Ten Minutes of Torahwith Rabbi Chaim Weiner
Ki Tisa- 5766
|
|
1. What grammatical difficulty in the verse are the
commentaries trying to explain? It is not clear whether the clause ‘and did not fear God’ relates
to the beginning of the verse or the middle of the verse. This would depend
on the punctuation of the verse – which is lacking in the Torah. The two ways of punctuating the verse are: 1. and struck at your rear: all
who were feeble behind you, when you were faint and weary and did not fear God. 2. and struck at your rear - all
who were feeble behind you, when you were faint and weary - and did not fear
God. The Sifri and the Michilta understand the clause as relating to the middle
of the verse (option 1 above) – i.e. it was 2. Why didn't Rashi adopt the approach of the Mechilta? The explanation of the Michilta
follows the normal rules of grammar. A clause usually relates to the subject
which immediately precedes it. Rashi does not accept this explanation because it goes
against the broader context of the verse. The whole paragraph condemns Amalek. It does not make sense that the Torah would add at
this point grounds to justify Amalek’s actions. By
adopting the less usual grammatical structure (option 2 above), Rashi’s
explanation is a better fit with the wider context. |
|
|
_______________________________________________________________
|
Ten Minutes of Torah was prepared by Rabbi Chaim
Weiner, based on the methods of Prof. Nechama Leibowitz. Rabbi Weiner studied and corresponded with
Prof. Leibowitz for several years. ·
I endeavour to reply to everyone
who sends their answers to me. ·
Please feel free to forward this
study sheet to anyone who you think might be interested, including all
headers and footers. ·
This study sheet, and archives of
previous study sheets are available at www.tenminutesoftorah.supanet.com . ·
Please send any comments or
questions (including technical questions, or problems you have accessing the
material) to tenminutesoftorah@supanet.com. |