This is an alternate explanation of the pasuk of ביד חזקה. Now, rather than two makos (of dever and bechorot) being targeted, along with the signs and wonders, the pasuk is to refer to the entire ten plagues.
The phrases which take up two words each match up to two plagues, and the individual words written in plural form refer to the minimum number of plagues, namely two. This is simply mechanical and mathematical.
I am tempted to try match up each pair of plagues to the specific source word or phrase. The idea would be something like: zeroa netuya should match up to where Moshe / Aharon is commanded to stretch out his hand with the staff. But there are more than just two.
The enumeration of the makos in full is just good sipur yetzias mitzrayim. If we are going to mention the 10 makos, then we should list each individually. Alternatively, it is a good transition to what follows from Rabbi Yehuda -- the simanim.
Which brings us to:
What is the reason for bringing these simanim?
It might be as a mnemonic. Just as Arami Oved Avi is a shorthand to be expanded, so is detzach adam ba'achav. Or, it can function as a mnemonic not related specifically to the mitzvah of sippur yetzias mizrayim. Rabbi Yehuda actually created simanim for other things as well. Thus, in maseches Menachos we see: רבי יהודה אומר: שלא תטעה, זד"ד יה"ז. And I recall from R' Reuven Margolias a nice explanation in which a cryptic statement by Rabbi Yehuda about יין נסך, which confounded everyone until that point, was wonderfully set right once we realize that יין נסך was an acronym for six items to which the particular law applied.
In the Sifrei, there was a skip of analysis of several pesukim, all the way from ויהי שם לגיו, and no explicit analysis of the present pasuk of ביד חזקה. But right before analyzing ויביאנו, it cites the solitary statement of Rabbi Yehuda. But it says בהם in בהם סימנים, which strongly implies a context.
One final suggestion. We can say that ובאותות refers to the ten plagues, because each of them is designated by an אות, a letter, in Rabbi Yehuda's mnemonic. And a midrash indeed casts Rabbi Yehuda's mnemonic into the Biblical narrative. These letters were engraved on Moshe's staff, which he pulled from the ground from Yisro's backyard. And thus we can still say that ובאותות refers to the mateh, even as it refers to the letters of the plagues.
We should not look for a deeper meaning in the mnemonic.
Wednesday, April 04, 2012
Thoughts on ובאותות ובמופתים
Continuing my analysis of the hagadah:
The word ובאתות local to Arami Oved Avi refers to Moshe's staff, and the prooftext is Shemot 4:17:
The otot referred to are not the 10 plagues, even though many of the plagues were indeed effected via Moshe's staff. Rather, in context, Hashem gave Moshe three signs to show to the Hebrews and to Pharaoh: the staff becoming a snake and turning back into a staff; Moshe's hand becoming leprous and then becoming healed; and water turning to blood.
This is the sign that Moshe gives that Hashem will redeem the Hebrews.
And then:
The mofetim in the pasuk is a reference to the blood, as is stated in Yoel 2:30:
וְנָֽתַתִּי֙ מֹֽופְתִ֔ים בַּשָּׁמַ֖יִם וּבָאָ֑רֶץ דָּ֣ם וָאֵ֔שׁ וְתִֽימֲרֹ֖ות עָשָֽׁן׃
"And I will shew wonders in the heavens and in the earth blood and fire and pillars of smoke."
Of course, the point is not that the blood described in sefer Yoel is what is referenced in Arami Oved Avi. Rather, the pasuk in Yoel demonstrates that dam can be alluded to be the word mofetim.
But which blood? Some might be misled to think that this is (only) the first makkah, and thus is a stand-in for all the makkos. In context of the staff as otot, it is the blood which stands as a mofeit. This first as a wonder to show the Hebrews, and subsequently as a wonder to show Pharaoh at the Nile. But it is as a wonder, rather than as a makkah.
Incidentally, the common practice (described in many Haggadahs) is to take droplets of wine out of the cup for each of the three final units of this prooftext pasuk:
דָּ֣ם
וָאֵ֔שׁ
וְתִֽימֲרֹ֖ות עָשָֽׁן
This is almost certainly an error, and most probably originated as joke. These three elements have a meaning in the context of sefer Yoel, but are not descriptive of the Exodus from Egypt. My guess is that there was already an existing practice of removing drops of wine from the cup at the makkos: dam, tzfardei, kinim, arov, etcetera, and someone jokingly took it out at this earlier stage, pretending each phrase was a makkah. And then the joke became a tradition, and became an established minhag.
