A question for the Taliban women

Summary: What are they doing out of their homes? We see from Rashi, Ralbag, and Rambam, that it is a breach of tznius for a woman to leave her home. And an analysis and response to this, of why this is not obligatory or even a good idea for present-day women.

Post:


Important note: The beginning of this post is written tongue-in-cheek. Don't take this as a real suggestion.

In this week's parasha, we read of Dinah's "going out", and her eventual rape. Rashi cites Midrash Rabba which is not in favor of her 'going out'.

1. Dinah, the daughter of Leah, whom she had borne to Jacob, went out to look about among the daughters of the land.		א. וַתֵּצֵא דִינָה בַּת לֵאָה אֲשֶׁר יָלְדָה לְיַעֲקֹב לִרְאוֹת בִּבְנוֹת הָאָרֶץ:
the daughter of Leah: And not the daughter of Jacob? However, because of her going out she was called the daughter of Leah, since she (Leah) too was in the habit of going out, as it is said: “and Leah came forth toward him” (above 30:16). [from Tanchuma Vayishlach 7] (And concerning her, they devise the proverb: Like mother like daughter.) - [Gen. Rabbah 80:1]		בת לאה: ולא בת יעקב, אלא על שם יציאתה נקראת בת לאה, שאף היא יצאנית היתה, שנאמר (ל טז) ותצא לאה לקראתו (ועליה משלו המשל (יחזקאל טז מד) כאמה כבתה):

The Ralbag lists on each parasha a series of תועלות, which are benefits/purposes/lessons we can glean from the parasha, whether in דעות of מדות. Among those for middos, he writes the following:

"The fourth toeles is in middos, and this is that it is not fitting for a woman to go out of her house. Do you not see what negative results happened to Dinah when she went out to look among the daughters of the land, until this was almost a cause for the destruction of her entire father's house, were Hashem not aiding them?"

(That is, that the nations might have taken revenge for the destruction of Shechem by Shimon and Levi.)

We see similar sentiments in Midrash Tanchuma. Besides the yatzanis aspect, we have:

ותצא דינה בת לאה זה שאמר הכתוב: כל כבודה בת מלך פנימה (תהלים מ"ה).ו

אמר ר' יוסי: 
כשהאשה מצנעת את עצמה בתוך הבית ראויה להינשא לכהן גדול ותעמיד כוהנים גדולים, שנאמר: כל כבודה וגו'. 
אם תכבד עצמה בתוך הבית, ממשבצות זהב לבושה, תינשא למי שכתוב בהן: ושבצת הכתונת שש. 

א"ר פנחס הכהן בר חמא: 
בזמן שהיא צנועה בתוך הבית, כשם שהמזבח מכפר, כך היא מכפרת על ביתה, שנאמר: (תהלים קכ"ח) אשתך כגפן פוריה בירכתי ביתך, ואין ירכתי, אלא מזבח, שנאמר: ושחט אותו על ירך המזבח (ויקרא א'). 

"And Dinah the daughter of Leah went out: This is what Scriptures (Tehillim 45) states, 'All glorious is the king's daughter within the palace...'

Rabbi Yossi said: When she keeps herself hidden [tzanua] in the house, she is worthy of marrying the Kohen Gadol, and to bear Kohen Gadols, as is stated, 'All glorious is the king's daughter within the palace...' If she honors herself in the house, [the pasuk continues], 'her raiment is of chequer work inwrought with gold,' [meaning that] she will be married to the one about whom is written [Shemot 28:39], 'And thou shalt weave the tunic in chequer work of fine linen...'

Rabbi Pinchas HaKohen bar Chama said: At the time she is tzenua within the house, just as the altar atones, so does she atone for her house, as is written [Tehillim 128], 'Thy wife shall be as a fruitful vine, in the innermost parts of thy house...', and there is no yarkesei, 'innermost parts' except for the altar, as is stated [Vayikra 1], 'and he shall slaughter it on the yerech of the altar'.

We might also bring in the Rambam, in Hilchos Ishus, 13:11:

יג  [יא] מְקוֹמוֹת שֶׁדַּרְכָּן שֶׁלֹּא תֵצֵא אִשָּׁה בַּשּׁוּק בְּכֻפָּח שֶׁעַל רֹאשָׁהּ בִּלְבָד, עַד שֶׁיִּהְיֶה עָלֶיהָ רָדִיד הַחוֹפֶה אֶת כָּל גּוּפָהּ כְּמוֹ טְלִית--נוֹתֵן לָהּ בִּכְלַל הַכְּסוּת, רָדִיד הַפָּחוּת בְּכָל הָרְדִידִין; וְאִם הָיָה עָשִׁיר--נוֹתֵן לְפִי עָשְׁרוֹ, כְּדֵי שֶׁתֵּצֵא בּוֹ לְבֵית הָאֵבֶל אוֹ לְבֵית הַמִּשְׁתֶּה:  לְפִי שֶׁכָּל אִשָּׁה יֵשׁ לָהּ לָצֵאת וְלֵילֵךְ לְבֵית אָבִיהָ לְבַקְּרוֹ, וּלְבֵית הָאֵבֶל וּלְבֵית הַמִּשְׁתֶּה לִגְמֹל חֶסֶד לְרֵעוֹתֶיהָ וְלִקְרוֹבוֹתֶיהָ, כְּדֵי שֶׁיָּבוֹאוּ הֶם לָהּ--שְׁאֵינָהּ בְּבֵית הַסֹּהַר, עַד שֶׁלֹּא תֵצֵא וְלֹא תָבוֹא. 

יד  אֲבָל גְּנָאי הוּא לָאִשָּׁה שֶׁתְּהֶא יוֹצְאָה תָּמִיד, פַּעַם בַּחוּץ פַּעַם בָּרְחוֹבוֹת; וְיֵשׁ לַבַּעַל לִמְנֹעַ אִשְׁתּוֹ מִזֶּה, וְלֹא יַנִּיחָהּ לָצֵאת אֵלָא כְּמוֹ פַּעַם אַחַת בְּחֹדֶשׁ אוֹ פַּעֲמַיִם בְּחֹדֶשׁ, כְּפִי הַצֹּרֶךְ:  שְׁאֵין יֹפִי לָאִשָּׁה אֵלָא לֵישֵׁב בְּזָוִית בֵּיתָהּ, שֶׁכָּךְ כָּתוּב "כָּל-כְּבוּדָּה בַת-מֶלֶךְ פְּנִימָה" (תהילים מה,יד).ש

"Places where it is the women's custom not to go out to the market with only a kupach upon her head, until she has upon her a radid which covers her entire body like a talis, this he gives her among the garments [he is obligated to give his wife], the least of all radids; and if he is wealthy, he gives her in accordance with his wealth, so that she may go out in it to the house of the mourner or the house of feasting. For each woman may go and come to her father's house to visit him, and to the house of mourning and the house of feasting in order to perform deeds of kindness for her friends and relatives, and so that they will come to her -- for she is not in prison, such that she cannot come and go. 

However, it is a reproach for a woman to be always coming and going, sometimes outside, sometimes in the streets, and a husband should prevent his wife from doing this, and not permit her to go out except such as one or two times per month, in accordance with the need. For it only beautiful for a woman to sit in the corner of her house, for such is written (Tehillim 45:14), kol kevudah bat melech penimah, "All glorious is the king's daughter within the palace..."

And so I ask why we are seeing these Taliban women out on the streets. If they were really tznius, they would heed the Midrash Rabba, Rashi, Rambam, and Ralbag and stay in their homes.

Of course, this is a joke. Just because I can harness rabbinic sources for a position does not mean that this is how women should be acting today. What Ralbag and Rambam wrote was, perhaps, appropriate for their day, their place, and their social circle. But it is more than inappropriate in other situations.

Yes, tznius is in many respects a function of cultural norms. The gemara in Kesubos refers to daas Moshe and daas Yehudis in terms of head coverings, and one well-established way of understanding daas Yehudis is as a function of cultural norms.

The Rambam, who writes of wearing the radid, freely admits to this. He prefaced all this with:

Places where it is the women's custom not to go out to the market with...

That is, specifically in those places is where the wife would then be expected to wear a radid, in which case the husband is obligated to furnish her with one. There are other cultural aspects of tznius. For instance, he see that a tefach of exposed flesh has some status of ervah only in those places where it is common for women to keep that area of the body covered.

And one could debunk each of these rabbinic sources with rabbinic counter-sources. Fault Dinah's going out, and connect it to Leah's "going out"? What about the pasuk in Vayeitzei that states that:

ו  וַיֹּאמֶר לָהֶם, הֲשָׁלוֹם לוֹ; וַיֹּאמְרוּ שָׁלוֹם--וְהִנֵּה רָחֵל בִּתּוֹ, בָּאָה עִם-הַצֹּאן.

6 And he said unto them: 'Is it well with him?' And they said: 'It is well; and, behold, Rachel his daughter cometh with the sheep.'

Clearly, as a shepherdess, Rachel did not spend all days indoors either! See another Rishon, Rabbi Yosef Ibn Caspi, who does not seem to take such a negative attitude to Dinah's going out:

ותצא דינה בת לאה .  זה חסד גדול מנותן התורה כי הודיענו סבתה


which then presents is as a sort of justification of Dinah.

And see the more recent Malbim, who writes (in haTorah veHamitzvah):

"And Dinah went out: It informs that Dinah was not guilty in this, that you should not say that the breached the fence of tznius, for she was 'the daughter of Leah', who was tznuah in her tent, and 'whom she bore to Yaakov', that her birth was associated with Yaakov, that she was a modest and worthy person, for the 'going out' was not to go after the young men but rather 'to see the girls of the land' and their ways."

This admittedly does not get us precisely at our destination, but a good portion of the way. Dinah is no longer to blame for the "untznius" act of "going out".

But one need not resort to this. There is normal behavior in this world and in this society, and there is non-normal behavior. The wives of many, many great rabbis, for many generations, did indeed leave the house more than once or twice a month. As just one example, as if this needed evidence, the Chafetz Chaim's wife managed a store. Maybe for the Rambam, living in Arab lands in the middle ages, this sort of behavior was not out of the ordinary. I don't believe that the Rambam (or Ralbag), being the same great talmid chacham he was, but living today in our society and knowing of our society and our women, would be saying the same thing.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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


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


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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

א  לַמְנַצֵּחַ, מַשְׂכִּיל לִבְנֵי-קֹרַח.

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

Rashi on that pasuk writes:

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

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

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

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

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

The meaning of יִפֹּל מִצִּדְּךָ אֶלֶף

Summary: In which I encounter a novel peshat in davening, but still prefer my own.

Post: So, last Shabbos I was davening with an Artscroll siddur, and happened to glance over to the English side. I was surprised to see, in Tehillim 91:7:

ו מִדֶּבֶר בָּאֹפֶל יַהֲלֹךְ מִקֶּטֶב יָשׁוּד צָהֳרָיִם:
ז יִפֹּל מִצִּדְּךָ אֶלֶף וּרְבָבָה מִימִינֶךָ אֵלֶיךָ לֹא יִגָּשׁ:
ח רַק בְּעֵינֶיךָ תַבִּיט וְשִׁלֻּמַת רְשָׁעִים תִּרְאֶה: 

that yippol was translated as encamped. Thus, though 1000 are encamped to your side, and 10,000 to your right side, they will not reach you. These thousands to the left and right are sheidim and mazikin, and Hashem protects against them, such that they cannot reach you to harm you. Thus, the thousands are your enemies. This, they noted, was based on Rashi on the pasuk.

And indeed, Rashi on the pasuk writes:

"יפול מצדך אלף" - לשון חנייה כמו (בראשית כ"ה) על פני כל אחיו נפל

"מצדך" - משמאלך יחנו אלף שדים ואליך לא יגשו להזיק

Or, to utilize Judaica Press' translation of Rashi into English:

7. A thousand will be stationed at your side, and ten thousand at your right hand; but it will not approach you.

A thousand will be stationed at your side: Heb. יפל, an expression of encamping, as (Gen. 25:18): “before the face of all his brothers did he settle (נפל).”

at your side: At your left a thousand demons will be stationed, and they will not approach you to harm [you].

Note that he uses, as a prooftext, a reference to the very last pasuk in parashat Chayei Sarah, last week's parsha. So to locally, prior to given a midrashic explanation for the precise language choice, he explains based on another example that this is what nafal means:

18. And they dwelt from Havilah to Shur, which borders on Egypt, going towards Asshur; before all his brothers he dwelt.		יח. וַיִּשְׁכְּנוּ מֵחֲוִילָה עַד שׁוּר אֲשֶׁר עַל פְּנֵי מִצְרַיִם בֹּאֲכָה אַשּׁוּרָה עַל פְּנֵי כָל אֶחָיו נָפָל:
he dwelt: [נָפָל means] “he dwelt” as in (Jud. 7: 12):“Now the Midianites and the Amalekites and all those of the East dwelt (נֹפְלִים) in the valley.” Here Scripture uses the term נְפִילָה, (falling), whereas there (above 16:12) it states:“And before all his brothers he will dwell (יִשְׁכֹּן) .” Before Abraham died, “he dwelt” ; after Abraham died,“he fell.” - [Gen. Rabbah 62:5]		נפל: שכן, כמו (שופטים ז יב) מדין ועמלק וכל בני קדם נופלים בעמק. כאן הוא אומר לשון נפילה, ולהלן הוא אומר על פני כל אחיו ישכון (לעיל טז יב), עד שלא מת אברהם ישכון, משמת אברהם נפל:

So too the pashtan Rashbam:

פסוק יח 
על פני כל אחיו נפל - שכן כדכתיב: על פני כל אחיו ישכן.

On Chayei Sarah, Ibn Ezra will have none of this reinterpretation of nafal, and instead insists that there is an unstated object to this verb, that his portion fell in this location. Thus:

נפל -חלקו או גורלו.
או שרוב בני ישמעאל נוסעים ממקום אל מקום, כטעם אל הכשדים אתה נופל. וזה מעט רחוק, בעבור שאחיו במזרח ומצרים ואשור למערב לא"י.
ויתכן שהכתוב דבר על ישמעאל שמת בחיי אחיו, אחר שנפל כי לא ידענו סבת מותו.

What about in sefer Tehillim? Well, once again Ibn Ezra does not take nafal as "dwelt". Rather, it once again means fall. Thus:

[צא, ז]
יפול -הזכיר כי צל השם יסתירהו והוא יראה שיפלו לימינו ושמאלו רבים בבא הדבר, וזה טעם אליך לא יגש.

These who fell could well be his comrades, rather than his enemies. People are falling in battle, to the left and to the right, yet this same fate does not befall him.

So too Metzudat David:

מצודת דוד

"יפול" - אף אם בעת הדבר יפלו אנשים רבים מצדך ומימינך ומכל מקום אליך לא יגש הדבר ההוא ולא יזיק לך

This is how I always read the pasuk. And looking back on it, now, in context of battle, I still prefer this reading. And not just because as a rationalist, I don't believe in the existence of invisible demons surrounding me. Rather, I think the perek flows much better as I've always read it.

