The Mishnah (Rosh Hashanah 1:1) quotes Bet Hillel that the new year for trees is Tu be-Shevat, the fifteenth of Shevat. The need for a new year for trees is in order to determine the beginning and ending of the agricultural year with regard to taking tithes (see R. Zevin, Moadim be-Halakhah, pp.182-185). From the Mishnah, it seems that Tu be-Shevat had no special celebrations other than that one day must be chosen as the beginning of the agricultural year with regard to tithes.
Avaraham Yaari (1970) in a fascinating essay tracks the development of celebrations on Tu be-Shevat. The first allusions to any special aspect of the day, other than marking the new year with regard to tithes, are piyyutim that were found in the Genizah in Cairo. These piyyutim were written by R. Yehuda ha-Levi the son of R. Hillel who lived in Israel, probably in the tenth century. The piyyutim were prayers to be recited as part of the Shemoneh Esrei on Tu be-Shevat, which indicate some level of celebration on the day. They reflect the practice of the Jews who lived in the land of Israel in the post-Talmudic period, though Yaari notes that maybe these prayers were even said in the Talmudic period in the land of Israel.
The next reference to celebrations on Tu be-Shevat is in the medieval period. Rabbeinu Gershom (960-1040, France, Germany) wrote that one should not fast on the day, and the Maharil (1365-1427, Germany) records that some communities did not recite tachanun on Tu be-Shevat. While both of these references are not to act, still they indicate that the day had some festive character that precluded fasting or reciting tachanun. Yaari notes that these references are from the Ashkenazi community, as in the Middle Ages there is no mention at all by Sefardim to any type of celebrations on Tu be-Shevat. This is another example of the close connection between the Jewry in Israel in the first millennium and Medieval Ashkenazic Jewry, that Ashkenazic Jewry was continuing the tradition from Israel to treat Tu be-Shevat as a special day.
In the 16th and 17th centuries, there are more references to Ashkenazim celebrating Tu be-Shevat. In the 16th century, R. Yissacher Susan (?) of Sefat and Shimon b. Yehuda ha-Levi Ginzberg of Venice recorded a custom of Ashkenazim to eat different types of fruit on Tu be-Shevat. In the 17th century, a R. Yozpa records that even though in Worms, Germany, tachanun was said on Tu be-Shevat, still the day was a vacation day from school. Towards the end of the 17th century, the Magen Avraham (1637-1683, Poland, Orah Chayyim 131:16) quotes the custom of eating different types of fruit on Tu be-Shevat, and specifically writes that this custom was for Ashkenazim. While this custom of eating fruit is first mentioned in the 16th century, Yaari argues that it must have had an earlier source. Yosef Rut Rotam (Mechkeri Chag 1, pp.57-60) suggests that eating fruit would be a way to mark the approaching end of winter, and hence maybe this was the custom of the Jews of Israel in the first millennium.
In any event, R. Zevin (1890-1978, Moadim be-Halakhah, p.187) is puzzled that the Magen Avraham wrote that the eating of fruits on Tu be-Shevat is an Ashkenazic custom, while R. Zevin notes that in 19th and 20th centuries the custom of celebrating Tu be-Shevat is adhered to more by Sefardim than Ashkenazim.
Many people believe that the source for the present day celebrations of Tu be-Shevat is from the Ari (1534-1572), but as Yaari points out this is erroneous. In the writings of the Ari and his followers there is no mention of celebrating Tu be-Shevat. As mentioned above, R. Yissacher Susan (?) who lived in Sefat around the time of the Ari, refers to the custom of eating fruit on Tu be-Shevat but he specifically stated that the custom was only for Ashkenazim and not for Sefardim.
The major change in the celebration of Tu be-Shevat was with the publication of the book Hemdat Yamim. The author who is unknown, created a special meal on Tu be-Shevat where one eats 30 different fruit and recites various prayers. (The section of the book that relates to Tu be-Shevat is now published as a separate book called Pri Etz Hadar.) It appears that the author combined the Ashkenazic custom of eating fruits with kabalistic ideas from R. Chayyim Vital concerning 30 fruit that grow in Israel.
Why would a new custom be created? The answer depends on who is the author of Hemdat Yamim. Yaari writes that he thinks that the author was a R. Binyamin from Sefat who lived in the end of the 17th century. However, it is now generally thought that the author was a Shabbatean (Encyclopedia Judaica 8:320-322), and Hemdat Yamim was published in the 18th century in Smyrna (Izmir, Turkey), Shabbetai Tziv’s hometown. The meal of Tu be-Shevat as described in Hemdat Yamim is celebrated with great festivity and is similar to the Seder of Pesach. It would seem that the creation of this new custom to celebrate Tu be-Shevat was to mark the new redemption, which the followers of Shabbateanism believed to have started with the appearance of Shabbetai Tzvi.
The new custom spread quickly. The book Hemdat Yamim was very popular, especially with Hasidim and Sefardim since it incorporated many Kabalistic ideas. Yaari describes the festivities of the meal in various places, and one of the most prominent descriptions is for Salonika, Greece, which is near Smyrna and was a hotbed of Shabbateanism.
We can now answer R. Zevin’s question why did the Magen Avraham state that the custom of eating fruit was only for Ashkenazim. The Magen Avraham lived before Hemdat Yamim was published, and until that point the Sefardim had no festivities on Tu be-Shevat. However, R. Zevin, who lived in the 20th century, noted that Sefardim now celebrate Tu be-Shevat more than Ashkenazim, and this is due to the influence of the book Hemdat Yamim.
In the end of the 19th century with the first Aliyah, there was another development with regard to Tu be-Shevat, the planting of trees. Yosef Rut Rotam (source above) states that the first time a connection was made between Tu be-Shevat and planting trees was in Sefat in 1884. However, this appears to have been a onetime occurrence, and instead the modern custom was started by Ze’ev Jawitz (1847-1923) who lived in Israel from 1888-1894. In 1890, he was the principal of the school in Zichron Yaakov, and he took all the students of the school to plant trees in the village. This custom was quickly followed in the other farming villages of the first Aliyah, and in 1908, the teachers organization agreed to institute this custom in Mikveh Israel, which was then the foremost agricultural school in Israel. The custom then spread throughout the land and there was a further development that people go on hikes on Tu be-Shevat
Most likely the enthusiasm of the villagers of the first Aliyah for agriculture endeavors was the basis for this new custom, as any reason to work the land would be jumped on. Yet, it is interesting that Jawitz (quoted by Yosef Rut Rotam) writes that he was copying the custom of planting trees that existed in Europe on May 1. (There appears to be a confusion between May Day and Arbor Day. May Day, May 1, was celebrated (as a pagan holiday) with dancing around a tree (May pole), but it did not involve planting trees. Instead, in 1872, in Nebraska there began the idea of planting trees on Arbor Day and in 1885 this became a legal holiday in Nebraska, which was to be celebrated annually on April 22, the birthday of Julius Sterling Morton, the person who developed the idea of Arbor Day.)
