Showing posts with label zot habracha. Show all posts
Showing posts with label zot habracha. Show all posts

Monday, September 23, 2013

posts so far for parshat veZos Habrachah


2011
  1. veZos haBracha sources, 2012 edition -- begun in 2008 as links by perek and aliyah to an online Mikraos Gedolos. Then, added more than 100 commentaries on the parasha and haftarah. Further expanded in 2010, 2011, and 2012.
    .
  2. An alternate explanation of ה מִסִּינַי בָּא -- The second pasuk of Zos Habracha reads: וַיֹּאמַר, ה מִסִּינַי בָּא וְזָרַח מִשֵּׂעִיר לָמוֹ--הוֹפִיעַ מֵהַר פָּארָן, וְאָתָה מֵרִבְבֹת קֹדֶשׁ; מִימִינוֹ, אשדת (אֵשׁ דָּת) לָמוֹ.
    While the famous traditional explanation of the pasuk "Hashem miSinai ba..." is about mattan Torah, and Hashem offering the Torah to various nations first, the Ramban offers a competing explanation. The Tur follows in his path, quoting and excerpting the main points. This post presents the Tur, in his long commentary, where explains most of it as referring to Hashem's manifesting His Presence through the stay in the midbar.

    .
  3. Eshdat Lamo as a reference to אַשְׁדֹּת הַפִּסְגָּה -- And if so, then neither the reisha nor seifa of the pasuk is speaking about mattan Torah.
    .
  4. Who buried MosheAccording to Ibn Janach, Moshe, via a miracle. Then he retracts to say that it was Hashem.
    .
  5. Zos Habracha and biodynamic agriculture -- Are there plants which grow, and fruits which ripen, based on moonlight, rather than sunlight?

2010

  1. Multivalence in Asher's blessing -- An interesting example of multi-valence in the Sifrei's interpretation of Asher's bracha, in parashat veZos haBeracha. Does themi mean "more than" or "with"? Or does it mean both simultaneously? Also, why I believe Rashi's girsa of the Sifrei is better than Ramban's variant.
    .
  2. How could Rabbi Yehuda respond regarding the complete TorahThe famous dispute about the last eightpesukim in the Torah.
    .
  3. If pre-describing Moshe's death is a problem, why isn't the land of NaftaliBrooklynWolf asks this excellent question. And here is a few ways one might, and some did, answer it.
    .
  4. Why to Kohanim and not KingsConsidering a suggestion of Chasam Sofer as to Rashi's choice in bringing onemidrash of two. Does Rashi specify that the daughters of the tribe of Asher married kohanim gedolim, rather than kings?
    .
  5. The Chasam Sofer on the last eight pesukim, or the last twelve pesukim -- Does the Chasam Sofer actually hold like Ibn Ezra on this?!
    .
  6. Who buried Moshe? and what this has to do with post-Mosaic authorship -- A most straightforward local reading of the pasuk is that an unspecified human being buried Moshe. Considering the context, why this is difficult to say, and why midash, Rashi, Ibn Ezra, and the Karaites all say otherwise. And how the alternative is avery late authorship for the last eight pesukim.

2009
  1. Reuven and viyhi metav mispar; should it be, or should it not be? The dispute between Rashi et al. and Ibn Ezra et al on whether al applies to this second clause.
    .
  2. Here is a link to an article at the Leiman Library, by Dr. Richard Steiner and Dr. Shnayer Leiman, about the meaning of eshdat in parshat v'Zot HaBrachah.
    .
  3. Considering Ibn Ezra and the secret of the last eight pesukim. And how he maintains that the last eight pesukim of the Torah, as well as other psukim throughout, were written by Yehoshua rather than Moshe.
    .
  4. Binyamin with three yuds! An interesting masorah mentioned by Minchas Shai, and why we should not be concerned with it.
    .
  5. Were Moshe's eyes not dim before or after his death? A stira in Rashi, or in two midrashim he cites. Is one meant as peshat and the other as derash?
    .
  6. The last eight pesukim in Chumash -- why assume Moshe didn't write them? Explaining Rashi and his sources, as well as just what in the pesukim besides Moshe's death indicates post-Mosaic authorship.
    .
  7. On the same topic, Ibn Ezra and the secret of the twelve pesukim. From parshat Devarim.

2007
  1. Esh De-At Lamo -- where I take it as an Aramaism, de + at, "which comes".

Friday, October 05, 2012

veZos HaBeracha sources -- 2012 edition


by aliyah
rishon (Devarim 33:1)
sheni (33:8)
shlishi (33:13)
revii (33:18)
chamishi (33:22)
shishi (33:27)
shvii (34:1)
haftara (Yehoshua 1) -- with Malbim

by perek
perek 33
perek 34

meforshim
Geonim (589-1038)

R' Saadia Gaon(882-942) -- see Wikipedia entry:
  1. Arabic translation of Torah, here at Temanim.org. This is a beautiful PDF, with the Chumash text, Rashi, Onkelos, and Rav Saadia's Tafsir. All of these have nikkud, which is a very nice feature. It also designates the Temani and standard aliyah breaks, and two commentaries, Shemen HaMor and Chelek HaDikduk, on the kriyah, trupnikkud, and dikduk, on the basis of Yemenite manuscripts, which would be worthwhile even absent the other features. Quite excellent, overall.
  2. The same Arabic translation, the Tafsir, here at Google books. No nikkud, Chumash text, Rashi, or Onkelos. But there is a brief supercommentary by Yosef Direnburg at the bottom of each page. 
  3. Collected commentary of Saadia Gaon on Torah, selected from the writings of various Rishonim and from his commentaries on other works.
Rabbi Yona Ibn Janach(Spain, 990-1050) -- see Wikipedia  


