Teruma Answers

Teruma 5730 “The Cherubs”

שמות פרק כה

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

Alef.

1.  Chagiga 13b

What is the meaning of cherub? — R. Abbahu said: Like a child [Ravia];  for so in

Babylonia a child is called Ravia. R. Papa said to Abaye: But according to this, [what is the meaning of] the verse, (Yechezkel 10:14) ‘The first face was the face of the cherub, and the second face was the face of a man, and the third the face of a lion, and the fourth the face of an eagle’: are not the face of the cherub and the face of a man the same! — [The one is] a big face, and [the other is] a small face.

 The “Chaf” is not part of the root of the word, but rather a contraction for “Kemo” (like).

2.  Shemot 26:1

שמות פרק כו

(א) וְאֶת־הַמִּשְׁכָּן תַּעֲשֶׂה עֶשֶׂר יְרִיעֹת שֵׁשׁ מָשְׁזָר וּתְכֵלֶת וְאַרְגָּמָן וְתֹלַעַת שָׁנִי כְּרֻבִים מַעֲשֵׂה חֹשֵׁב תַּעֲשֶׂה אֹתָם:

Since the Gemora in Chagiga specifically distinguished between the face described as a “Cheruv” from those of the lion and eagle, then to say that the face of the “Cheruv” was that of a lion on one side and an eagle on the other would contradict the Gemora, which Mizrachi does not think RaShI would do.

3.  If RaShI needed to draw upon examples, having in mind the verse in Yechezkel 10:14, where these various faces were on a single angelic entity, there was at least a literary if not a thematic connection between all of them.

4.  

שמות פרק כו

(לא) וְעָשִׂיתָ פָרֹכֶת תְּכֵלֶת וְאַרְגָּמָן וְתוֹלַעַת שָׁנִי וְשֵׁשׁ מָשְׁזָר מַעֲשֵׂה חֹשֵׁב יַעֲשֶׂה אֹתָהּ כְּרֻבִים:

רש"י שמות פרק כו פסוק לא

כרובים - ציורין של בריות יעשה בה:

The term “Briyot” suggests creatures other than children.

5.  The commentator י. ש. רגיו could point to the following verses to demonstrate that the “Chaf” is not a contraction but rather part of the root of the word being discussed:

שמות פרק כה

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

Similarly:

מלכים א פרק ו

(כד) וְחָמֵשׁ אַמּוֹת כְּנַף הַכְּרוּב הָאֶחָת וְחָמֵשׁ אַמּוֹת כְּנַף הַכְּרוּב הַשֵּׁנִית עֶשֶׂר אַמּוֹת מִקְצוֹת כְּנָפָיו וְעַד־קְצוֹת כְּנָפָיו:

(כה) וְעֶשֶׂר בָּאַמָּה הַכְּרוּב הַשֵּׁנִי מִדָּה אַחַת וְקֶצֶב אֶחָד לִשְׁנֵי הַכְּרֻבִים:

(כו) קוֹמַת הַכְּרוּב הָאֶחָד עֶשֶׂר בָּאַמָּה וְכֵן הַכְּרוּב הַשֵּׁנִי:

(כז) וַיִּתֵּן אֶת־הַכְּרוּבִים בְּתוֹךְ הַבַּיִת הַפְּנִימִי וַיִּפְרְשׂוּ אֶת־כַּנְפֵי הַכְּרֻבִים וַתִּגַּע כְּנַף־הָאֶחָד בַּקִּיר וּכְנַף הַכְּרוּב הַשֵּׁנִי נֹגַעַת בַּקִּיר הַשֵּׁנִי וְכַנְפֵיהֶם אֶל־תּוֹךְ הַבַּיִת נֹגְעֹת כָּנָף אֶל־כָּנָף:

(כח) וַיְצַף אֶת־הַכְּרוּבִים זָהָב:

The fact that there is an article “Heh” in front of the word suggests that what comes afterwards is part of the root.

Beit.

1.  It would appear that Ibn Ezra thinks that while there may be a tradition that the “Chaf” is indicative of a contraction, in fact it is part of the root, because one has to understand that a new word was formed, which really is a synthesis of two separate words.

2.  Yahel Ohr, a commentary on Ibn Ezra appearing in the Mechokkai Yehuda edition, explains: the word “Chanuka” is constructed of “Chanu” (they rested) and “Chaf—Heh” (the letters representing 25, i.e., the 25th of Kislev). So too the word “Cheruv” is constructed of the letter “Chaf” being attached to the word “Ruvya”.

3.  Shemot 25:20 demonstrates that the “Chaf” at the beginning of “Chruvim” has been incorporated into a single word, since the article “Heh” precedes it.

Yeshayahu 27:7 demonstrates that a “Heh” in front of a word could serve as indicating an interrogatory form, but Ibn Ezra states that is not the case with respect to Shemot 25:20.

Gimel.

1.  The fact that the commentaries cannot pin down the etymology of the word “Chruvim” indicates that it is an elusive concept that is veiled in imprecision and mystery.

In light of what RaMBaN says with respect to the Urim VeTumim (see Alon HaDeracha), the “Cheruvim” are not listed as one of the things that the artisans fabricated; they are not spoken of with the article “Heh”, i.e., “HaCheruvim”—except in Shemot 25:20. (The third element mentioned by RaMBaN with respect to the Urim VeTumim, i.e., that there isn’t a specific Commandment given to make them, is not true with respect to the “Cheruvim”  in light of Ibid. 25:18.)

2.  

תהלים פרק יח

(יא) וַיִּרְכַּב עַל־כְּרוּב וַיָּעֹף וַיֵּדֶא עַל־כַּנְפֵי־רוּחַ:

And He rode upon a cherub, and did fly; yea, He did swoop down upon the wings of the wind.

תהלים פרק קד

(ג) הַמְקָרֶה בַמַּיִם עֲלִיּוֹתָיו הַשָּׂם־עָבִים רְכוּבוֹ הַמְהַלֵּךְ עַל־כַּנְפֵי־רוּחַ:

Who Layest the beams of Thine upper Chambers in the waters, Who Makest the clouds Thy Chariot, Who Walkest upon the wings of the wind.

3.  Some examples from https://www.safa-ivrit.org/changes/letters.php :

חשל (נחשל)-חלש

יואל פרק ד

(י) כֹּתּוּ אִתֵּיכֶם לַחֲרָבוֹת וּמַזְמְרֹתֵיכֶם לִרְמָחִים הַחַלָּשׁ יֹאמַר גִּבּוֹר אָנִי:

דניאל פרק ב

(מ) וּמַלְכוּ רְבִיעָאָה תֶּהֱוֵא תַקִּיפָה כְּפַרְזְלָא כָּל־קֳבֵל דִּי פַרְזְלָא מְהַדֵּק וְחָשֵׁל כֹּלָּא וּכְפַרְזְלָא דִּי־מְרָעַע כָּל־אִלֵּין תַּדִּק וְתֵרֹעַ:

מלתעות-וּמְתַלְּעוֹת לָבִיא לוֹ

יואל פרק א

(ו) כִּי־גוֹי עָלָה עַל־אַרְצִי עָצוּם וְאֵין מִסְפָּר שִׁנָּיו שִׁנֵּי אַרְיֵה וּמְתַלְּעוֹת לָבִיא לוֹ:

תהלים פרק נח

(ז) אֱלֹקים הֲרָס־שִׁנֵּימוֹ בְּפִימוֹ מַלְתְּעוֹת כְּפִירִים נְתֹץ יְקֹוָק:

בְּנֵי-עַוְלָה – עַל-בְּנֵי עַלְוָה

שמואל ב פרק ג

(לד) יָדֶךָ לֹא־אֲסֻרוֹת וְרַגְלֶיךָ לֹא־לִנְחֻשְׁתַּיִם הֻגַּשׁוּ כִּנְפוֹל לִפְנֵי בְנֵי־עַוְלָה נָפָלְתָּ וַיֹּסִפוּ כָל־הָעָם לִבְכּוֹת עָלָיו:

הושע פרק י

(ט) מִימֵי הַגִּבְעָה חָטָאתָ יִשְׂרָאֵל שָׁם עָמָדוּ לֹא־תַשִּׂיגֵם בַּגִּבְעָה מִלְחָמָה עַל־בְּנֵי עַלְוָה:

4.  

שמות פרק כה

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

Daled.

שמות פרק כה

(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:

While v. 18 implies that they are equal in terms of their material and how they are made, v. 19 suggests that each one was an entity unto itself, allowing for the possibility that the faces were not the same.

V. 20 could also be interpreted that each one had a unique appearance and looked to the other.

Heh.

1.  Klee Yakar sees in the “Cheruvim” a representation of a teacher and a student.

R. Hirsch suggests that the “Cheruvim” represent a model to which every individual can and should aspire in terms of serving as preservers of the Commandments and thereby becoming platforms of Divine Glory.

2.  For Klee Yakar, aspects of the form of the “Cheruvim” that support his hypothesis include:

a)  The faces are those of innocent children—this is how a teacher himself should be, in addition to his student(s).

b)  The wings extend upwards—that the teacher should be very cognizant of the responsibilities Imposed upon him by the Divine.

c)  The faces face one another—those engaged in true Tora study will promote peace and caring among one another.

d)  They also face downwards—the goal of their teaching and studying is to promote the Tora rather than themselves and their abilities.

3.  For R. Hirsch:

a)  The “Cheruvim” are made of the same gold as the rest of the “Kaporet” (the cover of the Aron)—it is their responsibility to observe the rules of the Tora contained within the Aron.

b)  The “Kaporet” takes on importance and is exalted due to what it is covering within—those who keep the Commandments become exalted themselves to the point where they are comparable to “Cheruvim”.

c)  The “Cheruvim” provide a platform for Divine Glory—those who keep the Commandments provide such a platform as well for HaShem’s Presence in the world.

Teruma

http://www.nechama.org.il/pages/115.html

Mishpatim Answers

Mishpatim 5725

Alef.

שמות פרק כב

(יט) זֹבֵחַ לָאֱלֹהִים יָחֳרָם בִּלְתִּי לַיקֹוָק לְבַדּוֹ:

(כ) וְגֵר לֹא־תוֹנֶה וְלֹא תִלְחָצֶנּוּ כִּי־גֵרִים הֱיִיתֶם בְּאֶרֶץ מִצְרָיִם:

(כא) כָּל־אַלְמָנָה וְיָתוֹם לֹא תְעַנּוּן:

(כב) אִם־עַנֵּה תְעַנֶּה אֹתוֹ כִּי אִם־צָעֹק יִצְעַק אֵלַי שָׁמֹעַ אֶשְׁמַע צַעֲקָתוֹ:

(כג) וְחָרָה אַפִּי וְהָרַגְתִּי אֶתְכֶם בֶּחָרֶב וְהָיוּ נְשֵׁיכֶם אַלְמָנוֹת וּבְנֵיכֶם יְתֹמִים: פ

(כד) אִם־כֶּסֶף תַּלְוֶה אֶת־עַמִּי אֶת־הֶעָנִי עִמָּךְ לֹא־תִהְיֶה לוֹ כְּנֹשֶׁה לֹא־תְשִׂימוּן עָלָיו נֶשֶׁךְ:

(כה) אִם־חָבֹל תַּחְבֹּל שַׂלְמַת רֵעֶךָ עַד־בֹּא הַשֶּׁמֶשׁ תְּשִׁיבֶנּוּ לוֹ:

(כו) כִּי הִוא כְסוּתוֹ לְבַדָּהּ הִוא שִׂמְלָתוֹ לְעֹרוֹ בַּמֶּה יִשְׁכָּב וְהָיָה כִּי־יִצְעַק אֵלַי וְשָׁמַעְתִּי כִּי־חַנּוּן אָנִי: ס

In these various cases, i.e.,

a) v. 20-23 oppressing the sojourner/stranger, the widow and/or the orphan;

b) v. 24-26 keeping a poor person’s garment given as a security, when he needs it at night,

    when transgression occurs, HaShem will Respond strongly and Punish the transgressor.

    Although v. 19 is dealing with בין אדם למקום rather than בין אדם לחבירו, nevertheless a strong language is used to indicate HaShem’s Displeasure and Readiness to Punish the transgressor.

Bet.

1.  The linguistic problem in the verse the omission of what it is that God will Do in response to the transgression against the widow and the orphan.  (Apparently RaShI does not believe that what is stated in v. 23 is the punishment that HaShem will Mete out for such a transgression. See [4] below.)

2.  RaMBaN, in addition to the linguistic issue in v. 22, also raises a substantive issue. The victim of the oppression might be expected to fulfill different requirements in order that HaShem will Come to his aid. The verse confutes this assumption and states that all that the victim has to do is complain to God, and God will Save him from his oppressor(s).

3.  

רש"י

(כב) אִם־עַנֵּה תְעַנֶּה אֹתוֹ,   (.......)  כִּי אִם־צָעֹק יִצְעַק אֵלַי שָׁמֹעַ אֶשְׁמַע צַעֲקָתוֹ:

רמב"ן

(כב) אִם־עַנֵּה תְעַנֶּה אֹתוֹ, כִּי אִם־צָעֹק יִצְעַק אֵלַי (לבד) , שָׁמֹעַ אֶשְׁמַע צַעֲקָתוֹ (ואבוא להושיעו):

4.  

מזרחי

(כב) אם ענה תענה אותו הרי זה מקרא קצר. גזם ולא פירש ענשו. כמו, "לכן כל הורג קין" כו'. כלומר סופך ליטול את שלך. למה "כי אם צעק יצעק אלי" וגו'. פירוש, אלו היה כתוב, אם ענה תענה אותו אם צעוק יצעק אלי כו', היה כלו דבור אחד, שאם תענה אותו הנה אם יצעק אלי שמוע אשמע צעקתו, אבל עכשיו שכתוב, "כי אם צעוק יצעק אלי" שמלת "כי" היא נתינת טעם לדבור הקודם, על כרחך לומר שהדבור הראשון הוא דבור חסר ומקרא קצר, וכאילו אמר, אם ענה תענה אותו, סופך ללקות עליו. ונתן טעם בזה ואמר, מפני שאם צעוק יצעק אלי שמוע אשמע צעקתו (וחרה אפי כו')...   

וכן, "אם ענה תענה אותו" אם תעשה כך, שתענה האלמנה או היתום, אעשה כך, שאענישך בעבורם ולא פירש ענשו כאן, ונתפרש אחר זה ב"אם צעוק יצעק אלי":

V. 23 therefore is a consequence of what will happen after HaShem Metes out his Punishment, i.e., since the perpetrator will die, his family will be bereft, but the verse does not say exactly how he will die or under what circumstances this will take place.

5.  

מזרחי

...וכמוהו, "לכן כל הורג קין" מקרא קצר הוא, וכאילו אמר, לכן כל הורג קין אעשה לו כך וכך עונש, כי לא יתכן שיהיה דבק עם "שבעתים יוקם", מפני שזה מורה על נקמת הבל מקין, לא על נקמת קין מהורגו, כמבואר בדברי למך לנשיו. ועוד, שאין זה תשובה למאמר "והיה כל מוצאי יהרגני" דאדרבה הוא סבת כל מוצאו יהרגהו, מאחר שלא יוקם עד סוף שבעה דורות...

6.  

מזרחי

...והרמב"ן ז"ל כתב, "ואיננו נכון", כי קשה בעיניו שיהיה המקרא קצר בחסרון גדול כזה, שאינו בכח המאמר כלל. והוכרח לפרש, "לכן כל הורג קין שבעתים יוקם כל אשר יהרוג את קין, שבעתים אנקם ממנו, כי אעניש ההורג אותו שבע על חטאתו, ועניין למך לנשיו הוא דבר לא הוזכר בכתוב בביאור", ולכן הוסיף לומר, "גם העד שהביא לא יעיד כן".

(A case of העיקר חסר מן הספר.)

7.  RaMBaN offers two possibilities for interpreting the word “כי” in the verse:

a) “כי” = “ואם” Therefore the second portion of the verse is expanding the condition of the sin, i.e., “If you persecute/afflict and if he cries out to Me”

b) “כי” = “רק” The second clause is a limiting condition, i.e., “If you persecute/afflict, then all he has to do is cry out to Me and I will Come to his assistance.”

8.  It would appear that according to RaMBaN, the outcry on the part of the victim is an indication of the intensity and the threshold of pain that is being inflicted. As long as the victim doesn’t actually cry out, while the affliction is certainly improper, it is not sufficiently significant to warrant Divine Intervention. But once he is so upset that he cries out, then a line has been crossed. (It is only after the text states that the Jews cried out due to their afflictions at the hand of the Egyptians that HaShem Intervenes—

שמות ב:כג

(כג) וַיְהִי בַיָּמִים הָרַבִּים הָהֵם וַיָּמָת מֶלֶךְ מִצְרַיִם וַיֵּאָנְחוּ בְנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל מִן הָעֲבֹדָה וַיִּזְעָקוּ וַתַּעַל שַׁוְעָתָם אֶל הָאֱלֹקים מִן הָעֲבֹדָה:

שם ג:ז

וַיֹּאמֶר יְקֹוָק רָאֹה רָאִיתִי אֶת־עֳנִי עַמִּי אֲשֶׁר בְּמִצְרָיִם וְאֶת־צַעֲקָתָם שָׁמַעְתִּי מִפְּנֵי נֹגְשָׂיו כִּי יָדַעְתִּי אֶת־מַכְאֹבָיו:

שם ט

וְעַתָּה הִנֵּה צַעֲקַת בְּנֵי־יִשְׂרָאֵל בָּאָה אֵלָי וְגַם־רָאִיתִי אֶת־הַלַּחַץ אֲשֶׁר מִצְרַיִם לֹחֲצִים אֹתָם:)

9.  

שמות פרק יד

(יא) וַיֹּאמְרוּ אֶל־מֹשֶׁה הַמִבְּלִי אֵין־קְבָרִים בְּמִצְרַיִם לְקַחְתָּנוּ לָמוּת בַּמִּדְבָּר מַה־זֹּאת עָשִׂיתָ לָּנוּ לְהוֹצִיאָנוּ מִמִּצְרָיִם:

במדבר פרק יב

(ב) וַיֹּאמְרוּ הֲרַק אַךְ־בְּמֹשֶׁה דִּבֶּר יְקֹוָק הֲלֹא גַּם־בָּנוּ דִבֵּר וַיִּשְׁמַע יְקֹוָק:

משלי פרק כב

(כב) אַל־תִּגְזָל־דָּל כִּי דַל־הוּא וְאַל־תְּדַכֵּא עָנִי בַשָּׁעַר:

(כג) כִּי־יְקֹוָק יָרִיב רִיבָם וְקָבַע אֶת־קֹבְעֵיהֶם נָפֶשׁ:

שם כג

(י) אַל־תַּסֵּג גְּבוּל עוֹלָם וּבִשְׂדֵי יְתוֹמִים אַל־תָּבֹא:

(יא) כִּי־גֹאֲלָם חָזָק הוּא־יָרִיב אֶת־רִיבָם אִתָּךְ:

When RaMBan wishes to demonstrate that “כי” = “ואם”, it results in the second part of the verse basically reiterating the first part, i.e., if you afflict the victim and cause him to scream to Me”. The verses in Shemot and BaMidbar demonstrate that biblical verses are sometimes redundant for the sake of emphasis:

Shemot: “no graves in Egypt”; “you have taken us out to die in the desert” are both expressing the same sentiment.

BaMidbar: Both “הרק” and “אך” are conveying the same idea of “only”.

When RaMBaN wishes to suggest that “כי” = “רק”, and that the cause of the oppressed will be readily Undertaken by HaShem, this is demonstrated in the two verses from Mishlei, where it is stated that should one try to illegally deprive the poor of their possessions, HaShem will Come to their aid.

10.  The more typical interpretation of Mishlei 22:22 would be that the reason why one should not oppress such a person is that the oppressor should empathize with the individual’s poverty and realize how immoral such an action would be. RaMBaN’s spin on the verse is that since the individual is poor, HaShem will sooner Come to his assistance and therefore the oppressor should fear the Divine Consequences of his actions.

11.  

ציטוט רמב"ן: "ובשדה יתומים אל תבוא, כי גואלם חזק...ה' צבקות שמו."

טקסט התנ"ך: (י) (אַל־תַּסֵּג גְּבוּל עוֹלָם) וּבִשְׂדֵי יְתוֹמִים אַל־תָּבֹא:

(יא) כִּי־גֹאֲלָם חָזָק (הוּא־יָרִיב אֶת־רִיבָם אִתָּךְ):

Whereas the confusion of singular and plural is certainly less significant, the same cannot be said for the insertion of the phrase “ה' צבקות שמו”.

12.  

ישעיהו פרק נה

(י) כִּי כַּאֲשֶׁר יֵרֵד הַגֶּשֶׁם וְהַשֶּׁלֶג מִן־הַשָּׁמַיִם וְשָׁמָּה לֹא יָשׁוּב כִּי אִם־הִרְוָה אֶת־הָאָרֶץ וְהוֹלִידָהּ וְהִצְמִיחָהּ וְנָתַן זֶרַע לַזֹּרֵעַ וְלֶחֶם לָאֹכֵל:

(יא) כֵּן יִהְיֶה דְבָרִי אֲשֶׁר יֵצֵא מִפִּי לֹא־יָשׁוּב אֵלַי רֵיקָם כִּי אִם־עָשָׂה אֶת־אֲשֶׁר חָפַצְתִּי וְהִצְלִיחַ אֲשֶׁר שְׁלַחְתִּיו:

In both verses, the word “כי” as it appears in the middle of the verse (as opposed to v. 10 where it also appears at the beginning), is understood by RaMBaN as “only/specifically/nothing more” which is consistent with what his preferred thesis is regarding Shemot 22:22.

