Was Timna a son, a concubine, or both?

Summary: The trup and Divrei Hayamim parse a pasuk in Vayishlach in divergent ways. Rishonim harmonize. And Chizkuni (and Birkas Avraham) darshen a munach legarmeih as a pesik to bolster the multivalent reading of the pasuk.

Post: Consider the following pesukim in Vayishlach, perek 36:

11. The sons of Eliphaz were Teman, Omar, Zepho, Gaatam, and Kenaz.		יא. וַיִּהְיוּ בְּנֵי אֱלִיפָז תֵּימָן אוֹמָר צְפוֹ וְגַעְתָּם וּקְנַז:
12. And Timna was a concubine to Eliphaz, son of Esau, and she bore to Eliphaz, Amalek. These are the sons of Adah, the wife of Esau.		יב. וְתִמְנַע הָיְתָה פִילֶגֶשׁ לֶאֱלִיפַז בֶּן עֵשָׂו וַתֵּלֶד לֶאֱלִיפַז אֶת עֲמָלֵק אֵלֶּה בְּנֵי עָדָה אֵשֶׁת עֵשָׂו:

Thus, Timna was female, and she is the actor of the action וַתֵּלֶד לֶאֱלִיפַז. Who is this Timna? Rashi identifies it with the female Timna a few pesukim later, who was the sister of Lotan. Thus, the daughter of one of the chieftains was willing to be a mere concubine to Elifaz. Thus, pasuk 22, perhaps about the same Timna:

22. The sons of Lotan were Hori and Hemam, and the sister of Lotan was Timna.

כב. וַיִּהְיוּ בְנֵי לוֹטָן חֹרִי וְהֵימָם וַאֲחוֹת לוֹטָן תִּמְנָע:

However, complicating this is a pasuk in I Divrei Hayamim 1:36:

לו  בְּנֵי, אֱלִיפָז--תֵּימָן וְאוֹמָר צְפִי וְגַעְתָּם, קְנַז וְתִמְנָע וַעֲמָלֵק.  {ס}

36 The sons of Eliphaz: Teman, and Omar, Zephi, and Gatam, Kenaz, and Timna, and Amalek. {S}

which lists Timna as one of the sons of Elifaz, one seemingly not mentioned in Vayishlach, if we accept our pasuk divisions.

a) A resolution of this contradiction is that the trup division is incorrect. Don't seize upon the Timna of pasuk 22. Rather, in pasuk 11, Timna is the last of Elifaz's sons. And pasuk 12 begins הָיְתָה פִילֶגֶשׁ לֶאֱלִיפַז, that there was an unnamed concubine to Elifaz, and she bore to Elifaz Amalek.

b) Another possible resolution of this contradiction is that the trup got it right, but that the author of Divrei Hayamim parsed the pasuk in Bereshit in a different way. Bereishit is the primary source and Divrei Hayamim is simply trying to retell the story. And while written with Ruach haKodesh, perhaps that does not mean that it is free of the possibility of error in interpreting Bereishit.

c) Or, perhaps we might find way for both to simultaneously be true.

Chizkuni writes:

"And Timna was a concubine: And in Divrei HaYamim, it is implied that Timna was a male. Therefore, one needs to say that there were two Timnas, one male and one female. Just as we find in Divrei HaYamim. For the Timna of here was the sister of Lotan (pasuk 22), while the Timna of Divrei HaYamim was male, and was the son of Elifaz. 


And still, the "Timna" of here refers to both of them, and therefore, there is a trup of psik between ותמנע and the word היתה. And this is what it means to say: The sons of Elifaz were Teman, Omar, Zepho, Gaatam, Kenaz and Timna the female was the concubine of Elifaz.


And a parallel to this is written in Sefer Yehoshua (13:7)

ז  וְעַתָּה, חַלֵּק אֶת-הָאָרֶץ הַזֹּאת בְּנַחֲלָה--לְתִשְׁעַת הַשְּׁבָטִים; וַחֲצִי, הַשֵּׁבֶט הַמְנַשֶּׁה.	7 Now therefore divide this land for an inheritance unto the nine tribes, and the half-tribe of Manasseh.'
ח  עִמּוֹ, הָראוּבֵנִי וְהַגָּדִי, לָקְחוּ, נַחֲלָתָם--אֲשֶׁר נָתַן לָהֶם מֹשֶׁה, בְּעֵבֶר הַיַּרְדֵּן מִזְרָחָה, כַּאֲשֶׁר נָתַן לָהֶם, מֹשֶׁה עֶבֶד ה.	8 With him the Reubenites and the Gadites received their inheritance, which Moses gave them, beyond the Jordan eastward, even as Moses the servant of the LORD gave them;

and one needs to say that the "half tribe of Menasheh" works both with what comes before and after. 
{J: I think because there are different half-tribes of Menashe referred to in pasuk 7 and 7.}

What is this pesik of which Chizkuni speaks? Let us see:

It is the one in the first word of the pasuk. Note, however, that this vertical bar after ותמנע is not strictly a pesik. Rather, it joins with the munach sign under ותמנע to designate the munach as munach legarmeih, a disjunctive trup rather than a conjunctive trup. Thus, there is a revii on the word פילגש. In this instance, geresh could have stood, but often, munach legarmeih takes its place, in particular where the word standing between it and the word marked with revii is short. See Wickes on this, here. Thus, this is not a pesik, and we should not necessarily treat it as a pesik to resolve our difficulty.

