Vayikra 13:47-59 – Tsara’at by clothing

Vayikra 13:49,50 records that if a person has a nega, spot, on their clothes, which is thought to be a sign of tsara’at, then the priest inspects the spot and the clothing is put aside for a week. At the end of the week, the priest inspects the clothing. If the spot spread, then the priest declares the clothing as tamei since it is tsara’at and the clothing is burnt, 13:50-52. If the spot did not spread, then it is washed, and after the week, the priest examines it again, 13:53-55. If the spot did not diminish, the clothing is burnt, 13:55. If the spot diminished, then the spot is removed from the clothing, and a person can use the other material from the clothing, 13:56. If a spot returns to the clothing after having removed the initial spot, then the clothing is burnt, 13:57. Finally, if the spot is completely gone from the clothing after the clothing was washed, then the clothing is considered tahor, 13:58. What is the meaning of this section? Why does the Torah record laws concerning tsar’at by clothing?

Hertz (1960, p. 465) writes that maybe the tsara`at was some mildew or some parasitic infection. Similarly, Levine (1989, p. 83), writes that perhaps “they were fungoid or sporoid infections.” This follows the idea that tsara`at is a health problem. The tsara`at by the clothing might be the most likely case where tsara`at is a health problem, but would not people on their own throw out clothing that is infected? Maybe today yes with our higher standard of living, but in olden days if they had no clothing it might have been difficult for people to throw out clothing. Yet, does this idea explain the shocking aspect of burning the clothing?

The traditional understanding is that the spots on the clothing are a warning that the person has sinned usually by talking loshen hara, slander, see Rambam, Laws of Tumat Tsara`at, 16:10 and Seforno on 13:47. Yet, why then does the priest not warn the person to repent when he inspects the clothing?

My guess is that the crucial issue is that the clothing is destroyed either by being burnt or being cut up. Possibly the message is that clothing is unimportant. The idea being that at times people get very caught up with material items, clothing being very prominent material items, and they forget about G-d. Maybe, here the message is that material possessions such as clothing are not important to one's relationship with G-d. With this idea, the tumah of the spots on the clothing, has a similar message to the spots on the person. In our discussion on chapters 13,14 "Tsara`at by a person,” we suggested that the spots of tsara'at on a person signify that a person's looks are not important to one's relationship with G-d, and then similarly, maybe the message by tsara’at on clothing is that a person’s clothing, whether fancy or simple, is not important to a person’s relationship with G-d.

Bibliography:

Hertz, J. H. (1872-1946), 1960, The Pentateuch and Haftorahs, second edition, London: Soncino Press

Levine, Baruch A., 1989, Leviticus: The JPS Torah Commentary, Philadelphia: The Jewish Publication Society.

The 2025 version of Andrew Schein's commentary on the Haggadah is now avialable

Hello,

Last year, one of the loyal readers of this blog, Gary Greenberg, told me that I need to send out the commentary on the Haggadah much earlier than I usually do, so now, two weeks before Pesach, I am announcing that the 2025 version of my commentary on the Haggadah (PDF file, 120 pages, including references, 1.5 spacing) is available to anybody who wishes to read it. Also, very kindly, last year after Pesach, Gary Greenberg carefully went over last year’s version and pointed out several mistakes, which has improved the commentary. Thank you Gary. Below is the Table of Contents to the current commentary. If you are interested in receiving the file, send me an email, ajayschein@gmail.com, and I will send you the file (for free, no ads and no requests for donations). I wish everybody a chag kasher ve-samaech and good health.

In addition, unrelated to the commentary, as part of the Seder, we should all pray for peace in the land of Israel, the safety of our soldiers and the return of all of the captives from Gaza.

Andrew Schein

Table of Contents

Introduction to the Haggadah  

Bedikat hametz

Two systems of removing hametz from the house: Burning and annulling

Hiding bread in the house before doing the bedikat hametz

The blessing on bedikat hametz

The Seder plate

The history of the Seder plate

How many matzot are needed at the Seder?

The mnemonic of the Seder

How is one to sit at the Seder: Hasibah (Not leaning)

What does the word hasibah mean?

Do women need to do hasibah at the Seder?

Kiddush

The four cups of wine

The four words or verses of redemption (parshanut)

Karpas

Why is karpas part of the Seder?

How much karpas should a person eat?

Dipping the karpas

Yachatz and ha lachma anya

Is there a connection between reciting the sentence that begins with the words, ha lachma anya and yachatz, the breaking of the matzah?

Raising the Seder plate and uncovering the matzah when reciting ha lachma anya

The third sentence in the paragraph of ha lachma anya and living in the land of Israel

Maggid

The obligation to re-tell the story of the exodus from Egypt

Structure of the Maggid

Mah nishtanah: Covering the matzah by the mah nishtanah

Mah nishtanah: Popularity

Mah nishtanah: It’s source

Mah nishtanah: Who says the mah nishtanah?

Mah nishtanah: How many questions compromise the mah nishtanah?

Mah nishtanah: The order of the question of the mah nishtanah

Mah nishtanah: The answers

Lowly states: We were slaves and our forefathers were idolaters

The four words of baruch and the four sons

The four sons: Why four?

The four sons: How can one identify the traits of each son from the verses in the Torah?

The four sons: The answers to the evil son’s question

The four sons: The answer/ statement to the son who cannot ask a question

The flow of the Haggadah from Rav’s understanding of the change in our status to the interpretation of the verses in Devarim

The descendants of Avraham

Lifting a cup of wine and covering matzah twice during Maggid

The drush: Introduction

The drush: Devarim 26:5 - Arami oved avi (parshanut)

The drush: Devarim 26:5 - Va-yered mitzraymah

The drush:Devarim 26:5 - Va-yagar sham

The drush: Devarim 26:5 - Va-rav

The drush: Devarim 26:6 - And the Egyptians with evil intent treated us harshly

The drush: The first half of Devarim 26:7 - We cried to G-d

The drush: The second half of Devarim 26:7 - And G-d saw our affliction and our burdensome suffering (parshanut)

The drush: Devarim 26:8 - The plague of the firstborn Egyptians (parshanut)

The drush: The anti-Christian drush on Devarim 26:8?

The drush: Devarim 26:8 - Sixteen drops of wine

The drush: The ten plagues

The drush: Dzach adash beachav (parshanut)

R. Yosi ha-Galilee, R. Eliezer and R. Akiva

Dayenu

Rabban Gamliel

Matzah (parshanut)

Maror

A new song?

Dividing Hallel

Differences between reciting Hallel all year round and by the Seder

The blessing at the end of the Maggid

Matzah

How much matzah does one need to eat by the Seder?

Shemurah matzah

Charoset

Eating eggs by the beginning of the meal

Afikoman

The history of the term afikoman

Eating the afikoman before the middle of the night

Shefokh hamatcha

Hallel after birkat ha-mazon

Birkat ha-Shir

Hallel ha-Gadol

Songs at the end of the Seder

Seven songs

Ehad mi yode`a?

Chad gadya: Is there a message?

Chad gadya: Good and bad characters

Bibliography

 

Shemot chapters 25-39 – The special building (mishkan/ ohel moed) in the desert: The nitty gritty of its construction

Shemot chapters 36-39 record the building of the mishkan/ ohel moed. This was not a simple project. Was it possible for the Jewish people to have constructed this building and its courtyard? The construction had to happen relatively quickly. It seems that the project started after Moshe brought down the second set of tablets, luchot, which was at least 120 days after the Decalogue was pronounced in the third month of the first year of the people's stay in the desert (19:1), and the mishkan/ ohel moed was finished by the first month of the second year of the people's stay in the desert, 40:2, which gave less than six months for its construction.

One question is whether the people had the necessary skills in order to make the mishkan/ ohel moed? Could former slaves have the knowledge needed to do all the intricate metalwork?

Ibn Ezra (on 31:2) writes that Betzalel and Oholiav were chosen to be in charge of the work because they were the only ones who knew how to do the work. According to this idea, out of the entire population there were only two trained workers, but then maybe they would have been able to teach the other workers (see Ibn Ezra on 35:31-35).

Ramban (on 31:2 and 35:21) first notes that the people worked on bricks and mortar in Egypt and not metals, but then he writes that G-d gave those people who had the natural ability to do the work the necessary knowledge. This could be the idea of 36:1, also see 31:1-6 and 35:30-35. Accordingly, maybe the ability to make the mishkan/ ohel moed was another miracle that G-d performed for the people in the desert.

Modern commentators have made other suggestions. Nahum Sarna (1986, pp. 196-200) disputes the idea that the people were untrained. He notes that the people had "experienced firsthand for a considerable period of time the most materially advanced civilization of antiquity." For example, the funerary mask of King Tutankhamun (14th century BCE) is quite exquisite. According to this idea, it was very likely that amongst the Jewish people there were people who had the skills needed to build the mishkan/ ohel moed. Cassuto (1967, p. 327) adds that "for the working of the metals, they were able to utilize the services of the neighboring Kenite tribes."

A second question is where did the people get all the supplies that were needed for the mishkan/ ohel moed? These supplies include various metals, gold, silver and bronze (maybe copper), various dyes (techelet (purple/ blue), argaman (red/ blue) and tolatat ha-shani (bright red)), wood, wool, hides, special stones, linen, oil and spices. Note it is possible that Moshe told them what supplies were needed for the mishkan/ ohel moed before he went up to get the second set of luchot, which could have added a few more months for the people to gather all the supplies.

With regard to the gold and silver needed for the mishkan/ ohel moed, 12:35,36 record that the people had received gold and silver from the Egyptians when they left Egypt, which was in addition to any jewelry that they had acquired when they were slaves. Furthermore, we know that in antiquity Egypt has relatively large amounts of gold that it attained from the area that today is Southeastern Egypt/ Northern Sudan, but then was called Nubia or Kush, see Schorsch (2017). Egypt also had silver, though seemingly less amounts than gold, since it acquired the silver just through trade, see Schorsch (2018).

With regard to bronze (copper?) that was also needed for the mishkan/ ohel moed, most likely the people, even as slaves, had this metal, as 12:34 refers to bowls that the people had to place their dough, and these bowls were most likely bronze (or copper). Also, 38:8 notes that bronze was used for mirrors and was then probably a common household item.

With regard to the animal skins, wool and goat's hair, Cassuto (1967, p. 327) notes that 12:38 records that the people had large amounts of flocks which could have provided the necessary quantity of these materials. (One of the needed hides, techashim, 25:5, is a mystery, and hence if the item is unknown, one cannot determine how difficult or easy it was to acquire the object.)

With regard to the dyes, oil, and spices that were part of the mishkan/ ohel moed, Cassuto (1967, p. 327) also suggests that these could have been purchased from passing caravans if the people did not have them. (Interestingly, dyed wool with red and blue stripes from around 1,000 BCE, around 200-400 (?) years before the time of the people in the desert, was found in the southern Negev by Timna, see Hasson (2017) and Efrati and Ruth Schuster (2016).) Similarly, with regard to the linen (shesh), maybe the people could have bought the linen from travelling merchants. Yet, was trading a real possibility? In the first year of the people’s stay in the desert, were they camped near trade routes? Would traders have sought them out in the middle of the desert? Even if yes, would these traders have had all the dyes, the techelet, argaman and tolatat ha-shani, that were needed? Furthermore, as noted by the Ibn Ezra (on 25:5), 35:23,24 record that the many of the items were brought from what the people had, which could imply that the people did not acquire these items through trades. However, Cassuto (1967, p. 458) argues that these verses state the most common source for the materials and do not exclude other possibilities of acquiring the items through trade.

With regard to the dyes and the linen, the most likely source were the Egyptian gifts that the people received when they were leaving Egypt. Both 3:22, the first mention of the gifts, and 12:35, the actual record of the giving of these gifts, record that the Jewish people received dresses from the Egyptians. The Egyptian dresses could have been made of linen, wool or other fabrics, and many of them could have been decorated with the dyes techelet, argaman and tolatat ha-shani. The Jewish people would have been able to take apart these dresses, and separate the threads of the dresses. The people could then have taken the threads which were already dyed with the different colors and combined these threads together to make the items that were needed for the mishkan/ ohel moed.

This idea of trading could apply to the oil, which was only needed at the end of the process for the consecration of the mishkan/ ohel moed and for lighting the menorah afterwards, both of which do need seem to have required large quantities of olive oil and olive oil is fairly common in the Middle East, though not in the desert. Maybe the trading was also the source of the spices, which would have come from areas east of the Sinai Desert, and most likely there were traders who sold spices. Note, the phrase “what the people had” in 35:23,24 is not recorded in conjunction with oil and spices, which suggests that either traders sold it to the people or people were sent out to acquire these items.

Another item needed were special stones for the clothing of the high priests, and 35:27 records that the chieftains donated these stones. Hizkuni (on 35:26) writes that the chieftains had acquired these stones from the Egyptians when the people left Egypt. Again, based on the idea that the people acquired dresses from the Egyptians, then it is possible that there were stones on some of these dresses. It is also possible that the chieftains had these stones before the night of the Exodus as even though the people had been slaves, maybe some of the people had "connections" and would have been able to acquire precious stones. Also, it is possible that the chieftains bought the stones from caravans traveling through the area or the chieftains went out of the camp to seek traders. Finally, it is likely that the choice of stones were based on what the people had or could acquire.

Another item that was needed for the mishkan/ ohel moed was wood, atsei shittim, 25:5, which are thought to be acacia trees. (This question might also apply to the cedar wood by the ashes of the parah adumah, Bemidbar 19:6, but there was much more time to acquire this wood.) Bereshit Rabbah 94:4 and Shir ha-Shirim Rabbah 1:12 (see Rashi on 25:5) quote R. Levi who states that the wood came from the Galilee (where suitable trees grew) that Yaakov had taken the wood down with him when he went to Egypt, and the people had planted the wood when they were in Egypt. This seems quite incredible. Ibn Ezra (on 25:5, also see Hizkuni on 25:5 and Cassuto, 1967, p. 237) suggests that there was a plentiful supply of acacia tress in the desert. However, Ziony Zevit (1992) points out that the type of acacia tree that grows in the area where the people were located starts branching out about half a meter from the ground, which means that its wood would not have been tall enough to use for the planks/ beams of the mishkan/ ohel moed that were ten cubits high, 26:16. (I was once in a tiyul in Mitspeh Ramon, and was told by a guide that in some parts of the Negev (Nahal Paran) the acacia tree grows 8 meters, which would have tall enough. Who knows?)

A crucial question is how much is an amah, cubit? A cubit is the distance from the middle finger to the elbow, but how long is this? One popular definition is 18 inches or 45 centimeters. For example, Greenfield (1982) argues that it was 44 centimeters. With this definition, 10 cubits were approximately 4.5 meters. On the other hand, since people were smaller in olden times, as from military records of British soldiers in the 18th century, they were on average twenty centimeters shorter than today (see Flood, Fogel, Harris and Hong, 2012), then a cubit might have been a little less.

The simplest way to understand how the people had enough wood to build the mishkan/ ohel moed is an anonymous opinion quoted by Ibn Ezra (short comments on 25:5) that the wood could have been connected from smaller pieces. (A friend of mine, Yair Alex noted to me that there are ways to connect wooden pieces without any binding material.)

A beam/ plank comprising smaller pieces would not be that strong, but the wood in the mishkan/ ohel moed did not have to support much weight, and the walls of the mishkan/ ohel moed were reinforced by beams going around them and silver holding the bottoms together, 26:16-29. The beams which held the parochet were also held together with silver bottoms, 26:32. Also, the beams that held the curtains both by the entrance to the special building and to the courtyard had bronze bottoms bases to support them, 26:37, 27:10-17 and there were also pegs and ropes for more support, 27:19, 35:18 and 39:40.

With this understanding that the woods used in the mishkan/ ohel moed were combined pieces for the longer planks/ beams, there were many ways for the Jewish people to have acquired the necessary wood. One, some of the trees in the desert could have bene used even if not the correct height. Two, maybe some traders had pieces of wood that they were willing to sell. Three, the Egyptian chariots that drowned at Yam Suf could have made from wood, and the Jewish people could have taken wood that flowed to the surface. Four, as we discuss on 14:1-31, "The miracle at Yam Suf: Bait," the Egyptians had forts in the Sinai desert, and it was the soldiers from these forts who attacked the people at Yam Suf. Maybe the Jewish people pillaged the forts after the soldiers drowned, and maybe these forts had wooden structures which could have been dismembered. Five, maybe the people had wooden wagons when they left Egypt, which they could have taken apart.

Accordingly, it seems that there were enough people to have the necessary skills to build the mishkan/ ohel moed, and it was possible for the Jewish people to have acquired all the building materials need to construct the mishkan/ ohel moed.

Bibliography:

Cassuto, Umberto (1883-1951), 1967, A commentary on the book of Exodus, Jerusalem: The Magnes Press.

Efrati, Ido and Ruth Schuster, 2016, First Textiles From King David Era Discovered at Timna Copper Mines, Haaretz, February 24.

Flood, Roderick, Robert W. Fogel, Bernard Harris and Sok Chul Hong, 2012, The Changing Body: Health, Nutrition and human development in the western world since 1700, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Greenfield, Abraham Yehuda, 1982, “Middah ke-Neged Middah, Moriyah, 7-8 (127-128), Tammuz 5742, pp. 59-86.

Hasson, Nir, 2017, Brightly Dyed, 3,000-year Old Textiles From King David-era Found in Southern Israel, Haaretz, Jun 28.

Sarna, Nahum (1923-2005), 1986, Exploring Exodus, New York: Schocken Books.

Schorsch, Deborah. 2017. “Gold in Ancient Egypt.” In Heilbrunn Timeline of Art History. New York: The Metropolitan Museum of Art, 2000–. http://www.metmuseum.org/toah/hd/egold/hd_egold.htm. Accessed March 2025.

Schorsch, Deborah, 2018, “Silver in Ancient Egypt.” In Heilbrunn Timeline of Art History. New York: The Metropolitan Museum of Art, 2000–. http://www.metmuseum.org/toah/hd/silv/hd_silv.htm. Accessed March 2025.

Zevit, Ziony, 1992, Timber for the Tabernacle: Text, Tradition and Realia, Eretz-Israel, 23, pp. 136-143.

Shemot 25:1 - Shemot 40:38 – The special building (mishkan/ ohel moed) in the desert: Why?

Shemot chapter 25 starts a new and final unit in book of Shemot, which excluding the story of the sin of the golden calf and its aftermath, encompasses all the chapters from 25 through 40, the end of the book of Shemot. In this unit, the Torah first records the instructions and then the building of a special building and its courtyard within the camp of the Jewish people. There are three different terms that are used in the Torah to describe this special building, the mikdash, the mishkan, and ohel moed. While I think that many people believe these terms are synonyms, my hypothesis is that the terms refer to three distinct configurations. My understanding is that the term mikdash refers to a place which has a collection of special items (furniture) that are used to worship G-d, the term mishkan refers to the enclosed area made by the walls around the special furniture including the first covering, ceiling, of the special furniture, and the term ohel moed refers to the entire complex of the courtyard and the tent/ building which enclosed the special furniture, see our discussions on 25:8,9; 27:21, “The terms mikdash, mishkan and ohel moed in the book of Shemot," on Vayikra 1:1, “The terms mikdash, mishkan and ohel moed in the book of Vayikra," and on Bemidbar 1:1, “The terms mikdash, mishkan, and ohel moed in the books of Bemidbar and Devarim.”

In this discussion and throughout this commentary on the Torah, I use the term mishkan/ ohel moed to refer to the special building and its courtyard, in case people are unaware of my definitions of the three terms or do not accept my definitions. In this discussion, we will try to understand what was the purpose of the mishkan/ ohel moed, as it seems to have had great importance given the many chapters devoted to the instructions and building of the special building, its furniture and courtyard.

One approach is that the mishkan/ ohel moed was built in order to have a place to offer sacrifices, see Rambam, Laws of the Chosen Place 1:1. Yet, sacrifices could be offered without a mishkan/ ohel moed. For example, the Jewish people offered the pesach offering in Egypt, 12:27,28, and Yaakov offered sacrifices on his way down to Egypt, Bereshit 46:1. Also, most of the items in the mishkan/ ohel moed, such as the aron, the menorah and the shulchan do not relate to sacrifices. Sacrifices were brought on the altar in the courtyard of the mishkan/ ohel moed, but it seems that this altar was less important than the aron and the other items located within the special building since the aron was made of gold, 25:10-18, while the altar in the courtyard was made of bronze, 27:1-6. However, following the Rambam’s idea (1963, Moreh 3:32) that G-d does not really “like” sacrifices, maybe the goal was to limit the sacrifices to being offered in one place and to minimize their significance. This would be a negative reason for the mishkan/ ohel moed.

A variation of this first approach with a positive perspective is that the mishkan/ ohel moed would be a place to pray. Sefer Ha-hinukh (quoted by N. Leibowitz, 1976, p. 482) writes that the building of a special building in G-d’s name was to put people in the right frame of mind to worship G-d through prayer and sacrifices. This rationale seems true of the Bet ha-Mikdash and in theory our synagogues, but there is no record that the people prayed at the mishkan/ ohel moed in the desert.

A second approach, which has many variations, is that the purpose of the mishkan/ ohel moed was for there to be a place where G-d's presence (G-d's glory?) would "dwell" amongst the people. The proof for this idea is that both by the beginning of the instructions to build the mishkan/ ohel moed, 25:8, and towards the end of the instructions, 29:45,46, the Torah records that G-d would “dwell” amongst the people, and implication is that the “dwelling” was within the mishkan/ ohel moed. While the appearance of G-d's presence would in itself be sufficient reason for the mishkan/ ohel moed, commentators have suggested various reasons that relate to G-d's presence, see for example. Ibn Ezra, short comments, end of comments on 25:7. We now will list some of these secondary reasons for the mishkan/ ohel moed that relate to G-d’s presence being in the mishkan/ ohel moed.

One (2a), G-d's presence in the mishkan/ ohel moed was a sign of the cloud of G-d. In class, David Barrett suggested that this idea was according to Ibn Ezra’s (short commentary on 13:22 and long commentary on 15:22) opinion that the cloud left the people after the splitting of Yam Suf, and then the mishkan/ ohel moed would serve to remember this cloud.

Two (2b), G-d's presence in the mishkan/ ohel moed made it the designated place where Moshe would speak to G-d, 25:22, see Rashbam on 25:8. Ibn Ezra (long comments, on 25:1) explains that the mishkan/ ohel moed saved Moshe from having to go up the mountain all the time. However, while the mishkan/ ohel moed was the most obvious place for divine communication, it is unlikely that this was the prime reason for the mishkan/ ohel moed since many times, as in Egypt, G-d spoke to Moshe outside of the mishkan/ ohel moed.

Three (2c), G-d's presence in the mishkan/ ohel moed made a great name for the Jewish people and it would have attracted non-Jews to come and learn about Judaism. Yet, in the desert, we have no record of non-Jews (other than maybe Yitro) visiting the camp. This reason would be more appropriate to the Bet ha-Mikdash in Jerusalem.

Four (2d), G-d's presence in the mishkan/ ohel moed was to cause the people to refrain from becoming impure, sinning or lying when they saw the mishkan/ ohel moed and G-d’s presence.

A fifth secondary reason (2e) within the idea that the purpose of the mishkan/ ohel moed was to be the place for G-d's presence to appear is from the Ramban (introduction to chapter 25 and introduction to the book of Shemot). He writes that G-d’s presence in the mishkan/ ohel moed was situated above the aron, and the Divine Presence was to replicate the cloud that was on Mount Sinai, 24:16. The mishkan/ ohel moed was then a traveling mini- Mount Sinai. Similarly, just like G-d spoke to Moshe on Mount Sinai, 24:18, so too G-d would speak to Moshe in the mishkan/ ohel moed, 25:22.

Cassuto (1967, pp. 319, 484) follows the Ramban's approach. He explains that when the people were camped at Mount Sinai, they were conscious of G-d’s nearness, but once they would leave Mount Sinai, the mishkan/ ohel moed provided a tangible symbol of G-d’s presence amongst them. Cassuto argues that the commandment to build the mishkan/ ohel moed is recorded after the covenant was recorded since the mishkan/ ohel moed was a perpetual extension of the bond that was forged at Mount Sinai. Similarly, Berman (1995, p. 52) follows this approach and writes that the aron and the two altars “simulated different aspects of the Sinai experience.”

Notwithstanding the popularity of the traveling mini-Mount Sinai approach, I doubt that the point of the mishkan/ ohel moed was in order for G-d's presence to dwell amongst the people since the cloud of G-d and G-d's glory appeared independent of the mishkan/ ohel moed even after the building of the mishkan/ ohel moed, see Bemidbar 11:25 and Bemidbar 14:10, though in Bemidbar 14:10, the appearance of G-d’s glory was quite ominous. Even if G-d had not commanded the people to build a mishkan/ ohel moed,  G-d's presence could still have appeared amongst the people, as for example in some restricted area with no special building, or outside the camp.

A third rationale for the commandment to build the mishkan/ ohel moed is that there was a need for a suitable place for the luchot, the tablets (see Rashbam on 25:10 and Tigay, 2004, p. 166). This understanding accords with the idea that the most important item in the mishkan/ ohel moed was the aron, which stored the luchot, see Shemot Rabbah 34:2. The mishkan/ ohel moed was then one element in the establishment of the covenant, and this is why the building of the mishkan/ ohel moed was recorded after the covenant was made. In fact, 24:12 records that Moshe was to go up to Mount Sinai to get the luchot and then chapter 25 begins with the description of the mishkan/ ohel moed. In addition, right before Moshe descended from Mount Sinai, Shemot 31:18 records that G-d gave Moshe the luchot and he descended from the mountain with them. Thus, the entire section, 25:1-31:11, which records the instructions to build the mishkan/ ohel moed and laws about Shabbat, 32:12-17, is framed by Moshe receiving the luchot. Yet, the mishkan/ ohel moed seems to be a very elaborate structure just for the luchot, but the luchot were written by G-d (31:18, 32:15,16), which meant they have to be treated in a very, very special manner.

Sarna (1986, pp. 208, 209, see also Cassuto, 1967, pp. 331,332) notes that in a treaty between Egypt and the Hittites from around 1269 B.C.E., it is recorded that a copy of the treaty was to be placed "beneath the feet of the god of the respective parties." The mishkan/ ohel moed follows this same pattern, as the luchot in the aron were the written record of the covenant between G-d and the Jewish people. Furthermore, on top of the aron were the keruvim, which were symbolically a portal to G-d, 25:22, and then the aron could be considered metaphorically as the footstool of G-d. (Note, Chronicles I 28:2, Psalms 99:5 and 132:7 that refer to the mishkan/ ohel moed as the footstool of G-d.)

(The luchot are referred to as the luchot ha-`edut, or just edut, the tablets of the testimony since they were a witness to the covenant between G-d and the Jewish people, 25:21, 31:18, 32:15, 34:29, and 40:20. The luchot were also called luchot ha-brit, tablets of the Covenant in Devarim 9:9,11,15.  Thus, the crucial idea of the aron was that it contained the luchot, see Talmudic Encyclopedia 1979, 2:179. Sarna notes that this was radically different than other ancient shrines where the key item was the idol, while here it was the luchot.)

Cassuto (1967, p. 331) asks why were the luchot in the aron if the people had no access to the aron? He answers that undoubtedly there were copies of the luchot, but the original was in the aron for safekeeping. Possibly, the luchot were not for the people to read from, but their presence in the aron was to register the existence of the covenant between G-d and the Jewish people.

With this third approach, the mishkan/ ohel moed had to be built in order to have an appropriate place for the luchot. Once the luchot were in the mishkan/ ohel moed, then this would be the most appropriate place for G-d's presence to appear. Thus, 25:8 could be understood to mean that G-d's presence amongst the people was an outcome of the building of the mishkan/ ohel moed, but not that it was dependent on the building of the mishkan/ ohel moed.  Also, once the mishkan/ ohel moed was where the luchot were situated, then this would be the obvious place to offer sacrifices.

These two approaches to why there was a need for the mishkan/ ohel moed, the traveling mini-Mount Sinai approach and a suitable place for the luchot, are not antithetical and could even be combined (Cassuto), but there are differences between them. 

One difference is whether the commandment to build the mishkan/ ohel moed occurred before the sin of the golden calf. There is no definite answer to this question according to the traveling mini-Mount Sinai approach. One could argue, as the Ramban (on 25:1) does that the presence of G-d was always needed even if there was no sin of the golden calf, or one could follow Rashi (on see his comments on 30:16 and 31:18) that the mishkan/ ohel moed as a place for the Divine Presence to appear was only needed after the people sinned. However, if one follows the idea that the mishkan/ ohel moed was in order that there be a suitable place for the luchot, then one would have to maintain that the command to build the mishkan/ ohel moed was before the sin of the golden calf since with this approach the storing of the luchot was part of the establishment of the covenant. Even if the people had never sinned with the golden calf, still there would have been a need for a special place to put the luchot.

A second difference between the two approaches is whether G-d’s glory was always in the mishkan/ ohel moed. According to the traveling mini-Mount Sinai approach, G-d’s glory would always have to have been in the mishkan/ ohel moed since otherwise the mishkan/ ohel moed would no longer be a mini- Mount Sinai. However, if the mishkan/ ohel moed was in order that there be a suitable place for the luchot, then G-d’s glory was not an intrinsic part of the mishkan/ ohel moed. When the mishkan/ ohel moed was completed, G-d’s glory appeared, 40:34,35, but this was just an initiation of the mishkan/ ohel moed. This appearance would show G-d’s approval of the mishkan/ ohel moed, but then the glory of G-d could have left. 

Bibliography:

Berman, Joshua, 1995, The Temple, Northvale: New Jersey: Jason Aronson Inc.

Cassuto, Umberto (1883-1951), 1967, A commentary on the book of Exodus, Jerusalem: The Magnes Press.

Leibowitz, Nehama (1905-1997), 1976, Studies in Shemot, translated by Aryeh Newman, Jerusalem: The World Zionist Organization.

Rambam (1138-1204), 1963, Guide to the perplexed (Moreh Nevukhim), translation by Shlomo Pines, Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.

Sarna, Nahum (1923-2005), 1986, Exploring Exodus, New York: Schocken Books.

Tigay, Jeffrey H., 2004, Introduction and annotations to Exodus, in The Jewish Study Bible, edited by Adele Berlin and Marc Zvi Brettler, Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 102-202.

Shemot 9:34,35 – The two types of hardening of Pharaoh’s heart, va-yachbed and va-yechezak and two types of thinking, system one and system two

By each plague, the Torah records that Pharaoh's heart was hardened that he would refuse to let the Jewish people leave Egypt, but by the seventh plague, hail, this information is recorded twice. Shemot 9:34 records, va-yachbed lebo, and then Shemot 9:35 records ve-yechezak leb Pharaoh. Why is information repeated? In addition, the Torah uses two different words, va-yachbed and ve-yechezak to express this hardening of Pharaoh's heart. Are these words synonyms or do they express a different idea? (Note the Torah is written based on the common understanding of its time that the heart is the organ that controls a person’s thought.)

Daniel Kahneman (2011, Nobel laureate, the nephew of Rabbi Yosef Shlomo Kahneman, the founder of Ponevezh Yeshiva in Bnei Brak, and in high school and in university was a student of Yeshayahu Leibowitz) presents a fascinating description of how the human mind works, that there are two systems in the brain. The first system immediately appraises situations and responds intuitively, while the second system responds slower and with more thought. The second system is the "conscious reasoning self" but its usage involves more effort and work. The second system has the ability to override the first system, but it is lazy. Thus, the natural inclination is for the first system to function, but when it is stymied, then the second system takes over.

This distinction in the thinking process of the human mind can explain the different terminology, va-yachbed and ve-yechezak. The word va-yachbed refers to the first system of thinking that intuitively Pharaoh would refuse to let the people leave Egypt, while the word ve-yechezak refers to the second system of human thought that after some thought Pharaoh would refuse to let the Jewish people leave Egypt.

4:21 records that notwithstanding all of the wonders that G-d would do, G-d would achazek the heart of Pharaoh until the tenth plague. The wonders could refer to the three signs recorded in 4:3,6,9 or maybe the first nine plagues, but in any event, after a repeated set of miracles, both the intuitive reaction and thoughtful re-action would be for a person to be impressed and let the Jewish people go. However, in 4:21, G-d says that by these cases, G-d would harden Pharaoh’s heart that G-d would cause Pharaoh to concoct reasons why these set of signs were not significant, and this thinking is indicative of the second system of thinking. Thus, even if Pharaoh was impressed intuitively and would be inclined to let the people go, G-d made sure that his system two caused him to refuse to let the Jewish people leave Egypt.

The next reference to G-d hardening Pharaoh’s heart is 7:3, but here the word used is aksheh, which covers both ways of thinking.

The next case of Pharaoh’s heart being hardened is 7:13, which uses the word ve-yechezak after Aharon's staff swallowed the staff of the Egyptian magicians. (This miracle might refer back to 4:21.) This miracle was impressive, and the intuitive response would have been to agree to let the people leave. However, Pharaoh's system two of thinking took over, and he might have reasoned that this was only one trick or he was unimpressed for another reason, so he did not agree to let the Jewish people go.

In the following verse, 7:14, before the first plague, G-d told Moshe that Pharaoh's heart was hardened. The word used is cabed, which means that G-d was telling Moshe that Pharaoh's intuitive thoughts, gut impulse, was not to free the Jewish people, as the miracle of the swallowing of the staffs was then “ancient history” for Pharaoh.

By the first plague, Moshe turned the Nile into blood in front of Pharaoh, see our discussion on 7:14-25, “A bloody mess.” This act surely impressed him and should have changed his gut impulse to let the Jewish people leave. However, afterwards, his magicians were also able to turn water into blood. Even though the magicians' act was not as impressive as turning the Nile into blood, still this was enough for Pharaoh's second system to override his impression from Moshe's act, and then the Torah uses the word ve-yechezak, 7:22.  In addition, the hardening of Pharaoh’s heart was when the negative effects of the first plague were still existent, which meant that his gut re-action should have been to free the people to end the effects of the plague, but here Pharaoh’s second system of thinking overcame his gut impression, as maybe he reasoned that the effects of the plague could be overcome.   

At the end of the next plague, frogs, 8:11 records that ve-hachbed the heart of Pharaoh. Here Pharaoh’s intuitive re-action at this point was not to be swayed by the plague since the plague was over, as noted by the beginning of 8:11, and there was no need for him to rationalize why the miracle was not impressive.

By the third plague, the magicians admitted that the plague was an act of G-d, 8:15, so Pharaoh's intuitive response should have been to agree to let the Jewish people go. However, again his second system overcame his intuition, he refused to let the people go, and the Torah uses the word ve-yechezak. (A possible reason for why Pharaoh did not listen to his magicians, is because they knew all along that they were not able to duplicate the plagues and that G-d was helping them, but Pharaoh thought that they really had the ability to duplicate the plagues. Thus, by the third plague, the magicians admitted what they already knew, but for Pharaoh, this was the first time that the magicians could not copy the plague, and for him one time was not enough to lose his slaves. I thank Eric Sommers for this idea.)

At the end of the fourth plague, 8:28 records that va-yachbed Pharaoh of his heart since, just like by the end of the second plague, once the plague was over, then his intuitive re-action was to be unimpressed.

Similarly, by the end of the fifth plague, 9:7 records that va-yechbad the heart of Pharaoh. Again, once the plague was over, then there was no need for a great justification for why the plague should not persuade him to let the Jewish people leave. Instead, Pharaoh followed his first system of intuitive thinking to not let the Jewish people leave Egypt, see our discussion on 9:1-7, "The fifth plague: The fate of the animals during the plagues in Egypt."

The sixth plague, boils, was a very painful plague, and again as by the third plague, his magicians were unable to stop the plague. Accordingly, Pharaoh's intuitive response and his second system of thinking should have been to let the Jewish people leave. However, by this plague, the Torah specifically records that G-d intervened, 9:12. The idea here is that G-d intervened by Pharaoh’s second thoughtful system to not let the people go, possibly by not having the plague affect Pharaoh, and the Torah uses the word ve-yechazek, 9:12.

The seventh plague, hail, is where the Torah uses both ve-yachbed and ve-yechezak. First, 9:34 records that Pharaoh saw that the plague ended, and hence his intuitive response (and his advisors), as by the end of the second, fourth and fifth plagues, was not to let the people go. Thus, the Torah uses the word ve-yachbed. However, after seven plagues, Pharaoh should have thought some more, and his second thoughtful system should have overcome his intuitive reaction, and agreed to let the people go. Yet, in 9:35, the Torah uses the word ve-yechezak to indicate that for some reason (G-d intervened?) Pharaoh’s second system of thinking convinced him not to agree to let the Jewish people go.

The following verse, 10:1 then records that G-d hecbadeti the hearts of Pharaoh and his advisors. This verse apparently refers to all of the plagues up to this point, and the idea would be that G-d made it that both Pharaoh and his advisors’ intuitive thoughts (their first system of thinking, see 9:34) were not to let the Jewish people go since at that moment there was no plague or a threat of a plague. Yet, there was a difference between Pharaoh and his advisors. After hearing the warning about the next plague, the eighth plague, locusts, Pharaoh's advisors urged him to let the Jewish people leave, 10:7. By these advisors, their second system of thinking was overcoming their first system of thinking and G-d did not harden their second system of thinking to stop it from overcoming their first system of thinking. However, by Pharaoh, G-d also hardened his second system of thinking, as indicated in 9:35, and Pharaoh refused to let the people go, 8:11.

In the following two plagues, locusts and three days of darkness, the Torah only uses the word ve-yechezak, 10:20,27. In these cases, even after the plague was over, due to the cumulative number of plagues, Pharaoh’s second thoughtful system of thinking should have overcome his intuitive system of thinking and he should have agreed that the Jewish people could leave.   However, since there was a desire for there to be the tenth plague, G-d hardened Pharaoh's second system of thinking that he would not let the Jewish people leave Egypt. Similarly, 11:10 records that G-d va-yichazek the heart of Pharaoh since after the nine plagues, Pharaoh’s second system of thinking should have led him to let the Jewish people go, but G-d intervened that Pharaoh’s second system of thinking convinced Pharaoh not to let the Jewish people leave Egypt.

The final cases where G-d hardened Pharaoh’s heart was by Yam Suf, 14:4,8,17, and here the words are ve-chizakati, va-yechzak and me-chazek. After the ten plagues, the second thoughtful system of thinking should have convinced Pharaoh and the Egyptians not to chase after the Jewish people at Yam Suf, but G-d wanted there to be the miracle of Yam Suf, see our discussion on 14:4-31, “The miracle at Yam Suf: Bait.” Accordingly, G-d hardened Pharaoh's and his soldiers second system of thinking to chase after the Jewish people and hence the word used is va-yechzak or its variations.

Bibliography:

Kahneman, Daniel (1934-2024), 2011, Thinking, fast and slow, New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux

Bereshit chapter 40 - Yosef, the chief cupbearer and the chief baker in prison

Bereshit 40:1 records that a cupbearer (butler ?) and a baker who both worked for the king of Egypt sinned against the king of Egypt and then 40:2 records that Pharaoh (who was the king of Egypt) got angry at the chief cupbearer and at the chief baker. 40:2 seems repetitious after 40:1 already informed us that the cupbearer and the baker sinned. 

While many (see for example, Sarna, 1989, p. 276) understood that 40:1 and 40:2 are referring to the same people, more likely, 40:1 is referring to some subordinates who sinned against the king and most likely they were killed, as possibly Pharaoh thought they had tried to kill him. 40:2 is then referring to their superiors that they did not sin directly against the king but Pharaoh was angry at them because he blamed them for their subordinates who sinned. Thus, the chief cupbearer and the chief baker were not killed, but were sent to prison.  Eventually Pharaoh would decide that the chief cupbearer was not responsible for his subordinate’s action while the chief baker was responsible, and hence the chief cupbearer returned to his position, while the chief baker was killed, 40:21,22.

40:3 records that the chief cupbearer and chief baker happened to have been imprisoned in the same prison where Yosef was imprisoned, and 40:4 records that the warden of the prison put Yosef, his second in command, 39:22, in charge of attending his special prisoners, the chief cupbearer and the chief baker.

40:5,6 records that each of the special prisoners had a dream, but they were distraught. In the case of the chief baker, his dream was ominous since it included birds eating from the top of his head, 40:17, but what was ominous about the dream of the cupbearer? The answer is that the dream of the cupbearer included grapes being pressed, va-eschat, 40:11, which might have insinuated that the cupbearer was going to be killed.

40:7,8 records that Yosef asked the two men why they were upset, and when they said it was due to their dreams, Yosef, with his usual self-confidence, told him that he would be able to interpret their dreams.

40:9-11 records the dream of the chief cupbearer, and as occurs in the three sets of dreams in the story of Yosef, the first dream in each set of dreams has two distinct elements that are not in the second dream of the set. 

The first distinct element in the chief cupbearer's dream is that his dream is longer than the chief baker's dream and has apparently extraneous information to the interpretation of the dream. In this dream, the cupbearer saw a vine with three branches, the vine had shoots, then flowers and then the clusters ripened into grapes, 40:11. While the three branches are important to understanding the timing of the dream, the growth of the grapes (the shoots, the flowers and the clusters) is unnecessary for the interpretation of the dream that the chief cupbearer would return to his job. It would have been sufficient for the cupbearer to have dreamt that he took grapes from three branches and squeezed them into Pharaoh’s cup.

Instead, as by the other sets of dreams, this extra information was for Yosef. The three stages in the development of the grapes correspond to the three stages in the development of Yosef. First Yosef developed in his father’s house, then he developed working for Potiphar, and then he developed working in the prison. With these three experiences he was ready to become the leader of Egypt. It could be that Yosef understood this message and this is why he asked the chief cupbearer to remember him to Pharaoh, though of course, he might have asked him anyway.

The second distinct element of the chief cupbearer's dream is that his dream records the dreamer (the chief cupbearer) being active that the chief cupbearer took the grapes, pressed them, and put them in Pharaoh’s cup. (I thank Aaron Israel for pointing out this distinction to me.) The significance of this action is that the first dream is more essential than the second dream in the set of dreams, and in this case, it is essential that the chief cupbearer returns to his work, and recommends Yosef to Pharaoh.

40:12,13 then record that Yosef interpreted the chief cupbearer's dream that the chief cupbearer would return to his previous position with the king. Afterwards, 40:14,15 record that Yosef asked the chief cupbearer to speak on his behalf to Pharaoh.  Evidently, Yosef thought that the chief cupbearer would be able to help him get out prison. The Ralbag (seventh benefit at the end of parashat Va-yeshev), writes that from Yosef’s behavior we learn that a person should not rely on miracles, but must make every possible effort to help one’s self. Accordingly, the Ralbag views Yosef’s behavior very positively. (I thank Adam Klein for pointing out this source to me.) In fact, Yosef repeats this same action, when after interpreting Pharaoh’s dream, he added on that Pharaoh should appoint a person (i.e., himself) to save Egypt, 41:33-36,

However, Chazal view Yosef's request very negatively. The Midrash (Bereshit Rabbah 89:2,3, also see 88:7, quoted in Rashi on 40:23) writes that Yosef had to spend an extra two years in prison because he twice asked the chief cupbearer for help instead of relying on G-d. This Midrash has led to a whole discussion about the proper amount of effort in this world, (see Nachshoni, 1987, pp. 160-164) but did Yosef really sin?

I doubt that Yosef sinned by asking the chief cupbearer for help since Yosef was eventually saved by the chief cupbearer. If Yosef acted inappropriately, then he should have been saved in a different manner. For example, Potifar could have mentioned Yosef to Pharaoh. Furthermore, in total, thirteen years passed from the time that Yosef was sold to Egypt to when he became head of Egypt (37:2, 41:36), is there any reason to think that just the jail time should have been shortened?

Presumably, according to the Midrash, Pharaoh was really supposed to have had his dreams immediately after the chief cupbearer returned to his position. Yet, if Pharaoh had his dreams immediately after the chief cupbearer left prison, maybe the cupbearer would not have mentioned Yosef at that time since telling Pharaoh of Yosef meant reminding Pharaoh of his sins and he would not have wanted to remind Pharaoh about his previous sins so quickly after he was released from prison. There needed to be some time to pass to give the chief cupbearer the gumption to mention Yosef's skills, and hence Pharaoh's dream had to occur after the chief cupbearer deemed it safe to recall his previous time in prison. Thus, while Yosef might have hoped that the chief cupbearer would immediately remember him to Pharaoh, more likely his real hope was that in the future, the chief cupbearer would recall his skills, which is what happened.

Robert Sacks (1990, p. 351) notes that when Yosef asked the chief cupbearer to remember him, Yosef said  “when it goes well with you,” 40:14.  This phrase does not refer to when the chief cupbearer would be restored to his position. Instead, Yosef requested the chief cupbearer to remember him when the right opportunity would arise (also see Siftei Chachamim on 40:14). According to this, Yosef was trusting in G-d that G-d would arrange for an opportunity for the chief cupbearer to remember Yosef, which is what occurred by the dreams of Pharaoh.

40:16,17 then records the dream of the chief baker and 40:18,19 records Yosef's interpretation of this dream. Is this second dream necessary to the story as the chief baker dies without telling anybody about Yosef?

The answer is that both the chief cupbearer and the chief baker had to have dreams in order that Yosef could have both a “good” interpretation that the dreamer went free from prison, and a “bad” interpretation that the dreamer died. The importance of Yosef’s interpretation of the dreams was that the person who went free would help Yosef get out of prison in recognition of Yosef’s help and/ or abilities. Accordingly, one person had to go free from prison. Yet, if there had been only one dream, Yosef would have had to give a “good” interpretation since a “bad” interpretation would have been useless even if correct because the person would have died without being able to tell people of Yosef’s abilities. One might answer that even with one dream, the timing of the dream, three days, showed Yosef’s abilities, but if it was well known that Pharaoh was going to have his celebration in three days, then this would have been an opportune time to either pardon or punish criminals. This means that one “good” interpretation would not have demonstrated Yosef’s abilities. Thus, there was a need for another dream with a "bad" outcome. With one “good” interpretation of the chief cupbearer's dream and one “bad” interpretation of the chief baker's dream, then the chief cupbearer would have known that Yosef could interpret dreams.

We see the need for the dream of the chief baker that when the chief cupbearer told Pharaoh of Yosef, he mentioned both that Yosef correctly interpreted his dream, and that Yosef correctly interpreted the dream of the chief baker, 41:9-13.

40:20-22 then records that Yosef's interpretations came true and 40:23 ends chapter 40 by recording that when the chief cupbearer was restored to his previous post, he forgot Yosef (lo zachar) and that he forgot him (va-yishchachehu). This verse repeats that the cupbearer forgot Yosef.  Sarna (1989, p. 280) writes that the double language "is purely idiomatic and means complete forgetfulness." Yet, from 41:9-13, we see that the chief cupbearer did not forget Yosef as he mentioned Yosef to Pharaoh.

I think the word zachor in the Torah should be understood to mean to act upon some memory, and then the first forgetting in 40:23 means that initially when the chief cupbearer left prison he did not mention Yosef to Pharaoh (see Rashi and the Rashbam on 40:23), which was to be expected since then he would have had to re-call his stay in prison and possible crime. The second forgetting was that he did not tell anybody, his wife, his family, about Yosef in order to help him forget Yosef, but he never really forgot about Yosef.  Accordingly, when he saw that it was to his advantage to mention Yosef to Pharaoh, 41:9 records that he remembered (zachor) his sins, which means that he decided to act upon his memory of Yosef.  This action by the chief cupbearer brought Yosef to Pharaoh's notice and chapter 40 is then crucial to explain the rise of Yosef.

Bibliography:

Nachshoni, Yehuda, 1987, Notes on the parshot of the Torah, Tel Aviv: Sifrati.

Sacks, Robert, 1990, A commentary on the book of Genesis, Lewiston, New York: The Edwin Mellen Press.

Sarna, Nahum (1923-2005), 1989, The JPS Torah Commentary: Genesis, Philadelphia: The Jewish Publication Society.

Bereshit 25:25,26 – The basis for the names Esav and Yaakov and one aspect of the treatment of the captive woman in Devarim 21:12

Bereshit 25:25 records that Esav was born red, and he had an aderet of hair all over him, and he was called Esav. How does the name Esav relate to Esav being red and/ or hairy?

Rashi (on 25:25, seemingly based on Targum Yonaton, also see Rashbam on 25:25) suggests that the basis for the name of Esav is that he was born made (the word aseh) and developed (nigmar) as his hair was like a grown up. This idea seems to be based more on the word developed then on the word made, and if true, it would imply that Esav was born with facial hair like a grown developed man has. However, 25:25 describes Esav’s hair as being like an aderet, which seems to imply that the hair was like a cloak that Esav was born covered with the hair on his back and arms (stomach, legs?), which accords with a cloak that covers a person’s body but does not cover a person’s mouth and nose, as a cloak has an opening for the face.

In a fascinating article, David Yellen (1927, pp. 453-455) notes that when Hebrew was a living language, some words which had two meanings were known by everyone who spoke the language, but after Hebrew stopped being spoken on a daily basis, only the main definition of a word was remembered, while the secondary meanings of word were forgotten. Yellin gives twenty-two examples, and one of them is the word aseh. He shows from several passages in Tanakh that the word aseh had a secondary meaning of to cover, and then he explains that the name Esav refers to him being born covered with hair.

This same idea is also relevant to understanding Devarim 21:12, which Yellin did not mention, and which records instructions how the captive woman is to be treated. Devarim 21:12 records that the nails of the captive foreign woman were to be done, asah. What does this mean? Rashi and Ibn Ezra (on 21:12) write that this means that the captive woman was to let her nails grow which would make the woman repulsive. How can the word asah, which refers to doing something, mean to let the nails grow since that is a passive action? It is also not clear how letting the nails grow for a month will make the woman repulsive since they will not grow that much.  Instead, following, Yellen's idea, the idea could be that the nails of the captured woman were to be covered, which might make her less attractive. 

Bereshit 25:26 then records that when Yaakov was born, he was holding onto the heel (ekev) of Esav, and he was called Yaakov. In this case, it seems that the name Yaakov is related to the heel, see Rashi on 25:26. Yet, then the yud in the beginning of the name is left unexplained. Cassuto (1965, p. 717) notes that variations of the name Yaakov, such as Ya-akh-qu-ub-il(um) have been found on tablets in 18th century BCE in Mesopotamia and in Egypt at around the same time when Yaakov was living. He writes that Yaakov is a short version of the term Yaakov-kel, and the name Yaakov has the meaning of a prayer that the person should go with/ follow G-d, which has the idea of a prayer that G-d should protect Yaakov. This beautiful reason for the name Yaakov, as suggested by Cassuto, might explain why the Torah continues to use the name Yaakov, even after G-d gave Yaakov the additional name of Yisrael, 35:10. 

Bibliography:

Cassuto, Umberto (1883-1951), 1965, Yaakov, in Encyclopedia Mikrait, edited by Naftali Hertz Tur-Sinai, Shmuel Yavin and Binyamin Mazer, Vol. 3, Jerusalem: Bialik Institute, pp. 716-722.

Yellin, David, 1927, Forgotten meanings of Hebrew roots in the Bible, in Jewish Studies in Memory of Israel Abrahams, New York: The Alexander Kohut Memorial Foundation, Press of the Jewish Institute of Religion, pp. 441-458.

Bereshit (Genesis) 4:1-8 – Why did G-d not accept Kayin's sacrifice? No deal

After Adam and Havva left (were thrown out of) the Garden of Eden, they had two sons, Kayin and Hevel, Bereshit 4:1,2. Hevel became a shepherd and Kayin a farmer, 4:2.

4:3,4 record that Kayin offered a sacrifice from his produce and then Hevel offered a sacrifice from his flock. G-d accepted Hevel's sacrifice but not Kayin's, which made Kayin angry or distressed, 4:4,5. It is not clear how Kayin knew that G-d had accepted his brother's sacrifice and not his (see Cassuto, 1961, p. 207 for various guesses), but the crucial point for the narrative is that he knew as he then went and killed Hevel, 4:8.

Why did G-d not accept Kayin's sacrifice? One would think that since his sacrifice is the first sacrifice recorded in the Torah, he would get a lot of credit for originating the idea of offering a sacrifice to G-d.

One answer is that the Torah is indicating a preference for shepherds, Hevel, over farmers, Kayin. (Kugel, 1997, pp. 88,89, notes that this idea was suggested by Philo, Josephus and Ambrose. In the Middle Ages, the Abarbanel, 2007, was a proponent of this view.) Presumably the proof for this approach is that the Torah makes a point of telling us Kayin and Hevel's professions, and that they had different professions. Yet, in the remainder of the Torah we do not see any negative comments with regard to farming, and it is not clear why one think that the Torah would view farming in a negative fashion when it is so basic to human existence. Instead, the mention that Kayin was a farmer is crucial to understanding his punishment after he killed Hevel, 4:11,12,14, and then once Kayin’s profession was mentioned, Hevel’s was also mentioned. In addition, it could be that the mention of their professions is just to explain what sacrifices they brought. Maybe it was desired that both types of sacrifices, grains and animals, appear in the first case of sacrifices in the Torah. Finally, it is interesting that Kayin was the farmer since later on, he or his son, was credited with founding the first city, 4:17, and it is believed that cities developed as an outgrowth of farming.

A second answer is that Kayin brought an inferior or cheap item for a sacrifice while Hevel brought a more expensive sacrifice. (Kugel, 1997, p. 89, quotes Philo as mentioning this idea, as does Bereshit Rabbah 22:5, Rashi on 4:3, Cassuto, 1961, pp. 205,206 and Sarna, 1989, p. 32). The proof for this idea is that 4:4 records that Hevel brought the firstborn of his flock and the fat thereof, which is considered top quality. Yet, there is no proof that Kayin brought produce that was of poor quality or that he was stingy in the quantity of produce that he offered. Also, even if Hevel brought a superior sacrifice, still one would have thought that Kayin should receive credit for being the first to bring a sacrifice.

Benno Jacob (1974, p. 35) suggests “perhaps an animal sacrifice is regarded as more meritorious than a vegetable offering as it testifies to a correct conception of the dignity of man; he shall stand in opposition to the animal in spite of the likeness between them.” This could be, but the Torah has grain sacrifices, for example, the korban minhah, Vayikra chapter 2, which means that vegetables offerings are legitimate offerings. Also, once Kayin was a farmer, then it would be natural for him to offer items that he worked on and grew.

A fourth approach is that G-d's non-acceptance of Kayin's sacrifice was not related at all to the sacrifice, but was a message to negate the importance of being the firstborn, as Kayin was the older brother. This message is a theme that runs through the book of Bereshit.  Yet, while this episode is an example of this pattern in the book of Bereshit, could it be that Kayin's sacrifice was not accepted because he was the firstborn? Had Hevel not been alive, and there was no issue of who was the firstborn, then Kayin’s sacrifice would have been accepted? Again, one would think that Kayin's sacrifice would have been accepted since it was offered first, unrelated to whether he was the firstborn or not.

A variation of this fourth approach is that the story sets the pattern for the book of Bereshit that there will be a conflict between brothers, and that one brother is favored due to reasons that are not always clear, as with this approach there is no apparent reason why G-d favored Hevel's sacrifice over Kayin's sacrifice. This episode indicates that the crucial aspect is not which son/ brother is favored but how does the rejected son/ brother respond to the favoritism for his brother. In this case, Kayin failed. 4:6,7 record that G-d spoke to Kayin, and seems to have told him that he should not be upset but that he should try harder. Kayin's response was to kill Hevel, which was clearly the wrong response. Yet, was G-d not accepting Kayin's sacrifice just to test his re-action?

Jonathan Sacks (2009, p. 31) follows the understanding that Kayin was angry when G-d did not accept his sacrifices, and he suggests that from this reaction, we see that Kayin offered his sacrifice with bad intentions. He notes a study by Richard Titmuss of gift giving amongst primates that there are two types of gifts. One type is where the giver wants to help the other person, and the second type is when the giver gives the gift in order to receive something in return, quid pro quo. When the gift is given, an outsider cannot know the giver's intention, but the giver’s intention can be discerned if the gift is refused. If the gift is refused, and the giver feels sad or indifferent, then it is known that the person giving the gift genuinely wanted to help the other person. However, if the gift is refused and the person who gave the gift is angry, then we see that the giver was giving the gift in order to get something in return and the person is angry since he/ she will not get anything in return.

In the case here, Kayin offered a gift to G-d, the sacrifice, it was refused, and he responded by getting angry, va-yichar, 4:5. Sacks argues that we see that Kayin offered the sacrificed as part of a deal, which accords with him being a farmer, as possibly he gave the sacrifice in order that G-d would ensure good weather for his crops. With this idea we understand why G-d did not accept Kayin's sacrifice, since it was presumptuous for Kayin to attempt to force a deal on G-d. This is an interesting approach, but Sarna (1989, p. 33) argues that va-yichar in 4:5 means that Kayin was depressed, as if Kayin was angry, then the Torah would have written va-yihar af. Thus, according to Sarna, Kayin’s sacrifice was the first type of gift. In addition, even if va-yichar means angry, why was Kayin angry? Was Kayin angry because G-d did not accept his sacrifice or was he angry since Havel's sacrifice was accepted? Would Kayin have had the same response if Hevel's sacrifice was also not accepted? Maybe Kayin gave the first type of gift, but he was angry since he was jealous of his brother?

A sixth approach, which is a variation of Sacks' approach, is that the non-acceptance of Kayin's sacrifice is a message with regard to the worship of G-d and not specifically related to Kayin's actions or intentions. This is the first recorded sacrifice in the Torah, which is a book about the worship of G-d, and G-d's non-acceptance of Kayin's sacrifice is a message that G-d is not obligated to respond to mankind's sacrifices (and prayers). It could be that Kayin offered the sacrifice with the hope that in return G-d would grant him good weather, which is similar to many of our prayers today, or maybe Kayin offered his sacrifice with no expectations of a quid pro quo from G-d, but still mankind has to know that G-d is under no obligation to heed our prayers and sacrifices. Thus, on the very first occasion of a sacrifice, G-d specifically rejected the sacrifice in order that mankind would understand this message. (I believe this same idea occurs by Shemot 20:21, see our discussion on Shemot 20:21, "G-d's decision.")

Thus, even if Hevel had not offered a sacrifice, then based on this reason, G-d would have rejected Kayin’s sacrifice. Yet, my daughter Talia pointed out to me that this message that G-d does have to respond to our sacrifices was enhanced since G-d accepted Hevel's sacrifice since otherwise the message would be that no sacrifices are ever accepted.  

This sixth approach also suggests an additional message concerning prayer and sacrifices. After Kayin's sacrifice was not accepted, he was angry/ depressed. G-d then attempted to cheer him up, 4:6,7, but was unsuccessful, as Kayin went and killed Hevel, 4:8. We see in this case where G-d accepted one sacrifice and not the other, that the person whose sacrifice was rejected became so angry/ upset that he killed his brother, even when G-d attempted to console him. The second lesson would be that G-d cannot show overt acceptance of sacrifices and prayers since it will enrage/ upset the people whose prayers and sacrifices are not accepted. This anger/ distress could lead to murder, as here by Kayin and Hevel, and society would collapse. 

Thus, from this episode we see that G-d is not required to respond to prayers and sacrifices, as by Kayin’s sacrifice, that G-d answers some prayers and sacrifices, as by Hevel's sacrifice and that G-d cannot show this acceptance of prayers and sacrifices in an overt fashion for society to exist.

Bibliography:

Abravanel, Yitzhak (1437-1508), 2007, Commentary on Bereshit, Jerusalem: Horev.

Cassuto, Umberto (1883-1951), 1961, A commentary on the book of Genesis, part one: From Adam to Noah, Jerusalem: Magnes Press.

Jacob, Benno (1869-1945), 1974, The first book of the Bible: Genesis, commentary abridged, edited and translated by Earnest I. Jacob and Walter Jacob, New York: Ktav Publishing House.

Kugel, James L. 1997, The Bible as it was, Cambridge, Mass: The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press.

Sacks, Jonathan (1948-2020), 2009, Covenant and Conversation: Genesis: The Book of Beginnings, Jerusalem: Maggid Books.

Sarna, Nahum (1923-2005), 1989, The JPS Torah Commentary: Genesis, Philadelphia: The Jewish Publication Society.