The word ובאתות local to Arami Oved Avi refers to Moshe's staff, and the prooftext is Shemot 4:17:
| יז וְאֶת-הַמַּטֶּה הַזֶּה, תִּקַּח בְּיָדֶךָ, אֲשֶׁר תַּעֲשֶׂה-בּוֹ, אֶת-הָאֹתֹת. {פ} | 17 And thou shalt take in thy hand this rod, wherewith thou shalt do the signs.' {P} |
The otot referred to are not the 10 plagues, even though many of the plagues were indeed effected via Moshe's staff. Rather, in context, Hashem gave Moshe three signs to show to the Hebrews and to Pharaoh: the staff becoming a snake and turning back into a staff; Moshe's hand becoming leprous and then becoming healed; and water turning to blood.
This is the sign that Moshe gives that Hashem will redeem the Hebrews.
And then:
The mofetim in the pasuk is a reference to the blood, as is stated in Yoel 2:30:
וְנָֽתַתִּי֙ מֹֽופְתִ֔ים בַּשָּׁמַ֖יִם וּבָאָ֑רֶץ דָּ֣ם וָאֵ֔שׁ וְתִֽימֲרֹ֖ות עָשָֽׁן׃
"And I will shew wonders in the heavens and in the earth blood and fire and pillars of smoke."
Of course, the point is not that the blood described in sefer Yoel is what is referenced in Arami Oved Avi. Rather, the pasuk in Yoel demonstrates that dam can be alluded to be the word mofetim.
But which blood? Some might be misled to think that this is (only) the first makkah, and thus is a stand-in for all the makkos. In context of the staff as otot, it is the blood which stands as a mofeit. This first as a wonder to show the Hebrews, and subsequently as a wonder to show Pharaoh at the Nile. But it is as a wonder, rather than as a makkah.
Incidentally, the common practice (described in many Haggadahs) is to take droplets of wine out of the cup for each of the three final units of this prooftext pasuk:
דָּ֣ם
וָאֵ֔שׁ
וְתִֽימֲרֹ֖ות עָשָֽׁן
This is almost certainly an error, and most probably originated as joke. These three elements have a meaning in the context of sefer Yoel, but are not descriptive of the Exodus from Egypt. My guess is that there was already an existing practice of removing drops of wine from the cup at the makkos: dam, tzfardei, kinim, arov, etcetera, and someone jokingly took it out at this earlier stage, pretending each phrase was a makkah. And then the joke became a tradition, and became an established minhag.
Some thoughts on uvemora gadol
Continuing the analysis of the hagadah, we not consider ובמורא גדול.
This is giluy Shechina, the revelation of the Divine Presence. And the prooftext is Devarim 4:34:
There are two possible aspects of this pasuk which might serve as prooftext. It might be וּבְמוֹרָאִים גְּדֹלִים, 'with great terrors'. In which case, it is the shorter Arami Oved Avi text pointing the the more expansive text elsewhere in Chumash. But that would not show that this was giluy Shechina any more than the pasuk local to Arami Oved Avi, which has all the features of otot, mofetim, and zeroa netuya.
Rather, I think it is the very last word of the pasuk, לְעֵינֶיךָ, "to your eyes". Thus, it was something you could see, and so it was a revelation of the Divine Presence. And this לְעֵינֶיךָ is modifying the last of the list, the מוֹרָאִים גְּדֹלִים.
I've pointed out many times in the past that Chazal have darshened what appears in the Samaritan text, rather than out Masoretic text. Indeed, earlier in the Haggadah (and Sifrei), we saw the Biblical text cited as גדול ועצום ורב, though that was more innocuous. I believe that this is another such instance. Come and see what appears in the Samaritan text, in Vetus Testamentum:
The Samaritan text appears to the left, where it differs from the Masoretic text on the right. They have ובמראה גדול. It then seems that they take the root as ראה, seeing, rather than ירא, fearing. And thus, the derasha.
With the focus on gilui Shechina, I think that we have not yet lost focus on Ani velo malach.
This is giluy Shechina, the revelation of the Divine Presence. And the prooftext is Devarim 4:34:
| לד אוֹ הֲנִסָּה אֱלֹהִים, לָבוֹא לָקַחַת לוֹ גוֹי מִקֶּרֶב גּוֹי, בְּמַסֹּת בְּאֹתֹת וּבְמוֹפְתִים וּבְמִלְחָמָה וּבְיָד חֲזָקָה וּבִזְרוֹעַ נְטוּיָה, וּבְמוֹרָאִים גְּדֹלִים: כְּכֹל אֲשֶׁר-עָשָׂה לָכֶם ה אֱלֹהֵיכֶם, בְּמִצְרַיִם--לְעֵינֶיךָ. | 34 Or hath God assayed to go and take Him a nation from the midst of another nation, by trials, by signs, and by wonders, and by war, and by a mighty hand, and by an outstretched arm, and by great terrors, according to all that the LORD your God did for you in Egypt before thine eyes? |
There are two possible aspects of this pasuk which might serve as prooftext. It might be וּבְמוֹרָאִים גְּדֹלִים, 'with great terrors'. In which case, it is the shorter Arami Oved Avi text pointing the the more expansive text elsewhere in Chumash. But that would not show that this was giluy Shechina any more than the pasuk local to Arami Oved Avi, which has all the features of otot, mofetim, and zeroa netuya.
