Difference between revisions of "Literary:Redundancy/0"

From AlHaTorah.org
Jump to navigation Jump to search
m
m
 
(23 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown)
Line 25: Line 25:
  
 
<h2>Resumptive Repetition</h2>
 
<h2>Resumptive Repetition</h2>
<p>Another literary device which might explain several cases of seeming redundancy in the Biblical text is a technique known as resumptive repetition.&#160; Since Tanakh does not have parentheses, commas, and other similar markers, it will sometimes use repetition to hint to the reader that a section of text is parenthetical. By repeating the last statement made before the digression, Tanakh lets the reader know that the tangent has ended and that the earlier narrative is now resuming.&#160; At times, too, this technique points to achronology in the text, indicating that the intervening unit occurred simultaneously with the surrounding story.</p>
+
<p>Another literary device which might explain several cases of seeming redundancy in the Biblical text is a technique known as resumptive repetition.&#160; Since Tanakh does not have parentheses, commas, and other similar markers, it will sometimes use repetition to hint to the reader that a section of text is parenthetical. By repeating the last statement made before the digression, Tanakh lets the reader know that the tangent has ended and that the earlier narrative is now resuming.&#160; At times, too, this technique points to achronology in the text, indicating that the intervening unit occurred simultaneously with the surrounding story. For an interactive module on this topic, see <a href="https://mg.alhatorah.org/Resumptive_Repetition_Module.html">Resumptive Repetition</a>.</p>
 
<p><b>I. Resumptive repetition of a phrase or more to resume an earlier narrative</b></p>
 
<p><b>I. Resumptive repetition of a phrase or more to resume an earlier narrative</b></p>
 
<ul>
 
<ul>
Line 81: Line 81:
  
 
<h2>Double Vayomer</h2>
 
<h2>Double Vayomer</h2>
<p>In many verses, one finds that the word "וַיֹּאמֶר" is mentioned twice despite there not being an explicit change in speaker in between.<fn>Many commentators note the phenomenon, giving different explanations for the various cases. Abarbanel and Malbim comment on it especially often.</fn> At times, there is no speech at all in between the two occurrences of the word "וַיֹּאמֶר" (as in Bereshit 22:7:"וַיֹּאמֶר יִצְחָק אֶל אַבְרָהָם אָבִיו וַיֹּאמֶר אָבִי"),<fn>See Bereshit 22:7, Bereshit 46:2, Shemot 1:15-16, Shemot 16:6-8, Vayikra 16:1-2, Shemuel II 14:4, Shemuel II 21:2-3, Shemuel II 24:17, Melakhim I 3:26, Yirmeyahu 28:5-6, Yechezkel 10:2, Esther 7:5, Nechemyah 3:34, Divrei HaYamim II 31:10.</fn>&#160; while at other times, the initial "וַיֹּאמֶר"&#160; is followed by a speech, but in the middle of that speech, the word "וַיֹּאמֶר" appears again, seemingly for no reason. Several explanations have been given for the phenomenon,<fn>For a comprehensive discussion of the topic see מאיר שילוח, "ויאמר... ויאמר", ספר קורנגרין (תשכ"ד): 251-267.</fn> with some viewing this as simply a literary device and "a way of the text",<fn>See Ibn Janach, Ibn Ezra, Ramban and R"Y Bekhor Shor in the examples brought below. They each view at least some of the cases as being examples of resumptive repetition, which serves a functional role but adds no deeper meaning to the text.</fn> and others assuming that there is something to be learned from the doubling in each case:<fn>R. Yochanan in several places (Eikhah Rabbah 1:41, Tanchuma Emor 3, Midrash Shemuel 24:8, and compare Vayikra Rabbah 26:8) asserts that any time the word "וַיֹּאמֶר" appears twice one is supposed to learn something out from the verse ("צָרִיךְ לִדָּרֵשׁ"), implying that this is not a literary device, but rather each case might have its own explanation.</fn></p>
+
<p>In many verses, one finds that the word "וַיֹּאמֶר" is mentioned twice despite there not being an explicit change in speaker in between.<fn>Many commentators note the phenomenon, giving different explanations for the various cases. Abarbanel and Malbim comment on it especially often.</fn> At times, there is no speech at all in between the two occurrences of the word "וַיֹּאמֶר" (as in Bereshit 22:7:"וַיֹּאמֶר יִצְחָק אֶל אַבְרָהָם אָבִיו וַיֹּאמֶר אָבִי"),<fn>See Bereshit 22:7, Bereshit 46:2, Shemot 1:15-16, Shemot 16:6-8, Vayikra 16:1-2, Shemuel II 14:4, Shemuel II 21:2-3, Shemuel II 24:17, Melakhim I 3:26, Yirmeyahu 28:5-6, Yechezkel 10:2, Esther 7:5, Nechemyah 3:34, Divrei HaYamim II 31:10.</fn>&#160; while at other times, the initial "וַיֹּאמֶר"&#160; is followed by a speech, but in the middle of that speech, the word "וַיֹּאמֶר" appears again, seemingly for no reason. Several explanations have been given for the phenomenon,<fn>For a comprehensive discussion of the topic and literature on it, see מאיר שילוח, "ויאמר... ויאמר", ספר קורנגרין (תשכ"ד): 251-267. See also, Dr. R. Steiner, "He Said, He Said”: Repetition of the Quotation Formula in the Joseph Story and Other Biblical Narratives", JBL 138:3 (2019): 473–495.</fn> with some viewing this as simply a literary device and "a way of the text",<fn>See Ibn Janach, Ibn Ezra, Ramban and R"Y Bekhor Shor in the examples brought below. They each view at least some of the cases as being examples of resumptive repetition, which serves a functional role but adds no deeper meaning to the text.</fn> and others assuming that there is something to be learned from the doubling in each case:<fn>R. Yochanan in several places (Eikhah Rabbah 1:41, Tanchuma Emor 3, Midrash Shemuel 24:8, and compare Vayikra Rabbah 26:8) asserts that any time the word "וַיֹּאמֶר" appears twice one is supposed to learn something out from the verse ("צָרִיךְ לִדָּרֵשׁ"), implying that this is not a literary device, but rather each case might have its own explanation.</fn></p>
 
<b>I. Cases in which no speech interrupts the two "ויאמר"'s</b><br/>
 
<b>I. Cases in which no speech interrupts the two "ויאמר"'s</b><br/>
 
<ul>
 
<ul>
Line 103: Line 103:
 
