Bechukosai: Rashbam's מלאפום

Here is a belated post for Bechukotai. A pasuk (Vayikra 26:35) in the sidra reads:

כׇּל־יְמֵ֥י הׇשַּׁמָּ֖הֿ תִּשְׁבֹּ֑ת אֵ֣ת אֲשֶׁ֧ר לֹֽא־שָׁבְתָ֛ה בְּשַׁבְּתֹתֵיכֶ֖ם בְּשִׁבְתְּכֶ֥ם עָלֶֽיהָ׃

Throughout the time that it is desolate, it shall observe the rest that it did not observe in your sabbath years while you were dwelling upon it.

Note that the word tishbOt is spelled with a cholam chaser. Rashbam weighs in on this vowel, writing:

תשבות - מלאפום באתנחתא, אבל בלא אתנחתא, אז תשבת הארץ פתח. וכן וימת וינס באתנחתא כולם מלאפום. וַיָמֹת, הים ראה וינס.

It is a מלאפום [meaning cholam] when it appears with a [major pausal trup symbol of] etnachta. But, when not with etnachta, then [as in the preceding verse where it is a munach trup symbil] אָ֚ז תִּשְׁבַּ֣ת הָאָ֔רֶץ with a patach. And so too וימת and וינס, when they appear with an etnachta each of the are מלאפום with a cholam chaser.
וַיָמֹת — [in Tehillim 114:3] הַיָּ֣ם רָ֭אָה וַיָּנֹ֑ס [where it is an etnachta — even though the trup system in Tehillim is different].

That is how I would render this Rashbam, with a lot of interjections in [square brackets].

Alas, that is not how Eliyahu Munk renders it:

תשבות - מלאפום באתנחתא, אבל בלא אתנחתא, אז תשבת הארץ פתח. וכן וימת וינס באתנחתא כולם מלאפום. וַיָמֹת, הים ראה וינס.

תשבות. Spelled plene, with the tone sign etnachta. If it were not for the tone sign it would have been spelled תשבת, tishbat, as in verse 34. Similar constructions are found in Genesis 11,28 וימת, or Genesis 39,12 וינס, whereas in Psalms 114,3 the spelling is וינוס, and in Genesis 5,5 it is וימות, all on account of the tone sign etnachta. (or end of verse).

The word “plene” is used to denote full spelling, with the matres lectiones / imot hakeriah. That is, the vav is there, so it is a cholam malei The opposite of “spelled plene” is spelled “deficient”, that is with a cholam chaser.

I suspect that Eliyahu Munk was misled by the dibbur hamatchil, that is, the quote of the verse, where Rashbam wrote תשבות with the full cholam there. But, the point of that was not to claim that is was actually spelled that way in the consonantal text with a vav. Rather, in an unpointed text, it was a way to distinguish the presence of the cholam as opposed to a patach. So too with וינוס, he [meaning Munk, maybe Rashbam] puts the spelling with the vav.

It is also possible that he was confused because מלאפום is nowadays typically used to refer to the kubutz and shuruk, which is not present in any of these examples. Yet it is also used as a reference to the cholam, and that is how Rashbam intends it. See also Rashi on Yeshaya 1:31 where it has that meaning. Since the word did not make sense as a vowel, Munk struggles as to its meaning and arrived at this other incorrect meaning.

[Edit: Also, not understanding מלאפום, he recognized the word מלא / malei at the start. Thus, plene spelling.]

This does not go in the bin of censored Rashbams, but of misunderstood Rashbams.

While discussing misunderstood Rashbams, here is another one. In Vayikra 26:30:

וְהִשְׁמַדְתִּ֞י אֶת־בָּמֹֽתֵיכֶ֗ם וְהִכְרַתִּי֙ אֶת־חַמָּ֣נֵיכֶ֔ם וְנָֽתַתִּי֙ אֶת־פִּגְרֵיכֶ֔ם עַל־פִּגְרֵ֖י גִּלּוּלֵיכֶ֑ם וְגָעֲלָ֥ה נַפְשִׁ֖י אֶתְכֶֽם׃

I will destroy your cult places and cut down your incense stands, and I will heap your carcasses upon your lifeless fetishes. I will spurn you.

Rashbam writes [with Eliyahu Munk’s translation]:

על פגרי גלוליכם - כי בבית במותיכם תהרגו, כדכתיב בירמיה: כי אם גיא ההרגה וקברו בתוס' מאין מקום.

על פגרי גילוליכם, because in the very houses which served as your temples you will be killed; there is a parallel verse in Jeremiah 7,32 describing the lack of suitable burial grounds for the dead.

In terms of the import of the verse in Yirmeyah, as Rashbam understands it, I think Eliyahu Munk gets it wrong, because of the portion of the verse that was quoted. That verse reads:

לָכֵ֞ן הִנֵּֽה־יָמִ֤ים בָּאִים֙ נְאֻם־יְהֹוָ֔ה וְלֹא־יֵאָמֵ֨ר ע֤וֹד הַתֹּ֙פֶת֙ וְגֵ֣יא בֶן־הִנֹּ֔ם כִּ֖י אִם־גֵּ֣יא הַהֲרֵגָ֑ה וְקָבְר֥וּ בְתֹ֖פֶת מֵאֵ֥ין מָקֽוֹם׃

Assuredly, a time is coming—declares GOD—when this people shall no longer speak of Topheth or the Valley of Ben-hinnom, but of the Valley of Slaughter; and they shall bury in Topheth until no room is left.

The point is not that it is “describing the lack of suitable burial grounds for the dead”, even though the end of the verse does say מֵאֵ֥ין מָקֽוֹם and that’s what Rashbam quoted to make the verse he was quoting clear. (Also, see Metzudat David that מֵאֵ֥ין מָקֽוֹם means that they it means that there is no room left in Tofet, not that there was no room elsewhere as the cause of burying in Tofet.)

Rather, Rashbam’s point was based on knowing the context of that pasuk in Yirmeyah. Namely, the preceding verse was:

וּבָנ֞וּ בָּמ֣וֹת הַתֹּ֗פֶת אֲשֶׁר֙ בְּגֵ֣יא בֶן־הִנֹּ֔ם לִשְׂרֹ֛ף אֶת־בְּנֵיהֶ֥ם וְאֶת־בְּנֹתֵיהֶ֖ם בָּאֵ֑שׁ אֲשֶׁר֙ לֹ֣א צִוִּ֔יתִי וְלֹ֥א עָלְתָ֖ה עַל־לִבִּֽי׃ {פ}

And they have built the shrines of Topheth in the Valley of Ben-hinnom to burn their sons and daughters in fire—which I never commanded, which never came to My mind.

Thus, Tofet in the Valley of Hinom was a shrine for idolatry, and Hashem turned the very shrine into a burial place. That’s the point of similarity, and Rashbam’s purpose in bringing this true Biblical parallel.