Rather, I think it is the very last word of the pasuk, לְעֵינֶיךָ, "to your eyes". Thus, it was something you could see, and so it was a revelation of the Divine Presence. And this לְעֵינֶיךָ is modifying the last of the list, the מוֹרָאִים גְּדֹלִים.
I've pointed out many times in the past that Chazal have darshened what appears in the Samaritan text, rather than out Masoretic text. Indeed, earlier in the Haggadah (and Sifrei), we saw the Biblical text cited as גדול ועצום ורב, though that was more innocuous. I believe that this is another such instance. Come and see what appears in the Samaritan text, in Vetus Testamentum:
The Samaritan text appears to the left, where it differs from the Masoretic text on the right. They have ובמראה גדול. It then seems that they take the root as ראה, seeing, rather than ירא, fearing. And thus, the derasha.
With the focus on gilui Shechina, I think that we have not yet lost focus on Ani velo malach.
Tuesday, April 03, 2012
Thoughts on beyad chazaka and bizroa netuya

The Haggadah continues, darshening the pasuk. yad chazakah is a reference to the dever because of the pasuk of:
| ג הִנֵּה יַד-ה הוֹיָה, בְּמִקְנְךָ אֲשֶׁר בַּשָּׂדֶה, בַּסּוּסִים בַּחֲמֹרִים בַּגְּמַלִּים, בַּבָּקָר וּבַצֹּאן--דֶּבֶר, כָּבֵד מְאֹד. | 3 behold, the hand of the LORD is upon thy cattle which are in the field, upon the horses, upon the asses, upon the camels, upon the herds, and upon the flocks; there shall be a very grievous murrain. |
Thus, there is a yad involved. I am tempted to say that this is a continuation of the idea from before, of Hashem without an agent, for there are two types of makkah. In some, Moshe takes an action which brings about the plague. For instance, Aharon smites the water, or Moshe throws soot heavenwards. In others, Moshe takes no action, but merely announces, with Hashem being the actor. In this instance, Moshe takes no action. He just establishes the set time for the plague to appear, and then:
This idea holds true for the analysis of the next two phrases in the pasuk (but appears to fail for the last two, which is OK).
Thus, the next phrase, bizroa netuya is a reference to "the sword". Which sword? Not a literal sword, but to a plague which wipes out human beings.
This is a pasuk in I Divrei Hayamim perek 21:
And this is David's vision. But it represents the plague which will kill many human beings. Thus, this is not intended as a description of what happened in Egypt, but a demonstration that that zroa netuya means this. And so, this is a reference to makkas bechoros, again something which was via Hashem's direct action with no action on Moshe's part.
The key word in Divrei Hayamim is נְטוּיָה, stretched out. So too the zeroa netuya in Egypt.
| ו וַיַּעַשׂ ה אֶת-הַדָּבָר הַזֶּה, מִמָּחֳרָת, וַיָּמָת, כֹּל מִקְנֵה מִצְרָיִם; וּמִמִּקְנֵה בְנֵי-יִשְׂרָאֵל, לֹא-מֵת אֶחָד. | 6 And the LORD did that thing on the morrow, and all the cattle of Egypt died; but of the cattle of the children of Israel died not one. |
This idea holds true for the analysis of the next two phrases in the pasuk (but appears to fail for the last two, which is OK).
Thus, the next phrase, bizroa netuya is a reference to "the sword". Which sword? Not a literal sword, but to a plague which wipes out human beings.
This is a pasuk in I Divrei Hayamim perek 21:
| טז וַיִּשָּׂא דָוִיד אֶת-עֵינָיו, וַיַּרְא אֶת-מַלְאַךְ ה עֹמֵד בֵּין הָאָרֶץ וּבֵין הַשָּׁמַיִם, וְחַרְבּוֹ שְׁלוּפָה בְּיָדוֹ, נְטוּיָה עַל-יְרוּשָׁלִָם; וַיִּפֹּל דָּוִיד וְהַזְּקֵנִים מְכֻסִּים בַּשַּׂקִּים, עַל-פְּנֵיהֶם. | 16 And David lifted up his eyes, and saw the angel of the LORD standing between the earth and the heaven, having a drawn sword in his hand stretched out over Jerusalem. Then David and the elders, clothed in sackcloth, fell upon their faces. |
The key word in Divrei Hayamim is נְטוּיָה, stretched out. So too the zeroa netuya in Egypt.
