10:7 - I understand that, according to both the narrative and many commentaries, God needed to unleash the plagues on Egypt not only so that Pharaoh would let the Israelites go but because God wanted the Israelites themselves to see his power. I get that. But here is another one of those verses that give me pause: Pharaoh's courtiers basically tell their king to give in, but he won't. So despite the fact that clearly there were Egyptians ready to free the Israelites, God keeps hardening Pharaoh's heart (in 10:20), which sets the stage for the worst plagues to come. I'm not a fan of collective punishment no matter what the reason.
10:24-27 - The back and forth between Moses and Pharaoh over the so-called three day sojourn into the desert continues, with almost comedic effect. Here, Pharaoh, who by now clearly understands the Israelites are asking for freedom, not a vacation, says they can go into the desert...if they leave their flocks behind. Moses offers a fabulously opaque excuse: since they didn't know exactly what animals God would want them to sacrifice, they needed to bring all of their animals along with them! But God "hardens" Pharaoh's heart, and the answer is no. (Though it seems to me that the word used here, וַיְחַזֵּק , is better translated as "strengthened" than "hardened," no?)
11:2 - Unless I've missed something, this is the first time God says please! Mechon Mamre translates the Hebrew "דַּבֶּר-נָא, בְּאָזְנֵי הָעָם" as "Speak now in the ears of the people," but Kehot translates it -- more accurately, I think -- as "Please speak to the people". It's weird, because Mechon Mamre literally translates "in the ears of the people" but ignores the na suffix on the word "speak," while Kehot does the opposite, leaving out "ears" but including "please." My question is: Why does God say "please" here? Why not just command?
11:7 - What the heck does this mean: "But against any of the children of Israel shall not a dog whet his tongue, against man or beast; that ye may know how that the LORD doth put a difference between the Egyptians and Israel." What do dogs have to do with anything?!?
12:2 - "'This month [Nisan] shall be unto you the beginning of months; it shall be the first month of the year to you..." This may be an ignorant question, but huh?!? I thought Tishrei was the first month of the year, ergo Rosh Hashanah?
12:11 - A poetic verse (in Hebrew), and a great image: "And this is how you shall eat it: with your waist belted, your shoes on your feet, your staff in your hands, and you shall eat it in haste this Passover offering to God." Do traditional sederim do something to commemorate this?
12:12 - Fascinating! I always thought the slaying of the firstborn was carried out by the Angel of Death, not God (a la verse 9 of had gadya), but the text is very clear (both here and at 12:27 and 12:29): It was God alone who does the killing. This makes sense, but why did I have it my head that it was the Angel of Death?!?
12:14-20 - These verses made me sigh. Here we have in unambiguous, explicit details about what we're supposed to do on pesach: (a) eat matzot, (b) not to eat anything leavened or have anything leavened in the home, (c) not to work on the first and last of the seven days of the holiday, and (d) to do these things "for all generations." So much in the Torah is ambiguous; so many of the mitzvot, it seems to me, are not explicitly commanded in the Torah but rather by the commentators. But here we have a nice set of dos and don'ts that leave little to the imagination. This begs the question: Of the 613 mitzvot, how many are clear like this? I wonder...
12:21-23 - I'm sure there's a good answer for this, but why would God need the Israelites to mark their houses with blood so that their firstborn would not be killed? Doesn't God know everything? A shudder to think the alternative was the case: That putting blood on the house was the litmus test to find out who didn't believe in God...
12:35-36 - Let me get this straight: The Israelites "asked" the Egyptians for their "silver and gold," and because "the LORD gave the people favour in the sight of the Egyptians...[the Egyptians] let [the people] have what they asked," and in doing so "despoiled the Egyptians." Are we to understand that God made the Egyptians give up all their wealth?!?
12:38 - Who, exactly, made up the so-called "mixed multitude" [עֵרֶב רַב] that accompanied the Israelites when they left Egypt? Obviously non-Jews... But who were they? Why did they come? What happens to them? Weird...
