The Dangers of Mispredicting the Ketz, Follow-up

Addressing the question of why exactly the Bnei Ephraim left 30 years early, according to some midrashim. (E.g. see Targum Yonatan on the first pasuk in Beshalach.) In the previous post, I noted that 30 years early worked out to 400 years, which was the promise to Avraham. But there were different ways of calculating it, whether it was rounding, or starting from a different year in the count. To quote myself:

Thus, the Bnei Ephraim thought they had reached the ketz, and with good reason. They had an explicit pasuk after all, and a promise God Himself made to Avraham. But even so, it is subject to interpretation, and their intepretation was not correct.

On this Lakewood Falling Down asks a good question in the comment section of that post:

Josh, I can understand that they may have had a mesorah for 400 years, but your assumption says they had a passuk to rely on (if I understand you correctly). Many individual Tzaddikim may have in fact kept the entire Torah, but IMHO, the benei Efraim before matan Torah did not have that Pasuk to rely on, hence their fatal error.

What, in fact, did they have to rely upon? Did they indeed do a miscalculation of 400 years? I was working with the implicit message in that particular midrashic account, for the choice of precisely 30 years earlier was surely no accident?

My assumption is not in fact that they had a pasuk to rely upon. It would be the same if they had a tradition to rely upon. When I said

"and with good reason. They had an explicit pasuk after all, and a promise God Himself made to Avraham."

it was really for rhetorical effect. They had the promise God made to Avraham, and we have a pasuk backing them up. We therefore do not have to get into whole issues of whether they knew all of Torah or not.

Besides the precisely 30-year difference strongly suggesting they misunderstood the promise of the ketz, we have sefer haYashar also explicitly claiming that this was based on the misunderstanding of the promise made to Avraham at the bris bein habesarim. Thus, we have the text pictured to the right.

Did they have this in some written form, or just as some tradition the elders had, like Pakod Pakadeti?

Well, we do have Shemos Rabba which had these predictions of eventual geulah on scrolls, megillot:

כי נרפים הם
אמר רבי שמעון בן יוחאי:
התחיל מחרק עליהם שיניו ואומר: נרפים אתם, לשון טינוף הוא ישתחקו עצמותיו קדושים הם.
על כן הם צועקים לאמר וגו' תכבד העבודה על האנשים
מלמד שהיו בידם מגילות שהיו משתעשעין בהם משבת לשבת לומר שהקדוש ברוך הוא גואלן לפי שהיו נוחין בשבת.
אמר להן פרעה: תכבד העבודה על האנשים ויעשו בה ואל ישעו וגו' אל יהו משתעשעין ואל יהו נפישין ביום השבת.

I read somewhere that Rabbi Yaakov Kaminetzky suggested that these scrolls might have been Tehillim 92, Mizmor Shir LeYom HaShabbat, which is not about Shabbat, but e.g. about the righteous getting their reward.

While I am in a fun, speculative mood, I will mention my own neo-midrash on this topic. Of course they had the pasuk before them! The pasuk in the beginning of Beshalach says that the Israelites left Egypt while chamushim. And there is dispute of how to interpret it. But the correct interpretation is "do not read chamushim but chumashim!" Thus, they left Egypt with chumashim. Obviously, this could not be chumash Shemos, Vayikra, Bamidbar, or Devarim, since these events had not yet happened. So they left with chumash Bereishit, which they similarly brought down with them. And so of course they had the pasuk! ;)

An anonymous commenter asks why Avraham was told the 400 years. Perhaps so that they would not lose hope, and know there was an established ketz. And so that when the eventually were redeemed, by God's hand, they would look back and understand that it was a fulfillment of that which was foretold and promised. And anyway, Avraham was not the one waiting. He also asked why Daniel was rewarded for calculating the ketz based on Yirmeyahu's prophecies -- see Daniel 9. But when Daniel calculated, his response was not to then claim absolute knowledge and then act, or proclaim this to the public. His response was to privately turn to Hashem and pray, and wait for a response from on high. This is very different from the ketz-ism displayed today, in which people repeatedly and publicly mispredict the ketz with great confidence, getting the public all riled up, only to get their hopes dashed when the ketz passes without incident. And in the process they do damage to the meaning of the texts they kvetch. And while we have an obligation to hope for mashiach, this is a far cry from knowing, incorrectly, that Day X is the day of mashiach's arrival, and when that passes without incident, knowing that Day Y is the day of mashiach's arrival, and so on and so forth.

The cases of Avraham and Daniel are part of the Biblical narrative. And Chazal knew the Biblical narrative far better that I know it or you know it. And yet in Sanhedrin 97 they take a firm stand against ketz-ism. And they contrast it with achakeh lo bechol yom sheyavo:

R. Samuel b. Nahmani said in the name of R. Jonathan: Blasted be18 the bones of those who calculate the end.19 For they would say, since the predetermined time has arrived, and yet he has not come, he will never come. But [even so], wait for him, as it is written, Though he tarry, wait for him.

Note this idea of failed predictions causing deflation of hopes, something I touched on in previous hopes. This is a danger of mispredicting the ketz.

They must interpret the Biblical narratives in a way that does not contradict this. And so the particular interpretation they happen to grant it does not matter

Interesting Posts and Articles #118

1. Eruv Online, with a part 2 on the Stamford Hill Eruv Imbroglio. I am no expert in the halachic dispute, but the following quote seems quite descriptive of other situations involving polemics:
   

   However, the most glaring example of the modus operandi of the anti-eruv cabal is the purposeful omissions of the majority of the sources who are lenient. What they have done in this kuntres is cherry pick a few of the poskim who seem to be stringent regarding a particular issue, while conveniently omitting the fact that the majority of poskim disagree with them. Moreover, they misunderstood most of the poskim who seem to be stringent and purposefully neglected to mention that all of these poskim would allow an eruv for alternate reasons.

2. Life in Israel has two interesting posts, one about an 11-year old making the rules on a bus, by yelling at the women; and another about a psak about voting during shiva.
   
   
3. Balashon has a post about shaked in honor of Tu Bishvat.
   
   
4. On the issue of the confrontation over music at the wedding, Child Ish Behavior has a unique interpretation of the accusation of idolatry based on a Zohar on this week's parshah -- that Rabbi Schorr's objection was to the song Hentalach, because one should not be raising one's hands willy nilly. I think such an interpretation is farfetched. But then again, in my post on the subject, I gave my own interpretation to the accusation (idolization of the singer). And Blog In Dm has a very good point-by-point response to my post, where one such point is his take on what the Avodah Zarah accusation is -- a claim of idolatrous influences on the music, namely voodoo music. And this seems extremely plausible. Just in passing, I would say that I agree with much of his response, but one must realize that I was in turn responding to specific things that specific bloggers and commenters were saying.
   
   Thus, what was on my mind was e.g. this statement by one blogger:
   

   Even if something had been problematic with Lipa’s singing, which according to everyone there was absolutely not, was it necessary to be mevayesh Lipa berabim, in front of hundreds of people?

   (Selective bolding my own, though in the original, the entire paragraph was bolded.) I was thus responding to the idea that nothing would justify such a response. That even if he thought it was terrible, and was correct, it would be an absolute sin to respond in public to this, because embarrassing someone in public is worse than murder.
   
   Therefore, to respond to a few responses by Blog In Dm:
   

   This is irrelevant, unless one can identify a legitimate complaint. In this case, as I'll show, Rabbi Waxman has not identified one.

   I have deliberately not identified one because I don't personally believe there is one. I do not subscribe to the same assumptions as Rabbi Schorr, and believe he is in error. However, he does have these mistaken assumptions, and if that blogger and others want to argue lishitaso, that "even if" there is a problem, such actions are unjustified, then I will analyze it from that perspective and see if it is borne out.
   

   As I understand it, the kallah's father asked Lipa to switch songs, which he did, from "Hentelach" to the chassidic "Amar Rabbi Akiva." So this point is not relevant, with regard to Rabbi Schorr's outburst.

   Blog In Dm knows the facts better than me. That was why I said "If, as the commenter at Life of Rubin notes, the father of the bride, who is close with Rabbi Schorr, asked Lipa to stop singing, that absolutely is relevant." I was arguing within a specific depicted scenario, and in response to a specific response that dismissed it as irrelevant given within that same comment section. See there.
   

   Appropriate kannaus is in response to actual sin. Here, even if someone has an issue with people's response to a singer, the singer has not committed a sin, and there is no halachik justification for publicly shaming him.

   Just because I like responding, arguing from a purported perspective I am attributing to Rabbi Schorr: Unless, perhaps, he feels that the singer encourages such a response and revels in it, making a scene and stealing the spotlight. Amar Rabbi Akiva is singing a song. Hentalach is catering to your fans with your signature song, when it is the chassan and kallah who should be in the spotlight.
   

   Perhaps Rabbi Waxman is unaware that Rabbi Schorr is one of the people behind last year's ban. In other words, the public siding with Lipa here is a direct result of their knowledge of Rabbi Schorr's anti-halachik behavior in that episode too.

   Yes, I was aware of that. And of course that is why the public is siding with Lipa. But putting forth this specific response frames the present incident is a very ingenious way. Classic NLP.
   

   Sometimes, people need to take sides. The argument to be dan lekaf zechus has often been used to perpetuate avlos.

   True enough, on both counts. And while I do not have the musical background or time to really analyze Rabbi Luft's treatise, I did link prominently to Blog In Dm's series fisking it. My post was more along the lines of how one goes about arguing. Because it looked like everyone else had the arguing taken care of. Does one suddenly call Rabbi Schorr merely Schorr? Does one deny that such reactions, in specific extreme cases, indeed historically and halachically have had a place in Judaism (e.g. publicly shaming someone who refuses to give his wife a get)? On the other hand, how do you effectively take a stand on this, without turning this into an intellectual exercise on the one hand, and without taking a false or problematic position on the other? Perhaps point out the trend of immediately jumping to kannaus and treating it as a positive trait. Or pointing out that the underlying analysis of the situation and halacha is incorrect, and that there is a trend of such incorrect analyses, perhaps caused by the same attitude which results in the kannaus. I don't know the answer. Others probably do.
   
   Meanwhile, here is a comment, written upon a post on the subject at Wolfish Musings:
   

   ] I'm going to overlook for the moment the fact that Rabbi Schorr chose to make this stand in the middle of someone's wedding,
   
   But you can't because that's a big enough aveirah right there.
   
   ] I'm also going to overlook the fact that he chose to publicly embarrass Lipa, which is all bad enough
   
   But you can't because there are enough gemaras out there that note that publicly embarrassing someone is worse than murder.
   
   ] What I don't want to overlook is the fact that he publically accused another Jew of avoda zara -- idol worship.
   
   I don't know who this Rav Schorr is, and frankly I don't care. What I would like to know is the response of the crowd. Was it: "Oh, well Rav Schorr is a big rabbi so what he did is okay?" or was there outrage? Did someone stand up and shout out "How dare you commit three major aveiros in public like this? How dare you call yourself a rav?"

   I am amazed that people don't spot the irony in this, if they don't. Let us say someone did stand up and shout out at Rabbi Schorr "How dare you commit three major aveiros in public like this? How dare you call yourself a rav?" Would that person not be committing the same three purported aveiros, by doing this at a wedding rather than quickly trying to make shalom, publicly embarrassing Rabbi Schorr, and publicly accusing him of three major aveiros? If someone shouted this out at Rabbi Schorr, then someone else would have to turn around and shout at him in turn, veAin ledavar sof. Indeed, by recommending this approach, one undermines the claim that such conduct in a public venue is unjustified. Rather, it comes down to whether you agree that there was some underlying issue in the first place.
   
   Meanwhile, Chaptzem has a satirical defense of Rabbi Schorr.
   
   And meanwhile, Dixie Yid linked approvingly to my post about this incident, but several commenters felt that linking to the post in defense publicized the controversy and so was in itself lashon hara, prompting him to eventually take it down. He now has a post about this meta-blogging issue.
   
   
5. Mystical Paths on "the most entertaining elections ever."
   
   
6. An awful story about an abortion gone bad, and maybe the slippery slope in action.
   

Yitro running commentary, first pass, pt i (18:1)

Yisro begins in Shemos 18:1.

א וַיִּשְׁמַע יִתְרוֹ כֹהֵן מִדְיָן, חֹתֵן מֹשֶׁה, אֵת כָּל-אֲשֶׁר עָשָׂה אֱלֹהִים לְמֹשֶׁה, וּלְיִשְׂרָאֵל עַמּוֹ: כִּי-הוֹצִיא יְהוָה אֶת-יִשְׂרָאֵל, מִמִּצְרָיִם.

וַיִּשְׁמַע -- the famous question is "what did Yisro hear?" This is closely related to the question of "when did Yisro hear?" This is a peshat concern because the pasuk is ambiguous on the point of exactly what he heard and why this caused him to come. Also, by explaining what he heard, we may fix in time what he heard. Thus, is this before the war with Amalek? Before mattan Torah? After? And we can try to fix it via context.

I have two answers to this question. The first answer is that it does not matter. All the pasuk says is אֵת כָּל-אֲשֶׁר עָשָׂה אֱלֹהִים לְמֹשֶׁה, וּלְיִשְׂרָאֵל עַמּוֹ: כִּי-הוֹצִיא ה אֶת-יִשְׂרָאֵל, מִמִּצְרָיִם. I would translate ki as "that" rather than "when". And thus, he heard about the Exodus. Does this include miracle X or miracle Y as part of what Hashem did for Moshe and for Israel? It does not matter, at least not for the message trying to be conveyed here on a peshat level. He heard that they succeeded, and so it was a good and safe time to return Tzipporah.

My second answer is that he did not hear anything, until he came with Tzipporah. That is, this may simply be a chapter heading, describing what is to come. Usually, the vav hahippuch advances the narrative. But see pasuk 2. Did Yisro take Tzipporah after Moshe sent her away after hearing of the miracles. Certainly not. Pasuk 2 is background information. Perhaps pasuk 1 is also not in order, but is establishing the theme of the entire story, which actually begins in pasuk 3. And pasuk 1, Yisro's hearing, is fulfilled later in pasuk 8.

יִתְרוֹ -- the other famous question is "who is Yisro?" He is likely the same as Yeser. Rashi considers the possibility that he is different from Reuel, with Reuel being Tzipporah's grandfather, explaining the pasuk calling Reuel her father away. But there are several other names in play. Is he the same as Chovav, for example? Chever, Keni, Putiel?

In some minor way, the general closed-canon approach of Chazal plays into this. But more than this is that the various characters are all called chosein of Moshe. If "chosen" means "father-in-law," then unless Moshe took several different wives in Midian, they all must be the same person. Tzipporah only has one father. Only Vashti had two mothers (see "gam Vashti haMalkah" and the references to "chamas haMelech")!

This has major implications in terms of how we view the actions of Yitro. Did he come to convert? Did he leave afterwards for Midian? Did he settle in Israel afterwards? When we collapse all the stories, a different picture emerges from one which derives from only a single narrative.

But I would say that chotein Moshe only means "male in-law of Moshe." And so it can refer to father-in-law or brother-in-law. If so, various contradictions disappear, and it is only Yitro here. Reuel was the father-in-law of Moshe, and the father of Tzipporah. Yisro was a brother-in-law who looked after Tzipporah after Moshe sent her away. Was he also the brother-in-law Yeter Moshe dwelled with in Midyan? We might wonder, since even in genealogical lists, we sometimes find brothers with extremely close names. But Shemot 4:18 explicitly gives both names, Yeter and Yitro.

The complicating factor is that earlier in Shemot, the one with seven daughters is the "kohen Midian," and here Yisro is also the kohen midian. This is resolvable as shared power or transfer of power. At the most, this complicates the distinction from Reuel, and we have Rashi's answer for this.

כֹהֵן -- we are used to this meaning kohen, priest, and thus would be prone to seeing this here as peshat. Perhaps. But it means "minister" in the general sense. And so too the daughter of Potiphera the kohen (officer) of On. And so too the sons of David who were kohanim (ministers). This is how Onkelos translates it, as an important person in Midian.

Rashi remains silent on the issue in this pasuk. But on pasuk 11 he cites Mechilta that he was an expert in all sorts of idolatry, with an implication that kohen means priest. Earlier in parshat Shemos, in 2:16, he says רב שבהם in translation of kohen midian, but then talks about how he separated from idolatry. The implication of this is that he was a priest.

חֹתֵן מֹשֶׁה -- as discussed above, the brother-in-law of Moshe; or even the father-in-law of Moshe, so long as others may be brothers-in-law.

אֵת כָּל-אֲשֶׁר עָשָׂה -- and what was that? כִּי-הוֹצִיא ה אֶת-יִשְׂרָאֵל, מִמִּצְרָיִם. See Rashi, based on Mechilta, who takes this as a separate item, and the earlier words to other separate items.

כִּי -- that. Alternatively, when. Like the bet in betzeit yisrael mimiztrayim.

לְמֹשֶׁה וּלְיִשְׂרָאֵל -- see Rashi citing Mechilta, that each of equal prominence. The theme of this segment is wonder, on the part of an outsider, at the glory of Hashem and the increased stature of Moshe and the Israelites as a result. The purpose of this narrative is thus in pesukim 9 through 11. It is thus bracketed on both sides, by vayaaminu baHashem uvMoshe avdo by the Reed Sea, and a similar message by mattan Torah. Yitro's purpose is as witness, just as they had hoped Chovav would be in a different segment.

עַמּוֹ -- multivalent. Moshe's nation, as an extension of him; and Hashem's nation, as the nation he has acquired/created.

אֲשֶׁר עָשָׂה אֱלֹהִים לְמֹשֶׁה -- see Baal HaTurim. He connects Elokim to midat haDin, and to the punishment Moshe almost received for delaying the milah, which was not done at Yisro's insistence. An interesting midrashic take, bringing this around full-circle. Does midas hadin inspire people to convert? He also midrashically interprets it as that Hashem made Moshe into an Elohim, to Pharaoh, thus tying in that irregular verse from before. This would fit in with the general theme of the stress on Moshe's rise to prominence, over his lower stature when he was dwelling with Yitro, and the rise of Moshe and Israel to prominence in general, because of the wonders from Hashem.

The Dangers of Mispredicting the Ketz

Last week's parsha included a good warning to those who would calculate the ketz. The pasuk describes how Hashem chose a circuitous route to avoid the last of the Philistines, for it was close, and there was a fear that when they saw war they would have second-thoughts and return to Egypt. There are different interpretations of this verse, some more peshat-oriented than others. A derash-oriented interpretation is presented in Targum Pseudo-Yonatan, interpreting "seeing war" as seeing the repercussions of war for other Israelites who left Egypt too early. Thus::

"And it was, when Pharaoh released the nation, that Hashem did not lead them by way of the land of the Plishtim, for it was close, for Hashem said, perhaps the nation will be, when they see their brothers who died in battle, 200,000 strong warriors from the tribe of Ephraim, holding onto shields, spears, and implements of war, and they went down to Gath to despoil the Gath {?} of the Plishtim, and because they violated to decree of the Word of Hashem and left 30 years before the ketz, they were given over into the hands of the Pelishtim and were killed -- they were the dry bones which the Word of Hashem caused to live via Yechezkel the prophet in the valley of Dura {also in Daniel 3:1} -- and if they saw them, then they would fear and return to Egypt.

The idea of 30 years before the ketz is that they left at the 400 year mark, which makes sense as a ketz given that the promise at the beris bein habesarim was for 400 years. Bereishit 15:

יג וַיֹּאמֶר לְאַבְרָם, יָדֹעַ תֵּדַע כִּי-גֵר יִהְיֶה זַרְעֲךָ בְּאֶרֶץ לֹא לָהֶם, וַעֲבָדוּם, וְעִנּוּ אֹתָם--אַרְבַּע מֵאוֹת, שָׁנָה.	13 And He said unto Abram: 'Know of a surety that thy seed shall be a stranger in a land that is not theirs, and shall serve them; and they shall afflict them four hundred years;
יד וְגַם אֶת-הַגּוֹי אֲשֶׁר יַעֲבֹדוּ, דָּן אָנֹכִי; וְאַחֲרֵי-כֵן יֵצְאוּ, בִּרְכֻשׁ גָּדוֹל.	14 and also that nation, whom they shall serve, will I judge; and afterward shall they come out with great substance.

and meanwhile it was 430 years, as we see in parshat Bo.

מ וּמוֹשַׁב בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל, אֲשֶׁר יָשְׁבוּ בְּמִצְרָיִם--שְׁלֹשִׁים שָׁנָה, וְאַרְבַּע מֵאוֹת שָׁנָה.	40 Now the time that the children of Israel dwelt in Egypt was four hundred and thirty years.
מא וַיְהִי, מִקֵּץ שְׁלֹשִׁים שָׁנָה, וְאַרְבַּע מֵאוֹת, שָׁנָה; וַיְהִי, בְּעֶצֶם הַיּוֹם הַזֶּה, יָצְאוּ כָּל-צִבְאוֹת ה, מֵאֶרֶץ מִצְרָיִם.	41 And it came to pass at the end of four hundred and thirty years, even the selfsame day it came to pass, that all the host of the LORD went out from the land of Egypt.

How to resolve these two dates, especially together with a length of 210 years, is the topic for discussion by many meforshim. For example, the count was from different dates. There is a great rundown of suggestions here, in section B.

Thus, the Bnei Ephraim thought they had reached the ketz, and with good reason. They had an explicit pasuk after all, and a promise God Himself made to Avraham. But even so, it is subject to interpretation, and their intepretation was not correct.

The consequences of this misinterpretation was not just a terrible tragedy for them. It was also the potential psychological impact their failed attempt could have on other Israelites. That when the actual redemption came, the Israelites would see others in their position who have failed, and be discouraged.

This is certainly the case for me, in that knowledge of previous failed messianic attempts and predictions, and their repercussions (physical and theological), stands to caution me about present messianic attempts. It does not help, of course, when I see that their prooftexts are often extremely kvetched and go against the meaning in context. And perhaps that is one of the reasons I often take stands against this ketz-ism which is so prevalent today.

Yitro sources

by aliyah
rishon (18:1)
sheni (18:13)
shelishi (18:24)
revii (19:1)
chamishi (19:7)
shishi (19:20)
aseres hadibros, taam tachton (20:2), taam elyon
shevii (20:15)
maftir (20:19)
haftara (Yeshaya 6:1 - 7:6; 9:5-6) -- with Malbim, Ibn Ezra

by perek
perek 18 ; perek 19 ;  perek 20

meforshim
Judaica Press Rashi in English
Shadal (and here)
Mishtadel
Daat -- with Rashi, Ramban, Seforno, Ibn Ezra, Rashbam, Rabbenu Bachya, Midrash Rabba, Tanchuma+, Mechilta, Gilyonot.
Gilyonot Nechama Leibovitz (Hebrew)
Tiferes Yehonasan from Rav Yonasan Eibeshitz
Chasdei Yehonasan -- not until Terumah
Toldos Yitzchak Acharon, repeated from Rav Yonasan Eibeshitz
Even Shleimah -- from Rabbi Shlomo Zalman Ehrenreich
R' Saadia Gaon's Tafsir, Arabic translation of Torah (here and here)
Collected commentary of Saadia Gaon on Torah
Abarbanel
Torah Temimah
Kli Yakar (and here)
Baal Haturim
Baal Haturim (HaAruch)
Torat Hatur
Ibn Janach
Rabbenu Ephraim
Ibn Caspi
Ralbag
Dubno Maggid
Imrei Shafer, Rav Shlomo Kluger
Ateret Zekeinim
Mei Noach
Arugat HaBosem
Yalkut Perushim LaTorah
R' Yosef Bechor Shor
Meiri
Ibn Gabirol
Rabbenu Yonah
Rashbam (and here)
Seforno
Aderet Eliyahu (Gra)
Kol Eliyahu (Gra)
Mipninei Harambam
Sefer Zikaron of Ritva
Malbim
Chiddushei HaGriz
Noam Elimelech
Michlal Yofi
Nesivot Hashalom

The following meforshim at JNUL.

Ralbag (pg 112)

Baal HaTurim (26)

Rabbenu Bachya (106)

Chizkuni (63)

Abarbanel (166)

Shach (100)

Paneach Raza (41)

Yalkut Reuveni (pg 92)

Sefer Hachinuch (pg 14)

Aharon ben Yosef the Karaite (94)

rashi
Daat, Rashi In Hebrew (perek 18)
Judaica Press Rashi in English and Hebrew
Mizrachi, Mizrachi (JNUL, 106)
Gur Aryeh (Maharal of Prague)
Maharsha
Siftei Chachamim
Berliner's Beur on Rashi
Commentary on Rashi by Yosef of Krasnitz
R' Yisrael Isserlin (on Rashi, 8)
Two supercommentaries on Rashi, by Chasdai Almosnino and Yaakov Kneizel
Rav Natan ben Shishon Shapira Ashkenazi (16th century), (JNUL, pg 74)
Taz
Levush HaOrah
Mohar`al
Yeriot Shlomo (Maharshal)
Moda L'Bina (Wolf Heidenheim)
Dikdukei Rashi
Mekorei Rashi (in Mechokekei Yehuda)
Bartenura
Yosef Daas
Nachalas Yaakov
Also see Mikraos Gedolos above, which has Rashi with Sifsei Chachamim

ramban
Daat, Ramban in Hebrew (perek 18)
R' Yitzchak Abohav's on Ramban (standalone and in a Tanach opposite Ramban)
Kesef Mezukak
Kanfei Nesharim
Rabbi Meir Abusaula (student of Rashba)

ibn ezra
Daat, Ibn Ezra in Hebrew (perek 18)
Mechokekei Yehudah (Daat)
Mechokekei Yehudah (HebrewBooks)
Mavaser Ezra
R' Shmuel Motot (pg 22, JNUL)
Ibn Kaspi's supercommentary on Ibn Ezra, different from his commentary (here and here)
Mekor Chaim, Ohel Yosef, Motot
Avi Ezer
Tzofnas Paneach
Ezra Lehavin
Also see Mikraos Gedolos above, which has Ibn Ezra with Avi Ezer

targum
Targum Onkelos opposite Torah text
Targum Onkelos and Targum Pseudo-Yonatan in English
Shadal's Ohev Ger
Berliner
Chalifot Semalot
Avnei Tzion -- two commentaries on Onkelos
Bei`urei Onkelos
Or Hatargum on Onkelos
Targum Yonatan
Commentary on Targum Yonatan and Targum Yerushalmi
Septuagint (Greek, English)
Origen's Hexapla (JNUL)

masorah
Tanach with masoretic notes on the side
Commentary on the Masorah
Minchas Shai
Or Torah
Taamei Masoret
Masoret HaKeriah
Shiluv Hamasorot
Masoret HaBrit HaGadol
Rama (but based on alphabet, not parsha)
Vetus Testamentum


midrash
Midrash Rabba at Daat (18)
Midrash Tanchuma at Daat (18)
Shemot Rabba, with commentaries
Midrash Tanchuma with commentary of Etz Yosef and Anaf Yosef
Commentary on Midrash Rabba by R' Naftali Hirtz b'R' Menachem
Matat-Kah on Midrash Rabba
Nefesh Yehonasan by Rav Yonasan Eibeshutz
Mechilta
Sefer Hayashar (English)

haftarah (Yeshaya 6:1 - 7:6; 9:5-6)
In a chumash, with Malbim and Ibn Ezra
In a separate Mikraot Gedolot -- with Targum, Rashi, Mahari Kara, Radak, Minchat Shai, Metzudat David.
In a Tanach with Radak (JNUL, pg 10)
Gutnick edition
Rashis in English, from Judaica Press
Gilyonot Nechama Leibovitch on the haftarah
Daat, with Yalkut Shimoni and Radak
Ibn Ezra on Yeshaya
Ibn Janach
Aharon ben Yosef the Karaite (47)

The Incident with Lipa at the Wedding

You can get details, including video of the incident, at (Blog In Dm, Life Of Rubin, Chaptzem, Vos Iz Neias, Emes veEmunah, Wolfish Musings).

My short thoughts on the matter:

1. Obviously, I am against the banning of music, and of singers. And I think the banners are misguided.
   
   
2. Even so, this is Rabbi Schorr. He does not lose his semicha just because he does something you (commenters, bloggers) disagree with. Even if it is something I disagree with. ;) Don't go stripping people of their semicha when they take an unpopular position. This is the attitude of the closed-minded. And I have been on the receiving end of this tactic on more than one occasion, when putting forth an established halachic position that others felt was not machmir enough.
   
   
3. Chazal often derive things from the fact that someone acted in a certain way ולא מיחו בידן חכמים. Here, Rabbi Schorr felt that certain actions were not appropriate, and he publicly acted to show his disapproval and that he opposed. There is an assumption that rabbis will do so. And where they do not, shetika kehodaah. Here, there is an element of kanaaut, but there is something to this anyway.
   
   
4. If, as the commenter at Life of Rubin notes, the father of the bride, who is close with Rabbi Schorr, asked Lipa to stop singing, that absolutely is relevant.
   
   
5. By Avodah Zara, I would guess that Rabbi Schorr meant the idolizing of musical personalities. Lipa was there as a guest. But he was apparently mobbed by admirers and asked to perform his popular tunes. This idolization over e.g. rabbinic leaders and over the focus on the chassan and kallah may be problematic.
   
   
6. We have a tradition of much more forceful opposition to public displays we feel are not correct. Think of the Jews pelting the Sadduccee with esrogim.
   
   
7. At the same time, there is an issue of making a public confrontation, thus embarrassing the other person. See Sanhedrin 101b about how Yeravam merited the kingdom for rebuking Shlomo haMelech in public, but was punished because he rebuked him in public.
   
   
8. However, the nature of the "offense" (and I use air quotes deliberately here) is one in public. If the only time to stand up to someone is when they insist on performing in public, as they are acting, then it has to be in public.
   
   
9. Forgiving Rabbi Schorr for this disgrace does not (necessarily) make him the better man. It is also an ingenious tactic. Because Lipa comes off as one who is not taking offense, even as he insists on his conduct. This is a way of winning. Also, he casts the conduct of the other as something which needs forgiving, rather than just an opposing viewpoint. And the crowd eats it up. Perhaps because of the conduct of the previous ban, which undermined the role of rabbinic authority, particularly for those who would ban music, the public sides with the singers and does not grant any fleeting thought to the possible legitimacy of those who would ban Jewish pop-music.
   
   
10. Baruch Hashem, I am not in Lipa's position. I do not have thousands of adoring fans, nor his musical talent. And at the same time I am not the focus of any controversy. And if I were being attacked in this way, knowing myself, I probably would not respond with such poise and respect. My intent here is not to attack Lipa. Rather, to question some of the assumptions of the other people taking sides.

Update, Feb 11, 2009: See my follow-up post here.

Interesting Posts and Articles #117

1. David Berger has a brief response to Marc Shapiro on the subject of Chabad messianism. I have my own thoughts on this divergence of opinion, but will perhaps share in a later post.
   
   
2. Vos iz Neias on the repentance of the Achmedinijad-hugger.
   
   
3. Life in Israel discusses Superbus imposing separate hours only, for men and women, to purchase bus cards, and the troubling broader implications. Also, calls for a letter campaign or boycott.
   
   
4. Israpundit: From an Orthodox IDF soldier: How I survived Gaza
   
   
5. Balashon is back! With an entry on marmita, the groundhog. And an interesting suggestion, that the hapax legomenon in midrash, of תרדמת מרמיטה, refers to the Latin marmita, and refers to hibernation.
   
   
6. Rechovot with some discussion of some of the halachot of birchat hachama, coming up soon, on erev Pesach.
   

Beshalach commentary - first pass, pt i

Here is my first pass through as a running commentary. As I see other meforshim, and think about it some more, I may well revise. Some of this may be obvious, but I wrote where I saw ambigiuty. And some may be wrong, but this is an initial pass.

Shemot 13:17 begins the parsha.

יז וַיְהִי, בְּשַׁלַּח פַּרְעֹה אֶת-הָעָם, וְלֹא-נָחָם אֱלֹהִים דֶּרֶךְ אֶרֶץ פְּלִשְׁתִּים, כִּי קָרוֹב הוּא: כִּי אָמַר אֱלֹהִים, פֶּן-יִנָּחֵם הָעָם בִּרְאֹתָם מִלְחָמָה--וְשָׁבוּ מִצְרָיְמָה.

וַיְהִי...וְלֹא: "it was when Pharaoh sent out the nation that God did not lead them..." As Ibn Ezra says, this is like the weak fa in Arabic. It thus does not mean "and."

בְּשַׁלַּח פַּרְעֹה: Standing alone, this almost seems to imply that it was Pharaoh who decided on his own, and as his own act, to send out the nation. From context, this is not so. But still, Pharaoh has not been entirely subdued, and he clearly things that he can retract his previous act at will, by chasing them down. I would guess that this is what is influencing Paneach Raza to state that the gematria of vayhi beshalach is baal korcho.

וְלֹא-נָחָם: The famous joke that the name of the one Jew who did not leave Egypt was Nachum, for Pharaoh sent out the nation, but not Nacham. וְלֹא-נָחָם... פֶּן-יִנָּחֵם is a deliberate echoing in the language, even though the roots are different. נָחָם is, as Rashi explains, to lead.

דֶּרֶךְ אֶרֶץ פְּלִשְׁתִּים: where they would fight, rather than seeing the result of the war waged by Ephraim.

כִּי קָרוֹב הוּא: Rashi, that it is close to Egypt such that they would return to Egypt when they see war. But perhaps that it is the close way to get to Eretz Yisrael, and so an immediate was to conquer the land would frighten them such that they would give up immediately. Better to let them have the other experiences in the wilderness first, such as the splitting of the Reed Sea, Marah, Har Sinai, and so on.

פֶּן-יִנָּחֵם הָעָם בִּרְאֹתָם מִלְחָמָה--וְשָׁבוּ מִצְרָיְמָה: See Rashbam, who shows how plausible this is, with all their complaints, wishing they were back in Egypt, and planning to go back.

It is somewhat strange that this is the reason for traveling to the Reed Sea, for there is the other reason of leading to the downfall of the Egyptian army at the Reed Sea.

יח וַיַּסֵּב אֱלֹהִים אֶת-הָעָם דֶּרֶךְ הַמִּדְבָּר, יַם-סוּף; וַחֲמֻשִׁים עָלוּ בְנֵי-יִשְׂרָאֵל, מֵאֶרֶץ מִצְרָיִם.

וַחֲמֻשִׁים עָלוּ בְנֵי-יִשְׂרָאֵל: The classic midrashim about 1/5, or 1/50th, or 1/500th exist. On a peshat level, as Rashi notes, it means mezuyanim. And what does that mean? See Rashi and see Ibn Ezra. It could mean with riches; this would be a fulfillment of Hashem's havtacha to Avraham. It could mean food; this would show that they were not entirely unprepared to enter the wilderness, such that such a move was plausible, perhaps even without the subsequent Divine intervention. It could mean armed; this would explain how they were able to wage war against Amalek a bit later.

I would understand it as the last of the three, and that the purpose of this mentioning it here is not to preempt any question about Amalek, but because the topic was raised in the previous pasuk, in the words פֶּן-יִנָּחֵם הָעָם בִּרְאֹתָם מִלְחָמָה--וְשָׁבוּ מִצְרָיְמָה. It is not that they would be unarmed and thus slaughtered. They came out of Egypt armed. But even so, there is a difference between being physically and mentally prepared for battle.

יט וַיִּקַּח מֹשֶׁה אֶת-עַצְמוֹת יוֹסֵף, עִמּוֹ: כִּי הַשְׁבֵּעַ הִשְׁבִּיעַ אֶת-בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל, לֵאמֹר, פָּקֹד יִפְקֹד אֱלֹהִים אֶתְכֶם, וְהַעֲלִיתֶם אֶת-עַצְמֹתַי מִזֶּה אִתְּכֶם.

כִּי הַשְׁבֵּעַ הִשְׁבִּיעַ: Rashi cites the Mechilta that Yosef imposed an oath that they impose an oath in turn on others, and this based on the double lashon. This is midrash. On a peshat level, one need not get hung up in technicalities of oath-giving. He made them promise, and this is then a family obligation, and a matter of honoring commitments, even made by others.

It also glorifies this redemption, since it is not just Yosef's adjuration, but a public recognition that this redemption was foretold, and so this is carrying out the instructions now that the prophecy has been fulfilled, and fulfilling the request in exactly the situation for which it was requested.

It also demonstrates that even Yosef never really felt at home in Egypt, and from the beginning they were waiting for their return.

See Baal Haturim, who noted another time this expression occurs, and effectively makes a gezera shava for himself. One is not supposed to make a gezera shava for oneself, but that is for halacha rather than aggadah. However, I would contest Baal Haturim's idea that that was why Yonasan was caught in his father Shaul's adjuration not to eat. How is this supposed to work? Yonasan was ignorant of the matter, so obviously no one turned around and adjured him in turn.

כ וַיִּסְעוּ, מִסֻּכֹּת; וַיַּחֲנוּ בְאֵתָם, בִּקְצֵה הַמִּדְבָּר.

בִּקְצֵה הַמִּדְבָּר: Perhaps at the edge of the midbar because they are not ready to start their travels through the midbar yet, but must deal with the Yam Suf. This is slight foreshadowing, in that this is the motivation for making clear exactly where they are -- where Etam is -- at this point.

Also, that they are at the edge of the wilderness would imply to onlookers that they do not wish to enter it, because they are frightened of it. Thus, in the next perek, Pharaoh will say סָגַר עֲלֵיהֶם .הַמִּדְבָּר

כא וַיהוָה הֹלֵךְ לִפְנֵיהֶם יוֹמָם בְּעַמּוּד עָנָן, לַנְחֹתָם הַדֶּרֶךְ, וְלַיְלָה בְּעַמּוּד אֵשׁ, לְהָאִיר לָהֶם--לָלֶכֶת, יוֹמָם וָלָיְלָה.

וַיהוָה הֹלֵךְ לִפְנֵיהֶם: Did Hashem Himself travel with them? Did He take the form of the pillar of cloud, or the pillar of fire? Was His Presence manifest somehow within the cloud / fire? Compare Yom Kippur and the cloud, and other instances. Note the ambiguity of bet in בְּעַמּוּד as within or as.

Also, compare with next perek, in Shemot 14:19: וַיִּסַּע מַלְאַךְ הָאֱלֹהִים, הַהֹלֵךְ לִפְנֵי מַחֲנֵה יִשְׂרָאֵל, וַיֵּלֶךְ, מֵאַחֲרֵיהֶם; וַיִּסַּע עַמּוּד הֶעָנָן, מִפְּנֵיהֶם, וַיַּעֲמֹד, מֵאַחֲרֵיהֶם. Here, it is a malach haElohim which travels before the nation. This might mean the same as a Divine manifestation. Compare with Hamalach Hagoel Oti, and Hashem vs. the malach who appeared in the burning bush. And see what Ramban, Ibn Ezra say on this. Also, in Shemot 14:19, unless the pasuk is poetically echoing itself, it would seem that the malach haElohim is distinct from the amud heAnan.

כב לֹא-יָמִישׁ עַמּוּד הֶעָנָן, יוֹמָם, וְעַמּוּד הָאֵשׁ, לָיְלָה--לִפְנֵי, הָעָם.

לֹא-יָמִישׁ...: Is this not simply a repetition of the previous verse? Maybe this is what motivates Rashi to cite the midrash. I would argue that this is no mere repetition. First, practically, it could be verse 21 might imply that this was only when they were traveling. Secondly, thematically, this is teaching of a special relationship between Hashem and the Israelites, that he is not abandoning them, even as he will not abandon them when the Egyptians will attack. Compare with Yeshaya 54:10, כִּי הֶהָרִים יָמוּשׁוּ, וְהַגְּבָעוֹת תְּמוּטֶינָה--וְחַסְדִּי מֵאִתֵּךְ לֹא-יָמוּשׁ, וּבְרִית שְׁלוֹמִי לֹא תָמוּט, אָמַר מְרַחֲמֵךְ, יְהוָה., where the intent is to the special relationship.

Perek 14:

א וַיְדַבֵּר יְהוָה, אֶל-מֹשֶׁה לֵּאמֹר.

ב דַּבֵּר, אֶל-בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל, וְיָשֻׁבוּ וְיַחֲנוּ לִפְנֵי פִּי הַחִירֹת, בֵּין מִגְדֹּל וּבֵין הַיָּם: לִפְנֵי בַּעַל צְפֹן, נִכְחוֹ תַחֲנוּ עַל-הַיָּם.

וְיָשֻׁבוּ וְיַחֲנוּ לִפְנֵי פִּי הַחִירֹת: Were such explicit instructions from Moshe to the Bnei Yisrael necessary? After all, the amud heAnan was directing them? Perhaps this is a paraphrase, and the explicit explanation of the geography is for the benefit of future readers, in order to place the nes of the Reed Sea. Also, there may be hidden implications in all these place names, but it may simply be akin to the detailed geography in the very beginning of sefer Devarim, and once again, because it is important to fix the specific place.

נִכְחוֹ תַחֲנוּ: Perhaps this phonetic echoing is deliberate. And the repetition from וְיַחֲנוּ לִפְנֵי is to stress that they were encamped directly by Yam Suf.

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

לִבְנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל: About the children of Israel. See Rashi.

ד וְחִזַּקְתִּי אֶת-לֵב-פַּרְעֹה, וְרָדַף אַחֲרֵיהֶם, וְאִכָּבְדָה בְּפַרְעֹה וּבְכָל-חֵילוֹ, וְיָדְעוּ מִצְרַיִם כִּי-אֲנִי יְהוָה; וַיַּעֲשׂוּ-כֵן.

Thus, continuing the trend and the message of all the makkot.

וַיַּעֲשׂוּ-כֵן: meaning the Israelites did so. It is not really ambigous with the possibility that the Egyptians did so, as described in the following verses.

ה וַיֻּגַּד לְמֶלֶךְ מִצְרַיִם, כִּי בָרַח הָעָם; וַיֵּהָפֵךְ לְבַב פַּרְעֹה וַעֲבָדָיו, אֶל-הָעָם, וַיֹּאמְרוּ מַה-זֹּאת עָשִׂינוּ, כִּי-שִׁלַּחְנוּ אֶת-יִשְׂרָאֵל מֵעָבְדֵנוּ.

וַיֻּגַּד לְמֶלֶךְ מִצְרַיִם: In general, there is an interesting interchange between melech mitzrayim, Par'oh, and Par'oh melech mitzrayim, which should be elaborated upon. Here it could just be use of synonyms to make the text less tedious.

כִּי בָרַח הָעָם: See Ibn Ezra and see Ramban. They are saying that until this point Pharaoh still thought it was a mere pilgrimage, and now, it is clear that they are fleeing rather than simply traveling. This is a fairly compelling reading, but needs to work out with the earlier reason of the midbar closing them in, which otherwise contrasts. See Ramban, that since they are wandering to and fro, they are not engaging in a pilgrimage.

Still, this is not the only possible reading of the narrative, and of ki varach haAm. Perhaps we could understand that as them truly having left.

Sefer Hayashar at the beginning of this section has a little interplay on this theme. It has the Egyptians, rather than Pharaoh, first go after the people, because they are upset having lost their slaves. The implication is perhaps that they think they have lost them entirely, but in the continuation, it seems not so. At any rate, the Egyptians are unsure of it. And so, they go after them as a test of the faithfulness of the Israelites, whether they will return, and if not, the Egyptians would battle them. And the nobles and people went, but not Pharaoh. (I wonder if the first pasuk in the parsha, פֶּן-יִנָּחֵם הָעָם בִּרְאֹתָם מִלְחָמָה--וְשָׁבוּ מִצְרָיְמָה, plays into this midrash.) Moshe and Aharon make it clear to the Egyptians that they are not returning, but going on to Canaan. The Israelites fight the Egyptians and beat them. (Perhaps as chamushim they went out?) They then tell Pharaoh of the Israelite intentions, and that they have fled. (This pasuk.)

מֵעָבְדֵנוּ: With a kametz-katon, from a reduced cholam. See Rashbam, where he called it a chataf kametz.

אֶל-הָעָם: the nation of Israel, despite the am in the next pasuk being the nation of Egyptians.

ו וַיֶּאְסֹר, אֶת-רִכְבּוֹ; וְאֶת-עַמּוֹ, לָקַח עִמּוֹ.

וְאֶת-עַמּוֹ לָקַח עִמּוֹ: Not the entire population of Egypt, but rather the great host described in the subsequent pesukim. Persuasion, as was Rashi's suggestion, was not necessary, for this was Pharaoh's army to command.

ז וַיִּקַּח, שֵׁשׁ-מֵאוֹת רֶכֶב בָּחוּר, וְכֹל, רֶכֶב מִצְרָיִם; וְשָׁלִשִׁם, עַל-כֻּלּוֹ.

וַיִּקַּח...: This is an elaboration of לָקַח in the previous pasuk, and thus an elaboration of the am which Pharaoh took. The choice of the language am was to emphasize their might, in that they were numerous. And here, choice chariots and the description of the officers is to emphasize the Egyptian might.

ח וַיְחַזֵּק יְהוָה, אֶת-לֵב פַּרְעֹה מֶלֶךְ מִצְרַיִם, וַיִּרְדֹּף, אַחֲרֵי בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל; וּבְנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל, יֹצְאִים בְּיָד רָמָה.

וַיְחַזֵּק: Is this not repetitious? No, because this is necessary to draw clearly and exlpicitly the fulfillment of God's plan and prediction in pasuk 4, even as the intervening pesukim did much to advance this.

וּבְנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל יֹצְאִים בְּיָד רָמָה: Perhaps this entire pasuk is meant on the macro instead of micro level. If so, God hardened Pharaoh's heart and he chased after the Israelites, yet from this danger the Israelites went out with a high hand.

We could also interpret בְּיָד רָמָה as going out publicly, rather than slinking out of Egypt. See perhaps Rashi. Or as Ibn Ezra, that they are not like fleers, and that this goes to the point that they left Egypt while armed. Or as Ramban, that there joy and attitude suggested that they did not intend to return, such that they were no longer slaves.

וּבְנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל: Related -- JPS translation gives "for the children of Israel went out with a high hand." Perhaps the Israelite attitude caused this reaction in Pharaoh. Judaica Press just has "and the children of Israel..."

Shadal says this is to give a sense of the Israelite feeling before the crisis -- that at this point they were beYad Rama, and now the Egyptians are running after them, and they will panic. Nice.

ט וַיִּרְדְּפוּ מִצְרַיִם אַחֲרֵיהֶם, וַיַּשִּׂיגוּ אוֹתָם חֹנִים עַל-הַיָּם, כָּל-סוּס רֶכֶב פַּרְעֹה, וּפָרָשָׁיו וְחֵילוֹ--עַל-פִּי, הַחִירֹת, לִפְנֵי, בַּעַל צְפֹן.

וַיִּרְדְּפוּ מִצְרַיִם אַחֲרֵיהֶם: Now this is Egypt, with all its might, which chased after them.

עַל-פִּי, הַחִירֹת: Thus, they met them just where the Israelites encamped, by Pi haChiros, before Baal Tzefon, in fulfillment of God's plan. This detail of place-name brings it to a close. Now, what will be the Israelite reaction, and how will God act?

י וּפַרְעֹה, הִקְרִיב; וַיִּשְׂאוּ בְנֵי-יִשְׂרָאֵל אֶת-עֵינֵיהֶם וְהִנֵּה מִצְרַיִם נֹסֵעַ אַחֲרֵיהֶם, וַיִּירְאוּ מְאֹד, וַיִּצְעֲקוּ בְנֵי-יִשְׂרָאֵל, אֶל-יְהוָה.

וּפַרְעֹה הִקְרִיב: And not, with the vav hahipuch, ויקרב פרעה. Perhaps this should be translated, "as Pharaoh approached, the Israelites lifted up their eyes, and behold..."

וַיִּשְׂאוּ... וְהִנֵּה: all this to build suspense and excitement, such that we experience it from the perspective of the Israelites.

וַיִּצְעֲקוּ בְנֵי-יִשְׂרָאֵל, אֶל-יְהוָה: Is this good or bad? Taken alone, this would seem to be prayer for salvation. Rashi cites the Mechilta that this is positive, and that they were praying. But the subsequent pesukim are complaints against Moshe, which would seem to then be the substance of the crying out. But maybe when the Jews complain, this is their prayer. See Ramban grapple with this, and explain that there were several groups, one which prayed and another which complained.

Perhaps the way they related to Hashem is that one needed to explicitly call Hashem into action, by complaint or rhetorical question. And so there was real danger here.

יא וַיֹּאמְרוּ, אֶל-מֹשֶׁה, הֲמִבְּלִי אֵין-קְבָרִים בְּמִצְרַיִם, לְקַחְתָּנוּ לָמוּת בַּמִּדְבָּר: מַה-זֹּאת עָשִׂיתָ לָּנוּ, לְהוֹצִיאָנוּ מִמִּצְרָיִם.

יב הֲלֹא-זֶה הַדָּבָר, אֲשֶׁר דִּבַּרְנוּ אֵלֶיךָ בְמִצְרַיִם לֵאמֹר, חֲדַל מִמֶּנּוּ, וְנַעַבְדָה אֶת-מִצְרָיִם: כִּי טוֹב לָנוּ עֲבֹד אֶת-מִצְרַיִם, מִמֻּתֵנוּ בַּמִּדְבָּר.

יג וַיֹּאמֶר מֹשֶׁה אֶל-הָעָם, אַל-תִּירָאוּ--הִתְיַצְּבוּ וּרְאוּ אֶת-יְשׁוּעַת יְהוָה, אֲשֶׁר-יַעֲשֶׂה לָכֶם הַיּוֹם: כִּי, אֲשֶׁר רְאִיתֶם אֶת-מִצְרַיִם הַיּוֹם--לֹא תֹסִפוּ לִרְאֹתָם עוֹד, עַד-עוֹלָם.

וַיֹּאמֶר מֹשֶׁה אֶל-הָעָם: Moshe's response, promising salvation, is as a response to their complaint. Ramban divides into different groups, as does Midrash (, as does DH, unsatisfyingly). I might put forth that the "crying out" of pasuk 10 can be well-matched by מַה-תִּצְעַק אֵלָי in pasuk 15, and the intervening complaint and Moshe's response could be a interchange.

יד יְהוָה, יִלָּחֵם לָכֶם; וְאַתֶּם, תַּחֲרִשׁוּן.

As my father likes to say regarding this pasuk: Hashem will provide you with bread. All you have to do is plow!

Is this a good format? A bad format? Should I still to lengthy discussions of individual points, or is a running commentary better?

Interesting Posts and Articles #116

1. Kankan Chadash continues to post the discussion of whether to teach that some people maintain that God gets nachas from our doing mitzvot, or that God does not.
   
   
2. And Blog in Dm continues his series critiquing The Torah Is Not Hefker. And then a post summing up.
   
   
3. An article in the New York Times about how the music at Obama's inauguration, for most, was prerecorded, even as they saw the musicians play.
   
   
4. A Mother In Israel provides an English account of a YNet story -- screaming babies ignored in Israeli maternity wards. And see the comment section.
   
   
5. Me-ander says it is not the season for goat milk.
   
   
6. Life in Israel gives over a new reason Rachel Imeinu could not come, from a rabbi in Israel. Would she come personally to help secular Israelis?? Maybe to the Rambam, but not to them. If anything, it was at the most a sheid. Of course, context can be lost in short quotes, so in a separate post he also provides the text of the full sicha. I have what to comment on this, but I will hold it back at least until I read the full text.
   
   
7. Some of my thoughts, and some more of my thoughts, about saying parshat HaMan on the Tuesday of parshat Beshalach.
   

Beshalach: Is the command not to leave one's place intended leDoros?

A very short sefer haChinuch on this week's parsha, since Beshalach only has one mitzvah. Click on the image to the right to make it larger, and thereby readable.

The mitzvah is rooted on the pasuk in Shemot 16:29:

כט רְאוּ, כִּי-יְהוָה נָתַן לָכֶם הַשַּׁבָּת--עַל-כֵּן הוּא נֹתֵן לָכֶם בַּיּוֹם הַשִּׁשִּׁי, לֶחֶם יוֹמָיִם; שְׁבוּ אִישׁ תַּחְתָּיו, אַל-יֵצֵא אִישׁ מִמְּקֹמוֹ--בַּיּוֹם הַשְּׁבִיעִי.

29 See that the LORD hath given you the sabbath; therefore He giveth you on the sixth day the bread of two days; abide ye every man in his place, let no man go out of his place on the seventh day.'

As Rashi notes:

let no man leave, etc. These are the 2,000 cubits of the Sabbath limits (Mechilta), but this is not explicit, for [the laws of Sabbath] limits are only Rabbinic enactments [lit., from the words of the scribes] (Sotah 30b), and the essence of the verse was stated regarding those who gathered the manna.

Rambam indeed interprets this as one of the 613, not to go past the techum shabbat. In sefer haMitzvot he gives this as 2000 cubits, but this was the limit imposed by Chazal. The Biblical limit, which he gives in Mishneh Torah, is 3 parsangs. But Ramban takes issue with both of these, saying that all of this, according to our gemara, the Bavli, is midivrei Soferim. But that the verse means a different commandment leDorot, namely that of hotzaah, taking an item from the private domain to a public domain, or by extension vice versa, such that we are to read, as someone suggests in a gemara, אַל-יֵצֵא as al-Yotzi. So, within this paragraph, a summary of Sefer Hachinuch.

I am not sure I agree with Judaica Press' translation of Rashi here. Translating Divrei Soferim as "rabbinic enactments" implies that it is a Din deRabbanan. But Divrei Soferim is a homonym, meaning different things in different contexts, and Divrei Sofrim can encompass something with the status of DeOrayta. As an example, kiddushei kesef and shava kesef is miDivrei Soferim, and there is, related to this, a preference for this method -- for we are Pharisees. But it is surely kiddushin on a DeOrayta level, and a betrothed woman who was betrothed via kiddushei kesef who then committed adultery would surely earn the Biblical penalty. It thus means, at times, simply that the methodology used in determining the deOraysa is one which is not explicit, but it midivrei Soferim. And that is perhaps what Rashi means to say here, in order to clearly delineate the difference between peshat and derash, which is one of his concerns.

And so it is no Rabbinic enactment. It is Rabbinic interpretation, establishing the Din DeOrayta. There are many such deOraytas, and they do not merit to be counted as one of the 613. And I think that is what Ramban means by his objection as well.

What are we to make of these interpretations of Rambam and Ramban? Can Ramban really be saying that a revocalization of the word should be valid as an explicit din deOrayta, such that it should be counted as one of the 613, rather than midivrei soferim? What about Rambam? As Rashi notes, this is surely not the intent on a peshat level of the verse? Can he really be saying that a mitzvah about the man should be taken out of context and applied ledoros?

Let us first focus on Ramban. As Sefer Hachinuch noted, in Eruvin, there is one who implies so, that al-yetze is intended as the source for hotzaah. And this could perhaps be taken as an explicit verse, though I would still contend that revocalization is no longer explicit. Though who says that the vocalization matters in such things -- and perhaps no revocalization is intended, but just a strange grammatical contruction.

I will complicate matters a bit. There is a gemara in Horayot, analyzing a Mishna. The Mishnah in Horayot 3b reads:
יש שבת בתורה אבל המוציא מרה"י לרה"ר פטור
The idea being that this is an example of הורו לבטל מקצת ולקיים מקצת, where one is covered by the par heelem davar shel tzibbur. But this would not work if it was ketiva, something written explicitly. (See inside in context for why.)

תנן יש שבת בתורה אבל המוציא מרשות לרשות פטור
ואמאי הוצאה הא כתיבא (ירמיהו יז) לא תוציאו משא מבתיכם [דאמרי הוצאה הוא דאסור הכנסה מותר
ואיבעית אימא] דאמרי הוצאה {והכנסה} הוא דאסירא מושיט וזורק שרי

The (setama de-) gemara does raise this objection, but not from the pasuk in parshat Beshalach, but rather from the pasuk in Yirmeyahu. And offers an answer. This is all weak, of course, since something written in Nach is not ketiva in the same sense.

Perhaps we should consider that pasuk in Yirmeyah 17:

כא כֹּה אָמַר ה, הִשָּׁמְרוּ בְּנַפְשׁוֹתֵיכֶם; וְאַל-תִּשְׂאוּ מַשָּׂא בְּיוֹם הַשַּׁבָּת, וַהֲבֵאתֶם בְּשַׁעֲרֵי יְרוּשָׁלִָם.	21 thus saith the LORD: Take heed for the sake of your souls, and bear no burden on the sabbath day, nor bring it in by the gates of Jerusalem;
כב וְלֹא-תוֹצִיאוּ מַשָּׂא מִבָּתֵּיכֶם בְּיוֹם הַשַּׁבָּת, וְכָל-מְלָאכָה לֹא תַעֲשׂוּ; וְקִדַּשְׁתֶּם אֶת-יוֹם הַשַּׁבָּת, כַּאֲשֶׁר צִוִּיתִי אֶת-אֲבוֹתֵיכֶם.	22 neither carry forth a burden out of your houses on the sabbath day, neither do ye any work; but hallow ye the sabbath day, as I commanded your fathers;

Can a Navi innovate halacha, as more than a horaas shaah, but rather leDoros? We generally assume not, and that attempting to is to be a navi sheker. So how could Yirmeyahu do this?

I might suggest that Yirmeyahu is restating what was already known to be Biblical law? And where was that verse? It is in parshat Beshalach.

So shall we revocalize, or assume some strange grammatical construction? Or shall we make some derasha on the pasuk, and assume Yirmeyahu knew the same derasha. Perhaps. But I would suggest as follows.

The pasuk in Beshalach has meaning in context. Every day they were to go out to the field and collect the manna which Hashem rained down for them. This meant picking up the manna in a reshut harabbim and carrying it to their tents. And if collecting an omer for each gulgolet, they would presumably also need vessels to put it in, which they would take out to the fields with them. That is hotzaah and hachnasah. And on Shabbat, they were not supposed to engage in this activity -- אַל-יֵצֵא אִישׁ מִמְּקֹמוֹ--בַּיּוֹם הַשְּׁבִיעִי, which in context, and on a peshat level, is not going out to the fields to collect man. Was this only during that time? That is a distinct possibility, that this was just for when the Israelites were in the midbar, where Hashem issued this command as a test. But another possibility is that there was an underlying prohibition, brought to the fore by this command not to collect, and that this is what Yirmeyahu is voicing in his later restatement of the Biblical law.

Of course, in Bavli Shabbat 96a, this is derived from Shemot 36:6:

ו וַיְצַו מֹשֶׁה, וַיַּעֲבִירוּ קוֹל בַּמַּחֲנֶה לֵאמֹר, אִישׁ וְאִשָּׁה אַל-יַעֲשׂוּ-עוֹד מְלָאכָה, לִתְרוּמַת הַקֹּדֶשׁ; וַיִּכָּלֵא הָעָם, מֵהָבִיא.

6 And Moses gave commandment, and they caused it to be proclaimed throughout the camp, saying: 'Let neither man nor woman make any more work for the offering of the sanctuary.' So the people were restrained from bringing.

where the idea is also to no longer bring from their private domain -- their tent -- to the public domain -- by the Mishkan. But I like the derivation I provided better, on a peshat level.

What about Rambam? Apparently, the encampment of the Israelites -- which was 3 parsangs -- was their makom, and outside of it was outside, where they were not to go. Perhaps we can similarly argue an underlying obligation, of rest by not traveling outside of your established makom, where going out to collect manna was just a manifestation of the underlying obligation. This would be nothing as extreme as the Karaitic interpretation of staying inside the house all day, like a prisoner in the dark. But it would be the idea of remaining settled in one's general area. I still like Ramban on a peshat level, if we have to choose between the two.