[Index of all Weekly Divrei Torah pages]
The text of the five books of Moses is very precise. And that is why, when the Torah uses a word in an unusual way, we want to find out exactly what it means. We want to know, for example, why the text choose a particular word and not another word, when the second word may have made more sense in that context. One such example occurs near the beginning of parshat Ki Tavo, wherein the word amar (the root of “say”) is used in a unique fashion. In fact, most of the commentaries on the simple meaning of the text explain that it does not mean “say” in this context – they suggest that it means something else…
The two verses in question are in Deuteronomy (Ch 26:17-18), where the Torah says, “The Lord has distinguished (he’emircha) you today in order to be your GodŔ (verse 17) and then, “The Lord has separated (he’emarta) you today to be His nationŔ (verse 18). Even though the two words are from the etymological source (amar), normally meaning “say,” here Rashi explains, “there is no conclusive evidence from elsewhere in scripture regarding the meaning of this word, but I think that the word means ‘separation’ and ‘distinction.’ [Thus, the verses mean], “He has distinguished you from the foreign deities in order to be your God,” and “He has separated you from among the foreign nations to be His people.” [And Rashi continues] – “And I found evidence that it comes from the word tiferet (“glory”), as in the verse, yit’amru kol poalei awven (Psalms 34:4) – “all of the evil doers ‘glorify’ themselves.”
There are several questions to be asked on Rashi’s commentary – here are two of them:
1) Why does Rashi begin his commentary by saying that “there is no conclusive evidence from elsewhere in scripture,” only to conclude by saying, “and I found evidence.”
2) Why does Rashi use the word “distinguished” (hivdalti) in the first verse regarding how God relates to the Jewish people, while using the word “separated” (hifrashti) regarding how the Jewish people relate to God?
Regarding the first question, we have to say that Rashi preferred his first explanation (“separated, distinguished”) because it fits in better with the content of the verse than does his second explanation. However, he could find no conclusive evidence that the words he’emircha and he’emarta mean “separation” or “distinction.” And therefore he moved on to his second explanation – that it means “glory” – because at least for this explanation, Rashi was able to find some evidence (though not “conclusive evidence”) in the scripture, even though the explanation does not fit the context of the verse as well as the first explanation. So, the question that we are left with is, what is the difficulty of the second explanation, such that Rashi does not use it as his primary explanation, even though he can find no conclusive evidence for the first explanation?
There are other commentaries on the simple meaning of the text – foremost among them is Ibn Ezra, who has a different approach to Rashi on our verse. The Ibn Ezra suggests that he’emircha and he’emarta are from the word amir, meaning “great” (he draws support from the verse in Isaiah 17:6). He also mentions the explanation of R’ Yehuda Halevy, who says that the words in fact come from the root amar, meaning “say.” That is, according to R’ Yehuda Halevy, our verses mean that we cause God to “say” about the Jewish people that we are His, and He causes us to “say” about God that we are His. And the Ibn Ezra adds that R’ Yehuda’s explanation is “nice” – and appropriate.
We can understand why Rashi does not accept Ibn Ezra’s explanation: Rashi himself explains the verse in Isaiah differently than does the Ibn Ezra, and therefore he does not think that amir means “great.” However, it is more difficult to “dismiss” that explanation of R’ Yehuda Halevi. If Rashi’s main problem with his own primary explanation is that he cannot find enough support for it from scripture, here we have just the opposite situation. Scripture is literally full of the use of the word amar as “say.” It is one of the most common words in all of the Torah. It is far more common than Rashi’s second explanation, which is that the words come from amir, meaning “glory.” Rashi’s “evidence” for his second explanation comes only from Psalms, while the first time that the word amar occurs as “say” is in the third verse of the Torah, and it re-occurs many times after that as well. So, what prevents Rashi from choosing this explanation of R’ Yehuda Halevy over his own?
The explanation: the context of our verses is set in the previous verse (Deut 26:16), “This day, the Lord your God commands you to fulfill all of these laws and these statutes and you shall keep them, doing them with all of your heart and all of your soul.” From this we understand that the word “today” that appears in our verses (26:17 and 18) is the same “day” as the one mentioned in the previous verse – which Rashi explains, means “everyday.” That is, that which “He causes us to distinguish Him,” and we causes Him to “separate us” (according to Rashi’s primary explanation) occurs each and every day.
And that is exactly why Rashi cannot accept the explanation of R’ Yehuda Halevy. We cannot say that the words mean “say,” as in the simple meaning of the word amar, and also claim that it occurs every day. We cannot claim that every day, we “cause Him to say that He is our God,” for the simple reason that we (collectively) do not always act in that manner. While it is true that He is our God, at all times and every day, in fact there are days that we do not act as we should. And it does not make sense to explain that also on such days, “cause Him to say that He is our God.”
By the same token, we cannot say that He causes us to say every day that we are His nation. On the days and at the time that He performs miracles for us, we might say that He causes us to say that we are His people. But the remainder of the days, and especially at the times when because of our failures He does not provide us with our needs, we cannot say that He causes us to proclaim that we are His people. Even though in point of fact, we are His people, it does not make sense to declare so every day. And therefore, Rashi does not accept the explanation of R’ Yehuda Halevy.
