<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=us-ascii">
<META content="MSHTML 6.00.2900.3020" name=GENERATOR></HEAD>
<BODY>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial
size=2>*************************************************************<BR>
THE TANACH STUDY CENTER
[http://www.tanach.org]<BR>
In Memory of Rabbi Abraham Leibtag<BR> Shiurim in
Chumash & Navi by Menachem
Leibtag<BR>*************************************************************</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial
size=2>
PARSHAT BO - Part Two</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>- KORBAN PESACH AND BRIT MILA
-<BR> In our shiur on Parshat Bo discussing Parshat
ha-Chodesh<BR>/ Shmot 12:1-20, we discussed why the Torah
'prematurely'<BR>presented the laws of 'chag ha-matzot'. In the
following<BR>shiur, we discuss why the Torah 'belatedly' [i.e. after
Bnei<BR>Yisrael leave Egypt] presents the laws of 'chukot
ha-Pesach'.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>INTRODUCTION<BR> To clarify
the problem that our shiur deals with, we<BR>begin with a quick overview of the
Torah's presentation of the<BR>story of Yetziat Mitzraim by charting the
progression of<BR>'parshiot' (and their respective topics) in chapters 12
and<BR>13. As you review these two chapters, note how the topics
of<BR>these 'parshiot' alternate between "mtizvot" [LAWS] and<BR>"sipur" [STORY,
i.e. narrative]</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial
size=2>PSUKIM
TOPIC<BR>12:1-20 Hashem commands Moshe to tell Yisrael
the LAWS of:<BR> a. Korban Pesach in Egypt
(12:3-13)<BR> b. Korban Pesach for future
generations (12:14)<BR> c. The laws of
eating matza for seven days (12:15-20)</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>12:21-28 Moshe relays these laws to Bnei
Yisrael,<BR> but only the LAWS
of:<BR> a. Korban Pesach in Egypt
(12:21-23)<BR> b. Korban Pesach for
future generations (12:24-28)</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>12:29-36 The STORY of the Tenth Plague and
the Exodus<BR> [How the Egyptians
rushed Bnei Yisrael out of Egypt.]</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>12:37-42 The STORY of traveling from Egypt,
baking matza,<BR> and
concluding remarks regarding the '430 years'...</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>12:43-50 Some more LAWS re: offering Korban
Pesach<BR> [This section is titled
-"zot chukat ha-Pesach".]</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>12:51 A short summary
pasuk</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>13:1-10 Moshe tells Bnei Yisrael more
the LAWS<BR> 13:1-2 -God commands
Moshe<BR> re:
'kedushat bechor'. [laws of the first
born]<BR> 13:3-10 Moshe tells
Bnei Yisrael the laws of:<BR>
eating matza for seven days ["chag
ha'matzot"]<BR> not eating (or
owning) chametz for 7 days<BR>
<BR>13:11-16 Moshe tells Yisrael the LAWS of the 'first
born'.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2> As you study the above
chart, note how the LAW sections<BR>relate directly to the STORY sections.
For example, the laws<BR>for how to offer the korban Pesach precede the story of
the<BR>Tenth the Plague, for the purpose of that offering was to<BR>protect Bnei
Yisrael from that Plague (see 12:12-13 &
12:21-<BR>23).<BR> However, at the conclusion of the
story of the Exodus (in<BR>12:42), we find yet an additional 'parshia'
concerning<BR>additional laws that relate to offering the Korban Pesach
-<BR>which obviously appears to be 'out of place'!<BR> "And God said to
Moshe and Aharon: These are the laws of the<BR> Pesach - anyone not
circumcised may not eat from it..."<BR> "Then Bnei Yisrael did
just as God had commanded Moshe<BR> and Aharon, so they did" (see
12:43-50).</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2> To our amazement, this
entire 'parshia' appears to be<BR>recorded in Chumash a bit too late!