YUTorah on Pesach and the Haggadah
Pesach To-Go 5772 is finally here, with 64 pages of divrei Torah and articles from YU Roshei Yeshiva, faculty, and members of the YU Community Kollelim. Download the whole publication for free, and in case you need more, you can also download 5 more years of Pesach To-Go archives on our website to make sure you have enough to keep you up all Pesach night until morning. Click here to see the To-Go page |
Thoughts on vayotzi'einu
Continuing the analysis of Arami Oved Avi, and in particular the pasuk:
And in particular on וַיּוֹצִאֵנוּ ה, מִמִּצְרַיִם.
Why the stress on "not by angel nor by saraf," etc.? I don't think this is a polemic against shituf polemic. Rather, this derasha is prompted by the insertion of the actor "Hashem" in the second word. Look to the previous pasuk and next pasuk. Previous: וַנִּצְעַק, אֶל-ה אֱלֹהֵי אֲבֹתֵינוּ; וַיִּשְׁמַע ה אֶת-קֹלֵנוּ, וַיַּרְא אֶת-עָנְיֵנוּ וְאֶת-עֲמָלֵנוּ וְאֶת-לַחֲצֵנוּ.
Yes, there is repetition of Hashem here. But the verb vayar does not make use of it. And so too the next pasuk (vayotzi'einu) could have omitted explicit mention of Hashem. And so too, in the next pasuk:
וַיְבִאֵנוּ, אֶל-הַמָּקוֹם הַזֶּה; וַיִּתֶּן-לָנוּ אֶת-הָאָרֶץ הַזֹּאת, אֶרֶץ זָבַת חָלָב וּדְבָשׁ.
No explicit mention of Hashem is made. So this might be what prompts the derasha.
In terms of simple peshat in this pasuk, when read in full, indeed, the basic idea is that Hashem brings forth His full might to take the Jews out of Egypt. So that might be what prompts the derasha. Alternatively, the ani Hashem and other features of the prooftext prompt the derasha local to Arami Oved Avi.
The prooftext / manifestation of this idea is from makkat bechorot, the last of the makkos:
They darshen every single phrase, but not every phase seems to call out for such a derasha. But the idea is that Hashem is speaking of His actions in first person. וְעָבַרְתִּי -- And I will pass. And so on and so forth, but stressed by otherwise unnecessary close of אֲנִי ה. Perhaps the action of וּבְכָל-אֱלֹהֵי מִצְרַיִם אֶעֱשֶׂה שְׁפָטִים calls for direct action on Hashem's part, as opposed to via some malach or shaliach.
Wasn't Moshe a shaliach? Well, perhaps in the other makkos, when he is commanded to take some practical or symbolic action to bring about the plague. But at the very end, with makkat bechorot, there is no such action. Hashem acts directly. And so is the sense, and the flavor, of the entire perek in sefer Shemot.
We might have been tempted to say otherwise, in light of the very last few pesukim of the Torah:
All the otot, mofetim, yad hachazaka, and mora hagadol, all mentioned in Arami Oved Avi in this pasuk, are wrought by Moshe, as messenger of Hashem. Still, makat bechorot is not of this nature. And this could be the intent of the stress in this derasha.
| ח וַיּוֹצִאֵנוּ ה, מִמִּצְרַיִם, בְּיָד חֲזָקָה וּבִזְרֹעַ נְטוּיָה, וּבְמֹרָא גָּדֹל--וּבְאֹתוֹת, וּבְמֹפְתִים. | 8 And the LORD brought us forth out of Egypt with a mighty hand, and with an outstretched arm, and with great terribleness, and with signs, and with wonders. |
And in particular on וַיּוֹצִאֵנוּ ה, מִמִּצְרַיִם.
Why the stress on "not by angel nor by saraf," etc.? I don't think this is a polemic against shituf polemic. Rather, this derasha is prompted by the insertion of the actor "Hashem" in the second word. Look to the previous pasuk and next pasuk. Previous: וַנִּצְעַק, אֶל-ה אֱלֹהֵי אֲבֹתֵינוּ; וַיִּשְׁמַע ה אֶת-קֹלֵנוּ, וַיַּרְא אֶת-עָנְיֵנוּ וְאֶת-עֲמָלֵנוּ וְאֶת-לַחֲצֵנוּ.
Yes, there is repetition of Hashem here. But the verb vayar does not make use of it. And so too the next pasuk (vayotzi'einu) could have omitted explicit mention of Hashem. And so too, in the next pasuk:
וַיְבִאֵנוּ, אֶל-הַמָּקוֹם הַזֶּה; וַיִּתֶּן-לָנוּ אֶת-הָאָרֶץ הַזֹּאת, אֶרֶץ זָבַת חָלָב וּדְבָשׁ.
No explicit mention of Hashem is made. So this might be what prompts the derasha.
In terms of simple peshat in this pasuk, when read in full, indeed, the basic idea is that Hashem brings forth His full might to take the Jews out of Egypt. So that might be what prompts the derasha. Alternatively, the ani Hashem and other features of the prooftext prompt the derasha local to Arami Oved Avi.
