A suggestion for the structure of the book of Vayikra

מה ענין שמיטה אצל הר סיני?

The book of Vayikra can be divided into three units, and the phrase behar Sinai, Mount Sinai, is a literary marker to these units. The phrase behar Sinai appears four times in the book of Vayikra, 7:38, 25:1, 26:46 and 27:34. By the second appearance of the phrase, Rashi (on 25:1) recorded one of his most famous questions, “What is the connection between shemitta (the laws in the beginning of chapter 25) and Mount Sinai?” My answer is that it is a literary way to mark the beginning of a new unit in the book of Vayikra.

The first unit in the book of Vayikra is from 1:1 to 7:38, and 7:38 records the phrase behar Sinai, which marks the end of the unit. The book of Shemot ended with the construction of the mishkan, and the first unit in Vayikra (chapters 1-7) records the laws of the sacrifices which were offered in the mishkan.

The second unit is from 8:1-24:23. This unit has a unique structure consisting of three cycles and within each cycle there are five themes. The five themes are separation, a connection of the people to the mishkan, a reference to G-d’s presence relating to the mishkan, a sin, and laws that are consequences of the sin and or are to amend for the sin. I will present the structure in a table and then I will explain the table.

Structure of the second unit of the book of Vayikra	Cycle 1: 8:1-10:20: Chapters 8-10	Cycle II: 11:1-17:16:  Chapters 11-17	Cycle III: 18:1-24:23:  Chapters 18-24
Separation = kedusha	8:1-36	11:1-47	18:1-21:24
Connection between the people and the mishkan	9:1-23a	12:1-15:33	22:1-23:38
G-d’s presence	9:23b,24	16:1-34	23:39-24:9
A sin	10:1-3	17:1-7	24:10-12
Laws that are consequences of the sin and or are to amend for the sin	10:4-10:20	17:8-16	24:13-23

The first cycle within the second unit is from 8:1-10:20. Chapter 8 records the initiation of the priests, which separated them from the general population, and made Aharon and his sons kadosh, 8:12,30. Also, within this ceremony, Moshe poured oil on various items in the mishkan, and was mekadesh the mishkan, 8:10,11,15. Afterwards, 9:1-23a records the ceremony of the eighth day, which was the dedication of the outer altar. This ceremony showed the connection of the people to the mishkan through the sacrifices of the people, 9:3,4, which were the main sacrifices in the ceremony, as the people brought more sacrifices than the priests. This section ends with Aharon twice blessing the people, 9:22,23a, which again shows a connection between the mishkan and the people. The culmination of the ceremony was that a fire came and burnt the sacrifices, and this fire showed G-d’s presence, 9:23b,24. 10:1-3 then records the sin of Nadav and Avihu, the sin of the first cycle. 10:4-20 then records laws relating to removing the bodies of Nadav and Avihu and how the priests were supposed to act after this tragedy. Within this section, 10:8-11 record laws that the priests are forbidden to drink wine in the mishkan, and this is conceptually related to the sin of Nadav and Avihu since when people become drunk, they do not follow the rules like Nadav and Avihu did.

The second cycle within the second unit is 11:1-17:16. Vayikra 11:1-47 focuses on the laws of eating, which is a type of separation of humans from animals and tumah relating to animals. This section ends, 11:44-47 with the statement that that people are to be kadosh and to make a separation between different animals, just as G-d has separated the people by taking the people out of Egypt. Afterwards, chapters 12-15 record the laws of tumah, but also the sacrifices of various individuals, the sacrifices of the new mother, 12:6,8, the sacrifices of the metsora, 14:10-31, and the sacrifices of the zav and the zavah, 15:14,15,29,30. 15:31 ends this section of tumah and taharah by warning the people not to defile the mishkan by their tumah, which connects the people with the mishkan. Chapter 16 then records the service of Yom Kippur, and the key element of the service was Aharon’s entry to the Holy of Holies, where he would be symbolically before G-d, 16:13,30. The beginning of Chapter 17 refers to people sacrificing to demons, 17:7, which is the sin in the cycle. Afterwards, there are laws relating to blood, which seems to relate to the sin of the people (see our discussion on 17:3-11, “Blood and demons”). The section ends with laws relating to nevelah and terefa, 17:15,16 since within the discussion of the sin of sacrificing to demons, there are references to slaughtering animals, 17:3,5.

The third cycle in the second unit of the book of Vayikra is 18:1-24:23. Chapters 18 and 20 refer to sexual misconduct, which relates to the idea of separation from different people, and form a bookend around chapter 19. Not only are the sexual prohibitions a form of separation, but the point of the laws is to separate the people from other nations, 18:3, 24-30; 20:24,26. 20:25 at the end of this sub-section, refers back to the separation of the animals, a theme of chapter 11, and this is because both sections embody the separation theme of their respective cycles. 21:1-24 continues the theme of separation with reference to the priests, with regard to who the priests can marry and a separation between priests with blemishes and priests without blemishes. Afterwards, 22:1-33, records general laws concerning the sacrifices, such as laws about the quality and status of animals that can be donated for sacrifices, and the sacrifices again show the connection between people and the mishkan. Note that within this section, 22:32 refers to kedusha, which is not a theme of this section, but the kedusha is in reference to G-d and not the people. 23:1-38 continues with the idea of connections between the people and mishkan, as this section records the bringing of sacrifices on the festivals. After the concluding verses of 23:37,38, there are more laws about the holiday of Sukkot, 23:39-44, but these laws do not relate to sacrifices. Instead, a central theme of these laws of Sukkot is for a person to celebrate before G-d, 23:40. The idea of being before G-d occurs again in 24:1-4, by laws relating to lighting the menorah, and by the laws of the lechem ha-panim, 24:5-9. Accordingly, 23:39-44, 24:1-4 and 24:5-9 all express the idea of being before G-d, which is the third theme in the cycle, a reference to G-d’s presence. Afterwards, 24:10-12 records the case of the blasphemer, which is the sin of the third cycle. Afterwards, 24:13-23 record laws that relate to the sin of blasphemy and the punishment of the person who sinned.

Within the three cycles of the second unit of the book of Vayikra, the presence of G-d in each cycle becomes less manifest, and correspondingly, the sin in each cycle also becomes less pronounced. Also, the cycles do not end with a sin, but with laws that relate to dealing with the sin. The point might be that while people inevitably sin, they can overcome their sin by following the laws. 

The third unit of the book of Vayikra is 25:1-27:34. As mentioned above, 25:1 begins the unit with the reference to behar Sinai, and the unit and the book of Vayikra ends with this phrase, 27:34. Within this unit, 25:1-26:45 can be divided into four parts based on the concluding sentences, 25:38,55; 26:13,45, see our discussion on Shemot 6:5-8, “The four words of redemption.” This section of 25:1-26:45 also concludes with the phrase behar Sinai in 26:46. The last chapter of Vayikra, chapter 27, is connected with chapter 25 since some of the laws in chapter 27 are dependent on the yovel year, 27:17,18,21,23,24, which is first introduced in 25:8-13.

Yom Ha’atzmaut - The significance of the fifth of Iyar

While this year (2025), Yom Ha’atzmaut is being celebrated on the third of Iyar, the real date of Yom Ha-atzmaut, the fifth of Iyar, (this year Shabbat) seems to have great significance.

The establishment of the State of Israel occurred in 1948, but amazingly the existence of the holiday of Yom Ha’atzmaut is foreshadowed by R. Yaakov Baal HaTurim (1275-1340) in his monumental work, the Tur. In the days prior to Google and printed calendars it was not easy for people to know the exact dates of the holidays during the year. In order to aid people to know the dates, in Orah Chayyim 428, the Tur writes that the day of the week of many holidays of the year can be known based on a correspondence between the days of Pesach with other holidays through the Atbash Cipher. The Atbash Cipher is a code based on matching up the letters of the alphabet by pairing the first and last letters, the second and second to last letters, etc. (The Shulchan Arukh 428:3, quotes the Tur.)

