Lashon HaKodesh and Machshevet HaKodesh

לֹא יָמִישׁ עַמּוּד הֶעָנָן יוֹמָם:

He (Hashem) did not remove the pillar of Cloud by day. (Shemot 13:22)

Commenting on the words “לֹא יָמִישׁ,” Rashi explains:

לֹא יָמִישׁ — הקב"ה את עמוד הענן יומם ואת עמוד האש לילה.

Hashem (would not remove) the pillar of Cloud by day, nor the pillar of Fire by night.

In other words, Rashi is observing that the word “יָמִישׁ” is הפעיל — causative, which means that the pasuk is not saying that the Cloud did not depart, but that someone did not remove it. That “Someone” — the subject of the sentence — is Hashem, Who is mentioned in the previous pasuk; “וַה’ הֹלֵךְ לִפְנֵיהֶם יוֹמָם בְּעַמּוּד עָנָן לַנְחֹתָם הַדֶּרֶךְ וְלַיְלָה בְּעַמּוּד אֵשׁ לְהָאִיר לָהֶם — and Hashem would go before them with a pillar of Cloud to lead them on the way, and by night in a pillar of Fire to give them light.”

The Mizrachi’s Approach

Regarding this comment of Rashi, the Mizrachi writes:

Even though we also find the causative form used in an intransitive sense, (for example) “וּמְשָׁרְתוֹ יְהוֹשֻׁעַ בִּן נוּן נַעַר לֹא יָמִישׁ מִתּוֹךְ הָאֹהֶל — his attendant, Yehoshua son of Nun, a lad, would not depart from within the tent” (Shemot 33:11),[1] nonetheless, since it is possible to explain it here as a causative, without having to add or remove anything, Rashi chose to explain it in accordance with its normal usage.[2]

According to the Mizrachi, it would have been entirely legitimate to explain the word “יָמִישׁ” as referring to the Cloud itself not departing, as we find in the case of Yehoshua. Nonetheless, since Rashi found a way to explain it as a causative, which is generally what the hif’il denotes, he saw that as the preferred option.

The Gur Aryeh’s Approach

The Maharal in Gur Aryeh takes an entirely different approach to this explanation of Rashi. The foundation of the Maharal’s approach is that the full meaning of the pasuk cannot be derived merely from following the rules of grammar. Anyone who wants to understand the pasuk fully needs to bear in mind that the language of the pasuk is lashon hakodesh, and as such, it is a written expression of Machshevet Hakodesh — the holy thought and outlook of the Torah. In our case, the Maharal writes:

The word “יָמִישׁ” is a causative form, which is always transitive. Had the pasuk wanted to say that the Cloud did not depart, it would have said “לא ימוש — lo yamush,” with a vav. Therefore, the explanation here is that Hashem did not remove it, which means it is a causative. Even though the pasuk says regarding Yehoshua “לֹא יָמִישׁ מִתּוֹךְ הָאֹהֶל,” there is a major distinction between the two cases as is apparent to anyone who knows lashon hakodesh. For with regard to people, a transitive form is appropriate, since the person moves himself.[3] In this respect he is acting causatively, for he is causing his body to move. In the case of Yehoshua, the pasuk is telling us that “לֹא יָמִישׁ” he did not move himself. The pasuk thus speaks of a person as two entities; firstly, his will, and secondly, his body. Similarly, the pasuk states later on (14:10) “וּפַרְעֹה הִקְרִיב,” which Rashi explains to mean “הקריב את עצמו ומיהר לפני חיילותיו — he drew himself near and hurried before his armies.” This idea, however, is not applicable to a Cloud,[4] and therefore one must explain that “לֹא יָמִישׁ” refers to Hashem not removing the Cloud.

What we have before us is not a technical or grammatical dispute regarding how to explain a certain pasuk, but rather a fundamental dispute in the sugya of pshuto shel mikra. According to the Maharal, the grammar of lashon hakodesh is not the same as the grammar of other languages. We say that Hashem “רוממתנו מכל הלשונות — elevated us above all other languages.” This means that the language itself is more elevated and reflects holier ideas. As such, the laws of grammar alone will not do justice to the full meaning of what the pasuk is saying.

The Difference Between Taking People and Taking Objects

In keeping with this approach as to the way lashon hakodesh looks at the person, the Gur Aryeh explains Rashi’s comments whenever the Torah refers to someone being “taken.” For example, the pasuk states (Bereishit 2:15) that Hashem “took Adam and placed him in Gan Eden.” Rashi comments:

לקחו בדברים נאים ופיתוהו ליכנס.

He took him with nice words and persuaded him to enter.

Why does Rashi not leave the pasuk to its simple meaning, namely, that HaKadosh Baruch Hu physically took Adam? The Maharal explains that since the essential person is his da’at — his will — if a person is taken against his will, then “the person” has not been taken! One can only be considered to have taken someone else if he persuades that person to go, for then the essential person has been taken.[5]

In this regard, Rashi himself (Bereishit 43:15) points out that Onkelos uses a different verb for taking people than he does for taking objects. When an object is taken he uses the term “נסיב,” whereas if a person is taken he translates “דבר,” indicating that these are two different types of taking.

Lashon HaKodesh and Derashot Chazal

This approach of the Maharal opens up a whole new way of understanding the relationship between the words of the pasuk and derashot of Chazal. Quite often the drashah seems to depart from the pshat of the pasuk in that it reads it differently than the rules of grammar would dictate or require. The Maharal is telling us that the drashah is very often responding to a deeper or higher level of lashon hakodesh that is outside of the strict rules of grammar, but nonetheless contained within the words. In this vein, the Maharal speaks critically of those who dismiss the derashot as being incongruous with the rules of pshat, for in his opinion they have failed to understand the full meaning of the word as part of lashon hakodesh, based on which Chazal made their drashah.[6]

[1] Here, the pasuk uses the same word as in our pasuk — יָמִישׁ, yet it clearly refers to Yehoshua himself, that he is the one who did not depart, and not to someone else who did not remove him.

[2] That is, as a causative.

[3] That is, the person decides to move, in which case he is the cause of his movement.

[4] Which is not capable of moving itself.

[5] See also Gur Aryeh to Bereishit 16:3, Shemot 14: 6, and Vayikra 8:2.

[6] See, for example, the Gur Aryeh to Bereishit 28:11 concerning the drashah of Chazal that Yaakov initially put a number of stones by his head and they combined into one, and Devarim 26:5 concerning Chazal’s peirush that “אֲרַמִּי אֹבֵד אָבִי” refers to Lavan trying to destroy Yaakov.