I would note that even if nafal can mean "dwelt / encamped" in certain contexts, that does not mean that we should select that meaning everywhere. For instance, Rashi and Rashbam do not explain every occurrence in Tanach as "encamped" rather than "fell". There must be other textual cues to select this reading. In this case, perhaps it is yigash, such that looking for an actor and failing to find it, one happens across the ones on the left and the right. But see how Metzudat David explains this missing, implicit element.

Radak on Tehillim and Moshe's Sin

We return in this post to the question of what Dovid HaMelech meant in Tehillim when he summarized the events in parshas Chukas about Moshe hitting the rock, writing in Tehillim 106:
The pesukim in Tehillim, once again, are:

לב וַיַּקְצִיפוּ, עַל-מֵי מְרִיבָה; וַיֵּרַע לְמֹשֶׁה, בַּעֲבוּרָם.	32 They angered Him also at the waters of Meribah, and it went ill with Moses because of them;
לג כִּי-הִמְרוּ אֶת-רוּחוֹ; וַיְבַטֵּא, בִּשְׂפָתָיו.	33 For they embittered his spirit, and he spoke rashly with his lips.

I like this translation from JPS over that of Judaica Press, channeling Rashi:

32. They provoked [God] by the waters of Meribah, and Moses suffered because of them.

33. For they rebelled against His spirit, and He uttered with His lips.

For they rebelled Moses and Aaron.
against His spirit with (Num. 20:10) “Hear now, you rebels!”
and He uttered with His lips an oath (Num. 20: 12): “Therefore you shall not bring this community, etc.”

because the prior pasuk, 32, refers to Bnei Yisrael, Hashem and Moshe. And thus the sudden introduction of Aharon to form the plural for himru is awkward. Of course, knowing parshas Chukas where both were accused of rebellion against Hashem's word -- עַל אֲשֶׁר-מְרִיתֶם אֶת-פִּי לְמֵי ,מְרִיבָה it becomes slightly easier, but it still strikes me as awkward.

However, as Shmuel pointed out on the prior post about the meaning of Tehillim, himru with that pattern of vowels is this hiph'il for meri, rebellion. But for the geminate, mrr, it would have to be something like heimeiru¹.

This may be true -- and may be what compels Rashi, and particularly Ibn Ezra, into their reading of the pasuk. And we see Rashi on the daughter of Pharaoh stretching out her arm determine what must be peshat (arm rather than maidservant) on the basis of nikkud. (See here.) On the other hand, we have seen Shadal argue that nikkud is post-Talmudic, even though particular cases may reflect earlier traditions, and that therefore he feels entitled to revocalize words. And furthermore that even other meforshim, such as Rashi, Ibn Ezra, Radak, Abarbanel, Ramban, Rabbenu Bachya, etc., maintain the same thing, either about trup or nikkud. (Read that post and subsequent posts, translating Shadal's Vikuach.) And the people who put together the JPS translation were not grammatically naive. And other meforshim suggest, on a peshat level, what they suggest. So perhaps there is room for revocalization, or some wiggle room for grammatical irregularity here.

Even without revocalization, we will see that Radak (and his father) will propose that the root of himru is mrh, which means the same as mrd, and thus rebellion. (Unless I am misreading a resh as a daled, in which case it would indeed mean bitterness.) But even so, that it refers to what the Jews did to Moshe. As an alternative, Radak proposes mr, which means switching (presumably as in temurah), as which case it is Moshe and Aharon's action.

Eventually, I want to cover somewhat comprehensively what various meforshim say on this pasuk in Tehillim. But in this post, we focus on Radak.

Let us begin with the expanded Radak, which I found in kesav yad, where he says things which do not appear in Mikraos Gedolos, by quoting his father, Rabbi Yosef Kimchi, who was a biblical commentator and grammarian as well.

כִּי-הִמְרוּ אֶת-רוּחוֹ; וַיְבַטֵּא, בִּשְׂפָתָיו.

Radak writes: כִּי-הִמְרוּ אֶת-רוּחוֹ -- My master my father explained the pasuk as follows: For they himru {rebelled against, or might I, Josh, suggest that he means embittered} the spirit of Moshe, and he {=Moshe} uttered with his lips. And this {the utterance} was the trespass which Moshe, and Aharon with him, trespassed, that they said הֲמִן-הַסֶּלַע הַזֶּה" נוֹצִיא לָכֶם מָיִם {which is the second part of the pasuk which began שִׁמְעוּ-נָא הַמֹּרִים} that you prod us? It is not in our power until the One who Brings out water comes." For they thought that the Glory of God, yisbarach, would come upon the rock first, just as is stated by Refidim {the first incident of hitting the rock} {Shemot 17:6}

ו הִנְנִי עֹמֵד לְפָנֶיךָ שָּׁם עַל-הַצּוּר, בְּחֹרֵב, וְהִכִּיתָ בַצּוּר וְיָצְאוּ מִמֶּנּוּ מַיִם, וְשָׁתָה הָעָם; וַיַּעַשׂ כֵּן מֹשֶׁה, לְעֵינֵי זִקְנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל.

