Bo Answers

Bo 5727

Alef.

שמות פרק יא

(ג) וַיִּתֵּן יְקֹוָק אֶת חֵן הָעָם בְּעֵינֵי מִצְרָיִם  גַּם הָאִישׁ מֹשֶׁה גָּדוֹל מְאֹד בְּאֶרֶץ מִצְרַיִם בְּעֵינֵי עַבְדֵי פַרְעֹה וּבְעֵינֵי הָעָם: ס

1.  a) The “Chen” in Shemot 11:3, how did it alter the attitude of the Egyptians towards the Jews?

      b) How did the “Chen” alter the attitudes of the Egyptians and the Jews towards Moshe?

      c) Why did the “Chen” not affect Pharoah himself?

      d) How is the “Chen” in this verse different from the one that leads to the Jews “borrowing” the Egyptian possessions?

2.  In RaMBaN’s first interpretation , the last phrase of the verse “U’VeEinai HaAm” applies to the Jews—how they looked upon Moshe.

     In his second interpretation, the last phrase applies to the Egyptian people—how they looked upon Moshe.

     It would seem that the second interpretation would be closer to the Peshat since the entire second clause is focusing upon the servants of Pharoah and the people associated with Pharoah, i.e., the Egyptians.

3.  The fact that Shemot 12:36 is in the past tense, whereby Ibid. 11:3 is also in the past tense, unless 11:3 is referring to a different manipulation of the Egyptian attitudes (in the case being positively disposed to the Jews and Moshe), it would not make sense to repeat the same thing later in chapter 12.

Beit.

1. Ostensibly, the term “שאלה” which is used in the context of how the Jews asked the Egyptians for their possessions (Shemot 3:22; 11:2; 12; 35-6), suggests that the objects are expected to be returned after a certain amount of time. However, this does not appear as if it was ever intended since the Jews once they left Egypt did not plan to return (e.g., Ibid. 14:5).  Consequently it is necessary to rationalize why the Jews were allowed to keep the Egyptian property, and the Mitzva of Ha’Anaka, whereby a servant who has completed his years of servitude, is given a stake that will hopefully prevent him from soon reverting back into poverty and resulting slavery, is cited as the justification.

2. 

שמות פרק יב

(לו) וַיקֹוָק נָתַן אֶת חֵן הָעָם בְּעֵינֵי מִצְרַיִם וַיַּשְׁאִלוּם וַיְנַצְּלוּ אֶת מִצְרָיִם: פ

And the LORD gave the people favour in the sight of the Egyptians, so that they let them have what they asked. And they despoiled the Egyptians.

יחזקאל פרק יד פסוק יד

וְהָיוּ שְׁלֹשֶׁת הָאֲנָשִׁים הָאֵלֶּה בְּתוֹכָהּ נֹחַ דנאל דָּנִיֵּאל וְאִיּוֹב הֵמָּה בְצִדְקָתָם יְנַצְּלוּ נַפְשָׁם נְאֻם ה' 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

(יד) והיו שלשת האנשים האלה בתוכה. כי נח דניאל ואיוב היו בדור שהיו בלתי זכאים והם היו צדיקים בדור ההוא, נח בדור המבול, ודניאל בדור החורבן, ואיוב בדור שבא השטן לקטרג כמ"ש משוט בארץ ומהתהלך בה, וכן פגע אותם ד' שפטים אלה, המבול היה רעה שמיימית. ואיוב נענש ע"י יסודות רוח ואש שהיו ג"כ רעה שמיימית, וע"י חרב שבא וכשדים, 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:

Benno Jakob probably would rely on the verse in Yechezkel 14 to interpret Shemot 12 as the Jews actually “saving the souls” of the Egyptians by accepting from them gifts that would somewhat ameliorate the enslavement to which the Jews had been subjected. At least they were paid for their work, creating a more “mercantile”, quid-pro-quo arrangement than if the Jews would have left with nothing after all those years of toil. (This is similar to the argument that is presented in the following Talmudic passage in Sanhedrin 91a:

On another occasion the Egyptians came in a lawsuit against the Jews before Alexander of Macedon. They pleaded thus: 'Is it not written, And the Lord gave the people favour in the sight of the Egyptians, and they lent them [gold and precious stones, etc.] Then return us the gold and silver which ye took!' Thereupon Gebiha b. Pesisa said to the Sages, 'Give me permission to go and plead against them before Alexander of Macedon: should they defeat me, then say, "Ye have merely defeated an ignorant man amongst us;" whilst if I defeat them then say, "The Law of Moses has defeated you."' So they gave him permission, and he went and pleaded against them. 'Whence do ye adduce your proof?' asked he, 'From the Torah,' they replied. 'Then I too,' said he, 'will bring you proof only from the Torah, for it is written, Now the sojourning of the children of Israel, who dwelt in Egypt, was four hundred and thirty years. Pay us for the toil of six hundred thousand men whom ye enslaved for four hundred thirty years.' Then King Alexander said to them, 'Answer him!' 'Give us three days' time,' they begged. So he gave them a respite; they sought but found no answer. Straightway they fled, leaving behind their sown fields and planted vineyards. And that year was a Sabbatical year.)

