English translation — שמיני א

A.

In the verse "And the kos and the shalach and the yanshuf" ¹

Rashi first stands on the word "shalach" and explains: "Our Sages explained²

This is the one that draws fish from the sea.

And this is what Onkelos translated 'veshalinona',"

And afterwards he explains the other two species,

"kos" and "yanshuf"

(as follows sec. 2).

One must understand:

A)

In the verse it says "the cup" <b>before</b> "the pelican" — why does Rashi change their order in his commentary and interpret the word "cup" only after his commentary on "the pelican"³?

B)

When Rashi gives the translation of the other kinds of birds in the portion

(also regarding "cup and owl" which is in that same verse)

he brings <b>not</b> any source for his commentaries.

Why specifically here,

regarding "the pelican",

does he write "our Rabbis explained" and further adds "and this is what Onkelos translated etc." and is not satisfied merely with stating the commentary itself: "this is the one that draws out etc."?

3)

The wonder is even greater: when Rashi brings from Targum Onkelos a proof for his explanation

(because the explanation is not so clear),

he says the language "וכן תרגם" and the like.

Why does he say in our verse the language "וזהו שתרגם כו׳" from which it is implied that he is entirely outside

(not to bring a proof from Targum Onkelos,

but)

to explain the Targum — and this is completely not understood: Rashi wrote his commentary on &lt;b&gt;Chumash&lt;/b&gt; and not on Targum Onkelos?

4)

To know what "your" means,

it would seemingly be enough when Rashi says "השולה &lt;b&gt;דגים&lt;/b&gt;"

(and "fish" are indeed in the sea)

— just as Targum Onkelos&lt;sup&gt;4&lt;/sup&gt;

translates: "ושלינונא" — why does Rashi need to add that he is "שולה" the fish "מן הים"?

2.

After Rashi translates the word "hashlech",

he continues: "Cos v'yanshuf — they are tzuitush that cry out at night and have jaws like a man.

And another similar to it that is called yivatz".

Learning Rashi's commentary at first glance,

it turns out,

that the words "v'od acher domeh lo etc." come as a continuation to the very beginning of the commentary "hem tzuitush etc." — i.e.

that

that speaking about both kinds of birds "cos v'yanshuf" Rashi explains: "hem"

(the two birds are — one of them is)

"tzuitush etc. v'od acher domeh lo

(and the second of them,

which is similar to the tzuitush)

shekurin yivatz".

And this that Rashi says also by "tsoitus" in plural language,

"&lt;b&gt;the screechers&lt;/b&gt; etc. and &lt;b&gt;to them&lt;/b&gt; etc." — although he speaks here about only &lt;b&gt;one&lt;/b&gt; species of bird

("kos" or "yanshuf")

— this is because,

unlike by other species,

about the species "tsoitus" is spoken in a plural language

(as one finds in the holy tongue,

for example,

that by certain species of things,

such as water,

only plural language is used).

And for this reason Rashi also calls the name of the species: "tsoitus"

(and not "tsoit")

with the addition of the letter shin at the end of the name which indicates

(in the French language)

plural language

(as in Yiddish and English)

— because by this species one always uses a language that refers to the birds as plural.

3.

But in truth, one cannot learn this way,

because

(besides that Rashi himself,

in his commentary on the Talmud,

translates the same species in the singular: "ציאיט" ⁵

or "צואיטה" ⁶)

at the end of the commentary itself, Rashi says that the second species,

"יַעֲנָה",

is "similar <b>to him</b>"

(to "צואיטוש")

in the singular — one can no longer assume that for "צואיטה" specifically the plural form fits: and it is also difficult to say,

that in the same commentary Rashi should first speak about the species in the plural and immediately afterwards — in the singular.

Thus it is proven from this,

that with his commentary "they are <b>צו׳איטוש הצועקים</b> at night and <b>they have</b> cheeks like a man"

(in the plural)

Rashi intends to explain both species that both "כוס" and "ינשוף" are the birds that are called "צואיטוש"⁷

4.

5.

Although in French both species are designated by <b>one</b> general name,

nevertheless the verse distinguishes them through separate names — "כוס" and "ינשוף" — because in the Holy Tongue there is no name that would include them together.

