Did הבתים transform into ויבן?

Summary: At first glance, it looks like Rashi miquoted a pasuk in Melachim. The Lubavitcher Rebbe explains the steps in its transformation, such that Rashi cited the pasuk correctly and scribes corrupted it. But perhaps Rashi never gave this pasuk as prooftext. I have a manuscript to back this idea up. Also, the prooftext is not very persuasive, since the midrash is speaking of the kingly and levite families, while the pasuk is speaking about physical structures, a palace and a Temple.

Post: I saw this interesting dvar Torah from the Lubavitcher Rebbe over Shabbos. Consider the following Rashi:

21. Now it took place when the midwives feared God, that He made houses for them.		כא. וַיְהִי כִּי יָרְאוּ הַמְיַלְּדֹת אֶת הָאֱלֹהִים וַיַּעַשׂ לָהֶם בָּתִּים:
He made houses for them: The houses of the priesthood, the Levitic family, and the royal family, which are called houses, as it is written: And he built the house of the Lord and the house of the king, (I Kings 9:1) [sic] 5, the priesthood and the Levitic family from Jochebed and the royal family from Miriam, as is stated in tractate Sotah (11b).		ויעש להם בתים: - בתי כהונה ולויה ומלכות שקרויין בתים. (ויבן) [הבתים] את בית ה' ואת בית המלך (מלכים א' ט א) (לקוטי שיחות חלק כ"א, ע' 2 הערה 29). כהונה ולויה מיוכבד, ומלכות ממרים, כדאיתא במסכת סוטה (סוטה יא ב):

The pasuk in sefer Melachim, 9:10, reads:

י  וַיְהִי, מִקְצֵה עֶשְׂרִים שָׁנָה, אֲשֶׁר-בָּנָה שְׁלֹמֹה, אֶת-שְׁנֵי הַבָּתִּים--אֶת-בֵּית ה, וְאֶת-בֵּית הַמֶּלֶךְ.

10 And it came to pass at the end of twenty years, wherein Solomon had built the two houses, the house of the LORD and the king's house--

so how could Rashi cite it as וַיִּבֶן אֶת-שְׁנֵי הַבָּתִּים--אֶת-בֵּית ה, וְאֶת-בֵּית הַמֶּלֶךְ? The Hebrew above refers to a sicha of the Lubavitcher Rebbe in which he explains that probably, initially Rashi cited the pasuk correctly. And so it said הַבָּתִּים. But then, Rashi would say the word בָּתִּים twice in a row. The second was written in short as הַבָּ'ש. Then, because heh sometimes looks in some manuscripts like a vav and a yud, some scribe reinterpreted it as a vav and yud, and interpreted the single quote at the end of the abbreviation to be an abbreviation for a nun sofit. Thus, habatim became vayiven.

This sounds possible.

Here are two other possibilities.

If we look at a ktav yad of Rashi from Rome, 1470, we don't see the offending misquotation of the pasuk. Instead, all we have is:

There is also no reference to specifically Masechet Sotah, as opposed to the gemara in general, or Masechet Megillah, which perhaps precedes, something which the Lubavitcher Rebbe also makes some diyukim about.

Now, earlier manuscripts from elsewhere do have the surrounding statements -- of בתי כהונה ולויה ומלכות שקרויין בתים. (ויבן) [הבתים] את בית ה' ואת בית המלך, and of כדאיתא במסכת סוטה. But I would suggest that these were the work of an overeager scribe, who inserted these 'helpful' comments into his Rashi text.

Indeed, the prooftext from sefer Melachim that the kingly and Levite family are called houses is not found in the gemara in Sotah. It offers other prooftexts to other aspects of the idea. Further, if we look at the pasuk in Melachim, it is talking about physical houses, namely the palace and the Bet Hamikdash. How in the world can it be a prooftext to the idea that The houses of the priesthood, the Levitic family, and the royal family, [...] are called houses? It seems like this was written by a talmid toeh, an erring student, rather than by Rashi himself. (A better proof would be, e.g. vayelech ish mibet Levi from elsewhere in Shemot, and maybe וְאֵת שֶׁבַע הַנְּעָרוֹת הָרְאֻיוֹת לָתֶת-לָהּ מִבֵּית הַמֶּלֶךְ from Esther perek 2.)

If so, it would not be so surprising if this erring student misquoted the pasuk in Melachim.

