Is daber exclusively strong, harsh language?

It is a general running assumption that daber / vayedaber is strong, harsh language, while vayomer is soft language. This finds purchase, for example, in Makos daf 10b-11a:

א"ר חמא בר חנינא מפני מה נאמרה פרשת רוצחים 

בלשון עזה דכתיב (יהושע כ, א) וידבר ה' אל יהושע לאמר דבר אל בני ישראל לאמר תנו לכם את ערי המקלט אשר דברתי אליכם וגו' מפני שהן של תורה 

למימרא דכל דיבור לשון קשה אין כדכתיב (בראשית מב, ל) דבר האיש אדוני הארץ אתנו קשות והתניא (מלאכי ג, טז) נדברו אין נדברו אלא לשון נחת וכן הוא אומר (תהלים מז, ד) ידבר עמים תחתינו דבר לחוד ידבר לחוד: 

In English:

(a) (Rav Chama bar Chanina): The Parshah of Arei Miklat was said to Yehoshua in a harsh language ("*Va'Ydaber* Hash-m...", in the rest of Yehoshua it says "Va'Yomer Hash-m") because it is a Mitzvah of the Torah.

1. Question: Does this imply that va'Ydaber is a harsh language?
2. Answer: Yes - "Diber ha'Ish Adonei ha'Aretz Itanu Kashos".
3. Question (Beraisa): "Nidberu" (those who fear Hash-m spoke with each other) - this is a gentle language, "Yadber Amim Tachteinu".
4. Answer: Daber (or va'Ydaber) is harsh, Yadber (or Nidberu) is soft.

Thus, R' Chama bar Chanina makes a statement, contrasting the single usage of daber with the overwhelming usage of amira in sefer Yehoshua. The setama degemara takes this as evidence that the word daber, all by itself, implies harsh language, and asks based on a counter-example. And the setama degemara resolves the question by distinguishing between the two languages of daber.

I would imagine that one could resolve it otherwise, by saying that when there is a deliberate contrast and reason to assume harshness, one could read in harshness. But in other instances, follow what the derasha implies. And especially in midrash aggadda, don't expect such systematic consistency, within the meaning of a single word.

I saw an intersting midrash cited by the Baal HaTurim at the beginning of Teruma, on the first pasuk:

1. "The Lord spoke to Moses saying:		א. וַיְדַבֵּר ה אֶל משֶׁה לֵּאמֹר:
2. "Speak to the children of Israel, and have them take for Me an offering; from every person whose heart inspires him to generosity, you shall take My offering.		ב. דַּבֵּר אֶל בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל וְיִקְחוּ לִי תְּרוּמָה מֵאֵת כָּל אִישׁ אֲשֶׁר יִדְּבֶנּוּ לִבּוֹ תִּקְחוּ אֶת תְּרוּמָתִי:

The Baal HaTurim writes:

Here, he takes daber as a language of piyus, implying conciliation. His prooftext is none of the above, but rather daber al lev Yerushalayim. And he cites a similar midrash, from Rabbi Avahu.

Make of it what you will.

Why the pasek after the word tamei?

Summary: Midrashically, as well as from a system of trup.

Post: In parashat Behaalotecha, consider the following pasuk (Bemidbar 9:10):

10. Speak to the children of Israel saying, Any person who becomes unclean from [contact with] the dead, or is on a distant journey, whether among you or in future generations, he shall make a Passover sacrifice for the Lord.

י. דַּבֵּר אֶל בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל לֵאמֹר אִישׁ אִישׁ כִּי יִהְיֶה טָמֵא לָנֶפֶשׁ אוֹ בְדֶרֶךְ רְחֹקָה לָכֶם אוֹ לְדֹרֹתֵיכֶם וְעָשָׂה פֶסַח לַה':

The trup on this is:

Note the vertical bar between טמא and לנפש. In Chelek HaDikduk, the following explanation:

There is a psik between טָמֵא and לָנֶפֶשׁ to tell you that there is a distinction between those who are ritually impure. A single individual is pushed off, but the entire tzibbur is not pushed off. (Mahari"v)

See this in Baal HaTurim here.

I wonder, though. Might this be a munach legarmeih? Consider the revii on lachem, and that pazer, telisha, geresh, and munach legarmeih are all accents used to subdivide a clause ending in a revii. Or how munach legarmeih is occasionally used in place of telisha gedola to subdivide a geresh.

But, let us say not. Let us say that it is indeed a psik. Here is an alternate explanation for why we would expect a psik.

This makes the most sense, I think. Look back at the original pasuk and see that there is repeated division towards the end of the clause, starting at the revii.

Some other interesting features raised in Chelek HaDikduk. Later, in 11:26, there is the following:

where there is a vertical bar + munach before the first pazer, and a dispute as to whether there should be a vertucal bar by the munach before the second pazer.

And later, in 11:31:

where the printers put the vertical bar, but it does not seem to be warranted based on their masoretic texts. (Unless perhaps it is to be a munach legarmeih.)

I don't have the time to investigate this today, so I'll leave it at pointing out these interesting features.

The derasha that blind people are not valid witnesses

Summary: Found in the Tur, with a basis and derasha in Tosefta Shevuos.

Post: In parashat Vayikra, in Vayikra 5:1:

1. If a person sins, whereby he accepts an oath, and he is a witness [to some matter] by seeing or knowing [it], yet he does not testify, he shall bear his transgression;

א. וְנֶפֶשׁ כִּי תֶחֱטָא וְשָׁמְעָה קוֹל אָלָה וְהוּא עֵד אוֹ רָאָה אוֹ יָדָע אִם לוֹא יַגִּיד וְנָשָׂא עֲוֹנוֹ:

In Torat HaTur, he cites the following Tur:

The Tur in Choshen Mishpat siman 35 writes: "A blind man in invalid, though he recognizes the voice and the people, and directs his testimony, the Torah invalidates him, for it is written וְהוּא עֵד אוֹ רָאָה אוֹ יָדָע."

