The readiness is all

Sometimes I feel that the rabbis of yore fought with each other for no good reason. Think about it – you want to leave your mark by commenting on an ancient text but all the good comments were already taken. One path would be to assume that readers don’t understand WHY the other commentators said what they said. Another would be to innovate some new understanding (and explain why the older commentaries are either incomplete or flat out wrong). But sometimes they “find quarrel in a straw” (in my humble opinion), arguing over something which, truth be told, is more revelatory when one sees that there is actually no need for arguing.

So to do my part in the unbroken chain of commentators making remarks about those who came before, I wish to explore the variant meanings of a particular word and explain why those who were fixated on defining shouldn’t have wasted their time. No – I’m not being arrogant. Well, yes, I am but to think that I have anything to contribute to the canon of great Jewish commentary, especially anything remotely innovative requires a level of arrogance. So here I go.

The word in question is “right” or in Hebrew “nachon”. The word appears in various forms at least 8 times in the 5 books of Moses. I say “at least” because it is tough to say what various forms are so intrinsically related that they can be said to iterations of the same root.

The first use is in Bereishit 41:32 where Yosef interprets Par’oh’s dreams. He says that the prophecy contained in them is “nachon.” Onkelos translates this as “takin” (which is its own question for later). Rashi explains the word as “mezuman” (prepared) and cites Onkelos as his source, even though “takin” may or may not mean “prepared” as it finds more use in forms like “letaken” (to fix) or “tikun” (fixing). The word “mezuman,” from the same root as “z’man”, time, seems to mean “is set for a specific time” (established). This sense of preparation is similarly invoked by Rashi in Sh’mot 34:2. Moshe is told to be ready to ascend Sinai and is commanded “heye nachon” – the Targum here has this as “zamin” and Rashi says, again “mezuman” (though, strangely, he doesn’t cite Onkelos). So Moshe is to prepare in the same way that Hashem has prepared to fulfill the prophecies. The Mizrachi says “lo mechuvan” (which he also says on 41:32) and the Siftei Chachamim concurs and says that the word means “prepared” as opposed to its other meaning of “right” as used in Devarim 13:15.

The Siftei Chachamim must like that verse as he also uses it in his commentary on the Bereishit verse and points out that it does NOT mean “right” in Yosef’s case but it does mean “right” in the Devarim verse. But in that verse, which discusses investigating the testimony of witnesses and discerning the truth of a court case, the text says “”v’hineh emet nachon hadavar”, that the matter is true and nachon. So the Siftei would be saying that the event is “true and right,” or more properly, accurate. The Aramaic here (and on the similar 17:4) is “keyvan” (which some have as “certain”) and Rashi runs with this sense and writes on 17:4 “mechuvan ha’eidut” that the testimony is corroborated. Now, “right,” “certain” and “accurate” are distinguished from “prepared” or “fixed”.

But here’s here I have a problem. All these voices trying to assign specific and therefore diverging definitions when the words are all from the same root and have a similar underlying meaning. The root kaf-vav-nun is at the heart of these words and also “kivun” – direction and kavannah, intention and focus. I would suggest that they are all the same word. Think of the word “right” in English. It means both “correct” and “to correct.” It refers to accuracy and rectitude, agreement and even guiding in the proper direction, and setting up something so that it will be in accordance with an accepted set of understandings. Establishing intent and creating focus are part of “righting” the self. You can check the OED if you don’t believe me – the word “right” has had, historically, meanings related to being correct, correcting after the fact, and preparing something so that it will be correct in the future. This, then encompasses the kavannah (intent), muchan (preparation) , nachon (correct) and mechuvan (confirmed) senses.

Moshe had to prepare himself, and get himself into the “right” frame of mind. Yosef was telling Par’oh that the matter had been prepared and was deemed the appropriate course of action. As Rashi says, the time has come. As others write, when everything is set, one direction or choice must accord with the overall setting and needs (the Jews were afraid to sacrifice sheep in Egypt since “lo nachon” – it wouldn’t be right to do so – this is explained as their anticipating a negative reaction are saying that this path is not the one to take if one wants to be right and ready to meet with Hashem). Eventually “being” right requires “righting” yourself before the fact. The use of t-q-n by the Onkelos points to this: “fixing” is both establishing and repairing, before and after. An ounce of prevention and all that. The meforshim need not argue; they are all right (as it were). The preparation to think right, the intent necessary to be right and the eventual “being right” are all tied together in the same way that the preparation, invitation and the ultimate event (the mezuman, hazmana and the z’man) are all connected.

Being right doesn’t happen by accident. Making the right decision is the culmination of considering all the sides in advance and forming the intent to follow a correct path. Thinking the right way is a function of hard work and preparation, learning and understanding. Deciding what is right comes from a study of the issues and variables beforehand and judging something as right and confirming it requires an intimate knowledge borne out of deep investigation. If we see all these as related aspects of the same process and theory, we can see how the commentators were all working towards the same conceptual goal.