<ul>
 
<ul>
 
<ul>
 
<ul>
<li><b>Lack of desired response</b> – <a href="Bereshit15-2-3" data-aht="source">Bereshit 15:2-3</a>,<fn>See Chizkuni who notes "לפי שהפסיק בנתיים", without elaborating.&#160; Abarbanel, though, explains that Avraham at first only hinted to his complaint regarding lack of children, hoping Hashem would respond without a need to elaborate. Only when Hashem did not say anything was he forced to be more explicit. Cf. Netziv who suggests that Avraham recognized that he had not spoken properly and emended his wording.</fn> <a href="Bereshit16-9-11" data-aht="source">Bereshit 16:9-11</a>,<fn>See Abarbanel that the angel needed to add argument after argument until Hagar was persuaded to go home. After each he paused, hoping she would be convinced. See also R. Hirsch Shemot 32:9.</fn> <a href="Bereshit20-9-10" data-aht="source">Bereshit 20:9-10</a>,<fn>It is possible that Avimelekh's initial accusation is met by silence by the shocked or fearful Avraham, leading to him restate his claim in calmer tones. Alternatively, since Avimelekh's first statement Avimelekh is expressed as a rhetorical question, Avraham does not reply, leading Avimelekh to ask Avraham explicitly to explain his actions, "מָה רָאִיתָ כִּי עָשִׂיתָ אֶת הַדָּבָר הַזֶּה". See Abarbanel and Shadal and compare Netziv.</fn> <a href="Bereshit24-23-25" data-aht="source">Bereshit 24:23-25</a>,<fn>See R. D"Z Hoffmann (on Bereshit 37:1).&#160; He does not explain why Rivka paused, perhaps she was expecting the servant to say something more about the relationship.</fn> <a href="Bereshit27-36" data-aht="source">Bereshit 27:36</a>,<fn>Esav might have paused, hoping for Yitzchak to reply to his accusations against his brother.&#160; When he did not, he continued his plea.</fn> <a href="Bereshit30-25-28" data-aht="source">Bereshit 30:27-28</a>,<fn>See Netziv and R. D"Z Hoffmann that Lavan is hesitant to offer Yaakov wages and only after his words are met with silence does he realize he needs to continue with an offer.</fn> <a href="Bereshit37-21" data-aht="source">Bereshit 37:21-22</a>,<fn>See R"Y Bekhor Shor, Abarbanel&#160; and R. D"Z Hoffmann that Reuven did not succeed in persuading the brothers at first and needed to find additional arguments. Compare the Netziv.&#160; See below, that alternatively, Reuven's first statement is said to himself and only the second one was addressed to the brothers.</fn> <a href="Bereshit45-4" data-aht="source">Bereshit 45:3-4</a>,<fn>Here, it is explicit in the verses that Yosef expected a response but that the brothers were too terrified to say anything, leading Yosef to continue.</fn> <a href="Bereshit47-3-4" data-aht="source">Bereshit 47:3-4</a>,<fn>See Abarbanel that the brothers pause after saying that they are shepherds hoping that Paroh on his own will suggest that they move to Goshen. When Paroh is not forthcoming they speak again, spelling out their request.</fn> <a href="Shemot5-4-5" data-aht="source">Shemot 5:4-5</a>,<fn>See Rav Hirsch that Paroh's initial words were met with silence, leading him to change tactics and try again.</fn> <a href="Shemot32-7-10" data-aht="source">Shemot 32:7-10</a>,<fn>See Abarbanel and R. Hirsch that Hashem paused, expecting Moshe to react to the news of the nation's sin, but from utter shock, shame, and dismay, Moshe was not able to say anything.</fn> <a href="Shemot33-19-21" data-aht="source">Shemot 33:19-21</a>,<fn>See Netziv that Moshe had asked "show me your glory", so that when Hashem responded in verse 19 that he would only "hear" Hashem, Moshe was disappointed. This led Hashem to explain the reason for his inability to show Himself in verse 20, for "no one can see me and live".&#160; Moshe was still disappointed, prompting a new response; Hashem tells him that he will allow him to "see his back" but not his front.</fn> <a href="Bemidbar32-2-5" data-aht="source">Bemidbar 32:2-5</a>,<fn>Abarbanel explains that Reuven and Gad hesitantly hinted to their request to live on the eastern flank of the Jordan, hoping Moshe would understand without them needing to elaborate, but when he was silent, they were forced to say what they wanted explicitly.&#160; He notes that this is common human behavior: "It frequently happens that a humble man is embarrassed to request something from his lord explicitly, so he makes the request through hints. And if the lord does not understand his hints or will not respond to them, then the petitioner is forced to speak a second time, making the same request explicitly".</fn> <a href="ShemuelI16-10-11" data-aht="source">Shemuel I 16:10-11</a>,<fn>After Shemuel tells Yishai that none of the children he presented were chosen by Hashem, he likely paused, assuming that Yishai would mention that there is yet another child. When Yishia is silent (perhaps thinking that David was too young to be&#160; a potential candidate), Shemuel prods him, asking explicitly, "are there no more children?"</fn> <a href="ShemuelI17-8-10" data-aht="source">Shemuel I 17:8-10</a>,<fn>After Golyat asks Israel to choose someone to fight, he likely paused to see if anyone was willing. Only after no one responded did he resume his taunts.</fn> <a href="ShemuelI17-34-37" data-aht="source">Shemuel I 17:34-37</a>,<fn>See Hoil Moshe that when David saw that his initial comments had not persuaded Shaul and was still doubtful as to whether he would succeed against Golyat, David adds another point, his trust in Hashem. Cf. Abarbanel and Malbim similarly, though they might think that the second "ויאמר" comes simply because this was a new, distinct argument.</fn> <a href="ShemuelI26-9-10" data-aht="source">Shemuel I 26:9-10</a>,<fn>See Abarbanel that David might not have persuaded Avishai that he should not kill Shaul with his initial words, and so he needed to continue with other explanations. See also Malbim.</fn> <a href="ShemuelII16-10-11" data-aht="source">Shemuel II 16:10-11</a>,<fn>See Abarbanel who notes that when David saw that Avishai was not appeased and persuaded by his initial arguments not to punish Shimi, he added another.</fn> <a href="ShemuelII17-7-8" data-aht="source">Shemuel II 17:7-8</a>,<fn>See Nechama Leibowitz that likely after Chushai's initial comment, he was met with shock and mutinous looks of protest that he dared suggest that Achitofel's advice was problematic. Only after the murmuring quieted, did he continue to explain himself.</fn> <a href="MelakhimI2-42-44" data-aht="source">Melakhim I 2:42-44</a>,<fn>See Abarbanel that after Shelomo asked Shimi why he did not keep the oath, he paused for an answer. Only when none was forthcoming, did he resume his speech.</fn> <a href="MelakhimI21-19" data-aht="source">Melakhim I 21:19</a>,<fn>See Abarbanel that the doubling reflects Hashem's desire that Eliyahu wait for Achav's response to his first question, allowing for him to repent, before continuing on with the punishment.</fn> <a href="Yirmeyahu37-17" data-aht="source">Yirmeyahu 37:17</a>,<fn>See Menachem of Posquieres.</fn>&#160; <a href="DivreiHaYamimII24-6-8" data-aht="source">Divrei HaYamim II 24:6-8</a><fn>After Yoash asked Yehoyada why he did not do as commanded, he presumably waited for his reply, and only when no defense was forthcoming did he present his own solution to the problem..</fn></li>
+
<li><b>Lack of desired response</b> – <a href="Bereshit9-1-17" data-aht="source">Bereshit 9:8-17</a>,<fn>Robert Alter, in his commentary on Sefer Bereshit explains, “Here, God flatly states His promise never to destroy the world again. The flood-battered Noah evidently needs further reassurance, so God goes on ... to offer the rainbow as an outward token of His covenant.”</fn> <a href="Bereshit15-2-3" data-aht="source">Bereshit 15:2-3</a>,<fn>See Chizkuni who notes "לפי שהפסיק בנתיים", without elaborating.&#160; Abarbanel, though, explains that Avraham at first only hinted to his complaint regarding lack of children, hoping Hashem would respond without a need to elaborate. Only when Hashem did not say anything was he forced to be more explicit. Cf. Netziv who suggests that Avraham recognized that he had not spoken properly and emended his wording.</fn> <a href="Bereshit16-9-11" data-aht="source">Bereshit 16:9-11</a>,<fn>See Abarbanel that the angel needed to add argument after argument until Hagar was persuaded to go home. After each he paused, hoping she would be convinced. See also R. Hirsch Shemot 32:9.</fn> <a href="Bereshit20-9-10" data-aht="source">Bereshit 20:9-10</a>,<fn>It is possible that Avimelekh's initial accusation is met by silence by the shocked or fearful Avraham, leading to him restate his claim in calmer tones. Alternatively, since Avimelekh's first statement Avimelekh is expressed as a rhetorical question, Avraham does not reply, leading Avimelekh to ask Avraham explicitly to explain his actions, "מָה רָאִיתָ כִּי עָשִׂיתָ אֶת הַדָּבָר הַזֶּה". See Abarbanel and Shadal and compare Netziv.</fn> <a href="Bereshit24-23-25" data-aht="source">Bereshit 24:23-25</a>,<fn>See R. D"Z Hoffmann (on Bereshit 37:1).&#160; He does not explain why Rivka paused, perhaps she was expecting the servant to say something more about the relationship.</fn> <a href="Bereshit27-36" data-aht="source">Bereshit 27:36</a>,<fn>Esav might have paused, hoping for Yitzchak to reply to his accusations against his brother.&#160; When he did not, he continued his plea.</fn> <a href="Bereshit30-25-28" data-aht="source">Bereshit 30:27-28</a>,<fn>See Netziv and R. D"Z Hoffmann that Lavan is hesitant to offer Yaakov wages and only after his words are met with silence does he realize he needs to continue with an offer.</fn> <a href="Bereshit37-21" data-aht="source">Bereshit 37:21-22</a>,<fn>See R"Y Bekhor Shor, Abarbanel&#160; and R. D"Z Hoffmann that Reuven did not succeed in persuading the brothers at first and needed to find additional arguments. Compare the Netziv.&#160; See below, that alternatively, Reuven's first statement is said to himself and only the second one was addressed to the brothers.</fn> <a href="Bereshit45-4" data-aht="source">Bereshit 45:3-4</a>,<fn>Here, it is explicit in the verses that Yosef expected a response but that the brothers were too terrified to say anything, leading Yosef to continue.</fn> <a href="Bereshit47-3-4" data-aht="source">Bereshit 47:3-4</a>,<fn>See Abarbanel that the brothers pause after saying that they are shepherds hoping that Paroh on his own will suggest that they move to Goshen. When Paroh is not forthcoming they speak again, spelling out their request.</fn> <a href="Shemot5-4-5" data-aht="source">Shemot 5:4-5</a>,<fn>See Rav Hirsch that Paroh's initial words were met with silence, leading him to change tactics and try again.</fn> <a href="Shemot32-7-10" data-aht="source">Shemot 32:7-10</a>,<fn>See Abarbanel and R. Hirsch that Hashem paused, expecting Moshe to react to the news of the nation's sin, but from utter shock, shame, and dismay, Moshe was not able to say anything.</fn> <a href="Shemot33-19-21" data-aht="source">Shemot 33:19-21</a>,<fn>See Netziv that Moshe had asked "show me your glory", so that when Hashem responded in verse 19 that he would only "hear" Hashem, Moshe was disappointed. This led Hashem to explain the reason for his inability to show Himself in verse 20, for "no one can see me and live".&#160; Moshe was still disappointed, prompting a new response; Hashem tells him that he will allow him to "see his back" but not his front.</fn> <a href="Bemidbar32-2-5" data-aht="source">Bemidbar 32:2-5</a>,<fn>Abarbanel explains that Reuven and Gad hesitantly hinted to their request to live on the eastern flank of the Jordan, hoping Moshe would understand without them needing to elaborate, but when he was silent, they were forced to say what they wanted explicitly.&#160; He notes that this is common human behavior: "It frequently happens that a humble man is embarrassed to request something from his lord explicitly, so he makes the request through hints. And if the lord does not understand his hints or will not respond to them, then the petitioner is forced to speak a second time, making the same request explicitly".</fn> <a href="ShemuelI16-10-11" data-aht="source">Shemuel I 16:10-11</a>,<fn>After Shemuel tells Yishai that none of the children he presented were chosen by Hashem, he likely paused, assuming that Yishai would mention that there is yet another child. When Yishia is silent (perhaps thinking that David was too young to be&#160; a potential candidate), Shemuel prods him, asking explicitly, "are there no more children?"</fn> <a href="ShemuelI17-8-10" data-aht="source">Shemuel I 17:8-10</a>,<fn>After Golyat asks Israel to choose someone to fight, he likely paused to see if anyone was willing. Only after no one responded did he resume his taunts.</fn> <a href="ShemuelI17-34-37" data-aht="source">Shemuel I 17:34-37</a>,<fn>See Hoil Moshe that when David saw that his initial comments had not persuaded Shaul and was still doubtful as to whether he would succeed against Golyat, David adds another point, his trust in Hashem. Cf. Abarbanel and Malbim similarly, though they might think that the second "ויאמר" comes simply because this was a new, distinct argument.</fn> <a href="ShemuelI26-9-10" data-aht="source">Shemuel I 26:9-10</a>,<fn>See Abarbanel that David might not have persuaded Avishai that he should not kill Shaul with his initial words, and so he needed to continue with other explanations. See also Malbim.</fn> <a href="ShemuelII16-10-11" data-aht="source">Shemuel II 16:10-11</a>,<fn>See Abarbanel who notes that when David saw that Avishai was not appeased and persuaded by his initial arguments not to punish Shimi, he added another.</fn> <a href="ShemuelII17-7-8" data-aht="source">Shemuel II 17:7-8</a>,<fn>See Nechama Leibowitz that likely after Chushai's initial comment, he was met with shock and mutinous looks of protest that he dared suggest that Achitofel's advice was problematic. Only after the murmuring quieted, did he continue to explain himself.</fn> <a href="MelakhimI2-42-44" data-aht="source">Melakhim I 2:42-44</a>,<fn>See Abarbanel that after Shelomo asked Shimi why he did not keep the oath, he paused for an answer. Only when none was forthcoming, did he resume his speech.</fn> <a href="MelakhimI21-19" data-aht="source">Melakhim I 21:19</a>,<fn>See Abarbanel that the doubling reflects Hashem's desire that Eliyahu wait for Achav's response to his first question, allowing for him to repent, before continuing on with the punishment.</fn> <a href="Yirmeyahu37-17" data-aht="source">Yirmeyahu 37:17</a>,<fn>See Menachem of Posquieres.</fn>&#160; <a href="DivreiHaYamimII24-6-8" data-aht="source">Divrei HaYamim II 24:6-8</a><fn>After Yoash asked Yehoyada why he did not do as commanded, he presumably waited for his reply, and only when no defense was forthcoming did he present his own solution to the problem..</fn></li>
 
