Why does Rashi discuss עד בכור השבי in a pasuk that does not state it?

Summary: It is not evidence that Rashi had a different girsa in the pasuk. I think it is just bringing in a related derasha, where it is apprpriate in context. What various meforshim suggest.

Post: Consider the following pasuk and Rashi from parashat Bo, in 11:5:

5. and every firstborn in the land of Egypt will die, from the firstborn of Pharaoh who sits on his throne to the firstborn of the slave woman who is behind the millstones, and every firstborn animal.		ה. וּמֵת כָּל בְּכוֹר בְּאֶרֶץ מִצְרַיִם מִבְּכוֹר פַּרְעֹה הַיֹּשֵׁב עַל כִּסְאוֹ עַד בְּכוֹר הַשִּׁפְחָה אֲשֶׁר אַחַר הָרֵחָיִם וְכֹל בְּכוֹר בְּהֵמָה:
to the firstborn of the captive: Why were the captives smitten? So that they would not say, “Our deity has demanded [vengeance] for their [our] degradation, and brought retribution upon Egypt.” -[from Mechilta, Bo, on Exod. 12:29]		עד בכור השבי: (שמות יב כט) למה לקו השבויים, כדי שלא יאמרו, יראתם תבעה עלבונם והביאה פורענות על מצרים:

There is a seeming mismatch between the pasuk and the dibbur hamatchil. The pasuk says עַד בְּכוֹר הַשִּׁפְחָה while the dibbur hamatchil is עד בכור השבי. That phrase only occurs in Shemot 12:29, and indeed, the Mechilta is drawn from there.

The commentary Chelek Hadikduk in this PDF presenting R' Saadia Gaon's Tafsir, page 80, writes:

So is it in all printings, though in this pasuk is not written עד בכור השבי, but rather in Shemot 12:29.

So that it where I first saw this issue.

I would note that the very next Rashi does cite words from the pasuk, and a derasha, appropriate to the local pasuk:

from the firstborn of Pharaoh… to the firstborn of the slave woman: All those inferior to the Pharaoh’s firstborn and superior to the slave woman’s firstborn were included. Why were the sons of the slave women smitten? Because they too were enslaving them [the Israelites] and were happy about their misfortune. — [from Pesikta Rabbathi, ch. 17]

מבכור פרעה עד בכור השפחה: כל הפחותים מבכור פרעה וחשובים מבכור השפחה היו בכלל. ולמה לקו בני השפחות, שאף הם היו משעבדים בהם ושמחים בצרתם:

So certainly before suggesting that Rashi had a different text in his sefer Torah, we should carefully explore other options. Because the temptation might be to note that 11:15 and 12:29 are quite similar, and השבי begins similarly to השפחה, such that this is an error in Rashi's sefer Torah (or worse, our sifrei Torah).

Here is a manuscript from Rome, 1470, which has both Rashis, in the order presented above. And here is another from Munich, 1233 -- see the second column. And here is another, from Cod Hebr 3 -- see the middle of the first column. So too, early printings.

The Septuagint has hashifcha, just like our Masoretic text. And the Samaritan text has hashifcha. Vetus Testamentum mentions only one Jewish text that has השבי here, which is undoubtedly the result of an error, from some scribe recollecting the wrong pasuk at the wrong time.

It would seem that Rashi, or some later scribe, simply placed this midrash here, since it is akin to the local midrash. Perhaps he would equate שבי with שפחה, since conquered people became slaves, or because the two midrashim are addressing similar points. And the dibbur hamatchil would be placed here, despite it being of a foreign pasuk, to make clear that the midrash was not really going on the local pasuk.


Rabbi Chaim Hirschenson, in Nimukei Rashi, cites this Rashi and then writes:

"According to this nusach which is before us in Rashi, with first the designation מבכור השבי [sic] and then the designation מבכור פרעה עד בכור השפחה, it appears as if there was before Rashi this nusach in Scriptures:  מבכור פרעה עד בכור השפחה עד בכור השבי.


And chas veShalom to think this!


And IMHO, there was omitted from the language of Rashi za"l a statement, and one should say, and designate:


'מבכור פרעה, and to Israel he said later עד בכור השבי. And why were the captives smitten? So that they would not say, “Our deity has demanded [vengeance] for their [our] degradation, and brought retribution upon Egypt מבכור פרעה עד בכור השפחה.” All who were less than the firstborn of Pharaoh and more important that the firstborn of the maidservant were encompassed.'


That is to say, so would the captives say, who were not encompassed, that only those who were lesser than the firstborn of Pharaoh and more important than the firstborn of the maidservant, but those who were less than the firstborn of the maidservant, who were the captives, were not encompassed, for the main portion of the plague came upon Egypt, in their opinion, because their deity demanded vengeance for their degradation. Therefore, Moshe said to Israel that also the firstborn of the captives would die, and in the warning he said 'until the firstborn of the maidservant' because he warned all of the enslavers. 'For even the maidservant was of the enslavers.' "

This seems rather unlikely for a number of reasons, but I am not going to go into that here.

Mizrachi writes:

"Though בכור השבי isn't written here, but rather בכור השפחה, Rashi wishes to resolve the difficulty of the verses. For in the implementation is written 'and Hashem smote all firstborn in the land of Egypt, from the firstborn of Pharaoh who sat on his throne until the firstborn of the captives.' And this implies that the firstborn of the captives was also smitten. And in the warning is written 'until the firstborn of the maidservant', which implies 'and not the firstborn of the captives', which is lesser than the firstborn of the maidservant, as the Rav [=Rashi] writes himself. And he says that that which the verse states by the inplementation עד בכור השבי is to say that even the בכור השבי were smitten, despite not subjugating Israel, since they were also subjugated like Israel, so that they should not say that their deity brought retribution for their degradation, and that this plague came upon the Egyptians not because of Israel.


And that which the verse states by the warning עד בכור השפחה, such that the בכור השבי is not encompassed within it, this is because the primary force of this plague only came because they were subjugating Israel, and those who were subjugating them were only until the firstborn of the maidservant, for since their fathers were Egyptians they had dominion over Israel, and subjugated them. But the בכור השבי, who did not subjugate Israel, since they were themselves subjugated like Israel, they were only smitten so that they should not say that their deity brought retribution for their degradation, they were not encompassed in the warning. For the warning was only for the sake of Israel, and they were not encompassed.