6 Behold, I {=Hashem} will stand before thee there upon the rock in Horeb; and thou shalt smite the rock, and there shall come water out of it, that the people may drink.' And Moses did so in the sight of the elders of Israel.

and that which it said {in the pasuk just quoted} בְּחֹרֵב while they were in Refidim, it is does not saying "on Har Chorev," but rather that that rock was chorev {dry, hot} and extremely dry. And that which it states הִנְנִי עֹמֵד לְפָנֶיךָ שָּׁם עַל-הַצּוּר is that the Glory of God, yisbarach, will descend upon the rock, and that fire which touches {?} the rock will turn to water.

And now, they thought as well that God yisbarach would do the same, just as He did in Refidim. Therefore, he {=Moshe} said הֲמִן-הַסֶּלַע הַזֶּה נוֹצִיא לָכֶם מָיִם. And with this, they trespassed, for it would have been a greater glorification had the rock given forth water without the descending of fire upon it, and meanwhile, He {=Hashem} had not to you {should be "them"} הִנְנִי עֹמֵד לְפָנֶיךָ שָּׁם עַל-הַצּוּר as He had said in Refidim.

And the explanation of ki himru is that they rebelled against {מרדו} the spirit of Moshe{but again, I, Josh, would suggest to read it "made bitter"}, in prodding him until he said הֲמִן-הַסֶּלַע הַזֶּה נוֹצִיא לָכֶם מָיִם. And the root of himru is mrh, and it is so that mrh and mrd {suggest mrr} have the same meaning. And so too מֹרַת רוּחַ {in Bereishit 26:35, describing what the wives of Esav were to Yitzchak and Rivkah} is in this matter.

לה וַתִּהְיֶיןָ, מֹרַת רוּחַ, לְיִצְחָק, וּלְרִבְקָה. {ס}

35 And they were a bitterness of spirit unto Isaac and to Rebekah.

{And indeed, we see it paired with ruach, just as here.}

And there is {alternatively} to explain that himru has a connotation of mar, whose implication is changing of the command, and switching of the thing {they were to do}. {Perhaps as in meri, or perhaps as temurah.} And then כִּי-הִמְרוּ would refer to Moshe and Aharon, and {they humru} to the Spirit of Heaven, and the thing He had said to them, "and you shall speak to the rock," while they hit. "And He uttered with His Lips" would be God Yisbarach, {the utterance being} that they would not enter the land because of that sin.

In Mikraos Gedolos, Radak says the same thing, but without the detail given above. There it is shorter, but it essentially states the same thing. I made a graphic with many meforshim, but our focus here is Radak, in the center. He writes:

כִּי-הִמְרוּ -- for they himru the spirit of Moshe, and he {=Moshe} uttered with his lips. And this is the trespass which he, and Aharon with him, trespassed, that they said הֲמִן-הַסֶּלַע הַזֶּה נוֹצִיא לָכֶם מָיִם. And the explanation of ki himru is that they rebelled {embittered?} when they prodded him until he said הֲמִן-הַסֶּלַע הַזֶּה נוֹצִיא לָכֶם מָיִם. And the root of himru is mrh, and mrh and mrd are one matter. And there is to explain ki himru as a matter of mar, which is an implication of changing the command and switching the instruction. And the explanation is ki himru Moshe and Aharon the Spirit of Hashem, and the instruction that he said to them, "and you shall speak to the rock," while they hit it. "And He uttered with His Lips" refers to God yisbarach, that they would not enter the land because of this sin.

In the translations above, I remained true to the text as written. Yet I remain fairly uncomfortable with the translation. Specifically, I think that it would read much more straightforwardly were we to replace every occurrence of mrd with mrr. Specifically, the idea that they himru Moshe's ruach by prodding him until he uttered seems more to me that they embittered his spirit. Also, Radak compares it to morat Ruach, as in וַתִּהְיֶיןָ, מֹרַת רוּחַ, לְיִצְחָק, וּלְרִבְקָה. There, it seems fairly difficult for me to say that this means mered, rebellion. Indeed, the standard translation is bitterness of spirit. And daled and resh are fairly close in Hebrew, such that this all might well be a scribal error. If so, it is better detected in the fuller version of the ktav yad which mentions the morat ruach.

I am extremely convinced that one should make this girsological correction. And this will become even more evident when I discuss the next commentator on Moshe's sin, on this pasuk in Tehillim -- Rabbi Yosef Chayyun.

At any rate, the first peshat Radak gives is that Israel were the actors in himru against Moshe's spirit, and Moshe did the uttering. The specifics of the meaning of himru we might even place as beside the point.

BeEzrat Hashem, other meforshim later.

____
¹ Though he then notes that it may work out if one believes in the existence of two-letter roots.

Chukas: David Hamelech on Moshe's Sin

As discussed in the previous post, there are 13+ explanations of Moshe's sin. In this post, I would like to explore the position of that famous Biblical commentator, King David.

For in Tehillim 106, there is a recounting of the story of Israel in the wilderness, and that includes a brief account of Mei Meriva. In Tehillim 106:

לב וַיַּקְצִיפוּ, עַל-מֵי מְרִיבָה; וַיֵּרַע לְמֹשֶׁה, בַּעֲבוּרָם.	32 They angered Him also at the waters of Meribah, and it went ill with Moses because of them;
לג כִּי-הִמְרוּ אֶת-רוּחוֹ; וַיְבַטֵּא, בִּשְׂפָתָיו.	33 For they embittered his spirit, and he spoke rashly with his lips.