<li><b>Intervening event</b> – <a href="Bereshit15-5" data-aht="source">Bereshit 15:5</a>,<fn>Here, Avraham might have looked up at the vastness of the stars, as requested, before Hashem continued speaking.</fn> <a href="Bereshit19-9" data-aht="source">Bereshit 19:9</a>,<fn>After the people of Sedom tell Lot to approach, they wait for him to do so before continuing. [See R. D"Z Hoffmann that the doubling represents a pause]. Cf. Netziv who suggests that there might have been multiple speakers, and that different groups within the inhabitants of Sedom said different things so that each "ויאמר" is really a different speaker.</fn> <a href="Bereshit45-4" data-aht="source">Bereshit 45:4</a>,<fn>Here it is explicit in the text that the brothers did an action before Yosef resumed speaking.</fn> <a href="Shemot3-5-6" data-aht="source">Shemot 3:5-6</a>,<fn>After Hashem tells Moshe to take off his shoes, Moshe likely does so, and only then does Hashem resume talking. [Compare Yehoshua 5:15].</fn> <a href="Yehoshua3-9-10" data-aht="source">Yehoshua 3:9-10</a>,<fn>As Yehoshua requests that the people "approach", they likely do so before he continues talking.&#160; [Compare Bereshit 45:4, where the intervening "approach" is explicit.]</fn> <a href="ShemuelI14-33-34" data-aht="source">Shemuel I 14:33-34</a>,<fn>In his first speech Shaul asks the nation to roll a big stone. He likely waits for them to do so and only afterwards continues talking.</fn> <a href="MelakhimII6-27-28" data-aht="source">Melakhim II 6:27-28</a>,<fn>Nechama Leibowitz suggests that after the king's initial refusal to help, the women fell into despair, perhaps bursting into tears, or even simply hunching her shoulders in distress, arousing the king's mercy and leading him to ask, "What is it?".</fn> <a href="Yirmeyahu1-7-9" data-aht="source">Yirmeyahu 1:7-9</a>,<fn>After Hashem's initial words, the verses states explicitly that Hashem put His hand on Yirmeyahu's mouth. Only after this action does He continue speaking, "הִנֵּה נָתַתִּי דְבָרַי בְּפִיךָ".</fn> <a href="Yechezkel8-12-13" data-aht="source">Yechezkel 8:12-13</a><fn>Hashem tells Yechezkel to watch the abominations being done by the nation. Even though it is not stated, Yechezkel&#160; presumably does so and only afterwards does Hashem continue the conversation.</fn></li>
 
<li><b>Intervening event</b> – <a href="Bereshit15-5" data-aht="source">Bereshit 15:5</a>,<fn>Here, Avraham might have looked up at the vastness of the stars, as requested, before Hashem continued speaking.</fn> <a href="Bereshit19-9" data-aht="source">Bereshit 19:9</a>,<fn>After the people of Sedom tell Lot to approach, they wait for him to do so before continuing. [See R. D"Z Hoffmann that the doubling represents a pause]. Cf. Netziv who suggests that there might have been multiple speakers, and that different groups within the inhabitants of Sedom said different things so that each "ויאמר" is really a different speaker.</fn> <a href="Bereshit45-4" data-aht="source">Bereshit 45:4</a>,<fn>Here it is explicit in the text that the brothers did an action before Yosef resumed speaking.</fn> <a href="Shemot3-5-6" data-aht="source">Shemot 3:5-6</a>,<fn>After Hashem tells Moshe to take off his shoes, Moshe likely does so, and only then does Hashem resume talking. [Compare Yehoshua 5:15].</fn> <a href="Yehoshua3-9-10" data-aht="source">Yehoshua 3:9-10</a>,<fn>As Yehoshua requests that the people "approach", they likely do so before he continues talking.&#160; [Compare Bereshit 45:4, where the intervening "approach" is explicit.]</fn> <a href="ShemuelI14-33-34" data-aht="source">Shemuel I 14:33-34</a>,<fn>In his first speech Shaul asks the nation to roll a big stone. He likely waits for them to do so and only afterwards continues talking.</fn> <a href="MelakhimII6-27-28" data-aht="source">Melakhim II 6:27-28</a>,<fn>Nechama Leibowitz suggests that after the king's initial refusal to help, the women fell into despair, perhaps bursting into tears, or even simply hunching her shoulders in distress, arousing the king's mercy and leading him to ask, "What is it?".</fn> <a href="Yirmeyahu1-7-9" data-aht="source">Yirmeyahu 1:7-9</a>,<fn>After Hashem's initial words, the verses states explicitly that Hashem put His hand on Yirmeyahu's mouth. Only after this action does He continue speaking, "הִנֵּה נָתַתִּי דְבָרַי בְּפִיךָ".</fn> <a href="Yechezkel8-12-13" data-aht="source">Yechezkel 8:12-13</a><fn>Hashem tells Yechezkel to watch the abominations being done by the nation. Even though it is not stated, Yechezkel&#160; presumably does so and only afterwards does Hashem continue the conversation.</fn></li>
 
<li><b>Passage of time</b> – <a href="Bereshit21-6-7" data-aht="source">Bereshit 21:6-7</a>,<fn>See R. D"Z Hoffmann that Sarah's words of verse 7 were said only months later, after she had nursed her son for a while and still maintained her renewed youth.</fn> <a href="Bereshit42-1-2" data-aht="source">Bereshit 42:1-2</a>,<fn>See Malbim that Yaakov's second statement did not directly follow the first, but was made only after time has passed, perhaps days or weeks later, when he found out with certainty that there was food in Egypt.</fn> <a href="Shemot16-6-8" data-aht="source">Shemot 16:6-8</a><fn>See R. D"Z Hoffmann, that Moshe elaborates, perhaps after some time has passed.</fn></li>
 
<li><b>Passage of time</b> – <a href="Bereshit21-6-7" data-aht="source">Bereshit 21:6-7</a>,<fn>See R. D"Z Hoffmann that Sarah's words of verse 7 were said only months later, after she had nursed her son for a while and still maintained her renewed youth.</fn> <a href="Bereshit42-1-2" data-aht="source">Bereshit 42:1-2</a>,<fn>See Malbim that Yaakov's second statement did not directly follow the first, but was made only after time has passed, perhaps days or weeks later, when he found out with certainty that there was food in Egypt.</fn> <a href="Shemot16-6-8" data-aht="source">Shemot 16:6-8</a><fn>See R. D"Z Hoffmann, that Moshe elaborates, perhaps after some time has passed.</fn></li>
Line 132: Line 132:
  
 
<h2 name="Poetic Doubling">Poetic Doubling (פסוקי דשמואל)</h2>
 
<h2 name="Poetic Doubling">Poetic Doubling (פסוקי דשמואל)</h2>
<p>Rashbam notes a phenomenon, dubbed after him "פסוקי דשמואל&#8206;,"<fn>Apparently, this term was dubbed by Rashi, presumably because Rashbam introduced him to the phenomenon. See Sefer HaGan who brings Rashbam's explanation to the doubling in Bereshit 49:22, and then adds: "כל זה מיסוד רבנו שמואל, וכשהיה רבי שלמה זקנו מגיע לאותן פסוקים היה קורא אותם פסוקי שמואל על שמו". Rashi himself brings many examples of the phenomenon in his commentary to Shemot 15:6.</fn> found in several poetic passages, in which a verse opens, diverges to mention the subject, and then doubles the opening before finishing the thought.<fn>In explaining the phenomenon, Rashbam writes, "הרי פסוק זה דוגמא לחצאים בראש המקרא {שאינו מסיים דבורו} אלא שמזכיר במי הוא מדבר וחוזר וכופל חצי ראש המקרא ומסיים דבורו"</fn> For example, see <a href="Bereshit49-22" data-aht="source">Bereshit 49:22</a>: "בֵּן פֹּרָת יוֹסֵף בֵּן פֹּרָת עֲלֵי עָיִן" or <a href="Tehillim92-10" data-aht="source">Tehillim 92:10</a>:&#160; "כִּי הִנֵּה אֹיְבֶיךָ י״י כִּי הִנֵּה אֹיְבֶיךָ יֹאבֵדוּ". What is the purpose of the doubling in such cases?</p>
+
<p>Rashbam notes a phenomenon, dubbed after him "פסוקי דשמואל&#8206;,"<fn>Apparently, this term was dubbed by Rashi, presumably because Rashbam introduced him to the phenomenon. See Sefer HaGan who brings Rashbam's explanation to the doubling in Bereshit 49:22, and then adds: "כל זה מיסוד רבנו שמואל, וכשהיה רבי שלמה זקנו מגיע לאותן פסוקים היה קורא אותם פסוקי שמואל על שמו". Rashi himself brings many examples of the phenomenon in his commentary to Shemot 15:6.</fn> found in several poetic passages, in which a verse opens, diverges to mention the subject (or to elaborate), and then doubles the opening before finishing the thought.<fn>In explaining the phenomenon, Rashbam writes, "הרי פסוק זה דוגמא לחצאים בראש המקרא {שאינו מסיים דבורו} אלא שמזכיר במי הוא מדבר וחוזר וכופל חצי ראש המקרא ומסיים דבורו"</fn> For example, see <a href="Bereshit49-22" data-aht="source">Bereshit 49:22</a>: "בֵּן פֹּרָת יוֹסֵף בֵּן פֹּרָת עֲלֵי עָיִן" or <a href="Tehillim92-10" data-aht="source">Tehillim 92:10</a>:&#160; "כִּי הִנֵּה אֹיְבֶיךָ י״י כִּי הִנֵּה אֹיְבֶיךָ יֹאבֵדוּ". What is the purpose of the doubling in such cases?</p>
 
<ul>
 
<ul>
 
<li><b>Resumptive repetition</b> –Though&#160;<multilink><a href="RashbamBereshit49-22" data-aht="source">Rashbam</a><a href="RashbamBereshit49-22" data-aht="source">Bereshit 49:22</a><a href="RashbamShemot15-6" data-aht="source">Shemot 15:6</a><a href="R. Shemuel b. Meir (Rashbam)" data-aht="parshan">About R. Shemuel b. Meir</a></multilink> does not say so explicitly,<fn>The fact that he compares the doubling of the word "וְהָיוּ" in&#160;<a href="Shemot4-9" data-aht="source">Shemot 4:9</a> (a prose passage) to the doubling in these verses suggests that he does not think the doublings are merely poetic flourishes, but that they are part of the same literary phenomenon.</fn> he might view such verses as examples of resumptive repetition.&#160; Even though the digression is but a word long, the flow of the thought is interrupted by mention of the subject and thus needs to be resumed.<fn>All these verse could have alternatively opened with mention of the subject, in which case no doubling would have been necessary (for instance, Tehilim 93:10 could have read: י"י, הִנֵּה אֹיְבֶיךָ יֹאבֵדוּ ) However, once the poet decided (probably for aesthetic reasons) to insert the subject mid-sentence, the flow of the rest of the sentence is interrupted.</fn></li>
 
<li><b>Resumptive repetition</b> –Though&#160;<multilink><a href="RashbamBereshit49-22" data-aht="source">Rashbam</a><a href="RashbamBereshit49-22" data-aht="source">Bereshit 49:22</a><a href="RashbamShemot15-6" data-aht="source">Shemot 15:6</a><a href="R. Shemuel b. Meir (Rashbam)" data-aht="parshan">About R. Shemuel b. Meir</a></multilink> does not say so explicitly,<fn>The fact that he compares the doubling of the word "וְהָיוּ" in&#160;<a href="Shemot4-9" data-aht="source">Shemot 4:9</a> (a prose passage) to the doubling in these verses suggests that he does not think the doublings are merely poetic flourishes, but that they are part of the same literary phenomenon.</fn> he might view such verses as examples of resumptive repetition.&#160; Even though the digression is but a word long, the flow of the thought is interrupted by mention of the subject and thus needs to be resumed.<fn>All these verse could have alternatively opened with mention of the subject, in which case no doubling would have been necessary (for instance, Tehilim 93:10 could have read: י"י, הִנֵּה אֹיְבֶיךָ יֹאבֵדוּ ) However, once the poet decided (probably for aesthetic reasons) to insert the subject mid-sentence, the flow of the rest of the sentence is interrupted.</fn></li>
<li><b>Emphasis</b> – One might alternatively understand such doublings as serving to emphasize a point (see Radak),<fn>For example, see his comments on <multilink><a href="RadakTehillim92-10" data-aht="source">Tehillim 92:10</a><a href="RadakTehillim92-10" data-aht="source">Tehillim 92:10</a><a href="R. David Kimchi (Radak)" data-aht="parshan">About R. David Kimchi</a></multilink>, <a href="RadakTehillim115-1" data-aht="source">115:1</a>, and <a href="RadakTehillim118-16" data-aht="source">118:16</a>.</fn> or coming to highlight that whatever action spoken of occurred multiple times or for long duration (see Ibn Ezra).<fn>See, for example, his comments on <a href="IbnEzraBereshitFirstCommentary49-22" data-aht="source">Bereshit 49:22</a>, <a href="IbnEzraShemotFirstCommentary15-6" data-aht="source">Shemot 15:6</a>, <a href="IbnEzraTehillimSecondCommentary92-10" data-aht="source">Tehillim 92:10</a>,&#160;<a href="IbnEzraTehillimSecondCommentary94-3" data-aht="source">94:3</a> and <a href="IbnEzraTehillimSecondCommentary118-16" data-aht="source">118:16</a>, writing that the repetition comes to teach "כי זה יהיה פעם אחרי פעם" (that this occurred time after time).</fn> <b><br/></b></li>
+
<li><b>Emphasis</b> – One might alternatively understand such doublings as serving to emphasize a point (see Radak),<fn>For example, see his comments on <multilink><a href="RadakTehillim92-10" data-aht="source">Tehillim 92:10</a><a href="RadakTehillim92-10" data-aht="source">Tehillim 92:10</a><a href="R. David Kimchi (Radak)" data-aht="parshan">About R. David Kimchi</a></multilink>, <a href="RadakTehillim115-1" data-aht="source">115:1</a>, and <a href="RadakTehillim118-16" data-aht="source">118:16</a>.</fn> or coming to highlight that whatever action spoken of occurred multiple times or for long duration (see Ibn Ezra).<fn>See, for example, his comments on <a href="IbnEzraBereshitFirstCommentary49-22" data-aht="source">Bereshit 49:22</a>, <a href="IbnEzraShemotFirstCommentary15-6" data-aht="source">Shemot 15:6</a>, <a href="IbnEzraTehillimSecondCommentary92-10" data-aht="source">Tehillim 92:10</a>,&#160;<a href="IbnEzraTehillimSecondCommentary94-3" data-aht="source">94:3</a> and <a href="IbnEzraTehillimSecondCommentary118-16" data-aht="source">118:16</a>, writing that the repetition comes to teach "כי זה יהיה פעם אחרי פעם" (that this occurred time after time).&#160; He uses this same rationale to explain other doublings as well.&#160; See, for example, his comments on Vayikra 26:8, Tehillim 24:9, 56:11, 68:25, 75:2, 113:1, 118:11 and 124:2.</fn> <b><br/></b></li>
 