And it is not such a bad misquote, anyway. It gives the main gist of the pasuk, without being too verbose. Instead of the roundabout  אֲשֶׁר-בָּנָה שְׁלֹמֹה, אֶת-שְׁנֵי הַבָּתִּים--אֶת-בֵּית ה, וְאֶת-בֵּית הַמֶּלֶךְ, it communicates that someone built these houses. Say it is a minor rewording in place of an ellipses (...). Furthermore, look in the preceding perakim which discuss the building, and the word וַיִּבֶן  is indeed used. Thus, Melachim 6:1:

ט  וַיִּבֶן אֶת-הַבַּיִת, וַיְכַלֵּהוּ; וַיִּסְפֹּן אֶת-הַבַּיִת גֵּבִים, וּשְׂדֵרֹת בָּאֲרָזִים.

9 So he built the house, and finished it; and he covered in the house with planks of cedar over beams.

Chazal in the gemara often "misquote" pesukim. I've argued elsewhere that this was them following (and sometimes darshening) a Samaritan text. Other explanations are that the gemara, rather than the pasuk, was corrupted by scribal error (as was the Lubavitcher Rebbe's explanation of Rashi here). Another explanation is that they are deliberately misquoting the pasuk, for religious reasons, because of its status of Torah shebichtav.

Posts so far for parshat Vaera

Jan 2012

1. Vaera sources -- further expanded
   .
2. Darshening psiks in Vaera --  Or should that be munach legarmeihs? Two such vertical bars, and a distinction to be made between Moshe's description of what would be (Moshe hitting the water) and what was (Aharon hitting the water).
   .
3. YUTorah on parashat Vaera
   .
4. Should we translate כָּבֵד as אִתְיַקַּר or יַקִּיר, in Onkelos?  Some printers follow Rashi's emendation. But did he intend it as an emendation, or was he arguing with Onkelos?
   .
5. A Staff swallowing staffs, or a snake swallowing snakes?  A tradition like the peshat, that the snake swallowed snakes. Should we then reinterpret Rashi against what he says fairly plainly? No.
   .
6. Is marrying two sisters intrinsically or extrinsically obnoxious? We consider the perspective of Rashi (intrinsically), Ibn Ezra (based on the land), and Ibn Caspi (who rejects Ibn Ezra and gives a rationalist reason for the prohibition). I suggest that it is extrinsically bad, based on intent and social mores.

Dec 2010 - Jan 2011

1. When did the Bnei Yisrael say חֲדַל מִמֶּנּוּ? It makes sense, chronologically, that it would fall somewhere in Va'era. I explore some approaches which are open and closed canon to varying degrees.
   .
2. Va'era sources -- further expanded. For example, many more meforshei Rashi.
   .
3. Moshe makes a kal vachomer -- Considering the ten kal vachomers in the Torah (really, Tanach).
   .
4. Did Levi outlive Ephraim? This is unlikely. Rashi's mention of shevatim who died is perhaps imprecise -- he means Yosef's brothers, which would not include Ephraim and Menashe.
   .
5. Yocheved His Aunt, and the Length of the Servitude -- If Yocheved was literally Amram's aunt, it is difficult to make the servitude 210 years, and even more, 400 years. Relax this and you have more leeway. Rav Saadia Gaon and the Targum Hashiv'im give us this leeway.
   .
6. Who said 'I am the LORD'?  A silly change in Divine appellation, by Samaritan scribes, at the start of Vaera.
   .
7. Moshe, and Yonah's, reluctance --  A cute vort from Rav Yonasan Eibeshitz, reinterpreting the kal vachomer.
   .
8. How did the chartumim turn water to blood?  One possible suggestion, based on Shadal's approach. Plus, is magic real in general.
   .
9. The abomination of Egypt?   If so, how could Moshe Rabbenu say this to Pharaoh?
   .
10. A liver is the heart of Pharaoh --  So goes a midrash or two. What this may indicate in terms of whether Chazal literally saw the heart as the seat of the intellect.
    .
11. Rabbenu Bachya, Locusts, and Crocodiles --  Rabbenu Bachya has two fascinating explanations of pesukim regarding the makkos, and Moshe's removal of them. Unfortunately, at least one of them is demonstrably false.
    .
12. What was Arov?  Wild beasts, or vicious flies. What do Jewish sources say?
    .
13. What is meant by leimor in Vayikra 1:1? Zehu midrasho --  Further, does Rashi intend this as peshat or derash?
    .
14. One big frog -- did derash become peshat?   Just because Rashi lists one giant frog as derash and 'frog' as collective noun does not mean that he did not think both were historically true.