Before getting into the specific intent of these verses, we should contemplate how we will weigh Biblical interpretation as it appears in sefer Tehillim. After all, this psalm was written later than the Biblical events it describes, and the psalmist obviously had sefer Bemidbar before him. Thus, this account would reflect how he read the pesukim. Thus, David haMelech becomes a biblical commentator.

At the same time, this sefer, Tehillim, is part of the Biblical canon, and is in the realm of inspired writings, Ketuvim. If it was written with ruach hakodesh, then does it not reflect the opinion of God Himself, the Author of the Torah? And thus it should reflect both the reality of the situation in the midbar, and the authorial intent in the pesukim.

Even so, divine inspiration is not the same as prophecy. To make a difficult comparison, many attribute ruach hakodesh (perhaps at a lower level) to Rashi. And yet other commentators feel free to argue with Rashi all the time, on gemara and on Tanach.

And more than that, we know that there is a difference between Yechezkel the prophet and Yechezkel the talmid chacham. When (perhaps in person) Yechezkel said halacha, it does not have the force of prophecy. Rather, it is the opinion of a talmid chacham, and other talmidei chachamim can argue with it. Perhaps we can extend this idea to the realm of Biblical narrative.

This is not the only place in Tanach where later books interpret the earlier books. And again, we can take two positions. We can either adopt the interpretation as the only valid interpretation; or as one possible interpretation to be considered.

The pesukim in Tehillim, once again, are:

לב וַיַּקְצִיפוּ, עַל-מֵי מְרִיבָה; וַיֵּרַע לְמֹשֶׁה, בַּעֲבוּרָם.	32 They angered Him also at the waters of Meribah, and it went ill with Moses because of them;
לג כִּי-הִמְרוּ אֶת-רוּחוֹ; וַיְבַטֵּא, בִּשְׂפָתָיו.	33 For they embittered his spirit, and he spoke rashly with his lips.

I think that the JPS translation here is a good one. Thus, they angered Hashem at the waters of Merivah, and because of them, it went ill with Moshe. How so? Well, they got Moshe mad, sicj that Moshe spoke rashly with his lips. How so? By rebuking them with "Shim'u na, haMorim..."

Thus, Moshe's "sin" was becoming angry and chastising Benei Yisrael when he should have been wowing them, bringing them closer to God by performing the miracle with a flourish, and with assurances that Hashem loves them and will take care of them.

As we saw in the previous post, there are difficulties with this position, when trying to read them into the pesukim in Bemidbar. We can take one of two approaches here:

1. Try to find the global explanation that best explains all the verses.
2. Try to find the local peshat which fits best here, and then kvetch it into the narrative in Bemidbar.

I think the latter approach is the proper one in this instance. Rambam came up with this same explanation, so it must be readable into the text, even if in a forced way.

So if Moshe's sin was not hitting the rock, for he was supposed to hit the rock (see Ramban), but rather in getting angry and yelling at the Jewish people, how does this fit in with the pesukim in Bemidbar?

A quick repetition of the narrative from parshat Chukat, in Bemidbar 20:

ז וַיְדַבֵּר ה, אֶל-מֹשֶׁה לֵּאמֹר.	7 And the LORD spoke unto Moses, saying:
ח קַח אֶת-הַמַּטֶּה, וְהַקְהֵל אֶת-הָעֵדָה אַתָּה וְאַהֲרֹן אָחִיךָ, וְדִבַּרְתֶּם אֶל-הַסֶּלַע לְעֵינֵיהֶם, וְנָתַן מֵימָיו; וְהוֹצֵאתָ לָהֶם מַיִם מִן-הַסֶּלַע, וְהִשְׁקִיתָ אֶת-הָעֵדָה וְאֶת-בְּעִירָם.	8 'Take the rod, and assemble the congregation, thou, and Aaron thy brother, and speak ye unto the rock before their eyes, that it give forth its water; and thou shalt bring forth to them water out of the rock; so thou shalt give the congregation and their cattle drink.'
ט וַיִּקַּח מֹשֶׁה אֶת-הַמַּטֶּה, מִלִּפְנֵי ה, כַּאֲשֶׁר, צִוָּהוּ.	9 And Moses took the rod from before the LORD, as He commanded him.
י וַיַּקְהִלוּ מֹשֶׁה וְאַהֲרֹן, אֶת-הַקָּהָל--אֶל-פְּנֵי הַסָּלַע; וַיֹּאמֶר לָהֶם, שִׁמְעוּ-נָא הַמֹּרִים--הֲמִן-הַסֶּלַע הַזֶּה, נוֹצִיא לָכֶם מָיִם.	10 And Moses and Aaron gathered the assembly together before the rock, and he said unto them: 'Hear now, ye rebels; are we to bring you forth water out of this rock?'
יא וַיָּרֶם מֹשֶׁה אֶת-יָדוֹ, וַיַּךְ אֶת-הַסֶּלַע בְּמַטֵּהוּ--פַּעֲמָיִם; וַיֵּצְאוּ מַיִם רַבִּים, וַתֵּשְׁתְּ הָעֵדָה וּבְעִירָם. {ס}	11 And Moses lifted up his hand, and smote the rock with his rod twice; and water came forth abundantly, and the congregation drank, and their cattle. {S}
יב וַיֹּאמֶר ה, אֶל-מֹשֶׁה וְאֶל-אַהֲרֹן, יַעַן לֹא-הֶאֱמַנְתֶּם בִּי, לְהַקְדִּישֵׁנִי לְעֵינֵי בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל--לָכֵן, לֹא תָבִיאוּ אֶת-הַקָּהָל הַזֶּה, אֶל-הָאָרֶץ, אֲשֶׁר-נָתַתִּי לָהֶם.	12 And the LORD said unto Moses and Aaron: 'Because ye believed not in Me, to sanctify Me in the eyes of the children of Israel, therefore ye shall not bring this assembly into the land which I have given them.'