Note that this is the same point I repeatedly challenge Birkas Avraham upon. Indeed, as we shall see later in this post, he advances the same argument here, and cites authorities who advanced it before him. So he certainly has those upon whom to rely. That does not mean that I will not still disagree.

Rashbam writes:

פסוק יב 
ותמנע היתה פלגש - ראיתי בשוחר טוב: 
ותמנע מחובר גם לפסוק העליון שכן בדברי הימים: צפי וגעתם וקנז ותמנע ועמלק. ואח"כ הוא אומר בבני שעיר: ואחות לוטן תמנע. דוגמת אחות נביות. 
אחות אהרן כמו שפירשתי. 
[וכן כאן ויהיו בני אליפז תימן אומר צפו וגעתם וקנז ותמנע]. 

ותמנע היתה פילגש - הראשון זכר מבני אליפז והשני נקבה. ואחות לוטן תמנע. 
וכמוהו ביהושע ועתה חלק את הארץ הזאת בנחלה לתשעת השבטים וחצי השבט המנשה עמו הראובני והגדי לקחו נחלתם אשר נתן להם משה בעבר הירדן מזרחה. על כורחך פסוק שני חסר ממנו, כי היה לו לומר וחצי שבט המנשה כבר לקחו נחלתם, לפיכך יש לומר כי פסוק זה עולה על סוף הפסוק, שכתוב בו: וחצי שבט המנשה, אף על פי שמדברים הפסוקים בשני חצאי שבט מנשה, לאחד מהם חילק משה ולשני חילק יהושע. 

ואני שמואל מצאתי פסוק שלישי בדברי הימים דוגמתן במשפחות בני יהונתן בן שאול.
ובני מיכה פיתון ומלך ותארע ואחז. ואחז הוליד את יהועדה ויהועדה הוליד את עלמת וגו' ואותה פרשה נשנית וכפולה בתוך דף אחר, תחילת הפרשה אשר נשניתובגבעון ישבו וסוף הפרשה אלה בני אצל. 
וכתיב: ובני מיכה פיתון ומלך ותחרע. ואחז הוליד וגו'. בעל כורחך חסר ואחז מפסוק זה שהיה לו לכתוב ותחרע ואחז ואחז הוליד, אלא שתיבת ואחז הוליד עולה על פסוק שלמעלה, כאילו כתוב ובני מיכה פיתון ומלך ותחרע ואחז ואחז הוליד וגו' שכך כתוב בפרשה ראשונה. 

which is basically the same. He brings in a third pasuk to demonstrate that this pattern exists. And for the explanation, he credits Midrash Socher Tov.

See also what Ramban writes, at length. He cites what others say. Thus, he cites Rashi's explanation in Divrei HaYamim, which would make the Timna in Divrei Hayamim into a daughter. And he analyses it.

Here is what Ramban labels as derech hapeshat:
ועל דרך הפשט יש לחשוב בו, כי תמנע פילגש אליפז אחרי לידתה את עמלק ילדה בן, ותקש בלדתה ותמת, ותקרא את שמו תמנע בעבור הזכיר שמה. ואביו אליפז קרא לו קרח, ולא הזכיר הכתוב הבן הזה לתמנע אמו כדי שלא יאריך, כי הכונה הייתה למנות עמלק בפני עצמו. אבל בני אליפז, שבעה היו. ומנה הכתוב האלופים דרך מעלתם, על כן הקדים קנז וקרח לגעתם:

"And by way of peshat there is to think about it that Timna, the concubine of Elifaz, after she bore Amalek birthed a son, and had difficulty in her birth and died, and she called his name Timna in order to make her name remembered. And his father Elifaz called him Korach, and the Scriptures did not mention this son to Timna his mother, so as not to go on at length, for the intent was to list Amalek by himself. But the sons of Elifaz, there were seven. And the Scriptures listed the alufim in order of their greatness; therefore Kenaz and Korach preceded Gaatam."

Here is what Ramban further states:

ואני עוד סובר בכתוב הזה מה שאמרו רבותינו בשלשים ושתים מדות (מדה יא): שהאגדה נדרשת, אמרו סדור היה ראוי להיות אלא שנחלק, שנאמר (דהי"ב ל יח): כי מרבית העם וכו'. וגם רודפי הפשט יאמרו כן בפסוקים אחרים. וכן זה יאמר בני אליפז תימן אומר צפו וגעתם וקנז ותמנע. וחזר ואמר הייתה פילגש לאליפז בן עשו ותלד לאליפז את עמלק, ולא הזכיר שם הפילגש. והאמת שהיא אחות לוטן תמנע, והיא הסבה שלא הזכיר שמה, כי לא רצה לאמר שני פעמים ותמנע לזכר ולנקבה:
והנה בני אליפז שבעה, והם האלופים הנזכרים לו, אבל החליפו שם זה הקטן בעבור היות שמו כשם הפילגש, שלא יחשב כבנה, וקראוהו קרח בעלותו למעלת אלוף:

"And I further think about this verse that which our Sages said in the 32 middot (middah 11) by which aggadah is darshened: It should have been in order but it was divided, as is stated (II Divrei HaYamim 30:18)

יח  כִּי מַרְבִּית הָעָם רַבַּת מֵאֶפְרַיִם וּמְנַשֶּׁה יִשָּׂשכָר וּזְבֻלוּן, לֹא הִטֶּהָרוּ--כִּי-אָכְלוּ אֶת-הַפֶּסַח, בְּלֹא כַכָּתוּב:  כִּי הִתְפַּלֵּל יְחִזְקִיָּהוּ עֲלֵיהֶם לֵאמֹר, ה הַטּוֹב יְכַפֵּר בְּעַד.

18 For a multitude of the people, even many of Ephraim and Manasseh, Issachar and Zebulun, had not cleansed themselves, yet did they eat the passover otherwise than it is written. For Hezekiah had prayed for them, saying: 'The good LORD pardon

And also those who chase the peshat say this in other pesukim. And so this is like: 'The sons of Eliphaz were Teman, Omar, Zepho, Gaatam, Kenaz, and Timna.' And it returned and said that there was a concubine of Elifaz son of Esav, and she bore Amalek to Elifaz, and it did not mention the name of the concubine. And the truth is that she was {indeed} the sister of Lotan, Timna, and this was the reason that it did not mention her name, for it did not wish to state two times 'And Timna', for a male and a female.


And behold, the sons of Elifaz were seven, and these were the alufim mentioned regarding him, but they switched the name of the youngest since his name was the name of the concubine, so that he should not be considered as her son, and they called him Korach when he ascended to the status of Aluf."

I recall this pasuk and Ramban from Shadal's Vikuach al Chochmat HaKabbalah. In what I label part iv of his discussion of the age of trup, he notes that though Ramban will often heed the trup and nikkud, he still will diverge from the trup on occasion. Thus, as one of several examples Shadal provides:

And so too he reads {in Vayishlach, in Bereishit 36:11-12}

יא וַיִּהְיוּ, בְּנֵי אֱלִיפָז--תֵּימָן אוֹמָר, צְפוֹ וְגַעְתָּם וּקְנַז.	11 And the sons of Eliphaz were Teman, Omar, Zepho, and Gatam, and Kenaz.
יב וְתִמְנַע הָיְתָה פִילֶגֶשׁ, לֶאֱלִיפַז בֶּן-עֵשָׂו, וַתֵּלֶד לֶאֱלִיפַז, אֶת-עֲמָלֵק; אֵלֶּה, בְּנֵי עָדָה אֵשֶׁת עֵשָׂו.	12 And Timna was concubine to Eliphaz Esau's son; and she bore to Eliphaz Amalek. These are the sons of Adah Esau's wife.

as:
וַיִּהְיוּ, בְּנֵי אֱלִיפָז--תֵּימָן אוֹמָר, צְפוֹ וְגַעְתָּם וּקְנַז וְתִמְנַע = "And the sons of Eliphaz were Teman, Omar, Zepho, and Gatam, and Kenaz, and Timna,"
and afterwards the verse
הָיְתָה פִילֶגֶשׁ, לֶאֱלִיפַז בֶּן-עֵשָׂו, וַתֵּלֶד לֶאֱלִיפַז, אֶת-עֲמָלֵק; אֵלֶּה, בְּנֵי עָדָה אֵשֶׁת עֵשָׂו = "There was concubine to Eliphaz Esau's son; and she bore to Eliphaz Amalek. These are the sons of Adah Esau's wife."
And it does not elaborate upon the name of the concubine.
{And thus he ignores the pasuk division.}

When I first encountered this proof within Shadal, I did not take the time to learn Ramban carefully inside. One could take issue with Shadal's assertion, since the way he states it, it seems as if Ramban rejects the idea that Timna is a concubine, and thus argues on the trup. In truth, even as he argues on the trup, Ramban agrees with the conclusions of the trup, that Timna was the name of the concubine. He certainly argues with the trup on a "peshat" level, by saying that the intent of the two pesukim was to list Timna as a son, and to omit the name of the concubine. But still, since he does not reject the conclusions of the meaning conveyed by the trup, he could perhaps relegate the trup to conveying information in parallel, on a midrashic level. Yet, even if one could say this, Shadal still has a point, that Ramban is saying that one should parse the pesukim against the trup.

Let us consider Birkas Avraham:

I followed, and presented, many of his sources in the text above. He does not mention Chizkuni, but only Rashbam. And so, he makes the suggestion based on the psik by himself. And then he discovers that someone else offers a proof to Rashbam based on the same pesik. Namely, he cites the Sefer HaGan (presumably by Rabbi Aaron ben Yossi Ha-Cohen, of Northern France, around 1240). Chizkuni, as well, was in the 13th century.

See also the discussion in Haksav veHakabbalah here, at the start of perek 36.

