 |
Biography | Publications | Methodology
Introduction to Gilyonot | Weekly Gilayonot Archives
Weekly Gilayon for the Study of the Weekly Torah Portion
Gilayon
Pedagogic Guide
Answers to the Gilayon
Archives
Va’era (5729/1969)
Chapter 9: Verses 13-35
The Hail
- Questions concerning style:
Exodus Ch.9, v.20: “He who feared the word of the Lord among
the servants of Pharao made his servants and his cattle flee into the houses. V.21: And he
who did not pay regard to the word of the Lord, left his servants and his cattle in the
field.
Contrary to usual biblical practice the subject here precedes the verb.
Why?
Ibn Ezra Exodus 9:21: “And he who did not pay
regard”: The (letter) vav, (meaning and, in vaya’azov,
lit. “and left”) is usual in the Kedarite (Ishmaelite) language, but
cannot be translated into any other language. So also, “On the third day and
Abraham lifted up his eyes” (Gen.22:4) and several other instances.
What is strange in the vav of vaya’azov - “and left
his servants”? Compare his comments: Ex.18:23, “And you will be able to bear
up”: The vav in “veyakholta” - you will be able - is like f in
the Ishmaelite language; if you do this and G-d will grant you permission, then you will
be able to bear up.
Leviticus 25:33: “...(and) shall go out” - the vav (and)
is like the Ishmaelite f.
What is common to all these vavs?
Compare: Ex.9:19: Send therefore now, and gather your cattle and
all that you have and bring it under shelter - ha’ez... and
shall not be brought home...
9:20: “He who feared the word of the Lord among the servants of
Pharao made his servants and his cattle flee - henis - into
the houses.
xx Can you explain the difference between the two verbs from their different
contexts?
The description of the hail: The Text:
V.23: “And Moses stretched out his rod towards heaven, and the Lord
sent thunder and hail, and the fire ran down upon the ground. And the Lord rained hail
upon the land of Egypt.”
V.24: “And there was hail and fire flaring up amidst the hail, very
grievous, such as there was none like it in all the land of Egypt since it became a
nation.”
V.25: “And the hail smote throughout all the land of Egypt all that
was in the field, both man and beast, and the hail smote every plant in the field and
broke every tree of the field.”
V.26: “Only in the land of Goshen, where the children of Israel were,
was there no hail.”
Which are the stylistic elements in the description of the miracles of
the hail?
v.25: : “And the hail smote throughout all the land of Egypt ....,
and the hail smote every plant in the field ...”
Compare : Genesis 27:15: “And put them
upon Jacob her younger son...
V.16: “And the skins of kids of the goats she put upon
his hands and upon...
x Can you explain the change of the future tense (with
the conversive vav) to the past tense? Find
further examples of this style in our chapter (Ch.9).
- Exodus 9:14: “For this time I will send all my
plagues upon your heart...”
Rashi Ex.9:14: “All my plagues”: We learn from
this that the plague of the firstborn outweighs all the other plagues.
Rashi’s Supercommentators explain: Rabbi Yehudah ben Rabbi
Eliezer (known by his acronym Rib”a, wrote his commentary on Rashi in
1316): In the book Ba’ale Hatosafot, Lewin Epstein edition 1967, Shemot
(Exodus) p.9.
S.v. “I will send all my plagues” - ‘we read bakurot
(firstlings) which the plague of hail is called since it ruined only the early ripeners as
it is stated, “and the flax and the barley were struck for the barley was in the ear
and the flax was in the bud...” this is the explanation given by Rabenu Tam of
Orleans.’
(M.Kasher, Shemot p.133)
Sefer Hazikaron by the Spanish exile, R.Avraham ben
R.Shelomo Bukrat, who wrote his book in Tunis in 1547.
V.14: “All my plagues”: Since the plague of hail is called
“All my plagues” we learn that famine equals all the plagues since hail causes
it, as it is stated, “and the hail smote every plant in the field”. The version,
“We learn from this that the plague of the firstborn...” is wrong since
the plague of the firstborn is not mentioned here.
The question is asked by some, in order to justify the version bekhorot,
why the Master (Rashi) writes (Ex.4:23), s.v. “Behold I will slay your son,
your firstborn” - he warned him about this because it is the hardest (of all
plagues), whereas here he says that famine outweighs all the plagues. The answer is that
here he reflects the truth as implied by the Torah which refers to it as “all My
plagues” which indicates that it is the severest plague and outweighs all others.
There it reflects the perception of humans to whom nothing is more bitter than death. It
is then for this reason that he warned him first in order to intimidate him... Furthermore
one cannot be too analytical about this type of Midrashim and one should not query
contradictions between them.