Let's explain why:<BR> The laws in 12:43-49 command Bnei Yisrael to
perform 'brit<BR>mila' BEFORE offering the Korban Pesach. Therefore, it
must<BR>have been taught BEFORE Bnei Yisrael left Egypt.
Furthermore,<BR>this 'parshia' includes several other laws that would apply
to<BR>offering the korban Pesach in Egypt (even though these laws<BR>apply to
korban Pesach in future generations as well).<BR> Finally, the last pasuk
of this unit informs us that Bnei<BR>Yisrael did exactly as Moshe commanded them
(see 12:50).<BR> [Note now Rashi on 12:43 immediately concludes that
this<BR> 'parshia' is 'out of place'; and even Ramban agrees!]<BR>
<BR> Why then does the Torah record these laws only
AFTER the<BR>story of the Exodus? Shouldn't this 'parshia' have
been<BR>included together with all the other laws of Korban Pesach<BR>(i.e.
somewhere along with 12:2-14 and 12:21-28)?<BR>
Considering our discussion in our first shiur that 12:15-<BR>20 may also be 'out
of place' ( i.e. It really 'belongs' with<BR>13:2-8), we find a very
peculiar phenomenon in chapter 12:<BR>The laws of chag ha-matzot (12:15-20),
which technically<BR>should have recorded AFTER the story of Yetziat Mitzrayim,
are<BR>recorded beforehand - while the laws of 'chukat ha-Pesach'<BR>which
should have been recorded earlier, are recorded AFTER<BR>the story of the
Exodus.<BR> In other words, to put this chapter back into its
correct<BR>'chronological order,' we would simply have to swap these
two<BR>parshiot.<BR> Nevertheless, the Torah prefers to
record them 'out of<BR>order', and the obvious question is WHY.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>THEMATIC ORDER<BR> These
questions relate to a wider topic of Chumash study<BR>known as "ein mukdam
u-me'uchar" - that the parshiot in<BR>Chumash do not necessarily follow
chronological order.<BR>However, this does not mean that Chumash follows a
completely<BR>random sequence. Rather, even though the Torah usually
does<BR>follow chronological order, it occasionally prefers to place
a<BR>certain 'parshia' in a different place IN ORDER to emphasize a<BR>THEMATIC
connection.<BR> [One could say that this is the Torah's way of
saying:<BR> 'darsheini'!]</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2> If this assumption is
correct, then we can conclude that<BR>the Torah presented these parshiot in this
manner in order<BR>that we should search for a thematic connection
between:<BR> a) Korban Pesach and chag ha-matzot;
and<BR> b) the concluding story of Exodus and chukat
ha-Pesach.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2> In Part I we discussed
(a); now we must discuss (b).</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2> Let's begin by taking a
closer look at the previous<BR>'parshia' that concludes the story of Yetziat
Mitzrayim:<BR> "...And the settlement of Bnei Yisrael in Egypt was
thirty<BR> years and FOUR HUNDRED years. And it came to pass
after<BR> thirty years and FOUR HUNDRED years, on this day, all
of<BR> God's hosts LEFT from the land of Egypt..." (see
12:40-42).</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2> Clearly, these psukim
focus on the completion of FOUR<BR>HUNDRED years; but the Torah is not precise
in regard to what<BR>these four hundred years are counting from.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>BRIT BEIN HA-BTARIM & CHUKAT
HA-PESACH<BR> The commentators all agree that the 'four
hundred years'<BR>mentioned in these psukim must relate in one form or other
to<BR>God's promise to Avraham Avinu concerning the 'bondage of his<BR>offspring
in a foreign land,' as promised in 'brit bein ha-<BR>btarim'. [See
Breishit 15:13-14, see also Rashi, Ramban,<BR>Rashbam, and Ibn Ezra on
12:40.]<BR> In other words, this final 'parshia'
(12:37-42) points to<BR>the fact that this Exodus from Egypt marks God's
fulfillment<BR>of His promise to Avraham Avinu at 'brit bein
ha-btarim'.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2> With this in mind, let's
take a look at the 'parshia'<BR>that follows:<BR> "And God said to Moshe
and Aharon: These are the laws of the<BR> Pesach - a son of a non-Jew may
not eat from it... and if he<BR> owns a servant, then he must CIRCUMCISE
him, and then he may<BR> eat it... and if a stranger lives with you and
wants to<BR> offer a korban Pesach, first he must be CIRCUMCISED...
