Sunday, January 25, 2015

Teva, and the Authenticity of the Zohar

Summary: Is the use of teva to refer to nature unique to Zohar, or is there precedent in the Talmud Bavli? Continuing to debunk the debunking of the debunking of the Zohar. Here are some earlier posts responding to the article on the basis of Rabbi Yesa, Rabbi AbbaCappadociaKefar KanyaArcheih, Yellow, and Guardians, as mentioned in the Zohar.

Post: To continue analyzing Rabbi Moshe Miller's attack of the analysis of the Zohar's language by Jewish scholars, we turn to consider what he says about the word tava. 

To cite from his article,
The claim is that Hebrew expressions first used in medieval times were used by the author of the Zohar, showing that it must have been compiled by someone [i.e., Moshe de Leon] during this era. As demonstrated below, many of these expressions are also found in early sources, contrary to the skeptics' claims.
But what does he mean by "found in early sources"? Let us say that some text X uses bulb to mean light bulb. This would indicate that it was written fairly late, after the invention of light bulbs. If I show that an early text uses bulb to refer to tulip bulbs or garlic bulbs, this other usage does not demonstrate that bulb has early use and thus text X can similarly be early. This, even if light bulbs were not a fairly recent invention, but even if the application of this lexical item to an existing concept was not in use until recently. This was the case for "yellow", as we saw earlier.

Here is another example. Rabbi Moshe Miller writes:
Tava (Zohar Chadash, Midrash HaNeelam maamar Tadshe 2) in the sense of "Nature." But this is also obviously the sense of Mishna Sanhedrin 4:5 ("HaKadosh Barchu tava kol adam b'chotmo"). See also Niddah 20b ("Tava d'bavel garma li"); several more occurrences of the word are found on that same page.
Consider that Mishna in Sanhedrin. It appears in Sanhedrin 37a. (Hebrew; English) The Mishna reads:
ולהגיד גדולתו של הקב"ה שאדם טובע כמה מטבעות בחותם אחד כולן דומין זה לזה ומלך מלכי המלכים הקב"ה טבע כל אדם בחותמו של אדם הראשון ואין אחד מהן דומה לחבירו לפיכך כל אחד ואחד חייב לומר בשבילי נברא העולם
But tava there comes in context of matbei'a. Consider the expression matbaya shetavu bo Chachamim. This appears in Yerushalmi Berachot, 62b:
אמרו לו אין לך רשות להוסיף על מטבע שטבעו חכמים בברכות

'Coining', whether by blessings or body and facial structure, is being used as a metaphor. This does not mean that Nature is the meaning of the word טבע, in the time of Chazal.

Yet this is the closest Rabbi Miller gets to his desired meaning. Yes, he wrote that:
 See also Niddah 20b ("Tava d'bavel garma li"); several more occurrences of the word are found on that same page.
with the implication that 'Nature' is the meaning of those several more occurrences. If we actually examine them, we find:
אמר רבי זירא טבעא דבבל גרמא לי דלא חזאי דמא דאמינא בטבעא לא ידענא בדמא ידענא למימרא דבטבעא תליא מלתא והא רבה הוא דידע בטבעא ולא ידע בדמא כל שכן קאמר ומה רבה דידע בטבעא לא חזא דמא ואנא אחזי

Or, in English:
R. Zera remarked: The Babylonian coinage was the cause of my refusing to examine blood; for I thought: If I do not understand the coinage system would I understand the nature of blood? This then implies that capability to examine blood depends on an understanding of the coinage; but did not Rabbah in fact understand the coinage system and yet did not understand the qualities of blood? — He was really drawing an inference a minori ad majus: If Rabbah who understood the coinage system refused to examine blood, should I2  examine it?
Thus, it means its meaning we already knew, "coin" or "coinage". Why does Rabbi Moshe Miller think this makes for good proof?!

Wednesday, January 21, 2015

Bo: Rashi's choice of midrashim

I am short on time this week, but I answered a question on Mi Yodea about Rashi's choice of midrashim in parashat Bo. I will reprint the question and my answer here.

The question:

Why does Rashi on Shmos 12 (41) not quote the Sifrei which he does quote on Devorim 32 (48)?

In relation to the words בְּעֶצֶם הַיּוֹם הַזֶּה and the Exodus from Egypt, the Sifrei there says,
“Scripture states, “On that very day, the Lord brought [the children of Israel] out [of the land of Egypt]” (Exod. 12:51). The Egyptians said: “We swear by such and such, that if we notice them about to leave, we will stop them! And not only that, but we will take swords and other weapons, and kill them!” So, the Holy One, Blessed is He, said: “I will bring them out in the middle of the day, and let anyone who has power to prevent it, come and prevent it!”
This would seem to be a relevant quote on Shmos 12 (41).
My answer:
Rashi on Chumash channels midrashic works, selecting those midrashim that fit his stated criteria and reworking them to form a commentary.
Rashi has favored midrashim on different chumashim.
On sefer Shemot, he channels the Mechilta, which is a midrash composed on Shemot. Indeed,follow your link to Shemot 12 and see how many of his sources are from the Mechilta. This forms the main body of his commentary, will only occasional digressions to bring in salient points from other sources.
On sefer Devarim, he channels the Sifrei, which is a midrash composed on Devarim. Indeed, follow your link to Devarim 32 and see how many of his sources are from the Sifrei. This forms the main body of his commentary, will only occasional digressions to bring in salient points from other sources.
The citation from the Sifrei in question reads:
וידבר ה' אל משה בעצם היום הזה: בשלשה מקומות נאמר בעצם היום הזה, נאמר בנח (שם ז, יג) בעצם היום הזה בא נח וגו', במראית אורו של יום, לפי שהיו בני דורו אומרים בכך וכך אם אנו מרגישין בו אין אנו מניחין אותו ליכנס בתיבה, ולא עוד אלא אנו נוטלין כשילין וקרדומות ומבקעין את התיבה. אמר הקב"ה הריני מכניסו בחצי היום, וכל מי שיש בידו כח למחות יבא וימחה. במצרים נאמר (שמות יב, נא) בעצם היום הזה הוציא ה', לפי שהיו מצרים אומרים בכך וכך אם אנו מרגישין בהם אין אנו מניחים אותם לצאת, ולא עוד אלא אנו נוטלין סייפות וכלי זיין והורגין בהם. אמר הקב"ה הריני מוציאן בחצי היום וכל מי שיש בו כח למחות יבא וימחה. אף כאן במיתתו של משה נאמר בעצם היום הזה, לפי שהיו ישראל אומרים בכך וכך אם אנו מרגישין בו אין אנו מניחין אותו, אדם שהוציאנו ממצרים וקרע לנו את הים והוריד לנו את המן והגיז לנו את השליו והעלה לנו את הבאר ונתן לנו את התורה אין אנו מניחין אותו. אמר הקב"ה הריני מכניסו בחצי היום וכו':
And the Lord spoke to Moses on that very day: Heb. בְּעֶצֶם הַיּוֹם הַזֶּה. In three places Scripture employs the phrase: בְּעֶצֶם הַיּוֹם הַזֶּה [which has the meaning, “at the strongest light of the day”]. First, regarding Noah, Scripture states,“On that very day (בְּעֶצֶם הַיּוֹם הַזֶּה) Noah entered [… the ark]” (Gen. 7:13), which means in the glare of full daylight. Noah’s contemporaries said: “We swear by such and such, that if we notice him about to enter the ark, we will not let him proceed! Moreover, we will take axes and hatchets and split open the ark!” So the Holy One, Blessed is He, said: “I will have Noah enter at midday, and let anyone who has the power to prevent it, come and prevent it!” Second, regarding Egypt, Scripture states, “On that very day, the Lord brought [the children of Israel] out [of the land of Egypt]” (Exod. 12:51). The Egyptians said: “We swear by such and such, that if we notice them about to leave, we will stop them! And not only that, but we will take swords and other weapons, and kill them!” So, the Holy One, Blessed is He, said: “I will bring them out in the middle of the day, and let anyone who has power to prevent it, come and prevent it!” Likewise here, regarding Moses’ death, Scripture states,“on that very day (בְּעֶצֶם הַיּוֹם הַזֶּה) .” The children of Israel said, “We swear by such and such, that if we notice Moses [ascending the mountain to die], we will not let him do so! The man who brought us out of Egypt, divided the Red Sea for us, brought the manna down for us, made flocks of quails fly over to us, brought up the well for us, and gave us the Torah-we will not let him!” Thereupon, the Holy One, Blessed is He, said: “I will have Moses ascend the mountain [to his resting place] in the middle of the day!” - [Sifrei 32:47]
It appears in Sifrei on this verse at the end of Haazinu (in Sefer Devarim), but serves to analyze three pesukim throughout Torah which contain this phrase -- one in parashat Noach (sefer Bereishit), one in Bo (sefer Shemot), and one in Haazinu. And Rashi cites the local midrash on the local verse.
Meanwhile, in parashat Bo in Shemot, Rashi cites from his go-to midrash for Sefer Shemot, the Mechilta, and writes:
ויהי מקץ שלשים שנה וגו' ויהי בעצם היום הזה: מגיד שכיון שהגיע הקץ לא עכבן המקום כהרף עין, בחמישה עשר בניסן באו מלאכי השרת אצל אברהם לבשרו, בחמישה עשר בניסן נולד יצחק, ובחמישה עשר בניסן נגזרה גזירת בין הבתרים:
It came to pass at the end of four hundred and thirty years, and it came to pass in that very day: [This] tells [us] that as soon as the end [of this period] arrived, the Omnipresent did not keep them [even] as long as the blink of an eye. On the fifteenth of Nissan, the angels came to Abraham to bring him tidings. On the fifteenth of Nissan Isaac was born; on the fifteenth of Nissan the decree of “between the parts” was decreed. — [from Mechilta]
To restate your question with this new information, you are asking why, if Rashi finds the midrash in the Sifrei relevant to Devarim, and that Sifrei is also commentary on the pasuk in parashat Bo, then why does Rashi in parashat Bo not make use of the same midrash and the same explanation of the phrase?
And, I think the answer is that Rashi does not see the need to be consistent and always proffer the same consistent explanation across Tanach. Rather, his aim is to present a midrashically grounded traditional approach that explains salient points of the text, and particularly those which address issues of peshat or make sense of irregular phrases in a way that works well in the overarching context. In order to do this, he reworks classical works of midrash.
Here, local to parashat Bo, he already had a midrash from the Mechilta which addressed the phrase בעצם היום הזה, and one which fit into his framework of other midrashim from the Mechilta. He therefore had no need to look for a non-local midrash to explain the phrase. This even though he used that non-local midrash elsewhere, in a place where it was, in turn, local.
Note: I think the above answer is correct and answers not just this question but a plethora of other questions. However, an interesting related question is why, in parashat Noach, Rashi turned to this Sifrei and not to the parallel midrash (with the same idea as presented in the Sifrei) from Bereishit Rabba:
בעצם היום הזה בא נח אמר רבי יוחנן, אמר הקדוש ברוך הוא: אם נכנס נח לתיבה בלילה, עכשיו יהיו כל דורו אומרים כך: לא היינו יודעים בו, ואלו היינו יודעים בו, לא היינו מניחין אותו ליכנס! אלא בעצם היום הזה בא נח, דרגיש ליה ימלל.

Wednesday, January 14, 2015

Posts so far for parshat Vaera

Jan 2015

1. Some Samaritan emendations from the beginning of Vaera. And brief analysis of the nature of these emendations.

2. Crocodile bile. Drawn from the news, we find a matching belief from the time of Rabbenu Bachya.

Dec 2013 - Jan 2014

1. *Now* you will see. Why the emphasis on the word now? A midrash, now as opposed to later. That midrash also speaks about the war against the 31 kings. Why?

2. Could Pharaoh have simply let them go? No, because this was Hashem's plan all along. Until this point, Hashem was "merely" the Creator. This creative act wasn't witnessed by anyone, and it seems plausible that various nations could even attribute this feat to their own local deity. For example, Marduk slaying Tiamat and making from her ribs the vault of heaven and earth.

By waging war of Egypt and all its imaginary deities (ובכל אלהי מצרים אעשה שפטים) Hashem is taking concrete action in the world and displaying His יָד חֲזָקָה. Of course He could do these mighty acts, and indeed these mighty acts are beneath him, because He could just cause the Egyptians to blink out of existence if He so willed it. But all this Divine power was just in potential, not brought into being.
3. Why we don't know Yocheved's mother's name. Perhaps because the author of the editorial insertion would not dare to insert into the Torah information he could not derive from another pasuk.

Jan 2012

  1. Vaera sources -- further expanded
  2. Darshening psiks in Vaera --  Or should that be munach legarmeihs? Two such vertical bars, and a distinction to be made between Moshe's description of what would be (Moshe hitting the water) and what was (Aharon hitting the water).
  3. YUTorah on parashat Vaera. As well as for Jan 2013.
  4. Should we translate כָּבֵד as אִתְיַקַּר or יַקִּיר, in Onkelos?  Some printers follow Rashi's emendation. But did he intend it as an emendation, or was he arguing with Onkelos?
  5. A Staff swallowing staffs, or a snake swallowing snakes?  A tradition like the peshat, that the snake swallowed snakes. Should we then reinterpret Rashi against what he says fairly plainly? No.
  6. Is marrying two sisters intrinsically or extrinsically obnoxiousWe consider the perspective of Rashi (intrinsically), Ibn Ezra (based on the land), and Ibn Caspi (who rejects Ibn Ezra and gives a rationalist reason for the prohibition). I suggest that it is extrinsically bad, based on intent and social mores.
Dec 2010 - Jan 2011

  1. When did the Bnei Yisrael say חֲדַל מִמֶּנּוּ? It makes sense, chronologically, that it would fall somewhere in Va'era. I explore some approaches which are open and closed canon to varying degrees.
  2. Va'era sources -- further expanded. For example, many more meforshei Rashi.
  3. Moshe makes a kal vachomer -- Considering the ten kal vachomers in the Torah (really, Tanach).
  4. Did Levi outlive EphraimThis is unlikely. Rashi's mention of shevatim who died is perhaps imprecise -- he means Yosef's brothers, which would not include Ephraim and Menashe.
  5. Yocheved His Aunt, and the Length of the Servitude -- If Yocheved was literally Amram's aunt, it is difficult to make the servitude 210 years, and even more, 400 years. Relax this and you have more leeway. Rav Saadia Gaon and the Targum Hashiv'im give us this leeway.
  6. Who said 'I am the LORD'?  A silly change in Divine appellation, by Samaritan scribes, at the start of Vaera.
  7. Moshe, and Yonah's, reluctance --  A cute vort from Rav Yonasan Eibeshitz, reinterpreting the kal vachomer.
  8. How did the chartumim turn water to blood?  One possible suggestion, based on Shadal's approach. Plus, is magic real in general.
  9. The abomination of Egypt?   If so, how could Moshe Rabbenu say this to Pharaoh?
  10. A liver is the heart of Pharaoh --  So goes a midrash or two. What this may indicate in terms of whether Chazal literally saw the heart as the seat of the intellect.
  11. Rabbenu Bachya, Locusts, and Crocodiles --  Rabbenu Bachya has two fascinating explanations of pesukim regarding the makkos, and Moshe's removal of them. Unfortunately, at least one of them is demonstrably false.
  12. What was Arov?  Wild beasts, or vicious flies. What do Jewish sources say?
  13. What is meant by leimor in Vayikra 1:1? Zehu midrasho --  Further, does Rashi intend this as peshat or derash?
  14. One big frog -- did derash become peshat?   Just because Rashi lists one giant frog as derash and 'frog' as collective noun does not mean that he did not think both were historically true.

January 2010
  1. Is the derivation of Putiel's name knowableCan we know the derivation of the name Putiel? A four-way machlokes between Rashi, Ibn Ezra, Ibn Caspi, and Shadal reveals something about their methodology, and their approach to peshat..
  2. Vaera sources - links to over 100 meforshim on the parsha and haftara.
  3. Was Pharaoh's heart hard, or did it become hardEvaluating Rashi's emendation of Onkelos, from an itpa'el verb to an adjective, on the basis of the dikduk of the Hebrew word being translated.
  4. Getting Pharaoh to play ball -- What was Pharaoh doing at the bank of the Nile? Ibn Caspi visits Egypt, and emerges with some realia with which to understand the Biblical narrative. Also, a difference between peshat and derash..
  5. Dodato as female first cousin -- An alternative way of translating dodato, from Rav Saadia Gaon and in the Septuagint, which eliminates a strong chronological difficulty in Yocheved and Moshe's birth.
  6. Spontaneous generation of frogs and lice -- Ibn Caspi, a Rishon, explains the workings of two of the plagues based on the scientific workings of spontaneous generation. This should be taken as additional evidence that Rishonim can be wrong in matters of science.
  7. How do we count the 430 yearsAssuming we take the 430 years in Egypt literally how do we reckon it? Also, how the Samaritan Torah differs, and whether this is persuasive.
  8. Egyptian magic and barley seeds -- A short response to a DovBear post on Chumash, alas in error.
  9. Was Pinchas descended from Yisro or Yosef?  Or both? Should we indeed follow the gemara's harmonization? A study in Rashi, and in approaches to midrash aggada.

  1. Vaera sources -- links by aliyah and perek to a mikraos gedolos, and a whole slew of links to meforshim on the parashah and haftarah.
  2. 430 years or 210 years? -- and how Shadal feels compelled to say it was 430 years, and explains how the generations of Levi, Kehat, and Amram, span that time.
  3. Did the Egyptians dig, or did they dig for water? A minor difference which may manifest itself at the level of trup.
  1. Executing judgments against the gods of Egypt, or making use of the gods of Egypt in executing judgment.
  2. Were the ten plagues natural? An explanation of Shadal's take on the matter, which I decided to present in partial response to a complaint about a 2007 post about how the Egyptian magicians created frogs.
  3. How did one frog become many? An exploration of the themes in the midrashim.

  • Did The Avot Not Know Shem Hashem?
    • Yet many times through Bereishit the Shem YKVK is mentioned. There are all sorts of possible answers -- Moshe changed it after the fact, editorially, the Documentary Hypothesis solution, grammatical distrinctions, nodati vs. hodati, etc. In this post, I focus on names not just being names, but carrying very specific implications -- something we get a sense of from the text itself (and which Rashi mentions as well).
      Finally, two of my favorite dealings with this issue, from Tg Yonatan and Rashbam, in how they manage to reparse the pasuk. (And I always like reparsings.)
  • Spitting blood and whistling frogs: the tzadi - quf switchoff (2005)
    • Two midrashim which I argue stem from a linguistic tzaddi -- quf switchoff. Thus, yishretzu becomes yishrequ, whistled, and thus the frog whisted in the process of yishretzu. Second, eretz mitzrayim becomes roq mitzrayim, and thus even their spittle turns to blood. More details in the post.
  • Pharaoh's multivalent dreams (2005)
    • Another way of interpreting Pharaoh's dreams -- as a fall from power, which finds fulfillment in this week's parsha.
  • Why couldn't the magicians create lice? (2005)
    • Daat Zekenim has an amusing answer. Just as we know by the story with Shimon ben Shetach and the witches, witchcarft draws power from the earth, but the plague had turned all the earth to lice!
  • Ganymedes Copies Military Tactic From Hashem (2005)
    • Depriving the Egyptians of their water supply. And Caesar responds the same way the Egyptians of old did, according to one way of reading the pesukim, and that they managed to circumvent the makkat dam.
  • All's Well That Ends Well (2004)
    • Were the Egyptians successful in their attempt to get water by digging around the river? Or did these wells also produce blood? Targum Yonatan's textual insertion. Ibn Ezra's take, against Chazal, that they were indeed successful, and the ever-frum Avi Ezer's reaction to this (that it was a mistaken student, and not, chas veshalom, Ibn Ezra who wrote this). Plus, a connection to Yitzchak's wells, a homiletic lesson we may draw, and a joke.
  • Why was Pharoah in de Nile? (2004)
    • The textual source for Pharoah using the Nile as his bathroom. And a new reason -- to do magic on it. And how this fits in with the narrative. Both from Tg Yonatan.
to be continued...

Tuesday, January 13, 2015

Crocodile bile

In the news recently was the tragic tale of many people killed of hospitalized because of accidental consumption of crocodile bile in beer served after a funeral.

To cite the article in Forbes:
Crocodile bile is literally the digestive juice from the gall bladders of the Nile crocodile, Crocodylus niloticus. Its use traces back to witchcraft accusations in 1899, according to Professor N.Z. Nyazema, in the Department of Clinical Pharmacology at the University of Zimbabwe, writing in the Central African Journal of Medicine in 1984 and 1985. The university, in Harare, is about 300 miles southwest across the Mozambique border from where the poisonings occurred.
Bile contains detergent molecules, called bile salts or bile acids, that animals use to dissolve or emulsify fats. They also bind to hormone receptors that regulate their own production. But more simply, bile salts or bile acids could conceivably be quite toxic in very high concentrations, as would any strong detergent. However, this isn’t consistent with the amounts allegedly used in traditional poisoning cases.
Professor Nyzema explains,
It is widely believed that the bile from the gall bladder of a crocodile is very poisonous. The bile nduru is used as poison which is added to beer or stiff porridge, sadza, of an unsuspecting victim. It is not easy to buy this poison neither is it easy for anyone to kill a crocodile solely for the purpose of obtaining the bile. But with a good fee one can obtain some of the poison from a special n’anga [a traditional healer of the Zimbabwean Shona tribe]. At times the n’anga may undertake to poison the victim thus adding mystery to the ingredients of the poison. It is reported that the poisoning occurs at special occasions like beer drinking: The nduru is said to be introduced into the beer by dipping the finger or nail where a small amount is placed: This will suffice for the purpose. The unfortunate victim is supposed to die within 24 hours. The poison is supposed to manifest itself when the patient develops pains mainly in the abdomen. 
However, as the article discusses, there is not enough poison in the crocodile bile itself to kill or even injure. Rather, it seems that it is one of the other ingredients in the crocodile bile concoction that kills.

I would note that many centuries ago, Egyptian doctors were writing about crocodile poison which can can injure someone who touches it even after the crocodile's death. As I discuss here, Rabbenu Bachya on parshat Vaera (who asserts that tzrafdea are crocodiles) cited these doctors and reported this as fact. I fixed up this quote from the Revach site's translation.
"Even to this day... there is an animal called an 'Altimasa' or crocodile that lives in the Nilus. Every now and then it will come out and swallow two or three people in one shot. It cannot be killed with spears or arrows unless it is struck in its stomach. It has a poison that can harm people who touch it even after it is already dead. 
Rabbenu Bachya does not say that the poison is on its body, just that it has a poison which can injure someone who touches the crocodile after death. So this might be a reference to the same.

Sunday, January 11, 2015

Some Samaritan emendations from the beginning of Vaera

Here is a snip of Vetus Testamentum, from the beginning of parashat Vaera. The Samaritan text is to the left and the Masoretic text is to the right. Dashes mean no change and asterisks mean that the text is missing.

1) The first interesting change is from עתה (now you will see) to אתה (you will see). Perhaps this fluidity reflects how the gutturals ayin and aleph were pronounced, or not pronounced.

2) The next is that instead of the Masoretic Elokim, they have YKVK. On the surface, this makes more sense, since later in the verse God says "Ani YKVK". Furthermore, see how one pasuk earlier (Shemot 6:1), it is "YKVK spoke", not Elokim spoke. If we join pasuk 1 with pasuk 2, then the shift in Divine name is somewhat jarring. The Christian division is to join pasuk 1 with pasuk 2, which is why perek 6 begins with pasuk 1. Meanwhile, the Jewish division is to join pasuk 6:1 with what came before, at the end of perek 5. Perek 5 ends with YKVK speaking. And then, after 6:1, there is a setuma break, as well as a sidra break.

I wrote about this change elsewhere, suggesting this is deliberate transition, and that the Samaritan change is one of harmonization.

3) Instead of ובשפטים, the more common ובמשפטים.

4) The Samaritans insert a non-existent pasuk here, to have the Israelites say somewhere it would be relevant, חדל נא ממנו. The impetus for this is that the Israelites at the Reed Sea say, in Shemot 14:12:

יב  הֲלֹא-זֶה הַדָּבָר, אֲשֶׁר דִּבַּרְנוּ אֵלֶיךָ בְמִצְרַיִם לֵאמֹר, חֲדַל מִמֶּנּוּ, וְנַעַבְדָה אֶת-מִצְרָיִם:  כִּי טוֹב לָנוּ עֲבֹד אֶת-מִצְרַיִם, מִמֻּתֵנוּ בַּמִּדְבָּר.12 Is not this the word that we spoke unto thee in Egypt, saying: Let us alone, that we may serve the Egyptians? For it were better for us to serve the Egyptians, than that we should die in the wilderness.'

Rather than assuming that this was something they said, but just hadn't been explicitly mentioned earlier (an open-canon approach) or that the text had summarized this very reaction in Shemot 6:9 ('And Moses spoke so unto the children of Israel; but they hearkened not unto Moses for impatience of spirit, and for cruel bondage'), the Samaritans just insert this quote in its logical place, between 6:9 and 6:10. See also here, where I discuss what meforshim say in greater detail.


Blog Widget by LinkWithin