Leitwort - Part II
LITERARY STUDY OF BIBLICAL NARRATIVE
By Rav Dr. Yonatan Grossman
Lecture #12:
Leitwort - Part II
In the previous lecture, we discussed the literary phenomenon known as
mila mancha a leitwort or
guiding word. In this lecture, I would like to examine a number of cases in
which the narrative uses a mila mancha,
demonstrating how Scripture can convey hidden messages by using the repetition
of a certain word. At the beginning of the analysis, let us examine some simple
cases of repeating a word within a narrative in Tanakh and the
contribution of the repetition to the meaning of that narrative.
Highlighting the Issue in
Depth
The most basic contribution of the
leitwort to the significance a passage is that it stresses the issue being
discussed and explored in the passage. This is the most elementary contribution,
and therefore, generally speaking, the reader can interpret the central issue of
the narrative even without relying on the
mila mancha. A simple example of a word repeated in a passage to this effect
can be found in Vayikra 25, which is not even a narrative at all, but
rather a collection of laws relating to the sabbatical (seventh) and jubilee
(fiftieth) years. As Yitzchak Avishur points out, the mila mancha here is
shabbat, used as both noun and verb (vv. 3-8):
When you come
into the land which I give you, then shall the land keep (ve-shaveta)
a sabbath to God
But in the seventh
year shall be a sabbath of solemn
rest (shabbaton) for the land, a
sabbath to God... It shall be a year of solemn
rest for the land. And the
sabbath of the land shall be for food for you
And you shall
number seven sabbaths of years for
yourself, seven times seven years; and there shall be for you the days of seven
sabbaths of years, forty-nine years.
It is
difficult to claim that this leitwort
surprises any reader. The theme of the unit is the seventh year, which is the
"sabbath of the land," and in a symbolically resonant way, this term is
mentioned seven times in the first seven verses (and two more times in the verse
introducing the jubilee year).[1]
In this
sense, the contribution of the leitwort
is minimal, and in fact, this role of the
mila mancha is similar to what Polak defines as the "structural function."
On the other hand, the mila mancha
will often rise above the surface of the motif of the narrative, so that it will
not be identical to the main theme. In these cases, the reader who pays
attention will notice the repeated word in a unique way in the passage, wisely
perceiving another idea
hidden
beneath the visible
story.
For example,
there is a certain stress on the root of re'iya (seeing) in the narrative of
David's anointment as king (I Shmuel 16:1-13). In the beginning, God
commands Shmuel to go to the house of Yishai in Beit Lechem "for I have seen
among his sons a king for me." The meaning of "I have seen" in this verse is,
evidently, a selective gaze; God has perceived that there is a person who is fit
to reign in Shaul's stead among the sons of Yishai. Indeed, Shmuel arrives in
Beit Lechem and fills the shoes of his Master, as he becomes the Seer: "And it
was when they arrived that he saw Eliav, and he said, 'Indeed, God's anointed is
before Him'" (v. 6). This re'iya of Shmuel, as becomes clear immediately,
is a mistake, and he and God do not see eye-to-eye, as it were, when it comes to
Yishai's children:
And God said to Shmuel, "Do not look (tabbet)
to his appearance (mareh), for I have rejected him, for it is not
as man sees, because man sees the eyes, while God sees the heart."[2]
This is
criticism is especially cutting because it comes directly from God to his
prophet Shmuel, and because of its general phrasing: "for it is not as man
sees"! The verse here contrasts explicitly the external human
re'iya (the eyes) with the
penetrating, visceral, incisive re'iya of God ("while God sees the heart)." One might think that in
light of this criticism the verse would not even mention the visible, external
form of the son of Yishai whom God has indeed selected, but to our great
surprise, when David arrives, the verse focuses on
re'iya as well: "And he sent and he
brought him and he was ruddy, beautiful of eye and of good appearance, and God
said, 'Rise and anoint him, for this is he'" (v. 12). In other words, this story
does not express a rejection of the importance of outside appearance (as David
is also described as attractive), but a rejection of the human ability to decide
based on external observation.