_________________________________________

At the end of the day, I do think that the trup and Divrei Hayamim are at odds. And I side more with the trup, though I see the legitimacy of Divrei Hayamim's reading. I don't think we should harmonize, or bring in the Timna from pasuk 22. This could be somewhat problematic to those (Rishonim) who attribute both the trup and Divrei Hayamim to Ezra haSofer. Surely Ezra would not contradict himself.

The incident with Reuven and Bilhah, in light of Divrei Hayamim and the Code of Hamurabbi

Summary: The Torah's recording of the incident in Vayishlach is terse, and Chazal interpret it in two ways. And the seeming reference to the incident in Yaakov's blessing in Vaychi is cryptic. But Divrei Hayamim expands upon it. Plus, there is a fascinating parallel in the Code of Hamurabbi that sheds excellent light on the matter.

Post: In parashat Vayishlach, we read of a disturbing event:

22. And it came to pass when Israel sojourned in that land, that Reuben went and lay with Bilhah, his father's concubine, and Israel heard [of it], and so, the sons of Jacob were twelve.

כב. וַיְהִי בִּשְׁכֹּן יִשְׂרָאֵל בָּאָרֶץ הַהִוא וַיֵּלֶךְ רְאוּבֵן וַיִּשְׁכַּב אֶת בִּלְהָה פִּילֶגֶשׁ אָבִיו וַיִּשְׁמַע יִשְׂרָאֵל פ וַיִּהְיוּ בְנֵי יַעֲקֹב שְׁנֵים עָשָׂר:

Simple peshat is that Reuven actually had sexual relations with her, but Chazal are divided on the issue. Some interpret the pasuk to mean that he moved Yaakov's bed from Bilhah's tent. (And thus, as I would read it, he caused Bilhah to sleep.)

It would appear that in the blessing / prophecy Yaakov offers at the end of his life, he makes reference to this event. Thus,

3. Reuben, you are my firstborn, my strength and the first of my might. [You should have been] superior in rank and superior in power.		ג. רְאוּבֵן בְּכֹרִי אַתָּה כֹּחִי וְרֵאשִׁית אוֹנִי יֶתֶר שְׂאֵת וְיֶתֶר עָז:
4. [You have] the restlessness of water; [therefore,] you shall not have superiority, for you ascended upon your father's couch; then you profaned [Him Who] ascended upon my bed.		ד. פַּחַז כַּמַּיִם אַל תּוֹתַר כִּי עָלִיתָ מִשְׁכְּבֵי אָבִיךָ אָז חִלַּלְתָּ יְצוּעִי עָלָה:

This may be translated and interpreted in a number of ways, including that Reuven actually slept with Bilhah and that he merely moved the beds.

But, aside from this, this is Biblical poetry, and is more than a little cryptic. Pachaz Kamayim etc. does not explicitly mean what the Judaica Press translation offers above, in square brackets. Rather, it is reading ideas into the text, quite possibly correctly. My point is that it is ambiguous and so there are a number of different possible readings.

Ibn Ezra explains what it means at length (see inside), but closes with the statement
וזאת הפרשה מפורשת בדברי הימים ובחללו יצועי אביו ואמר על יהודה שהוא הנגיד והבכורה ליוסף. 
that this parasha is explained in Divrei haYamim, with ובחללו יצועי אביו, that it stated regarding Yehuda that he would be the ruler, while the birthright (though not genealogical status of firstborn) was to go to Yosef.

We see this in Divrei Hayamim I, 5:1-2:

א  וּבְנֵי רְאוּבֵן בְּכוֹר-יִשְׂרָאֵל, כִּי הוּא הַבְּכוֹר--וּבְחַלְּלוֹ יְצוּעֵי אָבִיו, נִתְּנָה בְּכֹרָתוֹ לִבְנֵי יוֹסֵף בֶּן-יִשְׂרָאֵל; וְלֹא לְהִתְיַחֵשׂ, לַבְּכֹרָה.	1 And the sons of Reuben the first-born of Israel--for he was the first-born; but, forasmuch as he defiled his father's couch, his birthright was given unto the sons of Joseph the son of Israel, yet not so that he was to be reckoned in the genealogy as first-born.
ב  כִּי יְהוּדָה גָּבַר בְּאֶחָיו, וּלְנָגִיד מִמֶּנּוּ; וְהַבְּכֹרָה, לְיוֹסֵף.  {ס}	2 For Judah prevailed above his brethren, and of him came he that is the prince; but the birthright was Joseph's-- {S}

This is a case of intra-biblical interpretation, in which one Biblical author interprets verses from elsewhere in Tanach. With the phrase  ובחללו יצועי אביו, there is clear reference to Yaakov's blessing. And he makes clear that this is a loss of certain advantages Reuven had as firstborn, which are being transferred to other brothers.

I believe that the Code of Hammurabi (learned by Yaakov in the Yeshiva Shem v'Eiver as the sayings of Rabbi Chammu) cam shed light on this. Why should the penalty for sleeping with his father's pilegesh be this loss of paternal inheritance?

