When Rabbi Meir Kahane’s Father Translated the Torah

By Yosef Lindell

Yosef Lindell is a lawyer, writer, and lecturer living in Silver Spring, MD. He has a JD from NYU Law and an MA in Jewish history from Yeshiva University. He is one of the editors of the Lehrhaus and has published more than 30 articles on Jewish history and thought in a variety of venues. His website is yoseflindell.wordpress.com.

In 1962, the Jewish Publication Society published a new translation of the Torah. The product of nearly a decade of work, the new edition was the first major English translation to cast off the shackles of the 1611 King James Bible. Dr. Harry Orlinsky, the primary force behind the new translation and a professor of Bible at the merged Reform Hebrew Union College and Jewish Institute of Religion, explained that even JPS’ celebrated 1917 translation was merely a King James lookalike, a modest revision of the Revised Standard Version that “did not exceed more than a very few percent of the whole.”[1] This new edition was different. As the editors wrote in the preface, the King James not only “had an archaic flavor,” but it rendered the Hebrew “word for word rather than idiomatically,” resulting in “quaintness or awkwardness and not infrequently in obscurity.”[2] Now, for the first time, the editors translated wholly anew, jettisoning literalism for maximum intelligibility. More than sixty years later, JPS’ work remains one of the definitive English translations of the Torah.

The new JPS may have left the King James behind, but it didn’t satisfy everyone. In addition to making the Torah more intelligible, the editors incorporated the insights of modern biblical scholarship, both from “biblical archeology and in the recovery of the languages and civilizations of the peoples among whom the Israelites lived and whose modes of living and thinking they largely shared.”[3] So when asked by Rabbi Theodore Adams, the president of the Rabbinical Council of America, whether the RCA could accept an invitation from Dr. Solomon Grayzel, JPS’ publisher, to participate in the new translation, Rabbi Joseph B. Soloveitchik demurred. He wrote in a 1953 letter to Adams, “I am afraid that the purpose of this undertaking is not to infuse the spirit of Torah she-be-al peh into the new English version but, on the contrary, … to satisfy the so-called modern ‘scientific’ demands for a more exact rendition in accordance with the latest archeological and philological discoveries.”[4]

Just one year after JPS released its volume, in 1963, R. Soloveitchik’s wish for a more “Torah-true” translation was answered, but likely not in the way he expected. The two-volume Torah Yesharah published by Rabbi Charles Kahane (1905-1978) relies heavily on traditional Jewish commentary in its translation.[5] But as we’ll explore, because of its lack of fidelity to the Hebrew text, it can hardly be called a translation at all.

Here is the title page (courtesy of the Internet Archive):

The strategically placed dots on the title page indicate that Yesharah is an acronym for the author’s Hebrew name—Yechezkel Shraga Hakohen. R. Charles Kahane was born in Safed and received semichah from the Pressburg Yeshiva in Hungary. After immigrating to the United States in 1925 and receiving a second semichah from Yeshiva University’s Rabbi Isaac Elchanan Theological Seminary, he served as rabbi of Congregation Shaarei Tefiloh in Brooklyn for most of his professional career, a shul which drew over 2,000 worshippers for the High Holidays.[6] He was a founding member of the Vaad Harabbanim of Flatbush and helped Rabbi Avraham Kalmanowitz re-establish the Mir Yeshiva in Brooklyn. Today, however, he is known as the father of Meir Kahane, the radical and controversial Jewish power activist and politician who needs no further introduction. The father does not seem to have been directly involved in his son’s activities, but he took pride in Meir’s accomplishments and was a staunch supporter of the Irgun in Palestine, Ze’ev Jabotinsky’s Revisionist Zionist movement, and Jabotinsky’s youth group, Betar.[7]

R. Kahane told the New York Times that Torah Yesharah was inspired by Bible classes he gave to his adult congregants where many people did not understand the text even in translation.[8] (Recall that the new JPS translation was not yet available, and other English translations relied on the archaic King James.) He wanted to rectify this problem; indeed, the title page states that the work is a “traditional interpretive translation,” suggesting that it was intended to be more user-friendly. But calling it user-friendly does not do justice to what Kahane did. Here is most of Bereishit 22—the passage of Akedat Yitzchak:

Most translators try to approximate the meaning of the Hebrew. Not so R. Kahane. Nearly every single English verse here contains significant additions not found in the original. The first verse, for example, which states that the Akedah was meant to punish Avraham for making a treaty with Avimelech, follows the opinion of the medieval commentator Rashbam, who, notes that the words “and it was after these things” connect the Akedah to the previous episode—the treaty with Avimelech (Rashbam, Bereishit 22:1). But it’s hard to imagine that Rashbam, famous for his devotion to peshat—plain meaning—would have been comfortable with his explanation being substituted for the translation itself. Many other verses on this page provide additions from Rashi and other commentators. 

Pretty much every page of R. Kahane’s translation looks similar: Hebrew on one side and an expansive interpretive translation drawn from the classical commentators on the other. Kahane makes no effort to distinguish between the literal meaning of the Hebrew and his interpretive gloss.[9] Dr. Philip Birnbaum, the famed siddur and machzor translator, criticizes this aspect of the work in his (Hebrew) review, noting that Kahane’s interpretations are written “as if they are an inseparable part of the Hebrew source, and the simple reader who doesn’t know the Holy Tongue will end up mistakenly thinking that everything written in ‘Torah Yesharah’ is written in ‘Torat Moshe.’”[10]

To be fair, R. Kahane cites sources for his interpretations, but only at the back of each book of the Torah and only in Hebrew shorthand:

Thus, a reader not already fluent in Hebrew and the traditional commentaries would have little idea where Kahane was drawing his “translation” from and might not grasp how much the translation departed from the Hebrew original.[11]

Yet perhaps this was the point. R. Kahane considered literal translation to be illegitimate. In the preface to Torah Yesharah, Kahane contrasts Targum Onkelos, which is celebrated by the Sages, with the Septuagint translation of the Torah into Greek, which the Sages mourned. Kahane suggests that a Targum, which is an interpretation or commentary, is superior to a direct translation. Targum Onkelos, he writes, was composed under the guidance of the Sages and based on the Oral Law, and therefore it was “sanctified.” According to Kahane, “The Torah cannot and must never be translated literally, without following the Oral interpretation as given to Moses on Sinai. … It is in this spirit that the present translation-interpretation has been written.”[12]

Kahane was not the only Orthodox rabbi of his time to criticize translation unfaithful to rabbinic interpretation. We’ve already noted R. Soloveitchik’s concerns about the new JPS.[13] Similarly, the encyclopedist Rabbi Judah David Eisenstein reported that in 1913, when JPS was preparing its initial translation, Rabbi Chaim Hirschenson of Hoboken, NJ, convinced the Agudath Harabbanim to protest JPS’ efforts so the new work should not become the “official” translation of English-speaking Jewry the way the King James had become the official translation of the Church of England. The Agudath Harabbanim noted the Sages’ disapproval of the Septuagint and explained that only Targum Onkelos and traditional commentators that based themselves on the Talmud were officially sanctioned.[14]

