Bar-Ilan University

Parshat Bo 5774/January 4, 2014

Parashat Hashavua Study Center

Lectures on the weekly Torah reading by the faculty of Bar-Ilan University in Ramat Gan, Israel. A project of the Faculty of Jewish Studies, Paul and Helene Shulman Basic Jewish Studies Center, and the Office of the Campus Rabbi. Published on the Internet under the sponsorship of Bar-Ilan University's International Center for Jewish Identity. Prepared for Internet Publication by the Computer Center Staff at Bar-Ilan University.

1001

The Plague of Darkness—Social Aspects

By Devora Ushpizai*

Then the Lord said to Moses, "Hold out your arm toward the sky that there may be darkness upon the land of Egypt, a darkness that can be touched." Moses held out his arm toward the sky and thick darkness descended upon all the land of Egypt for three days. People could not see one another, and for three days no one could get up from where he was, but all the Israelites enjoyed light in their dwellings" (Ex. 10:21-23).

We preface our discussion by noting that at the beginning of this week's reading the Lord said to Moses, "Come to Pharaoh, for I have hardened his heart" (Ex. 10:1). The word "come" (Heb.: bo) stands out in contrast to the word one might expect—"go"—which was used until to now: "Go to Pharaoh in the morning" (Ex. 7:15). This appears to be a sort of invitation, the Holy One, blessed be He, inviting Moses to go with Him to Pharaoh,[1] for the mission was not any easy one and therefore the Holy One, blessed be He, hinted to him that He would accompany him, as it were.

This week's reading describes the last three plagues, matching the value in gematria of the word bo. We shall focus on the second plague in the weekly portion, that of darkness, the ninth of the ten plagues.

Examining the nature of the plagues and their intensity, we see that they were in ascending order of severity. Thus the plague of darkness, directly preceding the plague of the firstborns, which ushered in redemption, was supposedly extremely severe. What was so dreadful about this plague? It appears, on the contrary, the least severe of them all. The plagues that preceded it caused bodily harm, such as lice and boils, or hurt the vegetation or animals, such as the plague of wild beasts of prey and the like. But what was so hard to bear about the plague of darkness?

Another question: generally each plague lasted for seven days and followed a period of warning of around three weeks, but with the plague of darkness, after no more than three days Pharaoh summoned Moses and said submissively, "Go, worship the Lord!" (Ex. 10:24). He curtailed his preconditions and made their going dependent only on leaving their flocks and herds behind, agreeing that even the children may go (Ex. 10:24). Here the question becomes all the more poignant: what was so dreadful about the plague of darkness that Pharaoh broke down after a mere three days?

Below we shall present interpretations that follow the Mekhilta and Rashi. The darkness was so heavy, thick and palpable, that it could be touched—something that was frightening beyond all comparison. A characteristic of fear is that it paralyzes people, therefore whoever was sitting could not stand, and whoever was standing could not sit down or move; hence, it was also impossible for them to light candles. This was truly frightful. Egypt was paralyzed by terrifying fear and enveloped in thick darkness. Thus Rashi interpreted "a darkness that can be touched" (Ex. 10:21) following the midrash: "It was doubled and redoubled, and so thick that it was palpable."

Rabbi Baruch Epstein, in his commentary Torah Temimah, offers an original way of understanding what was meant by darkness so thick that it could be touched:

A darkness that can be touched—this indicates that those Egyptians who were standing could not sit down, and those who were sitting could not stand, because they were groping in the dark, as it is written: darkness that can be touched (Mekhilta Be-Shalah 4). The midrashim explain that the darkness was as thick as a dinar [a coin], and this is very strange, for what sense is there in giving a tangible dimension to darkness. This requires investigation also because according to Rashi throughout the duration of the plague there was only night and no day at all; therefore the order of the created world changed, but this is highly problematic insofar as the Holy One, blessed be He, promised Noah that "day and night shall not cease" (Gen. 8:22).

Were I not hesitant about inventing something quite new, I would say that the darkness was not in the air, rather only in the people's eyes; that is, they had something obscuring their pupils, and that thing which obscured their vision could be touched with the hand and was as thick as a dinar. This explains everything.

Now let us focus on the text, "People could not see one another, and for three days no one could get up from where he was" (Ex. 10:23). In my opinion, here lies the crux of the matter. When a person does not see others and does not get up to help them, when a person is not sensitive to the difficulties and condition of others—that is the meaning of "darkness like that in Egypt."

Man, as we know, is a social creature and cannot live without society. Not only for receiving physical assistance when sick, or weak, or poor, and not only in order to share our joys or sorrows, but even simply to converse, study, exchange views, and in short to exist. The principle "It is not good for man to be alone" (Gen. 2:18) holds not only with regard to couples, but also for every human being as a social creature. In the normal way of things a person cannot live alone on an isolated island. Even if people occasionally seek to withdraw somewhat from the surrounding society and find solitude, this is usually only for a shorter or longer vacation—an interlude before returning to normal life in society.

One of the more severe punishments today is putting a person in solitary confinement, in isolation. Even Jewish law has a punishment of ostracism, by which a person is excluded from society, may not be counted in a minyan, may not come in contact with others, may not be visited, studied with, or the like. This was an incomparably severe punishment. The Sages expressed its gravity in the phrase, hevruta o mituta—either be in society, or die—and recounted that Honi the Circle-drawer, upon awakening after having slept seventy years, when he could not find a fellow with whom to study Torah, died of sorrow (Ta`anit 23a). Further testimony is provided by the bitter end of the fascinating saga of Rabbi Johanan and Reish Lakish. When Reish Lakish died and Rabbi Johanan could not find himself a suitable study partner, people prayed for mercy for him, asking that he die. For he could not go on living without fellowship, as we read in Bava Metzia (84a): "Thus he went on rending his garments and weeping, 'Where are you, O son of Lakish,' and he cried thus until he went mad. Thereupon the Rabbis prayed for him, and he died."

The ancient world recognized the value of social relations. This is attested, for one, by architectural style: the houses were built in clusters around a common courtyard, so that highly developed neighborly relations emerged (sometimes exceeding the limits and hindering privacy). In contrast, modern architecture encourages excessive privacy, so that people frequently do not even know their neighbors.

The 1950's saw the emergence of an extensive body of literature and films dealing with the loneliness of modern man living in huge concrete building in a metropolis, swallowed up in the tide of millions of people on the streets of Manhattan, for example, or in trains packed with people, yet feeling alienated and lonely.

"People could not see one another"—such is darkness. Social cooperation and awareness of the condition of one's fellow—such is light. May we live to see the day when "all the Israelites enjoy light in their dwellings."

