Knowing when to speak up and when to shut up

In honor of the upcoming holiday of Shavuot, this piece by the Vilna Gaon about the difference between taam elyon and taam tachton in the Aseres HaDibros.

Let me preface this with a peshat explanation of any and all differences between the two sets of trup. In one version -- the taam elyon, each of the Ten Commandments is given its own pasuk, except for the short ones. Here is an image, though in general (without looking carefully at this), there are many corruptions in the elyon and tachton so one should get it from a better source:

As you can see, Anochi starts the first pasuk, and there is no silluq or sof pasuk until Mitzvotai, five lines down. Interestingly, though, the short Lo Tirtzach until Ed Shaker are grouped together.

Meanwhile, the taam tachton has regular pasuk divisions, without real regard towards separating the Dibros. See here in in a Mikraos Gedolos.

Here is an interesting image, which I think shows the elyon / tachton with variations alongside one another:

This image appears to have (as the elyon variant) pasuk terminations pauses at the end of Lo Tirtzach alone and Lo Tinaf alone, and the dagesh kal / refeh and patach / kametz variations to match.

A natural consequence of this difference in approach to division is a difference in both trup and nikkud. There is a mechanical (though also probabilistic) process, based on logical and syntactic division, number of words in the current phrase or subphrase, and distance from the end of the next disjunctive trup mark, which defines what trup marks go where. And this will in turn define nikkud because certain trup marks (such as etnachta and silluq, and sometimes zakef) will transform the pronunciation of the word into its pausal form (where e.g. a patach will become a kametz). The trup will also affect the presence or absence of dagesh kal in the letters bet, gimel, daled, kaf, peh and tav. Following a disjunctive trup mark, there will be a dagesh kal even if the previous word ended in aleph, heh, vav or yud. Following a conjunctive trup mark, there will not be a dagesh kal if the previous word ended in aleph, heh, vav or yud. 

In sum, this is a mechanical process set in motion by the choice in pasuk length.

The Vilna Gaon says, in Kol Eliyahu on parashat Yitro :

"Lo Tirtzach: Behold, in the taam elyon it is read with a kametz and in the tachton it is read with a patach under the tzadik.
And there is to say that this hints to that which our Sages za'l said in the gemara in Masechet Avodah Zara (daf 19b)[1] upon the pasuk [in Mishlei 7:26] כי רבים חללים הפילה - This is a student who has not reached the level of ruling yet rules [from the language of nafal indicating that he will not fill out his days], ועצומים כל הרוגיה - this is a student who has reached the level of ruling yet does not rule [from the language of otzem einav], see there in Rashi's commentary. And Chazal referred to both of them as murderers, this one by opening [petichat] his mouth to rule and this one with the closing [kemitzat] his mouth and averting his eye from the people of the generation, such that he does not give them the benefit of his ruling. And to this the kametz and patach hint, for they indicate that both the opening [petichat] of the mouth and its closing [kemitzati] are within the realm of lo tirtzach."

I don't have the kamatz in the taam elyon picture above, but he must have had it in this way -- it is one of the alternates given in the second image.

Footnotes:
[1]
Avodah Zarah 19b
אמר רבי אבא אמר רב הונא אמר רב מאי דכתיב (משלי ז, כו) כי רבים חללים הפילה זה תלמיד שלא הגיע להוראה ומורה ועצומים כל הרוגיה זה תלמיד שהגיע להוראה ואינו מורה 

Ibn Ezra on Lower Biblical Criticism, part ii

Read part i here.

This is a presentation of Ibn Ezra's response to a commentator [perhaps Yitzchaki] who suggested switching more than one hundred words in Scriptures. Here, he considers and rejects a swap in parashat Yitro, based on a mismatch of הַגְבֵּל of the nation or the mountain.

Thus, Ibn Ezra continues with the second suggested swap:

"2) Shemot 19:12:

יב  וְהִגְבַּלְתָּ אֶת-הָעָם סָבִיב לֵאמֹר, הִשָּׁמְרוּ לָכֶם עֲלוֹת בָּהָר וּנְגֹעַ בְּקָצֵהוּ:  כָּל-הַנֹּגֵעַ בָּהָר, מוֹת יוּמָת.

12 And thou shalt set bounds unto the people round about, saying: Take heed to yourselves, that ye go not up into the mount, or touch the border of it; whosoever toucheth the mount shall be surely put to death

vs. Shemot 19:23:

כג  וַיֹּאמֶר מֹשֶׁה, אֶל-ה, לֹא-יוּכַל הָעָם, לַעֲלֹת אֶל-הַר סִינָי:  כִּי-אַתָּה הַעֵדֹתָה בָּנוּ, לֵאמֹר, הַגְבֵּל אֶת-הָהָר, וְקִדַּשְׁתּוֹ.

23 And Moses said unto the LORD: 'The people cannot come up to mount Sinai; for thou didst charge us, saying: Set bounds about the mount, and sanctify it.'


He said that it [the word in the latter verse] ought to be הָעָם.

And he did not say anything, for if one were to הַגְבֵּל the nation, then the גבול [boundary] would be around the mountain, and if one said to place [?] a boundary around the mountain, then there would be not difference between them."

End quote of Ibn Ezra.