Though one might interpret this as "he is a witness, either by seeing it or by knowing it in some other way", it seems like the midrash here understands this pasuk otherwise. How? Is it simply ignoring the word אוֹ? Is it employing selective citation, to sever off  אוֹ יָדָע? Maybe not. We can simply say that the Torah states וְהוּא עֵד, and such an eid needs to be capable of knowledge via direct sight or some other method. And since sight is not one of the two options for the blind, they are not within the realm of valid witnesses. Peshat and derash both work here in tandem.

As discussed in footnote 258 on the page (see image above):

"In Torah Temima, os 18, he shows that this din is explicit in the Tosefta in Shevuos perek 3, [the very last brayta in the perek]:

ג,ו  והוא עד הכשר לעדות (ויקרא ה) ושמעה להוציא את החרש.  או ראה להוציא את הסומא או ידע להוציא את השוטה אם לא יגיד ונשא את עונו להוציא את האלם. 

[where it excludes, based on phrases throughout this verse, the deaf, blind, imbeciles, and mute.]

And it is confounding according to this what the Kesef Mishneh [=Rav Yosef Karo] wrote at the end of the second perek of hilchos eidus [in the Rambam], that he wrote 'where is this derasha found?', and behold, it is an explicit Tosefta.

And see Pischei Teshuva, seif katan 7, who precedes him in pointing out this source in the aforementioned Tosefta."

I don't think that it is so astonishing. It was not necessarily the case (can we establish this one way or the other based on citations?) that Rav Yosef Karo had access to the Tosefta on every masechet.

Eliezer makes a netilas yadayim and hamotzi

Summary: But how does the Baal HaTurim know to add these additional details to the midrash?

Post: In parashat Chayei Sarah, perek 24, Eliezer says the following to Rivkah's family:

33. And [food] was set before him to eat, but he said, "I will not eat until I have spoken my words." And he said, "Speak."

לג. [ויישם] וַיּוּשַׂם לְפָנָיו לֶאֱכֹל וַיֹּאמֶר לֹא אֹכַל עַד אִם דִּבַּרְתִּי דְּבָרָי וַיֹּאמֶר דַּבֵּר:

in his short commentary, Baal HaTurim writes about how Eliezer sensed that Betuel poisoned his food, and gave an excuse that he could not eat until, as was his custom in his master's house, he said the blessings of Netilat Yadayim and Hamotzi. Thus, לֹא אֹכַל עַד אִם דִּבַּרְתִּי. He figured that that would protect him from the poison, just as a cup of [wine of] blessing [of Birkat HaMazon] combines to good but not to bad [in terms of sheidim]. And indeed, he was saved, when the angel switched the plates of food, thus offing Betuel.

Here is the Baal HaTurim inside:

Birchas Yitzchak, R' Yitzchok Horowitz (a previous Melitzer Rebbe) writes:


 ויאמר לא  אוכל  עד אם  דברתי  דברי .  כתב  הבעל  הטורים  שאליעזר
 לא  רצה  לאכול  עד  שיברך  ברכת  על  נטילת  ידים  והמוציא
 לחם  מן  הארץ ,  וזה  שאמר  עד  אם  דברתי  דברי .  ויש  להבין  איך
 משמע  מזה  שרצה  לברך  שתי  הברכות  האלו .  ונראה  לומר  דלכאורה
 יש  לדקדק  למה  נכתבו  תיבות  אם  דברתי  שמשמע  על  העבר ,  אם
 דברתי  כבר ,  ולא  אמר  אם  אדבר  דברי .  אבל  באלו  התיבות  נרמזו
 הברכות  האלו ,  כי  דברת״י  בגימטריא  תרי״ו  וזה  כמספר  ״המוציא
 לחם  מן  הארץ״ .  ואם  נחשוב  שתי  התיבות  א״ם  דברת״י  המה
 בגימטריא  תרנ״ז  ועם  האותיות  עוד  ז׳  הרי  הם  בגימטריא  תרס״ד
 וזהו כמספר  התיבות  ע״ל  נטיל״ת  ידי״ם  ועם  הכולל  עוד  אחד
 ג״כ  עולה  תרס״ד .  ( ושמחתי  כי  נראה  שזהו  כמעט  מה  שכיוון
 הבעה״ט  הקדוש  ז״ל  בזה ) .ש


וגם יש  לומר  כי  הלשון  אם  דברתי  שמשמע  אם  שאדבר  קודם  וזה
 בדברים  השייכים  לומר  בתחלה  כי  הדין  הוא  כי  הברכות
 צריכים  לברך  עובר  לעשייתן . . .ש


Thus, he cites the Baal HaTurim that:

Eliezer did not wish to eat until he blessed al netilas yadayim and hamotzi lechem min ha'aretz, and that this is the implication of לֹא אֹכַל עַד אִם דִּבַּרְתִּי דְּבָרָי. And there is to understand how it is implied from this that he wished to bless these two blessings. And it appears to say that apparently, there is to analyze why the words אִם דִּבַּרְתִּי are written, which imply the past, 'if I had already spoken', and he did not say 'if I will speak my words.' But with these words are hinted these blessings, for דִּבַּרְתִּי is in gematria 616, and this is the same as the number of המוציא לחם מן הארץ. And if we consider the two words אִם דִּבַּרְתִּי, they are in gematria 657, and with the [seven] letters [of the two words] there are another 7, such that it is, in gematria, 664. And this is the same as the gematria of the words ע״ל  נטיל״ת  ידי״ם, with an encompasser [for the word itself], an additional 1, which sums to 664. (And I rejoiced because it seems that this is almost just what the holy Baal HaTurim za'l intended in this.)

And there is also to say that the language אִם דִּבַּרְתִּי implies 'if I have already spoken', and these are words which are appropriate to say beforehand, for the law is that the blessing require one to bless before that to which they apply.

