Parsha: Bo, "Rashi on P'shat and D'rash"

originally posted January 9, 2016

Rashi D"H V'im yim'at habbayyit...(Bo 12:4 )

First, Rashi says, "X l'fee f'shuto..." Namely, if there aren't enough people to completely eat the Pesach lamb, and they will come to have Nottar, then these people are to join their neighbors.

V'od yeish bo Midrash: "That following 'shenimnu' they may still withdraw whilst the lamb still lives". Rashi does NOT force the P'shat to conform to D'rash EVEN when that D'rash is Halachic and not Aggadic.

Thus, P'shat of a phrase can be independent of the Halachot derived from it . Even though the p'shat here IS influenced by Halachah. It conforms to an explicit text concerning Nottar. Although we can't be certain, it doesn't seem to CONTRADICT halachah either! 

Summary:

While Rashi does suggest that P'shat conforms with Halachah,  he also mentions that Halachic D'rash adds a dimension that goes well beyond P'shat.

Shalom,

RRW

Parsha: Vo'eira, "Y'hee l'Tanin"

originally posted January 2, 2016

 Y'hee l'Tanin (Vo'eira 7:9)

Pick your Parshanut Preference

1. Rashi states that the tanin is a SNAKE
2. R' Hirsch and others call the tanin a CROCODILE.

Advantages to #1

• It matches the symbol in Parshat Sh'mot: 4:3
• Rashi says so

Advantages to #2

• In Parshat Sh'mot, it SAYS Nachash - but here says it's a Tanin. Given the use of two words, we naturally expect a distinction!
• Crocodiles were symbols of Egypt, so this would have been more symbolic. As Haftarah Vo'eira [EZE 29:3] says TaniM that is HaRoveitz. Crocodiles crouch, snakes don't
• If you read Taninim in Parshat Breishit 1:21 as great lizards, this matches it a bit better

Pick your preferred approach.

Shalom,

RRW

Parsha, Vo'eira, "Koveid Leiv Par'oh"

Originally posted January 2, 2016  
Pick your Parshanut Preference:

1. Koveid or Hazak are two words which BOTH refer to Pharaoh acting stubbornly. The classic commentators seem to use the two words interchangeably.
2. Koveid could mean something else entirely, such as, "heavy".

Background:

In Egyptian Mythology, a human's heart was weighed at death. 

This was done by weighing one's heart (conscience) against the feather of Maat (truth and justice)... Anubis weighs Hunefer's [humann's] heart against the feather to see if he is worthy of joining the gods in the Fields of Peace. Ammut is also present, as a demon waiting to devour Hunefer's heart should he prove unworthy.  (The British Museum)

If a person's heart were light as the feather of the goddess Maat, then that person earned "Heaven." Otherwise, his soul would be devoured by another Egyptian goddess, Ammut.
Thus a HEAVY heart might mean an evil person and not a stubborn one. 

This p'shat might have some advantages

1. It is more literal
2. It matches what we know about Egyptian Culture
3. It places Israel in Egypt at the Exodus despite the "critics"
4. It distinguishes the 2 terms

Disadvantage:

1. It's NOT traditional

Pick your preferred approach.


Shalom,

RRW

Parsha: Vaychi, "Umoladta Asher Holadta Achareihem"

In Vaychi 48:5,6, we have an interesting debate between Rashi and the Torah Temimah. [Yes, one MAY argue with Rashi and still be a Kosher Yid!] :-)

Rashi posits that any future children Yoseph WILL have after Ephraim and Menashe would be subsumed under THEIR names. So, any of Yoseph's potential future children would be referred to as part of Ephraim and Menashe.

The Torah Temimah 48:5:5 objects because "Holadta" is written in the past tense. Instead, the Torah Temimah suggests that this refers to the respective children of Ephraim and Menashe, some of which may have already been born.

Tangentially one may understand the quoted G'mara as quoting Passuq 5 as its source text as also referring to Passuq 6, Ayein Sham.

Shalom, RRW

Parsha: Vaychi, Vayeishev, "When did Yosef become the B'chor?"

Questions:
When did Yaakov choose Yosef to be the Bechor?
Is it in Vaychi 48:5 when Yaakov said "KiR'uven v'Shimon yihyeh lee"?

Sources:

• Vaychi 48:5
• Vaychi 48:22
• Torah T'mimah there 17
• Quoting TB Bava Batra 123a
• Vayeishev 37:3: "K'tonet Passim"

Vaychi 48:22 "shchem echad al achecha"?
Note: Both implying pee sh'nayim...
OR
Vayeishev - when Yaakov gave Yosef the K'tonet Passim; which implied that Yosef now held the mantle of "B'chor"?

BE"H we will cover Vaychi next and reflect back to Vayeishev and Vayishlach later.
Note: Stay tuned for "surprise twist ending"
Hypothesis. :-)


Shalom,

RRW

Parsha: Vayeishev, "Using a Non-Local Peirush"

Once,  I gave a peirush on Eiqev based upon a Rashi technique used somewhere else - during a speech at another shul.

