One of the most intriguing examples
is found in Gen. 33:4, the opening scene of Jacob’s dreaded encounter with
Esau. Even the normally unpunctuated Torah scroll will have a dot above
each letter of the word וישקהו.
וַיָּרָץ עֵשָׂו לִקְרָאתוֹ וַיְחַבְּקֵהוּ וַיִּפֹּל עַל צַוָּארָו וַיִּשָּׁקֵהוּ וַיִּבְכּוּ:
Rashi addresses the dots, quoting
from Sifre:
וַיִּשָּׁקֵהוּ - נקוד עליו, ויש חולקין בדבר הזה בברייתא דספרי (בהעלותך סט), יש שדרשו נקודה זו לומר שלא נשקו בכל לבו. אמר ר' שמעון בן יוחאי הלכה היא בידוע שעשו שונא ליעקב, אלא שנכמרו רחמיו באותה שעה ונשקו בכל לבו:
Hazal saw the dots as cause for derash; a signal for midrashic interpretation to
account for a problem with the word underneath. The first opinion cited by
Rashi claims that the dots are meant to detract from the literal meaning of the word.
Since Esau’s greeting was only halfhearted, the word is marked with a sort of
exegetical strikethrough. On the other hand, R. Shimon bar Yohai views the dots more like an
underline or italics, meant to emphasize the uniqueness of Esau’s behavior rather
than diminish the literalness of the word. The kiss was indeed heartfelt, according to Rabbi Shimon, but it was
also extraordinary; an exception to the rule borne out by history that “Esau always hates Jacob.”
Interestingly, Rashi cites this midrash from Sifre, rather than its parallel version in Bereshit Rabba
(78):
וַיָּרָץ עֵשָׂו לִקְרָאתוֹ וַיִּשָּׁקֵהוּ, נקוד עליו. אר"ש בן אלעזר . . . מלמד שנכמרו רחמיו באותה השעה ונשקו בכל לבו. אמר לו ר' ינאי אם כן למה נקוד עליו? אלא מלמד שלא בא לנשקו אלא לנשכו, ונעשה צוארו של אבינו יעקב של שיש וקהו שיניו של אותו רשע. ומה ת"ל וַיִּבְכּוּ? אלא זה בוכה על צוארו וזה בוכה על שיניו, ר' אבהו בשם ר' יוחנן מייתי לה מן הכא (שיר השירים ז) צוארך כמגדל השן וגו'.
The latter opinion in this version
suggests we exegetically "modify" וַיִּשָּׁקֵהוּ ("he kissed him") and read it וַיִּשָּׁכֵהוּ ("he bit him"). The dots allow us to completely overturn the simple meaning of
the verse by changing – homiletically, not textually – one letter. In favoring the Sifre version, perhaps Rashi believed
that it is closer to the peshat;
that dots may indicate a word marked for emphasis or for “erasure” – again, on
the level of midrash, rather than textual criticism – but that the marks could not
suggest such a radically non-literal reading as found in Bereshit Rabba.
Ibn Ezra, for one, believed that the story of Esau biting Jacob’s neck was very
far from peshat. In
his own characteristically sharp words:
הדרש על נקודות וישקהו טוב הוא לעתיקי משדים, כי על דרך הפשט לא חשב עשו לעשות רע לאחיו, והעד ויבכו, כאשר עשה יוסף עם אחיו
On another instance of supra-linear
punctuation in Genesis (19:33), וְלֹא-יָדַע בְּשִׁכְבָהּ וּבְקוּמָהּ, Rashi makes a fairly clear statement to the
effect that dots are midrashic deletion marks. There is a dot above the
second vav in the word וּבְקוּמָהּ. Rashi makes the following comment:
ובקומה - של בכירה נקוד, לומר הרי הוא כאילו לא נכתב, לומר שבקומה ידע ואף על פי כן לא נשמר ליל שני מלשתות.
Rabbi David Weiss Halivni offers a thorough treatment of the eser nekudot in his Peshat and Derash (1991) and Revelation Restored (1997). Halivni writes both as a traditionalist and as
an academic scholar of rabbinic literature. His thesis – in a summary
that will not do justice to his erudition, or to the precision and elegance of his
writing – is as follows: Ezra, the prophet-scribe, and his colleagues
inherited a Torah that had become “maculate” due to neglect, i.e., because of
the culture of idolatry and syncretism which dominated the First Temple
period. In reintroducing Torah Law to a people eager for instruction,
Ezra had to overcome the human maculation of the divine Torah. One of the methods Ezra used to accomplish
this was to place marks over corrupted texts. Halivni cites a
much-discussed passage on the nekudot in Bemidbar Rabba (3:13) which
preserves the memory of Ezra’s role in this process:
וי"א למה נקוד. אלא כך אמר עזרא: אם יבא אליהו ויאמר, למה כתבת אותן? אומר לו כבר נקדתי עליהם. ואם יאמר לי, יפה כתבת! כבר אמחוק נקודותיהן מעליהן.
