Why the Rashbam deviates from peshat in the shattering of the luchot

Here is a 30 minute shiur by Rabbi Barry Gelman on parshat Ki Tisa, from 2011:
What I Learned From My Principal and my Basketball Star Friend: How Could Moshe Break the Luchot


He focuses in large part on Rashbam, who says that Moshe didn't break the luchot in anger. Rather he lost strength and pushed them away from himself so that they would not fall on his feet. And that seems to go against the peshat, that Moshe was angry, as it says immediately before. And also while accounting for וַיַּשְׁלֵךְ מִיָּדָו, it doesn't account for וַיְשַׁבֵּר אֹתָם.

Here is the pasuk (Shemot 32:19):

יט  וַיְהִי, כַּאֲשֶׁר קָרַב אֶל-הַמַּחֲנֶה, וַיַּרְא אֶת-הָעֵגֶל, וּמְחֹלֹת; וַיִּחַר-אַף מֹשֶׁה, וַיַּשְׁלֵךְ מִיָּדָו אֶת-הַלֻּחֹת, וַיְשַׁבֵּר אֹתָם, תַּחַת הָהָר.

19 And it came to pass, as soon as he came nigh unto the camp, that he saw the calf and the dancing; and Moses' anger waxed hot, and he cast the tables out of his hands, and broke them beneath the mount.

and here is Rashbam:

פסוק יט 
וישלך מידיו - כשראה את העגל תשש כחו ולא היה בו כח להשליכם רחוק ממנו קצת שלא יזיק את רגליו בנפלם, כדרך כל משליכי משאוי כשאין בהם כח לשאת. 
וכן ראיתי בפרקים של רבי אליעזר ועיקר פשוטו כך. 

"When he saw the eigel, his strength weakened and he only had sufficient strength to throw them a short distance from himself so that they would not hurt his feet as they fell, in the same manner of anyone who casts away a burden that they don't have strength to carry. So I have seen in Pirkei deRabbi Elizer, and the primary peshat is like that."

Now for my disagreement, and defense of the Rashbam:

We don't have to agree with Rashbam in his assessment that this is peshat, but I would argue that he is being honest here, rather than trying to defend/cover up Moshe's extreme actions. He is straightforward in his approach to peshat and even if we don't understand Rashbam at first, we should consider (a) contextual information and (b) implications of phraseology, and how words are used across Tanach. After all, he acknowledges the midrashic source but also indicates that he considers it to be the primary peshat.

A) For instance, וַיִּחַר-אַף מֹשֶׁה, וַיַּשְׁלֵךְ מִיָּדָו אֶת-הַלֻּחֹת seems to draw a pretty direct connection between the two.

However, #1, where do you want to put the esnachta? As written by the author of the trup, it is:

וַיְהִי, כַּאֲשֶׁר קָרַב אֶל-הַמַּחֲנֶה, וַיַּרְא אֶת-הָעֵגֶל, וּמְחֹלֹת
etnachta
וַיִּחַר-אַף מֹשֶׁה, וַיַּשְׁלֵךְ מִיָּדָו אֶת-הַלֻּחֹת, וַיְשַׁבֵּר אֹתָם, תַּחַת הָהָר

However, as shown elsewhere, Rashbam does not consider trup to be dispositive, so he could perhaps move the esnachta:

וַיְהִי, כַּאֲשֶׁר קָרַב אֶל-הַמַּחֲנֶה, וַיַּרְא אֶת-הָעֵגֶל, וּמְחֹלֹת, וַיִּחַר-אַף מֹשֶׁה
etnachta
וַיַּשְׁלֵךְ מִיָּדָו אֶת-הַלֻּחֹת, וַיְשַׁבֵּר אֹתָם, תַּחַת הָהָר

This seems a but forced, especially since Moshe is named explicitly, as if introducing a new half-pasuk and serving as the explicit antecedent for all the pronouns which follow.

But, #2, Rasham tagged Pirkei deRabbi Eliezer as his source. So to understand how he parses the pasuk, and  וַיִּחַר-אַף מֹשֶׁה, maybe we should first examine the midrash and see how it understands and explains Moshe's anger, and at the same time says he was merely casting it off.

This midrash may be found in Pirkei deRabbi Eliezer, perek 45.

That is that the words carried themselves and Moshe will them, and when they (!) "saw the eigel and the dancing" the writing fled from the luchos and they were too heavy upon his hands, and Moshe was unable to carry either himself or the luchos, and he cast them from his hands and they were broken at the bottom of the mountain, as is written "and his Moshe's anger waxed... and he broke them at the bottom of the mountain."

OK, that doesn't help much. Depending on which girsa, perhaps the anger is elided, or perhaps not. (See gloss, insertions.)

On the basis of this, though, maybe we can see what Rashbam is suggesting.

וַיִּחַר-אַף מֹשֶׁה is definitely there in the pasuk. But we can say that he had an emotional reaction. Speaking from personal experience, under extreme emotion, it is sometimes difficult to contain yourself. I would guess that Rashbam, rather than asserting miraculous carrying of the luchos, is simply saying that when Moshe saw the eigel and the conduct of the people, he had an emotional reaction. And this physically weakened him such that he could no longer carry the luchos, and so naturally, he was in danger of dropping them on his feet.

B) What about וַיַּשְׁלֵךְ מִיָּדָו, which is a hiphil (causative). See here for uses of it across Tanach. It could be understood as flung.

But Rashbam agrees there was a forceful push here. Maybe he is focuses on the word מִיָּדָו, that he cast it from his hands (implying just from his hands, a push of a short distance), rather than that he threw it down in anger towards the bottom of the mountain.

