How can we explain Hevel's sacrifice?

In a previous post on Vayikra, I noted how Rabbi Yosef Ibn Caspi didn't offer any commentary on the korbanot, because what Rashi and Ibn Ezra wrote already sufficed, and because

I have seen this parasha and many of those [parshiyot] which follow it encircling the details of the zevachim and thekarbonot, which was written by Moshe Rabbenu in his sefer compelled and against his will, for there is no desire to Hashem in olot and zevachim [seeTehillim 51:18], but rather this was compelled by the practice of all the nations in that time which brought them to this.

The Rambam holds similarly as to the purpose of the korbanot. In the comment section, a commenter recently asked:

How do [Ibn] Caspi and the Rambam account for Cain and Abel's sacrifices.

This is a great question, because Kayin and Hevel were very early in the history of mankind, and therefore before the idolatrous practices of the nation. (Indeed, the generation of Enosh is where idolatry began.) If so, why would Kayin have brought korbanot from the plants and why would Hevel have brought korbanot from the flock? And Hashem liked Hevel's korban!

It turns out that this is one of the objections in the Ramban I linked to there:

והנה נח בצאתו מן התיבה עם שלשת בניו אין בעולם כשדי או מצרי הקריב קורבן וייטב בעיני ה' ואמר בו (בראשית ח כא): וירח ה' את ריח הניחוח. וממנו אמר אל לבו לא אוסיף עוד לקלל את האדמה בעבור האדם (שם). והבל הביא גם הוא מבכורות צאנו ומחלביהן, וישע ה' אל הבל ואל מנחתו (שם ד ד), ולא היה עדיין בעולם שמץ ע"ז כלל. 

We could check out what Ibn Caspi has to say in the incident of Kayin and Hevel. I am not sure how informative it is, exactly. He writes in one sefer:

וראוי שתרגיש ג״כ שקין והבל כל אחד מהם היה מכוין להתקרב אל השם במלאכתו, כי כל דרך איש ישר בעיניו.

"And it is appropriate to realize as well that Kayin and Hevel, each of them, intended to draw close to Hashem in his respective work, for all paths of man are right in his eyes."

So perhaps while Hevel's sacrifice was of similar form to later sacrifices, it took this form as a way of drawing close to Hashem within his chosen profession."

In another sefer, Ibn Caspi explains וישע  as less than full desire, רצוי, found by korbanot in general.
וישע. אינו ריצוי גמור וירצה, כמו שיבא עוד בענין קרבנותינו
"וישע -- it is not complete ritzuy like vayeratzeh, like we find in the matter of our own korbanot"

So perhaps there is a sense here that the korban is not entirely appropriate even here. Neither of these is really a satisfying answer.

As I was listening to various shiurim on YUTorah.org this week, I came across this hour-long shiur from last year by Rabbi Netanel Wiederblank:


The shiur is titled: Rambam's controversial reason for the reason for korbanos. That reason is the one mentioned above, that it was modeled after the idolatrous practice of the surrounding nations, as a way of directing that drive.

At approximately the 5 minute mark, he mentions a series of question by the Ramban, and this question about Hevel's korban is one of them.

At the 35 minute mark, he addresses this Hevel question specifically. The Ritva (in sefer Zikaron, which you can read here) answers the question by saying that one needs to know the secret about what the Rambam writes about Kayin and Hevel. But unfortunately, the Ritva doesn't tell us what that secret it. The footnotes on the Ritva's sefer Zikaron send you to Moreh Nevuchim volume 2 perek 30. There, the idea is developed that neither Kayin nor Hevel were the ones to continue on humanity, but rather Shet was. And we see that Kayin was more physical and Hevel more non-physically oriented. But not in a good way. And their korbanot reflected their natures. So the takeaway is that even Hevel's korban was non-optimal.

But the summary I provided was third-hand. That is, my summary of Rabbi Wiederblank's understanding of the cryptic Rambam in Moreh Nevuchim, where it was already labeled a secret. And which is likely philosophical / mystical, and thus requires the necessary background intellectual background as well as an understanding of the rest of the chapter, as explained by the commentators of the Rambam.

The reference is to this in Moreh Nevuchim:

.וממה שצריך שתדעהו ג״כ ותתעורר
עליו׳ אופני ההנמה בקריאת בני אדם קין והבל והיות
קין הוא ההורג להבל בשדה, ושהם יחד אבדו אף על פי
שתאריך לרוצח,ושלא תתקיים המציאות אלא לשת כי שת לי אלהים זרע אהר הנה כבר התאמת זה

One should listen to the shiur directly. And one should see the Rambam inside.

Moshe offered the incense? Or did Aharon?

Consider this pasuk and Rashi, towards the end of Pekudei (Shemot 40:27):

He made the incense go up in smoke upon it as the Lord had commanded Moses.		כז. וַיַּקְטֵר עָלָיו קְטֹרֶת סַמִּים כַּאֲשֶׁר צִוָּה ה אֶת משֶׁה:
He made the incense go up in smoke upon it: in the morning and in the evening, as it is said: “every morning when he sets the lamps in order [he shall make it go up in smoke]” (Exod. 30:7).		ויקטר עליו אהרון קטרת: שחרית וערבית, כמו שנאמר (שמות ל ז) בבקר בבקר בהיטיבו את הנרות וגו':

Who is "he"? Read the context. The most straightforward answer would be Moshe, since Moshe was mentioned as the actor in pasuk 17, and was the presumed actor in every pasuk, and every verb, that followed it. It would be very strange to introduce a new actor here. Unless we say that each of these, or even just the וַיַּקְטֵר עָלָיו, is al yedei shaliach.