From this review we see that Tu be-Shevat has undergone four different stages of development. Initially it was a day for determining halakhic issues with no known festivities. Afterwards, there began some minor celebrations of the day in Israel and this low-level of celebrations continued with Medieval Ashkenazic Jewry. In the third stage, due to Shabbateanism the day was celebrated with great festivity and finally the last stage is that due to Zionism the day developed into a day of planting trees and nature.
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
Sunday, January 24, 2010
Shemot 13:17,18 – The journey of the Jewish people when they left Egypt: The roundabout
Presumably, when the Jewish people left Egypt they thought they would travel to Israel in the shortest possible way, but Shemot 13:17,18 records that G-d directed them to travel in a roundabout way to the land of Israel. 13:17 explains that the reason for the roundabout was “lest the people regret when they see battle and go back to Egypt” (Alter translation, 2004, p. 388), but this rationale raises two questions.
One, even with the roundabout way, the people did not avoid experiencing battles, as Pharaoh chased them at Yam Suf, 14,8,9, and then they had a war with Amalek, 17:8. The war with Pharaoh is particularly surprising since 14:2 records that G-d caused the people to turn around in order that Pharaoh would chase them. It could be that had they followed the direct route to Israel they would have avoided this war with Pharaoh. Thus, it cannot be that the roundabout way was to completely avoid all wars, but maybe it was to reduce the number of wars. Or, maybe it was only to avoid natural wars, but not wars where G-d would do miracles for the people, as by Yam Suf and Amalek.
Two, the roundabout way did not solve the problem that the people would not want to return to Egypt. When Pharaoh chased them, the people stated that it was better had they not left Egypt, 14:11,12. Even a year later, by the sin of the spies, Bemidbar 14:3,4 records that the people expressed their desire to return to Egypt. Thus, even by going the long way to Israel, still the people wanted to return to Egypt. Also, in the end, it did not matter that the people wanted to return to Egypt since G-d was not going to allow them to return to Egypt because that would have contradicted the whole point of the Exodus.
Many answers have been suggested as to why the people took the roundabout way.
The Ramban (on 13:17) explains that the roundabout was to avoid a war with the Philistines.
Sarna (1991, p. 69) notes that the roundabout way avoided Egyptian fortifications on the coastal road from Egypt to Israel.
One of the most interesting approaches is the Rambam’s idea (1963, Moreh 3:32) that “the deity used a gracious ruse in causing them to wander perplexedly in the desert until their souls became courageous- it being well known that life in the desert and lack of comforts for the body necessarily develop courage… And, until, moreover, people were born who were not accustomed to humiliation and servitude.”
Bibliography:
Alter, Robert, 2004, The five books of Moses: A translation and commentary, New York: W. W. Norton and Company
Leibowitz, Nehama (1905-1997), 1976a, Studies in Shemot, translated by Aryeh Newman, Jerusalem: The World Zionist Organization.
Rambam (1138-1204), 1963, Guide to the perplexed (Moreh Nevukhim), translation by Shlomo Pines, Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
Sarna, Nahum (1923-2005), 1991, The JPS Torah Commentary: Exodus, Philadelphia: The Jewish Publication Society.
One, even with the roundabout way, the people did not avoid experiencing battles, as Pharaoh chased them at Yam Suf, 14,8,9, and then they had a war with Amalek, 17:8. The war with Pharaoh is particularly surprising since 14:2 records that G-d caused the people to turn around in order that Pharaoh would chase them. It could be that had they followed the direct route to Israel they would have avoided this war with Pharaoh. Thus, it cannot be that the roundabout way was to completely avoid all wars, but maybe it was to reduce the number of wars. Or, maybe it was only to avoid natural wars, but not wars where G-d would do miracles for the people, as by Yam Suf and Amalek.
Two, the roundabout way did not solve the problem that the people would not want to return to Egypt. When Pharaoh chased them, the people stated that it was better had they not left Egypt, 14:11,12. Even a year later, by the sin of the spies, Bemidbar 14:3,4 records that the people expressed their desire to return to Egypt. Thus, even by going the long way to Israel, still the people wanted to return to Egypt. Also, in the end, it did not matter that the people wanted to return to Egypt since G-d was not going to allow them to return to Egypt because that would have contradicted the whole point of the Exodus.
Many answers have been suggested as to why the people took the roundabout way.
Rashi (on 13:17) explains that the purpose of going the long route is that when a war would happen it would be difficult to return to Egypt since they were not on the direct road.
The Ramban (on 13:17) explains that the roundabout was to avoid a war with the Philistines.
Sarna (1991, p. 69) notes that the roundabout way avoided Egyptian fortifications on the coastal road from Egypt to Israel.
One of the most interesting approaches is the Rambam’s idea (1963, Moreh 3:32) that “the deity used a gracious ruse in causing them to wander perplexedly in the desert until their souls became courageous- it being well known that life in the desert and lack of comforts for the body necessarily develop courage… And, until, moreover, people were born who were not accustomed to humiliation and servitude.”
Thus, according to the Rambam, the roundabout was to build up the courage of the people, and, according to this idea, with this courage, the people would be able to fight against the people of Canaan using natural means. N. Leibowitz (1976a, p. 242) notes that according to this idea, the diversion was not just “a preventive act to stop the people from running back to Egypt, but also an educative measure of positive significance to train the people for greater tasks in the future.” Accordingly, the “ruse” was that G-d was telling the people that they were traveling in a roundabout way in order that they would not see war, but really the reason was to toughen the people up or even to wait for the next generation. Yet, would this travelling in a roundabout way have been enough time to develop the courage of the people? How much longer did the roundabout add to the trip, a month?
Instead, maybe the roundabout was due to the Decalogue. Could the Decalogue and the establishment of the covenant have occurred in Israel or by the Mediterranean coast? Luzzatto (on 13:17) writes that one reason the people traveled roundabout was in order to receive the Torah together. He suggests that had they entered the land of Israel immediately, then each person would have wanted to go to their share of the land and Moshe could not have taught everybody together the Torah. Thus, G-d had to give the people the Torah when they were together before they entered the land of Israel.
My guess is that the Decalogue could only have been told to people who had experienced the Exodus, and who had begun the process of doing the mitzvot such as the korban pesach and the mahn. Only then were the Jewish people able to attempt the experience of G-d speaking to them. The Decalogue could not have occurred in a place where other people could just “pop in.” (Was Yitro an exception or did he leave as recorded in 18:27? See our discussion on 18:13-27, "The need for a judicial system.") Thus, the Decalogue could not have been stated in the populated land of Canaan. In addition, the area on the Sinai coast was also not feasible since this was the main route between Israel and Egypt, which meant that other people could accidentally be present when G-d was declaring the Decalogue. Consequently, the people had to travel to a deserted area to hear the Decalogue.
With this understanding, 13:17 is expressing two independent reasons for the roundabout. One, the main and first reason, was that the people were not to travel on the coastal road, "the way of the Philistines" because it was close, which meant that other people also travelled on this route, and the goal was for the Decalogue to be declared by G-d in a deserted place. Two, the people were travelling a roundabout way to avoid war with regard to the Philistines (as mentioned by the Ramban on 13:17). In addition, the last phrase “return to Egypt” was meant as a warning to the people not to express any desire to return to Egypt. The people ignored this warning, Shemot 14:11,12, and later by the sin of the spies, they were punished for saying they wanted to return to Egypt, Bemidbar 14:29.
Instead, maybe the roundabout was due to the Decalogue. Could the Decalogue and the establishment of the covenant have occurred in Israel or by the Mediterranean coast? Luzzatto (on 13:17) writes that one reason the people traveled roundabout was in order to receive the Torah together. He suggests that had they entered the land of Israel immediately, then each person would have wanted to go to their share of the land and Moshe could not have taught everybody together the Torah. Thus, G-d had to give the people the Torah when they were together before they entered the land of Israel.
My guess is that the Decalogue could only have been told to people who had experienced the Exodus, and who had begun the process of doing the mitzvot such as the korban pesach and the mahn. Only then were the Jewish people able to attempt the experience of G-d speaking to them. The Decalogue could not have occurred in a place where other people could just “pop in.” (Was Yitro an exception or did he leave as recorded in 18:27? See our discussion on 18:13-27, "The need for a judicial system.") Thus, the Decalogue could not have been stated in the populated land of Canaan. In addition, the area on the Sinai coast was also not feasible since this was the main route between Israel and Egypt, which meant that other people could accidentally be present when G-d was declaring the Decalogue. Consequently, the people had to travel to a deserted area to hear the Decalogue.
With this understanding, 13:17 is expressing two independent reasons for the roundabout. One, the main and first reason, was that the people were not to travel on the coastal road, "the way of the Philistines" because it was close, which meant that other people also travelled on this route, and the goal was for the Decalogue to be declared by G-d in a deserted place. Two, the people were travelling a roundabout way to avoid war with regard to the Philistines (as mentioned by the Ramban on 13:17). In addition, the last phrase “return to Egypt” was meant as a warning to the people not to express any desire to return to Egypt. The people ignored this warning, Shemot 14:11,12, and later by the sin of the spies, they were punished for saying they wanted to return to Egypt, Bemidbar 14:29.
Alter, Robert, 2004, The five books of Moses: A translation and commentary, New York: W. W. Norton and Company
Leibowitz, Nehama (1905-1997), 1976a, Studies in Shemot, translated by Aryeh Newman, Jerusalem: The World Zionist Organization.
Rambam (1138-1204), 1963, Guide to the perplexed (Moreh Nevukhim), translation by Shlomo Pines, Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
Sarna, Nahum (1923-2005), 1991, The JPS Torah Commentary: Exodus, Philadelphia: The Jewish Publication Society.
Wednesday, January 20, 2010
Shemot 12:22,23 (Bo) - Why did the Jewish have to stay indoors during the night of the 10th plague?
Prior to the tenth plague Moshe gave the people various instructions, and one of these instructions was that the people could not leave their homes the night of the plague, 12:22. Why could they not go outside?
Rashi (on 12:22) writes that once the decree of death is declared, then even innocent people can be killed, so then there was a danger to the people from leaving their homes. A proof of this idea could be from Bemidbar 16:21 and 17:10. Yet, as noted by the Netziv, in this particular case, if the plague could distinguish between firstborn Egyptians and non-firstborn Egyptians, then surely it could distinguish between Egyptians and Jews. G-d was able to distinguish between Egyptian animals and Jewish animals (9:6) but not between Egyptians and Jews? Thus, the plagues, and specifically the tenth plague, seem to be an exception to this rule.
Ramban writes that there was no danger to the people but that as G-d was in Egypt killing the Egyptians, there was a prohibition for any person to see G-d. I doubt this explanation since as discussed below, I believe it was the force of G-d that was in Egypt and then there was nothing for anybody to see.
Abravanel quotes from Ibn Kaspi (1279-1340) that the people were to stay in their homes in order that they would not see the Egyptians dying and in order that they would be ready to leave Egypt the following morning.
Rav Soloveitchik suggests two reasons why the people had to stay indoors. One, (Rav Schachter, 1994, p. 281) the people had to stay inside in order that they would not take revenge on the Egyptians for all the years of slavery. Rav Soloveitchik noted that in our "modern" times it was common for newly freed people to take revenge on their former colonial masters. Two, (Soloveitchik, 2007, p. 123) the people stayed inside to show that they did not participate in bringing about the Exodus. "G-d was saying to the Jewish people, 'Do not help Me; stay home. I will take care of Pharaoh and the Egyptians." Rav Soloveitchik explains that when there is a spiritual struggle, the people must participate but by a physical fight, then G-d alone is given the credit. Thus, he suggests that this is why Moshe is barely mentioned in the Haggadah.
Maybe there was another reason why the people had to stay indoors. One of the goals of the 10th plague was to separate the Jewish people from the Egyptians, 11:7, see above on 12:12,23, "A red line." The Exodus from Egypt was the beginning of the covenantal process that would culminate in the establishment of the covenant on Mount Sinai, and one crucial aspect of the covenant was the separation of the Jewish people from the rest of the world who were not part of the covenant. The remaining indoors was part of this separation process. Although it seems that the people lived apart from the Egyptians (see below on 12:37), if they went outside they could have wondered into areas where the Egyptians lived, and then there would have been no separation between the Jewish people and the Egyptians.
Rashi (on 12:22) writes that once the decree of death is declared, then even innocent people can be killed, so then there was a danger to the people from leaving their homes. A proof of this idea could be from Bemidbar 16:21 and 17:10. Yet, as noted by the Netziv, in this particular case, if the plague could distinguish between firstborn Egyptians and non-firstborn Egyptians, then surely it could distinguish between Egyptians and Jews. G-d was able to distinguish between Egyptian animals and Jewish animals (9:6) but not between Egyptians and Jews? Thus, the plagues, and specifically the tenth plague, seem to be an exception to this rule.
Ramban writes that there was no danger to the people but that as G-d was in Egypt killing the Egyptians, there was a prohibition for any person to see G-d. I doubt this explanation since as discussed below, I believe it was the force of G-d that was in Egypt and then there was nothing for anybody to see.
Abravanel quotes from Ibn Kaspi (1279-1340) that the people were to stay in their homes in order that they would not see the Egyptians dying and in order that they would be ready to leave Egypt the following morning.
Rav Soloveitchik suggests two reasons why the people had to stay indoors. One, (Rav Schachter, 1994, p. 281) the people had to stay inside in order that they would not take revenge on the Egyptians for all the years of slavery. Rav Soloveitchik noted that in our "modern" times it was common for newly freed people to take revenge on their former colonial masters. Two, (Soloveitchik, 2007, p. 123) the people stayed inside to show that they did not participate in bringing about the Exodus. "G-d was saying to the Jewish people, 'Do not help Me; stay home. I will take care of Pharaoh and the Egyptians." Rav Soloveitchik explains that when there is a spiritual struggle, the people must participate but by a physical fight, then G-d alone is given the credit. Thus, he suggests that this is why Moshe is barely mentioned in the Haggadah.
Maybe there was another reason why the people had to stay indoors. One of the goals of the 10th plague was to separate the Jewish people from the Egyptians, 11:7, see above on 12:12,23, "A red line." The Exodus from Egypt was the beginning of the covenantal process that would culminate in the establishment of the covenant on Mount Sinai, and one crucial aspect of the covenant was the separation of the Jewish people from the rest of the world who were not part of the covenant. The remaining indoors was part of this separation process. Although it seems that the people lived apart from the Egyptians (see below on 12:37), if they went outside they could have wondered into areas where the Egyptians lived, and then there would have been no separation between the Jewish people and the Egyptians.
Sunday, January 17, 2010
Shemot 7:14-25 - The first plague in Egypt: A bloody mess
Shemot 7:14-25 record the first plague of blood, and there are several questions concerning this plague. One, 7:14-18 record that G-d told Moshe to go to Pharaoh when Pharaoh was by a body of water, presumably the Nile, and to speak to him. Moshe was to take his staff and relay a message from G-d that Pharaoh was to let the Jewish people go. Towards the end of this message, the second half of 7:17 records that “I will hit the water of the Nile with the staff in my hand and the water will turn to blood.” The “I” in this phrase must be referring to Moshe not G-d since G-d would not hold a staff in His “hands” and then Moshe was telling Pharaoh that he was going to hit the Nile with his staff. This understanding corresponds to 17:5 which record that Moshe hit the Nile with his staff. However, 7:19, records that Moshe commanded Aharon to stretch out his hand and staff over the water, and that this act would cause the water in Egypt to turn to blood. Who was the agent of the plague, Moshe or Aharon?
A second question is how extensive was the plague? 7:17,18,20,21, refer to the Nile, while 7:19,21 record that there was blood everywhere in Egypt. Was the plague just with regard to the water in the Nile or all waters in Egypt?
A third question is that if all the water turned to blood, how could 7:22 record that the Egyptian magicians were also able to turn water into blood? How did they have any water? On the other hand if the plague was only by the Nile why does 7:24 record that everybody in Egypt had to dig for water around the Nile to get drinking water? Where there no other sources of water? We will start with the first question.
Rashi (on 7:19) quotes the Midrash (Shemot Rabbah 9:10) that Aharon was the agent of the plague since Moshe could not hit the Nile since the Nile had saved him when he was a baby. Following this approach, Ibn Ezra and Ramban (on 17:5) claim that 17:5 does not imply that Moshe hit the water, but that in 17:5 G-d was telling Moshe to take the stick that Moshe commanded Aharon to hit the Nile. This is not the simple understanding of 17:5.
Abravanel (1997, pp. 105,106) writes that both Moshe and Aharon were the agents of the first plague. Moshe’s blow was in front of Pharaoh by the Nile River and Aharon caused all the remaining water of Egypt to turn to blood. Abravanel seems to explain that both Moshe and Aharon struck some water with their staffs, whereas Benno Jacob (1992, p. 256) and Cassuto (1967, p. 98), who follow this idea of dual agents to the plague, explain that only Moshe struck the Nile, while Aharon waived his staff in the air. This latter understanding is more likely, and both actions probably occurred simultaneously: Moshe hit the water in the Nile before Pharaoh, while at the same time, Aharon stretched out his hand and staff in some unknown spot (next to Moshe?) which caused all the remaining water of Egypt to turn to blood.
Accordingly, the second half of 7:17 informs us that Moshe would strike the Nile, while 7:19 records the instructions to Aharon to waive his staff in the air. 7:20 then records that they did as commanded, with the use of the plural referring to both Moshe and Aharon. 7:20 continues and records, "he raised his staff and he hit the water." These words are usually understood as referring to one person. According to the approach that Aharon was the agent of the plague, then the reference is to Aharon (see Altar, 2004, p. 348), while according to the approach that Moshe was the person who hit the water of the Nile, then the reference is to Moshe. With this latter understanding, the statement that “they did” in the beginning of the verse refers to Aharon raising his staff. A different possibility to understanding 7:20 according to the approach that both Aharon and Moshe were agents of the plague is that the words "he raised his staff and he hit the water" are referring to both Moshe and Aharon, with the phrase "he raised his staff" referring to Aharon, and the phrase "he hit the water" referring to Moshe.
Why were there two agents for the plague of blood? Why was not just Moshe or just Aharon the agent of the plague? A reason why Moshe participated in this plague was the need to build up his status with regard to Pharaoh. Previously, Aharon had done the miracle of the staff turning into a reptile and swallowing the staff of Pharaoh’s magicians, 7:10-12, and Aharon was Moshe’s spokesman, 4:14-16; 7;1,2. This might have given the impression that Aharon was the leader of the Jewish people, and if Aharon had also done this plague, then this impression would have only increased. Accordingly, Moshe both spoke directly to Pharaoh and struck the Nile in front of Pharaoh and his advisors, 7:15-18;20, which showed Pharaoh that Moshe was the leader of the Jewish people. These actions show the growth in Moshe that he was able to deal with Pharaoh on his own. On the other hand, Aharon also participated in the plague since the Egyptian magicians, hartumim, were involved in this plague, 7:22, and whenever they appear, Aharon appears as well since both have similar status as being assistants.
With regard to the third questions, the source of water for the Egyptian magicians, many answered have been suggested. The simplest answer is from the Bekhor Shor (on 7:20, quoted by Hizkuni on 7:20) who writes that the water only turned to blood temporarily, and in that brief time period, all the fish died. Bekhor Shor points out that the Torah does not state that the people could not drink the water from the Nile since it was blood, but rather it was the stench of the dying fish that stopped them from drinking the water, 7:18,21. Thus, the Bekhor Shor argues that once the water turned back to water, there was no problem for the magicians to get water since they could have used the water of the Nile River.
One problem with the Bekhor Shor's approach is that if all the blood turned back to water, then all the water that had no fish was drinkable. Yet, 7:24 records that everybody in Egypt had to get water by digging around the Nile. This digging accords with the Bekhor Shor’s idea since this water would not have had any fish, but was there no other water available? Did they not have enough waters in cisterns where there was no fish? The answer is that the Bekhor Shor's explanation only refers to the water that Moshe hit, the Nile River, that this body of water turned back to water almost immediately. However, the water that turned to blood due to Aharon raising his staff remained blood for some time (seven days, 7:25?) and this is the reference to the end of 7:21 "and there was blood throughout Egypt," which relates back to 7:19, the instructions to Aharon. Thus, the Egyptians had to find water that derived from the Nile but did not have fish in it which meant digging for water by the Nile, 7:24. (Note the Bekhor Shor does not follow the dual agent approach to this plague, as in his commentary on 9:8 he writes that Aharon was the sole agent of the plague of blood.)
This understanding of Moshe and Aharon both being agents of the plague of blood coupled with the idea from the Bekhor Shor that the water in the Nile only turned to blood temporarily answers the second question how extensive was the plague. The answer is that all the water in Egypt turned to blood but to a different extent. The water in the Nile River only turned to blood for a very short time, while the other water throughout Egypt turned to blood for a longer period, up to a week.
Bibliography:
Abravanel (1437-1508), 1997, Commentary on Shemot. Jerusalem: Horev.
Alter, Robert, 2004, The five books of Moses: A translation and commentary, New York: W. W. Norton and Company
Cassuto, Umberto (1883-1951), 1967, A commentary on the book of Exodus, Jerusalem: The Magnes Press
Jacob, Benno (1869-1945), 1992, The second book of the Bible: Exodus, translated with an introduction by Walter Jacob, Hoboken: Ktav Publishing House
Rashi (on 7:19) quotes the Midrash (Shemot Rabbah 9:10) that Aharon was the agent of the plague since Moshe could not hit the Nile since the Nile had saved him when he was a baby. Following this approach, Ibn Ezra and Ramban (on 17:5) claim that 17:5 does not imply that Moshe hit the water, but that in 17:5 G-d was telling Moshe to take the stick that Moshe commanded Aharon to hit the Nile. This is not the simple understanding of 17:5.
Abravanel (1997, pp. 105,106) writes that both Moshe and Aharon were the agents of the first plague. Moshe’s blow was in front of Pharaoh by the Nile River and Aharon caused all the remaining water of Egypt to turn to blood. Abravanel seems to explain that both Moshe and Aharon struck some water with their staffs, whereas Benno Jacob (1992, p. 256) and Cassuto (1967, p. 98), who follow this idea of dual agents to the plague, explain that only Moshe struck the Nile, while Aharon waived his staff in the air. This latter understanding is more likely, and both actions probably occurred simultaneously: Moshe hit the water in the Nile before Pharaoh, while at the same time, Aharon stretched out his hand and staff in some unknown spot (next to Moshe?) which caused all the remaining water of Egypt to turn to blood.
Accordingly, the second half of 7:17 informs us that Moshe would strike the Nile, while 7:19 records the instructions to Aharon to waive his staff in the air. 7:20 then records that they did as commanded, with the use of the plural referring to both Moshe and Aharon. 7:20 continues and records, "he raised his staff and he hit the water." These words are usually understood as referring to one person. According to the approach that Aharon was the agent of the plague, then the reference is to Aharon (see Altar, 2004, p. 348), while according to the approach that Moshe was the person who hit the water of the Nile, then the reference is to Moshe. With this latter understanding, the statement that “they did” in the beginning of the verse refers to Aharon raising his staff. A different possibility to understanding 7:20 according to the approach that both Aharon and Moshe were agents of the plague is that the words "he raised his staff and he hit the water" are referring to both Moshe and Aharon, with the phrase "he raised his staff" referring to Aharon, and the phrase "he hit the water" referring to Moshe.
Why were there two agents for the plague of blood? Why was not just Moshe or just Aharon the agent of the plague? A reason why Moshe participated in this plague was the need to build up his status with regard to Pharaoh. Previously, Aharon had done the miracle of the staff turning into a reptile and swallowing the staff of Pharaoh’s magicians, 7:10-12, and Aharon was Moshe’s spokesman, 4:14-16; 7;1,2. This might have given the impression that Aharon was the leader of the Jewish people, and if Aharon had also done this plague, then this impression would have only increased. Accordingly, Moshe both spoke directly to Pharaoh and struck the Nile in front of Pharaoh and his advisors, 7:15-18;20, which showed Pharaoh that Moshe was the leader of the Jewish people. These actions show the growth in Moshe that he was able to deal with Pharaoh on his own. On the other hand, Aharon also participated in the plague since the Egyptian magicians, hartumim, were involved in this plague, 7:22, and whenever they appear, Aharon appears as well since both have similar status as being assistants.
