Beshalach answers

Alef.

1. What was the nature of Amalek’s transgression that it elicits such an extreme response from God, i.e., the Jews must obliterate literally and figuratively all remembrance of Amalek and what this people did.
2. Tanchuma: Amalek failed to be intimidated by the miracles that God Performed on behalf of the Jews as they left Egypt. Whereas Shemot 15:14-5 lists four great civilizations in the Middle east, i.e., the Philistines, the Edomites, the Moabites and the Canaanites, as being incredibly fearful, Amalek demonstrated their lack of concern by attacking the Jews and thereby indirectly, the Jewish God.

Ibn Kaspi: God Judiciously Decides when to Forgive and when to Avenge, in accordance with the perpetrator and the offense. Apparently in this case, He Decided that Amalek deserved harsh treatment rather than compassion. (However, the commentator does not identify what precisely was Amalek’s sin.)

HaNeTzIV: God Wished to Impose His Authority upon the world via Israel and Giving them the Tora. Since Amalek was opposed to this, in effect, this nation was opposing the development of the ultimate plan that HaShem had Worked out for His Creation. Until Amalek would be eliminated, the plan could not go forward, thereby necessitating Amalek’s elimination.

Cassuto: Amalek was a threat to Israel’s security on its southern border. Israel would not be able to live in peace as long as Amalek lurked ready to strike and raid. Consequently Amalek had to be eliminated.

3. Tanchuma: The nations of the world were wary of taking on the Jews and God their Protector following the miracles associated with the Exodus.

Ibn Kaspi: The nations of the world posed the question why isn’t the Jewish God a Forgiving God, and despite what Amalek might have done, isn’t is appropriate to forgive, rather than desire to avenge or bear a grudge going into the future?

4. Whereas the other three interpretations deal in theological matters, (Tanchuma: daring to challenge God’s Omnipotence; Ibn Kaspi: questioning God’s Kindness and Compassion; HaNeTzIV: preventing the Tora from being given to humanity), Cassuto explains the issue as a national security matter. RaMBaM seems to state that unless there is a stable society, religious development will be unable to take place (See Guide II:40; “Igerret HaShmad”, in Igerot HaRaMBaM, RaMBaM LeAm, Mosad HaRav Kook, Yerushalayim, pp. 64 ff.). Consequently it could be said that Cassuto sees Amalek as interfering with a pre-requisite for the Jews becoming more comfortable with their religion, while the others are discussing that very development itself and how Amalek was interfering with it.

I Shmuel 30 describes how Amalek came from the south and invaded the city Ziklag which David had used as his base. The Amalekites despoiled the city and took captive the women and children within it.  

5. If one is supposed to remember everything written in the Tora, why are certain Mitzvot emphasized, including remembering what Amalek did, and we are Commanded to particularly remember these events?
6. Perhaps HaNeTzIV could rely on the phrase “Milchama LaShem Ba’Amalek MiDor Dor”. If the issue was whether God would be able to impose His Law on the world, then if Amalek opposes such a development, God will have to Fight against Amalek in order to eventually Get His Way.

Beit.

Yalkut Shimoni, reflecting on why the incident with Amalek is phrased in the manner that it is in Devarim, suggests that Amalek came to punish the Jews for their shortcomings. However, if this was directly mentioned, it would be embarrassing to the Jews. Consequently the emphasis is upon what Amalek did to them, rather than their role in setting Amalek loose upon them.

Gimel.

1.א. According to Mizrachi, whereas the Midrash’s interpretation of the Semichut HaParshiot is understandable in the sense that the methodology of this Rabbinic text is to look for any and all connections that could be made when two topics are juxtaposed next to one another in the biblical text, what is difficult re RaShI is that he chooses to cite this type of Midrash only when a textual difficulty is solved by the interpretation. However, since in this case, the juxtaposition is obvious due to both events taking place in Refidim, why did RaShI see fit to cite the Midrash’s interpretation, when the reason for why the incidents are placed next to one another seems not to demand any sort of additional explanation?

ב. Siftei Chachamim offers two explanations for Mizrachi’s question:

a. Gur Aryeh: The verb “ויבא” is inappropriate, and “ויצא”, as in the case of Devarim 2:32 “And Sichon went out to meet us” describing a military attack, would have been expected to be used regarding Amalek’s attack. Consequently, RaShI looked for an internal connection between the two events, i.e., Amalek came as a result of something that the Jews had done/said.

b.  Nachalat Yaakov: Since it had already been established that the people were encamped at Refidim (17:1) and it later states that they journeyed away from Refidim (19:2), the mention of Refidim yet again in 17:8 is superfluous. The additional usage of the place name suggests that it was something that took place in this location that generated Amalek’s attack.

ג. The concept underlying the Midrash is that God’s Abstractness leads people to either take for granted His Existence or even consider His non-Existence, so to speak. Consequently, when there is some need that is going unfulfilled, it raises questions in the minds of skeptics or non-believers whether or not Hashgacha Pratit is operating.  Such doubts precipitate the creation of a situation whereby it becomes obvious that God is indeed Present and Overseeing what is happening to the people. Regrettably, even after the rather powerful Revelation at Sinai, the people revert to another form of such doubts and fabricate the Golden Calf (Shemot 32).