Shadal notes something interesting about this Rashi:

כז) ויקטר עליו : ברש"י כתב-יד שבידי: "אהרן שחרית וערבית"; וכן מצא גם הרמב"ן, ואמר "ולא ידעתי אם הוא טעות סופרים (כלומר אין טעות רש"י, כי אמנם אין ספק שהעבודה היתה במשה) וע' ספר הזכרון.
"וַיַּקְטֵר עָלָיו -- in a manuscript of Rashi I possess: "Aharon morning and evening". And so found the Ramban, and said 'I don't know' if it is a scribal error (that is to say that it not an error on Rashi [the man]'s part, for regardless, there is no doubt that the service was done by Moshe). And see Sefer Hazikaron.

Indeed, there is a curious interrupt between the Hebrew and English in the Judaica Press (at Chabad) translation above. The English does not specify Aharon as the actor, while the Hebrew does. This because they pull the Hebrew and English text of Rashi from two different sources, such that they often don't match up.

I would point out that early texts of Rashi were not written together with the chumash. So even though the next comment of Rashi is on a pasuk a bit later, one can and perhaps should read the two comments together. Rashi's next comment (d"h  וַיַּעַל עָלָיו)  is:

The altar of the burnt offering he placed in front of the entrance of the Mishkan of the Tent of Meeting, and he offered up the burnt offering and the meal offering upon it as the Lord had commanded Moses.		כט. וְאֵת מִזְבַּח הָעֹלָה שָׂם פֶּתַח מִשְׁכַּן אֹהֶל מוֹעֵד וַיַּעַל עָלָיו אֶת הָעֹלָה וְאֶת הַמִּנְחָה כַּאֲשֶׁר צִוָּה יְהֹוָה אֶת משֶׁה:
and he offered up the burnt offering and the meal offering upon it: Even on the eighth day of the investitures-which was the day of the setting up of the Mishkan-Moses officiated and offered up the communal sacrifices, with the exception of those that Aaron was commanded [to offer up] on that day, as it is said: “Approach the altar” (Lev. 9:7).		ויעל עליו וגו': אף ביום השמיני למלואים, שהוא יום הקמת המשכן, שמש משה והקריב קרבנות צבור, חוץ מאותן שנצטוו בו ביום, שנאמר (ויקרא ט ז) קרב אל המזבח וגו':
the burnt offering: The daily burnt offering.		את העלה: עולת התמיד:
and the meal offering: [This refers to] the meal offering of the libations of the daily burnt offering, as it is said: “And one-tenth of fine flour, thoroughly mixed with… oil” (Exod. 29:40).		ואת המנחה: מנחת נסכים של תמיד, כמו שנאמר (שמות כט מ) ועשרן סלת בלול בשמן וגו':

which explicitly notes that Aharon performed certain sacrifices on this day, as well as that Moshe was offering these sacrifices (Mincha and Olah), to the exclusion of (perhaps) the preceding. In light of this, perhaps one can argue that Rashi considered (or the erring scribe considered) that the pasuk in Shemot 30:7, in context, to be a requirement for Aharon to light it even on the eighth day of the miluim.

ה  וְעָשִׂיתָ אֶת-הַבַּדִּים, עֲצֵי שִׁטִּים; וְצִפִּיתָ אֹתָם, זָהָב.	5 And thou shalt make the staves of acacia-wood, and overlay them with gold.
ו  וְנָתַתָּה אֹתוֹ לִפְנֵי הַפָּרֹכֶת, אֲשֶׁר עַל-אֲרֹן הָעֵדֻת--לִפְנֵי הַכַּפֹּרֶת, אֲשֶׁר עַל-הָעֵדֻת, אֲשֶׁר אִוָּעֵד לְךָ, שָׁמָּה.	6 And thou shalt put it before the veil that is by the ark of the testimony, before the ark-cover that is over the testimony, where I will meet with thee.
ז  וְהִקְטִיר עָלָיו אַהֲרֹן, קְטֹרֶת סַמִּים; בַּבֹּקֶר בַּבֹּקֶר, בְּהֵיטִיבוֹ אֶת-הַנֵּרֹת--יַקְטִירֶנָּה.	7 And Aaron shall burn thereon incense of sweet spices; every morning, when he dresseth the lamps, he shall burn it.

because the instruction to burn incense was juxtaposed with the instruction to place the constructed altar in a specific place. Or alternatively, because it stated baboker baboker.

However, I think that really Rashi was explaining the details: namely, just where there had been a command to Moshe about this vayakter, to justify the statement כַּאֲשֶׁר צִוָּה ה אֶת משֶׁה. That is, the commands of what to do appear earlier in this perek, in pasuk 4 and 5. And there in this perek, there is no command about the incense. However, Rashi is explaining that the offering of the incense is associated with the lighting of the lamp. And Moshe had been commanded in pasuk 4 to kindle the lamps.

Let us see if we can locate some manuscripts of Rashi which match what Shadal had:

I have one Ktav Yad of Rashi from Rome, 1490, whi.

Here are some interesting features of this.

1. It interjects אהרן before the word ketores, not after it, as Shadal had it. This "ruins", or rather modifies the quote of the pasuk a bit.
2. It cites two prooftexts, not just Shemot 30:7 for the morning, but Shemot 30:8, for the evening.
3. There is no dibbur hamatchil for the next comment of Rashi. Whereas we should have ויעל עליו וגו from pasuk 29, this does not appear. And so it appears as if this a continuation of his comment on וַיַּקְטֵר עָלָיו.

I have another Ktav Yad from Munich, 1233, which does not have the interjection of Aharon:

You have to read across the lines. Some interesting things about this one:

1. No interjection of Aharon
2. Cites both pasuk 7 and pasuk 8
3. Entirely skips the first comment by Rashi regarding the miluim. That is, the Rashi on pasuk 27 begins on the top line, ויקטר and ends on the third line, אהרן וגומר. On that third line, I underlined in red the dibbur hamatchil, את העולה. And so this manuscript entirely skips the dibbur hamatchil of וַיַּעַל עָלָיו, together with the assertion that certain acts were performed by Aharon on that eighth day, and instead it skips to the next, innocuous comment.

If this is original, then maybe the interjection of Aharon and the next comment of Rashi go hand in hand.