Translated by Rachel Rowen

“A Night of Vigil”

Benjamin Salant

Kibbutz Sa’ad

What is a night of vigil? The phrase appears in this week's parasha, twice in a single verse: "That was for the Lord a night of vigil to bring them out of the land of Egypt; that same night is the Lord’s, one of vigil for all the children of Israel throughout the ages” (Ex. 12:42). This question is asked in the gemara, the midrash, and explained by many biblical commentators.

Today we associate the Seder night, the eve of Passover, with the term leil shimurim, a night of vigil (the root sh-m-r means "to watch"). This biblical term somehow changed its meaning through association with Tikkun leil Shavuot, the custom of sitting up all night and studying on the eve of the Feast of Weeks, Shavuot. From there, according to the Even Shoshan dictionary, the term was understood to mean “a night of wakefulness, without slumber," which is what the Seder night often is. The Mandelkern concordance ties it to “the part of the night watch (Hebrew ashmoret) during which miracles took place.” Since this is the only place that the term appears in Scripture, a great many views and interpretations of its meaning have been offered.

The Tannaim

Tractate Rosh ha-Shanah 11b presents two views, set forth by two of the greatest tannaim: “Rabbi Joshua said: They were redeemed in the month of Nisan, and the future redemption will take place in Nisan. Whence do we know this? Since Scripture says leil shimurim, a night that has been specially set aside [meshumar], and comes from the six days of Creation.” Rabbi Joshua associates the double appearance of the word shimurim in the verse with the notion of two redemptions, one from Egypt and the other, the redemption that will come in the future. Rabbi Eliezer, however, has the following to say on the same verse: “It is a night specially set aside as protection against mazikin-- harmful elements in the world,” meaning that on this night, the eve of Passover, we are protected from harm. Later the amora, Rav Nahman, also ascribed to this view: “Scripture says “leil shimurim, a night that is specially set aside against mazikin" (Pesahim 109b).

A more detailed version of Rabbi Joshua and Rabbi Eliezer’s remarks is found in the Mekhilta of Rabbi Ishmael, Bo (Tractate de-Pis’ha, ch. 14):

A night of watching unto the Lord, etc. In that night they were redeemed, and in that night they will be redeemed in the future – these are the words of Rabbi Joshua, as it is said: “that same night is the Lord’s.” Rabbi Eliezer says: In that night they were redeemed; in the future, however, they will not be redeemed in that night but in the month of Tishre, as it is said: “Blow the horn on the new moon, etc.” (Ps. 81:4). Why? “For it is a law for Israel, etc.” So what are we to learn from the words, “that same night is the Lord’s”? That it was none other than the night on which the Holy One, blessed be He, told our patriarch Abraham: Abraham, on this night I shall redeem your sons. When the time came, the Holy One, blessed be He, did not forestall it even by the blink of an eye. Hence, it is a night “of vigil for all the children of Israel throughout the ages,” indicating that all of Israel are to be vigilant on it. [1]

Nighttime Miracles

In the above text two items are added to Rabbi Eliezer’s opinion—the date of the future redemption and the promise given Abraham. The Tanhuma adds a further element, emphasizing that many miracles to save Israel were performed by night (Warsaw ed., par. 8):

That night G-d came to Balaam, etc. (Num. 22:20) – in accord with the verse, “That was for the Lord a night of vigil” (Ex. 12:42); and all the miracles that were done for Israel, delivering them from the wicked, occurred in the night. To wit: “But G-d appeared to Laban the Aramean in a dream by night” (Gen. 31:24), “But G-d came to Abimelech in a dream by night” (Gen. 20:3), and “At night, he … deployed against them” (Gen. 14:15), and finally, “In the middle of the night…” (Ex. 12:29).

Other parallel versions and variants appear in the Yalkut and in the proem to Lamentations Rabbah. Another interesting version appears in Exodus Rabbah (ch. 18, par. 12): [2]

On the same day as they descended to Egypt they left Egypt, and on that same day Joseph came out of prison, therefore this night is one of great rejoicing for all Israel, as it is said, “that same night is the Lord’s, one of vigil for all the children of Israel throughout the ages” (Ex. 12:42). In this world He wrought a miracle for them in the night, which was a miracle that passes, but in time to come the night will become day, as it is said, “And the light of the moon shall become like the light of the sun, and the light of the sun shall become sevenfold, like the light of the seven days” (Isa. 3026), like the light that the Lord created at the outset but sequestered in the Garden of Eden.

Why does it say, “That was for the Lord a night of vigil”? Since on that night the righteous had redemption, just as Israel were redeemed when they left Egypt; on that night He delivered Hezekiah, on that night He delivered Hananiah and his friends from the furnace, on that night he delivered Daniel from the lion’s den, and on that night the Messiah and Elijah will be revealed, as it is said: “The watchman replied, ‘Morning came, and so did night’” (Isa. 21:12).

This optimistic formulation is presented in the name of Rabbi Shmuel ben Nahman (an amora from the land of Israel). Aside from the elements of joy, light, redemption, and deliverance, it carries good tidings for the future: on this night, a night of vigil, the Messiah and Elijah will come.

Summary

Let us summarize the views presented in the gemara and midrash. According to Rabbi Joshua, the night of vigil was destined for two acts of redemption, redemption from Egypt and the future redemption, and both take place in the month of Nisan. According to Rabbi Eliezer, the special aspect of the night of vigil is that it is destined to protect us from those who seek our harm.

This view, as we noted, was also ascribed to by Rabbi Nahman. It is also recorded in the Halakhah. The Shulhan Arukh says of the Seder night, that it is “a night guarded against those doing harm, and on this night one should not fear any danger” (Orah Hayyim 481.2). There is therefore a tradition not to recite the Shema upon going to bed that evening.

Biblical Commentators

Puzzlement over the meaning of this term is also evident in the Aramaic translations of the Bible and in the works of traditional exegetes. Onkelos explains it simply as a “night of vigil,” meaning that the night is safeguarded by the Lord for this specific time in order to take them out of Egypt. The translation ascribed to (Pseudo) Jonathan ben Uzziel says (in free translation):

This night is called leil shimurim because it is reserved [Heb. nishmar] for four instances of Revelation: the revelation of the Lord of the Universe during Creation, the Lord’s revelation to Abraham, the Lord’s revelation in Egypt during the plague of first-borns, and the Lord’s revelation in the future, redeeming Israel from subsequent exiles. [3]

Rashi cites the ideas in the gemara and the midrash, as presented above.

Rashbam and Nahmanides emphasize the idea of expectation. That is, just as the Lord waited for this night to arrive in order to take the Israelites out of Egypt, so the children of Israel wait for this night in order to celebrate the Passover.

Sforno (based on Tractate Rosh ha-Shanah 11) emphasizes the expectation of two acts of redemption, the first delivering them from Egypt, and the second the redemption destined to come in the future.

