Guys rule in Tazria

I post the following not because I agree with it -- I don't -- but to make the point that sometimes Torah thoughts are colored by cultural attitudes of the time. In the Midrash Rabba on Tazria, in Baal HaTurim on the parsha, and much more clearly in the following gematria tapestry by Rabbenu Ephraim ben Shimson (a student of the Rokeach, from the 12th and 13th century), there is a decided anti-female and pro-male bias, which cannot be adequately addressed by apologetics. Perhaps we may realize that these remazim are simply supports after the fact, and prove nothing.

"Isha Ki Tazria: אשה is the same gematria as דבש [honey], and this is what Shlomo Hamelech hinted at in his wisdom (in Mishlei 25:27), 
אָכֹל דְּבַשׁ הַרְבּוֹת לֹא-טוֹב; . It is not good to eat much honey [... so for men to search out their own glory is not glory].

[Re: eating too much honey] That whoever is drenched in sexual congress, his years are shortened, his teeth fall out, his eyelashes fall out, a bad odor exudes from his mouth and underarms, the hair of his legs increases, and many maladies come upon him aside from these.

Veyalda Zachar: זכר [male] in gematria is ברכה [blessing]. הבת [the daughter] in gematria is ארור [accursed]. That is to say that the male progeny is an addition of blessing while the daughter reduces the money of her father.

Another interpretation: זכר should be parsed as זה כר [this is the kikar], that is to say, this one brings his loaf with him. נקבה [female] is נקי בה. [J: I am not sure. Clean of it?]

The questioner asks: Why for a female child does she [the mother] sit impurity twice as much as for a male child. [That is, 14 days instead of 7 days?] And the answer is that the birth of a male child is joy, so that she does not bleed out such an abundance of blood. But by a female child, because of her great anguish and as a cause for concern about herself, she pours forth a lot of blood. And in accordance with the increase or decrease of the blood are the days of impurity and impurity. And some say that she keeps [seven days] for her own impurity and [an additional seven] for the impurity of her daughter, which are in sum fourteen days."

It was not easy living in medieval times. And a son who will work and support his parents in their old age was looked at as a blessing. A daughter who would not do so, and indeed would be a draw of money, in the form of a dowry, would be looked at as not such a blessing. And in accordance with this perception were the derashot constructed.

Some more Minchas Shai on Megillat Esther.

In Esther 1:4:

ד  בְּהַרְאֹתוֹ, אֶת-עֹשֶׁר כְּבוֹד מַלְכוּתוֹ, וְאֶת-יְקָר, תִּפְאֶרֶת גְּדוּלָּתוֹ; יָמִים רַבִּים, שְׁמוֹנִים וּמְאַת יוֹם.

4 when he showed the riches of his glorious kingdom and the honour of his excellent majesty, many days, even a hundred and fourscore days.

Minchas Shai writes:

בְּהַרְאֹתוֹ -- is chaser vav [J: after the aleph].

וְאֶת-יְקָר -- Ibn Ezra in Sefer Tzachot brings this example amongst those with patach (יְקַר) and so wrote Rabbi Yehuda, that it has a patach, because it is a construct form [the honor of his excellent majesty]. And Rabbi Yona [Ibn Janach] wrote that it has a kametz (יְקָר). And it is written in the Michlol [of Radak] page 198 that so is found in precise sefarim with kametz, and so does the author of the Masoret bring it [in the list] with those with kametz yet are in construct form. And in the Shorashim [of Radak] he wrote 'and we found it in a few precise sefarim with a kametz and in a few of them with a patach.

תִּפְאֶרֶת גְּדוּלָּתוֹ -- [Josh: to interject, an וּ is a long vowel, while an ֻ is a short vowel. Long vowels are often in closes syllables, meaning consonant vowel consonant, while long vowels are often in open syllables, meaning consonant vowel. The hard dagesh in the lamed is an example of gemination, meaning the doubling of the consonant, so that the lamed serves as both the close of the previous syllable and the start of the next syllable. This seems strange, for why geminate the lamed to close the previous syllable, when the previous vowel is long? On to Minchas Shai.] In the precise texts, the lamed has a dagesh [to geminate it] and [yet, before it the vowel /oo/]  is melei vav [making it a long syllable]. And there is a Masorah upon it that there is none other found.

