Friday, January 13, 2012
Received by email. This is at the Young Israel of Queens Valley.
a
We cordially invite the entire community to come join us in this very special Shabbos with very special children.
Friday Night Mincha: 4:40pm
Oneg Shabbos: 8:00pm
Shabbos Shachris: 8:45am
Gala Melave Malka: 8:00pm
Looking forward to greeting you!
Chedvah and Eli Rowe
And
180 campers and counselors from the chai lifeline family
a
Thursday, January 12, 2012
Why translate that Pharaoh did not *chakim* Yosef?
Summary: I disagree with the idea that Tg Yonasan is channeling Kli Yakar and saying that Pharaoh did not learn from Yosef's history. Rather, חכים simply means 'recognize' in Aramaic.
Post: Consider the following explanation of Targum Yonasan, from Em LaMikra:
"And a new king arose over Egypt who knew not Yosef:
And it is written in Targum Yonasan ben Uziel: who did not chakim Yosef and did not go in his [previous] laws.
And this requires explanation, what is his intent in 'who did not chakim Yosef'? And it is seems good to explain this based on what the Kli Yakar wrote:
And based on this, it is possible to say that this is the meaning of 'and he did not chakim Yosef', that he did not make himself wise {learn} from the history of Yosef, that the word of the Lord stands forever, and that man does not prevail by might."
An interesting explanation of this Targum Yonasan, but I think it is pretty unlikely.
Often, when Targum Yonasan offers two explanations covering the same ground, the first is a simple, more literal explanation, while the second is a more midrashic explanation. This is the case in this instance as well. In translating אשר לא ידע את יוסף, Tg Yonatan first explains 'who did not chakim Yosef', and then explains, on that same phrase, 'and did not go in his [previous] laws'.
The second explanation is midrashic. It is drawn from Sotah 11a:
The first explanation should be a more literal one, not something so creative and expansive as found in the Kli Yakar.
Indeed, unless this was intended as remez or derash, translating חכים as becoming wise seems like a mistranslation. Rather, חכם is a knowledge word, just like ידע. And it is an Aramaic cognate of the Hebrew word. But when you have cognates, they don't always carry the precise shade of meaning they have in the parallel languages. (Compare French maison, 'house', with its English cognate, mansion.) So חכים is a knowledge word in Aramaic. But here is what it means:
See meaning #2, 'to recognize, to know, to remember.' And we can even see from Targum Yerushalmi on Vayeshev (a variant of Pseudo-Yonatan) the word חכם in this sense, on 37:33, translating ויכירה.
As such, there is no need to go to such lengths.
Post: Consider the following explanation of Targum Yonasan, from Em LaMikra:
And it is written in Targum Yonasan ben Uziel: who did not chakim Yosef and did not go in his [previous] laws.
And this requires explanation, what is his intent in 'who did not chakim Yosef'? And it is seems good to explain this based on what the Kli Yakar wrote:
Who did not know Yosef: for he did not know what happened to Yosef. For his brothers endeavored with all strength to destroy him and to nullify his dreams, and all their plots they plotted did not succeed, for the Will of God was with Yosef, to make him great, and the word of our God stands forever. So did Pharaoh say 'lest they increase' against the Will of God, Yisbarach, who said 'so shall they increase', and thought plans upon them, and was not successful, just as Yosef's brothers were not successful.See there.
And based on this, it is possible to say that this is the meaning of 'and he did not chakim Yosef', that he did not make himself wise {learn} from the history of Yosef, that the word of the Lord stands forever, and that man does not prevail by might."
An interesting explanation of this Targum Yonasan, but I think it is pretty unlikely.
Often, when Targum Yonasan offers two explanations covering the same ground, the first is a simple, more literal explanation, while the second is a more midrashic explanation. This is the case in this instance as well. In translating אשר לא ידע את יוסף, Tg Yonatan first explains 'who did not chakim Yosef', and then explains, on that same phrase, 'and did not go in his [previous] laws'.
The second explanation is midrashic. It is drawn from Sotah 11a:
or alternatively, it is a reference to the (perhaps slightly more midrashic than standard) explanation found in Targum Onkelos:Now there arose a new king etc.17 Rab and Samuel [differ in their interpretation]; one said that he was really new, while the other said that his decrees were made new. He who said that he was really new did so because it is written 'new'; and he who said that his decrees were made new did so because it is not stated that [the former king] died and he reigned [in his stead].Who knew not Joseph — he was like one who did not know [Joseph] at all.
| א,ח וַיָּקָם מֶלֶךְ-חָדָשׁ, עַל-מִצְרָיִם, אֲשֶׁר לֹא-יָדַע, אֶת-יוֹסֵף. | וְקָם מַלְכָּא חֲדַתָּא, עַל מִצְרָיִם, דְּלָא מְקַיֵּים, גְּזֵירַת יוֹסֵף. |
The first explanation should be a more literal one, not something so creative and expansive as found in the Kli Yakar.