The last manuscript I have access to is Cod Hebr 3, from I don't know when:

This 

1. does not have the interjection of Aharon, 
2. does cite both pesukim and 8
3. has Rashi's first comment on pasuk 29, though without a dibbur hamatchil.

Here is the Ramban on this:

כז): ויקטר עליו קטורת סמים - משה הקטיר עליו כל שבעת ימי המילואים. ואע"פ שלא אמר בצואה (בפסוק ה): והקטיר עליו קטורת סמים, הבין זה משאר העבודות כלן, שהרי ציוה אותו בכאן (בפסוק ד): שיסדר הלחם ויעלה הנרות. וכן ויעל עליו את העולה ואת המנחה (להלן פסוק כט), משה הוא המעלה, שכן נצטווה (לעיל כט לח): וזה אשר תעשה על המזבח, שיתחיל הוא לעשות כן בעבדו בימי המילואים, כי הצואות כולן שם (מפסוק א ואילך): על עבודת משה. ואמר אחרי כן (בפסוק מב): עולת תמיד לדורותיכם, שיעשו כן הכוהנים לדורות. ולכך אמר בה בסדר פנחס (במדבר כח ו): עולת תמיד העשויה בהר סיני, שהתחיל אותה משה שם:

והנה משה רבנו בכל העבודות הכהן הראשון, ולפיכך הקטיר גם הקטרת. ואולי בכלל ונתת את מזבח הזהב לקטורת (פסוק ה): שתקטירנו עליו מיד. ומה שאמר בצואה (לעיל ל ו ז): ונתת אותו לפני הפרוכת והקטיר עליו אהרן קטורת סמים, להורות על ענינו מיום שהתחיל אהרן בכהונתו ולעולם, שכך אמר (שם ל ח): ובהעלות אהרן את הנרות בין הערבים, ואין הדבר אלא מיום זה ואילך, כי בכאן (בפסוק ד): ציוה למשה בפירוש והעלית את נרותיה. 

ובפירוש רש"י (בפסוק שלפנינו): ראיתי: 

ויקטר עליו אהרן קטורת שחרית וערבית, כמה שנאמר (לעיל ל ז ח): בבקר בבקר בהטיבו את הנרות וגו', ובהעלות אהרן את הנרות בין הערבים וגו'. 

ולא ידעתי אם הוא טעות סופרים:

"He made the incense go up in smoke upon it: Moshe made the incense go up upon it all seven days of the miluim. And although it does not state in the commandment (in pasuk 5)  "and cause incense to go up upon it", understand this from all the other services, for behold He commanded him here (in pasuk 4): that he should arrange the bread and kindle the lamps. And so too in "and he offered the olah and the mincha offering (pasuk 29), it was Moshe who offered it, for so was he commanded (earlier 29:38), "and this is what you shall make upon the altar", that he should start to do so in service before the miluim, for all the commands there (from pasuk 1 and on): are regarding the service of Moshe. And it states after this (in pasuk 42) "a continual olah for your generations", that the kohanim should do this for generations. And therefore it stated regarding it in the sidra of Pinchas (Bemidbar 28:6) "the continual olah which was made on Har Sinai", that Moshe began it there.

And behold, Moshe Rabbenu in all services was the first kohen, and therefore he offered also the incense. And perhaps because of "and you shall place the golden altar for incense (in pasuk 5), the implication was that incense should be offered upon it immediately. And that which it stated in the command (earlier, Shemot 30:6-7) "and you shall place it before the curtain and Aharon shall burn incense upon it, that was to inform regarding the matter that from the day that Aharon began his service as kohen and forever after" [Josh: but not immediately upon placement, as I suggested above regarding Rashi or the errant scribe]. For so it stated (there, 30:8) "and when Aharon kindles the lamps at dusk", and this matter was only from this day and on, for here (in pasuk 4) He commanded Moshe explicitly "and you shall kindle the lamps:

And in the commentary of Rashi (in the pasuk before us) I have seen ... [then Ramban cites the Rashi with the interjected Aharon and both proof texts] ... And I do not know if it is a scribal error.

Now, Shadal also instructed us to look at Sefer HaZikaron, by Rabbi Avraham ben Shlomo Bakrat.

"ויעל עליו וגו': אף ביום השמיני וכו -- since there are several different nuschaot in the commentary of the Rav [Rashi] in these verses, I saw fit to record his language letter for letter.
ויקטר עליו אהרן קטרת סמים: שחרית וערבית, כמו שנ' (שמות ל ז) בבקר בבקר בהיטיבו את הנרות וגו'. ובהעלות אהרן וגו'. 

ויעל עליו: אף ביום השמיני למלואים, שהוא יום הקמת המשכן, שמש משה וכו' ש 

But the Ramban za'l desired that the one who offered the incense was Moshe, and went on at length in his proofs, and wrote at the end of his words: "In the commentary of Rashi I have seen ויקטר עליו אהרן וכו'ש, and I don't know if it is a scribal error." End quote. 

And since the Rav [Rashi] explained that the one who offered the incense was Ahraon , even though the entire parsha deals with Moshe, 'and he placed; and he took; and he put', he [Rashi] says now regarding ויעל עליו [the next dibbur hamatchil] refers to Moshe himself just like the rest of the parasha, and not to Aharon. And even though from the Scriptures it seems that Moshe served only the seven days of the miluim and no further, for it states (Shemot 29:35):

לה  וְעָשִׂיתָ לְאַהֲרֹן וּלְבָנָיו, כָּכָה, כְּכֹל אֲשֶׁר-צִוִּיתִי, אֹתָכָה; שִׁבְעַת יָמִים, תְּמַלֵּא יָדָם.

35 And thus shalt thou do unto Aaron, and to his sons, according to all that I have commanded thee; seven days shalt thou consecrate them.

, he [Rashi] says, "know ye that even on the seventh day, which is the day of the erection of the Mishkan, Moshe served in the public offerings, which were the olah, the mincha, and the tamid which are mentioned here. 

