The trup on יִלְבָּשָׁם הַכֹּהֵן תַּחְתָּיו

Summary: How shall we make sense of Rashi's comment on the tevir? Shadal makes up new trup and makes it simpler.

Post: Consider the following pasuk and Rashi in Tetzaveh (Shemot 29:30):

30. Seven days shall the one of his sons [who will be] the kohen in his place wear them, the one who is to enter the Tent of Meeting to serve in the Holy.		ל. שִׁבְעַת יָמִים יִלְבָּשָׁם הַכֹּהֵן תַּחְתָּיו מִבָּנָיו אֲשֶׁר יָבֹא אֶל אֹהֶל מוֹעֵד לְשָׁרֵת בַּקֹּדֶשׁ:
Seven days: [I.e., seven] consecutive [days].		שבעת ימים: רצופין:
shall… [who will be] the kohen in his place wear them: [The son] who will arise from his [Aaron’s] sons in his place to the Kehunah Gedolah, whom they will appoint to be Kohen Gadol.		ילבשם הכהן: אשר יקום מבניו תחתיו לכהונה גדולה, כשימנוהו להיות כהן גדול:
the one who is to enter the Tent of Meeting: [I.e.,] that kohen who is prepared to enter the inner sanctum on Yom Kippur, and that is the Kohen Gadol, for the service of Yom Kippur is acceptable only through him. -[from Yoma 73a]		אשר יבא אל אהל מועד: אותו כהן המוכן ליכנס לפני ולפנים ביום הכפורים, וזהו כהן גדול, שאין עבודת יום הכפורים כשרה אלא בו:
one of his sons… in his place: [This] teaches [us] that if the Kohen Gadol has a son who equals him, they must appoint him Kohen Gadol in his place [i.e., after him]. -[from Sifra on Lev. 6:15]		תחתיו מבניו: מלמד שאם יש לו לכהן גדול בן ממלא את מקומו, ימנוהו כהן גדול תחתיו:
[who will be] the kohen in his place: From here there is proof that every expression of כֹּהֵן is an expression of doing, of actually serving. Therefore, the cantillation of the “tevir” extends before it [indicating a connection to the following word].		הכהן תחתיו מבניו: מכאן ראיה כל לשון כהן לשון פועל עובד ממש, לפיכך ניגון תביר נמשך לפניו:

Specifically the last Rashi on this pasuk. I cite all of Rashi's commentary on this pasuk for reasons which will become clear later.


Rashi brings proof that kohen is a verb. Thus, hakohen tachtav is the one who ministers in his place. The proof is the tevir extending before it. What does this mean? Well, the trup on the pasuk seems to be:

with darga on יִלְבָּשָׁם, tevir on הַכֹּהֵן, and tipcha on הַכֹּהֵן. But before providing an analysis of how this fits Rashi in word and theory, we should consider the following statement from Shadal:

"Rashi is gores יִלְבָּשָׁם with a tevir and הַכֹּהֵן with a mercha {and תַּחְתָּיו still with the tipcha}, and so is primary. But in the manuscript in my hand, and in the two manuscripts of the Rambamn {=Mendelsohnn} it is not. And really, it does not seem that הַכֹּהֵן should be like המכהן. Rather, it is a verse written in shorthand, 'the kohen who arises in his place', just as is rendered in the Targum Yerushalmi."

What is Shadal saying? That in יִלְבָּשָׁם הַכֹּהֵן תַּחְתָּיו, we want to place הַכֹּהֵן תַּחְתָּיו as a single unit, joined by mercha tipcha. And that יִלְבָּשָׁם stands separate from that. Thus, there is a tevir on the verb יִלְבָּשָׁם (shall wear them), and the actor is הַכֹּהֵן תַּחְתָּיו ("he who kohens in his place"). Of course, this trup is at odds with what appears in our Mikraos Gedolos.

By 'manuscripts', Shadal is not referring to manuscripts of Torah, but to manuscripts of Rashi's commentary. In terms of the texts of Chumash, I don't see that the Teimanim have it any different from what is pictured above. So too the Leningrad Codex.

In what manuscript is this Rashi missing? See for instance this manuscript from Rome, 1470:

The first orange box designates the beginning of pasuk 30. The second designates the beginning of pasuk 31. The Rashi in question should be the last one on pasuk 30, but it is not present.

(Indeed, it looks like there are a few runs through the pasuk, which might indicate a secondary authorship.)

It is also missing in the Rashi pictured to the right, Munich, 1233, which often is more expansive and includes other Rishonim as well.

