| א. "גור אריה יהודה" |
| A. Judah is a lion's cub |
"Judah is a lion’s whelp (gur)"
מלמד שנתן לו גבורה של ארי וחוצפה של גוריו.
It teaches that he gave (ascribed to) him the strength of a lion and the audacity of its cubs.
בתחלה גור כשלטון, ולבסוף אריה כמלך:
At first a cub, as a governor; and at the end a lion, as a king.
שלטון יהא בשרויא ובסופא יתרבא מלכא מדבית יהודה (פירוש נתינה לגר: בתחילתו יהיה רק הרודה והשליט משבט יהודה – והוא דוד – ולבסוף יגדל למלך - והוא מלך המשיח).
A governor at the beginning; and at the end, the king from the House of Judah will become great. (Commentary of Netinah LeGer: At first, only the overlord and the ruler will be of the House of Judah, and that is David; but in the end, he will be great as the king, and that is the King Messiah.)
ימשילו לאריה שהוא החזק בחיות, ומדמו לאריה קטן לקלותו וזריזותו יותר מן האריה הגדול, לכן תפס שתי השמות, כי 'גור' לבד יאמר גם על שאר החיות בהיותם קטנים, כמו שאמר (איכה ד' ג' ) "גם תנין חלצו שד הניקו גוריהן", והכוונה כאן גור שבמין האריה, והוא סמוך. וכן תרגם יונתן בן עוזיאל "מדמי אנא לך, יהודה, לגור בר אריון". ולי נראה 'גור' לשון חרחר, מלשון (תהילים ק"מ) "כל יום יגורו מלחמות"; (דברים ב' כ"ד) "החל רש והתגר בו מלחמה", וטעם "גור אריה" – אריה כשהתחרחרו בו, (איין אויפגערייצטער לאווע) כי אז הוא מסוכן ביותר.
He equated him with a lion which is the strongest of the animals; and compared him to a young lion, regarding his lightness and alacrity [being] beyond the adult lion. That is why he used two nouns; since "cub" alone is also said about other animals when they are small. As it is stated (Lamentations 4:3), "Even jackals offer the breast, and suckle their cubs." And the intention here is a cub of the lion species, and it is a construct phrase. And so did Yonatan ben Uzziel translate, "I compare you, Judah, to a cub that is the child of lions." But to me, it appears that gur is an expression of provoking, [like] the expression, "every day, they provoke (yaguru) wars" (Psalms 140:3); [and] "begin to inherit, and provoke (hitgar) war against it" (Deuteronomy 2:24). And the explanation of "gur lion" is a lion that is provoked, as he is then at his most dangerous.
1. What is the main difference between Rashi's explanation and the two explanations of the author of HaKtav VeHaKabalah?
2. מה ראה רש"י שלא ללכת בעקבות בראשית רבה כאן ולבכר עליו את פירושו של אונקלוס?
2. Why did Rashi see fit not to follow in the footsteps of Bereshit Rabbah here, and to prefer Onkelos' explanation?
3. שים לב: אע"פ שרש"י מסתמך כאן בפירוש על אונקלוס ("וכן תרגם אונקלוס") סטה גם במשהו מפירושו. במה סטה, ולמה סטה?
3. Note that even though Rashi relied upon Onkelos' explanation ("and this is how Onkelos translated"), he also veered a little from it. In what way did he veer; and why did he veer?
4. למה לא פירש רש"י בדרך זו גם (דברים ל"ג כ"ב) "דן גור אריה"?
4. Why did Rashi not explain, "Dan is a lion's cub" (Deuteronomy 33:22) in the same way?
| ב. "מטרף בני עלית" - שאלות ברש"י |
| B. "From the prey, my son, you have gotten up" - Questions in Rashi |
"Judah is a lion’s whelp; From the prey, my son, thou art gone up"
1. ומקשה בעל באר יצחק:
איך נרמז זה בכתוב שחשד יעקב ליהודה בדבר זה, עד שהוצרך לומר, שיצא עתה מחשד זה, הלא אדרבא, יעקב אמר (בראשית ל"ז) "חיה רעה אכלתהו" – ואם כן לא חשד ביהודה?!
1. And the author of Be'er Yitschak raises the difficulty: How is this alluded to in the verse – that Jacob suspected Judah about this thing, to the point that he had to say that he now relinquished this suspicion? Is it not just the opposite, Jacob said (Genesis 37:33), "a savage beast ate him"; and if so, he did not suspect Judah!?
The author of Be'er Yitschak resolved his difficulty from the wording of our verse. How?
2. ומקשה ר' דוד פארדו בעל "משכיל לדוד":
מה הביאו לרש"י לדרש תרתי (= שניהם, גם יוסף וגם תמר) אף על גב דלא כתיב אלא חד 'טרף'?
2. And R. David Pardo, the author of Maskil LeDavid, raises the following difficulty:
What moved Rashi to expound about two (Joseph and also Tamar) even though it is only written about one "prey?"
Resolve his difficulty, from Rashi's words themselves!
| ג. "עד כי יבוא שילה" |
| C. "Until that he comes to Shiloh" |
"The sceptre shall not depart from Judah, Nor the ruler’s staff from between his feet, until that he comes to Shiloh; And unto him shall the obedience of the peoples be."
"עד כי יבוא שילה" שעתידין כל אומות העולם להביא דורון למשיח בן דוד, שנאמר (ישעיה י"ח ז') "בעת ההיא יובל שי לה' צבאות..."
"Until that he comes to Shiloh" - as in the future all of the nations of the world will bring a present to (shai le) the Messiah, the son of David, as it is stated (Isaiah 18:7), "At that time, a present shall be brought to the Lord of hosts..."
"עד כי יבוא שילה" – זה מלך המשיח. "ולו יקהת עמים" – שהוא בא ומקהה שיניהם של אומות העולם.
"Until that he comes to Shiloh" – this refers to the King Messiah; "…and to him will be a gathering (yikhat) of peoples" (Genesis 49:10) - who will come and blunt (mekahe) the teeth of the nations of the world.
"עד כי יבוא שילה" - מי שהמלכות שלו... "ולו יקהת עמים" – מי שאומות העולם מתקהלין עליו, שנאמר (ישעיה י"א י') "שורש ישי אשר עומד לנס עמים, אליו גויים ידרושו".
"Until that he comes to Shiloh" – the one to whom the kingdom is his (shelo); "and to him will be a gathering of peoples" – the one to whom the nations of the world will stream, as it is stated (Isaiah 11:10), "the stock of Jesse that has remained standing shall become a standard to peoples; nations shall seek his counsel."
ד"ה שילה: מלך המשיח שהמלוכה שלו. וכן תרגמו אונקלוס. ומדרש אגדה: שי לו, שנאמר (תהילים ע"ו) "יובילו שי למורא".
It comes to explain when the monarchy will come to him. And he said, "It should not come to your heart that you will be in poverty until the time of your monarchy; 'as the sceptre and rulership will not depart from you,' for they will always consider you great... And you will legislate decreed commands upon others; meaning to say, until Shiloh comes, you will be an officer and ruler. But when Shiloh comes, you will be a king. As when the day comes for Shiloh to be destroyed, the monarchy of the House of David will sprout"; as it is written (Psalms 78:60, 67, 70), "He forsook the tabernacle of Shiloh... And He rejected the tent of Joseph... And He chose David," and Jerusalem which He selected. Hence the monarchy of the House of David is dependent upon the coming of the day of Shiloh. And Jacob announced to him that he will be king then. But [even] until the coming of Shilo, he would not be in lowliness. It is however as it is written (I Chronicles 12:39), [and all of Israel] "came to Hebron to make David king..."
1. Why did Rashi not suffice with one of the two explanations; what forced him to cite both?
2. מה ההבדל הרעיוני בין המדרש השני והשלישי דלעיל בפירוש "יקהת"?
2. What is the conceptual difference between the second and third midrash above in in explaining, "yikhat?"
3. What is the fundamental difference between Bekhor Shor on the one hand and Rashi and the midrashic statements on the other; and how does he – as opposed to them – explain the word, "comes?"
4. What is the difficulty in the words, "until that," which Bekhor Shor resolves?
5. How do Rashi and the midrashic statements understand the [letter,] hay [at the end] of Shiloh; and where else do we find a hay like this in Scripture?
| ד. שאלות בטעמי המקרא |
| D. Questions about the Cantillation |
We have previously remarked that the authors of the cantillation marks broke up the wording of statements in a different way than according to the laws of punctuation used today.
They did not divide between the opening of the statement, and the words that were said – the speech (in the way that we normally see a comma or a colon separating these two parts). Rather they generally divided the wording of a statement within the speech. In this way, the first part of the speech ends the opening of the statement, whereas the second part of the speech was separated [from the first].
We can see the reason for this as being because the Bible was read in the people's ears, and not read in front of their eyes.
The oral reader did not make the major break after the opening of the statement (in which we find that the main verb is usually, "said," alongside the names of the speaker and the listener), but rather in order to also give over the division of the speech. For it is only the speech itself which is the important part of the statement.
וַיֹּ֤אמֶר יַעֲקֹב֙ אֶל־יוֹסֵ֔ף אֵ֥ל שַׁדַּ֛י נִרְאָֽה־אֵלַ֥י בְּל֖וּז בְּאֶ֣רֶץ כְּנָ֑עַן וַיְבָ֖רֶךְ אֹתִֽי׃
"And Jacob said to Joseph, 'El Shaddai appeared to me at Luz in the land of Canaan, and He blessed me.'"
a. Where does the opening of the statement end, and where is the cantillation break?
b. Into what two parts is the speech divided?
"And He said to me, ‘I will make you fertile and numerous, making of you a community of peoples; and I will assign this land to your offspring to come for an everlasting possession.’"
a. Where does the opening of the statement end, and where is the cantillation break?
b. How many parts are there in the speech?
c. Into what two main parts is the speech divided?
d. Why is there no zakef (indicative of a pause) on the word, "to me?"
(ט) וַיֹּ֤אמֶר יוֹסֵף֙ אֶל־אָבִ֔יו בָּנַ֣י הֵ֔ם אֲשֶׁר־נָֽתַן־לִ֥י אֱלֹהִ֖ים בָּזֶ֑ה וַיֹּאמַ֕ר קָֽחֶם־נָ֥א אֵלַ֖י וַאֲבָרֲכֵֽם׃
"And Joseph said to his father, 'They are my sons, whom God has given me here.' 'Bring them up to me,' he said, 'that I may bless them.'"
כאן באה לשון אמירה בכל צלע.
Here both hemistitches of the statement come with expression of saying.
a. Why is "And Joseph said to his father" cantillized with the marks, mahpakh-pashta- zakef, and not kadma-mahapkh-pashta; and what is the difference in understanding?
b. Why is "and he said," in the second hemistitch cantillated with a zakef, and not a tevir?