One concerned fellow asked, ""How can you set aside what Rashi says here - in favour of an approach he uses elsewhere"? He meant that Rashi implicitly disputed my interpretation.

To me, the answer is simple, Rashi is not exhaustive. He only gives a subset of all the possible p'shatim that even he might have brought forth. Don't assume that Rashi objects to another approach just because he omits it.

There's a "Proof-Text" for my approach. Rashi gives one explanation for the word "Yassaf" in Vayeishev (38:26),  "v'lo yassaf od l'daatah".  However, Rashi's gives a second explanation in B'haalotcha.  (11:25) Relying on the Targum Onkelos concerning Eldad and Meidad, Rashi interprets "Yassaf" to mean  "v'lo Passaq".

Here, the Local Targum says otherwise! It seems to mean  "V'lo Ossif". Sh'ma Mina - Rashi wished to bolster his own reading of the p'shat here even though the local Targum interprets the words differently.

I did the same thing. Although the local Rashi explains things differently, I used Rashi's explanation in Eiquev. I used Rashi to give p'shat in Eiqev from a non-local Rashi despite the local Rashi saying otherwise.

It's still possible that the local Rashi disagrees with his other interpretation. We can't know for sure. However, since Rashi himself used the technique, it's legitimate for us to use it as well.

QED

Shalom,

RRW

Parsha: Toldot, "Sometimes a Concordance is better than a Dictionary"

Quite a while ago, a friend asked me, what does "gadalta" mean in Tehillim: 104:1?

Why does it say that Hashem is very great? If Hashem cannot be defined by SIZE, then how can Hashem grow bigger or older?

In order to answer my friend's question, I picked up a Concordance.

Eureka!

One of the first entries for the word, "gadalta," is found in Parshat Toldot at the start of shlishi, the third aliya. Bereishit: 26:13: Vayigdal Ho'ish ...

In this context, Yitzchak Avinu wasn't growing spiritually. Instead, his r'chush - possessions, property, and portfolio - were all increasing! Yitzchak was becoming a "billionaire."

Let's look back at Tehillim:104:1. It's talking about the tz'va hashamayim; the wonders of the heavenly bodies.

Here, the words of praise mean that,  Hashem, YOU possess a magnificent portfolio of astronomical proportions. The words are praising Hashem's possession, not His Self or His Middot.  Hashem is GDL, great, in the sense of "Koneh Shamayim va'aretz." His property is Heaven and Earth.

------------------------

Tangentially, this peirush directly relates to the piyyutim found in Birkat Yotzeir, Keil Adon and Eil Baruch GD'oL dei'ah. Through reciting this magnificent "Kapittel" on Rosh Hodesh, we remember the Creator and His creation.

In summary:  we've illustrated what I call the "Concordance Technique for Parshanut" and have learned how to parse Psalm 104.

------------------------

Years ago, I learned this technique from Rashi, Z"L. He often uses the TaNa"Ch itself as a resource when he explains a difficult word without using the Talmud, Midrash or Targum.  Through this technique, Rashi both presents a peirush and teaches us how to create our own original peirushim. 

BE"H I will illustrate Rashi's usage and a few of my own based upon following Rashi's methodology

Shalom,

RRW

Parsha: B'reishit, "Vaychula, Vaychal"

Here is an exchange on the Leining Google Group
* * * * *

I posed this question given: B'reisheet 2:1,2.

• Vaychulu TARGUM v'ishtachlalu
• Vaychal TARGUM v'sheitzei

Why did Onkelos change the verb?

------------------------

• "And the heavens and the earth are completed, and all their host;"(Bereishit: 2:1)
• "and God completeth by the seventh day His work which He hath made, and ceaseth by the seventh day from all His work which He hath made." (Bereishit: 2:2)

As you can see, the same verb is used, albeit in passive and active voices.

- FREE Online Youngs Literal Translation. Genesis Chapter 2:1-25.

------------------------

As to the reason for the Targum's change of meaning, there is an old sefer on Onkelos named Patshegen (viewable at hebrewbooks.org) who explains that if "vaichulu" merely meant "completed" rather than shichlul (which he equates with the Hebrew "tikkun"), then the second pasuk would be adding nothing to the first: if the work was completed, then of course HKBH completed it. Thus, the first is interpreted as meaning perfected, while the second means completed.
- Meir  meir251@hotmail.com

Shalom,

RRW

Parsha: Eqev, "Who Wrote the Second Luchot?"

It always seemed Pashut to me that Moshe carved the second set of luchot and that Hashem wrote on them.

Once, a Rav happened to briefly mention that Moshe wrote the latter set of luchot in his drasha. I found this far-fetched at the time. Today, I find it completely untenable.