And now it is no question at all, for in the warning it speaks of those who were subjugating Israel, and in the actual implementation it was speaking about all those who were smitten. And the happiness at their [=the Israelites'] suffering which is stated by the sons of the maidservants is כדי נסבה {?}, for they were not liable for smiting because of this had they not also subjugated Israel, for if they were liable also for this [alone], also the captives who were happy in their [=Israel's] misfortune, as Rashi wrote, they would be liable to be smitten. And if so, also the firstborn of the captives would be encompassed, just like the firstborn of the maidservant, and so why were the firstborn of the captives not encompassed in the warning."

There is a lot more to this sugya, but this seems just about sufficient. I'll just close with a reference to the discussion about why this midrash on that non-local pasuk is brought here. To cite Yosef Daas:

What nekitas chefetz was there, if Yaakov was nolad mahul?

Summary: So asks Rav Chaim Kanievsky, further exploring the path set by Mizrachi. By Avraham, it was nekitas chefetz on the milah, and Avraham's very first mitzvah. Not so for Yaakov, on two counts. Rav Kanievsky's answer, and then I explore further.

Post: In parashat Vaychi:

29. When the time drew near for Israel to die, he called his son Joseph and said to him, "If I have now found favor in your eyes, now place your hand beneath my thigh, and you shall deal with me with lovingkindness and truth; do not bury me now in Egypt.

כט. וַיִּקְרְבוּ יְמֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל לָמוּת וַיִּקְרָא לִבְנוֹ לְיוֹסֵף וַיֹּאמֶר לוֹ אִם נָא מָצָאתִי חֵן בְּעֵינֶיךָ שִׂים נָא יָדְךָ תַּחַת יְרֵכִי וְעָשִׂיתָ עִמָּדִי חֶסֶד וֶאֱמֶת אַל נָא תִקְבְּרֵנִי בְּמִצְרָיִם:

As Rashi writes:

now place your hand beneath my thigh: And swear. — [from Pirkei d’Rabbi Eliezer ch. 39] As explained in the narrative of Abraham and Eliezer (Gen. 24:2), he meant that Joseph should swear by covenant of the circumcision.

שים נא ידך: והשבע:

The text in English, not in square brackets, but not in the Hebrew, are presumably based on some other text of Rashi.

Meanwhile, in Chayei Sarah, we had:

2. And Abraham said to his servant, the elder of his house, who ruled over all that was his, "Please place your hand under my thigh.		ב. וַיֹּאמֶר אַבְרָהָם אֶל עַבְדּוֹ זְקַן בֵּיתוֹ הַמֹּשֵׁל בְּכָל אֲשֶׁר לוֹ שִׂים נָא יָדְךָ תַּחַת יְרֵכִי:
the elder of his house: Since [the word זְקַן] is in the construct state, it is vowelized זְקַן.		זקן ביתו: לפי שהוא דבוק נקוד זקן:
under my thigh: (Shev. 38) Since one who swears must take with his hand an article related to a mitzvah such as a Torah scroll or Tefillin, and circumcision was his first mitzvah, and he had fulfilled it with pain, it was dear to him; so he took it.		תחת ירכי: לפי שהנשבע צריך שיטול בידו חפץ של מצוה, כגון ספר תורה או תפילין, והמילה היתה מצוה ראשונה לו ובאה לו על ידי צער והיתה חביבה עליו ונטלה:

In Taama de-Kra, Rav Chaim Kanievsky writes:


שים נא ידך תחת ירכי, הק׳ רא״ם דהא
 רש׳׳י פי׳ גבי אברהם משום שזה מצוה ראשונה
 שלו ובעי לאנקוטי חפצא דמצוה בידו א״כ
 יעק״א שנולד מהול כדאי׳ באדר״נ פ״ב ולמ״ד
 א״צ הטפת דם ברית שאין כאן ערלה כבושה
 למה נתן ידו תחת ירכו, וי״ ל  דגם נולד מהול
 נקרא שמל שהקב״ה חסיר ממנו את הערלה והוי
 כמהול.


"Rabbi Eliyahu Mizrachi asks that behold, Rashi explained by Avraham that this was because this was his first mitzvah, and he wished to perform nekitas chefetz of a mitzvah {for the oath}. And if so, Yaakov Avinu, who was born circumcised, as is stated in Avos deRabbi Nasan perek 2 {as well as in Bereshis Rabba and Midrash Tanchuma}, and according to the opinion that such a person does not require hatafas dam bris, for there is no ערלה כבושה, why should he put his hand beneath his thigh? 


And there is to answer that even one who is born circumcised is called that Hashem took away the orlah and he is like one who is circumcised."

Here is what Mizrachi has to say for himself:

Reacting to Rashi simply stating והשבע, which implies that this is a form of oath, he writes:

"Not that the placing of the hand is the oath, for behold, by Eliezer he [=Avraham] says שִׂים נָא יָדְךָ תַּחַת יְרֵכִי followed by וְאַשְׁבִּיעֲךָ. Thus, it is clear that the placing of the hand is not the oath. Rather, it is in the manner of all who swear that they swear with an item in their hands. And even though the reason was that the bris milah was dear to him, which was only to Avraham, since it was the very first mitzvah he was commanded, and it came to him with pain, but not so to Yaakov, even so, the custom had already spread to his sons after him."

So, it is not really the case that the Re'em asked based on Yaakov being nolad mahul. Yes, he says that 'this was not so to Yaakov', but this could be because it was not the first commandment given to Yaakov, and so it was not an especially dear mitzvah to him over any other, and because he would have been circumcised at eight days.

I also prefer the Re'em's answer. It fits better, IMHO, with Rashi's language, which just takes it as leshon shevuah, or as part of the shevuah, without making this anything out of the ordinary as it was by Avraham.

I also think that, perhaps, we should not be looking to harmonize the two Rashis. Yes, they work more or less well together except for this minor contradiction in a detail, but still, the Rashi local to Vaychi strikes me as an attempt at peshat while the Rashi local to Chayei Sarah is channeling a midrash. Perhaps one should not harmonize them, if Rashi did not intend them to be harmonized. Perhaps the persona of Vaychi Rashi, writing in Chayei Sarah, would say that this is generic shevuah procedures even in the time of Avraham Avinu.

In terms of the problem Rav Kanievsky raised, that Yaakov was nolad mahul such that there was no hatafas dam bris and thus no mitzvah of milah at all, the Mizrachi's answer still works. But besides this, it all seems like an elaborate construction. Perhaps according to the man de'amar that one does not need hatafas dam bris, Yaakov Avinu was born mahul, or perhaps the purpose of sim na yadcha tachas yereichi is a general custom of swearing, or something along the position of the Ralbag (which we will see momentarily. And, according to the man de'amar that it was and always is based on a nekitas chefetz, he would maintain that Yaakov Avinu was not born mahul, or that hatafas dam bris is required. It is only because we are insisting on simultaneously maintaining multiple random positions that we end up with a contradiction that needs resolution. So relax the insistence!

By way of illustration of other options as to the function of sim na yadecha tachas yereichi, consider the following Ralbag, from the beginning of the parashah:

"sim na yadecha tachas yereichi -- we have explained it by Avraham. And the intent in this here is that he asked Yosef to humble himself to him, as if he were in his domain, to perform all that he asked him."


Thus, it is a mark of subjugation rather than either a mark of an oath or a predecessor to the Jewish practice of swearing while holding a sefer Torah.

I will end with a half-serious resolution of the whole issue. Grant the question, and all the accompanying assumptions, of both Mizrachi and Rav Kanievsky. If Avraham asked for this as nekitas chefetz as well as because it was his first mitzvah, how could Yaakov have asked this, if it was not his first mitzvah and if, as a nolad mahul, there was no nekitas chefetz shel mitzvah?

The answer is that Yaakov Avinu had his own first mitzvah associated with his thigh. Recall that in parashat Vayishlach, he wrestled with the angel, who dislocated his thigh. And then:

32. And the sun rose for him when he passed Penuel, and he was limping on his thigh.		לב. וַיִּזְרַח לוֹ הַשֶּׁמֶשׁ כַּאֲשֶׁר עָבַר אֶת פְּנוּאֵל וְהוּא צֹלֵעַ עַל יְרֵכוֹ:
33. Therefore, the children of Israel may not eat the displaced tendon, which is on the socket of the hip, until this day, for he touched the socket of Jacob's hip, in the hip sinew.		לג. עַל כֵּן לֹא יֹאכְלוּ בְנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל אֶת גִּיד הַנָּשֶׁה אֲשֶׁר עַל כַּף הַיָּרֵךְ עַד הַיּוֹם הַזֶּה כִּי נָגַע בְּכַף יֶרֶךְ יַעֲקֹב בְּגִיד הַנָּשֶׁה:

Thus, this is his very own mitzvah starting with his own experience. And so there is a nekitas chefetz of the kaf yerech Yaakov!

The world was filled with chamas -- was this robbery, extortion, or something else?

'And the earth was full of hummus'

Summary: Rashi says chamas means gezel. Does he mean this technically, or not? The meforshei Rashi consider this question, as do I.

Post: At the start of parashat Noach, we hear that the earth was filled with chamas. Thus:

11. Now the earth was corrupt before God, and the earth became full of robbery.

יא. וַתִּשָּׁחֵת הָאָרֶץ לִפְנֵי הָאֱ־לֹהִים וַתִּמָּלֵא הָאָרֶץ חָמָס:

It is unclear what חמס means. Ibn Caspi writes:

חמס .  סוג כולל לכמה ענינים וכתוב חָמְסוּ תוֹרָתִי (יחזקאל כ״ב כ"ו) ובלשון חכמים חמסו האמת  (?) י


That it, "chamas: is a category which encompasses several matters. And it is written (Yechezkel 22:26) '[Her priests] have done violence {chamsu} to My law.' And in the language of the Sages, it has done violence {chamsu} to the truth."

Ibn Caspi is referring here to the midrashic assumption, echoed by Rashi, that chamas refers to gezel, theft. Thus, Rashi wrote:

ותמלא הארץ חמס: גזל:

And so was it translated above. But really, according to Ibn Caspi, it might be violence, oppression, theft, extortion, and all sorts of other untoward and corrupt behavior. And this seems like a more peshat-oriented prompt for the destruction of the earth.

Though prompted by the talmudic definition of chamas as a definition of gezel, my guess is that Rashi intends this as peshat. Midrashic peshat, but peshat nonetheless.

Rabbi Eliyahu Mizrachi runs with Rashi's assumption, and asks that there is a distinction between chamas, extortion, and gezel, robbery. Thus, he writes:

"And although in Bava Kamma, perek Hakones Tzon LaDir, they said 'what is the difference between a חמסן and a גזלן? A gazlan does not give money, while a chamsan gives money, but that he {=the seller} does not say 'I want'.' And in Bereshit Rabba, Rabbi Chanina said that gezel is the value of a peruta while chamas is less than the value of a peruta.' Thus, it is clear that gezel is one thing and chamas is another thing. These words are by a chamsan as defined by the rabbanan. But by a chamsan of Scriptures, this is the same as a gazlan. And there, this is what is necessary: What is the distinction between a gazlan derabbanan and a chamsan derabbanan? As they learned in a brayta in perek zeh borer, that the gazlanim and chamsanim were increased upon them. And they are dealing there with the find of a deaf-mute, imbecile, and a minor, who are not invalid Biblically but because of darkei Shalom. And it explains there that a gazlan does not give money, while a chamsan gives money. And so explain the Tosafot in perek haKones."