and<BR> anyone NOT CIRCUMCISED may not eat from it." (see
12:43-48).</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2> Note how the primary focus
of these mitzvot in 'chukat ha-<BR>Pesach' is the requirement to perform BRIT
MILA before<BR>offering the Korban Pesach (note
12:43,44,48).<BR> But as we noted above, the final
psukim of the preceding<BR>story relate back to the theme of BRIT BEIN
HA-BTARIM!<BR> Therefore, this juxtaposition may point
once again to<BR>thematic connection between these two central covenants
of<BR>Sefer Breishit. [See last week's shiur on Parshat
Va'era.]</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2> In this manner, Chumash
may be alluding to an important<BR>thematic message: If we consider Korban
Pesach as the manner<BR>by which we thank God for His fulfillment of Brit bein
Ha-<BR>btarim, then before doing so, we must first remind ourselves<BR>of our
commitment to His covenant of 'brit MILA'.<BR> [Recall how Brit Mila
reflects the special relationship [or<BR> partnership] between God and
Bnei Yisrael (to accept Him as<BR> our God - "lihiyot lachem l-Elokim" /
see Breishit 17:7-8).<BR> ]<BR> <BR> Hence, this intentional
juxtaposition may emphasize how one<BR>must first confirm his commitment at a
personal and family<BR>level - as reflected in Brit Mila, before he can proclaim
his<BR>affiliation at the national level, as reflected in the<BR>offering of the
korban Pesach - to thank God for His<BR>fulfillment of brit bein
ha-btarim.<BR> <BR> This critical balance between
one's commitment to God at<BR>both the personal and national level will emerge
as a primary<BR>theme in Chumash, especially in our study of Sefer Shmot
and<BR>Sefer Devarim.<BR> Iy"h, we will return to this
topic in the shiurim that<BR>follow; Till then,</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial
size=2>
shabbat
shalom,<BR>
menachem</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>===============<BR>FOR FURTHER IYUN:</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>A. The Position of the parshia of 'Zot Chukat
Ha-Pesach'<BR> Three answers as to why this section is
transplanted from<BR>its chronological location appear in the
following<BR>commentators:</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>1) Ibn Ezra, Seforno and Chizkuni claim that the
laws of<BR>"chukat ha'pesach" apply only to future generations, and
hence<BR>this entire section is not out of chronological sequence.<BR> The
Mechilta (on 12:43) quotes a debate between Rabbi Yoshia<BR>and Rabbi Yonatan as
to whether these psukim refer only to<BR>Pesach Mitzrayim or to Pesach dorot, as
well. The Ibn Ezra<BR>disputes both views, and claims that this section
deals<BR>strictly with Pesach dorot.<BR> In regard
to the concluding pasuk of this section -"All<BR>of Bnei Yisrael did just as
Hashem commanded Moshe and Aharon…<BR>" - which we quoted as the strongest proof
that these psukim<BR>belong earlier (see 12:50) - Ibn Ezra explains that
these<BR>halachot bore relevance only for subsequent years, i.e. when<BR>they
observed Pesach in the wilderness.<BR> Chizkuni explains differently, that
this pasuk tells of Bnei<BR>Yisrael's acceptance of these laws for observance in
future<BR>years (even though did not apply at that time).</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>2) Ramban cites Ibn Ezra's approach and
strongly rejects it.<BR>Despite his general aversion towards applying the
principle of<BR>"ein mukdam u-me'uchar", the Ramban here nevertheless
accepts<BR>Rashi's view, the one we adopt in the shiur, that this section<BR>was
transmitted earlier, before Yetziat Mitzrayim.<BR> The
Ramban explains that the Torah wished to first record<BR>the story of Yetziat
Mitzrayim immediately after Moshe conveys<BR>to Bnei Yisrael God's promise of
redemption - as they express<BR>their faith by prostrating themselves (see
12:23-27). This<BR>juxtaposition underscores Hashem's fulfillment of His
promise.<BR>After the story of yetziat Mitzrayim, the Torah then returns<BR>to
complete the transmission of the laws relevant to the<BR>korban pesach.
Rav Eliyahu Mizrachi, in his work on Rashi's<BR>commentary, explains along
similar lines.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>3) A much different explanation is given by the
Abarbanel and,<BR>later, by Rav Shimshon Refael Hirsch. They claim that
this<BR>section, which deals primarily with the procedure required<BR>before a
foreigner or a convert may partake of the korban<BR>Pesach, is directed towards
the 'erev rav', about whom the<BR>Torah speaks just several verses
earlier. (In their<BR>respective commentaries, both the Abarbanel and Rav
Hirsch go<BR>through all the halachot mentioned in this section and
explain<BR>how they all address the unique circumstance of the erev
rav.)</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>B. The Four Hundred and Thirty Years of
Bondage<BR> As we noted, the Torah says in 12:40 that
Bnei Yisrael<BR>spent 430 years in Egypt. Rashi there notes that based on
the<BR>genealogical record of Yaakov's family when he relocated in<BR>Egypt (in
Parshat Vayigash - Breishit 46:8-27) as well as that<BR>in Parshat Va'era (Shmot
6:14-25), this is a mathematical<BR>impossibility. (In short, Kehat,
Moshe's grandfather, is<BR>included among those who moved with Yaakov to Egypt;
four<BR>hundred years could not have passed from Kehat's move to Egypt<BR>until
his grandson, Moshe, led the slaves to freedom at the<BR>age of eighty.)
Further confounding the issue is the fact<BR>that Hashem had informed Avraham of
a 400-year period of<BR>bondage, not 430 years.<BR> For
this reason, most sources among Chazal and the<BR>mefarshim claim - as mentioned
in the shiur - that the period<BR>in question began with the birth of
Yitzchak. Hashem had<BR>promised that Avraham's offspring would be
"foreigners in a<BR>land not their own" (Breishit 15:13). This period
began when<BR>his heir, Yitzchak, was born in a country where he was deemed<BR>a
foreigner. Why Yitzchak - and, after him, Yaakov and his<BR>children -
held foreigner status in Canaan is not entirely<BR>clear. Ibn Ezra
(commenting on our pasuk) cites a theory that<BR>during this period Canaan was
subject to Egyptian rule.<BR>Although the Ibn Ezra claims that there is no
source to<BR>substantiate such a theory, Rav Menachem Kasher (Torah
Shleima<BR>on our pasuk, footnote 601) indeed brings several sources to<BR>this
effect. The Maharal, by contrast, in his commentary,<BR>"Gur Aryeh" on our
pasuk, posits a different explanation for<BR>this foreigner status. As
Hashem had decreed that Avraham's<BR>offspring would come under subjugation in a
foreign land,<BR>their residence in Canaan before their descent to Egypt
was<BR>not permanent. As such, they could not be considered
anything<BR>more than foreigners. Rashi, in his commentary to
Breishit<BR>15:13, cites psukim that imply that Yitzchak and
Yaakov's<BR>residence in Canaan was indeed that of foreigners.<BR> In any
event, the sixty years of Yitzchak's life before<BR>Yaakov's birth (Breishit
25:26) and Yaakov's one hundred and<BR>thirty years before moving to Egypt
(Breishit 47:8) combine to<BR>comprise 190 of the 400 years of exile. This
leaves 210<BR>years, the commonly accepted duration of the Egyptian
exile<BR>(see Breishit Rabba 91:2).<BR> This theory,
that the period of 'exile' began with the<BR>birth of Yitzchak, dates back as
early as the Septuagint,<BR>which adds onto our pasuk the words, 'u-bish'ar
aratzot',<BR>meaning, that the 430 years mark the period in which
