[Par-lite] Parshat Bo - Part Two
Menachem Leibtag
tsc at bezeqint.net
Thu Jan 6 04:33:03 EST 2011
**********************************************************
***
THE TANACH STUDY CENTER [http://www.tanach.org]
In Memory of Rabbi Abraham Leibtag
Shiurim in Chumash & Navi by Menachem Leibtag
**********************************************************
***
PARSHAT BO - Part Two
- KORBAN PESACH AND BRIT MILA -
In our shiur on Parshat Bo discussing Parshat
ha-Chodesh
/ Shmot 12:1-20, we discussed why the Torah 'prematurely'
presented the laws of 'chag ha-matzot'. In the following
shiur, we discuss why the Torah 'belatedly' [i.e. after
Bnei
Yisrael leave Egypt] presents the laws of 'chukot
ha-Pesach'.
INTRODUCTION
To clarify the problem that our shiur deals with, we
begin with a quick overview of the Torah's presentation of
the
story of Yetziat Mitzraim by charting the progression of
'parshiot' (and their respective topics) in chapters 12
and
13. As you review these two chapters, note how the topics
of
these 'parshiot' alternate between "mtizvot" [LAWS] and
"sipur" [STORY, i.e. narrative]
PSUKIM TOPIC
12:1-20 Hashem commands Moshe to tell Yisrael the LAWS
of:
a. Korban Pesach in Egypt (12:3-13)
b. Korban Pesach for future generations (12:14)
c. The laws of eating matza for seven days
(12:15-20)
12:21-28 Moshe relays these laws to Bnei Yisrael,
but only the LAWS of:
a. Korban Pesach in Egypt (12:21-23)
b. Korban Pesach for future generations (12:24-28)
12:29-36 The STORY of the Tenth Plague and the Exodus
[How the Egyptians rushed Bnei Yisrael out of
Egypt.]
12:37-42 The STORY of traveling from Egypt, baking matza,
and concluding remarks regarding the '430
years'...
12:43-50 Some more LAWS re: offering Korban Pesach
[This section is titled -"zot chukat ha-Pesach".]
12:51 A short summary pasuk
13:1-10 Moshe tells Bnei Yisrael more the LAWS
13:1-2 -God commands Moshe
re: 'kedushat bechor'. [laws of the first born]
13:3-10 Moshe tells Bnei Yisrael the laws of:
eating matza for seven days ["chag ha'matzot"]
not eating (or owning) chametz for 7 days
13:11-16 Moshe tells Yisrael the LAWS of the 'first
born'.
As you study the above chart, note how the LAW
sections
relate directly to the STORY sections. For example, the
laws
for how to offer the korban Pesach precede the story of
the
Tenth the Plague, for the purpose of that offering was to
protect Bnei Yisrael from that Plague (see 12:12-13 &
12:21-
23).
However, at the conclusion of the story of the Exodus
(in
12:42), we find yet an additional 'parshia' concerning
additional laws that relate to offering the Korban Pesach
-
which obviously appears to be 'out of place'!
"And God said to Moshe and Aharon: These are the laws of
the
Pesach - anyone not circumcised may not eat from it..."
"Then Bnei Yisrael did just as God had commanded Moshe
and Aharon, so they did" (see 12:43-50).
To our amazement, this entire 'parshia' appears to be
recorded in Chumash a bit too late! Let's explain why:
The laws in 12:43-49 command Bnei Yisrael to perform
'brit
mila' BEFORE offering the Korban Pesach. Therefore, it
must
have been taught BEFORE Bnei Yisrael left Egypt.
Furthermore,
this 'parshia' includes several other laws that would
apply to
offering the korban Pesach in Egypt (even though these
laws
apply to korban Pesach in future generations as well).
Finally, the last pasuk of this unit informs us that
Bnei
Yisrael did exactly as Moshe commanded them (see 12:50).
[Note now Rashi on 12:43 immediately concludes that this
'parshia' is 'out of place'; and even Ramban agrees!]
Why then does the Torah record these laws only AFTER
the
story of the Exodus? Shouldn't this 'parshia' have been
included together with all the other laws of Korban Pesach
(i.e. somewhere along with 12:2-14 and 12:21-28)?