And if it is a scribal error as the Ramban za"l said, the Rav [Rashi] intended to say: it should not be difficult to you how Moshe offered incense and brought offerings after the seven, for even on the eighth day Moshe served for communal offerings, while Aharon only brought on that day his sin-offering and his burnt-offering, that is to say private offerings."

End quote from Rabbi Avraham ben Shlomo Bakrat.

I'll end by repeating a paragraph I penned above, which is what I feel to be the case. Namely, Aharon should not be interjected there. The purpose of Rashi's comment on vayakter is as follows:

However, I think that really Rashi was explaining the details: namely, just where there had been a command to Moshe about this vayakter, to justify the statement כַּאֲשֶׁר צִוָּה ה אֶת משֶׁה. That is, the commands of what to do appear earlier in this perek, in pasuk 4 and 5. And there in this perek, there is no command about the incense. However, Rashi is explaining that the offering of the incense is associated with the lighting of the lamp. And Moshe had been commanded in pasuk 4 to kindle the lamps.

Were the dudaim in season? Does this impact our identification of dudaim?

Summary: A three way machlokes about what dudaim means in Sanhedrin. Though we might then take those Aramaic identifications in different ways. Rashi seizes the explanation of סיגלי and identifies it with one species. Ramban uses other gemaras to argue with that identification and propose another identification for סיגלי, but then points out a botanical problem with that other identification -- they were out of season, so how could Reuven find it. He then chooses an alternate identification for dudaim, from the gemara and from Onkelos. Then Chasam Sofer weighs in to save from the botanical problem. But there are complications.

Post:

Here is a pasuk from Vayeitzei, and Rashi:

Reuben went in the days of the wheat harvest, and he found dudaim in the field and brought them to Leah, his mother, and Rachel said to Leah, "Now give me some of your son's dudaim."		יד. וַיֵּלֶךְ רְאוּבֵן בִּימֵי קְצִיר חִטִּים וַיִּמְצָא דוּדָאִים בַּשָּׂדֶה וַיָּבֵא אֹתָם אֶל לֵאָה אִמּוֹ וַתֹּאמֶר רָחֵל אֶל לֵאָה תְּנִי נָא לִי מִדּוּדָאֵי בְּנֵךְ:
in the days of the wheat harvest: [This is] to tell the praise of the [progenitors of] the tribes. It was harvest time, and he did not stretch out his hand upon stolen property, to bring wheat or barley, but only upon an ownerless thing, which no one cares about. — [from Gen. Rabbah 72: 2]		בימי קציר חטים: להגיד שבחן של שבטים, שעת הקציר היה ולא פשט ידו בגזל להביא חטים ושעורים אלא דבר ההפקר שאין אדם מקפיד בו:
dudaim: (Sanh. 99b) Sigli. This is an herb, [called] jasmine in Arabic.		דודאים: סיגלי, עשב הוא ובלשון ישמעאל יסמי"ן:

Note that Rashi first cites Sanhedrin 99b for this identification. And then, in a separate step, he further identifies which species Chazal were talking about.

Though it is actually a dispute amongst Chazzal in Sanhedrin:

And Reuben went in the days of the wheat harvest [and found mandrakes in the field]. Raba b. Isaac said in Rab's name: This shews that righteous men do not take what is not theirs.¹⁹  And found dudaim²⁰  [mandrakes] in the field. What are dudaim? — Rab said: mandrakes;²¹  Levi said: violets; R. Jonathan said: mandrake flowers.

Or, in Aramaic:

וימצא דודאים בשדה מאי דודאים אמר רב יברוחי לוי אמר סיגלי ר' יונתן אמר (סיבסוך) [סביסקי]:

Note how different people can interpret Levi's סיגלי as referring to different plants. (סיגלי might connote purple and thus violets.)

According to Ramban, there is a problem with Rashi's explanation of Dudaim. He writes:

(יד): דודאים - 

סיגלי (סנהדרין צט ב), ובלשון ישמעאל יאסמין. כך מצאתי בפירוש רש"י. 

ואינו כן, כי יאסמין בלשון ערבי כך שמו בדברי רבותינו, כדאמרינן בפרק במה טומנין (שבת נ ב): האי כוספא דיאסמין שרי, וסיגלי אומרים שהם "כנפסגא" שאמרו בהן (ברכות מג ב): מברכין עליהם בורא עשבי בשמים. אבל אין זמנם בימי קציר חטים, אולי מצאם שם במקרה:
והראוי לקבל בדודאים דעת אונקלוס שתרגם בהן: 

יברוחין, ובבראשית רבה (עב ב): גם כן, ר' חייא ב"ר אבא אמר יברוחין, והן יברוח בלשון ערבי. 

"Dudaim: Sigalei (Sanhedrin 99b), and in Arabic it is jasmine. So have I found in Rashi's commentary.

And it is not so, for jasmine, in Arabic has the identical name (jasmine) in the words of our Sages, as we say in perek Bameh Tomnin (Shabbat 50b): This kusfa of yasmin in permitted. Meanwhile, regarding sigalei, they say that they are 'Kanpasga', regarding which they said about them (Berachot 43b) 'We bless upon them בורא עשבי בשמים. However, their time is not in the days of the wheat harvest [Josh: namely, during Shavuot, during spring]. Perhaps he found them by chance. And what is fitting is to accept the position of Onkelos, who renders tham as יברוחין. And in Bereishit Rabba (72:2) likewise, Rabbi Chiya beRabbi Abba said Yavruchin, and this is יברוח in Arabic."

Interestingly, we see in Sanhedrin 99b that Rav translated it as יברוחי. And Onkelos had translated it so. So Rashi is choosing one position in Sanhedrin, against another position in Sanhedrin, and against Onkelos. Unless he had understood everyone to be in agreement and just giving local names.

If I read Ramban correctly, he is saying that the true sigalei (of Berachot 43b) are not in that season. But that יברוחין would be in season. I don't know enough about the identity of these species, about Arabic, and then about botany to say whether this is so. This requires greater investigation to learn properly.

