Posts so far for parshat Bo

2012

1. Bo sources, new edition.
   .
2. Darshening psiks in parashat Bo --  Birkas Avraham interprets three of them. I present them, with minimal comment.
   .
3. YUTorah on parashat Bo
   .
4. Why the plural לֵילֵי in Targum Onkelos regarding לֵיל שִׁמֻּרִים?  Grammatically, it functions fine as a singular. But some remez based on a plural interpretation.
   .
5. Why does Rashi discuss עד בכור השבי in a pasuk that does not state it?  It is not evidence that Rashi had a different girsa in the pasuk. I think it is just bringing in a related derasha, where it is apprpriate in context. What various meforshim suggest.
   .

2011

1. Bo sources -- further improved and expanded.
   .
2. Rabbenu Bachya, Locusts, and Crocodiles -- Rabbenu Bachya has two fascinating explanations of pesukim regarding the makkos, and Moshe's removal of them. Unfortunately, at least one of them is demonstrably false.
   .
3. Westbound locusts -- was Rashi a Flat Earther?  Why, according to Rashi, did the locusts come from the east? Nimukei Rashi investigates, as do I.
   .
4. Is the Rambam Torah-Code Against Chazal?  A masoretic codex (Hilleli) and a Rishon (Rikanti) both record different texts in the Chumash. each of these would mess up the neat 50 skip pattern. similarly, there are a number of other variant textual readings recorded, which would also mess up the 613 skip. this is in like with the statement of the Amora Rav Yosef that we don't have all the yuds and vavs correct, and we are not experts on which should be where. this effectively undermines the Rambam Torah code.

2010

1. Bo sources -- over 100 meforshim on the parsha and haftara, organized by topic.
   .
2. Bo as "come to Pharaoh"? Does it make sense to tell someone to come to person X, instead of to go to person X? I favor Baal HaTurim's answer over that of Avi Ezer.
   .
3. Was Ibn Ezra's comment that וְאַחֲרָיו לֹא יִהְיֶה-כֵּן is prophecy written by an erring student? What will we say about Ramban, then? Avi Ezer thinks a fairly frum comment of Ibn Ezra is quasi-heretical, and so frumly suggests that it was really written by an erring student. But then he would end up calling Ramban an erring student; and besides, there is a ready answer to just what novelty Ibn Ezra is suggesting.
   .
4. The non-surprising chaser vav in Leshono -- should we darshen it? In Midrash Lekach Tov, a derasha on a chaser spelling of a word. But is it fit to make such aderasha, when this is the entirely expected spelling?
   .
5. The masorah regarding the spelling of mezuzot -- Since the word ha-mezuzot appears in parshat Bo, Minchas Shai discusses the issue of the spelling of mezuzot in VaEtchanan and in general. There is a Rashi in VaEtchanan which darshens the word against the masoretic spelling. And this is one example of divergence among many? How can we deal with this? Shall we harmonize it, or leave it alone? I explain why I think the text indeed diverges.
   .
6. Why eat maror? It is to remind of the bitterness, or from some medical reason? Can we ascribe it to practical cause against the Rabbinic tradition (which also happens to make good sense)? Rashi, Ibn Ezra, Ibn Caspi. Also, how Ibn Ezra is thus frum.
   .
7. Is blood on the doorposts le-dorot? Two parses of a pasuk yields the blood on the doorposts as a command for just in Egypt, and as a recurring commandment. Similar to the structure by amah ivriya. I strongly favor the traditional parse as the better parse.
   .
8. Spontaneous generation of frogs and lice -- Ibn Caspi, a Rishon, explains the workings of two of the plagues based on the scientific workings of spontaneous generation. This should be taken as additional evidence that Rishonim can be wrong in matters of science.
   .
9. How do we count the 480 years? Assuming we take the 430 years in Egypt literally how do we reckon it? Also, how the Samaritan Torah differs, and whether this is persuasive?
   .
10. Is darkness a separate entity, or simply absence of light? Science vs. proofs from gemaras -- Is a question of scientific metzius as to the nature of light and dark really up for discussion, on the basis of the implications of pesukim and or gemaras?! It would seem that it indeed is, in some quarters.
    .
11. How the Zohar spells matzos -- How shall we spell מצות in Behaaloscha? The Zohar on parshat Bo seems to indicate that it ischaser, which goes against all known sefarim as well as the masores. But I rescue the Zohar's statement.