Rather, explains that the words mean to “distinguish” and to “separate,” rather than to “say,” because in point of fact, He does “distinguish” us from among the nations, and we do “separate” him from among other deities – every day. Therefore, Rashi’s explanation fits with the explanation of “today” as it is expressed in the previous verse and in our verses as well.
Similarly, Rashi chooses not to adopt the explanation of the words as meaning “glory,” as his first explanation. For, the full glorification of God, as well as of the Jewish people, takes place when we actually follow His precepts and fulfill His Will by doing Torah and mitzvoth – and we cannot claim that that occurs “every day.” There are days when we collectively follow His will properly, and there are days that we do not do so. But, unfortunately, we do not fulfill His Will every day – and therefore Rashi cannot accept the explanation of “glory” as his main explanation.
It remains for us to explain why Rashi uses the word “distinguish” (hivdalti) when referring to how we cause Him to “distinguish” us from the other nations, while he uses the word “separate” (hifrashti) regarding how He causes us to “separate” Him from other deities…
To “distinguish” (hivdalti) is different from to “separate” (hifrashti) in several details. First of all, they are different in regard to the status of the two objects before they underwent “distinction” (or “separation”). We generally “distinguish” between two objects that were “close” to each other, or in proximity, but were not “mixed” together. However, we “separate” between objects that were previously mixed together.
Second, the two words are used differently in regard to the objects “after” they have been distinguished or separated. We use the word “distinguish” when the only object that is significant to us is the one that we actively “distinguish” from the other. The other object (from which we distinguish) may or may not remain in existence – but in any case it doesn’t matter to us. The object from which we distinguish is insignificant from our perspective. However, in general when we “separate” two objects, both of them remain in existence, and both maintain some level of significance.
Finally, there is a difference in the intensity of the act. As a general rule, it demands more discernment and more power to “distinguish” between objects, than it does to “separate” them. If we can separate them, it usually means that they were easy to identify and separate one from the other. However, it may require more attention and more intensity of concentration in order to discern or distinguish between two objects. Therefore, to “distinguish” implies a greater and stronger action than to “separate.”
All of these details come to play in Rashi’s commentary, and explain why he uses the word “distinguish” (hivdalti) regarding God, and the word “separate” (hifrashti) regarding the Jews. It makes more sense to use “distinguish” in reference to God, first of all because even before God “caused us to distinguish” between Himself and foreign deities, it was not appropriate to say that He was “mixed in” with them. Even the nations of the world acknowledge that He is greater than their deities. They think of Him as the “God of their gods,” but the Jews of Him as completely distinct and distinguished from them. But from either perspective, He is not “mixed in” with foreign deities, and that is why the word “distinguish,” rather than “separate” is appropriate.
Second, also after the act of “distinguishing,” we do not lend any credence to nor acknowledge the deities of the foreign nations – from the Godly point of view, they have no existence whatsoever. And that is why, once more, the word “distinguish,” rather than “separate” is appropriate in reference to God. As above, when we “distinguish” (hivdalti), the object from which we distinguish has no significance whatsoever, and this is the proper way for to speak of God in reference to other “deities.”
Conversely, regarding the Jews as a people, Rashi uses the word “separate” (hafrishcha), as in “He will separate you for Himself from among the nations of the world.” That is because prior to becoming “God’s nation,” we were mixed among the other nations, as indicated by the verse, “He took a nation from amidst another nation” (Deut. 4:34). Furthermore, also after the separation, the other nations of the world maintain their significance – they are not insignificant – but it is the Jews who were separated out and designated as God’s nation.
However, after all is said and done, Rashi does not suffice with his explanation of he’emarta and he’emircha. To “distinguish” and to “separate” constitute his primary explanation. But, since he is unable to find “conclusive evidence” for this explanation, he supplies us with a second explanation as well. His second explanation is that the words may also imply “glory,” as in the verse that he quoted from Psalms. And even though the true glory of both the Jews and of God takes place when we follow His precepts and commandments (which we do not necessarily do, collectively, every day), nevertheless, we may still say that “He is our G-d,” and we are His people. And since that is true “every day,” the concept of “glory” also applies to the relationship between God and the Jews every day.
(It is interesting that the same word – amar – is used in the creation of the universe. When God created the world, He did so using the asarah ma’amarot (“ten utterances”) of creation. And here also, we might say that the word amar means “separation and distinction.” For, as the Midrash tells us, before the creation, there was nothing but “He and His name alone.” That is, there was nothing but the infinite light and revelation of God. The act of creation was a process of “separating” and “distinguishing” created objects from “out” of the infinite light. This was and is a process of hiding and contracting His infinite light in order that creations may “emerge” as separate and distinct objects.
When His infinite light is revealed, there is no room for “separate” objects. But, the creation is an act of dimming and contracting His infinite light, allowing room to “separate and distinguish” individual creations. Thus, the word amar (in the same sense as in parshat Ki Tavo – as “separation” and “distinction”) applies to creation as well. Moreover, just as Rashi’s explanation implies degrees of separation and distinction (“distinction” implies greater power and distance than does “separation”), so there are various levels of separation in the process of creation. In fact, one level leads to the next – first there is “separation,” as the creation emerges from His infinite light. Ultimately, that is followed by “distinction,” as the physical object becomes detectable as an independent created object standing on its own).