12:43-50 - Concerning the laws of pesach, God has a lot to say here about who can't eat of the sacrifice: not "aliens" (or "strangers"), and not "A sojourner [nor] a hired servant." And you can't take it out of your house, "neither shall ye break a bone thereof." Etcetera. If this means non-Jews can't eat of the sacrifice, then what of matzah? What of the ceremonial foods eaten at a seder to take the place of the sacrifice? (An aside: Why don't we eat lamb on pesach? The Temple and the preisthood were not yet established, so there were no rules about ritual sacrifice to follow. Ergo, the destruction of the Temple, it seems to me, should not have any bearing on whether we sacrifice lambs today. I'm probably missing something...
13:1-2 - A-ha moment #1! So this is where pidyon haben comes from: God sparing the firstborn of the Israelites!
13:9 - A-ha moment #2! So this is why we put a bayit of the tefillin on the arm: because God took us out of Egypt with a mighty hand!
13:14-16 - Where the Torah tells us about the "good son," in eloquent Hebrew: "If in time to come, your child asks you, saying: 'What is this?' You shall say to him, 'With a mighty hand God brought us out of Egypt, from the House of Bondage.'"
Monday, January 25, 2010
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
> So despite the fact that clearly there were Egyptians ready to free the Israelites, God keeps hardening Pharaoh's heart
ReplyDeleteSo why didn't they overthrow him?
> Why does God say "please" here? Why not just command?
Because the people were interested in getting out of Egypt as soon as possible. Telling them there would be a delay so they could acquire goods required the "please". See Rashi on the verse.
> What do dogs have to do with anything?!?
Again, see Rashi on the verse. Some also see it as an allusion to the desire for revenge that might grip the Egyptians - well, if we're all going to die, let's see how many Jews we can take with us!
>I thought Tishrei was the first month of the year, ergo Rosh Hashanah?
Unlike the secular calender, Jewish years do not start equally. We count years from Tishrei and months from Nissan. Remember Rosh HaShanah is "the most important time of the year", not a Jewish version of New Year's.
> Do traditional sederim do something to commemorate this?
No, because the context makes clear that this is only for that first Pesach. There are lots of parts of the first Pesach we no longer do and that were only for that time.
ReplyDelete> It was God alone who does the killing. This makes sense, but why did I have it my head that it was the Angel of Death?!?
There is a comment that refers to "the mashchis" or destroyer. Maybe that was it?
Also in the movie it was that spooky cloud. Maybe that's what you were thinking of?
> So much in the Torah is ambiguous; so many of the mitzvot, it seems to me, are not explicitly commanded in the Torah but rather by the commentators.
If you are looking for a good commentary in English on the Torah, pick up the Rav Hirsch version:
http://www.feldheim.com/cgi-bin/category.cgi?item=978-1-59826-260-5&type=store&category=search
One thing he does at length is show how the ambuiguities in the text that you're noticing directly lead into the Oral Law as explained by the Talmud.
How many of the 613 mitzvos are clearly explained? Many but not all. You probably know that Rambam made a list. Would it surprise you to know that Ramban and at least 2 others made other lists and that each is different?
> but why would God need the Israelites to mark their houses with blood so that their firstborn would not be killed?
You have to understand the role of blood in sacrifices and more than that you have to understand why we are commanded to sacrifice animals in the first place. Very briefly (and I stress very!) the sacrifice is seen as a substitute for the human offering it. We symbolically offer the animal as if we were offering ourselves wholly up to God. As a result, the blood which the Torah calls the lifeforce of the person is what is offered on the altar in the Temple. In Egypt, there were no altars. The Jewish house itself became the altar so just as in the future the cohanim would offer the blood on the altar, that first Pesach the doorposts were where the blood went.
> Doesn't God know everything?
None of the rituals we perform are for God. God, being perfect, doesn't need anything from us. God doesn't need me to shake a lulav or eat matzah. I need it to approach Him. Rather, they are for us as part of our lifelong process of spiritual perfection.
>That putting blood on the house was the litmus test to find out who didn't believe in God...
