Monday, October 31, 2011

Lech Lecha sources -- 2011 edition



by aliyah
rishon (Bereishit 12:1)
sheni (12:14)
shlishi (13:5)
revii (14:1)
chamishi (14:21)
shishi (15:7)
shevii (17:7)
maftir (17:24)
haftara (Yeshaya 40:27) -- with Malbim

by perek
perek 12 ; perek 13 ;
perek 14 ; perek 15 ;
perek 16 ; perek 17

meforshim
Rashi, in English and Hebrew
Chizkuni
Shadal:
  1. In plain text here, though not encoding some of the trup and nikkud, and omitting certain references to non-Jewish scholars.
  2. In Google book form here, with all the above. Also, with Shadal's Italian translation of the Chumash text.
  3. Mishtadel, an earlier and shorter commentary
  4. In determining the correct girsa of Targum Onkelos, Ohev Ger
Daat -- with Rashi, Ramban, Seforno, Ibn Ezra, Rashbam, Rabbenu Bachya, Midrash Rabba, Tanchuma+, Gilyonot
Gilyonot Nechama Leibovitz (Hebrew)
Rav Yonasan Eibeshitz:

  1. Tiferes Yehonasan from Rav Yonasan Eibeshitz
  2. Chasdei Yehonasan -- chiddushim and pilpulim on midrashim, Toras Kohanim, Sifrei, and Rashi al haTorah. With supercommentary of R' Yaakov Goldshlag.
  3. Toldos Yizchak Acharon, repeated from Rav Yonasan Eibeshutz
  4. Divrei Yehonasan -- discussing halacha and aggada together, interpreting difficult midrashim
  5. Nefesh Yehonasan -- commentary on midrashim and pilpulim + Tanchuma, and suygot in Shas connected to each parsha.
  6. Midrash Yehonasan -- on difficult midrashim
Even Shleimah -- from Rabbi Shlomo Zalman Ehrenreich
R' Saadia Gaon:
  1. Arabic translation of Torah (here and here)
  2. And translation of that Tafsir to Hebrew
  3. Collected commentary of Saadia Gaon on Torah

A malei Tehorah in Noach, in accordance with Chazal

As a quick followup to last week's post about whether טהורה is spelled with a vav or without. Chazal in the gemara, based on a count of eight letters, appear to maintain that טהורה is spelled malei. And so it seems from Rashi on the daf. Yet the standard masoretic text does not have a vav there.

It is one thing to talk in theory about such distinctions, and even to bring secondary sources such as Vetus Testamentum which document that some masoretic texts have the vav. It is something else entirely to open up a Chumash and see that variant text.

I am not going to go through all the texts of JNUL, examining them to see how they spell the word. On the other hand, I did spot this one in passing, so I thought I would share it. This is the text from JNUL:


1490
תנ"ך. תורה. ר"ן. אישר
[אישאר : דפוס אליעזר בן אברהם אלאנתנסי, לפני ר"ן].


And this is what it has:


I underlined both tehoras in this verse. Note that the second is malei, against the standard Masoretic text, but in accordance with the gemara.

Peshitta on Bereishit 11


Masoretic Text
Onkelos
English for MT
Peshitta
Bereishit 11:

Some interesting changes marked in bold  red



א וַיְהִי כָל-הָאָרֶץ, שָׂפָה אֶחָת, וּדְבָרִים, אֲחָדִים.  
וַהֲוָה כָּל אַרְעָא, לִישָׁן חַד, וּמַמְלַל, חַד.
1 And the whole earth was of one language and of one speech.
והות כלה ארעא לשנא חד וממלא חד :

ב וַיְהִי, בְּנָסְעָם מִקֶּדֶם; וַיִּמְצְאוּ בִקְעָה בְּאֶרֶץ שִׁנְעָר, וַיֵּשְׁבוּ שָׁם.  
וַהֲוָה, בְּמִטַּלְהוֹן בְּקַדְמֵיתָא; וְאַשְׁכַּחוּ בִּקְעֲתָא בְּאַרְעָא דְּבָבֶל, וִיתִיבוּ תַּמָּן.
2 And it came to pass, as they journeyed east, that they found a plain in the land of Shinar; and they dwelt there.
והוא דכד שקלו מן מדנחא אשכחו פקעתא בארעא דסנער ויתבו תמן

ג וַיֹּאמְרוּ אִישׁ אֶל-רֵעֵהוּ, הָבָה נִלְבְּנָה לְבֵנִים, וְנִשְׂרְפָה, לִשְׂרֵפָה; וַתְּהִי לָהֶם הַלְּבֵנָה, לְאָבֶן, וְהַחֵמָר, הָיָה לָהֶם לַחֹמֶר.  
וַאֲמַרוּ גְּבַר לְחַבְרֵיהּ, הַבוּ נִרְמֵי לִבְנִין, וְנוֹקֵידִנּוּן, בְּנוּרָא; וַהֲוָת לְהוֹן לְבֵינְתָא, לְאַבְנָא, וְחֵימָרָא, הֲוָה לְהוֹן לִשְׁיָע.
3 And they said one to another: 'Come, let us make brick, and burn them thoroughly.' And they had brick for stone, and slime had they for mortar.
 ואמרו גבר לחברה תו נרמא לבנא ונוקד אנין בנורא והויא להון לבתא לכאפא וסידא הוא להון למלטא:

Sunday, October 30, 2011

Peshita Bereshit perek 10


Masoretic Text
Onkelos
English for MT
Peshitta
Bereishit 10:

Some interesting changes marked in bold  red


א וְאֵלֶּה תּוֹלְדֹת בְּנֵי-נֹחַ, שֵׁם חָם וָיָפֶת; וַיִּוָּלְדוּ לָהֶם בָּנִים, אַחַר הַמַּבּוּל.  
וְאִלֵּין תּוֹלְדָת בְּנֵי נוֹחַ, שֵׁם חָם וָיָפֶת; וְאִתְיְלִידוּ לְהוֹן בְּנִין, בָּתַר טוֹפָנָא.
1 Now these are the generations of the sons of Noah: Shem, Ham, and Japheth; and unto them were sons born after the flood. 
והלין תולדתא דבני נוח שים וחם ויפת ואתילדו להון בניא מן בתר טופנא:

ב בְּנֵי יֶפֶת--גֹּמֶר וּמָגוֹג, וּמָדַי וְיָוָן וְתֻבָל; וּמֶשֶׁךְ, וְתִירָס.  
בְּנֵי יֶפֶת--גֹּמֶר וּמָגוֹג, וּמָדַי וְיָוָן וְתוּבָל; וּמֶשֶׁךְ, וְתִירָס.
2 The sons of Japheth: Gomer, and Magog, and Madai, and Javan, and Tubal, and Meshech, and Tiras.
בני יפת גמר ומגוג ומדי ויון ותוביל ומשך ותירס:

ג וּבְנֵי, גֹּמֶר--אַשְׁכְּנַז וְרִיפַת, וְתֹגַרְמָה.  
וּבְנֵי, גֹּמֶר--אַשְׁכְּנַז וְרִיפַת, וְתוֹגַרְמָה.
3 And the sons of Gomer: Ashkenaz, and Riphath, and Togarmah.
ובני גמר אשכנז ודיפר ותוגרמא:

Peshita on Bereishit perek 9


Masoretic Text
Onkelos
English for MT
Peshitta

Bereishit 9:

Some interesting changes marked in bold  red


א וַיְבָרֶךְ אֱלֹהִים, אֶת-נֹחַ וְאֶת-בָּנָיו; וַיֹּאמֶר לָהֶם פְּרוּ וּרְבוּ, וּמִלְאוּ אֶת-הָאָרֶץ.  
וּבָרֵיךְ יְיָ, יָת נוֹחַ וְיָת בְּנוֹהִי; וַאֲמַר לְהוֹן פּוּשׁוּ וּסְגוֹ, וּמְלוֹ יָת אַרְעָא.
1 And God blessed Noah and his sons, and said unto them: 'Be fruitful and multiply, and replenish the earth.
וברך אלהא לנוח ולבנוהי ואמר להון פרו וסגו ומלו ארעא:

ב וּמוֹרַאֲכֶם וְחִתְּכֶם, יִהְיֶה, עַל כָּל-חַיַּת הָאָרֶץ, וְעַל כָּל-עוֹף הַשָּׁמָיִם; בְּכֹל אֲשֶׁר תִּרְמֹשׂ הָאֲדָמָה וּבְכָל-דְּגֵי הַיָּם, בְּיֶדְכֶם נִתָּנוּ.  
וְדַחְלַתְכוֹן וְאֵימַתְכוֹן, תְּהֵי, עַל כָּל חַיַּת אַרְעָא, וְעַל כָּל עוֹפָא דִּשְׁמַיָּא; בְּכֹל דְּתַרְחֵישׁ אַרְעָא וּבְכָל נוּנֵי יַמָּא, בְּיַדְכוֹן מְסִירִין.
 2 And the fear of you and the dread of you shall be upon every beast of the earth, and upon every fowl of the air, and upon all wherewith the ground teemeth, and upon all the fishes of the sea: into your hand are they delivered. 
ודחלתכון וזועתכון תהוא על כלה חיותא דארעא ועל כלה פרחתא דשמיא ועל כל דמרחשא ארעא וכלהון נונא דימא באידיכון נשתלמון:

Friday, October 28, 2011

posts so far for parshat Noach

2011

  1. Noach sources -- from 2009, -- links by aliyah and perek to an online Mikraos Gedolos, and more than 100 meforshim on the parsha and haftorah. In 2010, improved and expanded, and in 2011, even further expanded and organized. For instance, a bunch of kitvei yad of Rashi.
    .
  2. The Rav, and Shadal, on removing yekum purkan.
    .
  3. Punished with water, midah keneged midah -- Here is a confusing Ibn Ezra that I thought bore explanation.
    .
  4. How could Noach drink wine of Orlah if he was able to figure out the Torah? Rav Chaim Kanievsky asks and answers. Well, who says that he felt obligated to keep it? Or maybe he actually did keep the Torah, and waited to drink the wine.
    .
  5. How Chazal assume a malei טְהוֹרָה, against the masorah (and Torah Codes) -- According to the Masorah, אֲשֶׁר אֵינֶנָּה טְהֹרָה is chaser. According to the letter count in the gemara in Pesachim, it in malei. See how Minchas Shai attempts to resolve this. Plus, evidence from the Samaritan Pentateuch as well as from masoretic variants.
    .
  6. The world was filled with chamas -- was this robbery, extortion, or something elseRashi says chamas meansgezel. Does he mean this technically, or not? The meforshei Rashi consider this question, as do I.
    .
  7. YU Torah on parashat Noach.
    .
  8. Does כָּל בָּשָׂר refer to all humans or all creaturesIbn Caspi and Baal HaTurim diverge from the midrash.
    .
  9. Is וַיִּיקֶץ נֹחַ malei or chaser, according to Radak, against the masorah (and Torah codes)Michlal Yofi says it is chaser here in Noach and in Vayeitzei, which happens to be against our Masoretic text. Minchas Shai explains that he is wrong, and how he is wrong. He misinterpreted Radak. But then I show (I think) that Radak indeed explicitly says this, and so Minchas Shai is incorrect. Further, the Samaritan text is (perhaps surprisingly) chaser, and there are many Jewish texts that are chaser. And perhaps R' Meir Abulafia, while at odds with Radak, is recording a krei and ketiv distinction. Naturally, this has repercussions of possibly invalidating all modern sifrei Torah, as well as many Torah codes.
    .
  10. DovBear discusses my 2007 post about Shem's blessing (with ohalei Shem rather than Elokei Shem.)