Some give another reason why the dots were inserted. Ezra reasoned thus: If Elijah comes and asks, “Why have you written these words?” I shall answer, “That is why I dotted these passages.” And if he says to me, “You have done well in having written them,” I shall erase the dots above them (Translation from David Weiss Halivni, Revelation Restored, p. 17).
Other sources from the literature of
Hazal (e.g., Sanhedrin 21b), refer to Ezra's role in the revelation as close to that of Moses. The idea of textual emendation by Ezra was
understandably downplayed over the generations, Halivni suggests, in order to
emphasize the sanctity of the written word. But evidence of such activity
remains in these midrashic passages.
Theories dealing with changes to the
text of the Torah may cause bnei
Torah much confusion and discomfort, as they fly in the face of the most
popular, and most radical, notions regarding the Masoretic text. One such idea is Maimonides’ Eighth Principle
of Faith, which states that the Torah we possess today is exactly the same – to
the letter – as the one given to Moses on Sinai. Without minimizing the
problem, it is important to be aware of Maimonides’ detractors on this matter
and also to view the Eighth Principle in its theological and historical
context, both of which have been facilitated by Dr. Marc B. Shapiro in The Limits of Orthodox Theology (2004). (The theological issue goes
well beyond Maimonides’ Principles of Faith and is addressed in detail by Halivni
in Peshat and Derash).
The question of when, or even whether, to introduce traditional students to modern
critical views of the eser
nekudot, as well as other aspects of modern biblical scholarship, must be carefully considered by educators.
That the nekudot may be understood -- on the
level of peshat -- as scribal marks casting doubt on the underlying words, can be visualized in the recent
online publication of five Dead Sea Scrolls (on an Israel Museum website powered
by Google). In the Great Isaiah Scroll, viewable here and below, we see two examples,
in nearby verses, of supra-linear dots (both within the column
designated XXIX).
The first example is from Isaiah 36:4, where the words מלך יהודה are marked in exactly the same manner as the eser nekudot. The second is from 36:7, where dots were added above the word בירושלים. In both cases, the marked words are absent in the Masoretic (i.e., our) version of Isaiah. I am not suggesting that the dots in the Isaiah Scroll are perfectly analogous to those in the Torah, especially since the latter were, in the end, preserved along with the words below. Furthermore, the notations in the Isaiah Scroll may have been driven by an unknown sectarian agenda. Still, there is enough similarity here – lehavdil – to warrant comparison and to at least begin a discussion, even among bnei Torah.
The first example is from Isaiah 36:4, where the words מלך יהודה are marked in exactly the same manner as the eser nekudot. The second is from 36:7, where dots were added above the word בירושלים. In both cases, the marked words are absent in the Masoretic (i.e., our) version of Isaiah. I am not suggesting that the dots in the Isaiah Scroll are perfectly analogous to those in the Torah, especially since the latter were, in the end, preserved along with the words below. Furthermore, the notations in the Isaiah Scroll may have been driven by an unknown sectarian agenda. Still, there is enough similarity here – lehavdil – to warrant comparison and to at least begin a discussion, even among bnei Torah.
Returning to our original example
from the reunion of Jacob and Esau (Gen. 33:4), I suspect that supra-linear marks over וַיִּשָּׁקֵהוּ were originally added for structural reasons, related to the proper flow of the verse. Note how
the word וַיִּשָּׁקֵהוּ is placed directly between
two phrases, וַיִּפֹּל עַל-צַוָּארָו – hugging –
and וַיִּבְכּוּ – crying. However, in
three other instances in Genesis, crying follows hugging immediately, without
interruption:
45:14 וַיִּפֹּל עַל-צַוְּארֵי בִנְיָמִן-אָחִיו וַיֵּבְךְּ וּבִנְיָמִן בָּכָה עַל-צַוָּארָיו:
46:29 וַיֶּאְסֹר יוֹסֵף מֶרְכַּבְתּוֹ וַיַּעַל לִקְרַאת-יִשְֹרָאֵל אָבִיו גּשְׁנָה וַיֵּרָא אֵלָיו וַיִּפֹּל עַל-צַוָּארָיו וַיֵּבְךְּ עַל-צַוָּארָיו עוֹד:
50:1 וַיִּפֹּל יוֹסֵף עַל-פְּנֵי אָבִיו וַיֵּבְךְּ עָלָיו וַיִּשַּׁק-לוֹ
This is perhaps the simplest explanation for Masoretic uncertainty regarding וַיִּשָּׁקֵהוּ.
No comments:
Post a Comment