a
Wednesday, December 05, 2012
Tuesday, December 04, 2012
Saving Yosef by casting him into a pit with scorpions?
Summary: From Chiddushei HaGriz, a solution as to Reuven's intentions and thought-process.
Post: On parashat Vayeshev, R' Yitzchak Zeev HaLevi Soloveitchik cites the pasuk:
and then writes:
"But what was the benefit of this? Was not the pit empty with no water in it, but with snakes and scorpions it it, as Rashi brings down upon pasuk 24? And it is explained in the Rambam, perek 9 from Hilchot Melachim that a Ben Noach who kills, etc., or who compels him before a lion, or leaves him in starvation until he dies, since he caused his death, he [the Ben Noach who did this] is killed. End quote. And what is apparent is that, behold, it is stated in Berachot 33a that:
This is a neat resolution of this difficulty. See other approaches to solving it in this parshablog post. For example, they were unaware of the presence of snakes and scorpions.
I wonder, for Rabbi Chanina ben Dosa was without sin. Was Yosef also so, and did Reuven believe it to be so? I'm not asking whether he deserved death, but whether he was sufficiently righteous that his safety before snakes and scorpions was so assured. Consider these Rashis, at the start of the parasha:
That is, was the being spared from the snakes and scorpions due to personal righteousness, or due to fullfillment of the Divine plan, declared at the bris bein habetarim?
Post: On parashat Vayeshev, R' Yitzchak Zeev HaLevi Soloveitchik cites the pasuk:
| 24. And they took him and cast him into the pit; now the pit was empty there was no water in it. | כד. וַיִּקָּחֻהוּ וַיַּשְׁלִכוּ אֹתוֹ הַבֹּרָה וְהַבּוֹר רֵק אֵין בּוֹ מָיִם: | |
| now the pit was empty-there was no water in it: Since it says: “now the pit was empty,” do I not know that there was no water in it? For what purpose did the Torah write,“there was no water in it” ? [To inform us that] there was no water in it, but there were snakes and scorpions in it. [From Shab. 22a, Chag. 3a] | והבור רק אין בו מים: ממשמע שנאמר והבור רק, איני יודע שאין בו מים, מה תלמוד לומר אין בו מים, מים אין בו אבל נחשים ועקרבים יש בו: |
and then writes:
In a certain place there was once a lizard7 which used to injure people. They came and told R. Hanina b. Dosa. He said to them: Show me its hole. They showed him its hole, and he put his heel over the hole, and the lizard came out and bit him, and it died. He put it on his shoulder and brought it to the Beth ha-Midrash and said to them: See, my sons, it is not the lizard that kills, it is sin that kills!And because of this, Reuven felt certain that the snakes and scorpions would not kill Yosef, and as was indeed so afterwards, that they did not cause him harm."
This is a neat resolution of this difficulty. See other approaches to solving it in this parshablog post. For example, they were unaware of the presence of snakes and scorpions.
I wonder, for Rabbi Chanina ben Dosa was without sin. Was Yosef also so, and did Reuven believe it to be so? I'm not asking whether he deserved death, but whether he was sufficiently righteous that his safety before snakes and scorpions was so assured. Consider these Rashis, at the start of the parasha:
| and he was a lad: He behaved childishly, fixing his hair and touching up his eyes so that he would appear handsome. [From Gen. Rabbah 84:7] | והוא נער: שהיה עושה מעשה נערות, מתקן בשערו ממשמש בעיניו, כדי שיהיה נראה יפה: |
| tales about them: Heb. דִּבָּתָם Every expression of דִּבָּה denotes parlediz in Old French, gossip, slander. Whatever evil he could tell about them he told. דִּבָּה is an expression of making the lips of the sleeping speak (דוֹבֵב). | דבתם: כל לשון דבה פרלידי"ץ בלע"ז [רכילות] כל מה שהיה יכול לדבר בהם רעה היה מספר: |
That is, was the being spared from the snakes and scorpions due to personal righteousness, or due to fullfillment of the Divine plan, declared at the bris bein habetarim?
Monday, December 03, 2012
Posts so far for parshat Vayeshev
2011- Abarbanel asks about yibum, Yehuda, and Boaz -- Abarbanel's 19th doubt in Ki Seitzei is about the incident with Yehudah and Tamar, and how that meshes (or does not) with the laws ofyibbum. Yehuda was a father to the deceased, not a brother! And how comehalacha does not recognize this as effective, patterned after Yehuda. Abarbenel's 20th doubt is about theyibbum described in sefer Rut. Was he a brother or a distant relative? Where was the spitting for Ploni Almoni? This all seems to contradict the laws ofyibbum and chalitza.