2010

  1. Demons on the ark, and the Kotzker's famous elu ve'elu --  Rashi and Chazal against Rambam. The Kotzker resolves this by having the Rambam effectively pasken demons out of existence. But does this work for a rationalist? Does it work with the words of the Rambam? Doesn't it go against a Mishnah?
    .
  2. A quick and fun etymology of Noach and Utnapishtim -- Utnaishtim min haTorah minayin?
    .
  3. Rav Yonasan Eibeshutz's Rocket Ship -- It is not really true that Rav Yonasan Eibeshitz described the migdal Bavel as a modern space ship, blasting off into outer space. He says something similar, and related, but there is a big difference. In this post, I present what he does say. In another post, bli neder, I will contrast it with what people, who have not read him inside, attribute to him, and point out the important differences. Also, it seems that he also holds that there was at least the possibility of a local flood.
    .
  4. An analysis of Rav Yonasan Eibeshitz's Space Elevator -- Rav Yonatan Eibeshutz did NOT describe the Tower of Bavel as a rocket ship, though this is the common presentation of his idea. In this post, I'd like to provide a bit of analysis.
    .
  5. Animal husbandry and wifery -- Are the animals husband and wife? Are the birds explicitly pure birds? How Onkelos does not reflect a different textual tradition, and how another textual tradition might have developed.
    .
  6. Why no avian husbandry and wiferyBringing to the fore the Tur's explanation of this deviation, of ish veIshto being used for animals but not for birds, in terms of creatures brought onto the teiva.
    .
  7. Rashi's rocket ship -- On the heels of my discussion of Rav Yonasan Eibeshitz's (nonexistent) rocket ship, here I discuss whether a Rashi in Chagiga asserts that the tower of Bavel flew. While a quick, surface reading of Rashi might give one this impression, a more careful reading will reveal that it is simply not so.
    .
  8. Rambam's Iron Airship -- As a further followup, I present the Rambam's iron airship. In condemning the over-use of imagination, the Rambam accidentally demonstrates its power.
    .
  9. Rabbi Menachem Tziyuni's Hover-Tower -- The best evidence of a position that the tower of Bavel itself flew. But the reference is to the sod of what seems to be a different, Israelite, tower, and since this is after all kabbalah, which could very well be allegorical, I am not entirely convinced that he understood the migdal Bavel as literally a flying ship.
    .
  10. The Tower of Bavel as Launching Pad, showing the dangers of scientific inquiry -- analyzing a parsha sheet. I disagree with them as to R' Eibeshitz's intent, and explain why, but at least they got Rav Yonasan Eibeshitz's theory correct.
    .
  11. How to spell 'goyim' -- on parashat Toledot, but connected to a Minchas Shai on Noach. How I would justify the Masoretic reading. Plus the strange, counter-intuitive vowel pattern provided by the Masorah, and its significance.


2009
  1. Is the Ran an apikores by his own definition, part ii -- In this post, part of a short series, I note how the Ran says anyone who argues on midrash is an apikores, yet on parshas Noach he has an elaborate reinterpretation of the situation at the time of the Dor Haflaga (Palaga), which goes against midrashim. In the first part, I showed that he argued on the midrash about the definition of the bechor who died in makkas bechoros. And in the third part, I show that Ran's concern is with a particular type of arguing on midrash, in which all of Scripture is allegorized.
    .
  2. "Only Noach", or "Only Noach And Those With Him"? Two parses, one from trup, and the other from Shadal. Shadal explains how he would slightly change the trup so that the parse would match the idiom which recurs in the next perek.
    .
  3. What if Ararat is not the highest mountain? Assuming a global rather than local flood, how can we work out 15 cubits over Ararat and yet covering all mountains in the world, if it turns out that other mountains are higher?
    .
  4. How are the days of man 120 years? Was 120 years man's new lifespan? This would go against the genealogical section which follows. Was it a ketz until the manifestation of God's wrath? This is what many meforshim prefer, but I prefer the lifespan theory as best local peshat, despite more global difficulties.
    .
  5. Was there a preexisting covenant with Noach? Ibn Ezra thinks so, and shows how Biblical style is to suddenly introduce facts not yet in evidence. Both others don't think it necessary.
    .
  6. The kaf / gimel switch, and how Ibn Ezra on Noach seems at odds with Ibn Ezra elsewhere. Is this evidence of reversal, or the work of an erring student?
    .
  7. Moral lessons from parshas Noach from the Ralbag.
    .
  8. Junior on parshas Noach, in terms of mizvos in the parsha and the demise of dinosaurs. (And unicorns.)
    .
  9. The fourth son of Noach, and how not all sources are created equal. Even if a late midrash says something, we need not treat it as halacha leMoshe miSinai...
    .
  10. Is there a ketz for life on earth? We might derive this from עֹד כָּל-יְמֵי הָאָרֶץ. Ibn Ezra vs. Ibn Caspi.
    .
  11. The mabul as local flood -- and the dangers thereof.
    .
  12. Did the mabul flood Eretz Yisrael? How the midrash understood kol in parashat Noach and what that might imply for those who would want to explain the mabul as a local flood. Also, how Ibn Ezra might call names to Chazal for declaring that Eretz Yisrael was not flooded. But, he might be merely referring to contemporaries who regarded the midrash as literal rather than allegorical.
    .
  13. Why eat herring with your hands? Based on a derasha from parashat Noach.
    .
  14. Teva and the Teiva -- Nowadays, people grapple with many issues resolving the narrative in parshat Noach and what we know about the natural world. And we have some good questions, including many that were simply not questions centuries ago.