Ibn Ezra, in his longer commentary (based on the Passover Haggadah) says: “Some interpret this as meaning that they not sleep, but only give thanks and tell of the Lord’s mighty acts during the exodus from Egypt. This is hinted at by the Sages, when they say: The time has come for morning recitation of the Shema.” Apparently Ibn Ezra was the first to interpret this expression according to the sense in which it is generally understood today: a night devoted to study.

Hizkuni follows the approach taken by Ibn Ezra, interpreting leil shimurim as a night that is to be kept, not for sleeping, but for giving thanks and recounting the mighty miracles that the Lord wrought for us on that same night.

As we said above, the reason for the multiplicity of views about the term, leil shimurim, is that it is a unique term in Scriptures (appearing twice, but only in a single verse), and hence is difficult to understand. Another difficulty is presented by the fact that in its first appearance it is the night of vigil of the Lord's, and in its second, of the children of Israel.

[1] The question of whether the future redemption will occur in Nisan or Tishre is discussed by Rabbi Eliezer and Rabbi Joshua in Tractate Rosh ha-Shanah 11a: “Rabbi Eliezer says: in Tishre the world was created, and in Tishre they are destined to be redeemed,” whereas Rabbi Joshua says: in Nisan the world was created and in Nisan they are destined to be redeemed.”

[2] Ha-Levi edition, Mahberot le-Sifrut, 1959.

[3] The Jerusalem Talmud also has a passage about four acts of revelation, however the formulation there is both longer and different.

Bar-Ilan University

Parshat Hashavua Study Center

Parshat Bo 5776/January 16, 2016

This series of faculty lectures on the weekly Parsha is made possible by the Department of Basic Jewish Studies, the Paul and Helene Shulman Basic Jewish Studies Center, the Office of the Campus Rabbi, Bar-Ilan University's International Center for Jewish Identity and the Computer Center Staff at Bar-Ilan University.

Please feel free to like our facebook page: https://www.facebook.com/BIUParsha.

For inquiries, contact Avi Woolf at: opdycke1861@yahoo.com.

1104

Divine Justice in the Plague of the First-borns

By Gilead Sasson*

That the Lord should strike at those who have not sinned was questioned by Abraham: “Will you sweep away the innocent along with the guilty?” (Gen. 18:23). When it comes to the plague of the first-borns, there is reason to question the Lord’s actions doubly. Firstly, why did He strike at all the first-borns in Egypt, even those who had not enslaved the Israelites? And why did He also strike at the first-borns among the cattle, as becomes evident from Moses’ words (Ex. 11:4-5):

Moses said, “Thus says the Lord: Toward midnight I will go forth among the Egyptians, and every first-born in the land of Egypt shall die, from the first-born of Pharaoh who sits on his throne to the first-born of the slave girl who is behind the millstones; and all the first-born of the cattle.”

The Sages addressed the question why the innocent were also stricken, and gave several explanations in Mekhilta de-Rabbi Ishmael (Tractate De-Pishah 13, Horowitz ed., p. 43, Lauterbach ed., p. 98-99):

…to the first-born of the captive (Ex. 12:29). But how did the captives sin? It was only that the captives should not say: “Our deity brought this visitation upon the Egyptians. Our deity is strong, for it stood up for itself. Our deity is strong, for the visitation did not prevail over us.”

Another interpretation: This is to teach you that the captives used to rejoice over every decree which Pharaoh decreed against Israel. For it is said, “He that is glad at calamity shall not be unpunished” (Prov. 17:5)…And not the captives alone acted thus but also the Egyptian manservants and maidservants, for it is said: “even the first-born of the maidservant” (Ex. 11:5).

And all the first-born of the cattle. But how did the cattle sin? It was only that the Egyptians should not say: “Our own deity has brought this visitation upon us. Our deity is strong, for it stood up for itself. Our deity is strong, for this visitation did not prevail over it.”

The first answer implies that the first-born of the captives were killed because, had they been spared, the captives might think their deities were the ones who struck at the first-borns of Egypt and that they had protected them. The second answer explains that the first-born captives rejoiced over the enslavement of the Israelites and therefore were punished.

As for the first-born of the cattle, the answer here is almost identical to the first explanation regarding first-born captives, but its implications are different. The visitation upon the first-born of the cattle, whom the Egyptians worshipped, was to make it clear to the Egyptians that it was not their own deities causing the plague, rather the Lord, the G-d of Israel.

All three explanations in the Mekhilta aim at justifying the Lord striking at all the first-borns in Egypt. According to the second response, regarding the first-borns of the captives, all were punished because they all had sinned. But according to the other two explanations, it was not a matter of having sinned but rather of apprehension about what they might think.

In the Mekhilta de-Rabbi Simeon bar Yohai, alongside similar explanations to those in the Mekhilta de-Rabbi Ishmael, is an explanation based on a different reading of the scriptural verses. We quote (Mekhilta de-Rabbi Simeon bar Yohai, Epstein-Melamed ed., ch. 12:29, p. 28):

To the first-born of the captive (Ex. 12:29)—from this we learn that they took them captive. To the first-born of the maidservant (Ex. 11:5)—from this we learn that the Egyptians conquered them and enslaved them. Who is behind the millstone (Ex. 11:5)—we learn that they made them do hard labor.

According to this reading, the word “first-born” refers to the first-born of the Egyptians, but the words “captive,” “maidservant,” and “behind the millstone” are understood as referring to the Israelites. Thus the Egyptians were punished for enslaving the Israelites by taking them captive and putting them to hard labor, such as behind the millstone. This reading, too, omits any argument pertaining to injustice because we are not dealing with innocent people but with the first-borns of Egypt who enslaved the Israelites.[2]

The issue of the Lord’s justice comes up a second time with respect to marking the homes of the Israelites with blood. If the first-borns were going to be killed by the Lord, why did the Israelites have to mark their homes with blood? Why be apprehensive that the Lord might harm the first-borns of the Israelites—after all, they had not sinned? According to a homily in Mekhilta de-Rabbi Ishmael, it was not the Lord who smote the first-borns (Tractate De-Pishah 11, Horowitz ed., p. 38; Lauterbach ed., p. 85):

None of you shall go outside the door of his house until morning (Ex. 12:22). This tells us the angel, once permission to harm is given him, does not discriminate between the righteous and the wicked.[3]

This homily portrays a situation in which the destroying angel, an emissary of the Lord, destroys indiscriminately. The angel also endangers those who do not deserve to die, and therefore even the righteous must beware of it. The one who brings destruction and strikes the first-borns of Egypt is mentioned in the Torah, but the phrasing of the text is ambiguous as to whether it is the Lord or the mashkhit (“Destroyer”) who strikes the first-borns (Ex. 12:12-13):

For that night I will go through the land of Egypt and strike down every first-born in the land of Egypt, both man and beast; and I will mete out punishments to all the gods of Egypt, I the Lord. And the blood on the houses where you are staying shall be a sign for you: when I see the blood I will pass over you, so that there will be no plague on you, to destroy you [le-mashkhit] when I strike the land of Egypt.

