Pharaoh the Crocodile

In the Haftara for Va`eira (in Yechezkel 28:3), we see Pharaoh addressed as the great Tanim:

“Speak, and say: Thus saith the Lord GOD: behold, I am against thee, Pharaoh King of Egypt, the great Tanim that lieth in the midst of his rivers, that hath said: My river is mine own, and I have made it for myself.”

As for the definition of this Tanim, Shadal has an interesting suggestion. He writes (page 29-30 in the PDF):

“Behold I am against thee, Pharaoh King of Egypt: It is known that Pharaoh is not the name of a specific king, but rather it is a generic term for all the kings of Egypt. And the basic import of this word in the Egyptian language is Sun, and afterwards it was borrowed to mean king. And it appears that this name was also borrowed in the Egyptian language to mean the great Tanim which lies in the midst of the rivers of Egypt -- this is the crocodile -- for Par’un (or Par’oh) by the Arabs means crocodile as well. And according to this, the prophet [Yechezkel] compared Pharaoh -- that is to say, the king of Egypt, who was contemporary to him -- to this crocodile, for both of them were called Pharaoh.

And to know the true name of the king of Egypt of whom Yechezkel spoke, one needs to recall the words of Yirmeyahu who said (Sefer Yirmeyahu 44:30):

ל  כֹּה אָמַר ה, הִנְנִי נֹתֵן אֶת-פַּרְעֹה חָפְרַע מֶלֶךְ-מִצְרַיִם בְּיַד אֹיְבָיו, וּבְיַד, מְבַקְשֵׁי נַפְשׁוֹ:  כַּאֲשֶׁר נָתַתִּי אֶת-צִדְקִיָּהוּ מֶלֶךְ-יְהוּדָה, בְּיַד נְבוּכַדְרֶאצַּר מֶלֶךְ-בָּבֶל אֹיְבוֹ--וּמְבַקֵּשׁ נַפְשׁוֹ.  {ס}

30 thus saith the LORD: Behold, I will give Pharaoh Hophra king of Egypt into the hand of his enemies, and into the hand of them that seek his life; as I gave Zedekiah king of Judah into the hand of Nebuchadrezzar king of Babylon, his enemy, and that sought his life.' {S}

from which we may deduce that Pharaoh who ruled in Egypt in the days of Tzidkeyahu and in the days of Nevuchadnetzar was Chafra’. And know that in truth, this king was known to the ancients, who wrote the annals of Egypt, by the name of Ουαφρης or Apries, and he was a king in the days of Nevuchadnetzar according to their calculations.

‘that lies in the midst of his rivers’ - the Tanim, or crocodile, is an animal which dwells on the land and in water.”

End quote of Shadal.

To bolster this connection between Pharaoh and the crocodile, I would point to Sobek, the crocodile god. Every Pharaoh was the living incarnation of Horus, the falcon-headed god, but eventually (as per Wikipedia), Sobek and Horus were fused:

In this period, Sobek also underwent an important change: he was often fused with the falcon-headed god of divine kingship, Horus. This brought Sobek even closer with the kings of Egypt, thereby giving him a place of greater prominence in the Egyptian pantheon.

And in an ancient Egyptian spell, Pharoah is praised as the living incarnation of Sobek, the crocodile god. Thus:

He is first known from several different Pyramid Texts of the Old Kingdom, particularly from spell PT 317.[3] The spell, which praises the pharaoh as living incarnation of the crocodile god, reads:

"Unis is Sobek, green of plumage, with alert face and raised fore, the splashing one who came from the thigh and tail of the great goddess in the sunlight ... Unis has appeared as Sobek, Neith's son. Unis will eat with his mouth, Unis will urinate and Unis will copulate with his penis. Unis is lord of semen, who takes women from their husbands to the place Unis likes according to his heart's fancy."[4]

If so, Yechezkel referring to Pharaoh as a great crocodile makes sense.

Another interesting tie-in. According to Rabbenu Bachyah, the צפרדע is the crocodile.

Chiram of Tyre, the coppersmith

This year, we read Vayakhel-Pekudei as a double sidra, and so the haftara would begin at I Melachim 7:51. This is about the haftara of just Vayakhel, which begins at I Melachim 7:13.

In the haftara, King Shlomo obtains a craftsman of copper, Chiram Mitzor, חִירָם מִצֹּר, who aids in the construction of the Bet Hamikdash.

יג  וַיִּשְׁלַח הַמֶּלֶךְ שְׁלֹמֹה, וַיִּקַּח אֶת-חִירָם מִצֹּר.	13 And king Solomon sent and fetched Hiram out of Tyre.
יד  בֶּן-אִשָּׁה אַלְמָנָה הוּא מִמַּטֵּה נַפְתָּלִי, וְאָבִיו אִישׁ-צֹרִי חֹרֵשׁ נְחֹשֶׁת, וַיִּמָּלֵא אֶת-הַחָכְמָה וְאֶת-הַתְּבוּנָה וְאֶת-הַדַּעַת, לַעֲשׂוֹת כָּל-מְלָאכָה בַּנְּחֹשֶׁת; וַיָּבוֹא אֶל-הַמֶּלֶךְ שְׁלֹמֹה, וַיַּעַשׂ אֶת-כָּל-מְלַאכְתּוֹ.	14 He was the son of a widow of the tribe of Naphtali, and his father was a man of Tyre, a worker in brass; and he was filled with wisdom and understanding and skill, to work all works in brass. And he came to king Solomon, and wrought all his work.
טו  וַיָּצַר אֶת-שְׁנֵי הָעַמּוּדִים, נְחֹשֶׁת:  שְׁמֹנֶה עֶשְׂרֵה אַמָּה, קוֹמַת הָעַמּוּד הָאֶחָד, וְחוּט שְׁתֵּים-עֶשְׂרֵה אַמָּה, יָסֹב אֶת-הָעַמּוּד הַשֵּׁנִי.	15 Thus he fashioned the two pillars of brass, of eighteen cubits high each; and a line of twelve cubits did compass it about; [and so] the other pillar.

There are a number of interesting points which are inter-related.

1. Why should he be described specifically as the son of a widow? Why should this matter?
2. Was his father non-Jewish, and thus a man of Tyre as a nationality rather than just a resident. What I mean to say is, was he Tyrian as opposed to of Israelite descent? Is it strange for the child of intermarriage to be a major builder of parts of the Beit Hamikdash?
3. Chiram was also famously the king of Tyre. Is it just that Chiram is a common name?
4. Note the verb וַיָּצַר in pasuk 15. Might we say that אִישׁ-צֹרִי does not mean of Tyre but rather 'a craftsman'? Why don't the meforshim note this possibility or at least the pun?
5. Chazal say that not only was he a craftsman but his father was as well, applying חֹרֵשׁ נְחֹשֶׁת to his father, and deduce from here that a person should go into his father's profession. Should we say this, as a matter of peshat?
6. How do we resolve contradictions with the parallel account in II Divrei Hayamim II, where in response to a request from Shlomo, King Churam sends a craftsman from Tyre named Churam who is expert not just in copper but in all manners of construction, and whose mother was of the daughters of Dan, rather than Naftali?

A short excerpt from Divrei Hayamim:

י  וַיֹּאמֶר חוּרָם מֶלֶךְ-צֹר בִּכְתָב, וַיִּשְׁלַח אֶל-שְׁלֹמֹה:  בְּאַהֲבַת יְהוָה אֶת-עַמּוֹ, נְתָנְךָ עֲלֵיהֶם מֶלֶךְ.	10 Then Huram the king of Tyre answered in writing, which he sent to Solomon: 'Because the LORD loveth His people, He hath made thee king over them.'
יא  וַיֹּאמֶר, חוּרָם--בָּרוּךְ יְהוָה אֱלֹהֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל, אֲשֶׁר עָשָׂה אֶת-הַשָּׁמַיִם וְאֶת-הָאָרֶץ:  אֲשֶׁר נָתַן לְדָוִיד הַמֶּלֶךְ בֵּן חָכָם, יוֹדֵעַ שֵׂכֶל וּבִינָה, אֲשֶׁר יִבְנֶה-בַּיִת לַיהוָה, וּבַיִת לְמַלְכוּתוֹ.	11 Huram said moreover: 'Blessed be the LORD, the God of Israel, that made heaven and earth, who hath given to David the king a wise son, endued with discretion and understanding, that should build a house for the LORD, and a house for his kingdom.
יב  וְעַתָּה, שָׁלַחְתִּי אִישׁ-חָכָם יוֹדֵעַ בִּינָה--לְחוּרָם אָבִי.	12 And now I have sent a skilful man, endued with understanding, even Huram my master craftsman,
יג  בֶּן-אִשָּׁה מִן-בְּנוֹת דָּן, וְאָבִיו אִישׁ-צֹרִי יוֹדֵעַ לַעֲשׂוֹת בַּזָּהָב-וּבַכֶּסֶף בַּנְּחֹשֶׁת בַּבַּרְזֶל בָּאֲבָנִים וּבָעֵצִים בָּאַרְגָּמָן בַּתְּכֵלֶת וּבַבּוּץ וּבַכַּרְמִיל, וּלְפַתֵּחַ כָּל-פִּתּוּחַ, וְלַחְשֹׁב כָּל-מַחֲשָׁבֶת--אֲשֶׁר יִנָּתֶן-לוֹ, עִם-חֲכָמֶיךָ, וְחַכְמֵי, אֲדֹנִי דָּוִיד אָבִיךָ.	13 the son of a woman of the daughters of Dan, and his father was a man of Tyre, skilful to work in gold, and in silver, in brass, in iron, in stone, and in timber, in purple, in blue, and in fine linen, and in crimson; also to grave any manner of graving, and to devise any device; to do whatever may be set before him, with thy skilful men, and with the skilful men of my lord David thy father.

These questions are all interrelated because the answer to one can constrain answers to another.

Thus, we might say the reason for mentioning that Chiram was the son of a widow was to explain why she would marry a non-Israelite. This was a remarriage.

Or, we might say that despite Chiram residing in Tyre, אִישׁ-צֹרִי meant craftsman, and thus he learned the craft from his (even Israelite) father, from a young age, and was a progidy. Yet his father wasn't alive and available, and besides, he was exceedingly skilled.

The way Radak resolves the contradiction between Dan and Naftali is to say that he (and thus his father) was from the tribe of Naftali, and his mother was from the tribe of Dan. And the focus in Melachim is copper work, which is why only expertise in copper is mentioned there, but indeed, he was an expert in all manner of materials, including silver, gold, iron, timber, etc., as mentioned in Divrei Hayamim. The dimensions of the pillars seems off by one cubit between the sources, (two pillars of 18 cubits in Melachim, and in total combined 35 cubits in the II Divrei Hayamim 3:15) but that is because (as the next pasuk in Melachim states, there were capitals on top of these pillars. Radak suggests that a half cubit at the top entered into the capital, which is why the sum is taken as 35 rather than 34.

Once we say that his father was of Naftali (as a resolution of Dan / Naftali) , then we would have him of Naftalite descent. Unless she was a widow of a man of Naftali, and remarried a man of Tyre.

Maybe we shouldn't work at harmonizing the contrasting accounts in Melachim and Divrei Hayamim. Melachim is in Neviim while Divrei Hayamim is of a lower level of inspired writings, Ketuvim. And (some members of) Chazal say that Divrei Hayamim was only given for the sake of derash, and in many cases do not take conflicts between Divrei Hayamim and other sources on a literal level, but use it to make derashot. (Thus, for example, the many children of Bityah are simply alternate names for Moshe Rabbenu.)

Here is a map of ancient Israel, taken from Wikipedia:

The caption there is: Map of the twelve tribes of Israel, before the move of Dan to the North

Note Tyre (and Sidon) all the way to the North. Tzor is an island, but also has territory on the mainland. The tribe of Naftali is also at the top. Note that Dan is below, towards the middle. But also note the city of Dan in the North, within what is described as Naftali's territory. To explain:

According to the biblical narrative, the tribe had originally tried to settle in the central coastal area of Canaan, but due to enmity with the Philistines who had already settled there, were only able to camp in the hill country overlooking the Sorek Valley, the camp location becoming known as Mahaneh Dan ("Camps of Dan"). (Joshua 19) The region they were trying to settle included the area as far north as Joppa, and extending south into the Shephelah in the area of Timnah; as a result, the modern state of Israel refers to the region as Gush Dan (the Dan area). However, as a consequence of the pressure from the Philistines, the tribe abandoned hopes of settling near the central coast, instead migrating to the north of Philistine territory, and after conquering Laish, refounded it as their capital (renaming it Dan). (Judges 18)

Perhaps this can explain the contradiction between Naftali and Dan. Or it can explain how a woman of Naftali could marry a man of Dan. These were both places in the north, near Tyre. And perhaps one was a city of origin and the other was a tribal origin.

Haftaras Naso pt ii -- Shimshon, and making the goat for the malach

See part i here and part ii here.



Next pasuk:

טו  וַיֹּאמֶר מָנוֹחַ, אֶל-מַלְאַךְ ה:  נַעְצְרָה-נָּא אוֹתָךְ, וְנַעֲשֶׂה לְפָנֶיךָ גְּדִי עִזִּים.

15 And Manoah said unto the angel of the LORD: 'I pray thee, let us detain thee, that we may make ready a kid for thee.'

The Malbim writes:

[יג, טו]
נעצרה נא אותך -באשר לא ידע אם הוא נביא או מלאך, אמר: אם נביא אתה - נעצרה אותך לסעוד אצלנו. 
ואם מלאך אתה - נעשה לפניך גדי עזים לקרבן:

'let us detain thee' -- since he did not know if he was a navi or a malach, he said 'if you are a navi', then נַעְצְרָה-נָּא אוֹתָךְ; and if you are a malach, then נַעֲשֶׂה לְפָנֶיךָ גְּדִי עִזִּים, as a sacrifice."

Earlier, I spoke of Malbim's multivalent approach -- taking the dispute among Rishonim as to whether it was a navi or an angel, and placing that ambiguity into the text itself. The alternative on this pasuk itself would be that they are offering him a meal of goat. But this is obvious, and need not even be said. The point is that this is a chiddush here, and a continuation of the ambiguity, from the Malbim.

I don't know whether they know at this point whether this is a man, an angel, or God. My strong guess would be that Manoach and his wife believe this is a navi, and this is not mere ambiguity, since Manoach said earlier (in pasuk 8), בִּי אֲדוֹנָי--אִישׁ הָאֱלֹהִים אֲשֶׁר שָׁלַחְתָּ, and so it is Hashem sending someone, and ish haelokim is perhaps to be contrasted with malach haelokim in 9 and 15. For a parallel, see Avraham with the malachim, and what nouns are used to describe them at various points. More on this in the next pasuk.

The next pasuk:

טז  וַיֹּאמֶר מַלְאַךְ ה אֶל-מָנוֹחַ, אִם-תַּעְצְרֵנִי לֹא-אֹכַל בְּלַחְמֶךָ, וְאִם-תַּעֲשֶׂה עֹלָה, לַה' תַּעֲלֶנָּה:  כִּי לֹא-יָדַע מָנוֹחַ, כִּי-מַלְאַךְ ה הוּא.

16 And the angel of the LORD said unto Manoah: 'Though thou detain me, I will not eat of thy bread; and if thou wilt make ready a burnt-offering, thou must offer it unto the LORD.' For Manoah knew not that he was the angel of the LORD.

The Malbim writes:

יג, טז] והשיב אם תעצרני לסעודה לא אוכל, ואם תעשה עולה לה' תעלנה כי זובח לאלהים יחרם בלתי לה' לבדו.ובאר כי מנוח נסתפק ולא ידע בברור שהוא מלאך ה'. ולכן הסתפק בדבריו אם יעצרהו לסעודה או יקריב קרבן.

"And he responds 'If you detain me' for a meal, 'I will not eat, and it you make a burnt offering, make it to Hashem'. For one who sacrifices to gods shall be utterly destroyed, except to Hashem alone. (Shemot 22:19) And it explains {J: at the end of the pasuk} that Manoach was in doubt and did not know for certain that this was a malach of Hashem. And therefore he was doubtful in his words, if he was going to detain him for a meal, or if he would sacrifice a sacrifice."

And thus, Malbim clarifies the lack of knowledge in pasuk 16 as uncertainty and ambiguity, rather than definite lack of knowledge. This is possible, but it is a slight stretch, I think.

Of course, if we don't say like the Malbim, then why the sudden mention of sacrifice? Unless, by default, a meal of meat (from a kid) meant a sacrifice. And / or, the idea was that they would sacrifice even to this man, who they did not know was a malach.

Alternatively, if he is saying 'don't thank me', the next obvious target would be the One who sent him. And that would be Hashem.

There is quite the difficulty here, in identifying just what it is Manoach does not know. Recall the three possibilities of what the malach is:

1. a regular man, sent by no one
2. a malach, in the sense of angel
3. a malach, in the sense of prophet (Ralbag)

If we say he was (2), then Manoach could have thought (1) or (3), but probably (3), given the ambiguity of Manoach's wife, etc. If we say he was really (3), then what did Manoach think he was?

I suppose we could say (1). It is slightly difficult to make out Radak, but I think that is what he means:

כי לא ידע -טעמו דבק עם נעצרה נא אותך.

"For he did not know -- its meaning is connected with 'let us detain thee'"

That is, since they thought he was a normal individual, rather than a prophet of Hashem, they sought to give him a meal. And Radak also gives a parsing of the pasuk, showing how to introduce the Olah.

ואם תעשה עולה -כלומר זה גדי עזים שאתה אומר שתעשה לפני, לא אוכל ממנו ואם תרצה אתה לעשות ממנו עולה תעשה. 

ובאמרו לה' – לפי שאותו הדור היו עושים הרע בעיני ה' והיו מעלים עולות לאלהים אחרים.

"And if you make an olah -- that is to say, this goat that you say you will make before me, I will not eat of it. And if you wish to make of it an olah, make it.


And when he said LaHashem: this is because that generation would do the evil in the eyes of Hashem, and they would offer burnt-offerings to other gods."

This brings me to related, quite interesting point -- the alternation between HaElokim and YKVK in this story. When in the mouths of Manoach and his wife, it is HaElohim, while in the mouth of the narrator, it is always YKVK.

In order to develop this point, I'm going to need to survey the entirety of the perek. But the focus should eventually return back here.

Thus, the narrator speaks at the beginning of the perek, and refers to YKVK:

ג  וַיֵּרָא מַלְאַךְ-ה, אֶל-הָאִשָּׁה; וַיֹּאמֶר אֵלֶיהָ, הִנֵּה-נָא אַתְּ-עֲקָרָה וְלֹא יָלַדְתְּ, וְהָרִית, וְיָלַדְתְּ בֵּן.

3 And the angel of the LORD appeared unto the woman, and said unto her: 'Behold now, thou art barren, and hast not borne; but thou shalt conceive, and bear a son.

and then, in the words of Manoach's wife:

ו  וַתָּבֹא הָאִשָּׁה, וַתֹּאמֶר לְאִישָׁהּ לֵאמֹר, אִישׁ הָאֱלֹהִים בָּא אֵלַי, וּמַרְאֵהוּ כְּמַרְאֵה מַלְאַךְ הָאֱלֹהִים נוֹרָא מְאֹד; וְלֹא שְׁאִלְתִּיהוּ אֵי-מִזֶּה הוּא, וְאֶת-שְׁמוֹ לֹא-הִגִּיד לִי.

6 Then the woman came and told her husband, saying: 'A man of God came unto me, and his countenance was like the countenance of the angel of God, very terrible; and I asked him not whence he was, neither told he me his name;

he is not (explicitly) a malach but an ish, and is of HaElohim, of "the Gods". And he might be a malach (messenger / probably angel), but of HaElohim.

Next:

ח  וַיֶּעְתַּר מָנוֹחַ אֶל-ה, וַיֹּאמַר:  בִּי אֲדוֹנָי--אִישׁ הָאֱלֹהִים אֲשֶׁר שָׁלַחְתָּ יָבוֹא-נָא עוֹד אֵלֵינוּ, וְיוֹרֵנוּ מַה-נַּעֲשֶׂה לַנַּעַר הַיּוּלָּד.

8 Then Manoah entreated the LORD, and said: 'Oh, LORD, I pray Thee, let the man of God whom Thou didst send come again unto us, and teach us what we shall do unto the child that shall be born.'

The narrator says El-Hashem. Manoach does not say YKVK (as other Biblical characters do when they address Hashem) but Manoach says Adonay, which is plural for My Lords. And he refers to the ish haElohim, man of the gods.

And, as a followup:

ט  וַיִּשְׁמַע הָאֱלֹהִים, בְּקוֹל מָנוֹחַ; וַיָּבֹא מַלְאַךְ הָאֱלֹהִים עוֹד אֶל-הָאִשָּׁה, וְהִיא יוֹשֶׁבֶת בַּשָּׂדֶה, וּמָנוֹחַ אִישָׁהּ, אֵין עִמָּהּ.

9 And God hearkened to the voice of Manoah; and the angel of God came again unto the woman as she sat in the field; but Manoah her husband was not with her.

Here, this is the narrator. And in both cases, it refers to HaElohim. This would provide a counter-example to the pattern I am trying to establish. We could read it as a chink in editorial emendation (see Shadal on YKVK in Bereshit despite ushmi Hashem lo nodati, as deliberate choice by Moshe), or written from the perspective of Manoach, given the setup in the prior pasuk. I think that even with this admitted exception, a general pattern emerges.

Next:

יג  וַיֹּאמֶר מַלְאַךְ ה, אֶל-מָנוֹחַ:  מִכֹּל אֲשֶׁר-אָמַרְתִּי אֶל-הָאִשָּׁה, תִּשָּׁמֵר.

13 And the angel of the LORD said unto Manoah: 'Of all that I said unto the woman let her beware.

This is the narrator, and so it is malach Hashem.

Next, a bunch of references to Hashem, from the narrator:

טז  וַיֹּאמֶר מַלְאַךְ ה אֶל-מָנוֹחַ, אִם-תַּעְצְרֵנִי לֹא-אֹכַל בְּלַחְמֶךָ, וְאִם-תַּעֲשֶׂה עֹלָה, לַה' תַּעֲלֶנָּה:  כִּי לֹא-יָדַע מָנוֹחַ, כִּי-מַלְאַךְ יְהוָה הוּא.	16 And the angel of the LORD said unto Manoah: 'Though thou detain me, I will not eat of thy bread; and if thou wilt make ready a burnt-offering, thou must offer it unto the LORD.' For Manoah knew not that he was the angel of the LORD.
יז  וַיֹּאמֶר מָנוֹחַ אֶל-מַלְאַךְ ה, מִי שְׁמֶךָ:  כִּי-יָבֹא דבריך (דְבָרְךָ), וְכִבַּדְנוּךָ.	17 And Manoah said unto the angel of the LORD: 'What is thy name, that when thy words come to pass we may do thee honour?'
יח  וַיֹּאמֶר לוֹ מַלְאַךְ ה, לָמָּה זֶּה תִּשְׁאַל לִשְׁמִי--וְהוּא-פֶלִאי.  {פ}	18 And the angel of the LORD said unto him: 'Wherefore askest thou after my name, seeing it is hidden?' {P}

And at this point, the malach has informed Manoach just whose messenger / angel he is, for he said to offer it as an olah to YKVK.

Therefore, when Manoach brings the sacrifice in the next pasuk:

יט  וַיִּקַּח מָנוֹחַ אֶת-גְּדִי הָעִזִּים, וְאֶת-הַמִּנְחָה, וַיַּעַל עַל-הַצּוּר, לַה'; וּמַפְלִא לַעֲשׂוֹת, וּמָנוֹחַ וְאִשְׁתּוֹ רֹאִים.

19 So Manoah took the kid with the meal-offering, and offered it upon the rock unto the LORD; and [the angel] did wondrously, and Manoah and his wife looked on.

he brings it to YKVK specifically. Next,

כ  וַיְהִי בַעֲלוֹת הַלַּהַב מֵעַל הַמִּזְבֵּחַ, הַשָּׁמַיְמָה, וַיַּעַל מַלְאַךְ-ה, בְּלַהַב הַמִּזְבֵּחַ; וּמָנוֹחַ וְאִשְׁתּוֹ רֹאִים, וַיִּפְּלוּ עַל-פְּנֵיהֶם אָרְצָה.	20 For it came to pass, when the flame went up toward heaven from off the altar, that the angel of the LORD ascended in the flame of the altar; and Manoah and his wife looked on; and they fell on their faces to the ground.
כא  וְלֹא-יָסַף עוֹד מַלְאַךְ ה, לְהֵרָאֹה אֶל-מָנוֹחַ וְאֶל-אִשְׁתּוֹ; אָז יָדַע מָנוֹחַ, כִּי-מַלְאַךְ ה הוּא.	21 But the angel of the LORD did no more appear to Manoah or to his wife. Then Manoah knew that he was the angel of the LORD.

These are all from the narrator. Though note the realization that Manoach had was that he was a malach YKVK.


Then,

כב  וַיֹּאמֶר מָנוֹחַ אֶל-אִשְׁתּוֹ, מוֹת נָמוּת:  כִּי אֱלֹהִים, רָאִינוּ.

22 And Manoah said unto his wife: 'We shall surely die, because we have seen God.'

This does not necessarily mean a reversion to a disbelief that it was an agent of YKVK. Elohim might encompass angels. Tehillim 82:6, for example:

ו  אֲנִי-אָמַרְתִּי, אֱלֹהִים אַתֶּם;    וּבְנֵי עֶלְיוֹן כֻּלְּכֶם.

6 I said: Ye are godlike beings, and all of you sons of the Most High.

Or, alternatively, for Manoach, a malach YKVK is a physical manifestation of Hashem on earth. So, seeing an angel means for him seeing Hashem. And YKVK is, for him, an instance of Elohim. So this is no contradiction.

Manoach's wife argues with him:

כג  וַתֹּאמֶר לוֹ אִשְׁתּוֹ, לוּ חָפֵץ ה לַהֲמִיתֵנוּ לֹא-לָקַח מִיָּדֵנוּ עֹלָה וּמִנְחָה, וְלֹא הֶרְאָנוּ, אֶת-כָּל-אֵלֶּה; וְכָעֵת, לֹא הִשְׁמִיעָנוּ כָּזֹאת.

23 But his wife said unto him: 'If the LORD were pleased to kill us, He would not have received a burnt-offering and a meal-offering at our hand, neither would He have shown us all these things, nor would at this time have told such things as these.'

The remainder of the chapter is from the narrator, and exclusively uses YKVK.

כד  וַתֵּלֶד הָאִשָּׁה בֵּן, וַתִּקְרָא אֶת-שְׁמוֹ שִׁמְשׁוֹן; וַיִּגְדַּל הַנַּעַר, וַיְבָרְכֵהוּ ה.	24 And the woman bore a son, and called his name Samson; and the child grew, and the LORD blessed him.
כה  וַתָּחֶל רוּחַ ה, לְפַעֲמוֹ בְּמַחֲנֵה-דָן, בֵּין צָרְעָה, וּבֵין אֶשְׁתָּאֹל.  {פ}	25 And the spirit of the LORD began to move him in Mahaneh-dan, between Zorah and Eshtaol. {P}

End of survey.

Thus, it seems likely to me that Manoach (and possibly his wife) were polytheists, and uncertain up to a point as to the sender of this malach. And that might just be what Manoach did not know. It certainly was part of what Manoach did not know. But given the followup of:

כא  וְלֹא-יָסַף עוֹד מַלְאַךְ ה, לְהֵרָאֹה אֶל-מָנוֹחַ וְאֶל-אִשְׁתּוֹ; אָז יָדַע מָנוֹחַ, כִּי-מַלְאַךְ ה הוּא.

21 But the angel of the LORD did no more appear to Manoah or to his wife. Then Manoah knew that he was the angel of the LORD.

I do think that angel vs. human was part of it. Even though one could stress either the malach or the Hashem part, or both of them.

Haftarat Naso part i -- prophecy of Shimshon's conception and birth

Summary: Considering the haftara of parashat Naso, which is the story of Shimshon's miraculous birth. I present Malbim, and use his commentary as a jumping off point. In this first part, the malach's first communication.

Post: From Shofetim 13:

ב  וַיְהִי אִישׁ אֶחָד מִצָּרְעָה מִמִּשְׁפַּחַת הַדָּנִי, וּשְׁמוֹ מָנוֹחַ; וְאִשְׁתּוֹ עֲקָרָה, וְלֹא יָלָדָה.	2 And there was a certain man of Zorah, of the family of the Danites, whose name was Manoah; and his wife was barren, and bore not.
ג  וַיֵּרָא מַלְאַךְ-ה, אֶל-הָאִשָּׁה; וַיֹּאמֶר אֵלֶיהָ, הִנֵּה-נָא אַתְּ-עֲקָרָה וְלֹא יָלַדְתְּ, וְהָרִית, וְיָלַדְתְּ בֵּן.	3 And the angel of the LORD appeared unto the woman, and said unto her: 'Behold now, thou art barren, and hast not borne; but thou shalt conceive, and bear a son.

The Malbim writes:

[יג, ב]
עקרה ולא ילדה -כי יצוייר עקרה אשר כבר ילדה בטרם שנעשית עקרה גם יצוייר שלא ילדה מסבה אחרת, ולכן כפל דבריו.

"barren and bore not --  For it is possible a barren woman who has already given birth before she became barren, and it is also possible that she had not given birth due to some other reason {than barrenness}, and therefore it doubled its words."

The Malbim acts here true to form. While Radak, Ibn Ezra, etc., maintain that there is something called kefel inyan bemilim shonot, poetic repetition, Malbim disagrees. There are no absolute synonyms in Biblical Hebrew, and if there is repetition, it is to give additional shades of meaning.

Here, I would agree that it is present for some purpose. It is important to stress the miraculous nature of Shimshon's birth. It is not just Divine foreknowledge at play here, but Divine intervention in bringing about this miraculous birth. Thus, she is an akara. And that she had not bore yet is there in order to signal that this was about to end. It also is the perfect poetic setup for the contrast in pasuk 3. akara is contrasted with veharita, 'shalt conceive', and velo yaladt is contrasted with veyaladt. Indeed, akara means barren in that she cannot conceive, and yalada refers to the end product, giving birth. So it is repeated in the introduction as a setup for the reversal in the next pasuk.

The word יָלַדְתְּ should not be pronounced with a sheva na under the daled. If it were so, then there would be no dagesh kal in the tav, under the laws of beged kefet. So, it is v'yaladt as opposed to v'yalad't. This is rather difficult to pronounce because we pronounce every daled as a plosive. Pronounce it as they used to, as the /dh/ as is "either", and you will have no problem.

The next pasuk is:

ד  וְעַתָּה הִשָּׁמְרִי נָא, וְאַל-תִּשְׁתִּי יַיִן וְשֵׁכָר; וְאַל-תֹּאכְלִי, כָּל-טָמֵא.

4 Now therefore beware, I pray thee, and drink no wine nor strong drink, and eat not any unclean thing.

The Malbim writes further:

[יג, ד]
ועתה השמרי נא -מדברים הגורמים היזק בטבע לאשה הרה, וחוץ מזה אל תשתי וכו' ומ"ש כל טמא פי' דברים האסורים לנזיר.

"Now therefore beware -- From things which cause damage in their nature a pregnant woman. And aside from this, drink not etc., and that which is stated any unclean thing, the meaning is [J: eating] items which are forbidden to a Nazir."

The Malbim is conducting a close reading of the pasuk. Perhaps he is noticing the vav in וְאַל-תִּשְׁתִּי יַיִן. In this way, the 'beware' is an entirely separate matter from 'and drink no wine', as well as from 'and eat no unclean thing'.

I would disagree, on the level of peshat. The malach's instruction is first general: Now beware. And then goes into the specifics, which is the drinking and eating.

A difficulty in this pasuk is what eat no unclean thing means, and why other laws of the Nazir, such as becoming impure to dead bodies, or not eating grapes, grape skins, or grape seeds, are not mentioned. Is this ignorance / divergence from the Torah law of Nazir?! Furthermore, what are these unclean things? Wouldn't any righteous Israelite not eat traif food as a matter of course? The Malbim solves this by equating eating 'all that is impure' with those items which are forbidden to a Nazir to eat.

Though one can point to the idea that Shimshon's nezirus was already different in one regard, namely becoming ritually impure, and in another, that it was accepted on his behalf. So if there was an extra prohibition of eating tamei and an absent prohibition of eating grapes, grapeskins, and grapeseeds, then that is certainly acceptable.

In terms of eating tamei, it might refer to:

• impure species
• neveilos
• treifos
• chullin which had become impure under the conditions which would render terumah impure

While Shimshon and his mother were no kohanim -- Shimshon was from the tribe of Dan -- and thus would not be eating terumah, perhaps this extra law of tamei refers to Chullin.

Or perhaps it refers to eating treifos. How could this be? Well, recall that Chazal say that Manoach was an am ha'aretz. Perhaps we could also say that he was not ritually observant. See how he makes the shidduch between Shimshon and Philistine women. See how he might not know the laws of Nazir (see Malbim below.) See how he does not know what to make of seeing a malach or navi. See how Shimshon conducted himself. So while they may have been God-fearing, especially after seeing the wonders of the malach, that does not mean that they would not regularly eat treif.

Or maybe they darshened the pesukim differently in those days. Recall that the prohibition of eating treifa appears twice. Once in Sefer Shemot, perek 22 (Mishpatim):

ל  וְאַנְשֵׁי-קֹדֶשׁ, תִּהְיוּן לִי; וּבָשָׂר בַּשָּׂדֶה טְרֵפָה לֹא תֹאכֵלוּ, לַכֶּלֶב תַּשְׁלִכוּן אֹתוֹ.  {ס}

30 And ye shall be holy men unto Me; therefore ye shall not eat any flesh that is torn of beasts in the field; ye shall cast it to the dogs. {S}

where the addressees are the common Israelites. And once in Vayikra 22,

ח  נְבֵלָה וּטְרֵפָה לֹא יֹאכַל, לְטָמְאָה-בָהּ:  אֲנִי, ה.

8 That which dieth of itself, or is torn of beasts, he shall not eat to defile himself therewith: I am the LORD.

where from the context, it is targeted towards kohanim specifically. Perhaps this repetition was darshened at the time of Manoach to exclude the common Israelite, with the Leviim and specifically Kohanim taking the place of the Yisraelim, as they do in other matters of holiness.

If so, not eating traif would indeed be an innovation for Manoach's wife.

Sefer Shofetim continues:

ה  כִּי הִנָּךְ הָרָה וְיֹלַדְתְּ בֵּן, וּמוֹרָה לֹא-יַעֲלֶה עַל-רֹאשׁוֹ--כִּי-נְזִיר אֱלֹהִים יִהְיֶה הַנַּעַר, מִן-הַבָּטֶן; וְהוּא, יָחֵל לְהוֹשִׁיעַ אֶת-יִשְׂרָאֵל--מִיַּד פְּלִשְׁתִּים.

5 For, lo, thou shalt conceive, and bear a son; and no razor shall come upon his head; for the child shall be a Nazirite unto God from the womb; and he shall begin to save Israel out of the hand of the Philistines.'

The Malbim writes:

[יג, ה]
כי הנך הרה -דומה כאילו הנך הרה עתה עד שצריכה את להשמר תיכף. 

וחז"ל (מד"ר נשא) אמרו: 

שהיה שכבת זרע במעיה ברגע שדבר עמה המלאך קלטה, וזה שאמר תחלה והרית בעתיד ואח"כ אמר כי הנך הרה בזו הרגע ולכן אמר ויולדת בחולם, מורכב מן ההוה והעבר המהופך, שכבר הוכנה ללדת.

"For lo, thou shalt conceive -- It was as if, behold, she was conceiving right now, such that she needed to beware immediately. And Chazal (in Midrash Rabba on Naso) said:

that there was semen in her womb at the time, and at the moment that the malach spoke with her it took,

and this is what is stated at first וְהָרִית, in future tense, and afterwards said כִּי הִנָּךְ הָרָה, at that moment. And therefore it states וְיֹלַדְתְּ with a cholam [chaser by the vav],  grafted from the present-tense and the reversed past tense, for she was already prepared for giving birth."

Again, a close reading from the Malbim in support of a derasha. And even if we don't take the derasha absolutely literally, in tone the text is transmitting this message, such that is is "as if" she was now conceiving.

Are there other reasons one could give for this repetition of כִּי הִנָּךְ הָרָה וְיֹלַדְתְּ? Perhaps this is to stress the certitude of it, and also, as a bridge / introduction. For the text moved past the mother's required conduct when she was pregnant and forward into the future (where the hara will be completed, and the yoladt will be completed), such that a new set of rules will be necessary, for the child. Also, since the child shall be a Nazirite from the womb, it pays to recall the conception and birth once more.

Not many details are given as to Shimshon's required conduct. Just that he shall have no razor pass over his head. We might extrapolate about drinking wine, eating grapes, [not eating impure], no contact with a dead body [though this last apparently does not apply to Shimshon]. Why? For one halacha of Nazir was mentioned, and he was called a Nazir. But maybe we cannot extrapolate.

Next, in Shofetim:

ו  וַתָּבֹא הָאִשָּׁה, וַתֹּאמֶר לְאִישָׁהּ לֵאמֹר, אִישׁ הָאֱלֹהִים בָּא אֵלַי, וּמַרְאֵהוּ כְּמַרְאֵה מַלְאַךְ הָאֱלֹהִים נוֹרָא מְאֹד; וְלֹא שְׁאִלְתִּיהוּ אֵי-מִזֶּה הוּא, וְאֶת-שְׁמוֹ לֹא-הִגִּיד לִי.

6 Then the woman came and told her husband, saying: 'A man of God came unto me, and his countenance was like the countenance of the angel of God, very terrible; and I asked him not whence he was, neither told he me his name;

The Malbim writes:

[יג, ו]
איש האלהים בא אלי -כי היתה מסופקת אם הוא איש או מלאך, רצה לומר מצד היותו מלובש בחומר הוא איש האלהים ומצד יראתו הוא כמלאך וזה שאמר כמראה מלאך כו' מצד שהוא נורא מאד. 

ולא שאלתיהו אי מזה הוא כו' -כי היה המנהג לשאול על מקומו, והמשיב היה מגיד את שמו, כמו שאמר ויאמר לו מיכה מאין תבא ויאמר לוי אנכי.

"a man of God came unto me -- For she was in doubt whether he was man or angel. That is to say, by virtue of his being clothed in a body, he was a man of God, and by virtue of his awesomeness, he was like an angel {malach}. And this is what is stated כְּמַרְאֵה מַלְאַךְ, etc., by virtue of his being נוֹרָא מְאֹד.


and I asked him not whence he was -- for this was the custom to ask upon one's place [of origin], and the person would respond with his [?] name, just as is said {in Shofetim 17:9}:

ט  וַיֹּאמֶר-לוֹ מִיכָה, מֵאַיִן תָּבוֹא; וַיֹּאמֶר אֵלָיו לֵוִי אָנֹכִי, מִבֵּית לֶחֶם יְהוּדָה, וְאָנֹכִי הֹלֵךְ, לָגוּר בַּאֲשֶׁר אֶמְצָא.

9 And Micah said unto him: 'Whence comest thou?' And he said unto him: 'I am a Levite of Beth-lehem in Judah, and I go to sojourn where I may find a place.'

"

This is a wonderful multivalent approach by the Malbim. He knows the meforshim differ as to whether this is a malach in the sense of angel or a navi. For instance, the Ralbag insists it is a human navi, and indeed is Pinchas, for no prophecy would come to two people together. Thus:

[יג, יא-טז] והנה זה המלאך שדבר אל מנוח ואל אשתו היה נביא בהכרח כי אין מדרך הנבואה שתהיה יחד לשנים בזה האופן, הנזכר בזה המקום, והנה אחשוב שזה הנביא היה פנחס. והנה לא רצה לאכול מגדי העזים, כמו שלא רצה לאכול מהבשר והמצות שהביא אל פניו גדעון, כדי לישב יותר בלב מנוח ואשתו כי הוא מלאך ה', כדי שיהיו נזהרים מכל מה שאמר להם. 

Though the standard interpretation is a malach as heavenly angel. And each has textual evidence. Malbim reads this ambiguity back into the text, such that the deliberate ambiguity reflects the uncertainty of Manoach and his wife.

Malbim also deals with the divergence between her related non-asked question and his related non-response. That is, she does not ask אֵי-מִזֶּה הוּא, and he did not relate to her אֶת-שְׁמוֹ. The resolution is to make this into a custom.

I am not sure if the cut off quote from later in Shofetim is deliberate. Michah said to him 'whence comest thou?' and the man indeed responded 'Levi I am', though that is not his name but his tribal identity. And the answer is in the uncited continuation, 'of Beth-lehem in Judah'.

Perhaps et shemo means the name of the place. And perhaps that was even what Malbim meant. Or perhaps the idea is simply that this man is untraceable, such that if Manoach wants to ask the man/angel further questions, he would be unable to. For they don't have his name nor his location. And she neither thought to ask, in shock, as to either of these pieces of information, nor did the man / angel supply any of this sort of information. And the two actors (Manoach's wife and the malach) and the two bits of information are not strictly joined to one another, but perhaps function as a sort of hendiadys.

Perhaps to be continued...

How much silver did Yirmeyahu weigh out, and why?

Summary:  Was it 17 or 7 X + 10 Y? And either way, was it coinage or weight?

Post: The haftara of parashat Behar begins with Yirmeyahu locked up in prison, receiving word from Hashem to purchase a property, and purchasing it. Thus {Yirmeyahu 32}:

ו  וַיֹּאמֶר, יִרְמְיָהוּ:  הָיָה דְּבַר-ה, אֵלַי לֵאמֹר. 6 And Jeremiah said: 'The word of the LORD came unto me, saying: ז  הִנֵּה חֲנַמְאֵל, בֶּן-שַׁלֻּם דֹּדְךָ, בָּא אֵלֶיךָ, לֵאמֹר:  קְנֵה לְךָ, אֶת-שָׂדִי אֲשֶׁר בַּעֲנָתוֹת--כִּי לְךָ מִשְׁפַּט הַגְּאֻלָּה, לִקְנוֹת. 7 Behold, Hanamel, the son of Shallum thine uncle, shall come unto thee, saying: Buy thee my field that is in Anathoth; for the right of redemption is thine to buy it.' ח  וַיָּבֹא אֵלַי חֲנַמְאֵל בֶּן-דֹּדִי כִּדְבַר ה, אֶל-חֲצַר הַמַּטָּרָה, וַיֹּאמֶר אֵלַי קְנֵה נָא אֶת-שָׂדִי אֲשֶׁר-בַּעֲנָתוֹת אֲשֶׁר בְּאֶרֶץ בִּנְיָמִין כִּי-לְךָ מִשְׁפַּט הַיְרֻשָּׁה וּלְךָ הַגְּאֻלָּה, קְנֵה-לָךְ; וָאֵדַע, כִּי דְבַר-יְהוָה הוּא. 8 So Hanamel mine uncle's son came to me in the court of the guard according to the word of the LORD, and said unto me: 'Buy my field, I pray thee, that is in Anathoth, which is in the land of Benjamin; for the right of inheritance is thine, and the redemption is thine; buy it for thyself.' Then I knew that this was the word of the LORD. ט  וָאֶקְנֶה, אֶת-הַשָּׂדֶה, מֵאֵת חֲנַמְאֵל בֶּן-דֹּדִי, אֲשֶׁר בַּעֲנָתוֹת; וָאֶשְׁקְלָה-לּוֹ, אֶת-הַכֶּסֶף, שִׁבְעָה שְׁקָלִים, וַעֲשָׂרָה הַכָּסֶף. 9 And I bought the field that was in Anathoth of Hanamel mine uncle's son, and weighed him the money, even seventeen shekels of silver. י  וָאֶכְתֹּב בַּסֵּפֶר וָאֶחְתֹּם, וָאָעֵד עֵדִים; וָאֶשְׁקֹל הַכֶּסֶף, בְּמֹאזְנָיִם. 10 And I subscribed the deed, and sealed it, and called witnesses, and weighed him the money in the balances.

How shall we understand שִׁבְעָה שְׁקָלִים, וַעֲשָׂרָה הַכָּסֶף? Should it be rendered 17 shekel, as above? The Targum renders it shava manan vaasar sil'in, namely 7 mana + 10 sela.  Refer to this chart:

שם המידה	פרוטה	איסר	פונדיון	מעה	טרעפיק	דינר	שקל	סלע	דרכון	מנה	שעורים	גרמים
פרוטה	1	0.125	0.063	0.031	0.010	0.006	0.003	0.001	7.72 x10-4	6.17 x10-5	0.5	0.025
איסר	8	1	0.5	0.25	0.083	0.019	0.009	0.005	0.002	1.85 x10-4	4	0.2
פונדיון	16	2	1	0.5	0.167	0.056	0.028	0.014	0.007	5.56 x10-4	8	0.4
מעה, גרה	32	4	2	1	0.333	0.167	0.083	0.042	0.021	0.002	16	0.8
טרעפיק, איסתרא, רבעת	96	12	6	3	1	0.5	0.25	0.125	0.063	0.005	48	2.4
דינר, זוז	192	24	12	6	2	1	0.5	0.25	0.125	0.01	96	4.8
שקל (חז"ל), בקע	384	48	24	12	4	2	1	0.5	0.25	0.02	192	9.6
סלע (שקל הקודש)	768	96	48	24	8	4	2	1	0.5	0.04	384	19.2
דרכון	1536	192	96	48	16	8	4	2	1	0.08	768	38.4
מנה	19200	2400	1200	600	200	100	50	25	12.5	1	9600	480

"Shekel" obviously had different meanings in different time periods, and so this was interpreted in the Targum as:
שִׁבְעָה שְׁקָלִים:
7 whole coins of silver, the maneh,

וַעֲשָׂרָה הַכָּסֶף
and ten other silver coins.

Coinage is complicated. There are silver and gold coins, maneh and minah, and in different times, different names refer to different coins and values. So I may well have the above wrong, but regardless, the Targum renders the seven separate from the ten, and as a larger coin and a smaller coin.

So then Radak, Mahari Kara, Malbim, Metzudas David, etc.

My slight issue with this is pasuk 10, וָאֶשְׁקֹל הַכֶּסֶף, בְּמֹאזְנָיִם. If the payment is in coins, why weigh them on a scale? If they are valid coins, then they won't be missing enough to be invalid, and slight differences make no difference to the validity and therefore value of the coins.

Rather, it would seem that we are dealing here with silver bars, either 17 of them or else 7 or the large weight and 10 of the smaller weight. Recall that coinage was actually a fairly recent innovation in the world, at around 650 BCE. And these events occurred in about 588 BCE. Who says coinage spread to Israel by this time? If so, it makes sense that the proper amount of silver had to be measured out. And note shekel  / va'eshkol.

(This of course has repercussions to peshat in pesukim interpreted in regards to kesef vs. shaveh kesef and to maaser sheni, but enough for this post.)

The shaking, or shaken, earth

Summary: Considering a krei and ketiv in the haftara, according to Meshech Chochma.

Post: In the haftara for Haazinu, in II Shmuel 22, we read:

ז  בַּצַּר-לִי אֶקְרָא ה, וְאֶל-אֱלֹהַי אֶקְרָא;  {ס}  וַיִּשְׁמַע מֵהֵיכָלוֹ קוֹלִי, וְשַׁוְעָתִי בְּאָזְנָיו.  {ר}	7 In my distress I called upon the LORD, yea, I called unto my God; and out of His temple He heard my voice, and my cry did enter into His ears.
ח  ותגעש (וַיִּתְגָּעַשׁ) וַתִּרְעַשׁ הָאָרֶץ,  {ס}  מוֹסְדוֹת הַשָּׁמַיִם יִרְגָּזוּ; וַיִּתְגָּעֲשׁוּ, כִּי-חָרָה לוֹ.  {ר}	8 Then the earth did shake and quake, the foundations of heaven did tremble; they were shaken, because He was wroth.

Note the krei and ketiv. This is all part of a shir which David HaMelech sang, as it states in pasuk 1. There is a parallel song in Tehillim 18:8:

ז  בַּצַּר-לִי, אֶקְרָא יְהוָה--    וְאֶל-אֱלֹהַי אֲשַׁוֵּעַ: יִשְׁמַע מֵהֵיכָלוֹ קוֹלִי;    וְשַׁוְעָתִי, לְפָנָיו תָּבוֹא בְאָזְנָיו.	7 In my distress I called upon the LORD, and cried unto my God;{N} out of His temple He heard my voice, and my cry came before Him unto His ears.
ח  וַתִּגְעַשׁ וַתִּרְעַשׁ, הָאָרֶץ--    וּמוֹסְדֵי הָרִים יִרְגָּזוּ; וַיִּתְגָּעֲשׁוּ,    כִּי-חָרָה לוֹ.	8 Then the earth did shake and quake, the foundations also of the mountains did tremble; {N} they were shaken, because He was wroth.

And there, there is no krei and ketiv alternation, but the krei is in line with the ketiv. The difference, it seems to me, is that one, וַתִּגְעַשׁ, is the third person feminine past, while the other, וַיִּתְגָּעַשׁ, is the third person masculine reflexive (or passive) past. The former matches the pattern of the immediately following word, וַתִּרְעַשׁ, while the latter matches the later occurrence of וַיִּתְגָּעֲשׁוּ in the pasuk, though the subject later is the masculine plural מוֹסְדֵי הָרִים. Given the possibility of corruption from the later word וַיִּתְגָּעֲשׁוּ, given that even in Shmuel it only appears as an alternative krei, and given that in Tehillim we only have one, I would side with וַתִּגְעַשׁ as the correct one. This is if we consider krei and ketiv as the competing possibilities, with only one being correct.

In terms of meaning, I don't really see any major difference between the alternatives. Either way, the earth is literally or metaphorically shaking.

Meshech Chochma discusses this alternation. After citing the pasuk, he writes:


"And the ketiv according to the peshat is וַתִּגְעַשׁ, and so too in Tehillim. And this is strange, for the krei is against the peshat. And it appears that it is going upon the heichal, that the heichal is shaken, and from this, the earth quakes, just as they darshen in Yoma 54b:

וחכמים אומרים מציון נברא שנאמר (תהלים נ, א) מזמור לאסף אל אלהים ה' ואומר מציון מכלל יופי ממנו מוכלל יפיו של עולם

that the earth was created from Tziyon, for it is stated {in Tehillim}, מציון מכלל יופי. And this is the center, and from there it is shaken, and from there the earth shakes, and it is pashut."

This is an interesting way of parsing the pesukim, and one which I would not have thought of. And I think it would account for the masculine of וַיִּתְגָּעַשׁ (though ארץ might be able to support either).

Radak does not see any substantive difference between the krei and the ketiv:

[כב, ח]
ותגעש -כתיב כמו בתהלים וקרי ויתגעש והענין אחד, וקריאת המלה מלרע וכל הענין הזה עד ישלח ממרום רמז להשחית ולכלות אויבי ישראל, כי להם הוא רעש הארץ והשמים וחשך וערפל וגחלים ואש וחצים וברק, הכל דרך משל. 

He says vehainyan echad.

The Targum renders both וַתִּגְעַשׁ  and וַתִּרְעַשׁ as the itpael. Rashi, in saying that the head of the pasuk is mechubar to its end, might be mapping וַיִּתְגָּעַשׁ of the krei to the end.