R. Kahane’s approach also harks back to a series of articles in Jewish Forum composed in 1928 by Rabbi Samuel Gerstenfeld, a rosh yeshiva at RIETS (a young Rabbi Gerstenfeld is pictured below), attacking the original 1917 JPS translation. Gerstenfeld labeled the JPS translation Conservative and sought to demonstrate its departure from Orthodoxy by comprehensively cataloging all the places where the translation departed from the halakhic understanding of the verse. So, for example, he criticizes JPS for translating the tachash skins used in the construction of the Mishkan as “seal skins,” because according to halachic authorities, non-kosher animal hides cannot be used for a sacred purpose.[15] He believed that the word tachash should be transliterated, but not translated.[16] Gerstenfeld concludes that the JPS translators “missed a Moses—a Rabbi well versed in Talmud and Posekim, who would have been vigilant against violence to the Oral Law.”[17]

Still, R. Kahane’s interpretive translation with additions goes far beyond what R. Gerstenfeld was suggesting. To give one example: Gerstenfeld quibbles with JPS’ translation of the words ve-yarka befanav in the chalitzah ceremony (Devarim 25:9). The 1917 JPS translates that the woman should “spit in his face” (referring to the man who refuses to perform yibbum). Gerstenfeld notes that rabbinic tradition unanimously holds that the woman spits on the ground. He suggests that “and spit in his presence” would be a better translation.[18] Gerstenfeld’s suggestion is reasonably elegant—it gives space for the rabbinic reading without negating the meaning of the Hebrew. Kahane makes no such attempt to be literal, instead translating that she will “spit on the ground in front of his face.”[19] As we’ve seen, Kahane had no compunctions about adding words.

Thus, there is no English-language precedent for Torah Yesharah of which I am aware. As the preface suggests, R. Kahane was inspired by the Aramaic targumim, but it would seem more by Targum Yonatan Ben Uziel than Targum Onkelos. Onkelos translates word-for-word in most circumstances, typically departing from the Hebrew’s literal meaning to address theological concerns, such as a discomfort with anthropomorphism. Targum Yonatan, on the other hand, seamlessly weaves many midrashic additions into its translation and looks more like Torah Yesharah. For example, at the beginning of the Akedah passage, Targum Yonatan goes on a lengthy excursus suggesting that God’s command to sacrifice Yitzchak was in response to a debate between Yitzchak and Yishmael where Yitzchak boasted that he would be willing to offer himself to God. This digression is akin to Kahane’s addition of the Rashbam into his translation. If anything, Targum Yonatan is more expansive than Torah Yesharah.

Torah Yesharah received a fair amount of press upon its publication. It was even reviewed by the New York Times, which called it “[a] new and unusual translation” that was intended to make the Torah “more meaningful to Americans.” The article quoted Rabbi Dr. Immanuel Jakobovits, then the rabbi of the Fifth Avenue Synagogue in Manhattan (before he became Chief Rabbi of the United Kingdom), as calling it “an original enterprise” and “a most specifically Jewish rendering of the Torah.” While the Times was noncommittal about the work, a critical review in the Detroit Jewish News found Kahane’s language confusing and inferior to the new JPS translation published the prior year.[20] As for Dr. Birnbaum, he praised Torah Yesharah’s reliance on traditional Jewish interpretations and lamented the fact that most other biblical translations “were borrowed from the Christians from the time of Shakespeare,” but criticized the format (as noted above) and some of Kahane’s more tendentious translations.[21]

Despite the interest Torah Yesharah generated, its unique approach was not replicated. One might see echoes of R. Kahane in a better known translation—ArtScroll’s 1993 Stone Edition Chumash. As its editors explained in its preface, the “volume attempts to render the text as our Sages understood it.”[22] To this end, ArtScroll famously follows Rashi when translating “because the study of Chumash has been synonymous with Chumash-Rashi for nine centuries,”[23] even when Rashi is at variance with more straightforward readings of the text. Thus, for example, ArtScroll translates az huchal likro be-shem hashem (Genesis 4:26) based on Rashi as, “Then to call in the name of Hashem became profaned”—a reference to the beginnings of idol worship.[24] However, a more literal translation would run, “Then people began to call in the name of God,” which sounds like a reference to sincere prayer—the opposite of idolatry. It’s also well-known that ArtScroll declines to translate Shir Ha-Shirim literally, adapting Rashi’s allegorical commentary in place of translation.

On the other hand, ArtScroll’s overall approach is different than Torah Yesharah’s. ArtScroll is typically quite literal, translating word-for-word even when the syntax of the verse suffers as a result. An example from the Akedah is again relevant: va-yar ve-hinei ayil achar ne’echaz ba-sevach be-karnav (Genesis 22:13). ArtScroll’s translation, that Abraham “saw—behold, a ram!—afterwards, caught in the thicket,”[25] is awkward, but it preserves the word achar in the precise location that it appears in the Hebrew. When ArtScroll wants to highlight more traditional interpretations of the text in line with Chazal and others, it does so in the commentary, not in the translation itself.[26]

Two recent works—the Koren Steinsaltz Humash (2018) and the Chabad Kehot Chumash (2015)—are much closer to Torah Yesharah in that they insert commentary directly into the English translation. But they still differ in an important respect. Both the Steinsaltz—which is a translation of a Hebrew Humash based on the classes of Rabbi Adin Steinsaltz—and the Kehot “interpolate” a good deal of commentary into the translation (the former is more peshat based and the latter leans more on Rashi and Midrash). Nevertheless, they distinguish between what’s literal and what’s added by using bold font for the literal translation. This approach still has its downsides, as it can still be hard to read the English cleanly without the added gloss getting in the way of the literal meaning.[27] But it’s preferable to Torah Yesharah, where R. Kahane did not provide the reader any means of distinguishing between the text and his additions.

Today, Torah Yesharah is but a historical curiosity. Yet its existence highlights the fact that some mid-20th century Orthodox Jews felt a real need for a translation that followed in the footsteps of Chazal and other traditional commentators. To them, JPS’ translation did not embrace an authentic Torah approach. Before ArtScroll came on the scene, Torah Yesharah filled that niche for a time, but its unusual format blurred the line between the Word of God and the words of His interpreters.

Yosef Lindell is a lawyer, writer, and lecturer living in Silver Spring, MD. He has a JD from NYU Law and an MA in Jewish history from Yeshiva University. He is one of the editors of the Lehrhaus and has published more than 30 articles on Jewish history and thought in a variety of venues. His website is yoseflindell.wordpress.com.