But since it is difficult to say that in Lashon HaKodesh there should not be a general name for both sorts of tzuita&lt;sup&gt;8&lt;/sup&gt;

(which have a commonality between them, which is why they are called by one name in French)

— therefore Rashi adds

(for the sake of completeness)

another explanation: "ועוד אחר דומה לו שקורין ייבץ": that since also the species yavetz is similar to tzuita,

one can say that one of the two,

"כוס" or "ינשוף",

is a name for

(all sorts)

"צואיטא",

and the second is "ייבץ"&lt;sup&gt;9&lt;/sup&gt;.

ד.

But it is not understood: since it is smoother to say,

as above,

that with the two names the verse means two separate species

(and &lt;b&gt;not&lt;/b&gt; such that can be designated as two branches of the same species itself)

— why then does Rashi teach at the beginning of &lt;b&gt;&lt;/b&gt;

(main)

his explanation that "כוס" and "ינשוף" are both included in the species tzuita?

Therefore one must learn,

that the words "כוס" and "ינשוף" carry within themselves a certain meaning that shows that thereby is meant the species "צואיטא"

that one of them means something else, Rashi emphasizes "similar to him"¹⁰,

that that which one can say that "כוס" or "ינשוף" means something else, it is because it is similar to צואיטא].

One must understand: Where lies in the words "כוס" and "ינשוף" the indication of the species "צואיטא"?

Seemingly, one could explain: That which Rashi teaches

(at the beginning of his commentary)

that "כוס" and "ינשוף" are both "צואיטה",

it is because thus he heard from his teachers.

And since regarding knowing which bird is called by a specific name it is not possible to say logical arguments,

and the only source for this is solely "מסורה",

therefore Rashi writes at the beginning of his commentary

(which is the &lt;b&gt;main&lt;/b&gt; part of his commentary)

that both of them are "צואיטוש".

And even after Rashi teaches further,

that it can be that one of them is "ייבץ"

(as it stands to reason that the two words of the verse are two separate species),

he nevertheless adds "דומה לו",

because in order to be able to teach that "כוס" or "ינשוף" is "ייבץ"

(&lt;b&gt;differently&lt;/b&gt; than he heard from his teacher that both are צואיטוש)

Rashi relies on that which ייבץ is similar to צואיטה,

and due to the similarity between them,

they also accepted the second species-"ייבץ" as "צואיטה"

(i.e.,

5.

that is,

that also the second explanation is founded upon the מסורה).

But the explanation does not hold out.

Because in his commentary on the Talmud¹¹

Rashi says clearly,

that "karya"

(the translation of "kos")

is "yavetz",

and "kapufa"

(the translation of "yanshuf")

is "tzoita" — and it is understandable,

that also his commentaries in the Talmud

(regarding name-words)

he received from his teachers.

So it is difficult to understand why in his commentary on Chumash he assumes

(at the beginning and main part of his commentary)

that both,

both "kos"

(karya)

and "yanshuf"

(kapu- fa)

are tzoitus — <b>differently</b> than in his commentary on the Talmud?

6.

Also regarding the translation of "tinshemet"¹²

(in a verse further on)

one finds,

that in his commentary on the Torah Rashi changes regarding his commentary on the Talmud;

In his commentary on Gemara¹³

Rashi gives <b>two</b> interpretations of tinshemet: first he interprets that it means "ציאיט" and then he says "ולי נראה שקורין קלבא שוריץ"¹⁴

; in his commentary on the Torah he says <b>simply</b>: "התנשמת היא קלבא שוריץ etc." and the interpretation of "ציאיט" he does not mention at all

(even not as a <b>second</b> interpretation),

despite the fact that it is the <b>first</b> in his commentary on the Talmud.

But there is a difference between them: here,

in the commentary on tinshemet,

the reason for the change is understandable: although according to Rashi himself it turns out

("נראה לי")

that tinshemet is "קלבא שוריץ",

he nevertheless, in his commentary on the Talmud,

which is relevant to halacha,

does not want to rely entirely

(or even primarily)

on the interpretation that <b>he</b> prefers and he therefore brings <b>first and foremost</b> the interpretation that he heard from his teacher¹⁵.

(And from this same reason,

because it is relevant to halacha,

he also brings his interpretation: for just as he must reckon with the interpretation that he heard from his teacher,

so too he may not conceal the interpretation that occurs to him¹⁶.

No more,

that regarding halacha the interpretation that he received from his teachers outweighs for him,

and therefore <b>his</b> interpretation — the second one).

