Yoel 2:2, we see that Yoel's locust plague is the most intense ever:
| ב יוֹם חֹשֶׁךְ וַאֲפֵלָה, יוֹם עָנָן וַעֲרָפֶל, כְּשַׁחַר, פָּרֻשׂ עַל-הֶהָרִים; עַם, רַב וְעָצוּם--כָּמֹהוּ לֹא נִהְיָה מִן-הָעוֹלָם, וְאַחֲרָיו לֹא יוֹסֵף עַד-שְׁנֵי דּוֹר וָדוֹר. | 2 A day of darkness and gloominess, a day of clouds and thick darkness, as blackness spread upon the mountains; a great people and a mighty, there hath not been ever the like, neither shall be any more after them, even to the years of many generations. |
I would summarize the traditional answer as the difference in measuring the locust swarm as a scalar or as a vector. (Examples of scalars: speed, distance, mass, temperature; Example of vector: velocity, which has speed and angle.) If as a scalar, then the measure is a single number, and there can be only one maximum - only one worst. If as a vector, then the measurement can be resolved into components, and you can define more than one maximum.
So, measure locust swarms as vectors, with components such as ferocity, appetite, number, number of different species. A can be more ferocious than B, and B can have a bigger appetite than A. Rashi explains that Yoel's was worse than the one in Egypt because it had a greater number of species. For in Egypt, in parshat Bo, we only read of one species: Arbeh, locusts (see pasuk cited above). In Yoel, we read of 4 different species: Yoel 1:4:
The Torah's message to us here is clear. Just as swarms of locusts have different maalot and chisronot, different qualities that make them best, so too different individuals have different qualities which are their strong point. We should develop ourselves to reach our own personal zenith in our own outstanding qualities.
:)
OK, I was just spoofing some other prominent weekly dvars. Onwards!
The problem with this is, as Ramban points out, that there seems to be more than one species in Egypt as well. (Note: I consulted a bit at this point with this dvar torah on Parshat Bo by HaRav Yosef Carmel.) As we read in Tehillim 78:46:
and in Tehillim 105:34:
חָסִיל, אַרְבֶּה, יֶלֶק.
I would say immediately that even if we include these three species, we have a total of three. Yoel's locusts still outrank Moshe's, because they also contain גָּזָם.
However, Rashi did mention that there was only one species in Egypt. Gur Aryeh and Mizrachi save the day by saying that Rashi in fact knew of the other species, but that there was mainly arbeh and relatively few of the other species, whereas in Yoel's case it was equal measures of each. (One might bolster this by pointing out that this could be why only arbeh are mentioned in Torah, with the other two species mentioned as afterthoughts in two separate locations in Tehillim. Meanwhile by Yoel there is each species mentioned on its own, in separate waves, such that one might argue that they are therefore in equal measure.) It is strange though to create what is essentially a neo-midrash for the sole purpose of rescuing Rashi's language. More likely Rashi, or Rashi's source did not consider the scattered mentions of the locust plagues in Tehillim, or did not consider them significant (I'll explain what I mean by this shortly.)
Rashi on Yoel offers a different explanation, that in Yoel they came in waves. (That which the palmer-worm hath left hath the locust eaten; and that which the locust hath left hath the canker-worm eaten; and that which the canker-worm hath left hath the caterpiller eaten.) This feature is enough to make them worse than the plague in Egypt.
I would rescue Rashi in a different way. Looking just at sefer Shemot, all we see are arbeh. None of the other species of locust are present. Sure, in one place in Tehillim in mentions another species, and in another place in Tehillim it mentions a still other species. But, are we to take these mentions in Tehillim as absolutely referring to the existence of other species? In Shemot, again, all we see are arbeh. And in Tehillim, we have Biblical poetry.
One element of Biblical poetry is the repetition of the same idea in one pasuk, using different language. (The same is true in contemporary extra-Biblical poetry. For example, in the Baal Chronicles, "He held the bowl in his hand, he held the cup in his right hand." He is not holding a bowl in his left and a cup in his right, but rather hand/right hand refer to the same hand, and bowl/cup refer to the same entity.) Ibn Ezra says this about Biblical poetry, such that one should not necessarily consider a repetition to convey two separate and distinguishable thoughts. Malbim on the other hand, would consider this heretical, as the Torah does not waste words. (Perhaps we could compare this to a Rabbi Akiva/Rabbi Yishmael dispute, where Rabbi Akiva derives laws from doubling of language, while Rabbi Yishmael dismisses this approach, saying dibra torah kilshon benei adam, that the Torah speaks in the language of people.)
Now reexamine the citations in Tehilliim, cited above.
Tehillim 78:46:
Chasil is matched with arbeh, and increase with labor. In the next pasuk, we have barad/chanamal (hail/frost), and vines/sycamore trees. In the next, we have barad/reshaphim (hail/fiery bolts) {there were two aspects to the hail} and cattle/flocks. In pasuk 51, we have first-born/first-fruits, ad Egypt/tents of Cham. These refer to the same. In 52, we have sheep/flock.
In Tehillim 105:34:
That is, just because the pasuk uses a different word, it does not preclude referring to the same item, even if the word can have another connotation.
Similarly, even though it uses specialized terms for locust, it is matching them with locust in the other half of the verse, and so it does not mean (or necessarily mean) that a different species is in play. And so, it is very possible that, referencing in Tehillim notwithstanding, there was only a single species in Egypt.
By Yoel, in contrast, the reference to different species of locust is deliberate and separate. As mentioned earlier, they are separate waves, such that after the gazam comes the arbeh, after which comes the yelek, followed finally by the chasil. One cannot say that they are poetic repetition.
Ramban, after rejecting Rashi, suggests that the locust plague in Egypt was the worst for Egypt, but not overall. Yoel's would be worst overall. {Perhaps we could similarly restrict it to Eretz Yisrael.} There is indeed a focus on Egypt's borders, and it mentions it being the worst since their ancestors were on the land {of Egypt}. Shemot 10:
| ד כִּי אִם-מָאֵן אַתָּה, לְשַׁלֵּחַ אֶת-עַמִּי--הִנְנִי מֵבִיא מָחָר אַרְבֶּה, בִּגְבֻלֶךָ. | 4 Else, if thou refuse to let My people go, behold, to-morrow will I bring locusts into thy border; |
I would offer other explanations. The first thing to realize, IMHO, is that Yoel knew parshat Bo. Torah preceded his prophecy he was presumably familiar with its contents. As such, Yoel would realize that his statement seems to come in conflict with that of the Torah.
More than that. I would say the choice of description of the locusts as the worst fromever and forever is a deliberate echoing of parshat Bo. Had the Torah not described the locusts in Egypt as the worst ever, Yoel would not have described them as such either. That is, Yoel wants to describe a forthcoming plague of locusts, and makes a Biblical allusion, describing them the same way that the plague in Egypt was describes.
If so, perhaps the description in Yoel can be taken non-literally. He means to say it will be a grievous plague indeed, and to stress how awful it will be, takes a page out of his Chumash. But he does not really mean that they will be the worst ever, for Moshe's are already that.
Also, there is the possibility that Yoel's locust plague is metaphorical in its entirety, and is being used to describe forthcoming destruction. The descriptions of features of the locusts, in Yoel 2:4-5:
No comments:
Post a Comment