parshablog: October 2010

Sunday, October 31, 2010

Proving Rivkah's Virtue

Summary: A fascinating midrash, in which Rivkah proves that she did not have relations with Eliezer on the way.

Post: I present here a rather interesting, "unlucky" midrash. Recall that Rivkah was chaste in Charan. The pasuk and Rashi, citing the midrash:

16. Now the maiden was of very comely appearance, a virgin, and no man had been intimate with her, and she went down to the fountain, and she filled her pitcher and went up.		טז. וְהַנַּעֲרָ טֹבַת מַרְאֶה מְאֹד בְּתוּלָה וְאִישׁ לֹא יְדָעָהּ וַתֵּרֶד הָעַיְנָה וַתְּמַלֵּא כַדָּהּ וַתָּעַל:
a virgin: from the place of her virginity. — [Gen. Rabbah 60:5]		בתולה: ממקום בתולים:
and no man had been intimate with her: in an unnatural way. Since the daughters of the gentiles would preserve their virginity but were promiscuous in unnatural ways, Scripture attests that she was completely innocent. — [Gen. Rabbah ad loc.]		ואיש לא ידעה: שלא כדרכה, לפי שבנות הגוים היו משמרות מקום בתוליהן ומפקירות עצמן ממקום אחר, העיד על זו שנקיה מכל:

Yet it took something to convince Yitzchak of Rivkah's virtue:

67. And Isaac brought her to the tent of Sarah his mother, and he took Rebecca, and she became his wife, and he loved her. And Isaac was comforted for [the loss of] his mother.		סז. וַיְבִאֶהָ יִצְחָק הָאֹהֱלָה שָׂרָה אִמּוֹ וַיִּקַּח אֶת רִבְקָה וַתְּהִי לוֹ לְאִשָּׁה וַיֶּאֱהָבֶהָ וַיִּנָּחֵם יִצְחָק אַחֲרֵי אִמּוֹ:
to the tent of Sarah his mother: He brought her to the tent, and behold, she was Sarah his mother; i.e., she became the likeness of Sarah his mother, for as long as Sarah was alive, a candle burned from one Sabbath eve to the next, a blessing was found in the dough, and a cloud was attached to the tent. When she died, these things ceased, and when Rebecca arrived, they resumed (Gen. Rabbah 60:16).		האהלה שרה אמו: ויביאה האהלה ונעשית דוגמת שרה אמו, כלומר והרי היא שרה אמו, שכל זמן ששרה קיימת היה נר דלוק מערב שבת לערב שבת, וברכה מצויה בעיסה, וענן קשור על האהל, ומשמתה פסקו, וכשבאת רבקה חזרו:
for…his mother: It is the way of the world that, as long as a person’s mother is alive, he is attached to her, but as soon as she dies, he finds comfort in his wife. — [Pirkei d’Rabbi Eliezer, ch. 32.]		אחרי אמו: דרך ארץ כל זמן שאמו של אדם קיימת כרוך הוא אצלה, ומשמתה הוא מתנחם באשתו:

We can say that there was chashad, that he suspected Eliezer of sleeping with her on the way, and Eliezer needed to justify himself to his master. Thus:

66. And the servant told Isaac all the things that he had done.

סו. וַיְסַפֵּר הָעֶבֶד לְיִצְחָק אֵת כָּל הַדְּבָרִים אֲשֶׁר עָשָׂה:

Meanwhile, what is the reason for his suspicion? That she had somehow lost her betulim. When? When she fell from the camel:

64. And Rebecca lifted her eyes, and saw Isaac, and she let herself down from the camel.

סד. וַתִּשָּׂא רִבְקָה אֶת עֵינֶיהָ וַתֵּרֶא אֶת יִצְחָק וַתִּפֹּל מֵעַל הַגָּמָל:

With this setup, not all of which is overtly stated in the midrash, let us examine the Midrash Aggada inside:

"and she fell from the camel" -- actual falling {rather than descending}. And in this falling, she lost her virginity. She thought she saw her husband and therefore she fell.

"the tent of Sarah his mother" -- that he found her to be as virtuous as Sarah his mother... {the midrash about the clouds, light, etc.} ...

"and Yitzchak was comforted after his mother" -- so long as a man's mother is alive, his love goes after his mother. If his mother dies, his love goes to his wife. And some say that he didn't find her to be a virgin {when he had intercourse with her} and he suspected Eliezer. Rivkah said 'Forfend! For Eliezer did not sleep with me, but rather because of the falling, that I fell, I lost my virginity. And let us arise and travel to that place where I fell, and perhaps Hashem will perform a miracle and we will find there the blood of virginity.' And so did they do; they went and discovered the blood on a tree / piece of wood, such that she was a mukat etz {one who had lost her virginity as a result of impact with a piece of wood}. And this blood, {the angel} Gavriel had guarded it such that no bird or wild animal had eaten of it. And since he suspected Eliezer where he had done nothing wrong, and he had faithfully performed the agency set by Avraham, he merited to enter Gan Eden alive.