In other words, since since the later verse is a rephrasing of God's command, and perhaps because הַגְבֵּל should be taken cause to form a perimeter, both should be the 'the nation'. Ibn Ezra's response is that one need not harmonize to use the same noun in the command and the restatement of the command, because with either word choice, this is a valid way of describing the action.

The Samaritans were also interested in such harmonizations, and they freely emended the text to make it smoother. In this instance, they similarly emended the text. Here is Vetus Testamentum, with the Masoretic text on the right and the Samaritan text on the left. A - means the Samaritan text is identical to the Hebrew, and a * means a corresponding letter or word is missing.

Their solution was to modify only verse 12 so as to make both instances, ההר, rather than העם. This introduces a problem, because of the word לֵאמֹר in pasuk 12. If Moshe were to וְהִגְבַּלְתָּ the nation, then there could be a לֵאמֹר as he instructs the nation. But the text will not flow if Moshe were to וְהִגְבַּלְתָּ the mountain. Therefore, the Samaritan scribe added an extra phrase, ואל העם תאמר, "and you should say to the nation".

Update: Also see Ibn Ezra on the pasuk:

[יט, יב]
והגבלת -שים גבול בהר. ע"כ כמוהו הגבל את ההר וקדשתו לשום גבול בהר. והארכתי כל כך בעבור שאמר המשוגע שהפך בספרו דברי אלוהים חיים, אמר: כי רצה משה לומ: הגבל את העם. ויצא מפיו ההר במקום העם.

Another Ibn Ezra on brain anatomy

Summary: which seems based on contemporary, Galenic science.

Post: We saw in a previous post, regarding zachor veShamor as referring to the same location in the brain, that Ibn Ezra relied on contemporary, Galenic science.  Consider the following pasuk, in Ki Tisa {Shemot 31:3}:

3. and I have imbued him with the spirit of God, with wisdom, with insight, with knowledge, and with [talent for] all manner of craftsmanship

ג. וָאֲמַלֵּא אֹתוֹ רוּחַ אֱ־לֹהִים בְּחָכְמָה וּבִתְבוּנָה וּבְדַעַת וּבְכָל מְלָאכָה:

What is the difference between chochma, tevunah, and daat? Well, Rashi explains it as:

with wisdom -- that which a person hears from others and learns.		בחכמה: מה שאדם שומע מאחרים ולמד:
and with insight -- understanding something from his heart, from those things which he learned.		ובתבונה: מבין דבר מלבו, מתוך דברים שלמד:
and with knowledge -- Divine inspiration.		ובדעת: רוח הקדש:

Ibn Ezra takes a different approach:

[לא, ג]
ואמלא אותו -כמו: ויהושע בן נון מלא רוח חכמה.
וכתוב: ונחה עליו רוח ה'. ופירושו: מה היא רוח ה'. והיא רוח חכמה ובינה.
החכמה - היא הצורות האצורות באחרונית מוח הראש.

ומלת תבונה –גם בינה מגזרת בין. והיא הצורה העומדת בין צורת הדעת ובין צורת החכמה, כנגד הנקב האמצעי במוח הראש. כי החכמה כנגד הנקב האחרון. והדעת המתחברת בנקבי המוח על המצח מההרגשות.
ובלשון ישמעאל קורין:
הדעת אלתכ"ייל.
והתבונה אל"פכרה.
והחכמה אל"חכמה.

והנה בצלאל היה מלא כל חכמה בחשבון ומדות וערכים ומלאכת שמים. וחכמת התולדות. וסוד הנשמה. והיה לו יתרון על כל אנשי דורו, שהיה יודע כל מלאכה כי רבים חכמי לב לא ידעו אפילו מלאכה אחת על כן כתוב: ובכל מלאכה בוי"ו.

"Chochma, Wisdom -- this is the Forms which are stored in the back of the brain in the head.
And the word tevunah, as well as binah, are from the root בין. And this is the Form {?} which stands between the form of the daat {at the front of the head} and the form of the chochma {at the back of the head} corresponding to the middle ventricle in the brain in the head. For the chochma corresponds to the rear ventricle, and the daat which is connected via the holes in the head to the forehead from the senses.


And in Arabic they call daat al-takhayul {=imagination in modern Arabic}, and tevunah they call al-pikhrah {?} and chochma they call al-hokhma."


This is further evidence that Ibn Ezra was working with a contemporary, Galenic theory of brain function. I'll quote from my previous post:

To compare to Galenic science:

Thus, there were three ventricles, or cavities, in the brain. The foremost was connected to sense impression, just as Ibn Ezra writes. The middle one conducts judgement on the sense-impressions. And the back one is memory, to allow even animals to learn from perceptions and remember associations.

This is ancient science, and was the accepted scientific orthodoxy in Ibn Ezra's time. It is not surprising for Ibn Ezra to rely on contemporary science, as he does so in many other instances.

I pointed out in the past post that our modern conception of memory does not accord with Galenic science, and thus Ibn Ezra is incorrect. A commenter, Z, comments there:

And that place is the place of the guarding of the forms

From here

Occipital Lobe - Region in the back of the brain which processes visual information. Not only is the occipital lobe mainly responsible for visual reception, it also contains association areas that help in the visual recognition of shapes and colors. Damage to this lobe can cause visual deficits

I must say that it is pretty neat. It is rather cool when medieval science, or the science of Chazal, or Ayurvedic medicine, accords with modern scientific discoveries or facts. Yet, while it may be rather neat, we should take care not to make this mean more than it does.