But not so in his commentary on the Torah,

where he teaches the verses according to the simple meaning,

he does not hold that he must teach according to what he received from his teacher,

when to him it seems that the simple meaning is in another manner — and therefore brings only <b>his</b> interpretation¹⁷.

But regarding the interpretation of "kos v'yanshuf",

which also from the intellect it is appropriate to say as above,

that the two na- mes are two separate species,

the aforementioned question remains: why does he teach at the beginning

(main)

his commentary "hem tzuitush",

and not as in his commentary on the Talmud that "kos" is a separate species

(yavetz)?

Even more surprising: even his se- cond commentary

(in Chumash)

does not match his commentary on the Talmud: in his commentary on the Talmud Rashi says clearly that kos

(kria)

is yaventz,

and yanshuf

(kfufa)

is tzuita; but in his

(second)

commentary on Chumash he says only that one of the two

(kos v'yanshuf)

is yaventz and the second is tzuita,

not stating thereby which is what.

7.

One more thing must be understood here:

In Rashi's commentaries on the names of the birds in Chumash,

there are three ways¹⁸

how he translates them: There are names of birds that Rashi translates only into French

(<b>not</b> giving any signs to identify them),

as with "Netz" where he gives only the French name "Epervier"; for other of the birds he says,

conversely,

only their identifying signs and not what they are called in French — as with "Shalach": "the one who pulls fish from the sea"; and there is a case where he translates the names of the birds through both ways,

as with "Kos V'yanshuf": "they are tzouettes" and he also adds — "the ones who cry out at night and have jaws like a man."

Regarding the first two ways, one can say,

that Rashi uses the "blaz" words only¹⁹

in a case where by depicting the signs of the bird,

the "ben chamesh lamikra" will still not know exactly what kind of bird this is.

But regarding the third way

(where Rashi explains the species of bird through both means — through its French name and also through its unique characteristic — such as for example by כוס וינשוף)

requires explanation: since Rashi assumes that <b>one must</b> arrive at the translation into French

("tzoitus")

why does he still need, in addition to this, also to add the interpretation "the ones that cry out at night etc." — if the laaz-word is sufficient by "netz",

for example,

why should it not be sufficient by "cos v'yanshuf"?

8.

So the explanation in all this:

According to the simple approach it is possible to say,

that the name of each thing indicates its essence.

As the Ibn Ezra

(whose commentary is also according to the simple approach — only not the simple approach of Rashi)

explains regarding all the names of the birds,

how the name expresses the characteristic,

appearance

(etc.)

of the bird.

And therefore, for his interpretation that "shalakh" is "the one who pulls out fish, etc.,"

Rashi must preface "our Rabbis explained" — because were it not for this,

the reasoning would incline to learn as Ibn Ezra says,

that shalakh is a bird that "its natural habit is to cast its young":

Since the word "shalakh" is closer

(corresponding with all the letters)

to the language of casting than to the language of pulling out

(and especially that its meaning is casting from above downward,

the opposite of "pulling out" — from below upward)

Therefore Rashi says "Our Rabbis explained this one who catches fish etc.',

that thus did "Our Rabbis" explain,

d.

h.

Since it is not a matter of derush,

but

(explained)

a translation that our Rabbis taught us,

it is therefore not applicable to choose another interpretation that is more according to the simple meaning,

and as above section 5,

that regarding a translation one must explain according to the tradition.

t.

The student asks a question: Just as with the shalakh there is the quality to "catch" fish,

so too with other birds of prey there is the quality to "catch" — another kind of prey — so why should specifically the fish-catcher be called by the name shalakh?

Because of this Rashi adds "who takes fish &lt;b&gt;from the sea"&lt;/b&gt;: all birds of prey take only things that are on the surface.

But not so &lt;b&gt;this&lt;/b&gt; bird,

since it takes fish from the depth&lt;sup&gt;20&lt;/sup&gt;

— from the sea,

that the quality of lifting up and drawing out

("taking")

is with it in a prominent and great manner

(not like with the other birds whose "taking" of their prey is from the dry land,

or even from the sea but from the surface),

therefore specifically for it is suited the name "shalach".

Y.

