Q&A: Five Verses with No Decisive Parsing
Five Verses with No Decisive Parsing
Question
Five verses have no decisive parsing: se’et, meshukadim, tomorrow, cursed, and arose (Yoma 52), and see Tosafot there.
And in Rashi:
“You are about to lie down with your fathers and arise”—and here He hinted to him about the resurrection of the dead; or, “and this people will arise and go astray.”
If “and arise” belongs to the first part, how does the second half of the verse work grammatically: “this people and go astray”—what does that even mean?
Answer
Beyond that, it does not seem that “have no decisive parsing” means that it is unclear how to read it, as one of two possibilities. For if that were so, then there would be doubt whether resurrection of the dead is taught by the Torah or not. Rather, the meaning is that it should be read in both ways simultaneously.
And from here the conclusion: I do not think there are two alternative reading proposals here, but proposals that must both be accepted in parallel. Even if “and arise” is attached to the first clause, it still remains attached to the second clause as well.
Discussion on Answer
Hello Rabbi,
Could you respond to my comment?
1. I changed the order of writing and didn’t delete it.
2. Indeed, according to Tosafot it is difficult. See there in the Ritva and in the editor’s notes, who wrote that the verse actually is decided, just not from its wording. According to his approach, it is even more difficult.
3. As for the Sanhedrin passage, see there in the Maharsha, who explicitly wrote above that Rabban Gamliel expounded both.
But in truth, this requires further investigation.
On further review, I saw that in Sanhedrin one can explain that the doubt is whether this applies only to the latter clause or also to the first clause. There is no possibility that it applies only to the first clause.
And that is also the straightforward reading of the Yoma passage. As for Tosafot there, I didn’t check just now. They wonder why we should not expound both, and on the face of it that is not like what I wrote. But it is possible that they too mean the two possibilities I suggested here, and the side that says not to expound it on the first clause is that perhaps it applies only to the second clause—precisely because it is impossible to read it as applying only to the first clause. We expound in both directions only where each of them is independently possible. But I didn’t check it just now.
1. The response begins with the words “Beyond that”—is it possible you wrote something and it was accidentally omitted?
2. Regarding what you answered: “Even if ‘and arise’ is attached to the first clause, it still remains attached to the second clause as well”—that goes against the explanation of Tosafot there. I intentionally noted in the question, “and see Tosafot there,” because Tosafot insist that these five verses belong either to the first clause or to the second clause, but not to both.
(By the way, regarding your claim, “If that were so, then there would be doubt whether resurrection of the dead is taught by the Torah or not”—indeed that is so. From this verse one cannot decide, as explained in the Talmud in Sanhedrin 90a: “The Romans asked Rabbi Yehoshua ben Hananiah: From where do we know that the Holy One, blessed be He, revives the dead and knows what is destined to be? He said to them: Both are from this verse, as it is stated: ‘You are about to lie down with your fathers—and arise—and this people will go astray.’ But perhaps it means, ‘and this people will arise and go astray’? He said to them: At least hold on to half of it in your hands—that He knows what is destined to be.”)