. - Abarbanel on Yehuda and Tamar's "yibbum" -- As described in the above post, Don Yitzchak Abravanel asks some incisive questions about the nature of the apparent yibbum by Yehuda and Tamar. Here, he resolves those questions. It was certainly not a complete yibbum, for yibbum is for brothers, not fathers. (And he explains why.) Tamar took the steps necessary, but it was certainly not Yehuda's intent. And this particular joining does not form the pattern for subsequent yibbum.
. - Yehuda and Tamar, and Boaz and Rus, as performing real yibbum -- My own thoughts about the points raised by Abarbanel. Could we find a way for the actions of Yehuda and Tamar, and of Boaz and Ruth, to be actual yibbum, rather than just 'customary' yibbum, or no yibbum at all?
. - Targum Yonasan in support of a minhag taus -- Birkas Avraham debunks a support to a minhag taus from Targum Yonasan. The targum states 'and she called his name Onan, for ברם upon him his father would in the future mourn.' However, they should not interpret it as 'and she called his name Onan, for ברם [only] upon him [and not his older brother Er] his father would in the future mourn.' Rather, it should be understood as 'and she called his name Onan, for ברם [also] upon him [just as upon older brother Er] his father would in the future mourn.'
. - Vayeshev sources -- further improved.
. - YU Torah on parashat Vayeshev.
. - Why did Yaakov only await fulfillment of the *second* dream? Perhaps because only celestial bodies bowing goes out of the natural order; or maybe, the purpose is to stress that Yaakov's criticism of the second dream was a sham, to try to keep peace among the brothers.
. - Ibn Caspi on the Zakef on כְּתֹנֶת בְּנִי -- How it is appropriate placement by the baalei hamesorah. I agree, and it is obvious. Yet, the comment is worth noting.
. - Shadal on the trup on הִנֵּה בַּעַל הַחֲלֹמוֹת -- Shadal corrects the erroneous trup; and Wickes makes the same suggestion, finding two texts which have it. After all, should בַּעַל really be separated from הַחֲלֹמוֹת הַלָּזֶה? Then, Shadal differs with a different aspect of trup. And he also gives his thoughts on the etymology and meaning of הַלָּזֶה.
. - Ibn Caspi and the trup on מַה פָּרַצְתָּ עָלֶיךָ פָּרֶץ -- The words מַה פָּרַצְתָּ עָלֶיךָ פָּרֶץ can mean "With what strength you have strengthened yourself!" Alternatively, as Ibn Ezra suggests, it can mean two statements of מַה פָּרַצְתָּ (how have you breached) and עָלֶיךָ פָּרֶץ (the guilt of the breach is upon you). Ibn Caspi and others find support for Ibn Ezea's parse in the tipcha on מַה פָּרַצְתָּ.
. - What is the role of shalshelet? Should we darshen the psik of it? What about the shalsheles leads to these various interpretations?
. - Rav Levi Yitzchak of Berditchev on the role of the shalsheles on וימאן -- In a recent post on Vayeshev, I cited Birkas Avraham, who gave several reasons for a shalsheles. I added some ideas, from others. But while he mentioned the Kedushas Levi, Rav Levi Yitzchak of Berditchev, he only listed the first of the reasons the Kedushas Levi gave. In fact, there are quite a number of other reasons offered there. Here, without added commentary, I present the various reasons offered.
. - Kedushat Levi: how the סריס Potifar could have been informed בשעת תשמיש -- Harmonizing two contradictory Rashi's, that Hashem transformed Potifar into asaris when he bought Yosef for משכב זכר purposes, and that Potifar's wife falsely accused Yosef when she was בשעת תשמיש with her husband.
. - Tamar's judgement as Torah Law, Noachide Law, Contemporary Law -- Which one is it, and when? Ibn Caspi says that the death penalty was Noachide law while freeing her from the same was contemporary law.
2010
- Was Sarah buried in the Valley of Chevron? A variant text in the beginning of parashat Chayei Sarah, present in the Septuagint and Samaritan Pentateuch. And why I believe the masoretic text to be better. This relates strongly to parashat Vayeishev as well.
