Bemidbar 32:1-32 record negotiations between Moshe and the tribes of Gad and Reuven for land on the east bank of the Jordan River (see our discussion http://lobashamayim.blogspot.co.il/2011/07/bemidbar-chapter-32-other-side.html). Bemidbar 32:33 then records that Moshe gave some of the land on the east bank not just to the tribes of Gad and Reuven but also to half the tribe of Menashe. This is surprising since the tribe of Menahse had never been mentioned before in chapter 32 and had not requested land on the east bank. Why did Menashe get land on the east bank if they were not involved in the negotiations between Moshe and the tribes of Reuven and Gad? Why did only half the tribe of Menahse get land? Why was the tribe of Menashe divided by the Jordan River?
Ramban (on 32:33) explains that when the tribes of Reuven and Gad were granted land on the east bank, it was recognized that the land was too much for two tribes. Volunteers were asked who would want to live there and then some of the tribe of Menashe requested the land.
Luzzatto (on 32:33) suggests that after the deal with the tribes of Gad and Reuven was made, some members of the tribe of Menashe on their own took the initiative to conquer more land on the east bank, 32:39.
My guess is that since the deal with the tribes of Reuven and Gad separated these tribes from the other tribes due to the Jordan River, there was a desire to re-connect the tribes of Gad and Reuven with the other tribes. This was done by splitting another tribe that half of the tribe would be on the east side of the Jordan and half of the tribe would be on the west side. With this idea, we can apply the principle of transitivity. The tribes of Reuven and Gad would be connected with the split tribe on their side (the eastern side) of the Jordan River, the split tribe would be connected with its other half on the other side (the western side) of the Jordan River, and this half of the tribe would be connected with the remaining tribes who all lived on the western side of the Jordan River.
This same idea can also explain, why Moshe designated three cities of refuge on the east side of the Jordan River, see our discussion on Bemidbar 35:13,14 "Three and three."
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, July 17, 2016
Sunday, June 26, 2016
Bemidbar (Numbers) 20:6-13 - Moshe's reaction to the people's request for water in the desert in Bemidbar (Numbers) 20 : The "sin?"
Bemidbar (Numbers) 20:2-13 record the people's complaint for water and the ensuing “sin” of Moshe and Aharon that caused them to be punished that they were not allowed to take the people to the land of Israel. What was Moshe's and Aharon’s sin? For various reviews of this question, see Ibn Ezra on 20:8, Abravanel, 2008, pp. 167-176, and N. Leibowitz, 1982, pp. 236-247. I will review some of the explanations of the "sin" and offer two possible explanations.
The Rambam (Shemoneh Perakim, chapter 4) suggests that Moshe’s sin was that he got angry and his anger implied that G-d was angry at the people, but G-d was not angry with the people. Moshe definitely seems to be angry here, both his language in 20:10 and the fact that he hit the rock twice. Why did Moshe get angry here? Perhaps it was because he felt the people were attacking him personally, 20:3-5. Even though a person is humble, still when someone is attacked, then he/ she will respond by being angry. Yet, Moshe had been angry before, as for example when speaking to Datan and Aviram (16:15), when they attacked him personally, 16:13,14, and he was not punished then.
A second answer is Rashi's explanation (on 20:11,12) that Moshe was supposed to speak to the rock, 20:8, but instead Moshe hit the rock, 20:11. The idea of speaking to the rock is understood to mean that Moshe was supposed to give an order to the rock to exude water, for example to say to the rock "give the people water." This approach has raised various questions.
The Ramban (on 20:7) criticizes Rashi's approach. He notes that 20:12 records that Moshe and Aharon showed a lack of faith in G-d, lo heehmanetem, but how did Moshe show a lack of faith in G-d by hitting the rock instead of speaking to the rock? When Moshe hit the rock, he had faith that water would flow from the rock. It could be that Moshe was not following G-d's command (according to Rashi) and that the miracle would have been more impressive if Moshe had spoken and not hit the rock, but still Moshe did not demonstrate any lack of faith in G-d. The Ramban also notes that Moshe spoke about the rock, 20:10, which he argues was the fulfillment of G-d's command to Moshe to speak to the rock.
Another question on Rashi's approach is how could Moshe have misunderstood what G-d told him to do? The Sifrei (157, on parshat Mattot), Rashi (on Bemidbar 31:21 quoting the Talmud Pesachim 66b), the Ran (Derashot haRan, derashot 8 and 9, 2003, pp. 304, 334, 335) and Luzzatto (end of comments on 20:12) suggest that the misunderstanding was because Moshe was angry, but still it seems problematic to say that Moshe misunderstood G-d's command to speak to the rock. (The Rashbam on 20:10 seems to accept this possibility, but if one says that Moshe misunderstood G-d here, then this opens a pandora’s box for other cases.)
A third question on Rashi's approach is why was Aharon punished here? Aharon did not speak to the rock, but did he have a chance to do so? 20:10 records that Moshe spoke to the people, said rhetorically, “could the rock exude water?” and then Moshe hit the rock. Was Aharon supposed to jump in and shout "exude water" to the rock?
Abravanel argues that Moshe and Aharon were being punished for previous sins. Aharon was punished for his role in building the golden calf and Moshe was punished for requesting more information from the spies than what was needed. Abravanel claims his approach explains why in Devarim 1:37 Moshe mentioned his punishment in conjunction with the sin of the spies since his real sin was by the sending of the spies. Also, Abravanel’s approach appears to explain why Aharon was punished here even though he had almost no role here.
The Abravanel's approach is appealing but not convincing. 20:24 states that Aharon sinned here as well, and thus he was not being punished for his role in the sin of the golden calf. Similarly, as Rashi (on 20:12) points out, the sense of 20:12 is that Moshe was also being punished for his action here. Also, I do not think that Moshe sinned in any way by the sending of the spies, see our discussion on 13:1,2,26, "A test."
Luzzatto (on 20:12) has a lengthy review of Moshe's "sin" and he begins with a disclaimer that for many years he did not try to examine this question since he did not want to add another sin to Moshe. Instead, initially he accepted Moshe Mendelssohn’s (1729-1786, Germany) approach that the sin was Moshe and Aharon's reaction to the people when the people complained for water that Moshe and Aharon ran away from the people, 20:6, also see Ibn Ezra on 20:6. Luzzatto notes that three other commentators (R. Avraham ben Shem Tov Bibago, Spain 15th century, Derekh Emunah; R. Avraham Menachem ben Jacob haKohen Porto, Verona, 16th century, Minhah Belulah; and the book Avat Nefesh a commentary on Ibn Ezra) also followed this approach.
After quoting these other commentators, and noting that he taught their explanation for 15 years, Luzzatto rejected it for the following reasons. One, G-d did not criticize Moshe and Aharon for not speaking to the people, but for showing a lack of faith. Two, the statement in the Torah words that “you (Aharon) rebelled against Me,” 20:24, implies that Moshe and Aharon did not do something that they were commanded. Three, the language in the Torah that Moshe and Aharon left the people, 20:6, does not imply that they ran from the people. Luzzatto writes that he now accepted Rashi’s explanation that the sin was they were supposed to speak to the rock.
It seems to me obvious that Moshe would not have misunderstood G-d’s command even if he was angry, and hence I think the Ramban in correct that Moshe's statement in 20:10 about the rock with Aharon standing next to him was the fulfillment of G-d's command to him and Aharon in 20:8 to speak to the rock. What then were Moshe and Aharon’s sins?
One possibility is that after Moshe made his statement in 20:10 about the rock, he was supposed to wait until the water started to gush from the rock, but he got impatient, maybe since he was angry, and he hit the rock twice. This impatience was the lack of faith since the water was going to go forth in a few more seconds. Aharon's sin here was that he did not stop Moshe from hitting the rock. 20:11 records that Moshe raised his arm to lift his staff to hit the rock and at the time, Aharon could have grabbed Moshe's arm and stopped him from hitting the rock. Moshe even hit the rock twice, and my son Binyamin believes that this means that Moshe raised his arm a second time, which would have given Aharon a second chance to stop Moshe from hitting the rock. (Note this idea could also be Aharon's sin if one believes that the sin was not telling the rock to exude water, Rashi's approach.)
Another possible "sin" could have been Moshe and Aharon's reaction to the people's demand for water. Was the people’s complaint about water justified? The traditional explanation (see Rashi on 20:2) for the people’s complaint for water is that previously they had been getting water from a well which traveled with the people, but after Miryam died, the well disappeared. With this explanation, the complaint of the people would seem to be justified since they truly needed water to live (see Hizkuni on 20:2). Yet, why then was the people’s complaint considered a fight against G-d (20:13)? Also, after Miryam died, how were the people supposed to get water, as the incident here appears to be a onetime event?
As we discussed on 20:2-5 "Water in the desert," my understanding is that the mahn was able to supply the people with all their nutritional needs in the desert, both solids and liquids. I doubt there was a well that traveled with the people since it is never mentioned in the Torah, but even if there was a well and it disappeared after Miryam died, the people did not need regular water. Thus, the peoples' complaints for water in 20:5 and 21:5, were unjustified, and this understanding offers a new perspective on Moshe's and Aharon's "sin."
The people stated that they were going to die in the desert and that they never should have left Egypt, 20:3-5. This was a denial of G-d’s goodness to them, and hence the Torah calls it a rebellion against G-d, 20:13. Moshe and Aharon should have told the people that they were not going to die because they would live by eating the mahn. It is possible that the people were so worked up, that they would not have listened to Moshe and Aharon, but then Moshe and Aharon should have ignored the people’s complaint for water. (Note by the sin of the spies, Moshe and Aharon did not run to the ohel moed, but fell on their faces before the people, 14:4. Also by Korah’s rebellion, Moshe tried to convince the people to stop.) Again, it could have been because Moshe was angry that he did not try to argue with the people.
When Moshe and Aharon went to G-d after hearing the people's complaint for water, this gave the impression that they were going to ask G-d to give the people water, which implied that Moshe and Aharon accepted the people’s complaint. Thus, when Moshe and Aharon went to the ohel moed it was a partial negation of the great miracle of the desert, the mahn. If Moshe and Aharon gave the impression that they were even just partially negating the miracle of the mahn, then this would be considered as showing a lack of faith in G-d. In addition, if Moshe and Aharon gave the impression that they were praying for the people to get water, then in some sense they were joining the people’s fight with G-d. This could then be considered as rebelling against G-d, and this would explain the language in 20:24 (also see 27:14), that “you (Aharon) rebelled against Me.”
With either possibility (Moshe was impatient or Moshe and Aharon should have argued with the people before going to G-d), the sins of Moshe and Aharon here seem minor, but this is not our judgement to make. Also, it could be that that the punishment was in conjunction with other actions, Moshe by 11:21-23 and Aharon by the golden calf, Shemot 32:2-5, (the straw that broke the camel’s back).
The Rambam (Shemoneh Perakim, chapter 4) suggests that Moshe’s sin was that he got angry and his anger implied that G-d was angry at the people, but G-d was not angry with the people. Moshe definitely seems to be angry here, both his language in 20:10 and the fact that he hit the rock twice. Why did Moshe get angry here? Perhaps it was because he felt the people were attacking him personally, 20:3-5. Even though a person is humble, still when someone is attacked, then he/ she will respond by being angry. Yet, Moshe had been angry before, as for example when speaking to Datan and Aviram (16:15), when they attacked him personally, 16:13,14, and he was not punished then.
A second answer is Rashi's explanation (on 20:11,12) that Moshe was supposed to speak to the rock, 20:8, but instead Moshe hit the rock, 20:11. The idea of speaking to the rock is understood to mean that Moshe was supposed to give an order to the rock to exude water, for example to say to the rock "give the people water." This approach has raised various questions.
The Ramban (on 20:7) criticizes Rashi's approach. He notes that 20:12 records that Moshe and Aharon showed a lack of faith in G-d, lo heehmanetem, but how did Moshe show a lack of faith in G-d by hitting the rock instead of speaking to the rock? When Moshe hit the rock, he had faith that water would flow from the rock. It could be that Moshe was not following G-d's command (according to Rashi) and that the miracle would have been more impressive if Moshe had spoken and not hit the rock, but still Moshe did not demonstrate any lack of faith in G-d. The Ramban also notes that Moshe spoke about the rock, 20:10, which he argues was the fulfillment of G-d's command to Moshe to speak to the rock.
Another question on Rashi's approach is how could Moshe have misunderstood what G-d told him to do? The Sifrei (157, on parshat Mattot), Rashi (on Bemidbar 31:21 quoting the Talmud Pesachim 66b), the Ran (Derashot haRan, derashot 8 and 9, 2003, pp. 304, 334, 335) and Luzzatto (end of comments on 20:12) suggest that the misunderstanding was because Moshe was angry, but still it seems problematic to say that Moshe misunderstood G-d's command to speak to the rock. (The Rashbam on 20:10 seems to accept this possibility, but if one says that Moshe misunderstood G-d here, then this opens a pandora’s box for other cases.)
A third question on Rashi's approach is why was Aharon punished here? Aharon did not speak to the rock, but did he have a chance to do so? 20:10 records that Moshe spoke to the people, said rhetorically, “could the rock exude water?” and then Moshe hit the rock. Was Aharon supposed to jump in and shout "exude water" to the rock?
Abravanel argues that Moshe and Aharon were being punished for previous sins. Aharon was punished for his role in building the golden calf and Moshe was punished for requesting more information from the spies than what was needed. Abravanel claims his approach explains why in Devarim 1:37 Moshe mentioned his punishment in conjunction with the sin of the spies since his real sin was by the sending of the spies. Also, Abravanel’s approach appears to explain why Aharon was punished here even though he had almost no role here.
The Abravanel's approach is appealing but not convincing. 20:24 states that Aharon sinned here as well, and thus he was not being punished for his role in the sin of the golden calf. Similarly, as Rashi (on 20:12) points out, the sense of 20:12 is that Moshe was also being punished for his action here. Also, I do not think that Moshe sinned in any way by the sending of the spies, see our discussion on 13:1,2,26, "A test."
Luzzatto (on 20:12) has a lengthy review of Moshe's "sin" and he begins with a disclaimer that for many years he did not try to examine this question since he did not want to add another sin to Moshe. Instead, initially he accepted Moshe Mendelssohn’s (1729-1786, Germany) approach that the sin was Moshe and Aharon's reaction to the people when the people complained for water that Moshe and Aharon ran away from the people, 20:6, also see Ibn Ezra on 20:6. Luzzatto notes that three other commentators (R. Avraham ben Shem Tov Bibago, Spain 15th century, Derekh Emunah; R. Avraham Menachem ben Jacob haKohen Porto, Verona, 16th century, Minhah Belulah; and the book Avat Nefesh a commentary on Ibn Ezra) also followed this approach.
After quoting these other commentators, and noting that he taught their explanation for 15 years, Luzzatto rejected it for the following reasons. One, G-d did not criticize Moshe and Aharon for not speaking to the people, but for showing a lack of faith. Two, the statement in the Torah words that “you (Aharon) rebelled against Me,” 20:24, implies that Moshe and Aharon did not do something that they were commanded. Three, the language in the Torah that Moshe and Aharon left the people, 20:6, does not imply that they ran from the people. Luzzatto writes that he now accepted Rashi’s explanation that the sin was they were supposed to speak to the rock.
It seems to me obvious that Moshe would not have misunderstood G-d’s command even if he was angry, and hence I think the Ramban in correct that Moshe's statement in 20:10 about the rock with Aharon standing next to him was the fulfillment of G-d's command to him and Aharon in 20:8 to speak to the rock. What then were Moshe and Aharon’s sins?
One possibility is that after Moshe made his statement in 20:10 about the rock, he was supposed to wait until the water started to gush from the rock, but he got impatient, maybe since he was angry, and he hit the rock twice. This impatience was the lack of faith since the water was going to go forth in a few more seconds. Aharon's sin here was that he did not stop Moshe from hitting the rock. 20:11 records that Moshe raised his arm to lift his staff to hit the rock and at the time, Aharon could have grabbed Moshe's arm and stopped him from hitting the rock. Moshe even hit the rock twice, and my son Binyamin believes that this means that Moshe raised his arm a second time, which would have given Aharon a second chance to stop Moshe from hitting the rock. (Note this idea could also be Aharon's sin if one believes that the sin was not telling the rock to exude water, Rashi's approach.)
Another possible "sin" could have been Moshe and Aharon's reaction to the people's demand for water. Was the people’s complaint about water justified? The traditional explanation (see Rashi on 20:2) for the people’s complaint for water is that previously they had been getting water from a well which traveled with the people, but after Miryam died, the well disappeared. With this explanation, the complaint of the people would seem to be justified since they truly needed water to live (see Hizkuni on 20:2). Yet, why then was the people’s complaint considered a fight against G-d (20:13)? Also, after Miryam died, how were the people supposed to get water, as the incident here appears to be a onetime event?
As we discussed on 20:2-5 "Water in the desert," my understanding is that the mahn was able to supply the people with all their nutritional needs in the desert, both solids and liquids. I doubt there was a well that traveled with the people since it is never mentioned in the Torah, but even if there was a well and it disappeared after Miryam died, the people did not need regular water. Thus, the peoples' complaints for water in 20:5 and 21:5, were unjustified, and this understanding offers a new perspective on Moshe's and Aharon's "sin."
The people stated that they were going to die in the desert and that they never should have left Egypt, 20:3-5. This was a denial of G-d’s goodness to them, and hence the Torah calls it a rebellion against G-d, 20:13. Moshe and Aharon should have told the people that they were not going to die because they would live by eating the mahn. It is possible that the people were so worked up, that they would not have listened to Moshe and Aharon, but then Moshe and Aharon should have ignored the people’s complaint for water. (Note by the sin of the spies, Moshe and Aharon did not run to the ohel moed, but fell on their faces before the people, 14:4. Also by Korah’s rebellion, Moshe tried to convince the people to stop.) Again, it could have been because Moshe was angry that he did not try to argue with the people.
When Moshe and Aharon went to G-d after hearing the people's complaint for water, this gave the impression that they were going to ask G-d to give the people water, which implied that Moshe and Aharon accepted the people’s complaint. Thus, when Moshe and Aharon went to the ohel moed it was a partial negation of the great miracle of the desert, the mahn. If Moshe and Aharon gave the impression that they were even just partially negating the miracle of the mahn, then this would be considered as showing a lack of faith in G-d. In addition, if Moshe and Aharon gave the impression that they were praying for the people to get water, then in some sense they were joining the people’s fight with G-d. This could then be considered as rebelling against G-d, and this would explain the language in 20:24 (also see 27:14), that “you (Aharon) rebelled against Me.”
With either possibility (Moshe was impatient or Moshe and Aharon should have argued with the people before going to G-d), the sins of Moshe and Aharon here seem minor, but this is not our judgement to make. Also, it could be that that the punishment was in conjunction with other actions, Moshe by 11:21-23 and Aharon by the golden calf, Shemot 32:2-5, (the straw that broke the camel’s back).
For more discussion on why Moshe was not able to go to the land of Israel, see our discussion on Devarim 1:37, 3:26, 4:21, "Why was Moshe unable to go to the land of Israel?"
Bibliography:
Bibliography:
Abravanel, Yitzhak (1437-1508), 2008, Commentary on Bemidbar, Jerusalem: Horev Publishing.
Leibowitz, Nehama, 1982, Studies in Bemidbar, translated and adapted by Aryeh Newman, Jerusalem: The World Zionist Organization.
Rabbenu Nissim (Ha-Ran, Spain, 1290-1376), 2003, Derashot HaRan, compiled by Aryeh Leib Feldman and comments by Mordechai Leib Katzenelbogen, Jerusalem: Mossad Harav Kook.
Monday, May 30, 2016
Bemidbar 3:39-43 (Bemidbar) - A baby boom
The first three chapters of the book of Bemidbar record various population data of the people. 1:46 and 2:32 record that as of the second month of the 2nd year of the people's stay in the desert there were 603,550 men age twenty years and up. 3:39 records that there were 22,000 Levites, and 3:43 records that there were 22,273 firstborn sons more than one month old.
One question that arises with these figures is how could there have been just 22,273 firstborn sons out of an adult male population of more than 600,000? If one assumes that that there were an equal number of adult females, and that the population of the people under twenty, both male and female, was equal to half the total adult population, then the population of the people one year after the Exodus was approximately 1.8 million people. If there were 22,273 first born males, then presumably there were also 22,273 firstborn females, which would mean that that there were approximately 45,000 families. The ratio of the total population to the number of families means that each family would have averaged 40 children, which is incredible.
While it is possible that G-d performed a miracle that enabled women to have such large families (see Rashi on Shemot 1:7), it is odd that by any list of children in a family in the Torah, there is a much smaller number of children. For example, Moshe had two siblings, and he had two children while Aharon had four sons. 3:17-20 records the families of the Levities, and there is no family listed with more than four sons. Similarly, Bemidbar 26:9 records that the family of Eliav had three sons. Bemidbar 27:1-3 records that Tzelofhad had five daughters and no sons. Accordingly, it is difficult to understand how there could have so few firstborn sons in 3:43. (One might claim that the firstborn sons died due to disease or due to the Egyptian decrees, but then there would be a corresponding increase in the number of non-firstborn sons who died, and the estimated family size would remain problematic.)
The Ramban (on 3:45) makes an interesting suggestion though he rejects his own suggestion. He writes that one cannot say that the firstborn sons were only those firstborn sons born after the Exodus, in the first year of the people's stay in the desert, since the population did not increase at such a rapid rate. This rejected suggestion is based on the very reasonable idea that the firstborn sons only acquired their special status as firstborn sons after the Exodus. Prior to the Exodus, there were firstborn sons, but there was no special status to being a firstborn son. However, after the tenth plague, when the firstborn sons were saved, then the firstborn sons had a special status (Shemot 13:15, see also Bemidbar 3:13; 8:17). Ramban's suggestion is that the special status was not applied retroactively to the firstborn sons who had already been born but only to the future firstborn sons. Ramban rejects this idea due to the technical problem that this rationale would sharply increase the growth rate of the Jewish population. If 22,000 firstborn sons were born just in the first year of the people's stay in the desert, then this implies that over forty years, the population was booming, but the male population at the end of the forty years in the desert, 601,730, Bemidbar 26:47, had decreased by 1,820 men.
Beller (1992) presents a mathematical model that builds on the Ramban's suggestion and gives a plausible outcome to explain the ratio of firstborn sons to the general population. However, the model, as by all models, is only as good as the assumptions that are the basis for the model, and some of the assumptions as to the growth rate and the length of years are difficult to accept. (For a discussion of the model, see Samet, 2002, Vol. 2, pp. 156-167.) Instead, we will suggest a different variation on the Ramban's suggestion.
In our commentary on Shemot 1:8-22, "Population dynamics," http://lobashamayim.blogspot.co.il/2009/01/shemot-18-22-population-dynamics.html, we suggested that Pharaoh did not intend to kill the entire male Jewish population, but that his goal was to control the male Jewish population in order to allow him to benefit from their work as slaves without having to fear that they would rebel. Thus, his decree to kill all the male children (Shemot 1:22) was a temporary recurring decree that was enacted whenever the male population passed some threshold level.
Overall Pharaoh's plan existed for at least eighty years since Moshe was 80 at the time of the Exodus, Shemot 7:7, but how long would the decree have been in effect each time? It would have to have been for a sufficient amount of time that the growth rate stopped, and this suggests that each set of parents was only allowed to have a limited amount of time to have male children. A possible system could have been that for ten years, all male children were killed, and then for five years the male children were allowed to live. In the "permitted" five years, a family could have had a few sons, but by the time another cycle of "permitted" years came around, the family might not have had more children. (One could lengthen the number of forbidden years or shorten the number of permitted years, but this would have no effect on the argument here.)
What was the reaction of the Jewish people to this decree? A rational response was to wait for the "permitted" years, in order not to have children during the forbidden years that would be killed. (This seems to be the initial response of Moshe's parents, see our discussion on Shemot 2:1, "Moshe’s parent’s marriage." Some parents might have succeeded in having children in the "forbidden" years, as by Moshe's parents, but these successes would have been rare.)
If our assumptions are correct, then the Jewish population at the time of the Exodus was not uniform, but consisted of discrete groups based on certain ages, with almost no population at all for most age groups. A possible example is an adult population consisting of four age groups, 20-24, 35-39, 50-54, and 65-69, with approximately 150,000 males in each age group. In addition, there would be another set of male children between the ages of 5-9, whose parents would be from the age group of 35-39. With such a system, the Exodus could have transpired in the middle of the "forbidden" years, meaning that the group of 20-24 year olds had no children prior to the Exodus. If this is true, then after the Exodus, when the restrictions on having children were abrogated, then the people compromising the age group 20-24 would have had children for the first time. Thus, almost all the children born in the first year after the Exodus were firstborn children. If there were 150,000 males in the age group 20-24, then the birth of 45,000 children (22,000 males) in the first year of the people's stay in the desert is very reasonable.
Thereafter the population would not have increased at a rate of 45,000 children a year since there were many age groups (for instance 10-19) with zero population. In some years of the people's stay in the desert there would have been large increases in the number of children, while in other years few children would have been born. If there were 20 years, of "high" population growth of 20,000 males, and 20 years of "low" population growth, then the adult male population would have been approximately 600,000 after forty years in the desert. Accordingly, the understating of Pharaoh's plan as being a temporary recurring decree not only provides a coherent explanation for chapter one in the book of Shemot but also explains the number of firstborn sons in the first year of the desert and the lack of population growth of the people in the desert.
Tuesday, April 12, 2016
The 2016 version of my commentary on the Haggadah is now available
Hello,
The 2016 version of my commentary on the Haggadah (58 pages) is now
available. It has some additions/ corrections/ revisions from the previous
versions. If you are interested in
receiving the commentary, please send me an email, ajayschein@gmail.com, and I
will send you the file. I wish everybody
a chag kasher ve-samaech.
Andrew Schein
Tuesday, March 29, 2016
Vayikra (Leviticus) 12:1-5 – Tumah of a new mother and circumcision on the eighth day
Vayikra (Leviticus) 12:1,2 records that if a woman gives birth to a boy she becomes tamei for seven days. Afterwards, for the following 33 days the new mother is in a quasi-state of tumah, she cannot go to the mikdash but she is considered tahor with regard to her husband, 12:4. On the other hand, if a woman gives birth to a girl, she is tamei for 14 days, and her quasi-state of tumah is for 66 days, 12:5. The ratio of the new mother being tamei and in a quasi-state of tumah is equal for the birth of a boy and a birth of a girl, but why are the absolute numbers different? Why is there a difference in the number of days of tumah for the mother if the child born was a boy as opposed to a girl?
Within the laws of the tumah of the mother, 12:3 records that a newborn boy is circumcised on the eighth day of his life. This verse is a little surprising since from Bereshit 17:10-14 (and Bereshit 21:4) we already know that a male must be circumcised after eight days. It is true that the law of circumcision in Bereshit occurred before the covenant at Mount Sinai, and thus one might argue that the law had to be repeated, see statement by R. Yehuda in Mishnah Hullin 7:6, and comments of the Rambam on the Mishnah. Yet, there are other laws in Bereshit (1:28, 32:33) that are applicable even though they were not repeated after the establishment of the covenant at Mount Sinai. More likely, the reference to circumcision within the laws of tumah of the new mother is because these two concepts are related. What is the relationship?
One possibility is that the tumah and taharah are the independent variables, and the circumcision (the dependent variable) is due to the ending of the tumah. The Talmud (Niddah 31b) quotes R. Shimon Bar Yochai who explains that the circumcision is on the eighth day since everybody is happy at the circumcision, and the Torah desired that the husband and wife should also be happy. If the wife is tamei, then the husband and wife cannot be together, so then they would be sad if the circumcision was before the eighth day. Thus, according to this explanation, the circumcision is on the eighth day since by then the wife is tahor. This is an interesting idea that the Torah was so concerned with the companionship between husband and wife that it delayed the circumcision to the eighth day, but it leaves the question of why the mother is tamei for seven days after the birth of a boy and fourteen days after the birth of a girl unanswered. For other suggestions that also follow the idea that the dating of the circumcision is due to the tumah, see Luzzatto on 12:3.
Hoffmann (on Vayikra 12:1-5, 1953, p. 252) suggests that the causality is reversed. With this understanding, the mother's tumah (the dependent variable) after the birth of a boy is limited to seven days because of the circumcision (the independent variable). Yet, why is the circumcision on the eighth day?
Korman (1998, vol. 2, pp. 290,291) quotes various reasons. One, from Vayikra Rabbah 27:10 that the circumcision is on the eighth day to ensure that the child experiences one Shabbat before the circumcision. It is not clear to me why the child needs to experience a Shabbat not circumcised. Two, from R. Judan ben Pazzi (Devarim Rabbah, 6:1) that the circumcision is on the eighth day to give the child enough strength to undergo the circumcision. This reason is also mentioned by the Rambam (Moreh 3:49, Maimonides, 1963, p. 611) and Korman quotes a study that the child has the most amount of vitamin K which helps the blood coagulate on the eighth day. This answer is certainly possible, but if the issue is the health of the child, would it not be better to wait a month?
I think the timing of the circumcision on the eighth day is related to the question why is the mother tamei after giving birth. Tumah signifies a separation or potential separation from G-d. In the case of the new mother, the tumah (and the hatta't sacrifice, 12:6) does not relate to any sin but there are two possible reasons why the birth process might have separated the new mother in some ways from G-d. One, it could be that mother's attachment to the new child diminishes her connection to G-d or, more likely, during the time of the labor, which is the most intensive physical action a person goes through, the mother is separated from G-d since she is completely focused on her body. The new mother is then given time when she is tamei to acknowledge that this separation had occurred. The tumah by the birth of a girl is fourteen days, and this is the ideal time that is given to the new mother.
With this idea, the circumcision should be on the 15th day after the birth since then the mother's tumah, which marked her separation from G-d, has ended. However, delaying the circumcision to the 15th day is problematic. Circumcision demonstrates the parents' dedication to G-d that they are willing to have their newborn son circumcised. Based on this rationale, the circumcision should really be on the first day that the child is born. But, the new mother is not in a position to make this dedication on the first day after the birth due to her being in a state of tumah, which signifies her separation from G-d.
Accordingly, performing the circumcision on the eighth day is a compromise between two conflicting values. On the one hand, the circumcision should be on the 1st day after the birth, but the new mother is still tamei and separated from G-d. On the other hand, the circumcision could be on the 15th day after the birth when the new mother's tumah has ended, but then the parents have delayed demonstrating their dedication to G-d. The compromise is to do the circumcision on the 8th day, and then the mother's tumah, and separation from G-d, is shortened to seven days because by circumcising her son on the 8th day, the new mother is demonstrating her closeness and return to G-d.
Hoffmann, David Tzvi (1843-1921), 1953, Leviticus, Jerusalem: Mossad Harav Kook.
Korman, Abraham, 1998, The parsha for her generations, Hebrew, Tel Aviv.
Within the laws of the tumah of the mother, 12:3 records that a newborn boy is circumcised on the eighth day of his life. This verse is a little surprising since from Bereshit 17:10-14 (and Bereshit 21:4) we already know that a male must be circumcised after eight days. It is true that the law of circumcision in Bereshit occurred before the covenant at Mount Sinai, and thus one might argue that the law had to be repeated, see statement by R. Yehuda in Mishnah Hullin 7:6, and comments of the Rambam on the Mishnah. Yet, there are other laws in Bereshit (1:28, 32:33) that are applicable even though they were not repeated after the establishment of the covenant at Mount Sinai. More likely, the reference to circumcision within the laws of tumah of the new mother is because these two concepts are related. What is the relationship?
One possibility is that the tumah and taharah are the independent variables, and the circumcision (the dependent variable) is due to the ending of the tumah. The Talmud (Niddah 31b) quotes R. Shimon Bar Yochai who explains that the circumcision is on the eighth day since everybody is happy at the circumcision, and the Torah desired that the husband and wife should also be happy. If the wife is tamei, then the husband and wife cannot be together, so then they would be sad if the circumcision was before the eighth day. Thus, according to this explanation, the circumcision is on the eighth day since by then the wife is tahor. This is an interesting idea that the Torah was so concerned with the companionship between husband and wife that it delayed the circumcision to the eighth day, but it leaves the question of why the mother is tamei for seven days after the birth of a boy and fourteen days after the birth of a girl unanswered. For other suggestions that also follow the idea that the dating of the circumcision is due to the tumah, see Luzzatto on 12:3.
Hoffmann (on Vayikra 12:1-5, 1953, p. 252) suggests that the causality is reversed. With this understanding, the mother's tumah (the dependent variable) after the birth of a boy is limited to seven days because of the circumcision (the independent variable). Yet, why is the circumcision on the eighth day?
Korman (1998, vol. 2, pp. 290,291) quotes various reasons. One, from Vayikra Rabbah 27:10 that the circumcision is on the eighth day to ensure that the child experiences one Shabbat before the circumcision. It is not clear to me why the child needs to experience a Shabbat not circumcised. Two, from R. Judan ben Pazzi (Devarim Rabbah, 6:1) that the circumcision is on the eighth day to give the child enough strength to undergo the circumcision. This reason is also mentioned by the Rambam (Moreh 3:49, Maimonides, 1963, p. 611) and Korman quotes a study that the child has the most amount of vitamin K which helps the blood coagulate on the eighth day. This answer is certainly possible, but if the issue is the health of the child, would it not be better to wait a month?
I think the timing of the circumcision on the eighth day is related to the question why is the mother tamei after giving birth. Tumah signifies a separation or potential separation from G-d. In the case of the new mother, the tumah (and the hatta't sacrifice, 12:6) does not relate to any sin but there are two possible reasons why the birth process might have separated the new mother in some ways from G-d. One, it could be that mother's attachment to the new child diminishes her connection to G-d or, more likely, during the time of the labor, which is the most intensive physical action a person goes through, the mother is separated from G-d since she is completely focused on her body. The new mother is then given time when she is tamei to acknowledge that this separation had occurred. The tumah by the birth of a girl is fourteen days, and this is the ideal time that is given to the new mother.
With this idea, the circumcision should be on the 15th day after the birth since then the mother's tumah, which marked her separation from G-d, has ended. However, delaying the circumcision to the 15th day is problematic. Circumcision demonstrates the parents' dedication to G-d that they are willing to have their newborn son circumcised. Based on this rationale, the circumcision should really be on the first day that the child is born. But, the new mother is not in a position to make this dedication on the first day after the birth due to her being in a state of tumah, which signifies her separation from G-d.
Accordingly, performing the circumcision on the eighth day is a compromise between two conflicting values. On the one hand, the circumcision should be on the 1st day after the birth, but the new mother is still tamei and separated from G-d. On the other hand, the circumcision could be on the 15th day after the birth when the new mother's tumah has ended, but then the parents have delayed demonstrating their dedication to G-d. The compromise is to do the circumcision on the 8th day, and then the mother's tumah, and separation from G-d, is shortened to seven days because by circumcising her son on the 8th day, the new mother is demonstrating her closeness and return to G-d.
Bibliography:
Hoffmann, David Tzvi (1843-1921), 1953, Leviticus, Jerusalem: Mossad Harav Kook.
Korman, Abraham, 1998, The parsha for her generations, Hebrew, Tel Aviv.
Monday, February 22, 2016
Shemot (Exodus) 32:20-28 – Spiked water and the aftermath of the sin of the golden calf
Shemot 32:27 records that Moshe ordered the Levites to kill the people who had sinned by the golden calf, and 32:28 records that they killed 3,000 people. How could Moshe order the Levites to go through the camp and kill people?
There are three approaches to understanding Moshe's order to the Levites. One, Moshe set up a court system to judge the people, and apparently the Levites were both the officials of the court and the executers of the court's judgments. (See Yoma 66b, also the Midrash Meor ha-Afalah, who is quoted by Menachem Kasher, Torah Shelemah 32:114, and Kasher's comments 114. In addition, see Midrash ha-Gadol, who is also quoted by Kasher, 32:225, Kasher's comments on 225, and Arussi 2000.) With this approach, there was no indiscriminate killing. However, as noted by the Ramban (on 32:27), this approach is problematic since there were 600,000 men and if there was a trial for each man (also the women?) then this would have taken years, while the impression of the Torah is that the actions of the Levites transpired immediately.
A second approach is from the Ramban who writes that this incident was a unique case to sanctify G-d's name, and did not follow normal judicial procedures, as for example there was no one around who could have warned each sinner. However, he also maintains that the Levites did not kill indiscriminately, but only those people they personally knew who had sinned.
A third approach is from the Ibn Ezra (short commentary on 32:27) who mentions the idea that the Levites only killed those people they knew had sinned, but he adds that they also killed those people who had a sign on their bodies that they had worshipped the golden calf. Ibn Ezra elaborates on this idea in his long commentary on 32:20. Ibn Ezra explains that when Moshe came down from the mountain he made the people drink the ashes of the golden calf with water, 32:30, and this caused the bodies of the people who had sinned with the golden calf to swell or for there to be marks on their faces similar to the water of the suspected adulteress (Bemidbar 5:27, see Avodah Zara 44a). The disfigured bodies or marks indicated to the Levites which people deserved to die.
Ibn Ezra's explanation is logical since 32:20 records that Moshe forced or caused the people to drink the ashes, and there is no record of any consequence to their drinking of the ashes. Why would Moshe cause the people to drink the water for no reason? However, once we know the case of the suspected adulteress, who would drink ashes which would cause marks on her body, then we can infer that Moshe forced the people to drink in order for there to be marks on their body, and the reason why the people had to have marks on their bodies was in order that the Levites could identify which people to kill. Accordingly, G-d did a miracle to identify the people deserving of punishment and this obviated the need to have courts. (Rashi on 32:20 based on the Talmud implies that the drinking per se caused the people to die, which is difficult since presumably more than 3,000 people drank the water, 32:20.)
While the Ibn Ezra's explanation is logical, how did Moshe get everybody to drink the water? Ibn Ezra writes that he commanded the people to drink, but would the people listen to such an order? Could a person be forced to drink water? The answer is from Moshe's' recollection of the sin of the golden calf in Devarim 9:21, where Moshe explained that he poured the water into the stream that flowed from Mount Sinai.
What seems to have happened is that Moshe went to the source of the water on Mount Sinai, and poured the ashes into the stream but the people did not see this. The people then naturally drank from the water as it flowed into the camp, and when they did this, the bodies of those people who were guilty were marked. Thus, Moshe caused or forced the people to drink the ashes, see Bekhor Shor on 32:20. This would be the same idea as in modern times if the government puts fluoride in the main water pumps of an area, and then everybody drinks the fluoride knowingly or unknowingly.
With this approach, we can understand the order of the events when Moshe came down from Mount Sinai. First, Moshe broke the tables, 32:19. Then, Moshe pulverized the golden calf, 32:20, and poured the ashes into the stream, Devarim 9:21. He did this away from the people on the Mount Sinai, and it took some time. He probably finished sometime in the afternoon, and he had hoped that the people would have quieted down after he had broken the tablets. Only after he had destroyed the idol did he confront Aharon as to what happened, 32:21-24. This conversation would have occurred in the late afternoon. At this point, the people were still out of control, 32:25, and when they did not respond to him after he asked the people, "who is with G-d, come to me," 32:26, he gave his order to the Levites to kill the people.
By this time, the late afternoon, there had been some time for some of the people to have drank the water and for the marks on their bodies to develop. It seems that not all the people who had rejected G-d were killed, but rather the 3,000 people killed were enough to restore order in the camp, and Moshe went to pray for the others, 32:30. Or, maybe, these 3,000 people had been particularly egregious sinners either in not listening to Moshe in 32:26 or by the golden calf. Note if the people had responded positively to Moshe's question, "Who is with G-d" in 32:26, then they would not have been killed. Either there would have been no marks from drinking the water, as G-d would not have caused the miracle to occur, or maybe the people would have remained with marks throughout their lives, but they would not have been killed.
Ramban (on Devarim 9:21) asks why does Shemot 32:20 record that Moshe forced the people to drink the ashes, while Devarim 9:21 just records that Moshe put the ashes in the stream. He suggests that in Devarim, Moshe was showing respect for the people since he did not want to recall that he had treated them as a suspected adulteress. Our approach here offers a slightly different answer.
In the description of the sin of the golden calf in Shemot, the Torah had to record that Moshe forced or caused the people to drink the ashes since otherwise one might have thought that Moshe just poured ashes into the water to destroy the idol (see Bekhor Shor and Hizkuni on Shemot 32:20). This language of causation implies that there was a reason for the drinking of the ashes, and this reason was for the Levites to be able to identify the sinners. On the other hand, in Devarim, Moshe did not explicitly refer to the Levites' actions (see Devarim 10:8), and consequently he did not have to state that he forced the people to drink the ashes. Instead, in Devarim, Moshe was explaining how he got the people to drink the ashes, and hence he just said that he put the ashes into the stream. Thus, the two verses, Shemot 32:20 and Devarim 9:21, complement each other.
Finally, if G-d performed a miracle that the ashes enabled the Levites to identify the sinners, why did G-d not simply strike those sinners or have the people die from the ashes without the Levites killing the people? One answer is that this is the usual method of the Torah to minimize miracles. In this case, the judicial system was impossible, so G-d performed a miracle, but just to identify the sinners. A second answer is that the steadfastness of the Levites would later lead the people to accept them as replacements of the firstborn sons, Bemidbar 3:41,45, and Devarim 10:8.
Bibliography:
Arusi, Ratzon, 2002, The trial of those who worshipped the golden calf, A divinely given Torah in our day and age, Vol. II, edited by Aryeh A. Frimer and Shlomo H. Pick, Ramat Gan: Bar Ilan University Press, pp. 245-249.
Kasher, Menachem (1895-1983), 1992 (first volume appeared in 1927), Torah Shelemah: A talmudic-midrashic encyclopedia of the five books of Moses, Jerusalem: Beth Torah Shelemah, the Torah Shelemah Institute.
There are three approaches to understanding Moshe's order to the Levites. One, Moshe set up a court system to judge the people, and apparently the Levites were both the officials of the court and the executers of the court's judgments. (See Yoma 66b, also the Midrash Meor ha-Afalah, who is quoted by Menachem Kasher, Torah Shelemah 32:114, and Kasher's comments 114. In addition, see Midrash ha-Gadol, who is also quoted by Kasher, 32:225, Kasher's comments on 225, and Arussi 2000.) With this approach, there was no indiscriminate killing. However, as noted by the Ramban (on 32:27), this approach is problematic since there were 600,000 men and if there was a trial for each man (also the women?) then this would have taken years, while the impression of the Torah is that the actions of the Levites transpired immediately.
A second approach is from the Ramban who writes that this incident was a unique case to sanctify G-d's name, and did not follow normal judicial procedures, as for example there was no one around who could have warned each sinner. However, he also maintains that the Levites did not kill indiscriminately, but only those people they personally knew who had sinned.
A third approach is from the Ibn Ezra (short commentary on 32:27) who mentions the idea that the Levites only killed those people they knew had sinned, but he adds that they also killed those people who had a sign on their bodies that they had worshipped the golden calf. Ibn Ezra elaborates on this idea in his long commentary on 32:20. Ibn Ezra explains that when Moshe came down from the mountain he made the people drink the ashes of the golden calf with water, 32:30, and this caused the bodies of the people who had sinned with the golden calf to swell or for there to be marks on their faces similar to the water of the suspected adulteress (Bemidbar 5:27, see Avodah Zara 44a). The disfigured bodies or marks indicated to the Levites which people deserved to die.
Ibn Ezra's explanation is logical since 32:20 records that Moshe forced or caused the people to drink the ashes, and there is no record of any consequence to their drinking of the ashes. Why would Moshe cause the people to drink the water for no reason? However, once we know the case of the suspected adulteress, who would drink ashes which would cause marks on her body, then we can infer that Moshe forced the people to drink in order for there to be marks on their body, and the reason why the people had to have marks on their bodies was in order that the Levites could identify which people to kill. Accordingly, G-d did a miracle to identify the people deserving of punishment and this obviated the need to have courts. (Rashi on 32:20 based on the Talmud implies that the drinking per se caused the people to die, which is difficult since presumably more than 3,000 people drank the water, 32:20.)
While the Ibn Ezra's explanation is logical, how did Moshe get everybody to drink the water? Ibn Ezra writes that he commanded the people to drink, but would the people listen to such an order? Could a person be forced to drink water? The answer is from Moshe's' recollection of the sin of the golden calf in Devarim 9:21, where Moshe explained that he poured the water into the stream that flowed from Mount Sinai.
What seems to have happened is that Moshe went to the source of the water on Mount Sinai, and poured the ashes into the stream but the people did not see this. The people then naturally drank from the water as it flowed into the camp, and when they did this, the bodies of those people who were guilty were marked. Thus, Moshe caused or forced the people to drink the ashes, see Bekhor Shor on 32:20. This would be the same idea as in modern times if the government puts fluoride in the main water pumps of an area, and then everybody drinks the fluoride knowingly or unknowingly.
With this approach, we can understand the order of the events when Moshe came down from Mount Sinai. First, Moshe broke the tables, 32:19. Then, Moshe pulverized the golden calf, 32:20, and poured the ashes into the stream, Devarim 9:21. He did this away from the people on the Mount Sinai, and it took some time. He probably finished sometime in the afternoon, and he had hoped that the people would have quieted down after he had broken the tablets. Only after he had destroyed the idol did he confront Aharon as to what happened, 32:21-24. This conversation would have occurred in the late afternoon. At this point, the people were still out of control, 32:25, and when they did not respond to him after he asked the people, "who is with G-d, come to me," 32:26, he gave his order to the Levites to kill the people.
By this time, the late afternoon, there had been some time for some of the people to have drank the water and for the marks on their bodies to develop. It seems that not all the people who had rejected G-d were killed, but rather the 3,000 people killed were enough to restore order in the camp, and Moshe went to pray for the others, 32:30. Or, maybe, these 3,000 people had been particularly egregious sinners either in not listening to Moshe in 32:26 or by the golden calf. Note if the people had responded positively to Moshe's question, "Who is with G-d" in 32:26, then they would not have been killed. Either there would have been no marks from drinking the water, as G-d would not have caused the miracle to occur, or maybe the people would have remained with marks throughout their lives, but they would not have been killed.
Ramban (on Devarim 9:21) asks why does Shemot 32:20 record that Moshe forced the people to drink the ashes, while Devarim 9:21 just records that Moshe put the ashes in the stream. He suggests that in Devarim, Moshe was showing respect for the people since he did not want to recall that he had treated them as a suspected adulteress. Our approach here offers a slightly different answer.
In the description of the sin of the golden calf in Shemot, the Torah had to record that Moshe forced or caused the people to drink the ashes since otherwise one might have thought that Moshe just poured ashes into the water to destroy the idol (see Bekhor Shor and Hizkuni on Shemot 32:20). This language of causation implies that there was a reason for the drinking of the ashes, and this reason was for the Levites to be able to identify the sinners. On the other hand, in Devarim, Moshe did not explicitly refer to the Levites' actions (see Devarim 10:8), and consequently he did not have to state that he forced the people to drink the ashes. Instead, in Devarim, Moshe was explaining how he got the people to drink the ashes, and hence he just said that he put the ashes into the stream. Thus, the two verses, Shemot 32:20 and Devarim 9:21, complement each other.
Finally, if G-d performed a miracle that the ashes enabled the Levites to identify the sinners, why did G-d not simply strike those sinners or have the people die from the ashes without the Levites killing the people? One answer is that this is the usual method of the Torah to minimize miracles. In this case, the judicial system was impossible, so G-d performed a miracle, but just to identify the sinners. A second answer is that the steadfastness of the Levites would later lead the people to accept them as replacements of the firstborn sons, Bemidbar 3:41,45, and Devarim 10:8.
Arusi, Ratzon, 2002, The trial of those who worshipped the golden calf, A divinely given Torah in our day and age, Vol. II, edited by Aryeh A. Frimer and Shlomo H. Pick, Ramat Gan: Bar Ilan University Press, pp. 245-249.
Kasher, Menachem (1895-1983), 1992 (first volume appeared in 1927), Torah Shelemah: A talmudic-midrashic encyclopedia of the five books of Moses, Jerusalem: Beth Torah Shelemah, the Torah Shelemah Institute.
Monday, January 25, 2016
Shemot 18:13-27 –Yitro's visit to Moshe and the need for a judicial system
Shemot 18:13 records that on the day after Yitro came to Mount Sinai to visit Moshe, he observed Moshe judging the people the entire day. This might have been the first time that Moshe judged the people or maybe during the travels from the splitting of the Yam Suf until the people's arrival at Mount Sinai there were other days when Moshe judged. If there were other days, then only this day was recorded since we learn of Yitro's re-action to Moshe's system of judging. Yitro did not think much of Moshe's system, and he advised Moshe how to set up a more effective judicial system, 18:14-23. 18:24-26 records that Moshe heeded Yitro's advice and then 18:27 concludes the chapter that Yitro went back home to Midyan. When did these events happen: before the Decalogue in chapter 20 or after the Decalogue?
The Talmud (Zevachim 116a) quotes an argument between R. Yehoshua who argued that Yitro visited Moshe before the Decalogue was declared, which follows the order of the Torah, and R. Eleazar ha-Modia, who argued that Yitro’s visit was after the Decalogue. This argument continued amongst the commentators.
Ibn Ezra (long commentary on 18:1) follows R. Eleazar ha-Modia’s opinion and presents five reasons why he thinks chapter 18 is not recorded in chronological order. One, 18:5 refers to Yitro coming to Moshe who was camped in the desert by the mountain of G-d, Mount Sinai, and Ibn Ezra (on 18:5) believes that the word camped means for an extended time, which could only have been after the Decalogue. Two, Yitro offered sacrifices but there is no mention of an altar until after the giving of the Torah. Three, 18:16,20 refer to laws, which would seem to only be possible after the giving of the Torah. Four, Bemidbar 10:29-32, appears to record that Yitro was with the Jewish people in the second year, but 18:27 records that he left. Five, Devarim 1:9-19, which also records the establishment of the judicial system, implies that the people were ready to travel into the land of Israel after the system was established, while in chapter 18 the people were not going to travel for some time. Ibn Ezra (see also Tosafot, Avodah Zara, 24b, Yitro and Cassuto, 1967, pp. 211,212) explains that the section was recorded at this point in the Torah to contrast Amalek and Yitro, that Amalek harmed the Jewish people while Yitro was good to the Jewish people.
Ramban (on 18:1) disagrees with the Ibn Ezra. He claims that Yitro visited Moshe before the giving of the Torah, left and then returned in the second year. Ramban points out that 18:1 records that Yitro heard the wonders of the Exodus but does not state that he heard about the declaration of the Decalogue. Also 18:8 records that Moshe told Yitro the complete story of the Exodus but again there is no mention of the Decalogue, and 18:9,10, which record Yitro’s response, again only refer to the Exodus and not the Decalogue. Ramban argues that if Yitro had really visited after the Decalogue, then 18:1-10 should have referred to the Decalogue.
Abravanel (1997, pp. 260-263) follows the Ramban that Yitro visited Moshe before the giving of the Torah. He suggests that the altar used by Yitro was the one that Moshe built after the battle with Amalek, 17:16, and that the laws referred to in chapter 18 are the laws of Shabbat and civil laws that were taught at Mara, 15:25. Note, Luzzatto (on 18:15), who also follows this approach that Yitro visited Moshe before the Decalogue, suggests that the laws referred to in 15:25 were monetary laws, and other issues concerning personal disagreements and public order, see also Ramban on 15:25.
The narrative order of chapter 18 is to record all the events relating to Yitro together even though this meant not following the chronological order of the events, see Tosafot, Avodah Zara, 24b, Yitro. Abravanel compares this to Shemot 16:33-35, which records that Moshe, told Aharon to take the mahn and put in it the aron, an event that also is recorded out of chronological order. Another example is Bereshit 11:32, which records the death of Terah out of chronological order in order to complete the discussion concerning Terah. In both cases, several references to the same person (Terah) or item (mahn) are recorded together even if some of the events regarding the person or item occurred at a later time. (Note, following this logic, one might be tempted to argue that also the events of 18:13-23 are recorded out of chronological order, but 18:13 is connected to 18:12 through the words, "on the morrow.")
The Talmud (Zevachim 116a) quotes an argument between R. Yehoshua who argued that Yitro visited Moshe before the Decalogue was declared, which follows the order of the Torah, and R. Eleazar ha-Modia, who argued that Yitro’s visit was after the Decalogue. This argument continued amongst the commentators.
Ibn Ezra (long commentary on 18:1) follows R. Eleazar ha-Modia’s opinion and presents five reasons why he thinks chapter 18 is not recorded in chronological order. One, 18:5 refers to Yitro coming to Moshe who was camped in the desert by the mountain of G-d, Mount Sinai, and Ibn Ezra (on 18:5) believes that the word camped means for an extended time, which could only have been after the Decalogue. Two, Yitro offered sacrifices but there is no mention of an altar until after the giving of the Torah. Three, 18:16,20 refer to laws, which would seem to only be possible after the giving of the Torah. Four, Bemidbar 10:29-32, appears to record that Yitro was with the Jewish people in the second year, but 18:27 records that he left. Five, Devarim 1:9-19, which also records the establishment of the judicial system, implies that the people were ready to travel into the land of Israel after the system was established, while in chapter 18 the people were not going to travel for some time. Ibn Ezra (see also Tosafot, Avodah Zara, 24b, Yitro and Cassuto, 1967, pp. 211,212) explains that the section was recorded at this point in the Torah to contrast Amalek and Yitro, that Amalek harmed the Jewish people while Yitro was good to the Jewish people.
Ramban (on 18:1) disagrees with the Ibn Ezra. He claims that Yitro visited Moshe before the giving of the Torah, left and then returned in the second year. Ramban points out that 18:1 records that Yitro heard the wonders of the Exodus but does not state that he heard about the declaration of the Decalogue. Also 18:8 records that Moshe told Yitro the complete story of the Exodus but again there is no mention of the Decalogue, and 18:9,10, which record Yitro’s response, again only refer to the Exodus and not the Decalogue. Ramban argues that if Yitro had really visited after the Decalogue, then 18:1-10 should have referred to the Decalogue.
Abravanel (1997, pp. 260-263) follows the Ramban that Yitro visited Moshe before the giving of the Torah. He suggests that the altar used by Yitro was the one that Moshe built after the battle with Amalek, 17:16, and that the laws referred to in chapter 18 are the laws of Shabbat and civil laws that were taught at Mara, 15:25. Note, Luzzatto (on 18:15), who also follows this approach that Yitro visited Moshe before the Decalogue, suggests that the laws referred to in 15:25 were monetary laws, and other issues concerning personal disagreements and public order, see also Ramban on 15:25.
Abravanel (see also Tosafot, Avodah Zara, 24b, Yitro) suggests that while Yitro advised Moshe about the judicial system before the giving of the Torah, Moshe only implemented the system afterwards. Thus, Devarim 1:19 can record to the implementation of the judicial system when the people were ready to travel, and Shemot 18:24-26 is recorded out of chronological order. Abravanel believes that Yitro stayed with the people until the second year of the people’s stay in the desert in accordance with Bemidbar 10:29-32, and then Shemot 18:27, which records that Yitro left before the Decalogue, is also recorded out of chronological order.
Benno Jacob (1992, pp. 494,495) follows the Abravanel’s approach and points out that the more logical assumption is that Moshe’s family went to visit him immediately after the Exodus instead of waiting another year to see him. Jacob (p. 498) claims the altar could have been an “ad hoc altar,” since it is not difficult to build an altar, and hence there was no need to mention the building of an additional altar when Yitro offered his sacrifices. Furthermore, he (p. 502) argues that the establishment of the judicial system must have occurred at a later date, since the selection of so many judges was “a difficult and time–consuming task which had to be undertaken with great care. It surely could not have been accomplished during the few days which remained till their arrival at Sinai.”
My inclination is to follow the approach that Yitro visited Moshe before the Decalogue as argued by the Ramban, Abravanel, Luzzatto and Benno Jacob. With regard to Ibn Ezra's questions, I am not convinced that the word camping in 18:5 implies that Moshe had been camping for a long time by Mount Sinai, though it would imply that Yitro arrived at Mount Sinai after Moshe. With regard to the altar, Benno Jacob makes sense that it is not difficult to build an "ad hoc altar." The reference to laws in 18:16 could be that Moshe heard various cases, and then G-d told him the law relevant to the particular case. This could mean that G-d spoke to Moshe on the spot, or it could be that G-d spoke to Moshe every few hours or at the end of the day. 18:20 would then mean that Yitro advised Moshe to pass on to the people the laws that G-d had told him about the cases. With regard to the relationship between this section and Bemidbar 10:29-32, I do not think that Yitro is being referred to in Bemidbar 10:29-32, so Yitro could have left the people before the Decalogue as indicated by 18:27, see our discussion on Bemidbar 10:29-32, "Confusion in the family." Finally, I think Abravanel and Benno Jacob make sense that even if Yitro visited Moshe before the Decalogue, Moshe only implemented Yitro's advice afterwards, and then Devarim 1:9-19 can accord with Shemot 18:24-26. It is also possible that in Devarim 1, where Moshe was reminding the people of past events, Moshe was not giving the exact timing of each event in relation to the other events.
Yet, there is a stronger question that Ibn Ezra did not refer to in his long commentary, but he did mention in his short commentary on 18:1. Did Moshe have the time to sit and judge the people at Mount Sinai before the Decalogue?
Rashi (on 19:3,8,9) explains that once the people reached Mount Sinai, Moshe went up to Mount Sinai once a day to speak to G-d, and then he could not have been judging the people, from morning to night, 18:13. However, maybe there was a break in the days that Moshe went up to Mount Sinai to speak to G-d. 19:11 specifically refers to the people being ready on the third day, which means that on the following day, Moshe was "free." Rashi (on 19:11) explains that Moshe built the altar for the ceremony that is recorded in Shemot 24 on that day, but this is because he thinks that this ceremony occurred before the Decalogue (see Rashi on 24:1). However, if one believes that the ceremony occurred after the Decalogue, then Moshe could have judged the people on that day.
With this understanding, Yitro came to Mount Sinai on the day when G-d told Moshe the instructions recorded in 19:10-13, and Moshe judged the people the following day during his one "free" day. Yet, was this judging necessary at this time? It could not wait until after the Decalogue? Was there a need or desire to resolve all the conflicts amongst the people prior to the Decalogue?
My thought is that the discussion of Moshe judging the people and Yitro's advice to establish a judicial system is to teach the lesson prior to the Decalogue that societies need judicial systems. The Decalogue was part of the covenant which was a system of laws, and some people, such as anarchists, might question why is there a need for laws? The case of Moshe judging the people prior to the Decalogue and Yitro's advice demonstrates the need for laws since people naturally have disputes and there needs to be laws and a system to deal with these conflicts. Accordingly, Moshe had to make time to judge the people before the Decalogue to show that laws and especially civil laws are necessary for a society. Furthermore, this advice to establish a judicial system came from Yitro, a "foreigner," which shows that judicial systems are a universal need. (Note, if one wants to follow the idea that Yitro visited after the Decalogue, then this reason could explain why his visit was recorded before the Decalogue.)
To conclude, my inclination is that Yitro visited Moshe before the Decalogue, but Moshe implemented his advice after the Decalogue. As to when Yitro left, I doubt he left before the Decalogue since that was such an amazing event, but he could have left any time afterwards without any connection to the events in Bemidbar 10:29-32.
This understanding means that 18:1-4 occurred sometime after the Exodus from Egypt, but it took some time for Yitro and Moshe’s family to reach Moshe. 18:5-12 occurred after the people were already at Mount Sinai on the day when G-d told Moshe the instructions of 19:10-13. 18:13-23 occurred on the following day prior to the Decalogue, and 18:24-27 occurred sometime after the Decalogue, possibly right before the people left Mount Sinai.
Benno Jacob (1992, pp. 494,495) follows the Abravanel’s approach and points out that the more logical assumption is that Moshe’s family went to visit him immediately after the Exodus instead of waiting another year to see him. Jacob (p. 498) claims the altar could have been an “ad hoc altar,” since it is not difficult to build an altar, and hence there was no need to mention the building of an additional altar when Yitro offered his sacrifices. Furthermore, he (p. 502) argues that the establishment of the judicial system must have occurred at a later date, since the selection of so many judges was “a difficult and time–consuming task which had to be undertaken with great care. It surely could not have been accomplished during the few days which remained till their arrival at Sinai.”
My inclination is to follow the approach that Yitro visited Moshe before the Decalogue as argued by the Ramban, Abravanel, Luzzatto and Benno Jacob. With regard to Ibn Ezra's questions, I am not convinced that the word camping in 18:5 implies that Moshe had been camping for a long time by Mount Sinai, though it would imply that Yitro arrived at Mount Sinai after Moshe. With regard to the altar, Benno Jacob makes sense that it is not difficult to build an "ad hoc altar." The reference to laws in 18:16 could be that Moshe heard various cases, and then G-d told him the law relevant to the particular case. This could mean that G-d spoke to Moshe on the spot, or it could be that G-d spoke to Moshe every few hours or at the end of the day. 18:20 would then mean that Yitro advised Moshe to pass on to the people the laws that G-d had told him about the cases. With regard to the relationship between this section and Bemidbar 10:29-32, I do not think that Yitro is being referred to in Bemidbar 10:29-32, so Yitro could have left the people before the Decalogue as indicated by 18:27, see our discussion on Bemidbar 10:29-32, "Confusion in the family." Finally, I think Abravanel and Benno Jacob make sense that even if Yitro visited Moshe before the Decalogue, Moshe only implemented Yitro's advice afterwards, and then Devarim 1:9-19 can accord with Shemot 18:24-26. It is also possible that in Devarim 1, where Moshe was reminding the people of past events, Moshe was not giving the exact timing of each event in relation to the other events.
Yet, there is a stronger question that Ibn Ezra did not refer to in his long commentary, but he did mention in his short commentary on 18:1. Did Moshe have the time to sit and judge the people at Mount Sinai before the Decalogue?
Rashi (on 19:3,8,9) explains that once the people reached Mount Sinai, Moshe went up to Mount Sinai once a day to speak to G-d, and then he could not have been judging the people, from morning to night, 18:13. However, maybe there was a break in the days that Moshe went up to Mount Sinai to speak to G-d. 19:11 specifically refers to the people being ready on the third day, which means that on the following day, Moshe was "free." Rashi (on 19:11) explains that Moshe built the altar for the ceremony that is recorded in Shemot 24 on that day, but this is because he thinks that this ceremony occurred before the Decalogue (see Rashi on 24:1). However, if one believes that the ceremony occurred after the Decalogue, then Moshe could have judged the people on that day.
With this understanding, Yitro came to Mount Sinai on the day when G-d told Moshe the instructions recorded in 19:10-13, and Moshe judged the people the following day during his one "free" day. Yet, was this judging necessary at this time? It could not wait until after the Decalogue? Was there a need or desire to resolve all the conflicts amongst the people prior to the Decalogue?
My thought is that the discussion of Moshe judging the people and Yitro's advice to establish a judicial system is to teach the lesson prior to the Decalogue that societies need judicial systems. The Decalogue was part of the covenant which was a system of laws, and some people, such as anarchists, might question why is there a need for laws? The case of Moshe judging the people prior to the Decalogue and Yitro's advice demonstrates the need for laws since people naturally have disputes and there needs to be laws and a system to deal with these conflicts. Accordingly, Moshe had to make time to judge the people before the Decalogue to show that laws and especially civil laws are necessary for a society. Furthermore, this advice to establish a judicial system came from Yitro, a "foreigner," which shows that judicial systems are a universal need. (Note, if one wants to follow the idea that Yitro visited after the Decalogue, then this reason could explain why his visit was recorded before the Decalogue.)
To conclude, my inclination is that Yitro visited Moshe before the Decalogue, but Moshe implemented his advice after the Decalogue. As to when Yitro left, I doubt he left before the Decalogue since that was such an amazing event, but he could have left any time afterwards without any connection to the events in Bemidbar 10:29-32.
This understanding means that 18:1-4 occurred sometime after the Exodus from Egypt, but it took some time for Yitro and Moshe’s family to reach Moshe. 18:5-12 occurred after the people were already at Mount Sinai on the day when G-d told Moshe the instructions of 19:10-13. 18:13-23 occurred on the following day prior to the Decalogue, and 18:24-27 occurred sometime after the Decalogue, possibly right before the people left Mount Sinai.
The narrative order of chapter 18 is to record all the events relating to Yitro together even though this meant not following the chronological order of the events, see Tosafot, Avodah Zara, 24b, Yitro. Abravanel compares this to Shemot 16:33-35, which records that Moshe, told Aharon to take the mahn and put in it the aron, an event that also is recorded out of chronological order. Another example is Bereshit 11:32, which records the death of Terah out of chronological order in order to complete the discussion concerning Terah. In both cases, several references to the same person (Terah) or item (mahn) are recorded together even if some of the events regarding the person or item occurred at a later time. (Note, following this logic, one might be tempted to argue that also the events of 18:13-23 are recorded out of chronological order, but 18:13 is connected to 18:12 through the words, "on the morrow.")
Bibliography:
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.
Tuesday, December 22, 2015
Bereshit 45:5-8, 50:20 (Va-yiggash, Va-yehi) – The pawn
After Yosef revealed himself to his brothers, Bereshit 45:5-8 records that he told his brothers, "And now, do not be pained and do not be incensed with yourselves that you sold me down here, because for sustenance G-d has sent me before you…. And G-d has sent me before you to make you a remnant on earth and to preserve life, for you to be a great surviving group," (Alter, 2004, p. 261, translation). Seventeen years later, Yosef told his brothers almost the identical message, 50:20. These statements are ironic since Yosef meant that his brothers were pawns in G-d’s plan, but really he was the pawn in G-d’s plan for the Jewish people to end up in Egypt as foretold in the prophecy to Avram by the covenant of the pieces, Bereshit 15:13.
Yosef's rise to power was only one of the many inexplicable events that led to the fulfillment of the prophecy of 15:13. Others are that Lavan switched his daughters on Yaakov (see our discussion on 29:18-30, "The switch," Yaakov overtly favored Yosef (see our discussion on 37:2-14,"Parenting," the Midyanites happened to find Yosef in the pit, and the Yishmaelites happened to be going to Egypt at that time (see our discussion above on 37:25-34, 42:21, "Who sold Yosef?" All these events led Yaakov to agree to go to Egypt to see Yosef (Bereshit 45:28) even though he knew of the prophecy that Avram's descendants would suffer in a foreign land.
The story of Yosef is the longest story in the Torah where there is no direct intervention by G-d either through miracles, communication from G-d or malakhim, and all the inexplicable events (even the dreams) could be understood in a human level. Yet, the string of so many inexplicable events and the fact that we know they are fulfilling the prophecy to Avram means that Yosef's story illustrates G-d's intervention in the story. Thus, N. Leibowitz (1976, pp. 394, 395) notes that the story of Yosef shows the "two levels on which actions are conducted:" The human, and "the hidden workings of Providence."
Even more important is that the story of Yosef shows how G-d intervenes in the world. The switching of Rahel and Lea occurred approximately 45 years before Yaakov and the family went to Egypt, and the sale of Yosef was 22 years before the family came to Egypt. Yosef even had to wait two years for the cupbearer to inform Pharaoh about his dream interpreting abilities. We see that G-d intervenes in the world in a very indirect way that can only be understood at best after many years. Perhaps this indirect and hidden method is to ensure that people still have free will to follow G-d or not.
My impression is that while G-d can intervene in the world, G-d usually does not intervene in the world, as instead the world functions according to the laws of nature. Furthermore, from the story of Yosef we see that even when G-d intervenes in the world, it is in a very indirect manner that is not self-evident. Accordingly, one should not expect G-d to do miracles that are manifest to all.
Bibliography:
Alter, Robert, 2004, The five books of Moses: A translation and commentary, New York: W. W. Norton and Company
Leibowitz, Nehama (1905-1997), 1976, Studies in Bereshit, translated by Aryeh Newman, Jerusalem: The World Zionist Organization.
Yosef's rise to power was only one of the many inexplicable events that led to the fulfillment of the prophecy of 15:13. Others are that Lavan switched his daughters on Yaakov (see our discussion on 29:18-30, "The switch," Yaakov overtly favored Yosef (see our discussion on 37:2-14,"Parenting," the Midyanites happened to find Yosef in the pit, and the Yishmaelites happened to be going to Egypt at that time (see our discussion above on 37:25-34, 42:21, "Who sold Yosef?" All these events led Yaakov to agree to go to Egypt to see Yosef (Bereshit 45:28) even though he knew of the prophecy that Avram's descendants would suffer in a foreign land.
The story of Yosef is the longest story in the Torah where there is no direct intervention by G-d either through miracles, communication from G-d or malakhim, and all the inexplicable events (even the dreams) could be understood in a human level. Yet, the string of so many inexplicable events and the fact that we know they are fulfilling the prophecy to Avram means that Yosef's story illustrates G-d's intervention in the story. Thus, N. Leibowitz (1976, pp. 394, 395) notes that the story of Yosef shows the "two levels on which actions are conducted:" The human, and "the hidden workings of Providence."
Even more important is that the story of Yosef shows how G-d intervenes in the world. The switching of Rahel and Lea occurred approximately 45 years before Yaakov and the family went to Egypt, and the sale of Yosef was 22 years before the family came to Egypt. Yosef even had to wait two years for the cupbearer to inform Pharaoh about his dream interpreting abilities. We see that G-d intervenes in the world in a very indirect way that can only be understood at best after many years. Perhaps this indirect and hidden method is to ensure that people still have free will to follow G-d or not.
My impression is that while G-d can intervene in the world, G-d usually does not intervene in the world, as instead the world functions according to the laws of nature. Furthermore, from the story of Yosef we see that even when G-d intervenes in the world, it is in a very indirect manner that is not self-evident. Accordingly, one should not expect G-d to do miracles that are manifest to all.
Alter, Robert, 2004, The five books of Moses: A translation and commentary, New York: W. W. Norton and Company
Leibowitz, Nehama (1905-1997), 1976, Studies in Bereshit, translated by Aryeh Newman, Jerusalem: The World Zionist Organization.
Tuesday, November 24, 2015
Bereshit 33:1-16 (Va-yishlach) - My brother, my enemy?
Bereshit 33:1-5 records that Yaakov and Esav hugged, kissed and cried when they met after not having seen each other for 20 years. Prior to the meeting, Yaakov was very scared of Esav, 32:8, but Esav was apparently extremely gracious.
Bereshit Rabbah 78:9 quotes two views as to whether Esav was really being friendly during this encounter. R. Shimon b. Eliezer states that Esav kissed Yaakov with all his heart, while R. Yannai claims that Esav really attempted to bite Yaakov. The idea that Esav attempted to bite Yaakov is far from the simple sense of the text, but was Esav, who initially wanted to kill Yaakov, 27:41, genuinely gracious to Yaakov? Why did Esav not attack Yaakov when they met?
One possibility is that Esav was truly a good person. Mark Twain followed this idea and wrote (1869, p. 22) "of Esav's sublime generosity to his brother who had wronged him."
Benno Jacob (1974, p. 226) suggests that Esav did not attack Yaakov due the wound that Yaakov received from fighting the night before. According to this idea, Esav took pity on Yaakov after he saw that Yaakov was wounded. Yet, if Esav had been waiting twenty years to take revenge, it is doubtful that seeing Yaakov wounded would have stopped him from attacking Yaakov.
Elhanan Samet (2002, p. 96-100) follows the idea that Yaakov fought with Esav's guardian angel the previous night, and claims that when the angel lost to Yaakov, the angel changed Esav's attitude towards Yaakov. I cannot accept this idea since I believe that Esav fought with Yaakov and not any guardian angel, see our discussion on 32:25-31, "Who fought with Yaakov?"
Another possibility (see for example, Sarna, 1989, p. 229) is that Esav chose not to attack Yaakov since Yaakov was submissive to Esav. Yaakov bowed down to Esav seven times, 33:3, which showed that he accepted that Esav was the dominant brother. This idea is made more explicit when after Esav initially refused to accept Yaakov's gifts, Yaakov referred to the gifts as his blessing, 33:11. Also, when Yaakov's children bowed down to Esav, 33:6,7, this was a fulfillment of the blessing that was intended for Esav that Yaakov received from Yitzhak, that the sons of your mother will bow down to you, 27:29. As noted by many commentators (see for example, Sacks, 2009a, p. 226), Yaakov was giving back the blessings to Esav that he had falsely received from Yitzhak, 27:28,29. With this idea, the reason why Esav wanted to kill Yaakov was because Yaakov had stolen the blessing, but now that Yaakov was making amends, there was no reason for Esav to try to kill him. (Note, Yaakov was not giving back the second blessing he received from Yitzhak, 28:3,4, which was the crucial blessing, see our discussion on 28:3,4 "Endogamy.")
While I agree that Yaakov was trying to give the blessings back, I think that Esav did not attack Yaakov since he had just attacked him the night before and failed. Why did he not attack Yaakov in the morning with his four hundred men? The answer is that Esav wanted to kill Yaakov personally without it being public knowledge, so I think his generosity to Yaakov was contrived.
Whether Esav was truly a good soul or whether he still harbored hatred of Yaakov can be discerned from their conversation after Esav agreed to accept Yaakov's gifts. Esav then offered Yaakov that they should travel together, 33:12. Yaakov tried to decline the offer by claiming that his children and animals needed to walk slowly, while if Esav was with him, he would be end up being forced to walk quickly. However, Yaakov said that he would go to Seir, ostensibly to see Esav, 33:13,14.
It is not clear if Yaakov was being truthful in his response to Esav. It could be that he was lying since he was scared that Esav would attack him again if they traveled together, and he was just trying to politely get out of the offer to travel together. Furthermore, as Esav knew that Yaakov knew that he was the assailant the previous night (again see our discussion on 32:25-31, "Who fought with Yaakov?"), he would have understood that Yaakov had no intention of ever going to Seir. (In modern times, The Economist, 2011a, pp. 108, 109, writes "Chinese circumlocution is often a form of polite opacity. Chinese people don't like being too direct in turning down invitations or (as many journalists find) requests for interviews. So they will frequently reply that something is bu fang (not convenient). This does not mean reapply in a few weeks' time. It means they don't want to do it, ever.)
Or, it could be that Yaakov wanted to travel alone, possibly due to his wound from the fight in the previous night or for some other personal reason, and he did not want to bring up his wounds from the fight or the personal reasons, so he mentioned the children and the animals. With this possibility, it could be that he did intend to go to Seir, and that he went to Seir but this visit is not recorded. With this possibility, Yaakov had not initially been intending to go to Seir, but Yaakov made this offer in response to Esav's offer to travel together.
Regardless of what Yaakov meant or how Esav understood Yaakov's answer, Esav responded to Yaakov's concern about the children and animals, that Esav would leave some of his 400 men to help Yaakov travel, 33:15. Yaakov refused this offer without giving a reason. Maybe again Yaakov was worried about Esav attacking him or again he just wanted to travel alone.
Esav made no response after Yaakov declined his offer of aid, and instead 33:16 records that he went back home. The Netziv (on 33:16) notes the difference between the parting between Yaakov and Esav and the parting between Yaakov and Lavan. Yaakov and Lavan ate together, stayed together at night and in the morning Lavan kissed and blessed Yaakov and his family, 32:54, 33:1. None of this occurred by Yaakov and Esav. Their encounter started very dramatically, but then it ended quickly with no sign of love and brotherliness. The Netziv deduces that Esav left in anger, and he explains that this anger is why Yaakov never went to Seir. The idea being that when Yaakov said that he would go to Seir, he meant it, but he just wanted to travel alone at his own pace. However, when Yaakov saw that Esav left in a hurry, he realized that his brother still hated him and it would be dangerous to go to Seir, and only then he decided not to go to Seir.
This refusal by Yaakov to accept Esav's assistance is another example of the flipping of the blessings of Yitzhak, only now by the blessing that Esav received. After Yaakov tricked Yitzhak, Esav begged Yitzhak for a blessing, 27:34, and then Yitzhak blessed Esav that while Yaakov would be the dominant brother, still Esav would be able to break off from his yoke, 27:40. Now, this blessing was being fulfilled in the opposite manner. Yaakov had bowed down to Esav, but Yaakov was breaking from Esav's yoke by wanting to travel by himself without Esav and Esav's men.
In any event, we can return to the question was Esav truly a good person? One could claim yes, that Esav forgave Yaakov for stealing the blessings, he was offering Yaakov to travel together and to help Yaakov, and he only got angry when he perceived that Yaakov was lying to him. However, since I think that Esav attacked Yaakov in the middle of the night to kill him (see our discussion on Bereshit 32:25-31, "Who fought with Yaakov?") his graciousness upon meeting Yaakov was false, and his anger when Yaakov rebuffed his offer to travel together indicated his true feelings towards Yaakov. Esav should have known that Yaakov would be wary of traveling with him and/ or under escort of his men, and if Esav had really changed or was a good soul, then when Yaakov rebuffed him, he should have accepted Yaakov's reluctance and just said something like "ok, we will be expecting you" and then left in a pleasant manner (good wishes/ mutual blessings/ handshakes/ kisses/ hugs). However, his leaving in a huff indicates that Esav was not a sublime fellow, but at most was temporarily touched by Yaakov bowing down to him.
Bibliography:
Jacob, Benno (1869-1945), 1974, The first book of the bible: Genesis, commentary abridged, edited and translated by Earnest I. Jacob and Walter Jacob, New York: Ktav Publishing House.
Sacks, Jonathan, 2009, Covenant and Conversation: Genesis: The Book of Beginnings, Jerusalem: Maggid Books.
Samet, Elhanan, 2002, Studies in the Weekly Parsha, Hebrew, Jerusalem: Hemed.
Sarna, Nahum (1923-2005), 1989, The JPS Torah Commentary: Genesis, Philadelphia: The Jewish Publication Society.
Twain, Mark, (1869, first edition), 1966, The Innocents Abroad, New York: The New American Library.
Bereshit Rabbah 78:9 quotes two views as to whether Esav was really being friendly during this encounter. R. Shimon b. Eliezer states that Esav kissed Yaakov with all his heart, while R. Yannai claims that Esav really attempted to bite Yaakov. The idea that Esav attempted to bite Yaakov is far from the simple sense of the text, but was Esav, who initially wanted to kill Yaakov, 27:41, genuinely gracious to Yaakov? Why did Esav not attack Yaakov when they met?
One possibility is that Esav was truly a good person. Mark Twain followed this idea and wrote (1869, p. 22) "of Esav's sublime generosity to his brother who had wronged him."
Benno Jacob (1974, p. 226) suggests that Esav did not attack Yaakov due the wound that Yaakov received from fighting the night before. According to this idea, Esav took pity on Yaakov after he saw that Yaakov was wounded. Yet, if Esav had been waiting twenty years to take revenge, it is doubtful that seeing Yaakov wounded would have stopped him from attacking Yaakov.
Elhanan Samet (2002, p. 96-100) follows the idea that Yaakov fought with Esav's guardian angel the previous night, and claims that when the angel lost to Yaakov, the angel changed Esav's attitude towards Yaakov. I cannot accept this idea since I believe that Esav fought with Yaakov and not any guardian angel, see our discussion on 32:25-31, "Who fought with Yaakov?"
Another possibility (see for example, Sarna, 1989, p. 229) is that Esav chose not to attack Yaakov since Yaakov was submissive to Esav. Yaakov bowed down to Esav seven times, 33:3, which showed that he accepted that Esav was the dominant brother. This idea is made more explicit when after Esav initially refused to accept Yaakov's gifts, Yaakov referred to the gifts as his blessing, 33:11. Also, when Yaakov's children bowed down to Esav, 33:6,7, this was a fulfillment of the blessing that was intended for Esav that Yaakov received from Yitzhak, that the sons of your mother will bow down to you, 27:29. As noted by many commentators (see for example, Sacks, 2009a, p. 226), Yaakov was giving back the blessings to Esav that he had falsely received from Yitzhak, 27:28,29. With this idea, the reason why Esav wanted to kill Yaakov was because Yaakov had stolen the blessing, but now that Yaakov was making amends, there was no reason for Esav to try to kill him. (Note, Yaakov was not giving back the second blessing he received from Yitzhak, 28:3,4, which was the crucial blessing, see our discussion on 28:3,4 "Endogamy.")
While I agree that Yaakov was trying to give the blessings back, I think that Esav did not attack Yaakov since he had just attacked him the night before and failed. Why did he not attack Yaakov in the morning with his four hundred men? The answer is that Esav wanted to kill Yaakov personally without it being public knowledge, so I think his generosity to Yaakov was contrived.
Whether Esav was truly a good soul or whether he still harbored hatred of Yaakov can be discerned from their conversation after Esav agreed to accept Yaakov's gifts. Esav then offered Yaakov that they should travel together, 33:12. Yaakov tried to decline the offer by claiming that his children and animals needed to walk slowly, while if Esav was with him, he would be end up being forced to walk quickly. However, Yaakov said that he would go to Seir, ostensibly to see Esav, 33:13,14.
It is not clear if Yaakov was being truthful in his response to Esav. It could be that he was lying since he was scared that Esav would attack him again if they traveled together, and he was just trying to politely get out of the offer to travel together. Furthermore, as Esav knew that Yaakov knew that he was the assailant the previous night (again see our discussion on 32:25-31, "Who fought with Yaakov?"), he would have understood that Yaakov had no intention of ever going to Seir. (In modern times, The Economist, 2011a, pp. 108, 109, writes "Chinese circumlocution is often a form of polite opacity. Chinese people don't like being too direct in turning down invitations or (as many journalists find) requests for interviews. So they will frequently reply that something is bu fang (not convenient). This does not mean reapply in a few weeks' time. It means they don't want to do it, ever.)
Or, it could be that Yaakov wanted to travel alone, possibly due to his wound from the fight in the previous night or for some other personal reason, and he did not want to bring up his wounds from the fight or the personal reasons, so he mentioned the children and the animals. With this possibility, it could be that he did intend to go to Seir, and that he went to Seir but this visit is not recorded. With this possibility, Yaakov had not initially been intending to go to Seir, but Yaakov made this offer in response to Esav's offer to travel together.
Regardless of what Yaakov meant or how Esav understood Yaakov's answer, Esav responded to Yaakov's concern about the children and animals, that Esav would leave some of his 400 men to help Yaakov travel, 33:15. Yaakov refused this offer without giving a reason. Maybe again Yaakov was worried about Esav attacking him or again he just wanted to travel alone.
Esav made no response after Yaakov declined his offer of aid, and instead 33:16 records that he went back home. The Netziv (on 33:16) notes the difference between the parting between Yaakov and Esav and the parting between Yaakov and Lavan. Yaakov and Lavan ate together, stayed together at night and in the morning Lavan kissed and blessed Yaakov and his family, 32:54, 33:1. None of this occurred by Yaakov and Esav. Their encounter started very dramatically, but then it ended quickly with no sign of love and brotherliness. The Netziv deduces that Esav left in anger, and he explains that this anger is why Yaakov never went to Seir. The idea being that when Yaakov said that he would go to Seir, he meant it, but he just wanted to travel alone at his own pace. However, when Yaakov saw that Esav left in a hurry, he realized that his brother still hated him and it would be dangerous to go to Seir, and only then he decided not to go to Seir.
This refusal by Yaakov to accept Esav's assistance is another example of the flipping of the blessings of Yitzhak, only now by the blessing that Esav received. After Yaakov tricked Yitzhak, Esav begged Yitzhak for a blessing, 27:34, and then Yitzhak blessed Esav that while Yaakov would be the dominant brother, still Esav would be able to break off from his yoke, 27:40. Now, this blessing was being fulfilled in the opposite manner. Yaakov had bowed down to Esav, but Yaakov was breaking from Esav's yoke by wanting to travel by himself without Esav and Esav's men.
In any event, we can return to the question was Esav truly a good person? One could claim yes, that Esav forgave Yaakov for stealing the blessings, he was offering Yaakov to travel together and to help Yaakov, and he only got angry when he perceived that Yaakov was lying to him. However, since I think that Esav attacked Yaakov in the middle of the night to kill him (see our discussion on Bereshit 32:25-31, "Who fought with Yaakov?") his graciousness upon meeting Yaakov was false, and his anger when Yaakov rebuffed his offer to travel together indicated his true feelings towards Yaakov. Esav should have known that Yaakov would be wary of traveling with him and/ or under escort of his men, and if Esav had really changed or was a good soul, then when Yaakov rebuffed him, he should have accepted Yaakov's reluctance and just said something like "ok, we will be expecting you" and then left in a pleasant manner (good wishes/ mutual blessings/ handshakes/ kisses/ hugs). However, his leaving in a huff indicates that Esav was not a sublime fellow, but at most was temporarily touched by Yaakov bowing down to him.
Jacob, Benno (1869-1945), 1974, The first book of the bible: Genesis, commentary abridged, edited and translated by Earnest I. Jacob and Walter Jacob, New York: Ktav Publishing House.
Sacks, Jonathan, 2009, Covenant and Conversation: Genesis: The Book of Beginnings, Jerusalem: Maggid Books.
Samet, Elhanan, 2002, Studies in the Weekly Parsha, Hebrew, Jerusalem: Hemed.
Sarna, Nahum (1923-2005), 1989, The JPS Torah Commentary: Genesis, Philadelphia: The Jewish Publication Society.
Twain, Mark, (1869, first edition), 1966, The Innocents Abroad, New York: The New American Library.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)