C) What about וַיְשַׁבֵּר אֹתָם תַּחַת הָהָר, also active and causative? This can be understood as that, as a result of casting them from his hands, thus, he ended up causing them to break at the bottom of the mountain, since they dropped there. But this is not direct and deliberate breaking, but rather the ונתשברו of Pirkei deRabbi Eleizer. He caused this event indirectly by dropping them, or pushing them from his hands.

D) Maybe he considers narrative context, that Moshe already heard that they had sinned and was still carrying down the luchos to give them. One could posit a change of mind when directly witnessing the sin and its extent, but maybe Rashbam thinks this unlikely, and would rather keep Moshe consistent in his approach, and attribute the breaking to emotional accident.

In sum, while we may disagree with Rashbam, rather than consider this a strange deviation from peshat, I would rather say that he sees certain cues textual cues, both from narrative context and from close reading of phrases in the pasuk.

Who sold Yosef?

In parshat Vayigash, there is fairly straightforward evidence that the brothers sold Yosef. Bereishit 45:

ד  וַיֹּאמֶר יוֹסֵף אֶל-אֶחָיו גְּשׁוּ-נָא אֵלַי, וַיִּגָּשׁוּ; וַיֹּאמֶר, אֲנִי יוֹסֵף אֲחִיכֶם, אֲשֶׁר-מְכַרְתֶּם אֹתִי, מִצְרָיְמָה.	4 And Joseph said unto his brethren: 'Come near to me, I pray you.' And they came near. And he said: 'I am Joseph your brother, whom ye sold into Egypt.
ה  וְעַתָּה אַל-תֵּעָצְבוּ, וְאַל-יִחַר בְּעֵינֵיכֶם, כִּי-מְכַרְתֶּם אֹתִי, הֵנָּה:  כִּי לְמִחְיָה, שְׁלָחַנִי אֱלֹהִים לִפְנֵיכֶם.	5 And now be not grieved, nor angry with yourselves, that ye sold me hither; for God did send me before you to preserve life.

This shouldn't have been in doubt, since this is also the straightforward meaning of the pesukim in parashat Vayeshev:

25. And they sat down to eat a meal, and they lifted their eyes and saw, and behold, a caravan of Ishmaelites was coming from Gilead, and their camels were carrying spices, balm, and lotus, going to take [it] down to Egypt.		כה. וַיֵּשְׁבוּ לֶאֱכָל לֶחֶם וַיִּשְׂאוּ עֵינֵיהֶם וַיִּרְאוּ וְהִנֵּה אֹרְחַת יִשְׁמְעֵאלִים בָּאָה מִגִּלְעָד וּגְמַלֵּיהֶם נֹשְׂאִים נְכֹאת וּצְרִי וָלֹט הוֹלְכִים לְהוֹרִיד מִצְרָיְמָה:
26. And Judah said to his brothers, "What is the gain if we slay our brother and cover up his blood?		כו. וַיֹּאמֶר יְהוּדָה אֶל אֶחָיו מַה בֶּצַע כִּי נַהֲרֹג אֶת אָחִינוּ וְכִסִּינוּ אֶת דָּמוֹ:
27. Come, let us sell him to the Ishmaelites, but our hand shall not be upon him, for he is our brother, our flesh." And his brothers hearkened.		כז. לְכוּ וְנִמְכְּרֶנּוּ לַיִּשְׁמְעֵאלִים וְיָדֵנוּ אַל תְּהִי בוֹ כִּי אָחִינוּ בְשָׂרֵנוּ הוּא וַיִּשְׁמְעוּ אֶחָיו:
28. Then Midianite men, merchants, passed by, and they pulled and lifted Joseph from the pit, and they sold Joseph to the Ishmaelites for twenty silver [pieces], and they brought Joseph to Egypt.		כח. וַיַּעַבְרוּ אֲנָשִׁים מִדְיָנִים סֹחֲרִים וַיִּמְשְׁכוּ וַיַּעֲלוּ אֶת יוֹסֵף מִן הַבּוֹר וַיִּמְכְּרוּ אֶת יוֹסֵף לַיִּשְׁמְעֵאלִים בְּעֶשְׂרִים כָּסֶף וַיָּבִיאוּ אֶת יוֹסֵף מִצְרָיְמָה:

Yehuda proposed to sell Yosef to the passing caravan and the brothers then carried it out, pulling Yosef out of the pit and selling him to those same merchants.

What wrongly gives some mefarshim pause is:
a) the ambiguity of actor in וַיִּמְשְׁכוּ וַיַּעֲלוּ אֶת יוֹסֵף מִן הַבּוֹר, such that the ones doing the action could either be the Midianite men who passed by, or the brothers, and
b) the introduction of Midianim, where earlier they were called Yishmaelim.

However, Yishmaelim is used to mean Arabs who travel by caravan, or to a general group which includes Midianites, just like Canaanim elsewhere (such as in Eshet Chayil) means merchant. If you must appeal to the Documentary Hypothesis to explain the shift in terms, go ahead, because at least you will partially arrive at the simple peshat, but I don't think it is necessary. Rather, three groups -- the midrashically inclined, the "deep level" of close reading they imagine to be peshat inclined, and the Documentary Hypothesis proponents looking for 'contradictions' in the Biblical text, all point to this as a contradiction in need of resolution. It is not a contradiction. Don't read so closely, or you will get cross-eyed.