The Tur notes that the first day (aleph, the first letter of the alphabet) of Passover is the same day of the week when Tisha B’av occurs (taf, the last letter of the alphabet). The second day (bet, the second letter of the alphabet) of Passover is the same day of the week when Shavuot occurs (shin, the second to last letter of the alphabet). The third day of Passover (gimel, the third letter of the alphabet) is the same day of the week as when Rosh Hashanah occurs (resh, the third to last letter of the alphabet). The fourth day of Passover (daled, the fourth letter of the alphabet) is the same day of the week as when the reading (kuf- kriah, the fourth to last letter of the alphabet) of the Torah is completed, Simhat Torah in the Diaspora. The fifth day of Passover (heh, the fifth letter of the alphabet) is the same day of the week as Yom Kippur, which is also called a day of fasting, Tzom, (tzadik, the fifth to last letter of the alphabet). The sixth day of Passover (vav, the sixth letter of the alphabet) is the same day of the week as the previous Purim (peh, the sixth to last letter of the alphabet). The Tur stopped at this point leaving the last day of Passover with no corresponding holiday.

The Tur obviously did not refer to Yom Ha’atzmaut, but his Atbash Cipher does. Pretty soon after Yom Ha’atzmaut was celebrated, it was noticed that the seventh day of Pesach (zayin, the seventh letter of the alphabet) is always the same day of the week as the fifth of Iyar, the day celebrated as Yom Ha’atzmaut (ayin, the seventh to last letter in the alphabet). Yom Tov Levinsky, 1955, Vol. 7, p. 467, quotes this discovery in the name of David Levine. Was this correspondence just a coincidence?

What are the odds that Yon Ha’atzmaut would complete the Atbash? It would seem to be one out of seven (14.29%), but the odds are much lower. First, because of the rule that Rosh Hashanah cannot fall out on Sunday, Wednesday or Friday, the months of Cheshvan and Kislev can be either 29 or 30 days. This means that a holiday in Cheshvan and Kislev will not always fall on the same day of the week as one of the days of Pesach. The seventh day of Pesach matches up with one out of seven days for the following months Iyar, Sivan, Tammuz, Av Elul and Tishri, and for the previous months prior to Pesach of Tevet, Shevat, Adar and the beginning of Nisan. Thus, if Yom Ha’atzmaut was in Cheshvan or Kislev, it would not fit into the Atbash Cipher. In fact, Yom Ha’atzmaut could have been in Kislev, if it had been decided to celebrate Yom Ha’atzmaut on the day when the UN voted to establish the state of Israel, November, 29, 1947, the 16th of Kislev. 

If we remove the two months of Cheshvan and Kislev, then the odds that Yom Ha’atzmaut would always fall on the same day of the week of the seventh day of Pesach is 44/354 = 0.1243. In addition, for the date to fit into the Atbash, the holiday must begin with an ayin, and these odds are 1/22 = 0.04545. For these two events to both occur, the odds are 0.1243*0.04545 = 0.00565 = 0.5649%, less than 1%. Is the correspondence between the seventh day of Pesach and Yom Ha’atzmaut still just a coincidence?

Three other events had to occur for this coincidence to occur. One, we celebrate Yom Ha’atzmaut as the day when the state of Israel was declared, the fifth of Iyar, which in 1948 was the 14th of May and a Friday. However, this was not the obvious day for the declaration. The British chose that their Mandate of Palestine would end at the conclusion of the 14th of May, namely on May 15th. According to The Economist, (Realities in Palestine, March 27, 1948, p. 489) "The Jews have prepared their plans for announcing the creation of a Jewish state on May 16 – the day after Britain formerly abandons the mandate." However, instead, the announcement to declare the State of Israel was moved up to right before the British ended the mandate.  In their coverage of the declaration, The New York Times (May 15, 1948, by Gene Currivan) reported that “the proclamation was to have been read at 11 PM, but was advanced to 4PM because of the Sabbath. Mr. (Moshe) Shertok explained that the proclamation had to be made yesterday (the 14th) because the mandate was to end at midnight and the Zionists did not want a split second to intervene between that time and the formal establishment of the state.” Thus, it was decided to declare the state at 4:00 PM on Friday, even though the Mandate still existed for eight more hours, instead of 11PM or waiting until Saturday night. Had the state been established on May 16th (the 7th of Iyar) or at 11PM on May 14th (the 6th of Iyar), the holiday would not have fit into the Atbash Cipher of the Tur.

The second variable as to whether Yom Ha’atzmaut would fit into the Atbash Cipher is that there was a question, when should Israel’s independence be celebrated? Several days were possible. For instance, even if one wants to commemorate the declaration of the State, still the commemoration could have based on the secular calendar instead of the Jewish calendar. Both options were discussed by the Knesset, and it was decided to follow the Jewish calendar.

Finally, even if we celebrate Israel’s independence on the fifth of Iyar, following the Jewish calendar, still the day could only fit into the Atbash Cipher if the name of the holiday included an ayin in the beginning of the name. In 1949, the Israeli government, headed by David Ben-Gurion, proposed that the holiday be called, Yom Hakomemiyut (day of sovereignty) based on Vayikra 26:13, and this proposed name had no ayin. At that time, Ben-Gurion's opinions were almost always accepted, and his choice had a Biblical basis. However, in this case the Knesset rejected his proposal, and settled on the name, day of independence, Yom Ha’atzmaut, which has an ayin in the beginning of word. (For sources on the choice of name and day of celebration, see Don-Yehuda, 1988, pp. 64,65.)

Accordingly, for Yom Ha’atzmaut to fit into the Atbash Cipher of the Tur, the following events had to occur: the state had to be declared early on the 14th of May, when it was still the fifth of Iyar, the holiday had to be celebrated following the Jewish calendar and the name of the holiday had to have an ayin. Is the fact that all three variables transpired a coincidence or not? You be the judge.

Bibliography:

Don-Yehuda, Eliezer, 1988, Festivals and Political Culture: Independence day celebrations, The Jerusalem Quarterly, 45, Winter, pp. 61-84.

Levinsky, Yom Tov, 1956, Sefer ha-Moadim, Tel Aviv: Dvir.

Vayikra 9:22 – Access to the top of the altar in the courtyard of the mishkan/ ohel moed

ויקרא ט:כב - וישא אהרן את ידו אל העם ויברכם וירד מעשת החטאת והעלה והשלמים

Towards the end of the ceremony of the eighth day, Vayikra 9:22 records that Aharon blessed the people (see our discussion, “The double blessings by the ceremony of the eighth day”) and then he came down after offering the hatta’t, the olah and the shelamim. These sacrifices were offered on the altar in the courtyard of the mishkan/ ohel moed, and then it is presumed that Aharon came down from the outer altar (see Rashi on 9:22). Was Aharon able to stand on the top of the outer altar? How did he ascend and descend from the altar?

Shemot 27:1 records that the dimensions of the outer altar were five amot (cubits) by five amot and the three amot high. An amah (cubit) is an ancient measuring system used by the Egyptians and many societies and is the distance from a person’s elbow to the tip of his/ her middle finger. This is assumed to be around 18 inches to 21 inches (even 24 inches?). This would mean that the height of the altar was from 54 inches (4.5 feet, 137 centimeters) to 63 inches (5.25 feet, 160 centimeters). (The distance from my elbow to my middle finger is 16 inches.)

It could be that an amah is even smaller, and the altar was at a lower height than 54 inches, but we do not know how tall Aharon was. Was he tall enough to work comfortably on the altar when standing on the ground? If he was six feet tall, which would have been tall for those days since today people are taller than in the past, and the altar was 4.5 feet, then he could have reached the top of the altar, but could he have reached the middle section of the altar? Did Aharon have to get to the top of the altar?

Chazal (see Rashi on Shemot 27:5) understand that there was a ramp that led to the altar and then Aharon could go up and down the ramp to reach the altar. This would make it easy to get to the top of the altar, and then Aharon could have come down the ramp in 8:22. However, the Torah never mentions this ramp. The ramp would have been a substantial item. If it existed, it is surprising that it was not mentioned in the construction of the mishkan/ ohel moed and by the transporting of the mishkan/ ohel moed. Yet, if there was no ramp, then how was Aharon able to get to the top of the altar. Was Aharon supposed to jump? Was there a ladder?

My guess is that Aharon did not get to the top of the altar. 8:22 does not record that he descended from the altar, just that he descended. Yet, if he was not on the top of the altar, where was he descending from?

Shemot 27:5 records that around the altar there was a type of mesh or net, and this mesh was below the karkov. The Torah mentions this karkov parenthetically, and it is not clear what it is. Cassuto (1967, p. 364) writes that the karkov was a ledge. He writes, "as we learn from an examination of the ancient altars that have been found in great numbers in Israel and in the neighboring countries, the karkov is a kind of horizontal projection that encompasses the altar on all sides, and is situated a third or a quarter of the way down from the top; its purposes apparently, was purely ornamental." This makes sense to me, except the last point that it was ornamental. 