However, I would point out that Soncino and Jastrow both render יברוח as mandrake, and that mandrakes do flower in the spring. Which means that Onkelos' translation, and thus Ramban's translation, would work out with the timing.

Here is what the Chasam Sofer has to say about this:

"And Reuven went in the season of the wheat harvest: Ramban argues that these are not the species which Rashi explains as jasmine, and yavruchin [Josh: as per Rav and Onkelos] are not found in the days of the wheat harvest.

And it appears to me that this is what the verse is coming to inform us.  Based on what Chazal say, that the angel appointed on lust compelled Yehuda to turn on the path to be with Tamar, so that two tzadikim would result. So too, Hashem prepared dudaim not in their time in order to produce Yissachar."

And here is where I am a bit confounded. This summary of Ramban seems slightly off. By my read of Ramban, he indeed rejects Rashi's explanation of dudaim as jasmine; but then explains what the gemara actually meant by סיגלי and rejects that other species on the basis of season -- though giving a similar explanation to Chasam Sofer, in that Ramban's אולי מצאם שם במקרה matches nicely to dudaim not in their proper time by Divine direction. But finally, Ramban recommends יברוחין, which is another position in the gemara and is in Onkelos. And Ramban does not reject this on the basis of season. That was my read. Meanwhile, it seems like Chasam Sofer understands Ramban to reject יברוחין on the basis of season. I don't see how to read this into Ramban's words (ignoring even that it is the proper season).

On the other hand, as I described above, I haven't done my due diligence in researching the Arabic, the botany, etc. So I shouldn't necessarily leap to the conclusion that the Chasam Sofer read too hastily and so misrepresented the Ramban. (Regardless, his explanation works equally well assuming an identification of סיגלי as opposed to יברוחין.)

Suggestions welcome. Am I missing something here?

Does Ach only mean 'but'? Does it ever?

In parshas Emor, we are told about Yom Kippur:

On the word ach, Rashi writes:

But: Heb. אַךְ. Wherever the word אַךְ, “but,” or רַק, “only,” appear in the Torah, they denote an exclusion. [Thus,] Yom Kippur atones for those who repent, “but” it does not atone for those who do not repent. — [Shev. 13a]

This is obviously a derasha rather than simple peshat. Because nowhere would we think to exclude some subset of the people. If anything, we would think only on Yom Kippur do we get atonement but not on other days.

More than that, the word Ach does not really mean this in Biblical Hebrew. Rather it means achein, “indeed”. It only means an exclusion in Mishnaic Hebrew. But then Chazal took the meaning of Ach in their days and used it to interpret Biblical verses.

Ramban makes a similar, but not identical point. He writes at length on this subject, as below. To quicly summarize, first he shows how ach is midrashically understood in this manner across many pesukim. And some of them read rather compellingly in this manner. For example, when Aharon and Miriam criticize Moshe, they say harak ach beMoshe. Or forgive my sin ach this time. But, he notes, in reality, ach does not mean that in any of these cases, but means achein, “indeed”, “surely”, as an intensifier. And if you spend time analyzing each instance, you will understand how it works out in each case.

The slight difference between what Ramban said and what I am saying is possibly whether Ach could mean “only” or “but” in Biblical Hebrew, or whether it is a retrojection of meaning. Because as derash, alongside the peshat, one may select an improbable meaning. Here is Ramban; read it and then I’ll proceed.

(כז): אך בעשור לחדש - 

כל אכין ורקין שבתורה מעוטין, מכפר הוא על השבים ואינו מכפר על שאינן שבים, לשון רש"י מדברי רבותינו (שבועות יג א). 

ואם כן יהיה טעם הכתוב כי באחד לחודש יהיה לכם לכולכם יום זיכרון תרועה שתהיו כולכם נדונין לפניו, אך יהיה למקצתכם בעשור לחדש הזה יום הכיפורים. וה נה הוא כטעם "בלבד", וכן שא נא חטאתי אך הפעם (שמות י יז), וכן הרק אך במשה (במדבר יב ב), הבלבד במשה, וכן אך בחמשה עשר יום לחודש השביעי (פסוק לט), יאמר בלבד בחמשה עשר תחוגו את חג ה' שבעת ימים, לא רצופים, שאין חגיגה דוחה שבת. ובדרך הזה תפרשנו בכל המצוות כפי קבלת רבותינו. וכמוהו אך טרף טרף (בראשית מד כח), שלא נעשה בו עניין אחר לבד הטרף. וכן כי היו בני ישראל ובני יהודה אך עושים הרע בעיני מנעורותיהם כי בני ישראל אך מכעיסים אותי (ירמיה לב ל), שלא יעשו דבר אחר.
ועל דרך הפשט, "אך" טעמו "אכן" לאמת העניין, אכן נודע הדבר (שמות יב יד), אכן כאדם תמותון (תהילים פב ז). אכן בעשור לחודש יום הכיפורים הוא הבטחה באמיתת העניין, יאמר, באחד לחודש יום הדין אמנם בעשור לחודש יום כיפורים על כן תענו את נפשותיכם וכל מלאכה לא תעשו. וכן אך עצמי ובשרי אתה (בראשית כט יד), אך מלך ישראל הוא (מ"א כב לב), אך טוב לישראל אלוהים לברי לבב (תהילים עג א). וכן פירוש "אך את שבתותי תשמורו" (שמות לא יב), הנה ציוויתי אתכם במלאכת המשכן אכן את שבתותי תשמרו לעולם, וכן כולם יתפרשו לך בדרך הזה אם תשכיל בהם.

Finally, here is something to consider. What is Onkelos’ position? Does he say like the Midrash or like Ramban’s peshat?

He said beram, which usually people take to mean “but”. However, look at Jastrow on this:

See how sometimes it can mean “besides”, “however”, and “only”, but sometimes it can be an interjection meaning “surely”.

