Tetzave questions

http://www.nechama.org.il/pages/346.html

Parshat Teruma answers

Teruma 5726.
Alef.

1. Mizrachi’s two questions:

a. There is an inconsistency in RaShI when he interprets “Eidut” in Shemot 25:16 as “the Tora” whereas in Shemot 40:20, he interprets the same word as “the Luchot”.

b.  “The Tora” did not exist in its entirety until the end of Moshe’s life, as implied by Devarim 31:22. Consequently, it would be an anachronism to speak about “the Tora” at the time when the Tabernacle was first being fabricated and erected.

2.  While R. Kasher explains that the Luchot symbolized all of the Mitzvot that would eventually be written in the Tora with respect to the parable that RaShI uses in his commentary for Shemot 32:19, that still does not explain why when instructions are being given regarding what to place inside the Aron, “theTora”, a misleading description is stated, as opposed to “the Luchot” which is much more specific and unambiguous.

3.  When the instructions for  what will be placed in the Aron are being given in Shemot 25:16, prior to the actual construction of anything, the ultimate purpose of the Aron is being visualized, i.e., not only the housing of the Luchot, but also the Tora, or at least one copy of it, that will be first written at the end of Moshe’s life. However, in 40:20, when the actual Aron is constructed, at that point the only thing that is relevant is what would be placed in the Aron at that moment in time, i.e., only the Luchot.

Beit.

1. א. The essential difference between the two verses is the verb, “And you will make” (a reference to Moshe) as opposed to “And they made” (a reference to the Jewish people). A simple explanation would maintain that while Moshe is Given the instructions, since he will delegate the manufacture to Betzalel, Ohaliav and the other Chachmei Leiv, while technically it is as if he is building the Aron, in fact it is being fabricated by the artisans who undertook to carry out the Divine Instructions. In that way, it is similar to the verse regarding Shlomo and the Temple:

I Melachim 6:1-2

“And it came to pass in the four hundred and eightieth year after the children of Israel were come out of the land of Egypt, in the fourth year of Solomon's reign over Israel, in the month Ziv, which is the second month, that he began to build the house of the LORD. And the house which king Solomon built for the LORD, the length thereof was threescore cubits, and the breadth thereof twenty cubits, and the height thereof thirty cubits.”

     ב. Tora Temima, on Shemot 25:10/Yoma 3b (#11) explains that if the Jewish people are deserving, then the Aron will be known as something that they constructed. However, if they prove undeserving, then the Aron will be known as something that Moshe constructed.

2.  The Midrash that R. Kasher quotes points out that only with respect to the Aron, which most closely symbolizes Tora scholars since the Tora/Luchot are contained within it, are the Amot (measurements of length) given in “halves”:

שמות פרק כה

(י) וְעָשׂוּ אֲרוֹן עֲצֵי שִׁטִּים אַמָּתַיִם וָחֵצִי אָרְכּוֹ וְאַמָּה וָחֵצִי רָחְבּוֹ וְאַמָּה וָחֵצִי קֹמָתוֹ: 

שמות פרק כה

(כג) וְעָשִׂיתָ שֻׁלְחָן עֲצֵי שִׁטִּים אַמָּתַיִם אָרְכּוֹ וְאַמָּה רָחְבּוֹ וְאַמָּה וָחֵצִי קֹמָתוֹ:

 שמות פרק כו

(ב) אֹרֶךְ הַיְרִיעָה הָאַחַת שְׁמֹנֶה וְעֶשְׂרִים בָּאַמָּה וְרֹחַב אַרְבַּע בָּאַמָּה הַיְרִיעָה הָאֶחָת מִדָּה אַחַת לְכָל הַיְרִיעֹת:

(טז) עֶשֶׂר אַמּוֹת אֹרֶךְ הַקָּרֶשׁ וְאַמָּה וַחֲצִי הָאַמָּה רֹחַב הַקֶּרֶשׁ הָאֶחָד:

שמות פרק כז

(א) וְעָשִׂיתָ אֶת הַמִּזְבֵּחַ עֲצֵי שִׁטִּים חָמֵשׁ אַמּוֹת אֹרֶךְ וְחָמֵשׁ אַמּוֹת רֹחַב רָבוּעַ יִהְיֶה הַמִּזְבֵּחַ וְשָׁלֹשׁ אַמּוֹת קֹמָתוֹ:

(ט) וְעָשִׂיתָ אֵת חֲצַר הַמִּשְׁכָּן לִפְאַת נֶגֶב תֵּימָנָה קְלָעִים לֶחָצֵר שֵׁשׁ מָשְׁזָר מֵאָה בָאַמָּה אֹרֶךְ לַפֵּאָה הָאֶחָת:

(יד) וַחֲמֵשׁ עֶשְׂרֵה אַמָּה קְלָעִים לַכָּתֵף עַמֻּדֵיהֶם שְׁלֹשָׁה וְאַדְנֵיהֶם שְׁלֹשָׁה:

(טז) וּלְשַׁעַר הֶחָצֵר מָסָךְ עֶשְׂרִים אַמָּה תְּכֵלֶת וְאַרְגָּמָן וְתוֹלַעַת שָׁנִי וְשֵׁשׁ מָשְׁזָר מַעֲשֵׂה רֹקֵם עַמֻּדֵיהֶם אַרְבָּעָה וְאַדְנֵיהֶם אַרְבָּעָה:

שמות פרק ל

(א) וְעָשִׂיתָ מִזְבֵּחַ מִקְטַר קְטֹרֶת עֲצֵי שִׁטִּים תַּעֲשֶׂה אֹתוֹ:

(ב) אַמָּה אָרְכּוֹ וְאַמָּה רָחְבּוֹ רָבוּעַ יִהְיֶה וְאַמָּתַיִם קֹמָתוֹ מִמֶּנּוּ קַרְנֹתָיו:

The Midrash appears to be taking some license with the idea of only the Aron being measured in “half Amot” since the Shulchan as well as the Kerashim also have “half Amah” measurements. Perhaps one would have to say that what is distinctive about the Aron is that all of the measurements for the Aron incorporate “half Amot” whereas the other elements of the Tabernacle that utilize “half Amot” do so only for some of their measurements.

3.א. The verse in Mishlei 8:15 “By me kings reign, and princes decree justice,” suggests that no particular individual, comparable to Aharon or David can lay claim to the Tora, but rather anyone who wishes to claim it. This includes kings who if they base their law codes on the laws of the Tora, can expect to have long reigns. This is in contrast to those kings who rule arbitrarily since they can easily become megalomaniacs and rule oppressively. (See MaLBI”M’s commentary on this verse.)

ב.