And so too in this one, Cod Hebr 3, this Rashi is missing:

So maybe Rashi never said it. On to a bit of analysis. Let us turn to Mendelsohnn's Bei'ur:

First, he cites Rashi, as in the printed text, and notes that it does not exist in the two manuscripts in his possession. Then he writes:

 "And the intent is that the word kohen is a present-tense verb, referring to the actual action of serving (ein dienmender?), and not as a name to the owner of that occurrence (ein diener?). 

[And the explanation of this Rashi is as follows, in my humble opinion: That without a doubt this verse is written out of order, and its meaning is really: ילבשם הכהן מבניו תחתיו, for the custom of the Scriptures is to connect the verb with the noun, and to establish the word תחתיו {the adverb?} at the end, such as in (Bereshit 2:21) ויסגר בשר תחתנה {with mercha tipcha silluk} , and (Mishlei 11:8) ויבא רשע תחתיו  {with mercha tipcha silluk}, and others like them. And the verb with the noun are joined as well by the trup, as it is in the aforementioned verses and the ones like them. For the noun is what carries the occurrence of the action and is connected to it, which is not so for תחתיו {the adverb} which is another matter and a different informing {perhaps a prepositional phrase by itself?}. And so too if the noun and the adjective come combined with the word תחתיו, the noun and adjective come together and are also joined by the trup, and the word תחתיו is at the end and separated from them, such as (II Shmuel 10:11) וימלוך | חנון בנו | תחתיו {with tevir under  וימלוך, mercha tipcha on  חנון בנו , and silluk on תחתיו}, with  חנון בנו connected via mercha tipcha, and the word וימלוך 'fitting' as well to be joined with them, except that one cannot have three connected words in trup, so that it is separated a bit with the tevir which separates a bit less than the tipcha.

{Josh: Wickes would not necessarily agree. Rather, syntactically, where a verb leads, in your continuous dichotomy, you repeatedly chop off parts of speech from the end. Maybe the motivator for this is as described, or maybe it has to do with the weight of the verse. But the VERB part-of-speech status of  וימלוך  would lead to chopping off first תחתיו and next חנון בנו.}

And the proof regarding the twisting of the verse which stands before us, is that in the verse (Vayikra 6:15)

15. And the kohen who is anointed instead of him from among his sons, shall prepare it; [this is] an eternal statute; it shall be completely burnt to the Lord.

טו. וְהַכֹּהֵן הַמָּשִׁיחַ תַּחְתָּיו מִבָּנָיו יַעֲשֶׂה אֹתָהּ חָק עוֹלָם לַי־הֹוָ־ה כָּלִיל תָּקְטָר:

Rashi writes explicitly:

who is anointed instead of him from among his sons: [This is to be understood as if transposed: The kohen] who is anointed from among his sons instead of him.

המשיח תחתיו מבניו: המשיח מבניו תחתיו:

And he intends by this to connect the adjective הַמָּשִׁיחַ, 'who is anointed', to the noun מִבָּנָיו, in the way of language. 

And it appears to me that the cause of this twisting is so as not to explain תַּחְתָּיו as referring to יִלְבָּשָׁם, as it occurs in the verse וימלוך חנון בנו תחתיו, where תחתיו goes back on וימלוך. Therefore it is established between הכהן and מבניו which relate to one another. And since the word הכהן is more closely related to מבניו than to תחתיו, it is therefore not with a mercha, but rather with a tevir which separates a bit less than the tipcha.

And behold, יִלְבָּשָׁם הַכֹּהֵן are connected with trup of darga tevir {with darga as a conjunctive servus of the disjunctive tevir}, as is the fashion of the verb with the noun, or the participle {?}. And now, know that if the word הַכֹּהֵן is a participle, then the trup works out correctly, with יִלְבָּשָׁם הַכֹּהֵן joined, and הַכֹּהֵן with a tevir to inform on the twisting of הַכֹּהֵן מִבָּנָיו תַּחְתָּיו {into הַכֹּהֵן תַּחְתָּיו מִבָּנָיו}. And then the word הַכֹּהֵן  would be a present-tense participle in place of the future tense, in its normal manner, and its meaning is 'who will be yekhahen of his children'. But if it is a שם תאר {noun}, perforce we would need to add a verb which connect the two nouns, in this manner: hakohen (asher yekhahen [or: asher yakum]) mibanav. And then we would need to have the word הַכֹּהֵן with a trup sybol which divided more than a tipcha, which would be a zakef katon, and יִלְבָּשָׁם with a pashta {???} (since there are two vowels in the word הַכֹּהֵן before the melody). And therefore, Targum Yonasan ben Uziel, who explains הכהן as כהנא {and thus a noun, the kohen}, and not דיכהן {as a verb}, and thus renders it a noun, needs to add the word דיקום {who arises}.

And now you can understand Rashi correctly. And the Raza {R' Shlomo Zalman Hanau (Katz), in sefer Shaarei Zimra ש"ה {?} chapter 2, touches a bit of this in his explanation of this. However, some of it he saw, and some of it he did not see.

And the author of Mirkeves HaMishna, in his gloss {/critique} of the aforementioned sefer (which I possess in manuscript) wants to flip the intent of Rashi, and it does not seem so from his [=Rashi's] language."

Thus, Mendelsohnn explains Rashi as being in accord with our trup. Shadal, meanwhile, differed and has Rashi (or whoever authored this comment we find in our printed Rashi) have a different trup. I think Shadal's explanation is the simpler of the two. But then, he makes up trup to render the explanation simple. Also, I am not sure what nimshach should mean in לפיכך ניגון תביר נמשך לפניו.

Aside from any of this, we have to be careful about different theories of explaining trup. It is possible that whoever wrote the comment, if from the time of the Rishonim, had a different theory of the function of trup than Shadal or Mendelsohnn, in which case they are working to explain it within the wrong theory.

There is further to explore in this, in the seforim mentioned, such in Shaarei Zimra.

The trup symbol of psik in וְאַתָּה תְּצַוֶּה | אֶת בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל

Summary: to hint that it was not from the money of the Israelites, but rather that clouds brought it from Gan Eden. This according to Birkas Avraham.

Post: In parashat Tetzaveh, Birkas Avraham writes:

"3. The trup symbol of psik, to hint that it was not from the money of the Israelites, but rather that clouds brought it from Gan Eden.


In the aforementioned verse {at the start of Tetzaveh},

20. And you shall command the children of Israel, and they shall take to you pure olive oil, crushed for lighting, to kindle the lamps continually.

כ. וְאַתָּה תְּצַוֶּה אֶת בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל וְיִקְחוּ אֵלֶיךָ שֶׁמֶן זַיִת זָךְ כָּתִית לַמָּאוֹר לְהַעֲלֹת נֵר תָּמִיד:

there is a psik (a vertical bar | ) before the words אֶת בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל:

And it is possible to say that this alludes to that which is stated in Targum Yonatan upon the verse (in Shemot 35:27-28, in parashat Vayakhel):

27. And the princes brought the shoham stones and filling stones for the ephod and for the choshen;

כז. וְהַנְּשִׂאִם הֵבִיאוּ אֵת אַבְנֵי הַשֹּׁהַם וְאֵת אַבְנֵי הַמִּלֻּאִים לָאֵפוֹד וְלַחֹשֶׁן:

28. and the spice and the oil for lighting and for the anointing oil, and for the incense.

כח. וְאֶת הַבֹּשֶׂם וְאֶת הַשָּׁמֶן לְמָאוֹר וּלְשֶׁמֶן הַמִּשְׁחָה וְלִקְטֹרֶת הַסַּמִּים:

that the clouds {nesiim, in a homonym of princes} brought from Gan Eden the oil which was needed for the menorah and for the anointing oil, see there.


And therefore, there was needed here {in parashat Tetzaveh} a commandment only on the taking and bringing to the hands of Moshe Rabbenu, and the crushing of the olives and production of the oil is not mentioned.


And therefore, the Ramban, za'l, who sensed that the production of the oil was not mentioned, wrote as follows:

כ): אמר הכתוב בכאן ואתה תצווה - בעבור שאמר במשכן תמיד ועשית, והוא בצווי, אמר בכאן ואתה בעצמך תצווה להם שייקחו אליך את שמן המאור, כי אין להם דרך לעשות אותו במדבר רק אם היה אצלם משמרת. והנשיאים הביאוהו:

"The verse says regarding this 'and you shall command', since it regularly states by the Mishkan 'and you shall fashion', which is via an order {to others}, it states here 'and you, by yourself, shall command to them that they take to you the lighting oil, for they did not have a method of making it in the wilderness, unless they already possessed it and kept it. And the nesiim {princes} brought it."

{Further:}

וטעם אליך - שיביאוהו לפניו והוא יראנו אם הוא זך וכתית כראוי, וכן צו את בני ישראל וייקחו אליך (ויקרא כד ב

"And the meaning of 'unto you', is that they should bring it before him, and he should see it, is it is zach and katit as appropriate. And so too {Vayikra 24:2} 'command the Israelites and they shall take to you."

