Answers to Shmini

Shmini 5725 

Alef.

1.  Although the “Ziknei Yisrael” are included in Moshe’s invitation, only Aharon is addressed in verses 2 and 3, begging the question why “Ziknei Yisrael were originally included.

2. In verse 3 the verb “Tedaber” appears, which is second person singular, implying that a single person, i.e., Aharon, is expected to carry out this Commandment.

Beit.

1. The difficulty with which Ibn Ezra and RaMBaN are grappling is the order of the verses. V. 23 reflects the fulfillment of Moshe’s promise that once the sacrifices have been properly offered, the Glory of HaShem will Appear.  If starting with v. 7 the instructions that were given starting in v. 2 were carried out, it is unclear why v. 6 is located where it is. It appears to be more of an introductory verse, than one that should appear at the end of the instructions given by Moshe.

2. + 3.  Ibn Ezra’s approach to the following biblical texts, understanding the verb forms as “past perfect”:

a) VaYikra 9:6

         Moshe had already told Aharon, “approach the altar…”

b) Shemot 4:19

  HaShem had towards the beginning of His Discussion with Moshe (3:10), already Informed him that his mission was to return to Egypt to lead the Jewish people into freedom. Consequently, 4:19 would appear redundant. (However, there is a new piece of information in the verse which could justify its repetition at this point as a means of further encouraging and reassuring Moshe regarding his mission—those who were our to kill Moshe, have “died.” ChaZaL interpret this as a reference to Nadav and Avihu who were supposed to have been the protagonists in the fight that Moshe broke up in 2:13-14, and who were reputed to be the informants to Pharoah [2:15]. However their “deaths” are only metaphorical, since they explicitly show up again in the Korach rebellion [BaMidbar 16:1 ff.] Consequently, ChaZaL [Nedarim 64b] make the general statement about how impoverished people, among others, are considered “dead” in the sense that they have markedly diminished influence as a result of their lack of wealth.)

c) Ibid., 33:4

The proper place for v. 4 is between v. 5 and 6. Ibn Ezra is not bothered when verses are out of sequence.

d) Beraishit 24:14 (even though it is dealing with a problem on 24:23)

In v. 23 the servant asks about Rivka’s geneology after acting towards her in v. 22 as if she was the designated bride-to-be, his having given her gifts of jewelry. Ibn Ezra will claim that v. 23 takes place before v. 22, i.e., he had already asked her about her family.

e) Tehillim 78:23

This Psalm presents a poetic summary of Jewish history. V. 18-20 describes their complaints re food. V. 23 describes God Causing Manna to rain down. However the complaints about food (BaMidbar 11:4 ff)  come after the Manna has been given (Shemot 16). Therefore Ibn Ezra says that v. 23 is to be understood as something that has already happened, rather than an event that takes place at this point of the Psalm.

4. RaMBaN explains Ibn Ezra on VaYikra 9:2 as understanding the verses as originally stating what the people have to do without revealing to them what will occur at the end, i.e., God will Reveal Himself as a result of these sacrifices. Only upon the completion of the instructions does Moshe include this piece of information.

5. RaMBaN has difficulty in assuming that information already known would be repeated a second time. Therefore he interprets 9:6 as emphasizing not only the bringing of these sacrifices, but also their being offered up in the particular order that was mentioned.

6. RaMBaN explains the new information in v. 6 (see 5 above). The overall approach is consistent with his opposition to the employment of the principle “Ein Mukdam U’Me’uchar BaTora”, i.e., he rejects the reliance upon looking at the Tora in a non-chronological manner with respect to the order of the verses.  

Gimel.

1.   Ohr HaChayim is bothered by the fact that instead of identifying the location where the people were standing as the Ohel Moed, the text states that they are standing “Lifnai HaShem.” When earlier Moshe told them to bring sacrifices that were to be offered “Lifnai HaShem”, this is understandable because the purpose of sacrifices (Korbanot—root K-R-V, close) is to come closer to, stand before HaShem. However, this is more a metaphysical value than an empirical location. When the text states that they stood “Lifnai HaShem” this appears to this commentator to be more of a matter of a state of mind than an actual place, particularly since in the immediately preceding phrase it says that they already were “ Lifnai Ohel Moed.” (My difficulty with such an interpretation is the means by which Moshe was able to tell what their state of mind was. Is this part of his prophetic powers? Was there  some tangible evidence upon which Moshe could base such a conclusion?)

2.    Ohr HaChayim is at variance with Ibn Ezra and RaMBaN in terms of what the antecedent of “Zeh HaDavar” (this is the thing) to which Moshe is referring when he says that it will bring about the Divine Revelation.  Ibn Ezra, by reversing the chronology of the verses, interprets the phrase as referring to the series of sacrifices that have already been listed. RaMBaN preserves the order of the verses, and explains that “Zeh HaDavar” is a reference to not only the sacrifices, but their sequence that must be specifically followed. Ohr HaChayim suggests that the catalyst for the Revelation is the attitude of the people, i.e., that they sense that they are standing in God’s Presence.

Daled.

RaMBaN on VaYikra 9:7

   The commentator, rather than accepting a literal understanding of the Midrash which would have stated that Aharon, when he looked at the altar, saw a calf, reminding him of the sin of the Golden Calf in which he at least indirectly participated, says instead that since the sin of the Calf was on Aharon’s mind and he felt guilty about it, the act of offering sacrifices on any altar was causing him concern and guilt. Consequently Aharon did not see the altar as a calf, but rather was reminded of the Calf by the altar. This led him to wonder how would he ever be able to achieve atonement for himself and others (in his role as Kohen Gadol) when he had this major blotch on his record and soul? His hesitancy and sense of inadequacy consequently requires encouragement from Moshe to proceed as God has Instructed Aharon to do.  