Considering our discussion in our first shiur that
12:15-
20 may also be 'out of place' ( i.e. It really 'belongs'
with
13:2-8), we find a very peculiar phenomenon in chapter
12:
The laws of chag ha-matzot (12:15-20), which technically
should have recorded AFTER the story of Yetziat Mitzrayim,
are
recorded beforehand - while the laws of 'chukat ha-Pesach'
which should have been recorded earlier, are recorded
AFTER
the story of the Exodus.
In other words, to put this chapter back into its
correct
'chronological order,' we would simply have to swap these
two
parshiot.
Nevertheless, the Torah prefers to record them 'out
of
order', and the obvious question is WHY.
THEMATIC ORDER
These questions relate to a wider topic of Chumash
study
known as "ein mukdam u-me'uchar" - that the parshiot in
Chumash do not necessarily follow chronological order.
However, this does not mean that Chumash follows a
completely
random sequence. Rather, even though the Torah usually
does
follow chronological order, it occasionally prefers to
place a
certain 'parshia' in a different place IN ORDER to
emphasize a
THEMATIC connection.
[One could say that this is the Torah's way of saying:
'darsheini'!]
If this assumption is correct, then we can conclude
that
the Torah presented these parshiot in this manner in order
that we should search for a thematic connection between:
a) Korban Pesach and chag ha-matzot; and
b) the concluding story of Exodus and chukat
ha-Pesach.
In Part I we discussed (a); now we must discuss (b).
Let's begin by taking a closer look at the previous
'parshia' that concludes the story of Yetziat Mitzrayim:
"...And the settlement of Bnei Yisrael in Egypt was
thirty
years and FOUR HUNDRED years. And it came to pass after
thirty years and FOUR HUNDRED years, on this day, all of
God's hosts LEFT from the land of Egypt..." (see
12:40-42).
Clearly, these psukim focus on the completion of FOUR
HUNDRED years; but the Torah is not precise in regard to
what
these four hundred years are counting from.
BRIT BEIN HA-BTARIM & CHUKAT HA-PESACH
The commentators all agree that the 'four hundred
years'
mentioned in these psukim must relate in one form or other
to
God's promise to Avraham Avinu concerning the 'bondage of
his
offspring in a foreign land,' as promised in 'brit bein
ha-
btarim'. [See Breishit 15:13-14, see also Rashi, Ramban,
Rashbam, and Ibn Ezra on 12:40.]
In other words, this final 'parshia' (12:37-42)
points to
the fact that this Exodus from Egypt marks God's
fulfillment
of His promise to Avraham Avinu at 'brit bein ha-btarim'.
With this in mind, let's take a look at the 'parshia'
that follows:
"And God said to Moshe and Aharon: These are the laws of
the
Pesach - a son of a non-Jew may not eat from it... and
if he
owns a servant, then he must CIRCUMCISE him, and then he
may
eat it... and if a stranger lives with you and wants to
offer a korban Pesach, first he must be CIRCUMCISED...
and
anyone NOT CIRCUMCISED may not eat from it." (see
12:43-48).
Note how the primary focus of these mitzvot in
'chukat ha-
Pesach' is the requirement to perform BRIT MILA before
offering the Korban Pesach (note 12:43,44,48).
But as we noted above, the final psukim of the
preceding
story relate back to the theme of BRIT BEIN HA-BTARIM!
Therefore, this juxtaposition may point once again to
thematic connection between these two central covenants of
Sefer Breishit. [See last week's shiur on Parshat
Va'era.]
In this manner, Chumash may be alluding to an
important
thematic message: If we consider Korban Pesach as the
manner
by which we thank God for His fulfillment of Brit bein Ha-
btarim, then before doing so, we must first remind
ourselves
of our commitment to His covenant of 'brit MILA'.
[Recall how Brit Mila reflects the special relationship
[or
partnership] between God and Bnei Yisrael (to accept Him
as
our God - "lihiyot lachem l-Elokim" / see Breishit
17:7-8).