The verb of re'iya is more prominent
in this small unit, both in the consecutive mentions of this root and in the
utilization of other words which are tied to the semantic field of
re'iya for example
"look" and "eyes." What is the aim of highlighting the theme of
re'iya in this story?
In the first appearance of the root, it appears that it is directed towards the
main theme of the unit:
"For I have seen among his sons a king for me" in other
words, the choice of a son of Yishai who is appropriate for the kingship, the
theme of the story. However, with the development of the narrative and the new
meaning which comes up with the other appearances of the root (external
re'iya vs. internal
re'iya), it appears that there is a
secondary theme buried within the narrative which is also realized in the scene
of David's anointment. This secondary theme can be called the unseeing seer
the words which are integrated in the narrative provide criticism of the prophet
who goes astray after his eyes and wants to anoint Eliav at first. (According to
the Radak, ibid., Eliav apparently reminds Shmuel of the tall Shaul).
This criticism makes a special impression because the prophet whom it is aimed
at is known by this very title: "the Seer" (ibid. 9:9), a term used in the story
of the first royal anointment in Israel, that of Shaul. As Ya'ir Zakovitch has
shown, after Shmuel identifies himself as "the seer" in that story, he adds an
expression which echoes with great force in the context of our present story:
And Shmuel answered Shaul, and he said, I am the seer. Ascend before me
to the high place, and you will eat with me today, and I will send you in the
morning, and everything which is in your heart I will tell you" (ibid. v.
19).[3]
At this point, it is revealed to Shmuel (and even to the reader of the story)
that human re'iya even that of a
prophet cannot always uncover what is taking place in the heart, "because
man sees the eyes, while God sees the heart."
However, at
the time that the "re'iya" is
mentioned in the narrative in relationship to David, the verse does not describe
those who stand before him and see him ("because man sees the eyes," which are
unimportant); rather, the re'iya is
phrased as an independent quality of David: "beautiful
of eye and of good appearance." The literal meaning of the phrase is, naturally,
that David looks good to those who surround him, but the manner of phrasing,
focusing on David, refines the outer layer of human observation and alludes to
the inner qualities which shine forth through David's handsome appearance.[4]
Similarly,
one may track the term "nissayon," test, which recurs in the unit describing the Israelites'
complaints on their way from Egypt to Mount Sinai (Shemot 15-17). The
central topic of this unit is, as is evident, the Israelites' complaints, and
therefore it is unsurprising that term "telunna,"
complaint, recurs over and over again. However, to our great surprise, the term
nissayon shows up every time the term
telunna is used.
In the first
case, when the Israelites complain about Mara's bitter waters (chapter 15), the
verse explains that God subjects the nation to a
nissayon: "There He set a law and a
statute for it, and there He tested it" (v. 25).
In the
following complaint, in the Sin Desert, the Israelites protest that they do not
have anything to eat (chapter 16), and the
nissayon turns out to be one of the central motifs of the unit. It is
already mentioned in the beginning, in the words of God to Moshe (v. 4): "'So
that I will test it, whether it will follow My teaching or not.'" The
nissayon in this
telunna is realized in two ways: a)
gathering only the amount of manna which is needed for that very day, and b) not
collecting the manna on Shabbat. The Israelites fail both of these tests.
Concerning collecting manna only for that day, Scripture states: "But they did
not listen to Moshe, and some men left over some of it until morning, and it
bred worms and rotted, and Moshe was furious with them" (v. 20). The Israelites
fail the test of Shabbat as well: "And it was on the seventh day that some of
the nation went out to collect, but they did not find anything" (v. 27).
However, at the end, through these two tests, the Israelites internalize what
they must do, and they then gather the manna properly.
In the third
complaint at Refidim (chapter 17), which returns to the issue of water, the
nissayon becomes a central element of this
telunna; it is because of this event that the place is called Massa
(cognate to nissayon) U-mriva:
"because they tested God" (v. 7).