[1] Harry M. Orlinsky, “The New Jewish Version of the Torah: Toward a New Philosophy of Bible Translation,” Journal of Biblical Literature 82:3 (1963): 251.
[2] The Torah: The Five Books of Moses (The Jewish Publication Society, 1962), Preface.
[3] Ibid.
[4] Joseph B. Soloveitchik, Community, Covenant, and Commitment: Selected Letters and Communications (Nathaniel Helfgot, ed., KTAV, 2005), 110.
[5] Charles Kahane, ed., Torah Yesharah (Torah Yesharah Publication: Solomon Rabinowitz Book Concern, NY, 1963).
[6] To the New York Times, Kahane described the shul as “progressive Orthodox,” and it likely lacked a mechitzah. See Robert I. Friedman, The False Prophet: Rabbi Meir Kahane (Lawrence Hill Books, 1990), 20. That, however, was not unusual for those times.
[7] The biographical information in this paragraph is drawn from Friedman (see previous note) and Libby Kahane, Rabbi Meir Kahane: His Life and Thought (Institute for the Publication of the Writings of Rabbi Meir Kahane, 2008).
[8] Richard F. Shepard, “Rabbi Publishes New Bible Study; Works on Early Scholars Are Reinterpreted,” New York Times (June 21, 1964), 88.
[9] Here is another example of a large interpretive insertion concerning God’s decision that Moshe and Aharon would not lead the people into Israel because of their sin regarding the rock (Bamidbar 20:12):

That’s quite a few more words than are found in the Hebrew!
[10] Paltiel Birnbaum, “Targum Angli be-Ruah ha-Masoret,” in Pleitat Sofrim: Iyyunim ve-Ha’arakhot be-Hakhmat Yisrael ve-Safrutah (Mossad Harav Kook, 1971), 75.
[11] Of note, Kahane’s translation is available on Sefaria, but with modifications that obscure its radicalness. For one, the format is different: the Hebrew and English are not juxtaposed in the same way. Second, the sources for each verse are cited directly below the translation in parentheses. This is not the way Kahane presented his sources in the original.
[12] Torah Yesharah, xviii-ix.
[13] Among the most intriguing critics of the new JPS was Avram Davidson, who wrote in Jewish Life in 1957 that because the translation was being prepared by non-Orthodox scholars who intended to depart occasionally from the Masoretic text in light of new archaeological discoveries, it was not “being prepared on the Torah’s terms” and was unacceptable. A.A. Davidson, “A ‘Modern’ Bible Translation,” Orthodox Jewish Life 24:5 (1957): 7-11. Davidson later became a science fiction writer of some renown but by the end of his life had become enamored with a modern Japanese religion called Tenrikyo.
[14] J.D. Eisenstein, ed., Otzar Yisrael vol. 10 (New York, 1913), 309. See also the criticism of the 1962 JPS translation and the discussion of Eisenstein and R. Gerstenfeld’s article in Sidney B. Hoenig, “Notes on the New Translation of the Torah – A Preliminary Inquiry,” Tradition 5:2 (1963): 172-205.
[15] Samuel Gerstenfeld, “The Conservative Halacha,” The Jewish Forum 11:10 (Oct. 1928): 533.
[16] Indeed, ArtScroll’s Stone Chumash leaves tachash untranslated. Interestingly, R. Kahane just translates “sealskins” like JPS.
[17] Samuel Gerstenfeld, “The Conservative Halacha,” The Jewish Forum 11:11 (Nov. 1928): 576.
[18] Ibid., 575-76.
[19] Torah Yesharah, 331.
[20] Philip Slomovitz, “Purely Commentary,” Detroit Jewish News (Aug. 21, 1964), 2.
[21] Birnbaum, 76. It’s interesting that Birnbaum was far more critical of non-literal translations of the siddur. When the RCA incorporated the poetic translations of the British novelist Israel Zangwill into its 1960 siddur edited by Rabbi Dr. David de Sola Pool, Birnbaum wrote a scathing review in Hadoar, accusing Zangwill’s efforts as being “free imitations,” not translations, and of having Christian influence. Paltiel Birnbaum, “Siddur Chadash Ba le-Medinah,” Hadoar 40:6 (Dec. 9, 1960): 85. Birnbaum may have been jealous of the RCA’s siddur, which was a direct competitor to his 1949 edition. Also, he was unimpressed with Zangwill in particular, who had married a non-Jew and was not halakhically observant. For more about this, see my article in Lehrhaus here.
[22] Nosson Scherman, ed., The Stone Edition Chumash (Mesorah Publications, 1993), xvi.
[23] Ibid.
[24] Ibid., 23.
[25] Ibid., 103.
[26] Rabbi Aryeh Kaplan’s 1981 Living Torah translation also bears some resemblance to Torah Yesharah in its tendency to follow Chazal, but it too, despite its exceedingly colloquial approach to translation, does not insert large interpretive glosses into the text.
[27] R. Steinsaltz calls the commentary “transparent” and “one whose explanations should go almost unnoticed and serve only to give the reader and student the sense that there is no barrier between him or her and the text,” but I am not sure I agree. See The Steinsaltz Humash (Koren Publishers, 2015), ix. 

“Milta De’Bedichuta”: Some Playful Parodies of the Talmud in the Modern Period

By Ezra Brand

6-Mar-23

Ezra Brand is an independent researcher based in Tel Aviv. He has an MA from Revel Graduate School at Yeshiva University in Medieval Jewish History, where he focused his research on 13th and 14th century sefirotic Kabbalah. He is interested in using digital and computational tools in historical research. He has contributed a number of times previously to the Seforim Blog (tag), and a selection of his research can be found at his Academia.edu profile. He can be reached at ezrabrand@gmail.com; any and all feedback is greatly appreciated.

Intro

The origins of Jewish humor are debated, with some linking it to Eastern Europe and others to a more distant time and place. Recognition of Jewish humor as first-rate gained popularity at the end of the 19th century.[1]

I previously wrote on the Seforim Blog about humor in the Talmud.[2] In this piece, my focus will be on parodies of the Gemara written for Purim, known as “Purim Dafs”. Roni Cohen, at the beginning of his 2021 dissertation on Medieval Parodies for Purim, describes the earliest known parodies on the Talmud written for the holiday of Purim:

The first, Massekhet Purim (Purim tractate), is a parody of the Talmud written by the Provençal translator, philosopher, and writer Kalonymos ben Kalonymos, during the period he lived in Rome, between 1324 – 1328. The other two – Megilat Setarim (esoteric scroll), a parody on the Talmud and Sefer Habakbuk (the book of Habakbuk), a parody of the Hebrew Bible – were both written by the Provençal philosopher, astronomer, and bible commentator Rabbi Levi ben Gerson (Gersonides) in 1332.[3]

When written for Purim, the Talmud parodies are often known as “Purim Dafs”. This is something I tried my hand at when I was in yeshiva.[4]

In this piece I’d like to give a number of examples of modern parodies of the Talmud, collected from various locations on the web, listed in chronological order of date first published.[5]

 

מסכת פורים: מן תלמוד שכורים (1814) ⁶

A satirical discussion of the laws of drinking on Purim.