<li><b>Aesthetics</b> – It is also possible that these are all simply poetic flourishes, with the phrases doubled for aesthetic reasons.</li>
 
<li><b>Aesthetics</b> – It is also possible that these are all simply poetic flourishes, with the phrases doubled for aesthetic reasons.</li>
<li>Examples include: <a href="Bereshit49-22" data-aht="source">Bereshit 49:22</a>, <a href="Shemot15-6" data-aht="source">Shemot 15:6</a>, <a href="Shemot15-11" data-aht="source">11</a>, <a href="Shemot15-16" data-aht="source">16</a>, <a href="Shofetim5-12" data-aht="source">Shofetim 5:12</a>, <a href="Tehillim92-10" data-aht="source">Tehillim 92:10</a>, <a href="Tehillim93-3" data-aht="source">93:3</a>, <a href="Tehillim94-3" data-aht="source">94:3</a>, <a href="Tehillim115-1" data-aht="source">115:1</a>,&#160;<a href="Tehillim118-16" data-aht="source">Tehillim 118:16</a>, <a href="Tehillim124-1-2" data-aht="source">124:1-2</a>, <a href="Kohelet1-2" data-aht="source">Kohelet 1:2</a></li>
+
<li><b>Examples include</b>: <a href="Bereshit49-22" data-aht="source">Bereshit 49:22</a>, <a href="Shemot15-6" data-aht="source">Shemot 15:6</a>, <a href="Shemot15-11" data-aht="source">11</a>, <a href="Shemot15-16" data-aht="source">16</a>, <a href="Shofetim5-12" data-aht="source">Shofetim 5:12</a>, <a href="Tehillim92-10" data-aht="source">Tehillim 92:10</a>, <a href="Tehillim93-3" data-aht="source">93:3</a>, 94:1<fn>See Ibn Ezra and Sforno on the verse, who each suggest that the doubling refers to the repetition of the action (that Hashem has wrought vengeance in the past and should also do so in the future, or that Hashem should seek revenge for the destruction of both the first and second Temples.)</fn> <a href="Tehillim94-3" data-aht="source">94:3</a>,<fn>Compare Rashbam who understands the doubling to be a poetic device, with Sforno who thinks it is fundamental, suggesting that each clause refers to a different set of wicked, the Babylonians and the Romans.</fn> <a href="Tehillim115-1" data-aht="source">115:1</a>,&#160;<a href="Tehillim118-16" data-aht="source">Tehillim 118:16</a>, <a href="Tehillim124-1-2" data-aht="source">124:1-2</a>, <a href="Kohelet1-2" data-aht="source">Kohelet 1:2</a></li>
 
</ul>
 
</ul>
  
Line 153: Line 153:
 
<li><b>Epiphora</b> – In this rhetorical device a word or sequence of words is repeated at the ends of neighboring clauses. Some examples follow:</li>
 
<li><b>Epiphora</b> – In this rhetorical device a word or sequence of words is repeated at the ends of neighboring clauses. Some examples follow:</li>
 
<ul>
 
<ul>
 +
<li>Bereshit 1:25 – "וַיַּעַשׂ אֱלֹהִים אֶת חַיַּת הָאָרֶץ <b>לְמִינָהּ</b> וְאֶת הַבְּהֵמָה <b>לְמִינָהּ</b> וְאֵת כׇּל רֶמֶשׂ הָאֲדָמָה "<b>לְמִינֵהוּ</b></li>
 
<li>Devarim 32:10 – "יִמְצָאֵ<b>הוּ</b> בְּאֶרֶץ מִדְבָּר... יְסֹבְבֶנְ<b>הוּ</b> יְבוֹנְנֵ<b>הוּ</b> יִצְּרֶנְ<b>הוּ</b> כְּאִישׁוֹן עֵינוֹ"</li>
 
<li>Devarim 32:10 – "יִמְצָאֵ<b>הוּ</b> בְּאֶרֶץ מִדְבָּר... יְסֹבְבֶנְ<b>הוּ</b> יְבוֹנְנֵ<b>הוּ</b> יִצְּרֶנְ<b>הוּ</b> כְּאִישׁוֹן עֵינוֹ"</li>
 
<li>Tehillim 118:10-12 – Each verse ends with the phrase: "בְּשֵׁם י"י כִּי אֲמִילַם"</li>
 
<li>Tehillim 118:10-12 – Each verse ends with the phrase: "בְּשֵׁם י"י כִּי אֲמִילַם"</li>
 
<li>Tehillim 136 – Every verse of the psalm ends with "כִּי לְעוֹלָם חַסְדּוֹ".</li>
 
<li>Tehillim 136 – Every verse of the psalm ends with "כִּי לְעוֹלָם חַסְדּוֹ".</li>
 
</ul>
 
</ul>
<li>Emphasis (כפל לחזק) – Often an idea is repeated simply for emphasis.</li>
+
<li><b>Emphasis (כפל לחזק)</b> – Often an idea is repeated simply for emphasis.</li>
 
</ul>
 
</ul>
  
 
<h2>כפל הענין במלות שונות</h2>
 
<h2>כפל הענין במלות שונות</h2>
<p>This is a term coined by Radak, and used by him over 270 times.<fn>Others agree with the principle, and might convey the same idea without using referring to it in this manner.</fn>&#160; He notes that often when an idea is doubled in a verse for emphasis, it will use synonymous rather than identical language. This is simply the way of the text and one need not look for any significance in the choice, for the meaning is essentially the same. Other exegetes disagree, and in such cases of parallelism will assume that each seemingly synonymous clause or word really comes to teach something unique. Some examples follow:</p>
+
<p>This is a term coined by Radak, and used by him over 270 times.<fn>Others agree with the principle, and might convey the same idea without referring to it in this manner.</fn>&#160; He notes that often when an idea is doubled in a verse for emphasis, it will use synonymous rather than identical language. This is simply the way of the text and one need not look for any significance in the choice, for the meaning is essentially the same. Other exegetes disagree, and in such cases of parallelism will assume that each seemingly synonymous clause or word really comes to teach something unique. Some examples follow:</p>
 
<ul>
 
<ul>
<li>Bereshit 32:8 (וַיִּירָא יַעֲקֹב מְאֹד וַיֵּצֶר לוֹ) – Contrast Bereshit Rabbah who suggests that Yaakov feared both lest he die and lest he kill with Radak who suggests that the phrases are identical in meaning and doubled only to highlight Yaakov's great distress.</li>
+
<li>Bereshit 32:8 (וַיִּירָא יַעֲקֹב מְאֹד וַיֵּצֶר לוֹ) – The verse mentions that Yaakov was both "very afraid" and "distressed."&#160; Bereshit Rabbah suggests that the doubling teaches that Yaakov feared two things, both lest he die and lest he kill. Cf. Radak who suggests that the phrases are identical in meaning and doubled only to highlight Yaakov's great distress.</li>
 
<li>Bereshit 49:6 (בְּסֹדָם אַל תָּבֹא נַפְשִׁי בִּקְהָלָם אַל תֵּחַד כְּבֹדִי) – Contrast Radak who claims that the two clauses are parallel in meaning with Bereshit Rabbah and Tanchuma who claim that the first clause refers to the act of Zimri and the second to the rebellion of Korach.</li>
 