My guess is that the karkov was a ledge for Aharon to stand on, and then he could access the entire top of the altar. Rashi (on Shemot 27:5) also writes that the karkov was for standing, but he writes that it was on the top of the altar. More likely, partially following Cassuto, it was a ledge on all sides of the altar for Aharon and the priests to stand on when working on the altar. The Torah does not record the width of the karkov, but if it was to support people, then it had to be sufficiently wide and strong for people to stand comfortably.

The height of the karkov is also not recorded in the Torah. Shemot 27:5 records that the mesh was below the karkov and the mesh reached until the halfway point of the altar. The dimensions of the mesh are unknown. If the mesh was three inches, and the height of the altar was 54 inches, then the bottom of the karkov could have been 30 inches up from the ground (27+3). If the depth of the karkov was two inches, then Aharon and all the priests had to climb up about 32 inches, and from that point there would have been another 22 inches to the top of the altar. It is not a simple step to go up 32 inches, but it is not that difficult. Also, maybe some rocks could have placed near the altar to make a step between the ground and the karkov. Note, the parts of the animals that were to be sacrificed on the altar would have to had been hoisted with some of the priests on the ground and some standing on the karkov. 

To return to our question how to understand Aharon’s descent from the altar in 8:22 after he blessed the people and offered sacrifices. The idea here is that when he blessed the people and when he was offering the sacrifices, he was standing on the karkov, and then he jumped down or stepped down carefully.

(I do not think this understanding contradicts Shemot 20:23, which according to the common understanding forbids one to make steps to ascend to an altar, firstly because here there would have been only one step, and secondly, Sarna (1991, p. 117) notes that Shemot 20:23 is in reference to laymen by private alters, who may not have worn underwear, while the official priests had to wear underwear, Shemot 28:42. In fact, my understanding of Shemot 20:23 is that the verse is prohibiting people from standing on platforms on top of the altar if they were not wearing underwear, and then Aharon could have been standing on one of these ledges on the altar since he was wearing underwear.)

Bibliography

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

Sarna, Nahum (1923-2005), 1991, The JPS Torah Commentary: Exodus, Philadelphia: The Jewish Publication Society.

The 2021 version of Andrew Schein's commentary on the Haggadah is now available

Hello,

The 2021 version of my commentary on the Haggadah is now available. It has some additions/ corrections/ revisions from the previous versions. The major changes in this year’s version is that the spacing is 1.5 lines instead of one line, which makes the commentary longer (107 pages) and I have added Hebrew titles to each discussion. Both additions are based on suggestions from readers. Thank you.

Below is the table of contents to enable people to see what topics are discussed in the commentary. The numbers in the middle of each line  are the page numbers in the commentary.

If you are interested in receiving the commentary, please send me an email, ajayschein@gmail.com, and I will send you the file. Also, if you would like to read my commentary on the Torah (five separate files), on Pirkei Avot, on Jewish festivals and customs, please send me an email, and I will send you the files you are interested in. I wish everybody a chag kasher ve-samaech and good health.

Andrew Schein



Table of Contents

Introduction to the Haggadah הקדמה להגדה 3

Bedikat hametz בדיקת חמץ 4

Two systems: Burning and annulling שתי מערכות: ביעור וביטול 4

Hiding bread in the house before doing the bedikat hametz הנחת פתיתי חמץ 6

The blessing on bedikat hametz  7   הברכה על בדיקת חמץ           

The Seder plate קערת הסדר 9

The history of the Seder plate ההיסטוריה של קערת הסדר 9

How many matzot are needed at the Seder? כמה מצות צריך בסדר?  16

The mnemonic of the Seder סימני הסדר 18

Kiddush קידוש 19

The four cups of wine ארבע כוסות של יין 19

The four words or verses of redemption (parshanut) ארבע לשונות של גאולה 20

Leaning at the Seder הסבה בסדר 22

Do women need to lean at the Seder?   האם אישה חייבת בהסבה?                       25

Karpas כרפס 26

Why is karpas part of the Seder? למה יש כרפס בסדר?  26

How much karpas should a person eat? כמה כרפס ראוי לאדם לאכול?  27

Dipping the karpas הטבלת הכרפס 29

Yachatz and ha lachma anya יחץ והא לחמא עניא 30

Maggid מגיד 34

The obligation to re-tell the story of the exodus from Egypt חיוב סיפור יציאת מצרים 34

Structure of the Maggid מבנה של המגיד 37

Mah nishtanah: Covering the matzah by the mah nishtanah    כיסוי המצות במה נשתנה 38

Mah nishtanah: Popularity פופולריות של המה נשתנה 39

Mah nishtanah: It’s source מקור של מה נשתנה 40

Mah nishtanah: Who says the mah nishtanah? מי אומר המה נשתנה?  41

Mah nishtanah: How many questions compromise the mah nishtanah כמה שאלות יש במה נשתנה? ? 42

Mah nishtanah: The order of the question of the mah nishtanahסדר השאלות של המה נשתנה 44

Mah nishtanah: The answers התשובות לשאלות של המה נשתנה 45

Lowly states: We were slaves and our forefathers were idolaters עבדים היינו ומתחלה עובדי עבודה זרה היו אבותינו 47

The four sons: Why four?   למה יש ארבעה בנים?  49

The four sons: How can one identify the traits of each son from the verses in the Torahהאם יכול לזהות התכונות של ארבעה הבנים מהפסוקים בתורה? 50

The four sons: The answers to the evil son’s question התשובה לשאלה של בן הרשע 51

The four sons: The answer/ statement to the son who cannot ask a question – התשובה לבן שאינו יודע לשאול 52

The drush: Introduction הקדמה לדרוש 52

The drush: Connections between the verses Devarim 26:5-8 and other verses in the Torah (parshanut) קשרים בין הפסוקים בדברים כו:5-8 עם פסוקים אחרים בתורה (פרשנות) 53

The drush: Arami oved avi (parshanut) ארמי עובד אבי (פרשנות) 54

The drush: Va-yered mitzraymah וירד מצרימה 55

The drush: Va-yagar sham ויגר שם 55

The drush: Va-rav ורב 56

The drush: And the Egyptians with evil intent treated us harshly (parshanut) וירעו אתנו המצרים ויענונו (פרשנות) 56

The drush: We cried to G-d (parshanut) ונצעק (פרשנות) 59

The drush: And G-d saw our affliction and our burdensome suffering (parshanut) וירא את ענינו ואת עמלנו (פרשנות) 61

The drush: And G-d took us out Egypt (parshanut) ויוצאנו (פרשנות) 63

The drush: The plague of the firstborn (parshanut) מכת בכורות (פרשנות) 64

The drush: Sixteen drops of wine מטיפים 16 טיפות יין 64

The drush: The ten plagues עשר המכות 67

The drush: Dzach adash beachav (parshanut) דצ"ך עד"ש באח"ב (פרשנות) 67

R. Yosi ha-Galilee, R. Eliezer and R. Akiva רבי יוסי הגלילי, רבי אליעזר ורבי עקיבא 70

Dayenu דינו 70

Rabban Gamliel רבן גמליאל 72

Matzah (parshanut) מצה (פרשנות) 73

Maror מרור 74

Dividing Hallel חלוקת הלל 77

Differences between reciting Hallel all year round and by the Seder שינויים באמירת הלל כל שנה ובסדר 78

The blessing at the end of the Maggid הברכה בסוף המגיד 80

Matzah מצה 81

How much matzah does one need to eat by the Sederכמה מצה או כמות של מצה צריך לאכול בסדר ? 81

Shemurah matzah שמורה מצה 83

Charoset חרוסת 87

Eating eggs by the beginning of the meal אכילת ביצים בהתחלת הסעודה 90

Afikoman אפיקומן 91

The history of the term afikomenהיסטוריה של הביטוי אפיקומן 91

Eating the afikoman before the middle of the night אכילת האפיקומן לפני חצות 95

Shefokh hamatcha שפך חמתך 96

Hallel after birkat ha-mazonהלל אחרי ברכת המזון 100

Birkat ha-Shir ברכת השיר 100

Hallel ha-Gadol הלל הגדול 101

Songs at the end of the Seder השירים בסוף הסדר 103

Seven songs שבעה שירים 103

Ehad mi yode`a?  אחד מי יודע?  103

Chad gadya: A message? האם יש מסר לחד גדיא?  104

Chad gadya: Good and bad “characters" דמויות טובות ורעות בחד גדיא  105

Bibliography 105

Shemot (Exodus) 33:18-34:9 - Moshe in the cleft in the mountain: As close as it gets

שמות לד:ה,ו - וַיֵּרֶד ה בֶּעָנָן וַיִּתְיַצֵּב עִמּוֹ שָׁם וַיִּקְרָא בְשֵׁם ה׃  וַיַּעֲבֹר ה  עַל־פָּנָיו וַיִּקְרָא, ה, ה קל רַחוּם וְחַנּוּן אֶרֶךְ אַפַּיִם וְרַב־חֶסֶד וֶאֱמֶת׃

The first half of 34:6 records that G-d passed before him (Moshe) and this records the closest encounter humankind ever had with G-d, seemingly even more than when Moshe went up to Mount Sinai for forty days. This phrase has become a very prominent part of the Selihot prayers. Yet, it is unclear what actually happened. What does it mean that G-d passed by Moshe? To try to understand this phrase, we need to understand the background to this moment, which is the conversation between G-d and Moshe starting from 33:18.

 
33:18 records that Moshe asked to see G-d’s glory. 33:19 records G-d’s response to Moshe, that G-d would pass His goodness in front of Moshe and that G-d would call out to Moshe. It is not clear what G-d’s goodness means. Maybe it is referring to the words that G-d would call out when passing Moshe. Or, as suggested by Rabbenu Saadiah Gaon (on 33:19), the word goodness could refer to G-d’s glory. In any event, 33:20 then records G-d's explanation to Moshe of His statement in 33:19, as 33:20 records that G-d explained to Moshe that a human being could not see G-d and live. Thus, G-d’s action of passing His goodness in front of Moshe (33:19), which would give Moshe just a very limited view or experience of G-d, was the most that G-d could do for Moshe.

33:21 then records G-d’s instructions to Moshe to prepare for G-d’s goodness to pass in front of him. 33:21 records that Moshe was to stand on a tzur to be near G-d. This word tzur is a large rock, and from 34:2 we see that it refers to a mountain.  34:2 also implies that Moshe was to be on the top of the mountain. I doubt this means the literal peak of the mountain since then it would not have been simple to have a cleft in the mountain (as mentioned in the next verse), but maybe the idea was for Moshe to go to some rocky part on the upper levels of the mountain. It could even have been that Moshe was to go to a cliff near the top of the mountain, see Even-Shoshan, 1981, p. 1128.

33:22 then records G-d telling Moshe what was going to happen when Moshe was on the tzur. The beginning of 33:22 explains that G-d’s glory would pass by Moshe. This reference to G-d’s glory teaches us that when G-d stated in 32:19-21 that He would pass by Moshe, that a person could not see G-d, and that Moshe was to be on the mountain near G-d, that the reference to G-d refers to the glory of G-d, see Rabbenu Saadiah Gaon on 33:19 and 33:22. This follows the idea that the glory of G-d symbolizes G-d's presence. This same correspondence occurs by Vayikra 9:4,6. In Vayikra 9:4, Moshe said the people would see G-d, and then in Vayikra 9:6, Moshe explained that to see G-d means to see G-d’s glory, which is what happened on that day, Vayikra 9:23. 

33:22 continues and records that G-d told Moshe that when the glory of G-d would pass by, G-d would put Moshe in a cleft in the mountain. Cassuto (1967, p. 437) suggests that G-d was saying that G-d would put Moshe in a cave in the mountain, but it is not clear if there are any caves on the top of a mountain. I think the idea is that G-d was going to carve out a cleft in the rock around Moshe which would serve as a protection for Moshe from G-d’s glory. It could be that it was the glory of G-d that would form this cleft through its great power. This creation of a cleft accords better with the idea that Moshe was to be on a cliff near the top of the mountain.

The second half of 33:22 then records that G-d’s palm would shield Moshe from the glory of G-d when the glory of G-d passed by him. R. Saadiah Gaon (on 33:22, also Beliefs and Opinions, 2:12, also see Midrash Leckah Tov, 33:155 and 33:157 in Torah Shelamah) suggests that G-d's palm is referring to the cloud of G-d. I doubt this since I believe that during this process, G-d would remove the glory of G-d from its encasing in the cloud of G-d. I also wonder if the cloud of G-d would have been sufficiently strong enough to protect Moshe from the glory of G-d. Also, why not refer to the cloud directly instead of using the term palm of G-d? Instead, the term G-d’s palm is a metaphor for some powerful action from G-d, like the phrase G-d’s hand in 14:31. Maybe this powerful action was that G-d would create a type of force-field? (Too much Star Trek?) It remains a mystery what this action was, but whatever it was, the action would create a type of shield to stop Moshe from seeing G-d’s glory, which would enable him to survive this experience.

The second half of 33:22 records that the palm of G-d would cover Moshe, ve-sakoti, until G-d’s glory finished passing by Moshe. The word, ve-sakoti, suggests that this shield (G-d’s palm) enwrapped Moshe. The idea being that even though Moshe was in the opening of a cleft in a mountain, which might suggest that the upper part of the rock protected Moshe from the glory of G-d, this was insufficient protection for Moshe. Thus, this shield enwrapped Moshe that he was hermitically sealed off from G-d’s glory with the shield connecting in some way with the cleft to cover Moshe from all possible angles, including over his head.

33:23 then records that at some point, G-d would remove his palm that is to say the shield around Moshe, and then Moshe would be able to see G-d’s back but not G-d’s front. Again, this seeing of G-d is the glory of G-d, as explained by Rabbenu Saadiah Gaon on 33:23. This understanding accords with Moshe’s request in 33:18 to see G-d’s glory, and G-d’s statement in 33:22, that G-d’s glory would pass by Moshe. 33:23 means that when G-d would remove the shield around Moshe, Moshe would see the residue of G-d's glory departing (G-d's back), but not the full force of G-d's glory up close (G-d's face).

34:1-3 then record other instructions to Moshe concerning the tablets, and that Moshe was to ensure that nobody could go up with him or be on the mountain. Even no animals could be on the mountain since the glory of G-d was going to appear on the mountain, and the animals could get killed. 34:4 then records that Moshe fulfilled G-d’s instructions to take the tablets and went up the mountain.

34:5 then records G-d’s movement towards Moshe and the beginning of the fulfillment of G-d’s statement in 33:19. 34:5 can be split into three parts. The first part records that G-d came down in the cloud. This probably means, that the glory of G-d that was within the cloud of G-d came down from somewhere in the sky above the mountain or it appeared as if it came from the sky.

The second part of 34:5 records that "he stood with him." While the idea appears to be that Moshe and the glory of G-d were “face to face,” it is not clear who is standing? Is the standing referring to the cloud of G-d, which was level with Moshe (see R. Saadiah Gaon and Rashbam on 34:5), who was on or near the top of the mountain, or it could be that Moshe was standing facing the glory of G-d that was within the cloud. Or, it could be that at this point, the cloud of G-d had moved on and G-d’s palm from 33:22 was protecting Moshe from G-d’s glory. It this is true, then at this point G-d had already made the cleft in the cliff and/ or placed Moshe there, and this action might be the reference to the phrase “he stood with him.”

The third and last part of 34:5 records that "he called out in G-d's name." It is not clear who is calling out. If Moshe was doing the calling, then this could also imply that the standing in the second part of 34:5 is referring to Moshe. However, if the calling out was by G-d, then this implies that the standing in 34:5 is referring to either the cloud of G-d or G-d’s “palm” being stationary. 33:19, which records that G-d would call out His name when G-d’s goodness would pass by Moshe, might imply that the end of 34:5 means that G-d called out His name, as both 33:19 and 34:5 have the phrase “called in the name of G-d,” but it could be that 33:19 was just referring to G-d calling out His name in 34:6.

(In any event, why would G-d call out to Him own name? A possible answer is that this would be similar to the beginning of the Decalogue, 20:1, which records a self-identifying introduction, as here also G-d stated a self-identifying introduction before G-d would reveal His ways to Moshe in the following two verses.)

34:6,7 then record that G-d passed by Moshe and that G-d stated His ways, what are commonly referred to as the 13 attributes of G-d. These verses are the fulfillment of the 33:19.

What does it mean in 34:6 that G-d passed by Moshe?

The situation prior to 34:6 was that either the glory of G-d was within the cloud of G-d or that Moshe was enwrapped in G-d’s “palm,” and with both possibilities the glory of G-d was facing Moshe, who was on the mountain. If one believes that by the end in 34:5, the cloud of G-d was still covering G-d’s glory, then it could be that prior to 34:6, the cloud of G-d moved away, presumably upwards, without the glory of G-d moving, and then Moshe would have been facing the glory of G-d, which would have meant instant death. However, at that same instant, G-d protected him with a shield, as 33:22 recorded. This stopped Moshe from dying, and also from seeing G-d’s glory, the “face of G-d.” Or, it could have been that the cloud of G-d did not move, and instead the glory of G-d “moved out” of the cloud, which again this would have necessitated G-d shielding Moshe from the glory of G-d. Or, if already by the end of 34:5, Moshe was enwrapped in G-d’s “palm,” then no new action by G-d was needed prior to 34:6.

During the time when G-d (or Moshe) called out His name (the end of 34:5) and G-d told Moshe His ways, the middle of 34:6 and 34:7, the glory of G-d began to move away from Moshe, the beginning of 34:6, presumably upwards. This is my understanding of the meaning of the phrase that G-d passed before Moshe, that G-d's glory was initially facing Moshe (34:5) and then it moved upwards (34:6). Note, if 34:5 refers to G-d calling out His name to Moshe, then this double calling out, in 34:5 and in 34:6, form a type of bookend to the beginning of 34:6, that G-d passed by Moshe, to indicate that G-d's calling out His name in 34:5 and His attributes (34:6,7) and the passing of G-d's glory occurred exactly at the same time.

At some point, when G-d's glory had moved sufficiently away from Moshe that it would not kill Moshe, G-d removed the shield surrounding Moshe, 32:23. At this point, Moshe was able to see G-d's glory  moving away. This was the residue of G-d's glory or G-d's "back," as recorded in 33:23. Once G-d finished reciting His ways, then Moshe, who was no longer being shielded, called out to G-d as recorded in 34:8,9. 

It is not clear how long it took for G-d's glory to pass by Moshe.  Did the glory of G-d move fast, like a swoosh, or did the glory of G-d move slowly? However, long this process took, a minute, a second, a split second, this was the closest humankind ever came to G-d.

Bibliography:

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

Even-Shoshan, Avraham, 1981, A new dictionary (Hebrew), Jerusalem: Kiryat Sefer Publishing House.

Shemot 21:1-23:19 – The order and connections of the laws in parashat Mishpatim

Shemot 21:1 – 23:19 records numerous laws. In this discussion, I will attempt to explain the order and the connections of these laws. These connections can be due to the ideas behind the laws and also the sounds and associations of the words of the law, see our discussion on Devarim 21:10-25:16, "The order of the laws of parashat Ki Teitzei" and our discussion on "The order and connection of the laws of parashat Re'eh," and "The order and connections of the laws of parashat Shoftim."

21:1-1 records two sets of laws about slaves, 21:1-11, and then afterwards there are laws involving capital punishment, 21:12-17. Why does the set of laws begin with laws about slavery? One would have thought that the laws would start with the most heinous crime, murder, and then proceed in descending severity with other laws.

Many have noted that the reference to slavery corresponds to the beginning of the Decalogue where G-d refers to taking the people out of slavery, 20:2, but what is the message of this connection? Ramban (on 21:2) writes that the laws begin with slavery since the slave goes free after seven years (21:2) and this recalls the Exodus from Egypt which is recorded in the beginning of the Decalogue, 20:2. Furthermore, he writes that going out after seven years also recalls the creation of the world since the slave would then be resting on the seventh year.

Hizkuni (on 21:2) suggests that the laws of slavery are recorded first to teach that one should not be overly harsh on slaves because G-d redeemed the people out of slavery. This idea (though not in Hizkuni's name) is recorded by Abravanel, 1997, p. 344, Sarna, 1991, p. 118, and Amos Chacham, 1991, vol. 2, p. 90. Abravanel adds another idea that the laws of slavery are recorded first since slavery is also a form of murder.

Cassuto (1967, p. 266, see also Bekhor Shor on 21:2) writes that the connection with the beginning of the Decalogue is to teach that the slave goes out free after his years of service just as the Jewish people went out free from Egypt.

Notwithstanding the popularity of the connection between the beginning of the Decalogue and the beginning of the set of laws in chapter 21, I doubt this connection. If there was really such a connection then the laws of slavery should have been the first laws that were recorded after the Decalogue, but they are not, as 20:20-23 record the first laws after the Decalogue.

Luzzatto (on 21:2, see also Hertz, 1960, p. 306) suggests that the set of laws begin with laws about slaves since slaves were the weakest members of society, and this shows the Torah's concern for the downtrodden people in society. Maybe one can add that the placement of the laws of slavery first in the set of laws of parashat Mishpatim is to teach a lesson about the purpose of the ensuing laws.

The point of any justice system is to protect the weak in society since if there are no laws the strong would be able to impose their will on the weaker members of society. Again, the weakest members of society are slaves, and in the first two sets of laws concerning slaves, the Torah records how the master cannot take advantage of slaves. 21:2 records that the slave goes free after six years without any payment to the master, which means that his master cannot force him to remain a slave. Also, 21:8-11 record that a master must allow a slave girl to be redeemed, that she cannot be sold to foreigners, and if the master does not provide her with her basic rights then she goes free. The Torah is not just teaching the laws of slavery, but also the placement of the laws of slavery edifies the basic idea that the ensuing laws are to help the weaker members of society. This idea occurs again in 22:20-23, and 23:9.

The two sets of laws regarding slavery each begin with the word ki, 21:2,7, and this word ki will appear in the beginning of many laws until 22:15. This word connects the laws of slavery with the ensuing laws.

The first section after the laws of slavery, 21:12-17, records cases of capital punishment starting with laws of murder, and 21:12,15,16,17 all have the phrase mot yumat, put to death. The first law, 21:12, does not begin with the word ki, but 21:12 has the same word, ish, as in the beginning of the second law of slavery, 21:7. 21:13,14 follow 21:12 since they qualify the law of 21:12 of striking another person dead. 21:15 is then connected to 21:12 through the word makeh. 21:16 records the law of kidnapping, and is connected with 21:13, through the word yado, hand, in both verses. 21:17 then records the laws of cursing one’s parents, which is less severe than kidnapping, and this verse is connected with 21:15 through the words father and mother. (Note that the end of this section probably should have been the end of the first Torah reading in parashat Mishpatim, but since it ends on a “bad” note, the cursing of one’s parents, so the first two verses from the next section are included in the first aliyah.)

The next section is 21:18-32, which deals with four cases of doubt whether to apply capital punishment, which is less severe than the case of when the capital punishment Is not in doubt, the previous section. Each section of laws begins with the word ki, 21:18,20,22,26, like in the previous sections, 21:2,7,14. The word ish is in three of the cases in this section, 21:18,20,26, like in the previous section, 21:12,14,16, and also the similar word isha is in the other case of the section, 21:22. Also, the word to hit, hikkah appears three times in this section, 21:18,19,26, which connects with 21:15, one of the laws in the previous section. The last two laws in this section are connected through the words, teeth, shen, and eyes, ayin, 21:24, 26,27. Finally this section has the structure of a general law, 21:18,19, 22-25, and then a law of a similar case by a slave, 21:20,21,26,27. The two general laws begin similarly by referring to anashim, 21:18,22, and the laws by the slave cases refer to the male and female slaves, eved and amato, 21:20,26,27.

The next set of laws 21:28-32 deal with an ox, shor, who kills a person. This case is less severe than the previous section since here an animal is killing, while in the previous section a person struck another person. This section also begins with the word ki, 21:28, and has the same general structure of the previous section of a general law and then a law in the similar case by a slave. Also, the first two laws, 21:28,29 refers to the ish and isha, like in the previous section and in 21:7,12,14,16.

The next set of laws, 21:33-21:36 record three cases involving an ox, which connects to the previous set of laws, which also dealt with oxen, 21:28-32. The third law refers to the goring ox, nagach, 21:36, just like in 21:29 in the previous section. The word met, dead, referring to the dead animal, appears in all three cases, 21:34,35,36. The three cases all begin with the word ki, 21:33,35,36. Finally, in two of three cases, the word to pay, yeshalem, appears, 21:34,36.

The next set of laws, 21:37 and 22:1-3 relate to each other since both refer to stealing an ox or other items. This section connects with the previous section through the words yeshalem, 21:37; 22:2,3, met, 22:1, ox, 21:37; 22:3, chamor in 21:33; 22:3, and the word ki, 21:37.

The next section contains two laws of damages to the fields, 22:4,5, and both begin with the word ki. 22:4 is understood to refer to animals damaging a field, which connects to the previous sections of the ox, see Ibn Ezra on 22:4. These two laws are connected through the words be-er in both verses, though in 22:4 the word is understood to refer to animals and in 22:5 it refers to a fire. Each of the two laws also have the word yishalem like the laws in the previous sections.

The next section 22:6-13 are laws when a person watches an item for somebody else, and again the laws start with the word ki, 22:6,9,13. Furthermore, the first two cases begin with the phrase ki yeten ish, 22:6,9, and have the phrase im lo shlach yado bemelechet reahu, 22:7,10. All three laws have the word yishalem, 22:6,8,10,11,12,13,14 just like in the previous sections. Also, 22:6,7,11 refer to theft just like in 21:37; 22:1,2,3.

22:8 might seem to interrupt these two sets of laws since the verse does not involve giving an item to somebody else, but maybe it was included between 22:6,9 because of the word elokim in 22:7 and 22:8, and the phrase yeshalem shenayim which appears in 22:6,8. Also, the opening phrase of 22:8, "an ox, a donkey a sheep" is very similar to the opening phrase in 22:9, "a donkey, an ox, a sheep," see Sarna, 1991, p. 132.

The next set of laws, the last of the "ki" section, the laws of seduction, 22:15,16 also deal with financial restitution for damages but here the damages are personal, and this signals a change that the ensuing laws deal with personal status and offenses. This reason might be why this law is the last law in “ki” section. Ibn Ezra (on 22:14) suggests that this law follows the previous section since that section deals with laws of theft of money, and this section deals with theft of a person’s heart. Another possibility is the word imah, in 22:15, which appears in the previous laws 22:13,14 (imo).

The next law is 22:17 that “a sorceress you are not to let live,” which connects with the law of the previous section since both laws relate to the personal status of a female. Ibn Ezra (short comments on 21:1) suggests that it follows the law of seduction (22:15,16) since the man might use magic to attract the girl. Another possibility is that the connection is based on the similar sounds of the root of the word mecheshefa in 22:17, "ch, sh and f" with the word kesef, in 22:16; ch and k, sh and s, and f in both words.

The next law of 22:18 has the same word, shochev, as in 22:15, and the death penalty as by the mecheshefa in 22:17.

The next law, 22:19, is that a person is only to offer sacrifices to G-d and maybe it is related to 22:18 through the reference to an animal in 22:18, the item which is sacrificed in 22:19.

The next law, 22:20, not to torment the stranger, forms a new unit of moral laws, which ends with a similar law, 23:9. Maybe, 22:20 connects with 22:19 since 22:20 refers to the exodus and this is the reason why a person should not offer sacrifices to other gods, the law of 22:19, see 20:1-5.

The next laws, 22:21-23 are the laws not to harass widows and orphans and these laws are similar to the law in 22:20 not to torment the stranger. Also, similar words appear in both laws, lo toneh in 22:20 and lo te-anun in 22:21.

Afterwards 22:24-26 records laws about lending money. 22:24 connects with 22:16 through the word kesef which appears in both verses. Also, 22:24,25 begin with the word im, as does 22:22. In addition, 22:25,26 refer to a garment, simlah, just like in 22:8. Finally, 22:25,26 also record that when lending to the poor, one should not take as a collateral the person's clothing since the poor person will cry out to G-d, which connects with the crying out to G-d recorded in the previous law in 22:22.

This crying out might also be the connection with the following law, 22:27, where a person curses or cries out inappropriately. A different possibility is from Ibn Ezra (on 22:27, see also Sarna, 1991, p. 140) who quotes the Karaite commentator Yefet that the poor person who does not get his cloak back at night will not only call out to G-d but will also curse judges. Another possibility is that the word amcha in 22:27 connects with the word ami and imach in 22:24.

It is not clear the connection between the next law, 22:28, and the previous law, but maybe it is the similar sound of the phrase lo te-acher in 22:28 with the phrase in the end of 22:27, lo ta-or, see Cassuto, 1967, p. 294.

22:29 continues the idea of 22:28 of donating something to G-d, the first of the crops, the firstborn sons and the firstborn of the flock.

22:30 connects with 22:28,29 through the word lee, which appears in 22:28, 22:29 and 22:30, see Cassuto, 1967, p. 295. Note also that 22:30 ends with a reference to a dog, and this might connect back to 22:24, the prohibition of interest, neshekh, that a dog bites. This connection appears also in Devarim 23:19,20.

The next law, 23:1, the law of giving a false report, can connect to the words hearing in 22:22,26 through the word shema in 23:1.

The next set of laws, 23:2,3 seem to refer to judges and witnesses which connect thematically to 23:1 as all the verses refer to court cases. Within this section, 23:3 refers to riv, and this connects with 23:2 where the same word appears (without the yud).

The next laws, 23:4,5 both start again with the word ki, and record laws that one is to aid your enemy's animals. It is not clear how these laws relate to the previous laws, see N. Leibowitz, 1976a, pp. 425-427. Maybe the connection is the word riv again, since 23:4,5 refer to animals of a person who is hated and is your enemy, and usually the reason why one person hates another is due to a fight, riv.

The next law, 23:6 is very similar to 23:3, and the word riv appears in both verses. Is 23:3,6 a tiny bookend around 23:4,5?

23:7 uses the word rasha, and this connects with 23:1, which also has this word.

23:8 has the word tzadik and this word is mentioned twice in 23:7.

23:9 ends the bookend or unit from 22:20. Cassuto (1967, p. 298) suggests that this sentence is connected with 23:7,8, through the similar sounds of the words tirchak (23:7), tichach (23:8) and tilchatz (23:9).

The following laws, 23:10,11 record the laws of shemitta, and explain that in the seventh year, the poor will be able to eat of the fields. This connects with the prohibition of 23:6 not to subvert the rights of the poor, and in both cases the word evyon appears (Ibn Ezra, long commentary on 23:10, and Cassuto, 1967, p. 300).

The next law, 23:12, records the laws of Shabbat, which associates with the laws of shemitta in 23:10,11 by working six (years, days) and resting on the seventh (year, day). Ibn Ezra notes that 23:12 refers to the bondman and the stranger, ger, who are usually poor like the evyon. Sarna (1991, p. 144) also notes that there is chiastic relationship between the animals and the poor people in 23:11,12. In addition, the word ger in 23:12 matches up with the words ger and gerim in 23:9. Finally, the words shor, ox, and hamor, donkey, in 23:12 appear in 23:4, and hamor also appears in 23:5.

The next law, 23:13, records the prohibition of mentioning the names of foreign gods, and this introduces a new section of the festivals, that on the festivals one is to only worship G-d and not other gods, see Ibn Ezra short commentary on 23:14.  23:13 connects back to 23:1, through the words shema and yishama.

The next set of laws, 23:14-17, record laws relating to the festivals, Matzot, Shavuot and Sukkot, and begins and ends with the phrase "three times a year," 23:14,17. 23:18 then records laws of the holiday of Pesach, the bringing of the korban pesach, which connects with the holiday of Matzot, which occurs the day after the holiday of Pesach. These laws, 23:14-18, connect with the laws of Shabbat in 23:12 similar to Vayikra chapter 23 where the laws of Shabbat is recorded prior to the laws of the festivals and of the holiday of Pesach. Furthermore, by the first of the festivals, chag ha-matzot, the number seven appears, 23:15, and this number also occurs in 23:11,12 by shemitta and Shabbat. In addition, by the other two festivals, the reaping (Shavuot) and the harvest (Sukkot) festivals, there are references to working in the field, tizrah and asif, 23:16, and both words appear in 23:10. Similarly, the word sadeh occurs both in 23:11 and 23:16. Also, 23:12 records that people do their actions, maasecha, for six days, as the lead in to Shabbat, and 23:16 refers to the people’s actions, maasecha by both the holiday of the beginning of the harvest (Shavuot) and the holiday at the end of the harvest (Sukkot). Other connecting words with the previous sections, are shanah, year, in 23:10,14,16,17, the word mitzrayim, Egypt, in 23:9 and 23:15, the word shamor in 23:13 and in 23:15, and the word remember, zachor in 23:13,17. Also, within the short section of 23:14-18, the word chag appears five times in 23:14,15,16 and 23:18.