13.  

בראשית פרק יח

(טו) וַתְּכַחֵשׁ שָׂרָה לֵאמֹר לֹא צָחַקְתִּי כִּי יָרֵאָה וַיֹּאמֶר לֹא כִּי צָחָקְתְּ:

It would appear that the second “כי” in this verse means “surely” rather than “only” or “specifically” as RaMBaN is maintaining regarding his commentary on Shemot 22:22. Even according to RaShI, when he interprets, “not as you said but rather”, this is not the sense of only, but rather “on the contrary”. It is not a case where there are a number of possibilities and the word “כי” is narrowing them down, but rather there is an insistence that the opposite of what was said is the case.

Gimel.

(כא) כָּל־אַלְמָנָה וְיָתוֹם לֹא תְעַנּוּן:

(כב) אִם־עַנֵּה תְעַנֶּה אֹתוֹ כִּי אִם־צָעֹק יִצְעַק אֵלַי שָׁמֹעַ אֶשְׁמַע צַעֲקָתוֹ:

1. Ibn Ezra wishes to explain why an adult (אלמנה) wouldn’t articulate her plea to HaShem more specifically than merely screaming. Consequently, he says that it is the orphan who is inarticulate, possibly due to his age. This would also explain the use of the masculine singular pronoun in v. 22.

2.  

ישעיהו פרק א

(יג) לֹא תוֹסִיפוּ הָבִיא מִנְחַת־שָׁוְא,    קְטֹרֶת תּוֹעֵבָה הִיא לִי,    חֹדֶשׁ וְשַׁבָּת קְרֹא מִקְרָא

     לֹא־אוּכַל אָוֶן וַעֲצָרָה:

Perhaps the contradiction lies in the fact that whereas regarding the oppression of the helpless HaShem Awaits some sort of indication on the part of the victim that help is needed, in the case of hypocritical religious activity, HaShem Intervenes and Expresses His Displeasure without any complaint expressed by the victim??? (It seems to me that there is no real connection between this verse and the discussion surrounding Shemot 22:22, let alone Ibn Ezra’s comment. Perhaps there was a misprint in supplying the source?)

Daled.

It seems to me that Cassuto is taking an approach that differs from those of RaShI and RaMBaN. Whereas they interpreted the verse as either deliberately mentioning the specific punishment that is in store for the oppressors, or that the innovation in the verse is that the only trigger required for HaShem to Intervene is the scream of the oppressed, Cassuto suggests that the entire verse is a strong commitment—an “oath” at it were—on  the part of HaShem to Take action in the event of the occurrence of an oppressor oppressing someone who is weak and defenseless.

Heh.

1.  A simpler interpretation would maintain that the mention of the oppressor’s family turning into a widow and orphans is not new in the sense that it is obvious from the fact that the oppressor will die, but rather it is a case of מדה כנגד מדה, i.e., just as the oppressor had no compassion for widows and orphans to the point where he felt that he could oppress them, the proper punishment, in addition to whatever would happen to him personally, is that his family would be placed in the identical position of those whom he oppressed.

2.  

שמות פרק א

(יז) וַתִּירֶאןָ הַמְיַלְּדֹת אֶת־הָאֱלֹהִים וְלֹא עָשׂוּ כַּאֲשֶׁר דִּבֶּר אֲלֵיהֶן מֶלֶךְ מִצְרָיִם וַתְּחַיֶּיןָ אֶת־הַיְלָדִים:

רש"י   

(יז) ותחיין את הילדים - מספקות להם מים ומזון. תרגום הראשון וקיימא והשני וקיימתין...  

It would appear in both places, that when the text appears to state the obvious, RaShI undertakes to find something new or additional that is being indicated in the text. In the case of the midwives, naturally if they weren’t listening to Pharoah, they wouldn’t kill the children, but rather keep them alive. Consequently RaShI asserts that they went beyond the normal protocol to keep them alive. Similarly in the instance in Shemot 22:22—not only would the survivors of the oppressors be reduced to widows and orphans, they would be extreme widows and orphans, i.e., unable to marry again and unable to access their father’s estate.