The midrashic account here does not explicitly point out all the pesukim I did above, particularly Eliezer relating all that he had done, but presumably this is the midrashic drive. (Also, we should check out Yalkut Shimoni on this.)

Poor Eliezer! For this is not the first time he was unjustly suspected of having had intercourse with Rivkah. According to Bereishit Rabbati, from Rabbi Moshe HaDarshan, when Lavan ran to Eliezer, and subsequently tried to poison him, it was because he saw all the adornments Eliezer had given Rivkah, and so, thought he had compromised her.

Also, I see similarities to Tristan and Isolde, where he takes the bride for himself instead of delivering her to King Mark. Though I'm fairly that the midrashim predate this story.

Friday, October 29, 2010

Does Rashi change the number of miracles?

Summary: No, he doesn't. But I like the methodology.

Post: From DovBear:

Changed Midrash
When Yitzchak brings Rivka into his tent, he's comforted. Rashi tells us the comfort came from the fact that three miracles that Sara enjoyed reappeared. The Midrash, however, says there were four miracles.

I must say that I like the methodology. This might just be showing that Rashi sometimes modifies his sources, and so, does not consider them sacrosanct. But in general, it is a good path to take when learning Rashi, to look up every since one of his sources and consider what Rashi keeps the same and what he changes. Based on the dibur hamatchil, is Rashi commenting on the same thing the midrash is, or is he using the midrash to his own ends? What does he change in language or content, and what does that tell us about his purpose in this particular comment, and in general. It is a good approach, even though I think in this case some of the details are incorrect.

Rashi comments on a pasuk in parashat Chayei Sarah:

67. And Isaac brought her to the tent of Sarah his mother, and he took Rebecca, and she became his wife, and he loved her. And Isaac was comforted for [the loss of] his mother.		סז. וַיְבִאֶהָ יִצְחָק הָאֹהֱלָה שָׂרָה אִמּוֹ וַיִּקַּח אֶת רִבְקָה וַתְּהִי לוֹ לְאִשָּׁה וַיֶּאֱהָבֶהָ וַיִּנָּחֵם יִצְחָק אַחֲרֵי אִמּוֹ:
to the tent of Sarah his mother: He brought her to the tent, and behold, she was Sarah his mother; i.e., she became the likeness of Sarah his mother, for as long as Sarah was alive, a candle burned from one Sabbath eve to the next, a blessing was found in the dough, and a cloud was attached to the tent. When she died, these things ceased, and when Rebecca arrived, they resumed (Gen. Rabbah 60:16).		האהלה שרה אמו: ויביאה האהלה ונעשית דוגמת שרה אמו, כלומר והרי היא שרה אמו, שכל זמן ששרה קיימת היה נר דלוק מערב שבת לערב שבת, וברכה מצויה בעיסה, וענן קשור על האהל, ומשמתה פסקו, וכשבאת רבקה חזרו:

If we look to Bereishit Rabba, we see the following:

טז [הברכות באהלה של שרה ורבקה]ו

ויביאה יצחק האהלה שרה אמו

כל ימים שהיתה שרה קיימת, היה ענן קשור על פתח אהלה,כיון שמתה, פסק אותו ענן, וכיון שבאת רבקה, חזר אותו ענן.

כל ימים שהיתה שרה קיימת, היו דלתות פתוחות לרוחה, וכיון שמתה שרה, פסקה אותה הרוחה, וכיון שבאת רבקה חזרה אותה הרוחה.

וכל ימים שהיתה שרה קיימת, היה ברכה משולחת בעיסה, וכיון שמתה שרה, פסקה אותה הברכה, כיון שבאת רבקה חזרה.

כל ימים שהיתה שרה קיימת, היה נר דולק מלילי שבת ועד לילי שבת, וכיון שמתה פסק אותו הנר, וכיון שבאת רבקה חזר.

וכיון שראה אותה שהיא עושה כמעשה אמו קוצה חלתה בטהרה וקוצה עיסתה בטהרה מיד,

ויביאה יצחק האהלה.

Though we should not discount the possibility that Rashi has a different midrashic source, as well. For example, in Midrash Aggadah we see a parallel.
האהלה שרה אמו. שמצאה כשרה כאמו•
ואמרו חזל כי על שרה שהיה ענן קשור על אוהלה׳ וכשהיתה מדלקת נירות
בערב שבת, היו הנרות דולקות עד מוצאי שבת, וכן רבקה׳ וכסה הענן לאהל שרה
כשמתה שרה נסתלק הענן וכשבאתה רבקה חזר הענן, וכשם שהיתה שרה זהירה
בשלשה מצות שהאשה חייבת בהם׳ נדה וחלה והדלקת הנר, כך היתה רבקה זהירה

where the blessing in the dough is omitted. See also Yalkut Shimoni, which echoes Midrash Rabba, though this was not likely Rashi's source.