January 2010

1. Is the derivation of Putiel's name knowable? Can we know the derivation of the name Putiel? A four-way machlokes between Rashi, Ibn Ezra, Ibn Caspi, and Shadal reveals something about their methodology, and their approach to peshat..
2. Vaera sources - links to over 100 meforshim on the parsha and haftara.
   .
3. Was Pharaoh's heart hard, or did it become hard? Evaluating Rashi's emendation of Onkelos, from an itpa'el verb to an adjective, on the basis of the dikduk of the Hebrew word being translated.
   .
4. Getting Pharaoh to play ball -- What was Pharaoh doing at the bank of the Nile? Ibn Caspi visits Egypt, and emerges with some realia with which to understand the Biblical narrative. Also, a difference between peshat and derash..
5. Dodato as female first cousin -- An alternative way of translating dodato, from Rav Saadia Gaon and in the Septuagint, which eliminates a strong chronological difficulty in Yocheved and Moshe's birth.
   .
6. Spontaneous generation of frogs and lice -- Ibn Caspi, a Rishon, explains the workings of two of the plagues based on the scientific workings of spontaneous generation. This should be taken as additional evidence that Rishonim can be wrong in matters of science.
   .
7. How do we count the 430 years? Assuming we take the 430 years in Egypt literally how do we reckon it? Also, how the Samaritan Torah differs, and whether this is persuasive.
   .
8. Egyptian magic and barley seeds -- A short response to a DovBear post on Chumash, alas in error.
   .
9. Was Pinchas descended from Yisro or Yosef?  Or both? Should we indeed follow the gemara's harmonization? A study in Rashi, and in approaches to midrash aggada.

2009

1. Vaera sources -- links by aliyah and perek to a mikraos gedolos, and a whole slew of links to meforshim on the parashah and haftarah.
   .
2. 430 years or 210 years? -- and how Shadal feels compelled to say it was 430 years, and explains how the generations of Levi, Kehat, and Amram, span that time.
   .
3. Did the Egyptians dig, or did they dig for water? A minor difference which may manifest itself at the level of trup.

2008

1. Executing judgments against the gods of Egypt, or making use of the gods of Egypt in executing judgment.
   .
2. Were the ten plagues natural? An explanation of Shadal's take on the matter, which I decided to present in partial response to a complaint about a 2007 post about how the Egyptian magicians created frogs.
   .
3. How did one frog become many? An exploration of the themes in the midrashim.

2007

• Hashem's Great Pinky -- The meaning of the idiom "Etzba Elohim"
  .
• An Interesting Etymological Connection -- between French and Frogs
  .
• How Did The Egyptian Magicians Create Frogs? An interesting rationalist approach from Shadal, and one which just happens to work according to modern science. Plus, some good comments.
  .
• "And In You And In Your People" -- Hyperliteralism and Anagram -- What textual basis for the frogs going into people's intestines and croaking?
  .
• Ve'alu: Ascend or Upon? Two different parsings, and interpretations, of what the frogs did.

2006

• Did The Avot Not Know Shem Hashem?
• Yet many times through Bereishit the Shem YKVK is mentioned. There are all sorts of possible answers -- Moshe changed it after the fact, editorially, the Documentary Hypothesis solution, grammatical distrinctions, nodati vs. hodati, etc. In this post, I focus on names not just being names, but carrying very specific implications -- something we get a sense of from the text itself (and which Rashi mentions as well).
  Finally, two of my favorite dealings with this issue, from Tg Yonatan and Rashbam, in how they manage to reparse the pasuk. (And I always like reparsings.)

2005

• Spitting blood and whistling frogs: the tzadi - quf switchoff (2005)
• Two midrashim which I argue stem from a linguistic tzaddi -- quf switchoff. Thus, yishretzu becomes yishrequ, whistled, and thus the frog whisted in the process of yishretzu. Second, eretz mitzrayim becomes roq mitzrayim, and thus even their spittle turns to blood. More details in the post.
• Pharaoh's multivalent dreams (2005)
• Another way of interpreting Pharaoh's dreams -- as a fall from power, which finds fulfillment in this week's parsha.
• Why couldn't the magicians create lice? (2005)
• Daat Zekenim has an amusing answer. Just as we know by the story with Shimon ben Shetach and the witches, witchcarft draws power from the earth, but the plague had turned all the earth to lice!
• Ganymedes Copies Military Tactic From Hashem (2005)
• Depriving the Egyptians of their water supply. And Caesar responds the same way the Egyptians of old did, according to one way of reading the pesukim, and that they managed to circumvent the makkat dam.

2004

• All's Well That Ends Well (2004)
• Were the Egyptians successful in their attempt to get water by digging around the river? Or did these wells also produce blood? Targum Yonatan's textual insertion. Ibn Ezra's take, against Chazal, that they were indeed successful, and the ever-frum Avi Ezer's reaction to this (that it was a mistaken student, and not, chas veshalom, Ibn Ezra who wrote this). Plus, a connection to Yitzchak's wells, a homiletic lesson we may draw, and a joke.
• Why was Pharoah in de Nile? (2004)
• The textual source for Pharoah using the Nile as his bathroom. And a new reason -- to do magic on it. And how this fits in with the narrative. Both from Tg Yonatan.

to be continued...