Indeed, unless this was intended as remez or derash, translating חכים as becoming wise seems like a mistranslation. Rather, חכם is a knowledge word, just like ידע. And it is an Aramaic cognate of the Hebrew word. But when you have cognates, they don't always carry the precise shade of meaning they have in the parallel languages. (Compare French maison, 'house', with its English cognate, mansion.) So חכים is a knowledge word in Aramaic. But here is what it means:
See meaning #2, 'to recognize, to know, to remember.' And we can even see from Targum Yerushalmi on Vayeshev (a variant of Pseudo-Yonatan) the word חכם in this sense, on 37:33, translating ויכירה.
As such, there is no need to go to such lengths.
Was the new king over Egypt from the zera hamelucha?
Summary: Considering Ibn Ezra's fit of 'prophecy'.
Post: In parashat Shemot:
Rashi explains:
Presumably, the reinterpretation of asher lo yada is more necessary (only necessary?) according to the one who says it is the same king.
Ibn Ezra writes, arguing with Rashi and the midrash (or one midrashic opinion, anyway):
[א, ח]
ויקם מלך חדש -פירושו כמשמעו בלא תוספת, שלא היה מזרע המלוכה. על כן כתיב: ויקם כמו: כי הקים בני את עבדי.
"And a new king arose: its explanation is as its simple implication, without addition, that he was not from the descendants of the [previous] dynasty. Therefore it is written ויקם, just as in כי הקים בני את עבדי."
The reference is to I Shmuel 22:8:
the reference being to David, who was not from his dynasty.
Abarbanel disagrees with Ibn Ezra about this:
"And the Scriptures mentions that a new king arose over Egypt who did not know Yosef. And there is no need for the words of Ibn Ezra who said that this king was not of the zera hamelucha, since it states ויקם מלך חדש על מצרים אשר לא ידע את יוסף. For, for every new king it states קם. And it is possible that there passed after Yosef's death three or four other kings, or more. And if all of them were of the zera hamelucha, and of the Partemim, behold they did not know Yosef, since he was not in their days. And there is no remembrance to the early occurences, with what was at the end.
And it is fitting that you know that this verse is not connected to what is mentioned above, 'and Yosef died and all his brothers, and all that generation', for behold, there was already a parasha petucha break between them..."
Ibn Caspi is also critical of this explanation of Ibn Ezra. After citing Ibn Ezra, he writes:
"And I am astonished, where he gets these prophecies from. For the word ויקם as well as חדש does not signify this at all. And therefore it is as its simple meaning, and the meaning is that this king came after the time of a king who loved Yosef. And this is the meaning of 'who knew not Yosef', where holding back ידעה refers to the ידיעת אהבה."
I am not persuaded by Ibn Ezra's argument either, but we might still isolate inputs into his peshat. I don't think it is solely the word ויקם at work here. He only uses this as support. But we might consider practical considerations. If the lack of knowledge is the lack of simple knowledge of the existence / role of Yosef, then someone from the zera hamelucha would not likely be ignorant of the vizier. A completely new government would account for this. If it is lack of gratitude, then that approaches the quasi-midrashic explanation offered by Rashi. But, both Abrabanel and Ibn Caspi offer alternatives.
What is the simple "mashmaut" of lo yada? Should we treat it as an idiom?
Only after all this does he support it with a deconstruction of the word ויקם. Besides and before his prooftext from Sefer Shmuel, ויקם means "arose", which can signify coming up in power from some lower stature. Of course, this can be defeated by counter-proof-texts.
Post: In parashat Shemot:
| 8. A new king arose over Egypt, who did not know about Joseph. | ח. וַיָּקָם מֶלֶךְ חָדָשׁ עַל מִצְרָיִם אֲשֶׁר לֹא יָדַע אֶת יוֹסֵף: |
| A new king arose: [There is a controversy between] Rav and Samuel. One says: He was really new, and the other one says: His decrees were new. [From Sotah 11a, Exod. Rabbah 1:8] Since the Torah does not say: The king of Egypt died, and a new king arose, it implies that the old king was still alive, only that his policies had changed, and he acted like a new king. [Rashi on Sotah 11a] | ויקם מלך חדש: רב ושמואל חד אמר חדש ממש. וחד אמר, שנתחדשו גזרותיו: | |
| and who did not know: [means that] he acted as if he did not know about him. | אשר לא ידע: עשה עצמו כאלו לא ידע: |
Presumably, the reinterpretation of asher lo yada is more necessary (only necessary?) according to the one who says it is the same king.
Ibn Ezra writes, arguing with Rashi and the midrash (or one midrashic opinion, anyway):
[א, ח]
ויקם מלך חדש -פירושו כמשמעו בלא תוספת, שלא היה מזרע המלוכה. על כן כתיב: ויקם כמו: כי הקים בני את עבדי.
"And a new king arose: its explanation is as its simple implication, without addition, that he was not from the descendants of the [previous] dynasty. Therefore it is written ויקם, just as in כי הקים בני את עבדי."
The reference is to I Shmuel 22:8:
| ח כִּי קְשַׁרְתֶּם כֻּלְּכֶם עָלַי, וְאֵין-גֹּלֶה אֶת-אָזְנִי בִּכְרָת-בְּנִי עִם-בֶּן-יִשַׁי, וְאֵין-חֹלֶה מִכֶּם עָלַי, וְגֹלֶה אֶת-אָזְנִי: כִּי הֵקִים בְּנִי אֶת-עַבְדִּי עָלַי לְאֹרֵב, כַּיּוֹם הַזֶּה. {ס} | 8 that all of you have conspired against me, and there was none that disclosed it to me when my son made a league with the son of Jesse, and there is none of you that is sorry for me, or discloseth unto me that my son hath stirred up my servant against me, to lie in wait, as at this day?' {S} |
the reference being to David, who was not from his dynasty.
Abarbanel disagrees with Ibn Ezra about this:
And it is fitting that you know that this verse is not connected to what is mentioned above, 'and Yosef died and all his brothers, and all that generation', for behold, there was already a parasha petucha break between them..."
Ibn Caspi is also critical of this explanation of Ibn Ezra. After citing Ibn Ezra, he writes:
I am not persuaded by Ibn Ezra's argument either, but we might still isolate inputs into his peshat. I don't think it is solely the word ויקם at work here. He only uses this as support. But we might consider practical considerations. If the lack of knowledge is the lack of simple knowledge of the existence / role of Yosef, then someone from the zera hamelucha would not likely be ignorant of the vizier. A completely new government would account for this. If it is lack of gratitude, then that approaches the quasi-midrashic explanation offered by Rashi. But, both Abrabanel and Ibn Caspi offer alternatives.
What is the simple "mashmaut" of lo yada? Should we treat it as an idiom?
Only after all this does he support it with a deconstruction of the word ויקם. Besides and before his prooftext from Sefer Shmuel, ויקם means "arose", which can signify coming up in power from some lower stature. Of course, this can be defeated by counter-proof-texts.
Wednesday, January 11, 2012
Interesting Posts and Articles #254
1. Rabbi Shmueli Boteach: Religious Incitement Over My 'Kosher Jesus' Book. As he writes,
2. At Machon Shilo, On Rambamism: A Word to the Wise. An excerpt:
4. At Yeranen Yaakov, Mav Mustafi: Don't worry about the eclipse.
Here are three ideas I had about this. Firstly, while the Greeks could likely predict or at the least explain lunar, based on the idea that the Sun goes behind the Earth, according to the astronomy of Chazal, in which the Sun travels behind the rakia, there would not be a computable explanation for a lunar eclipse. And then one might readily take these as an extremely bad omen, or as a change from the natural order as a result of the sins of mankind.
Therefore, I don't know that I would agree wholeheartedly with the assumption behind the Rebbe's question:
Perhaps also related to all this is Aristotle's explanation of the various causes of eclipses. Everything typically has four causes:
But,
Will Chabad be overtaken by ignorant extremists who condemn a book that they have never even seen, let alone read, and call for the excommunication of a Rabbi who has devoted his life to fighting the battles of the Jewish people? Will they call me and the book to be banned?You can see the condemnation, based merely on the title, at Matzav.
2. At Machon Shilo, On Rambamism: A Word to the Wise. An excerpt:
However, as is frequently the case with those looking for a quick fix, Rambamists tend to oversimplify, often adopting extreme and unreasonable positions. We all recognise that regarding many issues in life, careful analysis is required before attempting to suggest a way forward. If this is true of more mundane matters, how much more so is this the case in the realm of Torah.3. A mysterious planet-sized object spotted near Mercury.
4. At Yeranen Yaakov, Mav Mustafi: Don't worry about the eclipse.
We, the nation of Israel, trust in Hashem Yitbarach and in His Torah and we should not be concerned about all of this. However, we all need to strengthen ourselves in guarding the Torah, modesty, holiness, and the Shabbat, and with Hashem's help, we will be redeemed soon.Of course, there are those who are concerned about lunar eclipses.
Of course, we know that lunar and solar eclipses are entirely natural and predictable phenomena, and that there is no way of preventing one or causing one. You can see there for the Lubavitcher Rebbe's harmonization:The Talmud [Sukah 29a] states that eclipses are bad signs for the world. The Talmud then elaborates on what can cause an eclipse:
An eclipse of the sun occurs for the following four reasons: For not having eulogized a chief judge (a chief judge is comparable to the sun, for he enlightens and clarifies things for the community - Maharsha); for not having helped a betrothed maiden when she called for help (to save her from ill treatment); for committing adultery and for killing two brothers on the same day.Because of the following four reasons the moon and the stars eclipsed:For committing forgery, for false witnesses, for raising sheep and goats in the land of Israel (that is, for letting goats and sheep pasture from other people's fields - Rashi), and for cutting down fruit-bearing trees.
But that harmonization relies in part in the belief in mazal as a real thing. If one believes astrological influences to be bunk, then this explanation does not fly.During the time of an eclipse, the stars are in a position that can have a bad influence on the people. At such a time, the four aforementioned sins are more readily transgressed! For this reason the eclipse is a bad sign for the Jews, because they are more likely to sin than at some other time. As a result, they might be punished. Hence it is not our actions that cause the eclipse, but rather the eclipse that can alter our actions, triggering a heavenly punishment.Therefore, if Jews are doing Hashem's will, the effects of the eclipse will not concern them. Chazal even say that we should not worry about the influence of stars if we do what Hashem wants. For as long as we do not let the bad mazal alter our actions, we do not deserve any punishment.Jews are not limited by the boundaries of nature, including the celestial bodies. We have the power to change our mazal by doing good deeds. Our mazal depends on our actions and our prayers.
Here are three ideas I had about this. Firstly, while the Greeks could likely predict or at the least explain lunar, based on the idea that the Sun goes behind the Earth, according to the astronomy of Chazal, in which the Sun travels behind the rakia, there would not be a computable explanation for a lunar eclipse. And then one might readily take these as an extremely bad omen, or as a change from the natural order as a result of the sins of mankind.
Therefore, I don't know that I would agree wholeheartedly with the assumption behind the Rebbe's question:
It is a wellknown fact that Torah scholars had a vast knowledge of science in general and astronomy in particular. Astronomy was very important for the Jews in order to establish the calendar and proclaim the new months. Even great non-Jewish individuals would ask the Rabbis scientific questions. Therefore, we cannot say that the Rabbis were uttering nonsense when it came to the subject of the eclipse.Second, I agree that Chazal did believe in astrological influences. And that still, ain mazal leYisrael because our outcomes rely on our actions and prayers. As the eclipse gemara in Succah says: When the Jews do Hashem's will, they can leave all the worrying about these matters to the Gentiles. I agree somewhat with the Rebbe's explanation.
Perhaps also related to all this is Aristotle's explanation of the various causes of eclipses. Everything typically has four causes:
- The material cause: “that out of which”, e.g., the bronze of a statue.
- The formal cause: “the form”, “the account of what-it-is-to-be”, e.g., the shape of a statue.
- The efficient cause: “the primary source of the change or rest”, e.g., the artisan, the art of bronze-casting the statue, the man who gives advice, the father of the child.
- The final cause: “the end, that for the sake of which a thing is done”, e.g., health is the end of walking, losing weight, purging, drugs, and surgical tools.
But,
There is, however, a caveat to be considered when interpreting this claim. Aristotle is not committed to the view that everything has all four causes, let alone that everything has a final/formal cause. In the Metaphysics, for example, Aristotle says that an eclipse of the moon does not have a final cause (Metaph.1044 b 12). What happens when there is no final/formal cause like in the case of an eclipse of the moon? An eclipse of the moon is deprivation of light by the interposition of the earth which is coming in between the sun and the moon. The interposition of the earth, that is, its coming in between the sun and the moon, is to be regarded as the efficient cause of the eclipse. Interestingly enough, Aristotle offers this efficient cause as the cause of the eclipse and that which has to be given in reply to the question “why?” (Metaph. 1044 b 13–15).Chazal are stepping in and providing the final cause.
Why the dagesh in הַצְּפִינוֹ?
Summary: And whether Ibn Ezra actually disagrees with the existence of the phenomenon.
Post: In the second perek of Shemos,
Ibn Ezra writes:
for the sake of clear speech {similar to "tiferes halashon"}. And because the tzadi has a sheva na {due to the dagesh chazak}, the peh loses its dagesh kal {and thus, becomes a fricative}, for it was otherwise fit to have a dagesh..."
With that as background, check out this astonishing Or Torah:
"הַצְּפִינוֹ -- the tzadi has a dagesh in all the precise sefarim; and so too in Codex Hilleli; and so in R' Yonah Ibn Janach; and so writes the Radak in his Shoresh; and also in the Masorah they say 'three words have the dagesh and lack of dagesh switched, and the mnemonic is הצפינו, מקדש ה', משתי עיני...' And the meaning of switched is that in these three words, the second letter is fit to be without dagesh and the third letter fit to have a dagesh, and the matter is the opposite, with the second with a dagesh and the third without a dagesh.
And R' Avraham Ibn Ezra wrote 'and the tzadi of הצפינו has no dagesh, etc.' and this does not seem right.'
But this is the opposite of what we have Ibn Ezra saying! Minchas Shai notes this. After describing the phenomenon and explaining it, he cites this Or Torah. And then he writes:
"And I say that the printer erred, and it should state ונדגש צד"י, and this is obvious and clear from the context of his words. And the author of Or Torah, had he descended to the end of the language, it would seem right to him."
This is indeed pretty obvious, so it is not even necessary for me to concur.
I am not certain about the status of JNUL at present. It seems to be up, then down, etc., or else I would look in their Mikraos Gedolos to document this Ibn Ezra. But clearly, this printer's error has been corrected at Daat, and in other printings I have seen.
Finally, here is the discussion in Chelek HaDikduk, page 6-7 in the PDF:
He explains it as for tiferes, mentions that Or Torah disputes Ibn Ezra regarding the existence of the phenomenon, does not mention that Ibn Ezra actually agrees with Or Torah. And that the author of Livyat Chen writes that the dagesh indicates the chozek hapeulah.
Post: In the second perek of Shemos,
| 3. [When] she could no longer hide him, she took [for] him a reed basket, smeared it with clay and pitch, placed the child into it, and put [it] into the marsh at the Nile's edge. | ג. וְלֹא יָכְלָה עוֹד הַצְּפִינוֹ וַתִּקַּח לוֹ תֵּבַת גֹּמֶא וַתַּחְמְרָה בַחֵמָר וּבַזָּפֶת וַתָּשֶׂם בָּהּ אֶת הַיֶּלֶד וַתָּשֶׂם בַּסּוּף עַל שְׂפַת הַיְאֹר: |
Ibn Ezra writes:
[ ב, ג] ונדגש צ' הצפינו כדגשות קו"ף, אם יקרך עון לדבר בם צחות. ובעבור היות הצדי בשו"א נע נרפה הפ"א שהיה ראוי להדגש. והוא שם הפועל מהבנין הכבד הנוסף. ואין צורך לבקש למה לא צפנתהו עוד, אולי השכנות המצריות שמעו קולו כי לא היו לבדם דרים בארץ רעמסס. וכתב: ושאלה אשה משכנתה. ובאה מלת תיבת גומא מלעיל בעבור היות הניגון בתחלת מלת גומא."And the tzadi of הַצְּפִינוֹ gets a dagesh chazak like the dagesh of the kuf of {I Shmuel 28:10}
| י וַיִּשָּׁבַע לָהּ שָׁאוּל, בַּה' לֵאמֹר: חַי-ה', אִם-יִקְּרֵךְ עָוֹן בַּדָּבָר הַזֶּה. | 10 And Saul swore to her by the LORD, saying: 'As the LORD liveth, there shall no punishment happen to thee for this thing.' |
for the sake of clear speech {similar to "tiferes halashon"}. And because the tzadi has a sheva na {due to the dagesh chazak}, the peh loses its dagesh kal {and thus, becomes a fricative}, for it was otherwise fit to have a dagesh..."
With that as background, check out this astonishing Or Torah:
"הַצְּפִינוֹ -- the tzadi has a dagesh in all the precise sefarim; and so too in Codex Hilleli; and so in R' Yonah Ibn Janach; and so writes the Radak in his Shoresh; and also in the Masorah they say 'three words have the dagesh and lack of dagesh switched, and the mnemonic is הצפינו, מקדש ה', משתי עיני...' And the meaning of switched is that in these three words, the second letter is fit to be without dagesh and the third letter fit to have a dagesh, and the matter is the opposite, with the second with a dagesh and the third without a dagesh.
And R' Avraham Ibn Ezra wrote 'and the tzadi of הצפינו has no dagesh, etc.' and this does not seem right.'
But this is the opposite of what we have Ibn Ezra saying! Minchas Shai notes this. After describing the phenomenon and explaining it, he cites this Or Torah. And then he writes:
This is indeed pretty obvious, so it is not even necessary for me to concur.
I am not certain about the status of JNUL at present. It seems to be up, then down, etc., or else I would look in their Mikraos Gedolos to document this Ibn Ezra. But clearly, this printer's error has been corrected at Daat, and in other printings I have seen.
Finally, here is the discussion in Chelek HaDikduk, page 6-7 in the PDF:
He explains it as for tiferes, mentions that Or Torah disputes Ibn Ezra regarding the existence of the phenomenon, does not mention that Ibn Ezra actually agrees with Or Torah. And that the author of Livyat Chen writes that the dagesh indicates the chozek hapeulah.
Tuesday, January 10, 2012
What nekitas chefetz was there, if Yaakov was nolad mahul?
Summary: So asks Rav Chaim Kanievsky, further exploring the path set by Mizrachi. By Avraham, it was nekitas chefetz on the milah, and Avraham's very first mitzvah. Not so for Yaakov, on two counts. Rav Kanievsky's answer, and then I explore further.
Post: In parashat Vaychi:
As Rashi writes:
The text in English, not in square brackets, but not in the Hebrew, are presumably based on some other text of Rashi.
Meanwhile, in Chayei Sarah, we had:
In Taama de-Kra, Rav Chaim Kanievsky writes:
שים נא ידך תחת ירכי, הק׳ רא״ם דהא
רש׳׳י פי׳ גבי אברהם משום שזה מצוה ראשונה
שלו ובעי לאנקוטי חפצא דמצוה בידו א״כ
יעק״א שנולד מהול כדאי׳ באדר״נ פ״ב ולמ״ד
א״צ הטפת דם ברית שאין כאן ערלה כבושה
למה נתן ידו תחת ירכו, וי״ ל דגם נולד מהול
נקרא שמל שהקב״ה חסיר ממנו את הערלה והוי
כמהול.
"Rabbi Eliyahu Mizrachi asks that behold, Rashi explained by Avraham that this was because this was his first mitzvah, and he wished to perform nekitas chefetz of a mitzvah {for the oath}. And if so, Yaakov Avinu, who was born circumcised, as is stated in Avos deRabbi Nasan perek 2 {as well as in Bereshis Rabba and Midrash Tanchuma}, and according to the opinion that such a person does not require hatafas dam bris, for there is no ערלה כבושה, why should he put his hand beneath his thigh?
And there is to answer that even one who is born circumcised is called that Hashem took away the orlah and he is like one who is circumcised."
Here is what Mizrachi has to say for himself:
Reacting to Rashi simply stating והשבע, which implies that this is a form of oath, he writes:
"Not that the placing of the hand is the oath, for behold, by Eliezer he [=Avraham] says שִׂים נָא יָדְךָ תַּחַת יְרֵכִי followed by וְאַשְׁבִּיעֲךָ. Thus, it is clear that the placing of the hand is not the oath. Rather, it is in the manner of all who swear that they swear with an item in their hands. And even though the reason was that the bris milah was dear to him, which was only to Avraham, since it was the very first mitzvah he was commanded, and it came to him with pain, but not so to Yaakov, even so, the custom had already spread to his sons after him."
So, it is not really the case that the Re'em asked based on Yaakov being nolad mahul. Yes, he says that 'this was not so to Yaakov', but this could be because it was not the first commandment given to Yaakov, and so it was not an especially dear mitzvah to him over any other, and because he would have been circumcised at eight days.
I also prefer the Re'em's answer. It fits better, IMHO, with Rashi's language, which just takes it as leshon shevuah, or as part of the shevuah, without making this anything out of the ordinary as it was by Avraham.
I also think that, perhaps, we should not be looking to harmonize the two Rashis. Yes, they work more or less well together except for this minor contradiction in a detail, but still, the Rashi local to Vaychi strikes me as an attempt at peshat while the Rashi local to Chayei Sarah is channeling a midrash. Perhaps one should not harmonize them, if Rashi did not intend them to be harmonized. Perhaps the persona of Vaychi Rashi, writing in Chayei Sarah, would say that this is generic shevuah procedures even in the time of Avraham Avinu.
In terms of the problem Rav Kanievsky raised, that Yaakov was nolad mahul such that there was no hatafas dam bris and thus no mitzvah of milah at all, the Mizrachi's answer still works. But besides this, it all seems like an elaborate construction. Perhaps according to the man de'amar that one does not need hatafas dam bris, Yaakov Avinu was born mahul, or perhaps the purpose of sim na yadcha tachas yereichi is a general custom of swearing, or something along the position of the Ralbag (which we will see momentarily. And, according to the man de'amar that it was and always is based on a nekitas chefetz, he would maintain that Yaakov Avinu was not born mahul, or that hatafas dam bris is required. It is only because we are insisting on simultaneously maintaining multiple random positions that we end up with a contradiction that needs resolution. So relax the insistence!
