The Gem. Brings 13 cases of double words in the Torah that the Chchomim darshen.
Yet In this week's Parashas Bereishis 2:16-17 I am bothered by Rashi. To be more precise; I am bothered by the fact that there is NO Rashi! Even though both of these Pesukim have double words that require explanation!
Even though these 2 Pesukim changed the whole world!
Why did Rashi fail to comment on these 2 Pesukim?
Thank you for considering my question.
Alex Lebovits, Toronto
1) There is an extremely important rule that the Gemara states below 31b:- "Dibrah Torah k'Lashon bnei Adam", "the Torah spoke the language of men". It is a normal way of speech to use double wording. If we look at the Masores Hashas on Berachos 31b , which is the first place in Shas where this rule is cited, we find that it occurs 19 times in Shas.
2) The Toras Chaim here 31b DH Dibrah writes that when someone wants to instruct his friend to do something, it is frequent that he uses double phrasing in order to stress his intentions. According to this we can say that Hash-m said to Adam "You may surely eat from any of the trees of Gan Eden"; in order to make it clear that with the exception of the Etz Hada'as there were no restrictions.
3) In fact the Talmud Yerushalmi at the begiining of Maseches Nedarim derives this principle from Bereshis 31:30 from the double wording that Lovon said to Yaakov "You surely have gone", "you greatly desired your father's house". We also learn this from what Yosef said (Bereshis 40:15) "I was surely stolen".
Shavua Tov
Dovid Bloom
I have found sources which suggest that it is posssible to expound the double words in Bereshis 2:16, so according to this we will not have to say "Dibrah Torah k'Lashon Bnei Adam" as I suggested earlier. It is apparent that double wording is common in the Torah. Sometimes we make a Derashah from it, but otherwise we say "Dibrah Torah...." I will attempt to show that for "Achol Tochal" we also can make a Derashah.
1) The Gemara (Sanhedrin 56b) derives from Bereshis 2:16 all the Mitzvos that were given to everyone in the world, even before the Torah was given to Klal Yisrael on Har Sinai. The Gemara states that from "Achol Tochal" we learn that "you shall surely eat this" but one must not eat "Ever Min ha'Chai." Rashi (DH Achol) explains that the way we derive this from "Achol Tochal" is that we may eat only something which is available for eating. In contrast, we may not eat Ever Min ha'Chai, because the limb which is detached from an animal while it is still alive is not considered available for eating, since a live animal is not ready to eat but rather is considered designated for rearing offspring.
2) The Hebrew Artscroll edition, note 16, writes that this is learned from the double words "Achol Tochal." "Achol" means "food" -- i.e., something which is ready to eat. It is only something comparible to the fruit of Gan Eden, that is ready to eat, that one may "Tochal" -- "eat." Ever Min ha'Chai is not "Omed l'Achilah" so one may not eat it.
3) I also found that the Netziv of Volozhin, in Ha'Emek Davar, seems to be concerned with the double wording of Bersehis 2:16. He writes that it teaches us that Adam ha'Rishon may enjoy "many eatings," namely, that he was permitted not only to eat the fruit of Gan Eden, but also to derive other benefits. The Netziv writes that this is the reason why Hash-m said "from all the trees of the garden" and not "the fruit of the garden." Adam was allowed to enjoy the wood of the trees, too (for example, if he needed firewood or wanted to make furniture, he could use the wood). (This seems somewhat similar to the Gemara in Pesachim (21b) which states that wherever the Torah states "Lo Ye'achel" it includes both a prohibition on eating and on deriving benefit. The word "Achilah" also suggests "Hana'ah," and, similarly, the double wording of "Achol Tochal" indicated to Adam that he may derive benefit from the trees of the garden, but he just could not eat their fruit. -DB)
Kol Tuv,
Dovid Bloom
Rabbi Bloom,
Re 1. & 2.
As you mentioned, Rashi himself in Sanhedrin 56: DH Ochol Tochal, explains these words.
Nevertheless I did not find this to be a problem, because this DRASH of the Gem. does not condradict Rashi's stated purpose of writing his perush on the Torah.
The Gem. Is darshening how one sees the 7 mitzvos of Bnei Noach in the Torah.
In that Gem. Rashi comments; but he CANNOT use his own words in his Perush on the Torah.
In the Torah, Rashi wants to say only Poshut Pshat, and therefore he follows your dictum
Of Dibra Torah k'loshon bnei Adam, and therefore keeps silent.
In the Shaarei Aharon, there are 3.5 pages of peshatim on these double words.
Among the many Peshotim he brings the Meshech Chochma which he calls a Davar Mechudash.
The Meshech Chochma quotes a Yerushalmi, that a person will have to give a Din V'cheshban on all that his eyes saw and didn't eat.
And if Adam would have told his wife that it's a mitzvah to eat from the fruits of the trees in in the Gan......This mitzvah would have protected her from eating from the Eitz Hadas! Please see there.
Thank you for reading. And thank you again for your answer.
Alex, we find another example, already in Parshas Bereishis, where we see that the Torah is speaking Lashon Bnei Adam. This is in Bereishis 6:6: "And Hash-m regretted that He had made man." The Ibn Ezra (followed by the Ramban) points out that only human beings regret what they have done, but "Dibrah Torah k'Lashon Bnei Adam."
It is also interesting to note that we find a similar idea in the Mishnah; the Mishnah follows the cue of the Torah and also speaks like ordinary people (possibly more so than the Torah). We learn this at the very beginning of Bava Metzia (2a): "Tana Lishna d'Alma Nakat." Rashi (DH Tana) writes that the Tana in the Mishnah spoke the language of ordinary people, not the language of the Torah. Therefore, even though in the language of the Torah "finding" means that the lost item has already come into the hands of the finder, nevertheless since people say that they have found the Metzi'ah as soon as they merely saw it, this is the way that the Mishnah talks as well.
No doubt we can learn a lot from this, particularly that we should try to say things in a clear way that everyone can understand.
Kol Tuv,
Dovid Bloom
Rabbi Bloom,
Thank you for your answer.
I had racked my brains looking for an answer on this silent Rashi; but how does one find anyone speaking about a Rashi that's not there!
I looked forward to your reply, and I have learned 2 very important things from your answer:
1. You changed the subject to a more appropriate one. Rather than being dramatic.
2. You introduced the very important rule of Dibrah Torah k'loshon Bnei Adam.
With this 'klal', I was able to understand from your answer, that Rashi need not comment on every double loshon, because there are many double leshonos that are not used to learn out something just because the word is repeated. The translators use the word 'surely' to indicate this.
Once you mentioned the rule of Dibrah Torah......, I was able to look this up in the Emcyclopedia Talmudis under that heading. He elaborated on your answer explaining when "to darshen" and when to merely translate as "surely". I found that very enjoyable as well.
Thank you for taking the effort to answer.
Kol Tuv!