מסכת עניות מן תלמוד רש עלמא (1878)⁷

A satirical halachic discussion of laws of poverty.

מסכת עמיריקא: מן תלמוד ינקאי (1892) ⁸

A satirical halachic discussion of living in America.

מסכת שטרות (1894) ⁹

A satirical halachic discussion of who can sign contracts.

מסכת דרך ארץ החדשה: מתלמודא דארעא חדתא (1898)^10[10]

A satirical halachic discussion of living in America.

מסכת סוחרים (1900)^[11]

A satirical halachic discussion of the laws of merchants.

מסכת אדמונים מן תלמוד בולשבי (1923)^[12]

A satirical discussion of the trivial differences between the socialist Bolsheviks (“red”) and the monarchic Mensheviks (“white”) in the Russian Civil War, which started in 1917.

 

מסכת פרוהבישן מן תלמוד בטלי (1929)^[13]

A satirical halachic discussion of the laws of drinking alcohol during the period of Prohibition in the United States, which started in 1920.

מסכת פורים תו שין טית וו (1955)^[14]

A satirical halachic and aggadic discussion of Israeli elections.

מסכת המן (1975)^[15]

A satirical halachic discussion regarding Haman.

מסכת אב”כ שומע קול צופר (1991)^[16]

A satirical halachic discussion of wearing of gas masks during the Iraqi rocket attacks on Israel during First Gulf War in 1991.

הדאנאלד (2016)^[17]

A satirical discussion of the Trump wall.

מסכת קורונא פרק ב’ (2021)^[18]

This parody is a satirical halachic and aggadic discussion surrounding coronavirus, during the COVID-19 pandemic.

New Books & Book sale 2023

By Eliezer Brodt

The post hopes to serve a few purposes. The first section lists some new interesting seforim and thereby making the Seforim Blog readership aware of their recent publication.

Second, to make these works available for purchase for those interested.

Third, the second part of the list are some harder to find books, for sale. (This is a continuation of this post.)

Part of the proceeds will be going to support the efforts of the Seforim Blog.

Contact me at Eliezerbrodt@gmail.com for more information about purchasing or for sample pages of some of these new works.

Part one

1. אוצר הגאונים, עבודה זרה, שבועות, מכות, הוריות, בעריכת ירחמיאל ברודי ואחרים, 398 עמודים
2. מנחם כהנא, דרש המזהיר ותרומתו למחקר ספרי דברים ומכילתא דברים
3. תלמוד מסכת נזיר, א, מכון תלמוד ישראלי
4. מעגל טוב, להחיד”א, מהדורת הרב מנדלבוים [ניתן לקבל דפי דוגמא]
5. נעימת כהנים, מהדיר פרופ’ יעקב שפיגל [ניתן לקבל הקדמה ודפי דוגמא]
6. מן הגנזים, כרך טז, כולל ‘יומן החלומות של רבי יהודה פתייא’ מאת ר’ משה הלל
7.   זכור לאברהם, תשפ”ג, בעניני ספר תורה [כרך חדש]
8. ר’ בלס, מנופת צוף עיונים במורה הנבוכים, כרך ג, [על מורה נבוכים חלק ג]
9. אברהם וסרמן, מסילה חדשה רב קוק ואתגרי חינוך
10. ארץ-ישראל בשלהי העת העתיקה, ב’ חלקים, 1300 עמודים [ניתן לקבל תוכן]
11. ירושתנו חלק יב [ניתן לקבל תוכן]
12. ישראל רובין, כפירותיו של הרמב”ם
13. ר’ אמזוג, אם למקרא, ב’ חלקים, בראשית-ויקרא
14. ר’ אשר דוד מייערס, מלאכת המשכן וכליו, תקעו עמודים
15. ר’ שלמה הלוי, לב אבות על אבות, אהבת שלום
16.    עקיבא שטרנברג, ארץ לא נודעת \ התמודדות בעלי ההלכה עם אתגרי ההגירה לצפון אמריקה 1850-1924
17.   אבן עזרא איש האשכולות, קובץ מאמרים בעריכת דב שוורץ
18. ר’ אליהו דינר, מגילת סוטה, ביאורים ועינוים בעניני סוטה, תתקע עמודים
19. ר’ שלמה כהנא, שו”ת נחמת שלמה, מכון ירושלים
20. על פי ספר דרכי התלמוד לר’ יצחק קנפאנטון, שער דרכי התלמוד
21. ר’ זאב וגנר, אוצר רש”י, ליקוט ביאורי המילים במקרא ובתלמוד מכל פירושי רש”י והמיוחסים לו
22.   מבוא למשנה, משנת ארץ ישראל, ספראי
23. שו“ת מנחת זכרון, ר רפאל שלמה הבדלה ז“ל, מכון אהבת שלום
24.   ר”י מלוניל, תעניות וסוכה, מכון תלמוד ישראלי
25.   ר’ חנוך גרוסברג, חזון הארץ, [המעשה והתרומה, תורת השמיטה, חוקת שדה, נטע הלולים]
26. ספרא דצניעותא עם ביאור הגר”א, עם ביאור מר’ יצחק הוטנר
27. הרב עוז בלומן, איש משורש נביא, הממד האתי בבקשת האלוהים של הלל צייטלין [ניתן לקבל תוכן והקדמה]
28. ר’ אורי הולצמן, להתהלך, לפני אלקים באור החיים, על חומש שמות
29. ר’ ישעיה לוי, מקרא אני דורש, על חומש שמות [ניתן לקבל דפי דוגמא]
30. ר’ חיים פאלאג’י, מועד לכל חי, מכון שובי נפשי
31. ר’ צבי פסח פרנק, הר צבי על מסכת סנהדרין, מכות
32. ר’ שלמה וואלעס, תורת בית כנסת, עיוני ובירורי הלכה בעניני בית הכנסת, תרפח עמודים
33. אגרת ר’ שרירא גאון, בעריכת ר’ נתן דוד רבינוביץ [מהדורה חדשה]
34. ר’ יוסף פאק, ואני אברכם, כל דיני ומנהגיי נשיאת כפים, השייכים לבית המקדש ולזמן הזה
35. ר’ שמואל מאטאלון, שו”ת עבודת השם, מכון הכתב
36. רבנו גרשום, מסכת בבא בתרא, עם פירוש משפחת הגרשוני
37. שו”ת רבי שלמה ברוך [מכתב יד] משנות ה’ש’
38. ר’ אריה ליב ברעסלא, שו”ת פני אריה [מהדורה שנייה]
39.   פני מזרח,  בהירות שיטת הגאונים ומנהג ארץ ישראל [זמנים]
40.   ר’ יהודה ן’ שמואל אבן עבאס, מקור חיים \ יאיר נתיב [על פי כתב יד]
41. פירוש רבניו סעיד ן’ דוד אלעדני, ספר אהבה
42. יהודית הנשקה, המשנה בביזנטיון: מסורת הלשון של כתב יד קיימברידג’ למשנה