End quote.


And in truth, the Targum Yonatan in parashat Vayakhel explains the word hanesiim as clouds. And as is written in Masechet Yoma (75a) upon this verse. And that the clouds brought the avnei shoham and the avnei hamiluim, see inside in the gemara."

End of Birkas Avraham.

I'd like to expand on the references to Targum Yonasan and Yoma a bit.On the pesukim from above:

27. And the princes brought the shoham stones and filling stones for the ephod and for the choshen;

כז. וְהַנְּשִׂאִם הֵבִיאוּ אֵת אַבְנֵי הַשֹּׁהַם וְאֵת אַבְנֵי הַמִּלֻּאִים לָאֵפוֹד וְלַחֹשֶׁן:

28. and the spice and the oil for lighting and for the anointing oil, and for the incense.

כח. וְאֶת הַבֹּשֶׂם וְאֶת הַשָּׁמֶן לְמָאוֹר וּלְשֶׁמֶן הַמִּשְׁחָה וְלִקְטֹרֶת הַסַּמִּים:

Targum Yonasan renders:

And the clouds of heaven went to the Phison, and drew up from thence onyx stones, and stones for infilling, to enchase the ephod and the breastplate, and spread them upon the face of the wilderness; and the princes of Israel went, and brought them for the need of the work. And the clouds of heaven returned, and went to the garden of Eden, and took from thence choice aromatics, and oil of olives for the light, and pure balsam for the anointing oil, and for the sweet incense. 

Which first has the clouds doing it and then having the princes doing it. And then, it returns to the actions of the clouds. The play on words is on nesiim, where it occasionally means clouds. The clear example of this is Mishlei 25:14:

יד  נְשִׂיאִים וְרוּחַ, וְגֶשֶׁם אָיִן--    אִישׁ מִתְהַלֵּל, בְּמַתַּת-שָׁקֶר.

14 As vapours and wind without rain, so is he that boasteth himself of a false gift.

I suppose this is from the sense of 'lifting'.

Targum Yonasan, as is actually quite typical in its dual rendition of the pasuk. First, a midrashic reinterpretation. Then, worked into the midrash so as not to contradict, a more literal rendition.

Masechet Yoma has just the midrash, and not really worked into the actual narrative. It seems more like something that was to expand on the miracle of the manna, rather than practically how these items came to Israelite possession. And oil, etc., are not mentioned, perhaps because the derasha was taking this out of context, as an instance of significant maximalism and context minimalism.

 R. Samuel b. Nahmani, in the name of R. Jonathan said: [This:] Of those things which came down every morning intimates that, together with the manna, there came down to Israel precious stones and pearls, as it is said: And hanesi'im brought the onyx stones;32  [and] it was taught: [nesi'im here means]: clouds literally, as it is said also: As clouds [nesi'im] and winds, without rain.3

In terms of relating it to a psik, aside from my regular objection that this is not psik, but is rather a munach legarmeih, I think it is a bit of a stretch to relate a psik after tetzaveh to this particular derasha.

Darshening psiks in parashat Beshalach

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


Post: Birkas Avraham writes, on parashat Beshalach:

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

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

Here is the pasuk and Rashi to which he refers:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Next:

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


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

{In English:

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

}

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


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

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

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

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

Darshening psiks in parashat Bo

Summary: Birkas Avraham interprets three of them. I present them, with minimal comment.

Post: I saw the following interpretations of psik in Birkas Avraham on parashas Bo.

#1:

"1. Psik after the word ואכל, to allude to that beside the eating, the locusts also ruined and destroyed.


In the verse (Shemos 10:5):

5. And they will obscure the view of the earth, and no one will be able to see the earth, and they will eat the surviving remnant, which remains for you from the hail, and they will eat all your trees that grow out of the field.