See Shofetim perek 8 pasuk 22 and 24, where Ishmaelites are exchanged for Midianites without second thought:

כב  וַיֹּאמְרוּ אִישׁ-יִשְׂרָאֵל, אֶל-גִּדְעוֹן, מְשָׁל-בָּנוּ גַּם-אַתָּה, גַּם-בִּנְךָ גַּם בֶּן-בְּנֶךָ:  כִּי הוֹשַׁעְתָּנוּ, מִיַּד מִדְיָן.	22 Then the men of Israel said unto Gideon: 'Rule thou over us, both thou, and thy son, and thy son's son also; for thou hast saved us out of the hand of Midian.'
כג  וַיֹּאמֶר אֲלֵהֶם, גִּדְעוֹן, לֹא-אֶמְשֹׁל אֲנִי בָּכֶם, וְלֹא-יִמְשֹׁל בְּנִי בָּכֶם:  יְהוָה, יִמְשֹׁל בָּכֶם.	23 And Gideon said unto them: 'I will not rule over you, neither shall my son rule over you; the LORD shall rule over you.'
כד  וַיֹּאמֶר אֲלֵהֶם גִּדְעוֹן, אֶשְׁאֲלָה מִכֶּם שְׁאֵלָה, וּתְנוּ-לִי, אִישׁ נֶזֶם שְׁלָלוֹ:  כִּי-נִזְמֵי זָהָב לָהֶם, כִּי יִשְׁמְעֵאלִים הֵם.	24 And Gideon said unto them: 'I would make a request of you, that ye would give me every man the ear-rings of his spoil.'--For they had golden ear-rings, because they were Ishmaelites.

Rashi resolves as the brothers pulling Yosef out, selling him to the Ishmaelites וַיִּמְשְׁכוּ וַיַּעֲלוּ אֶת יוֹסֵף מִן הַבּוֹר וַיִּמְכְּרוּ אֶת יוֹסֵף לַיִּשְׁמְעֵאלִים; and the Ishmaelites turning around and selling him to the passing Midianites, mentioned as וַיַּעַבְרוּ אֲנָשִׁים מִדְיָנִים סֹחֲרִים. This explains the Midianites (or Midanites) selling Yosef to Potifar, where the pasuk at the end of the perek states  וְהַמְּדָנִים מָכְרוּ אֹתוֹ אֶל מִצְרָיִם לְפוֹטִיפַר. Others add add an extra level and have the Midianites selling him to the Midanites, since they make a big deal of what is a small change in spelling of people-name.

The Documentary Hypothesis

Rashbam resolves this as the brothers planning to sell, but being preempted by the Midianites. He is not bothered by the explicit pasuk to the contrary in Vayigash:

פסוק כח 
ויעברו אנשים מדינים - ובתוך שהיו יושבים לאכול לחם ורחוקים היו קצת מן הבור לבלתי אכול על הדם וממתינים היו לישמעאלים שראו וקודם שבאו הישמעאלים עברו אנשים מדינים אחרים דרך שם וראוהו בבור ומשכוהו ומכרוהו המדיינים לישמעאלים. 

ויש לומר: 
שהאחים לא ידעו ואף על פי שכתוב אשר מכרתם אותי מצרימה. 

יש לומר: 
שהגרמת מעשיהם סייעה במכירתו. 

"And Midianite men passed by: And while they [the brothers] were sitting to eat bread and were a bit distant from the pit, so that they would not eat upon the blood, and they were waiting for the Ishmaelites they saw. And before the Ishmaelites passed, other Midianite men passed by the way there and so him [Yosef] in the pit, pulled him out, and the Midianites sold him to the Ishmaelites.

And there is to say that the brothers did not know this. And even though it is written [in parashat Vayigash] 'that you sold me unto Egypt'. And there is to say that the repercussions of their actions assisted in his sale."

Sure, it is possible; but it seems just so farfetched that I doubt that it is correct. Correct peshat sometimes involves not reading too much into changes in language.

I've heard some more recent theories, from those who imagine themselves to be promoting peshat as a deep reading of the text, while the deep reading really amounts to neo-midrash. Neo-midrash is fine, but these same proponents of deep reading often scorn midrash. They explain that Yosef thought that the brothers sold him to those Midianites who pulled him out of the pit. Meanwhile, either the brothers sold Yosef to the Midianites, at a distance from the pit, or they did not sell Yosef, and Yosef was mistaken in his assertion. This explanation seems characteristic of their psychological approach, in which Biblical characters will assert non-truths, which are true from their perspective, or which serve the needs of the character. For one example of many, Yehuda was caught up in his argument with Yosef, and so he adds details which do not occur in earlier exchanges. Rather than saying that these details were not relevant until now, the proponents of this approach say Yehuda now made them up. Or they might say something to Yaakov about their exchange with the vizier in Egypt which was not mentioned previously, and this detail was invented to further their goals.

While this approach adds a nice texture to the Biblical narrative, and grants us complex and nuanced insights into the souls and personalities of the Biblical characters, I doubt that this often reflects Authorial intent.

See also HaKsav veHakabalah.

Was Timna a son, a concubine, or both?

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

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

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

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

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

כב. וַיִּהְיוּ בְנֵי לוֹטָן חֹרִי וְהֵימָם וַאֲחוֹת לוֹטָן תִּמְנָע:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Chizkuni writes:

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


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


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

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

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

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

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

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

Rashbam writes:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Here is what Ramban further states:

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

Let us consider Birkas Avraham:

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

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

_________________________________________

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

How has the eved ivri served you 'twice as much as a hired servant'?

Summary: Considering the approaches of a group of meforshim on this phrase, and pasuk. Rashi, Ibn Ezra, Ibn Caspi, Seforno, Rashbam, and Shadal. While I add a bit of my own analysis to Rashbam's analysis, the topic is not yet settled in my mind, so I don't end up taking sides.

