I said I wouldn't have a chance to post on this parsha, but the pull was too strong. I present here a discussion of a grammatical point - but a non-boring one namely, from where did the blasphemer leave - how do we understand וַיֵּצֵא, and how do we understand בְּתוֹךְ בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל. I present the approach that various
classical interpreters take to this question, and try to provide a framework for understanding their respective approaches.
Of course I often digress along the way. These digressions are worthy of being posts in their own right, but I do not have the time.
In parshat Emor, we are introduced to the blasphemer. The English translation prejudices us somewhat, so disregard it for now.
Vayikra 24:10:
| י וַיֵּצֵא, בֶּן-אִשָּׁה יִשְׂרְאֵלִית, וְהוּא בֶּן-אִישׁ מִצְרִי, בְּתוֹךְ בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל; וַיִּנָּצוּ, בַּמַּחֲנֶה, בֶּן הַיִּשְׂרְאֵלִית, וְאִישׁ הַיִּשְׂרְאֵלִי. | 10 And the son of an Israelitish woman, whose father was an Egyptian, went out among the children of Israel; and the son of the Israelitish woman and a man of Israel strove together in the camp. |
The verse begins וַיֵּצֵא. From where did he go out? If he left, he must have left from someplace. Indeed, when we see the transitive verb וַיֵּצֵא, we expect to have as the direct object the place from which he left. Thus in parshat Vayeitzei,
vayeitzei yaakov mi-be`er sheva, Yaakov left from Beer Sheva. Vayelech has the connotation of destination. Thus it continues
vayelech Charana, and he went to Charan. It is striking that it simply states וַיֵּצֵא and leaves it at that.
This is the prompt. Rashi, who is a pashtan who we consider a darshan based on modern definitions of peshat and derash, cites a few "midrashic" explanation of this strange construct. Namely, Rabbi Levi said that "he went from his world."
Just an interjection: from which world?
perhaps of religiousity, perhaps from Olam HaBa, by sinning, or perhaps from his life in this world.
I would note that Rabbi Levi says exactly the same thing in parshat Toldot, namely
meOlamo yatza, but he says it on
Bereishit 25:34, after Esav sells and despises his birthright:
| לד וְיַעֲקֹב נָתַן לְעֵשָׂו, לֶחֶם וּנְזִיד עֲדָשִׁים, וַיֹּאכַל וַיֵּשְׁתְּ, וַיָּקָם וַיֵּלַךְ; וַיִּבֶז עֵשָׂו, אֶת-הַבְּכֹרָה. {פ} | 34 And Jacob gave Esau bread and pottage of lentils; and he did eat and drink, and rose up, and went his way. So Esau despised his birthright. |
Which implies that is a religious leaving, I suppose meaning that he lost his portion in the world to come.
Note a variant of Rabbi Levi's statement from the one cited from Torat Kohanim is one in
Midrash Rabba 32:3, which continues by citing a verse similar in nature as an example:
מהיכן יצא?
ר' לוי אמר: יצא מעולמו, כמה דאת אמר: (ש"א י"ז): ויצא איש הבינים.
That is, it cites the pasuk by Goliath, who insults the Israelites and in the process insults God. We see this from David's characterization: (See
Shmuel Aleph 17)
| כו וַיֹּאמֶר דָּוִד, אֶל-הָאֲנָשִׁים הָעֹמְדִים עִמּוֹ לֵאמֹר, מַה-יֵּעָשֶׂה לָאִישׁ אֲשֶׁר יַכֶּה אֶת-הַפְּלִשְׁתִּי הַלָּז, וְהֵסִיר חֶרְפָּה מֵעַל יִשְׂרָאֵל: כִּי מִי, הַפְּלִשְׁתִּי הֶעָרֵל הַזֶּה, כִּי חֵרֵף, מַעַרְכוֹת אֱלֹהִים חַיִּים. | 26 And David spoke to the men that stood by him, saying: 'What shall be done to the man that killeth this Philistine, and taketh away the taunt from Israel? for who is this uncircumcised Philistine, that he should have taunted the armies of the living God?' |
There, about Goliath, it is written:
| ד וַיֵּצֵא אִישׁ-הַבֵּנַיִם מִמַּחֲנוֹת פְּלִשְׁתִּים, גָּלְיָת שְׁמוֹ מִגַּת: גָּבְהוֹ, שֵׁשׁ אַמּוֹת וָזָרֶת. | 4 And there went out a champion from the camp of the Philistines, named Goliath, of Gath, whose height was six cubits and a span. |
If this verse is to be read in the same light, what does Rabbi Levi mean? He can mean that Goliath sinned with his insults, or perhaps that he will take leave of the world by dying. Thus, I will leave the meaning of Rabbi Levi's statement up from grabs until such time as a have enough time, and recall, to research the general meaning of this phrase.