So we cannot definitively conclude on this basis. I would guess though that Onkelos is saying like Rambam’s peshat, rather than changing from the peshat to say like a midrash of Chazal.

How to understand כַיּוֹם in Yaakov's request to purchase the birthright

Summary: Shadal notes a girsological variation in Onkelos, and then points us to sefer Yud Aleph Resh, Savyonita, and Rashi and Ramban. Ramban discusses the meaning of the strange phrasing in Onkelos, זַבֵּין כְּיוֹם דִּלְהֵין.  I present and translate these sources.

Post: In parashat Toledot, consider this pasuk and Onkelos:

כה,לא וַיֹּאמֶר, יַעֲקֹב:  מִכְרָה כַיּוֹם אֶת-בְּכֹרָתְךָ, לִי.

וַאֲמַר, יַעֲקוֹב:  זַבֵּין כְּיוֹם דִּלְהֵין יָת בְּכֵירוּתָךְ, לִי.

Shadal, in Ohev Ger, notes as follows:

That in sefer Ya'ar, as well as in dfus Savyonita, it is translated as דִּלְהֵי, and so to in Kuf-Ayin-Alef, it is דִּילְהֵי. And so writes the Ramban, that it is so in the inspected and precise manuscripts. And the girsa of Rashi is like the majority of sefarim, namely דִּלְהֵין. And both this and that are closed to comprehension.

Thus far Shadal. Follow the hyperlinks I provided to see these manuscripts and texts inside.

Here is what Rashi had to say:

31. And Jacob said, "Sell me as of this day your birthright."		לא. וַיֹּאמֶר יַעֲקֹב מִכְרָה כַיּוֹם אֶת בְּכֹרָתְךָ לִי:
Sell me as of this day: As the Targum renders: כְּיוֹם דִילְהֵן, “like this day” ; just as this day is clear, so sell it to me with a clear sale.		מכרה כיום: כתרגומו כיום דילהן, כיום שהוא ברור, כך מכור לי מכירה ברורה:

Here is what Ramban had to say:

(לא): מכרה כיום את בכורתך לי - 

כיום דילהן, כיום שהוא ברור כן מכור לי מכירה גמורה, לשון רש"י 

ופשוטו, כעת הזאת, וכן ואתה עמוד כיום ואשמיעך את דבר אלוהים (ש"א ט כז), אותו כהיום תמצאון אותו (שם יג), קטר יקטירון כיום את החלב (שם ב טז), ולנו בשת הפנים כהיום הזה (דניאל ט ז):

והנראה מדעת אונקלוס, כי בעבור היות מכירת הבכורה לאחר מיתת אביהם, אמר, מכרה לי הבכורה לאיזה יום שתפול בו, וזה שמוש "להן" בלשון ארמית, להן את אזיל, לאיזה מקום, מן הן את מודע לי, וכן בפרשת וישלח (ב"ר עח א): ולהן אינון אזלין, מן הן דאתברון. והוא לשון מורגל להם במקומות הרבה. ובדניאל (ב יא): בפתחות הלמד כטעם אלהן, להן אלהין די מדרהון עם בשרא לא איתוהי, וכן להן מלכא מלכי ישפר עלך (שם ד כד). ואונקלוס תרגם זולתי "אלהין", אלא הן. ובנוסחאות בדוקות ומדוקדקות מן התרגום כיום דלהי, והוא כמו שפירשתי, כי הי בלשונם איזה, כמו שאומר בתלמוד (ב"ק צט ב): הי רבי מאיר, הי רבי יהודה (ב"ב קמא א), וזולתן:

ואפשר שעשה אונקלוס "כיום" כאלו הוא "ביום", מכרה ביום שתבא בו הבכורה, כי כן מצאנו השמוש הזה לכ"ף, כאשר ילכו אפרוש עליהם רשתי (הושע ז יב), משפטו באשר, וכדמי בניך אשר נתתה להם (יחזקאל טז לו), כי כארבע רוחות השמים פרשתי אתכם (זכריה ב י):

ויש אומרים (הרד"ק בשם אביו): כי אין מחיר הבכורה הנזיד רק הכתוב יספר כי בבקשו לאכול והוא עיף אמר לו יעקב מכור לי בכורתך בכסף, ואחר כך אכול, וענה לו בפחזותו על האכילה למה זה לי בכורה, הרי היא מכורה לך, ונשבע עליה וישבו לאכול ולשתות, והכתוב לא פירש המחיר. ואין זו דעתי:

First he cites Rashi. Then he writes:
"And its simple meaning is 'at this time' and so too [I Shmuel 9:27]:

כז  הֵמָּה, יוֹרְדִים בִּקְצֵה הָעִיר, וּשְׁמוּאֵל אָמַר אֶל-שָׁאוּל אֱמֹר לַנַּעַר וְיַעֲבֹר לְפָנֵינוּ, וַיַּעֲבֹר; וְאַתָּה עֲמֹד כַּיּוֹם, וְאַשְׁמִיעֲךָ אֶת-דְּבַר אֱלֹהִים.  {פ}

27 As they were going down at the end of the city, Samuel said to Saul: 'Bid the servant pass on before us--and he passed on--but stand thou still at this time, that I may cause thee to hear the word of God.' {P}

and [same perek]:

יג  כְּבֹאֲכֶם הָעִיר כֵּן תִּמְצְאוּן אֹתוֹ בְּטֶרֶם יַעֲלֶה הַבָּמָתָה לֶאֱכֹל, כִּי לֹא-יֹאכַל הָעָם עַד-בֹּאוֹ--כִּי-הוּא יְבָרֵךְ הַזֶּבַח, אַחֲרֵי-כֵן יֹאכְלוּ הַקְּרֻאִים; וְעַתָּה עֲלוּ, כִּי-אֹתוֹ כְהַיּוֹם תִּמְצְאוּן אֹתוֹ.