Gur Aryeh summarizes Mizrachi's answer with the statement that לשון תורה לחוד לשון חכמים לחוד. But Gur Aryeh has a difficulty with this resolution. He writes:

חמס  גזל.  אף על גב שחילוק גדול יש בין
 גזל לחמס  , דאמרינן (ב״ק סב.) מה בין גזלן
 לחמסן — גזלן לא יהיב דמי, חמסן יהיב דמי,
 פירש הרא״ם דלשון התורה לחוד ולשון
 חכמים לחוד (חולין קלז.). ואינו מיושב, דלמה
 הכתוב משנה לכתוב ״חמס״ ולא כתב גזל
 ואונקלום תרגום ׳חטופין, דמשמע חטיפה
 בלבד ולא גזל ממון, ויראה שהוקשה לרש״י
וכי אנשי דור המבול היו יראים את ה׳ שהיו
 נותנים דמים, דודאי לא היו יראים אלהים, אלא
 האי ״חמס״ הוא שגזל ממנו בלא דמים, ומה
 שכתוב בקרא ״חמס״ היינו שלפי האמת היה
 חמס, שמכח שכל (ה)אחד היה גוזל את חבירו

ואם גזל אחד מן חבירו והכירו היה גם כן גוזל
 אותו — הרי היה לו  דמים תחת מה שלקח
 ממנו. והרי הוא חמס. וזהו שנאמר ״ותמלא
 הארץ חמס״ שהרבה היו חומסין, זה מזה וזה
 מזה, עד שהיה הגזל — חמס. ומה שכתב
 רש״י ׳גזל׳ היינו שהגוזל לא כוון שיהיה זה
 חמס, שגזל ממנו בין שהיה לו  תמורת אותו
 חפץ דמים או שלא היה לו, לעולם היה גוזל,
 ולפיכך קרא ׳גזל׳, אלא שהאמת הוא שהיה זה
 חמס בלא כוונתו:

"Chamas: gezel: Although there is a great distinction between gezel and chamas, for we say (in Bava Kamma 62a), 'what is the difference between a gazlan and a chaman -- a gazlan does not give money, while a chamsan gives money.' Rabbi Eliyahu Mizrachi explains that the language of the Torah has one connotation while the language of the Sages has another connotation (Chullin 137a). And this is not well answered, for why does the Torah change to write chamas and not write gezel? And Onkelos translates חטופין (seizers, robbers), which implies just grabbing and not theft of money. And it appears that it is difficult to Rashi for were the men of the generation of the Deluge God-fearing people that they gave money? Certainly they were not God-fearing people. Rather this chamas is that they stole from the other without money. And that which is written in Scriptures chamas is because, in truth, it was chamas, for by force of the fact that each one stole from his fellow, and if one stole from his fellow and he recognized it, he would {in turn} rob from him. Thus, he had money in return for what was taken from him, and behold it is chamas. And this is what is stated, 'and the earth was filled with chamas', for many were chomsin, this one from that one and that one from this one, until the gezel was chamas. And that which Rashi wrote gezel was because the robber did not intend that this be chamas, for he robbed from him whether it was in exchange for that item's value of whether he did not have, regardless, he would rob. And therefore he called it gezel. But in truth, it was chamas without his intent."

While I think they make a number of valid points, both Mizrachi and Gur Aryeh are over-thinking this.

1) When Rashi said gezel, it is a good and short way of identifying what category of action חמס means in this context. As Ibn Caspi wrote, chamas could encompass many different actions, including violence and oppression. By saying gezel, he means this sort of action.

If so, even if Rashi meant specifically the sort of action that fell under chamas and is not technically gezel, then it is of no concern. Gezel was meant lav davka. Thus, the question from Bava Kamma, voiced by Mizrachi, need not be a question.

2) Does Rashi mean chamas as opposed to gezel, and then, chamas types of actions? Maybe. We could adopt the Bava Kamma definition, that they gave money but they extorted people who did not wish to sell. Or better, Mizrachi cited Midrash Rabba, that chamas is theft under a shava peruta. There is an explicit midrash to that effect, that a whole group of people colluded together to steal from a person, where are person took half a pea. Thus, none of them could be prosecuted in court.

3) Still, Mizrachi does have an excellent answer in לשון תורה לחוד לשון חכמים לחוד. One need not resort to midrashim of this sort. Chamas and gezel can be within the same category, or chamas being a general category while gezel a type of chamas. Or they could be synonyms, which the Torah will use interchangeably in this context, without the sort of distinctions Chazal make within their own use of the terms. If so, we don't need to define a specific type of action the people of the Dor HaMabul committed that was technical chamas.

4) Turning to Gur Aryeh, his question of why specifically mention chamas rather than gezel is a plausibly good one. I don't think one needs to ask that, but my sense differs from that of Gur Aryeh as to what makes a compelling peshat question, as opposed to a compelling derash question. And that question could be what yielded the aforementioned midrash, about each one stealing less than a shaveh peruta.

5) In terms of the question of whether the people of that generation were yerei Shamayim, I think everyone can agree that they were not. But fear of Heaven is not the only reason someone would extort rather than simply rob. One might be afraid of the law. With extortion, someone who does not want to sell, or to sell for that price, can still be compelled, and might be afraid to go to the police. Or the extortionist may have greater deniability in that he did, in fact, give money. So, to say that they were chamsanim in accordance with the Bava Kamma definition does not seem insane.

6) The answer that each was stealing from the other, in exchange, such that it was the Bava Kamma definition of chamas is a nice midrash. But it does not seem to be a midrash that Chazal said. Rather, it was introduced by Gur Aryeh, and perhaps even as peshat. It might be a rather nice neo-midrash. But I don't think this reflects Chazal's belief, and I don't think it reflects Rashi's belief. So too, I don't think that the reason Rashi said gezel was because of the flip side of un-intention by the chamsan. This is reading a whole lot into a single word by Rashi.

7) In terms of the proof from Onkelos, Gur Aryeh appears to be saying that Onkelos is defining this as a geniune chamas, rather than gezel. There was no theft, just a seizure of the property. In other words, and as the supercommentator (R' Yehoshua David Hartman) writes there in footnote 129, this was with force, but he paid money so it was not theft.

I don't know that this diyuk into the Aramaic is entirely compelling. After all, the Targum to ganavim in Ovadiah 1:5 is chatofin:

ה  אִם-גַּנָּבִים בָּאוּ-לְךָ, אִם-שׁוֹדְדֵי לַיְלָה--אֵיךְ נִדְמֵיתָה, הֲלוֹא יִגְנְבוּ דַּיָּם; אִם-בֹּצְרִים בָּאוּ לָךְ, הֲלוֹא יַשְׁאִירוּ עֹלֵלוֹת.

5 If thieves came to thee, if robbers by night--how art thou cut off!--would they not steal till they had enough? If grape-gatherers came to thee, would they not leave some gleaning grapes?

and the context is surely thieves, not extortionists.