Post: In parashat Re'eh, in Devarim 15:18, when speaking about sending away the eved ivri at the end of six years, with gifts, the pasuk states:

18. You shall not be troubled when you send him free from you, for twice as much as a hired servant, he has served you six years, and the Lord, your God, will bless you in all that you shall do.		יח. לֹא יִקְשֶׁה בְעֵינֶךָ בְּשַׁלֵּחֲךָ אֹתוֹ חָפְשִׁי מֵעִמָּךְ כִּי מִשְׁנֶה שְׂכַר שָׂכִיר עֲבָדְךָ שֵׁשׁ שָׁנִים וּבֵרַכְךָ יְ־הֹוָ־ה אֱלֹהֶיךָ בְּכֹל אֲשֶׁר תַּעֲשֶׂה:
		כי משנה שכר שכיר: מכאן אמרו עבד עברי עובד בין ביום ובין בלילה. וזהו כפלים שבעבודת שכירי יום. ומהו עבודתו בלילה, רבו מוסר לו שפחה כנענית והולדות לאדון:

Rashi explains that "From there they {=Chazal} said that an eved ivri serves both during the day and the night. And this is the twice more than the service of the daily worker. And what is his night 'work'? That his master can appoint him a shifcha kenaanis and bear children {servants} for the master."

Other meforshim explain this doubled service differently. Ibn Ezra understands this as a matter of Jewish law, that one may not hire a worker for a period of more than three years:

[טו, יח]
לא יקשה בעיניך -מצאנו כתוב: שלש שנים כימי שכיר וזו ראיה כי אין רשות לאדם שישכיר עצמו יותר משלש שנים, ג"כ לשוכר אותו הנותן שכרו. וזה טעם משנה. כמו כפל. 

His proof it the pasuk in Yeshaya 16:14:

יד  וְעַתָּה, דִּבֶּר ה לֵאמֹר, בְּשָׁלֹשׁ שָׁנִים כִּשְׁנֵי שָׂכִיר, וְנִקְלָה כְּבוֹד מוֹאָב בְּכֹל הֶהָמוֹן הָרָב; וּשְׁאָר מְעַט מִזְעָר, לוֹא כַבִּיר.  {פ}

14 But now the LORD hath spoken, saying: 'Within three years, as the years of a hireling, and the glory of Moab shall wax contemptible for all his great multitude; and the remnant shall be very small and without strength.' {P}

Thus, three years are the years of a hireling, and six years are the years of an eved ivri. And (I would add) perhaps they even darshened this pasuk in Re'eh and arrived at that halacha referred to as an understood matter. An interesting approach, but this does seem to be adding halachot which Chazal made no reference to. Not the end of the world, as we see other derashot change over time from the neviim to Chazal. Still, it is noteworthy that Ibn Ezra would maintain this.

I would guess that this was troubling Ibn Caspi. He more or less echoes Ibn Ezra, but changes one detail:

He cites the same pasuk in Yeshaya, but while Ibn Ezra had it that a person was not allowed to hire himself for more than three years, and similarly, one may not hire someone for more than three years, Ibn Caspi just puts it as a minhag pashut beineihem, a standard common practice among them. This makes sense, and then the pasuk in Devarim does not introduce a new law about hired workers, but simply refers to common practice.

Rashbam rejects the idea of the 2X being twice the number of years. He writes:

פסוק יח 
לא יקשה בעיניך - שתשלחנו חפשי מעמך במה שאתה נותן לו משנה וכפילות - שכר שכיר - בעבודת שש שנים שעבד אותך שאתה מעניק לו מצאנך ומגרנך ומיקבך מלבד שכירות של קנין שש שנים שקנית אותו שהרי למען כן יברכך ה', בכל אשר תעשה.
והרי פירוש פסוק זה דוגמת: ולא ירע לבבך בתתך לו - וכן: תרע עינה באיש חיקה ובבנה ובבתה מתת לא' מהם, כי רוע העין וקשיות הלב מדבר על נתינת ממון לאחרים. ואשר הורגלו לפרש לא יקשה בעיניך על מה שאתה משלחו חפשי לסוף שש, שהרי הרבה עבדך שש שנים, כלומר יותר משאר שכירים, שטות הוא בידם.
וכי למה יקשה בעיניו בשילוח חפשי והלא לא קנאו מתחלה אלא לפי עבודת שש שנים שהכל יודעים שבשביעית יצא?
ועוד לא היה לו לומר משנה שכר שכיר אלא משנה שכיר? 
ויש מפרשים:
משנה שכיר שש שנים הם, לפי שסתם שכיר שלש שנים, כדכתיב: בשלש שנים כשני שכיר ונקלה כבוד מואב. וגם זה הבל.
כי במקום אחר כתיב: בעוד שנה כשני שכיר. ופירוש כשני שכיר. שלש שנים מצומצמות כשני שכיר שהיא שנה מצומצמת. 

My translation:

"You shall not be troubled when you send him free from you, in that you have given him twice, and double, that of the wages of a hired worker, for the service of six years that he served you, in that you give him presents from your flock, from your grain and from your wine, besides the wages of the hiring of six years, in which you acquired him. For behold, this is so that Hashem will bless you, 'in all that you do.'
And behold, the explanation of this verse shall serve as an example. {Same perek, pasuk 10:}

10. You shall surely give him, and your heart shall not be grieved when you give to him; for because of this thing the Lord, your God, will bless you in all your work and in all your endeavors.