I think it is doubtful that this was Baal HaTurim's true intent, as much as it would give great joy to the Birkas Yitzchak. The Baal HaTurim does not shy away from gematria, but he also does not leave the derivation (or secondary derivation of already darshened facts) out. The Baal HaTurim could have readily given those gematriot. Also, playing around with word selection (out of the greater phrase), adding the number of words or adding 1 to a number, one can often jiggle gematriot to get them just right.

Here is what I think is the most likely basis for specifically these two berachot. There was already the midrash, found e.g. in Bereishit Rabbati, about Betuel (or Lavan) trying to poison Eliezer. And we can find that in the disappearance of Betuel from the narrative, among other things. And וַיּוּשַׂם can be takes to refer to sam, poison. (And there is a krei and ketiv in place on the word.) He finds a clever additional support based on the other use of the term in Tanach.

Now, he said "I can't eat until I have spoken my words." And the very next pasuk,

34. And he said, "I am Abraham's servant.

לד. וַיֹּאמַר עֶבֶד אַבְרָהָם אָנֹכִי:

Thus, Baal HaTurim can derive that it has to do with something religious, that he is the servant of Avraham. We already have from elsewhere that Avraham kept the entire Torah, even unto eruv tavshilin. So it makes sense to make this into a ritual matter.

And what ritual matter involves speaking prior to allowing oneself to eat? The obvious answer is al netilas yadayim and hamotzi. As to why two blessings, well, that encompasses what one says before eating. Plus, we can look to the plural of דְּבָרָי.

I don't think we need to find any difficulty in the phrasing of עַד אִם דִּבַּרְתִּי, 'until I have spoken'. This seems perfectly natural on a peshat level. And we don't need to ask 'What is bothering Baal HaTurim?' This seems to me like a retrojection of a specific attitude towards drash onto the Rishonim, such as the Baal HaTurim and Rashi. Rather, there are surely textual irregularities which sparked the initial midrash, but Baal HaTurim is acting as an artist here, creatively painting in additional colors and details by clever reinterpretation of various pesukim. One need not find difficulties in each of this Biblical pre-texts which compel Baal HaTurim, almost against his will, to reinterpret the verse in this new way.

Of course, Birchas Yitzchak himself is creatively adding layers, not of details but of further support to the details Baal HaTurim already provided. And there is room for that. Even so, I don't think that these derivational details reflect Baal HaTurim's initial intent.

Isn't 3 seah a lot of flour for three men?

The largest challah ever. Unless Sarah Imeinu baked larger ones.

Summary: A seah is an enormous amount of grain. 1 seah = 6 kav. 1 kav = 24 eggs. Therefore, 1 seah = 144 eggs. And 3 seah is 432 eggs. And Avraham told Sarah to take 3 seah of meal and flour to prepare ugot for the angels. Are they truly such gluttons?

Post: Here is the pasuk, the sixth from the start of Vayera:

6. And Abraham hastened to the tent to Sarah, and he said, "Hasten three seah of meal [and] fine flour; knead and make cakes."

ו. וַיְמַהֵר אַבְרָהָם הָאֹהֱלָה אֶל שָׂרָה וַיֹּאמֶר מַהֲרִי שְׁלֹשׁ סְאִים קֶמַח סֹלֶת לוּשִׁי וַעֲשִׂי עֻגוֹת:

Ramban and Baal HaTurim grapple with this question. Thus, Baal Haturim writes::

קמח סולת. פירוש  קמח  לעמילן  של  טבחים
 אע״פ  שפסח  היה ׳  לא  היה  בהם משום חמץ
 דהבל  אינו  מחמיץ .  ובב"ר  אית א  שהיה  שלש
 סאין  לכל  אחד, וכתב  הרמב״ן  למה  הרבה  בלחם
 לג' אנשים  ואפשר  שסעדו  עמהם  גדולי  ביתו
 כדי  לכבדם. אבל  על  דרך  הפשט  מהרי  שלש
 סאים קמח  לעשות  מהם  עוגות שהוציאה  מכל
 ג׳ הסאין  סולת נקיה  מעט :

While Midrash Rabba increases the astonishing amount to 9 seah, the Ramban grapples with the huge amount, and suggests that others ate with them in their honor, or that one should parse it as that she should take 3 seah of coarse flour and sift it to extract a far smaller amount of fine flour.

Ramban also suggests that אולי ידע הסתלקות המאכל ראשון ראשון, והוא כמרבה עולות למזבח. If I understand this correctly, then he is saying that Avraham was aware of the ethereal nature of his guests, and that they would then be able to 'eat' all of this, and it was like increasing burnt-offerings for the altar.

I could suggest that, since Avraham ate 74X as much as a normal person, as per the last brayta in Masechet Soferim, he estimated that each guest would eat that much as well. 144 / 74 ~= 2 eggs.

Rav Chaim Kanievsky associates it with a halachic concern:

מהרי שלש סאים קמח, עי׳ רמב״ן שתמה
 למה הי׳ צריך כ״כ הרבה פת לג׳ אנשים, וי"ל
 דהרי אברהם סבר שהיו ערביים ואסור לאפות
 ביו״ט לצורך גוי  (ובין למ״ד פסח הי׳ ביו למ״ד
 סוכות הי׳ יו״ט) אבל בגמ׳ ( ביצה  י״ז א׳) אמרי׳
 ממלאה אשה תנור פת בשביל שהפת נאפה יפה
 כשהתנור מלא ולכך הי׳ צריך הרבה פת
 שיתמלא התנור ויהא  מותר לאפות הכל.


After citing the Ramban's concern, he writes that "one could say that behold, Avraham thought that they were Arabs, and it is forbidden to bake on Yom Tov for the sake of a gentile (and this works either according to the opinion that it was Pesach or the opinion that it was Succot). {Josh: But not according to the position that it was erev Pesach.} But in the gemara (Beitza 17a) they say that a woman may fill an oven with bread in order that the bread {in general} will bake well, when the oven is full. And therefore he needed to increase a lot of bread, so that the oven would be permitted to bake all of it."

