Nature's Wealth on the seven species of Israel

Shirat Devorah has an interesting excerpt from a book called Nature's Wealth, about the seven species of Eretz Yisrael, in honor of Tu BeShvat. She writes at the bottom her source:

Source: "Nature's Wealth" -  Rabbi Moshe Cohen Shaouli and Rabbi Yaakov Fisher - based on the teachings of the Rambam

Also available here, perhaps for a bit less. It does look rather nice, and an interesting idea, though I wonder whether it is indeed based on the teachings of the Rambam. The Rambam's son said that we need not believe and defend every medical statement mentioned by Chazal:

…We are not obliged, on account of the great superiority of the sages of the Talmud, and their expertise in their explanations of the Torah and its details, and the truth of their sayings in the explanation of its general principles and details, to defend them and uphold their views in all of their sayings in medicine, in science and in astronomy, or to believe them [in those matters] as we believe them regarding the explanation of the Torah… we find that they made medicinally related statements in the Gemara which have not been justified or validated...

and the Rambam himself made a statement about Chazal relying on contemporary science, such that it may not be correct:

You must, however, not expect that everything our Sages say respecting astronomical matters should agree with observation, for mathematics were not fully developed in those days; and their statements were not based on the authority of the Prophets, but on the knowledge which they either themselves possessed or derived from contemporary men of science. 

If so, it might not be wise, or within the shitta of the Rambam, to cite statements from Chazal about the medicinal properties of various foodstuffs as if this is Torah miSinai, especially if any such statement is not also backed by present-day science.

To give two examples from Shirat Devorah's excerpt, first we will consider what it has to say about figs:

Our ancestors found figs to be of great medicinal value. The Bible mentions dried whole figs as a cure for boils. Rabbi Abraham Ibn Ezra writes that "fresh or dried figs stimulate blood circulation, and thus preserve life". Our Sages said that "one gripped with a powerful hunger should be given figs to eat" because they increase the flow of blood and are rejuvenating.

I am not sure where Ibn Ezra writes this. However, as we have seen several times in the past, Ibn Ezra repeats many things we find in Galen, presumably via Avicenna. This is not Torah miSinai but rather ancient Greek medicine. And often, the now-discredited theory of the four humours is the basis of certain statements. And note that he talks about stimulating blood circulation, where blood is one of the four humours.

Indeed, we find the following statement by Galen on the properties of foodstuffs:

So call it Ibn Ezra and it is suddenly kosher and divine revelation about the nature of these figs.

Further, what does it mean that

 The Bible mentions dried whole figs as a cure for boils. 

? Presumably, this is a reference to 2 Melachim 20:7, where Chizkiyahu had boils, and Yeshayahu instructed how to cure him:

ז  וַיֹּאמֶר יְשַׁעְיָהוּ, קְחוּ דְּבֶלֶת תְּאֵנִים; וַיִּקְחוּ וַיָּשִׂימוּ עַל-הַשְּׁחִין, וַיֶּחִי.

7 And Isaiah said: 'Take a cake of figs.' And they took and laid it on the boil, and he recovered.

These were not mere boils, but Chizkiyahu was near death at this point. But see what Rashi and Radak say about this, citing Chazal:

"In the words of Chazal, is it not that if you place fig sap upon flesh, immediately the flesh is smitten? Rather, this is a miracle within a miracle. Similarly, 'and Hashem showed him wood'. It was bitter wood. Such is the way of Hashem -- with bitter, he sweetens the bitter."

If so, this is not proof that the Biblle mentions dried whole figs as a general cure for boils. This was in fact a miracle.

Even Ralbag does not think it is a cure for boils, though as a rationalist, he sees this as Hashem performing the miracle in a way that one can point out other, quasi-natural causes:

"It is known that Hashem, when He performs wonders, seeks for them some causes, as it is possible, so that it is slightly less strange via the rule of nature. And therefore he commanded to take a cake of figs. For even though it does not have the power to effect this, behold, there is in it some effect in healing abscesses and in their בישול {?}."

And so the statement stands on slightly firmer ground, though it is still a bit shaky. The book might well give its sources, but I am not sure where the statement

Our Sages said that "one gripped with a powerful hunger should be given figs to eat" because they increase the flow of blood and are rejuvenating.

comes from, other than Yoma 83b, or whether this explanation, outside quotes, about increasing the flow of blood is in the Talmud or is the authors' interjection.

Second, in terms of barley, they write:

The Talmud warns that barley may cause intestinal worms. Also, because it is difficult to digest, barley should be avoided by those with gastrointestinal problems.

I don't think the authors mean to conflate the two. But the idea that it causes intestinal worms is find in Berachot 36a:

Over raw cabbage and barley-flour we say the blessing 'by whose word all things exist', and may we not infer from this that over wheat-flour we say 'who createst the fruit of the ground'? — No; over wheat-flour also we say 'by whose word all things exist'. Then let him state the rule for wheat-flour, and it will apply to barley-flour as a matter of course?⁷  — If he had stated the rule as applying to wheat-flour, I might have said: That is the rule for wheat-flour, but over barley-flour we need say no blessing at all. Therefore we are told that this is not so. But is barley-flour of less account than salt or brine, of which we have learnt:⁸  Over salt and brine one says 'by whose word all things exist'? — It was necessary [to lay down the rule for barley-flour]. You might argue that a man often puts a dash of salt or brine into his mouth [without harm], but barley-flour is harmful in creating tapeworms, and therefore we need say no blessing over it. We are therefore told that since one has some enjoyment from it he must say a blessing over it.

If it indeed means that barley-flour causes tapeworms, then this would, in all likelihood, be based on Chazal's belief in spontaneous generation. (The phrase used in the gemara, BTW, is that it is 'difficult for kukyanei'. This in turn is related to the anasakis worms found in fish. And it makes sense that it means that it causes them to exist, similar to how certain other activities are kasha for davar acher, meaning tzaraas.) One could plausibly explain that the tape-worm eggs were laid in the barley flour, and so ingesting it uncooked would allow those tapeworm eggs to hatch inside one's body. But if so, wouldn't the same be true for uncooked wheat-flour?

But one should not simply repeat the Talmudic advice as if it were a certainty. And even more so, one should not malign barley in general, where the Talmud only spoke about barley-flour causing this.

So I don't know that I would rely on this book to accurately and completely tell me about what Chazal said, or to learn practical information from Chazal about the medicinal properties of these foodstuffs. As a coffee-table book, an/or as a place to start (especially if they do have footnotes), it looks nice.