To solve the question of how it could be that the Lord does not know to distinguish between the first-borns of the Egyptians and the first-borns of the Israelites, the Mekhilta attributes the act only to the angel, the Destroyer.[4] Exodus Rabbah, however, presents another homily that attributes the plague to the Destroyer but also gives the Lord a role (Exodus Rabbah 18.7):

What comes before? And the Lord will pass over the door (Ex. 12:23)…G-d, as it were, stood at the door at that hour…This is the usual practice. Just as a butcher leads his sheep into [the pen] and marks with red paint those which he intends to slaughter so as to distinguish them from those he wishes to keep alive, so does it say, “He will see the blood on the lintel” (loc. cit.). He stood at the door, as it were, and thrust away the Destroyer that he should not smite Israel.

In this homily the Lord is portrayed not as potentially harming the Israelite first-borns, rather as protecting them. The Destroyer goes out to destroy the first-borns, but since he does not know how to distinguish between the righteous and the wicked, the blood, representing the Lord, protects Israel from him. This interpretation rests on the command Moses conveys to the people: “The Lord will protect [pasah] the door and not let the Destroyer enter and sm Bar-Ilan University

Parshat Hashavua Study Center

Parshat Bo 5775/January 24, 2015

1050

“That you may recount in the hearing of your sons and of your sons’ sons”

By Nathan Aviezer*

What is a miracle? It is widely thought that a miracle is a supernatural event, a deviation from the laws of nature. The laws of nature determine the working of the physical world in “normal” times, but occasionally, in special circumstances, the Holy One, blessed be He, decides to depart temporarily from the laws of nature, and then a miraculous event transpires. Here we shall argue that this prevailing view is not consonant with what is written in the Bible. To illustrate our point we shall discuss a famous miracle.

The “miracle of Purim” is the miracle that saved the Jews from Haman’s wicked edicts, as described in the Megillah. The Megillah recounts how Esther took advantage of her position as queen in order to bring the wicked Haman down from greatness and abrogate the murderous edicts he had decreed against the Jews. Are there any events in the Megillah that can be called supernatural? Was Esther’s exceptional beauty something supernatural? Was there anything supernatural in the king, who knew nothing of her Jewishness, choosing her as queen?

Chapter 6 of the Megillah describes the course of events beginning with the king having a sleepless night. Is there anything supernatural about a king not being able to sleep? Is that not something that happens to all of us at times? When the king cannot fall asleep, he asks to be read to from the chronicles of his kingdom. Is there anything supernatural about that? It is patently clear that all the events described in the Book of Esther took place according to the laws of nature. So what do we mean when we refer to the “miracle of Purim”?

The miracle lies in the timing, not the nature, of the events. The Jews were delivered from Haman because each of the events described in the Book of Esther took place precisely at the moment that it did. That is the miracle of Purim.

The Talmud writes: “Rabbi Isaac said: A blessing is found only in what is obscured from the eye.”[5] Divine providence takes place in a manner “obscured from the eye,” that is, according to the laws of nature. Miracles take place and difficulties are resolved, but it all happens “obscured from the eye.”

The miracles described in the Bible that indeed involved a departure from the laws of nature all occurred in private, without witnesses other than those individuals involved in the miraculous event. For example, take the famous miracles wrought by the prophet Elisha. One of them, the miracle of the oil, took place when the prophet came to the aid of a widow in distress. The destitute widow turned to the prophet and asked him to save her from her creditors, who sought to sell her two sons into slavery because she was unable to meet her debts.[6] When Elisha heard that the woman had nothing in her house save for one jug of oil, he instructed her to borrow from her neighbors as many empty vessels as possible, and to fill them with oil from the jug in her possession. The widow did as the prophet bade her, and miraculously all the vessels that she gathered were filled with the oil that she poured from her single jug. She sold the vast quantity of oil and managed to pay all her debts and save her sons from the threat of enslavement.

The main point for our discussion what Elisha instructed the widow to do before she began pouring the oil: “Then go in and shut the door behind you and your children.”[7] This strange instruction assured that no one would be present at the miracle save for the widow herself and her sons who were helping her. Everything was “obscured from the eye.”

Another point deserves mention: why was the miracle wrought with oil, of all things? Why did Elisha make the woman go to the trouble of borrowing vessels from her neighbors, of pouring vessel after vessel of oil, and then going out to sell the oil? Why did he not miraculously provide her with coins of silver and gold, for example? The answer is that the widow had in her possession a certain amount of oil, and the fact that she was selling oil did not appear to those around her as miraculous. But had the poor widow suddenly appeared with coins of silver and gold in her hands, the miracle would have been glaringly evident.

Other miracles in the Bible could be similarly analyzed, but the principle is clear: the objective of divine miracles is to achieve a certain result and not to impress an audience with wondrous tricks. Therefore the Bible keeps the supernatural aspects of its miracles as covert as possible. However, aside from the hidden miracle, “obscured from the eye,” there is another type of miracle. Sometimes the very objective of the miracle is to display it for all to see, the entire purpose being to show publicly the Lord’s greatness and might. In such cases, the public component of the miracle is of supreme importance.

The most famous public miracle is without doubt Elijah’s contending with the prophets of Baal. Elijah wished to prove to the Israelites that Baal is nothing but a powerless pagan god, whereas the Holy One, blessed be He, the G-d of Israel, is omnipotent. To that end he proposed a public confrontation between himself and the prophets of Baal, in which a bull would be placed on a pile of wood as a burnt offering but no fire would be kindled. Each side would call on its god to bring about a miracle and cause fire to come down from heaven to kindle the wood and thus burn the offering. The Bible describes in great detail how Elijah mocked the prophets of Baal over the inefficacy of their gods in bringing down fire.[8] When Elijah’s turn came to appeal to his G-d, he prayed silently to the Holy One, blessed be He, and was answered by a most impressive miracle that convinced all those present of the greatness and might of the G-d of Israel. The object of this miracle was to show the Israelites how vain and worthless it was to run after Baal, and to achieve this purpose great importance attached to the publicness of the miracle.

Another example of a public miracle is provided by the Ten Plagues brought upon the Egyptians on the eve of the Israelites’ exodus from Egypt. What was the objective of the Ten Plagues, concluded in this week’s reading, Parashat Bo? This dramatic series of miracles was not wrought in order to destroy or punish the Egyptian people, for one plague would have sufficed to that end; rather, as stated in the Torah, the aim was:

“in order that you may know that there is none like Me in all the world…in order to show you My power, and in order that My fame may resound throughout the world,”[9]
“and that you may recount in the hearing of your sons and of your sons’ sons how I made a mockery of the Egyptians and how I displayed My signs among them.”[10]

In these words the Torah explains that the Ten Plagues were intended to glorify the name of the Holy One, blessed be He, in the eyes of the Israelites and of the entire world. In order to achieve this end the miracles of the plagues are not hidden, rather publicly displayed.