The next laws and the end of the law section are the laws of donating the first crops to G-d and not to boil a goat in its mother's milk, 23:19. It is not clear the connection between these two laws but these laws parallel the laws of 22:28-30 and form a type of bookend around the section of 23:1-18. The first law of 23:19 connects with the laws of the festivals through the word bekurei in 23:16,19, and the idea of offering something to G-d. The Rashbam (on 23:19, quoted by Hizkuni on 23:19 and Sarna, 1991, p. 147) suggests that the second law of 23:19 also relates to the festivals since on the festivals many animals are killed and people might have been tempted to cook the animals in their mother’s milk. A word connection with the previous section, 23:18, is that the word for milk, helev in 23:19 is also in 23:18, though there it refers to fat. Another case of two words that sound similar but have different meanings is boker in 23:18 and bekurei in 23:19.

Afterwards, 23:20-33 record a brief synopsis of the rewards and punishments for following and not following the laws, and this type of section always appears in the covenantal process.

The final set of instructions that Moshe received during this conversation with G-d was about the ceremony that was to occur the following day, and this was recorded in 24:1,2, see Luzzatto on 24:1 and Benno Jacob, 1992, p. 739.

Bibliography:

Abravanel (1437-1508), 1997, Commentary on Shemot. 1999, Jerusalem: Horev.

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

Chacham, Amos, 1991, Da'at Mikra: Commentary on Shemot, Jerusalem: Mossad Harav Kook.

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

Jacob, Benno (1869-1945), 1992, The second book of the Bible: Exodus, translated with an introduction by Walter Jacob, Hoboken: Ktav Publishing House.

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

Sarna, Nahum (1923-2005), 1991, The JPS Torah Commentary: Exodus, Philadelphia: The Jewish Publication Society.

Shemot 2:2-6 – Moshe, a foundling?

Shemot 2:2 records Moshe’s birth and that Moshe's mother hid him, apparently from the Egyptians, for the first three months of his life. After three months, she was no longer able to continue hiding him, 2:3. Was this because she had a close call that some Egyptian soldiers just barely missed finding him? She then build a basket for him and placed him in the reeds by the Nile, and lo behold, Pharaoh's daughter found him, 2:3-6. Was this a coincidence? Moshe's mother did not place Moshe in the middle of the Nile where he could have floated away, but in a specific place where the reeds held the basket from moving. Did Moshe's mother think that someone would find him at the specific place where she placed him? Was that a known place for people to bath? Also, how was she able to get to this place if the princess of Egypt bathed there?

It must be that the place where Moshe was placed was a pubic bathing place off the Nile (a canal?), which was safe from crocodiles, and it was open both to commoners and to the royal family though at different times. For instance it could be that in mid-day it was open to the public, and during this time period, Moshe's mother brought him and placed him in the reeds. At this same time, Moshe's sister also hid herself in the area, 2:4, as how else could she have gotten so close to the princess to speak to her, 2:7. After the commoners were cleared out, then the daughter of Pharaoh came to bath, and found Moshe. 2:6 records that Moshe was crying, and it is possible that he had been crying for a while, and this is what led Pharaoh's daughter to find him.

Thus, Moshe being found in the basket was most likely not a coincidence, but Moshe's mother placed him in a place where she knew that Pharaoh's daughter was known to bath. It is even possible that Moshe's sister would have taken Moshe out of the basket, if Pharaoh's daughter did not find him since he could only have survived a short while in the basket. Accordingly, Moshe's mother did not abandon Moshe.

It has been pointed that Moshe's early life follows the literary pattern of the birth of heroes (Fox, 1995, p. 260, see also Raglan, 1936). This pattern includes that the father is a relative of the mother, there is an attempt to kill the child at birth, the child is abandoned at birth, foster parents raise the child, and eventually the child becomes a hero. According to this idea, maybe the Torah recorded how Moshe's early years followed this pattern in order for people to be more inclined to accept Moshe. However, Sarna (1991, pp. 267,268) points out that there are significant differences between Moshe and the hero pattern. For instance, usually the child is abandoned to die while here Moshe was not abandoned at all. Also, usually the child was born into royalty and then when abandoned grew up in humble circumstances, while here Moshe's real parents were slaves and the daughter of the king adopted and raised him.

Instead, maybe the point of this episode is to show that Moshe was a regular human being. Moshe was about to perform many miracles, which might lead one to think that Moshe was almost like a god. Thus, the Torah records a normal birth for Moshe that he did not just appear, and we have an image of Moshe as a baby, crying, which gives us a depiction of Moshe as a regular baby as opposed to always thinking of Moshe as a man who does miracles. Furthermore, we see how precarious his life was when he was a baby, and this precariousness also makes him more human.

This idea suggests a reason why the Torah records Moshe’s birth and not Avraham’s. We are not told Avraham's early childhood since he did not perform miracles, but by Moshe, with his incomparable greatness, the Torah wants to point out from the very beginning that he was a human being and not divine.

Bibliography:

Fox, Everett, 1995, The Five Books of Moses: A new translation, New York: Schocken Books.

Raglan, Lord (Fitzroy Richard Somerset), 1936, The Hero: A study in tradition, myth and drama, London: Methuen & Co., Ltd.

Sarna, Nahum (1923-2005), 1991, The JPS Torah Commentary: Exodus, Philadelphia: The Jewish Publication Society.

Bereshit 44:16 – The middle of the game between Yosef and his brothers: You win

בראשית מד:טז - "ויאמר יהודה מה נאמר לאדני מה נדבר ומה נצטדק? האלהים מצא את עון עבדיך, הננו עבדים לאדני גם אנחנו גם אשר נמצא הגביע בידו."

After Yosef's steward “found” Yosef's goblet in Binyamin’s pack, Bereshit 44:12, the situation for the brothers was more precarious than ever.  When the brothers first came to Egypt, Yosef accused them of being spies without any evidence, 42:9, but now there was some apparent evidence that they were thieves.  At a minimum Binyamin was going to be a slave, or all of them could have been punished.

Donald Seybold (1974, p. 70) notes that the situation was completely reversed from when the brothers threw Yosef into the pit, 37:24.  Egypt was the pit for the brothers, and Yosef had the option of killing them or making them slaves.

In this desperate situation, Yehuda stated, "What shall we say to my lord? What shall we speak and how shall we prove ourselves right? Elohim has found out your servant's crime. Here we are, slaves to my lord, both we and the one in whose hand the goblet was found," 44:16, slight revision of Altar, 2004, p. 256, translation. This statement by Yehuda raises several questions.

What does it mean "Elohim has found out your servant's crime?" Elohim is usually translated as G-d, but was Yehuda then talking to G-d? Was Yehuda telling Yosef that G-d was controlling the scene and not Yosef?  What does it mean "found out?" Did G-d know not beforehand? Rashi (on 44:16) explains that Yehuda was talking on the side, and noting that G-d was paying them back for their sin of selling Yosef.  Yet, how were they being punished?  Only Binyamin was going to be enslaved.  Yehuda would have let his father down, but he could justify it by saying that it was not his fault, and for the other brothers there was no punishment at all.

In addition, why did Yehuda offer that everybody would be slaves?  It was worse for all the brothers to be slaves instead of just Binyamin. If the goal was to free Binyamin, then it would have been better if the brothers were free men which would have enabled them to earn money to redeem Binyamin from slavery.  Or, Yehuda could have offered that he would be a slave instead of Binyamin, which he did later, 44:33, or that everybody would be slaves instead of Binyamin? 

Hizkuni (on 44:16, also see Luzzatto on 44:16), explains that Yehuda was worried that Binyamin was going to be killed since the brothers had stated, before the goblet was found, that the person in whose possession the goblet was found should be killed, 44:9.  Thus, the offer to be slaves was better than Binyamin being killed.  However, it seems that the steward had rejected the brother's statement that the guilty person should be killed, 44:10.

A different idea is that, as we discussed on 43:23-34, "The middle of the game: Know thy enemy," Yehuda knew that he was speaking to Yosef and then his offer for all the brothers to be slaves was both an admission to Yosef that the brothers were wrong for throwing him into the pit, and an acknowledgement of the realization of Yosef’s dreams, 37:8.  Also, in 44:16, Yehuda twice referred to Yosef as his lord (and many times in his great  speech in 44:18,19,20,22,33) and this was copying how Yaakov had spoken to Esav when they met when Yaakov was returning to the land of Israel, 32:5.  Just like Yaakov was trying to "give back" Yitzhak's blessing to Esav, Yehuda was acknowledging that Yosef was the dominant brother as Yosef has dreamed.  Furthermore, in the beginning of the verse, “what shall we say to my lord?” Yehuda was saying that they could not defend what they did to Yosef when they threw him into the pit and allowed or caused him to be sold as a slave, which again was an admission of their guilt.