R.Ovadia of Bertinoro’s interpretation as found
in the book Ba’ale Hatosafot, Lewin Epstein edition 1967, Shemot (Exodus) p.9,
v.14: All My plagues: It is queried that this time the subject is hail and not the
plague of the firstborn!?... In my view it can refer to the plague of the firstborn, and
the following is the meaning: This time, if I wanted, I would send all my plagues upon
your heart, i.e., the smiting of the firstborn which touched Pharao’s
heart since he was a firstborn (see Rashi in Parasha Bo)...
1. What is so problematic about Rashi’s interpretation that all his
Supercommentaries try to solve it?
2. What can be argued against the corrected version of Rabbenu Tam of
Orleans?
xx 3. Can you maintain the version existing in our books (bekhorot)
and answer the contradiction between Rashi in Ex.4:23 and here?
- Exodus 9:20: “He who feared the word of the Lord
among the servants of Pharao made his servants and his cattle flee.
Meshekh Hohma - R.Meir Simha Hacohen of Dvinsk: Exodus
9:20: “He who feared the word of the Lord among the servants of Pharao”: It is
possible that since Moses said in G-d’s Name (v.19), “Send therefore now, and
gather your cattle and all that you have in the field, for upon every man and beast which
shall be found in the field, and shall not be brought home, the hail shall come down, and
they shall die”, Pharao’s servants warned them not to let the people and the
cattle that were in the fields retreat into their houses, in order not to believe Moses.
Hence the Torah says that the Egyptian who feared the word of the Lord because he believed
it and feared it more than he feared Pharao, made his servants and his cattle flee into
the houses.
1. How does Meshekh Hohma explain the (letter) mem (which
means “of”) in meavde (of the servants) and wherein does he
deverge from the usual interpretation?
xx 2. What prompted his interpretation? (See the following verses up to
the end of our chapter.)
- Exodus 9:31: “And the flax and the barley were
struck for the barley was in the ear and the flax was in the bud”:
v. 32: “The wheat and the spelt were not struck, for they were late
ripening”.
1. Ibn Ezra Exodus 9:31: “And the flax and the
barley”: The Torah recounts what happenend.
From the word nuku also nukta is clear since
the root of make is nun kaf he, as “And his bones are rubbed away - veshufu
- till they are invisible” (Job.33:21).
Ibn Ezra Exodus 9:32 (his short commentary on Exodus): Nuku
(struck) as “And his bones are rubbed away till they are invisible”
(Job.33:21) in the passive voice. The (letter) nun is absorbed in the word maka as
is usual in similar verbs.
x 1. What did he want to prove from the verse in Job?
2. What is the form in which the subject is not mentioned?
3. “The (leter) nun is seen” - which nun is seen?
x 4. Explain: “The one absorbed by the kaf of ‘maka’
is the nun”.
5. Which are similar verbs?
Ramban Ex.9:31: “And the flax and the barley”:
.... in my opinion these are Moses’s words spoken to Pharao, saying: I know that
before the plagues go away you will have fear and afterwards you will repeat your folly,
but the flax and the barley were smitten and the wheat and the spelt which are vital for
you, have not been smitten in this plague, but it is in G-d’s power to destroy them
if you sin against Him again. He hinted at what he said (10:5 below), “They shall eat
the residue of that which has escaped, which remains to you from the hail”.
R.Eliezer ben R.Eliyahu the Physician Ashkenazi: (b.1513 in
Egypt, his book was written 1583 in Venice) Ma’ase Hashem chap.13, published
by Otzar Hasefarim, Jerusalem 1987, folio 14: Concerning Ramban’s comment on,
“And the flax and the barley were struck” that “the wheat and the spelt
were not smitten” is what the hail left, this is not so, since it is expressly stated
(10:15) that the locusts ate up all the fruit that the hail had left.
In my view these were certainly Moses’s words spoken to Pharao since
after he said to him, “I know that you do not yet fear the Lord G-d”, thereby
reproaching him for his stubbornness, he said to him that “the flax and the barley
were struck” because they were hard and “the wheat and the spelt were not
struck” because they were soft, as Rashi comments on, “the barley was in the
ear” - it ripened early and remained hard. So also did the flax which was already
fully grown and was firm in the bud. He also explains “they were late ripening”
that they were soft and could withstand (the hail). He thereby hinted and admonished
Pharao that he should not be stiff-necked for the flax and the barley were smitten because
they were hard whereas the wheat and the spelt which were soft did not suffer. As we have
already said that according to Ramban’s view this was only notice that there was
still something left which could be punished, it was necessary to explain why these were
not affected but not why the others were struck. Our explanation is correct, i.e., that
the main purpose of speaking to Pharao was to hint that the hard was struck but the soft
was not.
1. What is the problem in our verse?
2. Wherein do the views of the two commentators differ from that of Ibn
Ezra cited above?
3. What is the difference between Ramban’s and R.Eliezer Ashkenazi?
4. What is R.Eliezer Ashkenazi’s argument against Ramban’s view
and what proof does he adduce from 10:15?
The questions marked x are difficult, those marked xx are particularly
difficult.
Every person should answer according to his/her ability.
next > |
|
