ג וְאֵת, שְׁנֵי בָנֶיהָ: אֲשֶׁר שֵׁם הָאֶחָד, גֵּרְשֹׁם--כִּי אָמַר, גֵּר הָיִיתִי בְּאֶרֶץ נָכְרִיָּה.
וְאֵת שְׁנֵי בָנֶיהָ -- this continues the interjection which began in pasuk 2, the purpose of which is to provide background information to make the present narrative make sense. In pasuk 2, we needed a reminder that Tzipporah was not with Moshe, but was staying with Yisro after Moshe sent her away. This pasuk identifies the two sons of Moshe. This is not strictly necessary for Gershom, since his identity plays no role in the present narrative. However, both must be identified here because of the reference to the plural "sons" in the narrative, as in "sons" in pasuk 5 and "two sons" in pasuk 6.
אֲשֶׁר -- now explaining what is meant by two sons, which might be surprising.
גֵּרְשֹׁם -- see Ibn Ezra about names not needing to follow grammatical rules. And perhaps we can connect it to גרש?
כִּי אָמַר, גֵּר הָיִיתִי בְּאֶרֶץ נָכְרִיָּה -- this is a deliberate copying of the earlier language. Shemot 2:22 states וַתֵּלֶד בֵּן, וַיִּקְרָא אֶת-שְׁמוֹ גֵּרְשֹׁם: כִּי אָמַר--גֵּר הָיִיתִי, בְּאֶרֶץ נָכְרִיָּה. Obviously, it is not surprising for the direct quote to be the same. But כִּי אָמַר is also the same, and immediately follows the word Gershom. It is a reworking of the previous next.
ד וְשֵׁם הָאֶחָד, אֱלִיעֶזֶר--כִּי-אֱלֹהֵי אָבִי בְּעֶזְרִי, וַיַּצִּלֵנִי מֵחֶרֶב פַּרְעֹה.
הָאֶחָד -- sometimes the pattern is with שם השני, but this is also acceptable. One's name was X and one's name was Y. See Ibn Ezra.
אֱלִיעֶזֶר -- this son was not mentioned in Shemot 2. Why is not important for understanding local peshat here. There, perhaps there was a specific reason for mentioning this son Gershom and his name, having a thematic connection with the surrounding narrative, and a message within the context. Specifically וַיּוֹאֶל מֹשֶׁה לָשֶׁבֶת אֶת-הָאִישׁ in the previous pasuk, such that he was content to live there, and how having children is an aspect of settling down, yet at the same time Moshe realized that he was a stranger in a strange land.
But again, this son was not mentioned in Shemot 2. And so the narrator here must anticipate the question of where this second son came from. And so Eliezer is explained, and it dragged the explanation found in pasuk 3 for Gershom along with it.
וַיַּצִּלֵנִי מֵחֶרֶב פַּרְעֹה -- since the assumption is that Moshe sent her away before going to Egypt, this son must have been born in Midian. A midrash makes the sword literal, and has Moshe's neck turn to marble. But on a peshat level, it indeed refers to the penalty Pharaoh sought to impose on Moshe for slaying the Egyptian, as referred to in Shemot 2:15: וַיִּשְׁמַע פַּרְעֹה אֶת-הַדָּבָר הַזֶּה, וַיְבַקֵּשׁ לַהֲרֹג אֶת-מֹשֶׁה; וַיִּבְרַח מֹשֶׁה מִפְּנֵי פַרְעֹה, וַיֵּשֶׁב בְּאֶרֶץ-מִדְיָן וַיֵּשֶׁב עַל-הַבְּאֵר. Rashi is absolutely justified in citing this midrash in explaining the pasuk.
הָאֶחָד -- sometimes the pattern is with שם השני, but this is also acceptable. One's name was X and one's name was Y. See Ibn Ezra.