Part two

1. סיפור מעשי שבתי צבי, נדיר, $60
2. לקוטי קדמוניות לתולדות הקראים וספרותם, פינסקר, $26
3. משה צוקר, פירושי רס”ג לבראשית, $66
4. סדר ברכת המזון עם פירוש ר’ נתן שפירא, כולל סדר זמירות להמהרש”ל, $24
5. מחזור גולדשמידט, ר”ה-יו”כ, $110
6. מחזור גודלשמידט, סוכות, $28
7. ספר חסידים מקיצי נרדמים, במצבו, $30 כולל המבוא
8. מחכם באשי לרב ראשי, הרב יעקב מאיר 1939-1856, $25
9. משה הלברטל, הולדת הספק, $22
10. הכתב והמכתב חלק ב, $23
11. ר’ יעקב ר’ יעקב ששפורטש, ציצת נובל צבי, מהדורות ישעיהו תשבי, $75
12. מאיר בניהו, התנועה השבתאית ביוון, $75
13. ספר מלמד התלמידים, מקור, $38 [מצוין]
14. שערי תורת בבל, $40 [מצוין]
15. אוצר מפרשי התורה, כמה חיבורים: קטורת המים באור לתרגומים, מרגליות טובה, שלשה פירושים על אבן עזרא, מבין חידות פיר’ על המסורות, $34
16. סופה וסערה א, $21
17. סופה וסערה ב, $21
18. סופה וסערה ד, $21
19. יצחק לנדיס, ברכת העבודה בתפילת העמידה, $24
20. שבחי הבעש”ט, מהדיר: אברהם רובינשטיין, $28
21. משה סמט, חדש אסור מן התורה, $65
22. קובץ ספרי טעמי המסורה, $40
23. דרשות אגדות אזוב, $25
24. פירוש הגאונים לסדר טהרות, $30
25. מדרשי הגאולה, $26
26. שמעון שלם, ר’ משה אלשיך, $27
27. בראשית זוטא, מוסד הרב קוק, $26
28. ספר המקנה ר’ יוסף רוסהיים (מקיצי נרדמים), $26
29. יוסף המקנה, מקיצי נרדמים, $25
30. סידור רבינו שלמה ברבי נתן ע”פ הגאונים, $24
31. ר’ משה אביגדור עמנואל, לנבוכי התקופה, $18
32. ר’ יצחק ברויאר, הכוזרי החדש, $26
33. שמואל ורסס ויונתן מאיר, ראשית חכמה, $28
34. ר’ דוד זריצקי, זכרם לברכה, גאוני הדורות ואישי סגולה, $26
35. מסילת ישרים, מהד’ אופק, כולל מבוא והערות של ר’ יוסף אביב”י, $34
36. אברהם ווייס, על היצירה הספרותית של האמוראים, $25
37. אבן עזרא, פליישר, שמות, $25
38. מחקרים ומבואות לתלמוד: כולל ד’ חיבורים, מבוא התלמוד, לחקר סדר התלמוד, תולדות המשנה, אסמכתא, $26
39. יוסף היינימן ,התפילה בתקופת התנאים כריכה רכה, $23
40. מכלכל חיים בחסד, שני חלקים [ הזכרת גשם סגול \ יהי רצון שבין תקיעות], $25
41. הגדה של פסח, תורת חיים, מוסד הרב קוק, $22
42. משנת יעקב, ר’ יעקב שור, [ברכות, בעי חיי על רבנו בחיים, נר ערוך על ספר הערוך], $25
43. דבר אברהם, חלק הדרוש, $25
44. מדרש דניאל ומדרש עזרא, מקיצי נרדמים, $24
45. קונטרס טוהר הלשון, $10
46. חיים גרטנר, הרב העיר הגדולה, [מצוין], $24
47. קובץ מאמרים, ר’ יחזקאל אברמסקי, $24
48. דרשות גבעת שאול, הרב שאול הלוי מורטירה [מצוין], $28
49. ישראל וינשטוק, במעגלי הנגלה והנסתר, $24
50. הרב שלמה גורן, אוטוביוגרפיה, בעריכת אבי רט, כריכה רכה $17
51. אגרות סופרים, מכתבים של רע”א, חתם סופר, וכתב סופר, $16
52. יוסף דן, תולדות תורת הסוד חלק יג, $28
53. הגאון החסיד מוילנא, ר’ בצלאל לנדוי, $19
54. נחום לאם, תורה לשמה, $24
55. ר’ יוסף הלל, ביאורים על פ’ רש”י, ב’ חלקים, $42
56. מגנזי ישראל בוואטיקאן, קוק, $23
57. התקנות בישראל חלק ד, $15
58. ר’ משה שפירא, ר’ משה שמואל ודורו, [מצוין] $26
59. אגרות בעל דורות הראשונים, $18
60. אברהם ברור, זכרונות אב ובנו, $25
61. אביגדור אפטוביצר, מבוא הראבי”ה, $25
62. ר’ נתן דוד רבינוביץ, בינו שנות דור ודור, $25
63. ר’ נח מינדס, פרפראות לחכמה\ נפלאות חדשות, $24
64. יצחק רפאל, ראשונים ואחרונים, $24
65. כל בו אבילות, חלק ב, $15
66. אברהם יערי, שלוחי ארץ ישראל, $36
67. ר’ יחיאל גולדהבר, קונדיטון, $20
68. מעוז כהנא, מהנודע ביהודה לחתם סופר, הלכה והגות לנוכח אתגרי הזמן,[מצוין] $28
69. יחזקאל קוטיק, זכרונות ב’ חלקים, [מצוין], $45
70. משה בר אשר, פרקי עיון בעברית החדשה ובעשייה בה, $24
71. אגודת אז”ב, ר’ אפרים זלמן מרגליות, מכתבים, $24
72. חיים שלם, אי של אפשר על בנימין מינץ, $24
73. נפתלי בן מנחם, ענייני אבן עזרא, $40
74. יעקב אלבוים, פתיחות והסתגרות, $25
75. פישל שניאורסון, חיים גראביצר, $28
76. ים מרגליות, אוסף מאמרים של ר’ ראובן מרגליות, $20
77. ר’ ראובן מרגליות, תולדות מהרש”א, תולדות אור החיים הק’ תולדות רב יהודה הנשיא, הרמב”ם והזוהר, $28
78. מאיר הרשקוביץ, שני כרובים על הקצות ותוס’ יום טוב, $28
79. בן ציון קליבנסקי, כצור חלמיש, $25
80. יואל אליצור, מקום בפרשה, [מצוין], $25
81. יעקב שפיגל, עמודים בתולדות ספר העברי, תלמוד ערוך, [מצוין] $28
82. לבנת הספיר, ר’ דוד ב”ר יהודה החסיד, $24
83. ירושתנו חלק ב, $20
84. Daniel Sperber, The Jewish Life Cycle Lore and Iconography Jewish Customs from the Cradle to the Grave, $60
85. Israel Barzilay, Manasseh Of Ilyah, $25

The Etymology of “Onah”

by Mitchell First (MFirstAtty@aol.com)

I thought it would be useful if everyone would have a better understanding of how the root ענה, occurring at Exodus 21:10 in the form “onatah,” can refer to the sexual obligation. I will offer several possibilities.