. - Vayeshev sources -- expanded. For example, a lot more meforshei Rashi.
. - Is Vayikirah malei or chaser? An instance in which our Masoretic text is malei while the Samaritan text ischaser. This goes against the grain. Should we therefore lend credence to the Samaritan text?
. - Why would the shivtei Kah try to kill their brother? After all, isn't this a violation of lo tirtzach? And didn't the avos and, by extension, the shevatim, keep all 613 mitzvos?
. - How did Reuven save Yosef by casting him into a pit filled with Snakes and Scorpions? If there was no water, but instead snakes and scorpions, then how was Reuven saving him by casting him into the pit?
. - Why Didn't The Brothers Try To Stone Yosef To Death? So asks Hillel, in a comment on my previous post. In that previous post, I suggested that they had determined that Yosef was a choleim chalomot, and thus a navi, sheker. And so they wished to put him to death as a false prophet. In this post, I explain how their actions were more precisely in line with the halacha of executing a navi sheker.
. - According to Sporno, why does Yehudah reference 'monetary profit'? After all, the point is judgement, not revenge! The answer is that Yehudah doesn't really, literally. But this just goes to show how derash, introduced by Rashi, gets totally ingrained as peshat in our minds.
2009
- Vayeshev sources -- links to an online Mikraos Gedolos, plus more than 100 meforshim on the parsha and haftorah. Thus, updated from last year.
. - Is tzadeka mimeni one statement or two? Pashtanim arguing on midrash. Once again, midrashim vs. many pashtanim about how to explain a specific pasuk. In this instance, it is something that seems midrashic in the first place, whether tzadeka mimeni is one statement, or two separate statements. Onkelos, Targum Pseudo-Yontan, the gemara, Bereishit Rabba, and Rashi all treat it as two separate statements, either both by Yehuda, or the latter by Hashem. But many of the other meforshim explain it otherwise, as a single statement, that she is more righteous than I. And more interesting that pashtanim arguing on midrash is Ibn Caspi's point, that the derash is at odds with the trup, and that since trup is from Anshei Knesset HaGedolah and reflects Hashem's intent, we cannot argue on it..
And further thoughts on tzadeka mimeni -- As discussed in a previous post, saying that tzadeka mimeni are two separate statements ("she is righteous; the pregnancy is from me"; or else "the situation is from Me") is at odds with the trup, which has no pause between them. Yet Rashi endorses this as bothpeshat and midrash. And it appears that so does Ibn Ezra. Here, I give further thought to what could influence this explanation -- the word yakir and the otherwise absence of an admission by Yehuda.
. - The Aramaic translation of the bad word -- Shadal on the correct girsa in Onkelos; I think perhaps a good example of lectio difficilior. The proper Aramaic translation of dibatam -- is it dibbehon or tibbehon. But nothing exceptionally innovative here.
. - Moral lessons from parashat Vayeishev -- Some straightforward lessons about interpersonal relationships, from Ralbag. Some of which are fairly obvious when you just stop and consider the story carefully. Some of it, of course, it a matter of how one parses the Biblical narrative and associated midrashim.
2008
- Vayeshev sources -- online, by aliyah and perek in Mikraos Gedolos, and by meforshim, at JNUL. And in the comment section, a discussion of Zuleika, wife of Potifar, which will soon be its own post.
. - Two noteworthy comments about the nature of peshat, and the one of Vayeshev is the famous comment of the Rashbam.
. - Parallels between the incident of Tamar and Amnon, and parshat Vayeshev. I note a few of them, and there is a more developed discussion in the comment section.
. - What in the world is kesonnes passim? And how only Yosef and Tamar were tznius. Or not tznius. And then it develops from there. What does it mean that it reached pas yadav?
. - What sort of Petil did Yehuda give Tamar as surety? And how, after Ramban rejects the idea it was tzitzis, as sacrilegious, Baal HaTurim suggests it was his tefillin. And much more.
. - Zuleika, the wife of Potiphar, in the Koran and in Sefer HaYashar. And how I think that this particular midrash might be no more than a borrowing from the Koran.
. - Who was in the pit? A 4-year old take on parshat Vayeshev.
2007
- The appropriately named Er and Onan, and Hevel, and Machlon and Kilyan. What a choice for names!
. - Bar Kochva as the gilgul of Shela -- from Rav Chaim Vital.
. - Which Daughters comforted Yaakov? Did he have more than one?