Turning to Bereishit Rabba, it is not the case that there are four miracles listed. Rather, just as Rashi puts it, there are only three miracles:

The cloud attached to the tent
A blessing found in the dough
A candle burning from one erev Shabbat to the next

However, in addition to these three, there is an additional one, or two:

The doors were wide open to guests, as she was also extremely hospitable
She separated her challah and her dough when in a state of ritual purity, rather than as a menstruant

In my reading, the Midrash Aggada (cited above) relates these miracles as rewards for her righteous actions, which makes sense, and adds the very act of lighting Shabbos candles, which was implicit in Midrash Rabba, as another action.

But Etz Yosef, a commentator of Midrash Rabba, sees only five aspects, not six, and relates it to the extra ה of האהלה. And so the total number would be five or six, rather than necessarily four. And the fourth thing was not a miracle, but rather a meritorious action.

Now, Rashi does seem to omit these extra elements. Or perhaps he does not, but only refers to them obliquely, in stating ויביאה האהלה ונעשית דוגמת שרה אמו, כלומר והרי היא שרה אמו. Either that or he omits them, and considers it more peshat-like midrash to focus on overt Divine signs that she was the equal of his mother, rather than focusing on the various meritorious actions which would have incurred this Divine favor.

Thursday, October 28, 2010

posts so far for parshat Chayei Sarah

2010

Chayei Sarah sources -- further improved and expanded.
.
Was Sarah buried in the *Valley* of Chevron? A variant text in the beginning of parashat Chayei Sarah, present in the Septuagint and Samaritan Pentateuch. And why I believe the masoretic text to be better.
.
Was Sarah Imeinu evil and ugly at age 101? I don't think so. Therefore, a potential deeper meaning in the famous midrash.
.
Why was it called Kiryat Arba? I believe that what drives Rashi is first peshat and second derash. But there are complications, in the form of an explicit pasuk which seems to contradict Rashi's peshat.
.
Avraham Avinu's deceased daughter -- In which I discover a Chasam Sofer which deduces a neo-midrash I came up with myself.
.
Does Rashi change the number of miracles? No, he doesn't. But I like the methodology. A response to a DovBear post.
.
Proving Rivkah's Virtue -- A fascinating midrash, in which Rivkah proves that she did not have relations with Eliezer on the way.
.
Sated, or Sated with years? A little more information, to make a more informed decision of the merits of the Masoretic text vs. the Samaritan text, on whether it is 'sated' or 'sated with years'. A response to a DovBear post. But I misidentified the Peshitta text, due to a mixup. What appears in that post is NOT Peshitta.
.
Rav Moshe Feinstein on Avraham's deceased daughter -- On previous occasions, I have discussed the midrash on Avraham Avinu's deceased daughter. Now, I present Rav Moshe Feinstein's take inside, and analyze it a little bit.
.
The meaning of יִפֹּל מִצִּדְּךָ אֶלֶף -- In which I encounter a novel peshat in davening, but still prefer my own.

2009

Chayei Sarah sources -- links by aliyah and perek to an online Mikraos Gedolos, plus links to more than 100 meforshim on the parsha and haftorah.
.
Should there be a pasek between Nesi Elohim and Ata? The vast majority of precise manuscripts don't have it. Though Minchas Shai endorses it, I explain why I would not.
.
The evolution of a derash -- how Midrash Rabba makes no mention of a krei / ketiv, but probably darshens Eliezer's hope for his daughter's marriage to Yitzchak from a different textual feature. Then, how Rashi and Yalkut Shimoni handle it. And then, what do we make of the derasha being of Eliezer's retelling, rather than the original narrative.
.
Is it written Pilgashim or Pilagsham? A derasha based on deficient spelling, but we don't have this deficient spelling!
.
If she was a virgin, isn't it obvious that no man had known her?! How different pashtanim deal with this duplication. Rashi, Rashbam, and even Ibn Ezra make something of the duplication, but I side with Ibn Caspi who says that the duplication is a linguistic feature, and should not connote anything on the level of peshat. And my own novel explanation of why veIsh lo yedaah was necessary. Which I now see was not so novel, unfortunately.
.
Why did Eliezer run after Rivkah? According to Rashi and Ibn Caspi, and what this might demonstrate about their methodologies. I associate it with an even earlier pasuk than Rashi and Ibn Caspi do; and then I note the more general phenomenon of running in the perek, and attempt to explain that as well.
.
The order of presents and inquiring after Rivkah's family -- and how different pashtanim (Rashi, Ibn Ezra, Ibn Caspi) handle it.
.
To whom does Avraham bow? The midrash modifying this might be going on different pesukim. If on a particular pasuk, then Ibn Ezra and Rashbam are arguing with Chazal, while Ibn Caspi supports them as a matter of peshat. And how this relates to Eliezer bowing down on hearing good news.
.
Yeridas HaDoros, and whether Avraham muzzled his camels -- Rashi says yes, and Ramban says no. Also, how this relates to the donkey of Rabbi Pinchas ben Yair.