Siftei Chachamim has a brilliant and insightful, though I am not certain true, explanation of Rabbi Levi's derivation. Namely, Rabbi Levi relied on
semichut. Since a source location is not given, we look to what is immediately preceding. To cite the previous pasuk, in order to provide context:
| ט וְהָיְתָה לְאַהֲרֹן וּלְבָנָיו, וַאֲכָלֻהוּ בְּמָקוֹם קָדֹשׁ: כִּי קֹדֶשׁ קָדָשִׁים הוּא לוֹ, מֵאִשֵּׁי יְהוָה--חָק-עוֹלָם. {ס} | 9 And it shall be for Aaron and his sons; and they shall eat it in a holy place; for it is most holy unto him of the offerings of the LORD made by fire, a perpetual due.' {S} |
| י וַיֵּצֵא, בֶּן-אִשָּׁה יִשְׂרְאֵלִית, וְהוּא בֶּן-אִישׁ מִצְרִי, בְּתוֹךְ בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל; וַיִּנָּצוּ, בַּמַּחֲנֶה, בֶּן הַיִּשְׂרְאֵלִית, וְאִישׁ הַיִּשְׂרְאֵלִי. | 10 And the son of an Israelitish woman, whose father was an Egyptian, went out among the children of Israel; and the son of the Israelitish woman and a man of Israel strove together in the camp. |
Thus, the immediately preceding word is עוֹלָם, and so the blasphemer went out from his עוֹלָם. Brilliant! And it used
semichut from the previous
parsha, which we shall see in a moment is exactly what Rabbi Levi's disputant, Rabbi Berechia, does. On the other hand, there is no such context of
semichut by Esav selling the birthright, so we will have a situation of inconsistency of
derasha, which is not optimal, though of course possible. That Rabbi Levi in the Midrash Rabba version cites the pasuk about Goliath suggests an alternate derivation - that this is an acceptable sense of
vayeitzei, or in Esav's case,
vayelech, when it stands alone without an NP complement designated from where or to where. It also suggests learning implication of verbs from their use elsewhere in Tanach, a sort of informal
gezeira shava (though I think the original), which is clearly an alternate derivation to that of Siftei Chachamim. However, often derivations can work in tandem, reinforcing one another.
Rashi cites another explanation, that of Rabbi Berechia. Namely, he went out from the previous
parsha (section bracketed by
petuchot and
setumot). That section is:
| ה וְלָקַחְתָּ סֹלֶת--וְאָפִיתָ אֹתָהּ, שְׁתֵּים עֶשְׂרֵה חַלּוֹת; שְׁנֵי, עֶשְׂרֹנִים, יִהְיֶה, הַחַלָּה הָאֶחָת. | 5 And thou shalt take fine flour, and bake twelve cakes thereof: two tenth parts of an ephah shall be in one cake. |
| ו וְשַׂמְתָּ אוֹתָם שְׁתַּיִם מַעֲרָכוֹת, שֵׁשׁ הַמַּעֲרָכֶת, עַל הַשֻּׁלְחָן הַטָּהֹר, לִפְנֵי יְהוָה. | 6 And thou shalt set them in two rows, six in a row, upon the pure table before the LORD. |
| ז וְנָתַתָּ עַל-הַמַּעֲרֶכֶת, לְבֹנָה זַכָּה; וְהָיְתָה לַלֶּחֶם לְאַזְכָּרָה, אִשֶּׁה לַיהוָה. | 7 And thou shalt put pure frankincense with each row, that it may be to the bread for a memorial-part, even an offering made by fire unto the LORD. |
| ח בְּיוֹם הַשַּׁבָּת בְּיוֹם הַשַּׁבָּת, יַעַרְכֶנּוּ לִפְנֵי יְהוָה--תָּמִיד: מֵאֵת בְּנֵי-יִשְׂרָאֵל, בְּרִית עוֹלָם. | 8 Every sabbath day he shall set it in order before the LORD continually; it is from the children of Israel, an everlasting covenant. |
| ט וְהָיְתָה לְאַהֲרֹן וּלְבָנָיו, וַאֲכָלֻהוּ בְּמָקוֹם קָדֹשׁ: כִּי קֹדֶשׁ קָדָשִׁים הוּא לוֹ, מֵאִשֵּׁי יְהוָה--חָק-עוֹלָם. {ס} | 9 And it shall be for Aaron and his sons; and they shall eat it in a holy place; for it is most holy unto him of the offerings of the LORD made by fire, a perpetual due.' {S} |
The blasphemer mocked, since kings eat warm fresh bread every day while God is relegated to eating 9 day old bread. That led him eventually to blaspheme. Once again, looking to context to explain the same problem - from whence did the blasphemer leave?
Rashi also cited another midrashic explantion, that he left the courtroom of Moshe. He was upset at losing the verdict about living within Dan, the tribe of his mother. Analyzing how midrashim fit together based on a lot of scriptural cues is something I like to do, but would be too much of a digression here. Perhaps a later post. Just some pointers. The word בַּמַּחֲנֶה in the וַיִּנָּצוּ בַּמַּחֲנֶה. The word וַיִּנָּצוּ carrying the implication of a legal fight. The statement וְהוּא בֶּן-אִישׁ מִצְרִי בְּתוֹךְ בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל giving the unique legal situation and problem, together with his claim. Perhaps וַיָּבִיאוּ אֹתוֹ אֶל-מֹשֶׁה in the next verse. The otherwise unnecessary statement וְשֵׁם אִמּוֹ שְׁלֹמִית בַּת-דִּבְרִי לְמַטֵּה-דָן. The connotation of
shem to mean
nachalah clearly on a
peshat level in other contexts. Enough said. There is plenty of fodder here for analysis. Never think a midrash is pat, or that it creates details
yesh meAyin.
Ibn Ezra has a simple answer. He left his tent. Ibn Ezra cites a verse of people leaving their tents.
Perhaps, one should not think this is a mere leaving of tents. Ibn Ezra's choice of verse may show the
emotional implication of leaving. He cites B
amidbar (deliberate spelling)
16:27:
| כז וַיֵּעָלוּ, מֵעַל מִשְׁכַּן-קֹרַח דָּתָן וַאֲבִירָם--מִסָּבִיב; וְדָתָן וַאֲבִירָם יָצְאוּ נִצָּבִים, פֶּתַח אָהֳלֵיהֶם, וּנְשֵׁיהֶם וּבְנֵיהֶם, וְטַפָּם. | 27 So they got them up from the dwelling of Korah, Dathan, and Abiram, on every side; and Dathan and Abiram came out, and stood at the door of their tents, with their wives, and their sons, and their little ones. |
about Datan and Aviram leaving their tents in order to rebel. Thus, there is deliberate choice in this word to convey the idea of rebellion. This man
left his tent and rebelled against God. At least this is one way to read Ibn Ezra. Otherwise, he just left his tent, because where else would he be leaving from?
Alternatively, Ibn Ezra reads no emotion into it. Rather, this is an observation of how the word
vayeitzei reflects life in the wilderness. Since the source from which he left is left implicit, we must look within Tanach, within the same situation, and see from another narrative section that people left from tents, so it is in association with homes that this verb occurs. I believe this detached reading of Ibn Ezra to be more accurate.
Targum Yonatan has a great answer, and it has great homiletic possibilies. He left froim Egypt. Pesumably this means he left from Egypt with the other Israelites (perhaps connecting this to בְּתוֹךְ בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל later in the verse), or else is explanatory, that this man comes from somewhere - namely, he left Egypt in the Exodus, since he had an Israelite mother. The homiletic possibilities stem from the emphasis of the verse on the fact that the blasphemer is ungracious and unaffected by witnessing the miracles and loving-kindness directed towards the Israelites (and him) as he left Egypt.
Ramban has a compelling answer, in that we may omit the source location, which is implicit, and the word וַיֵּצֵא is to be connected with בְּתוֹךְ בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל later in the verse. Thus he went out in public. From where he went out - well, it obviously must have been from a private location, presumably a house or tent. He cites another example of this, where source location is not specified while destination is, when Mordechai went out into the midst of the city.
Esther 4:1:
| א וּמָרְדֳּכַי, יָדַע אֶת-כָּל-אֲשֶׁר נַעֲשָׂה, וַיִּקְרַע מָרְדֳּכַי אֶת-בְּגָדָיו, וַיִּלְבַּשׁ שַׂק וָאֵפֶר; וַיֵּצֵא בְּתוֹךְ הָעִיר, וַיִּזְעַק זְעָקָה גְדוֹלָה וּמָרָה. | 1 Now when Mordecai knew all that was done, Mordecai rent his clothes, and put on sackcloth with ashes, and went out into the midst of the city, and cried with a loud and a bitter cry; |
We might emphasise here the result, which I believe is true. Namely, while beforehand I stated that we expect
vayeitzei to specify from where he left and
vayelech to specify to where he is going, in truth, we can specify either. That is,
vayeitzei to someplace is acceptable, and we can leave the source location implicit. Further, this seems to be the case here. To cite the verse again, this time paying attention to the English translation:
| י וַיֵּצֵא, בֶּן-אִשָּׁה יִשְׂרְאֵלִית, וְהוּא בֶּן-אִישׁ מִצְרִי, בְּתוֹךְ בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל; וַיִּנָּצוּ, בַּמַּחֲנֶה, בֶּן הַיִּשְׂרְאֵלִית, וְאִישׁ הַיִּשְׂרְאֵלִי. | 10 And the son of an Israelitish woman, whose father was an Egyptian, went out among the children of Israel; and the son of the Israelitish woman and a man of Israel strove together in the camp. |
Note how "among the children of Israel" is given as a specification of the verb "went out."
How do other commentators make sense of בְּתוֹךְ בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל? The connection to the verb וַיֵּצֵא is not immediately obvious, since it is distanced by several words. We might read בְּתוֹךְ בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל in another light.
Namely, Rashi explains that בְּתוֹךְ בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל means that he converted. Who converted? The standard assumption is that Rashi means that the blasphemer converted. Why would conversion be necessary? Did he not have an Israelite mother? And did not everyone "convert" at Mt. Sinai? See Siftei Chachamim for an explanation of this subject. In part we might view this as a defense. After all, Rashi, adopting a closed-canon approach, explains that the Egyptian father was the Egyptian man Moshe smote in Egpyt.
Digression to explain this excellent midrashic connection. Firstly, in both cases the phrase
ish mitzri is used. In
Shemot 2:14:
| יא וַיְהִי בַּיָּמִים הָהֵם, וַיִּגְדַּל מֹשֶׁה וַיֵּצֵא אֶל-אֶחָיו, וַיַּרְא, בְּסִבְלֹתָם; וַיַּרְא אִישׁ מִצְרִי, מַכֶּה אִישׁ-עִבְרִי מֵאֶחָיו. | 11 And it came to pass in those days, when Moses was grown up, that he went out unto his brethren, and looked on their burdens; and he saw an Egyptian smiting a Hebrew, one of his brethren. |
Furthermore, there is a general pull to not leave any otherwise unknown person unidentified. And the closed canon approach tells us to look within Tanach to find someone. But what really influences the search here is that the Israelite mother
is identified. וְשֵׁם אִמּוֹ שְׁלֹמִית בַּת-דִּבְרִי, לְמַטֵּה-דָן.
End digression within digression.
I would suggest that perhaps Rashi is stating that the
Egyptian father is the one who converted, rather than the
blasphemer. That is, the phrase is וְהוּא בֶּן-אִישׁ מִצְרִי, בְּתוֹךְ בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל. To whom, and to what, does בְּתוֹךְ בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל. We had assumed that Rashi meant that it attached to
vehu. I posit it attaches to
ish mitzri. This is an Egyptian man from amongst the Israelites.
The benefit of this is that we do not have a case of rape. We do not have a case of seduction. We do not have a case of intermarriage. Rather, the Egyptian properly converted and married Shlomit. However, as a convert, he had no tribal affiliation. Beautiful.
Note this accords with Ibn Ezra on a different word in this verse. He states on בֶּן-אִישׁ מִצְרִי -
mityahed, that he converted. Presumably Ibn Ezra refers to the Egyptian father, not the blasphemer. Does Ibn Ezra read this phrase the same way Rashi does? I would suggest that yes, indeed he does!
Note that this interpretation of Rashi is in conflict with what he said just above, that the father was the Egyptian taskmaster killed by Moshe! Indeed, I believe it is a contradiction, and Rashi presents both a midrashic explanation and a peshat based interpretation side by side, just as he often does.
Another one who similarly interprets בְּתוֹךְ בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל is Targum Yonatan. He states
viledat bar bego benei yisrael, that the Egyptian taskmaster killed an Israelite (interesting twist on the midrash not often emphasized!) and had sex with wife, and had a son within the Benei Yisrael. Thus the phrase is connected with the birthing, the having of the son, and not with the word וַיֵּצֵא.
Thus, we may array the mighty army of Rashi, Ibn Ezra, and Targum Yonatan, who all divorce וַיֵּצֵא from בְּתוֹךְ בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל, against Ramban, who connects the two quite convincingly.
(Of course, Ibn Ezra might agree with Ramban. We cannot really tell based upon what he wrote explicitly. See what I wrote above though.)
And, whether we connect the two can lead us to whether we need to grant one or both of the two a different explanation.
My SolutionThe above is my initial analysis of the commentators. Each has pros and cons. Now I present my own take on the
pasuk, in which I suggest an alternative.
From where did the blasphemer leave?
He didn't. And the verse
does not say that he does. The word וַיֵּצֵא is empty.
Let me explain. There is a related word,
halach, which sometimes means travelled, and sometimes serves another, special purpose. It modified another verb, suggesting that it is a continuous action. Thus, in
I Shmuel 2:26:
| כו וְהַנַּעַר שְׁמוּאֵל, הֹלֵךְ וְגָדֵל וָטוֹב: גַּם, עִם-יְהוָה, וְגַם, עִם-אֲנָשִׁים. {פ} | 26 And the child Samuel grew on, and increased in favour both with the LORD, and also with men. |
Shmuel does not walk and grow, rather he continued to grow.
You might dispute this one, but anyway, from the fight with Goliath in
I Shmuel 17:41:
| מא וַיֵּלֶךְ, הַפְּלִשְׁתִּי, הֹלֵךְ וְקָרֵב, אֶל-דָּוִד; וְהָאִישׁ נֹשֵׂא הַצִּנָּה, לְפָנָיו. | 41 And the Philistine came nearer and nearer unto David; and the man that bore the shield went before him. |
it is not that he walked and came closer, but rather, he continuously came closer - that is, nearer and nearer.
In
II Shmuel 3:1:
| א וַתְּהִי הַמִּלְחָמָה, אֲרֻכָּה, בֵּין בֵּית שָׁאוּל, וּבֵין בֵּית דָּוִד; וְדָוִד הֹלֵךְ וְחָזֵק, וּבֵית שָׁאוּל הֹלְכִים וְדַלִּים. {ס} | 1 Now there was long war between the house of Saul and the house of David; and David waxed stronger and stronger, but the house of Saul waxed weaker and weaker. {S} |
Did David walk an become stronger. Firstly, David here means the house of David. He grew stronger and stronger. Continuous action is implied.
There are many many other such examples, which you may feel free to explore on your own. Thus
holech does not always describe its own action, but may support another action.
I will now claim, and support the claim, that
vayeitzei can also serve as a support verb. It is used in the
resumptive case, when one wants to convey action, but must digress with some lengthy element, before resuming.
Thus,
vayeitzei is
not connected with
betoch benei yisrael. Rather, it is connected with וַיִּנָּצוּ (or perhaps even with וַיִּקֹּב in the next verse.) One of the participants in this action, the son of the Israelite woman, needed a deep introduction, so once he is mentioned, the verse digresses to give further details. The action resumes in וַיִּנָּצוּ.
Or somewhat more awkwardly, but better syntactically (since number then matches), the action resumes with וַיִּקֹּב, which after all was what we wanted to get to. The digression then not only includes the background of the person but the background of the action.
Thus, וַיֵּצֵא does not stand alone denoting leaving, nor is is connected with בְּתוֹךְ בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל, but rather served as an auxiliary verb to introduce the subject when there is a lengthy description of the subject, or some other necessary digression.
Meanwhile, בְּתוֹךְ בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל could attach as it does in my Ibn Ezra/Rashi interpretation.
The current verse is perhaps not the best place to argue for this construction of the auxiliary
vayeitzei. Let me present another two, where it is perhaps clearer.
The best example, I would think, is in
Shemot 2:1, though with the word
vayelech serving in this role:
| א וַיֵּלֶךְ אִישׁ, מִבֵּית לֵוִי; וַיִּקַּח, אֶת-בַּת-לֵוִי. | 1 And there went a man of the house of Levi, and took to wife a daughter of Levi. |
As I have discussed elsewhere, there is a stylistic and narrative reason within the narrative to avoid giving actual names in this section. Had the verse named Amram and Yocheved by name, it could have said:
vayyiqqah amram et Yocheved leIsha or the equivalent.
However, once we call him an
ish miBet Levi, a man from the house of Levi, we have a complex Noun Phrase, involving a noun specifier, a Prepositional Phrase, a preposition, another noun phrase, a noun specifier and Noun Phrase complement, and finally a noun. (Just describing the X-bar tree construction of the NP.)
Once we have all this intervening syntactic structure, we want to help this out by using the auxiliary. Thus, we introduce the fact that there is an action and that there is a subject.
Vayelech Complex-Subject
then we resume with Verb Object,
Vayikach Object.
Otherwise, what will we say to explain the exact meaning of
vayelech? Did he leave somewhere? Is he going somewhere. The fact that it states וַיֵּלֶךְ אִיש מִבֵּית לֵוִי does not mean that he left the physical house of Levi with Levi's daughter, though that would make an awesome midrash! Rather, it is as I said.
Another
possible example of this, with the word
vayeitzei, is in parshat Vayeitzei. In
Bereishit 28:10:
| י וַיֵּצֵא יַעֲקֹב, מִבְּאֵר שָׁבַע; וַיֵּלֶךְ, חָרָנָה. | 10 And Jacob went out from Beer-sheba, and went toward Haran. |
The exact
peshat and midrashic implications of this pasuk are complex, and I have discussed it in some detail elsewhere. However, perhaps this is another instance of
vayeitzei as an
auxiliary verb, where the
vayelech is from Beer Sheva to Charan. On the other hand, here
vayeitzei has an obvious meaning in context.
All of this is of course speculative.
In terms of which I think is correct, I believe all are possible and have merit. Simplest of course is Ramban, but I just love the Ibn Ezra as
vayeitzei = leaving unspecified location and Ibn Ezra/Rashi reconstruction for the meaning of
betoch benei yisrael.