And Rabbi Eliezer of Germeiza [the Rokeach] wrote [about this unexpected vav]: גְּדוּלָּתוֹ  is malei vav, for on every day he [Achashverosh] would show them six of his tisboriyot, that is to say, storehouses. And so too is שְׁמוֹנִים malei [Josh: it occurs 8 times malei and 14 times chaser in Tanach] to teach that they were 'full' [to be able] to show six storehouses every day. End quote.

And this is in accordance with the words of the Sages in Shemot Rabba perek 9 and Midrash Esther Rabbati: Six nisin would he open and show them every day. And the meaning of nisin, R' Naftali explains as types of rooms, and in Matnat Kehuna he explains storehouses, and in Yalkut it is gores it as tishboryot, and these are storehouses, and in another lengthy Targum I found written explicitly [in Aramaic] 'six treasuries he showed to them'. And in parashat Vaera, it is gores it as nisin. And deduces six from that which is written [six terms]:

1. עֹשֶׁר
2.  כְּבוֹד
3.  מַלְכוּתוֹ
4. וְאֶת-יְקָר
5. תִּפְאֶרֶת
6. גְּדוּלָּתוֹ

Behold there are six. And so is evident from the long Targum."

I'll just add that this is the classic approach of remez, to find additional Scriptural allusion to details which were already darshened by more classic means.
a

The dispute between Onkelos and Rashi over לַחָפְשִׁי

Summary: Whether it is to freedom or to [be a slave] to a free man. I doubt such a dispute actually exists.

Post: I saw an interesting idea in Chelek HaDikduk.

Towards the start of Mishpatim, we encounter this pasuk:

2. Should you buy a Hebrew slave, he shall work [for] six years, and in the seventh [year], he shall go out to freedom without charge.

ב. כִּי תִקְנֶה עֶבֶד עִבְרִי שֵׁשׁ שָׁנִים יַעֲבֹד וּבַשְּׁבִעִת יֵצֵא לַחָפְשִׁי חִנָּם:

and Rashi explains lechofshi as:

to freedom: Heb. לַחָפְשִׁי, to freedom.

לחפשי: לחירות:

As an uncommon word, it bears translation to a more familiar term. Onkelos renders it almost identically:

כא,ב כִּי תִקְנֶה עֶבֶד עִבְרִי, שֵׁשׁ שָׁנִים יַעֲבֹד; וּבַשְּׁבִעִת--יֵצֵא לַחָפְשִׁי, חִנָּם.

אֲרֵי תִּזְבּוֹן עַבְדָּא בַּר יִשְׂרָאֵל, שֵׁית שְׁנִין יִפְלַח; וּבִשְׁבִיעֵיתָא--יִפּוֹק לְבַר חוֹרִין, מַגָּן.

Here, instead of meaning 'to freedom', as Rashi renders it, Onkelos renders it as 'to [be] a free man'. For both, it is a noun, but there is a slightly different way of presenting it.

According to Chelek HaDikduk, if I understand him correctly, Onkelos is not presenting this nuanced, slightly different explanation from Rashi, but basically saying the same thing. Rather, he is saying that he goes out to a [different] free man, to be a slave to that other free man.

To put it mildly, I doubt that this is what Onkelos intends. Perhaps if this is intended as remez, I am OK with it. But it certainly is not peshat in Onkelos.

I see he refers to Etz HaChaim, by Rabbi Chaim ben Yaakov Abulafia. See the bottom of the first column.

Darshening a psik, that the three days time period was elongated.

Summary: Such is the remez suggested by Birkas Avraham. Thus, "11. The trup symbol of psik alludes to the day that Moshe added at his own initiative."

Post:

"11. The trup symbol of psik alludes to the day that Moshe added at his own initiative.


In the verse (Shemos 19:11) והיו נכונים ליום השלישי, כי ביום השלישי ירד ה' לעיני כל העם על הר סיני, there is a trup symbol of psik (a vertical bar | ) after the word כי, and before the words ביום השלישי. And it is possible to say that this alludes to that which is stated in the sugya regarding Mattan Torah in Maseches Shabbos (daf 87a), that they ask from this verse, that it is written והיו נכונים ליום השלישי, upon Rabbi Yossi who maintains that on Shabbos, which was the seventh of Nissan, the Torah was given. And they answer that behold we say that Moshe added a day of his own initiative, even as in the commandment in this verse is stated that it should be on the third day from now, see inside in the gemara.