RaMbaN on Beraishit 11:28

רמב"ן בראשית פרק יא פסוק כח

...כי אברם אשר נולד בכותא חלק על דעת ההמון שהיו עובדים השמש, ונתן המלך אותו בבית הסוהר והיה עמהם בתוכחות ימים רבים שם, אחר כך פחד המלך שישחית עליו ארצו ויסיר בני האדם מאמונתם וגרש אותו אל קצה ארץ כנען אחר שלקח כל הונו. והנה על כל פנים במקום ההוא בארץ כשדים נעשה נס לאברהם אבינו, או נס נסתר, שנתן בלב אותו המלך להצילו ושלא ימיתנו והוציא אותו מבית הסוהר שילך לנפשו, או נס מפורסם שהשליכו לכבשן האש וניצל כדברי רבותינו:...

While RaMBaN is not ready to present  the Midrashic version for why Avraham was exiled from Ur Kasdim as does RaShI,

רש"י בראשית פרק יא

(כח) על פני תרח אביו - בחיי אביו. ומדרש אגדה יש אומרים שעל ידי אביו מת, שקבל תרח על אברם בנו לפני נמרוד על שכתת את צלמיו והשליכו לכבשן האש, והרן יושב ואומר בלבו אם אברם נוצח, אני משלו, ואם נמרוד נוצח, אני משלו. וכשניצל אברם אמרו לו להרן משל מי אתה, אמר להם הרן משל אברם אני. השליכוהו לכבשן האש ונשרף, וזהו אור כשדים. ומנחם בן סרוק פירש אור בקעה, וכן (ישעיה כד טו) באורים כבדו ה', וכן (שם יא ח) מאורת צפעוני. כל חור ובקע עמוק קרוי אור:

he doesn’t completely discount it either. After giving a rational explanation about what might have led to his being thrown out of the country, RaMBaN does reference the ChaZaL as a possible, but not the exclusive, explanation. The common denominator in these first two RaMBaN’s is that while cognizant of the Rabbinic perspective, RaMBaN retains his own objectivity and either modifies (guilty conscience vs. vision) or relegates the Rabbinic tradition, even a well-known and ubiquitous one, to the status of a mere possibility among others.  

RaMBaN on Beraishit 37:15

רמב"ן בראשית פרק לז

(טו) וימצאהו איש והנה תעה בשדה - יאמר כי הוא תועה מן הדרך ולא היה יודע אנה ילך, ונכנס בשדה כי במקום המרעה היה מבקש אותם. ויאריך הכתוב בזה, להגיד כי סיבות רבות באו אליו שהיה ראוי לחזור לו, אבל הכל סבל לכבוד אביו. ולהודיענו עוד, כי הגזרה אמת והחריצות שקר, כי זמן לו הקב"ה מורה דרך שלא מדעתו להביאו בידם. ולזה נתכוונו רבותינו (ב"ר פד יד) באמרם כי האישים האלה הם מלאכים, שלא על חנם היה כל הסיפור הזה, להודיענו כי עצת ה' היא תקום:

While RaMBaN acknowledges the ChaZaL that identifies the individual who guided Yosef to the location of his brothers as an Angel, he nevertheless does not go that far and simply explains that HaShem Orchestrated a “guide” to assure Yosef’s falling into his brother’s hands, but such a “guide” does not have to be supernatural per se.  

RaMBaN on Beraishit 37:17

רמב"ן בראשית פרק לז

יז) נסעו מזה - הסיעו עצמן מן האחוה. נלכה דותינה, לבקש לך נכלי דתות שימיתוך בהם. ולפי פשוטו שם מקום הוא, ואין מקרא יוצא מידי פשוטו, לשון ר' שלמה. ואין הכונה לרבותינו שיפרש לו האיש נסעו מזה מן האחוה והלכו לעורר עליך דינין ותרעומות, שאם כן היה נמנע ללכת ולא היה מסכן בעצמו. אבל הכונה להם כי האיש גבריאל אשר הגיד לו הגיד אמת, ואמר לשון משמש לשני פנים, ושניהם אמת, והוא לא הבין הנסתר בו, והלך אחר הנגלה ממנו, וילך אחר אחיו וימצאם בדותן כאשר אמר לו. ודרשו זה, מפני שהאיש הזה הוא מלאך ואם כן יודע הוא אנה הם, ולמה לא אמר הנם בדותן, ואמר כמסתפק ששמע מהם שילכו שם ואינו יודע אנה הם עתה, ולכן יעשו מדרש במאמרו:

RaMBaN thinks that there is a disconnect between positing that the “guide” that directs Yosef is an Angel, and the fact that he does not tell Yosef exactly what his brothers are planning. Consequently, RaMBaN claims that were the “guide” to do so, Yosef would have aborted his mission. Therefore, the “guide” tells Yosef, but only in the form of a “double entendre”, which Yosef and the reader will come to appreciate only in retrospect, after the dastardly deed is done. The Midrash goes too far for RaMBaN, and therefore he interprets it in a more rationally accessible manner.

Heh.

1.  It would appear that some Rabbanim counted verses and letters to assure that the Tora was accurate, and in fact in the same form as the Tora that was received by Moshe and passed down throughout the generations. (See articles, e.g., http://www.aishdas.org/toratemet/en_text.html )

2.  R. Epstein suggests that outsized letters hint at various significant points in the Tora text, e.g., the midway point in the Tora.)

3.  They are alluding to the inconsistencies between the claim of the Talmud regarding the spellings of certain words and what we have in the Tora’s in our synagogues.