Based on this one will also understand,

what Rashi continues "and this is &lt;b&gt;that he translated&lt;/b&gt; Onkelos and shelinuna",

because from this he brings a proof that it is possible to call the bird by the name "shalach" from the language &lt;b&gt;"sholeh"&lt;/b&gt; — although in the &lt;b&gt;general&lt;/b&gt; quality of "sholeh" it is &lt;b&gt;not&lt;/b&gt; distinguished from other birds:

From the fact that the name of the bird in Aramaic is &lt;b&gt;sheli&lt;/b&gt;nuna — because Onkelos with his translation "veshelinuna" does not mean here to explain and elucidate the characteristics of the bird — he merely translates

(as Rashi infers "and this is &lt;b&gt;that he translated&lt;/b&gt; etc."),

he translates its name into Aramaic: i.

e.

that the bird is &lt;b&gt;called&lt;/b&gt; after the name that it is &lt;b&gt;sholah&lt;/b&gt; &lt;sup&gt;21&lt;/sup&gt;,

therefore it suggests to say that also the name "shalach"

(in the Holy Tongue)

is because it is &lt;b&gt;sholah&lt;/b&gt;,

And therefore Rashi says the wording "and this is that he translated etc.",

because his proof from the Targum that for "shalach" the wording "sholah" fits,

is indeed through &lt;b&gt;explaining&lt;/b&gt; the Targum&lt;sup&gt;22&lt;/sup&gt;

: through his explanation that what Onkelos translates "veshelinuna" is that therefore the bird is called by this name because it is sholah — from this emerges the proof,

that this is also the reason for the name "shalach"

(in the Holy Tongue),

as above.

as above.

11.

Based on the above,

that Rashi seeks to explain how the names of the birds indicate their matter,

one will also understand the reason that after Rashi explains that "כוס וינשוף" are "צואיטוש",

he adds "that they cry out at night and have jaws like a man" — although the student understands French &lt;sup&gt;23&lt;/sup&gt;

— because thereby he hints how the characteristics of "צואיטוש" are hinted in the names "כוס" and "ינשוף":

"כוס" is from the term "מכוסה"&lt;sup&gt;24&lt;/sup&gt;

— indicates something related to night

(opposite of light,

day),

when everything is covered with the darkness of night; and so too with "ינשוף" that the name itself,

from the term "נשף" &lt;sup&gt;25&lt;/sup&gt;,

indicates night &lt;sup&gt;24&lt;/sup&gt;

— and their connection with night,

Rashi teaches,

consists in that they are the "צואיטוש &lt;b&gt;that cry out at night&lt;/b&gt;".

But with this alone Rashi is not in doubt.

Because there are still other kinds of birds with the quality that has a special connection to night — such as "tinshemet" which is "flying at night"&lt;sup&gt;26&lt;/sup&gt;

— one must say,

that that which "tzoitus" are called "kos" and "yanshuf" is

(not only because these names indicate "night",

but)

also because of additional qualities of these particular birds that are hinted at in "kos v'yanshuf".

— And this is what Rashi adds "and they have jowls like a man": also this matter is hinted at in their names,

because by that which their cheeks are prominent,

full,

as with humans

(and not sunken as with other fowl)

it is fitting to compare them to a "kos",

which can take into itself water or other beverages;

And so too regarding "ינשוף": the student has already learned in a previous sedra &lt;sup&gt;27&lt;/sup&gt;,

that "נשיפה" means blowing — and when blowing, the cheeks become full and prominent — and this is the indication of the name "ינשוף" for the צואיטוש which have "לסתות כאדם".

But with the matter of "ויש להם לסתות כאדם" alone Rashi is not satisfied,

because that which "יש להם לסתות כאדם" has nothing to do with the characteristic,

but with the form of the birds — and it is plausible to say that the name should express the characteristic,

which is more essential than the appearance

(and as one indeed sees by "שלך" which indicates the characteristic of "&lt;b&gt;השולה&lt;/b&gt; דגים")

— therefore Rashi takes as the first detail the matter of "הצועקים בלילה" which is the &lt;b&gt;characteristic&lt;/b&gt; of the צואיטוש; only since this is still not sufficient,

as above,

he therefore &lt;b&gt;adds&lt;/b&gt; "ויש להם לסתות כאדם".

12.

But here the student asks a question ²⁸

: from the very fact that one bird is called "cos" and another "yanshuf" it is thus implied,

that the difference between the two species of birds is expressed in the <b>difference</b> between their names.