<li>Bereshit 49:6 (בְּסֹדָם אַל תָּבֹא נַפְשִׁי בִּקְהָלָם אַל תֵּחַד כְּבֹדִי) – Contrast Radak who claims that the two clauses are parallel in meaning with Bereshit Rabbah and Tanchuma who claim that the first clause refers to the act of Zimri and the second to the rebellion of Korach.</li>
<li>–</li>
+
<li>Shemot 19:3 (כֹּה תֹאמַר לְבֵית יַעֲקֹב וְתַגֵּיד לִבְנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל) Contrast Ibn Ezra who suggests that the two clauses are parallel, doubled for emphasis, with Rashi who differentiates between both the verbs (seeing one as being gentle speech and the other as harsh speech) and the nouns (having one refer to the women and the other to the males). R"Y Kara, too, differentiates between "תֹאמַר" and "וְתַגֵּיד", suggesting that the latter refers to recounting events of the past while the former to stating what should be done in the future.</li>
 
</ul>
 
</ul>
 +
 +
<h2>Doubled Reference</h2>
 +
<p>At times, Tanakh will seemingly redundantly refer to an object of a verb by both a pronoun and a named noun. For example, Shemot 2:6 reads: "וַתִּרְאֵ<b>הוּ</b> אֶת <b>הַיֶּלֶד</b>", she saw it, the boy. Commentators explain the phenomenon in varying ways:</p>
 +
<ul>
 +
<li>Some commentators<fn>See, for example, Ibn Ezra, Radak and R. D"Z Hoffmann.</fn> view this as being the "way of the text" and see no special significance in the doubling. Tanakh sometimes simply adds an explanatory reference, explicitly defining the pronoun for the reader.</li>
 +
<li>Others<fn>See examples below.</fn> suggest that the doubling is significant, and either explaini why the elaboration is necessary in each specific case, or distinguish between the pronoun and noun, suggesting that in such cases maybe the verse refers to two distinct objects.</li>
 +
</ul>
 +
<p>Several examples follow:</p>
 +
<ul>
 +
<li><a href="Shemot2-6" data-aht="source">Shemot 2:6</a> (וַתִּרְאֵהוּ אֶת הַיֶּלֶד) – Compare&#160;<multilink><a href="IbnEzraShemotFirstCommentary2-6" data-aht="source">Ibn Ezra</a><a href="IbnEzraShemotFirstCommentary2-6" data-aht="source">Shemot First Commentary 2:6</a><a href="R. Avraham ibn Ezra" data-aht="parshan">About R. Avraham ibn Ezra</a></multilink> and&#160;<multilink><a href="RDavidZviHoffmannShemot2-6" data-aht="source">R. D"Z Hoffmann</a><a href="RDavidZviHoffmannShemot2-6" data-aht="source">Shemot 2:6</a><a href="R. David Zvi Hoffmann" data-aht="parshan">About R. David Zvi Hoffmann</a></multilink> who view the doubling as "the way of the text" with Shadal who suggests that the extra words hint to the surprise of Paroh's daughter at finding the baby. Shemot Rabbah, instead, suggests that the words refer to two distinct objects, positing that Paroh's daughter saw the Divine presence with the baby.<fn>They read the word "את" to mean "with", rather than to be a marker of the definite article.</fn></li>
 +
<li><a href="Shemot29-9" data-aht="source">Shemot 29:9</a> (וְחָגַרְתָּ אֹתָם אַבְנֵט אַהֲרֹן וּבָנָיו) – See&#160;<multilink><a href="IbnEzraShemotSecondCommentary29-9" data-aht="source">Ibn Ezra</a><a href="IbnEzraShemotSecondCommentary29-9" data-aht="source">Shemot Second Commentary 29:9</a><a href="R. Avraham ibn Ezra" data-aht="parshan">About R. Avraham ibn Ezra</a></multilink> that the verse might simply contain a double reference to Aharon and his sons, as is often the way of the text.&#160;&#160;<multilink><a href="RambanShemot29-9" data-aht="source">Ramban</a><a href="RambanShemot29-9" data-aht="source">Shemot 29:9</a><a href="R. Moshe b. Nachman (Ramban, Nachmanides)" data-aht="parshan">About R. Moshe b. Nachman</a></multilink> (second approach),<fn>In his first approach, he agrees with Ibn Ezra.</fn> in contrast, suggests that the initial "אֹתָם" refers only to Aharon's sons, while the words "אַהֲרֹן וּבָנָיו" add that Aharon, too, like his sons, will also be so girded. The verse elaborates because the belt had not been mentioned among the garments of the high priest, so it was not obvious that Aharon, too, must wear one.<b><br/></b></li>
 +
<li>&#160;<a href="Shemot35-5" data-aht="source">Shemot 35:5</a> (כֹּל נְדִיב לִבּוֹ יְבִיאֶהָ אֵת תְּרוּמַת י"י) –&#160;<multilink><a href="IbnEzraShemotFirstCommentary35-5" data-aht="source">Ibn Ezra</a><a href="IbnEzraShemotFirstCommentary35-5" data-aht="source">Shemot First Commentary 35:5</a><a href="R. Avraham ibn Ezra" data-aht="parshan">About R. Avraham ibn Ezra</a></multilink> and&#160;<multilink><a href="AbarbanelShemot35-5" data-aht="source">Abarbanel</a><a href="AbarbanelShemot35-5" data-aht="source">Shemot 35:5</a><a href="R. Yitzchak Abarbanel" data-aht="parshan">About R. Yitzchak Abarbanel</a></multilink> suggest that the verse contains a double reference to the donation offering, noting that such elaborations are common.&#160; Compare Seforno who suggests that the verse is referring to two different types of donations, one should bring "it" - voluntary donations, along with "תְּרוּמַת י"י", obligatory donations, such as the half shekel.<fn>he understands "את" here to mean "with", rather than to be a marker of the definite article.</fn></li>
 +
<li><a href="Yehoshua1-2" data-aht="source">Yehoshua 1:2</a> (אָנֹכִי נֹתֵן לָהֶם לִבְנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל) – See&#160;<multilink><a href="RadakYehoshua1-2" data-aht="source">Radak</a><a href="RadakYehoshua1-2" data-aht="source">Yehoshua 1:2</a><a href="R. David Kimchi (Radak)" data-aht="parshan">About R. David Kimchi</a></multilink> and the Northern French commentators that is "the way of the text" to double the referent. Compare&#160;<multilink><a href="MalbimYehoshua1-2" data-aht="source">Malbim</a><a href="MalbimYehoshua1-2" data-aht="source">Yehoshua 1:2</a><a href="R. Meir Leibush Weiser (Malbim)" data-aht="parshan">About R. Meir Leibush Weiser</a></multilink> that Hashem elaborates that the land is being given to the Children of Israel, so that Yehoshua&#160; should not think that as the general and conqueror, the land will belong to him.<fn>Compare also Abarbanel.</fn></li>
 +
<li><b>Other examples include:</b>&#160;<a href="ShemuelI20-29" data-aht="source">Shemuel I 20:29</a> (וְהוּא צִוָּה לִי אָחִי),&#160;<a href="MelakhimI13-23" data-aht="source">Melakhim I 13:23</a> (וַיַּחֲבׇשׁ לו... לַנָּבִיא),&#160;<a href="MelakhimI21-13" data-aht="source">Melakhim I 21:13</a> (וַיְעִדֻהו... אֶת נָבוֹת),&#160;<a href="Yirmeyahu9-14" data-aht="source">Yirmeyahu 9:14</a> (הִנְנִי מַאֲכִילָם אֶת הָעָם),&#160;<a href="Yirmeyahu27-8" data-aht="source">Yirmeyahu 27:8</a> (יַעַבְדוּ אֹתוֹ אֶת נְבוּכַדְנֶאצַּר), <a href="Yirmeyahu48-44" data-aht="source">Yirmeyahu 48:44</a> (אָבִיא אֵלֶיהָ אֶל מוֹאָב),&#160;<a href="Yechezkel10-3" data-aht="source">Yechezkel 10:3</a> (בְּבֹאוֹ הָאִישׁ),&#160;<a href="Yechezkel41-25" data-aht="source">Yechezkel 41:25</a> (וַעֲשׂוּיָה אֲלֵיהֶן אֶל דַּלְתוֹת הַהֵיכָל),&#160;<a href="Mishlei5-22" data-aht="source">Mishlei 5:22</a> (עֲווֹנֹתָיו יִלְכְּדֻנוֹ אֶת הָרָשָׁע).</li>
 +
</ul>
 +
<p>&#160;</p>
  
 
</page>
 
</page>
 
</aht-xml>
 
</aht-xml>

Latest revision as of 13:40, 17 January 2024

Redundancy In Torah

This topic is currently in progress
Interactive Module

Introduction

Tanakh, like many written works, is filled with repetitions. Sometimes verses repeat almost verbatim within the same chapter or story.  Elsewhere, a later story will recall an earlier one using similar language.  At times, even within a verse or two, phrases will repeat.  How are these doublings to be understood?

