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,ז - "וימת כל מקנה מצרים, וממקנה ישראל לא מת אחד. וישלח פרעה והנה לא מת ממקנה ישראל עד אחד ויכבד לב פרעה ולא שלח את העם."
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. Similarly, 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, really behamot are ungulates, is a more general term than mikneh, and includes animals that were not livestock, see our discussion on Vayikra 11:2, "The definition of the words behamot and hayyot in the Torah." Thus, all these verse referring to behamot 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?
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 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 (see Ibn Ezra on 9:6, Rabbenu Bachya on 9:19, and Cassuto, 1967, p. 111). 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 this would not mean that the Jews lost all of their animals because it is unknown how many animals the Jewish people had and how many were stolen.) 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 offers a new perspective on three other questions concerning the fifth and sixth plagues in addition to the explanation for how the Egyptians could have mikneh after the fifth plague. One, 9:7 records that Pharaoh hardened his heart in conjunction with the fact that no Jewish owned animals died, but this information should have had the opposite effect. The answer could be that since no Jewish owned animals died, then Pharaoh knew that he had a source to acquire (by stealing) 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. (For more on this question, see our discussion on 7:14-10:23, “The nine plagues: Their order and maybe their reason.”)
I was talking about this idea to a friend Eric Sherby and he questioned me why then did the Torah not record that Pharoah stole the Jewish animals. My answer is that Torah gives a hint to Pharaoh’s action since 9:7 records that Pharaoh sent out, but the Torah does not explain who and why he sent out people. I believe that many people assume that he sent out people to inquire what happened during the plague (see for example, Fox, 1995, p. 303), but the word inquire is not in the Torah. Furthermore, by two other plagues, frogs and hail, the Torah records that Pharoah saw that the plague had ended, 8:11 and 9:34, but by pestilence, the Torah does not record that Pharoah saw the effects of the plague. Instead, the word sent out in 9:7 is hinting that this sending was not some innocent action, but the Egyptians who were sent out were to steal animals from the Jewish people. Why did the Torah only hint to this action? My thought is that the Torah did not want to minimize the much more horrible actions that the Egyptians did to the Jewish people such as making the people slaves and killing the male children, by adding on “and they also stole from them some animals.”
Bibliography:
Abravanel (1437-1508), 1997, Commentary on Shemot. Jerusalem: Horev.
Fox, Everett, 1995, The Five Books of Moses: A new translation, New York: Schocken Books.
Sunday, January 3, 2010
Shemot 2:11-23 – Moshe going out to see his brethren: An accidental killing
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.
Wednesday, December 30, 2009
Bereshit 48:8 (Va-yehi) – Yaakov and his grandchildren: Who are you?
Bereshit 48:1 records that when Yaakov was dying, Yosef and his grandchildren, Efrayim and Menashe, went to visit Yaakov, but when Yaakov saw his grandchildren, 48:8, he asked, "who are they?" This question is surprising. While Yaakov had not been told that Efrayim and Menashe had accompanied Yosef, still how come he did not recognize his grandchildren after having presumably seen them many times during the 17 years he was in Egypt? Could it be that they had very rarely visited their grandfather, and hence Yaakov did not recognize them? While this is definitely possible, we will review other possibilities to explain why Yaakov did not recognize his grandchildren.
Samuel Dresner (1994, p. 140) suggests a third approach that Yaakov did not recognize his grandchildren since he had just mentioned Rahel, which caused him to focus on his memories for her and be unaware of the people around him. This makes sense since Yaakov’s question concerning his grandchildren, 48:8, occurs immediately after Yaakov referred to Rahel, 48:7. Yet, why did he not notice Menashe and Efrayim before he spoke about Rahel? One must explain not only why Yaakov did not recognize them but also why he did not ask who they were immediately when they entered the room.
Following the Radak, it appears that Yaakov could only see at very short distances, and then Yaakov did not immediately see Efrayim and Menashe, even as vague forms, when they entered his room because they were standing at a distance beyond his field of vision and only Yosef had approached Yaakov when all three entered the room.
One approach to understanding Yaakov's question is that Yaakov did not recognize Efrayim and Menashe since he had poor vision, as recorded in 48:10. Ibn Ezra and Rashbam (on 48:8) suggest that due to his poor vision he saw their figures but not clearly enough to identify them. Yet, later on when Yaakov placed his hands on their heads he was able to identify them, 48:19. Radak (on 48:8) suggests that Yaakov could not identify Efrayim and Menashe since they were initially standing far away from him (nearsightedness?), while later they were close to him and then he could recognize them. However, this approach is difficult since the Torah tells us that Yaakov had poor vision after Yaakov asked his question, “who are they?” which implies that Yaakov’s lack of recognition of his grandchildren was not due to his poor eyesight.
A second approach is that Yaakov knew who they were but the question was part of a formal process of establishing their identity. Yehuda Keel (2003, on 48:8) quotes R. Samuel ben Hophni Gaon (d. 1013) that maybe the question was an opening to a conversation or a confirmation, though it is not clear what was the need for an opening to a conversation or a confirmation.
Sarna (1989, p. 326) follows this approach and the idea that Yaakov was adopting Efrayim and Menashe. He suggests that the question "who are they" was “the second stage of the legal adoptive process, namely the establishment of the true identity of the candidates for adoption by formal interrogation of the natural father.” Sarna refers to this act as the second stage since Yaakov had already began the “adoption” process (48:5,6) before he asked the question “who are they?”
Yet, one would have thought that if the question was to establish the identity of the people being adopted, then this question would have been asked at the beginning of the process and not in the second stage. However, maybe one can argue that the official adoption did not begin until 48:10. Another problem with Sarna’s approach is that Yaakov began the “adoption” process without knowing that Efrayim and Menashe were present in the room since he did not call for Efrayim and Menashe to come to him. It appears that Yaakov did not think they had to be present when they were being adopted. This suggests that there was no need to establish their identity through this question, but rather Yaakov was able to adopt them without them being present and it was sufficient for Yaakov to refer to them as Yosef’s sons, as he did in 48:5.