Bnei<BR>Yisrael were foreigners in Egypt as well as in other lands.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2> As for the discrepancy
between the 400 and 430 years, we<BR>find four approaches in the Midrashim and
mefarshim:</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>1) The Mechilta on our pasuk, as well as Rashi here
and in<BR>Breishit 15:13, maintain that the 400-year period began with<BR>the
birth of Yitzchak, and the 430-year period began at brit<BR>bein ha-btarim,
which took place thirty years prior to<BR>Yitzchak's birth. This raises a
vexing problem: Avraham was<BR>100 years old when Yitzchak was born (Breishit
21:5), which<BR>would mean that he was only 70 at the time of brit bein
ha-<BR>btarim. Yet, he was already 75 years-old when he first<BR>migrated
to Canaan (Breishit 12:4). How, then, could Avraham<BR>have been only 70
at brit bein ha-btarim, which occurs three<BR>chapters after his resettlement in
Canaan?<BR> The Seder Olam Rabba therefore explains that
Avraham<BR>originally moved to Canaan at age 70. After the brit bein
ha-<BR>btarim, he returned to Charan for five years, after which he<BR>once
again settled in Canaan. The presentation in Parshat<BR>Lech-Lecha thus
does not follow chronological sequence.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>2) The Ramban (in his commentary to our pasuk)
argues that the<BR>430 years began with brit bein ha-btarim; the 400 years
which<BR>Hashem mentioned to Avraham marked the minimum duration of
the<BR>exile, not the definite period. As a result of Bnei
Yisrael's<BR>sins in Egypt, Hashem added thirty years to the
decree,<BR>resulting in a total of 430 years. According to the
Ramban,<BR>Bnei Yisrael were in Egypt for 240 years, not 210 as is<BR>commonly
understood.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>3) The Ibn Ezra and Rabbenu Yosef Bechor Shor
suggest that the<BR>430 years begin with Avraham's migration with his father
from<BR>Ur Kasdim. Towards the end of Parshat Noach (11:31), the<BR>Torah
tells that Terach took his family from Ur Kasdim to live<BR>in Canaan, but for
some reason he never made it past Charan.<BR>These mefarshim suggest that this
event, which, they claim,<BR>occurred thirty years prior to brit bein ha-btarim,
marked the<BR>beginning of Avraham's period of 'exile', as this was the<BR>point
at which he uprooted himself from his homeland. (The<BR>Netziv adopts this
approach, as well, and elaborates further<BR>on the significance of Avraham's
move from Ur Kasdim.)</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>4) The Abarbanel cites a view that the pasuk in
brit bein ha-<BR>btarim that speaks of 400 years was imprecise; it rounded
off<BR>the number 430 to an even 400. This view would then yield
the<BR>same result that emerges from the Ramban's approach: Bnei<BR>Yisrael
spent 240 years in Egypt. (The Abarbanel himself,<BR>however, accepts the
Ramban's position.)</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2> All these mefarshim agree
that the 400 years of bondage<BR>foreseen at brit bein ha-btarim begin at that
point, when<BR>Hashem informs Avraham of the exile. They argue only as
to<BR>the nature of the thirty years. We do find two other views,<BR>which
deny this assumption upon which all the aforementioned<BR>explanations are
predicated:</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>Pirkei De-Rabbi Eliezer (48) cites the view of
Rabbi Elazar<BR>Ben Arach that the 430-year period begins with the birth
of<BR>Efrayim and Menashe, the last two tribes of Yisrael to be<BR>born.
Their birth occurred five years before Yaakov and his<BR>family moved to Egypt,
such that 215 years passed from their<BR>birth to the Exodus. Since the
slavery required Bnei<BR>Yisrael's service both by day and night, they served as
slaves<BR>for the functional equivalent of 430 years. (Haktav
Ve-<BR>hakabbala explains this based on another Midrash, that the<BR>Egyptian
taskmasters forced the slaves to sleep in the fields<BR>rather than going home
to their families; they thus 'worked'<BR>both by day and by night.) More
familiar is the Midrash cited<BR>by the Vilna Gaon, in Kol Eliyahu on Parshat
Shmot, that<BR>states more simply that the torture and hardship of the
210-<BR>year slavery term rendered it equivalent to a standard, 400-<BR>year
term. According to this approach, that Bnei Yisrael's<BR>slavery equaled -
but did not last for - 400 years, our pasuk<BR>does not at all relate to brit
bein ha-btarim.<BR> Perhaps the most startling view is that of the Shadal,
who<BR>claims, in opposition to all other commentators (including
the<BR>Septuaginta, as quoted above), that Bnei Yisrael indeed spent<BR>four
hundred and thirty years in Egypt. Earlier, we<BR>parenthetically noted
the proof against this possibility, that<BR>the Torah identifies Kehat as
Moshe's grandfather (Shmot 6:18,<BR>20), and he was among the seventy members of
Yaakov's family<BR>who descended to Egypt (Breishit 46:11). The life-spans
of<BR>Kehat and his son Amram, plus Moshe's eighty years before<BR>freeing Bnei
Yisrael, do not add up to anywhere near 430<BR>years. The Shadal refutes
this proof by claiming that the<BR>Torah omits several generations in its
genealogical record in<BR>Parshat Va'era. In fact, he brings a very strong
proof to his<BR>claim: in Parashat Vaera, the Torah lists only eight
members<BR>of the tribe of Levi in Amram's generation (Amram,
Yitzhar,<BR>Chevron, Uziel, Machli, Mushi, Livni and Shimi - Shmot
6:17-<BR>19). Yet, when Moshe - Amram's son - took Bnei Yisrael out
of<BR>Egypt, the tribe of Levi numbered 22,000 (Bemidbar 3:39).<BR>Clearly,
Levi's population could not have grown from 8 to<BR>22,000 in a single
generation. Undoubtedly, the Shadal<BR>argues, there were several interim
generations that the Torah<BR>- for whatever reason - neglects to
mention.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2> Rav Yaakov Medan (of
Yeshivat Har Etzion - Daf Kesher<BR>vol. 3, p.220) refutes this seemingly
convincing proof of the<BR>Shadal. He suggests quite simply that the Torah
omitted not<BR>interim generations, as the Shadal claims, but rather
the<BR>brothers of those eight levites, or even the brothers of
their<BR>parents. Rav Medan notes that when Yaakov bestows the
bechora<BR>upon Yosef, whereby his sons, Efrayim and Menashe,
become<BR>independent tribes, he adds that any future children born to<BR>Yosef
will be included in those two tribes (Breishit 48:6).<BR>In other words, 'less
significant' brothers often became<BR>formally included as part of their
brothers' families. It<BR>stands to reason, then, that in each generation
in the<BR>genealogical listing the Torah records only several brothers.<BR>In
fact, Rav Medan adds, the genealogical records in Va'era,<BR>Bemidbar and
Pinchas do not mention any grandsons of Yaakov<BR>besides those listed as part
of the family that descended to<BR>Egypt. As Yaakov's sons were still
relatively young when they<BR>relocated in Egypt, we have no reason to believe
that they did<BR>not continue bearing children in Egypt. Clearly, then,
there<BR>were siblings omitted in the Torah's genealogical record,
thus<BR>refuting the Shadal's proof.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV></BODY></HTML>