A halachic condemnation of Facilitated Communication

Shirat Devorah has taken a comment of a commenter, Ephraim, and turned it into a post. It is about the lack of halachic justification for Facilitated Communication. An excerpt:

Now, the תשורת שי that I mentioned above already prohibits the practice of divining the future by means of a table of letters- even if children are involved. Certainly, that posek was aware that prophecy is found amongst children- and yet he forbade the practice anyway. Why? I suppose it's because of the methodology.

Indeed, having seen videos of Jewish facilitated communication, it is indeed like an Ouija board, with the facilitator grabbing the autistic's hand and making it point to various letters on a page, often with the autistic person closing his/her eyes and looking the other way. In both cases, the scientific explanation of the phenomenon is the ideomotor effect.

I don't know that pointing to a halachic condemnation of the practice, and trying to argue against the practice in this way, will succeed. Indeed, it sets the stage for counter-argument based on Rabbi X or Rabbi Y approving it. (For example, HaRav Hagaon Rav Nosson M. Wachtfogel, zt"l "approved" it. Of course, these folk only consider him HaRav HaGaon Rav because he supports a belief they want to believe; his haskama explains that he didn't read the darn book but he trusts the person who said it was good stuff -- just as Rav Chaim Kanievsky trusted others about Elior Chen's innocence and so signed onto a letter of support. And, of course, he he stresses one should not use it to practical end, but should rather follow rabbis, who are the leaders of klal Yisrael. The foolish people then take this as support for autistics as neviim that one should follow in practical matters, instead of following their rabbis.)

Maybe more on this later. For now, here is a rough translation of the teshuva. There were a few places I could not make sense of the words. Comments welcome in this, and other, regards.

The teshuva in question, from Rabbi Shlomo Yehuda Tabak (d. 5668),  follows. It regards the use of an Ouija board, and a planchette - a small three-legged 'table' positioned over the board, to point to the letters. See the image to the right so that you understand what the teshuva is describing.

"129: Question: A Jewish man came from Eretz Yisrael and fashioned for himself a small table upon three legs, and under the table is a tray or page upon which are written all the letters of the aleph-beis on one side, and upon the second side are the secular letters. And five children stand around him and rest their hands upon him. And Jews and gentiles go to him to ask of him the future, whether in matters of shidduchim or travels, and upon many similar matters. And he asks the question and the table lifts one of its legs and displays the letters to combine to arrive at the answer. And he works great wonders with the questioners, which are concealed from the eyes of the intellect. And I heard that he first goes to the mikveh and says a certain chapter of Tehillim, and that he says that this is a chochmah (a craft / science) and there is no magic or incantations involved. And that he learned this craft from a great Torah scholar and God-fearing individual, and that also, there, in Eretz Yisrael, great and holy tzadikim make use of this. And it appears that [Iyov 15:15] הֵן בִּקְדֹשָׁו לֹא יַאֲמִין, "Behold, He [Hashem] putteth no trust in His holy ones [these tzadikim]" since regardless, it is forbidden to ask [in this manner] because of [Devarim 18:13] תָּמִים תִּהְיֶה עִם ה אֱלֹקֶיךָ,  "Thou shalt be whole-hearted with the LORD thy God", as is stated in [Shulchan Aruch] Yoreh Deah at the beginning of siman 179.

However, there is to say that a single witness is believed in matters of prohibition [eid echad neeman be'issurin] to everyone, when the prohibition is not established [lo itchazik issura], and he is not invalidated because he causes others to stumble in the prohibition of  תָּמִים תִּהְיֶה, for this is not as stringent as one who performs acts of divination, and as is stated in Terumat Hadeshen in pesakim uchtavim [rulings and writings] siman 96. And further, people do not generally understand this to be prohibited, whereas divination everyone knows that it is prohibited.

However, this is difficult to believe, for I think that this is in the realm of kosem kesamim [engaging in divination], for there are many different sorts of divination  For the Rambam writes about it in one way, and the Semag [Sefer Mitzvot Gedolot] in another way, and Rabbeinu Yerucham wrote that they make points [?] in writing or in sand, and similar matters to this. And the intent is to say that that which is not [?] of the natural order and intellect is divination. Thus, these questioners [to the man with the Ouija board] are adding upon  תָּמִים תִּהְיֶה, the prohibition of 'put not a stumbling block before the blind' [causing someone else to sin] for divination is punished with lashes if they ask from a Jew.

And further, regarding how five children stand around him and rest their hands upon him, and that he also says beforehand some chapter of Tehillim, it seems that he is performing some act utilizing demons and is afraid lest they harm him, and as is states in Bet Yosef and Rama in Yoreh Deah siman 179, that most who engage [with them] do not go away from them in peace [unharmed]. And it is made clear in Bet Yosef, and in Shulchan Aruch, and in the Shach there, seif katan 120, that if he performs some act, it is prohibited. And in the language of Rabbeinu Yerucham, brought down in Bet Yosef, which is that if he takes something and using it performs some act, this is called an act of divination."

posts so far for parashat Shemot

2013

1. Shemot sources, 2013 edition.

2. YUTorah on parashat Shemot.

3. Why can't Moshe hit the water? How can we make sense of this ma'amar chazal? I think that just as you can't ask a kasha on a maaseh, you often can't ask a kasha on a midrash.

4. Did הבתים transform into ויבן? At first glance, it looks like Rashi miquoted a pasuk in Melachim. The Lubavitcher Rebbe explains the steps in its transformation, such that Rashi cited the pasuk correctly and scribes corrupted it. But perhaps Rashi never gave this pasuk as prooftext. I have a manuscript to back this idea up. Also, the prooftext is not very persuasive, since the midrash is speaking of the kingly and levite families, while the pasuk is speaking about physical structures, a palace and a Temple.

2012

1. Shemot sources, 2012 edition.

2. Why the dagesh in הַצְּפִינוֹ? And whether Ibn Ezra actually disagrees with the existence of the phenomenon. While our Ibn Ezra explains the phenomenon of the dagesh, Ohr Torah understands him as saying there is no dagesh!

3. Was the new king over Egypt from the zera hamelucha? Considering Ibn Ezra's fit of 'prophecy'. Ibn Ezra argues on midrash and Rashi, and asserts that the 'new' king means that the king was of a new dynasty. Abarbanel and Ibn Caspi question how Ibn Ezra can know this. We consider what the inputs can be to this peshat.

4. Why translate that Pharaoh did not *chakim* Yosef?  I disagree with the idea that Tg Yonasan is channeling Kli Yakar and saying that Pharaoh did not learn from Yosef's history. Rather, חכים simply means 'recognize' in Aramaic.

5. YUTorah on parashat Shemot.

6. Angels raising the Israelite children in Egypt -- In reply to an email from a regular reader: 

Hi,

I have a question about Shemot. My son told me that his Morah told his 1st grade class that when the Egyptians threw the boys into the Nile, melachim took the babies and raised them in a cave and then returned them to their parents.

Have you heard of this before? I can't seem to find any references to it . . . .

7. Thoughts on the Short Vort of Shemos, which is this:



For my thoughts on it, follow the link.

8. Is marrying two sisters intrinsically or extrinsically obnoxious? We consider the perspective of Rashi (intrinsically), Ibn Ezra (based on the land), and Ibn Caspi (who rejects Ibn Ezra and gives a rationalist reason for the prohibition). I suggest that it is extrinsically bad, based on intent and social mores.

2011

1. How did Moshe remove his shoes?  I saw this cute devar Torah the other day in aparsha sheet, about Hashem's instruction to Moshe to remove his sandals, at the burning bush. It is from Rav Chaim Kanievsky.
   .
2. The mercha kfula in parshas Shmini --  How shall we account for it? There is one towards the end of parashat Shemot as well.

December 2010

1. Shemot sources - further improved.
   .
2. The Targum on וְלֹא בְּיָד חֲזָקָה -- What was Rashi's original girsa of the Targum on Shemot 3:19?
   .
3. Why did Pharaoh target Jewish male infants?  Philo and Josephus, with Josephus giving the famous midrash about astrology. What was bothering Josephus?
   .
4. Did Pharaoh command the Egyptians to kill their own children?  So goes a midrash. Does peshat follow? To an extent, I think. Plus, how the Samaritans over-correct and so tip their hand.
   .
5. When did the Bnei Yisrael say חֲדַל מִמֶּנּוּ?  It makes sense, chronologically, that it would fall somewhere in Va'era. I explore some approaches which are open and closed canon to varying degrees.
   .
6. "Rasha! Lama Sakeh Rei'echa?!"  This week, from Junior's school.
   
   Q: When Moshe saw Datan and Aviram fighting, what did he call the man who was about to hit the other man?
   A: Rasha.
   
   My thoughts regarding this -- not exactly, though it seems a common misconception.
   .
7. Moshe killing the Egyptian, and Destiny --  In answer to a 'ponderousparsha point', of just what Moshe expected when looking into the future.
   .
8. Yocheved His Aunt, and the Length of the Servitude --  If Yocheved was literally Amram's aunt, it is difficult to make the servitude 210 years, and even more, 400 years. Relax this and you have more leeway. Rav Saadia Gaon and the Targum Hashiv'im give us this leeway.
   .

January 2010

1. The Gra on the trup of Vayemararu et Chayeihem -- There is a famous commentary by the Gra on the trup of Vayigash Elav Yehuda. Here is one on וימררו את חייהם, from parashat Shemot.
   This is actually part of a series of such posts I am doing right now, considering all of the Vilna Gaon's interpretations of trup, to try to deduce just how serious he intends them, among other things. Here is the "famous" one on Vayigash. And here are his comments on the trup of he`ashir lo yarbeh, on Ki Tisa. And here are his comments on asser taaser, in Reeh. And one of megillat Esther. And there is still more to come.
   .
2. Shemot sources -- links to over a hundred meforshim on the parsha and haftorah, plus links to an online Mikraos Gedolos by perek and aliyah.
   .
3. An exciting yet possibly nonexistent variant in the spelling of amatah -- Gur Aryeh come up with a variant masorah in order to defend the tradition, and so perhaps confuses Minchas Shai. I investigate, and take a tour of Rav Saadia Gaon's translation, Dunash Ibn Labrat's attack, Ibn Ezra's defense as well as commentary, and Mizrachi and Gur Aryeh's suggestion. Then an analysis, as to why I think Gur Aryeh's suggestion is rather unlikely.
   .
4. The repercussions of Moshe's oath -- Regarding a midrash that Moshe promised his first son would be dedicated to idolatry, and a midrash that the Levite priest by pesel Micha was Moshe's descendant. The Baal HaTurim seems to be dan a gezeira shava le'atzmo, something quite likely permitted for aggadah, though not for halacha. I investigate the background to this derasha. Also, what merited censorship in all this? Finally, considering and challenging Rav Chaim Kanievsky's take on this.
   .
5. How could Rashi say that animals don't need midwives?! -- Challenging a midrash, brought by Rashi, that animals don't need midwives. With an obvious, and not so obvious answer. But more deeply, what makes for a silly question, and what makes for a legitimate question, in Rashi studies?
   .
6. Why should Ibn Ezra assert that the word "Am" is not construct? Ibn Ezra has a seemingly strange comment, that in am benei Yisrael it is duplication, rather than construct form. What could compel this? I examine two reactions, and consider a semantic, rather than syntactic cause. Also, the trend across Tanach such that this is a common expression. Then, I consider that it just might be the influence of trup.
   .
7. The chronological problem in the saving of Moshe -- This chronological difficulty struck me (ouch!) when reading through parshat Shemot.
   .
8. What does ויעש להם בתים mean? To determine the peshat in this one phrase requires understanding of so much else in context. Namely, should we understand them as Hebrew midwives, or Egyptian midwives for the Hebrews? When they feared Elohim, was this Hashem or was it the local Egyptian deity? Were they individual midwives, or the heads of widwife guilds? And so on and so forth. This context will allow for different plausible answers to the question of just what vayaas lahem batim means.
   .

2009

1. Ramses vs. Raamses -- one as the land of Goshen, and the other as the treasure-city they built for Pharaoh. Cross-listed from Vaychi.
   .
2. The long-lived donkey -- how old was the donkey Moshe put his family on?
   .
3. Shemot sources -- useful for preparing the sedra: links to an online Mikraos Gedolos and meforshim on the parsha and haftara.
   .
4. 6 in one birth? Discussing Rashi's source, and Shemot Rabba's source for this midrashic claim; how Ibn Ezra partially endorses it based on contemporary science; an explication just what that contemporary science was; how Ibn Ezra and Rashbam cope with the multiple languages of fecundity, and how I would; then, how multiple births shorten term, and how we might read that into midrash and pesukim. And more.
   .
5. Six in one womb simultaneously, or sequentially? Considering a suggestion / theory by Rabbi Medan that when Chazal said 6 in one womb, they meant it sequentially over the woman's entire lifetime -- and this as a part of a response to Shadal about chronology and generations in Egypt. I don't think it fits well with Chazal intent in the midrash, and so we would be sacrificing one maamar Chazal to save another.
   .
6. What are the evil diseases of Egypt? On Ekev, Shadal discusses a malady particular to Egypt of elephantiasis. And while Shadal does not make the connection, Pliny notes that when it affected the kings of Egypt, they treated it by tempering their sitting-baths with human blood. Which then fits well with the famous midrash.
   .
7. Is the three-fold ambiguity of  וְרַב יַעֲבֹד צָעִיר deliberate? Early theories of multi-valence -- really focused on parshat Toledot, but long the way I discuss the ambiguity inherent in Moshe's killing of the Egyptian taskmaster.

2007

1. Who Made "Houses" From Whom? And Why? A rundown of the many different explanations of this ambiguous phrase, and how it connects to the context.
   .
2. The Age of Trup -- from Shadal's Vikuach Al Chochmat haKabbalah, the beginning of a discussion of how old trup is, and how old the orthography of trup is. With implications as to whether a parshan can argue on trup and nikkud. Here, he claims Rashi does so on occasions, and gives examples. But also that Rashi at times brings proof from trup and nikkud. The pasuk from Shemot, of stretching out her hand (see next post on Shemot) is such an example, where Rashi states that the peshat must be maidservant, because of the nikkud on "amata."
   