2.  Perhaps RashI is bringing into line with the account of Amalek’s account in Shemot, what we are told about the incident in Devarim 25:17-9 :

Remember what Amalek did unto thee by the way as ye came forth out of Egypt; how he met thee by the way, and smote the hindmost of thee, all that were enfeebled in thy rear, when thou wast faint and weary; and he feared not God. Therefore it shall be, when the LORD thy God hath Given thee rest from all thine enemies round about, in the land which the LORD thy God Giveth thee for an inheritance to possess it, that thou shalt blot out the remembrance of Amalek from under heaven; thou shalt not forget. 

RaShI explains the underlined phrase as follows:

כל הנחשלים אחריך - חסרי כח מחמת חטאם, שהיה הענן פולטן:

Lacking in strength due to their sin, that the Cloud had expelled them (from its protection).

If the victims of Amalek’s attack were not being protected by the Cloud of Glory emanating from God, then everyone else was under the Cloud and had nothing to fear from the marauding Amalekites. Nevertheless, Moshe felt that the objects of attack, however undeserving of defense they may have been due to their spiritual transgressions, were deserving of protection. Moshe therefore gives Yehoshua the order to expose himself and those who would fight along with him to Amalek in order to remove the threat that was levied against the Jews lacking in Divine Protection.

מכילתא דרבי ישמעאל בשלח - מסכתא דויהי פתיחתא

(שמ' יג:כא) "וה' הולך לפניהם יומם", נמצאת אומר שבעה עננים הם והשם הולך לפניהם יומם בעמוד ענן ועננך עומד עליהם ובעמוד ענן (במדבר יד יד) ובהאריך הענן (שם /במדבר/ ט יט) ובהעלות הענן ואם לא יעלה הענן כי ענן ה' על המשכן (שמות מ לו - לח) הא שבעה עננים ארבעה מארבע רוחותיהם אחד למעלה ואחד למטה אחד שהיה מהלך לפניהם כל הנמוך מגביהו וכל הגבוה משפילו שנ' כל גיא ינשא וכל הר וגבעה ישפלו והיה העקוב למישור והרכסים לבקעה (ישעיה מ ד) והיה מכה נחשים ועקרבים מכבד ומרבץ לפניהם. ר' יהודה אומר שלשה עשר עננים היו שנים שנים לכל רוח ורוח שנים מלמעלה ושנים מלמטה ואחד שהיה מהלך לפניהם. ר' יאשיה אומר ארבעה אחד לפניהם ואחד לאחריהם אחד למעלה ואחד למטה.

3. Maskil LeDavid explains that the sentence appears to be missing a future “being” verb:

שמות פרק יז

(ט) וַיֹּאמֶר מֹשֶׁה אֶל יְהוֹשֻׁעַ בְּחַר לָנוּ אֲנָשִׁים וְצֵא הִלָּחֵם בַּעֲמָלֵק מָחָר אָנֹכִי נִצָּב עַל רֹאשׁ הַגִּבְעָה וּמַטֵּה הָאֱלֹהִים בְּיָדִי:

And Moses said unto Joshua: 'Choose us out men, and go out, fight with Amalek; tomorrow I am standing on the top of the hill with the rod of God in my hand.'

Without additional clarification, it sounds like Moshe will begin to stand now even if the battle will take place at a later point. Consequently, RaShI clarifies that Moshe’s intention is that he will take up his position as soon as the battle begins, which appears to be the next day.

Parshat Beshalach

http://www.nechama.org.il/pages/233.html

Bo answers

Bo 5715

1. The “heretical” question would be: if the Jews indeed only “borrowed” the various jewels and garments from the Egyptians under the pretext that they would be returning to Egypt after travelling into the desert for three days to worship HaShem,¹ implying that even when Pharaoh begrudgingly granted permission for the Jews to leave after the plague of the first-born,² it was with the understanding that the Jews would only be gone only temporarily, in the end, when it became obvious that they have no intention to return,³ wouldn’t their retaining what they “borrowed” constitute thievery, with HaShem’s having Put them up to this deception, being “guilty”, as it were, of deceiving the Egyptians, an example of Geneivat Da’at?

2.  Josephus: The gifts were in order to a) speed them on their way and b) demonstrate that the Egyptians regretted having treated the Jews so harshly.

   Sanhedrin 91b: What was taken from the Egyptians constituted at least part of c) the wages owed to 600,000 workers for 430 years of labor.

   Midrash Chemdat Yamim: The women were the ones who specifically took jewels, etc. from the Egyptians, because despite the decree that the male newborns were to be cast into the river,⁴ the text never decisively states that this was carried out to the letter. This suggests that bribery went on allowing at least some of the children to be saved. Consequently, d) theJewish women⁵ were given the opportunity to recover their property that had been used for bribes by means of this “borrowing.”

   Rabbeinu Yona, Rabbeinu Bechaye, RaShBaM: e) The term “She’ela” is used in biblical passages as a reference to gift giving, and not only borrowing. Obviously in this context, the Egyptians gave outright gifts to the Jews, thereby obviating the ethical issue.

   Rabbeinu Chananel, Chizkuni, Cassuto: f) The Commandment of “Ha’anaka”⁶ that provides for a Jewish master to give his newly-freed Jewish servant possessions (ostensibly to prevent him from immediately slipping back into poverty which led him to become a Jewish servant for six years in the first place), serves as a paradigm for Jews being entitled to gifts from the Egyptians upon their release from slavery.

   Chizkuni on Shemot 11:2, d.h. Kelai Kesef U’Klai Zahav: The commentator implies that when the Jews became enslaved, their property had been confiscated by the Egyptians, and therefore g) the “borrowing” was a means for recovering these possessions.

   Benno Jakob: In order that Jews would eventually be able to apply to Egyptian converts the same positive attitude that the Tora enjoined them to apply to all converts to Judaism,⁷ an attempt had to be made h) to mitigate the resentment and bitterness arising from the harsh servitude that the Jews experienced in Egypt. Consequently, the Egyptians were made to give the Jews gifts by means of God Manipulating their emotional attitudes and placing the grace of the Jews in their eyes.

3.   The passage in Sanhedrin suggests that despite the fact that God Placed the grace of the Jews in the eyes of the Egyptians to influence them to offer their precious possessions to the Jews, this feeling “wore off” and eventually the Egyptians resented having parted with their valuables. Perhaps it wasn’t only Pharoah and his servants who exclaimed their dismay when they realized that the Jews had fled (see fn. 3) , but all of the people, feeling cheated by having their possessions taken from them under false pretenses or psychological manipulation.

4.  a)  In the example from Yehoshua 15, although in v. 18, the term “לשאול” appears, it is defined in v. 19 by the verbs “תנה”, “נתתני”, “ונתנה”, “ויתן”. Just as she already possessed Gulot Mayim, she was given in addition Gulot Aliyot and Gulot Tachtiyot. Furthermore, when it comes to asking to be given land, one does not “borrow” the land, but rather asks for it be given outright and permanently. Consequently this is a support to the contention that in the context of taking valuables from the Egyptians they were not borrowed but rather given.

יהושע פרק טו

(יח) וַיְהִי בְּבוֹאָהּ וַתְּסִיתֵהוּ לִשְׁאוֹל מֵאֵת אָבִיהָ שָׂדֶה וַתִּצְנַח מֵעַל הַחֲמוֹר וַיֹּאמֶר לָהּ כָּלֵב מַה לָּךְ:

(יט) וַתֹּאמֶר תְּנָה לִּי בְרָכָה כִּי אֶרֶץ הַנֶּגֶב נְתַתָּנִי וְנָתַתָּה לִי גֻּלֹּת מָיִם וַיִּתֶּן לָהּ אֵת גֻּלֹּת עִלִּיּוֹת וְאֵת גֻּלֹּת תַּחְתִּיּוֹת: פ

And it came to pass, when she came unto him, that she persuaded him to ask of her father a field; and she alighted from off her ass; and Caleb said unto her: 'What wouldest thou?' And she said: 'Give me a blessing; for that thou hast set me in the Southland, give me therefore springs of water.' And he gave her the Upper Springs and the Nether Springs. 

b)  In the example from I Melachim 2:20, Adoniyahu has a request of Bat Sheva, i.e., that Avishag, David’s concubine, be given to him, his intention being to try to publicly demonstrate that he should succeed his father in the kingship. When Bat Sheva relays this request, although she uses the language “שאלה” initially, what is being requested is not that Avishag be loaned, but rather permanently given to Adoniyahu, as becomes clear in v. 21. Once again, the language of “שאלה” connotes permanent giving.

מלכים א פרק ב

(כ) וַתֹּאמֶר שְׁאֵלָה אַחַת קְטַנָּה אָנֹכִי שֹׁאֶלֶת מֵאִתָּךְ אַל תָּשֶׁב אֶת פָּנָי וַיֹּאמֶר לָהּ הַמֶּלֶךְ שַׁאֲלִי אִמִּי כִּי לֹא אָשִׁיב אֶת פָּנָיִךְ:

(כא) וַתֹּאמֶר יֻתַּן אֶת אֲבִישַׁג הַשֻּׁנַמִּית לַאֲדֹנִיָּהוּ אָחִיךָ לְאִשָּׁה:

c) In the final example from Shemot 22:13, what is being discussed is liability of one of the forms of “guards”:

תלמוד בבלי מסכת בבא מציעא דף צג עמוד א

משנה. ארבע שומרים הן: שומר חנם והשואל, נושא שכר והשוכר

THERE ARE FOUR BAILEES: A GRATUITOUS BAILEE, A BORROWER, A PAID BAILEE AND A HIRER. A GRATUITOUS BAILEE MUST SWEAR FOR EVERYTHING.  A BORROWER MUST PAY FOR EVERYTHING.  A PAID BAILEE OR A HIRER MUST SWEAR CONCERNING AN ANIMAL THAT WAS INJURED,  CAPTURED [IN A RAID] OR THAT PERISHED;  BUT MUST PAY FOR LOSS OR THEFT.

If the object had been given as a gift to the “borrower”, why is there any liability vis-à-vis the one who had given the gift, since it is now the complete property of the receiver? The only way that this context would make sense is if the verse in Shemot 22 is talking about someone who literally borrowed an object from another and then the object is damaged, destroyed or stolen.

5.  Both Rabbeinu Chananel and Benno Jakob are referencing the verse in Devarim 15 to explain why it is totally appropriate for a former master to give his slave parting gifts when the slave goes free. If the Tora institutionalizes such a practice re a Jewish master and a Jewish slave, even if such a law cannot be imposed in places which are not Jewish theocracies or even if there were, since the Egyptians are not Jewish and this law is not one of the Noachide Commandments, it would not be the letter of the law in a relationship between an Egyptian master and a Jewish slave,⁸ nevertheless it can serve as a paradigm of ideal relationships between masters and former servants. In other words, while it may be Din when it comes to situations where both parties are Jews, it is Lifnim MiShurat HaDin in cases where either one or neither parties are Jews. Benno Jakob even supplies a psychological rationale for such a Commandment: during the course of the servitude, due to the demands made by the master upon the servant, a certain resentment may have grown. Consequently, the gift will hopefully make up for those less than pleasant moments so that the two would be able to have a positive relationship going forward.

6.  See 2 “Chizkuni on Shemot 11:2, d.h. Kelai Kesef U’Klai Zahav” above.

7.  The word does not only connote “despoiling” but also “saving”, as in MaLBI’M’s commentary below:

יחזקאל פרק יד

(יד) וְהָיוּ שְׁלֹשֶׁת הָאֲנָשִׁים הָאֵלֶּה בְּתוֹכָהּ נֹחַ דנאל דָּנִיֵּאל וְאִיּוֹב הֵמָּה בְצִדְקָתָם יְנַצְּלוּ נַפְשָׁם נְאֻם אֲדֹנָי יְקֹוִק:

Though these three men, Noah, Daniel, and Job, were in it, they should deliver but their own souls by their righteousness, saith the Lord GOD.

מלבי"ם יחזקאל פרק יד פסוק יד

…ודניאל ניצול מחרב ומחי'ה רעה. המה בצדקתם ינצלו נפשם, פה אמר רבותא שהגם שבא התוכחה היותר קשה בכ"ז יועיל צדקתם להציל נפשם, ואין צריך לומר פה שלא יצילו בנים שזה פשיטא:

Consequently, particularly if we follow Midrash Chemdat Yamim as well as the additional comment of Chizkuni, i.e., that the possessions of the Jews had either been given as bribes or had been confiscated from the Jews when they were enslaved, then the interpretation of Ohr HaChayim becomes relevant:

אור החיים שמות פרשת שמות פרק ג פסוק כב

(כב) ונצלתם וגו'. כאן רמז היתר הצלת אדם ממונו מאנס...

From here is a hint that it is permitted to save one’s possessions from someone who has taken them by force.

8.  See fn. 5.

9.  If the purpose of taking the possessions of the Egyptians is in order to establish a positive relationship between the Jews and the Egyptians post-Exodus, why does HaShem have to Manipulate their minds to make them give the Jews their valuables. Both Benno Jakob and Cassuto answer that since the Egyptians would not do this naturally on their own and there is no  Beit Din that would enforce such a rule, HaShem had to Influence the Egyptians to give giftrs to the Jews.

10. Benno Jakob: The Egyptians would not take the initiative to give gifts.

     Cassuto: There is no Beit Din that could enforce such a rule. (In effect, according to Sanhedrin 91b, Alexander the Great enforces the rule, albeit only after the Egyptians initiate a claim to recover what they gave the Jews.) 

Vaera Answers and Bo questions

http://www.nechama.org.il/pages/596.html



VaEra 5731
Alef.

1.  R. Yochanan assumes that an individual can only be held responsible for his deeds assuming that he has free choice concerning whether or not to carry out his thinking. If Pharoah’s heart was manipulated by God, then he cannot be held accountable for what he did, nor would it be possible for him to repent, if his actions were not up to him.

2.  Reish Lakish argues that as long as the individual has some opportunities to act freely, if after a number of objectionable actions, God Suspends the individual’s free choice in order to punish him for what he has done freely until this point, there should be no objection. In the case of Pharoah, the first five times, God did not Interfere with Pharoah’s decision-making.

3.  Beginning with 9:12, the text states that HaShem Hardened Pharoah’s heart, as opposed to the previous five instances where the text attributes Pharoah’s obstinacy to himself. The problem is with 9:35 which appears to be a reversion to the previous sequence of Pharoah deciding on his own. A way to address this problem is to look at the two verses that immediately follow in which HaShem States that He will Harden Pharoah’s heart. Consequently we could use the hermeneutic rule Prat U’Kellal to assume that the specific detail in v. 35 is broadened by the general statement in v. 1 that immediately follows.

שמות פרק ז

(כב) וַיַּעֲשׂוּ כֵן חַרְטֻמֵּי מִצְרַיִם בְּלָטֵיהֶם וַיֶּחֱזַק לֵב פַּרְעֹה וְלֹא שָׁמַע אֲלֵהֶם כַּאֲשֶׁר דִּבֶּר יְקֹוָק:

שם ח

(יא) וַיַּרְא פַּרְעֹה כִּי הָיְתָה הָרְוָחָה וְהַכְבֵּד אֶת לִבּוֹ וְלֹא שָׁמַע אֲלֵהֶם כַּאֲשֶׁר דִּבֶּר יְקֹוָק: ס

(טו) וַיֹּאמְרוּ הַחַרְטֻמִּם אֶל פַּרְעֹה אֶצְבַּע אֱלֹהִים הִוא וַיֶּחֱזַק לֵב פַּרְעֹה וְלֹא שָׁמַע אֲלֵהֶם כַּאֲשֶׁר דִּבֶּר יְקֹוָק: ס

(כח) וַיַּכְבֵּד פַּרְעֹה אֶת לִבּוֹ גַּם בַּפַּעַם הַזֹּאת וְלֹא שִׁלַּח אֶת הָעָם: פ

שם ט

)ז) וַיִּשְׁלַח פַּרְעֹה וְהִנֵּה לֹא מֵת מִמִּקְנֵה יִשְׂרָאֵל עַד אֶחָד וַיִּכְבַּד לֵב פַּרְעֹה וְלֹא שִׁלַּח אֶת הָעָם: פ

(יב) וַיְחַזֵּק יְקֹוָק אֶת לֵב פַּרְעֹה וְלֹא שָׁמַע אֲלֵהֶם כַּאֲשֶׁר דִּבֶּר יְקֹוָק אֶל מֹשֶׁה: ס 

(לה) וַיֶּחֱזַק לֵב פַּרְעֹה וְלֹא שִׁלַּח אֶת בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל כַּאֲשֶׁר דִּבֶּר יְקֹוָק בְּיַד מֹשֶׁה: פ

שם י

(א) וַיֹּאמֶר יְקֹוָק אֶל מֹשֶׁה בֹּא אֶל פַּרְעֹה כִּי אֲנִי הִכְבַּדְתִּי אֶת לִבּוֹ וְאֶת לֵב עֲבָדָיו לְמַעַן שִׁתִי אֹתֹתַי אֵלֶּה בְּקִרְבּוֹ:

(ב) וּלְמַעַן תְּסַפֵּר בְּאָזְנֵי בִנְךָ וּבֶן בִּנְךָ אֵת אֲשֶׁר הִתְעַלַּלְתִּי בְּמִצְרַיִם וְאֶת אֹתֹתַי אֲשֶׁר שַׂמְתִּי בָם וִידַעְתֶּם כִּי אֲנִי יְקֹוָק: 

(כ) וַיְחַזֵּק יְקֹוָק אֶת לֵב פַּרְעֹה וְלֹא שִׁלַּח אֶת בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל: פ

(כז) וַיְחַזֵּק יְקֹוָק אֶת לֵב פַּרְעֹה וְלֹא אָבָה לְשַׁלְּחָם:

שם יא

(י) וּמֹשֶׁה וְאַהֲרֹן עָשׂוּ אֶת כָּל הַמֹּפְתִים הָאֵלֶּה לִפְנֵי פַרְעֹה וַיְחַזֵּק יְקֹוָק אֶת לֵב פַּרְעֹה וְלֹא שִׁלַּח אֶת בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל מֵאַרְצוֹ:

Beit.

1.  Re the first five plagues, there was no outside interference. Pharoah was given license to do whatever he wished and therefore could be held accountable for his deeds and he also was capable of doing Teshuva at any time during this period.

2.  Re R. Yochanan’s complaint that it appeared as if Pharoah was deprived of the opportunity to repent, according to Reish Lakish, had Pharoah actually wanted to repent, not only would HaShem not have Prevented him, but even would have helped him to repent.

Gimel.

1+2.  There appear to be two distinct approaches to addressing R. Yochanan’s question.

RaMBaM (who would seem to parallel Reish Lakish)—Initially Pharoah had the opportunity   to do whatever he wished. It is only later, after he showed that he was not prepared to repent or change, that the possibility of repentance was removed in order for him to punished in accordance with his transgressions.

R. Yosef Albo; R. Ovadia Sephorno—the hardening of the heart was to give Pharoah the inner fortitude not to be intimidated by the plagues to do anything that he really did not wish to do. Consequently, Pharoah acted as a free agent not only during the first five plagues, but during the last five as well.

3.  The passage from the RaMBaM quoted in association with q. 3 describes how the person is given full control of his actions at the outset. However, after a series of transgressions, his free choice can be suspended in order that the suffer punishments for his sins.

4.  

רמב"ן שמות פרק ז פסוק ג

(ג) ואני אקשה את לב פרעה - אמרו במדרש רבה (שמו"ר ה ו) גילה לו שהוא עתיד לחזק את לבו 1) 1) בעבור לעשות בו הדין, תחת שהעבידם בעבודה קשה.

2) ועוד שם (יג ד) כי אני הכבדתי את לבו (להלן י א), אמר רבי יוחנן מכאן פתחון פה למינין לומר לא היתה ממנו שיעשה תשובה. אמר רבי שמעון בן לקיש יסתם פיהם של מינין, אלא אם ללצים הוא יליץ (משלי ג לד), מתרה בו פעם ראשונה ושניה ושלישית ואינו חוזר בו והוא נועל בו דלת מן התשובה כדי לפרוע ממנו מה שחטא. כך פרעה הרשע, כיון ששגר הקדוש ברוך הוא אצלו חמש פעמים ולא השגיח על דבריו, אמר לו הקדוש ברוך הוא אתה הקשית את ערפך והכבדת את לבך, הריני מוסיף לך טומאה על טומאתך:

והנה פירשו בשאלה אשר ישאלו הכל, אם השם הקשה את לבו מה פשעו, ויש בו שני טעמים ושניהם אמת.

1) האחד, כי פרעה ברשעו אשר עשה לישראל רעות גדולות חנם, נתחייב למנוע ממנו דרכי תשובה, כאשר באו בזה פסוקים רבים בתורה ובכתובים, ולפי מעשיו הראשונים נדון.

2) והטעם השני, כי היו חצי המכות עליו בפשעו, כי לא נאמר בהן רק ויחזק לב פרעה (להלן פסוק יג, כב, ח טו), ויכבד פרעה את לבו (להלן ח כח, ט ז).

3) הנה לא רצה לשלחם לכבוד השם, אבל כאשר גברו המכות עליו ונלאה לסבול אותם, רך לבו והיה נמלך לשלחם מכובד המכות, לא לעשות רצון בוראו.

4) ואז הקשה השם את רוחו ואמץ את לבבו למען ספר שמו, כענין שכתוב והתגדלתי והתקדשתי ונודעתי לעיני גוים רבים וגו' (יחזקאל לח כג):

ואשר אמר קודם המכות (לעיל ד כא) ואני אחזק את לבו ולא ישלח את העם, יודיע למשה העתיד לעשות בו במכות האחרונות, כענין שאמר (לעיל ג יט) ואני ידעתי כי לא יתן אתכם מלך מצרים להלוך. וזה טעם ואני אקשה את לב פרעה והרבתי את אותותי, כלומר שאקשה לבו למען רבות מופתי בארץ מצרים. כי בחמש מכות האחרונות גם בטביעת הים נאמר ויחזק ה' (להלן יד ח), כי לב מלך ביד ה' על כל אשר יחפוץ יטנו (משלי כא א):

רמב"ן שמות פרק ט פסוק יב

(יב) ויחזק ה' את לב פרעה – 5) ויתכן שבמכות הראשונות היו החרטומים מחזקים את לבו להתפאר אצלו בחכמתם, ועתה לא באו לפניו, ואין עוזר לו ואין סומך באולתו רק עונותיו אשר ילכדונו. או שירמוז הכתוב למה שפירשו רבותינו, כי במכות הראשונות בפשעו היה הדבר, ועתה סבה מאת ה' כמו שביארתי למעלה (ז ג). והוא האמת:

א. In my opinion, RaMBaN during the course of these two commentaries, raises five possible explanations for responding to R. Yochanan’s question:

1.  Pharoah had already sinned in terms of applying to the Jews inordinately difficult work. Consequently he already had to be punished right from the outset of the plagues.

2.  (The opinion of Reish Lakish and RaMBaM): After each of the first five plagues, Pharoah refused to let the Jews leave on his own volition. Only after these plagues, did HaShem Begin to Manipulate Pharoah in order to punish him for his stubbornness.

3.  (The opinions of Albo and Sephorno): The hardening of the heart was in order for Pharoah not to be unduly swayed by the pressure of the plagues to surrender, but rather he should be able to continue to resist giving the Jews their freedom if that is what he wished.

4.  The hardening of Pharoah heart was intended to allow HaShem to be able to Display His formidable powers. Had Pharoah let the people go, HaShem would not have had such an opportunity.

5.   During the first five plagues, Pharoah’s heart was hardened in the sense that he was convinced not to let the Jews go by his magicians paralleling what Moshe set into motion. When the magicians could no longer keep up, HaShem by hardening Pharoah’s heart, played the same role that the magicians had previously played.

ב. See my introductions to #2, 3 above.



 

Vaera

http://www.nechama.org.il/pages/1433.html

Whoops, that was a repeat. New Shemot Questions with Answers

http://www.nechama.org.il/pages/20.html

Shemot 5728 

Alef.

The reason why the “ו”’s are placed in different places in each one of the verses is to reflect the groupings of Yaakov’s sons in accordance with the mothers of the children:

שמות פרק א

(ב) רְאוּבֵן שִׁמְעוֹן לֵוִי וִיהוּדָה:

These four were the first children consecutively born to Leah herself. The “ו” before the last name links all four together.

(ג) יִשָּׂשכָר זְבוּלֻן וּבִנְיָמִן:

Yissachar and Zevulun were also born  to Leah, but at a later point, after other children had been born to the handmaidens. Consequently they are set off from the first group of four. However Binyamin was Rachel’s son. Consequently the “ו” divides the first two from the third.

(ד) דָּן וְנַפְתָּלִי גָּד וְאָשֵׁר:

Once the children of Yaakov’s actual wives are listed, we turn to the children born to the handmaidens. Dan and Naftali were born to Bilhah, Rachel’s handmaiden. Gad and Asher were then born to Zilpa, Leah’s handmaiden. The “ו” joining each pair, sets that pair off from the other pair.

Beit.

1. RaShI: The generation that died refers to Yosef and his brothers.

     Ibn Ezra, RaLBaG: The generation that died refers to the Egyptians who had known Yosef first-hand.

2.  Verse 7 appears to continue talking about the Jews, and only after the Petucha at the end of v. 7 does the Tora begin to discuss the Egyptians. So why should the reference at the end of v.6 be a reference to the Egyptians?

שמות פרק א

(ו) וַיָּמָת יוֹסֵף וְכָל אֶחָיו וְכֹל הַדּוֹר הַהוּא:

(ז) וּבְנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל פָּרוּ וַיִּשְׁרְצוּ וַיִּרְבּוּ וַיַּעַצְמוּ בִּמְאֹד מְאֹד וַתִּמָּלֵא הָאָרֶץ אֹתָם: פ

(ח) וַיָּקָם מֶלֶךְ חָדָשׁ עַל מִצְרָיִם אֲשֶׁר לֹא יָדַע אֶת יוֹסֵף:

Gimel.

1.  The Midrash is based upon the superfluity of verbs in v. 7:

שמות פרק א

(ז) וּבְנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל (1) פָּרוּ (2) וַיִּשְׁרְצוּ (3) וַיִּרְבּוּ (4) וַיַּעַצְמוּ (5) בִּמְאֹד (6) מְאֹד וַתִּמָּלֵא הָאָרֶץ אֹתָם:

2.  The first word in the series, פרו, is not superfluous and therefore if that would have been all that the verse stated, attention would not have been drawn to it. Furthermore, פרו is a word that applies typically to people, which is not the case with וישרצו, which at its core refers to creeping animals.

3.  The verse in Yehoshua is not about the birthrate, but rather the quantity of people in these tribes. Ibn Ezra could similarly be attributing the first two words in Shemot 1:7 to the manner in which the people were reproducing, while the words of the verse that appear subsequently could relate to other factors that contributed to the Jewish people constituting a large group. Even if the birth rate would be high, if the mortality rate would similarly be high, the people would not grow. For growth, there have to be not only births but also longevity.

     Even without the verse in Yehoshua, since typically פרו ורבו appear together, and in this case they are broken up by וישרצו, this opens up the possibility to interpret ורבו in a different manner.

יהושע פרק יז

(יד) וַיְדַבְּרוּ בְּנֵי יוֹסֵף אֶת יְהוֹשֻׁעַ לֵאמֹר מַדּוּעַ נָתַתָּה לִּי נַחֲלָה גּוֹרָל אֶחָד וְחֶבֶל אֶחָד וַאֲנִי עַם רָב עַד אֲשֶׁר

עַד כֹּה בֵּרְכַנִי יְקֹוָק:

And the children of Joseph spoke unto Joshua, saying: 'Why hast thou given me but one lot and one part for an inheritance, seeing I am a great people, forasmuch as the LORD hath blessed me thus?'

4.  Ibn Ezra: The expression במאד מאד connotes that in all areas, i.e., birthrate, longevity, strength and health, were all at maximum levels.

      RaLBaG: The phrase in question refers to the extraordinary strength and vigor of the members of the Jewish people.

5. א.

(ז) וּבְנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל (1) פָּרוּ (2) וַיִּשְׁרְצוּ (3) וַיִּרְבּוּ (4) וַיַּעַצְמוּ (5) בִּמְאֹד (6) מְאֹד (7) וַתִּמָּלֵא הָאָרֶץ אֹתָם:

ב. The number “seven” is associated with the Creation of the World over the course of seven “days”. Since the assumption is that this Creation was perfect, harmonious and the Work of God, so too other entities that are associated with the number “seven”.

Daled.

Whereas in most instances, Pharoah could relate to his inner circle, i.e., עבדיו, when it came to undertaking persecuting the Jews in order that they not overrun Egypt (Shemot 1:9), the entire nation’s help had to be enlisted. Therefore Pharoah speaks to עמו rather than only עבדיו.

Heh.

Shemot 1:9

And he said unto his people: 'Behold, the people of the children of Israel are too many and too mighty for us;

The interpretation of ממנו in the above verse is different from its interpretation in the other verses that are listed on the Gilayon:

Beraishit 26:16

And Abimelech said unto Isaac: 'Go from us; for thou art much mightier than we.'

BaMidbar 13:31

But the men that went up with him said: 'We are not able to go up against the people; for they are stronger than we.'

Devarim 1:28

Whither are we going up? our brethren have made our heart to melt, saying: The people is greater and taller than we; the cities are great and fortified up to heaven; and moreover we have seen the sons of the Anakim there.'

I Melachim 20:23

And the servants of the king of Aram said unto him: 'Their God is a God of the hills; therefore they were stronger than we; but let us fight against them in the plain, and surely we shall be stronger than they.

Vav.

1.  The problem in the verse is to know who might have to leave Egypt as a result of an outside attack—the Egyptians or the Jews? From the point of view of syntax,

שמות פרק א

(י) הָבָה נִתְחַכְּמָה לוֹ פֶּן יִרְבֶּה וְהָיָה כִּי תִקְרֶאנָה מִלְחָמָה וְנוֹסַף גַּם הוּא עַל שֹׂנְאֵינוּ וְנִלְחַם בָּנוּ וְעָלָה מִן הָאָרֶץ:

the pronoun הוא which precedes the verbs ונלחם and ועלה refers to the Jewish people.

2.  According to the simple meaning, i.e., that the Jews might leave Egypt, why is this such a terrible thing for the Egyptians? This is before slavery was imposed, and if a portion of the population were to leave, it would mean that the remaining resources could be distributed to indigenous Egyptians. Consequently, to explain the fear of ועלה מן הארץ coming about, the Midrash suggests that it will be the Egyptians who feared that they would have to forsake their homeland and go elsewhere.

3.  ויעלה לו מן הארץ הזאת אל ארץ כנען עם כל אשר לנו The addition of the prepositional pronoun לו makes clear that we are talking about the Jewish people leaving rather than the Egyptians.

Shemot questions

http://www.nechama.org.il/pages/314.html

Vayechi Answers

VaYechi 5718

Alef.

1.  Beraishit 50:15 ties together as a Hekesh the death of Yaakov and the fact that the brothers feared that Yosef would finally avenge himself upon them. The Midrashim are trying to explain what change happened immediately after the death of Yaakov that precipitated the brothers thinking that Yosef would now treat them harshly.

2.  Beraishit Rabba: Following Yaakov’s death, Yosef seated the brothers differently when they would eat together. While the Midrash supplies a rationale for Yosef’s doing this, i.e., Yosef wished to seat the brothers in the order that he thought they were entitled, they saw the rearrangement as an indication that Yosef would now treat them as they feared he would from the time he identified himself to his brothers. What Yosef did to them with respect to court etiquette.

      Mishnat R. Eliezer: Upon returning from his father’s burial, Yosef made a detour to revisit the pit into which his brothers had thrown him. According to the Midrash, he was appreciating the amazing intercession of HaShem that brought him from this pit to the second highest position in Egypt. The brothers when they saw Yosef doing this, thought that he was arousing his past resentment in preparation for attacking them in response to their having treated him so badly. How Yosef acted in relation to what had happened to him because of his brothers.

3.  The brothers’ misunderstanding of Yosef’s actions is due to their own sense of guilt over what they had done. Yosef has gone out of his way to try to reassure the brothers that he saw all that had happened as the Hand of God Guiding the fate of the Jewish people. Yet because the brothers were so consumed with guilt over what they had done, and also because they thought that if the situation was reversed, they certainly would have sought revenge against Yosef, therefore they just can’t bring themselves to interpret his actions in any way other than what they think they deserve.

4.  The verb “VaYiru” is understood by the two Midrashim as “And they understood/interpreted the implications” of actions coming on the heels of the death of Yaakov.

5.  The second Midrash criticizes Yosef for not making clearer his intentions. If he had articulated that by going to the pit he was acknowledging HaShem’s Hashgacha Pratit, then the brothers might have worried far less. It is the responsibility of a person to not only avoid doing the wrong thing, but not to give others the impression that he is doing the wrong thing. The fact that Yosef failed to inform his brothers about why he was revisiting the pit caused them not only consternation, but even to lie regarding Yaakov’s having demanded that Yosef swear not to harm them.

6.  Just as it was inconsiderate for Yaakov to have said to Rachel in her desperation that he was not God to Decide whether or not she would have children—he should have tried to comfort her rather than berated her, that same insensitivity was in turn expressed to the rest of Yaakov’s male offspring by Yosef, Rachel’s son, to the effect that God is Following some master plan and therefore all of us, Yosef included, are mere pawns with respect to how this works out. The brothers at that point were not interested in God’s Plans, but were frightened over what exactly Yosef proposed to do to make up for their almost killing him and then selling him over two decades previously. Yosef should have been sensitive to their worry.

7.  Iyov 15:2 “Should a wise man make answer with windy knowledge, (and fill his belly with the east wind?)”. In this context, the Midrash is suggesting that Yosef’s words to the brothers were foolish and inappropriate. At this point, the brothers needed to be comforted due to their guilt and fear of Yosef’s retribution. They didn’t need to hear a theology lesson.

8.  Since the brothers were obviously in emotional difficulty, why is Yosef accusing them of thinking badly of him? Isn’t this just adding salt to their wounds? The Midrash wishes to demonstrate that Yosef was interested in getting everything out in the open. He was going to be frank with the brothers and he wanted them to be frank with him. So if everyone could speak openly they had a chance to truly reconcile, which would not be possible if everyone continued to harbor unstated resentment towards one another. 

Beit.

1.  In the case of Yaakov and Rachel, one could say that conception of a child is truly not subject to a human being’s control. Consequently for Rachel to accuse Yaakov of not trying to exert influence with HaShem was unreasonable and Yaakov was justified in saying that he was not in any position to address her complaint. (Nevertheless, even if what he said was justified, it was still insensitive to blurt this out to a desperate Rachel.) However, as far as the relationship between Yosef and his brothers was concerned, this, their mutual resentments and suspicions, was something that they all could address and control. To attribute all the events to HaShem and for this reason to argue that neither Yosef nor the brothers should be blamed for their hostilities towards one another would appear to be inappropriate.

2.  In II Melachim 5. The king of Aram sends a request to the king of Israel that he see to it that the prophet Elisha cure the Aramite general Na’amon of his Tzora’at condition. When the king of Israel receives the request he is fearful because he recognizes that if he fails to affect a cure for Na’amon, the king of Aram may feel it appropriate to attack Israel. He cries out, “Am I in God’s Place to take and give life?” This would appear to be similar to what Yaakov tells Rachel when she asks that he intercede with God so that she would finally conceive a child. Both human conception as well as the cure for Tzora’at lie beyond human capacities and only reside with God Himself. (It is interesting to note that in both instances, the comparison to life and death is invoked, first by Rachel who says that if she remains childless, it is as if she is dead, and then by the King of Israel who compares the state of the Metzora with someone who is dead. The Talmud in Avoda Zora 5a states that there are people who while alive are considered at least metaphorically dead, and included in the list are those who are childless as well as those who suffer from Tzora’at.)

Gimel.

1.  The two usages of “VaYiru” appear to be different. In the case of BaMidbar 20 describing the death of Aharon, the people simply could not believe that Aharon who had defeated death in the plague of the snakes as well as the plague following the Korach rebellion, had met his own end. So they had to be shown in a supernatural manner that Aharon in fact had died. (Parallel visions are associated with what led to Sara’s death—she was prophetically shown what Avraham was intending to do to Yitzchak at the Akeida—as well as what led to the sin of the Golden Calf, the people being shown that Moshe had died atop Mt. Sinai and for this reason he was not coming down the mountain at the time that they expected him to rejoin them.)

In the case of Yosef’s brothers, it was not what they didn’t see that led to them to be shown a   vision, but rather what they thought they saw in Yosef’s ambiguous actions, that led to Yosef’s pleading with them not to suspect him of plotting against them.

2.  Apparently, RaShI does not feel that simply changing the seating order would have created a large enough buzz to make the brothers suspicious of Yosef. Therefore RaShI ups the ante by claiming that his brothers were never invited to any of the royal meals following Yaakov’s death, something that the brothers thought could not be explained away other than to realize that Yosef feels animus towards them and will let them feel his wrath now that Yaakov has passed away.

Parshat Vayechi

http://www.nechama.org.il/pages/515.html