But according to the above that the two names

(both "cos" and "yanshuf")

both indicate the same characteristic

("they cry at night")

and the same appearance

("jaws like a person")

— that is,

that the names indicate only the general characteristics of the owl,

but not the particular characteristics in which one type of owl is distinguished from the other — then why is one owl called by the name "cos" and the other by the name "yanshuf"?

Therefore Rashi adds "and another similar to it that is called yibetz",

that there is another bird that is only <b>similar</b>

(<b>similar</b> in form²⁹)

to the owl,

i.

e.

that it has only "jaws like a person"³⁰,

but it does not cry at night³¹

— and consequently one can say,

that the difference between "cos" and "yanshuf" is,

that one of them also indicates³²

the characteristic of "cries at night" and is called "owl"; and one of them indicates <b>only</b> the matter of "jaws like a person" and it is the name for "yibetz".

But he has no proof

(according to the simple interpretation³³)

which is cos and which is yanshuf"³⁴.

But Rashi gives this explanation only as a <b>second</b> interpretation,

because according to this explanation it would turn out that one of the two names indicates only the form of the bird and not its nature — and it is not logical to say,

that when a thing is called by a name that denotes something in the thing,

it is done first and foremost in relation to the nature of the thing — therefore Rashi initially adopts as his <b>primary</b> interpretation "they are tzou-itus",

according to which it turns out that the names "kos and yanshuf" indicate the nature,

the nature of "those that cry out at night",

And this is also the reasoning that Rashi precedes his explanation of "hashalach" before he explains "kos" — because his explanation of "hashalach — this is the one that catches fish"

(that the name "shalach" is because of the <b>nature</b> of the bird)

proves,

that presumably it is likewise regarding the other names of the birds.

Therefore it is plausible

(as explained above)

that kos and yanshuf are tzou-itus,

as above,

as above.

as above.

13.

From the matters of "the wine of Torah" in Rashi's commentary of ours: Regarding the shark,

the Gemara says²

: R' Yochanan, when he saw a shark, said "Your judgments"³⁵

great deep.

Rashi translates: And Your judgments even in the great deep that You prepared a shark to judge and to take Your vengeance on the fish of the sea to kill those destined to die.

And from the Gemara the Alter Rebbe brought a proof³⁶

to the method of the Baal Shem Tov that <b>all</b> matters are in Divine Providence — <b>not</b> like those who say that Divine Providence is only in the human species³⁷

— because one sees indeed,

that also upon fish there exists a judgment and sentence <b>particular</b>,

and the Most High prepares the shark that it should catch <b>the</b> fish

(particulars)

upon which the judgment above was decreed.

And this matter Rashi hints at with the words "our Rabbis explained: this one who pulls fish from the sea",

as follows.

14.

It is known ³⁸,

that the word "nature" is from the term "they sank³⁹

in the Red Sea".

And the explanation of this is: just as things that are drowned in the sea,

they are nevertheless present there in completeness,

it is only — that one does <b>not see</b> them

(because of that which the sea covers them)

; so too is the matter of "nature": also in it <b>there is</b> Divinity,

and as mentioned above that <b>all</b> events that are in the world <b>in all</b> their details and particulars of particulars are with particular providence from the Most High,

only what then — the garments of nature are

(according to the will of the Creator made such that they are)

<b>covering</b> the Divine vitality,

so that one should not see it <b>openly</b>.

And this is the hint in the language of Rashi "השלך — פירשו רבותינו זה השולה דגים מן הים",

that what "פירשו רבותינו"⁴⁰

regarding "שלך" — the explanation that "רבותינו" say in connection with it "משפטיך תהום רבה",

<b>That</b>⁴¹

("זה")

is what takes out

("השולה")

the "דגים" from their concealment and hiding — "ים":

Were it not for the aforementioned Gemara about "שלך",

one could think that the conduct of fish is by way of chance, heaven forbid

"מה דגים שבים כל הגדול מחבירו בולע כו׳"]

; and the aforementioned explanation of רבותינו regarding "שלך",

takes out the fish from the concealment of the sea and shows that their conduct is with particular providence.

And from this one learns also regarding all other animals⁴³,

and also regarding vegetation and even regarding the inanimate⁴⁴

— that <b>all</b> their matters are <b>with Divine Providence</b>.

(From the talks of Shabbos Parshas Shemini and the following days of the week 5728)