First I must provide a brief overview of this widely occurring root. It is typically viewed as having four meanings as a verb: 1) respond, 2) sing, 3) afflict, and 4) occupy oneself with.

It is hard to unify all these meanings. But it is easy to see that perhaps the first and second meanings have a common origin.

As to the third meaning, the word ענו, a submissive, humble individual, probably derives from this meaning and the word עני, a poor individual, also probably derives from this meaning.

The fourth meaning is a rare one in Tanakh. It is only found in the book of Kohelet.

It is also possible that ענה has a “time-related” meaning in Tanakh. We will discuss this below.

—–

Exodus 21:10 reads: “If he marries another, he must not diminish her food, her clothing, or ‘onatah’ (=her onah).” The person being protected is the Israelite slave who was the first wife.

The Mishnah at Ketuvot 5:6 understands “onah” (without any discussion) as referring to the man’s sexual obligation to his wife,[1] and then proceeds to delineate the obligation for various occupations.

Our first question is whether we can fit this meaning of “onah” into any of the first four meanings above. Note that Rashi on our verse explains the word as “tashmish” but does not provide any explanation.

We could connect our word with the “response” meaning above and suggest that “onatah” means “a response to her request for intimacy.” But it is hard to imagine that such an important obligation would be phrased in such a vague way.[2]

Here are a few better approaches:

1. There is a word מעון and other words related to it that appear many times in Tanakh and mean “dwelling.” Presumably, their root would have been עון. If the root of our “onatah” (which has no vav) would be עון with its “dwelling” meaning, we can interpret the word “dwelling” as symbolizing a main activity that goes on in a dwelling, i.e., sexual relations.[3] Our verse would be referring to sexual relations but doing it euphemistically. As a parallel, in English the word “cohabit” typically now has a sexual meaning, even though the word originated with a “habitation” meaning.

Of course, we can alternatively interpret our verse to be stating that a man may not diminish the living quarters of his wife and that the verse has nothing to do with sexual relations. Rashbam and Cassuto are among the many who take this approach.[4] But obviously we would like to avoid this interpretation.

2. It has been argued that Ayin-Nun-Heh has a meaning related to “time” in Tanakh. We know that it has such a meaning in early Rabbinic Hebrew. See, e.g., Mishnah Peah 4:8: “onat ha-ma’aserot.”[5]

If there was a root Ayin-Nun-Heh (or Ayin-Nun-Tav) with a time-related meaning in the era of Tanakh, “onatah” could be referring to a husband’s obligation to provide relations to his spouse at certain time intervals. R. Saadiah Gaon and Ibn Ezra are among the many who follow this approach. Daat Mikra offers it as its second interpretation.

But this is still not a simple way of reading the verse. As Luzzatto observes: “It does not stand to reason that the Torah would designate a man’s relations with his wife by the term ‘set time,’[6] besides the fact that nowhere in the Torah is there any timetable for this matter.”[7]

There is an alternative way of obtaining the relations meaning based on the “time” meaning of “onah.” We can say that “onah” means “her time,” and in the case of two competing women, as is the case here, it means “her turn.”[8]

——

We still have to address the issue of whether Ayin-Nun-Heh or Ayin-Nun-Tav really did have a time-related meaning in Tanakh.

There are three arguments to support this.

First, the word עת means “time” many times in Tanakh. Many believe this derives from a root [9]ענת, but many disagree with this etymology.[10]

Second, עונן and מעונן refer to one who engages in divination. Many understand this word as deriving from Ayin-Nun-Heh with a “time” meaning. I.e., perhaps these individuals made predictions as to what is a good time to do things. But others interpret these words with a different etymology altogether. E.g., perhaps these individuals made predictions by looking at cloud formations. Many other possibilities have been suggested for the etymology of עונן and מעונן. But the time-related etymology is a real possibility.

– Third, the fact that our word appears in early Rabbinic Hebrew with a time-related meaning is some evidence that this meaning already existed in Biblical Hebrew.

3. A third approach observes that there are many instances in Tanakh where Ayin-Nun-Heh occurs in the piel construct in a context of a man forcing a woman to have intercourse. See, e.g., Gen. 34:2 (Dinah), and Deut. 21:14 (woman captured in war).[11] We are used to translating these piel verbs with an “afflict sorrow or pain” meaning, or perhaps a “humbled” meaning.¹² But perhaps Ayin-Nun-Heh in the piel in all or some of these cases is better understood as “rape.”[13] If Ayin-Nun–Heh in the piel construct can mean “rape,” that same root in the kal construct can mean “consensual relations.” Then we could utilize this meaning for our word at Ex. 21:10.[14]

To complete our discussion, I must mention two other Tannaitic passages about “onah”: one in the Mekhilta, and the other: a baraita in the Talmud.

As I mentioned at the outset, the Mishnah at Ketuvot 5:6 assumes that the “onah” of our verse means “relations” and does not offer any alternative view or any derivation.

The Mekhilta in Mishpatim offers three different interpretations of “onah.” The first is “relations” (“derech eretz”). This view is brought in the name of R. Yoshiah. The prooftext he cites is Gen. 34:2 (regarding Dinah): “va-yishkav otah va-ye’aneha.” This citation is surprising because it is usually assumed that “va-ye’aneha” here has the “afflict” or ”humbled” meaning. (This citation fits loosely with our third approach.)

A second view (in the name of R. Yonatan) interprets “onah” to be a reference to giving clothing that is appropriate to the season. A third view (in the name of Rebbi) interprets “onah” as food (giving a strange prooftext, Deut. 8:3). This third view interprets a different word in verse 21:10, one from the root שׁאר, as referring to “relations.”

At Ketubot 47b, there is a baraita very similar to the Mekhilta (although with different Tannaim) that also gives the above three views. In the view of the tanna kamma, the verse cited for the “relations” meaning is a statement of Lavan at 31:50: “If you will ‘ta’aneh’ my daughters and/or take other wives besides my daughters…” Yet in this verse, our root clearly means “afflict” and does not mean “relations.”[15]

——

To sum up, if one wants to interpret “onah” as “relations,” one approach is to relate it to the word מעון and its meaning “dwelling.” “Dwelling” can symbolize a main activity that goes on in a dwelling. Alternatively, the approach that “onah” simply refers to “her time” (=her turn) sounds plausible as well. Finally, we have the suggestion that Ayin-Nun-Heh in the kal construct may refer to consensual relations.

 

[1] The Mishnah does not cite our verse but is implicitly referring to it. Admittedly there are other interpretations of “onah” among the Tannaitic Sages. I will discuss them at the end of this article.
[2] Nevertheless, S.D. Luzzatto is willing to adopt something like this approach. S. Mandelkern takes it seriously as well. The Brown-Driver-Briggs lexicon mentions it as a possibility. In more modern times, M.Z. Kaddari, Millon Ha-Ivrit Ha-Mikrait (2006), p. 815, adopts it without any discussion.

For more on the view of Luzzatto and on this entire topic, see the article by Marty Lockshin from Jan. 27, 2022 on thetorah.com: “Onah: A Husband’s Conjugal Duties?”

Lockshin points out that Targum Onkelos merely renders the Hebrew term with an Aramaic equivalent, so we cannot determine how it was understood in this translation. He also discusses the views of the other early Aramaic translations. He also mentions the view of the Septuagint. It has “homilian,” which literally means “company” or “conversation,” but which many scholars think is being used euphemistically here for “relations.”
[3] Daat Mikra adopts something like this as the first of its two interpretations. Luzzatto mentions some who take this approach, even though he disagrees with it.

New book Announcement

After being out of print for several years, a new edition of Rav Yehuda Herzl Henkin z”l’s Shu”t Bnei Banim Vol. 1 was just published.

The volume remains as relevant, original, and significant as when written, 4 decades ago; and has haskamot from a first-rank lineup of gedolim: R. Gedalia Felder, R. Moshe Feinstein, R. Eliezer Waldenberg, R. Menashe Klein, R. Ovadia Yosef, R. Avram Shapira, and R. Mordechai Eliahu, all ztz”l.  The new edition is annotated and punctuated, making it even more accessible.  

Copies can be purchased in the US at Israel Mizrahi’s incredible book store via this link or via his email address bluebirds15@yahoo.com.

For information how to purchase copies in Israel contact Eliezerbrodt@gmail.com.

To see sample pages of the new edition, send an email to Eliezerbrodt@gmail.com.

For some recent write ups about R. Henkin: See here for an article from a close talmid of his and here for an article from Rabbi Shlomo Zuckier. Here is a link to a video presentation about his very productive life and legacy from December 30, 2020.

Shemot 2:1 – Did Rashi Include Miriam’s Advice to Her Father?

Eli Genauer

“Rashi’s choice of citations from the voluminous material of the Sages is in itself a commentary for those who understand the reasons he selected one or two opinions out of many”

Publisher’s Preface to the Artscroll Sapirstein Rashi on Shemos, (Brooklyn 1994) page ix

One of the most famous Medrashim in Sefer Shemot tells how six-year-old Miriam convinced her father Amram to re-marry her mother Yocheved. After the decree that all baby boys born would be thrown into the Nile, Amram separated himself from Yocheved, not wanting to have her give birth to a boy who would be killed immediately. Miriam confronted her father and said “Your action is worse than Pharoah’s. He only decreed against boys, and your action also includes the girls.” Amram agreed with Miriam and re-married Yocheved.

In many Chumashim, this story is included in the first Rashi of the 2^nd chapter. It is in parentheses, starting with the words ״וחזר ולקחה״ and is ascribed to a “Rashi Yashan”.

This is how it is presented in the Oz VeHadar Chumash Beit HaKeneset (Jerusalem 2014)

It is also presented this way in the Artscroll Stone Chumash and the Artscroll Sapirstein Rashi.

But on the website Sefaria, the portion in parentheses is missing

ויקח את בת לוי. פָּרוּשׁ הָיָה מִמֶּנָּה מִפְּנֵי גְּזֵרַת פַּרְעֹה, וְהֶחֱזִירָהּ וְעָשָׂה בָהּ לִקּוּחִין שְׁנִיִּים, וְאַף הִיא נֶהֶפְכָה לִהְיוֹת נַעֲרָה; וּבַת ק“ל שָׁנָה הָיְתָה, שֶׁנּוֹלְדָה בְּבוֹאָם לְמִצְרַיִם בֵּין הַחוֹמוֹת, וּמָאתַיִם וָעֶשֶׂר נִשְׁתַּהוּ שָׁם, וּכְשֶׁיָּצְאוּ הָיָה מֹשֶׁה בֶּן שְׁמוֹנִים שָׁנָה, אִם כֵּן כְּשֶׁנִּתְעַבְּרָה מִמֶּנּוּ הָיְתָה בַּת מֵאָה וּשְׁלוֹשִׁים וְקוֹרֵא אוֹתָהּ בַּת לֵוִי (עיּ סוטה י“ב, בבא בתרא קי“ט ושמות רבה):

Linguistically, the flow of the words in Sefaria makes more sense: פָּרוּשׁ הָיָה מִמֶּנָּה מִפְּנֵי גְּזֵרַת פַּרְעֹה, וְהֶחֱזִירָהּ וְעָשָׂה בָהּ לִקּוּחִין שְׁנִיִּים. Adding the words ״וחזר ולקחה״ duplicates the statement after the parentheses וְהֶחֱזִירָהּ וְעָשָׂה בָהּ לִקּוּחִין שְׁנִיִּים, and overall, the episode with Miriam seems to be an interruption in the words of Rashi.

It is therefore important to see whether this story appears in any of the manuscripts of Rashi that we have, and in the early printed editions. It would also be important to track down the source of the “Rashi Yashan.”

As far as Rashi manuscripts, I first checked one known as Leipzig 1, which to many scholars is the most accurate.[1] Here is how it is presented, and as you can see, it is missing the Miriam story

https://media.alhatorah.org/Parshanim/Rashi%20Leipzig/97.pdf

Transcribed it looks like this.

ויקח את בת לוי – פרוש היה ממנה מפני גזירת פרעה וחזר והחזירה ועשה בה ליקוחין שניים…..

The manuscript known as Oxford CCC 165 (Neubauer 2440) is also considered important because it may be the oldest Rashi manuscript we have (circa 1194). The Miriam story does not appear there either.

Munich 5, which contains the text of Rashi supplemented by other Medrashic comments, is considered important by some scholars because of its age.[2] The story is missing from from the actual text of Rashi פָּרוּשׁ הָיָה מִמֶּנָּה מִפְּנֵי גְּזֵרַת פַּרְעֹה, וְהֶחֱזִירָהּ וְעָשָׂה בָהּ לִקּוּחִין שְׁנִיִּים

It is recorded later on giving another viewpoint as to Miriam’s advice, i.e. that Miriam encouraged her father to re-marry because she had a prophetic vision that Yocheved would give birth to the redeemer of Israel.

