Continuing the story of Shimshon's birth, Hatzlilponi, Manoach's wife, relates to her husband just what the malach told her:
| ז וַיֹּאמֶר לִי, הִנָּךְ הָרָה וְיֹלַדְתְּ בֵּן; וְעַתָּה אַל-תִּשְׁתִּי יַיִן וְשֵׁכָר, וְאַל-תֹּאכְלִי כָּל-טֻמְאָה--כִּי-נְזִיר אֱלֹהִים יִהְיֶה הַנַּעַר, מִן-הַבֶּטֶן עַד-יוֹם מוֹתוֹ. {פ} | 7 but he said unto me: Behold, thou shalt conceive, and bear a son; and now drink no wine nor strong drink, and eat not any unclean thing; for the child shall be a Nazirite unto God from the womb to the day of his death.' {P} |
This is slightly different from what, earlier in the story, the malach told her:
Specifically, no mention is made of
- her being barren
- no razor passing over his head
- his saving Israel out of the hand of the Philistines.
At the same time, there is added one detail:
- that the boy will be a Nazir to the day of his death
Malbim writes:
[יג, ז]"And he said to me, behold you shall conceive -- and that which he said to her, 'you are barren', she did not relate, because of shalom. (Vayikra Rabba 91:89) And so did she not relate 'no razor shall come upon his head' because this is encompassed within 'for a Nazir unto God he shall be'. And so she did not relate that which was stated 'and he shall begin to save', for since the Philistines rules then, she feared lest the matter become known and they kill the child. And she added 'until the day of his death', which the malach did not state explicitly, for he knew that before his death, he would profane his Nezirut."
ויאמר לי הנך הרה -ומ"ש לה את עקרה לא הגידה מפני השלום. (ויקרא רבה צו פט). ש
וכן לא ספרה מ"ש מורה לא יעלה על ראשו שזה נכלל במ"ש כי נזיר אלהים יהיה וכן לא אמרה מ"ש והוא יחל להושיע, כי אחר שהפלשתים משלו אז יראה פן יתודע הדבר ויהרגו את הנולד, והוסיפה עד יום מותו והמלאך לא אמר זה בפירוש כי ידע שלפני מותו יחלל נזירותו.
This is the Malbim reading the text rather closely, and so noting the slight distinctions between one telling and another. Another explanation might be that the Torah (and so too Nach) is a pauper in one place and a rich man in another. And so, since we are going to be exposed to this info twice, each one can gloss over details or add details.
The next pasuk:
| 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.' |
The Malbim writes:
[יג, ח]"and teach us what we shall do unto the child that shall be born -- that is to say that the malach only explained the practices of the woman, and did not teach them the practices of the boy (specifically, since she did not relate to him that which was stated 'a razor shall not pass over his head.' And therefore he requested that he come a second time to teach the practices of the boy, specifically, for it was a novel sort of Nezirus. (For the nezirus of Shimshon is unique in its laws, in that he may become ritually impure to the dead, and one whose hair is heavy does not lighten it with a razor.)"
ויורנו מה נעשה לנער היולד -רצה לומר שהמלאך לא באר רק הנהגת האשה ולא למד אותם הנהגת הילד (בפרט שהיא לא ספרה לו מ"ש מורה לא יעלה על ראשו) ולכן בקש שיבא שנית להורות הנהגת הילד בפרט שהיא נזירות חדשה (כי נזירות שמשון משונה בדיניו שמטמא למתים והכביד שערו אינו מקיל בתער).ש
This is possible, and fits into the general structure Malbim established with the differences between the two retellings. Though the malach, when he returns, does not seem to address this at all! Rather, it is how Hatzlilponi should conduct herself. So we see later:
| יד מִכֹּל אֲשֶׁר-יֵצֵא מִגֶּפֶן הַיַּיִן לֹא תֹאכַל, וְיַיִן וְשֵׁכָר אַל-תֵּשְׁתְּ, וְכָל-טֻמְאָה, אַל-תֹּאכַל: כֹּל אֲשֶׁר-צִוִּיתִיהָ, תִּשְׁמֹר. {ס} | 14 She may not eat of any thing that cometh of the grapevine, neither let her drink wine or strong drink, nor eat any unclean thing; all that I commanded her let her observe.' {S} |
Maybe Manoach simply wants to hear it for himself, directly. And maybe he wants to determine the nature of this malach. Is he a navi, an angel, or a random crazy man. And so this is a test to see if Hashem will send the malach again, and a further investigation once the man arrives. Perhaps related, is the connection to parashat Naso that of Nazir, or also that of Sotah?
There is an interesting spelling in this pasuk, in מַה-נַּעֲשֶׂה לַנַּעַר הַיּוּלָּד. If there is a full shuruk, in a malei vav in הַיּוּלָּד, then we would not expect the dagesh chazak in the lamed. Only after short syllables, like a kubutz, should be in a closed syllable, formed by the dagesh chazak.
I would explain this as a krei and ketiv. The ketiv, which is malei vav, is actually the nifal. It is hayivaled. But this was interpreted as a pual, where the pual would have the kubutz. And so it is written with the dot in the center of the vav to indicate the pronunciation.
The next pesukim:
Why again when she is alone in the field? And why does Manoach need to ask the malach whether he is the same who spoke to his wife earlier? I don't know, but these may be points to consider.
The Malbim writes:
[יג, יב]"Now when thy word cometh to pass, what shall be the rule for the child -- the intent is to say, the first time you related the law of the woman and her conduct. Now, teach us:
עתה יבא דבריך מה יהיה משפט הנער -רצה לומר בפעם הראשון הגדת משפט האשה והנהגתה: עתה תורנו,
א) משפט הנער איך יתנהג,
ב) ומעשהו שאחר שיעדת אותו טרם נולד בודאי יעשה גדולות הודיענו מעשהו וגבורותיו.
- the law of the child, how he shall conduct himself
- and his actions, for after you have designated him before he was born, certainly he shall do great things. Inform us of his actions and his valorous acts."
This makes sense. The difficulties lie in the malach not explicitly saying anything to address this later, in fact only explicitly addressing the laws of the woman, and that he did address it earlier to the woman (though she did not explicitly relate this to her husband). The Malbim will address this next.
The Malbim does not want poetic repetition in mishpat and maaseihu, so one must be the laws pertaining to him and the other must be what he will do.
Next pesukim:
The Malbim writes:
[יג, יג]"Of all that I said unto the woman let her beware -- The intent is that this matter is one which I need not inform you about, what the law of the child will be. For ask from those who know the religious law, and they will tell you the halachos of his Nezirus. (And therefore, they [=Chazal] say that Manoach was an Am HaAretz.) And I only am coming to warn the woman, for this is something new.
מכל אשר אמרתי אל האשה תשמר -רצה לומר זה דבר שאין צריך להודיע לך מה משפט הנער, כי תשאל מאת יודעי דת ודין ויורוך הלכות נזירותו (ולכן אמרו מנוח עם הארץ היה) ולא באתי רק להזהיר את האשה שזה דבר חדש.
והטעם שלא בא המלאך אל מנוח פי' מהרי"א:
מפני שהיא היתה מוכנת יותר ממנו אל ראיית המלאך, ויש לומר מפני שנזירת שמשון אינו דבר הנידר ואינו בשאלה כי היה ע"י המלאך ואם היה ע"פ האב היה דבר הנידר כי האב מדיר את בנו בנזיר והיה דינו משונה.
And the reason that the malach did not come to Manoach, the Abarbanel explains:
because she was prepared more than he was for seeing the malach. And there is to say that because the Nezirus of Shimshon is not something which can be vowed, and is not askable {to get out of it}, for it was via the malach. And had it been based on the father, it would have been something vowable, for the father may vow his son to be a nazir, and his law would be different."Thus, according to Malbim, he wanted to know (and specifically asked) about the laws of the son, and the malach denied his query and only and explicitly answered by reiterating the laws for the woman.
This is certainly one way of handling it, but I cannot say that I am presently enamored with this resolution.
I would note that there is a further change from what was stated before, if one wanted to get technical about it. Here the malach says:
מִכֹּל אֲשֶׁר-יֵצֵא מִגֶּפֶן הַיַּיִן לֹא תֹאכַל
and this was not stated earlier. The Malbim equated this with וְאַל-תֹּאכְלִי, כָּל-טָמֵא, yet here, in the very same pasuk, we find וְכָל-טֻמְאָה, אַל-תֹּאכַל.
My inclination, at the moment, is that Manoach inquired about all of this -- what the law is for the son, for the wife, and for Shimshon's actions. And indeed, the malach answered about all of this. But, since this is the third time repeating it, the narrative will only bother with a bare-bones rehash. The second retelling was also stripped down, but not to such an extent.
And perhaps the malach went into greater detail about all of this, than in previous times. And the purpose of the malach coming back was more of Manoach ascertaining that this was really a malach, and to find out more about this fellow. And the reason it is relevant to bother retelling us this is: due to the wonders which will soon come about, at the hand of the malach.
No comments:
Post a Comment