Rishonim (11th - 15th centuries)
Not really Abarbabel
Judaica Press Rashi in English  and Hebrew (France, 1040 - 1105) -- ואני לא באתי אלא לפשוטו של מקרא ולאגדה המיישבת דברי המקרא, דבר דבור על אופניו
Chizkuni (France, 13th century) -- see Wikipedia  
Daat -- with Rashi, Ramban, Seforno, Ibn Ezra, Rashbam, Rabbenu Bachya, Midrash Rabba, Tanchuma+, Gilyonot 

Rashbam -- and here (France, 1085-1158) -- see Wikipedia 
Abarbanel (Portugal, Italy, 1437-1508) -- see Wikipedia -- there is a section on his exegesis 
Baal HaTurim (Germany, Spain, 1269-1343) -- see Wikipedia entry:
  1. Baal Haturim - short, consisting of gematriot and the like
  2. Baal Haturim  (HaAruch)  , consisting of perushim, often drawn from Ramban
  3. Torat Hatur -- when the Tur (in his halachic work) cites pesukim from this parasha. Not very helpful, IMHO. Though the supercommentary on the Tur on the bottom is nice.
Rabbenu Ephraim  -- (France, 12th and 13th century) -- see Jewish Encyclopedia entry --  "He was the author of "Perush 'al ha-Torah," which consists chiefly of gemaṭria and "noṭariḳon." He largely followed Eleazar of Worms."

Wednesday, October 19, 2011

posts so far for parshat veZos Habrachah


2011
  1. veZos haBracha sources -- begun in 2008 as links by perek and aliyah to an online Mikraos Gedolos. Then, added more than 100 commentaries on the parasha and haftarah. Further expanded in 2010 and 2011.
    .
  2. An alternate explanation of ה מִסִּינַי בָּא -- The second pasuk of Zos Habracha reads: וַיֹּאמַר, ה מִסִּינַי בָּא וְזָרַח מִשֵּׂעִיר לָמוֹ--הוֹפִיעַ מֵהַר פָּארָן, וְאָתָה מֵרִבְבֹת קֹדֶשׁ; מִימִינוֹ, אשדת (אֵשׁ דָּת) לָמוֹ.
    While the famous traditional explanation of the pasuk "Hashem miSinai ba..." is about mattan Torah, and Hashem offering the Torah to various nations first, the Ramban offers a competing explanation. The Tur follows in his path, quoting and excerpting the main points. This post presents the Tur, in his long commentary, where explains most of it as referring to Hashem's manifesting His Presence through the stay in the midbar.

    .
  3. Eshdat Lamo as a reference to אַשְׁדֹּת הַפִּסְגָּה -- And if so, then neither the reisha nor seifa of the pasuk is speaking about mattan Torah.
    .
  4. Who buried MosheAccording to Ibn Janach, Moshe, via a miracle. Then he retracts to say that it was Hashem.
    .
  5. Zos Habracha and biodynamic agriculture -- Are there plants which grow, and fruits which ripen, based on moonlight, rather than sunlight?


2010

  1. Multivalence in Asher's blessing -- An interesting example of multi-valence in the Sifrei's interpretation of Asher's bracha, in parashat veZos haBeracha. Does themi mean "more than" or "with"? Or does it mean both simultaneously? Also, why I believe Rashi's girsa of the Sifrei is better than Ramban's variant.
    .
  2. How could Rabbi Yehuda respond regarding the complete TorahThe famous dispute about the last eightpesukim in the Torah.
    .
  3. If pre-describing Moshe's death is a problem, why isn't the land of NaftaliBrooklynWolf asks this excellent question. And here is a few ways one might, and some did, answer it.
    .
  4. Why to Kohanim and not KingsConsidering a suggestion of Chasam Sofer as to Rashi's choice in bringing onemidrash of two. Does Rashi specify that the daughters of the tribe of Asher married kohanim gedolim, rather than kings?
    .
  5. The Chasam Sofer on the last eight pesukim, or the last twelve pesukim -- Does the Chasam Sofer actually hold like Ibn Ezra on this?!
    .
  6. Who buried Moshe? and what this has to do with post-Mosaic authorship -- A most straightforward local reading of the pasuk is that an unspecified human being buried Moshe. Considering the context, why this is difficult to say, and why midash, Rashi, Ibn Ezra, and the Karaites all say otherwise. And how the alternative is avery late authorship for the last eight pesukim.

2009
  1. Reuven and viyhi metav mispar; should it be, or should it not be? The dispute between Rashi et al. and Ibn Ezra et al on whether al applies to this second clause.
    .
  2. Here is a link to an article at the Leiman Library, by Dr. Richard Steiner and Dr. Shnayer Leiman, about the meaning of eshdat in parshat v'Zot HaBrachah.
    .
  3. Considering Ibn Ezra and the secret of the last eight pesukim. And how he maintains that the last eight pesukim of the Torah, as well as other psukim throughout, were written by Yehoshua rather than Moshe.
    .
  4. Binyamin with three yuds! An interesting masorah mentioned by Minchas Shai, and why we should not be concerned with it.
    .
  5. Were Moshe's eyes not dim before or after his death? A stira in Rashi, or in two midrashim he cites. Is one meant as peshat and the other as derash?
    .
  6. The last eight pesukim in Chumash -- why assume Moshe didn't write them? Explaining Rashi and his sources, as well as just what in the pesukim besides Moshe's death indicates post-Mosaic authorship.
    .
  7. On the same topic, Ibn Ezra and the secret of the twelve pesukim. From parshat Devarim.