Alternatively, the commentator might have understood the term as saving the possibility of a positive relationship between the Jews and Egyptians going forward, after the Egyptian servitude had been concluded.

3.  According to Benno Jakob, the “spoils” were intended for the Jews in the future to treat the Egyptians appreciatively in accordance with the Commandments that encourage proper relationships with converts in general and Egyptians in particular,  rather than resentfully were they have left Egypt without any compensation whatsoever.

Cassuto frames the taking of the Egyptian possessions in terms of legality. It would be unjust for there not to be payment to a servant who concludes his servitude. This has nothing to do with how the Jews will feel towards the Egyptians in the future; it is simply compensation for a debt that was incurred in the past.

Gimel.

1.  When comparing Onkelos’ translations of “Rei’ah” in Beraishit 26:26; 38:12 with his translations of Shemot 11:2 and VaYikra 19:18, one notes that in the former case, the individuals being described are actually known and have a social relationship with on the one hand Avraham and on the other Yehuda. In the latter cases the individual in question is another human being, with whom one might or might not have any prior relationship. You are interacting with him not due to some previous connection, but simply because he is another person.

2.  The importance of Onkelos’ point re VaYikra 19:18, is that it would be very self-serving, and not constitute a “stretch” if the only people you were commanded to love were those whom you would have cared about already. By making it impersonal, the message becomes one of universalism rather than particularism, and the tent of people that one should care about is very inclusive.

Daled.

1.א. The interpretations are different. In the case of the impending destruction of Sodom (Beraishit 18:21) the term “Kalla” means that HaShem will Destroy the city. With respect to Pharoah sending the Jews out of Egypt, (Shemot 11:1), the term is being used as connoting either that this will be final, without Pharoah changing his mind as he had done so many times previously, or that it will include everyone, rather than only a portion of the people, as Pharoah had previously proposed.

ב.  RaShI is supplying two different interpretations in Shemot 11:1. Since RaShI feels that Onkelos is closer to the Peshat of the word, he lists him and his interpretation first, before going on to an alternate interpretation.

2.א. In the case of Beraishit 19:18, where Lot is pleading with the angels to accept his hospitality, it would be out of character for him to insist by using “Na” as “now”, and therefore from the context it is clear what is meant. However in the case of Shemot 11:2, HaShem is Telling Moshe to order the Jewish people to take the spoils. It would be logical to assume that “Na” in this context means “now” because there is no other instance where HaShem Says “please” regarding an Order that He is Giving. Yet RaShI points out that it is proper to interpret even this instance in Shemot as “please” because HaShem had some special interest in the people carrying this out and He Wished to encourage them as much as possible.

ב.  The reason why RaShI has to go on to explain why “Na” means please in the case of Shemot 11:2 is because it is hard to imagine why and or who could make HaShem Adopt a particular course of action to the extent that He has to Plead with those in a position to carry the action out, to do so.

3.א.  Here is how Siftai Chachamim explains the problem with the Peshat:

(ו) ר"ל דחצות היינו שם דבר כמו חצות לילה אקום להודות לך (תהלים קיט, סב) כמו שאומרים חצי לילה אבל זה אינו כן דא"כ הוה ליה למימר חצות בלא כ' שאין הכ' נופל על לשון זה, ועוד דכחצות משמע שספק הוא מתי חצות וחלילה שספק הוא קמי הקב"ה אלא ודאי כחצות כהחלק הלילה:

i.e., if indeed “Chatzot” is a noun, then the “Chaf” before the word is unnecessary.

ב.  RaShI brings examples that begin with “Bet” rather than “Chaf” because he is not defining the meaning of “Chatzot” with either a “Beit” or a “Chaf”, but rather the fact that “Chatzot” itself is a noun and that any prefix is unnecessary.

ג.  Part of the point of doing the plagues is to demonstrate to the Egyptians, including the Egyptian magicians, that when HaShem Does something, it does not happen randomly or imprecisely, but rather very exactly and in accordance with all that was predicted. Consequently, it is important to Moshe that the magicians not be misled.

4. One could say that even if the first of the Ten Commandments is emphasizing how HaShem Redeemed the Jews from the servitude of Pharoah, such a powerful king, and no one else, in order to demonstrate how HaShem is more Powerful than Pharoah, that does not mean that the Jews were not subjugated by even the lowest members of Egyptian society, as is implied in Shemot 11:5.

Heh.

1. Since HaShem is Telling this to Moshe after the 9^th plague and just before the 10^th, until now, in the past, Pharoah has not listened to Moshe’s request. However, after the 10^th plague he will listen and let the Jews go. Therefore this verse only makes sense if it is describing the past rather than the future.

2.  RaMBaN on Devarim 29:18 :

“And it come to pass, when he heareth the words of this curse, that he bless himself in his heart, saying: 'I shall have peace, though I walk in the stubbornness of my heart--that the watered be swept away with the dry'”

notes that  while in the case in Devarim, the person to whom this will happen will be unawares, sometimes “LeMa’an” can precede a result of which the intended target would be aware. In the case of Pharoah in Shemot, the point would appear to be to impress upon him that despite all of the Egyptian ruler’s attempts at resistance, God will Carry out His Plan to free the Jews nevertheless.