Probably not since the Midrash tells us that any Jew trapped in an Egyptian house was also saved. What's more, any Egyptian house that tried to fool God by daubing the doorposts was not spared. Again, the ritual was for us, not Him.
> Are we to understand that God made the Egyptians give up all their wealth?!?
ReplyDeleteThere were two ways the Egyptians could have reacted to Israelite requests to give over their money. One was simply handing over the stuff as the Midrash says "Take it and leave already!" The other was "You ruined our country and now you want cash too?"
God's destruction of Egypt was not about revenge so as a result there was every effort to minimize the hard feelings that Israel's leaving would inevitably evoke.
That and if you think about it, the gold and silver were backwages for 80 years of slavery.
> Who, exactly, made up the so-called "mixed multitude
The Israelites were not the only trapped and enslaved minority in Egypt. Many of these other groups took the opportunity to run when we left Egypt and came with us into the desert.
> What of the ceremonial foods eaten at a seder to take the place of the sacrifice?
Non-Jews and uncircumcised Jews generally don't get asked to participate in s'darim. They can eat what they want if they show up though because the replacement for the Pesach offering (the chicken bone) is not a sacrifice so it lacks the restrictions of the real thing.
> An aside: Why don't we eat lamb on pesach?
You can't eat ROASTED lamb on Pesach. Also lamb is expensive and not everyone likes it and if you're invited 50 family members over it's asking for trouble.
> the destruction of the Temple, it seems to me, should not have any bearing on whether we sacrifice lambs today.
Once the Temple was built, Jewish law decreed that sacrifices could only be offered on the altar there, period. So during the 70 years between the desetruction of the First Temple and the return from Babylon, no sacrifices were offered anywhere. Once Yerushalayim was re-occupied, a new altar was built and sacrificial offerings were resumed immediately, even before the Second Temple was constructed. Nowadays, in the absence of a Temple, or even control over the Temple Mount, we cannot offer sacrifices.
> So this is why we put a bayit of the tefillin on the arm: because God took us out of Egypt with a mighty hand!
Actually, no because then you would have to say we wear head tefillin because He gave the Egyptians a mighty headbutt on the way out. Tefillin actually represent our dedication to God. The arm tefilling mean dedicating our physical power to Him and the head tefillin mean dedicating our intellectual power to Him.
>> So despite the fact that clearly there were Egyptians ready to free the Israelites, God keeps hardening Pharaoh's heart
ReplyDelete>So why didn't they overthrow him?
They couldn't? They were afraid? They didn't know better?
I think there's a reason despotic political systems lasted for so many thousands of years: It was hard for average citizens to engage in the kind of collective action sufficient to seriously challenge the authority of the King/Pharaoh/Caesar, etc. Moreover, with what kind of political system would they have replaced their ruler? Democracy didn't exist back then.
>> Why does God say "please" here? Why not just command?
>Because the people were interested in getting out of Egypt as soon as possible. Telling them there would be a delay so they could acquire goods required the "please". See Rashi on the verse.
Rashi says: "Heb. דַבֶּר-נָא is only an expression of request. [The verse is saying] I ask you to warn them about this, [i.e., to ask their neighbors for vessels] so that the righteous man, Abraham, will not say He fulfilled with them [His promise] “and they will enslave them and oppress them” (Gen. 15:13), but He did not fulfill with them “afterwards they will go forth with great possessions” (Gen. 15:14). — [from Ber. 9a]"
This is pretty opaque if you ask me…
>> What do dogs have to do with anything?!?
>Again, see Rashi on the verse. Some also see it as an allusion to the desire for revenge that might grip the Egyptians - well, if we're all going to die, let's see how many Jews we can take with us!
Makes sense. Looking for a good Rashi translation of this point…
>>I thought Tishrei was the first month of the year, ergo Rosh Hashanah?
ReplyDelete>Unlike the secular calender, Jewish years do not start equally. We count years from Tishrei and months from Nissan. Remember Rosh HaShanah is "the most important time of the year", not a Jewish version of New Year's.
Thanks.
>> Do traditional sederim do something to commemorate this?
>No, because the context makes clear that this is only for that first Pesach. There are lots of parts of the first Pesach we no longer do and that were only for that time.
Maybe, but this is pretty vague… A few verses later and we learn about matzah and when we eat it.
>> It was God alone who does the killing. This makes sense, but why did I have it my head that it was the Angel of Death?!?
>There is a comment that refers to "the mashchis" or destroyer. Maybe that was it?
Also in the movie it was that spooky cloud. Maybe that's what you were thinking of?
I think it was two things: First, as I wrote, had gadya refers to the Angel of Death. Second, in light of the directive to put blood on the doorway, it made sense that it wouldn't be God coming but rather someone else who was not omniscient.
>> So much in the Torah is ambiguous; so many of the mitzvot, it seems to me, are not explicitly commanded in the Torah but rather by the commentators.
>If you are looking for a good commentary in English on the Torah, pick up the Rav Hirsch version:
http://www.feldheim.com/cgi-bin/category.cgi?item=978-1-59826-260-5&type=store&category=search
One thing he does at length is show how the ambuiguities in the text that you're noticing directly lead into the Oral Law as explained by the Talmud.
How many of the 613 mitzvos are clearly explained? Many but not all. You probably know that Rambam made a list. Would it surprise you to know that Ramban and at least 2 others made other lists and that each is different?
Thanks for the recommendation. Next time through, I'll definitely have some commentaries by my side…
You do touch upon something important, though: that ambiguities in the text are what provides "food for thought" in Talmudic debates. This is where I things get tricky for me. I'm just not so keen on taking the outcome of these debates as, if you'll forgive the comparison, "gospel." I think these debates, what little I have been exposed to them, are fascinating…but I don't see them as binding on me.
Your point about the mitzvoth is of course absolutely right. Although I’m off to a slow start, a separate part of my blog is to go through the mitzvot, one by one, with Sefer HaMitzvot and Mishneh Torah (not even Rambam's own lists are 100% consistent!), to (a) learn what the mitzvoth are, then (b) see how I feel about them.
>> but why would God need the Israelites to mark their houses with blood so that their firstborn would not be killed?
ReplyDelete>You have to understand the role of blood in sacrifices and more than that you have to understand why we are commanded to sacrifice animals in the first place. Very briefly (and I stress very!) the sacrifice is seen as a substitute for the human offering it. We symbolically offer the animal as if we were offering ourselves wholly up to God. As a result, the blood which the Torah calls the lifeforce of the person is what is offered on the altar in the Temple. In Egypt, there were no altars. The Jewish house itself became the altar so just as in the future the cohanim would offer the blood on the altar, that first Pesach the doorposts were where the blood went.
Interesting.
>> Doesn't God know everything?
>None of the rituals we perform are for God. God, being perfect, doesn't need anything from us. God doesn't need me to shake a lulav or eat matzah. I need it to approach Him. Rather, they are for us as part of our lifelong process of spiritual perfection.
Right, but in the context of God's specific request that the Israelites put blood on the doorposts so that " when He seeth the blood upon the lintel, and on the two side-posts, the LORD will pass over the door, and will not suffer the destroyer to come in unto your houses to smite you," it still begs the question of why God asks for this tangible sign for something that would be known…
>>That putting blood on the house was the litmus test to find out who didn't believe in God...
>Probably not since the Midrash tells us that any Jew trapped in an Egyptian house was also saved. What's more, any Egyptian house that tried to fool God by daubing the doorposts was not spared. Again, the ritual was for us, not Him.
I see what you're saying, but the Torah doesn't say this. This is where it gets sketchy for me. The Torah clearly says one thing, but then commentaries are written centuries later adding additional meaning/content. You say this later content tells us what was meant, but I just don't see why the Torah didn't say certain things if they were meant to be taken that way. This gets back to the point about ambiguity above. Things can be crystal clear in the Torah, so when they are not, why should we assume that something specific was meant or intended?
>> Are we to understand that God made the Egyptians give up all their wealth?!?
