Post: Balak sends messengers to Petor. The Torah could record this is אל פתור or as פתורה.
| 5. He sent messengers to Balaam the son of Beor, to Pethor, which is by the river of the land of his people, to call for him, saying, "A people has come out of Egypt, and behold, they have covered the "eye" of the land, and they are stationed opposite me. | ה. וַיִּשְׁלַח מַלְאָכִים אֶל בִּלְעָם בֶּן בְּעוֹר פְּתוֹרָה אֲשֶׁר עַל הַנָּהָר אֶרֶץ בְּנֵי עַמּוֹ לִקְרֹא לוֹ לֵאמֹר הִנֵּה עַם יָצָא מִמִּצְרַיִם הִנֵּה כִסָּה אֶת עֵין הָאָרֶץ וְהוּא יֹשֵׁב מִמֻּלִי: |
| 5. Because they did not greet you with bread and water on the way, when you left Egypt, and because he [the people of Moab] hired Balaam the son of Beor from Pethor in Aram Naharaim against you, to curse you. | ה. עַל דְּבַר אֲשֶׁר לֹא קִדְּמוּ אֶתְכֶם בַּלֶּחֶם וּבַמַּיִם בַּדֶּרֶךְ בְּצֵאתְכֶם מִמִּצְרָיִם וַאֲשֶׁר שָׂכַר עָלֶיךָ אֶת בִּלְעָם בֶּן בְּעוֹר מִפְּתוֹר אֲרַם נַהֲרַיִם לְקַלְלֶךָּ: |
And so, we understand that פתורה is the typical construction meaning אל פתור. As Ibn Ezra writes:
פתורה -כמו: מצרימה, אל פתור.
Rashi agrees to this as a matter of peshat, but first mentions a midrashic explanation:
| to Pethor: Heb. פְּתוֹרָה, like this money changer, to whom everyone rushes coins, so did all the kings rush their letters to him [asking him for advice]. [In Aramaic, פְּתוֹרָא means table, denoting the counter over which currency transactions take place. This is synonymous with the Hebrew שֻׁלְחָן, table.Thus, a money changer is שֻלְחָנִי]. According to the simple meaning of the verse, it [Pethor] is a place-name. — [Mid. Tanchuma Balak 4, Num. Rabbah 20:7] | פתורה: כשולחני הזה שהכל מריצין לו מעות, כך כל המלכים מריצין לו אגרותיהם. ולפי פשוטו של מקרא כך שם המקום: |
The explanation in square brackets is provided by the Judaica Press translation. I would add that using Galilean Aramaic, rather than kametz aleph, they use the kametz heh ending for the definite article, and so it is not just a homonym, but also a homograph.
Rashi knows that peshat is that it is his city. Yet he likely brings down this midrashic explanation for some purpose. I would guess to set up the theme that Bilaam is a much-sought-after sorcerer. And so that is why kings are seeking after him, promising houses filled with silver and gold, and how Sichon sought Bilaam's help to defeat Moav. Early on, setting up the role and nature of the characters in the narrative is certainly a peshat concern, even if he cites derash (which is true but derived on a midrashic level) to establish it.
Midrash Tanchuma gives it as a choice between three interpretations:
וישלח מלאכים אל בלעם בן בעור פתורהפתורה, עירו.Thus, first off peshat, that it is him city. Secondly, the shulchani whom everyone consults. And thirdly, to show his development from a poter chalomot -- interpreter of dreams; then to sorcerer, and finally to ruach hakodesh.
ויש אומרים:
כשולחני היה, שהיו מלכי אומות העולם נמלכים בו, כשולחני הזה שהכל מריצין לו.
ויש אומרים:
מתחלה פותר חלומות היה.
חזר להיות קוסם, וחזר לרוח הקדש.
Midrash Rabba gives an identical three-way choice:
וישלח מלאכים אל בלעם בן בעור פתורה עירו היה.I don't think Rashi could be clearer that the first thing he cited is not intended as peshat, in the sense of the necessary, simple meaning of the verse. Even if it is true and he is citing the midrash to give us insight into the character, a peshat concern.
ויש אומרים:
שולחני היה שהיו מלכי גויים נמלכים בו כשולחני שהכל מריצין לו.
ויש אומרים:
בתחילה פותר חלומות היה חזר להיות קוסם וחזר לרוח הקדש.