The prooftext / manifestation of this idea is from makkat bechorot, the last of the makkos:
| יב וְעָבַרְתִּי בְאֶרֶץ-מִצְרַיִם, בַּלַּיְלָה הַזֶּה, וְהִכֵּיתִי כָל-בְּכוֹר בְּאֶרֶץ מִצְרַיִם, מֵאָדָם וְעַד-בְּהֵמָה; וּבְכָל-אֱלֹהֵי מִצְרַיִם אֶעֱשֶׂה שְׁפָטִים, אֲנִי ה. | 12 For I will go through the land of Egypt in that night, and will smite all the first-born in the land of Egypt, both man and beast; and against all the gods of Egypt I will execute judgments: I am the LORD. |
Wasn't Moshe a shaliach? Well, perhaps in the other makkos, when he is commanded to take some practical or symbolic action to bring about the plague. But at the very end, with makkat bechorot, there is no such action. Hashem acts directly. And so is the sense, and the flavor, of the entire perek in sefer Shemot.
We might have been tempted to say otherwise, in light of the very last few pesukim of the Torah:
All the otot, mofetim, yad hachazaka, and mora hagadol, all mentioned in Arami Oved Avi in this pasuk, are wrought by Moshe, as messenger of Hashem. Still, makat bechorot is not of this nature. And this could be the intent of the stress in this derasha.
Thoughts on ve'et lachatzeinu
Continuing the analysis of Arami Oved Avi, we move on to the final words of the pasuk, וְאֶת-לַחֲצֵנוּ.
This is the dechak, the oppression. And the prooftext is a citation of Shemot 3:9,
What is the role of this prooftext? It clearly does not demonstrate that lachatz means dechak. After all, the prooftext does not use the word דחק, but just לחץ. Rather, the function of this prooftext is to show that לחץ appears in the full narrative as it appears in sefer Shemot. And it follows, in the text, after the demonstration of anyeinu and amaleinu.
How do Chazal know that it means דחק, oppression? Familiarity with Mishnaic Hebrew, as well as with Biblical Hebrew. Thus, for example, the following pasuk in parashat Balak:
It clearly means pressing. So too the words are juxtaposed in a pasuk in sefer Shofetim (2:18):
I am unsure whether this was affliction from taskmasters or whether it was a subjugated position in society. (Looking to Akkadian, we have the word chalatz, which is semantically related to לחץ, via metathesis. It means pressing, as in pressing grapes, and appears in proximity to the cognate for sechita, squeezing.)
Earlier, in Shemot 3:7, prior to pasuk 9, there is mention of other forms of affliction:
So the different shades of suffering may be highlighted even local to sefer Shemot.
We might notice a shift here in topic, in terms of the nature of the suffering. If we do say that there is a semantic link between the previous two terms, anyeinu and amaleinu as prevention of conjugal relations and destruction of male children who would result, then lachatzeinu as simple oppression is unlike the others.
Looking to the Sifrei, we immediately notice that the derasha on לחצינו is absent. The Gra's emendation of the text places a derasha on lachatzeinu into here. But perhaps there was some derasha that was more on topic, or no derasha was made, but a derasha was brought in to fill the gap, so as to form a continuous running commentary on the pesukim. (But then, the whole derasha on vayar et anyeinu seems brought in from "agada" and placed in parentheses, and the derasha on vanitzak, and the prior verse, is wholly absent.)
This is the dechak, the oppression. And the prooftext is a citation of Shemot 3:9,
| ט וְעַתָּה, הִנֵּה צַעֲקַת בְּנֵי-יִשְׂרָאֵל בָּאָה אֵלָי; וְגַם-רָאִיתִי, אֶת-הַלַּחַץ, אֲשֶׁר מִצְרַיִם, לֹחֲצִים אֹתָם. | 9 And now, behold, the cry of the children of Israel is come unto Me; moreover I have seen the oppression wherewith the Egyptians oppress them. |
What is the role of this prooftext? It clearly does not demonstrate that lachatz means dechak. After all, the prooftext does not use the word דחק, but just לחץ. Rather, the function of this prooftext is to show that לחץ appears in the full narrative as it appears in sefer Shemot. And it follows, in the text, after the demonstration of anyeinu and amaleinu.
