0

Please can anyone give me an English translation (does not exist) of Shadal Gen.2,24.1?

על כן יעזב איש: על כן אינו משמש אלא על מה שעבר ועל מה שהוא עתה, ולכן על העתיד, לפיכך אין אלה דברי אדם, אלא דברי משה, מלבד כי אדם לא ידע עדיין אב ואם.

I can not translate.

Alex
  • 49,242
  • 3
  • 120
  • 228
Flavio Michale
  • 37
  • 2

2 Answers2

9

In short, he is suggesting that these words were written as an editorial comment by Moshe, as opposed to something that Adam said at the time. Here's a rough translation:

Therefore a man... "Al Ken" ("therefore") refers only to the past and the present, and "Lachen" refers to the future. Therefore, these are not the words of Adam, but the words of Moshe. This is in addition to the fact that Adam did not yet know of (the concept of?) mother and father.

As a support to my understanding, Daniel A Klein (here) translates it as follows:

Therefore it is (al ken) that one leaves – The term al ken always refers to past or present conditions, while the term lakhen [also translated "therefore"] refers to the future. Thus, these are not Adam's words but those of Moses, aside from the fact that Adam did not yet know the words "father" and "mother".

רבות מחשבות
  • 20,998
  • 1
  • 41
  • 145
  • You make no distinction in regard to a married male (איש) and men or males (אנוש, זכר). You are also translating אדם as a proper name (Adam with a capital 'A'), which it is not here. It refers to mankind or human beings. אלה דברי אדם is an idiomatic expression meaning 'typical human language'. You may be correct in translating that 'lachen' (ולכן) refers to future (I'm not sure of that), although that word does not appear in the posuk from Bereshit at all. So it would be a superfluous comment from Shadal to this posuk. That is also problematic. – Yaacov Deane Sep 11 '19 at 22:02
  • 1
    @YaacovDeane Each of your assertions is incorrect or irrelevant. To go through them: 1. Ish vs. Enosh/Zachar is not something that changes the meaning of the translation here, even if Shadal does agree with that distinction. 2. You are simply incorrect. While Divrei Adam can mean 'typical human language', it does not here, based on the context, which is discussing who said this phrase. For example, contrast the commentary of Rasag here: – רבות מחשבות Sep 11 '19 at 23:14
  • 1
    @YaacovDeane (כה) על כן יעזוב, נאמרו בזה שני פירושים: • אלה הם דברי אדם, והם המשך ממה שאמר זאת הפעם. • ויש אומרים שהם דברי הכתוב רצוני לאמר דברי משה בשם השם, שמפני שנבראה מן הצלע של זר צריך אדם לישא אשה שאינה קרובתו, כגון אביו ואמו וכגון הבנות ואחות אביו ואחות אמו ואחיות... – רבות מחשבות Sep 11 '19 at 23:14
  • @YaacovDeane 3. Shadal uses the fact that Lachen refers to the future to prove that Adam can't have said this passuk, because then the word "Lachen" would be used, and not "Al Ken". – רבות מחשבות Sep 11 '19 at 23:15
  • Rabbot, not worth fighting over... – Double AA Sep 11 '19 at 23:27
  • @רבותמחשבות Bereshit 2:23 is the comment of the first man. 2:24 is not. See Rashi for example. And the concept of married male, meaning a male with a mate is also the emphasis from Rashi’s further comments. – Yaacov Deane Sep 11 '19 at 23:28
  • @רבותמחשבות Your quote from Rasag says there are 2 ways to explain/translate this. One suggests it is a continuation of the declaration of the 1st man upon seeing his mate. But in context that is absurd because he did not have a mother and father. The 2nd possibility is that it is a statement of ‘Ruach HaKodesh’, which you take to mean Moshe. But Moshe is also a human being, just like the 1st man. When you see Ruach HaKodesh, think G-d. – Yaacov Deane Sep 11 '19 at 23:44
  • 1
    Interesting that Klein renders it as: *the words "father" and "mother"* – Alex Sep 11 '19 at 23:49
  • @double maskim... – רבות מחשבות Sep 11 '19 at 23:55
  • @alex I noticed that as well. I don't see why that has to to be, though. It can work just as well without... – רבות מחשבות Sep 11 '19 at 23:56
  • @Rabbot I retract. He has managed to dupe the OP, who has unwittingly accepted his post. Have at 'em! – Double AA Sep 12 '19 at 00:15
  • @Alex after some thought - it seems that he is building on the previous passuk, where Adam said "Lezos Yikarei Isha", and since only then he named a wife, he likely hadn't named father and mother (even had he thought of the concept - maybe from animals) yet. – רבות מחשבות Sep 13 '19 at 10:35
  • @רבות מחשבות Can you translated Rasag's passage you mentioned? "(כה) על כן יעזוב, נאמרו בזה שני פירושים: • אלה הם דברי אדם, והם המשך ממה שאמר זאת הפעם. • ויש אומרים שהם דברי הכתוב רצוני לאמר דברי משה בשם השם, שמפני שנבראה מן הצלע של זר צריך אדם לישא אשה שאינה קרובתו, כגון אביו ואמו וכגון הבנות ואחות אביו ואחות אמו ואחיות.."? I am interested in the question. Thanks – Ootsutsuki Dec 29 '21 at 22:33
  • 1
    @Ootsutsuki "Therefore..." there have been two interpretations given: 1. These are the words of Adam, a continuation of what he said [in the previous verse], "this is the time". 2. Others say that these are the words of the [narrator], i.e., the words of Moshe in the name of Hashem, that since she was created from the rib of a stranger, a person must marry a woman who is not related to him, [i.e., one should not marry] his father, mother, daughters and sisters... – רבות מחשבות Dec 30 '21 at 03:07
-8