י. נָתוֹן תִּתֵּן לוֹ וְלֹא יֵרַע לְבָבְךָ בְּתִתְּךָ לוֹ כִּי בִּגְלַל הַדָּבָר הַזֶּה יְבָרֶכְךָ יְ־הֹוָ־ה אֱלֹהֶיךָ בְּכָל מַעֲשֶׂךָ וּבְכֹל מִשְׁלַח יָדֶךָ:

and so too {Devarim 28:56}:

55. of giving any one of them of the flesh of his children that he is eating, because not a thing will remain for him in the siege and in the desperation which your enemies will bring upon you, in all your cities.		נה. מִתֵּת לְאַחַד מֵהֶם מִבְּשַׂר בָּנָיו אֲשֶׁר יֹאכֵל מִבְּלִי הִשְׁאִיר לוֹ כֹּל בְּמָצוֹר וּבְמָצוֹק אֲשֶׁר יָצִיק לְךָ אֹיִבְךָ בְּכָל שְׁעָרֶיךָ:
56. The most tender and delicate woman among you, who would not venture to set her foot upon the ground, because of delicateness and tenderness, will begrudge the husband of her embrace and her own son and daughter,		נו. הָרַכָּה בְךָ וְהָעֲנֻגָּה אֲשֶׁר לֹא נִסְּתָה כַף רַגְלָהּ הַצֵּג עַל הָאָרֶץ מֵהִתְעַנֵּג וּמֵרֹךְ תֵּרַע עֵינָהּ בְּאִישׁ חֵיקָהּ וּבִבְנָהּ וּבְבִתָּהּ:

For begrudging and hardness of heart is speaking regarding giving money to others. And that which they {=other meforshim} are accustomed to explain לֹא יִקְשֶׁה בְעֵינֶךָ as referring to that you are sending him free at the end of six, for much has he served for you for six years, that is to say, more than other hired laborers, this is shtus in their hands. For why should it be difficult in his eyes to send him free? After all, did he not from the start purchase him for servitude of six years, for everyone knows that on the seventh year, he leaves?! And further, should it not have stated מִשְׁנֶה שָׂכִיר, twice that of a hired laborer, rather than מִשְׁנֶה שְׂכַר שָׂכִיר, twice the wages of a hired servant? 

And there are those who explain that twice that of a hired laborer is six years, since a typical hired laborer is for three years, as is written [in that pasuk in Yeshaya]. And this is also vanity. For in another place, it is written {Yeshiva 21:16}:

טז  כִּי-כֹה אָמַר אֲדֹנָי, אֵלָי:  בְּעוֹד שָׁנָה כִּשְׁנֵי שָׂכִיר, וְכָלָה כָּל-כְּבוֹד קֵדָר.

16 For thus hath the Lord said unto me: 'Within a year, according to the years of a hireling, and all the glory of Kedar shall fail;

And the meaning in "like the years of a hireling" is three precise years, like the years of a hireling, which is a precise year."

My reaction to each of these three counterpoints to the other meforshim:

1. Why should it be difficult to send him away, given that this is the operating assumption? Well, it is only the operating assumption once the Torah law has been set. In the backdrop of Ancient Near Eastern law, or even against the Torah laws of eved kanaani, it is standard that a slave is owned perpetually. Indeed, if we look even in the context in this parasha, the immediately preceding pasuk is that of the eved nirtza, who served perpetually, or at least until Yovel. So in enacting this reform, for Hebrew slaves, Moshe is giving them justification, such that they should understand that the Torah's reform is not burdensome, but rather the reform is rooted in fairness and justice.
2. Why should it state מִשְׁנֶה שְׂכַר שָׂכִיר, rather than just מִשְׁנֶה שָׂכִיר? One would need to work it out grammatically, but I would assume that these meforshim who understand it as referring to the term of service maintain that this is twice the hiring period of the sachir. Can it work out grammatically? I would assume so, even if one needs to appeal to either an arcane word form or a revocalization. But Rashbam is not opposing those meforshim who speak of terms of service. Rather, he is opposing those who understand it שְׂכַר שָׂכִיר as the labor provided by the sachir. I will grant that this is rather difficult. But we can interpret this as "twice what you get in the hiring of the laborer." Or, less smoothly, sechar as a derived form from the noun sachir, meaning that which the sachir produces.
3. Rashbam's third point is rather strong, in my opinion. It is nice to take a verse out of context, from another sefer, and use it to bolster a local interpretation. But what does כִּשְׁנֵי שָׂכִיר in context mean in Yeshaya. The other verse in Yeshaya indicates how the author intends it. If so, Ibn Ezra's proof fails.

Interestingly, Ibn Ezra himself does not provide this commentary of three years as a mandatory maximum as he comments locally on sefer Yeshaya. Rather, on the "three year" verse in 16:14, he writes

That is, that "the intent of "as the days of the hireling" is that every day, we will be mevaser his soul when the time will end. So is the prophet rejoicing when the time of their destruction is reached."

However, on reflection, this need not be contradictory. The question is why one would use the parallel to the years of a hireling, and the answer is the psychological feature of looking towards the end. But such a parallel could still be appropriate, and thus ripe to be made, by virtue of it being the hiring maximum.

What about on the second verse, of the single year? Ibn Ezra writes:

Once again, it seems that there is some psychological component -- that this year is deemed long, like the year of a hireling.

But, the three-year maximum period is not appropriate here, and Ibn Ezra never made reference to it in his commentary on either verse. It truly seems as if Ibn Ezra is not advancing this explanation here. And it is difficult to say how he would answer the Rashbam's objection.

And I would think Ibn Ezra (1089-1164) was familiar with the commentary of the Rashbam (1085-1158). It was Rashbam who wrote the commentary on Bereishit contrary to Chazal that peshat in the pasuk was that night followed day, and Ibn Ezra speaks of having a dream in which Shabbos complained to him about his having a heretical commentary in his possession which stated precisely that. Maybe he cast the Rashbam's commentary out of his house prior to reading it in its entirety?