While Midrash will often seek meaning in repetition, distinguishing between each appearance of a phrase and demonstrating that each has its own significance, Peshat commentators often attribute repetition to "דרכי המקראות", recognizing some reiterations to be literary or stylistic devices. Doublings might come to elaborate on and clarify a previous statement, connect narratives, highlight an important point, or simply beautify the text. At times, too, they might simply reflect everyday speech in which repetition is a natural means of expressing strong emotions or emphasis. Below, we will will explore several literary devices which entail repetition and how they might explain apparent redundancies in the Biblical text.

Heading Followed by Details: כלל ופרט

Some cases of repetition in Tanakh might be accounted for by the principle commonly known as a "כלל ופרט" or "כלל ואחר כך מפרש". This is a literary device in which a narrative opens with a general statement which is then elaborated upon.  The verse/s following the heading provide explanatory notes or details which involve a restatement of the original verse. Several examples follow.  Alternative readings of the doublings can be found in the footnotes.

  • "וַיִּבְרָא אֱלֹהִים אֶת הָאָדָם בְּצַלְמוֹ" (Bereshit 1:27) – Bereshit 1:27 speaks of the creation of man.  In Bereshit 2:7, we again read of man's creation: וַיִּיצֶר י"י אֱלֹהִים אֶת הָאָדָם עָפָר מִן .הָאֲדָמָה Mishnat R. Eliezer 1 and others explain that the first verse only describes the end result of mankind's creation, while Chapter 2 describes the specifics of how that transpired. Similar claims are made about other overlapping aspects of the two creation stories, understanding that in Chapter 1 the Torah first presents a general overview of the world's creation and then in Chapter 2 it returns to provide greater detail about its most significant individual components.  For discussion see Two Accounts of Creation.
  • "וַיָּרׇץ לָבָן אֶל הָאִישׁ" (Bereshit 24:29-30) – Bereshit 24:29-30 shares that Lavan ran to Avraham's servant, "וַיָּרׇץ לָבָן אֶל הָאִישׁ", then speaks of his seeing the jewelry on Rivka, and finally repeats, "וַיָּבֹא אֶל הָאִישׁ".  ShadalBereshit 24:30About R. Shemuel David Luzzatto explains that Lavan did not approach the servant twice, but rather verse 29 is a general statement which is explained by verse 30 which details what prompted Lavan run to the servant. After seeing the jewellery on Rivka, Lavan decided it was worth greeting the servant.1
  • "וַיָּשֶׁב מֹשֶׁה אֶת דִּבְרֵי הָעָם אֶל י״י" (Shemot 19:8-9) – In the description of the preparations for revelation, we are told twice that Moshe relayed the people's words to Hashem, in Shemot 19:8 and 19:9. RashbamShemot 19:8-9Vayikra 9:24Vayikra 10:2About R. Shemuel b. Meir suggests that the repetition is another example of the Torah being "כולל ואחר כך מפרש", as verse 9 provides the context of verse 8.‎2
  • "וַתֵּצֵא אֵשׁ מִלִּפְנֵי י״י וַתֹּאכַל עַל הַמִּזְבֵּחַ" (Vayikra 9:24) – Vayikra 9:24 describes a Divine fire consuming Aharon's offerings on the eighth day of the consecration ceremony ("וַתֵּצֵא אֵשׁ מִלִּפְנֵי י״י וַתֹּאכַל עַל הַמִּזְבֵּחַ"). Vayikra 10:1-2, then speak of the deaths of Nadav and Avihu, where the verse similarly shares, " וַתֵּצֵא אֵשׁ מִלִּפְנֵי י״י וַתֹּאכַל אוֹתָם". According to most commentators these refer to two distinct events. RashbamShemot 19:8-9Vayikra 9:24Vayikra 10:2About R. Shemuel b. Meir, though, suggests that Vayikra 9:24 is not the conclusion to chapter 9 but the heading of the story of Nadav and Avihu, telling the reader of a fire that is to come in the continuation of the story.3
  • Service of Yom Hakippurim (Vayikra 16) – In the description of the cultic service of Yom HaKipurrim in Vayikra 16, there is a dual doubling. Twice the chapter mentions the sacrificing of Aharon's sin-offering of the cow (in verses 6 and 11) and twice it mentions the sacrificing of the nation's sin-offering of the goat (in verses 9 and 15).  It is possible that the offerings are really first sacrificed in verses 11 and 15 and that verses 6-9 are simply an abstract of what is to come.  They introduce the sacrifices and atonement to be achieved and then the verses backtrack to provide the details of the procedure.
  • "וַיָּשֶׁב אֶת אֶלֶף וּמֵאָה הַכֶּסֶף לְאִמּוֹ" (Shofetim 17:3-4) – In both Shofetim 17:3 and 17:4 the verses speak of Michah returning the money he stole to his mother. RashbamShemot 19:8-9Vayikra 9:24Vayikra 10:2About R. Shemuel b. Meir suggests that verse 3 is a general statement of what took place, while the following verse backtracks, providing the details.4
  • Other examples – Bereshit 9:5,5 Bereshit 25:16,6 Bereshit 28:10,7

Resumptive Repetition

Another literary device which might explain several cases of seeming redundancy in the Biblical text is a technique known as resumptive repetition.  Since Tanakh does not have parentheses, commas, and other similar markers, it will sometimes use repetition to hint to the reader that a section of text is parenthetical. By repeating the last statement made before the digression, Tanakh lets the reader know that the tangent has ended and that the earlier narrative is now resuming.  At times, too, this technique points to achronology in the text, indicating that the intervening unit occurred simultaneously with the surrounding story. For an interactive module on this topic, see Resumptive Repetition.

I. Resumptive repetition of a phrase or more to resume an earlier narrative

II. Resumptive repetition of a full verse or more to connect consecutive books 

III. Resumptive repetition as an indicator of achronology – In the examples below the resumptive repetition serves not only to resume the original narrative but also to indicate  that the intervening unit occurred simultaneously.19 In some of the examples, the resumption is formulated in a past perfect form which further hints to the achronology.20

  • Bereshit 37:36 and Bereshit 39:1 – The saga of Yosef's sale is interrupted by the story of Yehuda and Tamar.  The narrative resumption might hint to the fact that the two events overlapped in time.21
  • Shemuel I 4:11 and Shemuel I 5:1 – Shemuel 4:11 mentions the Philistine's taking of the ark, then switches focus to speak of events taking place in the Israelite camp, only returning to speak of what happened to the ark in Chapter 5. The simultaneity of the two events is highlighted by the resumptive repetition.
  • Shemuel I 14:1 and 6 – The chapter breaks off the narrative of Yonatan's foray into the Philistine camp to spotlight Shaul's simultaneous inactivity in the Israelite camp and then resumes the original narrative. Here, too, the text points to the synchroneity of the events by employing a narrative resumption.
  • Shemuel I 28:1-2 and Shemuel I 29:1– Chapter 28 opens with the Philistines gathering for battle ("וַיִּקְבְּצוּ פְלִשְׁתִּים אֶת מַחֲנֵיהֶם"), but then cuts off to tell the story of Shaul and Ba'alat Ha'Ov. The original narrative is resumed in Chapter 29, echoing "יִּקְבְּצוּ פְלִשְׁתִּים אֶת כׇּל מַחֲנֵיהֶם". It is likely that here, too, the technique indicates that the two stories overlapped in time.22
  • Shemuel II 13:34-37 – Shemuel II 13:34 tells of Avshalom fleeing after having murdered Amnon. The point is repeated in verse 37. Sandwiched in between the two verses is a description of what is simultaneously going on in the palace when word of the murder arrives.
  • Melakhim I 20:12 and 16 – The narrator switches off between the Aramean and Israelite camps, employing resumptive repetition to highlight the split screen.