By way of illustration of other options as to the function of sim na yadecha tachas yereichi, consider the following Ralbag, from the beginning of the parashah:
"sim na yadecha tachas yereichi -- we have explained it by Avraham. And the intent in this here is that he asked Yosef to humble himself to him, as if he were in his domain, to perform all that he asked him."
Thus, it is a mark of subjugation rather than either a mark of an oath or a predecessor to the Jewish practice of swearing while holding a sefer Torah.
I will end with a half-serious resolution of the whole issue. Grant the question, and all the accompanying assumptions, of both Mizrachi and Rav Kanievsky. If Avraham asked for this as nekitas chefetz as well as because it was his first mitzvah, how could Yaakov have asked this, if it was not his first mitzvah and if, as a nolad mahul, there was no nekitas chefetz shel mitzvah?
The answer is that Yaakov Avinu had his own first mitzvah associated with his thigh. Recall that in parashat Vayishlach, he wrestled with the angel, who dislocated his thigh. And then:
Thus, this is his very own mitzvah starting with his own experience. And so there is a nekitas chefetz of the kaf yerech Yaakov!
Post: In parashat Vaychi:
| 29. When the time drew near for Israel to die, he called his son Joseph and said to him, "If I have now found favor in your eyes, now place your hand beneath my thigh, and you shall deal with me with lovingkindness and truth; do not bury me now in Egypt. | כט. וַיִּקְרְבוּ יְמֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל לָמוּת וַיִּקְרָא לִבְנוֹ לְיוֹסֵף וַיֹּאמֶר לוֹ אִם נָא מָצָאתִי חֵן בְּעֵינֶיךָ שִׂים נָא יָדְךָ תַּחַת יְרֵכִי וְעָשִׂיתָ עִמָּדִי חֶסֶד וֶאֱמֶת אַל נָא תִקְבְּרֵנִי בְּמִצְרָיִם: |
As Rashi writes:
| now place your hand beneath my thigh: And swear. — [from Pirkei d’Rabbi Eliezer ch. 39] As explained in the narrative of Abraham and Eliezer (Gen. 24:2), he meant that Joseph should swear by covenant of the circumcision. | שים נא ידך: והשבע: |
The text in English, not in square brackets, but not in the Hebrew, are presumably based on some other text of Rashi.
Meanwhile, in Chayei Sarah, we had:
| 2. And Abraham said to his servant, the elder of his house, who ruled over all that was his, "Please place your hand under my thigh. | ב. וַיֹּאמֶר אַבְרָהָם אֶל עַבְדּוֹ זְקַן בֵּיתוֹ הַמֹּשֵׁל בְּכָל אֲשֶׁר לוֹ שִׂים נָא יָדְךָ תַּחַת יְרֵכִי: | |
| the elder of his house: Since [the word זְקַן] is in the construct state, it is vowelized זְקַן. | זקן ביתו: לפי שהוא דבוק נקוד זקן: | |
| under my thigh: (Shev. 38) Since one who swears must take with his hand an article related to a mitzvah such as a Torah scroll or Tefillin, and circumcision was his first mitzvah, and he had fulfilled it with pain, it was dear to him; so he took it. | תחת ירכי: לפי שהנשבע צריך שיטול בידו חפץ של מצוה, כגון ספר תורה או תפילין, והמילה היתה מצוה ראשונה לו ובאה לו על ידי צער והיתה חביבה עליו ונטלה: | |
שים נא ידך תחת ירכי, הק׳ רא״ם דהא
רש׳׳י פי׳ גבי אברהם משום שזה מצוה ראשונה
שלו ובעי לאנקוטי חפצא דמצוה בידו א״כ
יעק״א שנולד מהול כדאי׳ באדר״נ פ״ב ולמ״ד
א״צ הטפת דם ברית שאין כאן ערלה כבושה
למה נתן ידו תחת ירכו, וי״ ל דגם נולד מהול
נקרא שמל שהקב״ה חסיר ממנו את הערלה והוי
כמהול.
"Rabbi Eliyahu Mizrachi asks that behold, Rashi explained by Avraham that this was because this was his first mitzvah, and he wished to perform nekitas chefetz of a mitzvah {for the oath}. And if so, Yaakov Avinu, who was born circumcised, as is stated in Avos deRabbi Nasan perek 2 {as well as in Bereshis Rabba and Midrash Tanchuma}, and according to the opinion that such a person does not require hatafas dam bris, for there is no ערלה כבושה, why should he put his hand beneath his thigh?
And there is to answer that even one who is born circumcised is called that Hashem took away the orlah and he is like one who is circumcised."