Could we save this explanation? Perhaps. For instance, Yeshaya 20:1 represents a time-change: בִּשְׁנַת בֹּא תַרְתָּן, אַשְׁדּוֹדָה, בִּשְׁלֹחַ אֹתוֹ, סַרְגוֹן מֶלֶךְ אַשּׁוּר; וַיִּלָּחֶם בְּאַשְׁדּוֹד, וַיִּלְכְּדָהּ. Perhaps, then, two years have passed, and the first sets up the three year period, while the second represents a one-year countdown to the same time? It is difficult, and requires further investigation.

Here is what R' Ovadia Sporno has to say:

פסוק יחלא-יִקְשֶׁה בְעֵינֶךָ. לְהַעֲנִיק עִם שִׁלּוּחו חָפְשִׁי, כִּי רָאוּי הוּא לָזֶה וְאַתָּה לא תֶחְסַר.

וּבֵרַכְךָ ה' אֱלהֶיךָ. וּמִשֶּׁלּו תִּתֵּן. 

The difficulty is in giving him presents, together with sending him free. Why? Because this is fitting for him, and you are not losing anything by it. And Hashem will bless you, such that you are giving him from His. This is similar to Rashbam, in that both say that the comfort is one giving him the presents.

Shadal collects, and reacts to, many of the prior meforshim on this. He writes:

 יח ] כי משנה שכר שכיר עבדך שש שנים: אמרו קצת מן הקדמונים ואחריהם ראב"ע ורלב"ג, כי אין רשות להשכיר עצמו יותר משלוש שנים, ויפה השיבהו רשב"ם ודון יצחק כי זה הבל, כי שלש שנים כשני שכיר ( ישעיה ט"ז י"ד), אין ענינו רק שנים מצומצמות. וכן כתוב ( שם כ"א ט"ז) בעוד שנה כשני שכיר; 

גם פירוש רשב"ם ור' עובדיה ספורנו לא ייתכן, כי הכתוב אומר: בשלחך אותו, לא: בהעניקך אותו, ועוד אין להענקת שיעור, ואיך יאמר שנתן לו שכר כפול מפני שהעניקו? 

גם דברי רד"ק ור"י עראמה הקרובים לדברי רש"י שהשכיר נשכר ליום או ללילה, והעבד הוא בכל רגע תחת ממשלתך, לא ייתכנו כי היה לו לומר משנה "עבודת" שכיר, לא "שכר" שכיר. 

והנכון לדעתי: לא יקשה בעינך בשלחך אותו חפשי, כי אמנם אם באת לשכור שכיר היית מוכרח לשלם לו כפליים, כי כן דרך השכירים, כי צריכים הם להביא טרף לביתם, והמוכר עצמו לעבד מסתמא אין עליו משא אשה ובנים; והנה אע"פ שתשלחנו כבר הרווחת הרבה. ופירוש המילות כך הוא: משנה וכפליים ( ממה שנתת לעבד זה) היה השכר שהיית צריך לתת לשכיר שיעבדך שש שנים. 

והיום י"ג טבת תרכ"א נ"ל ודאי כי מילת עבדך שש שנים חוזרת לעבד (כמו שהבינו כל העולם) ולא לשכיר ( כמו שפירשתי אני), גם ראיתי כי מילת משנה אף כשהיא בסגול היא תמיד דבקה בענין לשם שאחריו (משנה כסף, בראשית מ"ג ט"ו, ומשנה שברון, ירמיה י"ז י"ח), והנה משנה שכר שכיר משמע כפליים של שכר שכיר, ולא ששכר שכיר הוא כפליים כנגד שכר העבד. לפיכך נ"ל לפרש כי כפליים ממה שנותנים לשכיר היה ראוי ליתן לאיש הזה, כי עבדך שש שנים, ומילות אלו (עבדך שש שנים) הן דרך קריאה, כמו במה ישכב (שמות כ"ב כ"ו), אשר ינאף את אשת רעהו ( ויקרא כ"ב י'), מיד איש אחיו ( בראשית ט' ח'). כ 

והמכוון בקריאה הזאת הוא: האיש הזה עבד אותך כעבד ולא כשכיר, באופן שלא היתה לו שעה שלא היה משועבד לך, ולא למלאכה אחת, אלא לכל דבר שהיית מבקש היה משועבד לך וחייב לעשות רצונך, וכל זה לא היה ליום או ליומים, לשנה או לשנתיים, אבל עבדך שש שנים! ואתה לא נתת לו אלא פחות ממה שנותנים לשכיר שנה בשנה, תחת כי לפי שורת הדין היה ראוי לך ליתן לו משנה וכפליים ממה שנותנים לשכיר, כי השכיר איננו משועבד רק למלאכות מיוחדות, והעבד לא נשאר לו שום חירות בעולם, והאיש הזה נשתעבד לך כעבד במשך שש שנים שהוא ג"כ זמן בלתי קצר, א"כ לא יקשה בעינך בשלחך אותו וגם בהעניקך לו; ומלבד שזה מחוייב לפי שורת הדין, עוד תדע כי בשכר זה יברכך ה ' אלקיך בכל אשר תעשה.

My translation:

כִּי מִשְׁנֶה שְׂכַר שָׂכִיר עֲבָדְךָ שֵׁשׁ שָׁנִים -- A few of the kadmonim, and following them, Ibn Ezra and Ralbag, that it was not permitted for him to hire himself out for more than three years. And Rashbam and Don Yitzchak Abarbanel answered them well that this is vanity, for "three years like the years of a hireling" {from Yeshaya 16:14} only means precise years. And so is written {Yeshaya 21:16} "in one year, like the years of a hireling".

