Wednesday, November 09, 2005

parshat Lech Lecha: And I Will Make Your Name Great

Parshat Lech Lecha begins (Bereishit 12:1-3):
א וַיֹּאמֶר ה אֶל-אַבְרָם, לֶךְ-לְךָ מֵאַרְצְךָ וּמִמּוֹלַדְתְּךָ וּמִבֵּית אָבִיךָ, אֶל-הָאָרֶץ, אֲשֶׁר אַרְאֶךָּ. 1 Now the LORD said unto Abram: 'Get thee out of thy country, and from thy kindred, and from thy father's house, unto the land that I will show thee.
ב וְאֶעֶשְׂךָ, לְגוֹי גָּדוֹל, וַאֲבָרֶכְךָ, וַאֲגַדְּלָה שְׁמֶךָ; וֶהְיֵה, בְּרָכָה. 2 And I will make of thee a great nation, and I will bless thee, and make thy name great; and be thou a blessing.
ג וַאֲבָרְכָה, מְבָרְכֶיךָ, וּמְקַלֶּלְךָ, אָאֹר; וְנִבְרְכוּ בְךָ, כֹּל מִשְׁפְּחֹת הָאֲדָמָה. 3 And I will bless them that bless thee, and him that curseth thee will I curse; and in thee shall all the families of the earth be blessed.'
What is the nature of this promise in the second pasuk to make Avram's name great, וַאֲגַדְּלָה שְׁמֶךָ? In an excellent example of how drash is really hyper-literalism, one suggestion is that this means that Avram's name will literally be made bigger. As we see in the first pasuk, God speaks to Avram, וַיֹּאמֶר ה אֶל-אַבְרָם. Later in the same parsha, in Bereishit 17:3-6, we see a transformation:
ג וַיִּפֹּל אַבְרָם, עַל-פָּנָיו; וַיְדַבֵּר אִתּוֹ אֱלֹקִים, לֵאמֹר. 3 And Abram fell on his face; and God talked with him, saying:
ד אֲנִי, הִנֵּה בְרִיתִי אִתָּךְ; וְהָיִיתָ, לְאַב הֲמוֹן גּוֹיִם. 4 'As for Me, behold, My covenant is with thee, and thou shalt be the father of a multitude of nations.
ה וְלֹא-יִקָּרֵא עוֹד אֶת-שִׁמְךָ, אַבְרָם; וְהָיָה שִׁמְךָ אַבְרָהָם, כִּי אַב-הֲמוֹן גּוֹיִם נְתַתִּיךָ. 5 Neither shall thy name any more be called Abram, but thy name shall be Abraham; for the father of a multitude of nations have I made thee.
ו וְהִפְרֵתִי אֹתְךָ בִּמְאֹד מְאֹד, וּנְתַתִּיךָ לְגוֹיִם; וּמְלָכִים, מִמְּךָ יֵצֵאוּ. 6 And I will make thee exceeding fruitful, and I will make nations of thee, and kings shall come out of thee.
Thus from some other etymology, say "the father is exalted" (so Speiser) the heh is added such that the beginning of the word still has av, "father," and the end of the word has ham, hinting at hamon. Speiser notes that linguistically the word means the same, with the medial heh being a secondary extension in a manner common in Aramaic. While the name means the same as it did initially, we have here a modification such that an additional sound significance it found.

The promise to increase Avram's name is thus a promise to give him all that will be promised in association with this name change - that he will be the father of a multitude of nations.

The midrash is thus really quite good. But the approach is decidedly midrashic, in that it takes
the word שם to be the literal name, and thus the increase is in the name.

An approach people would call more in line with peshat would not take שם so literally. Rather, שם has many other implications besides its basic meaning of name. Here, it means "renown," that is, that by which people know you. Thus, Avraham will be successful and, as a result, be well known. God will increase Avraham's renown.

Compare Bemidbar 16:2:
א וַיִּקַּח קֹרַח, בֶּן-יִצְהָר בֶּן-קְהָת בֶּן-לֵוִי; וְדָתָן וַאֲבִירָם בְּנֵי אֱלִיאָב, וְאוֹן בֶּן-פֶּלֶת--בְּנֵי רְאוּבֵן. 1 Now Korah, the son of Izhar, the son of Kohath, the son of Levi, with Dathan and Abiram, the sons of Eliab, and On, the son of Peleth, sons of Reuben, took men;
ב וַיָּקֻמוּ לִפְנֵי מֹשֶׁה, וַאֲנָשִׁים מִבְּנֵי-יִשְׂרָאֵל חֲמִשִּׁים וּמָאתָיִם, נְשִׂיאֵי עֵדָה קְרִאֵי מוֹעֵד, אַנְשֵׁי-שֵׁם. 2 and they rose up in face of Moses, with certain of the children of Israel, two hundred and fifty men; they were princes of the congregation, the elect men of the assembly, men of renown;
Thus, שם, like many other words, has a base-meaning and an extended meaning. It also means "title," and thus "title to land." Consider Rut 4:5:

ה וַיֹּאמֶר בֹּעַז, בְּיוֹם-קְנוֹתְךָ הַשָּׂדֶה מִיַּד נָעֳמִי; וּמֵאֵת רוּת הַמּוֹאֲבִיָּה אֵשֶׁת-הַמֵּת, קניתי (קָנִיתָ)--לְהָקִים שֵׁם-הַמֵּת, עַל-נַחֲלָתוֹ. 5 Then said Boaz: 'What day thou buyest the field of the hand of Naomi--hast thou also bought of Ruth the Moabitess, the wife of the dead, to raise up the name of the dead upon his inheritance?'
and later in pasuk 10:

י וְגַם אֶת-רוּת הַמֹּאֲבִיָּה אֵשֶׁת מַחְלוֹן קָנִיתִי לִי לְאִשָּׁה, לְהָקִים שֵׁם-הַמֵּת עַל-נַחֲלָתוֹ, וְלֹא-יִכָּרֵת שֵׁם-הַמֵּת מֵעִם אֶחָיו, וּמִשַּׁעַר מְקוֹמוֹ: עֵדִים אַתֶּם, הַיּוֹם 10 Moreover Ruth the Moabitess, the wife of Mahlon, have I acquired to be my wife, to raise up the name of the dead upon his inheritance, that the name of the dead be not cut off from among his brethren, and from the gate of his place; ye are witnesses this day.'
This seems a fulfillment of Devarim 25:6:

ה כִּי-יֵשְׁבוּ אַחִים יַחְדָּו, וּמֵת אַחַד מֵהֶם וּבֵן אֵין-לוֹ--לֹא-תִהְיֶה אֵשֶׁת-הַמֵּת הַחוּצָה, לְאִישׁ זָר: יְבָמָהּ יָבֹא עָלֶיהָ, וּלְקָחָהּ לוֹ לְאִשָּׁה וְיִבְּמָהּ. 5 If brethren dwell together, and one of them die, and have no child, the wife of the dead shall not be married abroad unto one not of his kin; her husband's brother shall go in unto her, and take her to him to wife, and perform the duty of a husband's brother unto her.
ו וְהָיָה, הַבְּכוֹר אֲשֶׁר תֵּלֵד--יָקוּם, עַל-שֵׁם אָחִיו הַמֵּת; וְלֹא-יִמָּחֶה שְׁמוֹ, מִיִּשְׂרָאֵל. 6 And it shall be, that the first-born that she beareth shall succeed in the name of his brother that is dead, that his name be not blotted out of Israel.
And yet the son Rut has is not named Machlon or Kilyon (whichever of the two brothers Rut had married, but rather Oved (see Rut 4:21). This is because שם here does not literally mean name, but rather "title" to inheritance.

The gemara (Yevamot 24a) actually discusses this. Everyone agrees that in actual practice one does not name the son after the deceased first husband, but rather that he inherits his portion. The brayta states that I would have thought that we should actually have named him after the deceased, but a gezera shava shows that it means inheritance. The gezera shava, or intra-Biblical comparison to determine lexical meaning, is to Bereishit 48:6:
ה וְעַתָּה שְׁנֵי-בָנֶיךָ הַנּוֹלָדִים לְךָ בְּאֶרֶץ מִצְרַיִם, עַד-בֹּאִי אֵלֶיךָ מִצְרַיְמָה--לִי-הֵם: אֶפְרַיִם, וּמְנַשֶּׁה--כִּרְאוּבֵן וְשִׁמְעוֹן, יִהְיוּ-לִי. 5 And now thy two sons, who were born unto thee in the land of Egypt before I came unto thee into Egypt, are mine; Ephraim and Manasseh, even as Reuben and Simeon, shall be mine.
ו וּמוֹלַדְתְּךָ אֲשֶׁר-הוֹלַדְתָּ אַחֲרֵיהֶם, לְךָ יִהְיוּ; עַל שֵׁם אֲחֵיהֶם יִקָּרְאוּ, בְּנַחֲלָתָם. 6 And thy issue, that thou begettest after them, shall be thine; they shall be called after the name of their brethren in their inheritance.
Now clearly Ephraim and Menashe are not being renamed. They are getting an equal portion, just like their (?) brothers.

Rava states: אע"ג דבכל התורה כולה אין מקרא יוצא מידי פשוטו הכא אתאי גזרה שוה אפיקתיה מפשטיה לגמרי, even though in general throughout Tanach, the Torah does not leave off of its basic meaning (pashteih), here, the gezera shava comes and uproots it entirely from its basic meaning.

Ignoring the continuation of the gemara (which seems stamaitic), Rava is seeming to assume that on a peshat level the verse means that he should actually be named the same name as the deceased, but there is a midrashic rule operating here which assigns another meaning. In general, application of midrashic rules add meaning but do not detract from the base meaning. That is, both ascend from the text and come to the level of actual practice that we call halacha. However, here, it does not.

This is really the defining text for me in terms of the meaning of אין מקרא יוצא מידי פשוטו. When there is a meaning that is not applied lehalacha, that is מקרא יוצא מידי פשוטו. And the other few gemaras that reference this rule also mean the same. Thus, the gemara in Shabbat means that the peshat understanding of a sword as an ornament is an example where the simple meaning of the text also arises to the level of actual practice, something that Rav Kahana did not realize.