However, it looks like this book might be intended to offer practical medical advice, based on outdated medicine from the time of the Rambam an earlier. Thus:

Nature's Wealth is a unique treasure, discussing Health and Healing plants, based on the teachings of the Rambam! This book is recommended by Professors of Science and Medicine. It features many preventions of illnesses and their care. Compiled by: Rabbi Moshe Cohen Shaouli and Rabbi Yaakov Fisher.

If it is indeed practical advice, I would warn people to stay away. We are commanded by the Torah (Devarim 4:15) "And you shall guard yourselves very well...". Following medical advice from people using medieval medicine, and who even seem to misunderstand / accidentally misrepresent some basic sources in the Torah and Chazal, would not be keeping with that Biblical commandment, IMHO.

How shall we understand the mandrakes?

Summary: According to Radak, Ibn Caspi, and Shadal. And more thoughts.

Post: Michlal Yofi

"דודאים -- they are the root of an herb in the shape of a human, male and female -- mandragur in foreign tongue. (In German, אלרויען, alraun.) 


{Then, citing Radak, as Michlal Yofi often does:}

Perhaps Reuven heard that which the common folk said, that they helped for a woman's conception, and since his mother had stopped from giving birth, he brought them to her. But this thing, [the efficacy of mandrake root,] is not true. For if it were so, why did Rachel not conceive, for she took from them? And Leah as well did not conceive because of them, for behold it says וישמע אלקים את לאה, that Hashem heard Leah."

Ibn Caspi:

"Though mandrakes don't have any segulah for conception nor to a matter of [love] at all, why should we struggle with this, after the Torah did not explain it, just as it does not explain many causes without number. And perhaps they have to benefit {segulah} at all, but the Giver of the Torah wrote this for whatever reason He wished, for many purposes, to write the matter of the striving of Rachel and Leah in this, and all attached to this, as I will write in the sefer Tiras Kesef. And Rachel desired these mandrakes for the sake of the pleasure of their form {? }, just as she desired many other forms, or to eat figs and grapes. 


And behold, Rachel was not Miriam the prophetess, the sister of Aharon and Moshe. All the more so that she would desire them for one of the segulot that Ibn Sina {+Avicenna} mentioned. All the more so that perhaps the Giver of the Torah knew that they had a segulah for conception, of that the women of that time thought so, such that their form was about the connection between the male and the female. Perhaps from this, when they looked upon them, or suspended them from the neck, the woman would be aroused and go into heat, and in general these matters are revealed to those who have eyes."

To summarize: It does not matter; perhaps it is written for some other purpose; and maybe it does not work -- don't put too much stock in the desires of a non-prophetess. Also, maybe it does work, or would work via the placebo effect or some other psychological effect.

It is a noteworthy chiddush that we don't have to assume that they actually work, even if the Imahos thought that they did work.

One can see what Avicenna writes about mandrakes here, put into wine and administered as an anaesthetic. Also ascribed to Avicenna but not necessarily stated by him is an origin of mandrakes from the sperm from a thief hung upon the gallows. See here.

Shadal:

"The Alexandrian translator translated mandragorae, and so does Onkelos translate יברוחין, which is in the Arabic language as well the mandragorae. And the kadmonim made from them witchcraft (filtra) to induce love in the heart of their partner. And therefore (according to the testimony of Dioscorides) they called them Circaeae, based on the name Circe, and they said that דודאים is based on the word דודים whose import is love.


And all this is extremely unlikely in my eyes, for Rachel did not need witchcraft to make her husband love her, for he already loved her most of all his wives, such that Leah said to her, 'is is not enough that you have taken my husband?' Also, this is not mentioned at all that Yaakov was given to drink of the juice of these mandrakes.


And Rabbi Avraham Ibn Ezra mentions that there are those who say that they benefit conception, and he says that this is the opposite of their nature, which is cold.


And Ramban wrote that men say that the root of the mandrakes aid conception, but Reuven did not bring the root but rather the flowers. And he says that Leah desired the mandrakes to be entertained thereby and to enjoy their scent (as is written in Shir HaShirim 7:14, 'the mandrakes give forth their scent'.) Amd to this my mind inclines. 


And we don't know which flower is the dudaim. And Clericus says that if we come to estimate which flower it was, it is possible to say that it is what is called Amomo, whose scent is good, and its fruit is similar in form to grapes, as well as to baskets, which are called dudaim. (See Yirmeyahu 24:1.)"

An interesting idea here by JG Frazer -- that Leah's conception and birth of Yissachar, Zevulun, and Dina form an interjection, and thus a moving away from an original story in which it was Yosef's birth caused by the dudaim. And the purpose of the interjection is to move away, by a pious editor, from 'this crude boorish superstition in the patriarchal narrative'. (One might also point out the dual etymology of Yissachar to bolster this idea.)

Name-calling aside, the idea that this might be a deliberate interjection (even not by a separate editor) is remotely plausible. If so, there might be other reasons (or the same reason) to introduce this long pause between cause and effect; emphasizing God's role, over that of witchcraft.

But I don't buy it. This is simply speculation, with no real supporting evidence. And indeed, there is an etymology linking Yissachar to the dudaim. And Yosef has two etymologies, neither of which is linked to the dudaim, something we would expect if it were the original conclusion. And it is Reuven as actor, bringing the dudaim, in a way that ultimately benefited his mother. Thus, the narrative reads rather nicely as it stands, with Rachel either going for a trinket over her husband, or seeking medical / superstitional aid, with Hashem as the ultimate arbiter of who gets what.

Is וַיִּיקֶץ נֹחַ malei or chaser, according to Radak, against the masorah (and Torah codes)?

Summary: Michlal Yofi says it is chaser here in Noach and in Vayeitzei, which happens to be against our Masoretic text. Minchas Shai explains that he is wrong, and how he is wrong. He misinterpreted Radak. But then I show (I think) that Radak indeed explicitly says this, and so Minchas Shai is incorrect. Further, the Samaritan text is (perhaps surprisingly) chaser, and there are many Jewish texts that are chaser. And perhaps R' Meir Abulafia, while at odds with Radak, is recording a krei and ketiv distinction. Naturally, this has repercussions of possibly invalidating all modern sifrei Torah, as well as many Torah codes.

Post: In the middle of parashat Noach, 9:24, we read:

24. And Noah awoke from his wine, and he knew what his small son had done to him.

כד. וַיִּיקֶץ נֹחַ מִיֵּינוֹ וַיֵּדַע אֵת אֲשֶׁר עָשָׂה לוֹ בְּנוֹ הַקָּטָן:

In sefer Michlal Yofi, a grammatical work on Tanach by R' Shlomo Ibn Melech (first printed in Constantinople, 1549), the author writes:
ויקץ נח •  ביו״ד
האיתן לבד ויו״ד השרש  נעלמה

That is, there is the yud indicating the actor (masculine) within the verb, and there is a yud which is part of the root. And, since there is only one yud present in ויקץ, the one showing is the one which is part of the morphology, while the yud of the root elides or is absorbed in some way.