The commentary of Rashbam and R' Ovadia Sporno is also not possible, for the verse  stated, "when you send him out", not "when you grant him presents". And furthermore, there is no measure to the presents, so how could one say that he gives him twice the wages, because he is giving him presents? 

Also the words of Radak and R' Yitzchak Arama which are close to the words of Rashi, that the laborer is hired out to either a day or to a night, while the servant is under your command at every moment, is not possible. For it then should have stated that it is twice the "avodah" of the sachir, not the sechar {wages?} of the sachir.

And what is correct to my mind is: It should not be difficult in your eyes, when you set him free. For consider that if you came to hire a laborer, you would be required to pay him twice as much, for such is the way for hired laborers, for they require to bring provisions to their homes. Meanwhile, one who sells himself for a slave presumably does not have upon him the burden of a wife and kids. And behold, even though you are sending him away, you have already profited much. And the explanation of the words is as follows: Twice and double (from that which you have given this slave) was the wages that you would have had to give to a hired laborer to work for you for six years.

[Shadal then updates]: And today, the 13th of Teves, 5621 {=1861}, it appears to me certain that the phrase עֲבָדְךָ שֵׁשׁ שָׁנִים modifies the earlier slave (just as the entire world understands) and not to the hired laborer (as I had explained). I have also seen that the word מִשְׁנֶה, even when it is with a segol, always is attached in meaning to the noun which follows (see וּמִשְׁנֶה-כֶּסֶף לָקְחוּ בְיָדָם in Bereshit 43:15, and וּמִשְׁנֶה שִׁבָּרוֹן שָׁבְרֵם in Yirmeyahu 17:18). And behold, מִשְׁנֶה שְׂכַר שָׂכִיר implies twice that of the wages of the hired laborer, not that the wages of the hired laborer would be twice the wages of the slave. Therefore, it appears to me to explain that 'double that which you give to the laborer is fitting to give to this man, for he has served you for six years', and these words ( עֲבָדְךָ שֵׁשׁ שָׁנִים ) are by way of calling out {=because of this reason}, such as in {Shemot 22:26}

26. for it is his only covering; it is his garment for his skin. With what shall he lie? And it shall be [that] if he cries out to Me, I will hear because I am gracious.

כו. כִּי הִוא [כסותה] כְסוּתוֹ לְבַדָּהּ הִוא שִׂמְלָתוֹ לְעֹרוֹ בַּמֶּה יִשְׁכָּב וְהָיָה כִּי יִצְעַק אֵלַי וְשָׁמַעְתִּי כִּי חַנּוּן אָנִי:

and in {Vayikra 20:10}

10. And a man who commits adultery with [another] man's wife, committing adultery with the wife of his fellow the adulterer and the adulteress shall surely be put to death.

י. וְאִישׁ אֲשֶׁר יִנְאַף אֶת אֵשֶׁת אִישׁ אֲשֶׁר יִנְאַף אֶת אֵשֶׁת רֵעֵהוּ מוֹת יוּמַת הַנֹּאֵף וְהַנֹּאָפֶת:

{Note the doubling; Shadal refers to the second phrase.} And {Bereshit 9:8}

5. But your blood, of your souls, I will demand [an account]; from the hand of every beast I will demand it, and from the hand of man, from the hand of each man, his brother, I will demand the soul of man.

ה. וְאַךְ אֶת דִּמְכֶם לְנַפְשֹׁתֵיכֶם אֶדְרֹשׁ מִיַּד כָּל חַיָּה אֶדְרְשֶׁנּוּ וּמִיַּד הָאָדָם מִיַּד אִישׁ אָחִיו אֶדְרֹשׁ אֶת נֶפֶשׁ הָאָדָם:

{These seem to work as a kind of interjection.} And the intent in this calling out is: This man served you as a servant and not as a hired worker, in a manner that he did not have an hour that he was not subservient to you. And not for a single labor, but for any matter that you wished, he was subservient to you and obligated to do your will. And all of this was not only for a day or two, for a year or two, but he served you for six years! And you only gave him less than one would give to a laborer who served you year by year. Because, according to the shurat hadin, it would be fitting for you to give him twice, and double, that which you would give to a hired laborer, for the hired laborer is only subservient in regards to specific work, while the servant has not a speck of freedom in the world. And this man was subservient to you as a servant for a span of six years, which is also a time which is not short. If so, it should not be difficult in your eyes as you send him away, and also as you grant him presents. And besides the fact that this is what is required according to the shurat hadin, you should further know that in reward for this, Hashem your God shall bless you in all that you do.

I have to think more about this before I come to my own conclusion in this sugya.

The reason for mezuza

In parashat vaeschanan, we encounter the mitzvah to put parchment, inscribed with certain words of Torah, on our doorposts. Devarim 6:9:

8. And you shall bind them for a sign upon your hand, and they shall be for ornaments between your eyes.		ח. וּקְשַׁרְתָּם לְאוֹת עַל יָדֶךָ וְהָיוּ לְטֹטָפֹת בֵּין עֵינֶיךָ:
9. And you shall inscribe them upon the doorposts of your house and upon your gates.		ט. וּכְתַבְתָּם עַל מְזוּזֹת בֵּיתֶךָ וּבִשְׁעָרֶיךָ:

Why should we do this? Is it an amulet? Is it a protective measure?