2007
  1. Esh De-At Lamo -- where I take it as an Aramaism, de + at, "which comes".

Thursday, October 06, 2011

Zos Habracha and biodynamic agriculture

Summary: Are there plants which grow, and fruits which ripen, based on moonlight, rather than sunlight?

Post: In Zos Habracha, we read:



יד  וּמִמֶּגֶד, תְּבוּאֹת שָׁמֶשׁ; וּמִמֶּגֶד, גֶּרֶשׁ יְרָחִים.14 And for the precious things of the fruits of the sun, and for the precious things of the yield of the moons,


Rashi offers two explanations:


גרש ירחים: יש פירות שהלבנה מבשלתן ואלו הן קשואין ודלועין. דבר אחר גרש ירחים. שהארץ מגרשת ומוציאה מחדש לחדש:


The first is that there are fruits which are ripened by the moon, namely pumpkins and cucumbers. The second is that גֶּרֶשׁ יְרָחִים means the produce of months, that the land casts it out and brings it out from month to month.

In likewise manner to the first explanation, Rabbi Yosef Ibn Caspi writes:

"The meaning of גֶּרֶשׁ is that which is cast out of the earth, from its belly -- that is to say, the growths which go out of it. And some are dependent upon the sun, and some are dependent upon the moon, as is well known to all workers of the ground, and all the more so to scientists."

Is this really so, that some plants grow on moonlight rather than sunlight? Ovdei adama, workers of the ground, might develop and intuition, or practical experience with this. But on the other hand, they might also develop superstitions. And the chachmei hateva, scientists, of Ibn Caspi's time might be right. But they might also have erred. They could be relying on unreliable Greek science, based on sevara rather than methodical experimentation.

Even if it is scientifically and practically incorrect, this does not mean that it is a bad peshat in the pasuk by Rashi and Ibn Caspi. Running with a statement Ibn Caspi makes elsewhere, dibra Torah kilshon benei Adam, the Torah speaks with the assumptions and beliefs of people.

Here is a bit on scientific astrology of the medieval period:

Here is some folklore about growing cucumbers in the moonlight, from the Frank C. Brown Collection of North Carolina Folklore, part two:


And at Yahoo Answers, while the accepted answer is that moonlight does not help plants grow, see what one person wrote:
It is very true....if anything is planted at the time of the start of a new moon, right through to a full moon, those plants, trees, vegies, whatever, will indeed grow faster, bigger, and will be so much better and healthy looking, than if you were to plant anything after that. My grandfather was a successful Devon cattle breeder, and his vegie garden was simply superb, and he always "planted by the moon", and he certainly was not one given to idle fairy tales, he was very successful in whatever he did, and knew what he was talking about.[ that does'nt mean you can only plant at night time, no....it means you can plant in the day light, but as the moon is getting larger, so will everything else be so.] and by the way....that also applies to getting haircuts, shaving legs and etc,. If you dont want your hair to grow quickly, then do it as the moon is waning. You see the effect the moon cycle has on tides? Well...there's obviously something in it.
What about modern scientists? A passing reference in a Popular Science from 1928, that this view has been rejected by scientists:

There is, however, a strong pseudo-science that moonlight, and when in the moon's phase one plants, has an impact on growing. This pseudo-science is part of biodynamic agriculture.

Astronomical planting calendar


The approach considers that there are astronomical influences on soil and plant development, specifying, for example, what phase of the moon is most appropriate for planting, cultivating or harvesting various kinds of crops.[20] This aspect of biodynamics has been termed "astrological" in nature.[21]
See here for an article about how wine growers are subscribing to this stuff, and here for a blogpost blasting it as pseudoscience.

On the other hand, at How Plants Work, see this post and this post about whether, and how, the moon affects plants. Namely, how low light intensities can affect flowering more than complete darkness. Even so, this is a far cry from moonlight being the basis for the plants' growth.

Wednesday, October 05, 2011

Who buried Moshe?

Summary: According to Ibn Janach, Moshe, via a miracle. Then he retracts to say that it was Hashem.

Post: Towards the end of Zot HaBracha, we read:

ו  וַיִּקְבֹּר אֹתוֹ בַגַּי בְּאֶרֶץ מוֹאָב, מוּל בֵּית פְּעוֹר; וְלֹא-יָדַע אִישׁ אֶת-קְבֻרָתוֹ, עַד הַיּוֹם הַזֶּה.6 And he was buried in the valley in the land of Moab over against Beth-peor; and no man knoweth of his sepulchre unto this day.

While this translation renders וַיִּקְבֹּר as if it were passive, a straightforward reading it that is is an active verb. There was someone who buried Moshe in the valley. Who was this?

