וירא. יש מפרשים בלבת אש בלהבת אש והנכון בעיני כי פירושו בלב האש כי כן מצאנו מה אמולה לבתך. ור' אדנים אמר אילו היה כן היה בלבת בחירק תחת הלמ"ד כמו אל גנת אגוז. והנה שכח וכגנה זרועיה תצמיח: APPEARED. Some interpret be-labbat esh to mean: in a flame of fire.4The word for flame is lehavah (compare Num. 21:28). Those who say that be-labbat means in a flame explain that be-labbat is short for be-lahavat. However, it appears to me that its meaning is, in the heart5That is, in the midst of the fire. This explains why there is no heh in the word labbat. of the fire, for we indeed find, How weak is thy heart (libbatekh) (Ezek. 16:30).6Libbatekh is the word libbah (heart) plus the second person pronominal suffix. Thus libbah means heart and labbat means heart of. It should be noted that the more familiar form for heart is lev. However, Rabbi Adonim7Rabbi Adonim ben Tomim, a medieval grammarian. says that if this were so, then be-labbat would have been vocalized with a chirik beneath the lamed like the word ginnat (garden of) in I went down into the garden of nuts (Canticles 6:11).8If labbat is the construct form of libbah our text should read libbat not labbat, because libbah is vocalized like ginnah (garden), and the construct of ginnah is ginnat, not gannat. Now, Rabbi Adonim seems to have forgotten the word gannah (garden)9The word for garden may be written ginnah or gannah. Similarly, the word for heart may be vocalized libbah or labbah. In the former the construct form is libbat, in the latter, labbat. The word in our verse follows the paradigm of labbah, hence the form labbat. in And as the garden causeth the things that are sown in it to spring forth (Is. 61:11).
הסנה. אמר הגאון כי זה מין קוץ. ורצון שוכני סנה. שמים והטעם על השם הנכבד. ור' ישועה אמר הכבוד ששכן בסנה, ולא דבר נכונה כי איך יקרא שוכני על רגע אחד. ועוד למה נאמר על גזרת פועל ואיננו כן עושה שמים וארץ. כי השם הוא עושה תמיד ומעמיד כהגה היוצא מפי אדם. ועוד אחר שהזכיר כל מגד. הזכיר באחרונה רצון השם. ועוד מה טעם להזכיר זה המלאך. ועוד היה ראוי להיותו שוכני בסנה הידוע. ולפי דעתי כי כל סנה אחד הוא והוא מין קוץ יבש וככה היא בלשון ישמעאל. וככה הר סיני בעבור הסנה. וכן פי' ורצון שוכני סנה. רצון שיבקש השוכן במקום הסנה. שהוא דורש ומבקש תמיד שיעשה השם רצונו וילחלח ארצו שהוא שוכן בה שהיה מקום יובש וסנה. עד שיהא בה הרווי והיתה כגן רוה מלוחלח. והודיע מתוך הסנה בה"א הדעת כי הם דברי משה בכתבו התורה. ובוער מהפעלים היוצאים. כי אש בוערה כמו אש אכלה והעד כאש תבער יער. והנה האש שהיה בסנה בוער כל אשר סביביו כי זה כמו שלחו באש מקדשך. וככה ההר בוער באש. THE BUSH. Saadiah Gaon says that seneh (bush) is a type of thorn bush. He further explains that the word seneh in And the good will of Him that dwelt (shokhni) in the bush (seneh) (Deut. 33:16) means heaven;10The word seneh has two meanings. It means either a thorn bush or heaven (Filwarg). that is, it refers to God the glorious.11Who dwells in heaven (in the seneh). Rabbi Joshua,12A Karaite Bible commentator. See I.E.’s introduction to the Pentateuch, Vol. I, p. 3, note 14. on the other hand, says that the verse refers to the glory that dwelt in the bush.13That is, Deut. 33:16 alludes to God who revealed Himself to Moses in the bush. However, Rabbi Joshua spoke incorrectly, for how can God be called “Him that dwelleth in the bush” when he dwelt there for but a moment.14Deut. 33:16 literally reads: And the good will of Him that dwelleth in a bush. Now God revealed Himself only once in a bush. Why then would Moses refer to God as “the One that dwelleth in a bush,” i.e., is always there? Furthermore, why is the word shokhni (dwelt) in the po’el form?15Po’el is the present form of words in the kal. Since God only revealed Himself once in the bush the perfect shakhan (dwelt) should have been used. The word oseh (makes) in Who makes (oseh) heaven and earth (Ps. 121:2) is different,16Translated literally. Oseh (makes) is a po’el, a present form. Now God made heaven and earth at the time of creation. He does not at present make heaven and earth. We thus see that Scripture uses the present form to describe what God did in the past. Now if God is described as making heaven and earth, why can’t He be described as dwelling in the bush? I.E. answers that the two can’t be compared. as God is constantly making and causing heaven and earth to exist in the same manner as speech issues from the mouth of man.17Hence Scripture praises God as the one Who makes (oseh) heaven and earth. Isaac Husik in A History of Medieval Jewish Philosophy, J.P.S., Philadelphia, 1940, (p. 190) notes that I.E. “seems to favor the idea of eternal creation and maintenance of the universe, the relation of which to God is as the relation of speech to the speaker, which exists only so long as the speaker speaks. The moment he ceases speaking the sounds cease to exist.” Additionally, after mentioning all the precious things (Deut. 33:13-16), Scripture concludes with the good will of God.18Deut. 33:13-16 lists all the good things with which the land of Joseph was blessed, namely, the precious things of heaven, of the sun, of the