Rashi BaMidbar 22:9- “Taut Sofrim” or “Agadot Chalukot?”
Rashi BaMidbar 22:9- “Taut Sofrim” or “Agadot Chalukot?”
By Eli Genauer
Summary: Here we find polar opposite approaches to a Stirah in Rashi’s commentary to the Torah. One approach maintains that Rashi used two different Midrashic sources for his contradictory comments, and the other solves the Stirah by saying that one of the comments attributed to Rashi is actually a Taut Sofrim.
There is a very perplexing verse towards the beginning of Parshat Balak:
ט:וַיָּבֹא אֱלֹקים אֶל-בִּלְעָם וַיֹּאמֶר מִי הָאֲנָשִׁים הָאֵלֶּה עִמָּךְ:
Balak sent messengers to Bilaam asking him to curse the Jewish people. Bilaam retired for the night and Hashem approached him at that time. “Who are these men with you?”, Hashem asked. Certainly, the Omniscient One knew the answer to that question. We look to Rashi to explain the motivation for G-d’s question and surprisingly we find it all the way back in Parshat Breishit (Breishit 3:9). Adam and Chava had just disobeyed Hashem by eating the forbidden food and they heard Hashem walking in the Garden. Hashem asked Adam “where are you?”( איכה), the answer to which Hashem already knew. Rashi comments as follows:
“איכה“. יוֹדֵעַ הָיָה הֵיכָן הוּא אֶלָּא לִכָּנֵס עִמּוֹ בִּדְבָרִים, שֶׁלֹּא יְהֵא נִבְהָל לְהָשִׁיב אִם יַעֲנִישֵׁהוּ פִּתְאוֹם (בראשית רבה),[1] וְכֵן בְּקַיִן אָמַר לוֹ אֵי הֶבֶל אָחִיךָ (בראשית ד), וְכֵן בְּבִלְעָם מִי הָאֲנָשִׁים הָאֵלֶּה עִמָּךְ (במדבר כ“ב), לִכָּנֵס עִמָּהֶם בִּדְבָרִים, וְכֵן בְּחִזְקִיָּה בִּשְׁלוּחֵי מְרֹאדַךְ בַּלְאֲדָן:
Hashem knew where Adam was, but He asked this in order to open up a conversation with him that he should not become confused in his reply, if He were to pronounce punishment against him all of a sudden……..Similarly with Bilaam, “who are these men with you?” — to open up a conversation with them.
Rashi in Breishis emphasizes that the reason Hashem asked Bilaam “who are these men with you” was to draw him into a conversation, thereby making him more comfortable in speaking to Him.
However in Parshas Balak (BaMidbar 22:9) Rashi seems to have a different take[2] on why Hashem asked “Who are these men with you?”
מי האנשים האלה עמך. לְהַטְעוֹתוֹ בָא, אָמַר פְּעָמִים שֶׁאֵין הַכֹּל גָּלוּי לְפָנָיו, אֵין דַּעְתּוֹ שָׁוָה עָלָיו, אַף אֲנִי אֶרְאֶה עֵת שֶׁאוּכַל לְקַלֵּל וְלֹא יָבִין (תנחומא):
“Who are these men with you?” G-d’s question led Bilaam to conclude “Sometimes, not everything is revealed before Him, for He is not always omniscient. I will find a time when I am able to curse, and He will not realize it.” The words “ לְהַטְעוֹתוֹ בָא” with which Rashi begins, seem to indicate that Hashem was trying to mislead Bilaam into thinking that He was not all knowing, and not to draw him into a conversation . Here are a few attempts to translate לְהַטְעוֹתוֹ בָא.
- “To cause him to err did He come” – Linear Translation of Rashi – S.S. and R Publishing Company Brooklyn, NY 1949
- “It came to delude him“ – Chabad website for Parshat HaShavua based on translation of Rabbi A.J Rosenberg for Judaica Press
- He intended to delude him (1) – Chumash with Rashi of A.M. Silbermann and M. Rosenbaum, Jerusalem 1934
The Silbermann Chumash directs you to a footnote which reflects the approach of many of the Meforshai Rashi on the contradiction between the two comments of Rashi. “Rashi on Genesis 3:9 has already pointed out that sometimes G-d puts a seemingly superfluous question to a person to open a conversation. One of the instances he cites there is Bilaam. The heathen soothsayer did not understand the purpose of this question, and it suggested to him that G-d was not omniscient at all times”
The Artscroll Sapirstein Rashi does a much better job in encapsulating this approach by replacing “cause him to err” with “gave him room to err”.[3] Artscroll adds a footnote summarizing the approach of Gur Aryeh by saying that Hashem intended to gently open the conversation with Bilaam, but worded the question in an ambiguous way. Bilaam could have understood the question as Hashem’s way of entering into a conversation with him, but he instead chose to interpret it to indicate that Hashem was not always aware of all the details of a situation.