13 As soon as ye are come into the city, ye shall straightway find him, before he go up to the high place to eat; for the people will not eat until he come, because he doth bless the sacrifice; and afterwards they eat that are bidden. Now therefore get you up; for at this time ye shall find him.'

and [I Shmuel 2:16]

טז  וַיֹּאמֶר אֵלָיו הָאִישׁ, קַטֵּר יַקְטִירוּן כַּיּוֹם הַחֵלֶב, וְקַח-לְךָ, כַּאֲשֶׁר תְּאַוֶּה נַפְשֶׁךָ; וְאָמַר לו (לֹא), כִּי עַתָּה תִתֵּן--וְאִם-לֹא, לָקַחְתִּי בְחָזְקָה.

16 And if the man said unto him: 'Let the fat be made to smoke first of all, and then take as much as thy soul desireth'; then he would say: 'Nay, but thou shalt give it me now; and if not, I will take it by force.'

and [Daniel 9:7]:

ז  לְךָ אֲדֹנָי הַצְּדָקָה, וְלָנוּ בֹּשֶׁת הַפָּנִים כַּיּוֹם הַזֶּה; לְאִישׁ יְהוּדָה, וּלְיֹשְׁבֵי יְרוּשָׁלִַם, וּלְכָל-יִשְׂרָאֵל הַקְּרֹבִים וְהָרְחֹקִים בְּכָל-הָאֲרָצוֹת אֲשֶׁר הִדַּחְתָּם שָׁם, בְּמַעֲלָם אֲשֶׁר מָעֲלוּ-בָךְ.

7 Unto Thee, O Lord, belongeth righteousness, but unto us confusion of face, as at this day; to the men of Judah, and to the inhabitants of Jerusalem, and unto all Israel, that are near, and that are far off, through all the countries whither Thou hast driven them, because they dealt treacherously with Thee.

And that which appears from Onkelos' position is that since the sale of the birthright was [to take effect only] after their father's death, he said 'sell to me the birthright for whatever day it falls upon', and this is the function of להן in Aramaic, as in lehein at azeil, 'to what place'? [Josh: thus, like le'an.] And מן הן את מודע לי. And so too in parshat Vayishlach (Bereishit Rabba 78:1), להן אינון אזלין, [to where are they going], מן הן דאתברון. And it is a regular language for them in many places. And in Daniel 2:11, with a patach [Josh: kamatz?] on the lamed:

א  וּמִלְּתָא דִי-מַלְכָּה שָׁאֵל, יַקִּירָה, וְאָחֳרָן לָא אִיתַי, דִּי יְחַוִּנַּהּ קֳדָם מַלְכָּא; לָהֵן אֱלָהִין--דִּי מְדָרְהוֹן, עִם-בִּשְׂרָא לָא אִיתוֹהִי.

11 And it is a hard thing that the king asketh, and there is none other that can declare it before the king, except the gods, whose dwelling is not with flesh.'

and so too [Daniel 4:24]:

כד  לָהֵן מַלְכָּא, מִלְכִּי יִשְׁפַּר עליך (עֲלָךְ), וחטיך (וַחֲטָאָךְ) בְּצִדְקָה פְרֻק, וַעֲוָיָתָךְ בְּמִחַן עֲנָיִן; הֵן תֶּהֱוֵה אַרְכָה, לִשְׁלֵוְתָךְ.

24 Wherefore, O king, let my counsel be acceptable unto thee, and break off thy sins by almsgiving, and thine iniquities by showing mercy to the poor; if there may be a lengthening of thy prosperity.'

And Onkelos translates besides this the word אלהין as ela hein.

And in precise and investigated nuschaot of the Targum, it is כְּיוֹם דִּלְהֵי. And this is as I explained, for hei in their language means איזה, which, just as is stated in the Talmud (Bava Kamma 99b) "hei Rabbi Meir, hei Rabbi Yehuda" {which position of Rabbi Meir...}, and the like.

And it is possible that Onkelos made kayom as if it was bayom. 'Sell to me on the day on which the birthright comes', for we see this functionality for the kaf, such as in [Hoshea 7:12]

יב  כַּאֲשֶׁר יֵלֵכוּ, אֶפְרוֹשׂ עֲלֵיהֶם רִשְׁתִּי--כְּעוֹף הַשָּׁמַיִם, אוֹרִידֵם; אַיְסִירֵם, כְּשֵׁמַע לַעֲדָתָם.  {ס}

12 Even as they go, I will spread My net upon them; I will bring them down as the fowls of the heaven; I will chastise them, as their congregation hath been made to hear. {S}

and [Yechezkel 16:36]:

לו  כֹּה-אָמַר אֲדֹנָי יְהוִה, יַעַן הִשָּׁפֵךְ נְחֻשְׁתֵּךְ וַתִּגָּלֶה עֶרְוָתֵךְ, בְּתַזְנוּתַיִךְ, עַל-מְאַהֲבָיִךְ; וְעַל, כָּל-גִּלּוּלֵי תוֹעֲבוֹתַיִךְ, וְכִדְמֵי בָנַיִךְ, אֲשֶׁר נָתַתְּ לָהֶם.

36 Thus saith the Lord GOD: Because thy filthiness was poured out, and thy nakedness uncovered through thy harlotries with thy lovers; and because of all the idols of thy abominations, and for the blood of thy children, that thou didst give unto them;

and Zecharia 2:10:

י  הוֹי הוֹי, וְנֻסוּ מֵאֶרֶץ צָפוֹן--נְאֻם-יְהוָה:  כִּי כְּאַרְבַּע רוּחוֹת הַשָּׁמַיִם, פֵּרַשְׂתִּי אֶתְכֶם--נְאֻם-ה.

10 Ho, ho, flee then from the land of the north, saith the LORD; for I have spread you abroad as the four winds of the heaven, saith the LORD.

And some say (the Radak in the name of his father) that the price of the firstborn rights was not the lentil stew, but rather the Scriptures relates that when he desired to eat, and he was tires, Yaakov said to him 'sell me you firstborn rights for money', and afterwards he ate, and answered him in rashness upon the food, 'what need do I have for the firstborn rights, behold it is sold to you', and he swore to him upon it, and they sat to eat and drink, and the verse does not specify the price. And this is not my position.