שמות פרק כה

(י) וְעָשׂוּ אֲרוֹן עֲצֵי שִׁטִּים אַמָּתַיִם וָחֵצִי אָרְכּוֹ וְאַמָּה וָחֵצִי רָחְבּוֹ וְאַמָּה וָחֵצִי קֹמָתוֹ:

(יא) וְצִפִּיתָ אֹתוֹ זָהָב טָהוֹר מִבַּיִת וּמִחוּץ תְּצַפֶּנּוּ וְעָשִׂיתָ עָלָיו זֵר זָהָב סָבִיב:

(יב) וְיָצַקְתָּ לּוֹ אַרְבַּע טַבְּעֹת זָהָב וְנָתַתָּה עַל אַרְבַּע פַּעֲמֹתָיו וּשְׁתֵּי טַבָּעֹת עַל צַלְעוֹ הָאֶחָת וּשְׁתֵּי טַבָּעֹת עַל צַלְעוֹ הַשֵּׁנִית:

(יג) וְעָשִׂיתָ בַדֵּי עֲצֵי שִׁטִּים וְצִפִּיתָ אֹתָם זָהָב:

(יד) וְהֵבֵאתָ אֶת הַבַּדִּים בַּטַּבָּעֹת עַל צַלְעֹת הָאָרֹן לָשֵׂאת אֶת הָאָרֹן בָּהֶם:

(טו) בְּטַבְּעֹת הָאָרֹן יִהְיוּ הַבַּדִּים לֹא יָסֻרוּ מִמֶּנּוּ:

(טז) וְנָתַתָּ אֶל הָאָרֹן אֵת הָעֵדֻת אֲשֶׁר אֶתֵּן אֵלֶיךָ:

(יז) וְעָשִׂיתָ כַפֹּרֶת זָהָב טָהוֹר אַמָּתַיִם וָחֵצִי אָרְכָּהּ וְאַמָּה וָחֵצִי רָחְבָּהּ:

(יח) וְעָשִׂיתָ שְׁנַיִם כְּרֻבִים זָהָב מִקְשָׁה תַּעֲשֶׂה אֹתָם מִשְּׁנֵי קְצוֹת הַכַּפֹּרֶת:

(יט) וַעֲשֵׂה כְּרוּב אֶחָד מִקָּצָה מִזֶּה וּכְרוּב אֶחָד מִקָּצָה מִזֶּה מִן הַכַּפֹּרֶת תַּעֲשׂוּ אֶת הַכְּרֻבִים עַל שְׁנֵי קְצוֹתָיו:

(כ) וְהָיוּ הַכְּרֻבִים פֹּרְשֵׂי כְנָפַיִם לְמַעְלָה סֹכְכִים בְּכַנְפֵיהֶם עַל הַכַּפֹּרֶת וּפְנֵיהֶם אִישׁ אֶל אָחִיו אֶל הַכַּפֹּרֶת יִהְיוּ פְּנֵי הַכְּרֻבִים:

(כא) וְנָתַתָּ אֶת הַכַּפֹּרֶת עַל הָאָרֹן מִלְמָעְלָה וְאֶל הָאָרֹן תִּתֵּן אֶת הָעֵדֻת אֲשֶׁר אֶתֵּן אֵלֶיךָ:

(כב) וְנוֹעַדְתִּי לְךָ שָׁם וְדִבַּרְתִּי אִתְּךָ מֵעַל הַכַּפֹּרֶת מִבֵּין שְׁנֵי הַכְּרֻבִים אֲשֶׁר עַל אֲרוֹן הָעֵדֻת אֵת כָּל אֲשֶׁר אֲצַוֶּה אוֹתְךָ אֶל בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל: פ 

שמות פרק כה

(כג) וְעָשִׂיתָ שֻׁלְחָן עֲצֵי שִׁטִּים אַמָּתַיִם אָרְכּוֹ וְאַמָּה רָחְבּוֹ וְאַמָּה וָחֵצִי קֹמָתוֹ:

(כד) וְצִפִּיתָ אֹתוֹ זָהָב טָהוֹר וְעָשִׂיתָ לּוֹ זֵר זָהָב סָבִיב:

(כה) וְעָשִׂיתָ לּוֹ מִסְגֶּרֶת טֹפַח סָבִיב וְעָשִׂיתָ זֵר זָהָב לְמִסְגַּרְתּוֹ סָבִיב:

(כו) וְעָשִׂיתָ לּוֹ אַרְבַּע טַבְּעֹת זָהָב וְנָתַתָּ אֶת הַטַּבָּעֹת עַל אַרְבַּע הַפֵּאֹת אֲשֶׁר לְאַרְבַּע רַגְלָיו:

(כז) לְעֻמַּת הַמִּסְגֶּרֶת תִּהְיֶיןָ הַטַּבָּעֹת לְבָתִּים לְבַדִּים לָשֵׂאת אֶת הַשֻּׁלְחָן:

(כח) וְעָשִׂיתָ אֶת הַבַּדִּים עֲצֵי שִׁטִּים וְצִפִּיתָ אֹתָם זָהָב וְנִשָּׂא בָם אֶת הַשֻּׁלְחָן:

(כט) וְעָשִׂיתָ קְּעָרֹתָיו וְכַפֹּתָיו וּקְשׂוֹתָיו וּמְנַקִּיֹּתָיו אֲשֶׁר יֻסַּךְ בָּהֵן זָהָב טָהוֹר תַּעֲשֶׂה אֹתָם:

(ל) וְנָתַתָּ עַל הַשֻּׁלְחָן לֶחֶם פָּנִים לְפָנַי תָּמִיד: פ 

שמות פרק ל

(א) וְעָשִׂיתָ מִזְבֵּחַ מִקְטַר קְטֹרֶת עֲצֵי שִׁטִּים תַּעֲשֶׂה אֹתוֹ:

(ב) אַמָּה אָרְכּוֹ וְאַמָּה רָחְבּוֹ רָבוּעַ יִהְיֶה וְאַמָּתַיִם קֹמָתוֹ מִמֶּנּוּ קַרְנֹתָיו:

(ג) וְצִפִּיתָ אֹתוֹ זָהָב טָהוֹר אֶת גַּגּוֹ וְאֶת קִירֹתָיו סָבִיב וְאֶת קַרְנֹתָיו וְעָשִׂיתָ לּוֹ זֵר זָהָב סָבִיב:

(ד) וּשְׁתֵּי טַבְּעֹת זָהָב תַּעֲשֶׂה לּוֹ מִתַּחַת לְזֵרוֹ עַל שְׁתֵּי צַלְעֹתָיו תַּעֲשֶׂה עַל שְׁנֵי צִדָּיו וְהָיָה לְבָתִּים לְבַדִּים לָשֵׂאת אֹתוֹ בָּהֵמָּה:

(ה) וְעָשִׂיתָ אֶת הַבַּדִּים עֲצֵי שִׁטִּים וְצִפִּיתָ אֹתָם זָהָב:

(ו) וְנָתַתָּה אֹתוֹ לִפְנֵי הַפָּרֹכֶת אֲשֶׁר עַל אֲרֹן הָעֵדֻת לִפְנֵי הַכַּפֹּרֶת אֲשֶׁר עַל הָעֵדֻת אֲשֶׁר אִוָּעֵד לְךָ שָׁמָּה:

(ז) וְהִקְטִיר עָלָיו אַהֲרֹן קְטֹרֶת סַמִּים בַּבֹּקֶר בַּבֹּקֶר בְּהֵיטִיבוֹ אֶת הַנֵּרֹת יַקְטִירֶנָּה:

(ח) וּבְהַעֲלֹת אַהֲרֹן אֶת הַנֵּרֹת בֵּין הָעַרְבַּיִם יַקְטִירֶנָּה קְטֹרֶת תָּמִיד לִפְנֵי יְקֹוָק לְדֹרֹתֵיכֶם:

(ט) לֹא תַעֲלוּ עָלָיו קְטֹרֶת זָרָה וְעֹלָה וּמִנְחָה וְנֵסֶךְ לֹא תִסְּכוּ עָלָיו:

(י) וְכִפֶּר אַהֲרֹן עַל קַרְנֹתָיו אַחַת בַּשָּׁנָה מִדַּם חַטַּאת הַכִּפֻּרִים אַחַת בַּשָּׁנָה יְכַפֵּר עָלָיו לְדֹרֹתֵיכֶם קֹדֶשׁ קָדָשִׁים הוּא לַיקֹוָק: פ

In the cases of the Shulchan and the Mizbeach, something has to be done by someone to these objects, i.e., the Shulchan has to have bread placed upon it by someone, which in turn is replaced every Shabbat with the old bread given out to Kohanim; the Mizbeach has to have incense offered up upon it in order for Aharon to achieve atonement. These actions are unique to certain individuals. In contrast, the Aron is the setting from which God will Speak to a representative of the Jewish people, in this case Moshe, for the purpose of relaying information back to the rest of the people. Consequently the Aron could be understood to serve everyone as opposed to the Shulchan and the Mizbeach. 

ג.

[רבינו] בחיי שמות פרק כה

ועשית עליו זר זהב סביב. בשלחן ומזבח הקטורת תמצא (פסוק כד) "ועשית לו", וכאן בארון "ועשית עליו", והטעם בזה כי השלחן רמז לכתר מלכות, ומזבח הקטורת רמז לכתר כהונה, והמלכות והכהונה הם לאדם ירושה, שאין המלכות בישראל אלא למי שהוא מזרע דוד, ולא הכהונה אלא למי שהוא מזרע אהרן, וכענין שכתוב במלכות: (דברים יז, יח) "וכתב לו את משנה התורה" וגו', (שם כ) "למען יאריך ימים על ממלכתו", וכתיב בכהונה: (במדבר כה, יג) "והיתה לו ולזרעו אחריו", אבל בארון שהוא רומז לתורה ואין התורה ירושה לאדם על כן כתוב: "ועשית עליו" ולא אמר "ועשית לו" כי אינה ירושה לו כענין המלוכה והכהונה.

שמות פרק כה

(יא) (ארון) וְצִפִּיתָ אֹתוֹ זָהָב טָהוֹר מִבַּיִת וּמִחוּץ תְּצַפֶּנּוּ וְעָשִׂיתָ עָלָיו זֵר זָהָב סָבִיב:

(כד) (שלחן) וְצִפִּיתָ אֹתוֹ זָהָב טָהוֹר וְעָשִׂיתָ לּוֹ זֵר זָהָב סָבִיב:

שמות פרק ל

(ג) (מזבח הזהב) וְצִפִּיתָ אֹתוֹ זָהָב טָהוֹר אֶת גַּגּוֹ וְאֶת קִירֹתָיו סָבִיב וְאֶת קַרְנֹתָיו וְעָשִׂיתָ לּוֹ זֵר זָהָב סָבִיב:

The prepositional pronoun that follows the Shulchan and the Golden Altar (לו) could be interpreted not only as “for it” but also “for him” suggesting that there is a specific person to whom the symbol is related. This is in contrast to the the prepositional pronoun that appears with respect to the Aron (עליו—upon it) which does not suggest a relationship to a specific person to the exclusion of others.

4.א. At the end of the day, whether or not Moshe breaks the Luchot, they are the Eidut that HaShem has Given to Moshe and therefore they are entitled to be placed in the Aron.

ב. Just because something holy becomes broken does not mean that its Kedusha is necessarily lost. Furthermore, referring to them as Eidut is particularly apt since not only is testimony being given to the fact that HaShem has Given the Luchot to Moshe, but that the people were originally undeserving of having bestowed upon them the Luchot, and hopefully in the future such a memory will serve as a deterrent to their acting badly again.

Menachot 99a

(Devarim 10:2) “Which thou didst break, and thou shalt put them in the ark.” R. Joseph learnt: This teaches us that both the tablets and the fragments of the tablets were deposited in the ark. Hence [we learn that] a scholar who has forgotten his learning through no fault of his must not be treated with disrespect.

Gimel.

1.  Shemot 25:33-34

שמות פרק כה

(לג) שְׁלֹשָׁה גְבִעִים מְשֻׁקָּדִים בַּקָּנֶה הָאֶחָד] [כַּפְתֹּר וָפֶרַח וּשְׁלֹשָׁה גְבִעִים מְשֻׁקָּדִים בַּקָּנֶה הָאֶחָד]  [כַּפְתֹּר וָפָרַח כֵּן לְשֵׁשֶׁת הַקָּנִים הַיֹּצְאִים מִן הַמְּנֹרָה:

(או שלשה גבעים משקדים] [בקנה אחד כפתר ופרח   ושלשה גבעים משקדים]  [בקנה אחד כפתר ופרח...)

(לד) וּבַמְּנֹרָה אַרְבָּעָה גְבִעִים מְשֻׁקָּדִים[ ] כַּפְתֹּרֶיהָ וּפְרָחֶיהָ:

      (או ארבעה גבעים]  [משקדים כפרתרי' ופרחי' )

Translation “a”:

Three cups made like almond-blossoms in one branch, a knop and a flower;

and three cups made like almond-blossoms in the other branch, a knop and a flower;

so for the six branches going out of the candlestick; (OR three cups whose almond-blossoms have their knops and their cups.)

And in the candlestick four cups made like almond-blossoms, the knops thereof, and the flowers thereof; (OR four cups, whose almond-blossoms have their knops and their flowers.) 

Koren:

Three cups made like almonds, with a bulb and flower in one branch; and three cups made like almonds in the other branch with a bulb and a flower; so in the six branches that come out of the candlestick; (OR three cups, whose almonds have their bulbs and flowers.)

And in the candlestick there will be four bowls made like almonds, with their bulbs and flowers; (OR four bowls whose almonds have their bulbs and flowers.)

“אין להם הכרע” connotes when a series of words can be grouped in two different ways, attaching a particular word either to what comes before, or what comes after, and there is no evidence which is the correct sequence.

