Two Types of Argumentation Involving Rhetorical Questions 35 what an aggrieved party did to deserve shabby treatment”, as in Gen 31,36 yrja tqld yk ytafj hm y[çp hm “What is my crime, what is my guilt that you have pursued me?” (18) In a second structure involving argumentative RQs, the conclusion is expressed by a “why” RQ. In the “triple rhetorical question” formula a double yes-no question expressing the premise is accompanied by a “why” RQ expressing the conclusion, e.g., Jer 2,14 [wdm awh tyb dyly μa larçy db[h zbl hyh “Is Israel a bondman? Is he a home-born slave? Why is he given over to plunder?” (19) This formula is said to be restricted to poetry and elevated prose, and is particularly characteristic of Jeremiah. There is a striking similarity in meaning between the triple rhetorical question and the yes-no question followed by a yk clause. In a few cases a double yes-no RQ is followed by yk rather than a “why” question (e.g., Job 7,12; Jer 31,19) (20). Much less attention has been paid to the logical structure underlying arguments with RQs. Two scholars who do address the issue are van Selms and Herzog (the latter cited by Greenstein.) According to van Selms many motivated interrogative sentences can be understood as a sort of reductio ad absurdum argument against the proposition expressed by the yk clause (21). A typical example is 1 Sam 17,43 twlqmb yla ab hta yk ykna blkh “Am I a dog, that you come at me with sticks?” Van Selms explains the argument as follows: “From the fact that David approached Goliath with his shepherd’s equipment it would almost have followed that Goliath was a dog. But he is not, and so David should not have come to him with sticks” (22). Van Selms notes that such an analysis can be applied to some triple rhetorical questions as well (23). Van Selms’ view is discussed further in section 5, below. Greenstein, citing Herzog, states that triple rhetorical questions often involve a syllogistic-like argument, in which one of the premises is implicit(24). As I will show in the sections below, recognizing the implicit (18) STEINER, “Mah Nishtannah”, 16-17 shows that Biblical ...yk...hm later gives rise to Tannaitic …ç...hntçn hm, and points to …ç...hm in Cant 5,9 as the possible “direct ancestor” of the Tannaitic formula. (19) On the triple rhetorical question and its Ugaritic parallels, see, e.g., Y. AVISHUR, “Double and Triple Question Patterns in the Bible and Ugaritic”, Zer Li’gevurot. The Zalman Shazar Jubilee Volume. A Collection of Studies in Bible, Eretz Yisrael, Hebrew Language and Talmudic Literature (ed. B.Z. LURIA) (Jerusalem 1973) 421-464 (Hebr.); BRUEGGEMANN, “Jeremiah”, 358-374; H.L. GINSBERG, “The Legend of King Keret: A Canaanite Epic of the Bronze Age”, BASOR.S 2-3 (1946) 35; M. HELD, “Rhetorical Questions in Ugaritic and Biblical Hebrew, Eretz Israel 9 (1969) 71-79; A.D. SINGER, “On a Certain Type of Interrogative Sentence in Biblical Hebrew”, World Congress of Jewish Studies Summer 1947 (Jerusalem 1952) I, 109-112 (Hebr.) (20) Held suggests that yk can have the same meaning as [wdm (HELD, “Rhetorical Questions”, 79), while van Selms views the “why” question simply as a different form of a motivating clause (“Motivated Interrogative Sentences in the Book of Job”, 29.) On this point see also A. AEJMELAEUS, “Function and Interpretation of yk in Biblical Hebrew”, JBL 105 (1986) 201. (21) VAN SELMS, “Motivated Interrogative Sentences in Biblical Hebrew”; VAN SELMS, “Motivated Interrogative Sentences in the Book of Job.” (22) VAN SELMS, “Motivated Interrogative Sentences in Biblical Hebrew”, 145. (23) VAN SELMS, “Motivated Interrogative Sentences in the Book of Job”, 29. (24) E. GREENSTEIN, “Some Developments in the Study of Language and Some Implications for Interpreting Ancient Texts and Cultures”, Semitic Linguistics. The State of the Art at the Turn of the Twenty-First Century (ed. S. IZRE’EL) (Israel Oriental Studies