    But as I was learning through Ibn Ezra on parshas Noach, it was interesting to see just how he grappled with similar issues, and how he managed to square the Biblical account with some measure of derech hateva. In this post are a few choice comments from Ibn Ezra which fit with this theme, together with some of my translations and elaborations.
    .
  15. What was Avraham's relationship to Sarah? A few approaches to resolving all the relevant textual evidence.
2008
  1. In Shadal: A Revii or Zakef on Noach, I discuss the expected trup of the word based on the rules of continuous dichotomy.
    .
  2. In Shadal's Rejection of the Documentary Hypothesis, I first was negligent and too-quicly read Shadal's statement as an endorsement of a version of it. But in fact he is claiming that the switchoff to different Divine names in the way it appears in Noach is cause for rejection of the DH.
    2007
    1. Parallels between Noach and Lot.
      .
    2. In The Perverted Law Code of Nimrod, a tenuous connection between Nimrod and Hammurabi. Nimrod as Amraphel as Hammurabi, as well as midrashic description of Nimrod as a giver of law in competition with the good laws taught by Shem and Ever.
      .
    3. How Noach left the teiva, an amazing "midrash."
      .
    4. Where is Shem's Blessing? Yefet gets one, and Cham gets a curse, but how is this a blessing to Shem? To have an intrusive brother? I would suggest an al tikra of elokei as ohalei. Or an anonymous commenter would read it as a textual emendation.
      .
    5. Related to the above, How Shem lost the kehuna -- and preceding Avraham's blessing to that of Hashem. I think that underlying this midrash might be, in part, the total lack of a blessing to Shem, and only a blessing to Hashem. Yet Shem failed to learn the lesson.
      .
    6. What Did The Builders of The Tower of Bavel Do Wrong? On a surface level, it is hard to see what. First, the idea from Derashot HaRan. But then my own suggestion, that they did nothing wrong, but this is part of a theme in sefer Bereishit of Hashem limiting human power.
      .
    7. Is Canaan the Brother of Shem and Yefet? A possibility of conflicting traditions, which would cause Moshe to continuously note that Canaan was the son of Cham.
      .
    8. The Tower of Bavel and the Development of Language -- as per Ibn Ezra's theory that this was not a sudden miraculous changing of the language, but rather that Hashem scattered them, which had the eventual effect of diverging languages.
      .
    9. Noach had a teva. But what is a teva? A ship, a box, a dwelling, a coffin? Connections to Moshe Rabbeinu and to the Epic of Gilgamesh.
      .
    10. Who was Yiskah? And why did Chazal identify her with Sarah?
      .
    11. Chazak, Chazak veNitchazek -- where the pasuk of "Ish Et Re'ehu" might well refer to building an idol, or building the Tower of Bavel. But see Josh M's comment, there, that this is darshened in Bereishit Rabba 44:8 as referring to Avraham and Malkitzedek: זה עוזר לזה בברכות, וזה עוזר לזה במתנות.
      .
    12. Gilgamesh, Utanpishtim, and Gan Eden -- and the connection to Noach, among other things.
      2006
      1. Nimrod -- Saint or Sinner? A video. Lifnei Hashem -- does this mean that he was a good guy or a bad guy? Plus more.
        .
      2. And Cham Was the Father of Canaan -- A video. Why Canaan is punished for Cham's sin, and why every time Cham is mentioned we mention that he is the father of Canaan.
        .
      3. Bill Cosby on Noah. Here. Quite funny.
        .
      4. Noach-related Amstel Commercial. Here.
        .
      5. Tower of Bavel Translator -- which translates subvocalizations.
        .
      6. Thus Did Noach -- Different Girsa, or Harmonization? What is being reflected in Tg Onkelos on this pasuk of "thus did Noach?"
        .
      7. Cute Noach-related Commercial -- Yet another one. Here.
        .
      8. Parsing Tzaddik Tamim -- A video. Two or three ways of parsing Noach Ish Tzaddik Tamim Haya BeDorotav. The midrashic parse, Targumic parse, that of Rashi, Ramban, Ibn Ezra.
        .
      9. Toledot -- Generations or Events? A video. The first pasuk of Noach, and the meaning of Toledot according to Rashi, Ibn Ezra, and Shadal. Some motivations for choosing each. Plus more.
        .
      10. The Correct Identification of Noach's Rainbow -- There is a special "fire rainbow" which appears specifically "in the clouds." This may answer Ramban's difficulty.
        .
      11. The Antedeluvian Years: A Possible Explanation -- Recalculating the years before the flood and after the flood until Avraham. I suggest shana might mean "period of two months" (as opposed to chodesh), and in keeping with a popular numbering system based on 60. And that after the flood, it means "season." I made an error in calculation at this point in that post (in that we would have to divide by 4 rather than 3), and I still need to figure that out.
        .
      12. Explaining the Sumerian King List -- With the realization from the aforemention post, I realized that the same seemed to be true for the Sumerian King List, which had normal years later on but early on insanely large figures. However, assuming that the numbers are years groups into sets of 360 days, and thus dividing by 360, we end up will very perfect numbers such as 100 years! Needs fixing. This seems incorrect.
      2005
      1. A Dual Etiology for Bavel
        .
      2. Noach As Non-Metaphor -- Why I don't think Noach works out well as metaphor. Now, I realize that was intended was a metaphor for actual physical processes, which I do not address in this post.
        .
      3. Spelling Noach With Seven Mistakes -- How to do it. And I add an eighth mistake!
        .
      4. Realia, Daf Yomi, and Fresh Olives -- In which I taste a fresh olive and realize it is bitter. How that hooks into daf yomi of the time of the post, and a Rashi about how the dove wanted even bitter natural food as opposed to sweet processed food.
      2003
      1. Noach's Family -- We know his kids. The identity of his wife and pet.
        .
      2. Parsing Noach's Compliance -- In which we examine two parsings of Bereishit 6:22. A case of trup + Rashi vs. Onkelos + Tg Yonatan.
      to be continued...