>There were two ways the Egyptians could have reacted to Israelite requests to give over their money. One was simply handing over the stuff as the Midrash says "Take it and leave already!" The other was "You ruined our country and now you want cash too?"
God's destruction of Egypt was not about revenge so as a result there was every effort to minimize the hard feelings that Israel's leaving would inevitably evoke.
That and if you think about it, the gold and silver were backwages for 80 years of slavery.
I like the backwages idea!
>> Who, exactly, made up the so-called "mixed multitude
>The Israelites were not the only trapped and enslaved minority in Egypt. Many of these other groups took the opportunity to run when we left Egypt and came with us into the desert.
Strange! So did they stick with the Israelites for 40 years in the desert? Did they make it to Israel? Did they convert?
>> What of the ceremonial foods eaten at a seder to take the place of the sacrifice?
>Non-Jews and uncircumcised Jews generally don't get asked to participate in s'darim. They can eat what they want if they show up though because the replacement for the Pesach offering (the chicken bone) is not a sacrifice so it lacks the restrictions of the real thing.
Got it.
>> An aside: Why don't we eat lamb on pesach?
ReplyDelete>You can't eat ROASTED lamb on Pesach. Also lamb is expensive and not everyone likes it and if you're invited 50 family members over it's asking for trouble.
Why not roasted lamb per se?
>> the destruction of the Temple, it seems to me, should not have any bearing on whether we sacrifice lambs today.
>Once the Temple was built, Jewish law decreed that sacrifices could only be offered on the altar there, period. So during the 70 years between the desetruction of the First Temple and the return from Babylon, no sacrifices were offered anywhere. Once Yerushalayim was re-occupied, a new altar was built and sacrificial offerings were resumed immediately, even before the Second Temple was constructed. Nowadays, in the absence of a Temple, or even control over the Temple Mount, we cannot offer sacrifices.
Got it.
>> So this is why we put a bayit of the tefillin on the arm: because God took us out of Egypt with a mighty hand!
>Actually, no because then you would have to say we wear head tefillin because He gave the Egyptians a mighty headbutt on the way out. Tefillin actually represent our dedication to God. The arm tefilling mean dedicating our physical power to Him and the head tefillin mean dedicating our intellectual power to Him.
Got it.
> Strange! So did they stick with the Israelites for 40 years in the desert? Did they make it to Israel? Did they convert?
ReplyDeleteWell at various times their numbers were culled down through sins they committed. For example, many of them were part of the sin of the golden calf. Others were killed at a place called Taveirah for different reasons. The rest were ultimately absorbed into the people.
The back wages idea is actually dealt with in the Gemara. In Sanhedrin we are told that when Alexander the Great conquered the area, the Egyptians came to him and demanded he forced the Jews to repay the money they stole when they left Egypt. The Jewish reply was that if the Egyptians were acknowledging that we took their money, they also had to admit that they had enslaved us for 430 years and owed us money for that.
It sounds like a fun story but when you realize that the Egyptians have twice tried to bring the exact same demand before the UN you realize some things never change.
> Why not roasted lamb per se?
Because we don't have the Pesach sacrifice today so as a result we avoid anything that resembles it.
Re: the role of the oral law. Always keep in mind that the Written Torah isn't as clear as it seems. As Rav Hirsch notes, the Written Torah is like a set of notes you quickly jot down in class. One line in the notes reminds you of five minutes of material the teacher covered.
Here's an example. I'll give you a rule: All cars must stop at a red light. Seems simple, right? What about ambulances and other emergency vehicles? What if it's a deserted country road at 3 am and no one else is around? What if the powers off and it's a blinking red instead of a solid one?
The Written Torah is the basic rule but it often doesn't handle questions that might come up on application.
Another great example is the law regarding ritual slaughtering which Moshe Rabeinu announces as "Thou shalt slaughter animals as I have shown you". No description on how to in the text. Then there's tefillin which are never described in the Torah, only the obligation to wear them is mentioned yet every example we have of tefillin going back over 2000 years is exactly the same.