Just take a look at the parsha. It seems clear that Hashem wrote on the second set of luchot. (Eqev: 10: 2-4)

Shalom,

RRW

Parsha: Equev, "Defining 'Eqev' via the 'Concordance Technique' "

Rashi uses the Concordance Technique  to define some difficult or ambiguous words. A great illustration is the verb "PSCh" as in "Ufasachti alleichem" (Shmoth 12:13) There Rashi offers 2 definitions:

1. "V'hamal." "Hashem will have mercy." Rashi bases this upon Yeshaya 31:5. It matches the Targum "v'Yeihos"
2. "V'dileig" based upon Melachim I 18:21. This matches the modern "passover" to skip over or to jump over

------------------------

Now for the background of "Eqev."

• Targum states Halaf meaning "in exchange." 
• Rashi Midrashically puns: "Those mitzvoth that one tramples with one's heel"

------------------------

Although Rashi himself did not choose to use the Concordance Technique here, Rashi frequently offers a subset of the range of "valid" techniques and definitions.

"Eqev" appears in Humash five times:

1. Eqev asher shama Avraham Beqoli (Breishit 22:18)
2. Eqev asher shama Avraham b'Kqoli (Breishit 26:5)
3.  Eqev hayeta Ruch Achereth imo (Bamidbar 14:24)
4. Appears in Eqev itself, in conjunction with the verb "lishmo'a" totaling four of five instances. (Devarim: 7:12)
5. Again, in Eqev. (Devarim: 8:20)

Cases 1 and 3 are the key for me. Both involve "nisayyon" IE crisis situation

1. The Aqeida
2. This is a generic use of the word "Equev," but since they both refer to Avraham, it is feasible to hook it onto one.
3. The Meraglim

This means that Eqev may be more precisely understood to mean "Halaf," in exchange for listening/obeying - or for being - "UNDER DURESS."

Now four and five can be understood.
4. "And it shall be when you obey Under Duress (you shall be blessed...)" (Devarim: 7:12)
5. "...and when you fail to obey Under Duress..." (Devarim: 8:20)

And abandon Hashem...

Shalom,

RRW

Parshah: Huqqat, "Mixed Messages?"

It seems that many think that Moshe Rabbeinu's error at mei meriva was to hit the rock instead of speaking to it. 

That seems pretty pashut! However, when Hashem tells Moshe "aseih lecha saraph,"  Moshe Rabbeinu actually: "Vaya'as Moshe Nechash Nechoshes.."

Now Hashem had said "Saraph" and Moshe instead made "Nechash nechoshes." Is this not, too, a deviation - albeit minor - from Hashem's statement? Does anyone comment on this apparent contradiction?

Shalom, RRW

Parsha: Shemini, "Asher Lo Tsivah"

Pick your preferred parshanut.  

Parshanut suggests three translations of the phrase, "Asher Lo Tzivah" (Vayikra: 10:1) There is basically a 2-way split concerning Nadav and Avihu (N&A) and their eish zara. The first two schools may help start a future Nishmablog poll, BE"H, though the third school is kinda' tangential.

1. "They were commanded NOT"  N&A were actually seeking to grow spiritually through transgressing the commandment NOT to bring such an eish zarah [Tur et. Al.] It literally went up in flames  Don't serve Hashem by violating protocol
2.  "They were NOT commanded" - N&A added on an extra embellishments. They acted excessively "frum"  and their zeal was their sin in their spiritual approach. This idea is very popular among Left-wing circles. Don't be mosif "humrot". [Bal tosif. Al t'hee tzaddiq harbei] 
3. This explanation can work for either side of the split. Since N&A brought ersatz K'toret, they were left unprotected to eish Hashem and vulnerable to a form of spiritual "radiation."  Their action was not so much a sin as a failure to use real Ketoret. It was what they failed to do which allowed them to get burnt. [See Haforah of Uzah]. Genuine Ketoret was tantamount to a radiation suit; don't play with the rules lest you risk exposure.

Let me tell a related story.  
There once lived a woman looking to add a spiritual dimension to her avodah. A Great Gadol, "Moshe," asked her to experiment by wearing a four-cornered garment without tzitzit. She felt exhilirated. 

Moshe exclaimed, "For three months, you have been wearing a garment without any religious or halachic value, it is thus clear that your feeling comes from a source outside of the Mitzvah", and he [Moshe] did not grant her permission to wear a Talit " [Source?]

To which Avodah's R Micha Berger protested:

We do many things that come from sources outside the mitzvah. "Hinei Keil yeshuasi" before Havdalah, for example. The particular patterns of hand washing most qehillos use for neigl vasr or before hamotzi. Qabbalas Shabbos. Etc, etc, etc... Why is this woman wanting to do something that makes her feel connected to the Borei valueless just because it is non-halachic? Would this Gadol "Moshe" have given the same advice to NCSY and tell them to stop doing kumzitzin or a pre-havdalah "ebbing" for an hour? [Source??]

This offers us a segue towards a poll on valid paths to spirituality in Judaism. Which guidelines are permitted or desirable?

Shalom, 
RRW