      Ramban, the perfect encoding of Torah, and hidden messages such as Torah codes

      From the Ramban's hakdama to his commentary on Chumash:

      עוד יש בידינו קבלה של אמת, כי כל התורה כולה שמותיו של הקב"ה, שהתיבות מתחלקות לשמות בענין אחד. כאילו תחשוב על דרך משל, כי פסוק בראשית יתחלק לתיבות אחרות, כגון: בראש יתברא אלהים. וכל התורה כן, מלבד צירופיהן וגימטריותיהן של שמות.
      וכבר כתב רבינו שלמה בפירושיו בתלמוד, ענין השם הגדול של ע"ב, באיזה ענין הוא, בשלשה פסוקים: ויסע ויבא ויט. ומפני זה ספר תורה שטעה בו באות אחת, במלא או בחסר - פסול. כי זה הענין יחייב אותנו לפסול ס"ת שיחסר בו ו' אחד ממלות אותם שבאו מהם ל"ט מלאים בתורה, או שיכתוב הו' באחד משאר החסרים, וכן כיוצא בזה, אע"פ שאינו מעלה ולא מוריד כפי העולה במחשבה.
      וזה הענין שהביאו גדולי המקרא למנות כל מלא וכל חסר, וכל התורה והמקרא, ולחבר ספרים במסורת עד עזרא הסופר הנביא, שנשתדל בזה, כמו שדרשו מפסוק ויקראו בספר בתורת האלהים מפורש ושום שכל ויבינו במקרא. ונראה שהתורה הכתובה באש שחורה על גבי אש לבנה, בענין הזה שהזכרנו היה, שהיתה הכתיבה רצופה בלי הפסק תיבות, והיה אפשר בקריאתה שתקרא על דרך השמות, ותקרא על דרך קריאתנו בענין התורה והמצוה, ונתנה למשה רבינו על דרך קריאת המצות, ונמסר לו על פה קריאתה בשמות.
      וכן יכתבו השם הגדול שהזכרתי כולו רצוף, ויתחלק לתיבות של שלוש שלוש אותיות, ולחלוקים אחרים רבים, כפי השימוש לבעלי הקבלה. 


      "There is also in our hands a true tradition that the entire Torah is composed entirely of Divine names. That the words are divided into Names in one matter. As if you would consider, by way of analogy, that the pasuk of Bereishit would be divided into other words. Such as [in place of בראשית ברא אלהים, "In the beginning of God's creation...], בראש יתברא אלהים. And all the Torah so, aside from the combinations and the gematriot of the names.


      And Rabbeinu Shlomo {=Rashi} already wrote in his commentary to the Talmud [on Succah 45a] the matter of the great Name of 72 [letters], and in what manner it is, in three verses, ויסע ויבא ויט. [Meaning, there are three consecutive verses in a row of 72 letters each, which can be combined to form Divine Names.] And because of this, a Sefer Torah in which a single letter is in error, as a malei or a chaser, is invalid. For this matter requires us to invalidate a Sefer Torah which is missing a single vav from the word אותם, from which 39 are written malei in the Torah. Or if the vav were written in one of the other ones [about 180] which are supposed to be chaser, and so the like in this, even though as far as one might think, it neither helps nor harms.


      And this matter is what brought the greats [experts] of Scripture to count every malei and chaser, and the entire Torah and Scriptures, and to compose books on the masoret until Ezra the Sofer and Navi, that we should endeavor in this, as they darshened from the verse  ויקראו בספר בתורת האלהים מפורש ושום שכל ויבינו במקרא. And it appears that the Torah, written with black fire upon white fire, in this manner that we have mentioned it was, that the writing was continuous, without a space between words, and it was possible in reading it that one could read it by way of the Names, and to read it by way of our reading it in the matter of Torah and Mitzvot. And it was given to Moshe Rabbenu by way of the reading of the mitzvos, and it was transmitted to him Orally the reading via the Names.


      And so do they write the great name I have mentioned, entirely continuously, and it is divided into words of three letters each, and into many other divisions as well, according to the utilizations of the masters of kabbalah."


      The Minchas Shai is aware of this Ramban, and cites this in his lengthy introduction to his work, as one of his motivations for working to establish the proper Masoretic text.

      At the end of the day, with the many many divergences recorded, discussed, and analyzed in Minchas Shai, one comes to the conclusion that it is extremely unlikely that our current sifrei Torah are correct in every malei and chaser. There are too many disputes among masoretic notes, and diverges from the Torah text before various Rishonim and before Chazal.

      Besides that, there is the statement in Masechet Soferim 6:4 indicating a compromise harmonization between various scrolls in the Azarah (or of Ezra). And Kiddushin daf 30 claims that gachon is the middle letter in the Torah. But it is NOT, in our counting of present-day sifrei Torah, nor was it before the Amoraim, which prompts Rav Yosef to say that we are not experts in malei and chaser. So all Sifrei Torah are in error, and would be pasul based on this insistence.

