(Please include header and footer when redistributing this material.)
_________________________________________________________________
THE DAFYOMI DISCUSSION LIST
brought to you by Kollel Iyun Hadaf of Yerushalayim
Rosh Kollel Rabbi Mordecai Kornfeld
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[REPLY TO THIS MESSAGE TO DISCUSS THE DAF WITH THE KOLLEL]
________________________________________________________________
Sukah 034b: Targum on the Four Minim
Stuart Plaskow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> asked:
Dear Rabbi Kornfeld,
In Sefer Vayikra. Ch.23 Verse 40. I find the Onkelus commentary
problematic, as he appears to use the word esrog,and lulav in the PLURAL.
Am I mistaken in understanding the grammar?
Gmar Chatima Tova,
Stuart Plaskow
--------------
The Kollel replies:
Stuart,
You are raising a very interesting point, and in fact the Ramban on the
verse discusses your question.
The first thing that comes to mind is that the Targum might be alluding to
the Gemara (Sukah 41a) that derives from the word "u'Lekachtem" that each
and every Jew must take the four Minim -- it is not sufficient for a single
set to be taken by the Beis Din (see Tosfos Menachos 27a DH u'Lekachtem).
By using the plural form, the Targum implies that many sets are taken by
many people, rather than a single set which is taken by one person. This
seems to be the intention of the Ramban there as well.
But I think that there is more to it than that. You are touching on one of
the basic grammatical differences between Lashon ha'Kodesh and Aramaic. In
Lashon ha'Kodesh , the singular noun is often used to represent not just a
single object but an entire species (see Midrash Bereishis Raba 75:6,
Temurah 9a). Thus, instead of "a citron fruit," Pri Etz Hadar could mean
"the citron fruit." Examples of this abound, see for instance, Bereishis
32:6 (Shor va'Chamor), Bamidbar 15:38 (Tzitzis) Devarim 25:15 (Even...
Eifah). Aramaic has no such usage of the singular noun; thus in all of
these cases the Targum uses the plural in his translation.
Here, too, the Targum understood that the four items mentioned in the Pasuk
refer to the species and not to the object (perhaps because many of each
item were taken by Klal Yisrael, as we mentioned above). Therefore it
translated them in the plural.
One may ask that if this is true, why did the Pasuk describe the Lulav and
Aravah with the plural nouns? They should also be written in singular,
referring to the entire species. (This question, by the way, may also be
asked on the opinion that maintains that we take on one of each of the four
Minim, see Sukah 34b and Gemara there.) The answer might be that any of a
number of *species* of palms and willows may be used for the Mitzvah, so
even the species must be mentioned in plural form. (I wonder if this is an
allusion that even the Canary Island Lulavim and weeping willows are
acceptable for the Mitzvah.)
Perhaps a more plausible answer to this last question is that "Kapos
Temarim" *is* singlular. Kapos means "bunched together," (like the Aramaic
"Kafus"). Arvei Nachal may also be singular (as opposed to Arvos Nachal).
Perhaps someone who knows Hebrew grammar better than I can offer his
suggestions about this.
Chag Same'ach,
Mordecai Kornfeld
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, send email to
[EMAIL PROTECTED] with this text in the body of the message:
unsubscribe daf-discuss