This is a comment about Hebrew grammar which translates roughly as:

Therefore (על כן) a husband will abandon: Therefore is not used except over what has occurred in the past (tense) and what is in the present (tense), and therefore (the usage of) על in future tense is thus not a typical human expression, rather the words of Moshe. Aside from (the fact that) man hasn't yet known (the concept of) father and mother...

That last phrase is actually related to what follows in the Shadal explaining the teaching of Moshe. I'm not so sure that Shadal applied the punctuation the way Sefaria has done it.

Yaacov Deane
  • 14,809
  • 22
  • 64
  • "therefore (the usage of) על in future tense is thus not only a typical human expression" Could you please explain how you got to that translation based on the Hebrew? – רבות מחשבות Sep 11 '19 at 21:18
  • @רבותמחשבות I'm looking at the whole comment of Shadal from Sefaria. He is distinguishing between a common expression in language (what regular people say in the vernacular) and the usage here in Bereshit. He is suggesting that because על קן is not used in future tense, Moshe is saying something special. That a person who knows proper Hebrew grammar would understand that this expression is wrong. And he emphasizes this is in addition to the contradiction in the content of the story that Adam had no mother and father at that point. – Yaacov Deane Sep 11 '19 at 21:25
  • @רבותמחשבות Better? – Yaacov Deane Sep 11 '19 at 21:31
  • 2
    I’m having a hard time understanding your translation. 1) Why do you assume that איש means husband? 2) What’s Shadal’s point? What’s the difference if it’s a typical human expression, and why does it being atypical show that Moses said it? 3) I don’t see how the words ולכן על העתיד לפיכך can be coherent according to your reading. – Alex Sep 11 '19 at 22:55
  • @YaacovDeane Nope. see my comments to your comment below. – רבות מחשבות Sep 11 '19 at 23:20
  • @Alex Re: point 1 Get a concordance of Tanach and see how the term is used in the vast majority of cases. It means a married/pair-bonded male. – Yaacov Deane Sep 11 '19 at 23:31
  • 2
    @YaacovDeane איש אמו ואביו תיראו; כי יפתח איש בור; לא תונו איש את עמיתו; לא תגורו מפני איש; ואנכי איש חלק and dozens more clearly do not mean husband. – Alex Sep 11 '19 at 23:45
  • @Alex Your assumption is incorrect. Why would you think any of the quotes you list do not mean an adult, married male? – Yaacov Deane Sep 11 '19 at 23:49
  • 2
    @YaacovDeane Yaakov said אנכי איש חלק before he was ever married. As for the others, do you maintain that unmarried men are exempt from all such commandments? – Alex Sep 11 '19 at 23:51
  • @Alex The 2 descriptions from Yaacov are, again, idiomatic expressions as indicated by the ta’amim like the name of a species. Ish there does not stand by itself. Regarding your question about exemption, the answer is no. – Yaacov Deane Sep 12 '19 at 00:01
  • 2
    @YaacovDeane Why would Yaakov idiomatically refer to Eisav as a hairy husband when he could simply refer to him as a hairy man? And why would unmarried men not be exempt if the Torah says that a married man must do something? – Alex Sep 12 '19 at 00:05
  • So how about ויאבק איש עמו? Pretty sure the angel wasn't married... Also, Yosef is called איש - not as part of an idiomatic expression, but אשר רוח אלקים בו - before he was married. – Meir Sep 12 '19 at 03:39
  • @Meir Interesting that you’re bringing up the navuah related to the Angel of Death wrestling with Yaacov Avinu which clearly isn’t taken literally. Similarly, although the word Ish used by Pharoah appears by itself, its context in the sentence is again an idiomatic expression for a Prophet, namely ‘Ish Elohim’. – Yaacov Deane Sep 12 '19 at 04:13