Professor Yeshayahu Maori Z”L in his book “Sugyot B’Nusach HaMikrah U’B’Parshnato”[4] advances the idea that the Stirah stems from the fact that Rashi accessed two different Midrashic sources, one for his comment in Breishit and one for his comment in BaMidbar.[5] This is based on the idea which was advanced by Rav Eliyahu Mizrachi that sometimes Rashi used “Agadot Chalukot”.[6] The author of “Tzaidah L’Derech” (Prague 1623) sees this case as one where Rashi used “Agadot Chalukot” and that is why Rashi’s comment on “מי האנשים האלה עמך “is different in Breishit and BaMidbar.[7] Here are the words of Rav Yissachar Ber Eilenburg (1570-1623) author of “Tzaideh L’Derech”
אלא מאי אית לך למימר שאגדות חלוקות הן ורש״י רגיל לפרש פעמים אחר אגדה אחת ופּעמים אחר אגדה אחרת כמו שכתב הרא״ם ז״ל בהרבה מקומות אין מספר
“But what can you say but that Rashi used different Aggadot here. Rashi is accustomed to explaining matters by using one Aggadah here and another Aggadah there as Rav Eliyah Mizrachi has stated in many places”[8]
Rav Yosef Ben Yissachar Miklish (1580-1654) is one who is very bothered by the fact that this comment in Rashi seemingly contradicts what he wrote in his commentary on Hashem’s question of “where are you?” to Adam ( Breishit 3:9).[9] He addresses this Stirah in a completely different manner. He maintains that he had a manuscript which was 315 years old in which the words “לְהַטְעוֹתוֹ בָא” did not exist, nor did it contain the words that followed. Rather, it had a completely different Girsa in this Rashi. The website Alhatorah.org attributes a very similar Girsa to a manuscript called Berlin 1221[10] along with material from other manuscripts.[11] It also notes that Wolf Heidenheim attributed the comment to Rav Yosef Kara.
היידנהיים ייחס את התוספת לר׳ יוסף בר׳ שמעון ז״ל,[12] ואפשר שכך היה כתוב בכ״י שלפניו, אך בכל עדי הנוסח שבידינו, אין ייחוס מפורש לר״י קרא. והשווה רש״י בראשית ג׳:ט׳.[13]
The comment attributed to Rashi in this manuscript in general matches the words quoted by Yosef Daat for “his” version of Rashi. The main thrust is that Hashem addressed Bilaam in a way to engage him in the way one addresses someone to make them feel comfortable כשיבוא לתפוס את האדם מתוך דבריו, and not to delude him (ְלהַטְעוֹתוֹ)
Berlin 1221
Yosef Daat
The author of Yosef Daat even speculates that the words “לְהַטְעוֹתוֹ בָא” are a Taut Sofrim inserted by printers “to cause people to err” as Rashi himself would never have written such a comment.
כי גירסת “לְהַטְעוֹתוֹ בָא” היא גירסא בא בדפוס להטות את הבריות
However, the overwhelming majority of manuscripts contain the wording of Rashi as we have it today, something which the author of Yosef Daat would not have known.[14] Here is the important manuscript known as Leipzig 1.[15]
The three Defusim Rishonim (Rome, Alkabetz and Reggio di Callabrio) do not contain the Girsa cited by Yosef Daat. There is no indication in any early printed edition from the 1400’s and 1500’s that any other Girsa existed.
Avraham Berliner (Berlin 1867) normally notes the Girsaot of Yosef Daat but here completely ignores it.[16]
There was another approach taken a bit over 400 years ago in trying to explain what Rashi meant when he wrote לְהַטְעוֹתוֹ בָא and that is to insert an explanatory remark in parentheses embedded into the text of Rashi. The first time I could find it in a printed edition was in one printed in Hanau 1611-1614. This is how it looks:
)ר“ל ישרים דרכי ה‘ צדיקים ילכו בם ופושעים יכשלו בם כוונת הש“י שאמר מי האנשים היתה לטובה ליכנס עמו בדברים כמ“ש רש“י בפ‘ בראשית בתיבה איכה אך בא לבלעם לטעות כי הוא טעה)
This portion in the parentheses is clearly not part of Rashi and it makes no attempt to hide it as it states clearly כמ“ש רש“י בפ‘ בראשית בתיבה איכה. It tries to explain what Rashi means by first quoting a Pasuk, (ישרים דרכי ה׳… ) something Rashi could have done himself if he so desired.
The Hanau edition contained many other comments like this. The Bibliography of the Hebrew Book notes that this was an edition which featured additions to Rashi from some of the Meforshai Rashi.
ככל אשר נדפס בויניציאה [ש”ן-שנ”א] -מעבר לשער הקדמה קצרה (“אל עין הקורא”) ובה רשימת “כמה מעלות” שבהוצאה הנוכחית. בין השאר נאמר שהחומש והתרגום ובפרט פירוש רש”י הוגהו “מתוך חומש של … רּ ישעיה הלוי” (הורוויץ, בעל השל”ה).
After the Hanau edition, the embedded comment in parentheses had a very strong run. I consulted my personal collection of Chumashim from the 1700’s and 1800’s and, beginning with a Chumash printed in Amsterdam in 1729 to one printed in Pressburg in 1868, 13 have the comment and 6 do not. The comment also appears in practically all the Chumashim from the 1900’s that I looked at. This might be because many of them are photo offset of what is known as the Netter Mikraot Gedolot of Vienna of 1859 which served as the model for many editions that followed.[17]
Vilna Netter 1859
It is included on the Chabad website for the portion of the week, but only on the English side!
However, many new editions such as Oz Vehadar, Mosad HaRav Kook and HaMaor (2005) do not include this parenthetical comment, a practice which returns this Rashi to its original form.[18]
[1] בראשית רבה י״ט: י״א
וַיֹּאמֶר הָאָדָם וגוּ (בראשית ג, יב), אַרְבָּעָה הֵן שֶׁהֵקִישׁ הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא עַל קַנְקַנָּן וּמְצָאָן קַנְקַנִּין שֶׁל מֵימֵי רַגְלַיִם, וְאֵלּוּ הֵן, אָדָם, וְקַיִן, וּבִלְעָם, וְחִזְקִיָּהוּ. אָדָם שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: וַיֹּאמֶר הָאָדָם הָאִשָּׁה. קַיִן(בראשית ד, ט): וַיֹּאמֶר ה׳ אֶל קַיִן אֵי הֶבֶל וגוּ וַיֹּאמֶר לֹא יָדַעְתִּי. בִּלְעָם הָרָשָׁע, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (במדבר כב, ט י): מִי הָאֲנָשִׁים הָאֵלֶּה עִמָּךְ, וַיֹּאמֶר בִּלְעָם אֶל הָאֱלֹהִים וגוּ. חִזְקִיָּהוּ (מלכים ב ך, יד) (ישעיה לט, ג): מָה אָמְרוּ הָאֲנָשִׁים הָאֵלֶּה וגוּ.
[2] Medrash Tanchuma Parshat Balak Siman 5 (also BaMidbar Rabah 20:9)
The text of Medrash Tanchuma is as follows
כֵּיוָן שֶׁאָמַר לוֹ: מִי הָאֲנָשִׁים הָאֵלֶּה. אָמַר הָרָשָׁע, אֵינוֹ יוֹדֵעַ בָּהֶם. כִּמְדֻמֶּה אֲנִי, יֵשׁ עִתִּים שֶׁאֵינוֹ יוֹדֵעַ, וְאַף אֲנִי אֶעֱשֶׂה בְּבָנָיו כָּל מַה שֶּׁאֲנִי רוֹצֶה לַעֲשׂוֹת. לְכָךְ אָמַר לוֹ: מִי הָאֲנָשִׁים הָאֵלֶּה עִמָּךְ, לְהַטְעוֹתוֹ.
[3]Artscroll Sapirstein Rashi, Brooklyn, NY, 2018, p.275.
[4] Yeshayahu Maori, Shaanan, Kiryat Shmuel-Haifa, 2020
[5] Ibid pages 137-139.
[6] Rav Eliyahu Mizrachi did not use the approach here rather he tried to address the Stirah in the following manner
מזרחי במדבר כ״ב: ט
מי האנשים האלה עמך? להטעותו בא שיאמר פעמים שאין הכל גלוי לפניו אין דעתו שוה עליו אף אני אראה עת שאוכל לקלל ולא יבין. אבל בפסוק איכה פירש יודע היה היכן הוא אלא ליכנס עמו בדברים שלא יהא נבהל להשיב אם יענישהו פתאום וכן בקין אמר לו אי הבל אחיך וכן בבלעם מי האנשים האלה עמך ליכנס עמהם בדברים ושמא י”ל דה”נ כדי להכנס עמו בדברים הוא כדפירש התם אלא ששם לא פירש הטעם למה נכנס עמו בדבור ופה פירש הטעם ואמר כדי להטעותו וכוּ וכן פירש שם גבי איכה ואי הבל אחיך שנכנס עמהם בדברים כדי שלא יהיו נבהלים מלהשיב חטאתי כדי שימחול להם שאם היה מתחיל להענישם פתאום מבלתי שאלת איכה ושאלת אי הבל אחיך היו נבהלים מלהשיב חטאתי והשם ברחמיו רוצה בתשובת הרשעים ואינו חפץ במיתתן:
[7] As mentioned before, the basis of the comment in BaMidbar is Medrash Tanchuma. The basis for the comment in Breishit 3:9 according to Mizrachi is Breishit Rabah.
בב”ר פי’ שאם היה מענישו פתאום בלתי שאלת איכה היה נבהל מלהשיב לו חטאתו
[8] This approach is noted in Rashi HaShalem – Mechon Ariel- Jerusalem 1986.
[9] Yosef Daat was printed in Prague in 1609- The author יוסף בן יששכר מיקליש writes that he wrote this book….
“לתקן המעוות והטעת[!] שנפלו מהמדפיסים … בפירוש … רש”י ז”ל על חמשה חומשי התורה”….”מאסף לכל הגירסות והנוסחאות שבכל החומשיּ חדשים גם ישנים בכלל, ובפרט רש”י קלף ישן נושן”
The Bibliography of the Hebrew Book writes as follows:
.המחבר כותב בהקדמה שמצא בלובלין “רש”י קלף נושן לערך שלש מאות שנה ויותר” וכן השתמש “בחומשים הישנים דפוס לובלין ודפוס פראג” להיגה בהם את פירש רש”י. המקורות להגהות מצויינים בגליון, בשולי העמודים
[10] State Library of Berlin, Berlin, Germany Ms. Or. fol. 1221 – 13th century – Ashkenazic script.
[11] Al Hatorah notes as follows:
.עם השלמות ותיקונים ע״פ כ״י וינה 24 וכ״י המובא בהבנת המקרא (היידנהיים), ועיין גם כ״י פיזרו 16. נוסח מקוצר בכ״י ברסלאו 11 (סרוול 5) ובגיליון בכ״י ברסלאו 102 (סרוול 12)
[12] Rav Yosef bar Shimon was ר׳ יוסף קרא . This is from the website Daat which speaks about the possible intermingling of his comments with those of Rashi.
[13] This is the beginning of the way it appears in הבנת המקרא by Wolf Heidenheim, Roedelheim 1860 – במדבר עם תרגום אונקלוס מדויק ע”פ כ”י לוונשטין, ליפמן הירש- היידנהיים, בנימין וולף בן שמשון.
[14] The comment of לְהַטְעוֹתוֹ בָא is found in the following 13 th century manuscripts:
Oxford UCC 165,
Munich 5,
Hamburg 13,
Oxford-Bodley Opp.34(Neubauer186),
London 26917 (Neubauer 168),
Casanatense 2848,
Paris 154,
Vatican Urbanati 1,
Parma 2708
The Nusach of Berlin 1221 is found in Hamburg 32:
But on top of the page is found the standard text:
[15] The website Alhatorah.org notes this about the importance of the Leipzig 1 manuscript: “the importance of the Leipzig 1 (Universitätsbibliothek Leipzig, B.H.1) manuscript of Rashi can hardly be overstated. This manuscript was written in the 13th century by R. Makhir b. Karshavyah, who states that he produced it from a copy of the commentary transcribed and annotated by Rashi’s own secretary, R. Shemayah. MS Leipzig 1 is, thus, an extremely valuable textual witness which comes tantalizingly close to the original source.”
[16] The Bibliography of the Hebrew Book includes this information from the book.
[17] בשנת תרי”ט (1859) החלו להדפיס בוינה מהדורה חדשה של חמשה חומשי תורה עם תרגום אונקלוס, תרגום ירושלמי ותרגום יונתן, פירוש רש”י, אבן עזרא, רשב”ם, רמב”ן ועוד. מהדורה זו שנתפרסמה בהידורה וביופייה, הובאה לדפוס על יד שלמה (זלמן) נעטטער מירושלים
[18] Chumash Rashi HaMevuar 2015 (Oz Vehadar) cites Yosef Daat but without his comment that perhaps the normal Girsa is a Taut. In that same Chumash at the back of the Chumash they have a section called Nuschaot Shonot and they cite the Girsa of Yosef Daat but add that the Defusim Rishonim have it the way we do. Yosef Hallel (Brooklyn, 1987) records the words of Yosef Daat and adds that he found a similar Lashon in a manuscript.
5 thoughts on “Rashi BaMidbar 22:9- “Taut Sofrim” or “Agadot Chalukot?””
Perhaps Rashi here is not interested in explaining why Hashem asked the question, for he already explained in Bereishis that it was to open conversation with Bilam. Rather, Rashi may be dealing with the apparently superfluous imcha, “with you.” The addition of this word suggests that Hashem is interested in the details of the situation, leaving room for Bilam to conclude that He was not aware of all of them.
My point here was not to try to reconcile the two thoughts of Rashi but rather to point out that the Tzaideh L’Derech felt there was no Setirah between Rashi’s comments in Breishit and BaMidbar as their source was two different Midrashim. As he wrote אלא מאי אית לך למימר שאגדות חלוקות הן ורש״י רגיל לפרש פעמים אחר אגדה אחת ופּעמים אחר אגדה אחרת. In other words, there is no need to bother trying to reconcile the two. On the opposite end, Yosef Da’at felt there was no Setirah because our accepted text in BaMidbar was a Taut Sofer. Quite a difference in the approach of the two contemporary Parshanim. I admit I was not familiar with Rav Eliyahu Mizrachi’s approach of Agudot Chalukot especially because he already uses it to explain the first Rashi in Breishit. I also want to stress that within the overall framework of the discussion of the Rashi in BaMidbar, Artscroll does the best job in summarizing the normative approach which was “to give him room to err” and not “to trick him.”
Impressive in its thoroughness. And leaves an open question, does Rashi have the opinion that Hashem leads a sinner to sin (im lalaitzim Hu yalitz) or only makes the possibility available (Haba letamei poschim lo) with Artscroll sapirstein edition “gave him room to err” vs. the more literal translation of Silbermann.
Is there really a contradiction? In bereishis, rashi is simply pointing out why hashem would begin with a simple question — to ease into the conversation. Sort of the like “how are you”? For that purpose, any simple question would suffice. And that’s all that’s needed there.
In balak, rashi is explaining why that particular question. In other words, the same question can be doing double duty —a conversation starter and a nudge in the “right” direction. Being an anti-Semite, bilam was not likely to go if he thought he would certainly end up blessing the Jews. So, hashem gave him reason to believe he might be able to get hashem to allow him to curse the Jews so he would be willing to go (and therefore end of giving the blessings).
To flesh out a bit, in bereishis, שֶׁלֹּא יְהֵא נִבְהָל לְהָשִׁיב etc., is not necessarily applicable to the case of bilam. In the case of bilam, all rashi says is לִכָּנֵס עִמָּהֶם בִּדְבָרִים. There could be many reasons and motivations (at least as a secondary matter) why one would ease into a conversation with a simple question, the answer to which already known.
In the case of bilam, rashi explains it was to color the the conversation by giving bilam the impression at the outset that there may be a point in going along because hashem doesn’t even seem to know who these people are and that they came to hire him to curse the Jews.