Addendum to mishpatim answers

Re Alef 1
23:13 that deals with avoda zora is connected to the Creation 7 day cycle as ChaZaL state that whomever does not keep Shabbat is denying Maaseh beraishit which in turn is tantamount to denying belief in the Divine.

Mishpatim Answers

Mishpatim 5729
Alef.

1. These are all laws that deal with different aspects of the cycle of the year:

   a. The week (seven day cycle.)

   b. The seven year cycle.

c. The planting and harvest cycle over the course of the year that are marked by festivals and offerings of first fruits.

2. Shemot 23:9 is most closely associated with 23:12 which deals with Shabbat. In fact, in the version of the Ten Commandments appearing in Devarim 5:14, the reason for observing Shabbat is listed as being sensitive to one’s servants in light of the Egypt experience during which your ancestors were slaves. This is in contrast to the reason given in the version of the Ten Commandments appearing in Shemot 20:10, where the reason for observing Shabbat is listed as emulating God Who Rested on the Seventh Day of Creation. 

3.  The parallel that Cassuto detects between 23:10-9 on the one hand,  and 21:1-11 on the other, is the seven year cycle, which formally comprises the Sabbatical year sequence, as well as the number of years that a Jewish slave serves unless he opts to extend his servitude, which is then bounded by the Jubilee Year, the culmination of seven of these seven year cycles. Although the Sabbatical year itself does not effect the status of the Jewish slave, the fact that it operates based upon a seven year cycle allows one to acknowledge the parallelism.

Beit.

1. The difficulty that the commentators have with Shemot 23:12 is that the simple meaning appears to suggest that the purpose of the Commandment of Shabbat is not necessarily for the Jewish person not to engage in Melacha, but rather to allow the rest of one’s animals and non-Jewish servants. Animals and non-Jewish servants are not obligated in the observance of this Commandment and therefore it is strange that they should be listed as though the entire Commandment is for their benefits.

2.  Rabbeinu Bachaya: For the sake of the Jew resting is why the animals and servants must rest. They are the means to the end of the Jew fulfilling the Commandment.

   Ben Amozeg: While the verse does state that the Commandment is for the benefit of animals and non-Jewish servants, it is not exclusively for this purpose, but also for the Jew who refrains from Melacha. The extension of the Tora’s concern to animals and non-Jews is a reflection of the sympathy and compassion inherent in the Tora system.

3.  The refraining from eating Chametz and the obligation to eat Matza is not for the sake of remembering the Exodus, but rather by means of doing these things, you will be enabled to remember the Exodus. So too, by means of the animals and non-Jews resting, you will be enabled to fulfill the Commandment of not performing Melacha on Shabbat.

4.  An Jewish servant and a righteous sojourner are obligated in all Commandments. Consequently, their rest constitutes ends in themselves, rather than a means to the end by which the Jewish owner of the animal or the non-Jewish slave will be able to observe Shabbat.

Gimel.

1.  RaShI: If “Gedi” has to be modified with the word “Izim”, that implies that if there is no modifier, then we are talking about young domesticated animals in general, i.e., not only goats, but also sheep and cows.

   Ibn Ezra: “Gedi Izim” implies an animal so young that it must stay with the other goats for protection. The word “Gedi” alone is also a goat, but one that is more mature and independent, and therefore is not tied down to the herd the way that Gedi Izim are.

2. “כי מה צורך לסמכן”—why does a construct form have to be created involving “Gedi” and “Izim” if all that it means is a young goat anyway?

   “וכזה לא מצאנו”—In order to explain why the general term for the bird in question is “בת היענה” which is a feminine rather than a masculine form, although there are per force also masculine birds, Ibn Ezra appears stymied and says that this is never the case, implying that it should not be the case here either.

   “שיחבר חלב זאת עם זאת”—Ibn Ezra is suggesting that since goats do not have that much milk, whenever there is a quantity of goat milk, it derives from a number of goats, making the possibility that should the milk be used in order to cook the kid, at least part of that milk might be its own mother’s, a clear Tora violation.

   “ויהי' עובר”—in the event that the milk that he purchases in the market may contain even a small amount of milk from the mother animal, therefore we are strict to prohibit every case because we don’t want a person to transgress a Tora precept.

3.  The rule “דיברה תורה בהווה” relates to when the Tora presents a single case, it does not necessarily mean that that is the only case that is relevant, but rather it is the most typical or the most likely. In the case of the Bat HaYa’ana, since according to Ibn Ezra, only the female of the species is good to eat, therefore it is known in the female form, despite there also being males, and when a general reference to a creature is made, it is in the masculine.

4.  The first case deals with nomenclature—why is the bird known by the female rather than the male form. The second case has to do with cultural mores, with a support to the prohibition of cooking a kid in its mother’s milk from Arab practices.

5.  In his פירוש הקצר, Ibn Ezra uses the phrase “כי הכתוב דבר על נמצא ברוב” as a replacement for “והכתוב דבר על ההוה”.

6.  VaYikra 11:16—a demonstration of the Tora talking about the typical case. See Gimel 2 above.

   Shemot 22:30—another example of how the Tora frames individual cases in terms of what  typically happens, even though other cases are included. Therefore while meat that is considered Tereifa does not necessarily have to be found only in the field, e.g., an animal with a terminal illness is also adjudged Tereifa even if it is not found lying dead in a field, nevertheless the Tora describes Tereifa as found in the field.