With regard to the third questions, the source of water for the Egyptian magicians, many answered have been suggested. The simplest answer is from the Bekhor Shor (on 7:20, quoted by Hizkuni on 7:20) who writes that the water only turned to blood temporarily, and in that brief time period, all the fish died. Bekhor Shor points out that the Torah does not state that the people could not drink the water from the Nile since it was blood, but rather it was the stench of the dying fish that stopped them from drinking the water, 7:18,21. Thus, the Bekhor Shor argues that once the water turned back to water, there was no problem for the magicians to get water since they could have used the water of the Nile River.
One problem with the Bekhor Shor's approach is that if all the blood turned back to water, then all the water that had no fish was drinkable. Yet, 7:24 records that everybody in Egypt had to get water by digging around the Nile. This digging accords with the Bekhor Shor’s idea since this water would not have had any fish, but was there no other water available? Did they not have enough waters in cisterns where there was no fish? The answer is that the Bekhor Shor's explanation only refers to the water that Moshe hit, the Nile River, that this body of water turned back to water almost immediately. However, the water that turned to blood due to Aharon raising his staff remained blood for some time (seven days, 7:25?) and this is the reference to the end of 7:21 "and there was blood throughout Egypt," which relates back to 7:19, the instructions to Aharon. Thus, the Egyptians had to find water that derived from the Nile but did not have fish in it which meant digging for water by the Nile, 7:24. (Note the Bekhor Shor does not follow the dual agent approach to this plague, as in his commentary on 9:8 he writes that Aharon was the sole agent of the plague of blood.)
This understanding of Moshe and Aharon both being agents of the plague of blood coupled with the idea from the Bekhor Shor that the water in the Nile only turned to blood temporarily answers the second question how extensive was the plague. The answer is that all the water in Egypt turned to blood but to a different extent. The water in the Nile River only turned to blood for a very short time, while the other water throughout Egypt turned to blood for a longer period, up to a week.
Abravanel (1437-1508), 1997, Commentary on Shemot. Jerusalem: Horev.
Alter, Robert, 2004, The five books of Moses: A translation and commentary, New York: W. W. Norton and Company
Cassuto, Umberto (1883-1951), 1967, A commentary on the book of Exodus, Jerusalem: The Magnes Press
Jacob, Benno (1869-1945), 1992, The second book of the Bible: Exodus, translated with an introduction by Walter Jacob, Hoboken: Ktav Publishing House
Monday, January 11, 2010
Shemot 9:1-7 – The fifth plague in Egypt: The fate of the animals during the plagues in Egypt
שמות ט:ו - "וימת כל מקנה מצרים, וממקנה ישראל לא מת אחד."
The declaration that all the mikneh of the Egyptian died during the fifth plague is puzzling since the Torah records the continued existence of Egyptian animals on several occasions after the fifth plague. One example is that 9:9,10 record that the sixth plague, boils, affected the Egyptian behamot. Many people understand that behamot are a subset of mikneh, and then it is surprising how there could be Egyptian behamot during the sixth plague. However, really behamot are ungulates, and then the term behamot is a more general term than mikneh, and includes animals that were not livestock. Thus, 9:9,10 could be referring to deer or even pigs.
A more difficult reference is that 9:19 records that Moshe warned the Egyptians that they should move their mikneh inside to protect them from the seventh plague, hail, and 9:20,21 record that the G-d fearing Egyptians did so but the non-G-d fearing Egyptians left their mikneh in the fields. How did the Egyptians have any mikneh, livestock, after the fifth plague?
Other references to Egyptian animals after the fifth plague are that 9:22,25 record that the hail landed on the behamot that were left in the field. Also, 11:5, 12:29 and 13:15 record that the first born Egyptian behamot were killed during the tenth plague. However, again, these references could be referring to types of animals that are not mikneh and which were not killed in the fifth plague.
Another reference to Egyptian animals is that 14:6,7,23 record that the chariots of Egypt, which were pulled by horses (15:1), chased the Jewish people at Yam Suf, and horses are part of the category of animals called mikneh, as 9:3 refers to horses.
Various explanations have been suggested to explain the existence of Egyptian animals after the plague of pestilence. Rashi (on 9:10) suggests that the pestilence only killed the animals that were in the field, and thus the G-d fearing Egyptians would have brought them inside and they would not have died. One would then interpret 9:6 which records that all the Egyptian animals died, to mean that all the Egyptian animals that were in the field died.
This solution is difficult for at least two reasons. One problem with Rashi's solution is that, as the Bekhor Shor (on 9:6) points out, even according to Rashi, all the animals of the non-G-d fearing Egyptians died in the fifth plague, then how could 9:21 record that the non-G-d fearing Egyptians left their animals in the fields during the seventh plague? Bekhor Shor answers that maybe by chance the non-G-d fearing Egyptians had some animals indoors during the fifth plague. Secondly, this distinction between the G-d fearing and the non-G-d fearing Egyptians is only by the seventh plague, 9:20,21, and not by the fifth plague. If it occurred by the fifth plague, why did the Torah not mention this information as it does by the seventh plague? Rather, more likely, as noted by the Ramban (on 9:3) the fact that 9:3 refers to the animals in the field is because this is the usual place where these types of animals were located, but even if there were animals indoors they were also killed by the pestilence, as stated in 9:6.
A second approach (see Ibn Ezra on 9:6, Rabbenu Bachya on 9:19, and Cassuto, 1967, p. 111) to explain the continued existence of the Egyptian animals after the fifth plague is that the word all in 9:6 should not be understood literally but rather that most of the Egyptian animals died. I doubt this approach since one of the points of the fifth plague was to distinguish between the Egyptian animals and the Jewish animals, and if not all of the Egyptian animals died, then this distinction would have been diminished.
A third approach is that some of the Egyptian animals were saved by the Jews. Shemot Rabbah (11:4) writes that any beast on which a Jew had the slightest claim was saved even if it was in the hands of an Egyptian, and animals that were jointly owned by Egyptians and Jews were not killed. The Netziv (on 9:7) suggests that the Egyptian had rented out their animals to the Jews and these animals survived the fifth plague. These possibilities presuppose a relatively high level of economic integration between the Egyptian and Jews, but this is doubtful since the Jews were slaves.
A fourth possibility is that the Egyptian acquired new animals after the fifth plague. Rabbenu Bachya (on 9:19) and Abravanel (1997, on 9:10, p.131) write that the Egyptians could have purchased animals from neighboring countries. Yet, most likely there was no international trade between Egypt and other countries during the period of the plagues, as who would travel to Egypt during the plagues? Another possibility raised by the Abravanel is that the Egyptians bought animals from the Jewish people. This is a possible explanation since this was feasible and from that fact that Pharaoh sent people to check that the Jewish animals did not die during the fifth plague, 9:7, we know that the Egyptians were aware of the Jewish animals. Yet, would the Egyptians really buy animals from slaves?
I would vary the Abravanel's approach that while maybe some Egyptians (G-d fearing ones?) bought animals from the Jews, most took them by force. (Note the Jews did not lose all of their animals because most likely it was just the messengers of Pharaoh who he sent out who acquired the animals.) This answer could then explain all the later references to the Egyptian animals, mikneh or behamot, except by the horses that led the chariots, since it is very unlikely that the Jews had horses. However, most likely the Egyptian soldiers on chariots who chased the Jews at Yam Suf were stationed at Egyptian forts that were located in the Sinai desert, and they and their horses were not affected by the plagues.
If the Egyptians stole animals from the Jewish people after the end of the fifth plague, then this could offer a new perspective on three other questions concerning the fifth and sixth plagues. One, 9:7 records that Pharaoh hardened his heart in conjunction with learning that no Jewish owned animals died, but this information should have had the opposite effect? The answer could be that when he learned that no Jewish owned animals died, then he knew that he still had a source to acquire more animals to replace his animals that were killed. Two, the Egyptian magicians appear in the first three plagues and then they disappear except for the sixth plague, as 9:11 records that they were particularly harmed by the boils. Maybe this mention and their suffering are because they advised Pharaoh to steal the animals from the Jewish people. Three, the plagues are usually in ascending order in terms of severity except for the sixth plague, the boils, which appear to be harsher than the seventh, eighth and ninth plagues. Maybe the sixth plague was relatively more severe, boils, since it was a punishment for the theft of the Jewish owned animals after the fifth plague.
Sunday, January 3, 2010
Shemot 2:11 -23 (Shemot) – Moshe going out to see his brethren: An accident
Shemot 2:11,12 record that Moshe saw an Egyptian striking a Jew, that Moshe looked around to see that nobody was around, that he struck the Egyptian and buried him. Did Moshe intentionally kill the Egyptian? From the fact that Moshe looked around, we see that Moshe was acting deliberately but does this mean that Moshe intended to kill the Egyptian?
Many people have noted that the same verb, va-yak, strike is used both with regard to the Egyptian hitting the Jew and when Moshe hit the Egyptian, and this suggests that Moshe and the Egyptian were performing the same action. Was the Egyptian attempting to kill the Jew? Who was the Egyptian? Rashi (on 2:11) writes that this was an Egyptian taskmaster, but Propp (1998, p. 166) notes that the Torah just calls the person an Egyptian, which could mean that a regular Egyptian was beating a Jew. If the Egyptian was a taskmaster, then it is likely that the Egyptian was hitting the Jew to get him to work, and then he did not intend for the Jew to die because then the Jew would no longer be able to work as a slave. Even if the Egyptian was not a taskmaster, it is still unlikely that he intended to kill the Jewish person since there is no record that the Egyptians killed the adult Jews. In addition, the same word, va-yak, is also used in 2:13, where again the circumstance implies a fight but not an intent to kill. Thus, most likely just as the Egyptian was not intending to kill when he hit the Jew, Moshe also did not intend to kill when he struck the Egyptian.
A proof for this idea that Moshe did not intend to kill the Egyptian was that it was not in Moshe's interest to kill him. Moshe was concerned that nobody was looking when he hit the Egyptian, yet if he had killed him, then he should have been more worried that somebody would see since it takes quite some time to bury a body. (Presumably, Moshe did not want to leave the body not buried since then the Egyptians would have blamed his death on the Jews.) In fact, this is most likely the reason why his action was found out, as when Moshe was burying the Egyptian, other people saw him. On the other hand if he just meant to strike the Egyptian to stop him from hitting the Jewish person, then a brief glance to make sure that nobody was looking at that particular time was sufficient. Furthermore, the Egyptian would not have reported Moshe since Moshe was an Egyptian prince, and it would have been his word against Moshe's. With this understanding, Moshe looked around to make sure that there would be no witnesses to corroborate the Egyptian's accusation if he did in fact report Moshe.
Thus, Moshe just meant to strike the Egyptian and not to kill him, and it was an accident that the blow caused the Egyptian to die. Maybe the blow caused the Egyptian to fall, and he died when he fell on a rock or some sharp edge.
If Moshe did not intend to kill the Egyptian, then his flight to Midyan would be an example of the law of an accidental killer that such killers have to go live in a city of refuge, Bemidbar 35:9-34. Thus, from 2:22 we see that Moshe considered his stay in Midyan as a form of exile. (Deuteronomy Rabbah 2:26-27 asks why did Moshe institute the cities of refuge? R. Levi answers, "He who has eaten of the dish knows its taste." I thank Ari Zivotofsky for this source.) My son, Binyamin, pointed out that then Pharaoh's desire to punish Moshe was G-d's way of getting Moshe to the city of refuge in order that Moshe would gain atonement or serve his sentence for his actions.
This understanding can also explain the connection between Pharaoh's death and Moshe's ability to return to Egypt. 2:23-25 record that Pharaoh died, and that G-d heard the cries of the people. Afterwards, chapter three records that G-d appointed Moshe to be His messenger to take the Jewish people out of Egypt. What is the connection between these events? Is it that Pharaoh's death caused the people to cry out? Or, is it that Pharaoh's death is what enabled G-d to appoint Moshe to be the leader of the people, but was unrelated to the cries of the people?
Rashbam (on 2:23, also see Bekhor Shor's and Ibn Ezra's long commentary on 2:23) suggests that Pharaoh's death enabled Moshe to return to Egypt. He explain that Pharaoh wanted to punish Moshe for killing the Egyptian, but now that Pharaoh died, Moshe could return to Egypt without being apprehended. Thus, 4:19 records that G-d told Moshe that the people who had been seeking to punish Moshe had died, and this is referring to Pharaoh.
Rashbam's approach that Pharaoh's death allowed Moshe to return to Egypt is reasonable, yet, I doubt that Pharaoh's death acquitted Moshe from killing the Egyptian. 4:19 records that the people (plural) who were seeking Moshe died, and thus there was more than one person who wanted to apprehend Moshe. If it was Pharaoh's death that acquitted Moshe, then 4:19 should have referred to him and not some unnamed people. In addition, if Moshe was wanted for murder, then the judicial system should have continued even if Pharaoh died. Finally, according to the Rashbam's understanding of 2:23, 4:19 repeats the information that Pharaoh is dead, and hence 4:19 is repeating 2:23. I prefer Hizkuni's (end of comments on 4:19) explanation that 4:19 refers to the relatives of the person Moshe killed that when they died then the criminal proceedings against Moshe ended.
The idea that Moshe killed the Egyptian accidentally suggests a different understanding to the connection between Pharaoh's death in 2:23, and Moshe's return to Egypt. The law by the city of refuge is that the accidental killer goes free when the High Priest dies, and my understanding (see our discussion on Bemidbar 35:28, "Something unpredictable") is that this condition is to make the stay in the city of refuge unpredictable similar to the accidental killing. Really, any event could be a signal for the freedom of the accidental killer as long as the occurrence of the event was unpredictable. Accordingly, with regard to Moshe, Pharaoh's death was the unpredictable act that allowed him to leave Midyan, his city of refuge, and then G-d could heed the cries of the people to free them.
Bibliography:
Propp, William, 1998, Exodus 1-18 A new translation with introduction and commentary, The Anchor Bible, New York: Doubleday.
Many people have noted that the same verb, va-yak, strike is used both with regard to the Egyptian hitting the Jew and when Moshe hit the Egyptian, and this suggests that Moshe and the Egyptian were performing the same action. Was the Egyptian attempting to kill the Jew? Who was the Egyptian? Rashi (on 2:11) writes that this was an Egyptian taskmaster, but Propp (1998, p. 166) notes that the Torah just calls the person an Egyptian, which could mean that a regular Egyptian was beating a Jew. If the Egyptian was a taskmaster, then it is likely that the Egyptian was hitting the Jew to get him to work, and then he did not intend for the Jew to die because then the Jew would no longer be able to work as a slave. Even if the Egyptian was not a taskmaster, it is still unlikely that he intended to kill the Jewish person since there is no record that the Egyptians killed the adult Jews. In addition, the same word, va-yak, is also used in 2:13, where again the circumstance implies a fight but not an intent to kill. Thus, most likely just as the Egyptian was not intending to kill when he hit the Jew, Moshe also did not intend to kill when he struck the Egyptian.
A proof for this idea that Moshe did not intend to kill the Egyptian was that it was not in Moshe's interest to kill him. Moshe was concerned that nobody was looking when he hit the Egyptian, yet if he had killed him, then he should have been more worried that somebody would see since it takes quite some time to bury a body. (Presumably, Moshe did not want to leave the body not buried since then the Egyptians would have blamed his death on the Jews.) In fact, this is most likely the reason why his action was found out, as when Moshe was burying the Egyptian, other people saw him. On the other hand if he just meant to strike the Egyptian to stop him from hitting the Jewish person, then a brief glance to make sure that nobody was looking at that particular time was sufficient. Furthermore, the Egyptian would not have reported Moshe since Moshe was an Egyptian prince, and it would have been his word against Moshe's. With this understanding, Moshe looked around to make sure that there would be no witnesses to corroborate the Egyptian's accusation if he did in fact report Moshe.
Thus, Moshe just meant to strike the Egyptian and not to kill him, and it was an accident that the blow caused the Egyptian to die. Maybe the blow caused the Egyptian to fall, and he died when he fell on a rock or some sharp edge.
If Moshe did not intend to kill the Egyptian, then his flight to Midyan would be an example of the law of an accidental killer that such killers have to go live in a city of refuge, Bemidbar 35:9-34. Thus, from 2:22 we see that Moshe considered his stay in Midyan as a form of exile. (Deuteronomy Rabbah 2:26-27 asks why did Moshe institute the cities of refuge? R. Levi answers, "He who has eaten of the dish knows its taste." I thank Ari Zivotofsky for this source.) My son, Binyamin, pointed out that then Pharaoh's desire to punish Moshe was G-d's way of getting Moshe to the city of refuge in order that Moshe would gain atonement or serve his sentence for his actions.
This understanding can also explain the connection between Pharaoh's death and Moshe's ability to return to Egypt. 2:23-25 record that Pharaoh died, and that G-d heard the cries of the people. Afterwards, chapter three records that G-d appointed Moshe to be His messenger to take the Jewish people out of Egypt. What is the connection between these events? Is it that Pharaoh's death caused the people to cry out? Or, is it that Pharaoh's death is what enabled G-d to appoint Moshe to be the leader of the people, but was unrelated to the cries of the people?
Rashbam (on 2:23, also see Bekhor Shor's and Ibn Ezra's long commentary on 2:23) suggests that Pharaoh's death enabled Moshe to return to Egypt. He explain that Pharaoh wanted to punish Moshe for killing the Egyptian, but now that Pharaoh died, Moshe could return to Egypt without being apprehended. Thus, 4:19 records that G-d told Moshe that the people who had been seeking to punish Moshe had died, and this is referring to Pharaoh.
Rashbam's approach that Pharaoh's death allowed Moshe to return to Egypt is reasonable, yet, I doubt that Pharaoh's death acquitted Moshe from killing the Egyptian. 4:19 records that the people (plural) who were seeking Moshe died, and thus there was more than one person who wanted to apprehend Moshe. If it was Pharaoh's death that acquitted Moshe, then 4:19 should have referred to him and not some unnamed people. In addition, if Moshe was wanted for murder, then the judicial system should have continued even if Pharaoh died. Finally, according to the Rashbam's understanding of 2:23, 4:19 repeats the information that Pharaoh is dead, and hence 4:19 is repeating 2:23. I prefer Hizkuni's (end of comments on 4:19) explanation that 4:19 refers to the relatives of the person Moshe killed that when they died then the criminal proceedings against Moshe ended.
The idea that Moshe killed the Egyptian accidentally suggests a different understanding to the connection between Pharaoh's death in 2:23, and Moshe's return to Egypt. The law by the city of refuge is that the accidental killer goes free when the High Priest dies, and my understanding (see our discussion on Bemidbar 35:28, "Something unpredictable") is that this condition is to make the stay in the city of refuge unpredictable similar to the accidental killing. Really, any event could be a signal for the freedom of the accidental killer as long as the occurrence of the event was unpredictable. Accordingly, with regard to Moshe, Pharaoh's death was the unpredictable act that allowed him to leave Midyan, his city of refuge, and then G-d could heed the cries of the people to free them.
Propp, William, 1998, Exodus 1-18 A new translation with introduction and commentary, The Anchor Bible, New York: Doubleday.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)