There are many other manuscripts available on the internet. Al HaTorah includes links to over 60 manuscripts from the 12^th century to the 15^th century. https://alhatorah.org/Commentators:Online_Rashi_Manuscripts

They are known usually by the holding library. Aside from the ones shown above, they are known for example as Hamburg 13, Oxford-Bodley Opp. 34, London 26917, Berlin 1221, Berlin Qu 514, Florence Plut.III.03, Vatican Urbinati 1, Paris 155, Parma 2708, Parma 2868, and Parma 3081.

None of the over 40 manuscripts I checked includes this comment.

Rashi incunabula also do not contain the Miriam story, nor did I find it in any Chumash with Rashi in the 1500’s.[3]

Here are the texts in three incunabula[4]

Guadalajara Alkabetz 1476, Reggio di Calabria, 1475 Rome 1470

I have found Hijar 1490 to differ with other incunabula, but not here.

Here are some examples of the text of Rashi in printed editions of the 1500’s.

Here is the influential Sabionetta printed edition of Rashi of 1557

I have found Venice 1567 Cristoforo Zanetti to differ in places with other Chumashim, but not here.

There is also no comment on the text of Rashi including the Miriam story in any early of the Meforshai Rashi such as Riva, Rav Eliyahu Mizrahi and Gur Aryeh.[5]

I found the first reference to it in Yosef Da’at (Prague 1609), and it is ascribed to a “Rashi Klaf”:

Avraham Berliner leaves it out in both editions of Zechor L’Avraham (1868 and 1905) even though by 1905 he stated that he had seen 100 Rashi manuscripts.[6]

It was added later on into the text of Rashi albeit in parentheses and was ascribed to a Rashi Yashan. This is Hanau 1611-14. I do not know with certainty if its source was Yosef Da’at or a previously printed edition of Rashi.

It was not included in the Basel Mikraot Gedolot of 1618.

Afterwards we do find it in Menasseh ben Israel’s edition of Chumash of 1635:

But not in Benveniste’s 1644 Amsterdam edition of Rashi:

It was included in the first edition of Siftei Chachamim Amsterdam 1670. After that it was included in most printed editions, although not in all.

What is the source of this Drasha? Its main source is a Gemara in Sotah 12a

וַיֵּלֶךְ אִישׁ מִבֵּית לֵוִי לְהֵיכָן הָלַךְ אָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה בַּר זְבִינָא שֶׁהָלַךְ בַּעֲצַת בִּתּוֹ תָּנָא עַמְרָם גְּדוֹל הַדּוֹר הָיָה כֵּיוָן שֶׁרָאָה שֶׁאָמַר פַּרְעֹה הָרָשָׁע כׇּל הַבֵּן הַיִּלּוֹד הַיְאֹרָה תַּשְׁלִיכֻהוּ אָמַר לַשָּׁוְא אָנוּ עֲמֵלִין עָמַד וְגֵירַשׁ אֶת אִשְׁתּוֹ עָמְדוּ כּוּלָּן וְגֵירְשׁוּ אֶת נְשׁוֹתֵיהֶן אָמְרָה לוֹ בִּתּוֹ אַבָּא קָשָׁה גְּזֵירָתְךָ יוֹתֵר מִשֶּׁל פַּרְעֹה שֶׁפַּרְעֹה לֹא גָּזַר אֶלָּא עַל הַזְּכָרִים וְאַתָּה גָּזַרְתָּ עַל הַזְּכָרִים וְעַל הַנְּקֵיבוֹת ….. עָמַד וְהֶחְזִיר אֶת אִשְׁתּוֹ עָמְדוּ כּוּלָּן וְהֶחְזִירוּ אֶת נְשׁוֹתֵיהֶן וַיִּקַּח וַיַּחְזִור[7]

A similar idea is found in Medrash Rabbah 1:19

מדרש רבה על שמות א: יט.

וַיֵּלֶךְ אִישׁ מִבֵּית לֵוִי להיכן הלך אמר רבי יהודה בר רבי זבינא שהלך בעצת בתו תניא עמרם גדול הדור היה וכוּ’ וַיִּקַּח אֶת בַּת לֵוִי והחזיר לא נאמר אלא ויקח אמר רבי יהודה בר רבי זבינא שעשה לה מעשה לקוחים

In terms of scholarly editions, Rashi HaShalem Mechon Ariel (1992) does not include it. [8] Rashi HaShalem even goes out of its way to argue against including the Miriam story by writing “It appears to me that Rashi Davka did not cite the Drashot in Gemara Sotah…. because he only included items that are proven from ‘P’shat Ha’Katuv’”

Conclusion

It is important to know which sources Rashi chose not to include in his commentary. I believe that Rashi did not include the Miriam story in his commentary on Shemot 2:1. It was first cited by the Sefer Yosef Da’at which was written in 1609, who ascribed it to a Rashi Klaf which he had. Clearly it was there, but since it was unique among manuscripts or printed editions, I believe his manuscript had this story added to it sometime after Rashi. All scholarly editions today do not include it.

[1] From the Website Al HaTorah

https://alhatorah.org/Commentators:Rashi_Leipzig_1/1/en

The popularity of Rashi’s Torah commentary and the tendency of medieval scholars and copyists to add to it their marginal glosses combined to create enormous variation between different manuscripts and editions of the commentary…. On this backdrop, 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….
[2] From the KTIV website in its description of Munich 5 “כמו כן מביא הרבה ממדרשי חז“ל והרבה מאד מתרגום יונתן”
[3] Aside from the two editions shown below, I checked the following Rashi texts from the 1500’s and did not find the Miriam story

Bomberg Mikraot Gedolot 1518, Rashi Bomberg 1522, Rimini 1525, Bomberg Mikraot Gedolot 1524-26, Augsburg 1534, Rashi Bomberg 1538, Venice Giustiani 1548, Riva di Trento 1561, Venice Juan Di Gara 1567, Cracow 1587, Venice 1590

[4] Rashi HaMevuar (2016) confirms that the words are missing from other incunabula by writing “בכל הדפוסים ליתא לתיבות אלה.”

[5] It is clear from Riva that the story was not included in Rashi because he quotes Rashi, and then adds the quotation from Sotah:
ויקח את בת לוי. פרש“י פרוש היה ממנה מפני גזרת פרעה והחזירה וכבר הוא מפורש בפ“ק דסוטה למה החזירה דאיתא התם וז“ל תנא עמרם גדול הדור היהb
[6] Berliner often includes text which he saw in Yosef Da’at from a Ktav Yad Yosef Miklosh had from 1293

“עוד ספחתי אל ההערות את הנוסחאות אשר הביא בעל “יוסף דעת מכ“י אחד אשר היה לפניו משנת נ“ג לאלף הששי

The author of Yosef Da’at writes about a Klaf Yashan Noshan as follows”

ובפרט רש“י קלף ישן נושן… לערך שלוש מאות שנה ויותר שמצא בלובלין

[7] It is interesting to note that although Amram is described as a “Gadol HaDor,” Chazal were not hesitant to ascribe the winning argument to Miriam.
[8] Roedelheim 1860 does not contain the story in Rashi