According to Ibn Janach:


"and he buried him in the valley -- that is to say, he {=Moshe} buried himself in the valley. (And this is possible, that Moshe said to the earth, in the name of Hashem, to open and gather him it, and it opened by the word of God. (And this is the position of Rabbi Yishmael in the Sifrei, parashat Nazir -- the insight of Shadal.) And once he entered in it, he commanded, by the word of God, and it was closed for him after his soul ascended. And this sevara was close to me with nothing holding it back, until I saw the words of the men of the Mishnah (Sotah 1:9), and I turned from my position to their position. (Sefer haShorashim, 52)"

The Mishnah in Sotah reads:
מי לנו גדול ממשה, שלא נתעסק בו אלא הקדוש ברוך הוא, שנאמר "ויקבור אותו בגיא . . . מול . . ." (דברים לד,ו).  ולא על משה בלבד אמרו, אלא על כל הצדיקים, שהמקום אוספם, שנאמר "והלך לפניך צדקך, כבוד ה' יאספך" (ישעיהו נח,ח). ש
Thus, the competing theory that Ibn Janach eventually adopts is that Hashem buried Moshe.

I am not sure where Shadal wrote his haarah that Ibn Janach's former position was actually a Tannaitic position, but I wonder whether Ibn Janach would have been so quick to retract.

What about Shadal? How does he hold:

 ויקבור וגו ': כלו ' נקבר ברצון ה ' דרך נס בלא קובר.

"That is to say, he was buried by the will of Hashem, in a miraculous manner, without a burier."

This would seem to be like the second position. I should note that simply saying that vayikbor has an implicit hakover, like other instances like vayageid, with an implicit hamagid, is presumably ruled out, not just by the slight grammatical irregularity, which is certainly surmountable, but by the end of the pasuk, וְלֹא-יָדַע אִישׁ אֶת-קְבֻרָתוֹ, עַד הַיּוֹם הַזֶּה. If written even in the time of Yehoshua, then there would not have been a human kover. If written much much later, then it could be a statement in retrospect, that they buried him, but just where is lost to us nowadays. But that is theologically very difficult to say, and so Ibn Janach and Shadal are not offering that explanation.

(See also Abarbanel on this.)

Tuesday, October 04, 2011

Eshdat Lamo as a reference to אַשְׁדֹּת הַפִּסְגָּה

Summary: And if so, then neither the reisha nor seifa of the pasuk is speaking about mattan Torah.

Post: Towards the start of veZot HaBerachah, on the pasuk:

ב  וַיֹּאמַר, ה מִסִּינַי בָּא וְזָרַח מִשֵּׂעִיר לָמוֹ--הוֹפִיעַ מֵהַר פָּארָן, וְאָתָה מֵרִבְבֹת קֹדֶשׁ; מִימִינוֹ, אשדת (אֵשׁ דָּת) לָמוֹ.2 And he said: The LORD came from Sinai, and rose from Seir unto them; He shined forth from mount Paran, and He came from the myriads holy, at His right hand was a fiery law unto them.

we saw in a previous post the Ramban and Tur's unique take. Turning now to Shadal, we see that he writes as follows:
 ב ה ' מסיני בא: הטעם ה' נגלה עלי כאן כדי שאברך את ישראל, והנה ברכותי מפי עליון. ואמר שבא מסיני, שהוא המקום שנגלה עליו תחילה, ובבואו לכאן, הנה כבודו זורח ומופיע משעיר ופארן שהם בין הר סיני והר נבו, ובא למו, בשביל ישראל, כדי לברכם. 
מימינו אשדת: מימין לאשדת הפסגה הזאת שהיה משה עומד אז בתחתיתה, וטעם זכירת הימין, כי סיני ושעיר ופארן כולם לדרום הר נבו, והדרום נקרא ימין והצפון נקרא שמאל. ואין הכוונה כלל על מתן תורה. שאם כן היה לו לומר : "אל" סיני, לא : " מסיני". אשדת כתיב מילה חדא. והוא מן אשדות הפסגה ( למעלה ג' י"ז), וי"ו מימינו הוא על דרך בנו בעור ( במדבר כ"ד ג'), והיתה מתחילתה וי"ו הכינוי, על דרך מטתו שלשלמה ( שיר השירים ג' ז') שהוא על דרך לשון ארמי, שמה די אלהא ( דניאל ב' כ'), אלההון די שדרך מישך ( שם ג' כ"ט) ובמשך הזמן נשכח עיקר הוראתה וחזרה להיות אות נוספת, לפיכך מצאנוה גם אצל שם שהוא לשון נקבה, כגון חיתו ארץ ( בראשית א' כ"ד) וכן כאן מימינו אשדת. מילת דת איננה לשון עברי ואף לא לשון ארמי, אלא לשון פרסי 
הטעמים הם מסכימים תמיד עם הקרי, וכאן הקרי הוא אש דת בשתי מילות, לפיכך היה מן ההכרח שיהיו הטעמים בלתי מסכימים עם פירושי. אשדת בתי"ו בלי סמיכות, כמו עזרת מצר ( תהלים ס' י"ג), חכמת ודעת ( ישעיה ל"ג ו') וזולתם

"ה מִסִּינַי בָּא -- the meaning is that Hashem was revealed to me here, such that I should bless Israel, and thus, my blessing is from the mouth of the One On High. And he said that 'He came from Sinai', which was the place where Hashem revealed Himself first. And when He came here, behold His Glory rose and shone forth from Seir and Paran, which are between Har Sinai and Har Nevo. And came unto them, for the sake of Israel, in order to bless them.


מִימִינוֹ,אֵשׁ דָּת -- From the right of this Eshdat HaPisgah, which Moshe was standing then at its base. And the meaning of mentioning the right is that Sinai, Seir, and Paran are all to the south of Har Nevo, and the south is called right while the north is called left. And the intent is not at all to matan Torah. For if so, it should have said el-Sinai, 'to Sinai', not miSina, 'from Sinai'.