He also has a suggestion within Ramban's suggestion that there was sifting of the 3 seah down to a smaller amount:


מהרי שלש סאים קמח, כ׳ רמב״ן ג׳ סאה
 קמח להוציא מהן סלת נקי׳ וכ״כ בלקח טוב,
 ואכתי צריך טעם למה דוקא ג׳ סאין, וי"ל  ע״פ
 גמרא דמנחות ע״ו ב׳ דמחיטין ומישן עשרון
 מובחר אתי מסאה חיטין ובעירובין פ״ג ב׳
 מבואר דעשירית האיפה הוא מאכל אדם א׳ ליום
 ואמרי׳ האוכל במדה זו ה״ז בריא ומבורך ולכן
 י״ל שרצה שיהא לכל אחד מהמלאכים עשרון
 א׳, וה״ק ג׳ סאין, קמח הנעשה מחיטין ג׳ סאין
 להוציא מהן עשרץ סלת לכל א׳. ועי״ל שרצה
 לעשות דומיא דלחה״פ דניפו בי״א נפה עשרון
 מסאה כמ״ש במנחות שם אבל באדר״נ פי״ג אי׳
 שלקח ט׳ סאין ע״ש ולפ״ז י״ל שרצה לעשות
 דומיא דעומר שמנופה בי״ג נפה ויוצא עשרון
 מג׳ סאין כדאמרי׳ שם וכל מעשה אבות סימן
 לבנים.


Basically, an amount such that when it reached the smaller amount, there would be a full day's bread for each of them.

Shadal addresses the question and suggests that not all of it was for the meal:
שלש סאים: לא כולם לאכול מיד, אלא שיקחו להם לדרכם לצידה.

"Not that all of them would be eaten immediately, but rather that they would take it with them on the road as provisions."

Radak suggests that each would get a single loaf the size of a seah, and this enormous loaf was derech kavod.

I would try to solve this in another way. Who says we know what a seah is? Yes, in Mishnaic Hebrew it has a definition of 6 kav, but that does not mean that it must have that definition in Tanach. Or forget Tanach. The word seah only occurs once the entirety of Torah and that is here. Even if the other few scattered examples of seah in Nach do mean this large measure, there is no certitude that the seah measure did not change. Indeed, Gray points out that by the contest of Eliyahu and the prophets of Baal on Har HaCarmel, in I Melachim 18:

לב  וַיִּבְנֶה אֶת-הָאֲבָנִים מִזְבֵּחַ, בְּשֵׁם יְהוָה; וַיַּעַשׂ תְּעָלָה, כְּבֵית סָאתַיִם זֶרַע, סָבִיב, לַמִּזְבֵּחַ.

32 And with the stones he built an altar in the name of the LORD; and he made a trench about the altar, as great as would contain two measures of seed.

There is a disparity. A trench enough to plant 2 seah of seed, or Bet Satayim, is defined in the gemara as 100 cubits by 50 cubits. But then consider the next pesukim:

לד  וַיֹּאמֶר, מִלְאוּ אַרְבָּעָה כַדִּים מַיִם, וְיִצְקוּ עַל-הָעֹלָה, וְעַל-הָעֵצִים; וַיֹּאמֶר שְׁנוּ וַיִּשְׁנוּ, וַיֹּאמֶר שַׁלֵּשׁוּ וַיְשַׁלֵּשׁוּ.	34 And he said: 'Fill four jars with water, and pour it on the burnt-offering, and on the wood.' And he said: 'Do it the second time'; and they did it the second time. And he said: 'Do it the third time'; and they did it the third time.
לה  וַיֵּלְכוּ הַמַּיִם, סָבִיב לַמִּזְבֵּחַ; וְגַם אֶת-הַתְּעָלָה, מִלֵּא-מָיִם.	35 And the water ran round about the altar; and he filled the trench also with water.

The trench, 100 cubits X 500 cubits, filled with water, from just 4 jugs? Even if they were large jugs, and indeed poured out 3 times, that would not fill the trench!

Maybe, then, we are dealing with a smaller seah measurement.

Looking at Dr. Tawil's Akkadian Lexicon Companion for Biblical Hebrew Etymological, Semantic and Idiomatic Equivalence, I see the following. Besides the citation of Gray, he connect BH סאה to Akkadian sutu, and defines it as a measuring vessel. He writes:

In BH סְאָה, which contains one-third of an אֵיפָה, is attested nine time, in eight of which it connotes a measuring vessel (Gen 18:6, 1Sam 25:18, 2Kgs 7:1 (twice), 16, 18 (twice)). cf. Akka: shumma tamkarum she'am u kaspam ana chubullim iddinma inuma ana chubullim iddinu kaspam ina abnim matitim u she'am ina sutim matitim iddin, "if a merchant lends barley or silver, and when lending it he uses a small weight for the silver and a small sutu for the barley."

I changed the Akkadian to put in "sh" and "ch". But anyway, we see that there is a notion in Akkadian of a "small seah", as opposed to (presumably) a "large seah". So seah was not always the large seah. Say this, then, by Avraham and Sarah as well. He instructed her to measure out three small-measures, with the small seah, of fine flour. And how much is that. Presumably enough for the bread part of a meal for three guests (plus, perhaps, Avraham).

Does כָּל בָּשָׂר refer to all humans or all creatures?

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

Post: Towards the start of parashat Noach:

12. And God saw the earth, and behold it had become corrupted, for all flesh had corrupted its way on the earth.

יב. וַיַּרְא אֱ־לֹהִים אֶת הָאָרֶץ וְהִנֵּה נִשְׁחָתָה כִּי הִשְׁחִית כָּל בָּשָׂר אֶת דַּרְכּוֹ עַל הָאָרֶץ:

Ibn Caspi writes:

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

כג  וְהָיָה, מִדֵּי-חֹדֶשׁ בְּחָדְשׁוֹ, וּמִדֵּי שַׁבָּת, בְּשַׁבַּתּוֹ; יָבוֹא כָל-בָּשָׂר לְהִשְׁתַּחֲו‍ֹת לְפָנַי, אָמַר ה.

23 And it shall come to pass, that from one new moon to another, and from one sabbath to another, shall all flesh come to worship before Me, saith the LORD.

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

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

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

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

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

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

An alternate explanation of ה מִסִּינַי בָּא

Summary: The second pasuk of Zos Habracha reads:

ב  וַיֹּאמַר, ה מִסִּינַי בָּא וְזָרַח מִשֵּׂעִיר לָמוֹ--הוֹפִיעַ מֵהַר פָּארָן, וְאָתָה מֵרִבְבֹת קֹדֶשׁ; מִימִינוֹ, אשדת (אֵשׁ דָּת) לָמוֹ.

2 And he said: The LORD came from Sinai, and rose from Seir unto them; He shined forth from mount Paran, and He came from the myriads holy, at His right hand was a fiery law unto them.

While the famous traditional explanation of the pasuk "Hashem miSinai ba..." is about mattan Torah, and Hashem offering the Torah to various nations first, the Ramban offers a competing explanation. The Tur follows in his path, quoting and excerpting the main points. What follows is the Tur, in his long commentary, where explains most of it as referring to Hashem's manifesting His Presence through the stay in the midbar.


Post:

ה מִסִּינַי בָּא -- the Ramban writes, 'as our Sages darshened (Avodah Zarah 2b) that this refers to mattan Torah, that the nations did not wish to receive it, and it mentions all the descendants of Abraham, that not one of them wished to receive it, and it was revealed as well to the other nations, and they did not wish to receive it, in accordance with the tradition {kabbalah}.


And it is possible to explain, מִסִּינַי בָּא -- that from there He began to manifest His Presence in Israel, and from then, it was not removed from them. For initially, the Glory descended upon Har Sinai, and there it was the entire time Moshe ascended and descended. And when the second luchot were given to him, the Glory dwelt in the tent of Moshe. And when the Mishkan was erected, the Glory dwelt in the Mishkan. And from there were all the Divine missives all the days of the wilderness.


וְזָרַח מִשֵּׂעִיר לָמוֹ -- that after they traveled from Sinai, in the first travel, the cloud dwelt in the wilderness of Paran, and from there he sent the scouts, and it was banished and the dibbur was not with Moshe until they arrived at Seir, at the border of the sons of Esav, at the end of the forty years, as is stated there {Devarim 2:7}, כִּי ה אֱלֹהֶיךָ בֵּרַכְךָ, בְּכֹל מַעֲשֵׂה יָדֶךָ, etc. And behold, then, when they came from Seir, Hashem was for them the light of the world, and they completed their time of mourning, and He commanded them to keep from Seir, Ammon, and Moav, and said to them that they should begin inheriting the land of Sikhon [sic] and Og.


הוֹפִיעַ מֵהַר פָּארָן -- that one looks at them, and there their situation is for a light of His face, from Har Paran {?}. For the beginning of their entering the Great Wilderness was from the wilderness of Paran, and from them, He shined forth upon them to see what they need in the Great Wilderness. From the language of {Iyov 10:3}:

ג  הֲטוֹב לְךָ, כִּי תַעֲשֹׁק--כִּי-תִמְאַס, יְגִיעַ כַּפֶּיךָ;    וְעַל-עֲצַת רְשָׁעִים הוֹפָעְתָּ.

3 Is it good unto Thee that Thou shouldest oppress, that Thou shouldest despise the work of Thy hands, and shine upon the counsel of the wicked?

וְאָתָה מֵרִבְבֹת קֹדֶשׁ; מִימִינוֹ, אֵשׁ דָּת לָמוֹ -- to explain, there ascended upon them from the myriads holy, but from the right of his Glory there was for them the esh dat, and not from the aforementioned angels, but rather from the right of Hashem Himself.


אֵשׁ דָּת לָמוֹ -- to explain, that He showed them the Upper fire, and informed them of the Law, in the manner that it is stated {Devarim 4:36}:

לו  מִן-הַשָּׁמַיִם הִשְׁמִיעֲךָ אֶת-קֹלוֹ, לְיַסְּרֶךָּ; וְעַל-הָאָרֶץ, הֶרְאֲךָ אֶת-אִשּׁוֹ הַגְּדוֹלָה, וּדְבָרָיו שָׁמַעְתָּ, מִתּוֹךְ הָאֵשׁ.

36 Out of heaven He made thee to hear His voice, that He might instruct thee; and upon earth He made thee to see His great fire; and thou didst hear His words out of the midst of the fire.

End quote of the Tur.

Note that even with this alternate explanation, at the end, it certainly is referring to mattan Torah. It is also mildly interesting how Ramban is willing to differ from 'kabbalah', received tradition, about the meaning of this pasuk. Not too surprising, though.

Other pashtanim explain it, as well, as not referring to the midrash of offering the Torah to other nations. See for instance Shadal. Though Shadal takes neither the start nor the end of the pasuk as referring to mattan Torah.

The 'peshat' in Shamayim, in Haazinu HaShamayim

Summary: Tur vs. Tur, peshat vs. hanachon.

Post: According to the Tur's short commentary, shamayim at the start of Haazinu is a reference to the big cities and small towns.

"According to the peshat, the meaning of Haazinu HaShamayim is to those who dwell in the large cities which are fortified unto the heavens.; and vetishma ha'aretz is to those who dwell is villages and small towns."

Yet he does not offer this as peshat in his longer commentary:

"Some explain shamayim as referring to the angels who dwell in heaven, and the aretz as those who dwell on earth.


And some explain that this is on behalf of the rain which is from heaven, and on the earth that it should give its crops.


And what is correct is that it is the heavens and the earth literally, that the way of the pesukim is to take testimony from something which lasts and stands forever. And so too 'Hear, mountains, the dispute of Hashem' (Michah 6:2)."

It would seem that he changed his mind from one work to the other. I am not certain which one was composed earlier.

The well of Miriam, miraculously growing acacia trees

Summary: An interpretation from Baal HaTurim, of trees growing wherever they went, conflicts with a midrash that Yaakov needed to plant acacia (or rather, cedar) trees for the mishkan. Can we resolve the contradiction?

Post: In the complaint of the Israelites in parashat Chukat, we read:

5. Why have you taken us out of Egypt to bring us to this evil place; it is not a place for seeds, or for fig trees, grapevines, or pomegranate trees, and there is no water to drink.

ה. וְלָמָה הֶעֱלִיתֻנוּ מִמִּצְרַיִם לְהָבִיא אֹתָנוּ אֶל הַמָּקוֹם הָרָע הַזֶּה לֹא מְקוֹם זֶרַע וּתְאֵנָה וְגֶפֶן וְרִמּוֹן וּמַיִם אַיִן לִשְׁתּוֹת:

Pashut peshat is that they are comparing their present place to Egypt (see parshat Korach for comparison) or to the eventual destination, Canaan. But Baal HaTurim, playing on that the spark here was the termination of the flow of Miriam's well at her death, makes a comparison instead to the Israelites' other encampments. Thus, he writes, in his long commentary:


לא מקום זרע. מלמד  שהבאר  היתה מגדלת
 להם מיני  זרע ומיני  אילנות לפי שעה  בכל
 מקום שחנו, שהרי לא התרעמו  שלא היו  במקום
 זרע אלא עתה שפסק הבאר


Since this complaint only comes now, at the termination of the well's flow, it must be that until then they had it. So lefi shaa, fairly quickly, in each place they encamped, it caused edible plants as well as trees to grow.

The basis for this Baal HaTurim is a midrash in Shir HaShirim Rabba. The pasuk in Shir HaShirim, perek 4, reads:

יג  שְׁלָחַיִךְ פַּרְדֵּס רִמּוֹנִים, עִם פְּרִי מְגָדִים:  כְּפָרִים, עִם-נְרָדִים.

13 Thy shoots are a park of pomegranates, with precious fruits; henna with spikenard plants,

And the Midrash reads:

דבר אחר: שלחיך פרדס רמונים
שלחיך עתיד הקב"ה לעשותך כפרדס רמונים לעתיד לבא.
ואיזה זה?
זה הבאר.

מאן היו ישראל מנטרים כל מ' שנה שעשו במדבר? רבי יוחנן אמר:
מן הבאר, וממנו היו רוב הנייתן.

דאמר רבי יוחנן:
הבאר הייתה מעלה להם מיני דשאים, מיני זרעונים, מיני אילנות, תדע לך שהוא כן, שכיון שמתה מרים ופסקה הבאר מהן, היו אומרים: (במדבר כ') לא מקום זרע ותאנה וגפן.

רבי לוי אמר:
מן האשכול, על שם: (שם י"ג) ויכרתו משם זמורה ואשכול ענבים אחד.
אפשר כן?

אמר רבי אבא בר כהנא:
פירות היו גסין באותה שעה.

ורבנן אמרין:
ממה שהיו תגרי עובדי כוכבים מוכרין להם לישראל.

תני ר' ישמעאל:
עדיין לא נאסר יינם של עובדי כוכבים לישראל: 

Thus, Rabbi Yochanan, an early Palestinian Amora, says this. The connection is between the pasuk in Shir Hashirim and in Bemidbar 20, but not just zera mentioned, but also לֹא מְקוֹם זֶרַע וּתְאֵנָה וְגֶפֶן וְרִמּוֹן. Thus, all sorts of edible plants and trees. And also the immediate juxtaposition (and preceding of all these) to the phrase  וּמַיִם אַיִן לִשְׁתּוֹת.

In Matamei Yaakov,a by R' Yaakov Yechizkiyah Fish, we read the following contrast in midrashim:

Thus, after citing the Tur, though not the source midrash upon which the Tur is based, he writes:

"And there is to point out that according to that which is explained, that Yaakov saw with ruach hakodesh that Israel would build the Mishkan in the future and they would need cedar wood, and therefore he brought them with him to Egypt and they took them, for in this Midbar is [not] a place of planting, it is implied from there not like the Tur. For if the Well caused the sprouting of trees, they would not need to prepare it from before, for also this would have grown. And perhaps he did this because we do not rely on a miracle."

We see this Rashi in sefer Shmos, in parshas Terumah, in Shemot 25 -- my own translation:

5. ram skins dyed red, tachash skins, and acacia wood;		ה. וְעֹרֹת אֵילִם מְאָדָּמִים וְעֹרֹת תְּחָשִׁים וַעֲצֵי שִׁטִּים:
And acacia wood: From where did they have this in the wilderness? Rabbi Tanchuma explains that Yaakov Avinu saw with ruach hakoshesh that Israel would in the future build a Mishkan in the wilderness, and he brought cedars to Egypt and planted them, and commanded his sons to take them with them when they left Egypt.		ועצי שטים: מאין היו להם במדבר, פירש רבי תנחומא יעקב אבינו צפה ברוח הקודש, שעתידין ישראל לבנות משכן במדבר, והביא ארזים למצרים ונטעם, וצוה לבניו ליטלם עמהם, כשיצאו ממצרים:

We can read that Midrash Tanchuma here:

ומהיכן היו הקרשים?
יעקב אבינו נטע אותם בשעה שירד למצרים. אמר לבניו: בני, עתידים אתם להיגאל מכאן, והקדוש ברוך הוא עתיד לומר לכם משאתם נגאלין, שתעשו לו את המשכן, אלא עמדו ונטעו ארזים מעכשיו, שבשעה שיאמר לכם לעשות לו את המשכן, יהיו הארזים מתוקנים לכם.
מיד עמדו ונטעו ועשו כן. 

"And from where were the boards {kerashim}? Yaakov Avinu planted them at the time he went down to Egypt. He said to his sons, 'my children, you will eventually be redeemed from here, and Hashem will then tell you, when you are redeemed, that you should make the Mishkan for Him. But stand and plant them from now, so that at the time that He tells you to make the Mishkan for him, the cedars will be planted for you. Immediately, the stood and planted and did so."