   VaYikra 17:13—Although the Mitzva of covering the blood of a fowl or a non-domesticated animal that has split hooves and chews its cud does not apply only to animals that are trapped in the wild and Shechted, e.g., there are venison farms in upstate New York where the deer are not wild but still have the status of Chaya due to their species, nevertheless, since that is the typical case, that is why the Tora phrases it in terms of animals that have been hunted.

Daled.

1.  RaMBaM: Cooking a kid in a mother’s milk is an idolatrous rite that is to be avoided.

   Ibn Ezra: Speculates that cooking a kid in a mother’s milk is a form of cruelty, paralleling chasing away the mother bird if she is hovering over the nest and one wants to take the eggs or the chicks, or the prohibition against Shechting the parent animal and its baby animal on the same day.

2.  According to Ibn Ezra, if during the harvest festival, one has to bring first fruits and first born animals, then it will be tempting to prepare the animals for consumption, and the Tora wishes to eliminate a particular preparation of the animal, i.e., cooking a kid in its mother’s milk.

3.  If this was such a widespread idolatrous practice, why couldn’t RaMBaM find mention of it in the books on idolatry that he referenced? (Cassuto in the asterisked footnote  removes this problem by citing sources discovered after RaMBaM’s time that support the contention that this was a fertility rite.)

Parshat Mishpatim

http://www.nechama.org.il/pages/147.html

Yitro Answers

Yitro 5730
Alef.

1. “מסורגים” means “interrupted”. The question in the Mechilta is whether the four generations of evil doers, at the end of which, God “Runs out of patience” and finally Gives punishment, have to be uninterrupted, one after the other, or might they skip generations.

2.  If the next generation is righteous, then it will not have to bear the iniquities of the previous generation(s). However, if not, then the punishment at the end of the series might be cumulative.

3.  The antecedent of “לשנאי” in Shemot 20:5--

     Mechilta:  Tana Kamma the first generation, regardless of which sin is involved.

R. Natan—MaLBI”M interprets that “Kotzetz” is short for “Kotzetz BeNetiot”, the approbation applied to Elisha ben Avuya when he lost his faith (see Chagiga 14b; 15a), and therefore we are specifically referring only to Avoda Zora.

Mechilta D’RaShBI:  The paradigm is Yehu ben Nimshi. II Melachim 10:18 quotes him as saying that he intends to engage in idolatry to a greater extent than Achav, whose family he killed. Consequently, this source seems to support R. Natan, quoted in the Mechila above.

Gemora:    The focus is upon the offspring. The one’s that hate, as it were, HaShem are the descendants , who either continue the ancestor’s hateful behavior or discontinue it.

      Midrash Rabba:¹ Like the Gemora, the focus is upon the descendants.  Offspring are punished only if they do not turn out to be Tzaddikim, regardless of what sort of person their ancestors were.

4. שמות פרק כ

(ד) לא תשתחוה להם ולא תעבדם כי אנכי יקוק אלקיך קל קנא פקד עון אבת על בנים על שלשים ועל רבעים לשנאי:

שמות פרק לד

(ז) נצר חסד לאלפים נשא עון ופשע וחטאה ונקה לא ינקה פקד עון אבות על בנים ועל בני בנים על שלשים ועל רבעים:

From the context of Shemot 34, where forgiveness in the first half of the verse is being contrasted with punishment in the second half, it would appear that the focus is upon the original sinner, i.e., the ancestor.

5.  It would seem that according to Tanna Kamma, HaShem will Remember the sins leading eventually to the punishment of the evil doers down through the generations, just as He eventually remembered His Promise to Avraham that he would have a child with Sara, as well as the Promise to the Jewish People that He would eventually redeem them from Egypt.

   R. Yehuda appears to emphasize not that HaShem will Remember and eventually punish, but rather that He is Prepared to Suppress the punishment for four generations if there will be some discontinuity regarding how evil each of the subsequent generations are.

Beit.

RaLBaG and ShaDaL assume that even if the offspring are not repeating the sins of the parents, they nevertheless are often affected by what their ancestors perpetrated. Whereas the previous positions assumed that the children followed in the footsteps of those preceding them, these two commentators suggest that in order to create a deterrent against improper behavior, the parents are threatened not only with punishments that will affect them directly, but will have long-lasting consequences for their offspring.

Gimel.

1.  Reggio assumes that the children do merit being punished since they themselves sin in addition to their ancestors.

2.  The phrase “עוון אבות” influenced RaLBaG to conclude that we are not dealing with the offspring sinning at all, and they simply suffer the offshoots of the punishments that their parents earned. Reggio assumes that the phrase refers to the fact that the children learned this negative behavior from their forbearers, but they would only be punished if they continued said behavior themselves.

3.  In the Alon HaDeracha Reggio spells out his understanding of these phrases that depend upon the construct syntax:

דברים פרק לב

(לב) כי מגפן סדם גפנם ומשדמת עמרה ענבמו ענבי רוש אשכלת מררת למו:

                  Not a vineyard literally from Sodom, but rather similar to those that grew there.

יחזקאל פרק כג

(כ) ותעגבה על פלגשיהם אשר בשר חמורים בשרם וזרמת סוסים זרמתם:

                        Not flesh that literally comes from donkeys, but rather similar to it.

תהלים פרק לו

(ז) צדקתך כהררי קל משפטך תהום רבה אדם ובהמה תושיע יקוק:

“Thy righteousness is like the mighty mountains; Thy judgments are like the great deep; man and beast Thou preservest, O LORD. “

Not that the mountains are God’s Mountains, but rather they are similar to what the Psalmist imagines God’s Mountains to be like. 

Consequently, with respect to “עוון אבות” it does not mean the actual sins of the fathers, but rather sins similar to those that the fathers perpetrated, but this time carried out by the offspring.

Parshat Yitro

http://www.nechama.org.il/pages/113.html

Parshat Beshalach answers

BeShalach 5720
Alef.

במדבר פרק כ (א) ויבאו בני ישראל כל העדה מדבר צן בחדש הראשון וישב העם בקדש ותמת שם מרים ותקבר שם: (ב) ולא היה מים לעדה ויקהלו על משה ועל אהרן:	שמות פרק יז (א) ויסעו כל עדת בני ישראל ממדבר סין למסעיהם על פי יקוק ויחנו ברפידים ואין מים לשתת העם:
ג) וירב העם עם משה...	(ב) וירב העם עם משה ויאמרו תנו לנו מים ונשתה ויאמר להם משה מה תריבון עמדי מה תנסון את יקוק:
ג) ...ויאמרו לאמר ולו גוענו בגוע אחינו לפני יקוק: (ד) ולמה הבאתם את קהל יקוק אל המדבר הזה למות שם אנחנו ובעירנו: (ה) ולמה העליתנו ממצרים להביא אתנו אל המקום הרע הזה לא מקום זרע ותאנה וגפן ורמון ומים אין לשתות:	(ג) ויצמא שם העם למים וילן העם על משה ויאמר למה זה העליתנו ממצרים להמית אתי ואת בני ואת מקני בצמא:
ו) ויבא משה ואהרן מפני הקהל אל פתח אהל מועד ויפלו על פניהם וירא כבוד יקוק אליהם: פ	(ד) ויצעק משה אל יקוק לאמר מה אעשה לעם הזה עוד מעט וסקלני:
ז) וידבר יקוק אל משה לאמר: (ח) קח את המטה והקהל את העדה אתה ואהרן אחיך ודברתם אל הסלע לעיניהם ונתן מימיו והוצאת להם מים מן הסלע והשקית את העדה ואת בעירם:	(ה) ויאמר יקוק אל משה עבר לפני העם וקח אתך מזקני ישראל ומטך אשר הכית בו את היאר קח בידך והלכת: (ו) הנני עמד לפניך שם על הצור בחרב והכית בצור ויצאו ממנו מים ושתה העם...
ט) ויקח משה את המטה מלפני יקוק כאשר צוהו: (י) ויקהלו משה ואהרן את הקהל אל פני הסלע ויאמר להם שמעו נא המרים המן הסלע הזה נוציא לכם מים: (יא) וירם משה את ידו ויך את הסלע במטהו פעמים ויצאו מים רבים ותשת העדה ובעירם: ס	ו)...ויעש כן משה לעיני זקני ישראל:
	(ז) ויקרא שם המקום מסה ומריבה על ריב בני ישראל ועל נסתם את יקוק לאמר היש יקוק בקרבנו אם אין: פ

דברים פרק לג

(ח) וללוי אמר תמיך ואוריך לאיש חסידך אשר נסיתו במסה תריבהו על מי מריבה:

במדבר פרק כז

(יב) ויאמר יקוק אל משה עלה אל הר העברים הזה וראה את הארץ אשר נתתי לבני ישראל:

(יג) וראיתה אתה ונאספת אל עמיך גם אתה כאשר נאסף אהרן אחיך:

(יד) כאשר מריתם פי במדבר צן במריבת העדה להקדישני במים לעיניהם הם מי מריבת קדש מדבר צן: פ 

1. Indications that the two stories in Shemot and BaMidbar are one and the same:

   a. In general, they entail extracting water from a rock.

   b. God Gives instructions how to obtain water for the people.

c. The word “מימיו” suggests that there was pre-existing water within the rock, that has already been demonstrated in the earlier account.

d. The name “מסה ומריבה” which concludes the story in Shemot,  appears to be cited again in Devarim 33:8, where reference is made to Moshe’s not being allowed to enter the land of Israel, even though the story in which this decree is contained in BaMidbar makes no reference to this name.

   e. Midbar Sin and Midbar Tzin are identical.

