ACH in אַךְ טָרֹף טֹרָף -- an expression of certainty, doubt, or reduction?

Famously, אך and רק midrashically come only to exclude, to be memaet. And this is interesting because according to Biblical scholars, this usage of אך is only in Rabbinic Hebrew, while in Biblical Hebrew it means "surely", or "indeed". If so, this is an anachronistic sort of derasha, and so one reads in alternate meanings to what would have been intended by the Biblical author.

You could argue and say that the meaning in Rabbinic Hebrew is also the meaning in Biblical Hebrew. This would require analysis of how it is used across Tanach.

There is an אך in Vayigash that caught my eye. Yaakov relates the loss of Yosef, in Bereishit 44:28:

The one went away from me, and I said, "He has surely been torn to pieces, and I have not seen him since."

כח. וַיֵּצֵא הָאֶחָד מֵאִתִּי וָאֹמַר אַךְ טָרֹף טֹרָף וְלֹא רְאִיתִיו עַד הֵנָּה:

Or HaChaim is therefore impelled to interpret it as an exclusion:


"ACH TAROF etc.: He hints, by saying אך, that it is a reduction of טָרֹף טֹרָף, for he [Yosef] is not in the distress of servitude nor in the distress of prison. And that is why he concludes וְלֹא רְאִיתִיו עַד הֵנָּה, behold he is relating that he does exist, but he has yet to see him until now.

Further is intended by אַךְ טָרֹף טֹרָף etc. to explain that אך is a reduction specifically in the tearing [טָרֹף], but regarding that which he said 'a wild animal ate him", which they za'"l said was intended as a reference to the wife of Potifar, in this, there is no reduction, for he was already [????] that which she caused him [Yosef] to lose 10 seons, for he had been destined to raise 12 tribes, as they za'l said, and via this wickedness [??] ten drops [of semen] fell from him and thus only two [Ephraim and Menashe] came from him."

OK, not exactly what I would call peshat, even though it comes from the Or HaChaim. But this sort of close reading / midrashic reading makes a great deal of the Rabbinic understanding of אך.

Onkelos translates this אך as ברם. But is he saying "only" or "indeed"?

Look at Jastrow, who shows that in Aramaic it has both meanings:

Though maybe we should restrict our investigation to Targum.

Rabbenu Yonah Ibn Janach writes as follows, taking this אך as a doubt -- thus, perhaps, a miut -- as opposed to the usual "surely":

"The word אך here does NOT come to relate that it is a certain thing, as it meant in [Bereishit 29:14, Lavan speaking to Yaakov]

יד  וַיֹּאמֶר לוֹ לָבָן, אַךְ עַצְמִי וּבְשָׂרִי אָתָּה; וַיֵּשֶׁב עִמּוֹ, חֹדֶשׁ יָמִים.

14 And Laban said to him: 'Surely thou art my bone and my flesh.' And he abode with him the space of a month.

but rather for a doubt. And a proof to this is [the end of the pasuk] וְלֹא רְאִיתִיו עַד הֵנָּה. And had it been the case in truth, it would not have been correct to say this." (Sefer HaShorashim 28)

Presumably, Ibn Janach's reason is that "I have not seen him" indicates some uncertainty. Well, I haven't seen him, so presumably he is dead. And why say this if you saw his bloody clothing? Of course you would not be expecting to see him after this.

But one (meaning Josh) could argue in the opposite direction. For instance: Yaakov is saying that this was what he was convinced of, based on the evidence, at the time. Yes, maybe Yosef could have lost the clothing and survived the attack. But Yaakov is further convinced that his interpretation of Yosef's death was true because Yosef never did surface.

Moreover, one should not ignore the emotion of the statement. This loss / disappearance of Yosef profoundly affected Yaakov, and a grieving father confronted with this loss would say, emotionally, surely this has happened. Whether or not there is absolute hard evidence.