According to Maimonides, believing that miracles occur is one of the tenets of faith in G-d.[11] Rabbi Moshe Feinstein emphasizes[12] the human beings are obliged to do their best and not rely on miracles, however G-d is always watching over His world through hidden miracles, both through general and individual divine providence.

Translated by Rachel Rowen

ite your home” (Ex. 12:23). It is the Destroyer who smites, while the Lord prevents him from touching the Israelite first-borns.[13]

Translated by Rachel Rowen

Bar-Ilan University

Parashat Bo 5773/January 19, 2013

Parashat Hashavua Study Center

951

Yonah Bar-Maoz*

"Bring in My devotees, who made a covenant with Me over sacrifice!" (Ps. 50:5)

The commandment of eating the Pascal lamb in Egypt was conveyed to Moses and Aaron on the first of the month; The ritual itself was to be performed in three parts: on the tenth of the month a live lamb was to be taken by the household, at twilight on the fourteenth of the month it was to be sacrificed and roasted whole and its blood smeared on the doorposts and lintel, and on the eve of the fifteenth of the month it was to be eaten in its entirety along with unleavened cakes and bitter herbs by those assigned to each lamb, those feasting being fully dressed and ready for the road (Ex. 12:9-13). One other instruction was given them—to remember this act and to observe it in the future. To this instruction two major innovations were added: the obligation to celebrate the festival seven days and the prohibition against eating leavened bread (Ex. 12:14-20).

When Moses transmitted the instructions for eating the Pascal lamb in Egypt to the elders of Israel, he mainly repeated the obligation to smear blood on the doorway, adding that they must not go outside the doors of their houses all through the night, as well as instructing them to "observe this rite" for all time, without detailing which of all the details were to be observed in the future as well (Ex. 12:21-27).

The Torah does not recapitulate the laws of Passover until after it has described the smiting of first-borns and the actual Exodus of the Israelites from Egypt which followed in its wake; and then we find out that the lamb may be eaten only by circumcised Israelites and their circumcised slaves (Ex. 12:43-50):[14]

The Lord said to Moses and Aaron: This is the law of the Passover offering: No foreigner shall eat of it. But any slave a man has bought may eat of it once he has been circumcised. No bound or hired laborer shall eat of it. It shall be eaten in one house: you shall not take any of the flesh outside the house; nor shall you break a bone of it. The whole community of Israel shall offer it. If a stranger who dwells with you would offer the Passover to the Lord, all his males must be circumcised; then he shall be admitted to offer it; he shall then be as a citizen of the country. But no uncircumcised person may eat of it. There shall be one law for the citizen and for the stranger who dwells among you.

The natural question is whether the restrictions requiring circumcision as a condition for eating the Passover offering were also observed in the celebration of Passover that took place in Egypt, or whether this instruction was only for later generations, insofar as the neighboring verses also mention "citizens" and the "stranger who dwells with you," instructions clearly intended for the time when the Israelites would be settled in their land. Here we present three responses to this question.

One response is based on the principle that "the Torah provides a paucity of information in one place and a wealth of information in another" (Jerusalem Talmud, Rosh Hashanah 3.5, 58d), according to which the limitations applying to subsequent celebrations of Passover also applied to the original celebration of Passover in Egypt:

"But no uncircumcised person may eat of it" (Ex. 12:48) and "No foreigner shall eat of it" (Ex. 12:43)—what does the Torah teach us by saying "law" (there)? To apply that which is said with regard to the Passover of Egypt to the Passover for the [subsequent] generations, and that which is said for the Passover for the [subsequent] generations to the Passover in Egypt, save for that which Scripture explicitly excludes.[15]

According to this opinion, in Egypt the Israelites were instructed ahead of time to circumcise themselves and the members of their households as a precondition for eating the Pascal lamb, and therefore when the Mishnah summarizes the differences between Passover in Egypt and Passover for subsequent generations, it does not mention the obligation of circumcision:

What is the difference between Passover as celebrated in Egypt and Passover for subsequent generations? In celebrating Passover in Egypt they set aside the lamb "from the tenth of the month," they had to dip a bunch of hyssop in the blood and spread it on the lintel and both doorposts, and the lamb had to be eaten in haste in a single night; Passover for subsequent generations is celebrated a full seven days.[16]

A second response assumes that at the outset no restriction about circumcision was given, but that it was only added close to the time of eating the lamb. This is evident in several homilies, but the homilies do not always make it clear why this requirement was added, as we shall see below:[17]

Rabbi Abbahu said: By the time Moses and the Israelites were seated and eating their Pascal offerings in Egypt, the Holy One, blessed be He, had already acted, as it is written, "In the middle of the night the Lord struck down all the first-born in the land of Egypt" (Ex. 12:29); that is the view of Rabbi Abbahu, to say "my wormwood[18] gave forth its odor" (cf. Song 1:12)—this teaches us that the smell of that blood[19] was hard to bear, and the Holy One, blessed be He, caused a smell from the fragrance of the Garden of Eden to come to them, so that their mouths watered for food,[20] and they said: Moses, give us something to eat! Moses answered them: Thus the Holy One, blessed be He, said to me: "No foreigner may eat of it." So they forthwith removed all the foreigners from their midst. They salivated for food and said to him: Moses, give us something to eat. He said to them: Thus the Holy One, blessed be He, said to me: "But any slave a man has bought may eat of it once he has been circumcised." They forthwith circumcised their slaves, but they still salivated for the food. They said to him: Give us something to eat. He said to them: Thus the Holy One, blessed be He, said to me in brief, "But no uncircumcised person may eat of it." Immediately each and every one of them took his sword from his side and circumcised himself. (Song of Songs Rabbah, 1.57).

According to this homily, those feasting on the Pascal lamb only found out shortly before the meal that there were conditions which had to be met before it could be fully enjoyed, and it was this context that led them to comply with these requirements.[21]

The third response says the instruction was not given until after they had left Egypt (Exodus Rabbah 19.2):

"This is the law of the Passover"—Rabbi Simeon ben Halafta said: Seeing that the Israelites had left Egypt the Holy One, blessed be He, said to Moses: Warn the Israelites regarding the commandment of Passover, "No foreigner shall eat of it. But any slave a man has bought may eat of it once he has been circumcised, etc." The Israelites, seeing that uncircumcised men were forbidden to eat the Pascal lamb, paused briefly and circumcised all their slaves and sons, and all who left with them, as it is written: "And the Israelites went and did so; [just as the Lord had commanded Moses and Aaron, so they did]" (Ex. 12:28).[22]

The expression, rendered here as "seeing that," denotes a connection between an event that occurred and what followed afterwards, e.g., "seeing that uncircumcised men were forbidden to eat the Pascal lamb, [they] paused briefly and circumcised all their slaves and sons." This is also clearly evident from the continuation of the homily: "and all who left with them." It follows that the restriction against uncircumcised men eating the Pascal lamb did not precede the exodus, rather followed it, perhaps on account of it.