אֱלִיעֶזֶר -- this son was not mentioned in Shemot 2. Why is not important for understanding local peshat here. There, perhaps there was a specific reason for mentioning this son Gershom and his name, having a thematic connection with the surrounding narrative, and a message within the context. Specifically וַיּוֹאֶל מֹשֶׁה לָשֶׁבֶת אֶת-הָאִישׁ in the previous pasuk, such that he was content to live there, and how having children is an aspect of settling down, yet at the same time Moshe realized that he was a stranger in a strange land.
But again, this son was not mentioned in Shemot 2. And so the narrator here must anticipate the question of where this second son came from. And so Eliezer is explained, and it dragged the explanation found in pasuk 3 for Gershom along with it.
וַיַּצִּלֵנִי מֵחֶרֶב פַּרְעֹה -- since the assumption is that Moshe sent her away before going to Egypt, this son must have been born in Midian. A midrash makes the sword literal, and has Moshe's neck turn to marble. But on a peshat level, it indeed refers to the penalty Pharaoh sought to impose on Moshe for slaying the Egyptian, as referred to in Shemot 2:15: וַיִּשְׁמַע פַּרְעֹה אֶת-הַדָּבָר הַזֶּה, וַיְבַקֵּשׁ לַהֲרֹג אֶת-מֹשֶׁה; וַיִּבְרַח מֹשֶׁה מִפְּנֵי פַרְעֹה, וַיֵּשֶׁב בְּאֶרֶץ-מִדְיָן וַיֵּשֶׁב עַל-הַבְּאֵר. Rashi is absolutely justified in citing this midrash in explaining the pasuk.
ה וַיָּבֹא יִתְרוֹ חֹתֵן מֹשֶׁה, וּבָנָיו וְאִשְׁתּוֹ--אֶל-מֹשֶׁה: אֶל-הַמִּדְבָּר, אֲשֶׁר-הוּא חֹנֶה שָׁם--הַר הָאֱלֹהִים
וּבָנָיו וְאִשְׁתּוֹ -- a slight awkwardness here. But חֹתֵן מֹשֶׁה changed the antecedent to Moshe, where it would have referred to Yitro if those words had not been present, because of וַיָּבֹא יִתְרוֹ. And so it refers to Moshe's wife and sons. This is made clear in Yitro's speech in the next pasuk.
A midrash (see Zohar) takes this to refer to Yisro's sons, whom he brought with him to bring under the wings of the Shechina. This may play into the aforementioned issue of just who Yisro was. Within our peshat understanding here, he is only coming to deliver Moshe's family, hear the wonders of Hashem, and perhaps visit for a while.
This might also conflict with the Mechilta cited by Rashi on the last pasuk in this perek, that Yisro left to go to his own land for the purpose of converting his family.
A midrash (see Zohar) takes this to refer to Yisro's sons, whom he brought with him to bring under the wings of the Shechina. This may play into the aforementioned issue of just who Yisro was. Within our peshat understanding here, he is only coming to deliver Moshe's family, hear the wonders of Hashem, and perhaps visit for a while.
This might also conflict with the Mechilta cited by Rashi on the last pasuk in this perek, that Yisro left to go to his own land for the purpose of converting his family.
אֶל-הַמִּדְבָּר -- this helps fix the incident in location, and quite possibly in terms of time as well. Was this before or after mattan Torah? This is a dispute, and perhaps is reflected by a variation in the trup. (See here.)
ו וַיֹּאמֶר, אֶל-מֹשֶׁה, אֲנִי חֹתֶנְךָ יִתְרוֹ, בָּא אֵלֶיךָ; וְאִשְׁתְּךָ--וּשְׁנֵי בָנֶיהָ, עִמָּהּ.
וְאִשְׁתְּךָ וּשְׁנֵי בָנֶיהָ עִמָּהּ -- there is a slight awkwardness here. Had it stated עמי it would have been straightforward, that Moshe's wife and her two sons are with Yisro. The etnachta is on eilecha. This is to be understood as "I, Yisro, have come to you, as well as your wife [has come to you], and her two children with her." See Ibn Ezra who explains that she is the primary.וַיֹּאמֶר, אֶל-מֹשֶׁה -- Rashi citing Rabbi Eleazar Hamoda'i in Mechilta says "via an agent." And e.g. Shadal, Rashbam, echoes this. This is necessary because of the next verse which has Moshe go out and greet him, such that Yisro was not physically present.
But this was actually a matter of dispute in Mechilta, with Rabbi Yehoshua saying כתב לו באגרת. One distinction between the two is perhaps whether one can apply vayomer to the written word. Another might be the absent subject in the sentence. It does not state Vayomer Yisro, so it could be that the agent -- the speaker -- spoke. Compare Vayaged leYaakov and Vayomer leYosef. Or that Yisro spoke, but did so via an intermediate speaking on his behalf.
Rashbam and Shadal in echoing Rashi might not be taking sides in this dispute. Rather, they are concerned about the next pasuk which indicates that only then do Moshe and Yisro physically meet. They likely do not concern themselves with the opinion which has been filtered out, but would agree with it as an alternative. See Ibn Ezra who states both opinions -- וכבר אמר אל משה לפני בואם על ידי שליח או באגרת כתובה.
If this was via letter or messenger, why does Moshe go out immediately? Ibn Ezra seems to treat this as a pluperfect. He had said to him, וכבר אמר, in the past.
In contrast, the midrash about sending via an agent and going out in the merit of Yisro, and if not in his wife's merit, and if not, in the merit of her children, seems to suggest to me an immediacy -- that Yisro sent this message just now, and is standing just outside the ananei hakavod waiting to be let in or for Moshe to come out.
בָּא אֵלֶיךָ -- am coming to you.
But this was actually a matter of dispute in Mechilta, with Rabbi Yehoshua saying כתב לו באגרת. One distinction between the two is perhaps whether one can apply vayomer to the written word. Another might be the absent subject in the sentence. It does not state Vayomer Yisro, so it could be that the agent -- the speaker -- spoke. Compare Vayaged leYaakov and Vayomer leYosef. Or that Yisro spoke, but did so via an intermediate speaking on his behalf.
Rashbam and Shadal in echoing Rashi might not be taking sides in this dispute. Rather, they are concerned about the next pasuk which indicates that only then do Moshe and Yisro physically meet. They likely do not concern themselves with the opinion which has been filtered out, but would agree with it as an alternative. See Ibn Ezra who states both opinions -- וכבר אמר אל משה לפני בואם על ידי שליח או באגרת כתובה.
If this was via letter or messenger, why does Moshe go out immediately? Ibn Ezra seems to treat this as a pluperfect. He had said to him, וכבר אמר, in the past.
In contrast, the midrash about sending via an agent and going out in the merit of Yisro, and if not in his wife's merit, and if not, in the merit of her children, seems to suggest to me an immediacy -- that Yisro sent this message just now, and is standing just outside the ananei hakavod waiting to be let in or for Moshe to come out.
ר' יהושע אומר:
כתב לו באגרת.
ר' אלעזר המודעי אומר:
שלח לו ביד שליח, ואמר לו: עשה בגיני, ואם אין אתה עושה בגיני, צא בגין אשתך, ואם לאו עשה בגין בניה, לכך נאמר: ויאמר אל משה וגו'.
כתב לו באגרת.
ר' אלעזר המודעי אומר:
שלח לו ביד שליח, ואמר לו: עשה בגיני, ואם אין אתה עושה בגיני, צא בגין אשתך, ואם לאו עשה בגין בניה, לכך נאמר: ויאמר אל משה וגו'.
בָּא אֵלֶיךָ -- am coming to you.
ז וַיֵּצֵא מֹשֶׁה לִקְרַאת חֹתְנוֹ, וַיִּשְׁתַּחוּ וַיִּשַּׁק-לוֹ, וַיִּשְׁאֲלוּ אִישׁ-לְרֵעֵהוּ, לְשָׁלוֹם; וַיָּבֹאוּ, הָאֹהֱלָה.
וַיֵּצֵא מֹשֶׁה -- out of where? the tent? the ananei hakavod to where Yisro was waiting? out of the encampment to greet Yisro as he arrived, since Moshe knew due to reciept of the letter? I would say the first or the last, and lean more towards the last.
מֹשֶׁה -- the focus is Moshe's reaction and greeting, so just Moshe. Compare Rashi who has everyone going out, accompanying Moshe. There is a broader thematic point in that Midrash and several other midrashim here that Moshe is raised to prominence, and Yisro is then important here here because of his association with Moshe (he is choten Moshe) and so Moshe's according him honor causes others to accord him honor.
וַיִּשְׁתַּחוּ וַיִּשַּׁק-לוֹ -- who did what? It is ambiguous. Rashi cited a Mechilta about this, which resolves that it refers to Moshe. Thus:
While it is ambiguous, we may arrive at the smoothest reading of it being Moshe because in וַיֵּצֵא מֹשֶׁה לִקְרַאת חֹתְנוֹ, Moshe is the subject and Yisro is the object, such that the expected actor here would be Moshe. However, see below.
וַיִּשְׁאֲלוּ אִישׁ-לְרֵעֵהוּ -- this is mutual. Each man greeted his fellow.
I am uncertain whether this is how Rashi and the Mechilta understand this. After all, if the derasha is on ish leRei'eihu, and Ish is specifically Moshe, then Moshe asked his fellow, Yisro, and not vice versa.
Once we say this is mutual, perhaps we can distribute the ish leRei'eihu to the previous actions as well. If so, there was mutual bowing and kissing.
מֹשֶׁה -- the focus is Moshe's reaction and greeting, so just Moshe. Compare Rashi who has everyone going out, accompanying Moshe. There is a broader thematic point in that Midrash and several other midrashim here that Moshe is raised to prominence, and Yisro is then important here here because of his association with Moshe (he is choten Moshe) and so Moshe's according him honor causes others to accord him honor.
וַיִּשְׁתַּחוּ וַיִּשַּׁק-לוֹ -- who did what? It is ambiguous. Rashi cited a Mechilta about this, which resolves that it refers to Moshe. Thus:
וישתחו וישק לו -
איני יודע מי השתחווה למי או מי נשק למי, כשהוא אומר: וישאלו איש לרעהו, מי קרוי איש?
הלא משה, שנאמר: והאיש משה, הוי אומר: לא השתחווה ולא נשק אלא משה לחמיו.
Rashi does not have the last statement after veHaIsh Moshe. As such, we might misinterpret this that Rashi (and his midrashic source in turn) is uncertain as to who bowed and kissed, but that certainty returns for the next phrase about greeting. Looking at the source in full, it is harnessing the continuation, together with a gezeira shava, to show that Moshe bowed down and kissed his father-in-law.איני יודע מי השתחווה למי או מי נשק למי, כשהוא אומר: וישאלו איש לרעהו, מי קרוי איש?
הלא משה, שנאמר: והאיש משה, הוי אומר: לא השתחווה ולא נשק אלא משה לחמיו.
While it is ambiguous, we may arrive at the smoothest reading of it being Moshe because in וַיֵּצֵא מֹשֶׁה לִקְרַאת חֹתְנוֹ, Moshe is the subject and Yisro is the object, such that the expected actor here would be Moshe. However, see below.
וַיִּשְׁאֲלוּ אִישׁ-לְרֵעֵהוּ -- this is mutual. Each man greeted his fellow.
I am uncertain whether this is how Rashi and the Mechilta understand this. After all, if the derasha is on ish leRei'eihu, and Ish is specifically Moshe, then Moshe asked his fellow, Yisro, and not vice versa.
Once we say this is mutual, perhaps we can distribute the ish leRei'eihu to the previous actions as well. If so, there was mutual bowing and kissing.
No comments:
Post a Comment