Here is what Mizrachi has to say for himself:
Reacting to Rashi simply stating והשבע, which implies that this is a form of oath, he writes:
"Not that the placing of the hand is the oath, for behold, by Eliezer he [=Avraham] says שִׂים נָא יָדְךָ תַּחַת יְרֵכִי followed by וְאַשְׁבִּיעֲךָ. Thus, it is clear that the placing of the hand is not the oath. Rather, it is in the manner of all who swear that they swear with an item in their hands. And even though the reason was that the bris milah was dear to him, which was only to Avraham, since it was the very first mitzvah he was commanded, and it came to him with pain, but not so to Yaakov, even so, the custom had already spread to his sons after him."
So, it is not really the case that the Re'em asked based on Yaakov being nolad mahul. Yes, he says that 'this was not so to Yaakov', but this could be because it was not the first commandment given to Yaakov, and so it was not an especially dear mitzvah to him over any other, and because he would have been circumcised at eight days.
I also prefer the Re'em's answer. It fits better, IMHO, with Rashi's language, which just takes it as leshon shevuah, or as part of the shevuah, without making this anything out of the ordinary as it was by Avraham.
I also think that, perhaps, we should not be looking to harmonize the two Rashis. Yes, they work more or less well together except for this minor contradiction in a detail, but still, the Rashi local to Vaychi strikes me as an attempt at peshat while the Rashi local to Chayei Sarah is channeling a midrash. Perhaps one should not harmonize them, if Rashi did not intend them to be harmonized. Perhaps the persona of Vaychi Rashi, writing in Chayei Sarah, would say that this is generic shevuah procedures even in the time of Avraham Avinu.
In terms of the problem Rav Kanievsky raised, that Yaakov was nolad mahul such that there was no hatafas dam bris and thus no mitzvah of milah at all, the Mizrachi's answer still works. But besides this, it all seems like an elaborate construction. Perhaps according to the man de'amar that one does not need hatafas dam bris, Yaakov Avinu was born mahul, or perhaps the purpose of sim na yadcha tachas yereichi is a general custom of swearing, or something along the position of the Ralbag (which we will see momentarily. And, according to the man de'amar that it was and always is based on a nekitas chefetz, he would maintain that Yaakov Avinu was not born mahul, or that hatafas dam bris is required. It is only because we are insisting on simultaneously maintaining multiple random positions that we end up with a contradiction that needs resolution. So relax the insistence!
By way of illustration of other options as to the function of sim na yadecha tachas yereichi, consider the following Ralbag, from the beginning of the parashah:
Thus, it is a mark of subjugation rather than either a mark of an oath or a predecessor to the Jewish practice of swearing while holding a sefer Torah.
I will end with a half-serious resolution of the whole issue. Grant the question, and all the accompanying assumptions, of both Mizrachi and Rav Kanievsky. If Avraham asked for this as nekitas chefetz as well as because it was his first mitzvah, how could Yaakov have asked this, if it was not his first mitzvah and if, as a nolad mahul, there was no nekitas chefetz shel mitzvah?
The answer is that Yaakov Avinu had his own first mitzvah associated with his thigh. Recall that in parashat Vayishlach, he wrestled with the angel, who dislocated his thigh. And then:
Thus, this is his very own mitzvah starting with his own experience. And so there is a nekitas chefetz of the kaf yerech Yaakov!
Monday, January 09, 2012
Shemot sources -- 2012 edition
by aliyah
rishon (Shemos 1:1)
sheni (1:18)
shlishi (2:11)
revii (3:1)
chamishi (3:16)
shishi (4:18)
shvii (5:1)
maftir (5:22)
haftara (Yeshaya 27:6)
by perek
perek 6
meforshim
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
Shadal (1800-1865) -- see Wikipedia entry:
- In plain text here, though not encoding some of the trup and nikkud, and omitting certain references to non-Jewish scholars.
- In Google book form here, but with all that was omitted above. Also, with Shadal's Italian translation of the Chumash text.
- Mishtadel, an earlier and shorter commentary
- In determining the correct girsa of Targum Onkelos, Ohev Ger
Gilyonot Nechama Leibovitz (Hebrew, English) -- see Wikipedia entry.
Rav Yonasan Eibeshitz (1690-1764) -- see Wikipedia entry:
- Tiferes Yehonasan
- Chasdei Yehonasan -- chiddushim and pilpulim on midrashim, Toras Kohanim, Sifrei, and Rashi al haTorah. With supercommentary of R' Yaakov Goldshlag.
- Toldos Yitzchak Acharon, repeated from R' Yonasan Eibeshitz
- Divrei Yehonasan -- discussing halacha and aggada together, interpreting difficult midrashim
- Nefesh Yehonasan -- commentary on midrashim and pilpulim + Tanchuma, and suygot in Shas connected to each parsha.
- Midrash Yehonasan -- on difficult midrashim
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
LinkWithin