The "problem" with this is that in our Masoretic text, there are two yuds. Minchas Shai notes this.

"וַיִּיקֶץ נֹחַ -- the Michlol Yofi wrote ... [and then the above citation] ... and these words of his are too wondrous for me, for in all the sefarim it is with two yuds, and so wrote the Rama [Rabbi Meir Abulafia] za'l:

וַיִּיקֶץ נֹחַ מִיֵּינוֹ -- is malei with both yuds written, one read and the other not read, and its kuf is with a segol. And [Bereishit 28:29] וַיִּיקַץ יַעֲקֹב מִשְּׁנָתוֹ of parashat Vayeitzei, is malei with both yuds and its kuf is with a patach, and like it is [Bereishit 41:4] וַיִּיקַץ פַּרְעֹה, and like it is [same perek, pasuk 7] וַיִּיקַץ פַּרְעֹה וְהִנֵּה חֲלוֹם, in parashat Vayhi Miketz. And [same perek, pasuk 21] the וָאִיקָץ at the end of the pasuk of וַתָּבֹאנָה אֶל-קִרְבֶּנָה is malei yud [of a single yud] written.

End quote. And see that which I write at the start of parashat Vayeitzei, with the help of Heaven, upon  וַיִּיקַץ פַּרְעֹה."

Perhaps at the end, he means upon וַיִּיקַץ יַעֲקֹב? Maybe not, as we will see from Minchas Shai's concluding words.

The Michlal Yofi on parashat Vayeitzei makes the same comment once again, on וַיִּיקַץ יַעֲקֹב. He writes:
ויקץ: בא ביו״ד האיתן  לבד

And Minchas Shai there notes this and comments:

"וַיִּיקַץ יַעֲקֹב מִשְּׁנָתוֹ -- In all the precise sefarim, it is with two yuds. And that which the author of Michlal Yofi wrote, that it comes with the morphological yud alone, is an error. And his words are taken from the Michlol [of the Radak], page 129, and so is implied from the gloss of the medakdek there, and also from his gloss in the [sefer] HaShorashim, root יקץ, and one should not rely upon them in this.


Now, come and rely upon what I have written in parashat Noach upon the verse וַיִּיקֶץ נֹחַ in the name of the Rama za'l, who was rav muvhak, and his words are precise in all places, and specifically in the work of the corrections of the Torah, for for this he came, and this was his craft, to determine the truth based upon the precise sefarim, and there is not to err in his rulings, for he was precise and found truth. And further, because all of the masorot agree that there is only in reading three which are chaser, and their mnemonic is [Shofetim 16:20] ויקץ שמשון [actually, וַתֹּאמֶר, פְּלִשְׁתִּים עָלֶיךָ שִׁמְשׁוֹן; וַיִּקַץ מִשְּׁנָתוֹ]; the second, [I Melachim 3:15] וַיִּקַץ שְׁלֹמֹה, and [Tehillim 78:65] וַיִּקַץ כְּיָשֵׁן. {Josh: There are others, but they refer not to waking but to disgust, such as וַיָּקָץ בְּיִשְׂרָאֵל of I Melachim 11:25.} All this I have seen in the printed masoret of Tehillim 78, and other masorot in manuscript sefarim in Shofetim 16 and in Melachim perek 3. Also, the Masorah Ketana at the start of parashat Vayhi Miketz upon the verse וַיִּיקַץ פַּרְעֹה, there is a masorah that the entire Torah is written likewise."

Here is what I found in Radak's sefer Shorashim:

At least as it appears in this printing -- perhaps some printer 'corrected' it -- the verses of both Yaakov and Noach are cited with two yuds. And in ויקצו מזעזעיך of Chabakuk perek 2, there is a gaaya, which he notes is compensating for the absence of the yud of the first root letter.

I would note that since vayiketz of Noach is pronounced with stress on the first letter -- mile'eil, there is no place for the gaaya as a secondary stress. But it seems that Minchas Shai is suggesting that R' Shlomo Ibn Melech misinterpreted Radak's mention of the chisaron of the first root yud as applying as well to these two examples.

Meanwhile, here is what appears in the sefer Michlol of the Radak, in the Shaar Dikduk Hapaalim:

Thus, Radak says that it is with the morphological yud alone. And he cites the verse in I Melachim. But then he cites the one of parashat Noach, in Bereshit 9. This printing has it spelled malei with two yuds, but this is plausibly the correction of the printer, to accord with our masorah. It does seem to be what Radak means, that the ויקץ of Noach is chaser.

But Minchas Shai says that this is an error on Michlal Yofi's part, and that -- I suppose -- only the first was an example of chaser, with the second example being a counterexample. Perhaps, but I find it strange.

In fact, I believe that I can prove that Minchas Shai is the one misreading the Radak. Minchas Shai did not have access to Radak's commentary on Chumash, but we do. And this is what Radak says on the pasuk in Noach:

"ויקץ -- with the morphological yud alone, and the yud of the root elides."

This is then explicitly what Michlal Yofi says, and accords quite well with its citation in sefer Michlol of the Radak. And the printer here (I assume) put in parentheses that this is at odds with our Masoret.

What about alternative texts? Specifically, what do the Samaritans have? And what about Jewish masoretic texts? Do any of them have it chaser the yud hashoresh?

This is what we find in Vetus Testamentum, regarding the Samaritan text of the Pentateuch, regarding Noach's awakening:

The Samaritan text is on the left, and it has only a single yud. A chaser spelling is perhaps more unexpected in the Samaritan text, since placing malei vavs and yuds aids in the reading. This recommends the reading. On the other hand, another Samaritan tendency is to regularize spelling across Tanach, and so perhaps this is a regularization.

Looking to the bottom of the page in Vetus Testamentum, we find a number of Jewish (meaning that they are supposed to be masoretic) texts which also have the chaser reading. Thus:

If so, perhaps this is a perfectly valid masoretic tradition, as recorded by Radak, a Rishon, and attested to in multiple sifrei Torah. What of the many masoretic notes? The masoretic notes were composed by people who looked over the various sefarim and describing what was there. And undoubtedly this was the reality in the sefarim they looked at. But had they looked at other sefarim, they might have written a masoretic note in accordance with the Radak. Indeed, we find plenty of competing masoretic notes, which are based on differing texts.

Here, by the way, is the Samaritan text on Vayeitzei. It is chaser, as pictured to the left:

And looking at the variae lectiones of Hebrew ("masoretic") sefarim listed at the bottom of the page, we see:

There is some overlap to the ones listed for parashat Noach, but not in its entirety.

At the end of the day, this appears to be a plausible reading, and we are left with a pretty big safek. And the Rama, the Rishon, was an expert, so perhaps we should heed him over the Radak, but that does not mean that we must. (If our sifrei Torah are in error, then this would naturally mess up any Torah code which passed through this word.)

There is, however, something to be medayek in within the words of Rabbi Meir Abulafia. To cite it again, from Minchas Shai's quotation:

וַיִּיקֶץ נֹחַ מִיֵּינוֹ -- is malei with both yuds written, one read and the other not read, and its kuf is with a segol.

What does the Rama mean that one is read and the other is not read, even though it is malei with both yuds written. Maybe he means that one of them is a consonant, and so it is pronounced, while the second follows the chirik, and so is encompassed within the chirik. Perhaps, but grammarians distinguish between the chirik malei and the chirik chaser, with the former being a long vowel and the latter being a short vowel. So that yud would be pronounced.

Rather, it seems to me that Rama is saying that even though that second yud is written in the ketiv, it is not pronounced at all in the kerei. And so, the chirik should be a chirik chaser.

Thus, this is a krei and ketiv. There are disputes about the origin of krei and ketiv, and the spur might be changing grammar, or differentiation between the text as written and the grammatical requirement (as described by Radak in sefer Michlol) for that first root letter to elide. But maybe this krei and ketiv was a way of encoding two competing masorot. Since some texts had the word malei and some had the word chaser, the compromise was to encode one in the krei and the other in ketiv.

If, however, we are only speaking of pronunciation, maybe we can go back and read this into even the Radak's commentary on sefer Bereishit...

Of the Sambatyon River, and the Fish who keeps Shabbos

Summary: Radak explains the sanctification of Shabbos in part that there are elements of creation which testify to the chiddush haOlam. Namely, the River Sambatyon and the Shabtai fish, both which rest on Shabbos. I consider each. And Birkas Avraham expands upon the features of the Shabtai fish, and relates it to the mitzvah of eating fish on Shabbos.

Post: On parashat Bereshit, on the pasuk that Hashem blessed and sanctified the seventh day, Radak writes:

"And He blessed: the blessing is the addition of goodness, and the day of Shabbat has an additional spiritual  goodness, in that it possesses a rest on this day from the endeavors of this world, such that one is able to engage in widsom and the words of God. And God blessed and sanctified it, when He commanded the children of Israel to rest on it and to sanctify it.


And He sanctified it, that it should be holy and separate from the other days, since the children of Israel would rest on it. And behold, it is a sign between them and God, for they are holy in that they keep the Shabbat, which is testimony on the newness of the world, and to inform the whole world that the world is not First {preceding all}, for Blessed God made it new in the six days, and rested on the seventh.


They also say that there is a certain fish in the sea which does not swim on the day of Shabbat, and it rests the entire day close to the land or to a rock.


And our Sages, za'l, said regarding to river Sabatyon, that all the days of the week it pulls along rocks and sand, while on the day of Shabbat it rests. Therefore, they call it Sabatyon. And so did they say (Bereishit Rabbah, perek 11, and Sanhedrin 65):

And this question was asked by Turnusrufus the wicked¹³  of R. Akiba: 'Wherein does this day [the Sabbath] differ from any other?' — He replied: Wherein does one man differ from another?'¹⁴  — 'Because my Lord [the Emperor] wishes it.' 'The Sabbath too,' R. Akiba rejoined, 'then, is distinguished because the Lord wishes so.' He replied: 'I ask this: Who tells you that this day is the Sabbath?' — He answered: 'Let the river  Sabbation¹⁵ prove it.

in that it draws rocks and sand all the days of the week, and on Shabbat it rests.

He said to him: 'You have shamed, disgraced, and reviled him me.'

{This is slightly different from the text in our gemara, but close enough.}


Behold that Blessed God has placed within his Creation a sign for the day of Shabbat, so that the world should know the novelty of the world. And Chazal explained as well (there) 'and He blessed and he sanctified', that He blessed and sanctified it with the manna. He blessed it that it would descend on the sixth day with bread for two days, and He sanctified it, that manna would not descend on Shabbat."

An interesting footnote at the bottom of this page in Radak notes a girsological variant, which is used to deal with the (seeming) non-existence of the Sambatyon River nowadays.

"And in the She'iltot, parashat Bereishit, Turnusrufus responds to Rabbi Akiva, 'also regarding this river I do not believe you.' And so too in the Pesikta, perek 22, he replied to Rabbi Akiva, 'you are bringing {?} me to wind'. That is to say, you are pushing me off with words of wind. And in Tanchuma parashat Ki Tisa, 'You are bringing {?} me to something forced{?}." From all this, the scholar, Tiferes Yisrael brings ... as a proof that already it was lost, and its place forgotten, in the times of the Tannaim. And the maskil will understand."

Frankly, both the Sambatyon River and the Shabbos-keeping fish strike me as the stuff of legend, such that I don't think that they ever existed. And girsaot can develop over time, either accidentally or deliberately. I also wonder what is meant by והמשכיל יבין. Perhaps that even then, Sambatyon didn't exist, because it never existed? Or just that this is an answer to those who would doubt its existence, just because we don't see it nowadays.

The Sambatyon River was also mentioned by Pliny the Elder and by Josephus. Thus, to cite The ten lost tribes: a world history:

At any rate, this Radak is brought down seriously by R' Avraham Albert, in Birkas Avraham on parashas Bereishis:

"In the matter of eating fish on Shabbos, many reasons are gives, and so that its gematria {of דג} is seven. And upon all the reasons, there is compelling evidence that the fish feels Shabbos more greatly. For the Radak writes here: 'They also relate the novelty of the world, for there is a certain fish in the sea that does not swim on the day of Shabbos, and it rests all the day close to the shore or to a rock.' And so writes R' Eleazaer MiGermayza {the Rokeach} in sefer Sodei Raza (brought down in Yalkut Reuveini here, and in his sefer Oneg Shabbat the Yalkut Reuveini brings this down under the name Sefer Tagin) that the River Sambatyon rests on Shabbos, etc. And there is a mountain from which they remove from its dirt silver, and on Shabbos, they do not remove from its dirt any silver. And there is a fish which rests on Shabbos by the seashore until Motzaei Shabbos, and the name of the fish is Shabtai, since it rests on Shabbos. End quote.


And the matter of this fish is mentioned as well in the commentary of R' Asher ben R' Avraham Cresces, za'l, upon the sefer Moreh Nevuchim, at the beginning of volume two, in the twelfth introduction (page 6a) {see here, second column, 21 lines down}, and this is his language:

For we see many scattered powers and wonders in the growing things and silent things, etc., and so too on the sea shore, many fisherman have encountered it many times and given testimony. It is not possible that they are lying, by virtue of the many who are testifying this, one not before the other. That this fish, on erev Shabbos, at sunset, draws near to the dry land and does not swim or move from its place, even if they poke at with swords and spears, it cannot be moved from that place.

And behold,  in sefer shevet Musar, perek 11, he writes that in the commentary HaEphodi upon the sefer Moreh Nevuchim, is written that the segulah {special property} of this fish is that if one makes clothing from its skin, no arrow nor spear can pierce it, see there. And in sefer HaBris be brings the words of the Shever Mussar, and in the name of the Ephodi without pointing out its place in the Ephodi {...?}. And it seems that the Shevet Mussar wrote this from memory, and switched the attribution to the Ephodi in place of attributing it to Rav Cresces za'l. And also the matter of the swords, he switched and dressed it upon the person.

Certainly, since a fish such as this was in the creation that Hashem created, which rests in its place all the day of Shabbos, there is a hint / support to that which the dorshei reshumot already have darshened the reason for the importance of eating a fish on the day of Shabbos, more that the other foods of Shabbos, for the gematria of דג is sever. And one can praise and say this, that there is a connection between the fish and the seventh day, the day of the holy Shabbos. And further, I have seen that already in sefer Taamei Haminhagim he suggested so, that from the words of the aforementioned Radak it is clear the relevance of the importance of eating fish on Shabbos.


And in truth, the matter of the importance of eating fish on Shabbos is clear in Maseches Shabbos (daf 118b) with this language:

Wherewith does one show his delight therein {of Shabbos}? — Rab Judah son of R. Samuel b. Shilath said in Rab's name: With a dish of beets, large fish, and heads of garlic. R. Hiyya b. Ashi said in Rab's name: Even a trifle, if it is prepared in honor of the Sabbath, is delight. What is it [the trifle]? — Said R. Papa: A pie of fish-hash.

{Rav Papa said: kasa deharsena} To explain, small fish with their innards fried in oil and flour. And the Tur, iman 242 brings the words of the gemara. And in Maseches Kiddushin (daf 41a) it states that the mitzvah is greater with him more that with his agent, for behold Rav Saffra would roast the head, and Rava salted Shibuta. And the meaning of Shibuta is a fish whose name is this. {Josh: Note that Shibuta with a tes is not the same as Shabtai with a tav. The Shibuta appears also as the fish which tastes like pork.} And see in sefer Chareidim (perek 33) that within his words in the matter of gilgulim, when he explains regarding in which living creature enters the gilgul of one who commits each sin. He writes as follows:

And also by fish. And therefore, to return that soul to its rest, it is a mitzvah to eat fish on Shabbos, and specifically during Shaleshudes.

And I will point out the words of the Avnei Nezer za'l in sefer Neos Hadesheh, volume 1, in the matters of Shabbos (page 231), the reason why we eat fish on Shabbos, see there."

This ends my citation / translation of Birkas Avraham.

In terms of R' Asher Cresces' discussion of the Shabtai fish, I don't really find the testimony of multiple fishermen compelling. Fishermen famously tell tall tales. And they could each know the same lore, and tell over the story, with appropriate details, as if it happened to them (or to their friend, or to a friend of a friend).

While it seems rather improbable, and while I would not believe the fishermen's tales, I would not dismiss the possibility entirely out of hand. After all, for years, scientists believes tales of giant squid to be myth, until they actually discovered some. At the same time, I think it rather unlikely that this fish exists, and don't really care that fishermen, or scientists, in the time of Radak believed this to be the case. The same for the Sambatyon River.

The shaking, or shaken, earth

Summary: Considering a krei and ketiv in the haftara, according to Meshech Chochma.

Post: In the haftara for Haazinu, in II Shmuel 22, we read:

ז  בַּצַּר-לִי אֶקְרָא ה, וְאֶל-אֱלֹהַי אֶקְרָא;  {ס}  וַיִּשְׁמַע מֵהֵיכָלוֹ קוֹלִי, וְשַׁוְעָתִי בְּאָזְנָיו.  {ר}	7 In my distress I called upon the LORD, yea, I called unto my God; and out of His temple He heard my voice, and my cry did enter into His ears.
ח  ותגעש (וַיִּתְגָּעַשׁ) וַתִּרְעַשׁ הָאָרֶץ,  {ס}  מוֹסְדוֹת הַשָּׁמַיִם יִרְגָּזוּ; וַיִּתְגָּעֲשׁוּ, כִּי-חָרָה לוֹ.  {ר}	8 Then the earth did shake and quake, the foundations of heaven did tremble; they were shaken, because He was wroth.

Note the krei and ketiv. This is all part of a shir which David HaMelech sang, as it states in pasuk 1. There is a parallel song in Tehillim 18:8:

ז  בַּצַּר-לִי, אֶקְרָא יְהוָה--    וְאֶל-אֱלֹהַי אֲשַׁוֵּעַ: יִשְׁמַע מֵהֵיכָלוֹ קוֹלִי;    וְשַׁוְעָתִי, לְפָנָיו תָּבוֹא בְאָזְנָיו.	7 In my distress I called upon the LORD, and cried unto my God;{N} out of His temple He heard my voice, and my cry came before Him unto His ears.
ח  וַתִּגְעַשׁ וַתִּרְעַשׁ, הָאָרֶץ--    וּמוֹסְדֵי הָרִים יִרְגָּזוּ; וַיִּתְגָּעֲשׁוּ,    כִּי-חָרָה לוֹ.	8 Then the earth did shake and quake, the foundations also of the mountains did tremble; {N} they were shaken, because He was wroth.

And there, there is no krei and ketiv alternation, but the krei is in line with the ketiv. The difference, it seems to me, is that one, וַתִּגְעַשׁ, is the third person feminine past, while the other, וַיִּתְגָּעַשׁ, is the third person masculine reflexive (or passive) past. The former matches the pattern of the immediately following word, וַתִּרְעַשׁ, while the latter matches the later occurrence of וַיִּתְגָּעֲשׁוּ in the pasuk, though the subject later is the masculine plural מוֹסְדֵי הָרִים. Given the possibility of corruption from the later word וַיִּתְגָּעֲשׁוּ, given that even in Shmuel it only appears as an alternative krei, and given that in Tehillim we only have one, I would side with וַתִּגְעַשׁ as the correct one. This is if we consider krei and ketiv as the competing possibilities, with only one being correct.

In terms of meaning, I don't really see any major difference between the alternatives. Either way, the earth is literally or metaphorically shaking.

Meshech Chochma discusses this alternation. After citing the pasuk, he writes:


"And the ketiv according to the peshat is וַתִּגְעַשׁ, and so too in Tehillim. And this is strange, for the krei is against the peshat. And it appears that it is going upon the heichal, that the heichal is shaken, and from this, the earth quakes, just as they darshen in Yoma 54b:

וחכמים אומרים מציון נברא שנאמר (תהלים נ, א) מזמור לאסף אל אלהים ה' ואומר מציון מכלל יופי ממנו מוכלל יפיו של עולם

that the earth was created from Tziyon, for it is stated {in Tehillim}, מציון מכלל יופי. And this is the center, and from there it is shaken, and from there the earth shakes, and it is pashut."

This is an interesting way of parsing the pesukim, and one which I would not have thought of. And I think it would account for the masculine of וַיִּתְגָּעַשׁ (though ארץ might be able to support either).

Radak does not see any substantive difference between the krei and the ketiv:

[כב, ח]
ותגעש -כתיב כמו בתהלים וקרי ויתגעש והענין אחד, וקריאת המלה מלרע וכל הענין הזה עד ישלח ממרום רמז להשחית ולכלות אויבי ישראל, כי להם הוא רעש הארץ והשמים וחשך וערפל וגחלים ואש וחצים וברק, הכל דרך משל. 

He says vehainyan echad.

The Targum renders both וַתִּגְעַשׁ  and וַתִּרְעַשׁ as the itpael. Rashi, in saying that the head of the pasuk is mechubar to its end, might be mapping וַיִּתְגָּעַשׁ of the krei to the end.

What is the tzir'ah?

Summary: Hornet or sickness? Rashi, along with midrash, and Ibn Ezra.

Post: From parashat Eikev, with Rashi, about how Hashem will aid the Israelites in conquering the Canaanites once they cross over the Yarden:

20. And also the tzir'ah, the Lord, your God, will incite against them, until the survivors and those who hide from you perish.		כ. וְגַם אֶת הַצִּרְעָה יְשַׁלַּח יְ־הֹוָ־ה אֱלֹהֶיךָ בָּם עַד אֲבֹד הַנִּשְׁאָרִים וְהַנִּסְתָּרִים מִפָּנֶיךָ:
The tzir’ah: Heb. הַצִּרְעָה, a species of flying insect which injected poison into them [the Canaanites], making them impotent and blinding their eyes wherever they hid. — [Sotah 36a]		הצרעה: מין שרץ העוף, שהיתה זורקת בהם מרה ומסרסתן ומסמאה את עיניהם בכל מקום שהיו נסתרים שם:

(Also from Midrash Aggadah.) Midrash Aggadah's version:

וגם את הצרעה.  מלמד שהצרעה עברה עמהם בירדן ׳ וכל אותם
אורבים שהיו מטמינים עצמם במערות כדי להרוג, היתה הצרעה נכנסת לשם ומכה
אותם בעיניהם והיו מתים

That is, there was already a hornet that aided them in the time of Moshe. The gam is perhaps inclusive, telling us that Hashem will also send the tzir'ah. And the known tzir'ah that they have already seen.

The version in Sotah states that the tzir'ah, this special hornet, did not pass over the Yarden with them. Rather, this only happened in the time of Moshe. The reference seems to be to Yehoshua 24:12:

יב וָאֶשְׁלַח לִפְנֵיכֶם אֶת-הַצִּרְעָה וַתְּגָרֶשׁ אוֹתָם מִפְּנֵיכֶם שְׁנֵי מַלְכֵי הָאֱמֹרִי לֹא בְחַרְבְּךָ וְלֹא בְקַשְׁתֶּךָ:

where the two kings of the Emorites would be taken to be Sichon and Og, from the time of Moshe. If this is contrasted with the wars the Israelites must wage, with sword and bow, then it didn't pass.

At any rate, in Sotah 36a:

A Tanna taught: The hornet did not pass over [Jordan] with them; but behold it is written: And I will send the hornet before thee! {Shemot 23:28, referring to the land of Canaan!}  — R. Simeon b. Lakish said: It stood by the bank of the Jordan and injected a virus [into the Canaanites] which blinded their eyes above and castrated them below; as it is said: Yet destroyed I the Amorite before them, whose height was like the height of the cedars, and he was strong as the oaks; yet I destroyed his fruit from above and his roots from beneath etc. {Amos 2:9} R. Papa said: There were two hornets, one in the period of Moses and the other in the period of Joshua; the former did not pass over [Jordan] but the other did.

I am unsure what the basis is for saying that the hornet did not pass, as in that brayta, such that this needs resolution. If anyone knows, please drop me a comment. Otherwise, I will leave it as an open question. The answer is alternatively separate hornets or that the hornets attacked but did not pass over.

Onkelos translates it as ערעיתא, hornet.

Ibn Ezra understands it as a type of sickness of the body, along the lines of צרעת. So does Ibn Janach, that it is כליון ודבר. Perhaps this makes more sense in context, of killing off the remnants in hiding. See also Ibn Ezra on parashat Mishpatim, on Shemot 23:28, as well as Yahel Or and Karnei Or there.

Digressing to a Radak I saw on that pasuk in sefer Yehoshua:

[כד, יב]
שני מלכי האמורי -פירש: וגרשה שני מלכי האמרי גם כן, והם סיחון ועוג.

וכן אמרו רבותינו ז"ל:

שתי צרעות היו חדא דמשה וחדא דיהושע והצרעה היא מין זבוב רע מטיל ארס.
ואמרו: כי הייתה הצרעה מכה בעיניה ומסמא עיניהם ולא היו יכולין להלחם ובאין ישראל והורגין אותם, כמו שאמר: לא בחרבך ולא בקשתך .

ותרגום:

צרעה ארעיתא.

ואמר למה נקרא שמה ארעיתא?
שעומדת לקראת אדם ומכה בפניו.
כדמתרגמינן:

אשר קרך דארעך.

This is a bit strange. In our Onkelos, tzir'ah is consistently translated as ערעיתא with a leading ayin rather than aleph. This is an extremely straightforward translation. It is near transliteration. That is, there are two ayins in Aramaic, one corresponding to the ayin of Hebrew and one corresponding to a tzadi of Hebrew. (Or rather, when this strong letter was to be encoded, it was mapped in Hebrew to the letter tzadi and in Aramaic to the ayin.) Thus, the leading ע in Aramaic is equal to the leading צ, and so it is the word צרעה. If there is indeed a Targum which renders it with a leading aleph, this would come from a relaxing and switching of these two gutturals, not from דארעך. Our version of Targum local to sefer Yehoshua does not have this, but I suppose Radak did.

Although interestingly, from the language of ארעא as mishap, occurrence, there is the masculine plural ארעייא which means evils, diseases. (See Jastrow, pg 125.) This is just coincidence, though.

I would also note Shadal. He does not take the two kings of sefer Yehoshua to be Sichon and Og. Therefore, it is rather fulfillment of the promise in Chumash, in the land of Canaan, even though the specifics are not found elsewhere:

וגם את הצרעה : יהושע כ " ד י " ב הזכירה לישראל , א " כ בהכרח נתאמת הדבר , אע " פ שלא נזכר המאורע הזה בפירוש הסיפור כיבוש הארץ .

Ibn Ezra as a Round-Earther

Summary: While there is a seeming Rashi / midrash, and an explicit Mizrachi, in Va'etchanan that the earth is flat, Ibn Ezra on that parasha's haftorah indicates that the earth is round.

Post: In this week's haftorah, we encounter the following pasuk:

הַיֹּשֵׁב עַל-חוּג הָאָרֶץ, וְיֹשְׁבֶיהָ כַּחֲגָבִים; הַנּוֹטֶה כַדֹּק שָׁמַיִם, וַיִּמְתָּחֵם כָּאֹהֶל לָשָׁבֶת

22. It is He Who sits above the circle of the earth, and whose inhabitants are like grasshoppers, who stretches out the heaven like a curtain, and He spread them out like a tent to dwell.

the circle: Heb. חוּג, an expression similar to (infra 44:13) “And with a compass (וּבַמְּחוּגָה),” a circle (compas in O.F.).

and whose inhabitants: are to Him [lit. before Him] like grasshoppers.

like a curtain: Heb. כַדֹּק, a curtain, toile in French.

What is the chug ha'aretz? Ibn Ezra explains that it means the curvature of the earth. Thus:

He points us to Yeshaya 44, just as did Rashi.

ישעיהו פרק מד

• פסוק י"ג: חָרַשׁ עֵצִים, נָטָה קָו, יְתָאֲרֵהוּ בַשֶּׂרֶד, יַעֲשֵׂהוּ בַּמַּקְצֻעוֹת וּבַמְּחוּגָה יְתָאֳרֵהוּ; וַיַּעֲשֵׂהוּ כְּתַבְנִית אִישׁ, כְּתִפְאֶרֶת אָדָם לָשֶׁבֶת בָּיִת. 

Then he says that this pasuk is ecidence that the earth is round and not square (/flat), despite there not being a requirement for the pasuk to prove this, for the matter is known with complete proofs.

This strikes me as somewhat out of the ordinary. While Chazal certainly take pains to make derashot or bring pesukim to show known things, such as the direction of Bavel or that the sun rises in the East, they had their own reasons for this. But I don't expect Ibn Ezra to be doing such.

Indeed, given that he mentions the competing theory (of רבועה), I would guess that he is trying to convince contemporaries. There are two methods of proof. There is scientific proof, and there is textual proof from Tanach. And different groups would respond differently to these different types of proof. (Rationalists vs. non-rationalists?) And so he brings the pasuk as evidence, while noting the extreme obviousness of this even without the pasuk.

(See the midrash cited by Rashi, and Mizrachi on that Rashi, for the view that the earth is not round but rather flat.)

While I am convinced by the scientific proofs, I am not convinced by the textual proof from this pasuk in Yeshaya. Radak on the pasuk writes:

היושב - כאלו אמר על השמים כי הם חוג הארץ כמו שיעשה אדם במחוגה העגולה, כי למחוגה יש שתי אצבעות האחת יעמוד ובשנית יקיף העגולה והנה הנקודה בתוך העגולה והארץ כמו הנקודה, כי היא התחתון שבעגולה והשמים סביב הארץ כמו העגולה.

ואמר: היושב –
דרך משל, כי אין לו מקום יתעלה מכל דמיון אלא כאדם היושב על מקום גבוה מאד ומביט במקום השפל ידמה לו הדבר הגדול קטן, לפיכך אמר ויושביה כחגבים, כמו שאמר: ונהי בעינינו כחגבים וכן היינו בעיניהם. 

The circle of the earth refers to the heavens. And because of this distance, the inhabitants are like grasshoppers. And even according to flat-earthers such as Mizrachi, the rakia is curved, over the earth.

I don't know about the flat-earth / round-earth beliefs of Radak, but regardless, there is much to recommend this interpretation of the pasuk as it referring to the rakia, on its own merits provided by context.

Update: To counter claims that he was talking of a flat disk, besides what I wrote in the comment about this not being contemporary Muslim astronomy, see also this, from Ibn Ezra's Sefer haTeamim:

He discusses Ptolemy, who works with a spherical Earth, and refers to the earth as a galgal. He clearly knows the Earth is a sphere.

In what manner(s) did Shechem rape Dinah?

Summary: Another study of methodology of peshat, examining how different meforshim treat the duplication in different terminology as Shechem's actions vis a vis Dinah. I last reviewed this idea of peshat methodology in terms of the unnecessary poetic duplication of Rivkah being a virgin, whom no man had known.

Post: Sometimes the Torah appears to repeat itself. A good example I just tangentially discussed within parshat Vayishlach was Yaakov being "extremely fearful" and "distressed". The midrash, and Rashi, deduce from this that one was worry of being killed, while the other was worry about killing others. But Radak explains, on a peshat level, that this is something called kefel ha-'inyan be-milim shonos, repetition of the idea in different terms, and is done here for the sake of emphasis of Yaakov's high level of distress.

But I last discussed this in depth in parshas Chayei Sarah. When Rivkah comes out, only to meet Eliezer, she is describes as besulah, ve-`ish lo yedaah, a virgin, and no man "knew" her. And various pashtanim and darshanim approach the duplication and suggest manners in which both terms convey meaning. This includes Midrash Rabba, Rashi, Rashbam, and Ibn Ezra. But then Ibn Caspi says that these is just reiteration to stress the matter. And one should not put too much stress on the meaning of each individual term, and insist that each has a separate meaning. But then, what is peshat? Is it close reading, or is that derash? It is a good question.