Well, Rambam states rather clearly that one should not regard the mezuzah as an amulet:

… אבל אלו שכותבין מבפנים שמות המלאכים או שמות קדושים או פסוק או חותמות הרי הן בכלל מי שאין להם חלק לעולם הבא, שאלו הטפשים לא די להם שבטלו המצוה אלא שעשו מצוה גדולה שהיא יחוד השם של הקב”ה ואהבתו ועבודתו כאילו הוא קמיע של הניית עצמן כמו שעלה על לבם הסכל שזהו דבר המהנה בהבלי העולם.

… But those who write inside [the mezuzah] the names of angels or holy names or a verse or seals, such people are in the category of those who have no portion in the World to Come.  For these idiots, it is not enough for them that they have [through these actions] negated a positive mitzvah [by invalidating the mezuzah], but they have turned an important mitzvah –viz., the unification of God’s name and the love of God and the worship of God – and made it like it were a kemiya, a magical amulet, whose function is to serve their personal needs, as they tend to think in their foolish thoughts that this [mezuzah] is a thing that affords them benefit in meaningless worldly things.

Rambam, Laws of Mezuzah 5:4

Yet, there are clearly those who so regard it, or else the Rambam would not have to make such a strong contrary statement. Indeed, in the gemara in Menachot 33, there are two positions, one (Rabanan) which stresses the psychological impact of encountering it as one enters one's home, while the other (R' Chanina of Sura) regards it as a protective measure of the entire home. They thus had both 'rationalists' and non-rationalists even in the days of the gemara. Of course, one can explain that it is Hashem who protects the house, and in the merit of keeping his commandments.

For more of a background on this, see this post at The Daily Daf, and this article in Tradition: Mezuzah: Protective Amulet or Religious Symbol.

Here is how I would explain it, both tefillin and mezuzah. We are taking the word of Hashem, His law and His instruction, and binding it on our arm. The arm / hand is the means by which we act in this world. And so we are committing ourselves to acting in accordance with Hashem's will. We also bind it on our head-pate, 'between the eyes'. This might be cast as binding our minds, our selves, to Hashem. We give him our obedience.

Then, we also write these words on the doorposts of our house and on our gates. There was, in the ancient world, family law and city law. Certain things were taken care of in the home. And, as I have suggested, the function of ben sorer umoreh was to move extreme punishments from the realm of possibly biased family law into the public sphere, to the gates of the city where the courts met. The perpetual servant is brought to the doorpost, because that is where he is binding himself until Yovel. And when Boaz wanted to arrange for the marriage of Rut, he organized people at the gate of the city.

Thus, writing these words on the doorposts expresses a commitment to follow Hashem's word in the private realm. Writing these words on the doorposts of our gates expresses a commitment to follow Hashem's word in the public sphere.

Of course, that this is the meaning does not eliminate the need for physically doing it. The Karaites don't wear tefillin or put on mezuzah, because they view the metaphorical message as purely metaphorical. They compare it to Mishlei 3:3's instruction to write truth and justice on the tablet of your heart.

But one need not resort to that. Many ritual actions have deep, meaningful imports, whether overt to us or not. Why physically break the eglah arufa's neck? There is action paired with meaning, whatever it may be. We perform physical bris milah, even though in parashat Ekev, we have the pasuk וּמַלְתֶּם, אֵת עָרְלַת לְבַבְכֶם; וְעָרְפְּכֶם--לֹא תַקְשׁוּ, עוֹד. And we would physically pierce the ear of the perpetual servant. So I would regard these commandments to bind here and there, and write here and there.

Related, see how Isis wearing tefillin increases my emunas chachamim. And this other post, in the comment section, where I converse with a Karaite. We have a tradition on Bein Enecha as head-pate which is confirmed by an ANE text, the Chronicles of Baal. This is not something one would expect were the inteny only metaphorical, with no physical tradition of tefillin from rather early on.

The Rashbam is a different story. The Karaites love to cite him in this context, for here is a Rabbinite who says like them! Here is what the Rashbam writes, on Shemot 13:9, where just tefillin is under discussion:

פסוק ט 
לאות על ידך - לפי עומק פשוטו:
יהיה לך לזכרון תמיד, כאלו כתוב על ידך. כעין, שימני כחותם על לבך. 

I will make the pretty straightforward assumption that by omek peshuto, he means peshat, and not some deeper level. He maintains that le'ot al yadecha means that it should be as a constant remembrance, as if it were written on your hand, in the same manner as {Shir Hashirim 8:6}:

ו  שִׂימֵנִי כַחוֹתָם עַל-לִבֶּךָ, כַּחוֹתָם עַל-זְרוֹעֶךָ--כִּי-עַזָּה כַמָּוֶת אַהֲבָה, קָשָׁה כִשְׁאוֹל קִנְאָה:  רְשָׁפֶיהָ--רִשְׁפֵּי, אֵשׁ שַׁלְהֶבֶתְיָה.

6 Set me as a seal upon thy heart, as a seal upon thine arm; for love is strong as death, jealousy is cruel as the grave; the flashes thereof are flashes of fire, a very flame of the LORD.

I don't have to agree with Rashbam's assessment, of course. I could probably point out at least one disagreement I have with his interpretation on every parsha. But I would still point out that Rashbam did put on tefillin every day with a bracha. And further, if you asked him whether this was a mitzvah deoraysa he was fulfilling, he would almost certainly answer you in the affirmative. For many medieval Jewish commentators, peshat does not mean the one true meaning, where everything else is just made up or an error. Rather, the text was written to be understood on multiple levels. The "derash" of the pasuk referring to tefillin was just as intended by its Divine Author, but runs parallel to the peshat level of the text. This gives him the 'excuse' to interpret the text, all over the place, contrary to decided halacha, and yet not be a Karaite.