The third response has a double advantage. Firstly, one does not have to make deductions from one part of the text regarding another part, because the order of the narrative matches the order of events. Secondly, the original instruction was indeed to take "a lamb to a family, a lamb to a household," but also "with a neighbor who dwells nearby" (Ex. 12:3-4). But in Egypt their neighbors and even those who lived in the same house could have been gentiles, for Scripture says, "Each woman shall borrow from her neighbor and the lodger in her house objects of silver and gold, and clothing" (Ex. 3:22).[23] Thus it appears from these verses that the restriction against foreigners partaking had not been preplanned.

According to this view, we can understand why this innovation should appear separately, apart from the other new elements in the celebration of Passover for subsequent generations, after the exodus from bondage to freedom. But what was the reason for this new law? It seems to document what actually happened of its own accord. Bear in mind that it was extremely dangerous for the Israelites to sit down to eat the lamb amidst the Egyptians, for Moses had turned down Pharaoh's proposal that they sacrifice to the Lord within the land of Egypt, arguing, "If we sacrifice that which is untouchable to the Egyptians before their very eyes, will they not stone us?" (Ex. 8:22). Thus it seems that only those who trusted in the Lord had the courage to make the Pascal offering in their homes, and they were joined there by others who did not dare take such overt action against the Egyptians.[24]

Assuming that such was the case, it stands to reason that the significance of eating the Pascal lamb as a mark of spiritually casting off the yoke of bondage to Egypt was understood and appreciated by those who from the outset had managed to preserve an independent spirit and distinctiveness from the Egyptians. One of the marks of freedom of spirit was circumcision. Indeed, when the entire people were again circumcised, according to the heritage of their forebears, the Lord said to Joshua: "Today I have rolled away from you the disgrace of Egypt" (Josh. 5:9), meaning that this was the final act signifying the exodus from bondage to freedom.

If this was the case, then the first celebration of the Passover may have set a precedent for a process that took place in the second celebration of Passover as well (Num. 9): the Lord confirmed something that the people had begun, and in the wake of their initiative gave it validity for all time. Since the vast majority of the people who carried out the instruction to eat the Pascal lamb were circumcised, the Lord commanded that henceforth this would be a necessary condition for observing Passover.

If we are correct in our hypothesis, this might explain the interesting phenomenon of the people of Israel showing renewed interest in their heritage precisely during Passover.[25] Adding the fact that the vast majority of Israelis circumcise their sons, we are happy to say that it appears that ever since the original celebration of Passover in Egypt we seem to have willingly imprinted on our spiritual genetic code adherence to the commandments of Passover and circumcision.[26]

Translated by Rachel Rowen

Bar-Ilan University

Parashat Hashavua Study Center

Parashat Bo 5771/ January 8, 2011

The Length of the Bondage in Egypt

Eng. Avraham Lavi

Hod Ha-Sharon

Statement of the difficulties

In the Covenant of the Pieces (brit bein ha-betarim) it says: “Know well that your offspring shall be strangers in a land not theirs, and they shall be enslaved and oppressed four hundred years” (Gen. 15:13), while in this week’s reading it says: “The length of time that the Israelites lived in Egypt was four hundred and thirty years; at the end of the four hundred and thirtieth year, to the very day, all the ranks of the Lord departed from the land of Egypt” (Ex. 12:40-41). Alongside, commentators have calculated the length of time the Israelites dwelled in Egypt according to the list of generations explicitly mentioned in the Torah and found that the exile in Egypt lasted no longer than 210 years (and by other calculations, 240 years; see Ralbag. There are also other computations). Thus we have at least three contradictory numbers to be reconciled: 400, 430, and 210.

The main explanation of the differences in numbers can be found in Rashi’s commentary (on Ex. 12:40-41, Gen. 15:13), and Radak’s commentary to Genesis 15:13: 430 years elapsed from the covenant of the pieces until the exodus from Egypt, 400 years from the birth of Isaac to the exodus, and 210 years of actual bondage in Egypt, the time span having been shortened because of the hardship of the bondage.

Some commentators (as well as translators of the Torah, see further) solve the difficulties presented above by adding words that do not appear in Scripture. For example, the clause, “the Israelites dwelled in Egypt,” is rendered as, “the Israelites dwelled in Egypt and Canaan” (Ibn Ezra’s short commentary, Ex. 12:40), or, “the Israelites dwelled in Egypt and in other lands” (loc. sit. Note that the land of Canaan was considered part of Egypt, being under Egyptian hegemony), or, “that the Israelites dwelled in Egypt as well as the other periods of time that they dwelled as strangers in a land not theirs” (Rashi, Ex. 12:40). Perhaps these commentaries rely on the principle that the Torah has a paucity of information in one place and a wealth in another, and therefore the texts from Genesis are interlaced with what is written in this week’s reading. The text is treated in like manner by the Septuagint and many commentaries. These commentaries resolve certain difficulties but create others. In what follows we shall attempt to show that each of the three numbers listed above relates to a completely different matter. These are the questions that must be addressed:

1) How can one say the period the Israelites dwelled in Egypt comes to 430 years starting from the time of Abraham (the covenant of the pieces), when this week’s reading states explicitly that we are dealing with the Israelites, i.e., the children of Jacob, which means one cannot begin calculating from the time of Abraham?

2) How can one say that the exile in Egypt was shortened to 210 years on the grounds that the Lord had pity on the Israelites because of their toil? Was the Lord not capable of foreseeing that their bondage would be hard? How could the Holy One, blessed be He, have given Abraham misinformation?

3) How can one reckon 400 years from the birth of Isaac when the time the Israelites dwelled in Egypt was said to have lasted 430 years?

4) On what grounds did translations and commentators on the Torah add words that are not hinted at in any way by the verse itself?