Here in Vayishlach, when Shechem abducts Dinah, we hear that  וַיִּקַּח אֹתָהּ וַיִּשְׁכַּב אֹתָהּ וַיְעַנֶּהָ, that "he took her, lay with her, and violated her." The presumed duplication is in "lay with her" when juxtaposed with "violated her". Now, perhaps not. I could suggest that each is a separate step in the process, and the pasuk moves slowly for dramatic (and horrific) effect. That is, he "took her" by grabbing her. He "lay with her" in the most technical sense by simply lying down with her on the bed. And finally he "violated her" by having intercourse with her, against her will. If so, there is no duplication. 

Are Bet El and Luz really the same place?

Summary: Despite the pasuk at the start of Vayeitzei that Luz was the original name of Bet El, a pasuk in sefer Yehoshua suggests otherwise, for the border went from Bet El to Luz! How can we resolve this? Shadal, Malbim and Radak attack this problem, and solve it by interpreting the pasuk in Yehoshua in different ways.

The pasuk at the start of Vayeitzei:

יט  וַיִּקְרָא אֶת-שֵׁם-הַמָּקוֹם הַהוּא, בֵּית-אֵל; וְאוּלָם לוּז שֵׁם-הָעִיר, לָרִאשֹׁנָה.

19 And he called the name of that place Beth-el, but the name of the city was Luz at the first.

I might be tempted to draw a distinction between the general area and the city. But we also have in the beginning of Sefer Shofetim, when they conquer Luz:

An earlier assertion of multivalence in veRav Yaavod Tzair

On erev Shabbos, I spoke with Rabbi Nachman Levine, and besides pointing out to me other levels of multivalence in the prophecy of verav yaavod tzair, he noted that Radak preceded Ibn Caspi in asserting that the text was deliberately ambiguous. Radak's spin on it, just as Ibn Caspi suggested, is that at times Bnei Yisrael would prevail, and at times Edom would prevail. But he has an extra spin that the degree of certainly parallels the degree to which Edom would serve Yisrael. Radak writes:

ורב יעבוד צעיר, לא זכר עמהם מלה את שהיא מורה על הפעול. והנה הדבר מסופק ולא באר מי יעבוד את חבירו, הרב את הצעיד או הצעיר את הרב, אלא שיש בו מעט ביאור, כי ברוב הפועל הוא הראשון אלא בדברים שאין לספק בהם, כמו אבנים שחקו מים (איוב י״ד) מים תבעה אש (ישעיה ס״ד) ש
והיה זה שלא התבאר הענין בנבואת הזאת לפי שפעמים יעבוד רב את הצעיר, כמו שהית בימי דוד ופעמים יעבוד הצעיר את הרב כמו שהוא היום, ומעט הביאור שיש בנבואה זו, כי רוב הימים הרב יעבוד את הצעיר לפיכך היה הפועל ראשון, וכן יהיה אחר שוב שביתנו.

And the elder; shall serve; the younger -- it does not mention with them the word et which designates the object. And behold, the matter is ambiguous, and it does not explain who serves his fellow, the elder to the younger or the younger to the elder. However, there is a slight amount of resolution, because in most instances the actor is the first noun except among things which have no ambiguity, such as {Iyov 14}

יט אֲבָנִים, שָׁחֲקוּ מַיִם-- תִּשְׁטֹף-סְפִיחֶיהָ עֲפַר-אָרֶץ; וְתִקְוַת אֱנוֹשׁ הֶאֱבַדְתָּ.

19 The waters wear the stones; the overflowings thereof wash away the dust of the earth; {N} so Thou destroyest the hope of man.

and {Yeshaya 64}:

א כִּקְדֹחַ אֵשׁ הֲמָסִים, מַיִם תִּבְעֶה-אֵשׁ, לְהוֹדִיעַ שִׁמְךָ, לְצָרֶיךָ; מִפָּנֶיךָ, גּוֹיִם יִרְגָּזוּ.

1 As when fire kindleth the brush-wood, and the fire causeth the waters to boil; to make Thy name known to Thine adversaries, that the nations might tremble at Thy presence,

And this that the matter is not clarified in this prophecy is because at times the elder will serve the younger, such as was the case in the days of David, and at times the younger will serve the older, as it is today. And the bit of clarification that there is in this prophecy is because most of the days the older will serve the younger; therefore it is the first actor, and so shall it be after our captives return {in Messianic times}.

And so as noted, the ambiguity reflects the dual fulfillment in both directions; but he has this extra idea that that explanation which is strongly implied is also done so deliberately, because of the degree to which this interpretation will be true over the other.

I would add the following two points about multivalence here, and ambiguity as the message. First, of course a good reason to assume ambiguity and this switching off is Yitzchak's later blessing to Esav:

מ וְעַל-חַרְבְּךָ תִחְיֶה, וְאֶת-אָחִיךָ תַּעֲבֹד; וְהָיָה כַּאֲשֶׁר תָּרִיד, וּפָרַקְתָּ עֻלּוֹ מֵעַל צַוָּארֶךָ.

40 And by thy sword shalt thou live, and thou shalt serve thy brother; and it shall come to pass when thou shalt break loose, that thou shalt shake his yoke from off thy neck.

and his blessing to Yaakov:

כט יַעַבְדוּךָ עַמִּים, וישתחו (וְיִשְׁתַּחֲווּ) לְךָ לְאֻמִּים--הֱוֵה גְבִיר לְאַחֶיךָ, וְיִשְׁתַּחֲווּ לְךָ בְּנֵי אִמֶּךָ; אֹרְרֶיךָ אָרוּר, וּמְבָרְכֶיךָ בָּרוּךְ.

29 Let peoples serve thee, and nations bow down to thee. Be lord over thy brethren, and let thy mother's sons bow down to thee. Cursed be every one that curseth thee, and blessed be every one that blesseth thee.

But perhaps more than that. There was, after all, ambiguity and uncertainty on Rivkah's part, as to the meaning of the twins struggling:

כב וַיִּתְרֹצְצוּ הַבָּנִים, בְּקִרְבָּהּ, וַתֹּאמֶר אִם-כֵּן, לָמָּה זֶּה אָנֹכִי; וַתֵּלֶךְ, לִדְרֹשׁ אֶת-ה'.

22 And the children struggled together within her; and she said: 'If it be so, wherefore do I live?' And she went to inquire of the LORD.

The explanation from Hashem might not just be why they are struggling, but an explanation of the deep significance of the entire situation. And so they struggle together within her. Why the struggle? The answer is that sometimes one will prevail, and sometimes the other will prevail. And she is uncertain as to the meaning of their struggle, and perhaps who will succeed. So perhaps the meaning here is also encoded in her uncertainty. And so, it is left deliberately ambiguous who will prevail.