In any scientific system, there will be a plethora of facts, both true and false. When one overlays two scientific systems upon one another, there are bound to be overlaps. Yet those overlaps are not meaningful. Thus, one might be impressed by the kiruv proof that Chazal predicted that hemophilia is transmitted through the mother. But, as I explained in this post analyzing this claim put forth by Rabbi Feldman, the fact itself is discernible by mere observation, and one could arrive at this conclusion anyway by applying the erroneous contemporary scientific theory which Chazal propound. To cite myself further:

And we see in the gemara in Niddah (31a) that the mother contributes the blood:

Our Rabbis taught: There are three partners in man, the Holy One, blessed be He, his father and his mother. His father supplies the semen of the white substance out of which are formed the child's bones, sinews, nails, the brain in his head and the white in his eye; his mother supplies the semen of the red substance out of which is formed his skin, flesh, hair, blood and the black of his eye; and the Holy One, blessed be He, gives him the spirit and the breath, beauty of features, eyesight, the power of hearing and the ability to speak and to walk, understanding and discernment. When his time to depart from the world approaches the Holy One, blessed be He, takes away his share and leaves the shares of his father and his mother with them. R. Papa observed: It is this that people have in mind when they say, 'Shake off the salt and cast the flesh to the dog'.

Ancient Greek medicine was a well-developed system. As was Chazal's science. So is modern science. It is no wonder that, on occasion, their paths may cross. That one particular conclusion of one system is matched in a second system does not indicate that they shareassumptions. For years, people went to bloodletters, or applied leeches. This because of false beliefs about the four humours of the body. Yet, in some instances, nowadays bloodletting is a good idea, and has positive effect. This does not mean that it is because those who originally recommended leeches had a deep understanding of modern science.

Z put forth a similar comment in response to my claim that Ibn Ezra was wrong due to following Galen about the extramission theory of sight, that the eyes send forth rays and see at a distance, which is why sight is immediate, while sound takes time to travel to the person:

What do you mean that nowadays we know that its not the case? We know that the lightning happens at the same time as the thunder. We also know that sound travels thru the air in waves and each sound makes a different wave. I dont think he means that an image of the actual letter is made in the air. That would be ludicrous.

As I clarified in the comment section there, what I was speaking of was specifically the extramission theory, in which rays exit the eyes and sense at a distance, which Ibn Ezra explicitly puts forth.

Yes, it is nice when the science of the Rishonim accords with our science. But it does this because of random chance, or because the medieval science was in fact correct about some things. This is not surprising.

However, in terms of making this one part of Ibn Ezra, namely one ventricle out of three, and within that ventricle, one function out of two, correspond to the functioning of the occipital lobe, I have to first wonder what the point would be? This is just luck, that out of the many erroneous scientific points put forth, he hit upon one correct function.

I would also wonder whether the correspondence is indeed there. To cite the function of the occipital love once again:

And that place is the place of the guarding of the forms

From here

Occipital Lobe - Region in the back of the brain which processes visual information. Not only is the occipital lobe mainly responsible for visual reception, it also contains association areas that help in the visual recognition of shapes and colors. Damage to this lobe can cause visual deficits

Ibn Ezra just mentions tzuros, which might correspond to shapes, but not to colors. I suppose memory . storing of these shapes must be done in order to recognize them. Yet it might well be that Galen, and Ibn Ezra, would say that this happens in the front of the brain, where processing of perception happens. I don't know enough Galenic science to say for certain, but this is what it seems from the summary above. Further, I am not sure we know what is meant by tzurot. It certainly means something, and something important. For example (citing Wikipedia), Plato maintained that Form was distinct from substance (think chomer vs. tzurah) and that these forms have an independent, and indeed have the highest and most fundamental kind of reality. It is a sublime philosophical concept, which might well not accord precisely with what we would call forms in English, "shapes".

I'll close with Ibn Caspi's approval yet slight disagreement with Ibn Ezra, in assigning each of these three types of wisdom to the three sections of the brain:

Length of days

Summary: Does it refer to long life, or long dwelling in the land of Israel?

Post: In Nitzavim, Devarim 30:18:

יח  הִגַּדְתִּי לָכֶם הַיּוֹם, כִּי אָבֹד תֹּאבֵדוּן:  לֹא-תַאֲרִיכֻן יָמִים, עַל-הָאֲדָמָה, אֲשֶׁר אַתָּה עֹבֵר אֶת-הַיַּרְדֵּן, לָבוֹא שָׁמָּה לְרִשְׁתָּהּ.

18 I declare unto you this day, that ye shall surely perish; ye shall not prolong your days upon the land, whither thou passest over the Jordan to go in to possess it.