End quote of the Ramban.

How does the trup parse אֲנָשִׁים חֲכָמִים וּנְבֹנִים וִידֻעִים לְשִׁבְטֵיכֶם?

Summary: Against Rashi, it seems, such that חֲכָמִים וּנְבֹנִים וִידֻעִים are a unit. But that is acceptable.

Post: Towards the start of parshas Devarim, we encounter this pasuk:

13. Prepare for yourselves wise and understanding men, known among your tribes, and I will make them heads over you.

יג. הָבוּ לָכֶם אֲנָשִׁים חֲכָמִים וּנְבֹנִים וִידֻעִים לְשִׁבְטֵיכֶם וַאֲשִׂימֵם בְּרָאשֵׁיכֶם:

Rashi

Note that Judaica Press translates it in accordance to Rashi, taking וִידֻעִים לְשִׁבְטֵיכֶם as a unit, meaning "known among your tribes".


Here is how Rashi, channeling the Sifrei, puts it:

well-known among your tribes: Men whom you recognize, for if one were to come before me wrapped in his tallith, I would not know who he is and of what tribe he is, and whether he is suitable. But you know him, for you have raised him. Therefore, it says,“well-known among your tribes.” (Sifrei)

וידועים לשבטיכם: שהם ניכרים לכם, שאם בא לפני מעוטף בטליתו איני יודע מי הוא ומאיזה שבט הוא ואם הגון הוא, אבל אתם מכירין בו, שאתם גידלתם אותו, לכך נאמר וידועים לשבטיכם:

Compare with JPS which makes it a measure of their knowledge:

יג  הָבוּ לָכֶם אֲנָשִׁים חֲכָמִים וּנְבֹנִים, וִידֻעִים--לְשִׁבְטֵיכֶם; וַאֲשִׂימֵם, בְּרָאשֵׁיכֶם.

13 Get you, from each one of your tribes, wise men, and understanding, and full of knowledge, and I will make them heads over you.'

Ibn Ezra does not explicitly treat viyduim lishivteichem as unit, as Rashi does, but he does interpret viduim in like manner:

וידועים -שהם היו ידועים שיכירום הכל.

That they are known, that all recognize them.

(After all, it is the passive verb.) The Ramban writes:

יג): וידעים לשבטיכם - 

שהיו ניכרים לכם, שאם בא לפני מעוטף בטליתו איני יודע מי הוא ומאי זה שבט הוא, אבל אתם מכירים אותו שגדלתם אותו, לשון רש"י מספרי (דברים יג). ג

ואם כן, יהיה "לשבטיכם" קשור עם "וידועים".  י

אבל על דרך הפשט טעמו, הבו לכם לשבטיכם אנשים חכמים. 
ועל דעתי, טעם "וידועים" שהם ידועים לשופטים, כלומר שמעלתם ידועה ונכרת למנותם בה שופטים. וכלל מעלות השופטים במלת "וידועים", כי השופטים צריכין להיות אנשי חיל יראי אלוהים אנשי אמת שונאי בצע כאשר אמר יתרו, ואלה היו ידועים לשופטים מתחלה כי היו הכל אומרים ראוי זה להיות שופט:

That is, he first cites Rashi and states that if so, the word לְשִׁבְטֵיכֶם is connected with וִידֻעִים. He continues:

"However, on a peshat level, its import is {via reordering the words} 'Get yourselves, for your tribes, wise men.' {J: and so 'your tribes' is not associated with yeduim at all.}

 And in my opinion, the meaning of yeduim is that they are known to be judges, that is to say, their greatness is known and recognized, to appoint them judges for it. And it encompasses the various positive traits of judges in the word וִידֻעִים, for the judges need to be אַנְשֵׁי-חַיִל יִרְאֵי אֱלֹהִים, אַנְשֵׁי אֱמֶת--שֹׂנְאֵי בָצַעת, as Yisro said {J: such that there is harmonization between Devarim and parashat Yitro in sefer Shemot}. And these were known to be 'judges' from the beginning, since all would say that this one is fit to be a judge.

In this way, I'll stress once more,  לְשִׁבְטֵיכֶם is not connected with וִידֻעִים on a peshat level according to the Ramban.

Vilna Gaon

The Vilna Gaon writes, in Aderes Eliyahu:
לְשִׁבְטֵיכֶם. לא קאי ידֻעִים בלבד אלא על כל הד׳ דברים שיהא מכל שבט ושבט

"'to your tribes' -- it does not apply only to וִידֻעִים, but rather to each of the four [sic; three; unless anashim counts, as righteous men, as in the Sifrei, in which case ignore three later in Gra, as well as his supercommentator in the link] things, that they should be from each and every tribe."

haKsav vehaKabbalah

Rabbi Yaakov Tzvi Mechlenburg, in his sefer Haksav veHakabbalah, discusses how trup fits into this picture. He cites the Gra, and then writes:


כי לפי נגינת הטעם מלת וִידֻעִים מתחברת עם חֲכָמִים וּנְבֹנִים


"For according to the trup, the word וִידֻעִים  is connected to חֲכָמִים וּנְבֹנִים." 


This is precisely correct. Let us examine the trup on the pasuk:

The one trup symbol appearing which subdivides an etnachta is the tipcha on וִידֻעִים, such that it is the first item knocked off. All the other trup symbols divide the clause ending in the tipcha. Thus, it is:


הָבוּ לָכֶם אֲנָשִׁים חֲכָמִים וּנְבֹנִים וִידֻעִים
לְשִׁבְטֵיכֶם

Can Rashi (and Ibn Ezra perhaps) give an interpretation against the trup? Yes. But even without that, we already have Ramban aligning peshat vs. the non-peshat (so I suppose derash) in Rashi based on different parsings. Noting that the trup is like the peshat parsing does not necessarily do away with the derash, even if we took trup as dispositive.