However,
whoever tracks this guiding word (which turns into a guiding motif) immediately
feels the dramatic revolution occurring before the reader's eyes in this
complaint, the final one. Until this point, it is God who tests Israel, and in
light of the development between the first two complaints, one might expect that
in the story of the third complaint, God would test Israel with special
intensity. On the contrary, it becomes clear that the Israelites are the one to
test God: "And Moshe said to them: 'Why are you fighting with me? Why are you
testing God?'" (v. 2); "And he named the place Massa U-mriva, for the
Israelites' fight (riv) and for their testing God, saying: 'Is God in our
midst or not?'" (v. 7).
In this
case, there is, of course, some criticism of the people. It appears that the
Sages in Midrashic sources are responding to this criticism when they explain
the Amalek War (vv. 8-16), which occurs in textual and geographical proximity to
this complaint (both are at Refidim), as a punishment for the people and as a
response to "their testing God," as Rashi cites (ibid.):
"And Amalek came," etc. This passage [Amalek] is placed next to this verse
[the complaint about water in Refidim] as if [God] says: I am always among you
and available for all of your needs, but you say: "Is God in our midst or not?"!
By your lives, the dog will come and bite you, and you will cry out for me and
know where I am.
It is analogous to a person who gives his son a ride on his shoulders, and they
set out on a journey. The child sees an object and says, "Father, take this
object, and give it to me," and he gives it to him; this happens a second time
and a third. They encounter another person, and the child says to him: "Have you
seen my father?" His father says: "Don't you know where I am?!" So he casts him
down from upon him, and a dog comes and bites [the son].
Indeed, one
can find the guiding root of nissayon
also in the story of the Amalek War, which is mentioned after the
telunna in Refidim, even though it is
only alluded to in the aural plane (v. 15): "Moshe built an altar and named it
'God is My Banner (Nissi).'" The repetition of this sound (in addition to
other links[5]) connects this passage to the
chain of the stories of complaint and strengthens the Sages' approach, viewing
the Amalek War a response to the Israelites' words and "their testing God."
Thus, following the mila mancha in the unit of these complaints raises an educational
process which the Israelites pass through on their way from Egypt to Mount Sinai
to the forefront, a process in which there are ascents and descents, as with
every educational process.
Creating the Narrative
Environment
Just as the
leitwort may allude to a hidden theme which becomes progressively clearer
throughout the course of a story, it is worth mentioning the contribution of the
mila mancha to creating the general environment that accompanies the
narrative. By repeating a word or expression that has an emotional sense or
makes a unique impression upon the reader, an emotional environment is added to
the narrative. One example of this will suffice.
The Sinai
Covenant (also known as the Covenant of the Basins; Shemot, chapter 24)
is comprised of two separate pieces, and the relationship between them remains a
great question. At first, the covenant itself is described (vv. 1-11), in which
the Israelites build an altar, bring ascension-offerings (olot) and peace-offerings (shelamim), read "the book of the
covenant," and sprinkle the blood on the altar and the entire nation. This part
ends with unique solemnity (v. 11): "And they had a vision of God, and they ate
and drank." The second part of the covenant (vv. 12-18) deals with Moshe's
ascent to Mount Sinai, into the cloud which covers the mountain, in order to
receive "the tablets of stone and the teaching and the commandment" (v. 12). The
commentators dispute whether there is a connective plot between the two parts
(the Rashbam, R. Avraham ibn Ezra, and the Ramban) or if they happen at
different stages and there is no consecutive plot between the two parts (Rashi,
Ri Bekhor Shor, and Rabbeinu Bachya, following the Mekhilta).[6]
To answer
this question, looking for the leitwort
may help us. Are there words that unite the two halves of the narrative and give
it the feeling of a cohesive unit? The answer to this is affirmative. There are
common words which unite the two parts - for example, the verb "to draw close."