To explain the divergence between cedars and acacias, see here at Yeshiva Har Etzyon's Virtual Bet Midrash, from Rabbi David Silverberg, that the Midrash Tanchuma understand shittim to be a type of cedar rather than acacia.

I find the resolution from Matamei Yaakov a bit forced. I would simply say that these are, perhaps, conflicting midrashim that should not be harmonized. After all, even within Midrash Tanchuma, there are those who argue with Rabbi Yochanan, with Rabbi Levi saying they got sustenance of this sort from the Eshkol, from the land of Canaan, and the Rabanan saying the god it from gentile merchants! And who says that Rabbi Yochanan would maintain that it is cedar rather than acacia? Barring that, I am not sure ain somchin al hanes is the best answer. The same way that Yaakov could see in the future that they would need acacia / cedar wood, he could see in the future that they would have miraculous well that would provide them with such plants.

I would suggest a different resolution. As we see, the specific plants that are growing quickly are ones which provide sustenance and pleasure (hanaah) to the Bnei Yisrael. We are speaking of grape vines, fig trees, pomegranate trees, and seeds of foods. The purpose of the Be'er was to give them sustenance, not to give them building materials. Therefore, the cedar or acacia trees would not grow due to the Be'er, and so it was necessary for Yaakov to plant.

I would also point out that Rabbi Yochanan's midrash carried an important homiletic message about preparing for the best, well in advance, such that geulah is your known eventual goal. This whether or not it was intended literally.

Finally, I will note that acacia wood does grow in the wilderness of Sinai; cedars, I think, do not, but rather in Lebanon:

Acacia albida, Acacia tortilis and Acacia iraqensis can be found growing wild in the Sinai desert and the Jordan valley. 

So it works out well according to Midrash Tanchuma, that shittim is something that does not grow naturally in the Sinai desert.

Does אל תפן apply to Korach, or to Dasan and Aviram?

Summary: While Rashi interprets it, lefi peshuto, as referring to Korach, Ramban disagrees and asserts that based on context it should refer to Datan and Aviram. And he works it out. But Shadal chooses Rashi.

Post: In parshas Korach, Moshe prays that Hashem not accept their offering. First, Dasan and Aviram accuse him:

13. Is it not enough that you have brought us out of a land flowing with milk and honey to kill us in the desert, that you should also exercise authority over us?		יג. הַמְעַט כִּי הֶעֱלִיתָנוּ מֵאֶרֶץ זָבַת חָלָב וּדְבַשׁ לַהֲמִיתֵנוּ בַּמִּדְבָּר כִּי תִשְׂתָּרֵר עָלֵינוּ גַּם הִשְׂתָּרֵר:
14. You have not even brought us to a land flowing with milk and honey, nor have you given us an inheritance of fields and vineyards. Even if you gouge out the eyes of those men, we will not go up."		יד. אַף לֹא אֶל אֶרֶץ זָבַת חָלָב וּדְבַשׁ הֲבִיאֹתָנוּ וַתִּתֶּן לָנוּ נַחֲלַת שָׂדֶה וָכָרֶם הַעֵינֵי הָאֲנָשִׁים הָהֵם תְּנַקֵּר לֹא נַעֲלֶה:

and then Moshe prays:

15. Moses was exceedingly distressed, and he said to the Lord, "Do not accept their offering. I have not taken a donkey from a single one of them, and I have not harmed a single one of them."

טו. וַיִּחַר לְמֹשֶׁה מְאֹד וַיֹּאמֶר אֶל יְ־הֹוָ־ה אַל תֵּפֶן אֶל מִנְחָתָם לֹא חֲמוֹר אֶחָד מֵהֶם נָשָׂאתִי וְלֹא הֲרֵעֹתִי אֶת אַחַד מֵהֶם:

Rashi writes, there:

		ויחר למשה מאד: נצטער עד למאוד:
According to its peshat, the [mincha refers to the] ketores that they will offer before you, do not turn to them. And the midrash says...		אל תפן אל מנחתם: לפי פשוטו הקטרת שהם מקריבים לפניך מחר אל תפן אליהם. והמדרש אומר יודע אני שיש להם חלק בתמידי צבור, אף חלקם לא יקובל לפניך לרצון, תניחנו האש ולא תאכלנו:

Ramban takes issue with this.

(טו): אל תפן אל מנחתם - 

לפי פשוטו הקטרת שהם מקריבים לפניך למחר אל תפן אליה.
ומדרשו אמר יודע אני שיש להם חלק בתמידי צבור חלקם לא יקרב לפניך לרצון,
לשון רש"י. 

ואינו נכון בעיני שיהיה על הקטרת, לפי שעל דתן ואבירם הוא אומר כן שחרה לו על דבריהם והם לא היו בתוך העדה הנועדים להקטיר קטרת.
אבל פשוטו, כי בעבור שהיו אלה רוצים בכהונה להקריב קרבן, אמר משה "אל תפן אל מנחתם" אל תפן אל קרבן שיקריבו לפניך ואל תפילה שיתפללו לך, כי כל הקורבנות גם התפילה יקראו מנחה בכתוב.

וגם אמר אונקלוס: 

קרבנהון, 

איזה דבר שיקריבו לפניך:

After all, the context is that this is in response to Dasan and Aviram, who are not part of Korach's eidah who are bringing the ketores.Rather, since they wanted priesthood to bring a korban, Moshe said 'do not turn to their mincha', do not turn to the sacrifice they bring before you and to the prayer they pray to you, for all offerings as well as prayer are called Mincha in Scriptures. And so does Onkelos render, 'their korban', meaning any thing that they offer before you.

The Baal HaTurim follows Ramban in this assessment.