אֵשׁדָּת is written as a single word. And it is from Ashdot HaPisgah, {the slopes of Pisgah} {in Devarim 3:17:

יז  וְהָעֲרָבָה, וְהַיַּרְדֵּן וּגְבֻל--מִכִּנֶּרֶת, וְעַד יָם הָעֲרָבָה יָם הַמֶּלַח, תַּחַת אַשְׁדֹּת הַפִּסְגָּה, מִזְרָחָה.17 the Arabah also, the Jordan being the border thereof, from Chinnereth even unto the sea of the Arabah, the Salt Sea, under the slopes of Pisgah eastward.


The vav of מִימִינוֹ is in the same manner of Beno Beor {Bemidbar 24:3, נְאֻם בִּלְעָם בְּנוֹ בְעֹר}. And initially the vav was the vav of attribution {I would guess he means the genitive case, connoting possession}, in the same manner of {Shir Hashirim 3:7}, מִטָּתוֹ שֶׁלִּשְׁלֹמֹה {with the vav ending}, which is in the manner of the Aramaic language, as in Daniel 2:20:

כ  עָנֵה דָנִיֵּאל, וְאָמַר--לֶהֱוֵא שְׁמֵהּ דִּי-אֱלָהָא מְבָרַךְ, מִן-עָלְמָא וְעַד עָלְמָא:  דִּי חָכְמְתָא וּגְבוּרְתָא, דִּי לֵהּ-הִיא.20 Daniel spoke and said: Blessed be the name of God from everlasting even unto everlasting; for wisdom and might are His

{where the tzeirei mapik heh means His Name, even though there is already a דִּי-אֱלָהָא which immediately follows.} And Daniel 3:29:

כט  וּמִנִּי, שִׂים טְעֵם, דִּי כָל-עַם אֻמָּה וְלִשָּׁן דִּי-יֵאמַר שלה (שָׁלוּ) עַל אֱלָהֲהוֹן דִּי-שַׁדְרַךְ מֵישַׁךְ וַעֲבֵד נְגוֹא, הַדָּמִין יִתְעֲבֵד וּבַיְתֵהּ נְוָלִי יִשְׁתַּוֵּה; כָּל-קֳבֵל, דִּי לָא אִיתַי אֱלָהּ אָחֳרָן, דִּי-יִכֻּל לְהַצָּלָה, כִּדְנָה.29 Therefore I make a decree, that every people, nation, and language, which speak any thing amiss against the God of Shadrach, Meshach, and Abed-nego, shall be cut in pieces, and their houses shall be made a dunghill; because there is no other god that is able to deliver after this sort.'

{where the cholam nun-sofit implies 'their God', even though it is immediately followed by דִּי-שַׁדְרַךְ מֵישַׁךְ וַעֲבֵד נְגוֹא.}

And, with the passage of time, its initial import was forgotten and it turned to be an extraneous letter. Therefore we find it as well by a noun which is feminine, such as {Bereishit 1:24}

כד  וַיֹּאמֶר אֱלֹהִים, תּוֹצֵא הָאָרֶץ נֶפֶשׁ חַיָּה לְמִינָהּ, בְּהֵמָה וָרֶמֶשׂ וְחַיְתוֹ-אֶרֶץ, לְמִינָהּ; וַיְהִי-כֵן.24 And God said: 'Let the earth bring forth the living creature after its kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after its kind.' And it was so.


And so too here, מִימִינוֹ,אֵשׁדָּת.


The word dat is not of the Hebrew language nor of the Aramaic language, but rather of the Persian language.


{Josh: To interject, this explanation by is not in accordance with the trup. First off, note the zakef-gadol on the word מִימִינוֹ. As a melech, it severs the word from the אֵשׁדָּת which follows it. Furthermore, there are two trup marks on the word אֵשׁדָּת, one on the אֵשׁ and one on the דָּת. That implies that these are two words, rather than a single word.}

The trup marks always agree with the krei. And here, the krei is esh dat, with two words. Therefore, perforce, the trup cannot agree with my explanation.


אֵשׁדָּת with a tav is not the construct form, such as {Tehillim 60:13}:

יג  הָבָה-לָּנוּ עֶזְרָת מִצָּר;    וְשָׁוְא, תְּשׁוּעַת אָדָם.13 Give us help against the adversary; for vain is the help of man.

{where ezrat is simply 'help', not 'help of X'}, and {Yeshaya 33:6}:

ו  וְהָיָה אֱמוּנַת עִתֶּיךָ, חֹסֶן יְשׁוּעֹת חָכְמַת וָדָעַת; יִרְאַת יְהוָה, הִיא אוֹצָרוֹ.  {פ}6 And the stability of thy times shall be a hoard of salvation--wisdom and knowledge, and the fear of the LORD which is His treasure. {P}


{where chochmat is 'wisdom', not 'wisdom of X'} and others like them."

End quote of Shadal.

For an example of someone who explicitly rejects the theory of Eshdat meaning 'slopes' as in Ashdot HaPisgah, see Ibn Janach:

"Eshdat is not from the language of Ashdot HaPishgah {Devarim 3:13}, as Avi Amar Ibn Yakvi had explained {that it was}. For they are two words grafted together, as the Targum and the author of the masorah had said, and it is the truth. (Sefer HaShorashim, 48)"

For a little bit more on on this Ibn Yakwi, see here, and in the footnote there:
See more about him here, as well.