ה. וְכִסָּה אֶת עֵין הָאָרֶץ וְלֹא יוּכַל לִרְאֹת אֶת הָאָרֶץ וְאָכַל אֶת יֶתֶר הַפְּלֵטָה הַנִּשְׁאֶרֶת לָכֶם מִן הַבָּרָד וְאָכַל אֶת כָּל הָעֵץ הַצֹּמֵחַ לָכֶם מִן הַשָּׂדֶה:

there is the trup symbol of psik after the word וְאָכַל:

Certainly this alludes to an addition which is oral. And it appears that it is understood with that which is translated in Targum Yonasan the word ואכל as וישיצי (which is not like Onkelos who translated ויֵכול which means only eating). And in truth, also in the explanation of the Seforno he writes upon וְאָכַל אֶת כָּל הָעֵץ (at the end of the pasuk):

פסוק הוְאָכַל אֶת כָּל הָעֵץ. יְקַלְקְלֵהוּ, כְּמו "וְהָיָה לֶאֱכל" (דברים לא, כז), "כִּי אָכַל אֶת יַעֲקב" (תהלים עט, ז). ש

 that they will ruin it, as in (Devarim 31:17)

17. And My fury will rage against them on that day, and I will abandon them and hide My face from them, and they will be consumed, and many evils and troubles will befall them, and they will say on that day, 'Is it not because our God is no longer among us, that these evils have befallen us?'

יז. וְחָרָה אַפִּי בוֹ בַיּוֹם הַהוּא וַעֲזַבְתִּים וְהִסְתַּרְתִּי פָנַי מֵהֶם וְהָיָה לֶאֱכֹל וּמְצָאֻהוּ רָעוֹת רַבּוֹת וְצָרוֹת וְאָמַר בַּיּוֹם הַהוּא הֲלֹא עַל כִּי אֵין אֱלֹהַי בְּקִרְבִּי מְצָאוּנִי הָרָעוֹת הָאֵלֶּה:

and Tehillim 79:7:

ז  כִּי, אָכַל אֶת-יַעֲקֹב;    וְאֶת-נָוֵהוּ הֵשַׁמּוּ.

7 For they have devoured Jacob, and laid waste his habitation.

End quote [of Seforno]."

And end quote of Birkas Avraham.

As an aside, it an interesting editorial mixup that ascribed the pasuk in Tehillim to sefer Devarim, and copied the incorrect pasuk within the perek for it.

Of course, I view this psik as a munach legarmeih. And darshening every munach legarmeih makes the phenomenon much more plentiful than simply the psiks, and thus potentially less out of the ordinary and worthy of derash. I still like mentioning when people darshen trup. And I think it is telling for remez in general that even when seeing something which is not legitimately there, a clever and creative person will be able to point out what it is a remez to. Perhaps this raises questions about the legitimacy of the entire enterprise.

Certainly without the remez, the word אכל has a wider semantic range that just 'eat'.

#2: Next, Birkas Avraham writes:

"17. In אך ביום הראשון תשביתו שאור מבתיכם כי, the psik after the word כי associates it with what comes before, to inform that there is a manner of removal from thirty days before.

In the pasuk (Shmos 12:15):

15. For seven days you shall eat unleavened cakes, but on the preceding day you shall clear away all leaven from your houses, for whoever eats leaven from the first day until the seventh day that soul shall be cut off from Israel.

טו. שִׁבְעַת יָמִים מַצּוֹת תֹּאכֵלוּ אַךְ בַּיּוֹם הָרִאשׁוֹן תַּשְׁבִּיתוּ שְּׂאֹר מִבָּתֵּיכֶם כִּי כָּל אֹכֵל חָמֵץ וְנִכְרְתָה הַנֶּפֶשׁ הַהִוא מִיִּשְׂרָאֵל מִיּוֹם הָרִאשֹׁן עַד יוֹם הַשְּׁבִעִי:

as well as a bit later in the pasuk (Shemos 12:19)

19. For seven days, leavening shall not be found in your houses, for whoever eats leavening that soul shall be cut off from the community of Israel, both among the strangers and the native born of the land.

יט. שִׁבְעַת יָמִים שְׂאֹר לֹא יִמָּצֵא בְּבָתֵּיכֶם כִּי כָּל אֹכֵל מַחְמֶצֶת וְנִכְרְתָה הַנֶּפֶשׁ הַהִוא מֵעֲדַת יִשְׂרָאֵל בַּגֵּר וּבְאֶזְרַח הָאָרֶץ:

In both of them there is a trup symbol of psik (a vertical bar) after the word כי:

whose implication is to encompass the word כי with that which is written above. And it is possible to say that this alludes to what is stated in maseches Pesachim (6a)

ואמר רב יהודה אמר רב המפרש והיוצא בשיירא קודם שלשים יום אין זקוק לבער תוך שלשים יום זקוק לבער

Rab Judah also said in Rab's name: He who sets sail, and he who sets out in a [caravan] company,

before thirty days [prior to Passover], is not bound to remove [the leaven]; if within thirty days, he is

bound to remove [it].