In the first part "Moshe shall draw close alone to God, but they shall not
draw close" (v. 2); in the second part "And behold, Aharon and Chur are with
you, whoever is a litigant shall draw close to them" (v. 14). Similarly, we find
writing in both halves: "And Moshe wrote all of God's words" (v. 4); "And I will
give you the tablets of stone and the teaching and the commandment which I have
written to teach them" (v. 12), etc. However, there is one root which returns
again and again in a unique way, and it prominently unites the two halves of the
chapter - that of aliya, ascent:
·
"And to Moshe he said:
'Ascend to God, you, Aharon, Nadav and Avihu, and seventy of the elders
of Israel'" (v. 1)
·
"Moshe shall draw close
alone to God, but they shall not draw close, and the nation shall not ascend
with him" (v. 2)
·
"And he sent forth the
Israelite boys, and they offered up ascension-offerings" (v. 5)
·
"And Moshe ascended,
Aharon, Nadav and Avihu, and seventy of the elders of Israel" (v. 9)
·
"And God said to Moshe:
'Ascend to Me'" (v. 12)
·
"And Moshe ascended
to God's mountain, but to the elders he said: 'Stay here'" " (vv. 13-14)
·
"And Moshe ascended
to the mountain, and the cloud covered the mountain" (v. 15)
·
"And Moshe came into
the cloud, and he ascended to the mountain" (v. 18)
Throughout
the course of the two parts together, ascending to the mountain is mentioned
seven times, and the prominence of the verb is strengthened by the expression "vayaalu
olot," "and they offered up
ascension-offerings." Through this, one may prove the view of the Ramban and his
colleagues that the Torah views the two parts of this story as one unified,
cohesive narrative. Even if someone were to conclude that Rashi's view is
justified, and from a realistic point of view the two part of the narrative
occur at different times, nevertheless, one must analyze them as one unit from a
literary point of view. Moreover, tracing the root of
aliya in the narrative will prove a determined connection between the
appearances of the root in the two halves of the story:
Part I:
1.
"And to Moshe he said:
'Ascend to God, you, with Aharon, Nadav and Avihu, and seventy of the
elders of Israel'"
2.
"Moshe shall draw close
alone to God, but they shall not draw close, and the nation shall not ascend
with him"
["And he sent forth the Israelite boys, and they offered up
ascension-offerings"]
3.
"And Moshe ascended,
Aharon, Nadav and Avihu, and seventy of the elders of Israel" (v. 9)
Part II:
1.
"And God said to Moshe:
'Ascend to Me'"
2.
"And Moshe ascended
to God's mountain, but to the elders he said: 'Stay here'"
3.
"And Moshe ascended
to the mountain, and the cloud covered the mountain"
4.
"And Moshe came into
the cloud, and he ascended to the mountain"
The two
halves of the story open with God turning to Moshe and commanding him to
"ascend" to God (1). In the two parts of the story, there are reservations noted
immediately; even if certain people are invited to ascend with him, they are not
authorized to draw close to enter the cloud on top of the mountain (2). The
next stage in the two parts of the story is the realization of the commandment:
"And Moshe ascended" (3). Concluding the second half (4), there is a summation
of the entire narrative, which describes Moshe's entering into the cloud,
ascending the mountain and staying there for forty days and forty nights.
The
relationship between the two halves of the story is fascinating. In the revealed
reading, which is tied to the contents of the plot, the reader follows the two
different levels of ascending to the mountain: the first half describes the
first aliya, to which the nation's leaders are invited; the second part
describes the second aliya, into the
cloud, which Moshe does on his own.
However, the
connection between the two parts conceals also a hidden meaning, which is tied
to the two writings and the two sets of stones Moshe writes down God's words
and sets up "twelve monuments" (v. 4) paralleling "the teaching and the
commandment" which God writes on the "tablets of stone" on behalf of Israel (v.
12).[7]
These issues deserve a broader discussion than we can accommodate here. For the
sake of our analysis, I would like to note that beyond the "structural function"
of the mila mancha of
aliya in the narrative, there is a
more important contribution in the integration of the verb over and over again.