Ibn Ezra, I think, says much of the same thing, though projecting the certainly to the present day:

אך טרף טרף. והעד כי לא ראיתיו עד הנה:

He has אך [certainly] been torn. And the evidence of this is that I have not seen him until now.

Meanwhile, Rabbi Yosef Ibn Caspi argues, and introduces a safek into the proceedings:

"The import is 'I said, and estimated [J: back then] that he was torn, though this had an element of doubt. But regardless, I have not seen him until now.' And see [says Ibn Caspi] the difference between my position and that of the Chacham Ibn Ezra who said 'and the evidence is לא ראיתיו עד הנה. For this is no evidence at all!"

Kehas and Gershon get a Vaydaber. Merari does not.

Summary: Or HaChaim explains it as a special elevation to Gershon. I explain it as due to the interjection at the end of the instruction for Kehas.

Post: Here is Or HaChaim on the first pasuk of parshas Naso:

The point he makes is that there is a separate dibbur for introducing the count of Gershon. That is, we have here a count of the families of the three sons of Levi.

Kehas is in parshas Bamidbar, in Bamidbar 4:1

:

And Gershon is in the beginning of parshas Naso, in Bamidbar 4:21:

And the count for Merari is a bit later, in Bamidbar 4:29.

The three are obviously a set, so why do Kehas and Gershon merit a separate dibbur while Merari does not?

Or HaChaim explains as follows:

“It is necessary to say Vaydaber a second time, and it is not sufficient with what was stated Vaydaber Hashem in the preceding counting of the children of Kehas in parshas Bamidbar because it [the count of Gershon] comes to say another matter besides the count, and this is that they should lift up and elevate them over the children of Merari. And this matter is a thing in and of itself, for this ‘Nesius’ is not in the same domain as the ‘Nesius’ of the children of Kehas, who were the carriers (‘Nosei’) of the Aron. For this reason, a separate dibbur was established for him. And therefore, when he commanded the counting of the children of Merari, he said ‘the children of Merari… you shall count’ [Josh:  but it does not say the word נשא like it does for the other brothers], it does not establish a dibbur by itself, for they have no ascendancy, but only a count, from that which it says Tifkod and not Tisa.”

In other words, there is a secondary meaning to the word נשא. It refers to an elevation rather than a count. And so we neatly explain why there is a special dibbur for Gershon at the same time that we explain the change in language by Merari.

I would explain the difference in a different way. The reason for the repetition of Vaydaber has nothing to do with Gershon, who was counted second, but with Kehas, who was counted first. Look at the full perek here to see the structure of the perek.

The structure is:

1. Vaydaber
2. Count Kehas
3. Duties of Kehas
4. Interjection (4: 17-20): Vaydaber: Kehas might die, Aharon and his sons should take these steps to prevent.
5. Vaydaber
6. Count Gershon also
7. Duties of Gershon
8. Count Merari
9. Duties of Merari

The big change is in [IV] the interjection at the very end of parshas Bamidbar.

That this interjection requires a Vaydaber should indicate to us that this is indeed an interjection, and a change of topic. If so, then naturally we need a Vaydaber (and a gam hem) to return us to the initial topic.

However, there is no such interjection at the end of Gershon. And so we can go straight to Merari, without an introductory Vaydaber.

Or HaChaim further comments as follows:

"To Moshe: And there [before, by Kehas at the end of parshas Bamidbar] it states [the Moshe] and to Aharon. This because there the command comes to Aharon in order that he perform the seder which is stated in the matter of the burden of the children of Kehas, for it is written 

וְשָׂמוּ אוֹתָם אִישׁ אִישׁ עַל-עֲבֹדָתוֹ, וְאֶל-מַשָּׂאוֹ. that they not die. Therefore it stated 'and to Aharon', while there is no necessity for this for the burden of the children of Aharon."

See above for the Vaydabers for Kehas and Gershon, to see one say "El Moshe veEl Aharon" and the other say "El Moshe". This explanation is plausible.