Length of days (or lack thereof) is mentioned in connection to "upon the land which you pass over the Jordan to possess." So too in Vayelech, in Devarim 31:13:

יג  וּבְנֵיהֶם אֲשֶׁר לֹא-יָדְעוּ, יִשְׁמְעוּ וְלָמְדוּ--לְיִרְאָה, אֶת-יְהוָה אֱלֹהֵיכֶם:  כָּל-הַיָּמִים, אֲשֶׁר אַתֶּם חַיִּים עַל-הָאֲדָמָה, אֲשֶׁר אַתֶּם עֹבְרִים אֶת-הַיַּרְדֵּן שָׁמָּה, לְרִשְׁתָּהּ.  {פ}

13 and that their children, who have not known, may hear, and learn to fear the LORD your God, as long as ye live in the land whither ye go over the Jordan to possess it.' {P}

We have days, we have living, and we have the land. This seems, then, to be speaking of staying in the land and not being kicked off of it. Indeed, in Nitzavim, in Devarim 29:27, we have:

כז  וַיִּתְּשֵׁם יְהוָה מֵעַל אַדְמָתָם, בְּאַף וּבְחֵמָה וּבְקֶצֶף גָּדוֹל; וַיַּשְׁלִכֵם אֶל-אֶרֶץ אַחֶרֶת, כַּיּוֹם הַזֶּה.

27 and the LORD rooted them out of their land in anger, and in wrath, and in great indignation, and cast them into another land, as it is this day'.--

This idea of staying on the land, or being kicked off the land, is thus explicitly mentioned in this parasha.

What then shall we make of the following in parashat Yitro, Shemot 20:11, from the Aseret Hadibrot:

יא  כַּבֵּד אֶת-אָבִיךָ, וְאֶת-אִמֶּךָ--לְמַעַן, יַאֲרִכוּן יָמֶיךָ, עַל הָאֲדָמָה, אֲשֶׁר-יְהוָה אֱלֹהֶיךָ נֹתֵן לָךְ.  {ס}

11 Honour thy father and thy mother, that thy days may be long upon the land which the LORD thy God giveth thee. {S}

There are two ways of parsing this pasuk. The way it is typically understood is that this is a promise of long life, and the long life will be upon the land Hashem has given you. But given these other pesukim, another straightforward parse would be that by doing this, the nation of Israel will merit a lengthy stay upon the land, and will not be exiled. So too perhaps by shiluach haken, in Ki Teitzei (Devarim 22:7):

ז  שַׁלֵּחַ תְּשַׁלַּח אֶת-הָאֵם, וְאֶת-הַבָּנִים תִּקַּח-לָךְ, לְמַעַן יִיטַב לָךְ, וְהַאֲרַכְתָּ יָמִים.  {ס}

7 thou shalt in any wise let the dam go, but the young thou mayest take unto thyself; that it may be well with thee, and that thou mayest prolong thy days. {S}

One is Gershom, and one is Eliezer

Summary: What is bothering Ibn Ezra? I would guess that he is responding to Saadia Gaon, who makes much of the duplication.

Post: At the start of Yitro, we meet Moshe's two sons:

ג  וְאֵת, שְׁנֵי בָנֶיהָ:  אֲשֶׁר שֵׁם הָאֶחָד, גֵּרְשֹׁם--כִּי אָמַר, גֵּר הָיִיתִי בְּאֶרֶץ נָכְרִיָּה.	3 and her two sons; of whom the name of the one was Gershom; for he said: 'I have been a stranger in a strange land';
ד  וְשֵׁם הָאֶחָד, אֱלִיעֶזֶר--כִּי-אֱלֹהֵי אָבִי בְּעֶזְרִי, וַיַּצִּלֵנִי מֵחֶרֶב פַּרְעֹה.	4 and the name of the other was Eliezer: 'for the God of my father was my help, and delivered me from the sword of Pharaoh.'

Why should pasuk 4 begin veshem ha`eched. Shouldn't it be veshem hasheni? Obviously, this is an acceptable grammatical construction - one's name was X and one's name was Y - just as the opposite is a grammatical construction. But Ibn Ezra takes pains to spell it out, and that this is minhag leshon hakodesh:

[יח, ד]
ושם האחד -מנהג ל' הקדש לאמר פעמים ככה השני. ופעמים האחד. כמו: שם האחד בוצץ ושם האחד סנה. ותחסר מלת אמר אחר: כי אלהי אבי בעזרי. ואין כתוב: כי אמר אלהי אבי כי המלה שבה למעלה כי אמר: גר הייתי. כמו: כי הפרני אלהים. וכבר פירשתי למה קרא שם הקטן אליעזר.

He notes a parallel to I Shmuel 14:4, as an example:

ד  וּבֵין הַמַּעְבְּרוֹת, אֲשֶׁר בִּקֵּשׁ יוֹנָתָן לַעֲבֹר עַל-מַצַּב פְּלִשְׁתִּים--שֵׁן-הַסֶּלַע מֵהָעֵבֶר מִזֶּה, וְשֵׁן-הַסֶּלַע מֵהָעֵבֶר מִזֶּה; וְשֵׁם הָאֶחָד בּוֹצֵץ, וְשֵׁם הָאֶחָד סֶנֶּה.	4 And between the passes, by which Jonathan sought to go over unto the Philistines' garrison, there was a rocky crag on the one side, and a rocky crag on the other side; and the name of the one was Bozez, and the name of the other Seneh.
ה  הַשֵּׁן הָאֶחָד מָצוּק מִצָּפוֹן, מוּל מִכְמָשׂ; וְהָאֶחָד מִנֶּגֶב, מוּל גָּבַע.  {ס}	5 The one crag rose up on the north in front of Michmas, and the other on the south in front of Geba. {S}

Now, perhaps Ibn Ezra would take pains to make such a point clear, even though without him explaining this, it is hard to see where the confusion would be. Is he just noting interesting facts about the Hebrew language we can glean from this pasuk?