Update: In the comment section, S. brings a nice idea by R' Eliyahu Bachur, in his commentary on Radak's sefer HaShorashim. See there, and this image, that does not list אשדת amongst other דת instances, because he regards it as a single word, as it is written, and from the language to ashdot hapisgah:


If so, here is someone else, a well-known Rishon, who endorses this.

Perhaps. Omission of a word is not necessarily compelling evidence. Does he list it under aleph for אשדות? Is there such an entry?

Update: See here in Shorashim:

where אשדת is not listed either. Perhaps he is just trying to steer clear of the doubt.

Monday, October 03, 2011

An alternate explanation of ה מִסִּינַי בָּא

Summary: The second pasuk of Zos Habracha reads:


ב  וַיֹּאמַר, ה מִסִּינַי בָּא וְזָרַח מִשֵּׂעִיר לָמוֹ--הוֹפִיעַ מֵהַר פָּארָן, וְאָתָה מֵרִבְבֹת קֹדֶשׁ; מִימִינוֹ, אשדת (אֵשׁ דָּת) לָמוֹ.2 And he said: The LORD came from Sinai, and rose from Seir unto them; He shined forth from mount Paran, and He came from the myriads holy, at His right hand was a fiery law unto them.


While the famous traditional explanation of the pasuk "Hashem miSinai ba..." is about mattan Torah, and Hashem offering the Torah to various nations first, the Ramban offers a competing explanation. The Tur follows in his path, quoting and excerpting the main points. What follows is the Tur, in his long commentary, where explains most of it as referring to Hashem's manifesting His Presence through the stay in the midbar.


Post:

ה מִסִּינַי בָּא -- the Ramban writes, 'as our Sages darshened (Avodah Zarah 2b) that this refers to mattan Torah, that the nations did not wish to receive it, and it mentions all the descendants of Abraham, that not one of them wished to receive it, and it was revealed as well to the other nations, and they did not wish to receive it, in accordance with the tradition {kabbalah}.


And it is possible to explain, מִסִּינַי בָּא -- that from there He began to manifest His Presence in Israel, and from then, it was not removed from them. For initially, the Glory descended upon Har Sinai, and there it was the entire time Moshe ascended and descended. And when the second luchot were given to him, the Glory dwelt in the tent of Moshe. And when the Mishkan was erected, the Glory dwelt in the Mishkan. And from there were all the Divine missives all the days of the wilderness.


וְזָרַח מִשֵּׂעִיר לָמוֹ -- that after they traveled from Sinai, in the first travel, the cloud dwelt in the wilderness of Paran, and from there he sent the scouts, and it was banished and the dibbur was not with Moshe until they arrived at Seir, at the border of the sons of Esav, at the end of the forty years, as is stated there {Devarim 2:7}, כִּי ה אֱלֹהֶיךָ בֵּרַכְךָ, בְּכֹל מַעֲשֵׂה יָדֶךָ, etc. And behold, then, when they came from Seir, Hashem was for them the light of the world, and they completed their time of mourning, and He commanded them to keep from Seir, Ammon, and Moav, and said to them that they should begin inheriting the land of Sikhon [sic] and Og.


הוֹפִיעַ מֵהַר פָּארָן -- that one looks at them, and there their situation is for a light of His face, from Har Paran {?}. For the beginning of their entering the Great Wilderness was from the wilderness of Paran, and from them, He shined forth upon them to see what they need in the Great Wilderness. From the language of {Iyov 10:3}:

ג  הֲטוֹב לְךָ, כִּי תַעֲשֹׁק--כִּי-תִמְאַס, יְגִיעַ כַּפֶּיךָ;    וְעַל-עֲצַת רְשָׁעִים הוֹפָעְתָּ.3 Is it good unto Thee that Thou shouldest oppress, that Thou shouldest despise the work of Thy hands, and shine upon the counsel of the wicked?


וְאָתָה מֵרִבְבֹת קֹדֶשׁ; מִימִינוֹ, אֵשׁ דָּת לָמוֹ -- to explain, there ascended upon them from the myriads holy, but from the right of his Glory there was for them the esh dat, and not from the aforementioned angels, but rather from the right of Hashem Himself.


אֵשׁ דָּת לָמוֹ -- to explain, that He showed them the Upper fire, and informed them of the Law, in the manner that it is stated {Devarim 4:36}:

לו  מִן-הַשָּׁמַיִם הִשְׁמִיעֲךָ אֶת-קֹלוֹ, לְיַסְּרֶךָּ; וְעַל-הָאָרֶץ, הֶרְאֲךָ אֶת-אִשּׁוֹ הַגְּדוֹלָה, וּדְבָרָיו שָׁמַעְתָּ, מִתּוֹךְ הָאֵשׁ.36 Out of heaven He made thee to hear His voice, that He might instruct thee; and upon earth He made thee to see His great fire; and thou didst hear His words out of the midst of the fire.


End quote of the Tur.

Note that even with this alternate explanation, at the end, it certainly is referring to mattan Torah. It is also mildly interesting how Ramban is willing to differ from 'kabbalah', received tradition, about the meaning of this pasuk. Not too surprising, though.

Other pashtanim explain it, as well, as not referring to the midrash of offering the Torah to other nations. See for instance Shadal. Though Shadal takes neither the start nor the end of the pasuk as referring to mattan Torah.

veZos HaBeracha sources

by aliyah
rishon (Devarim 33:1)
sheni (33:8)
shlishi (33:13)
revii (33:18)
chamishi (33:22)
shishi (33:27)
shvii (34:1)
haftara (Yehoshua 1) -- with Malbim

by perek
perek 33
perek 34

meforshim
Rashi, in English and Hebrew
Shadal (here and here)
Mishtadel
Daat -- with Rashi, Ramban, Seforno, Ibn Ezra, Rashbam, Rabbenu Bachya, Midrash Rabba, Tanchuma+, Gilyonot
Gilyonot Nechama Leibovitz (Hebrew)
Tiferes Yehonasan from Rav Yonasan Eibeshitz -- nothing on vezot habracha
Toldos Yizchak Acharon, repeated from Rav Yonasan Eibeshutz -- nothing until end
Chasdei Yehonasan -- not until end
Divrei Yehonasan
Even Shleimah -- from Rabbi Shlomo Zalman Ehrenreich
R' Saadia Gaon's Tafsir, Arabic translation of Torah (here and here)

Tuesday, September 21, 2010

Who buried Moshe? and what this has to do with post-Mosaic authorship

Summary: A most straightforward local reading of the pasuk is that an unspecified human being buried Moshe. Considering the context, why this is difficult to say, and why midash, Rashi, Ibn Ezra, and the Karaites all say otherwise. And how the alternative is a very late authorship for the last eight pesukim.

Post: Because the Torah states that "Moshe died there", Chazal discuss whether Yehoshua wrote the last eight pesukim of Chumash, or whether Moshe wrote it with tears. But there is another pasuk, just after this, which often flies under the radar. That pasuk reads:

6. And He buried him in the valley, in the land of Moab, opposite Beth Pe'or. And no person knows the place of his burial, unto this day.ו. וַיִּקְבֹּר אֹתוֹ בַגַּיְ בְּאֶרֶץ מוֹאָב מוּל בֵּית פְּעוֹר וְלֹא יָדַע אִישׁ אֶת קְבֻרָתוֹ עַד הַיּוֹם הַזֶּה:

What does it mean "he buried him", וַיִּקְבֹּר אֹתוֹ? If someone buried Moshe, how could the end of the very same pasuk state that "no person known the place of his burial until this day"? Whoever buried him would know!

That the identity of this person is not specified is not problematic. This is where, typically, a parshan would say vayikbor -- hakover. The unspecified person who buried him buried him. Compare this to the end of sefer Bereishit, with Rashi's commentary.

1. Now it came to pass after these incidents that [someone] said to Joseph, "Behold, your father is ill." So he took his two sons with him, Manasseh and Ephraim.א. וַיְהִי אַחֲרֵי הַדְּבָרִים הָאֵלֶּה וַיֹּאמֶר לְיוֹסֵף הִנֵּה אָבִיךָ חֹלֶה וַיִּקַּח אֶת שְׁנֵי בָנָיו עִמּוֹ אֶת מְנַשֶּׁה וְאֶת אֶפְרָיִם:
that [someone] said to Joseph: One of the tellers, and this is an elliptical verse. Some say, however, that Ephraim was accustomed to study with Jacob, and when Jacob became ill in the land of Goshen, Ephraim went to his father to Egypt to tell him.ויאמר ליוסף: אחד מן המגידים, והרי זה מקרא קצר. ויש אומרים אפרים היה רגיל לפני יעקב בתלמוד, וכשחלה יעקב בארץ גושן, הלך אפרים אצל אביו למצרים והגיד לו:


vayomer without specification who did it. So who told? One of the tellers, that is, an unnamed person. Yet we don't say here vayikbor -- echad min hakovrim. And this is because then there would be someone who knew of Moshe's precise burial place, which would go against the end of the very same pasuk.

Thus, in zot haBracha, Rashi writes:

And He buried him: i.e., The Holy One, blessed is He, Himself, in His very glory [buried Moses]. — [Sotah 14a] Rabbi Ishmael, however, says that [the words“And he buried him” mean that] Moses buried himself. And this אֶת in the phrase here וַיִּקְבֹּר אוֹתוֹ is one of the three instances of the אֶת in Scripture which Rabbi Ishmael expounded on in this way [i.e., where the suffix attached אֶת is understood to be reflexive, meaning “to himself” , “to themselves” , and so on]. And similar to this case [are the following two instances]:“On the day when his Nazirite vow is completed, he must bring him (אֹתוֹ) ” (Num. 6:13), which means, “he shall bring himself” [i.e., present himself]. And likewise,“And they cause them (אוֹתָם) to bear the sin of their guilt” (Lev. 22:16). Surely does this refer to others causing them to bear that sin? Rather, the verse must mean that they cause themselves to bear the sin. — [Sifrei Nasso 32:124]ויקבר אותו: הקב"ה בכבודו. רבי ישמעאל אומר הוא קבר את עצמו, וזהו אחד משלשה אתין שהיה רבי ישמעאל דורש כן. כיוצא בו (במדבר ו, יג) ביום מלאת ימי נזרו יביא אותו, הוא מביא את עצמו. כיוצא בו (ויקרא כב, טז) והשיאו אותם עון אשמה, וכי אחרים משיאים אותם, אלא הם משיאים את עצמם:


vayikbor is thus referring to the actions of Hashem. Why? Because this way no man saw, or knows, his burial place. Alternatively, he buried himself, and it is reflexive. And Rabbi Yishmael darshens other ets in this manner, as reflexive. It can work out grammatically, or one can put forth a solid argument that it does. Yet it still feels a bit forced.