How do Chazal know that it means דחק, oppression? Familiarity with Mishnaic Hebrew, as well as with Biblical Hebrew. Thus, for example, the following pasuk in parashat Balak:
| כה וַתֵּרֶא הָאָתוֹן אֶת-מַלְאַךְ ה, וַתִּלָּחֵץ אֶל-הַקִּיר, וַתִּלְחַץ אֶת-רֶגֶל בִּלְעָם, אֶל-הַקִּיר; וַיֹּסֶף, לְהַכֹּתָהּ. | 25 And the ass saw the angel of the LORD, and she thrust herself unto the wall, and crushed Balaam's foot against the wall; and he smote her again. |
It clearly means pressing. So too the words are juxtaposed in a pasuk in sefer Shofetim (2:18):
| יח וְכִי-הֵקִים ה לָהֶם, שֹׁפְטִים, וְהָיָה ה עִם-הַשֹּׁפֵט, וְהוֹשִׁיעָם מִיַּד אֹיְבֵיהֶם כֹּל יְמֵי הַשּׁוֹפֵט: כִּי-יִנָּחֵם ה מִנַּאֲקָתָם, מִפְּנֵי לֹחֲצֵיהֶם וְדֹחֲקֵיהֶם. | 18 And when the LORD raised them up judges, then the LORD was with the judge, and saved them out of the hand of their enemies all the days of the judge; for it repented the LORD because of their groaning by reason of them that oppressed them and crushed them. |
I am unsure whether this was affliction from taskmasters or whether it was a subjugated position in society. (Looking to Akkadian, we have the word chalatz, which is semantically related to לחץ, via metathesis. It means pressing, as in pressing grapes, and appears in proximity to the cognate for sechita, squeezing.)
Earlier, in Shemot 3:7, prior to pasuk 9, there is mention of other forms of affliction:
| ז וַיֹּאמֶר ה, רָאֹה רָאִיתִי אֶת-עֳנִי עַמִּי אֲשֶׁר בְּמִצְרָיִם; וְאֶת-צַעֲקָתָם שָׁמַעְתִּי מִפְּנֵי נֹגְשָׂיו, כִּי יָדַעְתִּי אֶת-מַכְאֹבָיו. | 7 And the LORD said: 'I have surely seen the affliction of My people that are in Egypt, and have heard their cry by reason of their taskmasters; for I know their pains; |
So the different shades of suffering may be highlighted even local to sefer Shemot.
We might notice a shift here in topic, in terms of the nature of the suffering. If we do say that there is a semantic link between the previous two terms, anyeinu and amaleinu as prevention of conjugal relations and destruction of male children who would result, then lachatzeinu as simple oppression is unlike the others.
Looking to the Sifrei, we immediately notice that the derasha on לחצינו is absent. The Gra's emendation of the text places a derasha on lachatzeinu into here. But perhaps there was some derasha that was more on topic, or no derasha was made, but a derasha was brought in to fill the gap, so as to form a continuous running commentary on the pesukim. (But then, the whole derasha on vayar et anyeinu seems brought in from "agada" and placed in parentheses, and the derasha on vanitzak, and the prior verse, is wholly absent.)
Monday, April 02, 2012
Thoughts on ve'et amaleinu
Continuing the analysis of Arami Oved Avi, and in particular the pasuk:
We had analyzed up to and including the word anyeinu. But then took a break of a year. The haggadah continues:
Anyeinu had been interpreted as perishut derech eretz.
Now, וְאֶת-עֲמָלֵנוּ is understood as referring to the sons, and the (seeming) prooftext is {Shemot 1}:
This is not a classic proof-text though, in the sense of this pasuk showing that עמל means sons. Rather, it is an elaboration of what אלו הבנים means, so that the short declaration in Arami Oved Avi retells the story of the Exodus.
How should עמלני mean the sons (for בנים here means sons rather than children)? It is unclear.
A: Semantic Extension
I would suggest that this was selected to mean the birth of something as an extension of perishut derech eretz of anyeinu. Since these are near synonyms juxtaposed in a pasuk, we should look for a shade of meaning along similar lines. Thus, it was difficult for them to conceive due to the excessive work, as was the plan of the Egyptians (see earlier in the perek), and then when they did manage to conceive, something along the same lines was targeted.
B: Proximal Extension
Indeed, even without idea of near synonyms selecting similar targets, it makes narrative sense. The previous anyeinu selected the earlier plan of the Egyptians, as was the prooftext:
and when that didn't work, sensibly, the next word in Arami Oved Avi should target the next plan. That would possibly be Pharaoh's plot involving the midwives, but they managed to avoid killing any babies, and so the next logical plan would be the one at the very end of perek aleph, which actually succeeding in paining the Hebrews.
Indeed, the next work, and link, it לחצינו, with a skip to Shemot 3:9, with the intervening story of Moshe's birth, arrival at Pharaoh's palace, and fleeing to Midyan. And so it might simply be following the structure of the narrative in sefer Shemot.
C: The meaning of עמל
Perhaps עמל can be taken to mean specifically work that fails. Certainly עמל means labor. But it also has the occasional sense of misfortune. So maybe labor in vain.
I don't really trust this, based on context, but see the following verses. Kohelet 2:
See in Iyov 7:3:
How amal is positioned in poetic parallelism with shav, vanity. Maybe עמל actually has this secondary meaning of vanity. And occasionally, it is placed against these in the context of birth {Tehillim 7}:
Not aven as iniquity, but as vanity. And it then parallels both sheker and amal. But see the full context of this pasuk.
If one is looking for labor (in the full sense of the word) coming to vanity, then indeed, boys born to be cast in the Nile is a perfect fulfillment.
| ז וַנִּצְעַק, אֶל-ה אֱלֹהֵי אֲבֹתֵינוּ; וַיִּשְׁמַע ה אֶת-קֹלֵנוּ, וַיַּרְא אֶת-עָנְיֵנוּ וְאֶת-עֲמָלֵנוּ וְאֶת-לַחֲצֵנוּ. | 7 And we cried unto the LORD, the God of our fathers, and the LORD heard our voice, and saw our affliction, and our toil, and our oppression. |
We had analyzed up to and including the word anyeinu. But then took a break of a year. The haggadah continues:
Anyeinu had been interpreted as perishut derech eretz.
Now, וְאֶת-עֲמָלֵנוּ is understood as referring to the sons, and the (seeming) prooftext is {Shemot 1}:
| כב וַיְצַו פַּרְעֹה, לְכָל-עַמּוֹ לֵאמֹר: כָּל-הַבֵּן הַיִּלּוֹד, הַיְאֹרָה תַּשְׁלִיכֻהוּ, וְכָל-הַבַּת, תְּחַיּוּן. {פ} | 22 And Pharaoh charged all his people, saying: 'Every son that is born ye shall cast into the river, and every daughter ye shall save alive.' {P} |
This is not a classic proof-text though, in the sense of this pasuk showing that עמל means sons. Rather, it is an elaboration of what אלו הבנים means, so that the short declaration in Arami Oved Avi retells the story of the Exodus.
How should עמלני mean the sons (for בנים here means sons rather than children)? It is unclear.
A: Semantic Extension
I would suggest that this was selected to mean the birth of something as an extension of perishut derech eretz of anyeinu. Since these are near synonyms juxtaposed in a pasuk, we should look for a shade of meaning along similar lines. Thus, it was difficult for them to conceive due to the excessive work, as was the plan of the Egyptians (see earlier in the perek), and then when they did manage to conceive, something along the same lines was targeted.
B: Proximal Extension
Indeed, even without idea of near synonyms selecting similar targets, it makes narrative sense. The previous anyeinu selected the earlier plan of the Egyptians, as was the prooftext:
and when that didn't work, sensibly, the next word in Arami Oved Avi should target the next plan. That would possibly be Pharaoh's plot involving the midwives, but they managed to avoid killing any babies, and so the next logical plan would be the one at the very end of perek aleph, which actually succeeding in paining the Hebrews.
Indeed, the next work, and link, it לחצינו, with a skip to Shemot 3:9, with the intervening story of Moshe's birth, arrival at Pharaoh's palace, and fleeing to Midyan. And so it might simply be following the structure of the narrative in sefer Shemot.
C: The meaning of עמל
Perhaps עמל can be taken to mean specifically work that fails. Certainly עמל means labor. But it also has the occasional sense of misfortune. So maybe labor in vain.
I don't really trust this, based on context, but see the following verses. Kohelet 2:
| כא כִּי-יֵשׁ אָדָם, שֶׁעֲמָלוֹ בְּחָכְמָה וּבְדַעַת--וּבְכִשְׁרוֹן; וּלְאָדָם שֶׁלֹּא עָמַל-בּוֹ, יִתְּנֶנּוּ חֶלְקוֹ--גַּם-זֶה הֶבֶל, וְרָעָה רַבָּה. | 21 For there is a man whose labour is with wisdom, and with knowledge, and with skill; yet to a man that hath not laboured therein shall he leave it for his portion. This also is vanity and a great evil. |
See in Iyov 7:3:
| ג כֵּן הָנְחַלְתִּי לִי, יַרְחֵי-שָׁוְא; וְלֵילוֹת עָמָל, מִנּוּ-לִי. | 3 So am I made to possess--months of vanity, and wearisome nights are appointed to me. |
How amal is positioned in poetic parallelism with shav, vanity. Maybe עמל actually has this secondary meaning of vanity. And occasionally, it is placed against these in the context of birth {Tehillim 7}:
| טו הִנֵּה יְחַבֶּל-אָוֶן; וְהָרָה עָמָל, וְיָלַד שָׁקֶר. | 15 Behold, he travaileth with iniquity; yea, he conceiveth mischief, and bringeth forth falsehood. |
Not aven as iniquity, but as vanity. And it then parallels both sheker and amal. But see the full context of this pasuk.
If one is looking for labor (in the full sense of the word) coming to vanity, then indeed, boys born to be cast in the Nile is a perfect fulfillment.
Sunday, April 01, 2012
YU Pesach To-Go, 5772
Here are the articles from this year:
- Rabbi Reuven Brand - "The Defining Moment: Once and Again"
- Rabbi Menachem Genack - "Sippur Yetzias Mitzrayim as a Special Form of Talmud Torah"
- Dr. Naomi Grunhaus - "The Reality of Freedom"
- Dr. Jill Katz - "Celebrating Pesach in the Land of the Pharaohs"
- Rabbi Yona Reiss - "The Freedom of Family"
- Rabbi Eliav Silverman - "Pesach: The Festival of Liberty and Love"
- Mrs. Natalie Taylor - "Geared To Go: She'eilat Keilim"
- Haggadah Discussions for the Family: A Collection from Yeshiva University's Community Kollelim
See the Pesach To-Go for previous years at this link. Also, a whole slew of articles and shiurim here.
And some featured Pesach shiurim at well:
Labels:
pesach
Chametz Burning Stations in Queens
(From Community Board 8 - http://www.facebook.com/pages/Community-Board-8-Queens/169502173149547)
Chometz Burning Stations/Sanitation Bins 2012
Please see the attached Flyer, or link, for the date, time and locations for the 2012 Chometz Burning Stations and Special Sanitation Bins.
Please see the attached Flyer, or link, for the date, time and locations for the 2012 Chometz Burning Stations and Special Sanitation Bins.
Chometz Burning Station/Sanitation Bin Locations in Community Board 8, Queens
1) Across from the Torah Center of Hillcrest located at 171-05 Jewel/Harry Van Arsdale Ave.
2) In front of the Young Israel of Kew Gardens Hills located at 70-11 150th Street.
3) In front of the Young Israel of Jamaica Estates located at 83-10 188th Street
4) In front of the Young Israel of Queens Valley located at 141-55 77th Avenue, near the parking lot.
Date: Friday, April 6, 2012
Time: Approximately 6 a.m. to approximately 11 a.m.
In addition, remember to place your garbage out the night before for the special collection.
On Friday, April 6, 2012, all houses in these areas will have a curbside trash pickup between midnight and 10:30 a.m. Be sure to have all your trash/chometz out at the curb in front of your house for pick up by midnight Thursday. Please separate your garbage and recycling.
Labels:
pesach
Thursday, March 29, 2012
Posts so far for parshat Tzav
2012
2011
2010
- Tzav sources -- further improved.
. - Tzav in Tetzaveh --
Why does Rashi only analyze the word tzav here?
. - YUTorah on Tzav
2011
- Tzav sources, improved. For example, many more meforshei Rashi.
. - YU Torah on parshat Tzav.
. - Zehu midrasho -- a curious, lengthy insertion in parashat Tzav may shed light on a number of such insertions in one Rashi manuscript, and perhaps about this phrase in general.
. - Shadal's theory about the Urim veTumim -- As a sort of alphabet oracle, similar to Chazal but slightly different.
2010
- Tzav sources -- revamped.
. - Should there be a petucha before Vayikra 7:22 or before Vayikra 7:28? part one and part two. I don't think I got around to part iii, about Or Torah...
2009
- Tzav sources -- links by aliyah and perek to an online Mikraos Gedolos, and many meforshim on the parsha and haftara. Because of Pesach posts, probably will be all we have for tzav this year. See previous years, though.
. - Does parshat Haazinu include a promise that Israel will enjoy forbidden fats? cross-listed from Haazinu. Based in part on an Ibn Ezra in Tzav, that Biblically, cheilev of non-korbanos is permitted.
2008
- Was a Copper Vessel Purged and Rinsed With Water?
- Or purged with something else (namely sand), and then rinsed with water, as Shadal suggests. This would have an impact on trup, Shadal suggests, and I illustrate with helpful trup charts. Then I defend the traditional cantillation, even assuming Shadal's semantic shift, making use of Wickes and his rules of cantillation based on part-of-speech tags as determiners of place of syntactic dichotomy.
a - The definition of shok -- which is what one gives as a gift to the kohen from the shelamim. But what part is the shok on the cow. And relating to tznius, what is the shok on a person?
2006
- Cross-listed from Behaalotecha: Why the repetition of Isha Kushit Lakach?
a - and again: Why Was Miryam, and not Aharon, punished?
2005
- Cross listed from parshas Chayyei Sarah: Why A Shalshelet?
- In which we discuss the semantic and syntactic causes of the shalshelet, an extremely rare cantillation mark, which appears once in parshat Tzav, and only seven times overall in all of Tanach.
2004
- Human Sacrifice As Hell On Earth
- The haftara mentions Gei Ben Hinnom, which was a place for child sacrifice to the idol Molech, where the child was passed between the fires (and perhaps burned). This name, Gei Hinnom, is the word for Hell, and thus it was hell on earth. Unlike some other religion(s), Judaism does not relish child sacrifice.
to be continued...
Wednesday, March 28, 2012
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)