2008

Chayyei Sarah Sources -- links to an online mikraos gedolos, by aliyah and perek.
Rivkah's Age, Once Again, And Apikorses -- talking about an article by Rabbi Avi Billet, and the reaction of some. And then my own take on the issue of Rivkah's age (3 vs. 14), and why it is or is not plausible or readable into the Biblical text, as a summary of several parshablog posts on the subject.
As a followup to the above, an analysis of the Rashis about Rivkah's age at marriage, and at what age they began to try to have kids. And how it may arise from various textual cues.
Rashi and Women's Empowerment? An analysis of the Rashi on the statement that they asked Rivkah, and why Rashi might have changed the text from marrying off an orphaness to marrying off a woman.
Did Sarah did from the shock or from the kiss? A harmonization of the two mechanisms of Sarah's death, and why I don't like that harmonization.

2007

The Servant Becomes A Man

Why the shift from the servant to the man? I would posit changing roles in the story, or to convey how they did not know who he was.

Can We Argue That Rivkah Was Not Three Years Old?

Of course. And several meforshim do. How Rabbenu Bachya is motivated by some of DovBear's concerns, and is willing to see derash as just one possible perush.

Does The Torah Calling Rivkah a Naarah Mean That She Cannot Be Three?

Not necessarily, as a matter of peshat.

The Benei Chet: Good For Purchasing Burial Plots From, But No Good For A Shidduch

But why?

Did Eliezer Make The Camels Kneel?

Or did he "park" them by a breicha?

How Do We Know Eliezer Had Kefitzat HaDerech?

Because Rashi tells us so! Also, how it is derived from various local pesukim.

The Gematria of Ephron

Based on the commentary of the Baal HaTurim. And what it means.

2006

A Three Year Old Rivkah -- Plausible? Obscene?

I discuss plausibility of a three year old marrying, and of a three year old able to carry a heavy water pitcher. Also, whether a three year old could carry on such a conversation with Eliezer. Also, would this be obscene? Note that Rashi says the actual consummation of marriage was years later. Plus more.

Use of Time-of-Day To Convey Drama and Mood

in Vayera, in Chayyei Sara, and in Rut. I think in Chayyei Sarah it adds to the drama of the romantic meeting of Yitzchak and Rivka.

The Account of Betuel's Death By Poision, part i

What apparent problem in the text does this midrash solve? What is the textual basis for the resolution? How does this midrash fit in with the overall theme of the parsha?

The Account of Betuel's Death By Poison, part ii

The same midrash, but with a different spin, as it occurs in Bereishit Rabbati from Rav Moshe haDarshan. In terms of a different poisoner (Lavan) and a different, fairly positive, motivation for the attempted poisoning.

2005

The Sons of Keturah

I argue that, on a peshat level Avraham married Keturah well before Sarah's death. I just discovered Shadal says the same thing, though not using my reasoning.

The Sons of Keturah Followup

I consider the idea that Avraham married Keturah after Sarah's death, and discuss why it is somewhat plausible.

Two Questions On Parshat Chayyei Sarah

And one on Toldot. It's a joke.

The Pluperfect יֹשֵׁב a

Relevant to parshat Vayera and Chayyei Sara, we compare three instances of the verb יֹשֵׁב written deficiently, and show how midrash treats them the same and differently.

Proof of Gilgul

It's a joke

Why a shalshelet?

An explanation based on the science of trup.

2004

Was the Servant of Avraham Eliezer?

An analysis of the identification of Eliezer with the servant of Avraham. Most obviously, Chazal's closed canon approach. But even on a peshat level, we show a reason to equate the two. Why would the Torah not mention it, if so. From the perspective of literature, other people in this narrative are deliberately not mentioned by name - Rivka, Lavan, Betuel - even though their names are known from elsewhere - and this for deliberate literary effect. Compare with the story of Moshe being born and placed in the Nile, where proper names are also deliberately omitted.

2003

לוֹ, לוּ, לֹא אֲדֹנִי שְׁמָעֵנִי - part 1

Aleph and Vav are matres lectiones, "mothers of reading," and in reality can and do fill many vowel roles. What different perspective of the interaction between Efron and Avraham do we get it we revocalize all the above as לוּ and change the locations of pasuk break to always give us לוּ אֲדֹנִי שְׁמָעֵנִי?

לוֹ, לוּ, לֹא אֲדֹנִי שְׁמָעֵנִי - part 2 (2004)

Further thoughts and developments on the same subject. Plus what Tg Yonatan does with this.

Waterloo

A joke which matches well with the two aforementioned divrei Torah.

Sarah's Daughter

The derivation of a midrash that states that Sarah had a daughter who died on the same day that Sarah died.

to be continued...

Avraham Avinu's deceased daughter

Summary: In which I discover a Chasam Sofer which deduces a neo-midrash I came up with myself.

Post: In the early days of this blog, I had a post on parashat Chayei Sarah, about a daughter of Sarah Imeinu who died on the same day. Rav Moshe Feinstein felt it was highly unlikely that such a tragedy occurred in Avraham Avinu's family. Though he couldn't find it in any sifrei midrash he had, he noted that that did not rule it out.

I noted that I had come up with the same midrash myself. The pasuk at the start of Chayei Sarah reads:

ב וַתָּמָת שָׂרָה, בְּקִרְיַת אַרְבַּע הִוא חֶבְרוֹן--בְּאֶרֶץ כְּנָעַן; וַיָּבֹא, אַבְרָהָם, לִסְפֹּד לְשָׂרָה, וְלִבְכֹּתָהּ.

2 And Sarah died in Kiriatharba--the same is Hebron--in the land of Canaan; and Abraham came to mourn for Sarah, and to weep for her.

Since small letters are often darshened in such a way that we read the word as if it is not present (and I give examples), this gives us u-le-vitah, "and to her daughter".

This year, I see that the Chasam Sofer says something quite similar, such that this is probably where this neo-midrash originated.

Thus, Avraham's daughter was called BaKol. And she was born to Avraham, yet she died, much earlier. Avraham didn't feel the pain for this lost daughter so much until he lost Sarah as well. And read it as ולבתה, because of the small כ.

Wednesday, October 27, 2010

Why was it called Kiryat Arba?

Summary: I believe that what drives Rashi is first peshat and second derash. But there are complications, in the form of an explicit pasuk which seems to contradict Rashi's peshat.

Post: Sarah dies in Kiryat Arba, which is Chevron. The pasuk, with Rashi's comment:

2. And Sarah died in Kiriath arba, which is Hebron, in the land of Canaan, and Abraham came to eulogize Sarah and to bewail her.		ב. וַתָּמָת שָׂרָה בְּקִרְיַת אַרְבַּע הִוא חֶבְרוֹן בְּאֶרֶץ כְּנָעַן וַיָּבֹא אַבְרָהָם לִסְפֹּד לְשָׂרָה וְלִבְכֹּתָהּ:
in Kiriath-arba: lit. the city of the four. So named because of the four giants who were there: Ahiman, Sheshai, Talmai, and their father (Gen. Rabbah from Num. 13:23). Another explanation: Because of the four couples that were buried there, man and wife: Adam and Eve, Abraham and Sarah, Isaac and Rebecca, Jacob and Leah (Pirkei d’Rabbi Eliezer , ch. 20).		בקרית ארבע: על שם ארבע ענקים שהיו שם אחימן ששי ותלמי ואביהם. דבר אחר על שם ארבעה זוגות שנקברו שם איש ואשתו אדם וחוה, אברהם ושרה, יצחק ורבקה, יעקב ולאה:

Thus, Rashi gives two explanations, both drawn from midrash. But the first one is quite similar to a pasuk in sefer Yehoshua, as well as a pasuk in sefer Bamidbar, which appears to attribute the etymology of Kiryat Arba to the four giants who lived there. Therefore, I would take this first explanation as his peshat explanation. The second explanation does not accord with any explicit pasuk, but it fits well into the theme of this parsha and the use the Mearat Hamachpela is to be put to. After all, Avraham here buys the field and cave as an achuzat kever. That, I would say, is why Rashi selects this particular midrash from the midrashim he could have selected from.

Note that while Judaica Press, in translating Rashi, attribute the midrash to Pirkei deRabbi Eliezer -- and they are correct -- there is sufficient material in Midrash Rabba for this as well. For Bereishit Rabbi gives several explanations:

ותמת שרה בקרית ארבע ארבעה שמות נקראו לה:
אשכול,
וממרא,
קרית ארבע,
חברון.
ולמה הוא קורא אותה קרית ארבע? שדרו בה ארבעה צדיקים:
ענר,
אשכול,
וממרא,
אברהם.
ונמולו בה ארבעה צדיקים:
אברהם,
ענר,
אשכול,
וממרא.
דבר אחר: קרית ארבע שנקברו בה ארבעה צדיקים אבות העולם:
אדם הראשון,
אברהם,
יצחק,
ויעקב.
דבר אחר: שנקברו בה ארבע אמהות:
חוה,
ושרה,
ורבקה,
ולאה,
ועל שם בעליה שהן ד' ענק וג' בניו.

אמר רבי עזריה:
שמשם יצא אבינו אברהם, שרדף אחרי ארבע מלכויות קוזמוקרטורין.