Shadal, however, argues, and establishes Rashi's interpretation as the peshat:

טו]אל תפן אל מנחתם : קודם שיאמר להם שיקחו המחתות ויקטירו הקטורת, התפלל באזני כל העם שלא ירצה ה' את מנחתם, כי אין להם שום טענה להתרעם עליו, כי הוא מעולם לא השתרר עליהם להנאת עצמו.

"Before he said to them to take the pans and offer the incense, he prayed within earshot of all the nation that Hashem should not desire their mincha, so that they would have no complaint to bring against him, for he never exercised authority over them for his own benefit."

Thus, he associated this section with Korach and his company, rather than with Dasan and Aviram.

I see how this can work. The two parts of this story are interwoven, and immediately following this tefillah he turns and speaks again to Korach and his congregation:

16. Moses said to Korah, "You and your entire congregation should be before the Lord you, they, and Aaron tomorrow.		טז. וַיֹּאמֶר מֹשֶׁה אֶל קֹרַח אַתָּה וְכָל עֲדָתְךָ הֱיוּ לִפְנֵי יְ־הֹוָ־ה אַתָּה וָהֵם וְאַהֲרֹן מָחָר:
		והם: עדתך:
17. Let each man take his censer and place incense upon it, and let each man present his censer before the Lord; [there will thus be] two hundred and fifty censers, and let you and Aaron each [take] his censer.		יז. וּקְחוּ אִישׁ מַחְתָּתוֹ וּנְתַתֶּם עֲלֵיהֶם קְטֹרֶת וְהִקְרַבְתֶּם לִפְנֵי יְ־הֹוָ־ה אִישׁ מַחְתָּתוֹ חֲמִשִּׁים וּמָאתַיִם מַחְתֹּת וְאַתָּה וְאַהֲרֹן אִישׁ מַחְתָּתוֹ:
		והקרבתם וגו' איש מחתתו: החמשים ומאתים איש שבכם:
18. So each man took his censer, and they put fire upon it and placed incense upon it, and they stood at the entrance to the Tent of Meeting with Moses and Aaron.		יח. וַיִּקְחוּ אִישׁ מַחְתָּתוֹ וַיִּתְּנוּ עֲלֵיהֶם אֵשׁ וַיָּשִׂימוּ עֲלֵיהֶם קְטֹרֶת וַיַּעַמְדוּ פֶּתַח אֹהֶל מוֹעֵד וּמֹשֶׁה וְאַהֲרֹן:

It is a question of where this middle pasuk 15 binds, immediately preceding or immediately following. And while much of the content of 15 seems like a response to Datan and Aviram's כִּי תִשְׂתָּרֵר עָלֵינוּ גַּם הִשְׂתָּרֵר, we can also cast it as a response to Korach's וּמַדּוּעַ תִּתְנַשְּׂאוּ עַל קְהַל ה in pasuk 3.

Minchas Shai on קריאי

Summary: Continuing going through Minchas Shai on Korach.

Post: The second pasuk in Korach:

2. They confronted Moses together with two hundred and fifty men from the children of Israel, chieftains of the congregation, representatives of the assembly, men of repute.

ב. וַיָּקֻמוּ לִפְנֵי מֹשֶׁה וַאֲנָשִׁים מִבְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל חֲמִשִּׁים וּמָאתָיִם נְשִׂיאֵי עֵדָה קְרִאֵי מוֹעֵד אַנְשֵׁי שֵׁם:

In Minchas Shai:

"In Codex Hilleli: קראי, in Yerushalmi, קריאי plene, end quote. And in all the sefarim is written קראי deficient, and so is darshened in the Sefer HaZohar and in the Baal HaTurim. And so darshens R' Tuvya in his Pesikta {=Lekach Tov}, parashat Bemidbar. And so is in the Masoret, 'two -- one is plene and one is deficient; this is is deficient'. The intent is to say that there are two similar words in the matter of calling (קריאה), which have the start of them with a chirik. And the plene one is דתן and אבירם the קרואי העדה of parashat Pinchas, and even though it is written there קרואי with a vav, we read it as קריאי with a yud. But the קריאי העדה of parashat Bemidbar is the opposite, with קריאי written and קרואי read, as I write there. And to the three is does not come. And this is the intent of another manuscript masoret, which states 'קראי are two, and the mnemonic is דתן ואבירם קראי מועד אנשי שם'. And the intent is that two are equal in their reading, as we have said, while in plene and deficient, it does not address at all. And in all this, it works out well, with no contradiction on one another."

I suppose if he had not interpreted this other manuscript masorah in this manner, but rather as speaking of plene and deficient spelling, it would have been a contradiction to other masorot and sefarim.

The Zohar darshens it as follows:

10. The higher Holiness is known AS ABA AND IMA ABOVE, and the lower Holiness is the wisdom of Solomon, MEANING MALCHUT, which also summons all her legions TO SANCTIFY THEM WITH HER HOLINESS. These legions are all invited to be adorned in this lower Holiness at a time when a festival prevails in the world. As her legions are standing above IN ATZILUT SUMMONED BY MALCHUT, so are the appointed of the nation, MEANING THE CHIEFTAINS OF YISRAEL, according to her example below, IN THIS WORLD. Therefore, it is written as: "summoned to the congregation (Heb. mo'ed)," and of those below it is written, "summoned (Heb. kri'ei) to the congregation"; "Kriei" is missing a Yud. However, they are then in increased wholeness.

And the Baal HaTurim darshens it:
קראי  חסר  יוד שעברו על י' הדברות

In other words, they are chaser, missing, a yud, because they are missing the ten commandments which they violated.

And in the Pesikta of Rav Tuvya we read, in parashat Bamidbar, on Bamidbar 1:16:

אלה קריאי העדה ,  ביו״ד כתיב מלמד שכלם היו צדיקים והם היו בנתינת
 עשרת הדברות .  שהרי בויקח קרח (במדבר טז) קריאי מועד חסר יו׳׳ד על
 שהיו רשעים

This parallel to the Baal HaTurim's derasha.

(The Samaritan Torah is malei, but what does that mean? The consistently fix the text, so this is no proof.)