Ibn Ezra argues, as well, that it was Moshe burying himself, and gives other textual evidence of this grammatical phenomenon. Thus:
לד, ו]
ויקבר אותו -
הוא קבר עצמו, שנכנס במערה בגיא.
וכן: וירעו הרועים אותם.
ויראו שוטרי בני ישראל אותם. 


He is driven by the same motivation, to make the peshat in this pasuk work.

Shadal subscribes to the first explanation proffered by Rashi, or something akin to it:
ו ויקבור וגו ': כלו ' נקבר ברצון ה ' דרך נס בלא קובר.

I saw a rather interesting explanation from R' Eleazar miGermayza. He is bothered more by the precise specification of the place of Moshe's burial, followed by the assertion that no man knows the place. We could answer that there is a difference between general area and precise location. But what he writes is:

ולא ידע איש את קבורתו וכו' ה׳ זוגות
נקברו במערה ג׳ נגלות וב׳ נסתרות:
הגלויים הם אברהם ושרה יצחק ורבקה יעקב
ולאה : והנסתרים הם אדם וחוה משה וצפורה
ואע״פ שעל משה נאמר ויקבור אותו בגי, זהו
למשל, כי זה הפסוק מכחיש לזה שאמרו לא ידע
איש את קבורתו, אלו ואלו דברי אלהים חיים:
אמת שלא ידע איש את קבורתו אלא המלאכים
והראי׳ כי מנגד תראה הארץ ושמה לא תבא
בעצמך אלא יביאך בטהרך וזה למה ששם נקבר
משה על ידי המלאכים : ועל אדם וחוה יש להן
ענין קבלה לזה מדרבנן, ע״כ :

I hope I am interpreting this correctly. Moshe and Tzippora were one of the pairs buried in the Maarat Hamachpelah. The well-known pairs are Avraham and Sarah, Yitzchak and Rivkah, Yaakov and Leah, and Adam and Chava. But he is adding here Moshe and Tzipporah! That the pasuk explicitly states otherwise, that he buried him in the valley is not true on the literal level. For if it were so, the Torah also states that no man knows his burial place. Eilu veEilu, but just it is not literally, or historically. Rather, it is true on an allegorical level. He doesn't explain just what that allegorical meaning is. I think it is dangerous to label random narrative pesukim as allegorical. Who knows? Next he may be saying Avraham and Sarah never existed, but were stand-ins for tzurah and chomer. :)

At any rate, no one human knows Moshe's burial, because they angels buried him, and this was in the Cave of the Patriarchs.

Here is the Chizkuni on the matter:
ויקבור אותו בגיא •
שלשה סימנים נתנו במקום קבורתו של משה שאמר
בגיא ובאי זה גיא בְּאֶרֶץ מוֹאָב ובאי זה מקום מול בית
פעור ואפילו הכי לא ידע איש את קבורתו ללמדך שלא
קברו איש: עד היום הזה ־ שלא יקבר איש אצלו
כענין שנעשה בבית אל ושלא ידרשו בו שואלי מתים

Thus, no man knew his burial, despite all these particular identifying details of the location, is because no human being buried him. Until this day -- that was buried by him, as was done by Bet El, and so that those who consult the dead don't do so for him.

So Chizkuni also understands that there was no human burier. There are other meforshim who say the same, either similar to the first or second answer of Rashi, but I will not belabor the point.

But again, if we ignored the context of the end of the pasuk, what would seem the most straightforward, from a grammatical perspective, is that there was a human being who buried him.Perhaps Yehoshua, or perhaps whatever chevra kadisha they had in those days. And that that this was after he descended from the mountain he ascended in the first pasuk of the perek. And he was buried in the valley, and the people who buried him, and Yehoshua, certainly knew where he is buried.

Despite this, the end of the pasuk states וְלֹא יָדַע אִישׁ אֶת קְבֻרָתוֹ עַד הַיּוֹם הַזֶּה. I would point out that ad hayom hazeh is a bit strange, even for Yehoshua to write. If Yehoshua wrote it just after Moshe's death, is a day or two ad hayom hazeh? Is it surprising? I suppose it could be 40 years later, after the partial conquering of the land of Canaan, but even this doesn't feel like it merits an "even until this day". They didn't know the place, and the same folks still don't know the burial place? Where is the chiddush? (In answer, we could always say that this was written beRuach haKodesh for any future time.)

Operating on a peshat level, and for the moment pushing aside theological considerations, a simple answer for all this is that this was written by a much later editor, such as Chizkiyahu, Yirmeyahu, Ezra, or the Anshei Knesset HaGedolah. If so, Moshe was buried by a human being, as is the simplest meaning of the pasuk. And they knew precisely where he was buried. But we only know the general area, that it was somewhere in this valley. Nowadays, until today, we don't know where he was buried.

Even Ibn Ezra, who propounds a post-Mosaic authorship of the last twelve pesukim, does not say this. He says that Yehoshua wrote these last pasukim. And that Moshe buried himself. Why doesn't he say as I just suggested? Well, there are theological problems with a really late author, which do not exist if it is a really early post-Mosaic author. Yehoshua was Moshe's attendant, who took over directly from him and who had prophecy. This would be understood as finishing up what needed finishing up, at the direction of Hashem. Late editing, on the other hand, looks much more like corrupting the Biblical text. We see that Ibn Ezra considered the books of Yitzchaki worthy of being burnt (here and here), and strenuously rejected Yitzchaki's suggestion that certain pesukim in Bereishit were written in the days of Yehoshafat.

LinkWithin

Blog Widget by LinkWithin