However, note that the command of vesamu osam has its own Vaydaber, directed to Moshe and Aharon. So why for the counting part and designation of duties part alone should Aharon be included? Perhaps because otherwise the separate instruction to Aharon would not make as much sense.

I would suggest an alternate explanation, that really even the second Vaydaber was to both Moshe and Aharon. But since the function of this is to recover from the interjection, a minimal Vaydaber will suffice.

Darshening psiks in parashat Beshalach

Summary: Thus, Psik after the word  מצרים, that they saw the sar [heavenly prince] of Egypt traveling from heaven to aid them; and The trup symbol of psik hints to words which are not written, to elucidate what was standing before you 'there'. Should we take the Targum Yonasan to refer to an anthropomorphic God?


Post: Birkas Avraham writes, on parashat Beshalach:

7. Psik after the word  מצרים, that they saw the sar [heavenly prince] of Egypt traveling from heaven to aid them.

In the verse (Shemot 14:10, aforementioned), וישאו בני ישראל את עיניהם והנה מצרים נוסע אחרים, 'and Israel lifted their eyes and behold, Egypt was traveling after them', there is a trup symbol of psik after the word מצרים. Certainly this hints to that which is in the midrash and brought in Rashi here, that they saw the sar of Egypt traveling from heaven to aid the Egyptians. And it is stated in the midrash that it came to aid with complaints and criticisms. And in the location of the trup symbol of psik, there is place to add words which were between 'Egypt', to the answer of Hashem, and the merit of the forefathers which stood for Israel in that time and that place, and still stands for us from Egypt until now."

Here is the pasuk and Rashi to which he refers:

10. Pharaoh drew near, and the children of Israel lifted up their eyes, and behold! the Egyptians were advancing after them. They were very frightened, and the children of Israel cried out to the Lord.

י. וּפַרְעֹה הִקְרִיב וַיִּשְׂאוּ בְנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל אֶת עֵינֵיהֶם וְהִנֵּה מִצְרַיִם נֹסֵעַ אַחֲרֵיהֶם וַיִּירְאוּ מְאֹד וַיִּצְעֲקוּ בְנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל אֶל יְ־הֹוָ־ה:

the Egyptians were advancing after them: Heb. נֹסֵעַ [in the singular]. With one accord, like one man. Alternatively, [in the singular it means that] and behold, Egypt was advancing after them, [denoting that] they [the Israelites] saw the heavenly prince of Egypt advancing from heaven to aid the Egyptians. [From] Tanchuma.

נסע אחריהם: בלב אחד כאיש אחד. דבר אחר והנה מצרים נוסע אחריהם, ראו שר של מצרים נוסע מן השמים לעזור למצרים. תנחומא:

Mekorei Rashi says to check Tanchuma 1:13 but I don't see anything there. Also, other sources. The idea he brings down is that 'Egypt' was the name of the sar.

It is actually a munach legarmeih, rather than a psik:

And like all remez, it is not strictly necessary, since there are other ways of deriving this.

Next:

"27. The trup symbol of psik hints to words which are not written, to elucidate what was standing before you 'there'.


In the verse (Shmos 17:6), הנני עומד לפניך שם על הצור בחורב, there is the trup symbol of psik (a vertical bar | ) after the word שם. And it is possible to say that this hints to that which is stated in Targum Yonasan, תמן באתרא  דתחמי רושם ריגלא בחורב ותימחי ביה בטינרא בחוטרך.

{In English:

Behold, I will stand before thee there, on the spot where thou sawest the impress {roshem}  of the foot on Horeb; and thou shalt smite the rock with thy rod, and therefrom shall come forth waters for drinking, and the people shall drink.

}

And in Perush Yonatan is written that it is understood that the matter of the regel is the manifestation of the Divine Presence, and not a bodily form.


And so wrote the Or HaChaim, that Hashem's Glory fills the entire earth, but that there is a place that the manifestation of the Divine Presence is increased, see there. And it is possible to explain that raglayim as a matter of a place where the descending of the sheva to the Lower World takes hold."