What are we to make of יַעַן לֹא-הֶאֱמַנְתֶּם בִּי? How is yelling at the Jews to be considered not believing in God? We can adopt a similar answer as Shadal in the previous post, that it is metonymy. Of course Moshe and Aharon believed in God. But by not creating a kiddush Hashem, it was as if they did not believe in God. The not creating a kiddush Hashem, לְהַקְדִּישֵׁנִי לְעֵינֵי בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל, is not, as Shadal suggested, because speaking to the rock rather than smiting it would have been a greater miracle in the eyes of the people, if not in reality. Rather, by turning it into a situation of rebuke rather than celebration of Hashem's goodness and love of Israel, they missed an opportunity of kiddush Hashem, and thus it is as if they did not believe in God.

As a compelling (IMHO) alternative: Shadal is of the opinion that trup and nikkud are post-Sinaitic, and post-Talmudic, such that he feels free to revocalize. He does not do this in this instance, but we can step into the break. Rather than vocalizing it heemantem, read heemantam. Then, it would not be that they, Moshe and Aharon, did not believe in Hashem and His Power. Rather, it is causative. They did not cause the Israelites to believe in Hashem, by sanctifying His Name before the Bnei Yisrael.

There is a more critical problem, and that is the later pasuk, which tells why Aharon will not enter the land. In Bemidbar 20:24:

כד יֵאָסֵף אַהֲרֹן, אֶל-עַמָּיו, כִּי לֹא יָבֹא אֶל-הָאָרֶץ, אֲשֶׁר נָתַתִּי לִבְנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל--עַל אֲשֶׁר-מְרִיתֶם אֶת-פִּי, לְמֵי מְרִיבָה.

24 'Aaron shall be gathered unto his people; for he shall not enter into the land which I have given unto the children of Israel, because ye rebelled against My word at the waters of Meribah.

As Shadal noted, the clear implication of עַל אֲשֶׁר-מְרִיתֶם אֶת-פִּי is that Hashem commanded them something, and they rebelled by diverting from that command. And the simplest command was to "talk" to the rock while Moshe in fact hit it.

However, we might find a few answers for this. Hashem just told Moshe to talk to (or hit, according to our reading) the rock and get water for Bnei Yisrael. He did not envision rebuke preceding that. And so, they rebelled against Hashem's instruction which was to treat the Bnei Yisrael benachas.

Or alternatively, we could say that this refers to the collective action of Bnei Yisrael, of which Moshe and Aharon are a part, such that they can be addressed. After all, there was rebellion on the part of Bnei Yisrael, which prompted Moshe to say "Shim'u na hamorim, you rebels." That is not a direct cause, but an indirect cause, and a way of referring to the general incident.

Or alternatively, we can make a (possibly awkward) claim that the root of מְרִיתֶם in מְרִיתֶם אֶת-פִּי is not meri, meaning rebellion, but rather mar, bitterness. Thus, you made My speech (as spoken through Moshe) bitter, in saying "Shim'u na hamorim."

Indeed, we see mar as bitterness associated with this incident in the pasuk in Tehillim -- כִּי-הִמְרוּ אֶת-רוּחוֹ.

Or some other answer. These are just the answers I came up with. Presumably, Rambam has a ready answer for these, and either wrote them out or had them in mind.

What does Rashi do? In fact, locally, he identifies the sin as two-fold. Namely, both criticising Israel and smiting the rock. We see in parshat Shemini, in Bemidbar 31:21, that Rashi channels a midrash to attribute hitting the rock to Moshe's anger:

ד"ה ויאמר אלעזר הכהן וגו': לפי שבא משה לכלל כעס בא לכלל טעות, שנתעלמו ממנו הלכות גיעולי נכרים. וכן אתה מוצא בשמיני למילואים שנאמר (ויקרא י') ויקצוף (משה) על אלעזר ועל איתמר, בא לכלל כעס בא לכלל טעות. וכן (במדבר כ') בשמעו נא המורים ויך את הסלע - על ידי הכעס טעה.

Thus, both Shimu na hamorim and hitting the rock are components of that anger, though the actual sin can be said to be the hitting, while the speech was evidence of the anger. Alternatively, both were sins, caused by the underlying anger.