Here are some answers:

1) In the covenant of the pieces it says: “Know well that your offspring shall be strangers in a land not theirs, and they shall be enslaved and oppressed four hundred years.” Note that 400 years refers to “they shall be enslaved and oppressed,” meaning that it was the length of the period of bondage and oppression beginning with Isaac (“for it is through Isaac that offspring shall be continued for you”) until entering and apportioning the land, since before that time they were in “a land not theirs.” Let us compute the length of these periods.

a. They were said to have spent 430 years in Egypt. Subtract 90 from this number for the length of Joseph’s rule, but add 13 years for the length of Joseph’s enslavement. We come up with 353 years.

b. Jacob worked as a bondsman for Laban 20 years. Proof of Jacob’s oppression and bondage can be found in verses that tell how Jacob fled from Laban, who had not allowed him to leave. The definition of slavery can be extended to intimidating a worker to prevent him from leaving, thus exploiting his labor. At Genesis 31:22-23, Sforno explains: “Aside from not telling him [Laban] that he wished to leave; and all this he [Jacob] did, not to act immorally but because he was forced.” On the words, “Jacob stole the mind of Laban the Aramean,” Sforno adds, “the cheater” (Heb. ramai, a play on Aramean), which explains why Jacob had to flee.

c. Add Jacob’s nine years of suffering, which number we arrive at by subtracting from the 22 years of mourning for Joseph (Jacob having assumed he had died) the 13 years of Joseph’s bondage, which have already been counted.[27]

This brings us to a subtotal of 9+20+353=382years for the period of bondage, oppression and suffering.

d. To bring this number up to the 400 years during which Abraham’s offspring were “in a land not theirs,” we must add another 18 years. This number is comprised of short periods of oppression which cannot be computed precisely due to a lack of historical data. The object of this article, however, is to show that the numbers that appear in the Torah are perfectly feasible as stated. These years can be accounted for by the periods described in the paragraphs that follow. Throughout all these years the children of Israel were in a land not theirs, even if technically they were in the geographic area of Israel.

e. Genesis tells of Isaac’s men quarreling with Abimelech’s men. This story testifies to true oppression. The oppression of the Israelites began before the death of Joseph, thus prolonging the years of exile. Several hints of this can be found in Scripture. In the beginning of the book of Exodus it says, “Joseph died, and all his brothers, and all that generation. But the Israelites were fertile and prolific; they multiplied and increased very greatly, so that the land was filled with them. A new king arose over Egypt who did not know Joseph” (Ex. 1:6-8). Rashi, citing Rav and Shmuel (Sotah 11a), says: “One said actually a new king, the other, new decrees.” Regarding the words, “who did not know Joseph,” he says: “He pretended not to know him.” From these commentaries we may conclude that the decrees predated the death of Joseph by several years.

The time spent by the Israelites in the wilderness was also “in a land not theirs,” especially the periods when they were smitten by plagues after having sinned.

2) The 430 years the Israelites dwelled in Egypt can be explained in several ways.

a. Several generations are not explicitly mentioned in the Torah, rather, only the most important of them.[28] Thus, the number 210 is only representative, denoting some of the years that the Israelites dwelled in Egypt, when in actual fact they were in Egypt 430 years, as Scripture says.

b. Note the differences between the verses. One says, “The length of time that the Israelites lived in Egypt was four hundred and thirty years” (Ex. 12:40), while the other says, “At the end of the four hundred and thirtieth year, to the very day, all the ranks of the Lord departed from the land of Egypt” (Ex. 12:41). The first verse mentions “Egypt,” while the second says, “land of Egypt.” The latter refers to the state of Egypt that was along the Nile, whereas “Egypt” refers to the Egyptian empire whose influence extended over extensive territory and which included vassal protectorate states.[29] This distinction explains two difficulties with one blow: 1) Why did commentators use the concept of greater Egypt (which included Egypt and other states)? To include the periods when the Israelites were not in Egypt proper but were in her sphere of influence, and thus from 210 years reach 400 and even 430 years. 2) This assumption also explains the words added to Scripture, as they appear in various commentaries.

* Rabanit Dr. Ushpizai is a retiree of the Department of Talmud. Her thesis topic is: Rosh Chodesh Customs.

[1] A similar instance occurs in the book of Ruth. When Naomi suggests that Ruth go to the threshing floor in the night, it says, "ve-yarad(ti) ha-goren" (= [I will] go to the threshing floor), according to the written text (ktiv; see Ruth 3:3), as if to say that Naomi would accompany her there and would assist her in her difficult and unpleasant task.

* Dr. Gilead Sasson, Department of Talmud, Bar Ilan University.

[2] For other sources in the writings of the Sages that deal with the question of indiscriminate collective punishment, see Moshe Halbertal, Mahpekhot Parshaniyot be-Hithavutan, Jerusalem 2004, p. 137.

[3] This homily in the Mekhilta has a parallel in the Babylonian Talmud (Bava Kama 60a) with addition: “Rabbi Yosef said: ‘None of you shall go outside the door of his house until morning’ (Ex. 12:22). This tells us the angel, once permission to harm is given him, does not discriminate between the righteous and the wicked. And what is more, he begins first with the righteous.”

[4] Understandably many sources in the writings of the Sages attribute the act to the Lord and ignore this question. For example, see Mekhilta de-Rabbi Ishmael, Tractate De-Pishah 7 (Horowitz ed., p. 23; Lauterbach, p. 53): “But it says: ‘that the Lord smote all the first-born’ (Ex. 12:29)—not through an angel nor through an agent.” On the inclination to distance the Lord from this act and ascribe it instead to the Destroyer, see Yair Zakovitz, Al Tefissat Ha-Ness ba-Mikra, Tel Aviv 1987, p. 76. Jubilees 49:2 (Kahane ed., p. 310) refers to “all the powers of Mastêmâ” rather than a single Destroyer. The Targum attributed to Jonathan also speaks of “nine thousand myriads of destroying angels” (Ex. 12:12). On the tendency in the literature of the Sages to ascribe evil in the world to destroying angels and keep it away from the Lord, see Ephraim Elimelech Urbach, The Sages: Their Concepts and Beliefs, [Hebrew book: 2006, page 141; there seem to be a variety of publication dates for the English].

* Prof. Nathan Aviezer is on the emeritus of the Department of Physics at Bar Ilan University and author of the books, In the Beginning: Biblical Creation and Science and Fossils and Faith: Understanding Torah and Science.

[5] Bava Metzia 42a.

[6] II Kings 4:1-7.

[7] II Kings 4:4.

[8] I Kings 18:19-39.

[9] Ex. 9:14-16.

[10] Ex. 10:2.

[11] Guide for the Perplexed 2:25.

[12] Iggerot Moshe, Orah Hayyim, Part II, resp. 111.

[13] On the verb p-s-h being used in the sense of “protect” see Targum Onkelos, who renders it as “ahus,” or “I will have compassion”; Saadiah Gaon, who interprets it as “I will have mercy”; Rashi, who says in his first interpretation, “I will take pity.” Menahem Tzvi Kadari, Milon ha-Ivrit ha-Mikrait, Ramat Gan 2006, p. 867, gives two meanings for the word p-s-h: skipped over, and saved. The verses pertaining to the plague of the first-borns he presents in the sense of skipping over.