דבר אחר:שהוא עולה בקרנסין של ארבעה.
בתחלה ליהודה,
ואחר כך לכלב, ואח"כ ללוים,
ואחר כך לכהנים.

I suppose the combination of the patriarchs with the matriarchs into pairs is unique to Pirkei DeRabbi Eliezer. Regardless, there was what to select from, and Rashi chose these two.

Focusing now on the first explanation, that it was named after the four giants who lived there, this finds explicit Scriptural basis in Bemidbar 13:22, that giants lived there:

22. They went up in, the south, and he came to Hebron, and there were Ahiman, Sheshai, and Talmai, the descendants of the giant. Now Hebron had been built seven years before Zoan of Egypt.

כב. וַיַּעֲלוּ בַנֶּגֶב וַיָּבֹא עַד חֶבְרוֹן וְשָׁם אֲחִימַן שֵׁשַׁי וְתַלְמַי יְלִידֵי הָעֲנָק וְחֶבְרוֹן שֶׁבַע שָׁנִים נִבְנְתָה לִפְנֵי צֹעַן מִצְרָיִם:

In terms of translating הָעֲנָק, I am not sure that it means a particular giant. It seems to be more of a collective noun, in context. Thus, these were descendants of giants. The sum of giants would then be three, rather than four. But if it were a particular giant, their father, then the sum would be three. Compare the pasuk later in the same perek:

33. There we saw the giants, the sons of Anak, descended from the giants. In our eyes, we seemed like grasshoppers, and so we were in their eyes.

לג. וְשָׁם רָאִינוּ אֶת הַנְּפִילִים בְּנֵי עֲנָק מִן הַנְּפִלִים וַנְּהִי בְעֵינֵינוּ כַּחֲגָבִים וְכֵן הָיִינוּ בְּעֵינֵיהֶם:

which I believe bolsters the idea of anak being collective rather than particular.

There is also Scriptural basis, I believe, for treating Arba not as a personal name but as a thing -- perhaps a number. Thus, in these two pesukim:

בראשית פרק לה

פסוק כ"ז: וַיָּבֹא יַעֲקֹב אֶל-יִצְחָק אָבִיו, מַמְרֵא קִרְיַת הָאַרְבַּע--הִוא חֶבְרוֹן, אֲשֶׁר-גָּר-שָׁם אַבְרָהָם וְיִצְחָק.

נחמיה פרק יא

פסוק כ"ה: וְאֶל-הַחֲצֵרִים, בִּשְׂדֹתָם--מִבְּנֵי יְהוּדָה, יָשְׁבוּ בְּקִרְיַת הָאַרְבַּע וּבְנֹתֶיהָ, וּבְדִיבֹן וּבְנֹתֶיהָ, וּבִיקַּבְצְאֵל וַחֲצֵרֶיהָ.

note how it is Kiryat ha-Arba. The definite article does not go on proper nouns. We would never say ha-Moshe, for example. This might well be a cue for Rashi, and the midrashim he is basing himself on, to say that it refers to four, rather than, say, an individual whose name was Arba.

There is one problematic pasuk which appears to give an etymology to the place name, though one at odds with all this. In sefer Yehoshua, 14:15:

יהושוע פרק יד

פסוק ט"ו: וְשֵׁם חֶבְרוֹן לְפָנִים קִרְיַת אַרְבַּע, הָאָדָם הַגָּדוֹל בָּעֲנָקִים הוּא; וְהָאָרֶץ שָׁקְטָה, מִמִּלְחָמָה. {פ}

Judaica Press' translation, coupled with Rashi's commentary:

{Arba} was the greatest man among the Anakim: Arba was the name of the father of Ahiman, Sheshai and Talmai. Another explanation is: [It was called Kirjath-arba, the city of four] because of the father and the three sons for the scripture calls them the children of 'Anak.

I put Arba in {curly brackets} since it is not explicitly part of the pasuk. As I see it, Rashi here is grappling with this issue. Not just midrash vs. explicit pasuk, but perhaps even the definite article issue I mentioned coupled with that pasuk in Bemidbar which indicated three others.

Therefore, I would guess that in his two interpretations in sefer Yehoshua, he is not merely opposing the explicit pasuk to the midrash, but reading both into the pasuk. In the first interpretation, Arba is the name of the person, who was the father of the ones we saw in Bemidbar. Thus, Arba is the anak, the giant, and the city was named after him personally. In the second explanation, it is not clear that Arba was necessarily the name of the giant. Rather it was because now they number four. I must say, how this would fit into the word of the pasuk is still a bit unclear to me, and it seems more than a bit awkward. Perhaps take הוא as if it said הם?

(See what other meforshim have to say about this etymology.)

Regardless, it is this second interpretation in sefer Yehoshua which he gives as his first (peshat-oriented) explanation in our parasha of Chayei Sarah.