. - What did the wife of Potifar ask Yosef to do? And the danger of euphemisms in obscuring the actual intent.
. - Why Mention that Yosef Got Lost? Dramatic tension, no witnesses, plausibility of the story that he was attacked by wild animals.
. - The Shevatim Keeping The Torah
and expressing willingness to perform kisui hadam. humor.
. - Midianites as a Generic Term
and as it relates to the sale of Yosef.
2006
- Tamar's Scarf in the News
- whether Islamic style headscarves are what ancient harlots wore.
2005
- Reuven's Return
- As repentance. I analyze various aspects and textual cues of this midrash, and how Rashi reinterprets or correctly understands the midrash.
- The Chronology of Yehuda's Marriage
- Was Yehuda's marriage subsequent to, or co-occurring with the general timespan of Yosef's sale. This is predicated on the meaning of baEt hahi.
2004
- Yaakov/Yosef Parallels While in a previous post I mentioned parallels between Yosef and Esav, a midrash highlights many parallels between the lives of Yaakov and Yosef.
. - Shortsighted Foresight People who see the future via prophecy or astrology, but misapprehend what they see.
. - Clothes "Make" The Man Twice, Yosef's clothing serves as a mark of identity
. - Mistaken Identities -- How many times does the theme of mistaken identity come up in Tanach?
. - Choice Garments and Goat Bits -- Parallels between two sibling rivalries.
2003
- In Chutzpah! I note that the brothers are shepherding in Shechem, which they had destroyed in the previous parsha. Although Yaakov initially feared a reaction from the neighboring towns, the pasuk (Bereishit 35:5:) tells us that the fear of God was put into the inhabitants of the towns and the hostile reaction did not surface. Here they are, initially shepherding in Shechem, perhaps even the flocks taken as spoils from Shechem, and Yosef has no fear to go to Shechem alone to see how things fare. Also, Tg Yonatan has two points about the sale of Yosef: it being preordained, and being linked to the destruction of Shechem.
. - In Dibatam Ra'ah I discuss the word נַעַר as a verb in the second pasuk of Vayeishev, in Bereishit 37:2. The midrash gives three bad things the brothers did, or appeared to do, that Yosef reported - eating 'ever min hachai, treating the sons of Bilhah and Zilpah as servants, and secual improprieties. I show how these might be derived from the pasuk. Finally, Tg Yonatan gives on sin - that he saw them eat the ears and tails separated from the live animals. I give Perush Yonatan's explanation for this, as well as a possible derivation from the text.
. - In Where Does the First Pasuk Belong? I note the relationship between the first pasuk which says that Yaakov settled in the land of his forefathers, with a similar statement about Esav in the previous parsha. I suggest it logically belongs to the previous parsha. This may relate to the order of the narrative, such that the story of Yosef actually precedes the birth of Binyamin and thus Rachel's death. Some proofs that Binyamin is not yet born - Binyamin is not mentioned; Yosef is called the ben zekunim - son of old age; and Yaakov asks "will I and your mother bow down before you?" implying that Rachel, Yosef's mother, is still alive.
. - In Brand Name Recognition? Or Lack Thereof? מהר"א אשכנזי, based on Islamic practice, explains Yehuda's command that Tamar be burnt is a command to brand her forhead to label her a harlot. The presence of the mark is the reason harlots would typically cover their faces, and the pasuk says that Tamar did this when pretending to be one.
. - In A Baaaad Report I suggest that on a peshat level, rather than דִּבָּתָם רָעָה meaning an evil report, it actually means a report as to how the shepherding is going. Proofs to this effect - nowhere do we see explicitly what the bad things he reported were, nor that the brothers hated him for it. Further, it seems to set up the story such that we understand why Yaakov sends Yosef after his brothers to find out how the shepherding is going - this is his role.
To be continued...
Sunday, December 02, 2012
Vayishlach parsha stumpers?
Maybe. DovBear (originally posting back in 2009) raises these parsha stumpers "you can share with friends, neighbors, and anyone else you wish to annoy."
It is called framing. The first naming story happens on his way to Charan, in Bereishit 28, and the second naming story appears on his return from Charan, in Bereishit 35. Heck, within the Biblical narrative, the second naming story makes it explicit that it is aware of the events of the first naming story, and that it is indeed a fulfillment of the promises made in that first naming story.
To lay out the case for this, in the first naming story, in Vayeitzei, Yaakov makes a promise:
He names the place Bet El (house of God), and promises that when he comes back in peace, Hashem shall be his God and the pillar will be God's house, that is, a temple.
In the second naming story, in Vayishlach:
we see in pasuk 1 that it is already called Bet El by Hashem in the instruction. And in that same instruction in pasuk 1, we are told that this alter is to be made to God who had appeared to him in Vayeitzei, in the ladder / ziggurat dream, when he was fleeing from Esav.
Pasuk 2, telling his household to put away the strange gods, is a fulfillment of his promise in Vayeitzei that Hashem shall be his God, to the exclusion of any other deity. Pasuk 3 is explaining their purpose, and why they are doing it. Pasuk 4 is the fulfillment; pasuk 5 fixes it in the aftermath of the Dinah episode. Pasuk 6 reminds us of the former name, Luz, which might help readers locate it. Pasuk 7 is the possible renaming, put together with a reference to the cause being that Hashem had revealed himself to Yaakov there back in Vayeitzei.
If it is a "doublet", in the sense of two separate authors who are unaware of one another and giving two etymologies or separate causes, then this has to be the most awkward one in all of Tanach! There are certainly plenty of better candidates, such as two namings for Yosef, two namings for Yissachar, two namings for Yisrael, two causes for the name of Yitzchak. And so we are on the lookout for plausible doublets.
But here, what are you going to say. The second author was aware of the events described by the first author, and casts it as the fulfillment of the promises in the narrative of the first author, but messed up when Yaakov specifically gave the name?
Maybe. But if I were the type to get annoyed by this, I wouldn't get annoyed by it. (Of course, those who would get annoyed are often not sophisticated enough to mount such a counter-argument, but would be annoyed by the simple idea.)
Instead, I would point out the above; and point out the possible difference between בֵּית-אֵל and אֵל בֵּית-אֵל, such that this could be a renaming of Bet El to El Bet El; and point out in Vayeitzei, he was a fugitive and pauper and no-one cared the slightest bit what he called a place, whereas now, he is accompanied by a host of people who listen to his words, such that this could be the actual successful naming of the place, which was foreshadowed / alluded to earlier in Vayeitzei.
That Rashi reads:
Indeed, people unfortunately swallow this wholesale in its most literal form. Here is how I have explained this Rashi in the past:
I've discussed these midrashim in depth here. In terms of the question, "how can both be true?", we can turn to Rav Moshe HaDarshan:
In terms of whether one can say eilu ve'eilu on midrash aggadah, I personally think that the Gemara is pretty explicit that in most cases, it cannot be. That is, they point to an exception which proves the rule:
In terms of all these ages for Iyov's life, indeed, the gemara raises this point explicitly, that you can't say X if you date Iyov to Y. (Of course, Iyov could have been exceptionally long-lived. :-] ) I'm not sure about the position that he didn't exist. I think that was clarified a bit later as that he did exist, but that the story as described lo haya velo nivra, and it was attributed to the great tzaddik Iyyov who would have reacted in this way had the events actually occurred.
Finally:
Well, other midrashim refer to words in Arabic, or other languages, perhaps as a way of discovering a new sense in Biblical Hebrew, and so maybe this is so here. And Chazal did consider Greek to have a special sanctity. Consider the opinion of R' Shimon ben Gamliel, in Megillah daf 9, who permitted writing a sefer Torah in Greek. The derivation, in part, is as follows:
(Also see the discussion on daf 18 about a Megillah written or read in Greek.)
If so, maybe the midrashic author indeed treats Greek with special sanctity.
However, I doubt it. Rather, the idea is that Scripture here was concealing something, which experts in expounding the Torah would be able to discover. And so yes, there was a Greek pun, which Hashem or Yaakov made here.
- Why does Bethel have two naming stories? Twice we are told that Yaakov named the place "Bethel". Each time he erected a marker, and poured on it some oil, from the flask he conveniently had in his pocket. Why did it happen twice? (Of course, this smells like a doublet.)
It is called framing. The first naming story happens on his way to Charan, in Bereishit 28, and the second naming story appears on his return from Charan, in Bereishit 35. Heck, within the Biblical narrative, the second naming story makes it explicit that it is aware of the events of the first naming story, and that it is indeed a fulfillment of the promises made in that first naming story.
To lay out the case for this, in the first naming story, in Vayeitzei, Yaakov makes a promise:
He names the place Bet El (house of God), and promises that when he comes back in peace, Hashem shall be his God and the pillar will be God's house, that is, a temple.
In the second naming story, in Vayishlach:
we see in pasuk 1 that it is already called Bet El by Hashem in the instruction. And in that same instruction in pasuk 1, we are told that this alter is to be made to God who had appeared to him in Vayeitzei, in the ladder / ziggurat dream, when he was fleeing from Esav.
Pasuk 2, telling his household to put away the strange gods, is a fulfillment of his promise in Vayeitzei that Hashem shall be his God, to the exclusion of any other deity. Pasuk 3 is explaining their purpose, and why they are doing it. Pasuk 4 is the fulfillment; pasuk 5 fixes it in the aftermath of the Dinah episode. Pasuk 6 reminds us of the former name, Luz, which might help readers locate it. Pasuk 7 is the possible renaming, put together with a reference to the cause being that Hashem had revealed himself to Yaakov there back in Vayeitzei.
If it is a "doublet", in the sense of two separate authors who are unaware of one another and giving two etymologies or separate causes, then this has to be the most awkward one in all of Tanach! There are certainly plenty of better candidates, such as two namings for Yosef, two namings for Yissachar, two namings for Yisrael, two causes for the name of Yitzchak. And so we are on the lookout for plausible doublets.
But here, what are you going to say. The second author was aware of the events described by the first author, and casts it as the fulfillment of the promises in the narrative of the first author, but messed up when Yaakov specifically gave the name?
Maybe. But if I were the type to get annoyed by this, I wouldn't get annoyed by it. (Of course, those who would get annoyed are often not sophisticated enough to mount such a counter-argument, but would be annoyed by the simple idea.)
Instead, I would point out the above; and point out the possible difference between בֵּית-אֵל and אֵל בֵּית-אֵל, such that this could be a renaming of Bet El to El Bet El; and point out in Vayeitzei, he was a fugitive and pauper and no-one cared the slightest bit what he called a place, whereas now, he is accompanied by a host of people who listen to his words, such that this could be the actual successful naming of the place, which was foreshadowed / alluded to earlier in Vayeitzei.
- 2) How can Rashi say Yaakov kept "taryag mitzvos?" Never mind the usual objections (he married sisters, he robbed from Esav, etc.) and instead recall that only a king- woman-kohen- farmer hybrid could actually fulfill all 613 commandments. If it means he kept the "spirit" of the 613 as one Rashi super-commentator says, well, what does that mean, and why would Yaakov need to keep the "spirit" of the a law like "slaughter all the Amalekites" when the Amalakites hadn't yet committed the crime that made the law necessary?
That Rashi reads:
| And he commanded them, saying, "So shall you say to my master to Esau, 'Thus said your servant Jacob, "I have sojourned with Laban, and I have tarried until now. | ה. וַיְצַו אֹתָם לֵאמֹר כֹּה תֹאמְרוּן לַאדֹנִי לְעֵשָׂו כֹּה אָמַר עַבְדְּךָ יַעֲקֹב עִם לָבָן גַּרְתִּי וָאֵחַר עַד עָתָּה: | |
| I have sojourned: Heb. גַּרְתִּי. I did not become an officer or a dignitary, but a stranger (גֵּר) . It is not worthwhile for you to hate me on account of your father’s blessing, [with] which he blessed me (27:29):“You shall be a master over your brothers,” for it was not fulfilled in me (Tanchuma Buber Vayishlach 5). Another explanation: גַּרְתִּי has the numerical value of 613. That is to say: I lived with the wicked Laban, but I kept the 613 commandments, and I did not learn from his evil deeds. | גרתי: לא נעשיתי שר וחשוב אלא גר, אינך כדאי לשנוא אותי על ברכות אביך שברכני (לעיל כז כט) הוה גביר לאחיך, שהרי לא נתקיימה בי. דבר אחר גרתי בגימטריא תרי"ג, כלומר עם לבן הרשע גרתי ותרי"ג מצות שמרתי ולא למדתי ממעשיו הרעים: |
Indeed, people unfortunately swallow this wholesale in its most literal form. Here is how I have explained this Rashi in the past:
I believe Rashi is actually modifying the midrash and giving a perush here. He writes רתי בגימטריא תרי"ג, כלומר עם לבן הרשע גרתי ותרי"ג מצות שמרתי ולא למדתי ממעשיו הרעים. It seems as if ולא למדתי ממעשיו הרעים is by way of explanation of ותרי"ג מצות שמרתי. The point of the midrash is not that he literally kept 613 commandments, but "613 commandments" are a stand-in for Torah true attitude and middot. Thus, he stayed true to Torah ideals, as symbolized by תרי"ג, though it would be difficult to do in proximity of the wicked Lavan.This is different from the "spirit" described above, which seems to be fulfilling the spirit of each and every one of the individual laws, as it was applicable, rather than Taryag Mitzvos being a stand-in for "being an upright guy".
