S.A.L.T. - Thursday

Dedicated in memory of Tsirele bat Moche Eliezer
whose yahrzeit is 11 Kislev, by Family Rueff

Towards the beginning of Parashat Vayishlach, we read of the enormous gifts Yaakov sends ahead to Esav in an effort to appease his vengeful brother before their reunion.  Besides sending these gifts, Yaakov also issues very specific instructions to the messengers as to what they should tell Esav.  He opens his charge to them by saying, "When Esav my brother meets and asks you, 'Whose are you, where are you going, and whose are these before you?'"  Yaakov then tells his servants what to tell his brother.

Today we will discuss a grammatical issue relevant to this verse, one which Rashi addresses in his commentary.  We suggest that you have the Hebrew text of this verse as well as of Rashi''s commentary on this verse open before you as you read, and that you look up the two verses Rashi cites in the original Hebrew.  Due to the technical, grammatical nature of today's discussion, a familiarity with the original Hebrew is of particular importance.

Yaakov foresees Esav asking two questions beginning with the word "le-mi," literally, "to whom": "le-mi ata" - whose are you; "le-mi eileh lefanekha" - whose are these before you.  Esav will first ask who the messengers are, meaning, who dispatched them, and, secondly, for whom the lavish gifts are intended.  Generally speaking, "le-mi" would translate as "to whom."  Here, however, the word is used to mean "of whom," or "whose." Rashi indeed makes this point, but his comments give rise to considerable confusion: "Le-mi ata - whose are you… le-mi eileh lefanekha - and these [animals] before you, whose are they, to whom is this gift sent?  The letter 'lamed' serves in the beginning of a word in place of 'shel' [the possessive form, in this instance 'whose'], such as 'and everything you see is mine [li hu - Bereishit 31:43],' and 'The earth and all that it holds is the Lord's [l'Hashem - Tehillim 24:1] - 'shel Hashem' ['Hashem's,' as opposed to 'to Hashem']."  Rashi's comments appear inherently self-contradictory.  He translates both instances of "le-mi" in this verse to mean, "whose," as opposed to "to whom," and then proceeds to cite other examples of this usage of the "lamed" prefix. However, in translating the clause, "le-mi eileh lefanekha" (the second "le-mi" in the verse), Rashi writes, "and these [animals] before you, whose are they, to whom is this gift sent."  He translates this clause to mean both "whose" as well as "to whom."  Why does Rashi add "to whom is this gift sent" if he goes through such trouble to emphasize that "le-mi" in this verse means "whose" and not "to whom"?

This question was raised and addressed by Rav Yaakov Shaul Weinfeld, in his Mishnat Yaakov (20^th century).  He writes that he found in earlier editions of Rashi's commentary two significant differences from our editions that resolve this difficulty and bring an entirely new meaning to his comments on this verse.  First and foremost, the earlier editions omit the clause, "whose are they" in Rashi's comments to the question "le-mi eileh lefanekha." Meaning, Rashi translates the second "le-mi" not as "whose," as he does the first "le-mi," but rather as "to whom."  Secondly, Rab Weinfeld notes, in the earlier additions, Rashi writes "the letter 'lamed' serves at the beginning of a word in place of 'shel' IN SEVERAL PLACES."  Rashi here seeks to demonstrate not simply that the "lamed" prefix can denote the possessive "shel," but that at times it means "shel" while at other times it means "to." After all, according to these editions, Rashi translates the two instances of "le-mi" in this verse to have two different meanings - the first means "whose" while the second means "to whom."  He therefore seeks to demonstrate that indeed the "lamed" prefix at times means "shel" while elsewhere denotes "to."

This brings us to a third difference between the earlier and common editions of Rashi's commentary. In our editions, as quoted above, Rashi cites the two verses (one from earlier in Bereishit, and one from Tehillim) and, after citing the second verse - "The earth and all that it holds is the Lord's" - he adds, "shel Hashem" [the Lord's, as opposed to 'to the Lord']."  In the earlier editions, by contrast, the final two words, "shel Hashem," are omitted.  Hence, Rav Weinfeld speculates that Rashi in fact interpreted "l'Hashem" in that verse in Tehillim to mean "to the Lord," and not "the Lord's," thus rendering that verse a precedent for the second instance of "le-mi" in this verse, where the "lamed" prefix means "to."  Accordingly, we should read the verse in Tehillim as follows: "To David, a song TO THE LORD [who owns] the earth and all that it holds."  Thus, the term "l'Hashem" indeed means "to the Lord," rather than "the Lord's."  Rav Weinfeld adds that this will help explain the immediately following verse in Tehillim: " - for He established it on oceans, and set it up on rivers."  Meaning, we should sing to the Lord who owns the earth because He built and fashioned it. According to the common reading of the first verse - "The earth and all it holds is the Lord's," it is difficult to understand why the next verse would explain, "for He established it on oceans."  Therefore, Rav Weinfeld suggests, it stands to reason that Rashi interpreted "l'Hashem" to mean "to the Lord," rather than "the Lord's."

********************

<<PREVIOUS DAY'S SALT     NEXT DAY'S SALT>>

Our SALT Archives house nearly two decades of divrei Torah. Click here.  
More recent SALTs can be found by searching for SALT in our Advanced Search box, along with the parsha name. See below for an example.