It seems that he is saying here that the pause itself is sufficient to insert whatever we want, into the gap. An interesting idea, but I don't find it convincing. Oh, and this as well is a munach legarmeih:

In terms of how the derash might have come about, עמד is chaser. That could make it into the past tense rather than the present or future tense, and is thus a reference to the previous incident by the burning bush.

Birkas Avraham, as well as Perush Yonasan and Or HaChaim, seems to be combating the idea of an anthropomorphizing of God. For a contrary notion, though I don't know that I am persuaded, see here.

Darshening the psik in את שמע | יעקב

Summary: To account for the elaboration in Targum Yonasan. Plus another approach to the trup and targum, and more.

Post:
a) In parashat Vayeitzei, we encounter the following pasuk (Bereishit 29:13):

There is a revii on אחתו. To subdivide it, we would use telisha gedola, geresh, and munach legarmeih. The geresh is used on the word לבן, which means that we must use for the minor dichotomy the munach legarmeih on the word שמע. (It is remotely possible that the telisha ketana on ויהי is really a telisha gedola, and would represent the earliest dichotomy; telisha ketana and gedola switch off on occasion, and Minchas Shai does note that in ספרים ספרדיים, the כ of כשמע has a dagesh kal, something we would expect after a disjunctive rather than conjunctive accent.) But the vertical bar after the word שמע is part of the munach legarmeih, rather than a psik. The psik and the vertical bar of munach legarmeih are homographs.

b) The Targum Pseudo-Yonasan on this pasuk reads (English translation):

And it was when Laban heard the account of the strength and piety of Jakob the son of his sister; how he had taken the birthright and the order of blessing from the hand of his brother, and how the Lord had revealed Himself to him at Bethel; how the stone had been removed, and how the well had upflowed and risen to the brink; he ran to meet him and embrace him, and kissed him and led him into his house; and he related to Laban all these things.

I highlighted Targum Yonasan's insertion. What is the Targum's basis of this elaboration? I would consider three idea.

First, the phrase sheima Yaakov on a peshat-level just means the report of Yaakov's arrival, but it can also mean renown. Therefore, this should be an account of his mighty deeds. Second, the word האלה might be considered a bit awkward. What are all 'these' words? We can match it up, then, with the sheima earlier in the pasuk, and say that Lavan first heard reports of Yaakov's deed, from Rachel (with ותגד of the previous pasuk encompassing more than just Yaakov's arrival), and Yaakov confirmed it with a firsthand account. And the details would be every significant event in the plain text of the pesukim plus every midrash already mentioned by Targum Yonasan. Third -- though this is not applicable here and is more typical of the Baal HaTurim's approach -- to find details to be mentioned, we could look at the few instances the word שֵמע occurs in Tanach -- once here, once in not taking sheima shav, and here, here, here, and here.

c) Birkas Avraham notes the pasuk, and the next pasuk in which Lavan says to Yaakov that Yaakov is of his bone and flesh. Then, he writes:

"There is the trup of psik [a vertical bar | ] after the word שֵמע, and it is understood well together which what is stated in Targum Yonasan ben Uzziel, that he heard from Rachel the mights and kind deeds of Yaakov his sister's son, how he had taken the birthright and the order of blessing from the hand of his brother, and how the Lord had revealed Himself to him at Bethel; how the stone had been removed, and how the well had upflowed and risen to the brink;, then, he ran to meet him, etc.


And in a manner of jest (הלצה) it is possible to add that Lavan rejoiced over the fact that Yaakov was his sister's son, for we establish in Masechet Bava Basra (daf 110a), 'most sons are similar to the mother's brother.' And if so, Yaakov is evidence as to the righteousness of Lavan in the eyes of the residents of his city. And therefore Lavan adds and says to Yaakov, 'surely you are my bone and flesh', as if this is in the merit of the righteous uncle.