      See, however (footnote 34), Rama on Orach Chaim 143:4 where an error in malei / chaser would invalidate only lechatchila, not bedieved, as understood by the Nodah Be-Yehuda on Yoreh Deah 2:178, and also the Minchas Chinuch who holds that this would not invalidate a sefer Torah at all.

      Torah Codes are based, in part, on this kabbalistic concept. The text of the Torah in its present form is perfect and can be used to discover hidden meanings. But if one disagrees with this assertion -- and there is strong reason to do so -- then all Torah codes are thrown off.

      Thursday, October 27, 2011

      Is וַיִּיקֶץ נֹחַ malei or chaser, according to Radak, against the masorah (and Torah codes)?

      Summary: Michlal Yofi says it is chaser here in Noach and in Vayeitzei, which happens to be against our Masoretic text. Minchas Shai explains that he is wrong, and how he is wrong. He misinterpreted Radak. But then I show (I think) that Radak indeed explicitly says this, and so Minchas Shai is incorrect. Further, the Samaritan text is (perhaps surprisingly) chaser, and there are many Jewish texts that are chaser. And perhaps R' Meir Abulafia, while at odds with Radak, is recording a krei and ketiv distinction. Naturally, this has repercussions of possibly invalidating all modern sifrei Torah, as well as many Torah codes.

      Post: In the middle of parashat Noach, 9:24, we read:

      24. And Noah awoke from his wine, and he knew what his small son had done to him.כד. וַיִּיקֶץ נֹחַ מִיֵּינוֹ וַיֵּדַע אֵת אֲשֶׁר עָשָׂה לוֹ בְּנוֹ הַקָּטָן:


      In sefer Michlal Yofi, a grammatical work on Tanach by R' Shlomo Ibn Melech (first printed in Constantinople, 1549), the author writes:
      ויקץ נח •  ביו״ד
      האיתן לבד ויו״ד השרש  נעלמה

      That is, there is the yud indicating the actor (masculine) within the verb, and there is a yud which is part of the root. And, since there is only one yud present in ויקץ, the one showing is the one which is part of the morphology, while the yud of the root elides or is absorbed in some way.

      The "problem" with this is that in our Masoretic text, there are two yuds. Minchas Shai notes this.

      "וַיִּיקֶץ נֹחַ -- the Michlol Yofi wrote ... [and then the above citation] ... and these words of his are too wondrous for me, for in all the sefarim it is with two yuds, and so wrote the Rama [Rabbi Meir Abulafia] za'l:
      וַיִּיקֶץ נֹחַ מִיֵּינוֹ -- is malei with both yuds written, one read and the other not read, and its kuf is with a segol. And [Bereishit 28:29] וַיִּיקַץ יַעֲקֹב מִשְּׁנָתוֹ of parashat Vayeitzei, is malei with both yuds and its kuf is with a patach, and like it is [Bereishit 41:4] וַיִּיקַץ פַּרְעֹה, and like it is [same perek, pasuk 7] וַיִּיקַץ פַּרְעֹה וְהִנֵּה חֲלוֹם, in parashat Vayhi Miketz. And [same perek, pasuk 21] the וָאִיקָץ at the end of the pasuk of וַתָּבֹאנָה אֶל-קִרְבֶּנָה is malei yud [of a single yud] written.
      End quote. And see that which I write at the start of parashat Vayeitzei, with the help of Heaven, upon  וַיִּיקַץ פַּרְעֹה."

      Perhaps at the end, he means upon וַיִּיקַץ יַעֲקֹב? Maybe not, as we will see from Minchas Shai's concluding words.

      The Michlal Yofi on parashat Vayeitzei makes the same comment once again, on וַיִּיקַץ יַעֲקֹב. He writes:
      ויקץ: בא ביו״ד האיתן  לבד

      And Minchas Shai there notes this and comments:

      "וַיִּיקַץ יַעֲקֹב מִשְּׁנָתוֹ -- In all the precise sefarim, it is with two yuds. And that which the author of Michlal Yofi wrote, that it comes with the morphological yud alone, is an error. And his words are taken from the Michlol [of the Radak], page 129, and so is implied from the gloss of the medakdek there, and also from his gloss in the [sefer] HaShorashim, root יקץ, and one should not rely upon them in this.


      Now, come and rely upon what I have written in parashat Noach upon the verse וַיִּיקֶץ נֹחַ in the name of the Rama za'l, who was rav muvhak, and his words are precise in all places, and specifically in the work of the corrections of the Torah, for for this he came, and this was his craft, to determine the truth based upon the precise sefarim, and there is not to err in his rulings, for he was precise and found truth. And further, because all of the masorot agree that there is only in reading three which are chaser, and their mnemonic is [Shofetim 16:20] ויקץ שמשון [actually, וַתֹּאמֶר, פְּלִשְׁתִּים עָלֶיךָ שִׁמְשׁוֹן; וַיִּקַץ מִשְּׁנָתוֹ]; the second, [I Melachim 3:15] וַיִּקַץ שְׁלֹמֹה, and [Tehillim 78:65] וַיִּקַץ כְּיָשֵׁן. {Josh: There are others, but they refer not to waking but to disgust, such as וַיָּקָץ בְּיִשְׂרָאֵל of I Melachim 11:25.} All this I have seen in the printed masoret of Tehillim 78, and other masorot in manuscript sefarim in Shofetim 16 and in Melachim perek 3. Also, the Masorah Ketana at the start of parashat Vayhi Miketz upon the verse וַיִּיקַץ פַּרְעֹה, there is a masorah that the entire Torah is written likewise."

      Here is what I found in Radak's sefer Shorashim:

      At least as it appears in this printing -- perhaps some printer 'corrected' it -- the verses of both Yaakov and Noach are cited with two yuds. And in ויקצו מזעזעיך of Chabakuk perek 2, there is a gaaya, which he notes is compensating for the absence of the yud of the first root letter.