After writing this, I thought to look to Aharon ben Yosef the Karaite. As a Karaite, he has no reason to favor the midrash. And, at the same time, he is concerned with dikduk and thus would note the definite article in kiryat ha-Arba. This would then be a good gauge for whether Rashi is saying peshat (as I believe) or derash.

And indeed, Aharon ben Yosef the Karaite agrees! I'll cite him local to Chayei Sarah and local to sefer Yehoshua.

In Chayei Sarah:

In sefer Yehoshua:

I confess I am not absolutely sure what he means. I mean, in Chayei Sarah, he seems to initially designate it as a person's name, but then notes the heh of the definite article, which means that it could not be a personal name. Therefore, Arba (or ha-Arba) is a designation, though not a proper name, for him and his three sons. So, in the end, I take it that it means "four", and that it could also refer to the individual, the father of the other three, because of this.

In sefer Yehoshua, when he transitions to נקרא כן, does that refer to the city or the man? Whichever, "it" is called that because of him and because of his three sons. This strongly echoes Rashi's second peshat in sefer Yehoshua, that it was על שם האב וג' בנים שכן קורא אותם ילידי הענק.

Thus, due to the definite article, this Karaite scholar agrees with Rashi.

BTW, here are Mizrachi and Gur Aryeh on the matter.

Was Sarah Imeinu Evil and Ugly at Age 101?

Summary: I don't think so. Therefore, a potential deeper meaning in the famous midrash.

Post: Parashat Chayei Sarah begins:

1. And the life of Sarah was one hundred years and twenty years and seven years; [these were] the years of the life of Sarah.

א. וַיִּהְיוּ חַיֵּי שָׂרָה מֵאָה שָׁנָה וְעֶשְׂרִים שָׁנָה וְשֶׁבַע שָׁנִים שְׁנֵי חַיֵּי שָׂרָה:

Rashi comments on this, citing midrash Rabba:

And the life of Sarah was one hundred years and twenty years and seven years: The reason that the word “years” was written after every digit is to tell you that every digit is to be expounded upon individually: when she was one hundred years old, she was like a twenty-year-old regarding sin. Just as a twenty-year-old has not sinned, because she is not liable to punishment, so too when she was one hundred years old, she was without sin. And when she was twenty, she was like a seven-year-old as regards to beauty. — from Gen. Rabbah 58:1]

ויהיו חיי שרה מאה שנה ועשרים שנה ושבע שנים: לכך נכתב שנה בכל כלל וכלל, לומר לך שכל אחד נדרש לעצמו, בת מאה כבת עשרים לחטא, מה בת עשרים לא חטאה, שהרי אינה בת עונשין, אף בת מאה בלא חטא, ובת עשרים כבת שבע ליופי:

Or in the words of the actual midrash:

ויהיו חיי שרה מאה שנה (תהלים לז) יודע ה' ימי תמימים ונחלתם לעולם תהיה
כשם שהן תמימים, כך שנותם תמימים.
בת עשרים כבת שבע לנוי, בת מאה כבת עשרים שנה לחטא.

And see the discussions on the proper girsa for this midrash. Perhaps she was as pretty at 100 as she was at 20, and as sinless at 20 as she was at 7, which would make more semantic sense. (After all, a 20 year old is a paragon of beauty, more than a 7 year old, and there are midrashim, supported by pesukim, that at 90, when she gave birth to Yitzchak, Hashem restored her to her youth.)

But regardless, this only tells us up to the age of 100. If she lived to the ripe old age of 127, what was she during those final 27 years? Was she no longer righteous? Did she become ugly once again?

Perhaps, or perhaps the idea is that these are representative ages, but that she was righteous and pretty throughout.

One other possibility strikes me, however, and this was the prompt for this post.

Perhaps the idea is that this should only be darshened, and that we should abandon the seeming peshat level of this pasuk. That is, Sarah only lived to the age of 100.

After all, there seem to be issues of chronology in play. The Akeida immediately preceded this, at least in the text, and midrashim associate them, with Akeida as cause for her death. Subsequent to Sarah's death, at least in the text, Avraham sends his servant to find a wife for Yitzchak.

We know Yitzchak was born when Sarah was 90. This would make Yitzchak 37 at the Akeida, and 37 when a servant goes on his behalf to find a wife. For various peshat reasons, this would cause difficulties. Why would a 37 year old be called a naar? Why would it not be considered a test of Yitzchak to submit to the Akeida. Why can't Yitzchak visit his family in search of a wife for himself?

We could answer this via appeal to ain mukdam umeuchar baTorah.

However, what if Sarah died at the age of 100? Then, Yitzchak would be 10 years old at the time of the Akeida, and a similar age when the servant sought out Rivkah.

Is this what the midrash is attempting to answer? It seems a strong possibility, to me.

Tuesday, October 26, 2010

Was Sarah buried in the Valley of Chevron?