2009

1. Bo sources -- in a mikraos gedolos, and a collection of meforshim, all online, for parshat Bo and its haftarah.
   .
2. Darkness as thick as a dinar? A controversial Torah Temimah, and why I think it is wrong.
   .
3. Is Ran an apikores, by his own definition? The first part of a three-part series. I contrast Ran's statement that anyone who disputes a midrash is an apikores with his own position regarding makkat bechorot, where he argues with both Midrash Tanchuma and the Mechilta as to the meaning of bechor.

2008

1. Executing Judgments Against the gods of Egypt -- What does this mean? Perhaps using their deities. But no. Perhaps they were smashed during the plague of the firstborn. A parallel to Dagan. Plus, a connection to fertility, frogs, midwives, and middah kineged middah.
   .
2. See that Ra is against you -- Rashi, as a star, but could we interpret it as a reference to the Egyptian deity?

2006

1. Everyone vs. Every House -- A lengthy, close analysis of several midrashim and pesukim about makkat bechorot. Recommended.
   .
2. All Quiet On The Kushite Front -- How the locust plague made peace. And how to generate every detail of this midrash.

2005

1. How far did Pharaoh's voice carry? According to one midrash, when calling for Moshe, all across Egypt. A textual basis for this.
   .
2. Yoel to Moshe: My Locusts Can Beat Up Your Locusts -- Who had meaner locusts? Two pesukim appear to contradict one another, saying that these locusts are the worst ever. How to resolve such that both are the worst? Different approaches. A humorous homiletic approach. Measuring in different vectors. Or for variety (though there is a difficulty with this approach). Rashi locally and his supercommentaries take this on. And then Rashi in sefer Yoel has a different approach (that they came in waves). Finally, my two peshat-based approaches: 1) it is an idiom used in both places, and thus there is no contradiction, and 2) Yoel's locusts are not literal locusts but rather an invading army on horseback.

2004

1. Pharaoh's Servants' Hearts -- Though usually we hear of Pharoah's heart hardening, etc., once Hashem says that he has hardened the hearts of the servants. What cause to mention this? How does this fit in in general. Also, the same pasuk mentions that Hashem will show his signs in his (/their) midst. How can something be in the midst of one person?
   .
2. How Did Moshe Know the Next Plague Would Be Locusts? If Hashem does not explicitly tell him? It was on the staff! Or from a gezera shava to Yoel. Or it was told to him but the pasuk doesn't mention this. See inside.
   .
3. Further thoughts on foreknowledge of plagues -- Based on the above. Doesn't Moshe see one additional letter on the staff? Thus, wouldn't he know that makkat bechorot is coming? Then how come he seems not to know?
   .
4. A Simple Count -- Headaches in deciding how long the Israelites were in Egypt. Constraints based on the fact that Amram married Yocheved, the (literal) daughter of Levi. A quasi-heretical solution and a midrashic solution, such that she was not literally the daughter of Levi.

Why does Rashi discuss עד בכור השבי in a pasuk that does not state it?

Summary: It is not evidence that Rashi had a different girsa in the pasuk. I think it is just bringing in a related derasha, where it is apprpriate in context. What various meforshim suggest.

Post: Consider the following pasuk and Rashi from parashat Bo, in 11:5:

5. and every firstborn in the land of Egypt will die, from the firstborn of Pharaoh who sits on his throne to the firstborn of the slave woman who is behind the millstones, and every firstborn animal.		ה. וּמֵת כָּל בְּכוֹר בְּאֶרֶץ מִצְרַיִם מִבְּכוֹר פַּרְעֹה הַיֹּשֵׁב עַל כִּסְאוֹ עַד בְּכוֹר הַשִּׁפְחָה אֲשֶׁר אַחַר הָרֵחָיִם וְכֹל בְּכוֹר בְּהֵמָה:
to the firstborn of the captive: Why were the captives smitten? So that they would not say, “Our deity has demanded [vengeance] for their [our] degradation, and brought retribution upon Egypt.” -[from Mechilta, Bo, on Exod. 12:29]		עד בכור השבי: (שמות יב כט) למה לקו השבויים, כדי שלא יאמרו, יראתם תבעה עלבונם והביאה פורענות על מצרים:

There is a seeming mismatch between the pasuk and the dibbur hamatchil. The pasuk says עַד בְּכוֹר הַשִּׁפְחָה while the dibbur hamatchil is עד בכור השבי. That phrase only occurs in Shemot 12:29, and indeed, the Mechilta is drawn from there.

The commentary Chelek Hadikduk in this PDF presenting R' Saadia Gaon's Tafsir, page 80, writes:

So is it in all printings, though in this pasuk is not written עד בכור השבי, but rather in Shemot 12:29.

So that it where I first saw this issue.

I would note that the very next Rashi does cite words from the pasuk, and a derasha, appropriate to the local pasuk:

from the firstborn of Pharaoh… to the firstborn of the slave woman: All those inferior to the Pharaoh’s firstborn and superior to the slave woman’s firstborn were included. Why were the sons of the slave women smitten? Because they too were enslaving them [the Israelites] and were happy about their misfortune. — [from Pesikta Rabbathi, ch. 17]

מבכור פרעה עד בכור השפחה: כל הפחותים מבכור פרעה וחשובים מבכור השפחה היו בכלל. ולמה לקו בני השפחות, שאף הם היו משעבדים בהם ושמחים בצרתם:

So certainly before suggesting that Rashi had a different text in his sefer Torah, we should carefully explore other options. Because the temptation might be to note that 11:15 and 12:29 are quite similar, and השבי begins similarly to השפחה, such that this is an error in Rashi's sefer Torah (or worse, our sifrei Torah).

Here is a manuscript from Rome, 1470, which has both Rashis, in the order presented above. And here is another from Munich, 1233 -- see the second column. And here is another, from Cod Hebr 3 -- see the middle of the first column. So too, early printings.

The Septuagint has hashifcha, just like our Masoretic text. And the Samaritan text has hashifcha. Vetus Testamentum mentions only one Jewish text that has השבי here, which is undoubtedly the result of an error, from some scribe recollecting the wrong pasuk at the wrong time.

It would seem that Rashi, or some later scribe, simply placed this midrash here, since it is akin to the local midrash. Perhaps he would equate שבי with שפחה, since conquered people became slaves, or because the two midrashim are addressing similar points. And the dibbur hamatchil would be placed here, despite it being of a foreign pasuk, to make clear that the midrash was not really going on the local pasuk.


Rabbi Chaim Hirschenson, in Nimukei Rashi, cites this Rashi and then writes:

"According to this nusach which is before us in Rashi, with first the designation מבכור השבי [sic] and then the designation מבכור פרעה עד בכור השפחה, it appears as if there was before Rashi this nusach in Scriptures:  מבכור פרעה עד בכור השפחה עד בכור השבי.


And chas veShalom to think this!


And IMHO, there was omitted from the language of Rashi za"l a statement, and one should say, and designate:


'מבכור פרעה, and to Israel he said later עד בכור השבי. And why were the captives smitten? So that they would not say, “Our deity has demanded [vengeance] for their [our] degradation, and brought retribution upon Egypt מבכור פרעה עד בכור השפחה.” All who were less than the firstborn of Pharaoh and more important that the firstborn of the maidservant were encompassed.'


That is to say, so would the captives say, who were not encompassed, that only those who were lesser than the firstborn of Pharaoh and more important than the firstborn of the maidservant, but those who were less than the firstborn of the maidservant, who were the captives, were not encompassed, for the main portion of the plague came upon Egypt, in their opinion, because their deity demanded vengeance for their degradation. Therefore, Moshe said to Israel that also the firstborn of the captives would die, and in the warning he said 'until the firstborn of the maidservant' because he warned all of the enslavers. 'For even the maidservant was of the enslavers.' "

This seems rather unlikely for a number of reasons, but I am not going to go into that here.

Mizrachi writes:

"Though בכור השבי isn't written here, but rather בכור השפחה, Rashi wishes to resolve the difficulty of the verses. For in the implementation is written 'and Hashem smote all firstborn in the land of Egypt, from the firstborn of Pharaoh who sat on his throne until the firstborn of the captives.' And this implies that the firstborn of the captives was also smitten. And in the warning is written 'until the firstborn of the maidservant', which implies 'and not the firstborn of the captives', which is lesser than the firstborn of the maidservant, as the Rav [=Rashi] writes himself. And he says that that which the verse states by the inplementation עד בכור השבי is to say that even the בכור השבי were smitten, despite not subjugating Israel, since they were also subjugated like Israel, so that they should not say that their deity brought retribution for their degradation, and that this plague came upon the Egyptians not because of Israel.


And that which the verse states by the warning עד בכור השפחה, such that the בכור השבי is not encompassed within it, this is because the primary force of this plague only came because they were subjugating Israel, and those who were subjugating them were only until the firstborn of the maidservant, for since their fathers were Egyptians they had dominion over Israel, and subjugated them. But the בכור השבי, who did not subjugate Israel, since they were themselves subjugated like Israel, they were only smitten so that they should not say that their deity brought retribution for their degradation, they were not encompassed in the warning. For the warning was only for the sake of Israel, and they were not encompassed.


And now it is no question at all, for in the warning it speaks of those who were subjugating Israel, and in the actual implementation it was speaking about all those who were smitten. And the happiness at their [=the Israelites'] suffering which is stated by the sons of the maidservants is כדי נסבה {?}, for they were not liable for smiting because of this had they not also subjugated Israel, for if they were liable also for this [alone], also the captives who were happy in their [=Israel's] misfortune, as Rashi wrote, they would be liable to be smitten. And if so, also the firstborn of the captives would be encompassed, just like the firstborn of the maidservant, and so why were the firstborn of the captives not encompassed in the warning."

There is a lot more to this sugya, but this seems just about sufficient. I'll just close with a reference to the discussion about why this midrash on that non-local pasuk is brought here. To cite Yosef Daas:

Why the plural לֵילֵי in Targum Onkelos regarding לֵיל שִׁמֻּרִים?

Summary: Grammatically, it functions fine as a singular. But some remez based on a plural interpretation.

Post: Consider the following pasuk and Onkelos:

יב,מב לֵיל שִׁמֻּרִים הוּא לַה', לְהוֹצִיאָם מֵאֶרֶץ מִצְרָיִם:  הוּא-הַלַּיְלָה הַזֶּה לַה', שִׁמֻּרִים לְכָל-בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל לְדֹרֹתָם.  {פ}

לֵילֵי נְטִיר הוּא קֳדָם יְיָ, לְאַפָּקוּתְהוֹן מֵאַרְעָא דְּמִצְרָיִם:  הוּא לֵילְיָא הָדֵין קֳדָם יְיָ, נְטִיר לְכָל בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל לְדָרֵיהוֹן.  {פ}

Chelek Hadikduk writes (page 106) to consider why the singular in Biblical Hebrew seems to be rendered by a plural in Aramaic:

"The Targum is לֵילֵי. According to its simple meaning {peshat} he took the language of Chazal in the Mishnah, e.g. leilei Shabbos; leilei Pesachim; see Tosafot Yom Tov {?}.


And it is possible to say that this is a remez to us in this of the leil of Yom Tov Sheini of the Diaspora, for this is the start of the moadim. Alternatively, it is a remez that this night is not alone for the miracle of Egypt, for it will have miracles in the future, as Chazal darshen לֵיל שִׁמֻּרִים, etc., that this was in the days of Avraham, for it is written ויחלק עליהם לילה; the second one is the exodus from Egypt. This is {the continuation of the pasuk} לְהוֹצִיאָם מֵאֶרֶץ מִצְרָיִם. The third was in the days of Chizkiyah: ויהי בלילה ההוא ויצא מלאך ה'ש -- this is הוּא-הַלַּיְלָה הַזֶּה לַה'א. The fourth is in the future to come as well. This is שִׁמֻּרִים לְכָל-בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל לְדֹרֹתָם -- for the end of their doros."

Nice, though remez is not exactly my cup of tea.

Back to the peshat perspective, here is what Jastrow writes about לילי functioning as both a plural and singular construct form:

YUTorah on parashat Bo

Audio Shiurim on Bo Rabbi Elchanan Adler: The Status of Mitzvos Before Matan Torah  Rabbi Hanan Balk: Showing Respect for Paro  Rabbi Eli Belizon: How We Celebrate and How They Celebrate  Rabbi Yedidya Berzon: Let's Do It!  Rabbi Reuven Brand: Hidden Sparks within the Plague of Darkness  Rabbi Asher Brander: Significance of the Eighth Plague  Rabbi Chaim Brovender: Hardened Hearts  Rabbi Yitzchok Cohen: Hardening Pharoh's Heart and Unhardening Our Hearts  Rabbi Avishai David: Did Pharoah Have Free Will? Rabbi Ally Ehrman: Darkness That Is Light  Rabbi Chaim Eisenstein: Kiddush HaChodesh  Rabbi Aaron Feigenbaum: Small Miracles  Rabbi Joel Finkelstein: Teach the Children Well  Rabbi Meir Goldwicht: The Essence of the Doorway in Egypt  Rabbi Yonah Gross: Pharoh's Hardened Heart: Perspectives on Free Will  Rabbi Lawrence Hajioff: A Beginners Guide to the Exodus Rabbi Shalom Hammer: A Family of Action  Rabbi David Hirsch: Being Noseh B'ol Chaveiro  Rabbi David Hollander: Lo Rau Ish Es Achiv  Rabbi Jesse Horn: Hashem's Right to Eliminate Man's Free Will Rabbi Shimon Isaacson: Getting through the Tough Times  Rabbi Aharon Kahn: The inclusion of Aharon in the first mitzvah of Hachodesh hazeh lochem  Rabbi Ari Kahn: Around Midnight  Rabbi Yisroel Kaminetsky: Yitziat Mitzrayim, Foundation of Our Emunah  Rabbi Eliakim Koenigsberg: Internalizing the Truth Rabbi Aryeh Lebowitz: Together but Different  Rabbi Aryeh Leibowitz: Overcoming Hardship with God Consciousness  Rabbi Aaron Leibtag: Why Did the Jewish People Need to Leave With So Much Wealth? Rabbi Yaakov Neuburger: The Reason For Mitzvos  Rabbi Dani Rapp: Should You Always Run After Mitzvos?  Rabbi Hershel Reichman: Hardening Pharoh's Heart  Rabbi Zev Reichman: Chasidic Insight to the Plagues  Rabbi Zvi Romm: The Downfall of Egypt  Rabbi Yonason Sacks: Mitzvas Zechiras Yetzias Mitzrayim  Mrs Ilana Saks: Skip in Time  Rabbi Hershel Schachter: The Mitzvah of Establishing the New Moon Rabbi Avi Schneider: Time for a New Moon  Rabbi Baruch Simon: Hischadshus in our Shelichus  Mrs. Shira Smiles: Midnight Mindfulness  Rabbi Aaron Soloveichik: B'erev Tochlu Matzos  Rabbi Reuven Spolter: The Other Darkness  Rabbi Josh Strulowitz: Howlin' at the Moon: The Mitzvah of Sanctifying the New Moon Rabbi Moshe Taragin: The greatest night  Rabbi Michael Taubes: Bathing and Showering on Yom Tov  Rabbi Mordechai Torczyner: Blood on the Doorpost  Rabbi Moshe Tzvi Weinberg: Torah Perspectives on Food and Eating Dr. Shira Weiss: Divine Providence: A Case Study of Maimonides' View on Pharaoh  Rabbi Moshe Willig: Time on a Higher Plane Rabbi Andi Yudin: Revival and Renewal  Rabbi Ari Zahtz: Why all the Borrowed Riches  Articles on Bo Dr. Harvey Babich: Locusts: High in Protein, Low in Carbs Rabbi Etan Moshe Berman: How to Respond to the Challengers of Judaismy Rabbi Beinish Ginsburg: Kedusha in all aspects of life Rabbi Ozer Glickman: On the Road Rabbi Shmuel Goldin: Conspicuous Consumption Rabbi Avraham Gordimer: The Role of Matzah in Yetzias Mitzrayim Rabbi Dovid Gottlieb: The Three-Fold Message of the Moon Rabbi Maury Grebenau: Death of the Firstborn: A Murder Mystery Rabbi Josh Hoffman: Thank  Rabbi David Horwitz: Rambam’s Resolution of the Antinomy of Human Free Will and God’s Hardening of Pharaoh’s Heart Rabbis Stanley Wagner and Israel Drazin: The Plague of Darkness Rav Avigdor Nebenzahl: The Name of Hashem Rabbi Meir Orlian: For all Bnei Yisrael there was Light in their Dwelling Rabbi Jeremy Wieder: Laining for Parshat Bo See all shiurim on YUTorah for Parshat Bo

New This Week Heart Transplants in Halacha Rabbi Dr Howard Apfel Hilchos Shabbos: The Melacha of Borer (sorting) Rabbi Avishai David The Israeli Religious Conflict in Context: Devotion or Extremism Rabbi Yonah Gross The importance of learning to listen  Rabbi Jesse Horn Smichas Geulah Litefilah: Past and Future Geulah  Rabbi Aharon Kahn Torah Umadda's 20th Anniversary Rabbi Norman Lamm Maharal on Agadic Sugyos: Literal or Allegorical?  Rabbi Aryeh Leibowitz Speech from the 5772 RIETS dinner  Rabbi Dr. Aharon Lichtenstein The Halacha of the Halacha: What is the Authority of the Torah? Rabbi Yehuda Parnes Aliyah: The Reality  Rabbi Aaron Rakeffet-Rothkoff Chazzara Shiur for Rav Soloveitchik Rabbi Hershel Schachter The Berachah Ahsani Kirtzonoh Rabbi Allen Schwartz Listening to a Navi Rabbi Zvi Sobolofsky

Darshening psiks in parashat Bo

Summary: Birkas Avraham interprets three of them. I present them, with minimal comment.

Post: I saw the following interpretations of psik in Birkas Avraham on parashas Bo.

#1:

"1. Psik after the word ואכל, to allude to that beside the eating, the locusts also ruined and destroyed.


In the verse (Shemos 10:5):

5. And they will obscure the view of the earth, and no one will be able to see the earth, and they will eat the surviving remnant, which remains for you from the hail, and they will eat all your trees that grow out of the field.

ה. וְכִסָּה אֶת עֵין הָאָרֶץ וְלֹא יוּכַל לִרְאֹת אֶת הָאָרֶץ וְאָכַל אֶת יֶתֶר הַפְּלֵטָה הַנִּשְׁאֶרֶת לָכֶם מִן הַבָּרָד וְאָכַל אֶת כָּל הָעֵץ הַצֹּמֵחַ לָכֶם מִן הַשָּׂדֶה:

there is the trup symbol of psik after the word וְאָכַל:

Certainly this alludes to an addition which is oral. And it appears that it is understood with that which is translated in Targum Yonasan the word ואכל as וישיצי (which is not like Onkelos who translated ויֵכול which means only eating). And in truth, also in the explanation of the Seforno he writes upon וְאָכַל אֶת כָּל הָעֵץ (at the end of the pasuk):

פסוק הוְאָכַל אֶת כָּל הָעֵץ. יְקַלְקְלֵהוּ, כְּמו "וְהָיָה לֶאֱכל" (דברים לא, כז), "כִּי אָכַל אֶת יַעֲקב" (תהלים עט, ז). ש

 that they will ruin it, as in (Devarim 31:17)

17. And My fury will rage against them on that day, and I will abandon them and hide My face from them, and they will be consumed, and many evils and troubles will befall them, and they will say on that day, 'Is it not because our God is no longer among us, that these evils have befallen us?'

יז. וְחָרָה אַפִּי בוֹ בַיּוֹם הַהוּא וַעֲזַבְתִּים וְהִסְתַּרְתִּי פָנַי מֵהֶם וְהָיָה לֶאֱכֹל וּמְצָאֻהוּ רָעוֹת רַבּוֹת וְצָרוֹת וְאָמַר בַּיּוֹם הַהוּא הֲלֹא עַל כִּי אֵין אֱלֹהַי בְּקִרְבִּי מְצָאוּנִי הָרָעוֹת הָאֵלֶּה:

and Tehillim 79:7:

ז  כִּי, אָכַל אֶת-יַעֲקֹב;    וְאֶת-נָוֵהוּ הֵשַׁמּוּ.

7 For they have devoured Jacob, and laid waste his habitation.

End quote [of Seforno]."

And end quote of Birkas Avraham.

As an aside, it an interesting editorial mixup that ascribed the pasuk in Tehillim to sefer Devarim, and copied the incorrect pasuk within the perek for it.

Of course, I view this psik as a munach legarmeih. And darshening every munach legarmeih makes the phenomenon much more plentiful than simply the psiks, and thus potentially less out of the ordinary and worthy of derash. I still like mentioning when people darshen trup. And I think it is telling for remez in general that even when seeing something which is not legitimately there, a clever and creative person will be able to point out what it is a remez to. Perhaps this raises questions about the legitimacy of the entire enterprise.

Certainly without the remez, the word אכל has a wider semantic range that just 'eat'.

#2: Next, Birkas Avraham writes:

"17. In אך ביום הראשון תשביתו שאור מבתיכם כי, the psik after the word כי associates it with what comes before, to inform that there is a manner of removal from thirty days before.

In the pasuk (Shmos 12:15):

15. For seven days you shall eat unleavened cakes, but on the preceding day you shall clear away all leaven from your houses, for whoever eats leaven from the first day until the seventh day that soul shall be cut off from Israel.

טו. שִׁבְעַת יָמִים מַצּוֹת תֹּאכֵלוּ אַךְ בַּיּוֹם הָרִאשׁוֹן תַּשְׁבִּיתוּ שְּׂאֹר מִבָּתֵּיכֶם כִּי כָּל אֹכֵל חָמֵץ וְנִכְרְתָה הַנֶּפֶשׁ הַהִוא מִיִּשְׂרָאֵל מִיּוֹם הָרִאשֹׁן עַד יוֹם הַשְּׁבִעִי:

as well as a bit later in the pasuk (Shemos 12:19)

19. For seven days, leavening shall not be found in your houses, for whoever eats leavening that soul shall be cut off from the community of Israel, both among the strangers and the native born of the land.

יט. שִׁבְעַת יָמִים שְׂאֹר לֹא יִמָּצֵא בְּבָתֵּיכֶם כִּי כָּל אֹכֵל מַחְמֶצֶת וְנִכְרְתָה הַנֶּפֶשׁ הַהִוא מֵעֲדַת יִשְׂרָאֵל בַּגֵּר וּבְאֶזְרַח הָאָרֶץ:

In both of them there is a trup symbol of psik (a vertical bar) after the word כי:

whose implication is to encompass the word כי with that which is written above. And it is possible to say that this alludes to what is stated in maseches Pesachim (6a)

ואמר רב יהודה אמר רב המפרש והיוצא בשיירא קודם שלשים יום אין זקוק לבער תוך שלשים יום זקוק לבער

Rab Judah also said in Rab's name: He who sets sail, and he who sets out in a [caravan] company,

before thirty days [prior to Passover], is not bound to remove [the leaven]; if within thirty days, he is

bound to remove [it].

"

To state this idea more explicitly, the gematria of כי is 30, and the vertical bar separates the ki from what follows with a pause, such that in each of these cases, we will attach it to the preceding statement, which is that chametz should not be found in your house. A nice remez.

Again, this is not strictly a psik, but is rather a munach legarmeih, such that rather than there being a semantic cause for the break, it is a regular pausal accent brought about by syntax, verse length, the context of other trup symbols, and the distance to the end of the clause it is dividing. And if one wants to find a remez, the odds are that in the entirety of Rabbinic literature, one can find a remez. And if not, one can simply avoid discussing the particular item and focus on remazim in other pastures.

#3: Finally, Birkas Avraham writes:

7. The psik after the word ולכל of ולכל בני ישראל, for Datan and Aviram were still in Egypt.


In the verse (Shemo 11:7)

7. But to all the children of Israel, not one dog will whet its tongue against either man or beast, in order that you shall know that the Lord will separate between the Egyptians and between Israel.'

ז. וּלְכֹל בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל לֹא יֶחֱרַץ כֶּלֶב לְשֹׁנוֹ לְמֵאִישׁ וְעַד בְּהֵמָה לְמַעַן תֵּדְעוּן אֲשֶׁר יַפְלֶה יְ־הֹוָ־ה בֵּין מִצְרַיִם וּבֵין יִשְׂרָאֵל:

there is a trup symbol of psik after the word וּלְכֹל:

And it is possible to say that this hinds that not all of Israel was there, for Datan and Aviram still remained in Egypt, as it stated in Targum Yonasan ben Uziel on the verse [in Beshalach] (Shemot 14:3):

3. And Pharaoh will say about the children of Israel, They are trapped in the land. The desert has closed in upon them.

ג. וְאָמַר פַּרְעֹה לִבְנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל נְבֻכִים הֵם בָּאָרֶץ סָגַר עֲלֵיהֶם הַמִּדְבָּר:

'And Pharaoh said to Datan and Aviram, [who were] the children of Israel who remained in Egypt, The people of the house of Israel are bewildered in the land...'


{J: Thus taking לִבְנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל as the people spoken to, rather than the people spoken about; or perhaps both.}


And in this way it is possible to explain further, for behold on that which is written later (Shemot 12:37):

37. The children of Israel journeyed from Rameses to Succoth, about six hundred thousand on foot, the men, besides the young children.

לז. וַיִּסְעוּ בְנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל מֵרַעְמְסֵס סֻכֹּתָה כְּשֵׁשׁ מֵאוֹת אֶלֶף רַגְלִי הַגְּבָרִים לְבַד מִטָּף:

Chazal darshen that which is written כְּשֵׁשׁ מֵאוֹת, like six hundred, that it is as if {if one could say it} Hashem was with them and completed the sum of six hundred thousand. And as Moreinu Harav Yitzchak Karo za"l explained in Toldos Yitzchak regarding that which was stated in Pirkei deRabbi Eliezer (perek tet' lamed {??} that these words are coming to explain that which is written כְּשֵׁשׁ מֵאוֹת אֶלֶף. For in Pirkei deRabbi Eliezer there is the statement in the following language:

When Israel ascended from Egypt, all the males gave their lineage, 600,000, minus 1. What did Hashem do? He entered into the count with them, such that their count was 600,000.

See there, and  in Torah Shleima there, item 579.


And behold, in the verse there, it is not fitting to explain the deficiency in the count by aspect of missing Datan and Aviram, but here, by way of drush which is given over to be darshened when it does not go against the halacha, I would essay to explain that therefore it is written כְּשֵׁשׁ מֵאוֹת אֶלֶף רַגְלִי as they traveled from Raamses, because of Datan and Aviram's absence at that time, for behold, according to Targum Yonasan, only after that, when Pharaoh pursued after the Israelites, did Datan and Aviram go and mingle within the Israelites who left Egypt. And according to our words, it is possible to explain why, in parashat Behaalotecha, it is written that Moshe Rabbenu said (in Bemidbar 11:21) שש מאות אלף רגלי העם אשר אנכי בקרבו {without the כ}, for Datan and Aviram were already there."

All in all, a nice construction, despite from my repeated objection that this is a munach legarmeih rather than a psik.

Bo sources -- 2012 edition

by aliyah

rishon (Shemot 10:1)

sheni (10:12)

shlishi (10:24)

revii (11:4)

chamishi (12:21)

shishi (12:29)

shevii (13:1)

maftir (13:14)

haftarah (Yirmeyahu 46:13 - 46:28, meaning the end of the perek), with Malbim, Abarbanel, Mahari Kara

by perek

perek 10 ; perek 11 ; perek 12 ; perek 13

meforshim

Judaica Press Rashi in English and Hebrew (France, 1040 - 1105) -- ואני לא באתי אלא לפשוטו של מקרא ולאגדה המיישבת דברי המקרא, דבר דבור על אופניו

Chizkuni (13th century, commentary written about 1240)-- see Jewish Encyclopedia entry.
Shadal (1800-1865) -- see Wikipedia entry:

1. In plain text here, though not encoding some of the trup and nikkud, and omitting certain references to non-Jewish scholars.
2. In Google book form  here , but with all that was omitted above. Also, with Shadal's Italian translation of the Chumash text.
3. Mishtadel , an earlier and shorter commentary
4. In determining the correct girsa of Targum Onkelos, Ohev Ger

Daat -- with Rashi, Ramban, Seforno, Ibn Ezra, Rashbam, Rabbenu Bachya, Midrash Rabba, Tanchuma+, Gilyonot.

Gilyonot Nechama Leibovitz (Hebrew) -- see Wikipedia entry.

Succah 2a, part iii

I discuss the following portion, regarding the three-way machlokes between Rabba, Rabbi Zera, and Rava, about why a Succah must be 20 amos or less, in a somwhat novel manner:

מנה"מ אמר רבה דאמר קרא (ויקרא כג, מג) למען ידעו דורותיכם כי בסוכות הושבתי את בני ישראל עד עשרים אמה אדם יודע שהוא דר בסוכה למעלה מעשרים אמה אין אדם יודע שדר בסוכה משום דלא שלטא בה עינא רבי זירא אמר מהכא (ישעיהו ד, ו) וסוכה תהיה לצל יומם מחורב עד עשרים אמה אדם יושב בצל סוכה למעלה מעשרים אמה אין אדם יושב בצל סוכה אלא בצל דפנות א"ל אביי אלא מעתה העושה סוכתו בעשתרות קרנים הכי נמי דלא הוי סוכה א"ל התם דל עשתרות קרנים איכא צל סוכה הכא דל דפנות ליכא צל סוכה ורבא אמר מהכא (ויקרא כג, מב) בסוכות תשבו שבעת ימים אמרה תורה כל שבעת הימים צא מדירת קבע ושב בדירת עראי עד עשרים אמה אדם עושה דירתו דירת עראי למעלה מעשרים אמה אין אדם עושה דירתו דירת עראי אלא דירת קבע א"ל אביי אלא מעתה עשה מחיצות של ברזל וסיכך על גבן הכי נמי דלא הוי סוכה א"ל הכי קאמינא לך עד כ' אמה דאדם עושה דירתו דירת עראי כי עביד ליה דירת קבע נמי נפיק למעלה מכ' אמה דאדם עושה דירתו דירת קבע כי עביד ליה דירת עראי נמי לא נפיק

Here are some mar'ei mekomos I used in producing this:

Succah 2a

Vayikra 24:42-43

Yeshaya 4:6

And in English translation of Rashi

And various meforshim at Daat