Local to Chukas, we have Rashi state:

Since you did not have faith in Me Scripture reveals that if it were not for this sin alone, they would have entered the Land, so that it should not be said of them, “The sin of Moses and Aaron was like the sin of the generation of the desert against whom it was decreed that they should not enter [the Land].” But was not [the question asked by Moses] “If sheep and cattle were slaughtered for them…” (11:22) [a] more grievous [sin] than this? However, there he [Moses] said it in private, so Scripture spares him [and refrains from punishing him]. Here, on the other hand, it was said in the presence of all Israel, so Scripture does not spare him because of the sanctification of the Name. — [Tanchuma Chukath 10, Num. Rabbah 19:10]
to sanctify Me For had you spoken to the rock and it had given forth [water], I would have been sanctified in the eyes of the congregation. They would have said,"If this rock, which neither speaks nor hears, and does not require sustenance, fulfills the word of the Omnipresent, how much more should we! - [Midrash Aggadah]

Or in Hebrew:

(יב) יען לא האמנתם בי -
גלה הכתוב שאילולי חטא זה בלבד היו נכנסין לארץ, כדי שלא יאמרו עליהם כעוון שאר דור המדבר, שנגזר עליהם שלא יכנסו לארץ, כך היה עוון משה ואהרן. והלא (במדבר יא, כב) הצאן ובקר ישחט קשה מזו, אלא לפי שבסתר חסך עליו הכתוב, וכאן שבמעמד כל ישראל, לא חסך עליו הכתוב מפני קדוש השם:

להקדישני -
שאילו דברתם אל הסלע והוציא הייתי מקודש לעיני העדה ואומרים מה סלע זה שאינו מדבר ואינו שומע ואינו צריך לפרנסה מקיים דבורו של מקום, קל וחומר אנו:
לכן לא תביאו -
בשבועה, כמו (שמואל א' ג, יד) לכן נשבעתי לבית עלי, נשבע בקפיצה כדי שלא ירבו בתפילה על כך:

The Hebrew does not have "it was said." But if we look in Bemidbar Rabba, we see that the context of the midrash is the speech, rather than the act of hitting. And so we can say that Rashi is identifying both actions as sins.

{update: on second thought, no, the context in the midrash is not speech, but the hitting. See inside, carefully, by reading this text and the text before it:

וכי לא אמר דבר קשה מזה שאמר: (במדבר יא) הצאן ובקר ישחט להם ומצא להם אם את כל דגי הים יאסף להם ומצא להם, אף שם אין אמנה והיא גדולה מזו!

מפני מה לא גזר עליו שם, למה הדבר דומה?
למלך, שהיה לו אוהב והיה מגיס בינו לבין המלך בדברים קשים, ולא הקפיד המלך עליו. לימים עמד והגיס במעמד לגיונות גזר עליו מיתה.
אף כך אמר לו הקב"ה למשה: הראשונה שעשית ביני לבינך, עכשיו כנגד הרבים אי אפשר, שנאמר: להקדישני לעיני בני ישראל.

}

Meanwhile, the pasuk in Tehillim states וַיְבַטֵּא בִּשְׂפָתָיו, implying that it was the speech which was the sin.

Rashi has to provide a translation of the verses in Tehillim that does not contradict his perush in Chukas.

Rashi writes:

32. They provoked [God] by the waters of Meribah, and Moses suffered because of them.

33. For they rebelled against His spirit, and He uttered with His lips.

For they rebelled Moses and Aaron.
against His spirit with (Num. 20:10) “Hear now, you rebels!”
and He uttered with His lips an oath (Num. 20: 12): “Therefore you shall not bring this community, etc.”

This is the Judaica Press translation of Rashi and the pesukim. They try to translate the pasuk in accordance with Rashi.

Perhaps we should take every phrase in turn.

1) כִּי-הִמְרוּ אֶת-רוּחוֹ
We had interpreted the root of הִמְרוּ as mar, bitter.
Rashi apparently interprets it as meri, rebellion. At least it appears so, for what else could Moshe have done.

We had interpreted this as the Benei Yisrael making Moshe's spirit bitter.
Rashi interprets this as Moshe and Aharon rebelling against Hashem, by saying "Listen now, you rebels." He does not mention striking the rock, but this is part of it. It seems that Rashi is moving slightly more towards the speech being the sin.

2) וַיְבַטֵּא בִּשְׂפָתָיו
We had interpreted this as Moshe speaking (rashly) with his lips. And that speech was "listen now, you rebels." And that this, it is implied, brought upon him the evil spoken about in the previous pasuk.
Rashi interprets the actor here as Hashem, who uttered an oath, in response to Moshe and Aharon's rebellion. And that speech was "Therefore you shall not bring this community..."

This is not so far out there, as earlier in the perek in Tehillim, there was וַיִּשָּׂא יָדוֹ לָהֶם-- לְהַפִּיל אוֹתָם בַּמִּדְבָּר, and that was Hashem taking an oath that others would not enter the land of Israel.

This shifts the focus from being solely Moshe's speech, so that there is room for the hitting of the rock as well.

Even so, I think that the JPS translation is a closer approximation to peshat, which would be how Dovid haMelech regards peshat in Chukas.

And now that I have written all of this, I see that the Meiri (follow link, then side link) says a similar thing as well.