of plague and why it must be supernatural.
The main thing is can it be cured by the person who put the spell on. The gemoro has similar examples.

joshwaxman said...

Please realize that you are trying to prove from this that nishtaneh hateva and thus "shlug up" those who say that Chazal were wrong in science.

Citing the Perush Yonasan as "proof" is then strange. Do you know which Rishon or (likely) Acharon wrote it? Is it not possible that he could be wrong, just as Chazal were wrong? And is it not possible that Rabbi Yaacov Katzenelenbogen (1720–1795) was also wrong? People have incorrect beliefs today. Rav Chaim Kanievsky and other prominent chareidi rabbis believe that jews and gentiles have a different number of teeth. So who says they were right?

I find it difficult to 'not' believe it existed.
That is your choice, but others would disagree with you, in evaluating the same evidence.

Not sure why your Koru cant be some sort of plague and why it must be supernatural.
More likely, mass hysteria. But why are you being such a 'rationalist' about Koru and dismissing what the people themselves are saying (that it is witchcraft), and not about Peirush Yonasan. Maybe what Peirush Yonasan was **also** describing some sort of plague, not realizing that it was a plague rather than witchcraft.

Here, BTW, is another instance, in which people described a **person** giving them a comb, which they used, at which point their genitals began to disappear. A case of laser-guided robotic Zionist penis-shriking combs.

There are plenty of modern news stories from other countries about magic.

The gemoro has similar examples.
Do you think that the Rambam was unaware of these examples in the gemara?

joshwaxman said...

Z:

perhaps one of these days. i have to figure out a good way to express it clearly...

Josh R said...

Hi I just I wanted to point out a small error in your post. וימאן in 39:8 is referring to Yosef withstanding Eishes Potiphar's advances, not as you wrote in your translation of R' Chaim: "וימאן, that he refused with much vigor [to be consoled for the loss of his son Yosef], that they should not bother him persistently."

joshwaxman said...

thanks for pointing this out. i will correct the post.
kol tuv,
josh

LinkWithin

Blog Widget by LinkWithin