Mizrachi does not really investigate this Rashi so much as the midrash mentioned by Rashi. If one position is that it is Bilaam's city, such that the heh ending indicates destination, while one position is that it is part of the name, such that it means everyone seeks Bilaam out; and if the former is the peshat and the latter is the derash, then Mizrachi does not know what they would do with the pasuk in sefer Devarim where it says מִפְּתוֹר, for without the heh ending, it is not the translation of "table". Only פתורא is that.[Josh: I would interject at this point and say that this is not so. There is פתור, פתורה, פתורא, and פתורתא. See Shabbos 36a for a bit of it and its varied meanings. (Also, see Jastrow.) But for פתור without the final heh or aleph, see Targum Pseudo-Yonatan on Bereishit 23:16:
וקביל אברהם מן עפרון ותקל אברהם לעפרון ית כספא
דמליל באנפי בני חתאה ארבע מאה סלעין דכסף טב עברין בכל פתור
ומתקבלין בכל פרקמטיא
This means "acceptable at every money-changer's table". Clearly the heh ending is not required. Indeed, I would argue that -- as the Judaica Press had it, the heh ending is being used to indicate definite article.]
Back to discussing Mizrachi. He states a further objection that according to the midrash, פתורה needs to be an adjective describing Bilaam, as if it said "to Bilaam son of Beor, who is a Petora." But then in sefer Devarim, the mem of מִפְּתוֹר cannot allow it to be an adjective describing Bilaam, nor Aram Naharayim which comes after it.And one cannot say that since it changed here to say פתורה rather than אל פתור they darshened it here -- [Josh: but not in sefer Devarim] for they themselves said in the first perek of Yevamot that any word which requires a ל in the beginning can instead have a ה at the end of it.
So ends Mizrachi's discussion, and he has no resolution. However, I would have propose a resolution. Firstly, perhaps they can remove the dagesh from מִפְּתוֹר and create some sort of noun pattern miftor with a similar sense. Secondly, I think Mizrachi was on to something when he said that only here would they darshen it but not there. Certainly this is how Rashi would take it, as an additional layer of interpretation, though of course Petor was also the name of his city.
Mizrachi operates under the false assumption that in order to make a derasha, there must be a real problem. Sometimes midrash works that way. But most often, it is a matter of exploring textual ambiguity as well as strange though perfectly acceptable grammatical structure. Petora instead of El-Petor is perfectly acceptable, but unexpected. That suggests a derasha, as an additional layer of interpretation here. And because of the Aramaism, as discussed in another post this year, and because of the theme of everyone seeking out Bilaam, the midrash suggested this here. Of course, in sefer Devarim, מִפְּתוֹר would maintain its usual peshat meaning, and there is no reason to make a derash.
I would note that in terms of the third suggestion in midrash, that of dream-interpreter, where the theme is development from that lowly state to that of sorcerer to that of ruach hakodesh, Targum Yonatan is consistent. It has in sefer Devarim, מן פתור חלמיא. Some suggest the last word is a gloss, but it need not be, as the point of the midrash is transition.
At any rate, within my methodology of understanding midrash, all of this is rather straightforward.
Let us examine another supercommentator of Rashi, Gur Aryeh:
כשולחני הזה וכו. הקשה הרא׳׳ם, אם
כן מה יעשו רז׳׳ל בפסוק
״ואשר שכר עליך את בלעם בן בעור
מפתור״, כי לפי מדרש רז״ל יהיה ״פתורה״
תואר אל בלעם, שהיו הכל מריצין לו
אגרותיהן אליו כשולחני הזה שהכל מריצין
אליו מעות ולא יתכן לפרש כן מ״ם של
״מפתור׳׳, ואם כן על כרחך אתה צריך
לפרש כי ״פתורה״ הוא שם המקום
Thus, Mizrachi's question. He answers
ואין זה
קשיא כלל על דברי חז״ל, כי נראה אלי
שנקרא העיר על שם בלעם שהיה שולחני,
לכך שם העיר ״פתורה״ על שם בלעם שהיה
בה, והוא כמו שולחני. ומה שאמרו רז״ל
״פתורה״ עירו היה, ויש בבמד״ר
אומרים שולחני היה, שהיו מלכי גוים נמלכים
בו , אין כוונתם שיהיה פירוש ״פתורה״
שולחני, שאינו כן, אלא פירוש שהיה בלעם
שולחני, ונקרא שם העיר על שם בלעם, שהיה
שולחני.
This is a rather radical reinterpretation of the midrash in Bamidbar Rabba -- and Tanchuma -- I would say. That the city was called that after Bilaam, and that Bilaam was a shulchani and the city was called Petora after him. Nothing in the midrash indicates this. But Gur Aryeh often reinterprets midrashim in these radical ways, creating novel midrashim. Meanwhile, from my perspective, no radical reinterpretation is needed.
He continues:
ואס תאמר, ולרז״ל שדרשו כך, מנא להו,
שמא הוא כפשוטו, דהוא שם המקום. ויש
לומר, דהוקשה לרז״ל דלמה לי למכתב כלל
״פתורה״, דמאי נפקא מיניה, אלא שנקרא
המקום ״פתורה״ על שם בלעם, שהיה בלעם
כמו שולחני שהכל מריצין לו אגרותיהן, והיה
נקרא שם העיר על שם בלעם שהיה שולחני.
That is, those who darshen it as referring to the profession of Bilaam and subsequently the name of the city, why not interpret it simply as the name of the city. The answer is that if so, why should the pasuk bother stating it at all?
That is, he approaches the midrash with the "What is Bothering Chazal" approach, that there must be some textual problem they are trying to solve. Yes, perhaps it is extra. So that could be the spark. But I think that the other features worked as impetus to the derasha as well.
וגם על דרך הפשט נראה לי, דעל כרחך
צריך אתה לומר דהכתוב בא לומר שמזכיר
שם המקום, לומר כי חשוב היה עד
שהמקום נחשב בשבילו, כי המקום נחשב
בשביל אדם חשוב שבו , ולפיכך אמר
הכתוב ׳׳וישלח מלאכים אל בלעם פתורה׳׳,
כלומר המקום אשר שם האדם, אשר הוא
נחשב בעיני הבריות. ומאחר כי פשט הכתוב
בא להזכיר המקום על שם חשיבות בלעם,
הוסיפו חכמים חכמה ודעת לומר כי בזאת
המלה עצמה נזכר חשיבות בלעם, כי היה כמו
השולחני שהכל מריצין לו אגרותיהן, ושם
העיר נקרא על שמו לגמרי, תהו תוספת
חכמה. וכן ״אשר שכר עליך את בלעם בן
בעור מפתור״, ולמה הוצרך הכתוב לומר
שהיה ״מפתור״, אם לא שהכתוב בא לומר כי
אף המקום נחשב בשביל בלעם וחשיבותו,
ומאחר שחשיבות המקום הוא בשביל בלעם,
דרשו שנקרא שם המקום ״פתורה״ על שם
השולחני. ומה שאמר (רש״י) ׳פשוטו שם
מקום׳ , רצה לומר שאין טעם למה נקרא
. ״פתורה״, כמו שאין טעם לשאר מקומות
That is, he wants to work this into peshat as well. Peshat is that it is mentioned because it is important, and important because of an important person in it. And Chazal extended this that Bilaam was the important person after whom it was named. Furthermore, by saying that as peshat it is the name of the city, he is saying that there is no need to explain why the city was called Petora, just as there was no need to explain the meaning of other cities.
All of this seems like even further stretches to me. On the level of peshat, it could have been a famous town, which the ancient Israelite audience would have recognized. And since Bilaam is fetched from there and returns there, it is not out-of-the-ordinary, on a peshat level, to mention the place name. Furthermore, he is assuming the place name was Petora, rather than Petor. How is he going to explain the place name as it occurs in sefer Devarim. Further, he brings Rashi in on his interpretation, such that Rashi of course agrees to his radical reinterpretation of the midrash, though Rashi never mentions it. And by saying that Peshat is that is is the name of the city, Rashi is relegating the derash that there need not be a name for the city; with the implication that in the first reason given, he was discussing a reason for a name for the city. Frankly, even if Gur Aryeh is right as to the meaning of the midrash, it is rather unlikely that Rashi would be mechaven to this, with no textual evidence in the midrash itself and no indication that Rashi explains it this way in Rashi's wording.
Finally, Gur Aryeh discusses the third option in the midrash, that it means dream-interpreter.
ויש מרז״ל דרשו ״פתורה״ שהיה
בלעם פותר חלומות, ולבסוף חוזר להיות
קוסם* 3. גם כן נקרא שם המקום ״פתורה׳׳,
מפני שהיה בלעם פותר חלומות, נקרא שם
המקום ״פתורה׳׳, מקום שפותרים שם
חלומות.
He combines this as well, that the name of the city is Petora (rather than Petor) as a place where dreams are interpreted.
To be straight, I liked Mizrachi's questions better than Gur Aryeh's solutions. Mizrachi's questions were straightforward and much closer to the emes, while Gur Aryeh's answers are speculative and without strong basis, IMHO.