And I further saw in the commentary of the Or HaChaim, who explains that the aforementioned כל הדברים Yaakov Avinu related to Lavan, such that via this he would leave off of being wicked, and that he {=Yaaakov} was a mighty man, etc. And the Or HaChaim adds that upon this, Lavan responded to him with the words of this aforementioned gemara, and said to him that despite all his wisdom and might that he related to him, know that the uncle is greater than him in this [for the language of אך is an exclusion], that anything which is compared is not equal to that it is compared to in all its aspects, with leaving off some part. See there in Or HaChaim."

d) After enjoying the various parts of the dvar Torah above (in part c), I will now explain my slight objections. I don't see why a psik specifically would show that all these details were related. Maybe that there was a lengthy pause in which Rachel told over all this? Also, it is not a pesik, but a munach legarmeih. But you can see some back and forth on this matter in this older post. Finally, אך in Biblical Hebrew acts as an intensifier rather than as an exclusion. אך excludes in Mishnaic Hebrew. But naturally, on the level of derash (both halachic and aggadic), such interpretation of אך is common.

If Abraham won't come to the mountain...

Summary: then the mountain will come to Abraham. So explains the Or HaChaim. Plus, other ways of explaining the pasuk, on the level of peshat.

Post: In parashat Lech Lecha:

14. And the Lord said to Abram after Lot had parted from him, "Please raise your eyes and see, from the place where you are, northward and southward and eastward and westward.

יד. וַי־הֹוָ־ה אָמַר אֶל אַבְרָם אַחֲרֵי הִפָּרֶד לוֹט מֵעִמּוֹ שָׂא נָא עֵינֶיךָ וּרְאֵה מִן הַמָּקוֹם אֲשֶׁר אַתָּה שָׁם צָפֹנָה וָנֶגְבָּה וָקֵדְמָה וָיָמָּה

15. For all the land that you see I will give to you and to your seed to eternity.

טו. כִּי אֶת כָּל הָאָרֶץ אֲשֶׁר אַתָּה רֹאֶה לְךָ אֶתְּנֶנָּה וּלְזַרְעֲךָ עַד עוֹלָם:

Avraham was going to get the entirety of the land, and here Hashem promises everything that he can see. Is there a contradiction here? Or Hachaim sees one, and resolves it with a midrash of his own creation:

"Behold, it is known that the measure of a person's vision is limited by that which he can see by the light of the sun. And here, Hashem made for him a miracle, that the edges of the land drew near, and he saw everything. And while this was going on, he also acquired {החזיק, performed chazaka} in all the land, for there is no greater chazaka than this, that a rock moves from its place to draw near before the master of the land. And this matter should not seem remote to you, for we find that the land folded up {for kefitzat haderech, allowing for fast travel} for his servant {Eliezer} and it was also folded up beneath his sons."

This works nicely on a midrashic level. On a peshat level, perhaps we can say that he did in fact see the entirety of the land; or rather, enough of the land in each direction to represent that direction; or, it is an idiom, that everything in all directions for quite a while will belong to Avraham; or, only as far as the eye can see, though of course Avraham also received more.

The context of this havtacha was Avraham's offer to Lot:

8. And Abram said to Lot, "Please let there be no quarrel between me and between you and between my herdsmen and between your herdsmen, for we are kinsmen.		ח. וַיֹּאמֶר אַבְרָם אֶל לוֹט אַל נָא תְהִי מְרִיבָה בֵּינִי וּבֵינֶיךָ וּבֵין רֹעַי וּבֵין רֹעֶיךָ כִּי אֲנָשִׁים אַחִים אֲנָחְנוּ:
9. Is not all the land before you? Please part from me; if [you go] left, I will go right, and if [you go] right, I will go left."		ט. הֲלֹא כָל הָאָרֶץ לְפָנֶיךָ הִפָּרֶד נָא מֵעָלָי אִם הַשְּׂמֹאל וְאֵימִנָה וְאִם הַיָּמִין וְאַשְׂמְאִילָה:
10. And Lot raised his eyes, and he saw the entire plain of the Jordan, that it was entirely watered; before the Lord destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah, like the garden of the Lord, like the land of Egypt, as you come to Zoar.		י. וַיִּשָּׂא לוֹט אֶת עֵינָיו וַיַּרְא אֶת כָּל כִּכַּר הַיַּרְדֵּן כִּי כֻלָּהּ מַשְׁקֶה לִפְנֵי שַׁחֵת יְ־הֹוָ־ה אֶת סְדֹם וְאֶת עֲמֹרָה כְּגַן יְ־הֹוָ־ה כְּאֶרֶץ מִצְרַיִם בֹּאֲכָה צֹעַר:
11. And Lot chose for himself the entire plain of the Jordan, and Lot traveled from the east, and they parted from one another.		יא. וַיִּבְחַר לוֹ לוֹט אֵת כָּל כִּכַּר הַיַּרְדֵּן וַיִּסַּע לוֹט מִקֶּדֶם וַיִּפָּרְדוּ אִישׁ מֵעַל אָחִיו:

Just as Lot lifted his eyes and was able to select a land for himself, either to the left or the right, so would Avraham select the entirety of the land, to the left, right, North, South, East, and West. That is why Hashem mentions Avraham raising his eyes and seeing. Not because this is a limitation on the gift, but because it is a comparison to what Lot has just received from Avraham. As for the details, on a peshat level, work it out. There is no need to be concerned and so particular.

If we were making up midrashim, though, it seems that we could just say that Hashem granted Avraham supernatural sight. And perhaps we can even read that into שָׂא נָא עֵינֶיךָ, raise up your eyes.

Avraham did not consume pas akum or stam yeinam, redux

A while back, in 2006, I considered a dvar Torah that grappled with how Avraham could have eaten pas akum and stam yeinam from the hands of Malkitzedek, and dismissed this sort of concern.

Now I see that this idea was already put forth, in a slightly different form, in Or HaChaim. He considers the question of the interjection of Malkitzedek between the King of Sodom coming out and the relating of his words to Avraham. He gives an answer, about the difference between the conduct good and bad people. (See the first paragraph in the Hebrew below.) Then, he writes (second paragraph in the Hebrew):

"Furthermore this is desired based on what Chazal said, that Avraham Avinu kept the entire Torah, even eruvei tavshilin which was a rabbinic ordinance. And therefore the Scriptures informed us that Avraham was an honored and great prince in everyone's eyes; and when the king of Sodom went out to him, naturally he would have greeted him with a present of bread for him his servants, and his warriors. And since Avraham kept away from food -- from the bread, because of pas akum, and from the wine because of stam yeinam, therefore, the king of Sodom he was clever and endeavored to make the gift of food via a trustworthy person, who was Shem [=Malkitzedek]. And from the hand of Shem to the hand of Avraham. And the Scriptures are informing us of a novelty, that even bread and wine, which was only Rabbinic, Avraham was insistent upon. And certainly, the other matters which have a worry of a Biblical prohibition."

An interesting approach, though one I disagree with. Still, even within this disagreement, there is a slight difference in attitude between this dvar and the previous one -- between insisting that Avraham could not have done X because it goes against a derabbanan, and then finding a solution; and noting a textual irregularity and answering it as another instance or proof of Avraham keeping even derabbanans.

I don't think that, historically, Avraham kept all relevant Biblical commandments, let alone Rabbinic institutions. There are midrashim that assert that he did. It is possible that the authors of these midrashim believed this to be historically true, just like Or HaChaim and plenty of other people, rabbanim. It is also possible that the authors of these midrashim were speaking homiletically, and did not really believe that Avraham kept all the mitzvos. As such, they would dismiss as irrelevant instances of Avraham serving milk and meat, or Yaakov marrying two sisters, and so on.

There is a famous teshuva of the Rashba (1:94) that the Avos kept the Torah. But it is more nuanced that that, I think. Let us examine the words of the Rashba, at the end of that teshuva:

"And in terms of what they [, Chazal,] said, that Yaakov kept the 613 commandments, and that this is hinted in the words (Bereishit 32) עם לבן גרתי, and it is difficult to you how he kept them, when he was not yet commanded; and further, that Yaakov married two sisters.


Know that they, za'l, said that Avraham kept even the eruvei techumin as is written (Bereishit 27) וישמר משמרתי מצותי חקתי ותורותי. And do not be astonished, for you have already been awakened to know that there is not, in all the details of the commandments, a commandment which does not hint to matters of chochma, such that the chochma should come {?} so that the shefeilim should be found in actions, and in the hints that they hint to the chochma, so that it comes out that the chochma compels the action and the inaction. And the action and inaction inform what is hinted to them from the chochma.


And the patriarchs reached, with their great wisdom, to these fundamentals, just as Chazal said regarding Avraham that his two kidneys expressed to him chochma like two teachers. And so too all the patriarchs, such that Yehuda, who received from his fathers, kept the commandment of yibbum, even though he was not yet commanded upon it, and he commanded it to his son in that language itself that the Torah commands it, and this is via the aspect I have spoken.


And regarding that which Yaakov married two sisters, know that the Torah stands on three pillars:

1. time
2. place
3. vessels

The time, that not all days are forbidden in labor as on Shabbat and Yom Tov. And one is not prohibited in chametz like on Pesach. And one is not obligated in Succah and lulav like on Succot.


And the place, that not every place is obligated in terumah and maaser, and is prohibited in untithed foods, as in the land of Israel. And one is not obligated in sacrifices as in the Bet HaMikdash.


And vessels, that not with every possible item can one fulfill, in exchange for the lulav and etrog, and not every thing can one offer, like cattle and sheep, turtledoves and doves, and not everyone is fit to offer like a kohen. And I am not able to explain further, and one who contemplates the matter will find."

Now, just because the Rashba endorses the idea -- or R' Eliyahu Mizrachi, or Gur Aryeh -- do we need to agree. Or even find it (or a simplified version of it) convincing, or non-silly.

But note that it is not, according to the Rashba, a simple anachronism. Since the mitzvos in the Torah are rooted in spiritual fundamentals, by spiritual knowledge, one could recreate or intuit the details of the mitzvos. And he seems to be saying that not everything will be applicable to every time, place, or situation. He is dealing in general, but mentions the particular of Yaakov marrying two wives, and this is reminiscent of Ramban's distinguishing keeping the Torah based on place.

One could ask: How could Avraham or Yaakov have descended to Egypt, when it is an issur of traveling to Egypt? One could say that it was a prohibition of returning to Egypt. Or rather, that the time for this issur had not yet set in.

It is more than that. Before mattan Torah, in this different place, time, and available vessels, the spiritual principles could yield different appropriate actions. In terms of mitzvos, obviously it was crystalized in its specific form, but beforehand, not so. And so you won't find an exact match to every single commandment, Biblical and Rabbinic.

If so, I would expect that even Rashba would not be so bothered by every single "problem" that bothered later meforshim, ad hayom hazeh, in trying to put the square peg of the patriarchal narrative into the round hole of Rabbinic Judaism.

Thus, I don't believe that Rashba would have had to find a kvetch to account for how Avraham could have married Hagar (as I've seen in others). For Hagar, recall, was a maidservant to Sarah. And she stayed a maidservant, which was why she could revert to Sarah's control later. And one can only give a maidservant to a manservant, whether an eved kenaani or an eved ivri. (Such as saying that Sarah was a prophet and he was following her as a horaas shaah.) I would guess that he would likely find an "out" based on his three conditions, rather than figuring out a specific halachic way that it would have worked out, and advancing that as peshat.