And it seems possible to say that the trup symbol of psik hints to this, that in actual fact the commanded time was extended and a day was added to it, and only on the third day of complete days, with the night of the day with it, did Hashem descend to the eyes of the entire nation upon Har Sinai."

The gemara in question is this:

Come and hear: And be ready against the third day: this is a difficulty according to R. Jose?¹⁵  — Surely we have said that Moses added one day of his own understanding!

Though this is not the primary verse from which the gemara asks. Rather, this is the stama degemara extended what was already stated earlier on the daf:

On Tuesday he said to them, and ye shall be unto me a kingdom of priests; on Wednesday he informed them of the order to set boundaries, and on Thursday they separated themselves. An objection is raised: And sanctify them to-day and to-morrow:³  this is difficult in the view of R. Jose?⁴  — R. Jose can answer you: Moses added one day of his own understanding.⁵  For it was taught, Three things did Moses do of his own understanding, and the Holy One, blessed be He, gave His approval:⁶  he added one day of his own understanding, he separated himself from his wife,⁷  and he broke the Tables. 'He added one day of his own understanding': what [verse] did he interpret? To-day and to-morrow: 'to-day' [must be] like 'tomorrow: just as to-morrow includes the [previous] night, so 'to-day' [must] include the [previous] night, but the night of to-day has already passed! Hence it must be two days exclusive of to-day.

This also forms the primary derivation, as opposed to this secondary remez / allusion.

Here is an image of the trup of the pasuk:

As we might already expect, this is not really a psik, but is rather a munach legarmeih. Note that it is before the short word כי, and note the munach revii following. This is a regular disjunctive accent, caused by syntax and mechanical considerations such as pasuk length and tree structure, rather than some semantic reason such as to hint that the three days were extended.

Why the plural לֵילֵי in Targum Onkelos regarding לֵיל שִׁמֻּרִים?

Summary: Grammatically, it functions fine as a singular. But some remez based on a plural interpretation.

Post: Consider the following pasuk and Onkelos:

יב,מב לֵיל שִׁמֻּרִים הוּא לַה', לְהוֹצִיאָם מֵאֶרֶץ מִצְרָיִם:  הוּא-הַלַּיְלָה הַזֶּה לַה', שִׁמֻּרִים לְכָל-בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל לְדֹרֹתָם.  {פ}

לֵילֵי נְטִיר הוּא קֳדָם יְיָ, לְאַפָּקוּתְהוֹן מֵאַרְעָא דְּמִצְרָיִם:  הוּא לֵילְיָא הָדֵין קֳדָם יְיָ, נְטִיר לְכָל בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל לְדָרֵיהוֹן.  {פ}

Chelek Hadikduk writes (page 106) to consider why the singular in Biblical Hebrew seems to be rendered by a plural in Aramaic:

"The Targum is לֵילֵי. According to its simple meaning {peshat} he took the language of Chazal in the Mishnah, e.g. leilei Shabbos; leilei Pesachim; see Tosafot Yom Tov {?}.


And it is possible to say that this is a remez to us in this of the leil of Yom Tov Sheini of the Diaspora, for this is the start of the moadim. Alternatively, it is a remez that this night is not alone for the miracle of Egypt, for it will have miracles in the future, as Chazal darshen לֵיל שִׁמֻּרִים, etc., that this was in the days of Avraham, for it is written ויחלק עליהם לילה; the second one is the exodus from Egypt. This is {the continuation of the pasuk} לְהוֹצִיאָם מֵאֶרֶץ מִצְרָיִם. The third was in the days of Chizkiyah: ויהי בלילה ההוא ויצא מלאך ה'ש -- this is הוּא-הַלַּיְלָה הַזֶּה לַה'א. The fourth is in the future to come as well. This is שִׁמֻּרִים לְכָל-בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל לְדֹרֹתָם -- for the end of their doros."

Nice, though remez is not exactly my cup of tea.

Back to the peshat perspective, here is what Jastrow writes about לילי functioning as both a plural and singular construct form: