וַיִּגַּ֥שׁ אַבְרָהָ֖ם וַיֹּאמַ֑ר הַאַ֣ף תִּסְפֶּ֔ה צַדִּ֖יק עִם־רָשָֽׁע׃
Abraham mendekat dan berkata, “Apakah Engkau sungguh akan membinasakan orang benar bersama-sama dengan orang fasik?
Rabbeinu Bahya
According to the discipline of vocalisations there are seven gradations in the vowels [not including semi-vowels which are not audible but which nonetheless are not part of the consonants]. The vowel kametz ranks as highest of these seven levels. It is followed in descending order by patach, tzeyre, segol, cholem shuruk, and chirik. The entire Torah is structured around these seven vowels which affect pronunciation of the words. They are also known as "seven syllables", or "seven sounds", concerning which David said in Psalm 29 [known as the hymn in honour of the giving of the Torah. קול ה', “the voice or the sound of G’d,” occurs seven times.] This is also the meaning of Shemot Rabbah 28,4 that the Torah was given with seven קולות, “sounds.” Concerning these seven sounds, Solomon said in Proverbs 9,1 חצבה עמודיה שבעה, “she has hewn her seven pillars.” These seven sounds are the foundation upon which the whole structure rests.
The difference between the vowel kametz and the vowel patach (otherwise found in the word “adonay”) is merely a single “dot,” and usually such a dot is perceived as an allusion to the original “dot” of matter which was the beginning of the creative process of this universe. [the “dot” is equated in kabbalistic jargon with the letter י, itself an allusion to the ten emanations.] This is the mystical reason why such a dot (in the way we write the vowels) serves seven different purposes. When you place such a dot on top of a consonant it produces the vowel cholam. When you place it in the middle of the consonant ו the result is the vowel shuruk. If you add the dot to the vowel patach, the result will be the vowel kametz. If you add a dot to the vowel chirik, you get the vowel tzeyre. If you add a dot to the vowel tzeyre the result is the vowel segol. If you add a dot to the semi-vowel sheva the result is the vowel kubutz. So you have seven different vowels merely by changing a single “dot.”
Now to the letters themselves. If you insert (fill in the missing blank) a dot inside the letter ה it turns it into a ח. If you add a dot to the left side top of the letter ו it becomes a ז. If you add a dot to make the base of the letter כ protrude, it turns into the letter ב. If you add a dot on the right top of the letter ר it turns into the letter ד. We can understand therefore what the sages mean when they say that an extra dot or a missing dot is liable to destroy the universe. (compare Sotah 20).
Although, at first glance, it appears that there is only a minute difference between spelling the word adonay or adonoy, (and in the sephardic pronunciation this difference is not even audible), there are profound differences in the meaning of the word as a result of misspelling it and consequently misunderstanding its meaning. Here are a few examples of where such minor misspellings have a profound effect. Joshua 3,6 speaks of the ארון הברית, ”the ark of the covenant.” When spelled (correctly) with the vowel patach, the word ארון, ark, is a possessive of the word הברית, “G’d’s covenant.” If spelled incorrectly with the vowel kametz, this would convert the ark into being the covenant. In Exodus 23,20 we have the verse הנה אנכי שולח מלאך “here I am going to send an angel.” The word מלאך is vocalised with the vowel kametz as it is not in the possessive clause. Whenever the word מלאך is in the possessive clause it must be vocalised with the vowel patach. At the end of a verse or at the cantillation etnachta, the vowel patach is always changed to kametz to indicate that the word is in its own right and is not a possessive clause which would be presumed otherwise. The patach always points to the word which follows it, making the word with that vowel at the end secondary to what follows. (Rabbi Chavell quotes Mateh Moshe on laws of prayers who quotes our author, and adds that when the word אדני is spelled with the vowel chirik at the end, it means “my ‘personal’ lord,” as opposed to acknowledging that “He is the ruler of the whole universe”). The reason that in our verse you do not find the word adonay vocalised with a patach is best understood by remembering that if Avraham had indeed addressed only Michael he would have had to say adonee, “my (personal) lord.” Neither the vowel patach nor the vowel kametz would have been appropriate. It would be incongruous to vocalise the word אדני when used as a reference to G’d with the vowel patach, as this would imply that G’d is in some kind of subordinate relationship to anyone as suggested by the possessive clause represented by that vowel. In short, if someone exchanges the kametz under this word for a patach he cannot escape being guilty of one or two things. 1) He is a heretic; 2) or he completely distorts the meaning of the verse in which this word appears.