everlasting hills, and of the earth. It concludes with And the good will of Him that dwelt in a bush. If Him that dwelt in the bush refers to God, why put the Lord’s blessings last (Krinsky)? Moreover, what reason is there to mention this angel?19God appeared to Moses in the bush via an angel. Why mention this in the verses dealing with the good things with which the land of Joseph was blessed? Furthermore, Scripture should have read, ba-seneh (in the bush)20Deut. 33:16 literally reads: And the good will of Him that dwells in a bush. However, in view of the fact that God appeared to Moses in a specific bush Scripture should have read: And the good will of Him who dwells in the bush (shokhni ba-seneh) rather than: And the good will of Him that dwells in a bush (shokni seneh). and thereby would have referred to the well-known bush.21The bush in which God appeared to Moses, for God does not dwell in any bushes.In my opinion seneh (bush) refers to only one thing,22Contra Saadiah Gaon, seneh does not mean a thorn bush or heaven. It has only one meaning. namely, a type of dry thorn bush. This is the case in Arabic.23The Arabic word for thorn is senna. Mount Sinai is so named because this type of bush grew there.24Mount Sinai takes its name from the seneh which grows there. Similarly, its25And the good will of Him that dwelt in the bush. interpretation is: and the good will that he who lives in the place of the bush (seneh) seeks; that is, a person living in such a place entreats and prays that God do his will and wet the land that he lives in. He prays that God change it from a dry place, a place where the seneh grows, to an amply watered place so that it becomes like a wet and well-watered garden. Scripture states that an angel of the Lord appeared out of the midst of the bush.26Ha-seneh (the bush) implies a distinctive bush. Since there was as of yet nothing special about the bush, Scripture should have read seneh (a bush). It should be noted that J.P.S. translates ha-seneh as a bush. However, its literal translation is, the bush. The word seneh has the definite article the (heh) prefixed to it because these are Moses’ very own words in writing the Torah.27When Moses wrote the Torah he referred to the bush wherein the angel of God appeared to him. See note 1.The word bo’er (burned) is a transitive verb. The phrase a burning fire is similar to a devouring fire (Deut. 4:24). As the fire that burneth (tivar) the forest (Ps. 83:15) is proof of this.28Here there is no doubt that the root bet, ayin, resh is transitive. Now the fire that burned in the bush devoured all that was around it. Our verse is similar to They have set Thy sanctuary on fire (Ps. 74:7).29Our clause reads, ha-seneh bo’er ba’esh (the bush burned with fire). I.E. believes this should be explained as if written: ba-seneh bo’er esh (a fire burnt the bush). He proves that this is the meaning of the clause through Ps. 74:7, which reads: shilchu va-esh mikdashekha. The literal meaning is: they have set with fire thy sanctuary. According to I.E. this verse is to be read as if written: shilchu esh be-mikdashekha (they have set fire in thy sanctuary) (Filwarg). While the mountain did burn with fire (Deut. 5:20) is also similar.30Deut. 5:20 reads, va-ha-har bo’er ba-esh (while the mountain burned with fire). Now mountains do not burn. Hence I.E. says that the verse should be interpreted as: the mountain consumed its environment with fire. I.E. explains thus because he believes bo’er to be a transitive verb.
ומלת אוכל שם התאר כמו פעול. וכמוהו אם תראה אותי לוקח מאתך שהוא קמוץ וככה לנער היולד. כהם יוקשים בני האדם. ואלה הפעלים כאשר הם יוצאים. על כן ורגל מועדה איננה כמוהם. רק השורק תחת חולם והיא כמו פועלת: [WAS NOT CONSUMED.] The word ukkal (consumed) is an adjective.31I.E. refers to participles as adjectives. Ukkal (consumed) appears to be a third person pu’al perfect. However, if this were the case it would be vocalized with a pattach, not a kamatz, and would have been preceded by lo, not by enennu (literally, is not). It is similar to the pa’ul.32It is vocalized like a pa’ul. If it were pa’ul it would read akhul. The words lukkach (taken), which is vocalized with a kamatz in if thou see me when I am taken (II Kings 2:10), yullad (shall be born) in unto the child that shall be born (Jud. 13:8), yukashim (snared) in even so are the sons of man snared (Eccles. 9:12) are similar.33They are adjectives with pu’al-like vocalizations. Now since these verbs are transitive, the word mu’edet (unsteady) in and an unsteady leg (Prov. 25:19) cannot be classified among these words34Prima facie, mu’edet also appears to be a pu’al-like adjective and should be classified as such, along with ukkal, lukkach, yullad, and yukashim. as these words are transitive.35Intransitive words do not come in the pu’al form. Mu’edet is similar to mo’edet, a po’elet, with the exception that a shuruk has been substituted for a cholam.36Mu’edet is a variation of mo’edet, which is a po’elet, the kal singular participle form that is vocalized cholam, segol, segol.