2.  Tosaphot says that if the two alternate readings do not result in a similar conclusion, then one can infer the correct reading by considering the practical differences between the two possibilities. However in the case of Shemot 25, it would not appear that one reading carries different practical connotations than the other. So there is no intrinsic basis upon which to judge which one is the correct reading.  

3. The Etnachta marking the midpoint of a verse appears under the word Gevi’im, effectively cutting it off from the word immediately following, Meshukadim.

לד וּבַמְּנֹרָ֖ה אַרְבָּעָ֣ה גְבִעִ֑ים מְשֻׁ֨קָּדִ֔ים כַּפְתֹּרֶ֖יהָ וּפְרָחֶֽיהָ׃

However in 25:33, the obvious meaning of the verse ties together the words Gevi’im and Meshukadim, resulting in the conclusion that there is a standoff, i.e., there is no objective indication which reading/grouping is the correct one.

לג שְׁלֹשָׁ֣ה גְ֠בִעִים מְֽשֻׁקָּדִ֞ים בַּקָּנֶ֣ה הָֽאֶחָד֮ כַּפְתֹּ֣ר וָפֶרַח֒ וּשְׁלֹשָׁ֣ה גְבִעִ֗ים מְשֻׁקָּדִ֛ים בַּקָּנֶ֥ה הָֽאֶחָ֖ד כַּפְתֹּ֣ר וָפָ֑רַח כֵּ֚ן לְשֵׁ֣שֶׁת הַקָּנִ֔ים הַיֹּֽצְאִ֖ים מִן־הַמְּנֹרָֽה׃

4. Minchat Shai feels that the comment of “no Hechrea” should be connected to v. 34 and not 33 because, whereas in v. 34, two readings are possible, it would appear in v. 33 only a single reading is possible.

Tora Temima disagrees and thinks that the comment of "no Hechrea" relates to v. 33.

תורה תמימה הערות שמות פרק כה הערה מג

מג) ר"ל די"ל ארבעה גביעים משוקדים או משוקדים כפתוריה ופרחיה. וכתב הרמב"ם בפ"ג ה"ב מבית הבחירה וז"ל, בכל קנה וקנה שלשה גביעים וכפתר ופרח והכל משוקדים, עכ"ל. והנה באמת בענין הכפתרים ופרחים (פסוק ל"ג) אינו מבואר דהכפתרים ופרחים מששת הקנים צריכים להיות משוקדים, משום דא"כ הו"ל לכתוב שלשה גביעים בקנה האחד משוקדים כפתור ופרח, ולפי"ז צ"ע מנ"ל לרמב"ם דגם הכפתורים ופרחים שבששת הקנים צריכים להיות משוקדים. והכ"מ כתב בשם ר"י קורקוס דטעמו הוא ע"פ הגמ' דמשוקדים אין לו הכרע, אבל זה תימא דהא הגמ' איירי במשוקדים שבפסוק שלפנינו, והיינו בהכפתרים ופרחים שבגופה של מנורה (פ' לד) ולא שבששת הקנים (פ' לג), וכ"כ רש"י ותוס', ועיין במל"מ. וצ"ל דבאמת מפרש הרמב"ם דכונת הגמ' לפסוק הקודם (פ' לג), והיינו דאפשר לומר שלשה גביעים משוקדים בקנה האחד או משוקדים בקנה האחד כפתר ופרח, ואף יש ראיה שכן מפרש הוא, שכן בהלכה א' מאותו הפרק שהבאנו גבי כפתר ופרח שבגופה של מנורה (פ' לד) העתיק כלשון הפסוק ולא כתב “והכל משוקדים” כמו בהלכה ב' בכפתר ופרח שבששת הקנים (פ' לג), מבואר מזה דמפרש דכונת הגמ' דמשוקדים אין לו הכרע הוא לפסוק הקודם (ל"ג) בענין כפתר ופרח של הקנים, ודו"ק. ובזה תתורץ קושיית התוס' למה לא דרשה הגמ' למשוקדים לפניה ולאחריה כמו בנשך ובמרבית (ב"מ ס"א א') משום דלמש"כ בדעת הרמב"ם דקאי אפסוק ל"ג באמת נדרשת המלה משוקדים לפניה ולאחריה, ולכן כתב והכל משוקדים. ודע שבס' יבין שמועה כלל תע"ג כתב בשם הרא"ש דהא דחמשה מקראות אין להם הכרע הוא עד דאתא עזרא ופסק טעמים אבל מימות עזרא ואילך יש להם הכרע, וכ"כ הריטב"א בחידושי יומא, ותמה עליהם בס' יד מלאכי כלל רע"ח וז"ל בשלמא בכל הפסוקים שחשיב הגמ' ניחא חידוש זה אבל במשוקדים אף דאפסקינהו עזרא אכתי כדקאי קאי ולא מכרע מלתא כלל דכיון דיש אתנחתא על מלת גביעים וזקף קטן על משוקדים אכתי לא אתברר אם קאי אגביעים שלפניו או אכפתריה ופרחיה שלאחריו, ולכן כתב דלאו דוקא על חמשתן קאמרי הרא"ש וריטב"א אלא רק אארבעה, ולא אדעה מה אדון בדבריו, דהא הענין מתבאר היטב, האתנחתא שעל גביעים הוא המפסיק המלה הזאת, ומשוקדים מוסב על כפתוריה ופרחיה והכל עולה יפה, וצ"ע:

5.  In Mishne Tora Hilchot Beit HaBechira 3:1, which deals with v. 34, the central stem of the Menora, RaMBaM does not write that it is all “משוקדים”, i.e., that both the cups and the bulbs and flowers are in the form of almonds, indicating that he doesn’t think that all of them are in that form, a conclusion that would have to be drawn if it was unclear if “משוקדים” applied either to the cups on the one hand or the bulbs and flowers on the other. However, when he is discussing the branches of the Menora in 3:2, which deals with v. 33, he does say that all, i.e., the cups as well as the bulbs and flowers, are in the form of almonds, indicating that for this verse there is no “Hechrea” and the word “משוקדים” has to be applied to both the elements before as well as after.

6. 

לג שְׁלֹשָׁ֣ה גְ֠בִעִים מְֽשֻׁקָּדִ֞ים[ ] בַּקָּנֶ֣ה הָֽאֶחָד֮ כַּפְתֹּ֣ר וָפֶרַח֒ וּשְׁלֹשָׁ֣ה גְבִעִ֗ים מְשֻׁקָּדִ֛ים[ ]בַּקָּנֶ֥ה הָֽאֶחָ֖ד כַּפְתֹּ֣ר וָפָ֑רַח כֵּ֚ן לְשֵׁ֣שֶׁת הַקָּנִ֔ים הַיֹּֽצְאִ֖ים מִן־הַמְּנֹרָֽה׃

Tosafot: “Ein Hechrea” applies to v. 34, and not to this one. Therefore the trup clearly separates the phrase  גבעים משקדים from בקנה האחד כפתר ופרח.

RaMBaM: “Ein Hechrea”  applies to this verse, v. 33. The trup associated with the word משקדים in its two iterations in the verse makes it stand alone, but does not necessarily associate it with what comes before or what comes after, leading to the conclusion that it can apply to both.

לג שְׁלֹשָׁ֣ה גְ֠בִעִים מְֽשֻׁקָּדִ֞ים בַּקָּנֶ֣ה הָֽאֶחָד֮ כַּפְתֹּ֣ר וָפֶרַח֒ וּשְׁלֹשָׁ֣ה גְבִעִ֗ים מְשֻׁקָּדִ֛ים בַּקָּנֶ֥ה הָֽאֶחָ֖ד כַּפְתֹּ֣ר וָפָ֑רַח כֵּ֚ן לְשֵׁ֣שֶׁת הַקָּנִ֔ים הַיֹּֽצְאִ֖ים מִן־הַמְּנֹרָֽה׃

7.  The fact that in v. 33, the same phrase is repeated a second time with a Tavir under the second instance of משקדים, a note that associates it with the Revia that comes before under גבעים, rather than the Mercha Tipcha Munach Etnachta that follows, suggests that it is to be associated only with what comes before, and not after, providing a proof to those that say that it is v. 34 that has no “Hechrea”.

לג שְׁלֹשָׁ֣ה גְ֠בִעִים מְֽשֻׁקָּדִ֞ים בַּקָּנֶ֣ה הָֽאֶחָד֮ כַּפְתֹּ֣ר וָפֶרַח֒ וּשְׁלֹשָׁ֣ה גְבִעִ֗ים מְשֻׁקָּדִ֛ים בַּקָּנֶ֥ה הָֽאֶחָ֖ד כַּפְתֹּ֣ר וָפָ֑רַח כֵּ֚ן לְשֵׁ֣שֶׁת הַקָּנִ֔ים הַיֹּֽצְאִ֖ים מִן־הַמְּנֹרָֽה׃

Teruma Questions

http://www.nechama.org.il/pages/860.html

Mishpatim Questions and answers

http://www.nechama.org.il/pages/25.html

Mishpatim 5728.

Alef.

Shemot 20:2 I am the LORD thy God, who Brought thee out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage. Thou shalt have no other gods before Me.

Ibid. 21:2 If thou buy a Hebrew servant, six years he shall serve; and in the seventh he shall go out free for nothing.

If the basis for a Jew’s belief in God is the fact that he was redeemed from slavery in Egypt, then it stands to reason that he must be sensitive to anyone else who is enslaved, Jewish or not.

Beit.

1. Shemot 34:1 And the LORD said unto Moses: 'Hew thee two tables of stone like unto the first; and I will Write upon the tables the words that were on the first tables, which thou didst break.

In contrast to the use of “פסל” in 34:1, i.e., sculpt/chisel, the term “פסל” in the context of RaShI on 24:1 is that the principle of Kellal U’Perat is being applied, i.e., despite previous statements, the statements that are being made at this later point trump the earlier statements. However when a “Vav HaChibur” appears, then instead of overruling what had been previously stated, additions are being made to what was said earlier.

2. If RaShI were to say that something stated in e.g., VaYikra which begins (VaYikra 1:1) “And the LORD Called unto Moses, and Spoke unto him out of the tent of meeting, saying:” was actually said on Sinai that would be remarkable. However to say that the contents of Mishpatim comes from Sinai does not appear to need any sort of special derivation. Where else would these laws have come from in light of Moshe going up on the mountain in Shemot 20:17 “And the people stood afar off; but Moses drew near unto the thick darkness where God was”, and first coming down in Ibid. 32:15, therefore clearly indicating that Parashat Mishpatim contains material that was Transmitted to Moshe during the interim.¹ 

Terumat HaDeshen therefore moves the emphasis away from the location of Moshe’s being given the law, and instead focuses upon the actual origin of the laws themselves. There might be a Hava Amina that the logical Mitzvot (that R. Saadia HaGaon refers to as “Sichliot”) might have been formulated by Moshe himself. Therefore RaShI comes to emphasize that even these kinds of Mitzvot came from God and were Taught to Moshe while on Sinai.

3.  As stated above in #2, it is entirely possible that some Mitzvot were taught by HaShem subsequent to Sinai.² However, the contents of Mishpatim appear without question to have been revealed on the literal Har Sinai.

4. R. Eliyahu Mizrachi posits that since RaShI does not bring every Rabbinic interpretation that is based upon Semichut HaParashiyot except where there is a problem with the simple meaning of the text, it becomes necessary to explain how the juxtaposition of the Mizbeach Adama with Mishpatim was somehow irregular unless the Derasha about the Sanhedrin being located in the same place as the altar was derived. The problem perhaps is whereas 20:20 could be seen as a further development of one of the Ten Commandments—

שמות פרק כ

 (כ) לֹא תַעֲשׂוּן אִתִּי אֱלֹהֵי כֶסֶף וֵאלֹהֵי זָהָב לֹא תַעֲשׂוּ לָכֶם: 

שמות פרק כ

(ד) לֹא תַעֲשֶׂה לְךָ פֶסֶל וְכָל תְּמוּנָה אֲשֶׁר בַּשָּׁמַיִם מִמַּעַל וַאֲשֶׁר בָּאָרֶץ מִתָּחַת וַאֲשֶׁר בַּמַּיִם מִתַּחַת לָאָרֶץ:

the subsequent verses do not seem to have anything to do with any of the Ten Commandments.

(כא) מִזְבַּח אֲדָמָה תַּעֲשֶׂה לִּי וְזָבַחְתָּ עָלָיו אֶת עֹלֹתֶיךָ וְאֶת שְׁלָמֶיךָ אֶת צֹאנְךָ וְאֶת בְּקָרֶךָ בְּכָל הַמָּקוֹם אֲשֶׁר אַזְכִּיר אֶת שְׁמִי אָבוֹא אֵלֶיךָ וּבֵרַכְתִּיךָ:

(כב) וְאִם מִזְבַּח אֲבָנִים תַּעֲשֶׂה לִּי לֹא תִבְנֶה אֶתְהֶן גָּזִית כִּי חַרְבְּךָ הֵנַפְתָּ עָלֶיהָ וַתְּחַלְלֶהָ:

(כג) וְלֹא תַעֲלֶה בְמַעֲלֹת עַל מִזְבְּחִי אֲשֶׁר לֹא תִגָּלֶה עֶרְוָתְךָ עָלָיו: פ

Consequently, if there is no connection to what has come before, there must be a connection between these verses and what follows in Chapt. 21, i.e., laws that the Sanhedrin will be called upon to enforce.

5.  Gur Aryeh’s assumption that the altar and the Sanhedrin represent a common theme might be based upon the idea that God is considered to be present both with respect to sacrifices as well as where judgment takes place. The altar is one of the central elements of the Tabernacle/Temple which is the focal point of God’s Presence among the Jewish people:

שמות פרק כה

(ח) וְעָשׂוּ לִי מִקְדָּשׁ וְשָׁכַנְתִּי בְּתוֹכָם:

Similarly, God is assumed to be Present in the place where His Laws are adjudicated:

תהלים פרק פב

(א) מִזְמוֹר לְאָסָף אֱלֹקים נִצָּב בַּעֲדַת קל בְּקֶרֶב אֱלֹקים יִשְׁפֹּט:

Furthermore, the association of the two symbolizes how from the perspective of Jewish law, there is no essential difference between the laws between God and man (sacrifices) and man and man (typical cases that the Sanhedrin decides).

Gimel.

1.  RaShI notes that the verb that is employed in the verse “תשים” is usually not associated with teaching or transmitting information. Consequently, the commentator interprets the verb to refer to a certain type of teaching, i.e., whereby everything is exquisitely clear and the student has simply to partake in what has laid out clearly and expertly before him.

2.  The Hava Amina is that RaShI is being inconsistent with respect to what the Mechilta had said earlier. Whereas on Shemot 19:7 he interprets “וישם” that Moshe “enlightened their eyes”, on 21:1 he interprets that Moshe presented the material to the people in such a way that they could easily absorb and understand it. Maskil LeDavid asserts that essentially the two interpretations are the same, i.e., that Moshe did not simply present what he had heard from HaShem first to the Elders and later to the people, but rather he exerted special effort to assure that all would understand clearly what was being related to them.

3.  In the earlier verse,

שמות פרק טו

(כה) וַיִּצְעַק אֶל יְקֹוָק וַיּוֹרֵהוּ יְקֹוָק עֵץ וַיַּשְׁלֵךְ אֶל הַמַּיִם וַיִּמְתְּקוּ הַמָּיִם שָׁם שָׂם לוֹ חֹק וּמִשְׁפָּט וְשָׁם נִסָּהוּ:

“And he cried unto the LORD; and the LORD showed him a tree, and he cast it into the waters, and the waters were made sweet. There He Made for them a statute and an ordinance, and there He Proved them,“

the subject of the final phrase is not Moshe, but rather HaShem. It is one thing to describe how Moshe was expected to teach the people, quite another when the Teacher is HaShem. How the Mitzvot that were Revealed at Mara were conveyed to the Jewish people is not clear from either the text or the Rabbinic tradition.

4.  The usage of the metaphor “a set table” is appropriate since the people are expected to partake from what has been set before them. “A made bed” might be neat and organized, but has no relationship to an interaction between teacher and student.

Daled.

1. If RaMBaM wishes to demonstrate a role that a Jewish servant might be asked to play, as opposed to a single, particular service, then more than one action has to be listed. One example could be exceptional; two or more are indicative of a pattern that has been imposed on this individual by his master.

     The order of the two examples given in the Mechilta is reversed by RaMBaM:

Mechilta: 2) Putting on and taking off the master’s shoes; 3) Carrying clothes to the bathhouse.

RaMBaM: Carrying clothes to the bathhouse; putting on and off the master’s shoes.

Perhaps RaMBaM feels that whereas putting on and taking off shoes could simply be an individual’s profession—he could be a shoemaker or shoe salesman—carrying someone’s clothes to the bathhouse is clearly a servile undertaking.

2.  RaMBaM wishes to explain why one could require a person who is not his slave to do these actions, while it would be prohibited to ask one’s slave to do them. A person who is not a slave has free choice in the matter and therefore the fact that he complies to the request does not indicate a servile relationship. However, because the Jewish servant has already been humiliated by virtue of his being sold in the first place, the Halacha attempts to limit any further humiliations that he might potentially experience.

3.  Just like a day worker would generally not agree to undertake any work that he feels is beneath his dignity and has the freedom to determine what he will and won’t do, the Halacha is attempting to defend the dignity of the Jewish servant by equating him with a day worker, in order that he too will not be subject to doing work that will be insulting and psychologically depressing.

Heh.

1.   In Shemot 21:2, 5, 26 and 27, where “חפשי” appears, even if the individual emerges from his status as a Jewish servant, that does not necessarily mean that he will be free of troubles. Even if his master fulfills the Mitzva of Ha’Anaka (Devarim 15:13-15),

דברים פרק טו

(יג) וְכִי תְשַׁלְּחֶנּוּ חָפְשִׁי מֵעִמָּךְ לֹא תְשַׁלְּחֶנּוּ רֵיקָם:

(יד) הַעֲנֵיק תַּעֲנִיק לוֹ מִצֹּאנְךָ וּמִגָּרְנְךָ וּמִיִּקְבֶךָ אֲשֶׁר בֵּרַכְךָ יְקֹוָק אֱלֹקיךָ תִּתֶּן לוֹ:

(טו) וְזָכַרְתָּ כִּי עֶבֶד הָיִיתָ בְּאֶרֶץ מִצְרַיִם וַיִּפְדְּךָ יְקֹוָק אֱלֹקיךָ עַל כֵּן אָנֹכִי מְצַוְּךָ אֶת הַדָּבָר הַזֶּה הַיּוֹם:

     it still doesn’t mean that his monetary troubles are solved, particularly if his poverty caused him to sell any land that he possessed. On the other hand, the state of “דרור” associated with the Jubilee Year described in VaYikra 25:10, whereby all land returns to the various tribes that received it at the time of the division of Canaan into parcels of land, could really help a poor person emerge from poverty for a significant period of time.

2.  In Yirmiyahu 34:10,11 “and all the princes and all the people hearkened, that had entered into the covenant to let everyone his man-servant, and everyone his maid-servant, go free(חפשיים) , and not to make bondmen of them anymore; they hearkened, and let them go; but afterwards they turned, and caused the servants and the handmaids, whom they had let go free (חפשיים), to return, and brought them into subjection for servants and for handmaids;” the term “חפשי” is limited and explains why the very people who recently went free were prepared to their previous status because of their continuing monetary difficulties. In Yirmiyahu 37:14 “Therefore thus saith the LORD: Ye have not hearkened unto Me, to proclaim liberty ("דרור"), every man to his brother, and every man to his neighbour; behold, I proclaim for you a liberty ("דרור"), saith the LORD, unto the sword, unto the pestilence, and unto the famine; and I will make you a horror unto all the kingdoms of the earth,” God Proposes that the state of דרור is what He Expects to be created that will make more remote the possibility that anyone will wish to return to servitude.

Yitro Answers

Yitro 5728

Alef.

1. Why would there have to be an emphasis upon Moshe’s accurately conveying what he is told by HaShem? Doesn’t that go without saying? Consequently the interpretation stresses that what must be conveyed is a verbatim account rather than something that is approximate or simply retold in Moshe’s own words.
2. א. If different verbs are being used and we assume that they are not simply synonyms that are being used in a poetical manner, then each word carries with it a specific connotation. Since “Bnai” is generally associated with males when taken literally, i.e., “sons”, then by process of elimination, “Beit” would be females. Once the objects are established, then attention can be paid to the verbs. The association between “Gidim” (sinews) and strength, unyieldingness and punishment is being contrasted with “Amira” which by contrast is assumed to represent a softer, more mellow communication where there is less anticipated resistance.

ב. Once the term “תגיד” I used in contradistinction to “תאמר”, then it becomes possible to say something specific about the connotation of “אמירה” which would not be possible if “אמירה” appeared by itself, with nothing to which to contrast it.

Beit.

The entire verse,

(ד) אַתֶּם רְאִיתֶם אֲשֶׁר עָשִׂיתִי לְמִצְרָיִם וָאֶשָּׂא אֶתְכֶם עַל כַּנְפֵי נְשָׁרִים וָאָבִא אֶתְכֶם אֵלָי:

is intended to convince the Jewish people of the particular concern that HaShem has for them. Consequently, just as HaShem Carried the people to protect them, so too He Went out of His Way to directly demonstrate to them how much He Cared for them, instead of Informing them of His Intervention by some indirect means.

Gimel.

1.    If the Egyptians were guilty in their own rights, perhaps Hashem Punished them for their own sins as opposed to Trying to Demonstrate to the Jews how much He was Concerned for their welfare.  Consequently the Mechilta states that only with respect to those sins that were perpetrated against the Jews does HaShem Punish the Egyptians to Show that He is particularly Concerned about what happens to His People.

2.   RaShI combines the two separate comments in the Mechilta into one. Since the point is to demonstrate how HaShem Displayed extra concern for His People, just as He Determined to Perform the Plagues in the direct presence of the Jews, so too the idea that He only Punished the Egyptians for the things that they did to the Jews makes the same point. Consequently, why not put both comments in the same Dibur HaMatchil?

3.    Mechilta/RaShI: While God could have Carried out the plagues in a private manner and then informed the Jews afterwards of what He had Done, He Chose to Do things publicly in order to smooth the way for the Jews to believe in Him. 

       Buber: Despite the fact that I had to Deal with the Egyptians in a harsh manner, it was the only way that I could Save you. It was a necessary evil.

Daled.

1.    Mechilta/RaShI: There is no Divine Ruing of the necessity to treat the Egyptians harshly. They deserved punishment and God Carried out such punishment that was directly associated with sins against the Jews.

       Sephorno: It was with great regret that HaShem Punished the Egyptians. He would have Preferred, as it were, if the Egyptians had repented. But they were stubborn and thereby forced God’s Hand, as it were.

2.    Since HaShem Wishes that the Jews agree to accept His Law and thereby become a Treasured people,

(ה) וְעַתָּה אִם שָׁמוֹעַ תִּשְׁמְעוּ בְּקֹלִי וּשְׁמַרְתֶּם אֶת בְּרִיתִי וִהְיִיתֶם לִי סְגֻלָּה מִכָּל הָעַמִּים כִּי לִי כָּל הָאָרֶץ:

(ו) וְאַתֶּם תִּהְיוּ לִי מַמְלֶכֶת כֹּהֲנִים וְגוֹי קָדוֹשׁ אֵלֶּה הַדְּבָרִים אֲשֶׁר תְּדַבֵּר אֶל בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל:

it does not make sense for Him to Express regrets over the necessity to Punish the Egyptians. Consequently, it would appear that Mechilta/RaShI constitute a closer interpretation of the verse in question than Sephorno.

Heh.

1.    Mechilta D’RaShBI: An eagle gains altitude quickly and can descend quickly. So too the Jews can rise in station in very short order and similarly fall from grace quickly as well.

   RaShBaM: Just as an eagle flies above the fray without mishap, so the Jews were lifted into the air and therefore protected and did not suffer any indignity or injury.

       Bechor Shor: The rising is figurative in the sense that the status of the Jews was raised by means of God Drawing them close to Him.

2.    Devarim 28:49, by emphasizing the distance from which people will be gathered, would suggest that speed is being emphasized. This is in keeping with the approach of Mechilta D’RaShBI.

Vav.

1.    RaShi and Ohr HaChayim mention specific dangers that threatened the Jews and from which they were Protected by HaShem comparable to the actions of an eagle:

   RaShI: The eagle carries its young on its back (it is not clear if biologically this is in fact correct) because no other bird can fly above it. It is only threatened from below and places its body between the source of the danger and the location of its young.

       Ohr HaChayim: The Jews were spared having their feet touch the actual ground by walking on one of the Clouds of Glory, comparable to an eagle not allowing its young to walk on the ground.

2.    Whereas RaShI stresses protection from outer threats, Ohr HaChayim focusses on comfort and the preservation of clothing.

Zayin.

It would appear that Sephorno approaches the metaphor in a manner different from all those noted above in the sense that just as the eagle removes its young from contact with other creatures, so too God Wished the Jewish people to be segregated from other peoples and cultures. (I would hope that this is a temporary situation,  because if not, what do concepts such as Ohr LaGoyim, the pursuit of Kiddush HaShem, the idea to make God beloved to people, etc., mean? In order for these things to happen, Jews must have contact with general society.

Chet.

1.    MaLBIM emphasizes the need to extract the Jews from the impurities of Egypt and take them to a place where they would be safe from additional aggressive attacks.

2.    The idea that the Jews needed to be taken out of Egypt does not necessarily directly lead to an analogy of an eagle and its young. Any parent creature will instinctively try to protect its young from harm. No advantages of height or speed are suggested by MaLBIM.

Tet.

In the instances of Devarim 28:49 and 32:11, very particular characteristics of the eagle are invoked:  the act of swooping down and the act of hovering over the nest. These are exemplified by the actions of a single eagle. The reference in Shemot 19:4 is a general quality of birds in general and eagles in particular, i.e., that they fly their young from place to place. In that vein, eagles can be referred to in the plural.

Yud.

1.   Onkelos always seeks to avoid anthropomorphisms. Since a literal rendering of bringing human beings to God would suggest that God has corporeal form and is located in a particular place, Onkelos interpret s the phrase to refer to bringing the Jews to religious practice rather than literal closeness with God Himself.

2.    Usually the phrase “ואביא אתכם אלי” within the context of the verse is understood as connoting that by means of transporting the people on the wings of eagles, they will be brought away from a negative situation of servitude and brutality and closer to a positive situation of safety and confort. RaShBaM emphasizes a theological dimension, i.e., that I will Serve as your God.

3.    The purpose of the Exodus was to position God as the God of the Jews. Perhaps a good proof to such an approach is the beginning of the Ten Commandments: (Shemot 20:2) “I am the LORD thy God, who Brought thee out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage. Thou shalt have no other gods before Me.”

Yitro Answers

Yitro 5728

Alef.

1. Why would there have to be an emphasis upon Moshe’s accurately conveying what he is told by HaShem? Doesn’t that go without saying? Consequently the interpretation stresses that what must be conveyed is a verbatim account rather than something that is approximate or simply retold in Moshe’s own words.
2. א. If different verbs are being used and we assume that they are not simply synonyms that are being used in a poetical manner, then each word carries with it a specific connotation. Since “Bnai” is generally associated with males when taken literally, i.e., “sons”, then by process of elimination, “Beit” would be females. Once the objects are established, then attention can be paid to the verbs. The association between “Gidim” (sinews) and strength, unyieldingness and punishment is being contrasted with “Amira” which by contrast is assumed to represent a softer, more mellow communication where there is less anticipated resistance.

ב. Once the term “תגיד” I used in contradistinction to “תאמר”, then it becomes possible to say something specific about the connotation of “אמירה” which would not be possible if “אמירה” appeared by itself, with nothing to which to contrast it.

Beit.

The entire verse,

(ד) אַתֶּם רְאִיתֶם אֲשֶׁר עָשִׂיתִי לְמִצְרָיִם וָאֶשָּׂא אֶתְכֶם עַל כַּנְפֵי נְשָׁרִים וָאָבִא אֶתְכֶם אֵלָי:

is intended to convince the Jewish people of the particular concern that HaShem has for them. Consequently, just as HaShem Carried the people to protect them, so too He Went out of His Way to directly demonstrate to them how much He Cared for them, instead of Informing them of His Intervention by some indirect means.

Gimel.

1.    If the Egyptians were guilty in their own rights, perhaps Hashem Punished them for their own sins as opposed to Trying to Demonstrate to the Jews how much He was Concerned for their welfare.  Consequently the Mechilta states that only with respect to those sins that were perpetrated against the Jews does HaShem Punish the Egyptians to Show that He is particularly Concerned about what happens to His People.

2.   RaShI combines the two separate comments in the Mechilta into one. Since the point is to demonstrate how HaShem Displayed extra concern for His People, just as He Determined to Perform the Plagues in the direct presence of the Jews, so too the idea that He only Punished the Egyptians for the things that they did to the Jews makes the same point. Consequently, why not put both comments in the same Dibur HaMatchil?

3.    Mechilta/RaShI: While God could have Carried out the plagues in a private manner and then informed the Jews afterwards of what He had Done, He Chose to Do things publicly in order to smooth the way for the Jews to believe in Him. 

       Buber: Despite the fact that I had to Deal with the Egyptians in a harsh manner, it was the only way that I could Save you. It was a necessary evil.

Daled.

1.    Mechilta/RaShI: There is no Divine Ruing of the necessity to treat the Egyptians harshly. They deserved punishment and God Carried out such punishment that was directly associated with sins against the Jews.

       Sephorno: It was with great regret that HaShem Punished the Egyptians. He would have Preferred, as it were, if the Egyptians had repented. But they were stubborn and thereby forced God’s Hand, as it were.

2.    Since HaShem Wishes that the Jews agree to accept His Law and thereby become a Treasured people,

(ה) וְעַתָּה אִם שָׁמוֹעַ תִּשְׁמְעוּ בְּקֹלִי וּשְׁמַרְתֶּם אֶת בְּרִיתִי וִהְיִיתֶם לִי סְגֻלָּה מִכָּל הָעַמִּים כִּי לִי כָּל הָאָרֶץ:

(ו) וְאַתֶּם תִּהְיוּ לִי מַמְלֶכֶת כֹּהֲנִים וְגוֹי קָדוֹשׁ אֵלֶּה הַדְּבָרִים אֲשֶׁר תְּדַבֵּר אֶל בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל:

it does not make sense for Him to Express regrets over the necessity to Punish the Egyptians. Consequently, it would appear that Mechilta/RaShI constitute a closer interpretation of the verse in question than Sephorno.

Heh.

1.    Mechilta D’RaShBI: An eagle gains altitude quickly and can descend quickly. So too the Jews can rise in station in very short order and similarly fall from grace quickly as well.

   RaShBaM: Just as an eagle flies above the fray without mishap, so the Jews were lifted into the air and therefore protected and did not suffer any indignity or injury.

       Bechor Shor: The rising is figurative in the sense that the status of the Jews was raised by means of God Drawing them close to Him.

2.    Devarim 28:49, by emphasizing the distance from which people will be gathered, would suggest that speed is being emphasized. This is in keeping with the approach of Mechilta D’RaShBI.

Vav.

1.    RaShi and Ohr HaChayim mention specific dangers that threatened the Jews and from which they were Protected by HaShem comparable to the actions of an eagle:

   RaShI: The eagle carries its young on its back (it is not clear if biologically this is in fact correct) because no other bird can fly above it. It is only threatened from below and places its body between the source of the danger and the location of its young.

       Ohr HaChayim: The Jews were spared having their feet touch the actual ground by walking on one of the Clouds of Glory, comparable to an eagle not allowing its young to walk on the ground.

2.    Whereas RaShI stresses protection from outer threats, Ohr HaChayim focusses on comfort and the preservation of clothing.

Zayin.

It would appear that Sephorno approaches the metaphor in a manner different from all those noted above in the sense that just as the eagle removes its young from contact with other creatures, so too God Wished the Jewish people to be segregated from other peoples and cultures. (I would hope that this is a temporary situation,  because if not, what do concepts such as Ohr LaGoyim, the pursuit of Kiddush HaShem, the idea to make God beloved to people, etc., mean? In order for these things to happen, Jews must have contact with general society.

Chet.

1.    MaLBIM emphasizes the need to extract the Jews from the impurities of Egypt and take them to a place where they would be safe from additional aggressive attacks.

2.    The idea that the Jews needed to be taken out of Egypt does not necessarily directly lead to an analogy of an eagle and its young. Any parent creature will instinctively try to protect its young from harm. No advantages of height or speed are suggested by MaLBIM.

Tet.

In the instances of Devarim 28:49 and 32:11, very particular characteristics of the eagle are invoked:  the act of swooping down and the act of hovering over the nest. These are exemplified by the actions of a single eagle. The reference in Shemot 19:4 is a general quality of birds in general and eagles in particular, i.e., that they fly their young from place to place. In that vein, eagles can be referred to in the plural.

Yud.

1.   Onkelos always seeks to avoid anthropomorphisms. Since a literal rendering of bringing human beings to God would suggest that God has corporeal form and is located in a particular place, Onkelos interpret s the phrase to refer to bringing the Jews to religious practice rather than literal closeness with God Himself.

2.    Usually the phrase “ואביא אתכם אלי” within the context of the verse is understood as connoting that by means of transporting the people on the wings of eagles, they will be brought away from a negative situation of servitude and brutality and closer to a positive situation of safety and confort. RaShBaM emphasizes a theological dimension, i.e., that I will Serve as your God.

3.    The purpose of the Exodus was to position God as the God of the Jews. Perhaps a good proof to such an approach is the beginning of the Ten Commandments: (Shemot 20:2) “I am the LORD thy God, who Brought thee out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage. Thou shalt have no other gods before Me.”

Updated Parshat Yitro

http://www.nechama.org.il/pages/24.html