"

To state this idea more explicitly, the gematria of כי is 30, and the vertical bar separates the ki from what follows with a pause, such that in each of these cases, we will attach it to the preceding statement, which is that chametz should not be found in your house. A nice remez.

Again, this is not strictly a psik, but is rather a munach legarmeih, such that rather than there being a semantic cause for the break, it is a regular pausal accent brought about by syntax, verse length, the context of other trup symbols, and the distance to the end of the clause it is dividing. And if one wants to find a remez, the odds are that in the entirety of Rabbinic literature, one can find a remez. And if not, one can simply avoid discussing the particular item and focus on remazim in other pastures.

#3: Finally, Birkas Avraham writes:

7. The psik after the word ולכל of ולכל בני ישראל, for Datan and Aviram were still in Egypt.


In the verse (Shemo 11:7)

7. But to all the children of Israel, not one dog will whet its tongue against either man or beast, in order that you shall know that the Lord will separate between the Egyptians and between Israel.'

ז. וּלְכֹל בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל לֹא יֶחֱרַץ כֶּלֶב לְשֹׁנוֹ לְמֵאִישׁ וְעַד בְּהֵמָה לְמַעַן תֵּדְעוּן אֲשֶׁר יַפְלֶה יְ־הֹוָ־ה בֵּין מִצְרַיִם וּבֵין יִשְׂרָאֵל:

there is a trup symbol of psik after the word וּלְכֹל:

And it is possible to say that this hinds that not all of Israel was there, for Datan and Aviram still remained in Egypt, as it stated in Targum Yonasan ben Uziel on the verse [in Beshalach] (Shemot 14:3):

3. And Pharaoh will say about the children of Israel, They are trapped in the land. The desert has closed in upon them.

ג. וְאָמַר פַּרְעֹה לִבְנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל נְבֻכִים הֵם בָּאָרֶץ סָגַר עֲלֵיהֶם הַמִּדְבָּר:

'And Pharaoh said to Datan and Aviram, [who were] the children of Israel who remained in Egypt, The people of the house of Israel are bewildered in the land...'


{J: Thus taking לִבְנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל as the people spoken to, rather than the people spoken about; or perhaps both.}


And in this way it is possible to explain further, for behold on that which is written later (Shemot 12:37):

37. The children of Israel journeyed from Rameses to Succoth, about six hundred thousand on foot, the men, besides the young children.

לז. וַיִּסְעוּ בְנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל מֵרַעְמְסֵס סֻכֹּתָה כְּשֵׁשׁ מֵאוֹת אֶלֶף רַגְלִי הַגְּבָרִים לְבַד מִטָּף:

Chazal darshen that which is written כְּשֵׁשׁ מֵאוֹת, like six hundred, that it is as if {if one could say it} Hashem was with them and completed the sum of six hundred thousand. And as Moreinu Harav Yitzchak Karo za"l explained in Toldos Yitzchak regarding that which was stated in Pirkei deRabbi Eliezer (perek tet' lamed {??} that these words are coming to explain that which is written כְּשֵׁשׁ מֵאוֹת אֶלֶף. For in Pirkei deRabbi Eliezer there is the statement in the following language:

When Israel ascended from Egypt, all the males gave their lineage, 600,000, minus 1. What did Hashem do? He entered into the count with them, such that their count was 600,000.

See there, and  in Torah Shleima there, item 579.


And behold, in the verse there, it is not fitting to explain the deficiency in the count by aspect of missing Datan and Aviram, but here, by way of drush which is given over to be darshened when it does not go against the halacha, I would essay to explain that therefore it is written כְּשֵׁשׁ מֵאוֹת אֶלֶף רַגְלִי as they traveled from Raamses, because of Datan and Aviram's absence at that time, for behold, according to Targum Yonasan, only after that, when Pharaoh pursued after the Israelites, did Datan and Aviram go and mingle within the Israelites who left Egypt. And according to our words, it is possible to explain why, in parashat Behaalotecha, it is written that Moshe Rabbenu said (in Bemidbar 11:21) שש מאות אלף רגלי העם אשר אנכי בקרבו {without the כ}, for Datan and Aviram were already there."

All in all, a nice construction, despite from my repeated objection that this is a munach legarmeih rather than a psik.

Why translate that Pharaoh did not *chakim* Yosef?

Summary: I disagree with the idea that Tg Yonasan is channeling Kli Yakar and saying that Pharaoh did not learn from Yosef's history. Rather, חכים simply means 'recognize' in Aramaic.

