A.
Rashi, following the midrash, comments: "כלות" כתיב, יום הקמת המשכן היו ישראל ככלה הנכנסת לחופה (“‘Kalloth’ is written; [on] the day the Mishkan was erected, Israel were like a bride [kalla] entering [under] the wedding canopy [chuppa]”).
The Raveh (Rabbi Wolf Heidenheim, author of the parenthetical comments on Rashi printed in most editions) observes that the midrashic comment is a pun, based upon the pointing of kalloth, which resembles the word “brides,” where he would have expected the form kloth, “to be finished, completed, come to an end.”
It thus appears that Rashi is not concerned with the pshat, the simple meaning of the verse, but rather with midrash. What are the implications for pshat of the form kalloth instead of kloth, and how might that have a bearing on Rashi’s summary of the midrash here?
B.
If we turn to the actual midrash which Rashi summarises (במדבר רבה פי"א סי' ח'), we find the word kalloth cited as though it is written כלת, without the vav, such that, without vowels, כלת משה could be read kallath Moshe, i.e. “Moshe’s bride.” Several of the supercommentaries on Rashi take up the topic of why this should be so, since in our sifrei Torah the word is written with the vav (עיי' למשל נחלת יעקב, משכיל לגוג, צדה לדרך, ואור החיים הקדוש שם).
This issue need not concern us for several reasons:
1) Every edition of Rashi which I have consulted spells the word with a vav, as in our sifrei Torah.
2) The Rashba explicitly states that the difference in spelling is one of a small number of differences which he found between “eastern” and “western” sifrei Torah (מובא בבית יוסף לטור יו"ד סי' ער"ה ד"ה כתב בסוף הסימן).
3) The Zohar makes explicit reference to the “full” spelling with the vav (ח"ג רנ"ד. ברעיא מהימנא).
4) Finally, the Raveh explicitly states that the drasha is based on the pointing, that is, the vowels, rather than the consonantal spelling.
So what is the actual difference between these two words?
Kloth is the construct infinitve of the verb kala, a qal form which signifies “be complete, in a finished state, at an end,” as may be observed in, e.g., Ruth II, 23: ותדבק בנערות בעז ללקט עד כלות קציר השערים וגו' (“And she joined Bo‘az’s girls to gather [grain] until the end [kloth] of the barley harvest....”, and ויחזקום אחיהם הלויים עד כלות המלאכה וגו' (“And their brothers the Leviyyim supported them until the work was finished [‘ad kloth ha-m’lacha]; II Chronicles XXIX, 34).
Kalloth, on the other hand, is the construct infinitive of the verb killa, a pi‘el or factitive verb built on the same root as kala, and signifying “bring to completion, finish, end,” as evidenced in, e.g., Deuteronomy XX, 9: והי' ככלות השטרים לדבר אל העם וגו' (“And it will be when the shotrim finish speaking [k’challoth ha-shotrim l’dabbér] to the people....”, or ibid., XXXI, 24: ויהי ככלות משה לכתב את גברי התורה הזאת וגו' (“And it was when Moshe finished writing [k’challoth Moshe li-chtov] the words of this Torah....”).
It would appear from the above examples, which even reflect the idiomatic structure of our verse, that our verse is in fact worded exactly correctly, and kalloth is not anomalous at all. Why, then, does the Raveh expect to find kloth rather kalloth, such that he considers the latter odd enough to inspire our drasha?
C.
Ramban comments on our verse: לא נאמר "ביום הקים" מלמד שכל שבעת ימי המלואים הי' מעמידו ומפרקו ובאותו היום העמידו ולא פרקו בכך נאמר "ביום כלות משה להקים", אותו ביום כלו הקמותיו וכו' אבל איננו ראי' גמורה כי "ביום כלות" איננו דבוק על "להקים" בלבד אבל ביום כלות משה להקים את המשכן ולמשוח ולקדש אותו ואת המזבח ואת כל כליו וגו' (“‘On the day [he] erected’ [b’yom haqim; cf., e.g., IX, 15] is not said, teaching that all seven days of the dedication [Moshe] was erecting it and dismantling it, and on that day he erected it and did not dismantle it, whence it is said ‘on the day Moshe finished erecting’, that day, [the Mishkan’s] erections ceased [kalu]... But this is not a complete inference, for b’yom kalloth is not only attached to l’haqim, but ‘on the day Mposhe finished erecting the Mishkan, anointing and sanctifying it and the altar and all its accoutrements....”).
Ramban’s source for this appears to be the Talmud (ירושלמי יומא פ"א ה"א), on which the Qorban ha-‘Eida comments: שנאמר "ויהי בחדש הראשון בשנה השנית הוקם המשכן" ודרשינן שהוקם מאליו וכתיב "ביום כלות משה להקים את המשכן" משמע שמשה הקימו וקשיין קראי אהדדי אלא ודאי שאף ביום השביעי העמידו משה ופרקו ואח"כ בו ביום הוקם מאליו וגו' (“for it is said, ‘And it was in the first month in the second year the Mishkan was erected’ [Exodus XL, 17], and we interpret this to mean it was erected of itself [מדרש תנחומא פר' פקודי סי' י"א], and it is written ‘On the day Moshe finished erecting the Mishkan,’ meaning that Moshe erected it, and the verses contradict each other; but rather it is certain that even on the seventh day Moshe erected it and dismantled it, and afterwards on that very day it was erected of itself....”).
Clearly the Mishkan’s erecting itself must have been an awe-inspiring miracle of the first order; it therefore appears that the Raveh expected the verb to be kloth as indicative that its self-actuated erection was finished, alluding to the miraculous tent-raising. Ramban, it appears, would have agreed, save that kalloth refers not only to Moshe’s previous exercises in raising and dismantling the Mishkan, but also and primarily to the ancillary processes of anointing and sanctification which followed on the miraculous erection, and which also made the word kalloth grist for the rabbinic mill, available to be interpreted as “brides” (or “bride,” if one happens to be referring to the text in one of the “eastern” sifrei Torah mentioned by the Rashba).
And that, I believe, is what the Raveh wishes to tell us.
D.
What meaning can we glean from the statement that Israel at that moment were “like a bride who enters the chuppa”?
The great tent with its covering of tachash hides and t’cheleth stands in, of course for the chuppa, and the Netziv (העמק דבר פרשתנו ד' ו' ) explains the pale blue t’cheleth above the tachash hides as symbolic of the supremacy of Divine Providence and protection over that of mortals (symbolised by the hides). The great Rabbi El‘azar Man Shach זצ"ל, second rosh yeshiva of Ponevezh after it was transplanted to the Holy Land, says that, despite all of the elaborate previous preparations, the erection of the Mishkan and inauguration of the service in it was only the very beginning of Israel’s spiritual life with the Holy One, Blessed be He, much as a kalla, having spent her entire life ere now preparing for her marriage, is only just embarking on their new life together as she steps beneath the chuppa, a life in which she gains much subsequent insight from experience as the years together progess (מובא בספר אור האורות לרי"י גרוסמן).
Just as Israel have learnt and grown, in our three millennia of service to the Almighty.
No comments:
Post a Comment