   Also see Rabbenu Bachya on the same.
   .
3. Why Did The Daughter of Pharaoh Stretch Out Her Hand? If it was so many cubits away? The Lubavitcher Rebbe gives an answer, which I think may well accord with the peshat of the midrash. Plus a comment section.
   .
4. Vayifen Ko vaCho -- Why Did Moshe Look Around? I suggest it is to see if anyone else will intervene. Plus, some comments.

2006

1. The Dangers of Midrashim? A Fisking -- discussing, in part, whether the daughter of Pharaoh's hand really extended several cubits, and what to make of a midrash which says it did.
   .
2. Finally Arriving in Egypt -- How could parshat Shemot say they arrived in Egypt when they already did in sefer Bereishit? This is no question on a peshat level. However, the midrash answers that they began to feel the oppression with the death of Yosef. I show how this midrash shows a sensitivity to theme in the text of the parsha. Finally, I reiterate my explanation of habaim mitzrayma that may well clarify a several difficult chronological/genealogical points.

2005

• Vav HaChibbur vs. Vav HaHippuch And How It Applies To וְאֵלֶּה שְׁמוֹת
• Hirhurim had a question about the statement that that sefer Shemot is unique in that it leads off with a vav, showing several other seforim that do the same. The answer is grammatical - va does not (need) mean "and," but most often just transforms what would otherwise be an imperfect into the perfect (past tense). I go through each instance, demonstrating this.

Dec 2004

1. Who Was Chovav? Who Was Yitro? And Who Was Moshe's Father-in-law? In this post on parshat Behaalotecha, I consider these questions. It is not at all clear that these were all alternate names for the same person. See various resolutions.
   .
2. Vayakam Melech Chadash Al Mitzrayim -- Besides the standard "and a new king arose over Egypt," there are at least three other parses and translations, depending on whether vayakam is transitive or intransitive, whether it means "arose" or "enacted," whether chadash modifies king or arose. It could mean that Pharaoh decreed new decrees on Egypt which did not recognize Yosef. This is the dispute between Rav and Shmuel, cited by Rashi. It could be that the (same) king rose anew over Egypt (the view of the Rabanan). It could mean that a new counsel (melech) was established over Egypt, which fits well with the pasuk as fits in with some midrash as well.
   .
3. Who were Shifra and Puah? A relatively unknown identification alternative to Miriam as the second midwife.
   .
4. Pharaoh the Leper -- In association with the post above about Vayakam Melech Chadash, I point out one midrashic motivation for saying that Pharaoh did not die -- in that the pasuk says a new king arose but does not state that he died.. Another pasuk that states that the Pharaoh died is interpreted as not that he died but was struck with leprosy. Parallels to two other kings struck with leprosy, Uzziya and Pharaoh, where the former is also an instance in which leprosy = death. Also a suggestion that וַיָּמָת מֶלֶךְ מִצְרַיִם is parsed as if the word was metzora'im, lepers, such that "the king died the death of lepers."

Jan 2004

1. Moshe/Kayin parallels, and the midrashic vs. pshat narrative -- Two murders, but the one perpetrated by Moshe is good. And in both instances, the matter becomes known. Both murderers must go into exile, and the ground plays a role in concealing the deed. Parallel focus on potential descendants of the murdered. Plus a non-contradiction between two midrashim about the Egyptian's descendants, or lack thereof.
   
   Finally, a distinction between the theme and mood of the narrative within the peshat and within the drash retelling.
   .
2. Multivalence -- With the famous example of who echav is that Moshe goes out to -- the Egyptians or the Israelites?
   .
3. Shifra & Puah == Yocheved & Miriam? Shifra actually appears on a list of Egyptian slave names from the 18th century. Are these midwives Egyptians who cater to Israelites, or are they Israelites themselves. Plus why the midrash equates them with Shifra and Puah. Plus a possible textual derivation I propose, doubling to mem to make miyaldei haIvrim, about Moshe, become mimeyaldei haIvrim. See inside. And a precedent for such doubling.
   .
4. A Bunch of Chayos! And how to translate it -- animals, midwives, intelligent...
   .
5. The derivation of Moshe's name -- The one given in the pasuk, and the one offered by some Biblical scholars. And my analysis of the overall picture, such that the one offered by some Biblical scholars is not really compelling (IMHO).
   .
6. Moshe's Name -- cross-listed from Vayikra, 2005. An expansion on the above.

to be continued...