      I would note that since vayiketz of Noach is pronounced with stress on the first letter -- mile'eil, there is no place for the gaaya as a secondary stress. But it seems that Minchas Shai is suggesting that R' Shlomo Ibn Melech misinterpreted Radak's mention of the chisaron of the first root yud as applying as well to these two examples.

      Meanwhile, here is what appears in the sefer Michlol of the Radak, in the Shaar Dikduk Hapaalim:

      Thus, Radak says that it is with the morphological yud alone. And he cites the verse in I Melachim. But then he cites the one of parashat Noach, in Bereshit 9. This printing has it spelled malei with two yuds, but this is plausibly the correction of the printer, to accord with our masorah. It does seem to be what Radak means, that the ויקץ of Noach is chaser.

      But Minchas Shai says that this is an error on Michlal Yofi's part, and that -- I suppose -- only the first was an example of chaser, with the second example being a counterexample. Perhaps, but I find it strange.

      In fact, I believe that I can prove that Minchas Shai is the one misreading the Radak. Minchas Shai did not have access to Radak's commentary on Chumash, but we do. And this is what Radak says on the pasuk in Noach:

      "ויקץ -- with the morphological yud alone, and the yud of the root elides."
      This is then explicitly what Michlal Yofi says, and accords quite well with its citation in sefer Michlol of the Radak. And the printer here (I assume) put in parentheses that this is at odds with our Masoret.

      What about alternative texts? Specifically, what do the Samaritans have? And what about Jewish masoretic texts? Do any of them have it chaser the yud hashoresh?

      This is what we find in Vetus Testamentum, regarding the Samaritan text of the Pentateuch, regarding Noach's awakening:

      The Samaritan text is on the left, and it has only a single yud. A chaser spelling is perhaps more unexpected in the Samaritan text, since placing malei vavs and yuds aids in the reading. This recommends the reading. On the other hand, another Samaritan tendency is to regularize spelling across Tanach, and so perhaps this is a regularization.

      Looking to the bottom of the page in Vetus Testamentum, we find a number of Jewish (meaning that they are supposed to be masoretic) texts which also have the chaser reading. Thus:

      If so, perhaps this is a perfectly valid masoretic tradition, as recorded by Radak, a Rishon, and attested to in multiple sifrei Torah. What of the many masoretic notes? The masoretic notes were composed by people who looked over the various sefarim and describing what was there. And undoubtedly this was the reality in the sefarim they looked at. But had they looked at other sefarim, they might have written a masoretic note in accordance with the Radak. Indeed, we find plenty of competing masoretic notes, which are based on differing texts.

      Here, by the way, is the Samaritan text on Vayeitzei. It is chaser, as pictured to the left:

      And looking at the variae lectiones of Hebrew ("masoretic") sefarim listed at the bottom of the page, we see:


      There is some overlap to the ones listed for parashat Noach, but not in its entirety.

      At the end of the day, this appears to be a plausible reading, and we are left with a pretty big safek. And the Rama, the Rishon, was an expert, so perhaps we should heed him over the Radak, but that does not mean that we must. (If our sifrei Torah are in error, then this would naturally mess up any Torah code which passed through this word.)

      There is, however, something to be medayek in within the words of Rabbi Meir Abulafia. To cite it again, from Minchas Shai's quotation:
      וַיִּיקֶץ נֹחַ מִיֵּינוֹ -- is malei with both yuds written, one read and the other not read, and its kuf is with a segol.
      What does the Rama mean that one is read and the other is not read, even though it is malei with both yuds written. Maybe he means that one of them is a consonant, and so it is pronounced, while the second follows the chirik, and so is encompassed within the chirik. Perhaps, but grammarians distinguish between the chirik malei and the chirik chaser, with the former being a long vowel and the latter being a short vowel. So that yud would be pronounced.

      Rather, it seems to me that Rama is saying that even though that second yud is written in the ketiv, it is not pronounced at all in the kerei. And so, the chirik should be a chirik chaser.

      Thus, this is a krei and ketiv. There are disputes about the origin of krei and ketiv, and the spur might be changing grammar, or differentiation between the text as written and the grammatical requirement (as described by Radak in sefer Michlol) for that first root letter to elide. But maybe this krei and ketiv was a way of encoding two competing masorot. Since some texts had the word malei and some had the word chaser, the compromise was to encode one in the krei and the other in ketiv.

      If, however, we are only speaking of pronunciation, maybe we can go back and read this into even the Radak's commentary on sefer Bereishit...

      Does כָּל בָּשָׂר refer to all humans or all creatures?

      Summary: Ibn Caspi and Baal HaTurim diverge from the midrash.

      Post: Towards the start of parashat Noach:

      12. And God saw the earth, and behold it had become corrupted, for all flesh had corrupted its way on the earth.יב. וַיַּרְא אֱ־לֹהִים אֶת הָאָרֶץ וְהִנֵּה נִשְׁחָתָה כִּי הִשְׁחִית כָּל בָּשָׂר אֶת דַּרְכּוֹ עַל הָאָרֶץ:


      Ibn Caspi writes:

      "All flesh: sometimes in Hebrew this refers to the class of living creatures, and sometimes only to people, whether all of them or some of them. And it is written (Yeshaya 66:23):


      כג  וְהָיָה, מִדֵּי-חֹדֶשׁ בְּחָדְשׁוֹ, וּמִדֵּי שַׁבָּת, בְּשַׁבַּתּוֹ; יָבוֹא כָל-בָּשָׂר לְהִשְׁתַּחֲו‍ֹת לְפָנַי, אָמַר ה.23 And it shall come to pass, that from one new moon to another, and from one sabbath to another, shall all flesh come to worship before Me, saith the LORD.


