Shemot 12:9 records that the lamb of the korban pesach had to be roasted, which implies that the animal was roasted whole. Why was it required to roast the entire animal as one piece?
The Rashbam (on 12:8,9, also see Bekhor Shor, Rambam, Moreh 3:46) explains that the requirement to roast the lamb whole was because this was the quickest way of preparing the food, and 12:11 records that the sacrifice was to be eaten quickly. Benno Jacob (1992, pp. 309,310) claims that roasting isn’t really the quickest way to prepare food, that it would be quicker to boil the food in water. He also points out that the people did have time, as they prepared the sacrifice in the afternoon of the 14th and only left Egypt in the morning of the 15th. Instead, he suggests that the people had to be packed at night to show that they were ready to leave, and hence they had no utensils to cook with, so instead they roasted the sacrifice on an open fire.
Hizkuni (on 12:8,9, also see Abravanel) follows the idea that the korban pesach was to repudiate Egyptian idolatry that the Egyptians worshipped the lamb (see Ramban on 12:3 and 8:22, and Rambam, Moreh 3:46). He suggests that the roasting was in order that the smell would waft, and the Egyptians would know that their god was being cooked. Similarly, he suggests the animal was roasted whole because then if an Egyptian would have seen the animal being roasted or eaten, he would have recognized the animal since it was still would have been in its natural shape. Yet, I wonder whether any Egyptians saw the people roasting and eating the sacrifice.
My guess is that this requirement to roast the animal whole is due to another law of the korban pesach, which is recorded in the second section of the laws of the sacrifice in chapter 12. 12:46 records that no bone could be broken of the animal. This requirement would seem to correspond to the roasting whole since if the animal was baked or boiled it was likely that one would need to break the bones of the lamb, as who would have such a big pot to fit a whole animal? Yet, why was it forbidden to break the bones of the sacrifice?
The Rashbam (on 12:46, also Rambam Moreh 3:46) again explains that this requirement not to break the bones was relating to eating hastily, as Bekhor Shor (12:46) explains that a person who is eating fast throws the bones and does not break the bones to get to the marrow. The Rashbam and the Bekhor Shor are consistent with their explanation why the animal had to be roasted whole, but the law of 12:46 was for the future. Why was there a need to eat the sacrifice in haste for all the generations (see Ibn Ezra on 12:11)?
Hizkuni records several additional reasons why the bones of the sacrifice could not have been broken. One, the prohibition was in order that the group of people would not fight over the bones. Two, one is supposed to be satiated when one eats the sacrifice, and if one breaks the bones to get to the marrow of the bones, then it appears that the person is still hungry. Benno Jacob (1992, p. 356) quotes the Ralbag that breaking bones is bestial, and this is forbidden since the Jewish people are a holy people. Yet, then one could never break bones. Abravanel suggests that breaking the bones is disrespectful to the sacrifice. Luzzatto suggests that slaves break bones when they eat, so the prohibition is to show that the Jewish people we are free.
While all of these suggestions are possible, the law of not breaking the bones is recorded within the section that stresses the connection between the korban pesach and the laws of circumcision, 12:43-49. For example, a person who is not circumcised cannot eat of the sacrifice, 12:48. This connection suggests that the laws of not breaking the bones also relates to circumcision, but how?
When G-d told Avraham about the covenant of circumcision G-d began by telling Avraham, “be whole,” Bereshit 17:1. How does wholeness relate to circumcision? Many understand the term as being wholehearted with G-d, that Avraham should be willing to circumcise himself. However, the Midrash (Bereshit Rabbah 46:4, quoted by Rashi on 17:1) points out that the term can also be understood in a physical sense, that by removing the foreskin, Avraham became whole.
This physical understanding of the term “be whole” might be the reason why the korban pesach was roasted whole and no bones could be broken. The korban pesach is intrinsically related to circumcision, and thus the sacrifice was patterned after circumcision. Hence, if by circumcision, there is concept of making one whole physically, then also the korban pesach needs to be whole physically. Thus, the animal is roasted whole, and one would eat without breaking the bones, which leaves the form of the animal intact, the animal remained whole. This physical connection might also explain why 12:5 stresses that the animal must be whole. (Is this physical connection also the reason why the sacrifice must be a male, 12:5?)
Furthermore, if the prohibition of breaking the bones is related to the idea of being whole by circumcision, then this same rational might explain why one cannot take the meat of the sacrifice out of its designated house. This law is recorded in the same verse as the law prohibiting the breaking of the bones, 12:46, and this prohibition not to take the meat out keeps the whole household together, see Jacob, 1992, p. 356. The idea of wholeness also refers to 12:47, that the whole community must offer the sacrifice. Thus, in 12:46,47 we have the wholeness of the household, of the animal, and of the nation, and all are in accordance with G-d’s directive to Avraham “be whole” in Bereshit 17:1. If this understanding is true, then all the laws of the korban pesach in section 12:43-48 relate to the laws of circumcision.
Why is the korban pesach connected to circumcision? The point of the korban pesach was to take the blood of the sacrifice and put it on the doorposts, 12:13,27. This placing of the blood separated the Jewish people from the Egyptians and this is why G-d "passed over" their homes. Similarly, circumcision also separates the Jewish people from the rest of the world. These acts of separation are part of the covenantal process, and both are called signs, Bereshit 17:11 and 12:13. Why are two separations needed? My guess is that in Egypt, really the korban pesach was sufficient, and my guess is that the people only circumcised themselves after the night of the tenth plague, 12:50, see below. However, for later generations, the korban pesach was only a re-enactment and then the real separation is the circumcision. Yet, circumcision is a one-time act, and hence its significance can be lost. Also, many people never perform the circumcision if they do not have children or they only have girls. Thus, every year we bring the korban pesach which reminds us of the separation in Egypt, 12:26,27. Furthermore, following the explanation suggested above, the laws of roasting the sacrifice whole and not breaking the bones are to re-enforce the connection between the korban pesach and the circumcision.
Hello. The goal of this blog is to enhance our understanding of the Torah and the practice of Judaism. The discussions in the blog are a portion of a more extensive commentary on the Torah, which I will be happy to send to you. You can contact me at ajayschein@gmail.com. Please feel free to send comments. Also, if you want to receive an email with a link to the new posts, send me a request, and I will add you to the email group. Best wishes, Andrew Schein
Thursday, January 29, 2009
Friday, January 23, 2009
Shemot 6:12- Moshe's oratory skills: The passion and the speech
Moshe's first mission to free the Jewish people in Egypt failed (Shemot chapter 5), but due to this failure, Moshe changed from being an unenthusiastic leader of the people to an enthusiastic leader, 5:22,23. Thus, G-d gave him new instructions to lead the people to freedom, Shemot 6:2-8. Moshe then spoke to the Jewish people a second time, but they did not listen to him, 6:9. This result was not too surprising after his previous failed mission. Moshe then returned to speak to G-d, and G-d told him to bypass the people and speak directly to Pharaoh, 6:10,11. Moshe responded to this directive, by asking G-d, “Here, (if) the children of Israel do not hearken to me, how will Pharaoh hearken to me? – and I am foreskinned lips!” 6:12 (Fox, 1995, translation).
Bibliography:
Chacham, Amos, 1991, Da'at Mikra: Commentary on Shemot, Jerusalem: Mossad Harav Kook.
Fox, Everett, 1995, The Five Books of Moses: A new translation, New York: Schocken Books.
Greenberg, Moshe (1928-2010), 1969, Understanding Exodus, New York: Behrman House.
Shemot 6:12 raises at least two questions. One, Greenberg (1969, p. 145) is bothered why Moshe did not refer to his previous failure with Pharaoh? One answer is that it makes more sense for Moshe to refer to his most recent failure that the Jewish people did not listen to him than to his earlier failure with Pharaoh. Secondly, the failure of the first mission was irrelevant at this point since in the first mission Moshe was an unenthusiastic leader of the people, while now Moshe had become a willing leader of the people.
A second difficulty of 6:12 is that Moshe mentions that he had some speech impediment, but this had already been dealt with in chapter 4. 4:10 records that Moshe told G-d that he was “heavy of speech” and G-d had responded that Aharon would speak for him, 4:14-16. This same result, that Aharon would help Moshe, occurs after Moshe’s complaint of his speech impediment in 6:12 and 6:30, 7:1. Even if Moshe had not been an unenthusiastic leader in the beginning, why did Moshe mention his speech problem a second time if the problem had already been resolved? Also, why would Aharon have to be appointed again if he was already appointed before?
There are four possible answers to why Moshe refers to his speech impediment a second time.
One, it is possible that Moshe was referring to different problems, as in 4:10 Moshe refers to his heaviness of speech, while in 6:12 he refers to his foreskinned lips. Maybe Moshe had two problems with his speech, which could be either that he was not loquacious (Luzzatto on 4:10), or he was not fluent in Egyptian (Rashbam on 4:10) or he had some physical defect (Rashi on 6:12). Yet, this approach does not explain why Moshe was worried about a second speech problem once he already knew that Aharon would do the speaking.
Two, Bekhor Shor (on 6:29) suggests that really Moshe only asked about his speech once at the burning bush and chapter 6 is a brief review of that conversation. Yet, at the burning bush Moshe had many questions, why was only this question repeated, as for instance the Torah did not repeat that nobody was seeking his life (4:19)?
Three, Or Hachayyim (on 6:28) suggests that initially Aharon was only appointed to speak to the Jewish people, and Moshe was worried about speaking to Pharaoh. Thus, now Aharon was appointed also to speak to Pharaoh. Moshe Greenberg (1969, p. 145) rejects this approach since 5:1 records that Aharon went with Moshe to speak to Pharaoh, and 6:9 records that Moshe spoke to the people without Aharon.
Four, Ralbag (on 6:12, also see Seforno on 6:12) suggests that Moshe thought that initially Aharon had only been appointed to be his speaker for the first mission, and hence Moshe raised the problem of his speech a second time before going on his second mission. Thus, at this time, Moshe learned that Aharon would help him on all his missions.
Why would Moshe have thought that Aharon was only appointed for the first mission? The answer to this question is also based on the development of Moshe from an unenthusiastic leader to a willing leader. When Moshe was an unenthusiastic leader, then his complaint about his speech was not just a technical question, but also was an excuse not to go on the mission. Thus, the appointment of Aharon to help him speak in 4:14-16 was also to give him encouragement to go to Pharaoh. However, after Moshe became a willing leader, Moshe no longer needed Aharon’s encouragement. Thus, Moshe was to go by himself without Aharon even with his speech problem, and this is exactly what occurred in 6:9, that Moshe spoke to the Jewish people directly without Aharon. However, after the people did not listen to Moshe even when he was full of enthusiasm, then Moshe realized that enthusiasm was not enough to overcome his speech problem. Thus, Moshe refers to this speech problem again, and G-d appointed Aharon a second time not to give encouragement to Moshe but to solve the technical issue of Moshe’s speech problem.
Did Moshe always need Aharon to speak for him? Ibn Ezra (on 7:2 and on 4:30) argues that Aharon always came with Moshe even when Aharon is not mentioned in the text. This would seem to assume to assume that Aharon always had to speak for Moshe, as why else did he always come with Moshe? It is true that generally Pharaoh called for both of them but this would not prove that when Moshe went to Pharaoh, Aharon went with him. Amos Chacham (1991, p. 176) brings a proof for the Ibn Ezra. 10:1 records only that Moshe was commanded to go to Pharaoh, but 10:3 records that both Moshe and Aharon went and spoke to Pharaoh. However, it appears to me to be speculation to assume that Aharon was present when the Torah only refers to Moshe.
I believe that 10:1-3 is an exception to the general rule. It has been noted that Aharon only performed the plagues when the advisers to Pharaoh are mentioned. The idea being that Aharon was to Moshe like the advisors of Pharaoh were to Pharaoh. By the plague of 10:1-3, the locusts, we find that in 10:7 the advisors to Pharaoh urged Pharaoh to let the Jewish men go. Thus, once the advisers to Pharaoh appear then Aharon has to appear and he has the same role as they have. The advisors just spoke so too Aharon just spoke. However, when there are no advisors then Aharon would also not be with Moshe. Ibn Ezra seems to have a static understanding of Moshe that Moshe did not develop. However, after chapter 6 we never hear of Moshe complaining of his speech problems. Furthermore, Aharon only figures prominently by the meeting with Pharaoh before the plagues and for the first three plagues. Afterwards, Aharon becomes secondary in the narrative.
My guess is that Moshe developed as a leader that he could speak and argue with Pharaoh without having to rely on Aharon. Thus by the fourth plague, Pharaoh called both Moshe and Aharon to begin negotiating, but Moshe answered Pharaoh directly without hesitating or having Aharon speak, 4:21-26. Aharon was needed initially when Moshe still did not have enough confidence to overcome his speech problems. However, as the plagues continued, Moshe’s confidence grew and he became the Moshe we think of for the remainder of the Torah.
Chacham, Amos, 1991, Da'at Mikra: Commentary on Shemot, Jerusalem: Mossad Harav Kook.
Fox, Everett, 1995, The Five Books of Moses: A new translation, New York: Schocken Books.
Greenberg, Moshe (1928-2010), 1969, Understanding Exodus, New York: Behrman House.
Friday, January 16, 2009
Shemot 1:7-22: Population dynamics of the Jewish people in Egypt
Shemot 1:7 records that the Jewish people were proliferating in Egypt. This population growth worried Pharaoh since in the event of war the Jewish people could side with Egypt's enemy (a "fifth column") and leave the country, 1:8-10. Accordingly, he decided to deal wisely with the Jewish people, so he placed taskmasters over the Jewish people to have the people build large storehouses (cities?), 1:11. What is the connection between the taskmasters and the Jewish population growth?
Ibn Ezra and Hizkuni (on 1:11) explain that the goal was that the work would somehow stop the Jewish people from procreating or from procreating successfully. Ramban (on 1:10) claims that really the goal was genocide but Pharaoh knew that the Egyptians would not immediately accept this, so the slavery was a slow way of building up to the genocide. According to both of these approaches, the main idea was to reduce the population of the Jewish people. Yet, if the goal was to reduce the Jewish population, why would Pharaoh be upset if the Jewish people left Egypt? Why did Pharaoh not throw the Jewish people out of Egypt instead of killing them?
Pharaoh wanted to benefit from the Jews, so he did not want them to leave. Maybe the Jewish people were slaves even before the decree of the taskmasters, or maybe he now wanted them to be slaves. With either possibility, he wanted them to work for him, but he was afraid that due to their population growth they would be able to leave on their own if there was a war. His response was the taskmasters who would control the Jews, and they would also force the Jewish people to work as slaves, which would benefit Egypt. The goal then was not per se to stop the population growth of the Jewish people but to ensure that the Jewish people would benefit Pharaoh and Egypt.
1:12 records that the Jewish people continued to proliferate and the Egyptians loathed the Jewish people. 1:13,14 then records that the Egyptians made the Jews work much harder. While many (see Ramban on 1:13,14) understand that this increase in the workload was a decree from Pharaoh, the Torah does not relate this action to Pharaoh. Instead, it was the Egyptians on their own who were cruel to the Jews because they loathed the Jews. A proof of this is from the incident recorded in 2:11, which records that an Egyptian was just beating a Jew with no indication at all that the Egyptian was acting on orders from Pharaoh. 1:13,14 are very important verses because they show that the majority of the Egyptian population participated in the enslavement of the Jewish people, and they were not just following orders.
1:15,16 then record that Pharaoh ordered the midwives to secretly kill the male Jewish children at birth. However, the midwives refused to kill the male newborns, 1:17-21 and the Pharaoh ordered the entire population to kill the male Jewish children, 1:22. (Note, as pointed out by Rashi technically 1:22 would include the killing of Egyptian male new born, but it would seem that the verse should be understood as only referring to the Jewish male newborns.)
Both by the order to the midwives and to the entire population, the goal was only to kill the male newborn children. Why only the boys and why only newborns? If the goal was genocide, then the order should have been to kill everybody. Philo (quoted in Kugel, 1997, p. 289) explains that since females are not as strong as men, the goal was to reduce the strength of the Jewish population by killing the men. This would accord with the fear that the people would become a fifth column, but then why only were the newborn males killed and not the young men? Also, why did Pharaoh not initially kill the males if he was worried about the problem of the fifth column? Why only after the continued increase of the population did Pharaoh decide to kill the male Jewish newborns?
One possibility for the delay in killing the Jews was that he was not sure if the population would agree to such a policy (see Ramban on 1:10), and it was only when he saw how much the Egyptians loathed and made the Jews suffer with hard work, that he thought that his plan to kill the Jewish babies would be accepted. Yet, still why only kill the male babies?
A second possibility is again that Pharaoh wanted to benefit from the Jewish people. Initially, Pharaoh did not want to kill the young men since that would reduce the number of slaves, and he thought that with his taskmasters, he would have control over the Jewish population. However, the continued increase in the Jewish population was threatening the taskmasters' control of the Jewish people. Thus, he decided to have the male Jewish newborns killed since this would stop the males, from whom there was a fear of a fifth column, from becoming a problem in the future. (Note, with this idea, this decree was unrelated to the Egyptians making the Jews work extra hard, 1:13,14, or one can combine both ideas.) Yet, what would happen to the future workforce if all the male newborns were killed?
We know that Jewish male newborns were killed, as Moshe's mother had to hide Moshe from being killed, 2:2,3. Yet, if the Egyptians were killing every newborn male, how could the Jewish people still have numbered 600,000 men (12:37) when they left Egypt? (Note Moshe was born 80 years before the people left Egypt, 7:7.)
Ramban (on 1:10) argues that the decree must have been temporary since we do not read about the decree when Aharon was born three years before Moshe (7:7). He writes that the decree was abolished after Moshe was born for two possible reasons. One, maybe Pharaoh's daughter convinced him to stop the decree as she saved Moshe, or following the Talmud (Sotah 12b), that after Moshe's birth Pharaoh's advisors told Pharaoh to stop killing the male newborns since they no longer saw that the savior of the Jewish people would be killed through water. Ramban's idea that the decree was temporary makes sense, but we believe that there was a different reason for why it was temporary.
Pharaoh's goal was to maintain the male Jewish population at certain level since if it was too small he would not have enough slaves, but if it was too large, then he could lose control of the population and the people would leave. How could Pharaoh maintain a steady state male Jewish population? The answer is a temporary recurring decree to kill the male Jewish population. The decree could exist for some period, and afterwards the male Jewish children would be allowed to live, which would allow the male Jewish population to grow again. Once the male Jewish population reached a threshold level, then the decree would be re-instituted until the population had fallen sufficiently and the decree would be relaxed. Thus, Aharon would have been born when the decree was not in effect, while Moshe was born when the decree had been re-instituted. This temporary recurring decree allowed Pharaoh to maintain the level of slaves he thought he could control and also benefit from the Jews.
Bibliography:
Kugel, James L. 1997, The Bible As it Was, Cambridge, Mass: The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press.
Ibn Ezra and Hizkuni (on 1:11) explain that the goal was that the work would somehow stop the Jewish people from procreating or from procreating successfully. Ramban (on 1:10) claims that really the goal was genocide but Pharaoh knew that the Egyptians would not immediately accept this, so the slavery was a slow way of building up to the genocide. According to both of these approaches, the main idea was to reduce the population of the Jewish people. Yet, if the goal was to reduce the Jewish population, why would Pharaoh be upset if the Jewish people left Egypt? Why did Pharaoh not throw the Jewish people out of Egypt instead of killing them?
Pharaoh wanted to benefit from the Jews, so he did not want them to leave. Maybe the Jewish people were slaves even before the decree of the taskmasters, or maybe he now wanted them to be slaves. With either possibility, he wanted them to work for him, but he was afraid that due to their population growth they would be able to leave on their own if there was a war. His response was the taskmasters who would control the Jews, and they would also force the Jewish people to work as slaves, which would benefit Egypt. The goal then was not per se to stop the population growth of the Jewish people but to ensure that the Jewish people would benefit Pharaoh and Egypt.
1:12 records that the Jewish people continued to proliferate and the Egyptians loathed the Jewish people. 1:13,14 then records that the Egyptians made the Jews work much harder. While many (see Ramban on 1:13,14) understand that this increase in the workload was a decree from Pharaoh, the Torah does not relate this action to Pharaoh. Instead, it was the Egyptians on their own who were cruel to the Jews because they loathed the Jews. A proof of this is from the incident recorded in 2:11, which records that an Egyptian was just beating a Jew with no indication at all that the Egyptian was acting on orders from Pharaoh. 1:13,14 are very important verses because they show that the majority of the Egyptian population participated in the enslavement of the Jewish people, and they were not just following orders.
1:15,16 then record that Pharaoh ordered the midwives to secretly kill the male Jewish children at birth. However, the midwives refused to kill the male newborns, 1:17-21 and the Pharaoh ordered the entire population to kill the male Jewish children, 1:22. (Note, as pointed out by Rashi technically 1:22 would include the killing of Egyptian male new born, but it would seem that the verse should be understood as only referring to the Jewish male newborns.)
Both by the order to the midwives and to the entire population, the goal was only to kill the male newborn children. Why only the boys and why only newborns? If the goal was genocide, then the order should have been to kill everybody. Philo (quoted in Kugel, 1997, p. 289) explains that since females are not as strong as men, the goal was to reduce the strength of the Jewish population by killing the men. This would accord with the fear that the people would become a fifth column, but then why only were the newborn males killed and not the young men? Also, why did Pharaoh not initially kill the males if he was worried about the problem of the fifth column? Why only after the continued increase of the population did Pharaoh decide to kill the male Jewish newborns?
One possibility for the delay in killing the Jews was that he was not sure if the population would agree to such a policy (see Ramban on 1:10), and it was only when he saw how much the Egyptians loathed and made the Jews suffer with hard work, that he thought that his plan to kill the Jewish babies would be accepted. Yet, still why only kill the male babies?
A second possibility is again that Pharaoh wanted to benefit from the Jewish people. Initially, Pharaoh did not want to kill the young men since that would reduce the number of slaves, and he thought that with his taskmasters, he would have control over the Jewish population. However, the continued increase in the Jewish population was threatening the taskmasters' control of the Jewish people. Thus, he decided to have the male Jewish newborns killed since this would stop the males, from whom there was a fear of a fifth column, from becoming a problem in the future. (Note, with this idea, this decree was unrelated to the Egyptians making the Jews work extra hard, 1:13,14, or one can combine both ideas.) Yet, what would happen to the future workforce if all the male newborns were killed?
We know that Jewish male newborns were killed, as Moshe's mother had to hide Moshe from being killed, 2:2,3. Yet, if the Egyptians were killing every newborn male, how could the Jewish people still have numbered 600,000 men (12:37) when they left Egypt? (Note Moshe was born 80 years before the people left Egypt, 7:7.)
Ramban (on 1:10) argues that the decree must have been temporary since we do not read about the decree when Aharon was born three years before Moshe (7:7). He writes that the decree was abolished after Moshe was born for two possible reasons. One, maybe Pharaoh's daughter convinced him to stop the decree as she saved Moshe, or following the Talmud (Sotah 12b), that after Moshe's birth Pharaoh's advisors told Pharaoh to stop killing the male newborns since they no longer saw that the savior of the Jewish people would be killed through water. Ramban's idea that the decree was temporary makes sense, but we believe that there was a different reason for why it was temporary.
Pharaoh's goal was to maintain the male Jewish population at certain level since if it was too small he would not have enough slaves, but if it was too large, then he could lose control of the population and the people would leave. How could Pharaoh maintain a steady state male Jewish population? The answer is a temporary recurring decree to kill the male Jewish population. The decree could exist for some period, and afterwards the male Jewish children would be allowed to live, which would allow the male Jewish population to grow again. Once the male Jewish population reached a threshold level, then the decree would be re-instituted until the population had fallen sufficiently and the decree would be relaxed. Thus, Aharon would have been born when the decree was not in effect, while Moshe was born when the decree had been re-instituted. This temporary recurring decree allowed Pharaoh to maintain the level of slaves he thought he could control and also benefit from the Jews.
Bibliography:
Kugel, James L. 1997, The Bible As it Was, Cambridge, Mass: The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press.
Shemot 4:23-26 - Moshe and Tzippora by the inn
Shemot 4:24 records that Moshe and his family were at an inn on the way to Egypt and G-d sought to kill somebody. Who was the intended victim and why should G-d want to kill the person?
The Talmud (Nedarim 31b) quotes an argument as to whether Moshe or his son was the victim, and the reason was either because Moshe had been derelict in circumcising his son or because Moshe was stalling again in his mission, see Rashbam on 4:24. Yet, as 4:23 states that Pharaoh's son was to be held accountable for Pharaoh's lack of action, it is most likely that it was Moshe's son who the victim.
If the victim was Moshe's son, then which one: Gershom, the eldest son or Eliezer? Ibn Ezra quotes Shmuel ben Hafni that it was Eliezer since he had just been born at that time. This seems too coincidental. In 4:20, we are told that Moshe had two sons, but their names were not mentioned. Gershom was mentioned before, 2:22, since one had to know about him for this incident. However, as Eliezer was not involved here his name did not have to be mentioned until chapter 18. Thus, if the victim was Moshe's son, then most likely it was Gershom.
4:25,26 records that Tzippora circumcised her son and touched somebody’s legs with the bloody foreskin. Ibn Ezra (on 4:24) explains that Moshe was in shock so Tzippora had to act, but how did she know what to do? Rashi (on 4:24) quotes from the Talmud that G-d had sent a snake, which swallowed and then regurgitated the victim until the place of circumcision. Tzippora learned from this that she was to circumcise her son. This is an incredible explanation.
Ibn Ezra and Hizkuni (on 4:24) explain that Moshe told Tzippora what to do. Yet, if Moshe was unable to do the circumcision, it is unlikely that he would have been able to tell her what to do, and how did Moshe know that circumcising his son would stop G-d’s attack?
Possibly the question of how did Tzippora know what to do relates to the question how did she know that G-d wanted to kill her son? If her son was just languishing, maybe he was sick. How did she realize that her son was being threatened by G-d?
Maybe the end of 5:3 suggests that the threat to Gershom (Eliezer?) was that there was a sword floating over his head. This was such a miraculous event that it was obvious that G-d was attacking her son. Thus, it was clear that she had to do something not related to medicine. When I mentioned this idea in my synagogue, Yehuda Bendet told me that maybe the image of the sword could also explain why Tzippora realized that she needed to circumcise her son since she needed to do something related to the sword, which was the knife for circumcision.
A different idea is that maybe the question of circumcision was always an argument between Moshe and Tzippora. Tzippora did not want to have Gershom circumcised since this signaled that he was no longer from her family, a Midyanite, but a Jew. Accordingly, she guessed that if the attack was from G-d, then she realized that she had to make her son Jewish which meant circumcising her son. It was only the danger to Gershom (Eliezer?) that convinced her to agree to circumcise him. 4:25 refers to Gershom (Eliezer?) as her son, which shows the tension of her action, that by circumcising Gershom she was reducing her bond with him since he became part of the Jewish people.
Who did Tzippora touch with the foreskin and why should she have done this? The Talmud (Yerushalmi, Nedarim) discusses whether she touched Moshe, her son, or even an angel that is thought to have been the attacker. My guess is that she touched Gershom with the bloody foreskin since he was the one being attacked. Ibn Ezra (on 4:25) notes that the placing of the foreskin is similar to when the Jewish people put blood on their doorposts prior to the 10th plague, 12:22,23. What is the connection between these two events? Also, how would Tzippora know that she was to mark her son’s legs? To answer these questions, we need to understand the reference to hatan in 4:25 and 4:26.
4:25 records that Tzippora said, “you are a hatan of blood” and 4:26 expands this to “a hatan of blood of circumcision.” What do these phrases mean? Rashi explains that she was telling her child that he almost caused her groom (hatan), Moshe, to die. Yet, Sarna (1991, p. 26) asks how could Moshe be called a groom when they had been married for some time? Also, as argued by Rabbi Shimon ben Gamliel, (Nedarim 32a) the reference to hatan is to her son and not Moshe.
My understanding is that the word hatan in the Torah means a non-blood relative see our discussion on Bemidbar 10:29-32, "Confusion in the family." While Gershom (Eliezer?) was Tzippora’s son, the circumcision had made him equivalent to a non-blood relative with regard to Tzippora since in both cases the relationship was not as close as by blood relatives. Tzippora understood that circumcising her son meant that she was losing some of her connection with him, but she acted to try to minimize this break. Her placing of the foreskin was to make a mark in blood to keep her connection with Gershom (Eliezer?). The idea is that the mark of blood was to reclaim their blood relationship. Thus, when she placed the bloody foreskin on Gershom (Eliezer?), she declared in 4:25 that Gershom (Eliezer?) was still her blood relative. After Gershom (Eliezer?) was saved, and the commotion had subsided, she explained in 4:26 that the relationship was from the blood of the circumcision.
The attack woke Moshe from his stupor and he went on the mission. This was the purpose of G-d’s attack on Gershom (Eliezer?), as G-d had never intended to kill Gershom (Eliezer?). Furthermore, maybe due to Moshe’s new attitude, he might have sent his family back to Midyan, since their going to Egypt was part of his hesitation, see Ibn Ezra (long commentary on 4:20, short commentary on 4:25), and Luzzatto on 4:23. Yet, Moshe was still not enthusiastic about the mission, and he would only become energized for the mission after the failure of first encounter with Pharaoh.
Bibliography:
Sarna, Nahum (1923-2005), 1991, The JPS Torah Commentary: Exodus, Philadelphia: The Jewish Publication Society.
The Talmud (Nedarim 31b) quotes an argument as to whether Moshe or his son was the victim, and the reason was either because Moshe had been derelict in circumcising his son or because Moshe was stalling again in his mission, see Rashbam on 4:24. Yet, as 4:23 states that Pharaoh's son was to be held accountable for Pharaoh's lack of action, it is most likely that it was Moshe's son who the victim.
If the victim was Moshe's son, then which one: Gershom, the eldest son or Eliezer? Ibn Ezra quotes Shmuel ben Hafni that it was Eliezer since he had just been born at that time. This seems too coincidental. In 4:20, we are told that Moshe had two sons, but their names were not mentioned. Gershom was mentioned before, 2:22, since one had to know about him for this incident. However, as Eliezer was not involved here his name did not have to be mentioned until chapter 18. Thus, if the victim was Moshe's son, then most likely it was Gershom.
4:25,26 records that Tzippora circumcised her son and touched somebody’s legs with the bloody foreskin. Ibn Ezra (on 4:24) explains that Moshe was in shock so Tzippora had to act, but how did she know what to do? Rashi (on 4:24) quotes from the Talmud that G-d had sent a snake, which swallowed and then regurgitated the victim until the place of circumcision. Tzippora learned from this that she was to circumcise her son. This is an incredible explanation.
Ibn Ezra and Hizkuni (on 4:24) explain that Moshe told Tzippora what to do. Yet, if Moshe was unable to do the circumcision, it is unlikely that he would have been able to tell her what to do, and how did Moshe know that circumcising his son would stop G-d’s attack?
Possibly the question of how did Tzippora know what to do relates to the question how did she know that G-d wanted to kill her son? If her son was just languishing, maybe he was sick. How did she realize that her son was being threatened by G-d?
Maybe the end of 5:3 suggests that the threat to Gershom (Eliezer?) was that there was a sword floating over his head. This was such a miraculous event that it was obvious that G-d was attacking her son. Thus, it was clear that she had to do something not related to medicine. When I mentioned this idea in my synagogue, Yehuda Bendet told me that maybe the image of the sword could also explain why Tzippora realized that she needed to circumcise her son since she needed to do something related to the sword, which was the knife for circumcision.
A different idea is that maybe the question of circumcision was always an argument between Moshe and Tzippora. Tzippora did not want to have Gershom circumcised since this signaled that he was no longer from her family, a Midyanite, but a Jew. Accordingly, she guessed that if the attack was from G-d, then she realized that she had to make her son Jewish which meant circumcising her son. It was only the danger to Gershom (Eliezer?) that convinced her to agree to circumcise him. 4:25 refers to Gershom (Eliezer?) as her son, which shows the tension of her action, that by circumcising Gershom she was reducing her bond with him since he became part of the Jewish people.
Who did Tzippora touch with the foreskin and why should she have done this? The Talmud (Yerushalmi, Nedarim) discusses whether she touched Moshe, her son, or even an angel that is thought to have been the attacker. My guess is that she touched Gershom with the bloody foreskin since he was the one being attacked. Ibn Ezra (on 4:25) notes that the placing of the foreskin is similar to when the Jewish people put blood on their doorposts prior to the 10th plague, 12:22,23. What is the connection between these two events? Also, how would Tzippora know that she was to mark her son’s legs? To answer these questions, we need to understand the reference to hatan in 4:25 and 4:26.
4:25 records that Tzippora said, “you are a hatan of blood” and 4:26 expands this to “a hatan of blood of circumcision.” What do these phrases mean? Rashi explains that she was telling her child that he almost caused her groom (hatan), Moshe, to die. Yet, Sarna (1991, p. 26) asks how could Moshe be called a groom when they had been married for some time? Also, as argued by Rabbi Shimon ben Gamliel, (Nedarim 32a) the reference to hatan is to her son and not Moshe.
My understanding is that the word hatan in the Torah means a non-blood relative see our discussion on Bemidbar 10:29-32, "Confusion in the family." While Gershom (Eliezer?) was Tzippora’s son, the circumcision had made him equivalent to a non-blood relative with regard to Tzippora since in both cases the relationship was not as close as by blood relatives. Tzippora understood that circumcising her son meant that she was losing some of her connection with him, but she acted to try to minimize this break. Her placing of the foreskin was to make a mark in blood to keep her connection with Gershom (Eliezer?). The idea is that the mark of blood was to reclaim their blood relationship. Thus, when she placed the bloody foreskin on Gershom (Eliezer?), she declared in 4:25 that Gershom (Eliezer?) was still her blood relative. After Gershom (Eliezer?) was saved, and the commotion had subsided, she explained in 4:26 that the relationship was from the blood of the circumcision.
The attack woke Moshe from his stupor and he went on the mission. This was the purpose of G-d’s attack on Gershom (Eliezer?), as G-d had never intended to kill Gershom (Eliezer?). Furthermore, maybe due to Moshe’s new attitude, he might have sent his family back to Midyan, since their going to Egypt was part of his hesitation, see Ibn Ezra (long commentary on 4:20, short commentary on 4:25), and Luzzatto on 4:23. Yet, Moshe was still not enthusiastic about the mission, and he would only become energized for the mission after the failure of first encounter with Pharaoh.
Bibliography:
Sarna, Nahum (1923-2005), 1991, The JPS Torah Commentary: Exodus, Philadelphia: The Jewish Publication Society.
Thursday, January 8, 2009
Bereshit 50:7-11 – A state funeral for Yaakov
Bereshit 50:7-9 record that Yaakov’s family, except for his (young?) grandchildren, accompanied by Egyptian dignitaries and soldiers, carried Yaakov’s body from Egypt to Israel. Before this entourage reached the land of Israel, they stopped at a place called Goren he-Atad, where a public funeral was held, 50:10. This funeral made such an impression that it was noticed by the Canaanites, and the name of the place was called Avel Mitzrayim, 50:11.
This large public funeral is unique in the book of Bereshit. For example, when Avraham or Yitzhak died, the Torah just states that their sons buried them, and there is no mention of any public funeral, 25:9, 36:29. Furthermore, while it could very well be that the reason why the Egyptian dignitaries participated in Yaakov’s funeral was because of Yosef (Luzzatto on 50:3), it is striking that by Yosef’s burial in Egypt, which is recorded just 16 verses after Yaakov’s funeral, though it occurred 54 years later, there is no mention of honors at all. Why did the Torah record Yaakov’s public funeral?
Maybe, the funeral was a fulfillment of one aspect of the first blessing that Yaakov received from Yitzhak. Yitzhak had blessed Yaakov, “Let peoples serve you, and nations bow to you,” 27:29 (JPS translation in Sarna 1989, p. 193). This blessing was to Yaakov personally, “to you,” yet was it ever fulfilled? While Yaakov had extensive fights within the family, with his brother and father-in-law, he had very little contacts with other nations. He had a conversation with Pharaoh when he came to Egypt, 47:7-10. Yet, the conversation does not indicate any homage paid to him by Pharaoh, as Yaakov blessed Pharaoh, and could not be the fulfillment of Yitzhak’s blessing. Again, Yaakov’s lack of apparent interaction with the nations of the word contrasts with Avraham, and even with Yitzhak who made a treaty with the Philistines, 26:26-32.
Yaakov’s funeral is the most significant interaction between Yaakov and other nations that is recorded in the Torah. This funeral shows that Egypt honored Yaakov, and even the Canaanites were impressed that they renamed the place to Avel Mitzrayim. (Bekhor Shor, on 50:10, suggests that representatives from Esav, Yishmael, the children of Keturah, and Aram also joined in the funeral.) Thus, in the funeral, nations honored Yaakov, and the funeral could be the fulfillment of Yitzhak’s blessing. Finally, maybe the fact that the fulfillment of the blessing was “sub-optimal” in that it occurred when Yaakov was dead and not when he was alive was because Yaakov had tricked Yitzhak to receive the blessing.
Bibliography:
Sarna, Nahum (1923-2005), 1989, The JPS Torah Commentary: Genesis, Philadelphia: The Jewish Publication Society.
This large public funeral is unique in the book of Bereshit. For example, when Avraham or Yitzhak died, the Torah just states that their sons buried them, and there is no mention of any public funeral, 25:9, 36:29. Furthermore, while it could very well be that the reason why the Egyptian dignitaries participated in Yaakov’s funeral was because of Yosef (Luzzatto on 50:3), it is striking that by Yosef’s burial in Egypt, which is recorded just 16 verses after Yaakov’s funeral, though it occurred 54 years later, there is no mention of honors at all. Why did the Torah record Yaakov’s public funeral?
Maybe, the funeral was a fulfillment of one aspect of the first blessing that Yaakov received from Yitzhak. Yitzhak had blessed Yaakov, “Let peoples serve you, and nations bow to you,” 27:29 (JPS translation in Sarna 1989, p. 193). This blessing was to Yaakov personally, “to you,” yet was it ever fulfilled? While Yaakov had extensive fights within the family, with his brother and father-in-law, he had very little contacts with other nations. He had a conversation with Pharaoh when he came to Egypt, 47:7-10. Yet, the conversation does not indicate any homage paid to him by Pharaoh, as Yaakov blessed Pharaoh, and could not be the fulfillment of Yitzhak’s blessing. Again, Yaakov’s lack of apparent interaction with the nations of the word contrasts with Avraham, and even with Yitzhak who made a treaty with the Philistines, 26:26-32.
Yaakov’s funeral is the most significant interaction between Yaakov and other nations that is recorded in the Torah. This funeral shows that Egypt honored Yaakov, and even the Canaanites were impressed that they renamed the place to Avel Mitzrayim. (Bekhor Shor, on 50:10, suggests that representatives from Esav, Yishmael, the children of Keturah, and Aram also joined in the funeral.) Thus, in the funeral, nations honored Yaakov, and the funeral could be the fulfillment of Yitzhak’s blessing. Finally, maybe the fact that the fulfillment of the blessing was “sub-optimal” in that it occurred when Yaakov was dead and not when he was alive was because Yaakov had tricked Yitzhak to receive the blessing.
Bibliography:
Sarna, Nahum (1923-2005), 1989, The JPS Torah Commentary: Genesis, Philadelphia: The Jewish Publication Society.
Bereshit 50:14-17 – Did Yaakov find out?
Bereshit 50:14,15 record that after the sons of Yaakov returned from Yaakov’s burial in the land of Canaan, they were scared that Yosef would take revenge for their behavior to Yosef thirty nine years earlier, 50:14,15. Accordingly, they told Yosef (apparently through a messenger) that Yaakov had told them to tell Yosef not to take revenge on them, 50:17. This verse would seem to imply that Yaakov learned the true reason how Yosef ended up in Egypt. Yet, it is generally assumed (see Yevamot 65b, N. Leibowitz, 1976, pp. 563-570) that Yosef’s brothers were lying.
Ramban (on 45:27) claims that Yaakov never learned that the brothers sold (or caused Yosef to be sold) into slavery since he claims that neither Yosef nor the brothers would have told Yaakov the truth. He suggests that Yaakov just assumed that Yosef got lost when he went to look for his brothers, and he was kidnapped. He discounts the evidence from 50:17 that Yaakov knew the truth since he points out that if Yaakov was really worried about Yosef taking revenge on the brothers, then Yaakov should have told Yosef in person not to take revenge and not leave such a message with Yosef’s brothers. Sarna (1989, p. 350) and Y. Leibowitz (2003, p. 187) agree with this idea. They argue that if Yaakov had known about the sale, then he would have mentioned it when he gave his “blessings” (chapter 49) to his children. In these “blessings” he criticized Reuven, Shimon and Levi so if he knew about the sale of Yosef, he should also have condemned it. On the other hand, Ibn Ezra (on 49:23, also see Or ha-Chayyim on 49:23) writes that in 49:23, when Yaakov was giving his blessing to Yosef, he hinted to the sale of Yosef by his brothers. Rashi in his comments on 49:5 also assumes that Yaakov knew that at least Shimon and Levi attempted to kill Yosef, also see his comments on 49:9 and 49:23.
It is incredible that Yaakov never learned the truth. Even before Yosef revealed himself, he probably was suspicious of the brothers, as we discussed on 42:36-38, “Hope and suspicion.” I agree that the brothers and Yosef might not have been too anxious to go over all the details with Yaakov, but Yaakov could have put the pieces together without directly asking his children what happened. Would he really have thought that Yosef lost his way and was kidnapped? This possibility does not accord with the fact that the brothers brought back Yosef’s clothing soaked in enough blood that it was immediately assumed that Yosef had been eaten by an animal, 37:31-33. Most likely, kidnappers would have taken Yosef’s coat since it was very fancy, and even if they discarded it how would it have ended up being so soaked in blood that it looked as if an animal had eaten Yosef? Furthermore, it would seem quite a coincidence that the brothers happened to find the coat if Yosef really got lost. Yaakov knew that the children hated Yosef, and, as he was clever, even without too much help he could have figured out the truth. In a personal conversation, Eric Sherby, added that surely Binyamin would have told Yaakov after he had heard Yosef say to the brothers, “I am Yosef who you sold to Egypt,” 45:4.
The fact that Yaakov did not explicitly mention the sale of Yosef in his “blessings” is not that surprising. First of all, this would have meant that he had to criticize all of the sons except Binyamin, as even Yosef had behaved inappropriately before he was sold. Furthermore, Yaakov was also partly to blame for the sale since his favoritism was one of the main causes of the animosity between the brothers. Finally, it is very likely that he would not have wanted to bring the subject up again, in order not to re-ignite old fights, see Radak on 49:23.
Even if Yaakov knew what really happened, this does not imply that brothers were telling the truth when they told Yosef that Yaakov had told them to tell Yosef not to take revenge, 50:17. Rashi (on 50:16) argues that Yaakov would never have made such a comment to the brothers since he would not have suspected Yosef of taking revenge. Yet, maybe the brothers were speaking the truth. Maybe Yaakov hoped that the issue of the sale would never come up, but he was worried that the brothers would fight after his death. Thus, he would not have wanted to speak to Yosef about the sale, and he only would have given this message to Yosef’s brothers to tell Yosef in case the question of the sale arose. However, the brothers were so scared of Yosef that they raised the matter of the sale without Yosef mentioning it immediately after Yaakov died.
Bibliography:
Leibowitz, Nehama (1905-1997), 1976, Studies in Bereshit, translated by Aryeh Newman, Jerusalem: The World Zionist Organization.
Leibowitz, Yeshayahu, 2003, Seven years of discourses on the weekly Torah readings, Hemed: Israel.
Sarna, Nahum (1923-2005), 1989, The JPS Torah Commentary: Genesis, Philadelphia: The Jewish Publication Society.
Ramban (on 45:27) claims that Yaakov never learned that the brothers sold (or caused Yosef to be sold) into slavery since he claims that neither Yosef nor the brothers would have told Yaakov the truth. He suggests that Yaakov just assumed that Yosef got lost when he went to look for his brothers, and he was kidnapped. He discounts the evidence from 50:17 that Yaakov knew the truth since he points out that if Yaakov was really worried about Yosef taking revenge on the brothers, then Yaakov should have told Yosef in person not to take revenge and not leave such a message with Yosef’s brothers. Sarna (1989, p. 350) and Y. Leibowitz (2003, p. 187) agree with this idea. They argue that if Yaakov had known about the sale, then he would have mentioned it when he gave his “blessings” (chapter 49) to his children. In these “blessings” he criticized Reuven, Shimon and Levi so if he knew about the sale of Yosef, he should also have condemned it. On the other hand, Ibn Ezra (on 49:23, also see Or ha-Chayyim on 49:23) writes that in 49:23, when Yaakov was giving his blessing to Yosef, he hinted to the sale of Yosef by his brothers. Rashi in his comments on 49:5 also assumes that Yaakov knew that at least Shimon and Levi attempted to kill Yosef, also see his comments on 49:9 and 49:23.
It is incredible that Yaakov never learned the truth. Even before Yosef revealed himself, he probably was suspicious of the brothers, as we discussed on 42:36-38, “Hope and suspicion.” I agree that the brothers and Yosef might not have been too anxious to go over all the details with Yaakov, but Yaakov could have put the pieces together without directly asking his children what happened. Would he really have thought that Yosef lost his way and was kidnapped? This possibility does not accord with the fact that the brothers brought back Yosef’s clothing soaked in enough blood that it was immediately assumed that Yosef had been eaten by an animal, 37:31-33. Most likely, kidnappers would have taken Yosef’s coat since it was very fancy, and even if they discarded it how would it have ended up being so soaked in blood that it looked as if an animal had eaten Yosef? Furthermore, it would seem quite a coincidence that the brothers happened to find the coat if Yosef really got lost. Yaakov knew that the children hated Yosef, and, as he was clever, even without too much help he could have figured out the truth. In a personal conversation, Eric Sherby, added that surely Binyamin would have told Yaakov after he had heard Yosef say to the brothers, “I am Yosef who you sold to Egypt,” 45:4.
The fact that Yaakov did not explicitly mention the sale of Yosef in his “blessings” is not that surprising. First of all, this would have meant that he had to criticize all of the sons except Binyamin, as even Yosef had behaved inappropriately before he was sold. Furthermore, Yaakov was also partly to blame for the sale since his favoritism was one of the main causes of the animosity between the brothers. Finally, it is very likely that he would not have wanted to bring the subject up again, in order not to re-ignite old fights, see Radak on 49:23.
Even if Yaakov knew what really happened, this does not imply that brothers were telling the truth when they told Yosef that Yaakov had told them to tell Yosef not to take revenge, 50:17. Rashi (on 50:16) argues that Yaakov would never have made such a comment to the brothers since he would not have suspected Yosef of taking revenge. Yet, maybe the brothers were speaking the truth. Maybe Yaakov hoped that the issue of the sale would never come up, but he was worried that the brothers would fight after his death. Thus, he would not have wanted to speak to Yosef about the sale, and he only would have given this message to Yosef’s brothers to tell Yosef in case the question of the sale arose. However, the brothers were so scared of Yosef that they raised the matter of the sale without Yosef mentioning it immediately after Yaakov died.
Bibliography:
Leibowitz, Nehama (1905-1997), 1976, Studies in Bereshit, translated by Aryeh Newman, Jerusalem: The World Zionist Organization.
Leibowitz, Yeshayahu, 2003, Seven years of discourses on the weekly Torah readings, Hemed: Israel.
Sarna, Nahum (1923-2005), 1989, The JPS Torah Commentary: Genesis, Philadelphia: The Jewish Publication Society.
Bereshit 15:16 – Who is the fourth generation in the prophecy of the covenant of the pieces?
Bereshit 15:13-16 records that G-d revealed to Avraham (Avram) a prophecy about the future. G-d told Avraham that his descendants would live in a foreign land for 400 years and that the fourth generation would return to the land. This time period of 400 years seems to be much larger than the time span of four generations. How could his descendants be in a foreign land for 400 years if the fourth generation was to return to the land?
Probably the most popular approach is that the count of the four generations begins not from Avraham but from when the descendants of Avraham when to live in Egypt. Rashi (15:16) explains that the generations are Yehuda, Peretz, Hetzron, and Calev. One minor problem with this approach is that in the Torah, Calev is the son of Yefunne (Bemidbar 13:6) and not Hetzron. However Divrei Hayyamim I 2:18 states that Calev was Hetzron’s son (though see Divrei Hayyamim 4:15). Possibly due to this difficulty, Ibn Ezra and Radak (both on 15:16) slightly alter the generations to be: Kehat, Amram, Moshe or Aharon, and their children. In addition, the adherents to this explanation argue that the 400 years began with the birth of Yitzhak. Thus, it is argued that there is no connection between the count of the 400 years and the four generations since they start from different times.
This approach is problematic. It is ad hoc since there is no intrinsic reason to start the generations with Yehuda or Kehat. Why not start with Yaakov? Mizrahi (on Rashi's comments) writes that Yaakov was excluded either because when he came to Egypt he was near death or because the count had to begin from the slavery and according to Chazal the slavery did not begin until after Yaakov died. Yet, these answers are difficult. Yaakov lived 17 years in Egypt, and we do not know when the slavery began (by Yosef?). More fundamentally, the four generations should start from Avraham since G-d was addressing Avraham.
Ibn Ezra writes that the count begins when Avraham’s descendants would be foreigners. Presumably Ibn Ezra is connecting the prophecy of the four generations with the prophecy of the 400 years since the prophecy of the 400 years refers to the descendants being foreigners, 15:13. However, the prophecy of the 400 years is mentioned three verses before the prophecy of the return of the fourth generation, 15:16, and there is nothing in 15:16 that implies that the four generations start from when they were foreigners. Furthermore, even with Ibn Ezra’s logic, why is Kehat more of a foreigner than his father Levi? Both were born in Israel, moved to Egypt at the same time, and lived in Egypt for a substantial part of their lives. Not only does the choice of starting the generations from Kehat or Yehuda have no textual support, but also delaying the onset of the count of the generations makes the prophecy of the four generations meaningless. As pointed out by Rashbam, once Avraham knew the prophecy of the 400 years, what difference does it make if there were four or five generations since it would still take 400 years to return?
The second approach (Rashbam, Ramban, and Benno Jacob, 1974) is that four generations refer to the Amorites, and not to the descendants of Avraham. The idea is that in 15:16, G-d was explaining to Avraham that his descendants could not get the land of Israel immediately since “the sin of the Amorites was not complete.” In Shemot 20:5, as part of the Decalogue, G-d told the people that at times the fourth generation is punished for the sins of the first generation, since G-d gives the generations time to repent. Thus, it is argued that here G-d was telling Avraham, that the Amorites had to be given four generations to have the chance to repent, and only afterwards if they did not could Avraham’s descendants receive the land from the Amorites.
This approach separates the prophecy of the four generations, which refer to the Amorites, with the prophecy of the 400 years, which refers to the Avraham’s descendants. However, this approach is also problematic. 15:16 records that the fourth generation will return, and according to this approach the fourth generation is the Amorites, which means that the prophecy is that the fourth generation of the Amorites would return. However, this prophecy would be insignificant to Avraham. Accordingly, the reference to the return of the fourth generation in the beginning of the verse cannot refer to the Amorites.
A third approach (Sarna, 1989, p. 116) is that word dor refers to 100 years, and then the prophecy of the return of the fourth dor would be 400 years. This could be for two reasons. One if dor means generation, the time from the birth of a parent to the birth of a child, then maybe in those days the time was 100 years, as Yitzhak was born when Avraham was 100. However, from the fact that Sara and Avraham doubted that this was possible (17:18, 18:12, 20:6,7) shows that this was an unusual event even in those days. The second possibility is that dor should be interpreted as life span, which could be considered as 100 years. However, this is also problematic since there is no other source that a life span in those days was considered 100 years.
My thought is that the return of the fourth dor must refer to four generations from Avraham. In fact, Ramban (on 30:9) seems to state that the prophecy refers to the children of Yaakov, who were the fourth generation of Avraham. With this idea there are two possible ways to understand the prophecy of the return of the fourth generation.
One, the prophecy refers to Yosef who returned to the land, Yehoshua 24:32. Accordingly, the prophecy of the return of the fourth generation was referring to the return of Yosef and is unrelated to the 400 years that the people would live in Egypt. There are two problems with this idea. One, while Yosef returned to the land of Israel, he was dead and his return was that he was buried in Israel. How can this be considered as returning? Yet, from Bereshit 46:4, we see that G-d promised Yaakov that Yaakov would return to the land of Israel, and we know Yaakov only returned after he had died. Even if one comes back dead, then that is still considered as having returned.
In 50:25, Yosef made the brothers swear to bring him back to Israel, and in Shemot 13:19 the Torah mentions how Moshe took the bones of Yosef out of Egypt. It is clear that this is very important since the Torah goes out of its way to mention these two incidents. The importance is that Yosef is the fourth generation of Avram, and his return is the fulfillment of this prophecy to Avraham.
What could be the importance of Yosef returning dead? Why should G-d have told Avraham about the return of the fourth generation if it meant Yosef returning when he was dead? My guess is that after Avraham was told that his descendants would be slaves for 400 years, it would be difficult for Avraham to identify with his future descendants, but Avraham could feel a personal connection with his great-grandchild. Even if Yosef returned dead, the fact that he was being carried back by the people who returned to the land, demonstrated the people’s connection with Yosef and through Yosef, the people’s connection to Avraham. Thus, the prophecy of 15:13-16 then consists of two distinct parts: 15:13,14 is the prophecy about the future history of Avraham’s descendants, while 15:15,16 were personal prophecies for Avraham.
The second problem with the return of Yosef as being the fulfillment of the prophecy is that 15:16 uses the plural when referring to the return, which implies that many members of the generation would return and not just one. However, one could answer that Yosef was the representative of his generation, and his return symbolized the whole generation’s return. Thus, when Yaakov told Yosef that G-d would bring him back to Israel, Yaakov used the plural even though he was only addressing Yosef, 48:21.
The second possibility is that when the Jewish people returned to the land, they did so as the tribes of Reuven, Shimon, etc. Even though the sons of Yaakov were dead, their names lived on and hence the identification of the people was through the great-grandchildren of Avraham. Thus, one could consider the tribe of Yehuda as a continuation of Yehuda himself. It is most remarkable that during the long stay in Egypt, the division of the people remained based on the children of Yaakov. In Tanakh, when there is a reference to the whole nation, it is almost always as benei Yisrael, the children of Yaakov. According to this idea, the prophecy of the return of the fourth generation would be that when the people would return they would identify themselves as the fourth generation of Avraham. The significance of this prophecy was again that Avraham would be able to feel a personal connection with these people, as they considered themselves his fourth generation. With this approach there would be no contradiction with the prophecy of 400 years since the prophecy refers to the identity of the people and not to when they would return. Finally, this idea could be combined with the return of Yosef, as Yosef was the only member of the fourth generation who did not have a tribe named after him. Therefore, he had to return by being buried in Israel, while his brothers could return through their tribes.
Bibliography:
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.
Sarna, Nahum (1923-2005), 1989, The JPS Torah Commentary: Genesis, Philadelphia: The Jewish Publication Society.
Probably the most popular approach is that the count of the four generations begins not from Avraham but from when the descendants of Avraham when to live in Egypt. Rashi (15:16) explains that the generations are Yehuda, Peretz, Hetzron, and Calev. One minor problem with this approach is that in the Torah, Calev is the son of Yefunne (Bemidbar 13:6) and not Hetzron. However Divrei Hayyamim I 2:18 states that Calev was Hetzron’s son (though see Divrei Hayyamim 4:15). Possibly due to this difficulty, Ibn Ezra and Radak (both on 15:16) slightly alter the generations to be: Kehat, Amram, Moshe or Aharon, and their children. In addition, the adherents to this explanation argue that the 400 years began with the birth of Yitzhak. Thus, it is argued that there is no connection between the count of the 400 years and the four generations since they start from different times.
This approach is problematic. It is ad hoc since there is no intrinsic reason to start the generations with Yehuda or Kehat. Why not start with Yaakov? Mizrahi (on Rashi's comments) writes that Yaakov was excluded either because when he came to Egypt he was near death or because the count had to begin from the slavery and according to Chazal the slavery did not begin until after Yaakov died. Yet, these answers are difficult. Yaakov lived 17 years in Egypt, and we do not know when the slavery began (by Yosef?). More fundamentally, the four generations should start from Avraham since G-d was addressing Avraham.
Ibn Ezra writes that the count begins when Avraham’s descendants would be foreigners. Presumably Ibn Ezra is connecting the prophecy of the four generations with the prophecy of the 400 years since the prophecy of the 400 years refers to the descendants being foreigners, 15:13. However, the prophecy of the 400 years is mentioned three verses before the prophecy of the return of the fourth generation, 15:16, and there is nothing in 15:16 that implies that the four generations start from when they were foreigners. Furthermore, even with Ibn Ezra’s logic, why is Kehat more of a foreigner than his father Levi? Both were born in Israel, moved to Egypt at the same time, and lived in Egypt for a substantial part of their lives. Not only does the choice of starting the generations from Kehat or Yehuda have no textual support, but also delaying the onset of the count of the generations makes the prophecy of the four generations meaningless. As pointed out by Rashbam, once Avraham knew the prophecy of the 400 years, what difference does it make if there were four or five generations since it would still take 400 years to return?
The second approach (Rashbam, Ramban, and Benno Jacob, 1974) is that four generations refer to the Amorites, and not to the descendants of Avraham. The idea is that in 15:16, G-d was explaining to Avraham that his descendants could not get the land of Israel immediately since “the sin of the Amorites was not complete.” In Shemot 20:5, as part of the Decalogue, G-d told the people that at times the fourth generation is punished for the sins of the first generation, since G-d gives the generations time to repent. Thus, it is argued that here G-d was telling Avraham, that the Amorites had to be given four generations to have the chance to repent, and only afterwards if they did not could Avraham’s descendants receive the land from the Amorites.
This approach separates the prophecy of the four generations, which refer to the Amorites, with the prophecy of the 400 years, which refers to the Avraham’s descendants. However, this approach is also problematic. 15:16 records that the fourth generation will return, and according to this approach the fourth generation is the Amorites, which means that the prophecy is that the fourth generation of the Amorites would return. However, this prophecy would be insignificant to Avraham. Accordingly, the reference to the return of the fourth generation in the beginning of the verse cannot refer to the Amorites.
A third approach (Sarna, 1989, p. 116) is that word dor refers to 100 years, and then the prophecy of the return of the fourth dor would be 400 years. This could be for two reasons. One if dor means generation, the time from the birth of a parent to the birth of a child, then maybe in those days the time was 100 years, as Yitzhak was born when Avraham was 100. However, from the fact that Sara and Avraham doubted that this was possible (17:18, 18:12, 20:6,7) shows that this was an unusual event even in those days. The second possibility is that dor should be interpreted as life span, which could be considered as 100 years. However, this is also problematic since there is no other source that a life span in those days was considered 100 years.
My thought is that the return of the fourth dor must refer to four generations from Avraham. In fact, Ramban (on 30:9) seems to state that the prophecy refers to the children of Yaakov, who were the fourth generation of Avraham. With this idea there are two possible ways to understand the prophecy of the return of the fourth generation.
One, the prophecy refers to Yosef who returned to the land, Yehoshua 24:32. Accordingly, the prophecy of the return of the fourth generation was referring to the return of Yosef and is unrelated to the 400 years that the people would live in Egypt. There are two problems with this idea. One, while Yosef returned to the land of Israel, he was dead and his return was that he was buried in Israel. How can this be considered as returning? Yet, from Bereshit 46:4, we see that G-d promised Yaakov that Yaakov would return to the land of Israel, and we know Yaakov only returned after he had died. Even if one comes back dead, then that is still considered as having returned.
In 50:25, Yosef made the brothers swear to bring him back to Israel, and in Shemot 13:19 the Torah mentions how Moshe took the bones of Yosef out of Egypt. It is clear that this is very important since the Torah goes out of its way to mention these two incidents. The importance is that Yosef is the fourth generation of Avram, and his return is the fulfillment of this prophecy to Avraham.
What could be the importance of Yosef returning dead? Why should G-d have told Avraham about the return of the fourth generation if it meant Yosef returning when he was dead? My guess is that after Avraham was told that his descendants would be slaves for 400 years, it would be difficult for Avraham to identify with his future descendants, but Avraham could feel a personal connection with his great-grandchild. Even if Yosef returned dead, the fact that he was being carried back by the people who returned to the land, demonstrated the people’s connection with Yosef and through Yosef, the people’s connection to Avraham. Thus, the prophecy of 15:13-16 then consists of two distinct parts: 15:13,14 is the prophecy about the future history of Avraham’s descendants, while 15:15,16 were personal prophecies for Avraham.
The second problem with the return of Yosef as being the fulfillment of the prophecy is that 15:16 uses the plural when referring to the return, which implies that many members of the generation would return and not just one. However, one could answer that Yosef was the representative of his generation, and his return symbolized the whole generation’s return. Thus, when Yaakov told Yosef that G-d would bring him back to Israel, Yaakov used the plural even though he was only addressing Yosef, 48:21.
The second possibility is that when the Jewish people returned to the land, they did so as the tribes of Reuven, Shimon, etc. Even though the sons of Yaakov were dead, their names lived on and hence the identification of the people was through the great-grandchildren of Avraham. Thus, one could consider the tribe of Yehuda as a continuation of Yehuda himself. It is most remarkable that during the long stay in Egypt, the division of the people remained based on the children of Yaakov. In Tanakh, when there is a reference to the whole nation, it is almost always as benei Yisrael, the children of Yaakov. According to this idea, the prophecy of the return of the fourth generation would be that when the people would return they would identify themselves as the fourth generation of Avraham. The significance of this prophecy was again that Avraham would be able to feel a personal connection with these people, as they considered themselves his fourth generation. With this approach there would be no contradiction with the prophecy of 400 years since the prophecy refers to the identity of the people and not to when they would return. Finally, this idea could be combined with the return of Yosef, as Yosef was the only member of the fourth generation who did not have a tribe named after him. Therefore, he had to return by being buried in Israel, while his brothers could return through their tribes.
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.
Sarna, Nahum (1923-2005), 1989, The JPS Torah Commentary: Genesis, Philadelphia: The Jewish Publication Society.
Bereshit 50:24,25 (Va-yehi) – The representative of Avraham's great-grandchildren
Bereshit 50:24,25 record that before Yosef died, he made his brothers swear that when the Jewish people would leave Egypt, they would take his bones with them to bury them in the last of Israel. This request was fulfilled, (Shemot 13:19 and Joshua 24:32) but it is odd that the emphasis in the Torah is only that Yosef would be buried in the land of Israel and not his brothers. Bereshit Rabbah (100:11, also see Rashi on Shemot 13:19) records that all the brothers were buried in Israel, but the Torah only specifies that Yosef was to be buried in the land of Israel.
Why was it important for Yosef to be buried in the land of Israel, and if it was so important that Yosef be buried in Israel, why was he not buried there immediately after he died as Yaakov was? Furthermore, Yosef told his brothers, that in the future G-d would take the people out of Egypt. How did Yosef know this fact?
My understanding is that Yosef knew the prophecy that G-d told to Avraham (Avram) in the “covenant of the pieces," that the fourth generation would return to the land of Israel, 15:16. Furthermore, Yosef, the great-grandson of Avraham, understood that his burial in Israel was the fulfillment of the prophecy, and even though he was returning dead, this was considered as being returned, see our discussion on 15:16, "Who is the fourth generation?" Thus Yosef had to return to the land of Israel, but for a long time (always?) he was unable to leave Egypt and also his brothers were unable to leave even temporarily to bury him. In addition, for the prophecy to have any significance, Yosef had to return when all the people were coming to live in the land of Israel. Thus, Yosef did not ask his brothers to immediately bury him in Israel after he died, but only made them swear that they would take him when all the people left.
Yet, why did Yosef have to make his brothers swear since in any event his return was promised to Avraham? The answer, just like by Yaakov making Yosef swear to him to bury him in the land of Israel is that a person must make an effort to fulfill G-d's prophecy and not be passive to depend on G-d to do everything. In the end, a person's effort may not be crucial to the fulfillment of the prophecy but still a person must do what he can, and here Yosef, by making his brothers swear, was doing what he could to fulfill the prophecy to Avraham.
Why was it important for Yosef to be buried in the land of Israel, and if it was so important that Yosef be buried in Israel, why was he not buried there immediately after he died as Yaakov was? Furthermore, Yosef told his brothers, that in the future G-d would take the people out of Egypt. How did Yosef know this fact?
My understanding is that Yosef knew the prophecy that G-d told to Avraham (Avram) in the “covenant of the pieces," that the fourth generation would return to the land of Israel, 15:16. Furthermore, Yosef, the great-grandson of Avraham, understood that his burial in Israel was the fulfillment of the prophecy, and even though he was returning dead, this was considered as being returned, see our discussion on 15:16, "Who is the fourth generation?" Thus Yosef had to return to the land of Israel, but for a long time (always?) he was unable to leave Egypt and also his brothers were unable to leave even temporarily to bury him. In addition, for the prophecy to have any significance, Yosef had to return when all the people were coming to live in the land of Israel. Thus, Yosef did not ask his brothers to immediately bury him in Israel after he died, but only made them swear that they would take him when all the people left.
Yet, why did Yosef have to make his brothers swear since in any event his return was promised to Avraham? The answer, just like by Yaakov making Yosef swear to him to bury him in the land of Israel is that a person must make an effort to fulfill G-d's prophecy and not be passive to depend on G-d to do everything. In the end, a person's effort may not be crucial to the fulfillment of the prophecy but still a person must do what he can, and here Yosef, by making his brothers swear, was doing what he could to fulfill the prophecy to Avraham.
Sunday, January 4, 2009
The fast on the tenth of Tevet
In contradistinction to the fasts of the eighth and ninth of Tevet, where people do not fast, the custom to fast on the tenth of Tevet is followed, see Shulchan Arukh, Orah Chayyim 549:1. A possible reason for this difference is that the fast of the tenth of Tevet has a Biblical source. Zechariah (8:19) records that the fasts of the four, five, seven and ten, which were for the destruction of the first Bet ha-Mikdash, would become days of joy. It is assumed that Zechariah is referring to the months starting from Nisan, and then the verse is referring to fasts in the fourth month (Tammuz), the fifth month (Av), seventh month (Tishri) and the tenth month (Tevet). Yet, still the verse only tells us that there is a fast day in Tevet, but it does not tell us on what day is the fast.
The Talmud (Rosh Hashanah 18b, also Tosefta Sotah 6:3-7) quotes an argument between R. Shimon b. Yochai and R. Akiva as to when is the fast in the month of Tevet. R. Akiva says it is on the tenth of Tevet (our practice) since that is the day when Nebuchadnezzar surrounded Jerusalem prior to his conquest of the city and the destruction of the first Bet ha-Mikdash, see Kings II 25:1, Yirmiyahu 52:4 and Yechezkel 24:1. However, R. Shimon b Yochai claims that the fast is on the fifth of Tevet, since on that day Yechezkel and the Jews of Bavel learned of the destruction of the first Bet ha-Mikdash, Yechezkel 33:21.
R. Shimon agues that his explanation of the verse is preferable since the verse in Zechariah lists the fast on the tenth month last, which implies that the fast of the tenth month was based on events that occurred last. This order accords with his view that the fast is when the people in Bavel found out about the destruction of the Bet ha-Mikdash. However, if the fast was because Jerusalem was surrounded, then the fast of the tenth should have been quoted first in the verse since the city was surrounded before the destruction of the Bet ha-Mikdash. However, the Talmud answers that R. Akiva follows the counting of months and then ten would be last, even if the events that are the basis for the fast of the tenth occurred first.
A new development regarding the fast is that in 1949, by the first fast of the tenth of Tevet after the founding of the state of Israel, the Rabbanut in Israel attempted to establish the tenth of Tevet day as a day of mourning for the Holocaust. They declared that people should light candles, to say kaddish, tehillim, kel maleh, and to sing ani maamin at the end of the tefillah, (quoted in Levinsky, 1956, Vol. 7, pp. 94,95).
This proposal was very reasonable. By combining the memorial of the holocaust with a fast day, it increases the chance that later generations will remember the Holocaust. The fasting is a concrete event that will ensure that when people ask why are we fasting, they can be told about the horror of the Holocaust. (Many want to incorporate the memorial for the Holocaust on Tisha B’av which is also a fast day, but then the focus is on the destruction of the Bet ha-Mikdash and not on the Holocaust.) In addition, for many people it is difficult to relate to the idea that we fast on the tenth of Tevet because the walls of Jerusalem were surrounded since the focus of our mourning for the destruction of the Bet ha-Mikdash is during the summer on Tisha B’av. Thus, by adding a reason to fast on the tenth of Tevet this would increase the significance of the fast, and is similar to the idea that the Mishnah (Ta’anit 4:6) lists various calamities that befell the Jewish people on the 17th of Tammuz and Tisha B’av.
In 1951, when the Knesset was deciding on which day to establish a memorial for the Holocaust, the Mizrahi (religious) party pushed for the tenth of Tevet, but Mapam (left wing) party wanted the day to remember the Warsaw ghetto uprising. This began in 1943 on erev Pesach, but since this day was not possible it was proposed to have it a few days after Pesach on the 27th of Nisan. The Mapam did not want the day to be a day of mourning but a day to inculcate people about the “new Jew” who would fight and not meekly die.
Roni Stauber (2001) in a review of this debate notes that the 27th of Nisan was chosen since most of the Knesset favored Mapam’s view and also the Mizrahi agreed in the end since they thought that there could be two days to remember the Holocaust, one, the religious day, the tenth of Tevet, and one, the national day, the 27th of Nisan. Throughout the 1950s, the Rabbanut continued to proclaim and to relate to the tenth of Tevet as a memorial day for the Holocaust. In 1959, there was another discussion in the Knesset to switch the national memorial day for the Holocaust to the tenth of Tevet, but this was defeated largely because of the precedent of the previous eight years.
Today, the association of the tenth of Tevet with the Holocaust seems to be forgotten, except that children in religious national schools in Israel have a ceremony on the day to remember the Holocaust. The Siddur Rinat Yisrael in its calendar in the back of the Siddur notes the association between the tenth of Tevet and the Holocaust, but does not proscribe any special prayers to be said on the day to remember the Holocaust. I think we should return to the initial decision by the Rabbanut and recite prayers on the tenth of Tevet to remember the Holocaust since this will help to ensure that the tragedy of the Holocaust will always be remembered.
Bibliography:
Levinsky, Yom Tov, 1956, Sefer ha-Moadim, Tel Aviv: Dvir.
Stauber, Roni, 2001, The debate in the 1950’s regarding the establishment of a Holocaust remembrance day, in A state in the Making: Israeli society in the first decades, edited by Anita Shapiro, Jerusalem: The Zalman Shazar Center for Jewish History, pp. 189-203.
The Talmud (Rosh Hashanah 18b, also Tosefta Sotah 6:3-7) quotes an argument between R. Shimon b. Yochai and R. Akiva as to when is the fast in the month of Tevet. R. Akiva says it is on the tenth of Tevet (our practice) since that is the day when Nebuchadnezzar surrounded Jerusalem prior to his conquest of the city and the destruction of the first Bet ha-Mikdash, see Kings II 25:1, Yirmiyahu 52:4 and Yechezkel 24:1. However, R. Shimon b Yochai claims that the fast is on the fifth of Tevet, since on that day Yechezkel and the Jews of Bavel learned of the destruction of the first Bet ha-Mikdash, Yechezkel 33:21.
R. Shimon agues that his explanation of the verse is preferable since the verse in Zechariah lists the fast on the tenth month last, which implies that the fast of the tenth month was based on events that occurred last. This order accords with his view that the fast is when the people in Bavel found out about the destruction of the Bet ha-Mikdash. However, if the fast was because Jerusalem was surrounded, then the fast of the tenth should have been quoted first in the verse since the city was surrounded before the destruction of the Bet ha-Mikdash. However, the Talmud answers that R. Akiva follows the counting of months and then ten would be last, even if the events that are the basis for the fast of the tenth occurred first.
A new development regarding the fast is that in 1949, by the first fast of the tenth of Tevet after the founding of the state of Israel, the Rabbanut in Israel attempted to establish the tenth of Tevet day as a day of mourning for the Holocaust. They declared that people should light candles, to say kaddish, tehillim, kel maleh, and to sing ani maamin at the end of the tefillah, (quoted in Levinsky, 1956, Vol. 7, pp. 94,95).
This proposal was very reasonable. By combining the memorial of the holocaust with a fast day, it increases the chance that later generations will remember the Holocaust. The fasting is a concrete event that will ensure that when people ask why are we fasting, they can be told about the horror of the Holocaust. (Many want to incorporate the memorial for the Holocaust on Tisha B’av which is also a fast day, but then the focus is on the destruction of the Bet ha-Mikdash and not on the Holocaust.) In addition, for many people it is difficult to relate to the idea that we fast on the tenth of Tevet because the walls of Jerusalem were surrounded since the focus of our mourning for the destruction of the Bet ha-Mikdash is during the summer on Tisha B’av. Thus, by adding a reason to fast on the tenth of Tevet this would increase the significance of the fast, and is similar to the idea that the Mishnah (Ta’anit 4:6) lists various calamities that befell the Jewish people on the 17th of Tammuz and Tisha B’av.
In 1951, when the Knesset was deciding on which day to establish a memorial for the Holocaust, the Mizrahi (religious) party pushed for the tenth of Tevet, but Mapam (left wing) party wanted the day to remember the Warsaw ghetto uprising. This began in 1943 on erev Pesach, but since this day was not possible it was proposed to have it a few days after Pesach on the 27th of Nisan. The Mapam did not want the day to be a day of mourning but a day to inculcate people about the “new Jew” who would fight and not meekly die.
Roni Stauber (2001) in a review of this debate notes that the 27th of Nisan was chosen since most of the Knesset favored Mapam’s view and also the Mizrahi agreed in the end since they thought that there could be two days to remember the Holocaust, one, the religious day, the tenth of Tevet, and one, the national day, the 27th of Nisan. Throughout the 1950s, the Rabbanut continued to proclaim and to relate to the tenth of Tevet as a memorial day for the Holocaust. In 1959, there was another discussion in the Knesset to switch the national memorial day for the Holocaust to the tenth of Tevet, but this was defeated largely because of the precedent of the previous eight years.
Today, the association of the tenth of Tevet with the Holocaust seems to be forgotten, except that children in religious national schools in Israel have a ceremony on the day to remember the Holocaust. The Siddur Rinat Yisrael in its calendar in the back of the Siddur notes the association between the tenth of Tevet and the Holocaust, but does not proscribe any special prayers to be said on the day to remember the Holocaust. I think we should return to the initial decision by the Rabbanut and recite prayers on the tenth of Tevet to remember the Holocaust since this will help to ensure that the tragedy of the Holocaust will always be remembered.
Bibliography:
Levinsky, Yom Tov, 1956, Sefer ha-Moadim, Tel Aviv: Dvir.
Stauber, Roni, 2001, The debate in the 1950’s regarding the establishment of a Holocaust remembrance day, in A state in the Making: Israeli society in the first decades, edited by Anita Shapiro, Jerusalem: The Zalman Shazar Center for Jewish History, pp. 189-203.
The fast on the ninth of Tevet
The Shulchan Arukh (Orah Chayyim, 580) states that the ninth day of Tevet is a fast day and that we do not know the source for this fast. (This same wording can be found in the Behag, Siddur Rav Amram Gaon 2004, p. 91, and the Tur.) This fast day is mentioned within a list of fast days which nobody seems to fast on anymore, see our discussion "The fast on the eighth of Tevet."
In any event, this law/ custom to fast on the ninth of Tevet is an anomalous situation. We have a fast day, but we do not why. S. Leiman (1983) has a fascinating article that reviews various attempts to find the source for the fast day.
The most popular rationale (for example, Mishnah Berurah 580:13) is that the fast is to commemorate the death of Ezra, based on a medieval prayer that states that Ezra died on the 9th of Tevet. However, Leiman notes that if this is the reason for the fast, why would the Shulchan Arukh and the Tur write we that do not know the source for the fast?
A bizarre suggestion for the fast is that the fast is because Jesus was born on the ninth of Tevet. Leiman quotes this from several scholars, and I saw this mentioned in the notes to the new edition of the Tur. Leiman criticizes this answer as being implausible since even the Christians do not agree when Jesus was born, but there is a different Christian source for the fast.
Leiman quotes two sources from the 19th century who wrote that the fast was due to the death of Simon ha-Qalponi (Qalpos). This man is discussed in the book Toldot Yeshu, a medieval Jewish history of Jesus. He is said to have been a Tanna who was told by the Rabbis to infiltrate the Jewish-Christian groups to tell them to stop following Jewish law in order to separate them from Judaism. Leiman prefers this explanation since Toldot Yeshu states that Simon ha-Qalponi died on the ninth of Tevet and that the day became an annual fast. Also, this strange source would explain why nobody wanted to mention the reason for the fast. (Hayyim Simons, 1990, also favors this rationale.)
With this idea, both the fasts of the eighth and the ninth of Tevet are due to the battle between Judaism and Christianity in the middle and second half of the first millennium.
Bibliography:
Leiman, S. 1983, The scroll of fasts: The ninth of Tebeth, Jewish Quarterly Review, 74:2, pp. 174-195.
Simons, Hayyim, 1990, Reasons for the fast on the ninth of Tevet, Sinai, 106, pp. 138-151.
The most popular rationale (for example, Mishnah Berurah 580:13) is that the fast is to commemorate the death of Ezra, based on a medieval prayer that states that Ezra died on the 9th of Tevet. However, Leiman notes that if this is the reason for the fast, why would the Shulchan Arukh and the Tur write we that do not know the source for the fast?
A bizarre suggestion for the fast is that the fast is because Jesus was born on the ninth of Tevet. Leiman quotes this from several scholars, and I saw this mentioned in the notes to the new edition of the Tur. Leiman criticizes this answer as being implausible since even the Christians do not agree when Jesus was born, but there is a different Christian source for the fast.
Leiman quotes two sources from the 19th century who wrote that the fast was due to the death of Simon ha-Qalponi (Qalpos). This man is discussed in the book Toldot Yeshu, a medieval Jewish history of Jesus. He is said to have been a Tanna who was told by the Rabbis to infiltrate the Jewish-Christian groups to tell them to stop following Jewish law in order to separate them from Judaism. Leiman prefers this explanation since Toldot Yeshu states that Simon ha-Qalponi died on the ninth of Tevet and that the day became an annual fast. Also, this strange source would explain why nobody wanted to mention the reason for the fast. (Hayyim Simons, 1990, also favors this rationale.)
With this idea, both the fasts of the eighth and the ninth of Tevet are due to the battle between Judaism and Christianity in the middle and second half of the first millennium.
Bibliography:
Leiman, S. 1983, The scroll of fasts: The ninth of Tebeth, Jewish Quarterly Review, 74:2, pp. 174-195.
Simons, Hayyim, 1990, Reasons for the fast on the ninth of Tevet, Sinai, 106, pp. 138-151.
The fast on the eighth of Tevet
In the end of the laws of fasting, R. Yosef Caro, (1488-1575, Shulchan Arukh Orah Chayyim, 580) lists various fast days, most (all?) of which, to the best of my knowledge, people today do not fast on. (R. Yosef Caro himself, in the Bet Yosef, writes that he never heard or saw anybody who fasted on these days.) The source for this list is from a paragraph that is called Megilat Ta'anit, but this is not the same document as the Megilat Ta'anit from the time of the Tannaim (1st and 2nd second centuries). The initial Megilat Ta'anit lists those days when one cannot fast, while the second Megilat Ta'anit, which is possibly from the eighth or ninth centuries, lists those days when one does fast.
Within this list of days, the Shulchan Arukh records the fast of the eighth of Tevet. The Shulchan Arukh writes that the eighth of Tevet is a fast day because on this day the Torah was translated into Greek (the Septuagint). This translation occurred around 250 BCE, by Ptolemy II, who wanted it for his library in Alexandria.
This is a strange reason for fasting since one would think that translating the Torah would spread the word of G-d and would be desirable. We have many translations of the Torah, most prominently the Targumim, which translate the Torah into Aramaic, and we have no fast day for these translations. In fact, the Shulchan Arukh (Orah Chayyim 285:1) rules that a person is obligated to read the Targum each week. Why is the Greek translation worse than the Aramaic or English translations?
In addition, the Mishnah (Megilah 1:8, also see Rambam, Laws of Tefilin, 1:19) records that according to one opinion all the books of Tanakh can be written in all languages, while R. Shimon b. Gamaliel states that only Greek is permitted. Accordingly, the translation into Greek is permitted according to both opinions. In the ensuing discussion in the Talmud, the Talmud (Megilah 9a) quotes the story that G-d made a miracle by the Greek translation that the 72 translators working independently arrived at the same translation. Why should one fast when G-d performed a miracle to assist in the translation?
Eliyahu Kitov (1978, vol. 1, pp. 318-321) writes, “If one translates the Torah into another language, he is like one who makes the Torah an empty vessel, empty of its entire wealth of meaning.” Also, he writes, “Once the Torah was imprisoned in Greek translation, it was as if the Torah was divested of its reverence.” Kitov is certainly correct that reading the Torah in translation as opposed to in Hebrew is not the “real thing,” and does not give one the full meaning of the Torah, but still this logic should also apply to the Targumim. Also, should this logic apply to the Greek translation, where the Talmud stated that G-d performed a miracle to help the translators?
Many have noted (for example Moshe Simon-Shoshan, 2007) that the problem with the Greek translation developed many years after the translation was done due to the adoption of the Septuagint by the Christians. Other translations would not be problematic, and initially the Greek translation would also have been fine. Thus, R. Shimon B. Gamaliel allowed the Torah to be written in Greek. It was only after the time of the Mishnah with the growing success of Christianity that the translation came to be considered as a day of sorrow and fasting, possibly to stop Jews from using the Septuagint.
This development with regard to Chazal’s view of the Greek translation can explain R. Yehuda’s (Megilah 9A) opinion that R. Shimon b. Gamaliel’s permission to the Tanakh in Greek should be limited to sifrei Torah, and not to the prophets and the writings. With the spread of Christianity, R. Yehuda might have wanted to stop the use of the Greek translation of Tanakh, so he tried to limit the permission to use Greek just to the Torah. Yet, according to R. Yehuda, a Sefer Torah, which has greater sanctity then the prophets and the writings, is the only section of Tanakh that can be written in Greek! The answer is that from the Talmud it seems that R. Yehuda would have preferred to abolish R. Shimon b. Gamaliel’s law altogether, but R. Shimon’s ruling by the sefer Torah was not able to be abrogated due to the miracle of the translation.
Bibliography:
Within this list of days, the Shulchan Arukh records the fast of the eighth of Tevet. The Shulchan Arukh writes that the eighth of Tevet is a fast day because on this day the Torah was translated into Greek (the Septuagint). This translation occurred around 250 BCE, by Ptolemy II, who wanted it for his library in Alexandria.
This is a strange reason for fasting since one would think that translating the Torah would spread the word of G-d and would be desirable. We have many translations of the Torah, most prominently the Targumim, which translate the Torah into Aramaic, and we have no fast day for these translations. In fact, the Shulchan Arukh (Orah Chayyim 285:1) rules that a person is obligated to read the Targum each week. Why is the Greek translation worse than the Aramaic or English translations?
In addition, the Mishnah (Megilah 1:8, also see Rambam, Laws of Tefilin, 1:19) records that according to one opinion all the books of Tanakh can be written in all languages, while R. Shimon b. Gamaliel states that only Greek is permitted. Accordingly, the translation into Greek is permitted according to both opinions. In the ensuing discussion in the Talmud, the Talmud (Megilah 9a) quotes the story that G-d made a miracle by the Greek translation that the 72 translators working independently arrived at the same translation. Why should one fast when G-d performed a miracle to assist in the translation?
Eliyahu Kitov (1978, vol. 1, pp. 318-321) writes, “If one translates the Torah into another language, he is like one who makes the Torah an empty vessel, empty of its entire wealth of meaning.” Also, he writes, “Once the Torah was imprisoned in Greek translation, it was as if the Torah was divested of its reverence.” Kitov is certainly correct that reading the Torah in translation as opposed to in Hebrew is not the “real thing,” and does not give one the full meaning of the Torah, but still this logic should also apply to the Targumim. Also, should this logic apply to the Greek translation, where the Talmud stated that G-d performed a miracle to help the translators?
Many have noted (for example Moshe Simon-Shoshan, 2007) that the problem with the Greek translation developed many years after the translation was done due to the adoption of the Septuagint by the Christians. Other translations would not be problematic, and initially the Greek translation would also have been fine. Thus, R. Shimon B. Gamaliel allowed the Torah to be written in Greek. It was only after the time of the Mishnah with the growing success of Christianity that the translation came to be considered as a day of sorrow and fasting, possibly to stop Jews from using the Septuagint.
This development with regard to Chazal’s view of the Greek translation can explain R. Yehuda’s (Megilah 9A) opinion that R. Shimon b. Gamaliel’s permission to the Tanakh in Greek should be limited to sifrei Torah, and not to the prophets and the writings. With the spread of Christianity, R. Yehuda might have wanted to stop the use of the Greek translation of Tanakh, so he tried to limit the permission to use Greek just to the Torah. Yet, according to R. Yehuda, a Sefer Torah, which has greater sanctity then the prophets and the writings, is the only section of Tanakh that can be written in Greek! The answer is that from the Talmud it seems that R. Yehuda would have preferred to abolish R. Shimon b. Gamaliel’s law altogether, but R. Shimon’s ruling by the sefer Torah was not able to be abrogated due to the miracle of the translation.
Kitov, Eliyahu, 1978, The Book of Our Heritage, Jerusalem: Feldheim Publishers.
Simon-Shoshan, Moshe, 2007, The tasks of the translators: The Rabbis, the Septuagint and the culture politics of translation, Prooftexts, 27, pp. 1-39.
Simon-Shoshan, Moshe, 2007, The tasks of the translators: The Rabbis, the Septuagint and the culture politics of translation, Prooftexts, 27, pp. 1-39.
Thursday, January 1, 2009
Bereshit 45:3 – Is my father (Yaakov) still alive?
45:3 records that Yosef said “I am Yosef. Is my father still alive?” The question “is my father still alive?” is quite surprising since the whole point of Yehuda’s speech in the previous chapter was the danger to Yaakov’s life if Binyamin did not return home, which meant that Yaakov was still alive. The brothers could not have learned any new information concerning Yaakov after Yehuda spoke. Thus, Yosef knew that Yaakov was alive before he asked the question. What was the point of the question?
One possible answer is that Yosef’s question was to rebuke his brothers. The Talmud (Chagigah 4B, also see Bereshit Rabbah 93:10) quotes that when R. Eliezer learned the verse 45:3 he began to cry since he noted that the brothers could not respond to the rebuke of Yosef a fellow human being, and hence so much more so is a person unable to respond to the rebuke of G-d.
One possible answer is that Yosef’s question was to rebuke his brothers. The Talmud (Chagigah 4B, also see Bereshit Rabbah 93:10) quotes that when R. Eliezer learned the verse 45:3 he began to cry since he noted that the brothers could not respond to the rebuke of Yosef a fellow human being, and hence so much more so is a person unable to respond to the rebuke of G-d.
The Netziv (1817-1893, also see Torah Temimah, and Nachshoni, 1987, p. 174 quotes this idea from the Malbim and the Beit ha-Levi) questions where is there any hint in 45:3 that Yosef rebuked his brothers? He answers that the question “is my father still alive?” is the rebuke, that Yosef was telling the brothers that even if you thought that you had a right to sell me (Yosef) still you should have thought of the suffering the sale caused to Yaakov. Apparently, the idea is that Yehuda had just stated that he was so worried about the suffering to his father if he did not return with Binyamin, but then Yosef challenges him why were you not worried about this suffering when you sold me. The Netziv explain that the brothers’ inability to answer Yosef’s question was not concerning the issue of whether Yosef was alive, but rather that they could not answer Yosef’s rebuke. While this approach is possible, I doubt that Yosef was really intending to rebuke his brothers at that moment since the goal was to reconcile the family, as the following verses (45:5-8) record that Yosef told them that they should not be distressed about the sale.
A second approach to understanding the question “is my father still alive?” is that Yosef doubted that Yehuda was telling him the truth. The Keli Yakar (Ephraim Solomon ben Chayyim of Luntshitz, 1550-1619, also see Torah Temimah and Robert Altar, 2004, p. 260) suggests that Yosef was worried that maybe Yehuda had only told him that Yaakov was alive to accentuate his plea of mercy. This was not the first time the brothers had told Yosef that Yaakov was alive on this trip to Egypt, as when they first met Yosef in his house, Yosef had inquired about Yaakov and they told him that Yaakov was alive, 43;27,28. Thus, this approach would have to maintain that Yosef was worried that their earlier statements concerning Yaakov, even when Binyamin was not in danger, were also not true. However, this approach is problematic, since if Yosef was really worried that they had not spoken truthfully, then he should have repeated the question when the brothers had calmed down, but the Torah does not record that the issue was raised again.
Abravanel (1437-1508, p. 414:A) offers a third answer, that Yosef’s question was an attempt to make conversation with the brothers after their long separation, as it was logical for the brothers to discuss what had become of the family in the intervening years. Abravanel explains that Yosef did not want to speak to them about the sale, but rather he intended to ask them about their wives and their children. However, when the brothers could not respond to Yosef, he realized that he had to deal with the issue of the sale, and he told them not to be troubled about the sale. This approach explains the flow of the narrative of 45:3-8, but it is hard to accept that the question “is my father still alive?” was an opening statement to make conversation with the brothers.
Nahum Sarna (1989, p. 308) offers a fourth approach to understanding the question “is my father still alive?” Sarna explains that after Yehuda repeatedly referred to Yaakov in his speech, it was “no wonder that Yosef’s first thought was for the welfare of his father. True he had already sought and obtained this information, yet the terrifying picture Yehuda had painted made Yosef cry out in such a way that his words were more of an exclamation than an inquiry. That is why there is no reply and Yosef does not press the point.” This makes sense, but what was Yosef’s trying to exclaim? Maybe the answer is from the Seforno (1475-1550), who writes, that the question was to express Yosef’s amazement that Yaakov did not die from his worry about Yosef.
My guess is that the question “is my father still alive?” can be understood both as an exclamation and as a rhetorical question. After hearing from Yehuda that Yaakov was so concerned about Binyamin, Yosef was worried whether Yaakov was still alive. Yosef believed the brothers when they told him that Yaakov was alive, but that information was only accurate up to the time when the brothers left the land of Israel to go to Egypt. Yosef was scared that maybe Yaakov had died when the brothers were in Egypt, and this possibility actually increased due to Yosef’s actions, since he was delaying the brothers’ return home with his false accusation that Binyamin stole the goblet. The brothers could not answer this question, and instead, the only thing that could be done was for the brothers to return home as soon as possible. . Thus, after Yosef attempted to calm his brothers that they should not be scared of him (45:4-8), 45:9 records that Yosef told them to “make haste and return to my father.” Furthermore, his last words to them as they left were “not to quarrel on the way” (45:24) since he was concerned that quarreling would slow down their return to Yaakov.
Bibliography:
Alter, Robert, 2004, The five books of Moses: A translation and commentary, New York: W. W. Norton and Company
Leibowitz, Nehama (1905-1997), 1976, Studies in Bereshit, translated by Aryeh Newman, Jerusalem: The World Zionist Organization.
Nachshoni, Yehuda, 1987, Notes on the parshot of the Torah, Tel Aviv: Sifrati.
Sarna, Nahum (1923-2005), 1989, The JPS Torah Commentary: Genesis, Philadelphia: The Jewish Publication Society.
A second approach to understanding the question “is my father still alive?” is that Yosef doubted that Yehuda was telling him the truth. The Keli Yakar (Ephraim Solomon ben Chayyim of Luntshitz, 1550-1619, also see Torah Temimah and Robert Altar, 2004, p. 260) suggests that Yosef was worried that maybe Yehuda had only told him that Yaakov was alive to accentuate his plea of mercy. This was not the first time the brothers had told Yosef that Yaakov was alive on this trip to Egypt, as when they first met Yosef in his house, Yosef had inquired about Yaakov and they told him that Yaakov was alive, 43;27,28. Thus, this approach would have to maintain that Yosef was worried that their earlier statements concerning Yaakov, even when Binyamin was not in danger, were also not true. However, this approach is problematic, since if Yosef was really worried that they had not spoken truthfully, then he should have repeated the question when the brothers had calmed down, but the Torah does not record that the issue was raised again.
Abravanel (1437-1508, p. 414:A) offers a third answer, that Yosef’s question was an attempt to make conversation with the brothers after their long separation, as it was logical for the brothers to discuss what had become of the family in the intervening years. Abravanel explains that Yosef did not want to speak to them about the sale, but rather he intended to ask them about their wives and their children. However, when the brothers could not respond to Yosef, he realized that he had to deal with the issue of the sale, and he told them not to be troubled about the sale. This approach explains the flow of the narrative of 45:3-8, but it is hard to accept that the question “is my father still alive?” was an opening statement to make conversation with the brothers.
Nahum Sarna (1989, p. 308) offers a fourth approach to understanding the question “is my father still alive?” Sarna explains that after Yehuda repeatedly referred to Yaakov in his speech, it was “no wonder that Yosef’s first thought was for the welfare of his father. True he had already sought and obtained this information, yet the terrifying picture Yehuda had painted made Yosef cry out in such a way that his words were more of an exclamation than an inquiry. That is why there is no reply and Yosef does not press the point.” This makes sense, but what was Yosef’s trying to exclaim? Maybe the answer is from the Seforno (1475-1550), who writes, that the question was to express Yosef’s amazement that Yaakov did not die from his worry about Yosef.
My guess is that the question “is my father still alive?” can be understood both as an exclamation and as a rhetorical question. After hearing from Yehuda that Yaakov was so concerned about Binyamin, Yosef was worried whether Yaakov was still alive. Yosef believed the brothers when they told him that Yaakov was alive, but that information was only accurate up to the time when the brothers left the land of Israel to go to Egypt. Yosef was scared that maybe Yaakov had died when the brothers were in Egypt, and this possibility actually increased due to Yosef’s actions, since he was delaying the brothers’ return home with his false accusation that Binyamin stole the goblet. The brothers could not answer this question, and instead, the only thing that could be done was for the brothers to return home as soon as possible. . Thus, after Yosef attempted to calm his brothers that they should not be scared of him (45:4-8), 45:9 records that Yosef told them to “make haste and return to my father.” Furthermore, his last words to them as they left were “not to quarrel on the way” (45:24) since he was concerned that quarreling would slow down their return to Yaakov.
Alter, Robert, 2004, The five books of Moses: A translation and commentary, New York: W. W. Norton and Company
Leibowitz, Nehama (1905-1997), 1976, Studies in Bereshit, translated by Aryeh Newman, Jerusalem: The World Zionist Organization.
Nachshoni, Yehuda, 1987, Notes on the parshot of the Torah, Tel Aviv: Sifrati.
Sarna, Nahum (1923-2005), 1989, The JPS Torah Commentary: Genesis, Philadelphia: The Jewish Publication Society.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)