* Ms. Bar-Maoz taught in the Department of Bible and the Center for Basic Jewish Studies at Bar Ilan University. Currently she is a senior employee of Ha-Keter Mikraot Gedolot and specializes in redacting Bible commentaries.

[14] The title of this article comes from the continuation of the homily in Exodus Rabbah (19.5), discussed in the article: "It can be compared to a king who arranged a banquet for his friends and who said: 'Unless the invited guests show my seal [on the invitation card], none can enter.' Similarly, G-d ordained a feast for them, flesh roasted with fire…to commemorate their deliverance from trouble; but He commanded: 'Unless the seal of Abraham is inscribed on your flesh, you cannot taste thereof.' Thereupon all those who had been born in Egypt were immediately circumcised, and concerning these is it said: 'Bring in My devotees, who made a covenant with Me over sacrifice.'"

[15] Mekhilta de-Rabbi Simeon bar Yohai (12.43), Epstein edition, Jerusalem 1979 (for the reader's convenience we present the midrash entirely reconstructed), and in Mekhilta de-Rabbi Ishmael, Bo, Pisha 15: "This is the law of the Passover offering—Scripture here deals with both the Passover of Egypt and the Passover of subsequent generations—these are the words of Rabbi Josiah. Rabbi Jonathan says: This passage deals with the Passover of Egypt; hence I would know only about the Passover of Egypt, so how do I know about the Passover of subsequent generations? Scripture says: 'you shall offer it according to all its rules and rites' (Num. 9:3). Rabbi Josiah said to him: This passage as well as that one deals with both the Passover of Egypt and the Passover of subsequent generations. Why, then, does Scripture have to say: 'according to all its rules and rites'? It merely aims to teach thereby that even those laws which are omitted in the regulations for the Passover of subsequent generations are applicable to it." (Horowitz-Rabin edition, Jerusalem 1970)

[16] Mishnah Pesahim 9:5. Moreover, the discussion in the gemara, Pesahim 96a, surmises that perhaps the restriction of circumcision applied to the Passover celebrated in Egypt and not to Passover for subsequent generations.

[17] This version of the midrash comes from Shimshon Donsky, Midrash Rabbah, Shir ha-Shirim, Midrash Hazit, Jerusalem—Tel Aviv 1980. A shorter version of the story also appears in ch. 3, 14.

[18] According to Donsky, this was Rabbi Abbahu's interpretation of "nard" in the verse from Song of Songs. Jastrow translates it as "my stench."

[19] Donsky interprets this to refer to the stench arising from all the dead first-borns, but other interpretations have been put forward to scholars of midrash.

[20] According to Jastrow, to the point of fainting.

[21] In other compilations of midrash, such as Midrash ve-Yosh`a (Eisenstein, Otzar ha-Midrashim, p. 152), the additional restriction that was suddenly imposed was gladly accepted: when the Israelites heard the words of the Holy One, blessed be He, they arose in joyous song and quickly circumcised all the non-circumcised males in their midst, and the Holy One, blessed be He, saw to their speedy recovery.

[22] The verse cited at the end of this homily does not indicate that the circumcision was performed at a later time, since it summarizes the original command given to Moses, before he addressed the elders of Israel. Yet it is clear from the language of the homily that the intention was to draw a connection between verse 28 and verse 50, which is similar in content but stresses the word "all": "And all the Israelites did so, as the Lord had commanded Moses and Aaron, so they did."

[23] These being the only two occurrences of the word "neighbor" in the book of Exodus, there is no reason to assume that each occurrence means something different. The term "neighbor" also appears in Deuteronomy, but there it refers to other nations with geographical proximity.

[24] Although the lamb was eaten secretly in their homes, there was also a public aspect to the observance, since the lambs were set aside from the tenth of the month and no attempt was made to disguise their intentions to sacrifice them. Also, they spread the blood on the lintel and doorposts, so anyone passing by would know for sure: people are eating the Pascal lamb in this house now!

[25] A pre-holiday survey by Ynet and Amutat Gesher found that: "The people support Matzah: most of the Jewish public of Israel, including about half the secular population, do not intend to eat leavened products during Passover." Most of the people surveyed declared further that they planned to observe the Seder eve according to Jewish tradition, including reading the Haggadah in its entirety." Internet publication, 28.3.10.

[26] We supplement this with a point observed by Rabbi Simeon ben Eleazar: "Every commandment for which Israel submitted to death at the time of the royal decree, such as idolatry and circumcision, is still held firmly in their minds. Whereas those commandments for which Israel did not submit to death, such as tefillin, are still weak in their hands" (Shabbat 130a).

[27] See Genesis 37:34-36: “Jacob rent his clothes, put sackcloth on his loins, and observed mourning for his son many days. All his sons and daughters sought to comfort him; but he refused to be comforted, saying, ‘No, I will go down mourning to my son in Sheol.’ Thus his father bewailed him.” Rashi interprets “many days” as 22 years of solemn mourning; see loc. sit. for the calculation.

[28] Through an analysis of Seder Olam, Shadal arrives at the conclusion that the Torah did not mention all the generations in succession, but only the more prominent ones. Levi, Kohath, and Amram were not necessary grandfather, son and grandson; there may have been other generations in between who were not mentioned, nevertheless the Torah says that Kohath was the son of Levi, etc., just as we are called the children of Jacob. By assuming this we can explain the vast number of Israelites in the exodus, since 430 years is sufficient time to reach such numbers without resorting to miracles such as the birth of sextuplets. It should be noted that I Chronicles (6:7-8) lists ten generations from Kohath, each son in succession: Kohath, Amminadab, Korah, Assir, Elkanah, Ebiasaph, etc. Need we say that Amminadab is the same as the Izhar mentioned in the Torah, as Radak explains? The Torah itself provides a similar example. Genesis mentions the names of the main offspring of Cain and the three sons of Adam: Cain, Enoch, Irad, Mehujael, Methusael, Lemech (Gen. 4:17-22), Seth, Enosh, Kenan, Mahalalel, Jared, Enoch, Methuselah, Lemech (Gen. 5:12-26). Similar and even identical names appear here: Lemech twice and Enoch twice, but they belong to different generations.

[29] Borders were not clearly delineated in those days, and were also much in flux. Greater Egypt included areas to which its economic influence extended. The fact is that people came from the entire surrounding area to purchase grain in Egypt. Similar examples can be found in our day and age. For example, we might speak of Great Britain as an all inclusive concept, and Britain when referring only to England. Australia consists of the states that comprise it as well as territories which legally are not strictly speaking part of Australia but are referred to by all as such.

Menú

domingo, 17 de enero de 2021

parasha bo

Statement of the difficulties

No hay comentarios.:

Publicar un comentario