Post: Consider the following explanation of Targum Yonasan, from Em LaMikra:

"And a new king arose over Egypt who knew not Yosef:


And it is written in Targum Yonasan ben Uziel: who did not chakim Yosef and did not go in his [previous] laws.


And this requires explanation, what is his intent in 'who did not chakim Yosef'? And it is seems good to explain this based on what the Kli Yakar wrote:

Who did not know Yosef: for he did not know what happened to Yosef. For his brothers endeavored with all strength to destroy him and to nullify his dreams, and all their plots they plotted did not succeed, for the Will of God was with Yosef, to make him great, and the word of our God stands forever. So did Pharaoh say 'lest they increase' against the Will of God, Yisbarach, who said 'so shall they increase', and thought plans upon them, and was not successful, just as Yosef's brothers were not successful.

See there.


And based on this, it is possible to say that this is the meaning of 'and he did not chakim Yosef', that he did not make himself wise {learn} from the history of Yosef, that the word of the Lord stands forever, and that man does not prevail by might."

An interesting explanation of this Targum Yonasan, but I think it is pretty unlikely.

Often, when Targum Yonasan offers two explanations covering the same ground, the first is a simple, more literal explanation, while the second is a more midrashic explanation. This is the case in this instance as well. In translating אשר לא ידע את יוסף, Tg Yonatan first explains 'who did not chakim Yosef', and then explains, on that same phrase, 'and did not go in his [previous] laws'.

The second explanation is midrashic. It is drawn from Sotah 11a:

Now there arose a new king etc.¹⁷  Rab and Samuel [differ in their interpretation]; one said that he was really new, while the other said that his decrees were made new. He who said that he was really new did so because it is written 'new'; and he who said that his decrees were made new did so because it is not stated that [the former king] died and he reigned [in his stead].

Who knew not Joseph — he was like one who did not know [Joseph] at all.

or alternatively, it is a reference to the (perhaps slightly more midrashic than standard) explanation found in Targum Onkelos:

א,ח וַיָּקָם מֶלֶךְ-חָדָשׁ, עַל-מִצְרָיִם, אֲשֶׁר לֹא-יָדַע, אֶת-יוֹסֵף.

וְקָם מַלְכָּא חֲדַתָּא, עַל מִצְרָיִם, דְּלָא מְקַיֵּים, גְּזֵירַת יוֹסֵף.

The first explanation should be a more literal one, not something so creative and expansive as found in the Kli Yakar.

Indeed, unless this was intended as remez or derash, translating חכים as becoming wise seems like a mistranslation. Rather, חכם is a knowledge word, just like ידע. And it is an Aramaic cognate of the Hebrew word. But when you have cognates, they don't always carry the precise shade of meaning they have in the parallel languages. (Compare French maison, 'house', with its English cognate, mansion.) So חכים is a knowledge word in Aramaic. But here is what it means:

See meaning #2, 'to recognize, to know, to remember.' And we can even see from Targum Yerushalmi on Vayeshev (a variant of Pseudo-Yonatan) the word חכם in this sense, on 37:33, translating ויכירה.

As such, there is no need to go to such lengths.

Targum Yonasan in support of a minhag taus

Summary: Birkas Avraham debunks a support to a minhag taus from Targum Yonasan. The targum states 'and she called his name Onan, for ברם upon him his father would in the future mourn.' However,
they should not interpret it as  'and she called his name Onan, for ברם [only] upon him [and not his older brother Er] his father would in the future mourn.' Rather, it should be understood as  'and she called his name Onan, for ברם [also] upon him [just as upon older brother Er] his father would in the future mourn.'

He explains and I agree. Then, I add a bit of my own analysis.

Post: I don't always pick on Birkas Avraham. Indeed, I like his style, and I like his subject matter. Just like Birkas Avraham, I enjoy analysis of 'non-standard' rabbinic texts, such as Targum Yonasan. And I enjoy divrei Torah centered on analyzing trup. Perhaps, as a result, I direct more attention to what he writes. And then, when I do find cause to disagree, I disagree.

At any rate, here is one analysis is Birkas Avraham with which I pretty much disagree agree. He is a bit harsh in his last sentence, but I agree with that sentiment as well.

He writes, on parashat Vayeshev:

"In Targum Yonasan ben Uziel upon the verse (Bereishit 38:4) ותהר עוד ותלד בן ותקרא שמו אונן, there is the translation of וקרת ית שמיה אונן, ארום ברם עלוי עתיד  אבוי לאתאבלא -- 'and she called his name Onan, for ברם [only] upon him [and not his older brother Er] his father would in the future mourn.'