Following the Radak, it appears that Yaakov could only see at very short distances, and then Yaakov did not immediately see Efrayim and Menashe, even as vague forms, when they entered his room because they were standing at a distance beyond his field of vision and only Yosef had approached Yaakov when all three entered the room.
Afterwards, when they heard that Yaakov was treating them as his natural sons Reuven and Shimon and that they would be included in the inheritance with their uncles, 48:5,6, they moved closer to Yaakov. At this point, he was not able to identify them not because of his poor vision, but because when they moved closer to him, most likely they bowed down to him to show their appreciation for equating them to their uncles, and hence Yaakov only saw the back of their heads. Following Dresner, Yaakov did not see their faces when they bowed since he was not concentrating on what was going on around him because at that moment he was thinking about Rahel. Furthermore, he had no reason to think that they were in the room since he had not been told that they had come with Yosef and he had not called for them. Yaakov saw two people bowing down to him, but he could not identify his grandchildren by just seeing the back of their heads, and hence he asked Yosef who are these people?
Bibliography:
Dresner, Samuel, 1994, Rachel, Minneapolis: Fortress Press.
Keel, Yehuda, 1997, 2000 and 2003, Commentary on Bereshit: Da'at Mikra, Three volumes, Jerusalem: Mossad Harav Kook.
Sarna, Nahum (1923-2005), 1989, The JPS Torah Commentary: Genesis, Philadelphia: The Jewish Publication Society.
Bibliography:
Dresner, Samuel, 1994, Rachel, Minneapolis: Fortress Press.
Keel, Yehuda, 1997, 2000 and 2003, Commentary on Bereshit: Da'at Mikra, Three volumes, Jerusalem: Mossad Harav Kook.
Sarna, Nahum (1923-2005), 1989, The JPS Torah Commentary: Genesis, Philadelphia: The Jewish Publication Society.
Tuesday, December 22, 2009
Bereshit 46:8-27 (Va-yiggash) – The seventy descendants of Yaakov: Who is to be counted?
Bereshit 46:8-27 records a list of people in Yaakov’s family, which shows us the growth of Yaakov’s family. However, the genealogical list raises several questions.
One, 46:15 records that Lea had 33 descendants, and while there are 33 men listed as children or grandchildren of Lea, two of them, Er and Onan are dead, 46:12, which brings the list to 31. 46:15 refers to the daughters of Yaakov as well, which means that Dina could be included in the list, but adding Dina only brings the list to 32, who are the 33?
There are two standard answers to this difficulty. Rashi and Radak (on 46:15) quote the Talmud (Baba Batra 123b) that Yokheved, Moshe’s mother, was born upon the entry of the family to Egypt, and her birth would give 33 descendants to Lea. The problem with this approach is that the number of descendants is based on the list of names, and she is not mentioned in the list.
Ibn Ezra (on 46:27) strongly doubts that Yokheved was born during the trip, and he argues that Yaakov should be counted as the 33rd member of Lea’s group. However, this is also problematic since 46:15 refers to the 33 descendants of Lea as the Yaakov’s sons and daughters which excludes Yaakov from being part of the list.
A second question in the list of Lea’s descendants is that by two of Yehuda's grandchildren, Hetzron and Hamul, 46:12 records that “they will be” instead of stating their names as occurs for all the other people in the list.
A third question is that there is a chronological problem with the listing of Hetzron and Hamul. Their father was Peretz, and his parents were Yehuda and Tamar. The story of Yehuda and Tamar is recorded in chapter 38, which is recorded after Yosef was sold to Egypt. We know that 22 years elapsed from the sale of Yosef until the family went to Egypt: Yosef was at least 17 (37:2) when he was sold to Egypt, he was 30 when he became the effective ruler of Egypt (41:46), and there were seven good years and two bad years until the family were reunited, 45:6. This means that all the events of chapter 38, the births of Er, Onan, their marriages to Tamar, the birth of Peretz, and the births of Hetzron and Hamul had to occur in those 22 years.
It seems impossible for there to have been enough time within the 22 years for Hetzron and Hamul to have been born. Ibn Ezra (on 38:1) argues that the story of Yehuda and Tamar occurred before the sale of Yosef, and the Torah does not follow the chronological order of events. This is a common approach of Ibn Ezra, but then one must explain why the story of Yehuda and Tamar was inserted in the midst of the story of Yosef. Cassuto (1973, p. 33) points out that Ibn Ezra cannot be correct since 38:1 records that the events of chapter 38 occurred at the time of the sale of Yosef.
Cassuto (1973, pp. 34-40) argues that the wording of 46:15, “they will be” means that Hetzron and Hamul were not born before the descent into Egypt. Cassuto argues that Hetzron and Hamul were born many years later after the family came to Egypt. Yet if they were not alive at the time of the descent into Egypt why are they mentioned in the list of chapter 46? Cassuto notes that a theme of the story of Yehuda and Tamar is that of yibbum, that a dead brother’s name will not be forgotten, Devarim 25:6, and thus the two sons of Yehuda, Er and Onan died, who died had to be replaced. They were not replaced by the births of Peretz and his brother Zeveh, 38:27-30, since they were also sons of Yehuda. Instead Hetzron and Hamul, Yehuda’s grandchildren were considered as “the replacements” for Er and Onan. Thus, Cassuto argues that even though Hetzron and Hamul were not alive during the family’s descent into Egypt, they are included in the list since they were destined to be born once Er and Onan died. Thus, 46:15 records that “they will be,” since they had yet been born. (Note this is similar to Binyamin being considered as having been born in Paddan Aram, when he really was born in Israel, 35:26.) Similarly, if the idea of yibbum is to remember the dead brothers, then Er and Onan are also mentioned to keep their memory alive, and they are to be counted in the list of 33. However, if one counts Dinah, as implied by 46:15, then there seems to be 34 descendants of Lea and not 33. We have gone from the problem of missing one descendent for Lea to having one “extra” descendant of Lea.
A fourth question concerning the list is that within the sons of Shimon, 46:10 records that Shaul was the son of a Canaanite woman. Why only for Shaul are we told of his mother? Rashi (based on Bereshit Rabbah 80:11) explains that Shaul was the daughter of Dina and Shekhem, and Shimon married her and raised Shaul as his son. Yet, this is difficult not only since Shimon would have married his sister, but also 46:10 records that Shaul was the son of a Canaanite woman and Dina was not a Canaanite. Thus Bereshit Rabbah 80:11 quotes opinions that Dina was considered as a Canaanite woman since she acted in their manner or because she was buried in Canaan. These answers are difficult.
Ibn Ezra (on 46:10) explains that only Shimon took a Canaanite wife as the other sons of Yaakov married women from Egypt, Aram, and other surrounding areas. However, 38:2 records that Yehuda also married a Canaanite woman.
The Talmud (Pesachim 50a) argues that after Avraham did not allow Yitzhak to marry a Canaanite and similarly Yitzhak for Yaakov, then Yehuda would not have married a Canaanite wife. Thus, the Talmud explains that Canaan in 38:2 refers to a trader. However, R. Nehemiah (Bereshit Rabbah 84:21) states that the sons of Yaakov did marry Canaanite women and this is the simple explanation of the 38:2 and 46:10 (see Ramban and Ibn Ezra on 38:2).
I understand that the treaty between Yaakov and Lavan, 51:44-54, broke the bonds between the two sides of Terah’s family, and then there would have been no reason why Canaanite women were any worse than women from other nationalities. Yet, if the sons of Yaakov married Canaanite women, why is Shaul signaled out as being the son of a Canaanite woman?
My guess is that Shaul was adopted by Shimon, as implied in Rashi’s explanation. Maybe, Shimon married Shaul’s mother, and Shaul was a son from a previous marriage. Shaul grew up in Shimon’s household, but he was not a biological descendent of Yaakov. If this is true, then he was also not a descendant of Lea, and he should be removed from the list of her descendants. This leaves us with 33 descendants for Lea counting Er, Onan, Hetzron and Hamul, and Dina, but not Shaul.
46:27 records that there were 70 people in the house of Yaakov when the family went to Egypt. This 70 is derived from 33 descendants of Lea (46:15) plus 16 descendants from Zilpa (46:18) plus 14 descendants from Rahel (46:22) plus 7 descendants from Bilha (46:25). Yet, according to my reckoning, the 70 cannot simply be the addition of the four groups since I counted Er and Onan within the descendants of Lea, but they were dead when the family went to Egypt. The answer is that 46:27 refers to the house of Yaakov and not to his progeny. Thus, I would add Yaakov and Shaul as they were both part of Yaakov’s household, but they were not descendants of Yaakov. Note, Efrayim and Menashe, Yosef’ sons, are included in the list of 70 even though they lived their whole lives in Egypt since they were associated with the family. 46:27 presents the number of people associated with the family when the family went into Egypt while 46:26 lists how many members of the family actually made the trip to Egypt.
46:26 records that there were 66 descendants of Yaakov who came to Egypt with him. If one starts from 70 then one has to exclude four people from the list. Rashi explains that the 66 excludes Yosef, Menashe and Efrayim, who were already in Egypt and Yokheved who was born upon their entry into Egypt. It seems clear from 46:27 that Menashe and Efrayim should be excluded from the 66, but I think Yosef is part of the 66 since he also went down to Egypt. Yosef went to Egypt before the rest of the family, but their traveling to Egypt was due to him, and thus he was part of the family’s descent into Egypt. Also, as mentioned above, I do not think that Yokheved was ever part of my original list. I would subtract Yaakov and Shaul from the list of 70 since they were not descendants of Yaakov and 46:26 refers to Yaakov’s descendants. Thus, my list of 66 is 31 from Lea, excluding Er, Onan, and Shaul but including Dina, 16 from Zilpa, 12 from Rahel excluding Menashe and Efrayim and 7 from Bilha.
The list of 70 is referred to twice again in the Torah. Shemot 1:5 refers to the progeny of Yaakov as being 70. This 70 is not the same 70 in Bereshit 26:47 since Bereshit 26:47 refers to the house of Yaakov and not necessarily to his descendants. The reference to Yaakov’s progeny in Shemot 1:5 means that Er and Onan must be counted since they were his progeny even if they died before the family came to Egypt. Thus, Shemot 1:5 is not referring to the people who came to Egypt since this criterion is not mentioned in the verse. (Shemot 1:1, which refers to the descent into Egypt, only refers to the sons of Yaakov, as indicated in verses 1:2-4.) I would count the 70 of Shemot 1:5 as consisting of 33 from Lea, including Er, Onan, Hetzron, Hamul and Dina but not Shaul, 16 from Zilpa, 14 from Rahel and 7 from Bilha.
The second reference to the 70 people is in Devarim 10:22, which records that Moshe told the generation of the desert that with 70 people their forefathers went to Egypt. This verse refers to the descent into Egypt but not to the progeny of Yaakov. I would understand this verse as similar to 46:27, that there were 70 people associated with the family or forefathers, when the family or forefathers went down into Egypt. This excludes Er and Onan, but includes Yaakov, Shaul, Efrayim and Menashe.
Bibliography:
Cassuto, Umberto (1883-1951), 1973, Biblical and Oriental Studies, vol. 1, Jerusalem: Magnes Press.
One, 46:15 records that Lea had 33 descendants, and while there are 33 men listed as children or grandchildren of Lea, two of them, Er and Onan are dead, 46:12, which brings the list to 31. 46:15 refers to the daughters of Yaakov as well, which means that Dina could be included in the list, but adding Dina only brings the list to 32, who are the 33?
There are two standard answers to this difficulty. Rashi and Radak (on 46:15) quote the Talmud (Baba Batra 123b) that Yokheved, Moshe’s mother, was born upon the entry of the family to Egypt, and her birth would give 33 descendants to Lea. The problem with this approach is that the number of descendants is based on the list of names, and she is not mentioned in the list.
Ibn Ezra (on 46:27) strongly doubts that Yokheved was born during the trip, and he argues that Yaakov should be counted as the 33rd member of Lea’s group. However, this is also problematic since 46:15 refers to the 33 descendants of Lea as the Yaakov’s sons and daughters which excludes Yaakov from being part of the list.
A second question in the list of Lea’s descendants is that by two of Yehuda's grandchildren, Hetzron and Hamul, 46:12 records that “they will be” instead of stating their names as occurs for all the other people in the list.
A third question is that there is a chronological problem with the listing of Hetzron and Hamul. Their father was Peretz, and his parents were Yehuda and Tamar. The story of Yehuda and Tamar is recorded in chapter 38, which is recorded after Yosef was sold to Egypt. We know that 22 years elapsed from the sale of Yosef until the family went to Egypt: Yosef was at least 17 (37:2) when he was sold to Egypt, he was 30 when he became the effective ruler of Egypt (41:46), and there were seven good years and two bad years until the family were reunited, 45:6. This means that all the events of chapter 38, the births of Er, Onan, their marriages to Tamar, the birth of Peretz, and the births of Hetzron and Hamul had to occur in those 22 years.
It seems impossible for there to have been enough time within the 22 years for Hetzron and Hamul to have been born. Ibn Ezra (on 38:1) argues that the story of Yehuda and Tamar occurred before the sale of Yosef, and the Torah does not follow the chronological order of events. This is a common approach of Ibn Ezra, but then one must explain why the story of Yehuda and Tamar was inserted in the midst of the story of Yosef. Cassuto (1973, p. 33) points out that Ibn Ezra cannot be correct since 38:1 records that the events of chapter 38 occurred at the time of the sale of Yosef.
Cassuto (1973, pp. 34-40) argues that the wording of 46:15, “they will be” means that Hetzron and Hamul were not born before the descent into Egypt. Cassuto argues that Hetzron and Hamul were born many years later after the family came to Egypt. Yet if they were not alive at the time of the descent into Egypt why are they mentioned in the list of chapter 46? Cassuto notes that a theme of the story of Yehuda and Tamar is that of yibbum, that a dead brother’s name will not be forgotten, Devarim 25:6, and thus the two sons of Yehuda, Er and Onan died, who died had to be replaced. They were not replaced by the births of Peretz and his brother Zeveh, 38:27-30, since they were also sons of Yehuda. Instead Hetzron and Hamul, Yehuda’s grandchildren were considered as “the replacements” for Er and Onan. Thus, Cassuto argues that even though Hetzron and Hamul were not alive during the family’s descent into Egypt, they are included in the list since they were destined to be born once Er and Onan died. Thus, 46:15 records that “they will be,” since they had yet been born. (Note this is similar to Binyamin being considered as having been born in Paddan Aram, when he really was born in Israel, 35:26.) Similarly, if the idea of yibbum is to remember the dead brothers, then Er and Onan are also mentioned to keep their memory alive, and they are to be counted in the list of 33. However, if one counts Dinah, as implied by 46:15, then there seems to be 34 descendants of Lea and not 33. We have gone from the problem of missing one descendent for Lea to having one “extra” descendant of Lea.
A fourth question concerning the list is that within the sons of Shimon, 46:10 records that Shaul was the son of a Canaanite woman. Why only for Shaul are we told of his mother? Rashi (based on Bereshit Rabbah 80:11) explains that Shaul was the daughter of Dina and Shekhem, and Shimon married her and raised Shaul as his son. Yet, this is difficult not only since Shimon would have married his sister, but also 46:10 records that Shaul was the son of a Canaanite woman and Dina was not a Canaanite. Thus Bereshit Rabbah 80:11 quotes opinions that Dina was considered as a Canaanite woman since she acted in their manner or because she was buried in Canaan. These answers are difficult.
Ibn Ezra (on 46:10) explains that only Shimon took a Canaanite wife as the other sons of Yaakov married women from Egypt, Aram, and other surrounding areas. However, 38:2 records that Yehuda also married a Canaanite woman.
The Talmud (Pesachim 50a) argues that after Avraham did not allow Yitzhak to marry a Canaanite and similarly Yitzhak for Yaakov, then Yehuda would not have married a Canaanite wife. Thus, the Talmud explains that Canaan in 38:2 refers to a trader. However, R. Nehemiah (Bereshit Rabbah 84:21) states that the sons of Yaakov did marry Canaanite women and this is the simple explanation of the 38:2 and 46:10 (see Ramban and Ibn Ezra on 38:2).
I understand that the treaty between Yaakov and Lavan, 51:44-54, broke the bonds between the two sides of Terah’s family, and then there would have been no reason why Canaanite women were any worse than women from other nationalities. Yet, if the sons of Yaakov married Canaanite women, why is Shaul signaled out as being the son of a Canaanite woman?
My guess is that Shaul was adopted by Shimon, as implied in Rashi’s explanation. Maybe, Shimon married Shaul’s mother, and Shaul was a son from a previous marriage. Shaul grew up in Shimon’s household, but he was not a biological descendent of Yaakov. If this is true, then he was also not a descendant of Lea, and he should be removed from the list of her descendants. This leaves us with 33 descendants for Lea counting Er, Onan, Hetzron and Hamul, and Dina, but not Shaul.
46:27 records that there were 70 people in the house of Yaakov when the family went to Egypt. This 70 is derived from 33 descendants of Lea (46:15) plus 16 descendants from Zilpa (46:18) plus 14 descendants from Rahel (46:22) plus 7 descendants from Bilha (46:25). Yet, according to my reckoning, the 70 cannot simply be the addition of the four groups since I counted Er and Onan within the descendants of Lea, but they were dead when the family went to Egypt. The answer is that 46:27 refers to the house of Yaakov and not to his progeny. Thus, I would add Yaakov and Shaul as they were both part of Yaakov’s household, but they were not descendants of Yaakov. Note, Efrayim and Menashe, Yosef’ sons, are included in the list of 70 even though they lived their whole lives in Egypt since they were associated with the family. 46:27 presents the number of people associated with the family when the family went into Egypt while 46:26 lists how many members of the family actually made the trip to Egypt.
46:26 records that there were 66 descendants of Yaakov who came to Egypt with him. If one starts from 70 then one has to exclude four people from the list. Rashi explains that the 66 excludes Yosef, Menashe and Efrayim, who were already in Egypt and Yokheved who was born upon their entry into Egypt. It seems clear from 46:27 that Menashe and Efrayim should be excluded from the 66, but I think Yosef is part of the 66 since he also went down to Egypt. Yosef went to Egypt before the rest of the family, but their traveling to Egypt was due to him, and thus he was part of the family’s descent into Egypt. Also, as mentioned above, I do not think that Yokheved was ever part of my original list. I would subtract Yaakov and Shaul from the list of 70 since they were not descendants of Yaakov and 46:26 refers to Yaakov’s descendants. Thus, my list of 66 is 31 from Lea, excluding Er, Onan, and Shaul but including Dina, 16 from Zilpa, 12 from Rahel excluding Menashe and Efrayim and 7 from Bilha.
The list of 70 is referred to twice again in the Torah. Shemot 1:5 refers to the progeny of Yaakov as being 70. This 70 is not the same 70 in Bereshit 26:47 since Bereshit 26:47 refers to the house of Yaakov and not necessarily to his descendants. The reference to Yaakov’s progeny in Shemot 1:5 means that Er and Onan must be counted since they were his progeny even if they died before the family came to Egypt. Thus, Shemot 1:5 is not referring to the people who came to Egypt since this criterion is not mentioned in the verse. (Shemot 1:1, which refers to the descent into Egypt, only refers to the sons of Yaakov, as indicated in verses 1:2-4.) I would count the 70 of Shemot 1:5 as consisting of 33 from Lea, including Er, Onan, Hetzron, Hamul and Dina but not Shaul, 16 from Zilpa, 14 from Rahel and 7 from Bilha.
The second reference to the 70 people is in Devarim 10:22, which records that Moshe told the generation of the desert that with 70 people their forefathers went to Egypt. This verse refers to the descent into Egypt but not to the progeny of Yaakov. I would understand this verse as similar to 46:27, that there were 70 people associated with the family or forefathers, when the family or forefathers went down into Egypt. This excludes Er and Onan, but includes Yaakov, Shaul, Efrayim and Menashe.
Bibliography:
Cassuto, Umberto (1883-1951), 1973, Biblical and Oriental Studies, vol. 1, Jerusalem: Magnes Press.
Tuesday, December 15, 2009
Bereshit 44:1-12 (Mikketz) – The middle of the game between Yosef and his brothers: The Trap
Bereshit 44:1 records that Yosef told his steward to fill the amtahot, packs, of the brothers with food and silver when they were leaving him a second time to go back to the land of Israel. Yosef also told the steward that he should put in a silver goblet in addition to the silver in the amtahat of Binyamin, 44:2. After the brothers left the city where Yosef was situated, the steward chased down the brothers, and accused them of stealing the goblet, 44:4-12. Why did the steward not accuse them of stealing the silver that he also planted in their packs? Why did he put the silver in their packs if it was not part of the set-up? Surely, the silver was discovered when they opened their packs to search for the goblet, but the Torah makes no mention of the silver, why?
The Ramban and Seforno (on 44:1) suggest that the silver was placed in the packs with the knowledge of the brothers to compensate them for their previous troubles. The Ramban adds that even if it was not placed in the packs with the brother's knowledge, still the brothers could have claimed it was a "treasure" that they got from G-d just as the steward had explained the previous appearance of money in their packs, 43:22. However, the brothers could not have been able to make this claim by the silver goblet, and hence they were only accused of stealing the goblet.
Alter (2004, p. 253) suggests that the placing of the silver was "to make the brothers feel they were trapped in a network of uncanny circumstances they could neither control nor explain… The steward, however, was exclusively focused on the retrieval of the silver goblet, and so did not even deign to mention the weights of silver in the bags, as though their appearance there were a matter of course, whatever consternation it might have caused the brothers." With this idea, the steward also found the "stolen silver" but the Torah did not mention this finding.
Maybe there were two other reasons for the silver. One, had they returned home without Binyamin as Yosef intended, 44:10,17, then Yosef wanted them to return to Yaakov with the silver since this would again be re-creating the sale, that they were returning home short one brother but with money, see our discussion on 42:25,27,35, “A double dose of fear." This might have been Yosef's test of Yaakov to see if he would come to Egypt to try to free Binyamin, see our discussion on 42:9, "The beginning of the game between Yosef and his brothers." Thus, the silver was found, but the steward did not mention it since it was desired for the brothers to have the silver.
A second possibility is that the steward put the silver in the amtahot as plan B. Yosef was trying to trap the brothers, but the plan could have gone awry if Binyamin and the brothers realized the goblet was in their amtahot, and either attempted to return it or to dispose of it. Thus, when the steward filled the amtahot of the brothers with grain, he also put silver in their amtahot, as a back-up plan. The steward did not need to use plan B, the silver, since when he opened the amtahat of Binyamin he found the goblet, and hence the silver is not mentioned in 44:12.
Bibliography:
Alter, Robert, 2004, The five books of Moses: A translation and commentary, New York: W. W. Norton and Company.
The Ramban and Seforno (on 44:1) suggest that the silver was placed in the packs with the knowledge of the brothers to compensate them for their previous troubles. The Ramban adds that even if it was not placed in the packs with the brother's knowledge, still the brothers could have claimed it was a "treasure" that they got from G-d just as the steward had explained the previous appearance of money in their packs, 43:22. However, the brothers could not have been able to make this claim by the silver goblet, and hence they were only accused of stealing the goblet.
Alter (2004, p. 253) suggests that the placing of the silver was "to make the brothers feel they were trapped in a network of uncanny circumstances they could neither control nor explain… The steward, however, was exclusively focused on the retrieval of the silver goblet, and so did not even deign to mention the weights of silver in the bags, as though their appearance there were a matter of course, whatever consternation it might have caused the brothers." With this idea, the steward also found the "stolen silver" but the Torah did not mention this finding.
Maybe there were two other reasons for the silver. One, had they returned home without Binyamin as Yosef intended, 44:10,17, then Yosef wanted them to return to Yaakov with the silver since this would again be re-creating the sale, that they were returning home short one brother but with money, see our discussion on 42:25,27,35, “A double dose of fear." This might have been Yosef's test of Yaakov to see if he would come to Egypt to try to free Binyamin, see our discussion on 42:9, "The beginning of the game between Yosef and his brothers." Thus, the silver was found, but the steward did not mention it since it was desired for the brothers to have the silver.
A second possibility is that the steward put the silver in the amtahot as plan B. Yosef was trying to trap the brothers, but the plan could have gone awry if Binyamin and the brothers realized the goblet was in their amtahot, and either attempted to return it or to dispose of it. Thus, when the steward filled the amtahot of the brothers with grain, he also put silver in their amtahot, as a back-up plan. The steward did not need to use plan B, the silver, since when he opened the amtahat of Binyamin he found the goblet, and hence the silver is not mentioned in 44:12.
Bibliography:
Alter, Robert, 2004, The five books of Moses: A translation and commentary, New York: W. W. Norton and Company.
Tuesday, December 8, 2009
Bereshit Chapter 38 (Va-yeshev) – Tamar: A heroine
Bereshit chapter 38 records the relations between Tamar and Yehuda. As pointed out by Cassuto (1973, pp. 30,31), Alter (1981, pp. 3-11) and Wildavsky (1993, pp.32-41), the language in 38:25,26 (ha-ker) is identical with the language in 37:32,33 and this shows the link between chapters 37 and 38.
Tamer acts as a prostitute to have sexual relations with Yehuda, 38:15-18, but she is the heroine of episode. While usually it is not heroic to be a prostitute, in this case, Tamar had been wronged by Yehuda. Yehuda had lied to her when he told her to wait until Shela was older, 38:11, and the Torah specifically records that she only acted as a prostitute when it was self-evident that Yehuda had no intention of keeping his word. To correct Yehuda’s injustice to her, she risked her life, and in the end he admitted that she was righteous, 38:26. A person who risks his or her life to correct an injustice is a hero, and thus Tamar was a heroine. One might argue that while Yehuda did condemn her to die, maybe she did not know that she was risking her life when she acted. I admit that while she might not have known for sure that she would be condemned to die, there is no way that she could have excluded the possibility that she would die from her actions.
Tamar did not act impetuously but deliberately. When she bargained with Yehuda over the payment, she insisted on the particular items that could prove her innocence, 38:17. When she was sentenced to die, it appears that she calmly showed the items that proved her innocence. She must have known that Yehuda would have seized this opportunity to remove her from being a possible wife to Shela. Thus, she must have known when she acted that there was a risk that she would be killed. Yet, was being a prostitute the only way that Tamar could have rectified Yehuda’s injustice towards her? To answer this question, we have to understand what was the injustice Tamar was fighting. Was it just that Yehuda lied to her?
Why did Tamar act as a prostitute? 38:14 records that she acted since Shela did not marry her, and this implies that she acted as a prostitute to get married. The logic is that due to yibbum she was destined for Shela, which meant that she could not marry anybody else, but Yehuda was refusing to give her to Shela. Accordingly, the injustice of Yehuda was that he was forcing her to be an “old maid.” In fact, Rashi (based on Sotah 10b) explains that 38:26 which records that “Yehuda did not know her again” means that in the end Yehuda and Tamar married. However, Tamar could not have known that this would happen, and Rashi quotes a second opinion, which accords better with the text, that he never married her.
The chapter ends with the birth of her children and this is the conclusion of the story. G. W. Coats (1972) argues that this ending suggests that the reason Tamar acted as a prostitute was to have a child. According to this idea the injustice of Yehuda was that he was denying her the opportunity to have children. Once she had children the yibbum was fulfilled. Usually, marriage is needed to fulfill the law, but here due to Tamar’s actions the law was fulfilled without marriage. Thus, the desire to marry Shela was to have children, but once she had children she did not have to marry.
Why would Tamar be so desperate to have a child? Rashi (on 38:14) writes that she specifically wanted to have children with Yehuda apparently because she knew that Yehuda’s children were destined for greatness (Bereshit Rabbah 85:10). While this did occur, it is unclear how she could have known about Yehuda’s future descendants.
A second possibility is that she wanted to fulfill the law of yibbum, which seems to have existed prior to the Torah. However, this is unlikely since why should Tamar be so concerned about fulfilling this law, especially as it was not her fault that yibbum had not occurred.
A third possibility is that emotionally she needed to have a child. This appears to have occurred to Rahel when she told Yaakov “give me children or else I will die,” 30:1.
A fourth possibility is that children were important for economic reasons. Niditch (1979) argues that in those days a widow could not inherit her husband’s property, and being without children left her in a limbo. Once she was married she did not belong to her father’s home, and yet without children she did not belong to her dead husband’s home. According to this, the law of yibbum was to enable the widow to be part of the dead husband’s family. Thus, the injustice of Yehuda was that by not allowing Shela to marry Tamar, he put Tamar in a hopeless situation and her legal right to join the family was disregarded. When Tamar had children, she became part of Yehuda’s family entitled to financial support.
While all this makes sense, how could Tamer have known that she was going to conceive from this onetime event? I cannot believe that she intended to repeat this exercise until she got pregnant. I think there is another possibility. Yehuda did not want Shela to marry Tamar since he was worried that she was the cause of the other brothers’ deaths (Rashi on 38:11). (Is this called a black widow? See Shulchan Arukh, Even Ha-Ezer 9.) The reader knows Yehuda’s sons died because of their sins unrelated to Tamar but Yehuda did not know this. In essence he was accusing her of murder and this was the injustice to Tamar. Not only must this have been offensive but she also was being penalized by not being able to marry, to do yibbum or have children with all the resulting consequences discussed above. Yet, how did Yehuda think that Tamar had killed his sons? This we cannot know for sure, but we know that there was no evidence against Tamar. Maybe it is possible that he thought that his sons died because they had sexual relations with her. Did Tamar protest against his accusation? The text records nothing, but maybe her protests were left out. Even if she was silent maybe she thought it was hopeless to argue. How could Tamar disprove Yehuda? The only way was what she did, and Yehuda’s survival would be her proof. With this idea she did not have to become pregnant, but she was waiting until enough time elapsed that Yehuda could not refute her innocence. According to this idea, her intention would have been to prove her innocence which would have enabled her to marry Shela to fulfill the law of yibbum. In the end, Yehuda admitted that she was righteous, which meant that she was not a murderer. Also, as she became pregnant the yibbum was effectively accomplished, and it was not necessary to marry Shela.
What is the significance of this episode? In the beginning of the story of Yosef, Yehuda attempted to convince the brothers to sell Yosef, 37:26. (As we discuss on 37:25-30, "Who sold Yosef" the brothers did not sell Yosef.) However, in the end, Yehuda offered to go to jail instead of Binyamin, and his great speech caused Yosef to reveal himself to the brothers, 44:18-34. What caused this transformation of Yehuda?
James Ackerman (1982) points out some parallels between Yehuda’s offer and his episode with Tamar, chapter 38. The simplest parallel is that Yehuda left a personal pledge with Tamar, 38:17 while here Yehuda gave Yaakov a personal pledge to return Binyamin to Yaakov, 43:9. This correspondence suggests that it was Tamar’s actions that transformed Yehuda.
When Tamer challenged Yehuda to identify his personal items that he had left with her, 38:25, she taught Yehuda that one must act responsibly. Yehuda demonstrated his newfound sense of responsibility when he offered take responsibility for Binyamin when going to Egypt, 43:2-10, and when he offered to go to prison instead of Binyamin, 44:16-34.
Bibliography:
Ackerman, James, 1982, Joseph, Judah, and Jacob, in Literary Interpretations of the Bible, vol. 2, edited by Kenneth R.R. Gros Louis with James Ackerman, Nashville: Abingdon Press, pp. 85-111.
Alter, Robert, 2004, The five books of Moses: A translation and commentary, New York: W. W. Norton and Company.
Cassuto, Umberto (1883-1951), 1973, Biblical and Oriental Studies, vol. 1, Jerusalem: Magnes Press.
Coats, George. W. 1972, "Widow's rights: A crux in the structure of Genesis 38," Catholic Bible Quarterly, 34, pp. 461-466.
Niditch, Susan, 1979, The wronged woman righted: An analysis of Genesis 38, Harvard Theological Review, 72(1), pp.143-149.
Wildavsky, Aaron, 1993, Assimilation versus separation: Joseph the administrator and the politics of religion in biblical Israel, New Brunswick: Transaction Publishers.
Tamer acts as a prostitute to have sexual relations with Yehuda, 38:15-18, but she is the heroine of episode. While usually it is not heroic to be a prostitute, in this case, Tamar had been wronged by Yehuda. Yehuda had lied to her when he told her to wait until Shela was older, 38:11, and the Torah specifically records that she only acted as a prostitute when it was self-evident that Yehuda had no intention of keeping his word. To correct Yehuda’s injustice to her, she risked her life, and in the end he admitted that she was righteous, 38:26. A person who risks his or her life to correct an injustice is a hero, and thus Tamar was a heroine. One might argue that while Yehuda did condemn her to die, maybe she did not know that she was risking her life when she acted. I admit that while she might not have known for sure that she would be condemned to die, there is no way that she could have excluded the possibility that she would die from her actions.
Tamar did not act impetuously but deliberately. When she bargained with Yehuda over the payment, she insisted on the particular items that could prove her innocence, 38:17. When she was sentenced to die, it appears that she calmly showed the items that proved her innocence. She must have known that Yehuda would have seized this opportunity to remove her from being a possible wife to Shela. Thus, she must have known when she acted that there was a risk that she would be killed. Yet, was being a prostitute the only way that Tamar could have rectified Yehuda’s injustice towards her? To answer this question, we have to understand what was the injustice Tamar was fighting. Was it just that Yehuda lied to her?