2. The rule that is being employed appears in the listing of 32 Middot of R.Elazar Beno Shel R. Yosi HaGalili, #17:

הליכות עולם שער רביעי פרק א

דתניא רבי אליעזר ברבי יוסי הגלילי אומר בשלשים ושתים מדות ההגדה נדרשת. בריבוי ובמיעוט, ובריבוי אחר ריבוי, ובמיעוט אחר מיעוט, ובקל וחומר סתום, ובקל וחומר מפורש, מבנין אב מדרך קצרה, מדבר שהוא שנוי, בסדור שנחלק, מדבר שהוא בא ללמד ונמצא למד, מכלל שאחריו מעשה והוא פרטו של ראשון, מדבר גדול שהוא נתלה בדבר קטון הימנו להשמיע לאוזן כדרך שהיא שומעת, משני כתובים המכחישין זה את זה וכו', מדבר שהוא מיוחד במקומו, ומדבר שאינו מתפרש במקומו ומתפרש במקום אחר, ומדבר שנאמר בקצת והוא נוהג בכל, ומדבר שנאמר בזה והוא הדין בחבירו, מדבר שנאמר בזה ואינו ענין לו אבל הוא ענין לחבירו, מדבר שהוקש לשתי מדות ואתה נותן לו הכח היפה שבשתיהן, ומדבר שחבירו מוכיח עליו, ומדבר שהוא מוכיח על חבירו, ומדבר שהיה בכלל ויצא מן הכלל ללמד על חבירו, וממשל, וממעל, ומנגד, וממוקדם וממאוחר שהוא בענין, וממוקדם וממאוחר שהוא בפרשיות, מלשון נוטריקון, מלשון גימטריא אם לחשבון האותיות אם לחילוף זו בזו, הרי אלו שלושים ושתים מידות. מכאן אמרו כל מקום שאתה מוצא דבריו של רבי אליעזר ב"ר יוסי הגלילי בהגדה עשה אזנך כאפרכסת ושמע דבריו שנאמר הט לחכמה אזנך.

A matter that is not explicated in its place and whose further explication is found in a different place.

3.  Although the “real-time”  account of the Spies appears in BaMidbar 13 ff., extra details are obtained when Moshe recapitulates what happens in his valedictory in Devarim 1:22 ff.

4.  a. After the Divine Decree against Moshe’s entering Israel (BaMidbar 20:12) Moshe prayed to be allowed to enter, but was denied (Devarim 3:23-6).

b. Yitro is credited with the original suggestion for Moshe to delegate his judicial duties in Shemot 18:17 ff. Yitro is not mentioned and some changes can be detected in what is described in Devarim 1:15-18.

5.  a.  The locations listed in the text  seem to be different.

b.  Striking and speaking seem to be different actions.

c.  If they are the same, why is there no indication of anger directed at Moshe in Shemot?

d. If that which appears in BeShalach actually happened before the incident of the spies and  the decree against the people entering Israel, then not only Moshe, but the entire people were still expecting to go to Israel.

6.  Despite the fact that the terms “Masa” and “Meriva” are used in Devarim, and in fact there were tests and disputes in the story in BaMidbar,  Devarim is not referring  to the actual place called “Massa U’Meriva”, which applies exclusively to the story in Shemot.

Beit.

1. The prpblem is accounting for the use of the infinitive “לשתות” in verse 1 instead of the more typical “לשתיית”.

2.  R. Avraham ben HaRaMBaM, Cassuto: There was absolutely no water to be had.

      R. Eliezer Ashkenazi, HaKetav VeHaKabbala: The people had water, but they wanted an abundance of water so as not to worry about ever running out.

 HaEmek Davar: The people had sufficient water and were simply testing God to see if He would Respond to their plaint. (See my essay at http://text.rcarabbis.org/parshat-beshalach-what-have-you-done-for-me-lately-by-yaakov-bieler/

3. HaKetav VeHaKabbala: The infinitive “לשתות” connotes a constant flow and general abundance of water for drinking.

    HaEmek Davar: The infinitive “לשתות” connotes that the people were not telling the truth, and weren’t in need of drinking water at all. This was simply a pretext by which to test God.

4. When looking at the order of the verses,

שמות פרק יז

(א) ויסעו כל עדת בני ישראל ממדבר סין למסעיהם על פי יקוק ויחנו ברפידים ואין מים לשתת העם:

(ב) וירב העם עם משה ויאמרו תנו לנו מים ונשתה ויאמר להם משה מה תריבון עמדי מה תנסון את   יקוק:

(ג) ויצמא שם העם למים וילן העם על משה ויאמר למה זה העליתנו ממצרים להמית אתי ואת בני ואת מקני בצמא:

It would appear that verses 2 and 3 are reversed. Shouldn’t they first have been thirsty and then come to Moshe requesting water? The fact that they demanded water before they were thirsty suggests that they had some water, but perhaps not as much as they would have liked, and this began to affect them psychologically to the point where they felt that they were needier/thirstier than they actually were.

5.  a. One could say that the second chapter of Beraishit fleshes out a great deal of detail about the creation of man and other aspects of the world that were only briefly mentioned in the first chapter.

 b. Shemot 25:8 is a general statement about the construction of the Mishkan, followed by all of the detail entailed in making it a reality.

 c. BaMidbar 7:10 describes how the Nesi’im brought their contributions to the Mishkan, followed by the account of each individual Nasi and what he individually brought.

6.  HaEmek Davar could claim that even though they initially were not thirsty for water because they actually had enough for their purposes, it became a self-fulfilling prophecy whereby their initial false claim turned into a reality and in verse 3 they are described as having become literally thirsty.

Gimel.

1. Mechilta: “ויצעק” is an act of relaying on the part of Moshe the requests of the people to HaShem, despite their complaining and threats.

     Tanchuma:  “ויצעק” is Moshe conveying his own personal fears that the people will assassinate him unless he complies with their demands.

2.  Ibn Ezra would appear to follow Tanchuma’s approach, merely expanding the Midrash to include not only this particular incident, but many others as well where the anger of the people could easily lead to violence. While Moshe articulates a fear of being stoned, Ibn Ezra considers his claim to be an exaggeration in the sense that Moshe recognizes that God would never Allow the people to murder His Shliach. However that does not change the fact that they are rather upset.