Sometimes, Ibn Ezra will explicitly cite context. But often, it pays to look to Rashi, or the midrash, and ask "what is bothering Ibn Ezra?" What would bother Ibn Ezra would not necessarily be something in the pasuk. Rather, he is responding to, and arguing with, some known position. Such that without learning Rashi or the midrashim, you would end up missing a lot from Ibn Ezra's intent.

And I would guess that this is one such instance. Here, I think he might be arguing with Saadia Gaon, who wrote:

ושם האחד אליעזר. והיה ראוי שיאמר ושם
השני וכתב הגאון ז״ל כי הטעם בזה לפי
שאליעזר הוא רומז לשמו של הקב״ה שנקרא
אחד שנאמר הלא אל אחד בראנו לכן לא רצה
להזכיר בו שני כי הוא אחד ואין שני ולכן עם
שונים אל יתערב:
( בספר צרור המור מרס"ג ז"ל )

This would then compel Ibn Ezra to respond as he did. And his argument is that it is a general pattern, and his prooftext is a pasuk that does not involve the shem haShem.

Yitro running commentary, pass 1, pt ii (18:2)

ב וַיִּקַּח, יִתְרוֹ חֹתֵן מֹשֶׁה, אֶת-צִפֹּרָה, אֵשֶׁת מֹשֶׁה--אַחַר, שִׁלּוּחֶיהָ

וַיִּקַּח -- is this verb stand alone or part of a more complex construction? Is it vayikach, that he took her in? Achar shilucheha, within the same pasuk, suggests it is. The alternative is that וַיִּקַּח is in preparation of וַיָּבֹא in pasuk 5, such that here he is taking them in order to transport them, and he would need to do so because of being sent away. (Compare Shemot 4:20,וַיִּקַּח... וַיַּרְכִּבֵם.) I believe the former possibility is most likely. The Torah here is giving us background information so that the present narrative makes sense. The same with the naming of Moshe's sons, which is drawn from elsewhere in sefer Shemos.

צִפֹּרָה -- σεπφωραν in Septuagint. Dr. Steiner used this as an example once, as a demonstration of how they pronounced, and thus understood, the dagesh chazak in the peh, which geminates. 

אַחַר שִׁלּוּחֶיהָ -- I do not understand Ibn Ezra's citation of others (not as his first peshat), that this refers to Tzipporah's sending gifts to him. This does not feel like peshat to me.

The assumption of the author of the Biblical text is that the reader knows about Moshe sending away of Tzipporah, so all that is needed is an explanation that she went at that point to Yisro her (father/brother) to live, and that now Yisro is bringing her back. If the reader did not know about this already, then we would expect the text to explain, as a separate statement, that Moshe sent her away, and when exactly he did it. It does not.

Rashi cites a midrash which addresses this issue, and which is attuned to Moshe seeming to be alone from the time he meets up with Aharon and onwards. Aharon thus told Moshe that it was a bad idea bringing more people to be enslaved in Egypt.

Indeed, from a practical perspective, it does not make sense to have the redeemer weighted down by family. He would need to see to their welfare, their food, and their lodging. They could be captured and used to threaten Moshe not to press Pharaoh. And indeed, we do not see them throughout the exodus.

Shadal deals with this issue by having them slip off quietly after the incident at the inn, as they are still fairly close to Midian.

ולהיות כי עדיין קרובים היו למדין, חזרה צפורה עם בניה לבית אביה, ומשה הלך לבדו, וזה היה רצון האל, כדי שלא יהיה למשה מעכב לעשות שליחותו. וזה טעם אחר שלוחיה ( למטה י"ח ב' ), כי כאן שילח אותה והלכה אל בית אביה

This is effectively the same as the midrash, and it solves the problem silently. But as above, it should not be solved silently. It should be overt in the Biblical text, as above. 

I believe the answer is that it is overt in the Biblical text. In Shemot 4:20, it states וַיִּקַּח מֹשֶׁה אֶת-אִשְׁתּוֹ וְאֶת-בָּנָיו, וַיַּרְכִּבֵם עַל-הַחֲמֹר, וַיָּשָׁב, אַרְצָה מִצְרָיִם; וַיִּקַּח מֹשֶׁה אֶת-מַטֵּה הָאֱלֹהִים, בְּיָדוֹ. Examining the context, we should understand it as sending off his wife and children to live with Yitro. Two pesukim earlier he takes his leave of Yitro and receives permission to return to Egypt. The intent is that he return alone, while Yitro watches over the family. Yitro is authorizing him to take care of his affairs in Egypt. There is some element of ain mukdam umeuachar baTorah which is apparent even without this, as different threads mix there. And so וַיִּקַּח מֹשֶׁה אֶת-אִשְׁתּוֹ וְאֶת-בָּנָיו, וַיַּרְכִּבֵם עַל-הַחֲמֹר is putting his wife and children on a donkey to travel away from him. And וַיָּשָׁב אַרְצָה מִצְרָיִם in the masculine singular refers only to Moshe.