IV. Resumptive repetition of individual words within a sentence23

V. "Double VaYomer" – See discussion below.26

VI. Poetic Doubling (פסוקי דשמואל) – See discussion below.

Double Vayomer

In many verses, one finds that the word "וַיֹּאמֶר" is mentioned twice despite there not being an explicit change in speaker in between.27 At times, there is no speech at all in between the two occurrences of the word "וַיֹּאמֶר" (as in Bereshit 22:7:"וַיֹּאמֶר יִצְחָק אֶל אַבְרָהָם אָבִיו וַיֹּאמֶר אָבִי"),28  while at other times, the initial "וַיֹּאמֶר"  is followed by a speech, but in the middle of that speech, the word "וַיֹּאמֶר" appears again, seemingly for no reason. Several explanations have been given for the phenomenon,29 with some viewing this as simply a literary device and "a way of the text",30 and others assuming that there is something to be learned from the doubling in each case:31

I. Cases in which no speech interrupts the two "ויאמר"'s

  • Resumptive Repetition – Ibn Janach, Ibn Ezra, R"Y Bekhor Shor,32 and others33 suggest that in many such cases, the doubling might be another example of resumptive repetition,34 where the word is doubled due to a digression or an intervening explanatory note which breaks the flow of the verse. Thus, for instance in Shemot 1:15-16, the elaboration "אֲשֶׁר שֵׁם הָאַחַת שִׁפְרָה וְשֵׁם הַשֵּׁנִית פּוּעָה" severs the initial "וַיֹּאמֶר מֶלֶךְ מִצְרַיִם" from the content of his speech, necessitating repetition of the word וַיֹּאמֶר"‏‏".‎35
  • Actual repetition – Ibn Ezra and Radak suggest that a double "וַיֹּאמֶר" might alternatively indicate that the speaker repeated himself, saying the same thing twice (usually due to great emotion). For example, in Esther 7:5, Achashevorsh might have repeated his question "מִי הוּא זֶה וְאֵי זֶה הוּא" in his great fury.

II. Cases in which there are two speeches – Several explanations have been given for the phenomenon:

  • Pause – In cases where a new "ויאמר" interrupts a long speech, the doubling might indicate that there was a pause between the two utterances. This pause might indicate that there was a lack of expected or desired response, necessitating the speaker to resume speaking,51 or that there was an unstated event52 or passage of time that occurred in the middle. The speaker might also intentionally pause for dramatic effect.
  • Change of Topic – At times, though two speeches follow one another, both addressed to the same person, they might comprise a discussion of distinct topics. As such, each subtopic might receive its own unique introduction. 
    • Legal material109 – Shemot 30:11-17,110 Shemot 31:1-12,111 Shemot 34:10-27,112 Shemot 35:1-4,113 Vayikra 6:1,17114 Vayikra 7:22,28,115 Vayikra 14:33-15:1, Vayikra 18:1-19:1, Bemidbar 3:11-14, Bemidbar 27:6-12,116 and many others.
    • Narrative material117 – Bereshit 9:1-17,118 Bereshit 17:3-15,119 Shemot 6:1-2,120 Shofetim 8:23-24,121 Shemuel I 26:17-18, Melakhim I 22:4-5,122 Melakhim II 3:7-8,123 Melakhim II:22:9-10,124  Yechezkel 4:15-16125
  • Elaboration – See Bereshit 15:2-3, 19:9, Shemot 3:14, 16:6-8126

Poetic Doubling (פסוקי דשמואל)

Rashbam notes a phenomenon, dubbed after him "פסוקי דשמואל‎,"127 found in several poetic passages, in which a verse opens, diverges to mention the subject (or to elaborate), and then doubles the opening before finishing the thought.128 For example, see Bereshit 49:22: "בֵּן פֹּרָת יוֹסֵף בֵּן פֹּרָת עֲלֵי עָיִן" or Tehillim 92:10:  "כִּי הִנֵּה אֹיְבֶיךָ י״י כִּי הִנֵּה אֹיְבֶיךָ יֹאבֵדוּ". What is the purpose of the doubling in such cases?

Rhetorical Devices

Sometimes, repetition in Tanakh might serve a purely stylistic function, used for emphasis, literary beauty and the like.

  • Anaphora – In this rhetorical device a word or sequence of words is repeated at the beginnings of neighboring clauses. Some examples follow:
    • Melakhim II 18:32 – "וְלָקַחְתִּי אֶתְכֶם אֶל אֶרֶץ כְּאַרְצְכֶם אֶרֶץ דָּגָן וְתִירוֹשׁ אֶרֶץ לֶחֶם וּכְרָמִים אֶרֶץ זֵית יִצְהָר וּדְבַשׁ"
    • Devarim 8:7-9 – "אֶרֶץ טוֹבָה אֶרֶץ נַחֲלֵי מָיִם...אֶרֶץ חִטָּה וּשְׂעֹרָה...אֶרֶץ זֵית שֶׁמֶן וּדְבָשׁ אֶרֶץ אֲשֶׁר לֹא בְמִסְכֵּנֻת תֹּאכַל בָּהּ לֶחֶם"
    • Yirmeyahu 31:3-4 – "עוֹד אֶבְנֵךְ וְנִבְנֵית בְּתוּלַת יִשְׂרָאֵל עוֹד תַּעְדִּי תֻפַּיִךְ וְיָצָאת בִּמְחוֹל מְשַׂחֲקִים עוֹד תִּטְּעִי כְרָמִים"
    • Hoshea 2:21-22 – "וְאֵרַשְׂתִּיךְ לִי לְעוֹלָם וְאֵרַשְׂתִּיךְ לִי בְּצֶדֶק וּבְמִשְׁפָּט... וְאֵרַשְׂתִּיךְ לִי בֶּאֱמוּנָה"
    • Eikhah 3: 25-27 – "טוֹב י"י לְקֹוָו... טוֹב וְיָחִיל...  טוֹב לַגֶּבֶר"
  • Epiphora – In this rhetorical device a word or sequence of words is repeated at the ends of neighboring clauses. Some examples follow:
    • Bereshit 1:25 – "וַיַּעַשׂ אֱלֹהִים אֶת חַיַּת הָאָרֶץ לְמִינָהּ וְאֶת הַבְּהֵמָה לְמִינָהּ וְאֵת כׇּל רֶמֶשׂ הָאֲדָמָה "לְמִינֵהוּ
    • Devarim 32:10 – "יִמְצָאֵהוּ בְּאֶרֶץ מִדְבָּר... יְסֹבְבֶנְהוּ יְבוֹנְנֵהוּ יִצְּרֶנְהוּ כְּאִישׁוֹן עֵינוֹ"
    • Tehillim 118:10-12 – Each verse ends with the phrase: "בְּשֵׁם י"י כִּי אֲמִילַם"
    • Tehillim 136 – Every verse of the psalm ends with "כִּי לְעוֹלָם חַסְדּוֹ".
  • Emphasis (כפל לחזק) – Often an idea is repeated simply for emphasis.

כפל הענין במלות שונות

This is a term coined by Radak, and used by him over 270 times.135  He notes that often when an idea is doubled in a verse for emphasis, it will use synonymous rather than identical language. This is simply the way of the text and one need not look for any significance in the choice, for the meaning is essentially the same. Other exegetes disagree, and in such cases of parallelism will assume that each seemingly synonymous clause or word really comes to teach something unique. Some examples follow:

  • Bereshit 32:8 (וַיִּירָא יַעֲקֹב מְאֹד וַיֵּצֶר לוֹ) – The verse mentions that Yaakov was both "very afraid" and "distressed."  Bereshit Rabbah suggests that the doubling teaches that Yaakov feared two things, both lest he die and lest he kill. Cf. Radak who suggests that the phrases are identical in meaning and doubled only to highlight Yaakov's great distress.
  • Bereshit 49:6 (בְּסֹדָם אַל תָּבֹא נַפְשִׁי בִּקְהָלָם אַל תֵּחַד כְּבֹדִי) – Contrast Radak who claims that the two clauses are parallel in meaning with Bereshit Rabbah and Tanchuma who claim that the first clause refers to the act of Zimri and the second to the rebellion of Korach.
  • Shemot 19:3 (כֹּה תֹאמַר לְבֵית יַעֲקֹב וְתַגֵּיד לִבְנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל) – Contrast Ibn Ezra who suggests that the two clauses are parallel, doubled for emphasis, with Rashi who differentiates between both the verbs (seeing one as being gentle speech and the other as harsh speech) and the nouns (having one refer to the women and the other to the males). R"Y Kara, too, differentiates between "תֹאמַר" and "וְתַגֵּיד", suggesting that the latter refers to recounting events of the past while the former to stating what should be done in the future.

Doubled Reference

At times, Tanakh will seemingly redundantly refer to an object of a verb by both a pronoun and a named noun. For example, Shemot 2:6 reads: "וַתִּרְאֵהוּ אֶת הַיֶּלֶד", she saw it, the boy. Commentators explain the phenomenon in varying ways:

  • Some commentators136 view this as being the "way of the text" and see no special significance in the doubling. Tanakh sometimes simply adds an explanatory reference, explicitly defining the pronoun for the reader.
  • Others137 suggest that the doubling is significant, and either explaini why the elaboration is necessary in each specific case, or distinguish between the pronoun and noun, suggesting that in such cases maybe the verse refers to two distinct objects.

Several examples follow: