Pemikiran Yahudi Yesaya 29:3: Derush Chiddushei HaLevanah

Alternatively, that concept can be derived building on the explanation Radak gives to the phrase:¹⁷Ibid. 22:18. “like a sphere in a wide-opened land,” and to the verse,¹⁸Ibid. 29:3. “I encamped like a sphere around you.” In his gloss to those verses, Radak explains that both verses should be understood as if the word “like” precedes the words “a sphere”; i.e., it is as if the verses read ככדור, with a second kaf. Hence, Radak states, the initial kaf, referred to as kaf hadimyon, “a kaf of comparison,” is missing. The basis of Radak’s rationale is that it is more logical to say that the kaf that is missing is the kaf hadimyon, than to say that the kaf which serves as one of the root letters of the word is missing. Nevertheless, I maintain that it is the kaf which serves as one of the root letters of the word that is missing, and not the kaf hadimyon. My rationale is that it is possible to explain that the absence of the kaf of the word’s root is alluded to by its vocalization sign, which appears under the kaf hadimyon in the word כדור, “sphere”. This is an accepted pattern in Hebrew grammar. Taking this concept a step further, since we see that a kaf which serves as one of the root letters in a word can be missing as in these two verses, why not say that the same concept applies to the phrase, דור דורים? Why not understand the phrase דור דורים as כדור כדורים, i.e., that the moon, the subject of that verse, is כדור, “a sphere,” above כדורים, “two spheres,” i.e. Mercury and Venus, for as is well known, all the stars and planets are spherical? If one will ask, where is the vocalization sign that indicates that the kaf was omitted? It is possible to reply that in the two verses cited previously, Radak understood that the kaf hadimyon was omitted, even though there is no vocalization sign alluding to the omission. Similarly, I maintain that in those places where it is possible to say that a vocalization sign – i.e., the pasach of the root letter kaf – was included as an allusion, it is preferable to say that is the intent, for this is more appropriate according to the rules of grammar. When, however, no sign can be found, Radak’s approach, that no allusion to the missing letter is necessary, may be followed.