8) Finally, here is a pasuk where chamas does not mean theft or extortion. Shofetim 9:24:

כד  לָבוֹא, חֲמַס שִׁבְעִים בְּנֵי-יְרֻבָּעַל; וְדָמָם, לָשׂוּם עַל-אֲבִימֶלֶךְ אֲחִיהֶם אֲשֶׁר הָרַג אוֹתָם, וְעַל בַּעֲלֵי שְׁכֶם, אֲשֶׁר-חִזְּקוּ אֶת-יָדָיו לַהֲרֹג אֶת-אֶחָיו.

24 that the violence done to the threescore and ten sons of Jerubbaal might come, and that their blood might be laid upon Abimelech their brother, who slew them, and upon the men of Shechem, who strengthened his hands to slay his brethren.

That chamas is translated in the Targum by chatofa. And it means violence. It seems that this is a general translation of chamas, and Jastrow derives a meaning of 'violence' for chatofa on the basis of this pasuk and Targum.  So too Tehillim 72:14:

יד  מִתּוֹךְ וּמֵחָמָס, יִגְאַל נַפְשָׁם;    וְיֵיקַר דָּמָם בְּעֵינָיו.

14 He will redeem their soul from oppression and violence, and precious will their blood be in his sight;

the translation is chatofa.

For who is able to argue and say this its meaning is אבוד אתה? Well, Onkelos, for one...

Summary: Further analysis of Mizrachi on Arami Oved Avi, and on עַד אָבְדֶךָ.

Post: In the past, I discussed Arami Oved Avi, the Sifrei's explanation of the phrase ('an Aramean tried to destroy my father') which is midrashic but may also be peshat, Ibn Ezra's explanation of the phrase ('my father was an Aramean pauper'), and Rabbi Eliyahu Mizrachi's objection to Ibn Ezra.

I can summarize Mizrachi's objections as follows:

1. Ibn Ezra and Radak assert that אובד never appears as a transitive verb (פועל יוצא) which rules out the midrashic explanation. But we don't know all there is to know about Biblical Hebrew, as Radak himself says in his introduction.
2. Furthermore, a pasuk later in Ki Savo is clearly a transitive verb. Thus, in Devarim 28:

20. The Lord will send the curse of shortages, confusion, and turmoil upon you, in every one of your endeavors which you undertake, until it destroys you and until you quickly vanish, because of your evil deeds in forsaking Me.

כ. יְשַׁלַּח ה בְּךָ אֶת הַמְּאֵרָה אֶת הַמְּהוּמָה וְאֶת הַמִּגְעֶרֶת בְּכָל מִשְׁלַח יָדְךָ אֲשֶׁר תַּעֲשֶׂה עַד הִשָּׁמֶדְךָ וְעַד אֲבָדְךָ מַהֵר מִפְּנֵי רֹעַ מַעֲלָלֶיךָ אֲשֶׁר עֲזַבְתָּנִי:

or, two pesukim later, which is the verse Mizrachi cites, with a slightly different pattern:

22. The Lord will strike you with consumption, fever, illnesses with burning fevers, a disease which causes unquenchable thirst, with the sword, with blast, and with yellowing, and they will pursue you until you perish.

כב. יַכְּכָה יְ־הֹוָ־ה בַּשַּׁחֶפֶת וּבַקַּדַּחַת וּבַדַּלֶּקֶת וּבַחַרְחֻר וּבַחֶרֶב וּבַשִּׁדָּפוֹן וּבַיֵּרָקוֹן וּרְדָפוּךָ עַד אָבְדֶךָ:

(This is better, since the kametz under the aleph would represent a reduced cholam.)

To quickly define a transitive verb, it is one in which an actor does something to something else. For instance:
"He grew tomatoes."

The actor is 'he'; the verb is 'grew'; and the object grown is 'tomatoes'.

Contrast this to the intransitive verb:

"He grew."

In this case, it means that he became larger. The question is whether אובד is a transitive verb. Can one person אובד another person? If yes, then the Arami can be the subject and Avi can be the object. If no, then that interpretation is ruled out.

I will present here Mizrachi's words, as cited and then discussed by R' Bentzion Berkowitz in Simlas Ger, a commentary on Onkelos. (In the earlier post, I only summarized Mizrachi.) I will begin in the middle of Simlas Ger's words, picking up from a relevant portion.

"And this is the language of the Mizrachi: 

But Chazal recorded, via their tradition, man from the mouth of man until Moshe Rabbenu a"h from the mouth of the Almighty, that Arami is Lavan, and that Oved is a transitive verb. And even though all kal patterns {J: we have evidence of} within this root are בודד {isolated -- perhaps meaning intransitive?}, there are verbs which function as both transitive and intransitive, such as the word שב and the word נשל. And though in all of Scriptures, none are found transitive from this root. And behold, their tradition is sufficient to say that it is isolated {?}.

And further, he {=Mizrachi} brings from the language of the Radak in his introduction to the section of dikduk that we, since the primary roots of the holy tongue have been lost to us, the words of the Mishnah we have are like holy Scriptures, since the Sages of the Mishnah received man from man from those who saw the otiginal sefarim, which were before our exile, and were lost from us. And not only between בודד and עובר {intransitive and transitive}, for also on a new root which is not found in Scriptures its like, we rely upon their language. Such as in the root תרס. And so, how can we not rely upon their language regarding a root which is found, in the matter of intransitive and transitive? 

And further, behold we find וּרְדָפוּךָ עַד אָבְדֶךָ, whose meaning is עד אבוד אותך, 'until they destroy you' which is a kal transitive. For who is able to argue and say this its meaning is אבוד אתה, 'you are destroyed'?

{J: At this point, R' Berkowitz breaks in with a response to this last point.}

(And this is perplexing, for the metargem {=Onkelos}, who translates there

כח,כב יַכְּכָה יְהוָה בַּשַּׁחֶפֶת וּבַקַּדַּחַת וּבַדַּלֶּקֶת, וּבַחַרְחֻר וּבַחֶרֶב, וּבַשִּׁדָּפוֹן, וּבַיֵּרָקוֹן; וּרְדָפוּךָ, עַד אָבְדֶךָ.

יִמְחֵינָךְ יְיָ בְּשַׁחַפְתָּא וּבְקַדַּחְתָּא וּבִדְלֵיקְתָא, וּבְחַרְחוּרָא וּבְחַרְבָּא, וּבְשַׁדְפָנָא, וּבְיַרְקָנָא; וְיִרְדְּפוּנָּךְ, עַד דְּתֵיבַד.

We see that he argues on it.

{J: To explain, the ת in תיבד demonstrates that the actor/subject is 'you', second person. Otherwise, we would have some suffix, indicating 'you' as object. Thus, 'until you are destroyed'. Onkelos says precisely that which Mizrachi asks "For who is able to argue and say this its meaning is אבוד אתה, 'you are destroyed'?"}

And Rashi, za'l, brings this down and explains it.

{J: See here in Rashi:

Citing the translation at Tachash:

 meaning until the annihilation of you, until you are annihilated of yourself.146

with the footnote text:  But not "until they annihilate you." (G.A.)

GA is presumably Gur Aryeh.

This Rashi is missing in Judaica Press' Rashi, for some reason that may be relevant. Also, the footnote ב is Berliner telling us to check Mizrachi.}

And he {=Mizrachi} as well says that R"A argues on the opinion of the Targum in this, and see what I say there.)


And see what I say there further, in resolving the first question. And in my opinion, that which is simplest is that from the language of וירד מצרימה Chazal proved that Lavan sought to uproot Yaakov Avinu. For if this were not so, it would have been fitting at the time of his affliction because of of famine to send his sons there, for they were members of his family, to seek out food. And so too based on the position of Rashi {on that pasuk}, who adds 'and also others came upon us', it is possible that his intent was that which was written when he returned from Charan, {regarding Esav, in Bereshit 32:6} וְגַם הֹלֵךְ לִקְרָאתְךָ וְאַרְבַּע־מֵאֹות אִישׁ עִמֹּו."


This ends my presentation of this quote from Simlas Ger on this pasuk of ארמי אובד אבי. Here is what he says on pasuk 22, on the word אבדך.

"וּרְדָפוּךָ עַד אָבְדֶךָ -- {in Onkelos:} עַד דְּתֵיבַד. And Rashi za"l brings the words of the Metargem {=Onkelos} and explains it: 'That is to say, until the annihilation of you, until you are annihilated of your own accord.' And since Rashi kept this to explain his words


until now, and did not explain his words earlier {in pasuk 20}, in יְשַׁלַּח ה בְּךָ אֶת הַמְּאֵרָה ... עַד הִשָּׁמֶדְךָ וְעַד אֲבָדְךָ, where the Targum there as well was עַד דְּתִשְׁתֵּיצֵי וְעַד דְּתֵיבַד, it appears that from the language וּרְדָפוּךָ {in pasuk 22} which rests upon the plagues, it is difficult for him to explain the language of אבדך, for it implies that all of these are required for this. But did it not say 'at one moment I will ascend in your midsts and destroy you', and as its Targum there. And therefore they said here that the meaning of אבדך is not on the actors, but rather that in general all these plagues shall pursue you until your are destroyed of your own accord, in order to increase the sufferings for you, which is not the case by the first verse where the word מהר appeared after it."

I would have guessed that it was, rather, the different vowel pattern under the verb that caused Rashi to seek an explanation, and he found Onkelos. While עַד דְּתֵיבַד does indeed appear in Onkelos earlier, there is a chataf patach under the aleph in אֲבָדְךָ. Indeed, one could argue that Rashi argues with Onkelos in that earlier verse, pasuk 20. For the full phrase is עַד הִשָּׁמֶדְךָ וְעַד אֲבָדְךָ. Maybe there he would even take it as transitive. And only when the word is אָבְדֶךָ, with a kametz under the aleph, which looks like it might be a noun form, would Rashi need to explain it as 'your destruction'. Or even with a different interpretation of אֲבָדְךָ with a chataf patach, we can say that this did not trouble Rashi so much as the noun form.

Mizrachi explains that later Rashi, and notes the use of אותך rather then אתה, which supports him. But he notes the difficulty in this. Thus:

"עד אבוד אותך -- not עד אבוד אתה {until you are destroyed}, for וּרְדָפוּךָ informs that they are the ones destroying. But Onkelos translates עַד דְּתֵיבַד, whose explanation is 'until you are destroyed'. And Rashi's explanation argues upon him. But I don't know how to resolve what he writes first, עַד אָבְדֶךָ, עַד דְּתֵיבַד and concludes with עד אבוד אותך, which implies that this is the explanation of עַד דְּתֵיבַד. And further that he writes after this 'that you are obliterated of your own accord', and this is only according to Onkelos."

Given these cues Mizrachi mentions, my guess is that one of three things is true:

1. a corruption of the text of Rashi, with אתה turning into אותך, perhaps via an intermediate את'ק shorthand.
2. Rashi was not careful with his dikduk or language.
3. There is some parsing of עד אבוד אותך which yields the intransitive.

In terms of (3), here is the parsing I, Josh, would give. 'Until they (=the plagues) destroy you (transitive, אבוד with a chataf patach) such that you are obliterated of your own accord.' In other words, because of וּרְדָפוּךָ, and the content of the verse is the plagues destroying, this is the mechanism by which 'you will perish'. But the actual meaning of the phrase עַד אָבְדֶךָ is that 'you will perish' of your own accord, as an intransitive verb. So Rashi employs a transitive verb in the course of explaining how we arrive at the conclusion of the intransitive verb.

I would favor explanation (3).

As I noted, Judaica Press (linked above at Chabad) skips this Rashi entirely. This seems to suggest that some manuscripts do not have it. 

Rashi, Ktav Yad Rome, 1470, has the Rashi in full, as described above:

So too Ktav Yad Munich, 1233:

and so to this Ktav Yad (Cod Hebr 3),

In this Torah with Rashi, Ktav Yad Weimar, 1250-1350, we read:

It looks like it is repeating, and rendering it in all sorts of different ways. This hints at some girsological variation, I think. All Yosef Daas says is a note about the word תרגום missing in Rashi. Tzarich iyun, to see if there is any other interesting manuscript evidence.

What does 'spill it on the ground like water' teach us?

Summary: Why do we need Rashi's first derasha? It turns out to be an explicit gemara. Also, what would peshat in this be? Maybe like Mizrachi!

Post: From parashat Reeh:

16. However, you shall not eat the blood; you shall spill it on the ground like water.		טז. רַק הַדָּם לֹא תֹאכֵלוּ עַל הָאָרֶץ תִּשְׁפְּכֶנּוּ כַּמָּיִם:
		רק הדם לא תאכלו: אף על פי שאמרתי שאין לך בו זריקת דם במזבח לא תאכלנו:
		תשפכנו כמים: לומר לך שאין צריך כסוי. דבר אחר הרי הוא כמים להכשיר את הזרעים:

Rashi brings forth two derashot on "pouring out like water":

1. to teach you that it does not need covering
2. behold, it is like water, to prepare zeraim {making them susceptible to ritual impurity}

Both of these are derashot, rather than peshat, it seems. The first on the action as a whole, and the second, on the comparison to water.

Rabbi Eliyahu Mizrachi does not feel that this first derasha is really necessary.

That is, even though both derashot occur in the Sifrei, what is the need for a specific limud about this dam? Isn't it only applicable to birds and wild animals? This is a pasuk, after all. In Vayikra 17:13:

13. And any man of the children of Israel or of the strangers who sojourn among them, who traps a quarry of a wild animal or bird that may be eaten, and sheds its blood, he shall cover it [the blood] with dust.

יג. וְאִישׁ אִישׁ מִבְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל וּמִן הַגֵּר הַגָּר בְּתוֹכָם אֲשֶׁר יָצוּד צֵיד חַיָּה אוֹ עוֹף אֲשֶׁר יֵאָכֵל וְשָׁפַךְ אֶת דָּמוֹ וְכִסָּהוּ בֶּעָפָר:

One never have thought to include domesticated animals, beheimot, in the first place. So, one would say that this includes specifically chaya and of, but not beheima. Mizrachi suggests that perhaps, since the Torah connected it {beheima} to the gazelle and the deer {in the immediately preceding pasuk in Reeh -- הַטָּמֵא וְהַטָּהוֹר יֹאכְלֶנּוּ כַּצְּבִי וְכָאַיָּל} , it should require covering like them.

The Taz addresses this question, as apparently many have before him:

After citing the pasuk, Rashi, and Mizrachi, he notes that many have pointed out that he forgot about an explicit gemara that addresses this very point. In perek Kisuy HaDam (the sixth perek of Chullin), daf 84a:

אמר ליה יעקב מינאה לרבא קי"ל חיה בכלל בהמה לסימנין אימא נמי בהמה בכלל חיה לכסוי אמר ליה עליך אמר קרא (דברים יב, טז) על הארץ תשפכנו כמים מה מים לא בעי כסוי אף האי נמי לא בעי כסוי

Thus, without this verse, we would have indeed thought that beheimah would require kisuy. Maybe because it is encompassed in chayah in the pasuk in sefer Vayikra.

A good answer. It was still a good question. It shows how the meforshei Rashi engage in direct analysis of midrashim, something I've discussed in the past.

In Taama Di-Kra, Rav Chaim Kanievsky addresses this phrase in this pasuk.

He refers to the derashot, and suggests what a remez could be -- that one should only salt meat over a perforated vessel, so that the blood will fall on the ground, and not within the vessel in which the meat rests.

But he notes that on a peshat level, it is extraneous, for there is no nafka mina is you pour it out or not, for the main thing is that you do not eat it.

But perhaps, one could say that the peshat is indeed the derasha, that it does not need kisuy. After all, as Mizrachi suggested -- in lucky ignorance of the gemara -- perhaps since it had been connected in the previous verse to the gazelle and deer, I would think that not only may one not eat it, but that it requires kisuy hadam like them. Therefore, this comes to teach us, on a peshat level, that it does not.

I like to sometimes cite the Karaites. They are concerned with peshat, and when they give forth a derasha from Chazal as peshat, it might be worthy considering that it is indeed peshat, rather than derash.

Here is what the Karaite scholar Aharon ben Yosef has to say:

"and He commanded regarding the blood; now that it {=the beheima} had been associated with the gazelle and the deer, and it appeared from the context that one should cover its blood, it was required to say 'pour it out like water'."

I wonder if this phrase was an existing idiom, that carried a value judgement. We see in Shmuel Beis 14:14:

יד  כִּי-מוֹת נָמוּת--וְכַמַּיִם הַנִּגָּרִים אַרְצָה, אֲשֶׁר לֹא יֵאָסֵפוּ; וְלֹא-יִשָּׂא אֱלֹהִים, נֶפֶשׁ, וְחָשַׁב מַחֲשָׁבוֹת, לְבִלְתִּי יִדַּח מִמֶּנּוּ נִדָּח.

14 For we must needs die, and are as water spilt on the ground, which cannot be gathered up again; neither doth God respect any person; but let him devise means, that he that is banished be not an outcast from him.

This could be a way of connoting utter and irrecoverable loss. Maybe there is an associated message with the nefesh, which is in the blood, being lost, even as one benefits from the flesh. But maybe I'll return to consider this another day.

Did Korach's sons go to Gehinnom, or did they become prophets?

Summary: Mizrachi shows a contradiction within Rashis. The Taz attempts to solve it. And I offer suggestions throughout, that Rashi didn't say it, or that Rashi means that their songs ascended, not that they physically ascended.

Post: The Torah tells us that the sons of Korach did not die. The point, without a genealogical list, would seem to be to indicate that the lineage continued on, in contrast to, for instance, Er and Onan, or perhaps Datan and Aviram. The pasuk, Rashi, and my translation:

11. Korah's sons, however, did not die.		יא. וּבְנֵי קֹרַח לֹא מֵתוּ:
And the sons of Korach did not die: They were in the counsel at first, and at the time of the dispute they thought of teshuva in their hearts. Therefore, they were placed in a high place in Hell and stayed there.		ובני קרח לא מתו: הם היו בעצה תחלה, ובשעת המחלוקת הרהרו תשובה בלבם, לפיכך נתבצר להם מקום גבוה בגיהנם וישבו שם:

Thus, they didn't die, but that does not mean that they continued on their existence among the living. Meanwhile, Datan and Aviram, etc., were all drawn into the pit, meaning they were drawn into Gehinnom proper.

Mekorei Rashi informs us that Rashi draws this midrash from Sanhedrin 110a, Megillah 14a, Bemidbar Rabba, Midrash Aggadah, and Yalkut Shimoni 773. From the gemara in Sanhedrin:

Notwithstanding the children of Korah died not.⁴⁵  A Tanna taught: It has been said on the authority of Moses our Master: A place was set apart for them in the Gehenna, where they sat and sang praises [to God].

The Taz writes about this in Divrei David. He cites Rashi and the gemara in Sanhedrin. Then,

"and the Re'em {=Rabbi Eliyahu Mizrachi} brings a Midrash Rabba that the sons of Korach came up to the surface of the land, and they entered the land of Israel and were prophets. And a proof to this is from Shmuel, 'and his sons were singers', and so does Rashi write in Tehillim (42), and the Re'em goes on at length about this. And it is possible to say that they were in Hell for some length of time, and afterwards they ascended on the face of the Earth."

I suppose that since Rashi gives two different explanations in two different places, one would expect that there should be some way to harmonize them. This would not necessarily be the case if they were just two stand-alone midrashim.

Here is what Mizrachi says. First, he cites Rashi. Then,

"Bamidbar Rabba and perek Chelek {in Sanhedrin} they said:
'And the sons of Korach did not die.' They did not live and they were not judged. A Tanna taught in the name of the Sages: A place was set apart in Hell, and they stood on their feet and sang praises.


Rabbah b. Bar Hana said: I was proceeding on my travels, when an Arab said to me, 'Come, and I will shew thee where the men of Korah were swallowed up.' I went and saw two cracks whence issued smoke. Thereupon he took a piece of clipped wool, soaked it in water, attached it to the point of his spear, and passed it over there, and it was singed. Said I to him, 'Listen to what you are about to hear.' And I heard them saying thus: 'Moses and his Torah are true, but they [Korah's company] are liars.' 


The Arabian then said to me, 'Every thirty days Gehenna causes them to turn back [here] like meat in a pot, and they say thus: "Moses and his Torah are true, but they are liars."'¹


And Rashi {on that gemara} explains:
נתבצר - מלשון (ישעיהו כז) עיר בצורה התקין להון הקב"ה מקום גבוה שלא העמיקו כל כך בגיהנם ולא מתו:

'Hashem established for them a high place which was not so deep in Hell, and they did not die. Rather, every 30 days they return to Hell and are judged, for so do we say later on.'


This implies that he holds that this incident with the Arabian who showed Rabba Bar Bar Chana those who were swallowed up of Korach, who would say "Moshe and his Torah is true, and they are liars' refers to the sons of Korach. I would have thought that that incident with the Arabian, was speaking of those swallowed up of Korach {in general}, but not of the sons of Korach, for the sons of Korach ascended immediately on the surface of the earth; and that which states that they did not live, but they were not judged, argues on the Tanna saying it in the name of the Sages, that a place was established for them in Hell and they dwelled there; and from there they ascended to the surface of the earth, and entered Eretz Yisrael, and they were prophets and singers like Shmuel and his sons, who were descendants of Korach. And this is what is written משפחת הקרחי, and it is not difficult at all, except according to the opinion that ובני קרח לא מתו means that they did not live but were not judged. But according to the commentary of Rashi, all of it is difficult."

It pays to spend a moment or two on what Rashi says and does not say. I have heard questions raised as to whether Rashi on perek Chelek is really from Rashi. But, as Rabbi Slifkin writes in a footnote in an article in Hakirah, regarding Rashi's Stance on Corporealism:

Incidentally, Yonah Frankel in Darko shel Rashi bePerusho leTalmud (Jerusalem, 1975) pp. 304-335 proves that the printed  commentary to Perek Chelek attributed to Rashi was indeed substantially composed by Rashi, and therefore can be cited as indications of his beliefs. 

Separate from this, the text that Mizrachi cites from Rashi is not found in our Rashi text in Chumash. You might have noticed above, Rashi (from Wikisource; also in our printed gemaras) only makes the first statement, not the all-important second statement which confounds Mizrachi, that these are the same as the speakers below. So perhaps we can solve this via girsology, at least on behalf of Rashi.

(But I don't see how the Taz's answer would fix anything for Mizrachi, since Rabba Bar Bar Chana saw them, meaning the Bnei Korach, there, much much later. I also did not see the Midrash Rabba which Taz claims the Mizrachi refers to. Rather, it seems that Midrash Rabba on Korach simply echoes the gemara in perek Chelek, and this is what a straightforward reading gives us.)

On the other hand, the Taz noted the prooftext to Rashi's beliefs from his commentary on sefer Tehillim, perek 42, which begins:

א  לַמְנַצֵּחַ, מַשְׂכִּיל לִבְנֵי-קֹרַח.

1 For the Leader; Maschil of the sons of Korah.

Rashi on that pasuk writes:

"Of the sons of Korach: They are Asir, Elkana, and Evyasaf {meaning, the actual sons of Korach}, who were initially in the counsel of their father, and at the time of the dispute they separated. And when all around them was swallowed up, and the earth opened up its mouth, their place was left within the mouth of the earth, as it states 'but the sons of Korach did not die.' And there they sand praise, and there they established the mizmorim {such as this one in Tehillim}, and they ascended from there, and ruach hakodesh manifested upon them, and they prophesied upon the exiles and on the destruction of the Temple, and on the kingdom of the house of David."

I suppose since these mizmorim cover these topics, these would have to be said with prophecy.

I have two more suggestions which might help resolve any difficulties. First, Rashi on Chumash and Tehillim often lets us know Rashi's understanding of the pasuk. But, Rashi on gemara lets us know Rashi's understanding of the gemara, not necessarily Rashi's own position.

Second, I am not sure that ועלו משם refers to the sons of Korach ascending from there. Perhaps we could read it as that the mizmorim ascended from there. The idea is that they are stuck there -- and so are present for Rami Bar Bar Chana to hear them -- and yet, they also composed the chapters of Tehillim down there. But these mizmorim ascended upwards, such that people heard them and wrote them down.

If I am right, above, that this is just Rashi saying this, and he is not citing a Midrash Rabba, then my harmonization might work out quite well. On the other hand, one can read R' Eliyahu Mizrachi as referring to a Midrash Rabba. I don't know where this Midrash is, or if he is rather getting it from an interpretation of Rashi's words. I am pretty sure the midrash does not exist. See here for what does. But if it does exist, then we would need to reevaluate.