Next pasuk:
| טו וַיֹּאמֶר מָנוֹחַ, אֶל-מַלְאַךְ ה: נַעְצְרָה-נָּא אוֹתָךְ, וְנַעֲשֶׂה לְפָנֶיךָ גְּדִי עִזִּים. | 15 And Manoah said unto the angel of the LORD: 'I pray thee, let us detain thee, that we may make ready a kid for thee.' |
The Malbim writes:
[יג, טו]'let us detain thee' -- since he did not know if he was a navi or a malach, he said 'if you are a navi', then נַעְצְרָה-נָּא אוֹתָךְ; and if you are a malach, then נַעֲשֶׂה לְפָנֶיךָ גְּדִי עִזִּים, as a sacrifice."
נעצרה נא אותך -באשר לא ידע אם הוא נביא או מלאך, אמר: אם נביא אתה - נעצרה אותך לסעוד אצלנו.
ואם מלאך אתה - נעשה לפניך גדי עזים לקרבן:
Earlier, I spoke of Malbim's multivalent approach -- taking the dispute among Rishonim as to whether it was a navi or an angel, and placing that ambiguity into the text itself. The alternative on this pasuk itself would be that they are offering him a meal of goat. But this is obvious, and need not even be said. The point is that this is a chiddush here, and a continuation of the ambiguity, from the Malbim.
I don't know whether they know at this point whether this is a man, an angel, or God. My strong guess would be that Manoach and his wife believe this is a navi, and this is not mere ambiguity, since Manoach said earlier (in pasuk 8), בִּי אֲדוֹנָי--אִישׁ הָאֱלֹהִים אֲשֶׁר שָׁלַחְתָּ, and so it is Hashem sending someone, and ish haelokim is perhaps to be contrasted with malach haelokim in 9 and 15. For a parallel, see Avraham with the malachim, and what nouns are used to describe them at various points. More on this in the next pasuk.
The next pasuk:
| טז וַיֹּאמֶר מַלְאַךְ ה אֶל-מָנוֹחַ, אִם-תַּעְצְרֵנִי לֹא-אֹכַל בְּלַחְמֶךָ, וְאִם-תַּעֲשֶׂה עֹלָה, לַה' תַּעֲלֶנָּה: כִּי לֹא-יָדַע מָנוֹחַ, כִּי-מַלְאַךְ ה הוּא. | 16 And the angel of the LORD said unto Manoah: 'Though thou detain me, I will not eat of thy bread; and if thou wilt make ready a burnt-offering, thou must offer it unto the LORD.' For Manoah knew not that he was the angel of the LORD. |
The Malbim writes:
יג, טז] והשיב אם תעצרני לסעודה לא אוכל, ואם תעשה עולה לה' תעלנה כי זובח לאלהים יחרם בלתי לה' לבדו.ובאר כי מנוח נסתפק ולא ידע בברור שהוא מלאך ה'. ולכן הסתפק בדבריו אם יעצרהו לסעודה או יקריב קרבן."And he responds 'If you detain me' for a meal, 'I will not eat, and it you make a burnt offering, make it to Hashem'. For one who sacrifices to gods shall be utterly destroyed, except to Hashem alone. (Shemot 22:19) And it explains {J: at the end of the pasuk} that Manoach was in doubt and did not know for certain that this was a malach of Hashem. And therefore he was doubtful in his words, if he was going to detain him for a meal, or if he would sacrifice a sacrifice."
And thus, Malbim clarifies the lack of knowledge in pasuk 16 as uncertainty and ambiguity, rather than definite lack of knowledge. This is possible, but it is a slight stretch, I think.
Of course, if we don't say like the Malbim, then why the sudden mention of sacrifice? Unless, by default, a meal of meat (from a kid) meant a sacrifice. And / or, the idea was that they would sacrifice even to this man, who they did not know was a malach.
Alternatively, if he is saying 'don't thank me', the next obvious target would be the One who sent him. And that would be Hashem.
There is quite the difficulty here, in identifying just what it is Manoach does not know. Recall the three possibilities of what the malach is:
- a regular man, sent by no one
- a malach, in the sense of angel
- a malach, in the sense of prophet (Ralbag)
If we say he was (2), then Manoach could have thought (1) or (3), but probably (3), given the ambiguity of Manoach's wife, etc. If we say he was really (3), then what did Manoach think he was?
I suppose we could say (1). It is slightly difficult to make out Radak, but I think that is what he means:
כי לא ידע -טעמו דבק עם נעצרה נא אותך."For he did not know -- its meaning is connected with 'let us detain thee'"
That is, since they thought he was a normal individual, rather than a prophet of Hashem, they sought to give him a meal. And Radak also gives a parsing of the pasuk, showing how to introduce the Olah.
ואם תעשה עולה -כלומר זה גדי עזים שאתה אומר שתעשה לפני, לא אוכל ממנו ואם תרצה אתה לעשות ממנו עולה תעשה."And if you make an olah -- that is to say, this goat that you say you will make before me, I will not eat of it. And if you wish to make of it an olah, make it.
ובאמרו לה' – לפי שאותו הדור היו עושים הרע בעיני ה' והיו מעלים עולות לאלהים אחרים.
And when he said LaHashem: this is because that generation would do the evil in the eyes of Hashem, and they would offer burnt-offerings to other gods."
This brings me to related, quite interesting point -- the alternation between HaElokim and YKVK in this story. When in the mouths of Manoach and his wife, it is HaElohim, while in the mouth of the narrator, it is always YKVK.
In order to develop this point, I'm going to need to survey the entirety of the perek. But the focus should eventually return back here.
Thus, the narrator speaks at the beginning of the perek, and refers to YKVK:
| ג וַיֵּרָא מַלְאַךְ-ה, אֶל-הָאִשָּׁה; וַיֹּאמֶר אֵלֶיהָ, הִנֵּה-נָא אַתְּ-עֲקָרָה וְלֹא יָלַדְתְּ, וְהָרִית, וְיָלַדְתְּ בֵּן. | 3 And the angel of the LORD appeared unto the woman, and said unto her: 'Behold now, thou art barren, and hast not borne; but thou shalt conceive, and bear a son. |
| ו וַתָּבֹא הָאִשָּׁה, וַתֹּאמֶר לְאִישָׁהּ לֵאמֹר, אִישׁ הָאֱלֹהִים בָּא אֵלַי, וּמַרְאֵהוּ כְּמַרְאֵה מַלְאַךְ הָאֱלֹהִים נוֹרָא מְאֹד; וְלֹא שְׁאִלְתִּיהוּ אֵי-מִזֶּה הוּא, וְאֶת-שְׁמוֹ לֹא-הִגִּיד לִי. | 6 Then the woman came and told her husband, saying: 'A man of God came unto me, and his countenance was like the countenance of the angel of God, very terrible; and I asked him not whence he was, neither told he me his name; |
he is not (explicitly) a malach but an ish, and is of HaElohim, of "the Gods". And he might be a malach (messenger / probably angel), but of HaElohim.
Next:
| ח וַיֶּעְתַּר מָנוֹחַ אֶל-ה, וַיֹּאמַר: בִּי אֲדוֹנָי--אִישׁ הָאֱלֹהִים אֲשֶׁר שָׁלַחְתָּ יָבוֹא-נָא עוֹד אֵלֵינוּ, וְיוֹרֵנוּ מַה-נַּעֲשֶׂה לַנַּעַר הַיּוּלָּד. | 8 Then Manoah entreated the LORD, and said: 'Oh, LORD, I pray Thee, let the man of God whom Thou didst send come again unto us, and teach us what we shall do unto the child that shall be born.' |
And, as a followup:
| ט וַיִּשְׁמַע הָאֱלֹהִים, בְּקוֹל מָנוֹחַ; וַיָּבֹא מַלְאַךְ הָאֱלֹהִים עוֹד אֶל-הָאִשָּׁה, וְהִיא יוֹשֶׁבֶת בַּשָּׂדֶה, וּמָנוֹחַ אִישָׁהּ, אֵין עִמָּהּ. | 9 And God hearkened to the voice of Manoah; and the angel of God came again unto the woman as she sat in the field; but Manoah her husband was not with her. |
Here, this is the narrator. And in both cases, it refers to HaElohim. This would provide a counter-example to the pattern I am trying to establish. We could read it as a chink in editorial emendation (see Shadal on YKVK in Bereshit despite ushmi Hashem lo nodati, as deliberate choice by Moshe), or written from the perspective of Manoach, given the setup in the prior pasuk. I think that even with this admitted exception, a general pattern emerges.
Next:
| יג וַיֹּאמֶר מַלְאַךְ ה, אֶל-מָנוֹחַ: מִכֹּל אֲשֶׁר-אָמַרְתִּי אֶל-הָאִשָּׁה, תִּשָּׁמֵר. | 13 And the angel of the LORD said unto Manoah: 'Of all that I said unto the woman let her beware. |
This is the narrator, and so it is malach Hashem.
Next, a bunch of references to Hashem, from the narrator:
And at this point, the malach has informed Manoach just whose messenger / angel he is, for he said to offer it as an olah to YKVK.
Therefore, when Manoach brings the sacrifice in the next pasuk:
| יט וַיִּקַּח מָנוֹחַ אֶת-גְּדִי הָעִזִּים, וְאֶת-הַמִּנְחָה, וַיַּעַל עַל-הַצּוּר, לַה'; וּמַפְלִא לַעֲשׂוֹת, וּמָנוֹחַ וְאִשְׁתּוֹ רֹאִים. | 19 So Manoah took the kid with the meal-offering, and offered it upon the rock unto the LORD; and [the angel] did wondrously, and Manoah and his wife looked on. |
Then,
| כב וַיֹּאמֶר מָנוֹחַ אֶל-אִשְׁתּוֹ, מוֹת נָמוּת: כִּי אֱלֹהִים, רָאִינוּ. | 22 And Manoah said unto his wife: 'We shall surely die, because we have seen God.' |
This does not necessarily mean a reversion to a disbelief that it was an agent of YKVK. Elohim might encompass angels. Tehillim 82:6, for example:
| ו אֲנִי-אָמַרְתִּי, אֱלֹהִים אַתֶּם; וּבְנֵי עֶלְיוֹן כֻּלְּכֶם. | 6 I said: Ye are godlike beings, and all of you sons of the Most High. |
Or, alternatively, for Manoach, a malach YKVK is a physical manifestation of Hashem on earth. So, seeing an angel means for him seeing Hashem. And YKVK is, for him, an instance of Elohim. So this is no contradiction.
Manoach's wife argues with him:
| כג וַתֹּאמֶר לוֹ אִשְׁתּוֹ, לוּ חָפֵץ ה לַהֲמִיתֵנוּ לֹא-לָקַח מִיָּדֵנוּ עֹלָה וּמִנְחָה, וְלֹא הֶרְאָנוּ, אֶת-כָּל-אֵלֶּה; וְכָעֵת, לֹא הִשְׁמִיעָנוּ כָּזֹאת. | 23 But his wife said unto him: 'If the LORD were pleased to kill us, He would not have received a burnt-offering and a meal-offering at our hand, neither would He have shown us all these things, nor would at this time have told such things as these.' |
The remainder of the chapter is from the narrator, and exclusively uses YKVK.
End of survey.
Thus, it seems likely to me that Manoach (and possibly his wife) were polytheists, and uncertain up to a point as to the sender of this malach. And that might just be what Manoach did not know. It certainly was part of what Manoach did not know. But given the followup of:
| כא וְלֹא-יָסַף עוֹד מַלְאַךְ ה, לְהֵרָאֹה אֶל-מָנוֹחַ וְאֶל-אִשְׁתּוֹ; אָז יָדַע מָנוֹחַ, כִּי-מַלְאַךְ ה הוּא. | 21 But the angel of the LORD did no more appear to Manoah or to his wife. Then Manoah knew that he was the angel of the LORD. |
I do think that angel vs. human was part of it. Even though one could stress either the malach or the Hashem part, or both of them.
No comments:
Post a Comment