Summary: A variant text in the beginning of parashat Chayei Sarah, present in the Septuagint and Samaritan Pentateuch. And why I believe the masoretic text to be better.

Post: Parashat Chayei Sarah begins (Bereishit 23:1-2):

א וַיִּהְיוּ חַיֵּי שָׂרָה, מֵאָה שָׁנָה וְעֶשְׂרִים שָׁנָה וְשֶׁבַע שָׁנִים--שְׁנֵי, חַיֵּי שָׂרָה.	1 And the life of Sarah was a hundred and seven and twenty years; these were the years of the life of Sarah.
ב וַתָּמָת שָׂרָה, בְּקִרְיַת אַרְבַּע הִוא חֶבְרוֹן--בְּאֶרֶץ כְּנָעַן; וַיָּבֹא, אַבְרָהָם, לִסְפֹּד לְשָׂרָה, וְלִבְכֹּתָהּ.	2 And Sarah died in Kiriatharba--the same is Hebron--in the land of Canaan; and Abraham came to mourn for Sarah, and to weep for her.

Thus, Sarah was buried in Kiryat Arba, which is Chevron. Yet on pasuk 2, the Septuagint has a slight variant:

2 And Sarrha died in the city of Arboc, which is in the valley, this is Chebron in the land of Chanaan; and Abraam came to lament for Sarrha and to mourn.

2 καὶ ἀπέθανεν Σαρρα ἐν πόλει Αρβοκ, ἥ ἐστιν ἐν τῷ κοιλώματι [αὕτη ἐστὶν Χεβρων] ἐν γῇ Χανααν. ἦλθεν δὲ Αβρααμ κόψασθαι Σαρραν καὶ πενθῆσαι.

This parallels a variant text in the Samaritan Torah:

The text on the right is our Masoretic text, while the text on the left is the Samaritan Torah. Note how they add the definite article to Ha-Arba, as well as adding el Emek, or in some variants, al Emek (with an ayin) preceding Chevron.

This is one of many instances in which the Septuagint and the Samaritan text share a feature which the Masoretic text lacks.

Yet, the Samaritan Torah betrays a regular agenda of emending the text to make it better. I could give many examples of this phenomenon. As such, it pays to consider whether there is anything that would prompt an insertion of el Emek.

To cite a pasuk, and Rashi, from parashat Vayeshev:

14. So he said to him, "Go now and see to your brothers' welfare and the welfare of the flocks, and bring me back word." So he sent him from the valley of Hebron, and he came to Shechem.		יד. וַיֹּאמֶר לוֹ לֶךְ נָא רְאֵה אֶת שְׁלוֹם אַחֶיךָ וְאֶת שְׁלוֹם הַצֹּאן וַהֲשִׁבֵנִי דָּבָר וַיִּשְׁלָחֵהוּ מֵעֵמֶק חֶבְרוֹן וַיָּבֹא שְׁכֶמָה:
from…Hebron: But is not Hebron on a mountain? It is stated: “And they ascended in the south, and he came as far as Hebron” (Num. 13:22). But [it is to be understood that he sent him] from the deep counsel of the righteous man who is buried in Hebron (i.e., Abraham), to fulfill what was said to Abraham between the parts (Gen. 15:13). [From Gen. Rabbah 84:13]		מעמק חברון: והלא חברון בהר, שנאמר (במדבר יג כב) ויעלו בנגב ויבא עד חברון, אלא מעצה עמוקה של [אותו] צדיק הקבור בחברון, לקיים מה שנאמר לאברהם בין הבתרים (לעיל טו יג) כי גר יהיה זרעך:

Thus, later on we encounter an Emek Chevron. And since Chevron is on a mountain, a valley makes no immediate sense, and so Bereishit Rabba darshens it. (It might well make sense on a peshat level as an actual valley, which would be in proximity to this mountain.)

But at any rate, we see this surprise when we encounter Emek Chevron. With the Samaritan agenda to smooth the Biblical text with a mind for global information from elsewhere in Torah, el Emek makes sense. While Chevron appears in a few places, this mention in Chayei Sarah is the first mention of Chevron. Therefore, let us note at this point that Chevron is by the Emek, and there will be no surprise later.

The addition of the definite article, making it Ha-Arba is likely influenced by Kiryat Ha-Arba in Bereishit 35:27:

בראשית פרק לה

פסוק כ"ז: וַיָּבֹא יַעֲקֹב אֶל-יִצְחָק אָבִיו, מַמְרֵא קִרְיַת הָאַרְבַּע--הִוא חֶבְרוֹן, אֲשֶׁר-גָּר-שָׁם אַבְרָהָם וְיִצְחָק.

As such, it seems rather likely that the Samaritans emended the Masoretic text to fix this 'difficulty', rather than vice versa. And then, the Septuagint based itself on an erroneous text which derived from the Samaritan.