]
Hence, this intentional juxtaposition may emphasize how
one
must first confirm his commitment at a personal and family
level - as reflected in Brit Mila, before he can proclaim
his
affiliation at the national level, as reflected in the
offering of the korban Pesach - to thank God for His
fulfillment of brit bein ha-btarim.
This critical balance between one's commitment to God
at
both the personal and national level will emerge as a
primary
theme in Chumash, especially in our study of Sefer Shmot
and
Sefer Devarim.
Iy"h, we will return to this topic in the shiurim
that
follow; Till then,
shabbat shalom,
menachem
===============
FOR FURTHER IYUN:
A. The Position of the parshia of 'Zot Chukat Ha-Pesach'
Three answers as to why this section is transplanted
from
its chronological location appear in the following
commentators:
1) Ibn Ezra, Seforno and Chizkuni claim that the laws of
"chukat ha'pesach" apply only to future generations, and
hence
this entire section is not out of chronological sequence.
The Mechilta (on 12:43) quotes a debate between Rabbi
Yoshia
and Rabbi Yonatan as to whether these psukim refer only to
Pesach Mitzrayim or to Pesach dorot, as well. The Ibn
Ezra
disputes both views, and claims that this section deals
strictly with Pesach dorot.
In regard to the concluding pasuk of this section
-"All
of Bnei Yisrael did just as Hashem commanded Moshe and
Aharon.
" - which we quoted as the strongest proof that these
psukim
belong earlier (see 12:50) - Ibn Ezra explains that these
halachot bore relevance only for subsequent years, i.e.
when
they observed Pesach in the wilderness.
Chizkuni explains differently, that this pasuk tells of
Bnei
Yisrael's acceptance of these laws for observance in
future
years (even though did not apply at that time).
2) Ramban cites Ibn Ezra's approach and strongly rejects
it.
Despite his general aversion towards applying the
principle of
"ein mukdam u-me'uchar", the Ramban here nevertheless
accepts
Rashi's view, the one we adopt in the shiur, that this
section
was transmitted earlier, before Yetziat Mitzrayim.
The Ramban explains that the Torah wished to first
record
the story of Yetziat Mitzrayim immediately after Moshe
conveys
to Bnei Yisrael God's promise of redemption - as they
express
their faith by prostrating themselves (see 12:23-27).
This
juxtaposition underscores Hashem's fulfillment of His
promise.
After the story of yetziat Mitzrayim, the Torah then
returns
to complete the transmission of the laws relevant to the
korban pesach. Rav Eliyahu Mizrachi, in his work on
Rashi's
commentary, explains along similar lines.
3) A much different explanation is given by the Abarbanel
and,
later, by Rav Shimshon Refael Hirsch. They claim that
this
section, which deals primarily with the procedure required
before a foreigner or a convert may partake of the korban
Pesach, is directed towards the 'erev rav', about whom the
Torah speaks just several verses earlier. (In their
respective commentaries, both the Abarbanel and Rav Hirsch
go
through all the halachot mentioned in this section and
explain
how they all address the unique circumstance of the erev
rav.)
B. The Four Hundred and Thirty Years of Bondage
As we noted, the Torah says in 12:40 that Bnei
Yisrael
spent 430 years in Egypt. Rashi there notes that based on
the
genealogical record of Yaakov's family when he relocated
in
Egypt (in Parshat Vayigash - Breishit 46:8-27) as well as
that
in Parshat Va'era (Shmot 6:14-25), this is a mathematical
impossibility. (In short, Kehat, Moshe's grandfather, is
included among those who moved with Yaakov to Egypt; four
hundred years could not have passed from Kehat's move to
Egypt
until his grandson, Moshe, led the slaves to freedom at
the
age of eighty.) Further confounding the issue is the fact
that Hashem had informed Avraham of a 400-year period of
bondage, not 430 years.
For this reason, most sources among Chazal and the
mefarshim claim - as mentioned in the shiur - that the
period
in question began with the birth of Yitzchak. Hashem had
promised that Avraham's offspring would be "foreigners in
a
land not their own" (Breishit 15:13). This period began
when
his heir, Yitzchak, was born in a country where he was
deemed
a foreigner. Why Yitzchak - and, after him, Yaakov and
his
children - held foreigner status in Canaan is not entirely
clear. Ibn Ezra (commenting on our pasuk) cites a theory
that
during this period Canaan was subject to Egyptian rule.
