rashihed.jpg (16002 bytes)

subscribe.gif (2332 bytes)


by Dr. Avigdor Bonchek


Back to This Week's Parsha| Previous Issues

Parshas Behhaloscha (73)

At the end of this week's sedra we find the case of Miriam & Aaron speaking out against their brother Moses.

Numbers 12:1.

And Miriam and Aaron spoke against Moses regarding the Cushite woman, which he took, for a Cushite woman he took.


For a Cushite woman he took (married): Rashi: And now divorced her.

What would you ask on this strange comment?

Your Question:


A Question: Where does Rashi get the idea that Moses divorced this woman? The verse seems to say just the opposite - that he took (married) this Cushite woman, there is no mention of divorce in the verse.

What could be the basis for this drash ? A drash usually has some basis in the words of the Torah. It is not sufficient to say, "Well, the Sages told us so, that's how we know." This is not enough. We should want to know on what basis the Sages came to their opinion. Our respect for their wisdom includes our belief that their interpretations can make sense to us, if only we strive to understand them.

Look closely at the verse.

Your Answer:

A Closer Look

An Answer: The order of the words here is important. It says: "For a Cushite woman he took." And not : "For he took a Cushite woman." What is the difference between these two sentences?

Your Answer:

An Answer: In Biblical Hebrew there are three forms of past tense.

1) A verb in the simple past tense. Example: "lakach" " he took."

2) A verb in the future tense with the convertible "vav" which changes future to past. Example: "Vayikach" "And he took." 3) When the noun precedes the verb, we have the past perfect. That means that the past is even further back than the regular past. It means the action described took place before the last mentioned act. As an example, see Genesis 31:34 "V'Rachel lackcha es hatraphim" which clearly means, "And Rachel had already taken the teraphim." See that "Rachel" comes before "taken" (in the Hebrew) therefore its meaning is past-perfect.

Now we can see that in our verse the noun (Cushite woman) comes before the verb (he took). "Ki isha Cushis lakach" This may be the clue. The translation would now be "And he had taken a Cushite woman. " The words "he had taken" imply that he had taken her in the more distant past before something else, more recent, occurred with this woman. That 'something else' Rashi says is that he divorced her.

Rashi Agrees with Targum Onkelos

Looking at Targum Onkelos we see that he too has the same idea. He translates these words as follows:

"Because the beautiful woman whom he married, he put at a distance (i.e. divorced.)"

The same idea as Rashi's, although Rashi makes no mention of the Targum. This may be because both Rashi and the Targum received their idea from the midrash.

Shabbat Shalom
Avigdor Bonchek "What's Bothering Rashi?" is a product of the Institute for the Study of Rashi and Early Commentaries. A Hebrew translation of the Bereishis "What's Bothering Rashi?" is published. It is greatly expanded and is call "L'omko shel Rashi" look for it in bookstores.

Back to This Week's Parsha| Previous Issues

This article is provided as part of Shema Yisrael Torah Network
Permission is granted to redistribute electronically or on paper,
provided that this notice is included intact.

For information on subscriptions, archives, and
other Shema Yisrael
Classes, send mail to parsha@shemayisrael.co.il

Jerusalem, Israel