      And also the word כל, all, in Hebrew, varies in its meaning, and this is known to those who are experts in Hebrew."

      Ibn Caspi's intent, here, is to differ from Rashi, who had interpreted כִּי הִשְׁחִית כָּל בָּשָׂר אֶת דַּרְכּוֹ as the animals engaging in illicit interspecies sexual behavior. Thus:

      כי השחית כל בשר: אפילו בהמה חיה ועוף נזקקין לשאינן מינן:

      Ibn Caspi even (seems to) gives a different definition השחית, of more general misbehavior and misdeeds. And he seems to even say that it was not all of them. Perhaps, then, Noach was saved by virtue of being a tzadik and not just a non-sinner to that extent.

      The Baal HaTurim says the same as Ibn Caspi about כל בשר being all humans on a peshat level, even as a later כל בשר in the parsha can refer to all living creatures. Thus:

      ועל  דרך  הפשט  כל  בשר זה כל האדם,
       ולמטה  (פסוק יז־יט) מפרש  כל בשר אשר  בו
       רוח חיים, ומכל החי  מכל בשר, חיה  ועוף, אבל  כאן
       כל  בשר כל  אדם וכן  יבא  כל  בשר (ישעיה סו, כג):ש

      Wednesday, October 26, 2011

      Is יְעוֹפֵף a command, or an adjective?

      Summary: Two girsaot in Onkelos, reflecting a machlokes Chazal. Plus, the trup appears to indicate one way over another.

      Post: In the first perek of Bereishit, we turn to consider the following pasuk and Targum:


      א,כ וַיֹּאמֶר אֱלֹהִים--יִשְׁרְצוּ הַמַּיִם, שֶׁרֶץ נֶפֶשׁ חַיָּה; וְעוֹף יְעוֹפֵף עַל-הָאָרֶץ, עַל-פְּנֵי רְקִיעַ הַשָּׁמָיִם.וַאֲמַר יְיָ--יִרְחֲשׁוּן מַיָּא, רְחֵישׁ נַפְשָׁא חַיְתָא; וְעוֹפָא יְפָרַח עַל אַרְעָא, עַל אַפֵּי רְקִיעַ שְׁמַיָּא.


      A straightforward rendition of יְעוֹפֵף  would indeed be יְפָרַח. However, switch the leading yud for a daled and you have what appears in certain other texts of Onkelos. In Ohev Ger, Shadal writes:


      "וְעוֹף יְעוֹפֵף עַל-הָאָרֶץ as וְעוֹפָא יְפָרַח, with a yud (so a bunch of Onkelos texts). And so does Mendelsohnn translate it as future tense {imperfect}, and so seems the opinion of the author of the trup (see Netivot HaShalom = Mendelsohnn). But in Gimel Targumim and Chumash Gadol, דפרח with a daled. And so does Ramban explain שיעופף {'that fly', rather than 'should fly'}. And our Sages argued about this in the Talmud, and the former seems to me to be primary."


      It seems that we should turn to Nesivos HaShalom, to get a better picture of this and to see what this has to do with trup. Here is what Nesivos HaShalom writes. Realize that this pasuk appears at the very start of the fifth day of Creation:


      "Our Rabbis dispute this. Some say that birds were created from the water, and therefore their creation was mentioned on the fifth, since on this day is the statement of creation with water. And Rabbi Eliezer HaGadol, in his perakim, says that on the fifth was השריץ {crept, swarmed} from the water all winged birds, and afterwards, in his opinion, it explains ועוף יעופף על הארץ, drawn out as if it said ישרצו המים with נפש חיה as well as the עוף שיעופף, such that the word שרץ also falls upon the winged birds. And the pasuk {in perek 2 pasuk 19, when Adam is in the Garden and Hashem brings him various animals} which states ויצר ה אלקים מן האדמה כל חית השדה ואת כל עוף השמים is as if it said 'and Hashem Elokim created all the beasts of the field from the ground, and all the birds of heaven', and there are many like it. But in the gemara, they argue about it, and some say that the birds were created from both of them {water and earth}, that is to say it was created from the mud. And if so, since the mud is in the earth of the sea, and from them was their generation, because of this the statement appeared on the fifth day.


      And the author of the trup, it seems that he agrees with this position. Therefore, he placed the word חיה with the trup of etnachta, and the intent is as if he placed two separate statements -- the water should swam with the sheretz nefesh chaya, and the of should yeofef upon the earth. and if the words ישרצו המים applied as well to the עוף יעופף, he would have needed to establish upon the word המים a disjunctive, separating trup, greater than that of the word חיה."

      Here is the pasuk in question, with its trup:


      Thus, the first statement is up to the word חיה, and עוף יעופף means that birds should be יעופף, as a verb, rather that יעופף being an adjective.

      Tzarich iyun, perhaps. For some reason, I have reservations about this trup insight. Look, we need to place the etnachta someplace. Where should we pace it? On המים, separating the first item on the list from the verb? Could we place it later? That seems difficult. We are faced with a list of items (as per the second, דפריש interpretation). And we see in Wickes that there are sometimes exceptions to the purely logical division within certain lists. I could not fit this example into his categories, but I still wonder if one could, such that this is not the most compelling proof.

      If it is indeed the case that the trup is in accordance with one parse, then what shall we make of Ramban deciding the other way (assuming of course that he realized this)? And how could it be a machlokes in the Chazal, if we wanted to say that the trup is halacha leMoshe miSinai? Which way does the trup indicate? Unless you say (suddenly) that there was a machlokes in the trup as well.

      LinkWithin

      Blog Widget by LinkWithin