[Par-reg] For Parshat Bo - part two
Menachem Leibtag
tsc at bezeqint.net
Wed Jan 25 12:54:18 EST 2012
*********************************************
****************
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 --------------
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-reg/attachments/20120125/7eb3fb6f/attachment-0003.pdf
More information about the Par-reg
mailing list