Aliya to the mountain, which is
stressed in our narrative, turns into a symbol of spiritual, mental, and moral
ascension. Accepting "the teaching and the commandment" from God invites the
person to ascend, and the physical-topographical description connotes a
metaphorical significance of aliya to
God from the foot of the mountain next to which the Israelites are encamped
before they receive "the tablets of stone" (see v. 4). Moshe's
aliya, which is stressed here again
and again, parallels God's descent (yerida) to the mountain, which is
stressed also throughout the story of the Convocation at Mount Sinai in chapter
19: "And be prepared for the third day, because on the third day, God will
descend before the eyes of the entire nation on Mount Sinai" (v. 11); "And
the whole of Mount Sinai was smoking because God was descending upon it
in fire" (v. 18); "And God descended on Mount Sinai, to the top of the
mountain" (v. 20). So too, with the integration of these two verbs
yerida and
aliya the verse alludes to a unique
encounter which is happening on the mountain's summit. God, from His point of
view, is descending into reality, and man must ascend; there, inside the cloud
cover, God's Torah is given to flesh and blood.
In the next
lecture, we will, God willing, continue to track the different ways of
integrating a repeated word in a narrative and how it has the power to guide the
reader in decoding the hidden meaning of biblical narratives.
(Translated by Yoseif Bloch)
[1]
Y. Avishur, "Darkhei Ha-Chazara Be-Misparei Ha-Shelemut Ba-Mikra U-Ve-Safrut
Ha-Shemit Ha-Keduma," Be'er Sheva 1 (5733), pp. 1-55.
[2]
The Malbim has a unique reading here. According to him, Eliav is disqualified
because he is too similar to Shaul. "Do not look to his appearance" refers to
the appearance of Shaul; "for I have rejected him" should be rendered "for I
have rejected it" i.e., height as a prerequisite for monarchy. We have
followed the accepted commentary, according to which Shmuel initially thinks
that Eliav is appropriate for the monarchy because of his own appearance and
height.
[3]
Y. Zakovitch, David Mei-Ro'eh Le-Mashiach, (Jerusalem, 5756), ch. 3.
[4]
Equate this to the words of the Malbim ibid.: "'And he was ruddy' here he
shows him the truth of what he said at first, 'For it is not as man sees,'
because David was ruddy. Now, the redness was powerful in him, and he in his
nature was ready for spilling blood; however, on the other hand, there were
visible in him good qualities, because he had 'beautiful of eye and of good
appearance.' This teaches that he was perceptive and good-natured in the natural
way. If he would have stayed with the human perception, Shmuel would have
decided that he would be unsuitable. 'But God sees the heart,' and He knows that
out of the goodness of [David's] free choice, he would do only justice and
righteousness. His natural redness, which was planted in him, he would use to
fight God's wars and to cut off from God's city all the evildoers, and this is
what was desirable in the eyes of God. Even if one finds a bad inclination in
his nature, he must rule over it from his righteous side and the goodness of his
free choice."
[5]
An exhaustive analysis of the links, in language and content, between the Amalek
War and the complaint about water in Refidim (Massa U-Meriva) can be found in
Bernard P. Robinson, "Israel and Amalek: The Context of Exodus 17:8-16," JSOT
32 (1985), pp. 15-22
[6]
This argument continues among the modern critics. Nicholson dedicates three
essays to this issue, and his conclusion echoes the Ramban's conclusion,
inasmuch as he builds on the consecutive flow between chapter 19 and our
chapter. See E. W. Nicholson, "The Antiquity of the Tradition in Exodus XXIV
911," VT 25 (1975), pp. 6979; "The Covenant Ritual in Exodus XXIV 38,"
VT 32 (1982), pp. 7486; "The Interpretation of Exodus XXIV 911," VT
24 (1974), pp. 7797. In addition, his approach is also interesting because of
his belief that one should not view the consumption of the peace-offerings by
the Israelite nobility as the sealing of a covenant, but rather as a feast
joyously celebrating the very revelation of God. This question is important for
understanding the peace-offerings in general.
[7]
It is interesting that in the Septuagint and the Samaritan text, stones are
mentioned also in Moshe's actions: "And twelve stones for the twelve
tribes of Israel" (instead of "And twelve monuments"). According to this
translation, the parallelism between Moshe's actions and God's actions is even
more prominent.