See the Code of Hammurabi, law 158. People translate it in more and less expansive ways. Here are two renderings of it:

158. If a free man has sexual relations with his father's first wife, who is the mother of sons, after the death of his father, that man shall lose his paternal inheritance.

158. If any one be surprised after his father with his chief wife, who has borne children, he shall be driven out of his father's house.

As I understand it, "surprised" means caught in the act, in flagrante delicto, such that there is no room for doubt. "After his father" is all that is said, but it is understood to mean after his father's death. (Otherwise, wouldn't this merit the death penalty?) Note that this is the chief wife, rather than a second wife, a concubine, or a sexual slave. And even there, it is the chief wife who has borne children, such that she retains this status of mother of his father's children after the father's death.

Obviously, this is not 100% parallel to Reuven and Bilhah, but there are remarkable similarities, such that one could envision a local law code covering his case. Reuven was not caught with Bilhah in the act. Rather, וַיִּשְׁמַע יִשְׂרָאֵל, Yisrael heard of it. That should potentially make the penalty less. Yet it was during his father's lifetime, which should make the penalty greater. Yet, this was not with a chief-wife who had borne offspring -- it was a concubine, or a slave given by Rachel to Yaakov for the purpose of procreating. That she is a pilegesh might well lessen the offense, in this pre-Mosaic law.

The end result is that Reuven loses aspects of his inheritance, or if you will, the bechora status of his inheritance over that of his other brothers. A fitting punishment, given local laws.

We thus see that Yaakov Avinu held by the dina d'malchusa.

Was Nadav, or Aharon, the firstborn?

In parshat Bemidbar Sinai, there is some interesting trup on a pasuk, which Baal HaTurim comments on. In Bemidbar 3:2, we have the pasuk, and trup, pictured to the right. Note the vertical line right after the word habbechor. What is the meaning of this line? Why not just say that the bechor was Nadav??

The Baal Haturim picks up on this, and he writes what is pictured to the right. Namely, that there is a pasek between habechor and Nadav, to say that it does not refer to Nadav. For Nadav died without children, and there was no purpose to his bechora. Rather, it refers to Aharon, who was the bechor compared to Moshe. (This despite Miriam presumably being older than either.)

Meshech Chochmah cites this Baal HaTurim approvingly, and extends it.

I am not certain how to take this Baal HaTurim. Does he mean this on the level of peshat or derash? Is he claiming that this is the intent of the author of the trup (whether that author is Hashem, or some parshan)? Is he saying this to the exclusion of any other explanation the Baal HaTeamim puts forth? Depending on the answer, I either would view it as a nice and cute derasha or an incorrect peshat.

I can confirm that it is actually a pasek. Even though the trup on the word preceding is a munach, this is not an instance of munach legarmeh (which is orthographically identical). For a munach legarmeih occurs in the clause of a revii, while this is in a clause of an etnachta.

If the Baal HaTurim is saying that this is the only position of the Baal HaTeamim, that he is trying to bind habechor to Aharon rather than Nadav, then I would certainly disagree. Note that there is a tipcha on the word Aharon. If the author of trup really meant what Baal HaTurim claims he did, he would simply have placed the tipcha on the word bechor. Rather, as it stands, tipcha subdivides a clause ending in etnachta, and so the division is into:

"And these are the names of the children of Aharon || the firstborn Nadav"

Any subsequent pasek does not have enough force to redraw these lines, and why draw the lines incorrectly in the first place?

Furthermore, we encounter the same pasek in other places, where it is clear that it does not refer to the preceding person -- once, even with identical trup. Thus, in Divrei Hayamim Aleph we encounter the following three. The first is from perek 2, and is the closest match. One could kvetch some sort of peshat in which the word habechor latches on the Chezron, but there is no need to do this. And this is identical trup to what we have locally in parshat Bemidbar. Rather, it seems that this is the patters.

The next example is from perek 3. The vertical bar after habechor is not a pasek here; rather, it designates the munach as a munach legarmeh. Regardless, there is a division here, perhaps justified by the length of words in the subclause. But habechor is separated a bit from Amnon, and we do not claim that it is supposed to go on Chevron.

The third example is also from perek 3. There is no pasek, but the pashta, rather than munach, on habechor means that it is a dividing trup. And so habechor is separated from Yochanan. There are actually irregularities on this pasuk, because of other pesukim in Yirmeyahu and elsewhere, such that bechor might mean first to kingship rather than age. See the midrashim on this. But still, I don't think that these midrashic explanations are influencing the trup.

Rather, in each instance, if we had a conjunctive, non-dividing trup mark on habechor, one might think for just-an-instance to treat it as the construct form: the firstborn of Nadav. Since it is the bechor, namely Nadav, the dividing accent is appropriate.

William Wickes gives several reasons one would have a pasek. One is the pasek distinctivum, used to make a slight distinction between words. This case would seem to meet the criteria. He also gives paseq emphaticum. Perhaps there might be some reason to highlight the bechor and give extra emphasis. But I would lean towards the first explanation. And Baal Haturim's explanation simply does not work out.

6 in one womb simultaneously, or sequentually?

On a previous post discussing the idea of 6 in one womb, and how Rashi and others understood it and derived it, Shimon, of the blog Lahag, commented on that post:

R' Medan has an interesting take on be'keres echad meaning in one womb - not necessarily at the same time:

http://www.etzion.org.il/vbm/archive/9-parsha/16shmot.php

Rabbi Medan indeed has an interesting take. He listens to an objection of Shadal about looking at the genealogical lists and seeing how many each person had, and comparing it with the total number of years, such that to reach 600,000 you need the 400+ years and holid meaning being an anscestor rather than father to someone, which would be against the traditional understanding of Chazal. Rabbi Medan gives an answer for Chazal's chronology, wedging more generations in there, and more brothers not listed. See inside, as I am giving a rather rough summary. But part of his claim is that when Chazal say that they had "6 in one keres" this means sequentually, over the course of a woman's entire lifetime, rather than at one shot, because otherwise it would be exceedingly uncommon. And he works out the math such that this would work out, across 9 generations.

The thing about proposing novel reinterpretations of classic sources and claiming that Chazal intended this, is that IMHO one must demonstrate that it is likely that Chazal indeed intended this. As a stand-alone explanation, harnessing existing sources, this proposal is quite likely fine. But is that what Chazal intended when they said "six in one womb?" I have the same objection here as I have when people intepret midrashim allegorically because they do not think the literal interpretation likely. What was Chazal's intent here?

And I don't know. But certainly, a good way to try to ascertain this would be to look up this midrash in its various sources, and look up how Chazal use the phrase in general. I am not sure I will address every such source, but the following is a good beginning.

Let us begin with midrash Tanchuma on Shemot, since Tanchuma is Tannaitic. There, we read:

וימת יוסף וכל אחיו

ואף על פי כן ובני ישראל פרו וישרצו.

ר' ינאי אומר:

כל אחת ואחת יולדת שישה בכרס אחת.

יש אומרים:

י"ב, דכתיב: פרו שנים וישרצו שנים וירבו שנים ויעצמו שנים במאד מאד שנים ותמלא הארץ אותם הא י"ב.

This corresponds, seemingly, to the counting of leshonot, but also possibly, since the cut-off is on the word yishretzu, to the idea of multiplying like a sheretz.

With this source alone, it is not clear what the intent is. I would lean towards it being in one womb simultaneously, but within this source we cannot definitively say.

Also, Chazal are not monolithic, and sources, early and late, might not be monolithic. So it might be a dispute.

At any rate, the midrash appears later, in Shemot Rabbah. This is just about contemporary to Rashi. There, we read:

ובני ישראל פרו וישרצו
אף על פי שמת יוסף ואחיו, אלהיהם לא מת, אלא ובני ישראל פרו וישרצו.

דבר אחר:
כל אחת ואחת ילדה ששה בכרס אחד, שנאמר: ובני ישראל פרו וישרצו וגו'.

ויש אומרים:
שנים עשרה, דכתיב:
פרו שנים,
וישרצו שנים,
וירבו שנים,
ויעצמו שנים,
במאוד מאוד שנים,
ותמלא הארץ אותם שנים,
הרי שנים עשר.

ויעצמו
יש אומרים:
ששה בכרס אחד.
ואל תתמה, שהרי עקרב שהיא מן השרצים יולדת שבעים.

This appears to be identical to the midrash in the Tanchuma, but here we have an additional comparison to the scorpion.

Now, there are girsological differences at play, as one would discover by reading the commentaries on this midrash in Shemot Rabba. One is to change "70" into "60," and we find a parallel to the figure 60 in Vayikra Rabba, which is an earlier (7th century) source, and in Bereishit Rabba, which is a still earlier (Amoraic) source. Another is possibly to change this later "6 in one womb" to "60 in one womb."

The parallel in Breishit Rabbah is:

עקרב,זה יון.
מה עקרב זו יולדת לס' ס', כך העמידה מלכות יון מס' ס'.
and in Vayikra Rabba:

עקרב, זה יון.
מה עקרב זה משרצת ששים ששים.
כך היתה מלכות יון מעמדת ששים ששים.

and so the idea is clearly that each time the scorpion births 60, but may have multiple births of 60. And so says the heilige Wikipedia:

The size of the litter depends on the species and environmental factors, and can range from two to over a hundred scorplings. The average litter however, consists of around 8 scorplings.

Thus, when Chazal spoke of the scorpion as something capable of birthing 60, or 70, it meant at one time. And it is possible that the environmental factors and specific species Chazal were thinking of were the ones with 60 or 70 in a typical litter.

Now, what is meant by ואל תתמה? For a woman to have 6 children over the course of her entire lifetime is certainly not shocking. Say "and do not wonder," for Leah had 6 children over the course of her lifetime. Perhaps if we accept the emendation of 6 in one womb to 60, one could be shocked, such that the midrash would address it.

But even so, the connection to sheretz as explaining X in one keres, by linking it to a specific sheretz that gives forth 60 or 70 each time, strongly suggests to me that Chazal, or at least Shemot Rabba, intended this as simultaneously as opposed to sequentially.

Rashi, in using the dibbur hamatchil of vayishretzu, also seems to strongly endorse the connection to the akrav, and therefore to simultaneous rather than sequential births. And Ibn Ezra, by suggesting this connection to vayishretzu, and noting the possibility of twins, all the way up to septuplets, also endorses the idea that it was simultaneous rather than sequential.

The question then becomes which traditional explanation you are saving when reinterpreting these sources and reading it into them. Perhaps one can establish such a consistent opinion within Tanchuma, and perhaps more forced, in Shemot Rabbah. But surely others read it in a different manner, and at the least one should make note of this. (One is saving, of course, the chronology of Rashi, Ramban, etc., even if it is at odds with their understanding of bekeres...)

How do Chazal use this phrase in other contexts? With a few searches, I was able to find two other places the phrase is used. Thus, we have, in Shir Hashirim Rabba:

ג) רבי היה יושב ודורש ונתנמנם הציבור בקש לעוררן.
אמר: ילדה אשה אחת במצרים שישים רבוא בכרס אחת, והיה שם תלמיד אחד ורבי ישמעאל ברבי יוסי שמו.
אמר ליה: מאן הות כן? ש
אמר ליה: זו יוכבד, שילדה את משה ששקול כנגד שישים רבוא של ישראל. הדא הוא דכתיב: (שמות ט"ו) אז ישיר משה ובני ישראל.

So he did not mean it literally, but it was certainly shocking, as was his intention. Does this mean simultaneously or sequentially? Obviously, if it is just Moshe, it is simultaneously. But on the other hand, the meaning of the phrase might just mean in her one womb, with no implication at all of simultaneous or sequential. Though if so, why mention it at all?! If it is one woman giving birth, of course it was all from her one womb! I would consider this as evidence that it means simultaneously. One can argue with this, of course.

Indeed, even without any of this evidence, this is what seems to be the import of the phrase. But still, we should look through the sources.

Here is another instance, in Brachot daf 63b-64a:

R. Eliezer the son of R. Jose the Galilean began to speak in praise of hospitality, expounding the verse, And the Lord blessed Obed-Edom and all his house … because of the Ark of God.38 Have we not here an argument a fortiori? If such was the reward for attending to the ark which did not eat or drink, but before which he merely swept and laid the dust, how much more will it be for one who entertains a scholar in his house and gives him to eat and drink and allows him the use of his possessions! What was the blessing with which God blessed him [Obed-Edom]? — R. Judah b. Zebida says: This refers to Hamoth39 and her eight daughters-in-law who each bore six children at a birth, as it says, Peullethai the eighth son1 for God blessed him,2 and it is written, All these were of the sons of Obed-Edom, they and their sons and their brethren, able men in the strength for the service, threescore and two of Obed-Edom.3

The idea is that in sefer Shmuel we are told that Hashem blessed Oved Edom and all his household, for hosting the aron. This blessing is echoed in Divrei Hayamim I perek 26, in the midst of the counting/genealogy:

ד וּלְעֹבֵד אֱדֹם, בָּנִים--שְׁמַעְיָה הַבְּכוֹר, יְהוֹזָבָד הַשֵּׁנִי, יוֹאָח הַשְּׁלִשִׁי וְשָׂכָר הָרְבִיעִי, וּנְתַנְאֵל הַחֲמִישִׁי.	4 And Obed-edom had sons: Shemaiah the first-born, Jehozabad the second, Joah the third, and Sacar the fourth, and Nethanel the fifth;
ה עַמִּיאֵל הַשִּׁשִּׁי יִשָּׂשכָר הַשְּׁבִיעִי, פְּעֻלְּתַי הַשְּׁמִינִי: כִּי בֵרְכוֹ, אֱלֹהִים. {ס}	5 Ammiel the sixth, Issachar the seventh, Peullethai the eighth; for God blessed him. {S}
ו וְלִשְׁמַעְיָה בְנוֹ נוֹלַד בָּנִים, הַמִּמְשָׁלִים לְבֵית אֲבִיהֶם: כִּי-גִבּוֹרֵי חַיִל, הֵמָּה.	6 Also unto Shemaiah his son were sons born, that ruled over the house of their father; for they were mighty men of valour.
ז בְּנֵי שְׁמַעְיָה, עָתְנִי וּרְפָאֵל וְעוֹבֵד אֶלְזָבָד אֶחָיו--בְּנֵי-חָיִל; אֱלִיהוּ, וּסְמַכְיָהוּ.	7 The sons of Shemaiah: Othni, and Rephael and Obed and Elzabad his brethren, valiant men; Elihu also, and Semachiah.
ח כָּל-אֵלֶּה מִבְּנֵי עֹבֵד אֱדֹם, הֵמָּה וּבְנֵיהֶם וַאֲחֵיהֶם, אִישׁ-חַיִל בַּכֹּחַ, לַעֲבֹדָה--שִׁשִּׁים וּשְׁנַיִם, לְעֹבֵד אֱדֹם.	8 All these were of the sons of Obed-edom: they and their sons and their brethren, able men in strength for the service; threescore and two of Obed-edom.

Now, if it began with Oved Edom and his eight sons, and each had a wife, there were a total of 9 wives and 9 men. But the tally is to 62 men. How do we arrive at that figure? Well, pasuk 5 echoes this idea from Shmuel, "for God blessed him." And pasuk 6, immediately following, gives a list of 6 sons to one of Oved Edom's sons. So we assume the blessing is that each of the 9 women has 6 sons bekeres echat, such that 9 X 6 = 54. Add this to the original 8 sons, and 54 + 8 = 62.

There is nothing much in evidence here that it must have been at a single birth. Although Oved Edom's wife already gave birth to 8, so if it meant across her entire lifetime, this should have been 14 bekeres echat. All in all, though I don't have definitive proof, I would strongly lean towards the idea that it means simultaneously rather than sequentially.

The Authenticity of Kabbalah pt xviii

Shadal continues his Vikuach al Chochmat haKabbalah. (See previous segment.) Does dispute show there is no tradition? What about machlokes in the Mishnah and Gemara? The guest draws a distinction. The author then brings the chain of tradition of kabbalah brought down in the sefer Brit Menuchah, and the guest shows some chronological improbabilities or impossibilities in the account. The text of the Vikuach follows:

The author: There is nothing to be astounded at in this, for also our teachers the authors of the Mishna and the Talmud were masters of true kabbalah, and they also many times argue one on the other in their opinions.

The guest: If they argue, they only argue in particulars which did not come to them in tradition {kabbalah}, or which were forgotten.

The author: There is in my hand the sefer Brit Menucha, upon which the Arizal said that all its words are words of Divine Inspiration {ruach hakodesh}, and I recall that he mentions in his introduction the order of the chain of tradition of the wisdom of kabbalah from the first generations. And now, I will show it to you, and you will put your eyes upon his words.

And I arose to take the sefer, and the man came after me in order to see my library {?}. And I took the sefer Brit Menucha, and I read before him in the introduction, and these are his words there: "And Ezra and his court transmitted it to Shemaya and Avtalyon, etc., and Shemaya and Avtalyon transmitted it to Hillel and Shammai, and this Hillel was Nearyah, of the descendants of David from the seed of the kingship who is mentioned in Divrei haYamim, etc. And Rabbi Akiva to Rabbi Yehuda haNasi, until it reached the hand of Rabbi Shimon." End quote.

{The reference is to Divrei haYamim I 3:22-23:
וּבְנֵי שְׁכַנְיָה, שְׁמַעְיָה; וּבְנֵי שְׁמַעְיָה, חַטּוּשׁ וְיִגְאָל וּבָרִיחַ וּנְעַרְיָה וְשָׁפָט--שִׁשָּׁה. כג וּבֶן-נְעַרְיָה, אֶלְיוֹעֵינַי וְחִזְקִיָּה וְעַזְרִיקָם--שְׁלֹשָׁה.

}

And the man laughed and said: How many bundles of mistakes are said in these two lines, which were {purportedly} written with ruach hakodesh! May lips of falsehood fall silent! And behold, first of all, he speaks falsehood when he said that Ezra and his court transmitted it to Shemaya and Avtalyon, who were at the very least 300 years after him, and if by way of miracle the matter was such, rabbenu hakadosh {=Rabbi Yehuda haNasi} would not have omitted mention of it in perek {of Avot} Moshe received the Torah from Sinai, for a great strengthening comes out to us from this in the matter of the truth of the Oral Law.

The author: Have you forgotten that we find in the Talmud, that Rabbi Dosa ben Hyrcanus who was in the generation of the destruction of the Second Temple testified that upon this seat sat Chaggai the prophet? {J: See here. And perhaps, based on the context in Yevamot 16a, it means that he dealt with this issue. In which case it need not be eyewitness testimony. לשבת על המדוֹכה פירושו להתעמק בבעיה, לבחון אותה לעומק ולמצוא לה את הפתרון הנכון. But this is not how Shadal takes it.}

The guest: This was known to him by tradition from his fathers. And if you wish to believe that he saw with his eyes Chaggai the prophet, and that Ezra transmitted to Shemaya and Avtalyon, the permission is in your hands.

And what will you answer about the second? Hillel was Nearyah? And did he not begin his Nesiut {prince-ship} only 100 years before the destruction of the Second Temple, and he was the community leader of Israel for 40 years. If so, he was born 180 years before the destruction, and how can it be believed that he was of those mentioned in sefer Divrei haYamim which was written in Bavel in the days of the exile, before the building of the {Second} Temple of in the beginning of the Second Temple, more than 200 years before Hillel was born?

The author: When it comes down to it, do you not see that there is mentioned in Divrei haYamim six generations from Zerubavel and on, and Zerubavel was conceived in Bavel, according to the words of our teachers. And it is difficult according to the normal way of the world that six generations are born in 70 years. If so, what shall we say? Rather, a bit of that genealogy was added to sefer Divrei haTamim a few generations after the closing of the sefer and after the construction of the Second Temple. And now it is not difficult to us any more to believe that Hillel the elder was mentioned in Divrei haYamim.