Shemot sources -- 2013 edition

by aliyah

rishon (Shemos 1:1)

sheni (1:18)

shlishi (2:11)

revii (3:1)

chamishi (3:16)

shishi (4:18)

shvii (5:1)

maftir (5:22)

haftara (Yeshaya 27:6)

by perek

perek 1 ; perek 2 ; perek 3 ; perek 4 ; perek 5

perek 6

meforshim

R' Saadia Gaon(882-942) -- see Wikipedia entry:

1. Arabic translation of Torah,  here at Temanim.org. This is a beautiful PDF, with the Chumash text, Rashi, Onkelos, and Rav Saadia's Tafsir. All of these have nikkud, which is a very nice feature. It also designates the Temani and standard aliyah breaks, and two commentaries, Shemen HaMor and Chelek HaDikduk, on the kriyah, trup, nikkud, and dikduk, on the basis of Yemenite manuscripts, which would be worthwhile even absent the other features. Quite excellent, overall.
2. The same Arabic translation, the Tafsir,  here at Google books. No nikkud, Chumash text, Rashi, or Onkelos. But there is a brief supercommentary by Yosef Direnburg at the bottom of each page. 
3. Collected commentary of Saadia Gaon on Torah, selected from the writings of various Rishonim and from his commentaries on other works.

Ibn Janach (Spain, 990-1050) -- see Wikipedia entry

Rishonim (11th - 15th centuries)

Not really Abarbabel

Judaica Press Rashi in English and Hebrew (France, 1040 - 1105) -- ואני לא באתי אלא לפשוטו של מקרא ולאגדה המיישבת דברי המקרא, דבר דבור על אופניו

Chizkuni (France, 13th century) -- see Wikipedia  

Daat -- with Rashi, Ramban, Seforno, Ibn Ezra, Rashbam, Rabbenu Bachya, Midrash Rabba, Tanchuma+, Gilyonot 

Rashbam (France, 1085-1158) -- see Wikipedia 

1. Here (and here), in a printed text, collected and corrected from printed texts and manuscripts, with citations and brief supercommentary by David Rosen.
2. At Daat, color coded and copy-pasteable.

Abarbanel (Portugal, Italy, 1437-1508) -- see Wikipedia -- there is a section on his exegesis 

Baal HaTurim (Germany, Spain, 1269-1343) -- see Wikipedia entry:

1. Baal Haturim -- short, consisting of gematriot and the like
2. Baal Haturim (HaAruch), consisting of perushim, often drawn from Ramban
3. Torat Hatur -- when the Tur (in his halachic work) cites pesukim from this parasha. Not very helpful, IMHO. Though the supercommentary on the Tur on the bottom is nice.

Rabbenu Ephraim -- (France, 12th and 13th century) -- see Jewish Encyclopedia entry --  "He was the author of "Perush 'al ha-Torah," which consists chiefly of gemaṭria and "noṭariḳon." He largely followed Eleazar of Worms."

Rabbi Yosef Ibn Caspi -- (Provence, Egypt and elsewhere, 1279-140) -- A pashtan and rationalist Jewish philosopher. References Rambam, Ibn Ezra, and Abarbanel. He also focuses on dikduk and trup. See Wikipedia entry.

1. Ibn Caspi  -- in Mishneh Kesef, volume 2 -- a running commentary with generally short comments on pesukim, though with occasional long discourses.
2. Ibn Caspi - Tirat Kesef -- lengthy discourses on philosophical points raised in the parsha.
3. His supercommentary on Ibn Ezra, different from his commentary (here and here)  explaining the sodot of Ibn Ezra

Ralbag (France, 1288 - 1344) -- medieval Jewish philosopher. See Wikipedia

R' Shlomo Ibn Gabirol

Ibn Gabirol -- not until Bo -- (Spain, 1040-1058) -- see Wikipedia

R' Yosef Bechor Shor (France, 12th century). See Wikipedia entry. Student of Rabbenu Tam. "Even more than Rashi, to whose exegetical school he belonged, he confined himself to literal interpretations (peshat). Anticipating later Biblical criticism, he assumed the presence of duplicate narratives in the Bible, and he strove to give rational explanations to the miraculous stories."

Meiri -- (Catalan, 1249 – 1310) -- see Wikipedia entry. This is a collected commentary, culled from his other works.

Rabbenu Yonah -- not until Bo -- (Catalan, died 1263) -- see Wikipedia

Seforno (Italy, 1475-1550) -- see Wikipedia

Sefer Zikaron of Ritva -- not until Yitro --(Spain, 1250–1330) -- see Wikipedia

Tzror Hamor -- "containing interpretations according to both the ordinary sense and the mystical method of the Zohar" -- Rabbi Avraham Sabba (Spain, Portugal, 1440-1508) -- see Wikipedia