Why did Tamar act as a prostitute? 38:14 records that she acted since Shela did not marry her, and this implies that she acted as a prostitute to get married. The logic is that due to yibbum she was destined for Shela, which meant that she could not marry anybody else, but Yehuda was refusing to give her to Shela. Accordingly, the injustice of Yehuda was that he was forcing her to be an “old maid.” In fact, Rashi (based on Sotah 10b) explains that 38:26 which records that “Yehuda did not know her again” means that in the end Yehuda and Tamar married. However, Tamar could not have known that this would happen, and Rashi quotes a second opinion, which accords better with the text, that he never married her.
The chapter ends with the birth of her children and this is the conclusion of the story. G. W. Coats (1972) argues that this ending suggests that the reason Tamar acted as a prostitute was to have a child. According to this idea the injustice of Yehuda was that he was denying her the opportunity to have children. Once she had children the yibbum was fulfilled. Usually, marriage is needed to fulfill the law, but here due to Tamar’s actions the law was fulfilled without marriage. Thus, the desire to marry Shela was to have children, but once she had children she did not have to marry.
Why would Tamar be so desperate to have a child? Rashi (on 38:14) writes that she specifically wanted to have children with Yehuda apparently because she knew that Yehuda’s children were destined for greatness (Bereshit Rabbah 85:10). While this did occur, it is unclear how she could have known about Yehuda’s future descendants.
A second possibility is that she wanted to fulfill the law of yibbum, which seems to have existed prior to the Torah. However, this is unlikely since why should Tamar be so concerned about fulfilling this law, especially as it was not her fault that yibbum had not occurred.
A third possibility is that emotionally she needed to have a child. This appears to have occurred to Rahel when she told Yaakov “give me children or else I will die,” 30:1.
A fourth possibility is that children were important for economic reasons. Niditch (1979) argues that in those days a widow could not inherit her husband’s property, and being without children left her in a limbo. Once she was married she did not belong to her father’s home, and yet without children she did not belong to her dead husband’s home. According to this, the law of yibbum was to enable the widow to be part of the dead husband’s family. Thus, the injustice of Yehuda was that by not allowing Shela to marry Tamar, he put Tamar in a hopeless situation and her legal right to join the family was disregarded. When Tamar had children, she became part of Yehuda’s family entitled to financial support.
While all this makes sense, how could Tamer have known that she was going to conceive from this onetime event? I cannot believe that she intended to repeat this exercise until she got pregnant. I think there is another possibility. Yehuda did not want Shela to marry Tamar since he was worried that she was the cause of the other brothers’ deaths (Rashi on 38:11). (Is this called a black widow? See Shulchan Arukh, Even Ha-Ezer 9.) The reader knows Yehuda’s sons died because of their sins unrelated to Tamar but Yehuda did not know this. In essence he was accusing her of murder and this was the injustice to Tamar. Not only must this have been offensive but she also was being penalized by not being able to marry, to do yibbum or have children with all the resulting consequences discussed above. Yet, how did Yehuda think that Tamar had killed his sons? This we cannot know for sure, but we know that there was no evidence against Tamar. Maybe it is possible that he thought that his sons died because they had sexual relations with her. Did Tamar protest against his accusation? The text records nothing, but maybe her protests were left out. Even if she was silent maybe she thought it was hopeless to argue. How could Tamar disprove Yehuda? The only way was what she did, and Yehuda’s survival would be her proof. With this idea she did not have to become pregnant, but she was waiting until enough time elapsed that Yehuda could not refute her innocence. According to this idea, her intention would have been to prove her innocence which would have enabled her to marry Shela to fulfill the law of yibbum. In the end, Yehuda admitted that she was righteous, which meant that she was not a murderer. Also, as she became pregnant the yibbum was effectively accomplished, and it was not necessary to marry Shela.
What is the significance of this episode? In the beginning of the story of Yosef, Yehuda attempted to convince the brothers to sell Yosef, 37:26. (As we discuss on 37:25-30, "Who sold Yosef" the brothers did not sell Yosef.) However, in the end, Yehuda offered to go to jail instead of Binyamin, and his great speech caused Yosef to reveal himself to the brothers, 44:18-34. What caused this transformation of Yehuda?
James Ackerman (1982) points out some parallels between Yehuda’s offer and his episode with Tamar, chapter 38. The simplest parallel is that Yehuda left a personal pledge with Tamar, 38:17 while here Yehuda gave Yaakov a personal pledge to return Binyamin to Yaakov, 43:9. This correspondence suggests that it was Tamar’s actions that transformed Yehuda.
When Tamer challenged Yehuda to identify his personal items that he had left with her, 38:25, she taught Yehuda that one must act responsibly. Yehuda demonstrated his newfound sense of responsibility when he offered take responsibility for Binyamin when going to Egypt, 43:2-10, and when he offered to go to prison instead of Binyamin, 44:16-34.
Bibliography:
Ackerman, James, 1982, Joseph, Judah, and Jacob, in Literary Interpretations of the Bible, vol. 2, edited by Kenneth R.R. Gros Louis with James Ackerman, Nashville: Abingdon Press, pp. 85-111.
Alter, Robert, 2004, The five books of Moses: A translation and commentary, New York: W. W. Norton and Company.
Cassuto, Umberto (1883-1951), 1973, Biblical and Oriental Studies, vol. 1, Jerusalem: Magnes Press.
Coats, George. W. 1972, "Widow's rights: A crux in the structure of Genesis 38," Catholic Bible Quarterly, 34, pp. 461-466.
Niditch, Susan, 1979, The wronged woman righted: An analysis of Genesis 38, Harvard Theological Review, 72(1), pp.143-149.
Wildavsky, Aaron, 1993, Assimilation versus separation: Joseph the administrator and the politics of religion in biblical Israel, New Brunswick: Transaction Publishers.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)