3. This is a reference to the Rabbinical interpretation reflected in Rabbeinu Bachya’s comment on Shemot 6:13—

[רבינו] בחיי שמות פרק ו פסוק יג

(יג) ויצום אל בני ישראל. שישאו טרחם ומשאם ושלא יכעסו עליהם ושלא יקללו אותם:

It would appear that the catalyst for the insight is the fact that we are told that Moshe and Aharon were given a Divine Command regarding the Jewish people, but there is no explanation of what that Command was. Consequently it was concluded that it must have been a general directive about how to treat the people, rather than a specific thing for them to do that was to be conveyed to them by Moshe and Aharon.

Daled.

1.  Instead of HaShem Providing Moshe with an ostensible means by which to not be stoned by the people, God Commands the prophet to go out again and face his antagonists.

2.  RaShI: HaShem Wants to demonstrate to Moshe that his fears are unfounded, and that he has once again unnecessarily cast aspersions on the Jewish people—

תורה תמימה שמות פרק ד

(א) לא יאמינו לי - אמר ריש לקיש, החושד בכשרים לוקה בגופו, דכתיב ויען משה ויאמר והן לא יאמינו לי, ולקה - דכתיב (פ' ו') והנה ידו מצורעת כשלג^א) [שבת צ"ז א']:

א) ומפרש בגמרא וגליא קמי קוב"ה דמהמני ישראל ואמר ליה, ישראל הם מאמינים בני מאמינים, דכתיב (פ' ל"א) ויאמן העם, ובני מאמינים בני אברהם דכתיב ביה (פ' לך), והאמין בה'...

Parshat Beshalach

http://www.nechama.org.il/pages/1062.html

Parshat Bo answers

Bo 5723
Alef.

1. R. Avraham ben HaRaMBaM assumes that Shemot 11:4-8 is a continuation of Moshe’s response to Pharoah that was interrupted after 10:29 by 11:1-3. Since in 11:4 it is unclear to whom Moshe is addressing his words, we receive no clear indication until 11:7-8. While the word “Teidun” (that you shall know) could apply to a skeptical Jewish audience as well, retroactively we see that it is addressed to Pharoah in light of the following phrases in 11:8

         a. “Kol Avadecha”—your (Pharoah’s) servants.

b. “Tzeh Atah U’Bechol HaAm Asher B’Raglecha”—directed at Moshe by Pharoah’s servants that he and the rest of the Jewish people should leave Egypt. (This only makes sense within the context of Moshe speaking to Pharoah and referring to Pharoah’s servants.)

c.  “VaYetzeh MeiIm Pharoah BaChori Af”—and he left Pharoah’s presence in anger. A reference to Moshe’s state of mind after responding to Pharoah’s demand in 10:28 never to see him again.

2. Since the non sequitor of 11:1-3 could be interpreted as a different conversation between God and Moshe, and that his audience with Pharoah had ended with 10:29, R. Avraham ben HaRaMBaM once to clarify that in light of 11:8, the interchange between Moshe and Pharoah recorded at the end of Chapt. 10 had not as yet ended. It would also make sense that a plague as severe as the destruction of the First-born should be preceded by a warning to Pharoah to give him a chance to head it off. While RaShI on Shemot 4:23 posits that Moshe had warned Pharoah about the climactic plague right from the beginning, nevertheless, time had elapsed between that interaction and this point, and it would only be fair to warn the ruler again, in accordance with the principle “Ein Onshin Elah Im Kein Mazhirin”¹ (one does not punish unless previously warning is given.)² However, to assume that Moshe made an extra trip to see Pharoah in order to give him that warning would contradict Pharoah’s threat in 10:28, i.e., that should Moshe come to him again, Moshe would be killed. Since before he leaves Moshe has to impart whatever last words he has for Pharoah, he must have warned him at this point before finally leaving.

Beit.

Differences between the warning that Moshe gives Pharoah and the actual plague of Makkat Bechorot:

a. 11:4 It will take place approximately at midnight (KiChatzot).

   12:29 It takes place exactly at midnight (BiChatzot).

According to the Midrash quoted by RaShI on 11:4, whereas God can Calculate exactly when midnight occurs, this is not possibie for man to do. Consequently man must be given approximate times in order for him not to conclude that God has not Lived up to the prediction that He Made.³

b.  11:5 The firstborn will die.

   12:29 HaShem Struck down the firstborn.

It was not necessary to enter into yet another theological debate with Pharoah as to the origin of the plagues. The threat of this happening, whomever would be responsible, was sufficient to make the point. However, when the plague is actually described, the Party responsible, i.e., HaShem, is cited as the origin of the destruction.

c.  11:5 The plague will encompass the son of the hand-maiden who is sitting at the millstones.

   12:29 “       “         “          “               “     “     “    “   prisoner who is in prison.

   MaLBIM explains that even the Egyptian slaves were considered Egyptians, whereas those who were imprisoned were mostly foreigners (like Yosef, but unlike the Royal Baker and Butler) about whom the Egyptians, and therefore Pharoah, didn’t care. However, if they would not be mentioned with regard to the actual plague, it might be implied that their foreign gods had protected them from HaShem’s Plague. Since an aspect of the Plagues was to impress upon everyone, Egyptians, Jews and others, how Powerful HaShem was, the prisoners had to be included in the plague of the firstborn.

d.  11:6 No mention of the Egyptians awakening and arising in the middle of the night.

   12:30 This is mentioned.

   The description of the plague is dramatized by adding the information that people were awoken by the screams of either the dying firstborn, or the families which had lost the firstborn among them. Adding such a detail to the warning given to Pharoah would not have made a difference. If he is going to be affected, it is due to the consternation experienced by his subjects rather than the fact that they would be awakened in the middle of the night.

e. 11:6 The screams will be a phenomenon that has never before occurred, nor will it ever occur again.

   12:30 While the screams will be great, no comparison to any other incident is mentioned. What is added is that there wasn’t a single house in which there wasn’t someone who had died.

   Perhaps Pharoah will be concerned about his legacy. Consequently, a unique historical event that is so negative will create an indelible memory with which he might not wish to be associated. When the actual plague is described, emphasis is placed upon how ubiquitous the occurrence was. While that reflects the massive extent of God’s Power, if Pharoah, as a totalitarian dictator, was not terribly concerned about individual subjects in his kingdom, perhaps that would not have influenced him one way or the other. Furthermore, the fact that every house had someone who was deceased suggests that the definition of “firstborn” was broad, i.e., not only literal firstborn individuals, but even figurative ones, e.g., those who were the oldest survivors, or perhaps the heads of the households.

f.  11:7 Mention that no dogs will bare their teeth at the Jews when they are departing Egypt.

   12   No mention of this.

   Another indication of the supernatural nature of what is going to transpire. The typical attitude of dogs to disturbances and strangers is to bark, howl, bare teeth, etc. Furthermore, if a tremendous number of people have died, this would be further reason to expect the dogs in Egypt to be restless and respond to their surroundings in a hostile manner. Since Moshe predicts that this will not occur, he is supplying additional evidence that what is about to take place will be supernatural.

g.  11:8 Pharoah’s servants will come to seek Moshe out and tell him to leave with the people.

   12:31 Pharoah himself will call Moshe to come and see him.

   To predict that Pharoah will reneg on his previous threat in 10:27 to kill Moshe should he return to the palace, would not be politic. So Moshe attributes such a request to Pharoah’s servants. It also suggests that Pharoah’s policies with regard to preventing the Jews from leaving are unpopular, with even his own servants wanting Moshe’s demands to be met.

h.  11:8 The implication of what the people say is that the Jews should leave for good, as opposed to temporarily.

   12:31 Pharoah tells Moshe that the Jews should go and worship in accordance with what Moshe had originally proposed, i.e., three days journey into the desert, and then to return to Egypt.

i.   11:8 No mention is made of the final elements in 12:32.

   12:32 Explicit permission is granted for the Jews to take their animals with them when they go out into the desert. The truly remarkable addition is the request on Pharoah’s part for a blessing. (See Text and Texture, the RCA blog for an essay on this topic in an entry for Parashat Bo.)

Gimel.

1. The common denominator in the comments of Ibn Ezra and Ibn Kaspi is that nuances in language should not serve as the basis for drawing significant conclusions. These minor changes or the use of synonyms are essentially literary in nature and have nothing to do with the ultimate meaning of the text under scrutiny. On the one hand, this supports the view that since the Tora was intended to be given to human beings, we should readily expect to find the varieties of human style and turns of phrases that people use in their speech. And if that was the intention why such circumlocutions were employed, then to try to come up with rationales for them would entail reading too much into the text. On the other hand, when it is assumed that the Tora emanates from the Divine, then even if the text might appear to resemble human speech, nevertheless the text should never be trivialized and not closely read in order to seek out the Intention of the Infinite One.

2. Ibn Kaspi is reflecting on how literally to take a “Chuf” being used as a contraction for “Kemo”, i.e., like. When two things are compared, they may be compared approximately, i.e., they resemble one another but still differ in significant ways, or perhaps an identity is being established whereby the text is completely equating the two elements that are being cited.

3. Once I assume that the text is to be viewed literarily rather than literally, the difference between “KeChatzot” and “BeChatzi HaLayla” becomes nonexistent.

Daled.

1. The Midrash posits that every good deed, whether performed by a human being or other creature, will be rewarded in contrast to deeds that are not proper, those who carry them out will at best enjoy benefits only for a relatively short time. The dogs are rewarded for not baring teeth by being given Teraifa; people who obtain wealth unethically will have it unceremoniously stripped from him.

2.  Shemot 11:7, “But against any of the children of Israel shall not a dog whet his tongue, against man or beast; that ye may know how that the LORD doth put a difference between the Egyptians and Israel,” cites the behavior of the dogs as evidence of God’s Intervention in the history of the Jews and Israel. Consequently, the dogs did not act out of a spirit of good will, but rather because they were forced to do so by HaShem, must as HaShem Hardened Pharoah’s heart with respect to the final plagues. Just as Pharoah is understood to be punished only for the times when he refused to let the Jews leave due to his own volition as opposed to when HaShem Removed from him Free Will, so too rewarding the dogs for something that was imposed upon them rather than chosen by them to do, would make no sense. (RaMBaM writes voluminously in Mishna Tora, Hilchot Teshuva, Chapt. 5 how Free Choice is the foundation of the entire reward-and-punishment system.)

Heh.

1. There would appear to be two separate opinions:

a. R. Avraham ben HaRaMBaM—the dogs that were guarding the Jewish slaves did not bark at or attack them.

b. Abrabanel—along with the relatives of those who had died during the plague of the firstborn, the attack dogs also did not lash out at the Jewish people. The commentator further speculates that perhaps this symbolizes that all of Egypt stood mutely by as the Jews were going to leave.

c.  ShaDaL—the dogs belonged to the Jews. And they did not become agitated, but rather were as calm as their masters despite their hearing screams of the dying and/or the mourning.

2. The Midrash emphasizes the “kindness” of the dogs, whereas R. Avraham ben HaRaMBaM emphasizes the unnatural behavior of the dogs. It would appear that the latter is closer to the literal meaning of the verse in light of my answer to Daled. 2 above. If this was intended to be a symbol of God’s total Omnipotence, then the meaner the dog, particularly guard dogs, the bigger the miracle when they stand by without doing what they had been trained to do.

3.  In 11:7, the phrase “LeMeiIsh Ad Beheima” could have been understood as the objects against which the dogs did not show hostility. Abrabanel is suggesting that the phrase is actually referring to other subjects, i.e., the Egyptians, who like the dogs, did not demonstrate hostility against the Jews on their way out of Egypt.

Vav.

1.  In Shemot 3:19 HaShem had Told Moshe that Pharoah was not going to listen to his demands. So what is HaShem Telling Moshe in 11:9 that he does not already know?

2. From the context of 3:19, what is being referred to is the first appearance of Moshe befor Pharoah, when Pharoah responded by increasing the work burden on the Jews. The reference in 11:9 could summarize Moshe’s second coming to Pharoah when despite plague after plague, Pharoah refused to concede.

Parhat BO

http://www.nechama.org.il/pages/316.html

Parshat Vaera answers

VaEra 5729
Alef.

1. א

While usually the action is of greater importance than the actor, in this case, it is most curious that there should be among the servants of Pharoah people of whom it could be sai that they were fearful of the Word of HaShem. Consequently it is this strange phenomenon that is placed in first position within the verse in order to highlight it.

ב

Usually “ו” represents the conjunction “and.” However, in this case, it would have made more sense to simply state the verb “עזב” without a conjunction in front of it. The conjunction suggests that this is an independent phrase that stands separate from the subject in the first part of the phrase.

In Shemot 18:23, the “ו” in front of the word “ויכלת” is superfluous and could be misconstrued as separating this phrase from what preceded it, when in fact only the combination of Moshe’s act and God’s Acquiescence will result in Moshe’s being able to properly administer the people.

In VaYikra 25:33, the “ו” in front of “ויצא” might appear to separate it from the original phrase and constitute an additional category of houses, when in fact it is the result of the original phrase, i.e., houses in walled cities that are redeemed/bought from the Levi’im, unlike houses purchased from non-Levi’im, will be effected by Yovel, i.e., will be returned to their original owners, the Levi’im, since whatever was given to the Levi’im was permanently owned by them.

ג

“Now therefore send, hasten in thy cattle and all that thou hast in the field; for every man and beast that shall be found in the field, and shall not be brought home, the hail shall come down upon them, and they shall die.'

“He that feared the word of the LORD among the servants of Pharaoh made his servants and his cattle flee into the houses.”

When HaShem Gives the Command, He is not Affected by any particular emotion, and therefore can “dispassionately” State that the animals and slaves should simply be sent elsewhere. However the property owners who have already seen the massive destruction that has been brought about by the plagues, panic and forcibly make their possessions seek shelter out of the deep fear that everything will be destroyed and they will be left penniless.

2.  א

And Moses stretched forth his rod toward heaven; and the LORD sent thunder and hail, and fire ran down unto the earth; and the LORD caused to hail upon the land of Egypt. So there was hail, and fire flashing up amidst the hail, very grievous, such as had not been in all the land of Egypt since it became a nation. And the hail smote throughout all the land of Egypt all that was in the field, both man and beast; and the hail smote every herb of the field, and broke every tree of the field.  Only in the land of Goshen, where the children of Israel were, was there no hail.

Devices used to increase the intimidation:

a) By Moshe initiating the plague, it appears as if he can control the Heavens.

b) The accompaniment of thunder with the hail engendered additional fear.

c) The addition of supernatural fire (the implication being that this was not merely lightning) certainly added to the affect.

d)  The fire was within the hail, a supernatural affect, since ice and fire should not naturally co-exist.

e) In addition to the quality of the hail, there was also an inordinate quantity, leading to the evaluation “very grievous.”

f)  A historically unique situation for the land of Egypt.

g) The hail was deadly, killing people, animals and plants.

h) The fact that the area covered by hail was selective, and that specifically the area where the bulk of the Jews lived was spared, reflected God’s Involvement in this otherwise “natural” meteorological phenomenon.

ב

Perhaps the employment of the future with a “ו” ההיפוך reflects the general process, whereas a strict past form of the verb refers to a specific, finite act.

שמות פרק ט

(לג) ויצא משה מעם פרעה את העיר ויפרש כפיו אל יקוק ויחדלו הקלות והברד ומטר לא נתך ארצה:

(לד) וירא פרעה כי חדל המטר והברד והקלת ויסף לחטא ויכבד לבו הוא ועבדיו:

Beit.

1. It would appear that beginning with Shemot 9:13, the verses are dedicated to the plague of hail. Yet the language in 9:14 suggests that the coming plague will be the most severe and in effect include and surpass all other plagues. However, aside from hail, locusts, darkness and the plague of the firstborn are still to come. Furthermore, if any of the plagues are to be considered the ultimate one, it would appear from 4:23, where the only plague specifically mentioned to Moshe prior to his journeying to Egypt (the sign of water turning to blood is independent of the plague of all the waterways in Egypt turning to blood, the nature of the initial plague) is the plague of the firstborn.

2.  The idea that the entire crop that ripens earliest, i.e., the barley should be referred to as a form of “Bikurim” (first fruits) is unlike the usage of the term in all other contexts. A firstborn, or the firstborn animals or first fruits are the earliest of a particular crop, brood, number of children, etc. as opposed to an entire group/species as compared to other groups and species.

3.  It is possible to group the plagues into three groups, indicated by the third of the first two groups not being preceded by a warning to Pharoah, and relating to different portions of the environment.

Group 1:  Blood, Frogs, Lice.

                  Plagues affecting the ground and that which is on the ground, i.e., waterways. Lice had no warning---see Shemot 8:12-13. Although RaMBaN claims that just because everything is not spelled out each time, that does not mean that there was no warning, nevertheless, by virtue of the text differentiating between the first two plagues and the third, it is legitimate to group them accordingly.

Group 2:  Wild animals, a form of bubonic plague, boils. Plagues that affect those that inhabit the ground. Boils does not have a preceding warning—see Shemot 9:8-10.

Group 3:  Since 10 is not divisible into 3, this group is made up of four plagues—hail, locusts, darkness and the plague of the firstborn. They affect the atmosphere and the heavens.

Consequently, the verse in question is not an introduction to hail per se, but rather to the last group of plagues that culminate in the plague of the firstborn.

Gimel.

1. Typically, the “מ” of “מעבדי פרעה” suggests that some of Pharoah’s own servants were in fact God-fearing and they protected their property by removing it from the fields and bringing it indoors. Meshech Chachma posits that individuals were faced with a choice to either listen to all of Pharoah’s servants who were urging that Moshe’s threats concerning hail be ignored and that everything be left outside as an act of defiance or to be God-fearing and to take Moshe’s warning seriously. Those that brought their property inside obviously worried more about Moshe’s prediction than Pharoah’s servants threats.

2.  Perhaps Meshech Chachma was influenced by the following two verses:

(כז) וישלח פרעה ויקרא למשה ולאהרן ויאמר אלהם חטאתי הפעם יקוק הצדיק ואני ועמי הרשעים:

(ל) ואתה ועבדיך ידעתי כי טרם תיראון מפני יקוק אלקים:

     First Pharoah and then Moshe’s reference to “my people” and “your servants” suggests that  there was a difference of opinion between those who worked for Pharoah and the rest of the Egyptians. While the former might have been “true believers” this was not the case of at least a portion of the general populace, and it is the latter about whom Meshech Chachma is writing.

Daled.

1.  א

איוב פרק לג פסוק כא

יכל בשרו מראי ושופו עצמותיו לא ראו:

“His flesh is consumed away, that it cannot be seen; and his bones corrode to unsightliness. “

Ibn Ezra is contended that just as in the word “נכתה\נוכו” the “נ” is part of the root, rather than serving as the passive declension, so too in “ושופו” the “ש” is part of the root of the word.

ב

Although there is a “שורוק” after the “ש”, it is not a passive but rather an active verb, as indicated in the translation “corrode.” Yahel Ohr on Ibn Ezra, #151, refers to the verb as “בנין הכבד הדגוש.”

ג

The “נ”’s in “נכתה” and “נוכו” which are part of the root of the word.

ד

The “נ” is a substitute for the “מ” which is part of the true root.

ה

Other words which undergo a similar transformation when used in this manner.

2. א

The question is whether or not 9:31-32 are part of what Moshe actually says to Pharoah before he goes out to pray for the plague to stop, or are these verses simply describing the state of affairs, i.e., which crops were destroyed and which were not. And if the former is true, what point is Moshe making to Pharoah by describing the states of the various crops.

ב

Ibn Ezra does not see in these verses anything other than a description of the state of affairs, and were not mentioned by Moshe to Pharoah. Both RaMBaN and R. Eliezer Ashkenazi consider them part of Moshe’s message to Pharoah, only differing as to what Moshe intent might have been by including this information.

ג

RaMBaN: Moshe is warning Pharoah that at this point, at least some of the food that the Egyptians need is still intact and therefore if he complies with the request to free the Jews at this point, he can avert a famine before any more destruction comes about.

R. Eliezer Ashkenazi: Based upon 10:15

(טו) ויכס את עין כל הארץ ותחשך הארץ ויאכל את כל עשב הארץ ואת כל פרי העץ אשר הותיר הברד ולא נותר כל ירק בעץ ובעשב השדה בכל ארץ מצרים:

which this commentator interprets as not necessarily stating that the rest of the grain was destroyed, but only the grasses and the fruits on the trees, he feels that Moshe is not so much threatening Pharoah with famine, as making a symbolic point about Pharoah’s rulership style, i.e., the grain that was ripe and therefore stiff/inflexible was destroyed, as opposed to that which was malleable. Similarly, Pharoah should exercise flexibility in his decision-making rather than being stiff which will only lead to his destruction.

ד

See answer to ג above.