Yitro sources

by aliyah
rishon (18:1)
sheni (18:13)
shelishi (18:24)
revii (19:1)
chamishi (19:7)
shishi (19:20)
aseres hadibros, taam tachton (20:2), taam elyon
shevii (20:15)
maftir (20:19)
haftara (Yeshaya 6:1 - 7:6; 9:5-6) -- with Malbim, Ibn Ezra

by perek
perek 18 ; perek 19 ;  perek 20

meforshim
Judaica Press Rashi in English
Shadal (and here)
Mishtadel
Daat -- with Rashi, Ramban, Seforno, Ibn Ezra, Rashbam, Rabbenu Bachya, Midrash Rabba, Tanchuma+, Mechilta, Gilyonot.
Gilyonot Nechama Leibovitz (Hebrew)
Tiferes Yehonasan from Rav Yonasan Eibeshitz
Chasdei Yehonasan -- not until Terumah
Toldos Yitzchak Acharon, repeated from Rav Yonasan Eibeshitz
Even Shleimah -- from Rabbi Shlomo Zalman Ehrenreich
R' Saadia Gaon's Tafsir, Arabic translation of Torah (here and here)
Collected commentary of Saadia Gaon on Torah
Abarbanel
Torah Temimah
Kli Yakar (and here)
Baal Haturim
Baal Haturim (HaAruch)
Torat Hatur
Ibn Janach
Rabbenu Ephraim
Ibn Caspi
Ralbag
Dubno Maggid
Imrei Shafer, Rav Shlomo Kluger
Ateret Zekeinim
Mei Noach
Arugat HaBosem
Yalkut Perushim LaTorah
R' Yosef Bechor Shor
Meiri
Ibn Gabirol
Rabbenu Yonah
Rashbam (and here)
Seforno
Aderet Eliyahu (Gra)
Kol Eliyahu (Gra)
Mipninei Harambam
Sefer Zikaron of Ritva
Malbim
Chiddushei HaGriz
Noam Elimelech
Michlal Yofi
Nesivot Hashalom

The following meforshim at JNUL.

Ralbag (pg 112)

Baal HaTurim (26)

Rabbenu Bachya (106)

Chizkuni (63)

Abarbanel (166)

Shach (100)

Paneach Raza (41)

Yalkut Reuveni (pg 92)

Sefer Hachinuch (pg 14)

Aharon ben Yosef the Karaite (94)

rashi
Daat, Rashi In Hebrew (perek 18)
Judaica Press Rashi in English and Hebrew
Mizrachi, Mizrachi (JNUL, 106)
Gur Aryeh (Maharal of Prague)
Maharsha
Siftei Chachamim
Berliner's Beur on Rashi
Commentary on Rashi by Yosef of Krasnitz
R' Yisrael Isserlin (on Rashi, 8)
Two supercommentaries on Rashi, by Chasdai Almosnino and Yaakov Kneizel
Rav Natan ben Shishon Shapira Ashkenazi (16th century), (JNUL, pg 74)
Taz
Levush HaOrah
Mohar`al
Yeriot Shlomo (Maharshal)
Moda L'Bina (Wolf Heidenheim)
Dikdukei Rashi
Mekorei Rashi (in Mechokekei Yehuda)
Bartenura
Yosef Daas
Nachalas Yaakov
Also see Mikraos Gedolos above, which has Rashi with Sifsei Chachamim

ramban
Daat, Ramban in Hebrew (perek 18)
R' Yitzchak Abohav's on Ramban (standalone and in a Tanach opposite Ramban)
Kesef Mezukak
Kanfei Nesharim
Rabbi Meir Abusaula (student of Rashba)

ibn ezra
Daat, Ibn Ezra in Hebrew (perek 18)
Mechokekei Yehudah (Daat)
Mechokekei Yehudah (HebrewBooks)
Mavaser Ezra
R' Shmuel Motot (pg 22, JNUL)
Ibn Kaspi's supercommentary on Ibn Ezra, different from his commentary (here and here)
Mekor Chaim, Ohel Yosef, Motot
Avi Ezer
Tzofnas Paneach
Ezra Lehavin
Also see Mikraos Gedolos above, which has Ibn Ezra with Avi Ezer

targum
Targum Onkelos opposite Torah text
Targum Onkelos and Targum Pseudo-Yonatan in English
Shadal's Ohev Ger
Berliner
Chalifot Semalot
Avnei Tzion -- two commentaries on Onkelos
Bei`urei Onkelos
Or Hatargum on Onkelos
Targum Yonatan
Commentary on Targum Yonatan and Targum Yerushalmi
Septuagint (Greek, English)
Origen's Hexapla (JNUL)

masorah
Tanach with masoretic notes on the side
Commentary on the Masorah
Minchas Shai
Or Torah
Taamei Masoret
Masoret HaKeriah
Shiluv Hamasorot
Masoret HaBrit HaGadol
Rama (but based on alphabet, not parsha)
Vetus Testamentum


midrash
Midrash Rabba at Daat (18)
Midrash Tanchuma at Daat (18)
Shemot Rabba, with commentaries
Midrash Tanchuma with commentary of Etz Yosef and Anaf Yosef
Commentary on Midrash Rabba by R' Naftali Hirtz b'R' Menachem
Matat-Kah on Midrash Rabba
Nefesh Yehonasan by Rav Yonasan Eibeshutz
Mechilta
Sefer Hayashar (English)

haftarah (Yeshaya 6:1 - 7:6; 9:5-6)
In a chumash, with Malbim and Ibn Ezra
In a separate Mikraot Gedolot -- with Targum, Rashi, Mahari Kara, Radak, Minchat Shai, Metzudat David.
In a Tanach with Radak (JNUL, pg 10)
Gutnick edition
Rashis in English, from Judaica Press
Gilyonot Nechama Leibovitch on the haftarah
Daat, with Yalkut Shimoni and Radak
Ibn Ezra on Yeshaya
Ibn Janach
Aharon ben Yosef the Karaite (47)

Did Yisro Remain Silent When He Fled?

The gemara (Sotah 11a) just says that Bilaam counseled, Iyov remained silent, and Yisro fled (ברח). Was he silent when he fled? The gemara does not elaborate. But the assumption that he simply fled without a word of protest underlies this post at Hirhurim.

In Ginzberg's Legends of The Jews, page 254, which I quote here for a different purpose, attributes to Yitro a lengthy speech in defense of the the Jews and against the plan, such that Pharaoh dismisses Yisro in disgrace. I don't know what Ginzberg's source for this is, assuming there is one.

At Balaam's insistence, the king sent for his two advisors, Reuel the Midianite and Job the Uzite, to hear their advice. Reuel spoke: 'If it seemeth good to the king, let him desist from the Hebrews, and let him not stretch forth his hand against them, for the Lord chose them in the days of old, and took them as the lot of his inheritance from amongst all the nations of the earth, and who is there that hath dared stretch forth his hand against them with impunity, but that their God avenged the evil done unto them?' Reuel then proceeded to enumerate some of the mighty things God had performed for Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, and he closed his admonition with the words: "Verily, thy grandfather, the Pharaoh of former days, raised Joseph the son of Jacob above all the princes of Egypt, because he discerned his wisdom, for through his wisdom he rescued all the inhabitants of the land from the famine, after which he invited Jacob and his sons to come down to Egypt, that the land of Egypt and the land of Goshen be delivered from the famine through their virtues. Now, therefore, if it seem good in thine eyes, leave off from destroying the children of Israel, and if it be not thy will that they dwell in Egypt, send them forth from here, that they may go to the land of Canaan, the land wherein their ancestors sojourned.

When Pharaoh heard the words of Jethro-Reuel, he was exceedingly wroth with him, and he was dismissed in disgrace from before the king, and he went to Midian.

If I see other relevant sources, I will bli neder update.

Update: With some assistance from S., we have the following:

Perhaps more later.

Update, 2009: See the lengthy speech in Sefer Hayashar.

Did the Israelites See the Sounds at Sinai Because of Psychedelic Drugs?

An interesting suggestion, but proposed by a professor of cognitive psychology rather than of Biblical studies or archeology.

High on Mount Sinai, Moses was on psychedelic drugs when he heard God deliver the Ten Commandments, an Israeli researcher claimed in a study published this week.

Such mind-altering substances formed an integral part of the religious rites of Israelites in biblical times, Benny Shanon, a professor of cognitive psychology at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem wrote in the Time and Mind journal of philosophy.

This is somewhat surprising to me. While there were indeed schools of prophets, with benei neviim participating, and trying to reach mind-altered states using music, the impression I got from reading Mari and the Bible by Abraham Malamat was that the Israelites in general eschewed mantic methods of reaching prophecy, and this was distinct from the neighboring nations. It could be I misunderstood this, or that other research shows that the Israelites did. Or perhaps not.

Also, this is funny:

Moses was probably also on drugs when he saw the "burning bush," suggested Shanon, who said he himself has dabbled with such substances.

Also, he writes:

"The Bible says people see sounds, and that is a clasic phenomenon," he said citing the example of religious ceremonies in the Amazon in which drugs are used that induce people to "see music."

This is a midrash, not pashut peshat in the pasuk, and he should have mentioned it. It is based on Shemot 20:14:

יד וְכָל-הָעָם רֹאִים אֶת-הַקּוֹלֹת וְאֶת-הַלַּפִּידִם, וְאֵת קוֹל הַשֹּׁפָר, וְאֶת-הָהָר, עָשֵׁן; וַיַּרְא הָעָם וַיָּנֻעוּ, וַיַּעַמְדוּ מֵרָחֹק.

14 And all the people perceived the thunderings, and the lightnings, and the voice of the horn, and the mountain smoking; and when the people saw it, they trembled, and stood afar off.

That is a hyper-literal reading, and thus midrashic, reading of וְכָל-הָעָם רֹאִים אֶת-הַקּוֹלֹת וְאֶת-הַלַּפִּידִם, וְאֵת קוֹל הַשֹּׁפָר, וְאֶת-הָהָר, עָשֵׁן, though. Peshat reading of it is that they "perceived it," and that Roim has a wider possible semantic meaning that the simplest and most common.

There is an interesting point he makes, though:

He mentioned his own experience when he used ayahuasca, a powerful psychotropic plant, during a religious ceremony in Brazil's Amazon forest in 1991. "I experienced visions that had spiritual-religious connotations," Shanon said.

He said the psychedelic effects of ayahuasca were comparable to those produced by concoctions based on bark of the acacia tree, that is frequently mentioned in the Bible.

But is acacia wood {atzei shittim} used in any "concoction" described in the Torah? We see it used for construction of vessels, but not for concoctions which are burnt or quaffed. Is it one of the ingredients in the ketoret? One thing that did strike me, though, was that the mizbach haketoret, the incense altar, was made of acacia wood overlaid with gold. Would burning incense on it twice daily release some of this acacia bark and induce some psychedelic high? I would imagine the gold covering would prevent this.

Still, very interesting theory.

(hat tip: Eliyahu)

The Age of Trup -- part xxv

Shadal continues his Vikuach Al Chochmat HaKabbalah. (See previous segment.) Here he discusses whether the nikkud and trup, while not agreeing with the Talmud Bavli, consistently agrees with the Yerushalmi.


The guest: You have said correctly.

And behold, we have already seen that the nikkud and trup do not always agree with the opinion of Chazal, the Tannaim and Amoraim, and the authors of Targum.

The author: Perhaps they did not rely on the words of the Talmud Bavli because the authors of nikkud were Sages of Tiberias, and they are residents of Eretz Yisrael, and perhaps they attached themselves to the words of the Talmud Yerushalmi. And I have already found a support to this in the verse {Shemot 30:23, in Ki Tisa}:

כג וְאַתָּה קַח-לְךָ, בְּשָׂמִים רֹאשׁ, מָר-דְּרוֹר חֲמֵשׁ מֵאוֹת, וְקִנְּמָן-בֶּשֶׂם מַחֲצִיתוֹ חֲמִשִּׁים וּמָאתָיִם; וּקְנֵה-בֹשֶׂם, חֲמִשִּׁים וּמָאתָיִם.

23 'Take thou also unto thee the chief spices, of flowing myrrh five hundred shekels, and of sweet cinnamon half so much, even two hundred and fifty, and of sweet calamus two hundred and fifty,

that even that the opinion of the Talmud Bavli is against the trup, still in Yerushalmi (Shekalim perek 6) we find the explanation which accords with the trup.

The guest: Do not say that the trup with Talmud Bavli specifically, for still the explanation which disagrees with the trup is not the words of a Babylonian Amora, but rather the words of a brayta (tno Rabanan), and every brayta is the words of the Sages of Eretz Yisrael. If so, the Sages of Eretz Yisrael themselves were divided in the matter, and the masters of the trup chose for themselves one of the two opinions (the one which sat better upon the simple meaning of the Scriptures).

And know that we also find that the masters of Nikkud argue on the words of the Yerushalmi, for in Ovadiah, they place the end of the pasuk after the word mikatel. {That is, in Ovadiah 1:9-10:

ט וְחַתּוּ גִבּוֹרֶיךָ, תֵּימָן, לְמַעַן יִכָּרֶת-אִישׁ מֵהַר עֵשָׂו, מִקָּטֶל.	9 And thy mighty men, O Teman, shall be dismayed, to the end that every one may be cut off from the mount of Esau by slaughter.
י מֵחֲמַס אָחִיךָ יַעֲקֹב, תְּכַסְּךָ בוּשָׁה; וְנִכְרַתָּ, לְעוֹלָם.	10 For the violence done to thy brother Jacob shame shall cover thee, and thou shalt be cut off for ever.

and in Yerushalmi (Peah perek 1) they read מִקָּטֶל מֵחֲמַס אָחִיךָ יַעֲקֹב. And so too in the West {=Eretz Yisrael} they divided this verse into three verses: {Shemot 19:9, in Yitro}

ט וַיֹּאמֶר ה אֶל-מֹשֶׁה, הִנֵּה אָנֹכִי בָּא אֵלֶיךָ בְּעַב הֶעָנָן, בַּעֲבוּר יִשְׁמַע הָעָם בְּדַבְּרִי עִמָּךְ, וְגַם-בְּךָ יַאֲמִינוּ לְעוֹלָם; וַיַּגֵּד מֹשֶׁה אֶת-דִּבְרֵי הָעָם, אֶל-ה.

9 And the LORD said unto Moses: 'Lo, I come unto thee in a thick cloud, that the people may hear when I speak with thee, and may also believe thee for ever.' And Moses told the words of the people unto the LORD.

and even so, the masters of nikkud only made it a single verse. And more than this, we find in the Mechilta that they would read {in Shemot 15:8, in Beshalach}

ח וּבְרוּחַ {ר} אַפֶּיךָ נֶעֶרְמוּ מַיִם, {ס} נִצְּבוּ כְמוֹ-נֹד {ר} נֹזְלִים; {ס} קָפְאוּ תְהֹמֹת, בְּלֶב-יָם. {ס}

8 And with the blast of Thy nostrils the waters were piled up--the floods stood upright as a heap; the deeps were congealed in the heart of the sea.

{reading nod} and the masters of nikkud made the vowel points neid with a tzeirei.

And also in Torat Kohanim they attached {in Vayikra 15:23, in Metzorah} בְּנָגְעוֹ-בוֹ יִטְמָא עַד-הָעָרֶב and the masters of trup separated בְּנָגְעוֹ-בוֹ with an etnachta.

{That pasuk is:

כג וְאִם עַל-הַמִּשְׁכָּב הוּא, אוֹ עַל-הַכְּלִי אֲשֶׁר-הִוא יֹשֶׁבֶת-עָלָיו--בְּנָגְעוֹ-בוֹ: יִטְמָא, עַד-הָעָרֶב.

23 And if he be on the bed, or on any thing whereon she sitteth, when he toucheth it, he shall be unclean until the even.

}