- 3) Let's stipulate: All midrashim are true and from Sinai. So did Dina marry Shimon or did she marry Iyov? Both possibilities are represented in the midrashim, and both hang on scriptural pegs. But how can both be true? Obviously, one opinion is wrong. (and compounding the difficulty, if Dina did marry Job, it follows that nine different Tannaic guesses about the dates of Job's era are wrong. On BT: Bava Basra 15a, we find the following possibilities advanced. Job was from the time of (1) Moshe, (2) spies (3) Judges (4) Esther (5) David (6) Queen of Sheba (7) Chaldeans, (8) Return from Exiles and (9) Javob. One other opinion says (10) he never lived at all. Clearly, not all of these are correct, which seemingly imperils, or better yet, demolishes, the typical yeshiva guy's view of the Tannaim and their infallibility.
I've discussed these midrashim in depth here. In terms of the question, "how can both be true?", we can turn to Rav Moshe HaDarshan:
Of course, it should be obvious that this was not the original intent of the authors of the respective midrashim. Likely each of those authors had a single vision of the events, and believed that vision to be historically accurate.בראשית רבתי פרשת ויגש
[מו, י] ושאול בן הכנענית. מהו ושאול בן הכנענית, על דעתיה דמאן דאמר לאחיותיהם נשאו השבטים לכך פרט בזה, שזה לבדו היה בן כנענית ולא האחרים.
על דעתיה דמאן דאמר מבנות הארץ לקחו השבטים מה עביד ליה ושאול בן הכנענית. אמרו זו דינה בת לאה,
דא"ר הונא בשעה שהביאו שמעון ולוי את דינה אחותם מבית שכם לא רצתה לצאת אמרה ואני אנה אוליך את חרפתי (ש"ב י"ג י"ג) עד שנשבע לה שמעון אחיה שהוא יקחנה לאשה ואח"כ יצאה, הה"ד ושאול בן הכנענית.
ור' יהודה אומר שעשתה כמעשה הכנענים,
ר' נחמיה אמר שנבעלה [מחוי] שהוא בכלל כנענים,
ואחר שנתעברה גרשה שמעון לאחר שנפטר מן השבועה, וכשירדו ישראל למצרים נתנה יעקב לאיוב וכו'. ורבנין אמרו נטלה שמעון וקברה בארץ כנען. ד"א ושאול בן הכנענית אמרו זה היה זמרי בן סלוא, וששה שמות נקראו לו, שאול בן הכנענית, זמרי בן סלוא, שלומיאל בן צורישדי, ומה שמו שלומיאל וכו'.
Thus, he cites the different midrashim about it, and while noting various disputes (e.g about whether shevatim in general married their sisters), he harmonizes the two, saying that he [Shimon] promised to marry her and did, and then after she became pregnant, divorced her, for he was now exempt from his oath, having fulfilled it. Then, in Egypt, Yaakov gave Dinah off in marriage to Iyov. After all, I would note, from other midrashim we know that Iyov was in Egypt as one of Pharaoh's three advisors, so that would be where they met.
In terms of whether one can say eilu ve'eilu on midrash aggadah, I personally think that the Gemara is pretty explicit that in most cases, it cannot be. That is, they point to an exception which proves the rule:
Such as we find in Gittin 6b about the Pilegesh beGiveah:I think, as I wrote above, that this is the exceptional case, but the operating assumption of Chazal was that there was no eilu ve'eilu on metzius. Surely people quote this gemara (incorrectly) to argue the opposite, for eilu ve'eilu in the general case.