Let us use Genesis 18,23 as an example. If someone were to place the vowel kametz instead of the vowel patach under the letter ה in האף תספה (which is perceived as turning what follows into a question), he would completely distort the meaning of the whole verse, turning it into a statement, i.e. an accusation against G’d. Let us look at another example. in Job 8,3. In הא-ל יעות משפט; the letter ה is vocalised with the vowel patach. As it stands the verse is a question and means: “is it possible that G’d will pervert justice?” If you were to place the vowel kametz under the letter ה in the word הא-ל in that verse it would turn the entire phrase into a statement denying G’d’s justice, i.e. into heresy. Another way of explaining what we have been saying is that the vowel kametz describes a true state of affairs, something objective, whereas the vowel patach describes something relative, a subjective truth. (Rabbi Chavell conjectures that the last statement may be based on David Kimchi, though he does not supply a source for this.) An example of the accuracy of this claim is Samuel II 1,10 (where the Amalekite lad relates to David that he had complied with Saul’s wish to give him the coup de grace so he would not fall into the hands of the Philistines as a prisoner) ואעמד עליו ואמתתהו כי ידעתי כי לא יחיה, “so I stood over him and killed him for I knew that he would not live.” In that verse the words ואעמד עליו, “I stood over him,” are an absolute truth; the words כי ידעתי כי לא יחיה, “for I knew he would not live” are a relative truth. The word ואעמד begins with the vowel kametz under the letter ו, whereas the corresponding letter ו in the word ואמתתהו, has the vowel patach to signify that this statement was only a relative truth. We had read in Samuel I 31,4 that Saul had actually committed suicide when his arms-bearer refused to finish him off. So the statement of the Amalekite lad who claimed to have killed him was not an objective truth. All of the foregoing is part of the wisdom contained in the Holy Torah and the Holy Tongue. This is the reason that the relationship of consonants and vowels to one another has been compared to the relationship between body and soul as pointed out in the Sefer HaBahir by Rabbi Nechunyah ben HaKana. The vowels, i.e. the absence of correct vocalization invalidates the text just as the absence of a soul paralyses the body. The body is compared to an animal without a rider. The soul supplies the animal with its rider. In a similar manner the vowels are what complete the consonants. We find a statement in Megillah 3 that the words ושום שכל in Nechemiah 8,8 are a reference to what is spelled out in the Holy Scriptures, especially the vocalization.
The difference between the vowel kametz and the vowel patach (otherwise found in the word “adonay”) is merely a single “dot,” and usually such a dot is perceived as an allusion to the original “dot” of matter which was the beginning of the creative process of this universe. [the “dot” is equated in kabbalistic jargon with the letter י, itself an allusion to the ten emanations.] This is the mystical reason why such a dot (in the way we write the vowels) serves seven different purposes. When you place such a dot on top of a consonant it produces the vowel cholam. When you place it in the middle of the consonant ו the result is the vowel shuruk. If you add the dot to the vowel patach, the result will be the vowel kametz. If you add a dot to the vowel chirik, you get the vowel tzeyre. If you add a dot to the vowel tzeyre the result is the vowel segol. If you add a dot to the semi-vowel sheva the result is the vowel kubutz. So you have seven different vowels merely by changing a single “dot.”
Now to the letters themselves. If you insert (fill in the missing blank) a dot inside the letter ה it turns it into a ח. If you add a dot to the left side top of the letter ו it becomes a ז. If you add a dot to make the base of the letter כ protrude, it turns into the letter ב. If you add a dot on the right top of the letter ר it turns into the letter ד. We can understand therefore what the sages mean when they say that an extra dot or a missing dot is liable to destroy the universe. (compare Sotah 20).
Although, at first glance, it appears that there is only a minute difference between spelling the word adonay or adonoy, (and in the sephardic pronunciation this difference is not even audible), there are profound differences in the meaning of the word as a result of misspelling it and consequently misunderstanding its meaning. Here are a few examples of where such minor misspellings have a profound effect. Joshua 3,6 speaks of the ארון הברית, ”the ark of the covenant.” When spelled (correctly) with the vowel patach, the word ארון, ark, is a possessive of the word הברית, “G’d’s covenant.” If spelled incorrectly with the vowel kametz, this would convert the ark into being the covenant. In Exodus 23,20 we have the verse הנה אנכי שולח מלאך “here I am going to send an angel.” The word מלאך is vocalised with the vowel kametz as it is not in the possessive clause. Whenever the word מלאך is in the possessive clause it must be vocalised with the vowel patach. At the end of a verse or at the cantillation etnachta, the vowel patach is always changed to kametz to indicate that the word is in its own right and is not a possessive clause which would be presumed otherwise. The patach always points to the word which follows it, making the word with that vowel at the end secondary to what follows. (Rabbi Chavell quotes Mateh Moshe on laws of prayers who quotes our author, and adds that when the word אדני is spelled with the vowel chirik at the end, it means “my ‘personal’ lord,” as opposed to acknowledging that “He is the ruler of the whole universe”). The reason that in our verse you do not find the word adonay vocalised with a patach is best understood by remembering that if Avraham had indeed addressed only Michael he would have had to say adonee, “my (personal) lord.” Neither the vowel patach nor the vowel kametz would have been appropriate. It would be incongruous to vocalise the word אדני when used as a reference to G’d with the vowel patach, as this would imply that G’d is in some kind of subordinate relationship to anyone as suggested by the possessive clause represented by that vowel. In short, if someone exchanges the kametz under this word for a patach he cannot escape being guilty of one or two things. 1) He is a heretic; 2) or he completely distorts the meaning of the verse in which this word appears.
Let us use Genesis 18,23 as an example. If someone were to place the vowel kametz instead of the vowel patach under the letter ה in האף תספה (which is perceived as turning what follows into a question), he would completely distort the meaning of the whole verse, turning it into a statement, i.e. an accusation against G’d. Let us look at another example. in Job 8,3. In הא-ל יעות משפט; the letter ה is vocalised with the vowel patach. As it stands the verse is a question and means: “is it possible that G’d will pervert justice?” If you were to place the vowel kametz under the letter ה in the word הא-ל in that verse it would turn the entire phrase into a statement denying G’d’s justice, i.e. into heresy. Another way of explaining what we have been saying is that the vowel kametz describes a true state of affairs, something objective, whereas the vowel patach describes something relative, a subjective truth. (Rabbi Chavell conjectures that the last statement may be based on David Kimchi, though he does not supply a source for this.) An example of the accuracy of this claim is Samuel II 1,10 (where the Amalekite lad relates to David that he had complied with Saul’s wish to give him the coup de grace so he would not fall into the hands of the Philistines as a prisoner) ואעמד עליו ואמתתהו כי ידעתי כי לא יחיה, “so I stood over him and killed him for I knew that he would not live.” In that verse the words ואעמד עליו, “I stood over him,” are an absolute truth; the words כי ידעתי כי לא יחיה, “for I knew he would not live” are a relative truth. The word ואעמד begins with the vowel kametz under the letter ו, whereas the corresponding letter ו in the word ואמתתהו, has the vowel patach to signify that this statement was only a relative truth. We had read in Samuel I 31,4 that Saul had actually committed suicide when his arms-bearer refused to finish him off. So the statement of the Amalekite lad who claimed to have killed him was not an objective truth. All of the foregoing is part of the wisdom contained in the Holy Torah and the Holy Tongue. This is the reason that the relationship of consonants and vowels to one another has been compared to the relationship between body and soul as pointed out in the Sefer HaBahir by Rabbi Nechunyah ben HaKana. The vowels, i.e. the absence of correct vocalization invalidates the text just as the absence of a soul paralyses the body. The body is compared to an animal without a rider. The soul supplies the animal with its rider. In a similar manner the vowels are what complete the consonants. We find a statement in Megillah 3 that the words ושום שכל in Nechemiah 8,8 are a reference to what is spelled out in the Holy Scriptures, especially the vocalization.
Ramban
[AND MOSES SAID UNTO THE JUDGES OF ISRAEL]: ‘SLAY YE EVERY ONE HIS MEN [THAT HAVE JOINED THEMSELVES UNTO BAAL-PEOR].’ “Each one of the judges of Israel killed two [men, as the word anashav — his ‘men,’ in the plural, indicates], and the judges of Israel were seventy-eight thousand,315Our texts of Rashi have the figure 88,000, but 78,000 [the number found in a Ramban manuscript] is correct [to the nearest thousand] — and this is also the figure quoted in Tractate Sanhedrin. The exact figure for the 600,000 Israelites is 78,600 judges, as follows: Captains of thousands, 600; captains of hundreds, 6,000; captains of fifties, 12,000; captains of tens, 60,000 — which total 78,600. It should be noted that in the first edition of Rashi (Reggio 1475) this whole text is missing. as is stated in Tractate Sanhedrin.”316Sanhedrin 18a. This is Rashi’s language. But I cannot understand this, that [we should say that] those who joined themselves [to Baal-peor] who were judged [liable to death] were more than a hundred and fifty thousand — a quarter [of the total population] of Israel!317For if the judges of Israel who numbered 78,600, each killed two men, a total of 157,200 men is reached! This is more than a quarter of the total population of the people! Heaven forbid! [Moreover], cases punishable by death [cannot be decided] by [only] one judge, but [require] a court of twenty-three judges. And [even if we were to say that two people were killed by each court of twenty-three judges], they would still be very many people! And the difference between the [two] censuses is not so great,318In the census taken in the second year after the exodus, the people totalled 603,550 (above 1:46) and now after the incident of Baal-peor, they totalled 601,730 (further 26:51), the decrease being only 1,820! That figure is nowhere near the total number of people killed according to Rashi, for even if two people were killed by each court of twenty-three judges, over 7,000 people were killed. Ramban further on, explains that in actual fact none of the people were put to death. although all those who joined themselves to Baal-peor died, as it is written, for all the men that followed Baal-peor, the Eternal thy G-d hath destroyed them from the midst of thee.319Deuteronomy 4:3.
But the meaning of every one his men is that the judges should kill all those who joined themselves [to Baal-peor], that is to say, each court should judge [the men of] its own tribe and its [groups of] thousands, as it is written, So I took the heads of your tribes, wise men, and full of knowledge, and made them heads over you, captains of thousands, and captains of hundreds … and officers, ‘tribe by tribe’.320Ibid., 1:15. The phrase tribe by tribe indicates that each tribe had its own judges who dealt with offenses committed by men of this tribe. And afterwards I found in the Gemara Yerushalmi [the following statement] in the Chapter Cheilek:321Yerushalmi Sanhedrin X, 2. For the term Cheilek, see above, Note 228. “And how many were the judges of Israel? Seventy-eight thousand and six hundred. Moses said to them: ‘Each one of you should kill two.’ Thus you find that those killed were one hundred and fifty-seven thousand and two hundred.”317For if the judges of Israel who numbered 78,600, each killed two men, a total of 157,200 men is reached! This is more than a quarter of the total population of the people! If so, we must say that according to their opinion [that of these Rabbis] the Israelites increased very remarkably between the [time of the first] census and the [second] census [in order to make up the loss of the many people killed because of this sin of Baal-peor]!
The correct interpretation of the meaning of this section [of the Torah] appears to me to be that at first it says, And Israel joined himself unto Baal-peor; and the anger of the Eternal was kindled against Israel,322Verse 3. [meaning] that there is wrath gone out from the Eternal; the plague is begun;323Above, 17:11. and G-d in His mercy told Moses that the judges should [first] try and then hang those who joined themselves [to Baal-peor], so that the wrath will not indeed sweep away the righteous with the wicked.324See Genesis 18:23. And Moses gave this command to the judges; and when all the congregation was assembled at the door of the Tent of Meeting325Verse 6. to do as Moses commanded, and the plague was still raging amongst them, this Simeonite [Zimri the son of Salu]326Further, Verse 14. brazenly brought unto his brethren a Midianite woman325Verse 6. to rebel against Moses and the judges, and to do so publicly, because he was a prince326Further, Verse 14. and a great man and [knew that] many would come to his help. Or it may be [that he dared to do this publicly] because, as our Rabbis have said,327Sanhedrin 82a. [the people of] his tribe complained to him: “We are being sentenced to death, and you keep quiet!” Then [when Zimri came forth] Moses and the judges began weeping,325Verse 6. and Phinehas stood up, and wrought judgment, and so the plague was stayed.328Psalms 106:30. Thus none of the people was [actually] sentenced by the judges, for G-d had said, and hang them up unto the Eternal in face of the sun, that the fierce anger of the Eternal may turn away from Israel,329Verse 4. and His anger had already turned away [by the action of Phinehas, so that the judges no longer had to proceed with the execution of the judgment]. It is for this reason that Scripture does not say: “and the judges of Israel did so [as they had been commanded].”
It is possible that the intention of the text mentioned [above as to the number of men slain in this episode is not that they were actually killed, but means, as explained above], that according to [the strict] command [of G-d] there ought to have been more than one hundred and fifty thousand killed, meaning to say that there were many sinners, but the act of Phinehas protected them. Thus there remained [many of those] who had joined themselves [to Baal-peor], and the Holy One, blessed be He, destroyed them later on before they crossed over the [river] Jordan. This is [the meaning of] the verse which says, for all the men that followed after Baal-peor, the Eternal thy G-d hath destroyed them from the midst of thee. But ye that did cleave unto the Eternal your G-d are alive every one of you this day.330Deuteronomy 4:3-4.
Pinchas
But the meaning of every one his men is that the judges should kill all those who joined themselves [to Baal-peor], that is to say, each court should judge [the men of] its own tribe and its [groups of] thousands, as it is written, So I took the heads of your tribes, wise men, and full of knowledge, and made them heads over you, captains of thousands, and captains of hundreds … and officers, ‘tribe by tribe’.320Ibid., 1:15. The phrase tribe by tribe indicates that each tribe had its own judges who dealt with offenses committed by men of this tribe. And afterwards I found in the Gemara Yerushalmi [the following statement] in the Chapter Cheilek:321Yerushalmi Sanhedrin X, 2. For the term Cheilek, see above, Note 228. “And how many were the judges of Israel? Seventy-eight thousand and six hundred. Moses said to them: ‘Each one of you should kill two.’ Thus you find that those killed were one hundred and fifty-seven thousand and two hundred.”317For if the judges of Israel who numbered 78,600, each killed two men, a total of 157,200 men is reached! This is more than a quarter of the total population of the people! If so, we must say that according to their opinion [that of these Rabbis] the Israelites increased very remarkably between the [time of the first] census and the [second] census [in order to make up the loss of the many people killed because of this sin of Baal-peor]!
The correct interpretation of the meaning of this section [of the Torah] appears to me to be that at first it says, And Israel joined himself unto Baal-peor; and the anger of the Eternal was kindled against Israel,322Verse 3. [meaning] that there is wrath gone out from the Eternal; the plague is begun;323Above, 17:11. and G-d in His mercy told Moses that the judges should [first] try and then hang those who joined themselves [to Baal-peor], so that the wrath will not indeed sweep away the righteous with the wicked.324See Genesis 18:23. And Moses gave this command to the judges; and when all the congregation was assembled at the door of the Tent of Meeting325Verse 6. to do as Moses commanded, and the plague was still raging amongst them, this Simeonite [Zimri the son of Salu]326Further, Verse 14. brazenly brought unto his brethren a Midianite woman325Verse 6. to rebel against Moses and the judges, and to do so publicly, because he was a prince326Further, Verse 14. and a great man and [knew that] many would come to his help. Or it may be [that he dared to do this publicly] because, as our Rabbis have said,327Sanhedrin 82a. [the people of] his tribe complained to him: “We are being sentenced to death, and you keep quiet!” Then [when Zimri came forth] Moses and the judges began weeping,325Verse 6. and Phinehas stood up, and wrought judgment, and so the plague was stayed.328Psalms 106:30. Thus none of the people was [actually] sentenced by the judges, for G-d had said, and hang them up unto the Eternal in face of the sun, that the fierce anger of the Eternal may turn away from Israel,329Verse 4. and His anger had already turned away [by the action of Phinehas, so that the judges no longer had to proceed with the execution of the judgment]. It is for this reason that Scripture does not say: “and the judges of Israel did so [as they had been commanded].”
It is possible that the intention of the text mentioned [above as to the number of men slain in this episode is not that they were actually killed, but means, as explained above], that according to [the strict] command [of G-d] there ought to have been more than one hundred and fifty thousand killed, meaning to say that there were many sinners, but the act of Phinehas protected them. Thus there remained [many of those] who had joined themselves [to Baal-peor], and the Holy One, blessed be He, destroyed them later on before they crossed over the [river] Jordan. This is [the meaning of] the verse which says, for all the men that followed after Baal-peor, the Eternal thy G-d hath destroyed them from the midst of thee. But ye that did cleave unto the Eternal your G-d are alive every one of you this day.330Deuteronomy 4:3-4.
Pinchas
Rabbeinu Bahya
אל נא רפא נא לה, “O Lord, please heal her.” The attribute El which Moses prayed to is the one with the power to heal; it is part of the attribute of Justice “wrapped” in Mercy. In most instances when this attribute is mentioned it represents חסד, “G’d’s loving kindness." Examples are: Psalms 22,2 אלי אלי למה עזבתני, “My G’d, My G’d why did You forsake me?” or Psalms 50,1 אל אלוהים דבר וירא ארץ, “G’d the Lord G’d spoke, and summoned forth the earth.” The sequence of these attributes is חסד-דין-רחמים, the attributes which were employed by G’d when He created the universe. We also have a verse in Psalms 99,8 where G’d is described as relating to the Jewish people as אל נושא היית להם “You related to them as a G’d who forgives.” If, in apparent contradiction to the aforementioned, we find a verse in Psalms 7,12 which describes ואל זועם בכל יום, “a G’d who pronounces doom each day,” the meaning is that only on such days as the attribute of Justice is manifest does G’d pronounce doom. There are many days when that attribute is not in evidence seeing that the attribute of חסד has displaced it as we know from Genesis 18,23. (where Avraham prayed for the good people in Sodom).