The word Elohim in 44:16 refers to Yosef and his steward and not to G-d, as in Shemot 21:6, and Shemot 22:7,8, where the word refers to judges.  The phrase "Elohim has found out your servant's crime" means that Yehuda was telling Yosef, that you, Yosef and your steward, made us understand what we did to you by your continued re-enactment of the sale with the silver on their first visit to Egypt, 42:28, and now with the goblet.    

Yehuda thought that this admission of guilt and his acknowledgement of Yosef would end the game with Yosef since he admitted that Yosef had won, but this was not sufficient for Yosef, 44:17.  Accordingly, in Yehuda’s great speech in the ensuing verses, he tried a different track.  In the speech, he made clear to Yosef the pain Yosef was causing to Yaakov, and this worked, 44:18-34, see our discussion on 44:18-45:3, "Almost the end of the game: Yehuda’s great speech."   

References:

Seybold, Donald, 1974, Paradox and Symmetry in the Joseph Narrative, in Literary Interpretation of Biblical Narrative, edited by Kenneth R. R. Gros Louis, with James S. Ackerman and Thayer S. Warshaw, Nashville: Abingdon Press, pp. 59-73.

Bereshit 25:28; 27:3,4,25,27,33 – Yitzhak and Esav: Love the hunter

בראשית כה:כח - ויאהב יצחק את עשו כי ציד בפיו ורבקה אהבת את יעקב. 

Bereshit 25:28 records that Yitzhak loved/favored Esav, and the Torah explains that this favoritism was because of the "game in his mouth." Who does the phrase “his mouth” refer to: Esav’s mouth or Yitzhak’s mouth? Also, how does the "game in the mouth" explain Yitzhak's love/ favoritism of Esav?

Rashi (on 25:28) quotes two explanations. One, the phrase "game in his mouth," refers to game in the mouth of Yitzhak that Esav regularly brought Yitzhak food that he got from hunting, and Yitzhak loved Esav due to these gifts of food. This explanation is difficult for two reasons. One, Yitzhak desired to eat mataamin, 27:4,7, which is meat after it had been seasoned and cooked. Rivka when she helped Yaakov to trick Yitzhak said that she would prepare mataamin for Yitzhak, 27:9,14,17, and when Esav came to Yitzhak to be blessed, Esav stated that he brought the mataamin, 27:31. We see that Yitzhak did not like raw meat. Two, is food really the reason why a father would favor one son over another?

Rashi's second explanation of 25:28 is from the Midrash (Bereshit Rabbah 63:10) that the phrase his mouth in 25:28 is referring to Esav's mouth, as Esav tricked Yitzhak by his speech that Yitzhak would think that Esav was a loving son. Following this idea, S. R. Hirsch (1989, p. 427) suggests that the phrase "game in his mouth," could mean that Esav "enthralled Yitzhak with tales of adventures and deeds of derring-do at his hunting," and that Esav's "lusty active nature" appealed to Yitzhak.

Ibn Ezra (on 25:28, see also Altar, 2004, p. 130) explains that the phrase "game in his mouth," refers to Esav’s mouth that Esav would literally bring home some of his hunt in his mouth, like an animal, a wild animal. We see this uncouth behavior again when he demands the soup from Yaakov, 25:30, "let me gulp down some of this red red stuff," (Altar, 2004, p. 131, translation). With this understanding, the Torah is presenting a grotesque portrayal of Esav from the beginning of the story.

Why would Yitzhak love Esav because Esav had game in his mouth? My thought is that Yitzhak's love of Esav was due to the oracle that Rivka heard from G-d about her sons, 25:23. The third phrase in the oracle was that one brother would be mightier than the other, and presumably the mightier of the two would be the dominant brother. Yitzhak believed that the dominant brother was going to be Esav since he thought that Esav the hunter would dominate Yaakov, the one who sat in tents, 25:27. For Yitzhak, Esav's uncouth behavior was an indication that Esav was destined to be the dominant brother. Could such an uncouth successful hunter lose a physical brawl to a person who lived in the tents? Hence, it was Esav's behavior of having game in his mouth that led Yitzhak to love him since he thought it indicated that Esav was the blessed son by G-d. Note, Yitzhak was correct that the brothers would have a physical fight to determine who would be the dominant brother, 32:22-32, see our discussion on the verses, Who fought with Yaakov?, just that he was incorrect who would win the fight.

This idea is based on the understanding that Rivka told Yitzhak the oracle, which is very reasonable, and this is indicated by the blessing that Yitzhak intended to give Esav but gave to Yaakov by mistake. 27:29 records that as part of the blessing, Yitzhak stated that Yaakov would be “the master of his brother,” and that “your mother’s son would bow down to you.” After Esav asked for another blessing, Yitzhak said there was no other blessing since he had blessed Yaakov that he would be Esav’s master, 27:37. The most Yitzhak was able to bless Esav was that Esav would be able to break free from Yaakov’s rule, 27:40. If the blessing was for material goods, then Yitzhak could have also blessed Esav for material goods. Accordingly, the main blessing that Yitzhak had intended for Esav was to bless Esav that he was to be the dominant brother. Note, this blessing was unrelated to the covenantal blessing in 28:3,4, see our discussion on 28:3,4, "Endogamy"

It is strange for a father to bless one son to be dominant over another son. Why not bless both sons? It is true that a king picks one son to be his successor, but here there was no kingdom to be ruled. Instead, Yitzhak gave this blessing for one brother to be dominant because he knew that the oracle had stated that one brother would be mightier and dominate the other.

This understanding of 25:28 is also based on the idea that the oracle did not have a single undisputed interpretation. While many people understand the oracle as meaning the elder (Esav) would serve the younger (Yaakov), as pointed out by the Radak (on 25:23, also see Alter, 2004, p. 129) the oracle could also be understood, that Yaakov was to serve Esav, "the elder, the younger shall serve." Thus, Yitzhak attempted to infer who was to be the mightier dominant son of the oracle by their actions, and his mind it was obvious that Esav was to be the dominant son.

This idea that Yitzhak loved Esav since he thought that Esav was going to be the dominant son since he was a hunter who was also very uncouth can explain several verses in chapter 27. 27:3,4 (also see 27:25,33) record that Yitzhak requested from Esav to go hunting and to prepare the meat in order that he would bless Esav. Why was it necessary for Esav to go hunting to receive the blessing? The answer is that Esav's ability to hunt was an indication to Yitzhak that Esav was destined to be the dominant brother, and Yitzhak wanted this "proof" prior to giving the blessing. This proof for Yitzhak was stronger than his disappointment in Esav for Esav’s choice of wives, 26:35.

27:27 records that when Yitzhak smelled Yaakov's clothing (thinking that they were Esav's), immediately prior to reciting the blessing intended for Esav, Yitzhak said "See, the smell of my son is like the smell of a field that (asher) G-d has blessed," (Fox, 1995, p. 125, translation). This verse is usually understood to mean that Yitzhak is noting how G-d has blessed the fields, but why should a blessing of the fields be relevant at this particular time? The Bekhor Shor (on 27:27) explains that the phrase means that Yitzhak was saying that Esav had been blessed by G-d and the proof was that G-d had helped him hunt successfully so quickly. Or, Yitzhak all along thought that Esav's prowess as a hunter (that his smell was the smell of the field, see also 25:27) was a sign that Esav had been blessed by G-d, and Yitzhak was then saying that since G-d had blessed Esav, he too was going to bless Esav. With this reading, the last three words of 27:27 are somewhat separate from the previous words, the word, asher, translated above as that should be translated as who, the phrase then is “Who G-d has blessed,” and the phrase refers to Esav, who Yitzhak thought was blessed by G-d.

Finally, after Yitzhak learned that he had been tricked by Yaakov, he said that Yaakov was still to be blessed, 27:33. Maybe Yitzhak said this because he thought that blessings could not be rescinded or maybe he said this because he was somewhat impressed with Yaakov that Yaakov was able to trick him. Previously, Yitzhak thought that for sure Esav, the uncouth hunter, was destined to be the dominant brother, but maybe after Yaakov tricked him, he realized that Yaakov could be the mightier brother.