R. Abiathar said that the Levite found a fly with her, and R. Jonathan said that he found a hair on her. R. Abiathar soon afterwards came across Elijah and said to him: 'What is the Holy One, blessed be He, doing?' and he answered, 'He is discussing the question of the concubine in Gibea.' 'What does He say?' said Elijah: '[He says], My son Abiathar says So-and-so, and my son Jonathan says So-and-so,' Said R. Abiathar: 'Can there possibly be uncertainty in the mind of the Heavenly One?' He replied: Both [answers] are the word of the living God. He [the Levite] found a fly and excused it, he found a hair and did not excuse it. Rab Judah explained: He found a fly in his food and a hair in loco concubitus; the fly was merely disgusting, but the hair was dangerous. Some say, he found both in his food; the fly was not her fault, the hair was.How can there be Elu veElu on a dispute about metziut? The answer is that first one happened, and then the other. (Though there is special praise for R' Aviatar about this, so it may well not apply in the general case.) So too here, she either married one or the other. So Rav Moshe haDarshan has Shimon divorce her.
In terms of all these ages for Iyov's life, indeed, the gemara raises this point explicitly, that you can't say X if you date Iyov to Y. (Of course, Iyov could have been exceptionally long-lived. :-] ) I'm not sure about the position that he didn't exist. I think that was clarified a bit later as that he did exist, but that the story as described lo haya velo nivra, and it was attributed to the great tzaddik Iyyov who would have reacted in this way had the events actually occurred.
Finally:
That Rashi is:
- 5) Let's stipulate: All midrashim are true and from Sinai. On Gen 35:8 Rashi quotes an aggada based on a Greek pun. Are Greek and Hebrew co-Holy? This is not so crazy as it sounds. Go to BT Sanh 76b and you will find a Talmudic debate about the meaning of the following words: ואיש אשר יקח את אשה ואת אמה זמה הוא באש ישרפו אתו ואתהן Rabbi Yishmoel darshens the pasuk -- in fact he learns the Halacha-- based on what a Hebrew word means in Greek. In other words, Rabbi Yishmoel believed that God's law was hidden in a Greek/Hebrew homonym.
| And Deborah, Rebecca's nurse, died, and she was buried beneath Beth el, beneath the plain; so he named it Allon Bachuth. | ח. וַתָּמָת דְּבֹרָה מֵינֶקֶת רִבְקָה וַתִּקָּבֵר מִתַּחַת לְבֵית אֵל תַּחַת הָאַלּוֹן וַיִּקְרָא שְׁמוֹ אַלּוֹן בָּכוּת: |
| beneath the plain: [Onkelos renders:] at the bottom of the plain, for there was a plain above, on the incline of the mountain, and the grave was below, and the plain of Beth-el was called Allon. The Aggadah [tells us that] he was informed there of another mourning, for he was told about his mother, who died (Gen. Rabbah 81:5), and Allon in Greek means“another.” For the following reason, the day of her death was concealed, viz. so that people should not curse the womb whence Esau had emerged. Therefore, neither did Scripture publicize it. | תחת האלון: בשפולי מישרא, שהיה מישור מלמעלה בשפוע ההר והקבורה מלמטה, ומישור של בית אל היו קורין לו אלון. ואגדה נתבשר שם באבל שני, שהוגד לו על אמו שמתה. ואלון בלשון יוני אחר. ולפי שהעלימו את יום מותה, שלא יקללו הבריות הכרס שיצא ממנו עשו, אף הכתוב לא פרסמו: |
Well, other midrashim refer to words in Arabic, or other languages, perhaps as a way of discovering a new sense in Biblical Hebrew, and so maybe this is so here. And Chazal did consider Greek to have a special sanctity. Consider the opinion of R' Shimon ben Gamliel, in Megillah daf 9, who permitted writing a sefer Torah in Greek. The derivation, in part, is as follows:
(a) (R. Avahu): The Halachah follows R. Shimon ben Gamliel.
(b) (R. Yochanan): He learns from "Hash-m will Yaft (beautify) Yefes and dwell in the tents of Shem" - the words (language) of Yefes (the father of Yavan) will be in the tents of Shem.
(c) Question: Perhaps this refers to Gomer and Magog (other children of Yefes)!
(d) Answer (R. Chiya bar Avin): "Yaft" refers to the most beautiful of Yefes.
(Also see the discussion on daf 18 about a Megillah written or read in Greek.)
If so, maybe the midrashic author indeed treats Greek with special sanctity.
However, I doubt it. Rather, the idea is that Scripture here was concealing something, which experts in expounding the Torah would be able to discover. And so yes, there was a Greek pun, which Hashem or Yaakov made here.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
LinkWithin