{Josh: I interjected above in [bold] according to the interpretation offered in the next paragraph.}

And in Sefer Gan Raveh [from R' Hanoch Henich Ersohn], citing Yesod Ohel Moed, as well as in the Chidushei Maharil Diskin, and in Sefer Pardes Yosef,  and other sefarim as well, and preceding all of them, in Sefer Naftali Seva Ratzon -- they write that from these words of Targum Yonasan ben Uziel there is a source for the minhag which was rejected in the responsa of the Rivash, siman 95; and the Rama in Yoreh Deah (siman 374 seif 13) he brings the Rivash, that there were those who had the custom not to mourn upon a firstborn son, for he was holy to Hashem.

However [ברם -- heh], with apologies to the honor of these Gedolim, it is an error to deduce this from the Targum Yonasan. And just the opposite, there is from this Targum Yonasan an explicit contradiction to the rejected custom.

For in many places in Targum Yonasan, the Targum utilizes the word ברם to say גם ['also']. Such as on the verse (Bereshit 7:3) גם מעוף השמים, in the Targum of Yonasan ben Uzziel there is translated ברם מן צפרי. And so too in the verse (Bereishit 35:8 [about the death of Devorah, Rivkah's maidservant]), וברם תמן אתבשר יעקב על  מיתת רבקה אמיה, see our words there. And on the verse (Shemot 36:7) דים לכל המלאכה לעשות אותה  והותר, there is in the Targum Yonasan ועבדו יתה וברם  שיירו, and its meaning is וגם {and also} left over. And in parashat Naso, in the matter of the Sotah, that the water which she drinks tests also the male adulterer, there is in Targum Yonasan (Bemidbar 5:27) ברם לגיורא בדקין מיא {with ברם meaning also}. And in the verse (Bemidbar 11:4), ויבכו גם בני ישראל, it translates ובכו ברם  בני ישראל. And so too on the verse (Devarim 23:4) גם דור עשירי לא יבא, it translates in Targum Yonasan ברם דר עשיראי לא ידכי.

And so too on the word לחוד, whose simple meaning is one of reduction, of אך and רק, we find in Targum Yonasan and Targum Yerushalmi that they offer it as translation of the word גם, such as (Bereishit 3:22) ולקח גם מעץ החיים, the Targum Yerushalmi renders 'לחוד מן פירי אילנא חייא '. And in Targum Yerushalmi on the verse (Bereishit 31:16) הלא נכריות, etc., ויאכל גם אכול את כספנו, upon the גם is rendered לחוד כתובתין. And in Targum Yonasan on the verse (Shemos 1:10) ונוסף גם הוא על שונאינו, it translates  לחוד

הינון על סנאינן. And on the verse (Shemos 2:12) וגם דלֹה דלה לנו, it translates לחוד מדול. And in Targum Yonasan on the verse (Devarim 7:20) וגם את הצרעה, it translates ולחוד ית מחת.

And the words of the Targum Yonasan here are straightforward, that after he saw with ruach hakodesh that also upon him, his father would require to mourn and the mourning would thus increase, he called his second son based on the increase of aninut, and Hashem Yisbarach should shower upon us double joy. 

And this as well is a model to that that some suspend derashot of hevel in the Targumim, from lack of understanding and lack of knowledge of their basis in lashon hakodesh and in midrashim."

I would add that perhaps in some of these cases, or in others, it is not that ברם and לחוד mean 'also'. Rather, גם was being used in Biblical Hebrew as an intensifier -- 'indeed', 'truly', 'surely' -- and the word ברם and לחוד are used as intensifiers as well. Thus, Jastrow renders ברם as:

1. besides
2. however
3. (the interjection): truly, surely!

I would add one further point that the words אך and רק, according to modern Biblical scholars, serve a similar function in Biblical Hebrew. That it, they never mean 'only' and 'but', as exclusions. This was Mishnaic Hebrew usage, which was then read back into the Biblical verses for the sake of midrash aggadah and midrash halacha(!). But אך and רק really mean 'truly' and 'surely'. This would then possibly account for many of the uses of ברם and לחוד even as translations of אך and רק -- though I don't know that that would have necessarily been the intent of the Targumist.

Finally -- and this is perhaps a slight nitpick -- it was not Yehuda who named Onan, and could do so with ruach hakodesh. Rather, it was the daughter of Shua, the Canaanite (or else, merchant). And she did not have ruach hakodesh, I would think. Therefore, it would just be a providential name pick.