Although the Ibn Ezra claims that there is no source to
substantiate such a theory, Rav Menachem Kasher (Torah
Shleima
on our pasuk, footnote 601) indeed brings several sources
to
this effect. The Maharal, by contrast, in his commentary,
"Gur Aryeh" on our pasuk, posits a different explanation
for
this foreigner status. As Hashem had decreed that
Avraham's
offspring would come under subjugation in a foreign land,
their residence in Canaan before their descent to Egypt
was
not permanent. As such, they could not be considered
anything
more than foreigners. Rashi, in his commentary to
Breishit
15:13, cites psukim that imply that Yitzchak and Yaakov's
residence in Canaan was indeed that of foreigners.
In any event, the sixty years of Yitzchak's life before
Yaakov's birth (Breishit 25:26) and Yaakov's one hundred
and
thirty years before moving to Egypt (Breishit 47:8)
combine to
comprise 190 of the 400 years of exile. This leaves 210
years, the commonly accepted duration of the Egyptian
exile
(see Breishit Rabba 91:2).
This theory, that the period of 'exile' began with
the
birth of Yitzchak, dates back as early as the Septuagint,
which adds onto our pasuk the words, 'u-bish'ar aratzot',
meaning, that the 430 years mark the period in which Bnei
Yisrael were foreigners in Egypt as well as in other
lands.
As for the discrepancy between the 400 and 430 years,
we
find four approaches in the Midrashim and mefarshim:
1) The Mechilta on our pasuk, as well as Rashi here and in
Breishit 15:13, maintain that the 400-year period began
with
the birth of Yitzchak, and the 430-year period began at
brit
bein ha-btarim, which took place thirty years prior to
Yitzchak's birth. This raises a vexing problem: Avraham
was
100 years old when Yitzchak was born (Breishit 21:5),
which
would mean that he was only 70 at the time of brit bein
ha-
btarim. Yet, he was already 75 years-old when he first
migrated to Canaan (Breishit 12:4). How, then, could
Avraham
have been only 70 at brit bein ha-btarim, which occurs
three
chapters after his resettlement in Canaan?
The Seder Olam Rabba therefore explains that Avraham
originally moved to Canaan at age 70. After the brit bein
ha-
btarim, he returned to Charan for five years, after which
he
once again settled in Canaan. The presentation in Parshat
Lech-Lecha thus does not follow chronological sequence.
2) The Ramban (in his commentary to our pasuk) argues that
the
430 years began with brit bein ha-btarim; the 400 years
which
Hashem mentioned to Avraham marked the minimum duration of
the
exile, not the definite period. As a result of Bnei
Yisrael's
sins in Egypt, Hashem added thirty years to the decree,
resulting in a total of 430 years. According to the
Ramban,
Bnei Yisrael were in Egypt for 240 years, not 210 as is
commonly understood.
3) The Ibn Ezra and Rabbenu Yosef Bechor Shor suggest that
the
430 years begin with Avraham's migration with his father
from
Ur Kasdim. Towards the end of Parshat Noach (11:31), the
Torah tells that Terach took his family from Ur Kasdim to
live
in Canaan, but for some reason he never made it past
Charan.
These mefarshim suggest that this event, which, they
claim,
occurred thirty years prior to brit bein ha-btarim, marked
the
beginning of Avraham's period of 'exile', as this was the
point at which he uprooted himself from his homeland.
(The
Netziv adopts this approach, as well, and elaborates
further
on the significance of Avraham's move from Ur Kasdim.)
4) The Abarbanel cites a view that the pasuk in brit bein
ha-
btarim that speaks of 400 years was imprecise; it rounded
off
the number 430 to an even 400. This view would then yield
the
same result that emerges from the Ramban's approach: Bnei
Yisrael spent 240 years in Egypt. (The Abarbanel himself,
however, accepts the Ramban's position.)