This means that it is a misuse of the term when a medieval (or modern) exegete proposes an explanation counter to our received tradition, justifying it with the phrase אין מקרא יוצא מידי פשוטו. Rashbam, when proposing that the pesukim in Bereishit actually mean that day precedes night does not mean that אין מקרא יוצא מידי פשוטו, for he would never think to apply his reading to actual practice of halacha. Rather, מקרא יוצא מידי פשוטו. There is a peshat meaning of the verse, which according to him is that day precedes night. Still, our Sages apply a midrashic analysis to the text that here entirely uproots the meaning. In general we assume that all levels of meaning, peshat and derash contribute to halacha, but where we find that it does not, it is an exception to the rule. This also explains how Rava knew this was an exception to the rule. I have heard from a prominent rabbi that this was a tradition, that in this instance (of naming) the verse does go entirely out of its base-meaning. I disagree, and rather think it to be an analysis in which we know what the halacha is and know that, if this is indeed to be labelled peshat, we do not act like it. Thus מקרא יוצא מידי פשוטו has far broader application that this one case.

One could, of course, understand what the brayta is saying differently than Rava does. This application of gezera shava is not like many other examples. Here, we are learning from very similar context (shem and nachala) what the lexical meaning of the verse is, rather than taking a foreign meaning and ascribing it in another place. This is an atypical gezera shava, and one that does not operate on the level of drash, but rather on peshat. That is why the simplistic "literal" meaning is entirely disregarded and uprooted. And Rava may indeed mean that here, and this is why he considers it an exception to the rule.

Now that we see the wide range of the noun שם, let us turn to a nice example in parshat Haazinu. In Devarim 32:3:
א הַאֲזִינוּ הַשָּׁמַיִם, וַאֲדַבֵּרָה; {ס} וְתִשְׁמַע הָאָרֶץ, אִמְרֵי-פִי.
1 Give ear, ye heavens, and I will speak; and let the earth hear the words of my mouth.
ב יַעֲרֹף כַּמָּטָר לִקְחִי, {ס} תִּזַּל כַּטַּל אִמְרָתִי, {ר} כִּשְׂעִירִם עֲלֵי-דֶשֶׁא, {ס} וְכִרְבִיבִים עֲלֵי-עֵשֶׂב.
2 My doctrine shall drop as the rain, my speech shall distil as the dew; as the small rain upon the tender grass, and as the showers upon the herb.
ג כִּי שֵׁם ה, אֶקְרָא: {ס} הָבוּ גֹדֶל, לֵאלֹקֵינוּ.
3 For I will proclaim the name of the LORD; ascribe ye greatness unto our God.
A typical analysis will see a big difference between the first two verses and the third. The first two show what is called synonymous parallelism. Each element in the first part of the verse (A) has a word-pair in the second part (B). Thus, for example:
  • הַאֲזִינוּ matches וְתִשְׁמַע
  • הַשָּׁמַיִם is a word-pair of הָאָרֶץ
  • וַאֲדַבֵּרָה matches אִמְרֵי-פִי
The third verse would seem to be was Robert Lowthe would label "synthetic parallelism," for there is not an matchup between A and B. There is perhaps a progression. I might translate instead "When I proclaim the name of the Lord, ascribe greatness unto our God." This would produce a progression, and a causality, from A to B.

However, I would put forth that there is in fact much more in A that parallels B. We have just been translating incorrectly.

שם does not mean "name" here. Rather, it means "renown, greatness." אֶקְרָא does not merely mean "read/say" but rather, as translated above, "proclaim." Thus:
  • שֵׁם matches גֹדֶל.
Consider how this manifests in our parsha, Lech Lecha. We see the phrase וַאֲגַדְּלָה שְׁמֶךָ, "and I will increase your renown." Here, שֵׁם means "renown" and גֹדֶל means "greatness."
  • אֶקְרָא matches הָבוּ
  • ה matches לֵאלֹקֵינוּ
Thus, the verse should be translated, "When I proclaim the renown of the LORD, (you m.pl. should) ascribe greatness to our God." It is a chiastic structure since the verb אֶקְרָא is last in A and הָבוּ is first in B.

We thus have a match for each term in A in B, and the reverse for the other elements.

It is not synonymous, though, but more synthetic parallelism. To move from Lowthe to Kugel and Alter, there is progression, development, and intensification from A to B.

In A, it is only one person (Moshe) who speaks. In B, it is everyone. But these are not two distinct events. The word כִּי shows causality. First it is Moshe proclaiming Hashem's greatness. Then, as a result, all of Israel joins in with Moshe, and so it is an intensification. In A, we have YKVK as Hashem's name. It is a form which does not allow the possessive. However, if we render it Adonai, "My Lord," is seems to be the singular, the Lord of the individual. The name of God Elokim is used in B, and this allows possession, and it is used. Rather than say Elokim, God, we see Elokeinu, "our God." We do not see Elokeichem, "your (m. pl.) God." This, perhaps, underscores how all of Israel is joining in with Moshe and together they are proclaiming God's praises.

No comments:

LinkWithin

Blog Widget by LinkWithin