All these mefarshim agree that the 400 years of
bondage
foreseen at brit bein ha-btarim begin at that point, when
Hashem informs Avraham of the exile. They argue only as
to
the nature of the thirty years. We do find two other
views,
which deny this assumption upon which all the
aforementioned
explanations are predicated:
Pirkei De-Rabbi Eliezer (48) cites the view of Rabbi
Elazar
Ben Arach that the 430-year period begins with the birth
of
Efrayim and Menashe, the last two tribes of Yisrael to be
born. Their birth occurred five years before Yaakov and
his
family moved to Egypt, such that 215 years passed from
their
birth to the Exodus. Since the slavery required Bnei
Yisrael's service both by day and night, they served as
slaves
for the functional equivalent of 430 years. (Haktav Ve-
hakabbala explains this based on another Midrash, that the
Egyptian taskmasters forced the slaves to sleep in the
fields
rather than going home to their families; they thus
'worked'
both by day and by night.) More familiar is the Midrash
cited
by the Vilna Gaon, in Kol Eliyahu on Parshat Shmot, that
states more simply that the torture and hardship of the
210-
year slavery term rendered it equivalent to a standard,
400-
year term. According to this approach, that Bnei
Yisrael's
slavery equaled - but did not last for - 400 years, our
pasuk
does not at all relate to brit bein ha-btarim.
Perhaps the most startling view is that of the Shadal,
who
claims, in opposition to all other commentators (including
the
Septuaginta, as quoted above), that Bnei Yisrael indeed
spent
four hundred and thirty years in Egypt. Earlier, we
parenthetically noted the proof against this possibility,
that
the Torah identifies Kehat as Moshe's grandfather (Shmot
6:18,
20), and he was among the seventy members of Yaakov's
family
who descended to Egypt (Breishit 46:11). The life-spans
of
Kehat and his son Amram, plus Moshe's eighty years before
freeing Bnei Yisrael, do not add up to anywhere near 430
years. The Shadal refutes this proof by claiming that the
Torah omits several generations in its genealogical record
in
Parshat Va'era. In fact, he brings a very strong proof to
his
claim: in Parashat Vaera, the Torah lists only eight
members
of the tribe of Levi in Amram's generation (Amram,
Yitzhar,
Chevron, Uziel, Machli, Mushi, Livni and Shimi - Shmot
6:17-
19). Yet, when Moshe - Amram's son - took Bnei Yisrael
out of
Egypt, the tribe of Levi numbered 22,000 (Bemidbar 3:39).
Clearly, Levi's population could not have grown from 8 to
22,000 in a single generation. Undoubtedly, the Shadal
argues, there were several interim generations that the
Torah
- for whatever reason - neglects to mention.
Rav Yaakov Medan (of Yeshivat Har Etzion - Daf Kesher
vol. 3, p.220) refutes this seemingly convincing proof of
the
Shadal. He suggests quite simply that the Torah omitted
not
interim generations, as the Shadal claims, but rather the
brothers of those eight levites, or even the brothers of
their
parents. Rav Medan notes that when Yaakov bestows the
bechora
upon Yosef, whereby his sons, Efrayim and Menashe, become
independent tribes, he adds that any future children born
to
Yosef will be included in those two tribes (Breishit
48:6).
In other words, 'less significant' brothers often became
formally included as part of their brothers' families. It
stands to reason, then, that in each generation in the
genealogical listing the Torah records only several
brothers.
In fact, Rav Medan adds, the genealogical records in
Va'era,
Bemidbar and Pinchas do not mention any grandsons of
Yaakov
besides those listed as part of the family that descended
to
Egypt. As Yaakov's sons were still relatively young when
they
relocated in Egypt, we have no reason to believe that they
did
not continue bearing children in Egypt. Clearly, then,
there
were siblings omitted in the Torah's genealogical record,
thus
refuting the Shadal's proof.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mail.atlchai.org/pipermail/par-lite/attachments/20110106/da9642e1/attachment-0003.htm
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: bo2.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 35787 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://mail.atlchai.org/pipermail/par-lite/attachments/20110106/da9642e1/attachment-0003.pdf
More information about the Par-lite
mailing list