Exodus 11:1
\nRASHBAM
\nThe Lord said to Moses. While he was standing before Pharaoh. One more plague. After being told this, Moses told Pharaoh what he says beginning in v. 4. One and all. Men and women, children and animals.
\nIBN EZRA
\nThen the Lord said to Moses. The Lord had said to Moses. I have already shown you many similar examples. Here, vv. 1\u20133 are a parenthetical insertion into Moses\u2019 last conversation with Pharaoh: Moses was told in Midian about the slaying of the first-born (4:23), and had already been told at Sinai that, when that time came, the people should borrow \u201cobjects of silver and gold\u201d (3:22); I have already explained why that verse says, \u201cEach woman shall borrow.\u201d One and all. Or perhaps: \u201che will altogether drive you out.\u201d
\nNAHMANIDES
\nOne more plague. Rashi (in his comment to v. 4) follows the understanding of our Sages: \u201cGod, as it were, rushed into Pharaoh\u2019s palace to say this, because Moses had said, \u2018I shall not see your face again!\u2019 (10:29) and He did not want to make Moses a liar. You will find that the Holy One never spoke with Moses in Pharaoh\u2019s palace except for this one time; in 9:29, Moses actually had to leave the city in order to pray! But this one time God rushed in to be able to have Moses tell Pharaoh that He would bring \u2018one more plague\u2019 upon him.\u201d Again, as I explained with the plague of locusts, the account is abridged; God told Moses, \u201cToward midnight I will go forth\u201d (v. 4), and so on, but we only hear Moses telling it to Pharaoh. This is actually a frequent occurrence in the Torah; see, for example, the consecration of the first-born in ch. 13, where we hear little of God commanding Moses and much of Moses commanding the people. But Moses spoke to Israel exactly the words with which he was commanded.
\nADDITIONAL COMMENTS
\nThe Lord said to Moses. According to the midrash, God lifted Moses off the ground so he would not be in contact with a place polluted with idolatry when God communicated with him (Hizkuni). He will drive you out of here one and all. Just as he drove you and Aaron out of his palace (Sforno).
\nExodus 11:2
\nRASHI
\nTell the people. NJPS does not translate the particle na, which implies, \u201cPlease tell the people.\u201d Make sure they borrow silver and gold, so that Abraham the righteous Patriarch will not say: God made sure that \u201cThey shall be enslaved and oppressed\u201d (Gen. 15:13) actually happened to them, but He did not make sure that \u201cIn the end they shall go free with great wealth\u201d (Gen. 15:14) happened to them!
\nRASHBAM
\nTo borrow. Literally, with OJPS, to \u201cask\u201d as an outright gift. \u201cAsk it of Me, and I will make the nations your domain\u201d (Ps. 2:8).
\nIBN EZRA
\nTell the people. NJPS omits a word; see OJPS \u201cspeak now.\u201d Objects of silver and gold. Not to mention clothing (see 12:35).
\nNAHMANIDES
\nTell the people. After you leave Pharaoh\u2019s presence.
\nADDITIONAL COMMENTS
\nTo borrow. The women would ask for silver, gold, and fine clothing \u201cso I can look respectable among my girlfriends when we celebrate the festival,\u201d and God made it come out so that they were telling the truth (Bekhor Shor). God chose this method of letting them \u201cgo free with great wealth\u201d (Gen. 15:14) in order to have the Egyptians chase after them to get their things back (Hizkuni). Seeing that the Israelites were the objects of God\u2019s particular providence, the Egyptians would give them everything they wanted in hopes that this would save them and the plagues would stop (Abarbanel). Let them not worry about being pursued; that is exactly how I intend to save them (Sforno). From his neighbor. Not that the Egyptians were particularly neighborly toward the Israelites until they had been struck by the plagues and wished to entreat them (Hizkuni).
\nExodus 11:3
\nIBN EZRA
\nDisposed the Egyptians. The text recounts that God fulfilled the promise He made to Moses in 3:21. Moses himself. Many of those who lent to them did so because of their esteem for Moses. Among the people. The Egyptian people.
\nNAHMANIDES
\nDisposed the Egyptians favorably. So that they would not hate the Israelites on account of the plagues, but instead would increase their love and admiration for them, saying, \u201cIt is we who are the wicked and the doers of violence, and you who deserve God\u2019s grace.\u201d Moses himself, who had brought the plagues upon them, was much esteemed in all the land of Egypt, both among Pharaoh\u2019s courtiers, his opponents, and among the people of Israel. Having once told Moses, \u201cMay the Lord look upon you and punish you for making us loathsome to Pharaoh and his courtiers\u201d (5:21), and refused to listen to him (6:9), he had grown in stature in their opinion once they realized that he was a faithful prophet of God. But some think the people means the Egyptians. Notice also that the text mentions Pharaoh\u2019s courtiers but not Pharaoh himself, for God had hardened his heart against Moses and made him speak rudely to him twice. For God wanted Pharaoh to come and bow down before Moses like a man submitting to his enemy\u2014all this to give Moses greatness and stature. In this verse, the phrase \u201cthe Lord disposed the Egyptians favorably\u201d cannot be connected to the borrowing. For it would have to say, \u201cI will dispose the Egyptians favorably\u201d; only later, when they actually take the things, does the text say, \u201cthe Lord disposed the Egyptians favorably toward the people\u201d (12:36).
\nExodus 11:4\u20135
\nExodus 11:4
\nRASHI
\nMoses said. This prophecy must have come to Moses while he stood before Pharaoh as reported in ch. 10, for after that he never saw him again. Toward midnight. More precisely: \u201cat the dividing of the night.\u201d The \u201cmid\u201d of \u201cmidnight\u201d is in the Hebrew not a noun derived from hetzi, \u201chalf,\u201d but a gerund derived from the verb hatzah, \u201cto divide.\u201d That is the straightforward explanation that settles the verse properly according to its syntax. But our Sages do interpret it to mean \u201chalf of the night.\u201d They explain that it was Moses who said \u201ctoward\u201d midnight. Really OJPS \u201cabout\u201d midnight better suits this explanation, since the expression would imply a time near midnight, whether before or after it. Moses said \u201cabout\u201d midnight rather than \u201cat\u201d midnight because he thought Pharaoh\u2019s astrologers might not keep time as precisely as he, and he did not want them to accuse him of making the whole thing up.
\nRASHBAM
\nToward midnight. Grammatically, this is a verbal form. When the action actually takes place, in 12:29, the phrase is correctly introduced with a bet, \u201cat,\u201d rather than a kaf, \u201ctoward.\u201d Such is the straightforward explanation. For bet introduces such a phrase when it describes the past, but here Moses is speaking about the future, in which case the phrase requires a kaf.
\nIBN EZRA
\nMoses said. This is the continuation of 10:29; the intervening verses note that God had told Moses He would kill the first-born, and that when Israel was about to leave Egypt, they should borrow from the Egyptians. Had God not disposed the Egyptians favorably toward them, they would have given them nothing. Know that this was a great thing. The Jews were completely righteous, for they did not give away the secret. Pharaoh, naturally, took Moses\u2019 words \u201ca distance of three days\u201d (8:23) to mean that the Israelites would go and return. God forbid that the prophet should tell a lie! He never said they would return. The wisdom of God is much loftier than we can understand. In my opinion, there were two reasons for misleading the Egyptians. First, so that the people would give them silver and gold. Had they known they were not coming back, they would not have given it. Second, so that Pharaoh and his army would drown. For had the Israelites left with his permission, so that he did not expect them to return, he would never have chased after them. As it was, \u201cwhen the king of Egypt was told that the people had fled, Pharaoh and his courtiers had a change of heart\u201d (14:5). Toward midnight. There are those who wish to interpret this phrase as containing a verbal form: \u201cwhen the night divides in half.\u201d They want to make this the same as 12:29, \u201cin the middle of the night,\u201d where the preposition is bet, which means \u201cin,\u201d instead of kaf, which means \u201ctoward\u201d or \u201cabout,\u201d as it is here. It is well known that the wise are unable to determine the exact instant of noon without great trouble and large bronze instruments, to say nothing of midnight, which is far more difficult. But in my opinion this explanation is totally unnecessary. The phrase here simply means, \u201cwhen the first half of the night has passed.\u201d Thus the expression in 12:29 means \u201cin the remaining half of the night.\u201d The Bible has other examples of \u201cthe middle of the night\u201d that do not refer to a precise instant: \u201cIn the middle of the night, the man gave a start\u201d (Ruth 3:8); \u201cI arise at midnight to praise You for Your just rules\u201d (Ps. 119:52). I will go forth. By means of an agent; \u201cmy decree will go forth.\u201d
\nNAHMANIDES
\nMoses said. To Pharaoh and his courtiers, as v. 8 makes clear. Toward midnight. This divine communication, and the repetition of it to Pharaoh, took place before the 1st of Nisan. So Moses did not yet announce on which night this midnight plague would strike them, because he did not know which night it would be. He simply said, angrily, \u201cI shall not see your face again! But you shall summon me, and your courtiers will prostrate themselves to me at midnight, begging me to leave your country.\u201d 12:12, when the Israelites are told about it, and 12:29, where it actually happens, make clear that it took place on the night that the passover was offered.
\nADDITIONAL COMMENTS
\nToward midnight. Moses did not tell Pharaoh on which night this midnight would occur, but he did tell Israel (Abarbanel).
\nExodus 11:5
\nRASHI
\nFrom the first-born of Pharaoh \u2026 to the first-born of the slave girl. Thus everyone lower than the first-born of Pharaoh and higher than the first-born of the slave girl was also included. And why were the sons of slave girls hit by the plague? Because even they had enslaved the Israelites and rejoiced at their distress. The first-born of the cattle. Because the Egyptians worshiped them. When the Holy One punished the nation, he punished their gods.
\nRASHBAM
\nThe slave girl who is behind the millstones. In 12:29 this phrase is replaced by \u201cthe captive who was in the dungeon.\u201d But the two phrases are equivalent. For the first-born of the captive would be set to grinding behind the millstones. When the Philistines captured Samson, \u201che became a mill slave in the prison\u201d (Judg. 16:21).
\nIBN EZRA
\nWho sat on the throne. The first-born who would sit on the throne after Pharaoh\u2014the most honored first-born in Egypt, son of the overlord to whom all were slaves. Whereas the most despised first-born was the first-born of the slave girl who is behind the millstones, where he was grinding\u2014like Samson, who when the Philistines seized him \u201cbecame a mill slave in the prison.\u201d Others interpret the stones as those that cover the mouth of a dungeon. As I have already said, when a text is repeated, the prophets often change the wording without changing the meaning. This happens several times in the Ten Commandments as given in Exodus and repeated by Moses in Deuteronomy. I will have occasion to discuss this phenomenon further. The \u201ccaptive\u201d of 12:29 was indeed enslaved, and slept at night in the dungeon as prisoners do.
\nADDITIONAL COMMENTS
\nThe first-born of the slave girl. These rejoiced to hear that their masters would suffer as much as they; for which their masters imprisoned them, so that by the time the plague actually took place, the first-born of the slave girl had become \u201cthe first-born of the captive who was in the dungeon\u201d (12:29) (Hizkuni). The range is from the most respected to the most despised; in 12:29 it is from the greatest sinner to the least (Sforno).
\nExodus 11:6\u20139
\nExodus 11:6
\nRASHBAM
\nSuch as has never been. Grammatically, the Hebrew of this phrase refers to the \u201ccry\u201d alternately as masculine and as feminine; but there are many such occurrences, e.g., Gen. 32:9.
\nIBN EZRA
\nSuch as has never been. This may refer to the cry, as the translations have it\u2014but \u201ccry\u201d is a feminine noun in Hebrew, and the gender of the phrase \u201csuch as\u201d demands a masculine noun, such as \u201cdestructiveness,\u201d \u201cinjury,\u201d or \u201cdeath.\u201d
\nExodus 11:7
\nRASHI
\nNot a dog shall snarl. I say that it means \u201cnot a dog shall whet his tongue,\u201d as OJPS has it; the root meaning is \u201cwhet\u201d or \u201csharpen.\u201d The same verb is used for the \u201cthreshing\u201d board of Isa. 41:15 and provides the word \u201cdiligent\u201d in Prov. 10:4 and 21:5, really meaning one who is \u201csharp.\u201d
\nRASHBAM
\nNot a dog shall snarl. While the destroying angel is harming the first-born of Egypt, not even the sound of the snarling of animals shall disturb the first-born of Israel.
\nIBN EZRA
\nNot a dog shall snarl. The translation of the verb used here depends on context. Its general meaning is \u201cto threaten with one\u2019s mouth,\u201d as in Josh. 10:21, \u201cno one so much as snarled at the Israelites.\u201d Since our verse speaks of a dog, it may mean \u201csnarl\u201d or \u201cbite.\u201d Not a dog shall snarl at them, how much less so the Destroyer sent from heaven to kill the first-born. Some say the verb means \u201cto make a sound,\u201d as in 1 Kings 20:40, \u201cYou have your verdict; you pronounced it yourself.\u201d
\nADDITIONAL COMMENTS
\nNot a dog shall snarl. This may be a hint that the Egyptians themselves would not even dare to talk back to the Israelites (Abarbanel).
\nExodus 11:8
\nRASHI
\nAll these courtiers of yours shall come down to me and bow low to me. Moses was speaking politely to the king; eventually, it was Pharaoh himself who would come down to Moses and say, \u201cUp, depart from among my people\u201d (12:31). Yet Moses did not say, \u201cYou shall come down to me and bow low to me.\u201d All who follow you. Both literally and metaphorically. After that I and all my people will depart from your land. He left Pharaoh\u2019s presence when he finished speaking in hot anger because Pharaoh said to him, \u201cTake care not to see me again\u201d (10:28).
\nRASHBAM
\nAll these courtiers of yours shall come down to me. He spoke politely; in the event, it was Pharaoh who arose and summoned Moses and Aaron (12:30\u201331). Moses said it this way to conform to what he says in 10:29, \u201cI shall not see your face again!\u201d\u2014but you and your servants will come looking for me.
\nIBN EZRA
\nSaying. At your command. All the people who follow you. Literally, \u201cwho are at your feet,\u201d as in Judg. 4:10, that is, \u201cunder your authority.\u201d They will tell me to take the people wherever I want. He left \u2026 in hot anger. Because Pharaoh had told him, \u201cTake care not to see me again\u201d (10:28).
\nADDITIONAL COMMENTS
\nAfter that I will depart. Not immediately, when you request it, but \u201cafter that\u201d\u2014I will wait until morning (Sforno).
\nExodus 11:9
\nRASHI
\nThat My marvels may be multiplied. The slaying of the first-born, the splitting of the sea, and the hurling of the Egyptians into the water.
\nRASHBAM
\nThe Lord had said to Moses. The pluperfect of NJPS is correct, not the past tense of OJPS. God had told Moses and Aaron after each and every plague, \u201cPharaoh will not heed you until the bitter end.\u201d
\nIBN EZRA
\nThe Lord had said to Moses. This is preferable to OJPS \u201cthe Lord said.\u201d God had already told Moses that Pharaoh would not heed him. This is a standard Hebrew construction; there are many such examples.
\nNAHMANIDES
\nPharaoh will not heed you. Since Pharaoh and his courtiers would obviously have been more afraid of the slaying of the first-born than of all the previous plagues, and they had already seen that whatever Moses announced took place, God told Moses that He was hardening Pharaoh\u2019s heart to multiply His marvels and \u201cstrike down every first-born in the land of Egypt, both man and beast; and \u2026 mete out punishments to all the gods of Egypt\u201d (12:12). Rashi\u2019s comment that the marvels mentioned here include the splitting of the sea and the hurling of the Egyptians into the water cannot be right, since v. 10 shows that the marvels referred to here took place before Pharaoh let the Israelites go.
\nExodus 11:10\u201312:2
\nABARBANEL\u2019S QUESTIONS
\n\u2666 How can God say, \u201cPharaoh will not heed you, in order that My marvels may be multiplied in the land of Egypt\u201d (v. 9), when the text immediately tells us that \u201cMoses and Aaron had [already] performed all these marvels before Pharaoh\u201d (v. 10)?
\nExodus 11:10
\nRASHI
\nMoses and Aaron had performed all these marvels. We have already been told this when they performed each marvel; it is repeated here only to provide a transition to the next chapter (see my comment there).
\nRASHBAM
\nThe Lord had stiffened the heart of Pharaoh. Each and every time.
\nIBN EZRA
\nThe Lord had stiffened the heart of Pharaoh. Even though Moses and Aaron had performed all these marvels, Pharaoh had not relaxed his opposition to letting them go; for God had stiffened his heart until they had performed all the marvels that God had commanded. One would have expected 12:29 to follow this verse immediately, to keep the plagues all together. But 12:1\u201328 was inserted to show how the first-born of the Israelites escaped when the Destroyer was unleashed on Egypt.
\nNAHMANIDES
\nMoses and Aaron had performed all these marvels. Those marvels already referred to. This marks the completion of all the marvels performed by Moses and Aaron, including Moses\u2019 final task of informing Pharaoh about the slaying of the first-born. For in the slaying itself Moses and Aaron took no part.
\nADDITIONAL COMMENTS
\nThe Lord had stiffened the heart of Pharaoh. Not that He prevented him from repenting; He merely gave Pharaoh\u2019s own nature full reign (Abarbanel).
\nExodus 12:1
\nRASHI
\nThe Lord said to Moses and Aaron. Since Aaron had gone to the trouble of performing the marvels just like Moses, the text gives him the honor of being included here with Moses when God gives them the first of the commandments. In the land of Egypt. But outside of the capital. Or might it have indeed happened within the city? No, according to 9:29, Moses could not even pray for the end of the hail until he left the city; a divine communication could certainly not have taken place there. Why would God not communicate with him within the city? Because it was full of idols.
\nRASHBAM
\nIn the land of Egypt. Since this is a section of commandments, it was necessary to explain that these commandments were given in Egypt, even though the rest of the commandments were given either at Mount Sinai, at the Tent of Meeting, or on the steppes of Moab.
\nIBN EZRA
\nMoses and Aaron. Both men are mentioned at the beginning of the commandments, for they alone were the prophets of Torah. No new commandments were given to anyone after them except for emergency cases, as when Gideon (Judg. 6:25\u201328) and Elijah (1 Kings 18) built altars outside of Jerusalem. Don\u2019t think that the institutions of the Temple created by David (1 Chron. 6:16, 9:22) disprove this assertion; these were mere arrangements. Saadia says that David was in possession of a Mosaic tradition that a king would arise and set up the music for the Temple. The prohibition of carrying on the Sabbath (Jer. 17:22) falls into that category as well.
\nNAHMANIDES
\nIn the land of Egypt. This is the first commandment that the Holy One gave the Israelites through Moses. The location is specified because all the other commandments were given at Mount Sinai. Or it may mean the \u201cland\u201d of Egypt as opposed to the capital city, which also bore that name, following the saying of our Sages that this revelation took place \u201coutside the city.\u201d One would have expected the verse to continue with the words of v. 3, \u201cSpeak to the whole community of Israel and say.\u201d But \u201cMoses and Aaron\u201d here stand for all of Israel.
\nADDITIONAL COMMENTS
\nTo Moses and Aaron. That is, to Moses to tell to Aaron as his spokesman (Gersonides).
\nExodus 12:2
\nRASHI
\nThis month. The Hebrew word \u201cmonth\u201d also means \u201cnew moon.\u201d God showed him the new moon and told him, \u201cWhen the moon grows new, that shall mark for you the beginning of the new month.\u201d But even when midrash derives additional meanings such as this one, a biblical verse never loses its contextual sense; God told him that Nisan was to be the first month of the year, Iyar the second, Sivan the third, and so on. This. Moses had some difficulty understanding how much of the new moon had to be visible in order to declare it officially. God pointed to the new moon in the sky with His finger and said, \u201cWhen you see it like this, declare it.\u201d But Num. 15:23 tells us that God communicated with him during the day: \u201cfrom the day that the Lord gave the commandment.\u201d So how could He show him the moon? Clearly this was communicated to Moses near sunset, and when it got dark, He showed him.
\nRASHBAM
\nThe beginning of the months. Following the view of R. Joshua that the world was created in Nisan. First of the months of the year. \u201cWhenever I speak to you of \u2018the eighth month,\u2019 \u2018the ninth month,\u2019 and so on, they are numbered with reference to this one.\u201d But according to R. Eliezer, who says that the world was created in Tishrei, the straightforward sense would be in essence as follows: Though it is not the beginning of the months for other nations, it shall be for you\u2014to enumerate the sixth, seventh, eighth, ninth, up to \u201cthe twelfth month, that is, the month of Adar\u201d (Esther 3:7). You must count starting with this month as a reminder that in this month you went out of Egypt. When the Torah says \u201cIn the seventh month\u201d (Num. 29:1) it means the seventh month after the month of the exodus from Egypt. Verses regularly date themselves based on the exodus: \u201cOn the third new moon after the Israelites had gone forth from the land of Egypt\u201d (19:1). Similarly with the building of the Temple: \u201cIn the four hundred and eightieth year after the Israelites left the land of Egypt\u201d (1 Kings 6:1).
\nIBN EZRA
\nThe beginning of the months. I have already noted in the introduction to my Torah commentary that the year and the month were fixed by the rabbinic courts. Now that we are in exile we rely on what they set up: the intercalation of the leap months. According to Judah the Persian, the Israelites used a solar year as the uncircumcised do. He based this on 13:10, \u201cYou shall keep this institution at its set time from year to year.\u201d For the lunar year shifts against the natural year of plowing and harvesting, which depends on the sun alone. But this is incorrect. God commanded that the festivals be observed according to lunar months, but in their proper season, as determined by the rabbinic courts.\u2026 It is extremely surprising that Moses went into such detail about the rules concerning skin diseases, which afflict just a few individuals (and even then temporarily), and did not explain how to set up the calendar, which every Jew must observe for all time.\u2026 Moses Gikatilla has established that the Hebrew term hodesh actually means \u201cnew moon,\u201d but in fact it may also be used to mean \u201cmonth.\u201d
\nNAHMANIDES
\nThis month shall mark for you. \u201cFor you\u201d refers this commandment to all future generations. \u201cSpeak to the whole community of Israel\u201d in v. 3 introduces the commandment about the passover offering to be performed in Egypt by that specific generation. But the midrashic interpretation is that this month is the beginning of the months \u201cfor you,\u201d Moses and Aaron and comparable experts, to determine, while the subsequent commandments of this section apply to \u201cthe whole community of Israel.\u201d The beginning of the months. That is, Israel should consider Nisan the first month, and number the other 11 months in order from it as a memorial of the great miracle, so that whenever we mention the months the miracle is mentioned too. That is why, in the Torah, months are never named but only numbered, e.g., 19:1, Num. 10:11 and 29:1, and so forth. This marks the beginning of our redemption, not the beginning of the year, which starts with Tishrei; \u201cthe Feast of Ingathering\u201d is \u201cat the turn of the year\u201d (34:22). Nisan is the beginning of the months \u201cfor you,\u201d not for the year. Our Sages have already pointed out that the month names are Babylonian and that originally we had no names for the months. But Jeremiah said, \u201cAssuredly, a time is coming\u2014declares the Lord\u2014when it shall no more be said, \u2018As the Lord lives who brought the Israelites out of the land of Egypt,\u2019 but rather, \u2018As the Lord lives who brought the Israelites out of the northland\u2019 \u201d (Jer. 16:14\u201315 = 23:7\u20138). The month names now commemorate our redemption from Babylonia, not from Egypt. For they are all Persian names. You will not find them except in the books of the post-Exilic prophets and Esther. To this day the Persians and the Medes still use the same month names that we do. So we now commemorate the second redemption with our month names as we did up until then with the first redemption.
\nADDITIONAL COMMENTS
\nThis month shall mark for you the beginning. Of freedom (Bekhor Shor). While you were enslaved your days were not your own; now the months shall be \u201cfor you\u201d (Sforno). The first of the months of the year. From the time of Adam up until this point, Tishrei had been the first month and Nisan the seventh, as is explained by Targum Jonathan to \u201cEthanim\u201d in 1 Kings 8:2. Before the Babylonian month names came into use, there were such names as Ethanim, Ziv, and Bul (1 Kings 6:37\u201338) (Hizkuni). We learn from this not only that we are required to fix a calendar, but also that the year is to be divided into months, not into months and extra days. Since Passover must always fall in the spring, we therefore learn that some years must have 12 months and some 13 (Gersonides)
\nExodus 12:3
\nABARBANEL\u2019S QUESTIONS
\n\u2666 When Moses and Aaron are told, \u201cSpeak to the whole community of Israel\u201d (v. 3), this would seem to imply that the preceding commandment, \u201cThis month shall mark for you the beginning of the months\u201d (v. 2), is given to them alone. Why is this so?
\n\u2666 Since the year is merely a measure of time, and time is undifferentiated, how can the year have a \u201cbeginning\u201d? The day and the month both have natural beginnings, but the year does not.
\n\u2666 If God made Nisan the first month of the year, how could the Sages make the 1st of Tishrei New Year\u2019s Day?
\nExodus 12:3
\nRASHI
\nSpeak to the whole community. And did Aaron speak to them? God has already told Moses, \u201cYou shall repeat all that I command you\u201d (7:2). But Moses and Aaron treated each other with such respect\u2014telling each other, \u201cYou teach me\u201d\u2014that the pronouncement would come forth from between the two of them as if both were speaking in unison. On the tenth. Speak to them today, on the first of the month, and tell them what to do on the 10th. Of this month. Taking a lamb on the 10th only applied to the passover offering of that very month, in Egypt, not to all subsequent passover offerings. A lamb to a family. In the case of an extended family too large for a single house, one might think that they would all have to make do with a single lamb. So the text adds, a lamb to a household.
\nRASHBAM
\nA lamb to a family. Families of one household ordinarily eat together in one household, for the passover cannot be eaten in two houses; hence the text continues: a lamb to a household. \u201cIt shall be eaten in one house\u201d (v. 46).
\nIBN EZRA
\nSpeak to the whole community. For everyone in the community is obligated to offer the passover. Take. The ones who owned many animals should take a lamb from their own flocks, for they had much livestock. Others should \u201cbuy\u201d a lamb, which this Hebrew verb can also mean. The tenth. An astrologically favorable day in Nisan, because the sun and moon are 120\u00b0 apart. Note that Yom Kippur falls on the 10th day of the seventh month. Similarly Sukkot, halfway through Tishrei, parallels Passover, halfway through Nisan. A lamb to a family. If there are few of them. A lamb to a household. If they are many. \u201cFamily\u201d here is the equivalent of \u201cclan\u201d in Josh. 7:14; a number of households might belong to the same family.
\nNAHMANIDES
\nA lamb. The astrological sign of Aries the ram is, of course, at its greatest strength during Nisan, when it is the rising sign. Slaughtering a lamb demonstrated that we did not leave Egypt by force of astrology, but by divine decree. The argument has even more force according to the understanding of our Sages that this constellation was worshiped by the Egyptians, in which case God would have brought low their god at the very height of his ascendancy. The Sages read it this way: \u201cTake a sheep and slaughter the god of the Egyptians.\u201d
\nADDITIONAL COMMENTS
\nOn the tenth of this month. It was a Sabbath, and since the Israelites performed on it the first commandment they were given, the Sabbath before Passover was henceforth called \u201cthe Great Sabbath\u201d (Hizkuni). The four days were necessary not only because in those days, when they were not expert, it took four days to check the animal for blemishes, but also to give them time to cleanse themselves of the Egyptian sheep worship so as to be able to serve God joyfully (Gersonides).
\nExodus 12:4\u20136
\nABARBANEL\u2019S QUESTIONS
\n\u2666 The text explains (in v. 39) why unleavened bread must be eaten\u2014why does it not explain the reason for the passover sacrifice, let alone the reasons for the rules that are given in such detail here?
\nExodus 12:4
\nRASHI
\nToo small for a lamb. If there are too few in the household to eat an entire lamb, which would leave some left over, let him share one with a neighbor. This is the literal, straightforward sense. But it contains a midrashic interpretation as well, teaching that if one has signed up for a lamb, one can still withdraw and sign up for a different lamb. But this is only possible while the lamb is still alive, not once it has already been slaughtered. According to what each household will eat. Excluding the sick and the elderly, who cannot eat the required \u201colive\u2019s worth\u201d of the sacrifice.
\nRASHBAM
\nToo small. Too small to eat the whole lamb. Proportion. Note the etymologically related word in Num. 31:37, \u201cthe Lord\u2019s levy from the sheep.\u201d It is from the root \u05de\u05db\u05e1, unlike the similar sounding verb at the end of the verse, translated \u201ccontribute,\u201d which is from \u05db\u05e1\u05e1. Even if the \u05de were really a prefix, it would still have to be from \u05db\u05e1\u05d4, not \u05db\u05e1\u05e1.
\nIBN EZRA
\nProportion. Like the related word in Num. 31:37, \u201cthe Lord\u2019s levy from the sheep,\u201d and like \u201ccontribute\u201d at the end of the verse, this is from the root \u05db\u05e1\u05e1.
\nADDITIONAL COMMENTS
\nIf the household is too small for a lamb. But if it is too big, they can take two or three lambs (Bekhor Shor). A neighbor. Even if many Egyptians lived in between them, the nearest Jew would be considered his neighbor (Sforno).
\nExodus 12:5
\nRASHI
\nA yearling male. Rather, a male any time in its first year of life. From the sheep or from the goats. For the Hebrew word seh, \u201clamb,\u201d refers to the young of goats as well. See the Hebrew text of Deut. 14:4.
\nIBN EZRA
\nLamb. Note that the Hebrew word can refer either to a sheep or to a goat. Yearling. This is correct. Jeshua b. Judah finds a difference between the Hebrew expressions \u201ca son of a year\u201d and \u201ca son of its year\u201d; but see Numbers 7, where the two expressions are used interchangeably. From the sheep or from the goats. According to Moses b. Amram the Persian, this applied only to the Egyptian passover; in Israel, either a lamb or a bull could be used. He based this on the general passover commandment in Deut. 16:2, \u201cYou shall slaughter the passover sacrifice for the Lord your God, from the flock and the herd.\u201d But this is incorrect, for the yearly passover is a remembrance of the original passover, which ought not to be changed. A lamb is required for the passover offering; the bull is for the other sacrifices offered on a festival, and may be cooked with water. See 2 Chron. 35:1\u201318, where lambs are roasted for \u201cthe passover sacrifice\u201d and cattle are cooked in pots for \u201cthe sacred offerings\u201d (2 Chron. 35:13).
\nADDITIONAL COMMENTS
\nWithout blemish, a yearling male. So that the Jew could not excuse himself for slaughtering the animal that the Egyptians worshiped by saying, \u201cWell, it is old, or female, or blemished\u201d (Hizkuni).
\nExodus 12:6
\nRASHI
\nYou shall keep watch over it. You shall examine it for four days before it is slaughtered to make sure that it acquires no blemish. Why did this Egyptian passover, unlike later passover offerings, have to be selected four days before it was slaughtered? R. Mattiah b. Heresh used to say: Well, God said, \u201cI passed by you again and saw that your time for love had arrived\u201d (Ezek. 16:8). The time had arrived for me to fulfill the vow I had made to Abraham to redeem his children, but they had no commandments to perform in order to deserve redemption: \u201cYou were still naked and bare\u201d (Ezek. 16:7).\u2014So He gave them two commandments, involving the blood of the passover offering and the blood of circumcision. The circumcision was carried out on that very night: \u201cI passed by you and saw you wallowing in your blood\u201d (Ezek. 16:6); literally, \u201cin your bloods\u201d\u2014the blood of the passover offering and the blood of circumcision. Because they were steeped in idolatry, God told them, \u201cGo, pick out lambs\u201d (v. 21)\u2014go away from the idols and pick instead the lambs of commandment. The assembled congregation of the Israelites. Those commanded are referred to here by three terms: assemblage, congregation, and Israelites. From this the Sages derived the principle that the passover sacrifices performed at the Temple should be performed in three different groups. Each group would perform their sacrifices in turn; one group would finish and leave, and then the next group would enter. See M. Pes. 5:5; B. Pes. 64a\u2013b. Slaughter it. Did they all slaughter it? No. Hence we learn that one\u2019s agent is considered like oneself. At twilight. Literally, \u201cbetween the two evenings.\u201d It applies to the period from noon on, when the sun begins to incline toward the place where it will set for the evening. To me, the expression would seem to imply the period between the time when the day begins to \u201ceven\u201d and the time when the night begins to \u201ceven.\u201d The day first begins to \u201ceven\u201d\u2014that is, to darken\u2014at noon, when the afternoon shadows begin to lengthen; the night begins to \u201ceven\u201d at the beginning of the night, evening. The Hebrew word refers to darkness; note its use in Isa. 24:11, \u201call joy is darkened.\u201d
\nIBN EZRA
\nKeep watch over it. Each inside his own house. At twilight. There are two ways of interpreting this difficult Hebrew term bein ha-arbayim. First, the period from the time when the sky begins to darken until the last light has left the clouds. This period lasts for an hour and a third and is called \u201cevening.\u201d According to 30:8, \u201cbein ha-arbayim\u201d indicates the time when Aaron is to \u201clight the lamps\u201d in the Tabernacle. Note also the explicit command that \u201cyou shall slaughter the passover sacrifice, in the evening, at sundown\u201d (Deut. 16:6). Moreover, \u201cbein ha-arbayim\u201d in 16:12 seems to have the same meaning as \u201cevening\u201d in 16:8. With regard to the passover, the second way is to interpret it as beginning at noon, the moment that the sun reaches the western half of the sky. According to those who have transmitted the Torah to us, it is a Mosaic law that the usage with regard to the passover follows this second interpretation. There can be no doubt that this is true, though Rashi\u2019s explanation that the period begins at noon does not take into account the fact that the ending of the word indicates \u201ctwo\u201d evenings. The Karaites say, based on \u201cthe third evening\u201d (1 Sam. 20:5), that there is still a third possible definition of \u201cevening,\u201d but they do not understand the truth; David is literally referring there to the third of three successive evenings.
\nNAHMANIDES
\nAt twilight. Ibn Ezra\u2019s rejection of Rashi\u2019s comment based on Deut. 16:6, \u201cyou shall slaughter the passover sacrifice, in the evening, at sundown,\u201d is not convincing since at B. Ber. 9a our Sages understand the \u201cevening\u201d when this sacrifice may be offered to include any time before sunset, that is, the whole afternoon; see Rashi\u2019s comment to Deut. 16:6. I think that \u201cevening\u201d can indeed refer to the beginning of the night: compare \u201cThe fourteenth day of the month at evening\u201d (v. 18) and \u201cThey shall eat the flesh that same night\u201d (v. 8)\u2014not to mention \u201cThere was evening and there was morning, a first day\u201d (Gen. 1:5). Not only the beginning of night, when the stars begin to appear, is called \u201cevening,\u201d however, but also the end of the day: \u201cEvening, morning, and noon, I complain and moan\u201d (Ps. 55:18). These three periods comprise the whole day, so \u201cevening\u201d must begin immediately after noon. Thus the time period referred to in this verse is indeed that described by Rashi.
\nADDITIONAL COMMENTS
\nThe assembled congregation of the Israelites shall slaughter it. So that no Jew could say, \u201cI did not do it; some other Jew did it\u201d (Hizkuni). It was meant to be a public act, to cause what God did for Israel when they left Egypt to be remembered (Gersonides). At twilight. Rather: between dawn and dusk (Gersonides).
\nExodus 12:7\u20138
\nExodus 12:7
\nRASHI
\nThey shall take some of the blood. This means catching the blood as it pours from the animal. The blood was not to be taken with the hand, as we learn from the phrase \u201cthe blood that is in the basin\u201d (v. 22). The two doorposts. The uprights, one on each side of the doorway. The lintel. The upper bar, mashkof, that the door butts against, shokef, when it is closed. Onkelos translates the \u201cbruise\u201d of Lev. 21:24 into Aramaic using the same root. Of the houses in which they are to eat it. And not of barns in which hay or animals were kept but people did not live.
\nRASHBAM
\nThe lintel. The upper threshold that is visible to all at the entrance of the house. Etymologically it means \u201clooking out,\u201d as in Gen. 26:8, \u201cAbimelech king of the Philistines, looking out of the window.\u201d One who explains it as having the sense of being the part of the frame that \u201cbutts\u201d against the door must bring a comparable example with this meaning from the Torah or the Prophets\u2014in Hebrew.
\nIBN EZRA
\nThe lintel. It is a kind of transom; as in 1 Kings 6:4, the root of the word implies \u201cto look.\u201d It is something that lets in the light. Such is the custom in all Islamic countries. In general, Christian culture is quite different from that of Egypt, even with regard to food and women\u2019s jewelry. Another difference is that houses in Egypt are built in courtyards, so that there are doors to the houses but also an outer gate. Many people say the point of the blood was to publicly slaughter the abomination worshipped by the Egyptians, for the Egyptians were already terrified of the Israelites and would not stone them. If this were true, the blood would have been put on the outer gates. But the blood was put on the inner doors, in secret, after the outer gates were closed, at evening, so that no one should see. Others say that it was simply a sign to the angel called the \u201cDestroyer,\u201d like the \u201cmark\u201d of Ezek. 9:4. In fact, the fate determined by the position of the stars cannot be averted without the payment of a ransom in sacrificial blood, though exactly how this works is a great mystery. That is why Moses told Pharaoh, \u201cLet us go \u2026 to sacrifice to the Lord our God, lest He strike us with pestilence or sword\u201d (5:3). The houses in which they are to eat it. For they were commanded not to go out of those houses until morning.
\nADDITIONAL COMMENTS
\nPut it on the two doorposts and the lintel. With a bunch of hyssop; see v. 22. It is part of biblical style to treat a subject briefly at first and then to expand on it later (Bekhor Shor). On the inside, as \u201ca sign for you\u201d (v. 13) of the failure of the religion they had grown up in, that of Egypt (Gersonides).
\nExodus 12:8
\nRASHI
\nThe flesh. But not the tendons or the bones. With bitter herbs. The Hebrew term maror refers to any greens that are mar, \u201cbitter.\u201d He commanded them to eat something bitter as a reminder of \u201cThey made life bitter for them\u201d (1:14).
\nRASHBAM
\nThey shall eat the flesh that same night, etc. All of these details of the eating share the element of hurriedness, like someone who is in a rush to be on his way.
\nIBN EZRA
\nWith bitter herbs. The apparent explanation is that they should eat it according to Egyptian custom. For the Egyptians always have mustard and similar bitter condiments on their tables, even if all they have to eat with them is bread, for this alleviates the extreme humidity of the Egyptian climate. But since our predecessors, the Sages, have transmitted to us the explanation that it refers to how the Egyptians \u201cmade life bitter for them\u201d (1:14), we rely on them, as we have done in connection with all the commandments.
\nNAHMANIDES
\nRoasted over the fire, with unleavened bread and with bitter herbs. NJPS understands it correctly. The unusual word translated here as \u201cwith\u201d bitter herbs was selected to make clear that one is not obligated to combine them in the same mouthful. It is also clear that there is no commandment of bitter herbs without eating the meat; but the eating of unleavened bread on its own is specially commanded again in v. 18, as our Sages have observed. But it is more correct to read with OJPS: \u201croast with fire, and unleavened bread,\u201d and then continuing, \u201cwith bitter herbs they shall eat it\u201d\u2014the meat. Thus it is a commandment to eat the meat, not a commandment to eat bitter herbs. But the meat should be eaten with bitter herbs. Nowadays, when we do not eat the passover sacrifice, the bitter herbs are not a commandment. Even when we still ate the passover, one could fulfill the commandment of eating it without eating bitter herbs. The eating of the passover and the eating of the unleavened bread are each commanded independently; not so the eating of bitter herbs.
\nADDITIONAL COMMENTS
\nWith unleavened bread and bitter herbs. So that slavery (the herbs), freedom (the bread), and rescue (the passover) should all be combined together (Bekhor Shor). With bitter herbs so as to insult what the Egyptians worshiped (Hizkuni). Unleavened bread must be made from the five kinds of grain that can leaven: wheat, barley, rye, spelt, or oats (Gersonides).
\nExodus 12:9\u201310
\nExodus 12:9
\nRASHI
\nDo not eat any of it raw. The word translated \u201craw\u201d here is used in Arabic to refer to meat that is roasted too rare. Or cooked in any way with water. How do we know it cannot be cooked in any kind of liquid? From the emphatic doubling of the Hebrew verb here. But roasted \u2026 over the fire. V. 8 contains the positively framed commandment to \u201ceat it roasted over the fire\u201d; this verse contains the prohibitory, negative commandment not to eat it cooked in any way other than this. Head, legs, and entrails. It is roasted whole; the entrails are cleaned and then put back inside the carcass. The unusual use of the preposition (omitted by NJPS but translated \u201cwith\u201d by OJPS) implies, as in 6:26, \u201cas is,\u201d \u201cjust as they are\u201d\u2014all its flesh, whole.
\nRASHBAM
\nRaw. This seems to mean \u201croasted in a pot,\u201d that is, cooked without water but also without the fire roasting that is prescribed here. Head, legs, and entrails. All of this makes for speed.
\nIBN EZRA
\nRaw. Some interpret the word na to mean \u201cbroken,\u201d from the word translated \u201crestrains\u201d in Num. 30:6. But this is farfetched. Others, based on the meaning \u201cnow\u201d (as na is used in 11:2), think the usage here omits an implied \u201clike\u201d: do not eat it \u201c[like] now\u201d\u2014as is. It is true that the word usually means \u201cnow\u201d; there are many verses, like 11:2, where it would make no sense for the word to imply a request. But, as I have already mentioned, Arabic is very much like Hebrew; and in Arabic, the cognate word means \u201craw,\u201d just as the Aramaic translator has it, even though this is a unique occurrence in the Bible. Cooked in any way. The word bashel is not the emphatic verb form that NJPS has mistranslated here as \u201cin any way.\u201d Rather, it is an adjective meaning \u201cboiled,\u201d and is explained by the Hebrew phrase that follows it, \u201ccooked with water.\u201d Or perhaps it means \u201cdouble-boiled.\u201d This is the way meat is prepared for kings, by putting a cauldron half-filled with water over a fire. When the water comes to a boil, a pot with meat in cold water is put into the boiling water. This food is far more nourishing than any prepared directly over a fire. Head, legs, and entrails. The head and legs must be washed as they are supposed to be.
\nNAHMANIDES
\nDo not eat any of it raw. This and all the other commandments in this section that have to do with the passover sacrifice itself apply to all time. But the commandments that do not have to do with the sacrifice specifically, like eating with one\u2019s loins girded or putting blood on the doorposts, apply only to the passover of Egypt. You can see those parts that are significant for all time in the section about those who must make the sacrifice a month late because they are unclean on the 14th of Nisan (Num. 9:9\u201312).
\nADDITIONAL COMMENTS
\nDo not eat any of it raw. Despite the fact that you are eating it hurriedly (Bekhor Shor). Literally, do not eat it \u201cnow,\u201d before the 14th (Abarbanel). Or cooked in any way with water. Which, by contrast, takes too long (Bekhor Shor). Or in any other liquid (Gersonides). But roasted. After the fashion of people who need their meat cooked through quickly (Bekhor Shor). Head, legs, and entrails. So that the Egyptians could recognize that the Israelites were eating their god (Hizkuni).
\nExodus 12:10
\nRASHI
\nUntil morning. This phrase is repeated to add some extra morning at the beginning of the morning. \u201cMorning\u201d ordinarily is considered to begin at sunrise; the additional \u201cmorning\u201d here means that in this case it is considered to begin at first light. That is its literal meaning. There is still another interpretation that derives from this text that the burning of what is left over takes place not on the festival day, but on the next day. Read it this way: Whatever is left over on the first \u201cmorning,\u201d wait and burn it on the second \u201cmorning.\u201d
\nIBN EZRA
\nIf any of it is left. Because someone is unable, for reasons beyond his control, to eat his proportionate share. Japheth thinks it refers to the bones, but this is a stretch; the text refers to the ordinary way of things.
\nADDITIONAL COMMENTS
\nYou shall not leave any of it over till morning. Because you are going away. One cannot leave a sacred offering to be thrown out or eaten by dogs (Bekhor Shor). You shall burn it. By way of insult (Hizkuni).
\nExodus 12:11\u201313
\nExodus 12:11
\nRASHI
\nYour loins girded. Ready for the road. Hurriedly. See 1 Sam. 23:26 and 2 Kings 7:15; as in English, the word implies haste under pressure. It is a passover offering to the Lord. The offering is called \u201cpassover\u201d (pesah) because the Holy One hopped (pasah) over the houses of the Israelites who lived among the Egyptians, hopping from Egyptian to Egyptian while the Israelite in between them escaped. The name implies that you must \u201chop\u201d to it when you make this offering.
\nRASHBAM
\nA passover offering to the Lord. So the angel would skip over the Jewish home to strike the first-borns in the gentile houses.
\nIBN EZRA
\nThis is how you shall eat it. This applied only to the passover offering of Egypt. But the Karaites of Wargla eat it that way to this day as a remembrance of the exodus from Egypt. Why don\u2019t these spiritually aberrant people all leave their country on the 15th as a remembrance of the exodus from Egypt?! Your loins girded. So you can be ready to leave. Your staff in your hand. To drive the donkeys. Hurriedly. To make sure it was eaten before the moment of destruction arrived. Thus God commanded it to be eaten roasted, so it would cook quickly. The holy fathers said: \u201cIt must be eaten before midnight, and roasted\u201d (M. Zev. 5:8). A passover offering. Some commandments have names. This one is called \u201cpassover\u201d because God \u201cpassed over\u201d the houses of the Israelites. Many give it the meaning \u201cto take pity.\u201d But it is the same root that means \u201chopping\u201d in 1 Kings 18:21 and \u201clame\u201d in 2 Sam. 9:13.
\nADDITIONAL COMMENTS
\nThis is how you shall eat it. Not as one eats the holy sacrifices, but scornfully (Hizkuni). Your loins girded. From this we learn that it was customary to ungird one\u2019s loins and take off one\u2019s shoes before eating; our Sages have already told us (B. Shab. 9b) that a meal begins with the loosening of one\u2019s belt, as is still customary in some places (Gersonides). Hurriedly. It is not to be eaten for pleasure but in fulfillment of the commandment (Abarbanel).
\nExodus 12:12
\nRASHI
\nI will go through. Like a king proceeding from place to place. But all were struck in a single \u201cpass,\u201d at the same moment. Every first-born in the land of Egypt. Even non-Egyptian first-borns who were in Egypt. How do we know that the expression also includes Egyptian first-borns who were in other countries? From Ps. 136:10, referring to God as the One \u201cwho struck Egypt through their first-born\u201d wherever they might be. Both man and beast. The one who sinned first was punished first. All the gods of Egypt. Those of wood would rot, those of metal would melt to the ground. I the Lord. I Myself, not by means of a surrogate.
\nRASHBAM
\nI will mete out punishments to all the gods of Egypt. Since Pharaoh trusted in them and said, \u201cWho is the Lord?\u201d (5:2).
\nIBN EZRA
\nI will go through the land of Egypt. It is God\u2019s power that would go through Egypt, which is just as if He Himself did. I will mete out punishments to all the gods of Egypt. As He did to Dagon in 1 Samuel 5. Some say that after the slaying of the first-born, the Egyptians angrily destroyed their idols. Clearly that is how God made good on this threat, even though it is not explicitly stated. There are many such occurrences.
\nNAHMANIDES
\nI will mete out punishments to all the gods of Egypt. Those of wood would rot; those of metal would melt. 13:15 describes the slaying of the first-born, but does not mention these punishments, for \u201ctheir doctrine is but delusion: it is a piece of wood\u201d (Jer. 10:8). Moreover, it was the slaying of the first-born that panicked the Egyptians. They did not discover what had happened to their gods until morning, when they went to the temples of their idols. Num. 33:4 mentions it: \u201cThe Egyptians meanwhile were burying those among them whom the Lord had struck down, every first-born: also the Lord executed judgment on their gods.\u201d In my opinion, this alludes to the princes on high who were the gods of Egypt, following the principle, \u201cthe Lord will punish the host of heaven in heaven and the kings of the earth on earth\u201d (Isa. 24:21). He brought low the constellation that determined the Egyptians\u2019 fate, as well as the heavenly beings who were in charge of it. The biblical text is terse about cryptic matters. I the Lord. Rashi says: \u201cI Myself.\u201d According to the midrash written by our Sages in the Passover haggadah, since this whole section is Moses speaking to the Israelites, it ought to have said, \u201cHe will go through the land,\u201d \u201cHe will mete out punishments,\u201d and so forth. So the first-person verbs are to be interpreted as follows. \u201cI Myself will go through the land,\u201d not an angel as in 2 Sam. 24:16\u201317 and 2 Kings 19:35; \u201cI Myself will strike every first-born,\u201d not like a king who has executioners to take revenge on his enemies; \u201cI Myself will mete out punishments,\u201d not the messenger who is assigned to carry out God\u2019s deeds on earth, the great angel Metatron. \u201cMetatron\u201d means \u201cone who shows the way,\u201d as in Sifrei, where the finger of God is the metatron that points Moses toward the land of Israel. The word is found in many other places. I have heard that metator is Greek for \u201cmessenger.\u201d Thus they explained I the Lord to mean: \u201cI the Lord and no other,\u201d for He is one and there is no other god to protest against Him. That is the point of this midrash, which differs from Rashi\u2019s comment.
\nADDITIONAL COMMENTS
\nThe gods of Egypt. Apparently meaning the great ones of Egypt, just as Moses was \u201cGod\u201d to Pharaoh (Bekhor Shor). The Egyptian officials (Hizkuni). The reference is not to the great officials and judges of Egypt, as some of our people have explained it, nor to the idols, as Rashi says. It means the astrological forces working in the Egyptians\u2019 favor (Abarbanel). I the Lord. Only I am capable of distinguishing which are the first-born (Sforno).
\nExodus 12:13
\nRASHI
\nThe blood \u2026 shall be a sign for you. For you, but not for others. Thus we learn that the blood was only to be put on the inside. When I see the blood. Is not all revealed before Him? What the Holy One meant was: I will keep an eye out to see that you are busy with My commandments, and I will pass over you. That is, as Onkelos translates, I will take pity on you. This meaning of the word is clear in Isa. 31:5, paso\u2019ah ve-himlit, \u201cprotecting and rescuing.\u201d But I say that the phrase always involves the notion of \u201cskipping\u201d inherent in its literal meaning. Thus God would skip from the houses of the Israelites to those of the Egyptians, for they dwelt among each other. The same verb is used in 1 Kings 18:21, when Elijah asks the people, \u201cHow long will you keep hopping between two opinions?\u201d Similarly, one who limps, pise\u2019ah, moves by hopping. Even in the Isaiah passage, the verb implies that God is \u201cprotecting and rescuing\u201d by skipping about among those who are being put to death. No plague will destroy you. It will, however, destroy the Egyptians who might happen to be in your houses; but not any of you who might be in an Egyptian house.
\nIBN EZRA
\nA sign for you. To \u201cstiffen your hearts\u201d so that you do not panic when you hear the shrieks of the Egyptians at the deaths of their first-borns. It will also be a sign for the Destroyer on your behalf, for when I see the blood, I will pass over you and no harm will come to you.
\nADDITIONAL COMMENTS
\nThe blood \u2026 shall be a sign for you. That you have fulfilled the commandment (Hizkuni).
\nExodus 12:14\u201315
\nABARBANEL\u2019S QUESTIONS
\n\u2666 How could God, who knows everything, need the Israelites to leave a sign so that \u201cwhen I see the blood I will pass over you\u201d (v. 13)?
\n\u2666 Why is the command not to eat leaven repeated so many times?
\nExodus 12:14
\nRASHI
\nRemembrance. Even though it says \u201cthis day,\u201d it means \u201cfor all generations.\u201d You shall celebrate it. The day that is one of remembrance to you is the one you must celebrate. But we do not hear which day \u201cthis day\u201d is until 13:3, \u201cthis day, on which you went free from Egypt.\u201d From that verse we learn that the day on which they went free is the day of remembrance. And which is the day they went free? \u201cIt was on the morrow of the passover offering that the Israelites started out defiantly\u201d (Num. 33:3). I would say that the 15th of Nisan is the festival day, for on the 15th at night they ate the passover offering, and in the morning they went free. Throughout the ages. OJPS renders more literally, \u201cyour generations\u201d\u2014which could imply as few as two generations. Hence the text adds: You shall celebrate it as an institution for all time.
\nRASHBAM
\nCelebrate it. Manuscripts from other kingdoms have a kamatz (pronounced \u201co\u201d) under the het of the last Hebrew word in this verse, and this is correct.
\nIBN EZRA
\nThis day shall be. \u201cThis day\u201d about which He spoke when He said \u201cthat night\u2019 (v. 12)\u2014the day of the 15th of Nisan\u2014\u201cshall be\u201d the day of the festival of Passover, not \u201cthis day\u201d on which He was speaking. This is standard for the Bible. God was not commanding that they observe the festival of Passover in Egypt, and certainly not in the wilderness, where they had manna instead of bread. He meant that they should observe that day ever afterward as they had done in Egypt, making it a memorial for all generations. For in Egypt, by the day of the 15th they were already on the road, though now it is a holy day. But because our predecessors have passed down the tradition that the period for slaughtering the passover begins when the sun first touches the western side of the sky, leaven is forbidden after noon on the 14th. Throughout the ages. But not, as in v. 20, \u201cin all your settlements\u201d; for this commandment, unlike the one about unleavened bread, is dependenl on being in the land of Israel.
\nADDITIONAL COMMENTS
\nFor remembrance. You are doing it out of necessity; they will do it as a remembrance (Bekhor Shor).
\nExodus 12:15
\nRASHI
\nSeven days you shall eat unleavened bread. Not seven \u201cdaytimes\u201d but a \u201csennight,\u201d a week. At Deut. 16:8 it says, \u201cSix days you shall eat unleavened bread.\u201d We thus learn that one is not obligated to eat unleavened bread on the seventh day of Passover; one is merely obligated not to eat leaven. How do we know that eating unleavened bread is not obligatory on the first six days? Deut. 16:8 continues, \u201cyou shall hold a solemn gathering for the Lord your God on the seventh day.\u201d It is a principle of Torah interpretation that a specific example of a general rule implies something about the entire general rule. Since the seventh day is mentioned specifically without the requirement to eat unleavened bread, it is not required on the first six days either. Could it be voluntary even on the first night? No, for v. 18 explicitly requires it: \u201con the fourteenth day of the month at evening you shall eat unleavened bread.\u201d On the very first day you shall remove leaven from your houses. The day before the festival. It is called the \u201cfirst\u201d day because it is the day that comes \u201cfirst,\u201d before the seven days of the festival; the word seems to have this meaning in the Hebrew of Job 15:7. The straightforward interpretation, that leaven should be removed on the first day of the seven, is excluded by 34:25, \u201cYou shall not offer the blood of My sacrifice with anything leavened\u201d\u2014you must not offer the passover sacrifice if there is still anything leavened in your house. That person. More literally, that \u201cself\u201d\u2014a person who is in full possession of himself. One who is compelled to eat unleavened bread is excluded from this provision. From Israel. This would seem to imply that the person is cut off from Israel and simply joins another nation. Thus the text adds, \u201cthat person shall be cut off from before Me\u201d (Lev. 22:3)\u2014from any place in My jurisdiction.
\nIBN EZRA
\nSeven days you shall eat unleavened bread. But not bitter herbs, foi the commandment to eat the passover with unleavened bread and bitter herbs must be fulfilled by midnight on the first day. On the original occasion they must have done so, for they left Egypt at midnight. On the very first day you shall remove leaven from your houses. This clause goes with the end of the verse, as translated by NJPS. You shall eat unleavened bread. For on that day the Israelites\u2019 \u201cunleavened cakes\u201d (v. 39) had not leavened, because they \u201ccould not delay.\u201d If the Egyptians had let them delay, the dough would have leavened. So eating unleavened bread on this day is a remembrance of what happened to our ancestors. Whoever eats leaven is (as it were) denying the exodus from Egypt, which is why the punishment of being \u201ccut off\u201d is decreed against him. Similarly, anyone who works on the Sabbath is (as it were) denying that God rested on the seventh day of creation. To the seventh day. To the end of the seventh day. At the time of the exodus, they ate unleavened bread for seven days, not because they were commanded to do so\u2014they were only commanded to eat unleavened bread with the passover sacrifice\u2014but because it was not until the seventh day that Pharaoh drowned and they could pause. \u201cThe Lord went before them in a pillar of cloud by day \u2026 and in a pillar of fire by night \u2026 that they might travel day and night\u201d (13:21). Even when they \u201cencamped\u201d (e.g., 14:9), they barely stopped. As Deut. 16:3 shows, the straightforward sense of the verse is that (nowadays) it is obligatory to eat unleavened bread for all seven days: \u201cfor seven days thereafter you shall eat unleavened bread, bread of distress.\u201d
\nADDITIONAL COMMENTS
\nSeven days you shall eat unleavened bread. A quarter of a month, the same amount of time that each plague lasted (Hizkuni). Since this command is given before the exodus, Rabban Gamaliel\u2019s explanation in the haggadah that it is in memory of the fact that their dough did not rise cannot be correct. In fact, the purpose of the commandment was to let them realize, when they got to Succoth and their dough was not yet leavened (v. 39), how quickly they had escaped (Abarbanel). You shall remove leaven. The custom in Egypt, as still in Islamic countries, was to prepare bread every day, since the heat makes day-old bread worthless there. If the Israelites saw leaven in their homes, they might put it in the dough. Moreover, \u201cleaven\u201d is symbolic of the evil inclination (Abarbanel).
\nExodus 12:16\u201317
\nExodus 12:16
\nRASHI
\nA sacred occasion. The word translated \u201coccasion\u201d is a noun from the root meaning \u201cto proclaim.\u201d Proclaim it \u201csacred\u201d by eating, drinking, and wearing festive clothes. No work at all shall be done on them. Even by others. Every person. Including your animals. But it does not include non-Jews, since it says \u201conly \u2026 for you\u201d; \u201conly\u201d implies a limitation. That alone may be prepared for you. That alone, but not the preparations for cooking that may be taken care of before the festival.
\nRASHBAM
\nOnly what every person is to eat. Since food may be prepared on festivals, the expression the Torah uses with them is \u201cYou shall not work at your occupations.\u201d But for the Sabbath and the Day of Atonement it says, \u201cyou shall do no work.\u201d
\nIBN EZRA
\nThe first day. \u201cFrom the fourteenth day of the month at evening\u201d (v. 18), the anniversary of the day they left Egypt. The seventh day. \u201cThe twenty-first day of the month,\u201d the anniversary of the day Pharaoh drowned, as I shall explain. No work at all. About none of the holidays (except for the Sabbath and the Day of Atonement) does the text write \u201cno work at all\u201d\u2014only here is this written, but with the explicit proviso that work for the purpose of preparing food is permitted. But elsewhere, whether Passover, Shavuot, Rosh Hashanah, or Sukkot, the text says, \u201cyou shall not work at your occupations,\u201d except in this one place, as I have said.
\nNAHMANIDES
\nNo work at all shall be done on them. Not even by others, according to Rashi. But I do not understand this. If the \u201cothers\u201d are Israelites, they themselves are commanded not to work. If they are non-Jews, we are not commanded to prevent them from working even on Sabbath, let alone on festivals, though (as a matter of rabbinic law) we are not permitted to ask them to do our work for us. This is explained in B. Shab. 150a. What every person is to eat. Rashi extends this to include animals, but not non-Jews. But this does not follow the halakhah. For you. For you and not for non-Jews; for you and not for animals.
\nADDITIONAL COMMENTS
\nWhat every person is to eat. It is impossible, and unnecessary, to prepare the exact amount of food that will be eaten on the holiday (Gersonides).
\nExodus 12:17
\nRASHI
\nYou shall observe the Feast of Unleavened Bread. The text says merely, \u201cyou shall observe the unleavened bread\u201d\u2014to make sure it does not leaven. Hence the statement of M. Pes. 3:4, \u201cIf the dough rises, let her knead it with cold water.\u201d R. Josiah says: Do not read it ha-matzot, \u201cthe unleavened bread,\u201d but ha-mitzvot, \u201cthe commandments.\u201d Just as one does not let the unleavened bread leaven, so too one does not let the commandments leaven. If the opportunity to perform a commandment comes to your hand, do so immediately. You shall observe this day. By not working Literally, \u201cyou shall keep this day\u201d from work Throughout the ages as an institution for all time. In v. 14 this expression is linked to the celebration; it is repeated here to make clear that the prohibition of work also applies \u201cfor all time.\u201d
\nRASHBAM
\nYou shall observe the Feast of Unleavened Bread. \u201cFeast\u201d is not found in the text, which says simply \u201cYou shall keep the unleavened bread\u201d\u2014to eat it on this day as a remembrance. For on this very day I brought your ranks out of the land of Egypt. And the dough did not have time to ferment: \u201cthey baked unleavened cakes of the dough that they had taken out of Egypt, for it was not leavened, since they had been driven out of Egypt and could not delay\u201d (v. 39).
\nIBN EZRA
\nYou shall observe the Feast of Unleavened Bread. Rather, \u201cyou shall observe the unleavened bread\u201d\u2014from the moment the wheat it will be made with is harvested. I brought your ranks out. A future is expressed here by means of the past tense, just as when Sarah says, \u201cAm I to have enjoyment\u201d (Gen. 18:12), where in the Hebrew a past tense verb is also used. Another way of solving the difficulty is to remember that unconditional future decrees are regularly spoken of in the past tense, the so-called \u201cprophetic perfect.\u201d Or perhaps this passage is incorporated here out of chronological order.
\nNAHMANIDES
\nYou shall observe this day. The Mekilta says: \u201cFrom v. 16 I would only know about actual work. What about other activities that conflict with Sabbath rest? Scripture says: \u2018You shall observe this day,\u2019 thus prohibiting even those activities.\u201d But texts of this sort are misleading; they ought not to be simply written down without explanation. For this, too, seems to be merely a scriptural citation, which \u201cproves\u201d the prohibition only rhetorically. But I have a correct interpretation of it, which I shall speak of in my comment to Lev. 23:24, with God\u2019s help.
\nADDITIONAL COMMENTS
\nYou shall observe. \u201cObserve\u201d and \u201cremember\u201d mean the same thing (Gersonides). On this very day. Miraculously, all in a single day (Sforno).
\nExodus 12:18\u201319
\nExodus 12:18
\nRASHI
\nUntil the twenty-first day of the month. Would we not have already understood this from \u201cseven days\u201d (v. 15)? But that might mean only the days; giving the end date shows that the whole period is meant, nights included.
\nADDITIONAL COMMENTS
\nFrom the fourteenth day of the month. The first 13 days of the month represent the first 13 years of life, when we are not considered responsible for our actions (Abarbanel).
\nExodus 12:19
\nRASHI
\nNo leaven shall be found in your houses. How do we know that this applies to the whole territory? From 13:7, \u201cno leaven shall be found in all your territory.\u201d Why then must it mention \u201cyour houses\u201d? Just as the prohibition applies to the house that is under your control, so it applies to the territory under your control. This excludes leaven belonging to a non-Jew that is in the home of a Jew who has accepted no responsibility for it. For whoever eats what is leavened. The word is mahmetzet\u2014a slightly different term than hametz, the term used in the similar prohibition in v. 15. This verse extends the punishment of \u201ccutting off\u201d to those who eat leaven. You might have thought: One would be punished for eating leavened bread, but not for eating leaven itself, which is unfit for food. Had the prohibition been stated only for leaven, and not for leavened bread, I might think: One is punished for having leaven, which leavens other things, but not leavened bread, which does not leaven other things. Thus both had to be included. A stranger or a citizen. The \u201cstranger\u201d\u2014that is, the convert\u2014had to be included specifically in the prohibition, since the miracle was done for Israel.
\nIBN EZRA
\nWhoever eats what is leavened. In v. 15 it says, \u201cwhoever eats leavened bread.\u201d There is no need to analyze the word \u201cleavened\u201d; we believe in the words of our predecessors. A stranger or a citizen. Both of them Israelites. The point is that the out-of-towner should not say, \u201cI did not have a chance to make unleavened bread.\u201d But in my opinion \u201cstranger\u201d means a convert, as the word is used in rabbinic Hebrew. If we were to pursue what appears to us to be written, according to our own opinion, and not rely on tradition, the second sentence of this verse, along with v. 20, would seem to say that nothing leavened could ever be eaten. In that case, the point of v. 20 would be to add the phrase \u201cin all your settlements,\u201d showing that this commandment applied everywhere after they left the wilderness.
\nNAHMANIDES
\nNo leaven shall be found in your houses. Rashi\u2019s comment here seems off the mark to me. The point of \u201cunder your control\u201d (which Rashi took from the Mekilta) is not to exclude the leaven of a non-Jew in a Jew\u2019s house, since that actually is under the Jew\u2019s control. The \u201chouse\u201d and the \u201cterritory\u201d are the same in this respect; in both cases the leaven is under the Jew\u2019s control but belongs to someone else. Gentile-owned leaven that is under the control of a Jew who has not accepted responsibility for it does not fall under this analogy, since \u201cin your houses\u201d would not suggest this more than \u201cin all your territory\u201d of 13:7 does. Rather, the law prohibiting leaven in one\u2019s house comes from the plain language of this verse, and the permission to have someone else\u2019s leaven there is derived from 13:7, \u201cno leaven shall be seen with you in all your territory\u201d\u2014you may not see your leaven, but you may see that of others and that of the Most High. 13:7 speaks only of \u201cterritory.\u201d How do we know that it applies to one\u2019s house as well? Because the unusual word for leaven used there is exactly the word used here in v. 19. All of this is explained in B. Pes. 5b. But the point of the midrash cited by Rashi is to exclude leaven owned by a Jew that is under the control of a non-Jew; this is explained in the Mekilta. The Mekilta\u2019s explanation of 13:7 is that we should not leave our leaven anywhere in our territory, which would mean even in the house of a non-Jew; if that is correct, then our verse is the loophole that permits one to leave one\u2019s leaven in the house of a non-Jew. We thus learn from the Mekilta that there is no Torah prohibition against anything but keeping our own leaven under our own control, whether in our houses or in our territory. But if we have put it under a non-Jew\u2019s control, in his house, we do not violate either our verse or 13:7. And this is correct. For if you disagree, you must admit that one would violate the prohibition against leaven even if the leaven he owns is under the control of a non-Jew somewhere overseas, but one would not violate the prohibition even if the leaven is in his own house, as long as it belongs to a non-Jew. Now, if this is so, then what is the point of mentioning both \u201cyour houses\u201d and \u201cyour territory,\u201d if there is no difference between our houses and territory and those of a non-Jew? So there is no Torah prohibition against leaven except under our own control. According to a rabbinic ruling, however, we must clear out our own leaven from every place, but leaven that is under a Jew\u2019s control but owned by a non-Jew is permissible. Similarly, leaven that is inextricably buried under a pile of debris, and so is lost to him and to everyone else, is permitted\u2014for we can no longer call it \u201chis.\u201d
\nADDITIONAL COMMENTS
\nSeven days. The seven days represent the seven decades of life. The first and last days, like the first and last decades of life, are devoted not to work but to learning (Abarbanel).
\nExodus 12:20\u201322
\nABARBANEL\u2019S QUESTIONS
\n\u2666 When Moses summons the elders (v. 21), why does he omit so much of what God told him to say?
\n\u2666 Why doesn\u2019t Aaron also speak to the elders, as he was commanded?
\n\u2666 Why did Moses speak to the elders alone, and not to \u201cthe whole community of Israel\u201d (v. 3)?
\nExodus 12:20
\nRASHI
\nYou shall eat nothing leavened. This is the warning not to eat leaven. It implies that even leaven mixed with something else is included in the prohibition. In all your settlements you shall eat unleavened bread. This statement excludes the second tithe (Deut. 14:22\u201326) and the thanksgiving cakes (Lev. 7:12), because they are not fit to eat \u201cin all your settlements,\u201d since they can only be eaten in Jerusalem.
\nRASHBAM
\nIn all your settlements you shall eat unleavened bread. Even in outlying areas where the passover offering is not slaughtered.
\nIBN EZRA
\nYou shall eat nothing leavened. The warning not to eat leaven occurs here, after the announcement of the punishment for eating leaven, which occurs in v. 19. You shall eat unleavened bread. This means you must eat it. It does not mean that you may eat it, as \u201cSix days you shall labor\u201d (20:9) means that you may work six days but you do not have to. It is obligatory to eat unleavened bread for seven days in order to remember the exodus.
\nNAHMANIDES
\nNothing leavened. Again, Rashi\u2019s comment is incorrect. The halakhah here follows the opinion of the Sages in the discussion at B. Pes. 43a: \u201cFor eating leaven there is the punishment of being \u2018cut off\u2019; for eating a mixture of leaven, the punishment is not recorded.\u201d
\nExodus 12:21
\nRASHI
\nPick out lambs. More literally, \u201cpick out or purchase lambs.\u201d Whoever owned sheep must pick out one of his own sheep; whoever did not, would buy one at the market. For your families. A lamb for each extended family.
\nRASHBAM
\nFor your families. As noted in v. 3, \u201ca lamb to a family.\u201d
\nIBN EZRA
\nMoses then summoned all the elders of Israel. He told them everything that God had commanded him, from v. 3 on. The elders repeated it to all of Israel. Pick out lambs. On the 10th, as God had commanded.
\nNAHMANIDES
\nMoses then summoned all the elders of Israel. This section briefly summarizes Moses\u2019 repetition of what God commanded at the beginning of the chapter; Moses certainly told them all the details and taught them everything about the subject. It is all included in v. 28, \u201cjust as the Lord had commanded Moses and Aaron, so they did.\u201d Here we have only the general statement that Moses summoned the elders and they gathered all the people to him, and they (the elders) told the whole congregation of Israel, Go, pick out lambs for your families from the flock and bring them into your houses to keep an eye on them from the 10th of the month on. What it literally says is \u201cDraw out and take you lambs\u201d (OJPS), perhaps because their sheep were far away from them, in the land of Goshen, since \u201call shepherds are abhorrent to Egyptians\u201d (Gen. 46:34). Pick out lambs for your families\u2014\u201ca lamb to a family, a lamb to a household\u201d (v. 3). Slaughter the passover offering \u201cat twilight\u201d (v. 6), all in accordance with the details given at the beginning of the chapter. In the Mekilta they taught: Moses then summoned all the elders of Israel. This tells that he constituted them a court. And said to them. The word came from the mouth of Moses, telling it to all Israel\u2014these are the words of R. Josiah. R. Jonathan says: The word came from the mouth of Moses, telling it to the elders, and the elders were to tell it to all Israel. Now, according to R. Josiah, Moses must have \u201csummoned all the elders\u201d to gather the people to him, just as I explained. According to R. Jonathan, \u201cSpeak to the whole community of Israel\u201d (v. 3) would have to be addressed to the elders.
\nADDITIONAL COMMENTS
\nThe elders. Moses worried that the Israelites would be afraid to let the Egyptians see them doing this. He thought they would be more likely to do it if the leaders of the people did it first (Abarbanel). Pick out lambs for your families and slaughter the passover offering. \u201cTake a lamb\u201d (v. 3) was to be said to the whole community; this is said only to the elders because of the addition of slaughtering, which the ordinary people might mess up (Hizkuni).
\nExodus 12:22
\nRASHI
\nA bunch of hyssop. Hyssop is a kind of plant with buds. A bunch is three stalks. Some of the blood that is in the basin. \u201cBasin\u201d is correct, as in 2 Kings 12:14, not \u201cthreshold\u201d as it more often means. The phrase is repeated to prevent you from thinking that one could apply blood to the two doorposts and the lintel by dipping the bunch just once. Rather, each of the three applications of blood had to be made directly from \u201cthe blood that is in the basin,\u201d one dip for each application. None of you shall go outside. This tells us that once the Destroyer is given permission to harm, he does not distinguish between the righteous and the wicked. And night intrinsically gives permission to those who cause harm: \u201cYou bring on darkness and it is night, when all the beasts of the forests stir\u201d (Ps. 104:20).
\nRASHBAM
\nBasin. Rather than \u201cthreshold.\u201d None of you shall go outside. For it is the blood marks on the doorposts that will protect you.
\nIBN EZRA
\nTake a bunch of hyssop. These are the instructions about how to do it, not a command to do it right away. Saadia interprets ezov, the word translated \u201chyssop,\u201d as Arabic zaatar, which in Europe is called \u201coregano\u201d: it is an herb notable for its use in many delicious dishes. But this cannot be. According to 1 Kings 5:13, ezov is something that \u201cgrows out of the wall.\u201d I have no idea what it is, but since it is contrasted in that verse with \u201cthe cedar in Lebanon,\u201d one must assume that it is not a large plant. The basin. Over which the passover was slaughtered. Others interpret the word to mean \u201cthe threshold,\u201d as in Ezek. 40:6, assuming the passover to be slaughtered at the threshold of the house. Until morning. See my comment to v. 31.
\nNAHMANIDES
\nTake a bunch of hyssop. This verse gives more details about how the blood is to be applied than are given explicitly at the beginning of the chapter, which says merely, \u201cThey shall take some of the blood\u201d (v. 7). We learn that whenever the Torah says to \u201ctake\u201d blood, it is to be done with a \u201cbunch,\u201d and that catching the blood of a sacrifice requires a utensil, in accordance with the interpretation of our Sages. None of you shall go outside the door of his house until morning. This is why they were commanded to put the blood on the lintel, so they would be protected inside; see v. 13. I do not understand Rashi\u2019s citation of Ps. 104:20; he would seem to be saying that this verse prohibits people from going out of their homes on any night. He should have said that the Destroyer was given permission to harm on this night, and they were therefore warned against him. But Rashi did not see his way clear to saying this, because it was the Holy One Himself who struck the blow on this particular night. The same comment is given in the Mekilta, but somewhat differently. According to the Mekilta, the Israelites in Egypt were warned not to go out of their houses that night because the Holy One was passing through Egypt like a king preceded by armed guards to make sure that no one would meet him or see him. Similarly, when Moses asked to see God, he was put \u201cin a cleft of the rock\u201d (33:22) to protect him from the seraphim and the rest of the heavenly retinue. Since we have found that once the Destroyer is given permission to harm he does not distinguish between the righteous and the wicked, people are not permitted to violate the custom of the Patriarchs (described in rabbinic literature) and go out at night, because that is the time when beasts, who cannot distinguish between the righteous and the wicked, are given permission to hunt. But it is not this verse that prohibits going out at night.
\nADDITIONAL COMMENTS
\nHyssop. There are seven kinds of hyssop; the one meant here is ordinary hyssop (Kimhi). The lowliest of plants, according to 1 Kings 5:13\u2014to denigrate the Egyptians\u2019 god, the sheep. When blood is sprinkled on the altar of the Tabernacle, it is done with the priest\u2019s right forefinger (Gersonides). To the lintel and to the two doorposts. They are given in reverse order from v. 7 to show that the exact order does not matter (Hizkuni). None of you shall go outside. As our Sages said in B. BK 60b, \u201cWhen there is an epidemic in town, keep your feet inside the house\u201d (Bekhor Shor). Some think this was meant to keep them from being scattered hither and yon at the moment the exodus was to start (Abarbanel).
\nExodus 12:23\u201326
\nABARBANEL\u2019S QUESTIONS
\n\u2666 Doesn\u2019t \u201cthe Lord will \u2026 not let the Destroyer enter and smite your home\u201d (v. 23) contradict both our tradition and the explicit statement in v. 12 that God himself would kill the first-born?
\nExodus 12:23
\nRASHI
\nThe Lord will pass over. Will take pity. Of course, it also means \u201cpass over.\u201d
\nNAHMANIDES
\nThe Destroyer. The angel who causes destruction in the world at a time of plague, e.g., the angel who \u201cextended his hand against Jerusalem to destroy it\u201d (2 Sam. 24:16) after David took a census. But it was not he who would destroy the Egyptians, for it was the Holy One Himself who would strike that blow.
\nADDITIONAL COMMENTS
\nNot let the Destroyer enter. The rabbinic comment \u201cI and not an angel,\u201d etc., means that God Himself came down and accompanied the destroying angels (Hizkuni). In my opinion, this \u201cDestroyer\u201d was a kind of moldy air that was inhaled into the body and went straight to the heart; naturally this air would have no way to discriminate between the righteous and the wicked (Abarbanel).
\nExodus 12:24
\nIBN EZRA
\nAs an institution for all time. If the commandments were as they appear to us from the text, this would be saying that the application of the blood with a bunch of hyssop was \u201can institution for all time,\u201d especially since the reason given for it in v. 27 is that God passed over the houses. Logically, this would be correct. Our predecessors, however, transmit the utterly true tradition that this expression refers to the passover offering. The children (v. 26) are asking about the unusual meal, unlike that of any other holiday\u2014not about the hyssop.
\nNAHMANIDES
\nYou shall observe this. \u201cThis\u201d refers to the passover offering mentioned in v. 21, even though it is somewhat remote, and not to the verses that follow it about putting blood on the doorposts, which was commanded only for the original passover in Egypt.
\nExodus 12:25
\nRASHI
\nWhen you enter the land. The observance of Passover was made dependent on their entering the land. The only passover offering they were obligated to make during the 40 years in the wilderness was the one they made during the second year by explicit divine command. As He has promised. When did He promise this? \u201cI will bring you into the land\u201d (6:8).
\nIBN EZRA
\nWhen you enter the land. Only now does the text make clear that the passover offering can only be done in the land of Israel. The passover offered in the wilderness (Numbers 9) was offered on the basis of an explicit divine commandment for that one occasion: it was never again offered in the wilderness. On that occasion, being near settled parts, they had unleavened bread. The rest of the time, when they were in uninhabited country, they had nothing but manna.
\nNAHMANIDES
\nThis rite. This, too, refers to the passover sacrifice. Deut. 15:17, \u201cDo the same with your female slave,\u201d provides another example where a shorthand reference refers not to what immediately precedes it but to something farther back.
\nExodus 12:26
\nRASHBAM
\nWhat do you mean by this rite? Which is different from those of the other festivals in several respects.
\nIBN EZRA
\nThis rite. The unusual meal; see my comment to v. 24.
\nADDITIONAL COMMENTS
\nWhat do you mean by this rite? The counting of the Omer marks the start of the barley harvest Shavuot, the wheat harvest, and the four species of the lulav, the fruit harvest. But what seasonal explanation is there for this? (Hizkuni).
\nExodus 12:27\u201329
\nABARBANEL\u2019S QUESTIONS
\n\u2666 How can the text say that \u201cthe Israelites went and did so\u201d (v. 28) when Moses had only told these things to the elders?
\nExodus 12:27
\nRASHI
\nThe people then bowed low. At the news of the redemption and entrance into the land (v. 25), and at the news of the children (v. 26) that they would have.
\nRASHBAM
\nPassed over. Skipped or hopped over.
\nIBN EZRA
\nYou shall say, \u201cIt is the passover sacrifice.\u201d In Isa. 31:5, we find the related word paso\u2019ah with the meaning \u201cprotecting.\u201d The lamb is called pesah because God took pity on the Israelites when He saw its blood. Saadia connects it with the word pise\u2019ah (\u201clame\u201d), for a lame person hops on his good leg just as the Destroyer destroyed the first-born in an Egyptian house and hopped over the house of his Hebrew neighbor without destroying him. The same root is used in 1 Kings 18:21, \u201cHow long will you keep hopping between two opinions?\u201d Bowed low in homage. To God or to His messengers.
\nADDITIONAL COMMENTS
\nThe people then bowed low in homage. To God (Gersonides).
\nExodus 12:28
\nRASHI
\nThe Israelites went and did so. Did they do so right away? Moses told them all this on the first of the month! But the text gives them credit for their acceptance of these obligations as if they had performed them. The text specifically mentions that they \u201cwent\u201d in order to reward them both for going and for doing. Just as the Lord had commanded Moses and Aaron. This is said in praise of Israel, who did not let one word fall to the ground of all that Moses and Aaron had commanded them. So they did. \u201cThey,\u201d Moses and Aaron, did so too.
\nIBN EZRA
\nSo they did. They took a lamb on the 10th of the month as God had commanded Moses and Aaron, \u201cThis is the law of the passover offering\u201d (v. 43).
\nNAHMANIDES
\nThe Israelites went and did so. They left Moses, went to the sheep, and offered the passover at twilight. The text frequently repeats that the Israelites did what Moses instructed them, to make clear that they did not fail to do a single thing of what he commanded. One finds this in the case of Noah (Gen. 6:22) and of the Tabernacle (39:43). But the Sages have a midrash that regards the word \u201cwent\u201d in our verse as added specifically to suggest that they received two rewards, one for \u201cgoing\u201d and a second for \u201cdoing.\u201d The midrash continues: \u201cDid so. Did they really do so right away? It was not yet time to do so. But the text regards their willingness to do so as the equivalent of having done so. As the Lord had commanded Moses and Aaron. This is said in praise of Israel. Exactly as Moses and Aaron commanded them, so they did. (They did not forget anything they were commanded to do.) Another reading: Moses and Aaron too \u2018did so.\u2019 \u201d Thus our Sages understood the repetition of \u201cthey did so\u201d to indicate both praise of Israel and the fact that they did not omit a single detail. This sort of statement is actually quite frequent in the Torah.
\nADDITIONAL COMMENTS
\nSo they did. Without the elders having to do it first (Abarbanel).
\nExodus 12:29
\nRASHI
\nThe Lord. The text literally says, \u201cAnd the Lord.\u201d Now everywhere that the text says \u201cAnd the Lord,\u201d the additional and implies that whatever was done was done by God and the heavenly court. And implies something additional: Reuben and Simeon. Struck down all the first-born. Even one who was not Egyptian but happened to be in Egypt. From the first-born of Pharaoh. Pharaoh was himself a first-born, but he alone of all the first-born was spared. About this 9:16 says, \u201cI have spared you for this purpose: in order to show you My power\u201d at the Sea of Reeds. To the first-born of the captive. For they were rejoicing at Israel\u2019s adversity. It was also to ensure that they would not think, \u201cIt was our god who brought this punishment upon Egypt.\u201d The \u201cfirst-born of the slave girl\u201d (11:5) is included within this enumeration, which ranges from the most to the least important, since the first-born of the slave girl outranks the first-born of the captive.
\nRASHBAM
\nIn the middle of the night. When they were eating their passover offerings. The first-born \u2026 who sat on the throne. Who would have sat on the throne had he lived.
\nIBN EZRA
\nIn the middle of the night. Literally, \u201cin the half of the night\u201d\u2014the second half. In the dungeon. According to Japheth, captives would grind flour in prison during the day. At night they would be put in the dungeon and their grindstones would be used to block the entrance. So \u201cthe slave girl who is behind the millstones\u201d of 11:5 is explained as being in prison.
\nADDITIONAL COMMENTS
\nThe Lord struck down. The tense of the Hebrew verb shows that He was doing this while the Israelites were busy with the passover offering (Sforno). Dungeon. Literally, the \u201cpit\u201d; in Ps. 28:1, death is referred to by the same metaphor (Kimhi).
\nExodus 12:30\u201331
\nExodus 12:30
\nRASHI
\nPharaoh arose. From his bed. In the night. And not, as kings usually do, at nine in the morning. With all his courtiers. More literally, with OJPS, first \u201che\u201d and then \u201call his servants,\u201d teaching us that he went to his courtiers\u2019 homes and woke them up. For there was no house where there was not someone dead. If there was a first-born in the house, he died. If there was no first-born, the head of the household was considered the first-born. As God says elsewhere, \u201cI will appoint him first-born\u201d (Ps. 89:28). Another reading: The Egyptian women would cheat on their husbands and give birth to the sons of single men; so they had many children who were first-born, sometimes as many as five per woman, each the first-born of his father.
\nIBN EZRA
\nPharaoh arose. Literally, \u201cPharaoh himself arose.\u201d No house. The text is speaking in generalities.
\nNAHMANIDES
\nThere was no house where there was not someone dead. See Rashi\u2019s comment. But the straightforward meaning of \u201cfirst-born\u201d is the first that is born from a particular womb, which is why they were commanded, \u201cConsecrate to Me every first-born \u2026 the first issue of every womb\u201d (13:2). \u201cThe first-born of Pharaoh who sat on the throne\u201d (v. 29) was the first issue of his mother\u2019s womb. It is the custom of kings to take virgins for their queens, as did Ahasuerus (Esther 2:3). Rashi follows the rabbinic solution to this problem, which makes the assumption that the first-borns of both males and females were killed in Egypt, but that the Israelites were commanded to consecrate only the first issue of the womb because this is much more likely to be known. One could certainly not know whether an animal was its sire\u2019s first-born. \u201cHe struck every first-born in Egypt, the first fruits of their vigor in the tents of Ham\u201d (Ps. 78:51) provides a certain amount of backing for this position, since \u201cthe first fruits of their vigor\u201d is a reference to the male.
\nADDITIONAL COMMENTS
\nThere was no house where there was not someone dead. If there was no first-born there, the head of the house died; see my comment to v. 12 (Bekhor Shor).
\nExodus 12:31
\nRASHI
\nHe summoned Moses and Aaron in the middle of the night. This tells us that he went around town from door to door crying out, \u201cWhere does Moses live? Where does Aaron live?\u201d You. The men. And the Israelites. Literally, as OJPS translates, the \u201cchildren\u201d of Israel. Go, worship the Lord as you said! Everything shall be as you said, not as I said. Cancel \u201cNor will I let Israel go\u201d (5:2), cancel \u201cWho are the ones to go?\u201d (10:8), cancel \u201cOnly your flocks and your herds shall be left behind\u201d (10:24).
\nIBN EZRA
\nHe summoned Moses and Aaron. Logically, Moses and Aaron could not have been in the region of Rameses on the night of the 15th with the rest of the Israelites, but in the royal capital. By God\u2019s command, they left their house in the middle of the night, and Pharaoh gave them permission for Israel to go worship God. Moses went with Pharaoh\u2019s courtiers to Rameses to get the Israelites out. Today we know that the old capital of Egypt, where Joseph\u2019s treasuries are known to this day, is six leagues from Rameses. So they began to leave in the morning, just at dawn, when the light of the sun begins to show on the clouds. Between this time and the actual appearance of the sun there is an hour and one-third. Thus we have \u201cmorning\u201d when it is still rather dark, just as in Ruth 3:14, where \u201cshe lay at his feet until dawn\u201d and still \u201crose before one person could distinguish another.\u201d Some of the Israelites, those closest to the capital, left just at the break of dawn, which is still considered night according to the Torah; those who were farther away left Egypt in daytime, for it was an enormous assemblage. From one end of Rameses to the other is more than eight leagues. Thus \u201cYou go free on this day, in the month of Abib\u201d (13:4) does not contradict \u201cit was in the month of Abib, at night, that the Lord your God freed you from Egypt\u201d (Deut. 16:1). There\u2014I have explained how this jibes with \u201cNone of you shall go outside the door of his house until morning\u201d (v. 22). As you said. You may go a distance of three days into the wilderness.
\nNAHMANIDES
\nHe summoned Moses and Aaron in the night. See Rashi\u2019s comment. The reason is that Moses and Aaron slept in the capital that night, to fulfill Moses\u2019 words, \u201call these courtiers of yours shall come down to me and bow low to me\u201d (11:8). When Pharaoh came to them, they sent messengers to Goshen, where the Israelites were, to give them permission to leave, and they all gathered at Rameses. It was broad daylight before they all gathered. They left from there, defiantly and with Moses at their head: \u201cThey set out from Rameses in the first month, on the fifteenth day of the first month. It was on the morrow of the passover offering that the Israelites started out defiantly, in plain view of all the Egyptians\u201d (Num. 33:3). Deut. 16:1 says that \u201cit was \u2026 at night that the Lord your God freed you from Egypt,\u201d because they were considered freed from the moment that Pharaoh released them. Sifrei to this verse also points out that they were freed at night but did not leave until daytime, and B. Ber. 9a says the same. But some think that they left \u201cEgypt\u201d the capital city at night and Rameses, in the land of Egypt, in the morning, for many of them did live in the capital and left at night to meet their kin in Rameses. But this is not correct. The text plainly says, \u201cNone of you shall go outside the door of his house until morning\u201d (v. 22). They were forbidden to leave their houses at night! The Mekilta has Moses respond to Pharaoh, \u201cWe have been commanded not to leave our houses until morning. Are we thieves, to sneak out during the night? We will not leave until we can do so defiantly in the sight of all Egypt.\u201d Onkelos, in his translation of Deut. 16:1, explains that the miracles done for them at night constituted their \u201cfreeing.\u201d Up, depart from among my people. It is a royal command that you leave immediately\u2014I will not give permission for any of you to remain among my people, who are being killed on your account. You. Moses and Aaron, who are doing the killing. And the Israelites. All of you shall leave and not delay here for a minute. This was to fulfill \u201cWhen he lets you go, he will drive you out of here one and all\u201d (11:1). Go, worship the Lord as you said! This was to encourage them to obey him and leave; after all, it was they who wanted to go to the wilderness to sacrifice to the Lord.
\nExodus 12:32\u201336
\nExodus 12:32
\nRASHI
\nTake also your flocks and your herds, as you said. What did he mean by \u201cas you said\u201d? \u201cYou yourself must provide us with sacrifices and burnt offerings\u201d (10:25). Take them, as you said! May you bring a blessing upon me also! Pray for me that I not die, for I am a first-born, too.
\nRASHBAM
\nMay you bring a blessing upon me also! May you also bring a blessing upon me.
\nIBN EZRA
\nBring a blessing upon me. More literally, \u201cBless me also\u201d (OJPS)\u2014pray on my behalf when you make your sacrifice. Also. For he gave them animals for the sacrifice, as Moses had demanded in 10:25.
\nNAHMANIDES
\nBring a blessing upon me also! When you sacrifice to the Lord your God, as you said, and pray for your lives, that He might not strike you with \u201cpestilence or sword\u201d (5:3), mention me as well. Rashi thinks he is saying, \u201cPray for me that I not die, for I am a first-born.\u201d But the straightforward sense is that Pharaoh wants them to bless him and his kingdom. For the blessing of the king includes the well-being of his kingdom. The Mekilta interprets: \u201cPray for me that this visitation may cease from me,\u201d that is, that he should not be punished any longer on their account.
\nExodus 12:33
\nRASHI
\nWe shall all be dead. They thought: It is not as Moses said, \u201cevery first-born in the land of Egypt shall die\u201d (11:5)\u2014even the later born are dying, five or ten to a house!
\nIBN EZRA
\nWe shall all be dead. As Moses warned when he asked that the Israelites be allowed to sacrifice to God \u201clest He strike us with pestilence or sword\u201d (5:3). The Egyptians have finally understood this; see my comment there.
\nADDITIONAL COMMENTS
\nWe shall all be dead. This plague killed the first-born; the next one will get the rest of us (Bekhor Shor).
\nExodus 12:34
\nRASHI
\nBefore it was leavened. The Egyptians would not let them stay long enough for it to leaven. Their kneading bowls. The Hebrew word, which comes from a root meaning \u201cremain,\u201d actually means \u201cleftovers\u201d\u2014what was left of the unleavened bread and bitter herbs that they had eaten with the passover offering. Upon their shoulders. Even though they had many beasts of burden with them, they treated this, as a divine commandment, with special care.
\nRASHBAM
\nKneading bowls. Deut. 28:5, \u201cBlessed shall be your basket and your kneading bowl,\u201d confirms the translation of this rare word. The blessing is that one\u2019s basket should be full of fruit and one\u2019s bowl full of dough.
\nIBN EZRA
\nKneading bowls. These were made of wood; the word is also found in Deut. 28:5. They carried them on their shoulders because their donkeys were loaded with the clothes they had borrowed from the Egyptians.
\nADDITIONAL COMMENTS
\nWrapped in their cloaks. This is why everyone puts the afikoman under the tablecloth (Hizkuni).
\nExodus 12:35
\nRASHI
\nMoses\u2019 bidding. As he had been instructed, \u201cTell the people to borrow \u2026 objects of silver and gold\u201d (11:2). Clothing. This was more precious to them than gold. The last item listed in a verse is the most important.
\nIBN EZRA
\nBorrowed from the Egyptians. Each borrowed according to his rank. Thus when it came time to build the Tabernacle, only the tribal chieftains brought the precious stones, the spices, and the oil.
\nExodus 12:36
\nRASHI
\nThey let them have their request. They even gave them things they had not asked for. \u201cOne, you say? Take two, but go!\u201d They stripped the Egyptians. They cleaned them out.
\nRASHBAM
\nDisposed the Egyptians favorably toward the people. To give them gifts, as God had promised in 3:21, \u201cAnd I will dispose the Egyptians favorably toward this people, so that when you go, you will not go away empty-handed.\u201d They let them have their request. The Egyptians let the Israelites have what they requested, as a gift. They stripped the Egyptians. Almost literally. They asked for their fine clothing and put it on their sons and daughters. The same verb is used in 33:6, \u201cthe Israelites remained stripped of their finery from Mount Horeb on.\u201d
\nIBN EZRA
\nThey let them have their request. Literally, \u201cthe Egyptians made them request.\u201d See my comment to 3:21.
\nADDITIONAL COMMENTS
\nThey let them have their request. Rather, \u201cthey lent them\u201d\u2014on their own initiative (Gersonides).
\nExodus 12:37\u201340
\nABARBANEL\u2019S QUESTIONS
\n\u2666 Doesn\u2019t the 430-year length of the Israelite stay in Egypt mentioned in v. 40 contradict what God told Abram in Gen. 15:13, that the Israelites would be \u201censlaved and oppressed four hundred years\u201d\u2014not to mention the actual figure (see Rashi\u2019s comment) of 210 years?
\nExodus 12:37
\nRASHI
\nFrom Rameses to Succoth. It was 120 miles, and they got there in no time. This is what is meant by \u201cI bore you on eagles\u2019 wings\u201d (19:4). Men. Aged 20 and up.
\nRASHBAM
\nFrom Rameses to Succoth. See my comment to Num. 11:35.
\nIBN EZRA
\nRameses. As shown by the vowel points, this is \u201cRameses,\u201d the region mentioned in Gen. 47:11, not \u201cRaamses,\u201d the city built by the Israelites in 1:11. Men. Males. There was no need to enumerate the women, as there would have been a like number, or perhaps more. Children. Under 20 years old.
\nADDITIONAL COMMENTS
\nSuccoth. Succoth was outside the borders of Egypt (Sforno). Six hundred thousand men. Showing that God had fulfilled the promise he made to Jacob when he went down to Egypt (Gen. 46:3), \u201cI will make you there into a great nation\u201d (Gersonides). The text focuses on those who were fit for war (Abarbanel).
\nExodus 12:38
\nRASHI
\nA mixed multitude. An ethnically mixed group of converts.
\nRASHBAM
\nA mixed multitude. \u201cMixed\u201d implies intermingling, as in Ps. 106:35, where the Israelites \u201cmingled with the nations.\u201d
\nIBN EZRA
\nA mixed multitude. Of Egyptians who mingled with them; this is the \u201criffraff\u201d of Num. 11:4.
\nADDITIONAL COMMENTS
\nFlocks and herds. Belonging to the \u201cmixed multitude\u201d (Sforno)
\nExodus 12:39
\nRASHI
\nNor had they prepared any provisions. For the journey. This tells us how praiseworthy Israel was. They did not say, \u201cHow can we go out into the wilderness without provisions?\u201d They had faith and went. This is made explicit in the Prophets: \u201cI accounted to your favor the devotion of your youth, your love as a bride\u2014how you followed Me in the wilderness, in a land not sown\u201d (Jer. 2:2). And what reward is immediately specified for them? \u201cIsrael was holy to the Lord\u201d (Jer. 2:3).
\nRASHBAM
\nCakes. For it is not called \u201cbread\u201d unless it is baked in an oven. Nor had they prepared any provisions. Which is why they ended up having to grumble about the lack of food and water.
\nIBN EZRA
\nThey baked. The dough that they brought from Egypt had leaven in it, but they did not bake it until they camped at Succoth.
\nNAHMANIDES
\nThey baked unleavened cakes of the dough. They baked them unleavened to fulfill \u201cNo leaven shall be found in your houses for seven days. For whoever eats what is leavened, that person shall be cut off from the community of Israel\u201d (v. 19). They had been driven out of Egypt. So they baked it on the journey. They \u2026 could not delay to bake it at home and take it along as unleavened cakes. \u201cSo the people took their dough before it was leavened, their kneading bowls wrapped in their cloaks upon their shoulders\u201d (v. 34) and hurried and baked it before it could rise, either on the journey or once they got to Succoth, which\u2014according to our Sages\u2014they reached in next to no time.
\nADDITIONAL COMMENTS
\nNor had they prepared any provisions. They had expected to be released but not to be expelled (Bekhor Shor).
\nExodus 12:40
\nRASHI
\nThe length of time that the Israelites lived in Egypt, on top of all the time that they had lived as strangers in other \u201clands not theirs,\u201d was four hundred and thirty years. Altogether, from Isaac\u2019s birth until now was 400 years. God had said to Abraham, \u201cyour offspring shall be strangers \u2026 four hundred years\u201d (Gen. 15:13), a period that began as soon as Abraham had offspring. But it was 30 years after that decree before Isaac was born and the 400 years began. The 430 years cannot possibly refer to Egypt alone. For Kohath was one of the people who came down to Egypt with Jacob. Figure it out: The 133 years of Kohath\u2019s life, plus the 137 of his son Amram, plus Moses\u2019 age of 80 at the time of the exodus do not make 430. Not to mention that many of Kohath\u2019s 137 years were spent before he came down to Egypt, many of Amram\u2019s years came during Kohath\u2019s lifetime, and many of Moses\u2019 during Amram\u2019s lifetime. So there is no way their stay in Egypt could have lasted 400 years. You are thus forced to admit that in the places the Israelites lived before coming to Egypt, they also lived as \u201cstrangers\u201d\u2014sojourners, as NJPS translates this word elsewhere\u2014even Hebron. For it says, \u201cHebron\u2014where Abraham and Isaac had sojourned\u201d (Gen. 35:27), and \u201cthe land of Canaan, the land in which they lived as sojourners\u201d (6:4). You must therefore admit that the 400-year period of which God spoke to Abraham about his \u201coffspring\u201d was to begin as soon as he had offspring. If you count 400 years from the time Isaac was born, you will find that the Israelites\u2019 stay in Egypt lasted 210 years. This is one of the things that they changed when they made the Greek translation for King Ptolemy.
\nRASHBAM
\nFour hundred and thirty years. Four hundred thirty years since it was told to Abraham at the covenant between the pieces in Genesis 15. For Abraham was 70 then. The 400 years that \u201cyour offspring shall be strangers in a land not theirs\u201d (Gen. 15:13) began with Isaac, as I have explained in my commentary to that chapter.
\nIBN EZRA
\nFour hundred and thirty years. The elders who translated the Septuagint translated the beginning of this verse \u201cThe length of time that the Israelites lived in Egypt and in other lands.\u201d Some say that Canaan was under Egyptian rule in those days, but they need to present proof. Saadia explains that the 430 years dates from the day of Abraham\u2019s departure from Ur. We know for certain Israel did not spend 430 years in Egypt from the time of Jacob\u2019s descent there, and here is how. Kohath was one of those who went down to Egypt. Assume that he was a month old, and that his brother Merari was the son of a different mother, and that Kohath sired Amram on his deathbed, and that Amram sired Moses the same way. Kohath lived 133 years (6:18) and Amram 137 (6:20). Moses was 80 when they left gypt. Add them all up and you are still 80 short of 430. When we look through the Bible we find many such cases. For example, Isa. 7:8 predicts the fall of the northern kingdom in 65 years, when it could really have taken place no more than 22 years later (at most) according to the chronology of the kings. But the 65-year period began with \u201cthe earthquake\u201d mentioned in Amos 1:1. Again, Kings and Chronicles have many such cases. I do not wish to expand on this subject, but I could bring many proofs from the text. For what our Sages have transmitted to us, that the exile in Egypt lasted 210 years, is accurate, and their transmitting it is enough for us, because that is all the proof we need. If you add the 30 years after Abraham\u2019s departure from Haran to the period \u201cthey shall be enslaved and oppressed four hundred years\u201d (Gen. 15:13), you get 430 years. That verse is to be interpreted, \u201cuntil four hundred years from today.\u201d This explanation of Saadia\u2019s is correct. He also pointed out that, just because \u201cIsraelites\u201d is literally \u201csons of Israel,\u201d we need not claim that Abraham and Isaac were Jacob\u2019s sons.
\nNAHMANIDES
\nFour hundred and thirty years. Rashi\u2019s explanation follows that of our Sages, though he is not quite as precise as he needs to be. For \u201cAbram was seventy-five years old when he left Haran\u201d (Gen. 12:4), and the covenant between the pieces of Genesis 15 took place long after that. So there could not have been 30 years between God\u2019s saying that Abraham\u2019s descendants would be oppressed \u201cfour hundred years\u201d (Gen. 15:13) and Isaac\u2019s birth, when Abraham was 100. Rather, we must follow the opinion of Seder Olam that Abraham was 70 years old at the time of the covenant between the pieces, after which he went back to Haran and spent five more years. Gen. 12:4 means that \u201cwhen he left Haran\u201d for good, never again to see his father\u2019s house, he was 75. My own opinion is that God was speaking in round numbers; four centuries was such a long time that God did not bother to add the 30 years. After all, He went on to say, \u201cthey shall return here in the fourth generation\u201d (Gen. 15:16), to let Abraham know that they would not return precisely at the end of 400 years, but only in the fourth generation, when \u201cthe iniquity of the Amorites\u201d (ibid.) was complete. This was an allusion to the additional 30 years. For their 40 years in the wilderness had nothing to do with waiting for \u201cthe iniquity of the Amorites\u201d to be complete. The 430 years of our verse make clear that the exile \u201cin a land not theirs\u201d that was decreed for them in Gen. 15:13 was now at an end, and He had brought them out from slavery to freedom\u2014not to go on living in \u201ca land not theirs.\u201d Our verse did not need to go on at length about this, but merely had to add in the 30 years that had not been mentioned in the earlier text. And see my comments to v. 42 and to Deut. 2:14.
\nADDITIONAL COMMENTS
\nFour hundred and thirty years. Starting from the covenant between the pieces. The \u201cfour hundred years\u201d told to Abraham in Gen. 15:13 began with the birth of Jacob, the first to live in \u201ca land not his,\u201d meaning that the Israelites left Egypt about 45 years before the end of the 400 years (Gersonides). The logic of Gen. 15:7 is that the 430 years began when Abram left Ur (Sforno). Up until this point, years had been counted from the birth of Adam. They would be counted from the exodus from this point until Alexander of Macedon came to fight King Darius of Persia, when the Seleucid era began (Abarbanel).
\nExodus 12:41\u201342
\nExodus 12:41
\nRASHI
\nAt the end of the four hundred and thirtieth year, to the very day. This tells us that once the moment came, God did not delay them for even an instant. The ministering angels came to Abraham to announce Isaac\u2019s future birth (Gen. 18:10) on the 15th of Nisan; Isaac was born on the 15th of Nisan; and the covenant between the pieces (Genesis 15) was made on the 15th of Nisan.
\nRASHBAM
\nAt the end of the four hundred and thirtieth year. Thirty years from the covenant to the birth of Isaac, and another four hundred to the very day. Anyway, only the last 210 of the 430 years were spent in Egypt.
\nIBN EZRA
\nAt the end of the four hundred and thirtieth year, to the very day. To make clear that, despite their crying out to God, they did not leave until the very end of the appointed period.
\nADDITIONAL COMMENTS
\nAll the ranks of the Lord. The tribes (Gersonides).
\nExodus 12:42
\nRASHI
\nThat was for the Lord a night of vigil. The Holy One watched vigilantly to uphold his promise to bring them out of the land of Egypt; that same night is the Lord\u2019s. It was that same night on which he had told Abraham, \u201cOn this night I will redeem your children.\u201d One of vigil for all the children of Israel throughout the ages. Read with OJPS here: \u201cA night of watching unto the Lord for all the children of Israel throughout their generations.\u201d Israel is protected from harm by demons on this night by God\u2019s ongoing vigilance, as it says, \u201cthe Lord will \u2026 not let the Destroyer enter and smite your home\u201d (v. 23).
\nRASHBAM
\nThat was for the Lord a night of vigil. Since the days of the Patriarchs, God had been vigilantly anticipating the night when he would bring the Israelites out of Egypt as He had promised. For Israel it would be a night of vigil \u2026 throughout the ages. For they would anticipate this night on which they would celebrate the Passover \u201cin accordance with all its rules and rites\u201d (Num. 9:3). The word translated \u201cvigil\u201d implies \u201cwaiting.\u201d The verb from this root is used in Gen. 37:11, \u201chis father kept the matter in mind.\u201d
\nIBN EZRA
\nA night of vigil. Because it was a \u201cnight of vigil\u201d for God to protect them from the Destroyer, the Israelites must be vigilant about observing this night by eating the passover as instructed, with unleavened bread and bitter herbs, on this same night. Some interpret it to mean that the Jews must literally stay up all night, praising God and telling of His mighty deeds at the exodus, as is hinted at in the story in the haggadah that ends, \u201cIt is time to recite the morning Shema.\u201d
\nNAHMANIDES
\nThat was for the Lord a night of vigil to bring them out of the land of Egypt. He had waited for this night since the moment He decreed it. Or perhaps it means that He had been waiting expectantly until they deserved redemption. Now if we say that the 430-year period begins with the birth of Isaac, you will find that their stay in Egypt lasted 240 years. But I cannot agree that this is the straightforward sense of the text, since while Abraham lived his offspring could not be said to be in exile. I think the 430-year period began from the day God spoke to Abraham. God was letting him know, \u201cI am not giving them the land immediately. They will first be strangers in a land not theirs upwards of 400 years, and they will not return here until the fourth generation\u2014430 years in all.\u201d If I am correct, then the covenant between the pieces took place about five years after Abraham left Haran, not five years before; and the Israelites\u2019 actual stay in Egypt would have been 220 years or thereabouts. Now if the numerological interpretation of Jacob\u2019s words \u201cGo down\u201d (Gen. 42:2) as indicating 210 years is indeed a Jewish tradition, then perhaps he was hinting that they would be there for 210 years after his death. Adding the 17 years that Jacob lived in Egypt (Gen. 47:28) would give us 227 years. See also the explanation of Ibn Ezra. But I still think the clearest explanation is that the 400 years began from the day of the covenant between the pieces and that the extra 30 years were a punishment due to the sin of that generation. According to Lev. 26:28, God may discipline one \u201csevenfold\u201d for one\u2019s sins. So there is no reason to assume that the decree of 400 years precluded an extension. Abraham was promised that \u201cin the end\u201d they would go forth with great wealth (Gen. 15:14), which could mean immediately or eventually. There is no divine promise that cannot be voided by reason of sin except one that is made by oath, and it is well known that the Israelites in Egypt were extremely sinful, having given up circumcision and taken up idolatry (Ezek. 20:8, Josh. 24:14). This is why the 30 years were added\u2014and it should have been more, but they cried and prayed a lot (2:23\u201324, 3:9; Deut. 26:7). See my comment to 2:25. Why do my predecessors find this 30-year extension so difficult to accept, when there was a 40-year extension because of the sin of the spies, doing away with the promise that the fourth generation would return (Gen. 15:16)? Sin caused it all. And it could also be because of the Ephraimites who left 30 years before Moses showed up. (See B. Sanh. 92b.) They counted correctly, but \u201cthe wicked man will be trapped in his iniquities\u201d (Prov. 5:22). May the Holy One forgive us all sin and error. One of vigil for all the children of Israel throughout the ages. The night of vigil God kept for them must be kept by them\u2014to serve Him by eating the passover, remembering the miracles, and praising His name. See 13:10 and Deut. 16:1. Ibn Ezra is not correct that it was a \u201cnight of vigil\u201d for God to protect the Israelites from the Destroyer; it was \u201ca night of vigil to bring them out of the land of Egypt.\u201d
\nADDITIONAL COMMENTS
\nVigil. From the same root as \u201cobserve\u201d in v. 17. Here, too, in both cases, it refers to remembering (Gersonides). Throughout the ages. As the Sages said on B. RH 11a, \u201cThey were redeemed in Nisan in the past and will be redeemed in Nisan again in the future\u201d (Sforno).
\nExodus 12:43
\nABARBANEL\u2019S QUESTIONS
\n\u2666 Why is \u201cthe law of the passover offering\u201d (v. 43) given to both Moses and Aaron, rather than just to Moses, as one would expect from 13:1 and the rest of the commandments?
\n\u2666 Why are these rules given here, and not in the earlier section (vv. 3\u201311) that describes the passover offering?
\nExodus 12:43
\nRASHI
\nThis is the law of the passover offering. This was told them on the 14th of Nisan. No foreigner. No one whose behavior is foreign to his father in heaven, whether a gentile or an apostate Jew.
\nIBN EZRA
\nThe law of the passover offering. Having mentioned the \u201cnight of vigil \u2026 throughout the ages\u201d (v. 42), the 15th of Nisan, on which the passover offering was to be eaten, the text adds all the rest of the rules for its consumption. Unleavened bread and bitter herbs, already mentioned in connection with the passover offered in Egypt (v. 8), are not mentioned again here because it is understood that the passover is always to be eaten as it was in Egypt. But here other commandments are added to it. The commandments about the doorposts and the lintel have nothing to do with the actual eating of the passover; see v. 7.
\nNAHMANIDES
\nThe Lord said to Moses and Aaron: This is the law of the passover offering. Rashi says this passage was said to them on the 14th of Nisan. And that is correct, for at the end of the passage it says, \u201cAnd all the Israelites did so; as the Lord had commanded Moses and Aaron, so they did\u201d (v. 50), meaning that they and their slaves were circumcised in preparation for eating the passover. If this was indeed said on the 14th of Nisan, then this passage, vv. 43\u201351, ought to have preceded v. 29, \u201cIn the middle of the night the Lord struck down all the first-born in the land of Egypt.\u201d What happened was this. The passage beginning with v. 2, \u201cThis month shall mark for you the beginning of the months,\u201d was said on the 1st of the month. On that very day Moses fulfilled his mission: he \u201csummoned all the elders of Israel\u201d (v. 21), commanded them about the passover offering, and promised them that they would be redeemed on the night of the 15th. And they believed him, and the people \u201cbowed low in homage\u201d (v. 27). The text puts vv. 29\u201342 in at this point to show that God had kept His promise. It now returns to the original subject, the law of the passover offering. This passage introduces many additional details, pertaining both to the passover of Egypt and to the future passover. \u201cAll the Israelites did so\u201d (v. 50) tells us that there was not a single one of them who transgressed the word of God in a single one of the commandments anywhere in this chapter. Ibn Ezra thinks this passage refers entirely to the future, and that v. 50 refers specifically to the passover offering made at the beginning of their second year in the wilderness, included here with the verses that commanded it. But he is confused. For the commandments in this passage relate only to the passover of Egypt and to the passover that would be offered in the land of Israel, as is made clear by v. 25. The commandment to offer the passover in the wilderness is given in Num. 9:2, immediately preceding the description of its being offered. No foreigner. See Rashi\u2019s comment, which is taken from the Mekilta. In fact, there is no need for this verse except to mention the Israelite whose behavior is \u201cforeign\u201d to his father in heaven; the text literally says something like \u201cno foreign son,\u201d which Onkelos translates as \u201cno apostate son of Israel,\u201d who has made himself a stranger to his brothers and to his father in heaven by his evil deeds. The same root is used in Gen. 42:7, when Joseph \u201cacted like a stranger\u201d toward his brothers. The Aramaic word \u201cOnkelos\u201d used there has an ayin that is missing from the one he uses here; but the ayin frequently disappears.
\nADDITIONAL COMMENTS
\nThis is the law of the passover offering. This passage was said on the 15th, after they had already left; hence it applies to the ongoing passover, not the passover of Egypt (Abarbanel). No foreigner shall eat of it. No one for whom Passover is a foreign experience, like gentiles and apostates (Bekhor Shor). This refers not to someone from another nation, who can convert to Judaism, but to someone of another faith, even if he is a Jew (Gersonides).
\nExodus 12:44\u201348
\nABARBANEL\u2019S QUESTIONS
\n\u2666 Doesn\u2019t the command \u201cIt shall be eaten in one house\u201d (v. 46) repeat \u201ca lamb to a family, a lamb to a household\u201d (v. 3)?
\n\u2666 Why must the Israelites be commanded not to \u201cbreak a bone of it,\u201d a practice that would bring them no end of scorn and provocation?
\n\u2666 Don\u2019t we already know that \u201cthe whole community of Israel shall offer it\u201d (v. 47)?
\nExodus 12:44
\nRASHI
\nOnce he has been circumcised. OJPS is closer to the Hebrew here: \u201cEvery man\u2019s servant that is bought for money, when thou hast circumcised him, then shall he eat thereof\u201d\u2014he, the owner. This tells us that not having one\u2019s slaves circumcised prevents one from eating the passover offering. This is according to R. Joshua; but R. Eliezer says it does not prevent the owner from eating. R. Eliezer thus interprets \u201che\u201d of \u201cthen shall he eat\u201d to mean the slave.
\nIBN EZRA
\nOnce he has been circumcised. Of his own will, to turn to the religion of Israel, if he is 13 or older. The text refers to a slave who has been bought, but the same rules apply to one born into the household as a slave; the text merely speaks about the more common circumstance.
\nADDITIONAL COMMENTS
\nOnce he has been circumcised. Rashi is correct that the \u201che\u201d who may eat of it is the slave\u2019s owner. Gen. 17:23 establishes the principle that all the males in the household must be circumcised, and one who flouts this rule is not wholeheartedly faithful to the God of Israel (Abarbanel).
\nExodus 12:45
\nRASHI
\nBound \u2026 laborer. Rather, with OJPS, \u201csojourner\u201d\u2014that is, a convert. Hired laborer. This means a gentile. One might think this category is already covered by v. 48, \u201cno uncircumcised person may eat of it\u201d; our verse takes into account people like Arabs and Gibeonites, who are circumcised.
\nIBN EZRA
\nNo bound\u2014Israelite\u2014or hired laborer. No one may eat the passover who cannot be counted in on a lamb as one of \u201cthe whole community of Israel\u201d (v. 3).
\nNAHMANIDES
\nNo bound or hired laborer. I don\u2019t understand why Rashi would write something that the Talmud has already refuted; B. Yev. 71a shows that this text refers to a convert who has already been circumcised but who has not yet ritually immersed.
\nADDITIONAL COMMENTS
\nNo bound or hired laborer. The bound laborer is the slave for life (21:6); the hired laborer is the slave for six years (21:2) (Bekhor Shor).
\nExodus 12:46
\nRASHI
\nIt shall be eaten in one house. In one group, so that those who are signed up for that lamb do not divide into two groups and split it up.\u2014You say one group, but perhaps it literally means \u201cone house\u201d? The intent might be to teach that if they started eating out of doors and it began to rain, they ought not to go into the house.\u2014That is why v. 7 says, \u201cthe houses in which they are to eat it.\u201d The plural shows that it may be eaten in more than one place; hence \u201cone house\u201d in our verse must mean \u201cone group.\u201d You shall not take any of the flesh outside the house. Outside the group. Nor shall you break a bone of it. A bone meant for eating, which has at least an olive\u2019s worth of meat on it. If it has less, the prohibition of breaking it does not apply.
\nRASHBAM
\nNor shall you break a bone of it. This is not something one would do while eating in a hurry.
\nIBN EZRA
\nIn one house. As with the original passover of Egypt, each lamb must be eaten in a single place; for you shall not take any of the flesh outside the house. Our Sages take it to mean \u201cin a single group,\u201d and that is correct.
\nADDITIONAL COMMENTS
\nIt shall be eaten in one house. No portions shall be sent to another house, for this cannot be done \u201churriedly\u201d (Bekhor Shor). For \u201cNone of you shall go outside the door of his house until morning\u201d (v. 22) (Hizkuni). Nor shall you break a bone. To eat the marrow. One who is in a hurry just eats the meat and throws the bone away (Bekhor Shor). The marrow could not be shared equally (Hizkuni).
\nExodus 12:47
\nRASHI
\nThe whole community of Israel shall offer it. Why is this said? Because the passover offering that was performed in Egypt was offered \u201ca lamb to a family\u201d (v. 3). One might think this applied also to the passover offering throughout the ages; hence we are told, \u201cThe whole community of Israel shall offer it.\u201d
\nIBN EZRA
\nThe whole community \u2026 shall offer it. All who are old enough to be obligated by the commandments must offer it. In the whole Torah I find 23 cases where the violator is \u201ccut off,\u201d all involving prohibitions\u2014except for the commandments to perform the passover offering and circumcision. Perhaps this is because remembering the exodus is required, and the ultimate act of remembering the exodus is eating the passover offering at its proper time. After all, the beginning of the Ten Commandments is, \u201cI the Lord am your God who brought you out of the land of Egypt\u201d (20:2).
\nADDITIONAL COMMENTS
\nThe whole community of Israel shall offer it. Unlike the passover of Egypt, which had to be eaten by a single household, after they entered the land one passover could have been offered for the entire community if they could have found a sheep big enough (Gersonides).
\nExodus 12:48
\nRASHI
\nIf a stranger \u2026 would offer the passover. Not a \u201cstranger,\u201d but a \u201cconvert.\u201d One might think that everyone who converts should offer the passover immediately. Instead, we are told, he shall then be as a citizen of the country. Just as a citizen offers the passover on the 14th of Nisan, so, too, the convert. But no uncircumcised person may eat of it. This includes a Jew who was not circumcised because his elder brothers died from the procedure. Since his failure to be circumcised is not a matter of apostasy, he is not included in \u201cNo foreigner shall eat of it\u201d (v. 43).
\nRASHBAM
\nNo uncircumcised person. The reference is to a Jew who is uncircumcised because his elder brothers died of the procedure.
\nIBN EZRA
\nA stranger who dwells with you. With you in the land of Egypt. No uncircumcised person may eat of it. No uncircumcised Israelite, like those who were uncircumcised because they were born during the 40 years of wandering.
\nADDITIONAL COMMENTS
\nAs a citizen of the country. See Rashi\u2019s comment. The point is that someone who converts between the 14th of Nisan and the \u201csecond Passover\u201d on the 14th of Iyar (Num. 9:6\u201311) does not celebrate the second Passover, but waits until the next regular Passover (Hizkuni).
\nExodus 12:49\u201313:2
\nABARBANEL\u2019S QUESTIONS
\n\u2666 Don\u2019t vv. 50\u201351 repeat what we were already told in vv. 28 and 41?
\n\u2666 When God commands Moses, \u201cConsecrate to Me every first-born\u201d (v. 1), why does Moses instead repeat to the people the instructions about leavened bread?
\n\u2666 Why doesn\u2019t Moses repeat the commandments about the passover offering as well?
\nExodus 12:49
\nRASHI
\nThere shall be one law for the citizen and for the stranger. This rule applies also to all the other commandments in the Torah.
\nIBN EZRA
\nFor the stranger. This could mean \u201cthe convert,\u201d as the word is understood in rabbinic Hebrew; and I believe that is correct.
\nExodus 12:50
\nIBN EZRA
\nAll the Israelites did so. This has already been stated in v. 28. Perhaps this verse refers to the passover offered in Sinai (Num. 9:5), where the converts were circumcised. Don\u2019t be surprised at its being included in the text here. Look at the story of the manna, where Moses commands Aaron to put some of it in a jar \u201cbefore the Pact\u201d (16:34)\u2014that is, the Ark\u2014even though this is long before He has commanded them to make an ark. And see my comment to v. 17.
\nExodus 12:51
\nRASHBAM
\nThat very day. Even though this was already stated in v. 41, it is repeated here to make clear that it was on the very day they left that the Holy One told Moses, \u201cConsecrate to Me every first-born\u201d (13:2).
\nIBN EZRA
\nThat very day. In my opinion this verse goes with what follows it, not with what precedes it. The slaying of the first-born took place at night; the next day, when the Israelites left Egypt, God immediately commanded Moses that the Israelites consecrate every first-born to Him.
\nNAHMANIDES
\nThat very day. Having stated in v. 42, \u201cThat was for the Lord a night of vigil to bring them out of the land of Egypt,\u201d the text now adds that they did not all leave at night, but that at night Pharaoh gave them permission to leave, and they were free. But it was on \u201cthat very day\u201d that they all left the territory of Egypt, with all their host, including the host of women and the mixed multitude that accompanied them. Ibn Ezra says that on \u201cthat very day\u201d God spoke ch. 13 to Moses.
\nExodus 13:1
\nIBN EZRA
\nTo Moses. As representative of all Israel; the text took a shortcut by omitting \u201cSpeak to the Israelite people.\u201d Japheth thinks Moses was literally commanded to pronounce them consecrated, just as a priest \u201cpronounces\u201d a leper unclean (Lev. 13:8), though no verb of speaking is used there.
\nExodus 13:2
\nRASHI
\nThe first issue of every womb. That is, the first that \u201copened\u201d the womb. The same verb means \u201copen\u201d in Prov. 17:14, \u201cTo start a quarrel is to open a sluice.\u201d Is Mine. I acquired them for Myself by slaying the first-born of Egypt.
\nRASHBAM
\nEvery first-born man. Before the priests were consecrated, it was the first-born who performed God\u2019s service.
\nIBN EZRA
\nConsecrate to Me every first-born. \u201cFor every first-born is Mine: at the time that I smote every first-born in the land of Egypt, I consecrated every first-born in Israel, man and beast, to Myself, to be Mine, the Lord\u2019s\u201d (Num. 3:13). Since the Israelite first-born did not die, they owe redemption for their lives to God, who saved them. Womb. The Hebrew word rehem is an unusual one; because of the guttural sound, one would expect it to be pronounced raham.
\nNAHMANIDES
\nConsecrate to Me. Immediately\u2014this commandment was already operative in the wilderness. This section adds many commandments: remembering the day and the month, and that it was spring, and that they should \u201ckeep this institution at its set time\u201d (v. 10). This is an allusion to the addition of a leap month to make sure that Passover always falls in the spring. Also added are the requirement that \u201cno leaven shall be found in all your territory\u201d (v. 7) and the commandment about the \u201csymbol\u201d (v. 16) on one\u2019s forehead.
\nExodus 13:3\u20135
\nABARBANEL\u2019S QUESTIONS
\n\u2666 Why is the commandment about unleavened bread tied here to the period \u201cwhen the Lord has brought you into the land\u201d (v. 5)? Doesn\u2019t it apply outside the land of Israel?
\n\u2666 How are we to explain the similarities and differences between the rules of Passover described here, those described in ch. 12, and those described in Deuteronomy 6?
\nExodus 13:3
\nRASHI
\nRemember this day. This teaches that the exodus from Egypt must be remembered every day.
\nIBN EZRA
\nRemember this day. Moses said this on the 15th of Nisan; see my comment to 12:14. The house of bondage. The Egyptians worked the Israelites as if they were their personal slaves. Elsewhere Egypt is called \u201cthat iron blast furnace\u201d (Deut. 4:20), for the Egyptians were mightier than the Israelites, but God\u2019s might freed them from the mighty.
\nADDITIONAL COMMENTS
\nRemember this day. \u201cRemembering\u201d something means to mention it out loud (Gersonides). The house of bondage. The land in which you were shut up, as slaves are locked into a house to keep them from fleeing (Gersonides). No unleavened bread shall be eaten. Moses made sure to say this in connection with the consecration of the first-born, because he was afraid that the people would think consecrating the first-born replaced the passover and the unleavened bread as a remembrance of the miracle (Abarbanel).
\nExodus 13:4
\nRASHI
\nThe month of Abib. Didn\u2019t they know what month it was? Of course they did. What he meant was: Look how kind God was to bring you out of Egypt in the right month for traveling\u2014not too hot, not too cold, not too wet.
\nRASHBAM
\nAbib. This is actually a noun referring to the first growth and ripening of grain. The same root is found in \u201cWhile still tender [b\u2019ibo], not yet plucked\u201d (Job 8:12) and \u201cthe budding [ibei] of the vale\u201d (Song 6:11).
\nIBN EZRA
\nThe month of Abib. \u201cAbib\u201d comes from the word ab (\u201cfather\u201d), indicating \u201cfirst growth.\u201d You must observe this festival every year at just this time, when the \u201cfirst growth\u201d of barley appears in the land of Israel, just as Shavuot must be \u201cthe Feast of the Harvest\u201d (23:16). If Passover is held at the time of the first growth of barley, Shavuot will always be at the beginning of the wheat harvest. Then Sukkot will occur at the time of \u201cIngathering.\u201d All this follows rabbinic tradition, as I have explained in my comment to 12:2.
\nExodus 13:5
\nRASHI
\nThe land of the Canaanites, etc. That is, the land of the seven nations. Even though only five nations are mentioned here, all seven are meant, for all seven were \u201cCanaanites\u201d; but one of the seven had no other name than this. He swore to your fathers. To Abraham, \u201cUnto thy seed have I given this land\u201d (Gen. 15:18); to Isaac, \u201cI will assign all these lands to you and to your heirs\u201d (Gen. 26:3); to Jacob, \u201cThe ground on which you are lying I will assign to you and to your offspring\u201d (Gen. 28:13). Flowing with milk and honey. Milk flows from the goats, honey from the dates and figs. The following practice. More literally, with OJPS, \u201cservice\u201d\u2014of Passover. Now, 12:25 has already stated, \u201cWhen you enter the land that the Lord will give you, as He has promised, you shall observe this rite.\u201d Why then is it repeated here? For the sake of a new detail. In the original passage, the text continues, \u201cAnd when your children ask you, \u2018What do you mean by this rite?\u2019 \u201d (12:26), using the voice of the wicked son who excludes himself from the community. But in this passage we are instructed, \u201cyou shall explain to your son on that day\u201d (v. 8)\u2014to the son who does not know how to ask. The text teaches you that you must bring up the subject yourself, with stories that will interest him.
\nIBN EZRA
\nWhen the Lord has brought you into the land. This is what is written in 12:14, \u201cThis day shall be to you one of remembrance.\u201d For the festival of Passover was dependent on their entrance into the land; the generation of the wilderness was not commanded to observe the festivals. The Canaanites, etc. Not all seven nations are mentioned here; they are found in Deut. 7:1. The following practice: \u201cSeven days you shall eat unleavened bread\u201d (v. 6).
\nNAHMANIDES
\nWhen the Lord has brought you into the land of the Canaanites. See Rashi\u2019s comment. It is true that all seven nations were Canaanite, for all were descended from Ham\u2019s son Canaan. And it is true that the land is always called \u201cthe land of Canaan.\u201d But it makes no sense here to name most of them and include the others under the general term \u201cCanaanites.\u201d Our Sages said that only the land of these five nations was \u201cflowing with milk and honey,\u201d and that the land of the missing two nations was not. According to R. Jose, one does not bring first fruits from Transjordan, because that part of the country is not \u201cflowing with milk and honey.\u201d So the same would have to apply to the land of the two nations missing from this verse. But Transjordan was Amorite. So the Amorites mentioned in this verse would have to be those who lived in the land of Israel itself. There is a similar interpretation in the Mekilta. According to this interpretation, the promise to bring the Israelites \u201cto a good and spacious land, a land flowing with milk and honey, the region of the Canaanites, the Hittites, the Amorites, the Perizzites, the Hivites, and the Jebusites\u201d (3:8) cannot have included the Perizzites (who were omitted from our verse) as part of the \u201cland flowing with milk and honey\u201d; hence they must have been included under the clause \u201ca good and spacious land.\u201d The six nations mentioned in that verse are the ones always mentioned, for the Girgashites left the country and are not mentioned anywhere in the Torah except in Deut. 7:1. That is why that verse speaks of dislodging \u201cmany nations\u201d before you; it is the only verse that mentions all seven nations. Deut. 20:17, which demands that the Israelites proscribe only \u201cthe Hittites and the Amorites, the Canaanites and the Perizzites, the Hivites and the Jebusites,\u201d hints that they would not face the Girgashites in battle, for they fled in the face of the Israelite advance.
\nExodus 13:6\u20139
\nABARBANEL\u2019S QUESTIONS
\n\u2666 Why is \u201cas a sign on your hand and as a reminder on your forehead\u201d (v. 9; Deut. 6:8) mentioned in this connection?
\nExodus 13:6
\nNAHMANIDES
\nOn the seventh day there shall be a festival of the Lord. Rather, \u201ca festival offering\u201d must be brought on the seventh day. For if it is not brought on the seventh day, there is no way to make up for it. The first day is not mentioned here because if one fails to bring the festival offering on the first day, there are still six more days to do it in. But in terms of their being sacred occasions, the first and seventh days are equal: \u201cYou shall celebrate a sacred occasion on the first day, and a sacred occasion on the seventh day\u201d (12:16).
\nExodus 13:7
\nIBN EZRA
\nNo leaven shall be found in all your territory. Just as \u201cthe stranger\u201d is prohibited from working on the Sabbath if he wants to live \u201cwithin your settlements\u201d (20:10), so too even the stranger shall not eat leaven on Passover in all God\u2019s territory.
\nExodus 13:8
\nRASHI
\nBecause of what. The translations obscure the Hebrew text here. Literally, \u201cBecause of this\u201d\u2014because I would fulfill His commandments, such as the passover offering and the eating of the unleavened bread and the bitter herbs, the Lord did for me. This also serves as a hint of the answer one is to give the wicked son: Because of what the Lord did for me, not for you. Had you been there, you would not have been worthy of being redeemed.
\nRASHBAM
\nBecause of what. Literally, \u201cbecause of this\u201d\u2014that God did miracles for me in Egypt\u2014I observe this practice. Similarly, \u201cThis is the day that the Lord has made me the chief cornerstone\u2014let us exult and rejoice on it.\u201d
\nIBN EZRA
\nIt is because. The Hebrew text says, \u201cBecause of this\u201d; NJPS follows Jonah ibn Janah in translating as if the words were transposed, and he has cited many other instances that he thinks are similar. But in my opinion, not one of them is right. How can we transpose the words of the living God? In fact, the verse means the opposite of what he thinks: Because of this practice, the eating of unleavened bread and the prohibition of leaven (which is the beginning of the commandments that God gave us), God gave us all these signs and freed us from Egypt. That is, He freed us from Egypt only in order that we might serve Him: \u201cwhen you have freed the people from Egypt, you shall serve God upon this mountain\u201d (3:12); \u201cI the Lord am your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt to be your God\u201d (Num. 15:41).
\nNAHMANIDES
\nBecause of what the Lord did for me. NJPS translates correctly; Biblical Hebrew frequently omits the relative pronoun, as it did here. It literally says, \u201cBecause of this the Lord did for me,\u201d as if to say, \u201cTell him this that you are seeing with your own eyes, that the Lord did for you when you went free from Egypt.\u201d Our Sages interpret \u201cthis\u201d to be a reference to the unleavened bread and bitter herbs, which one points to on the seder plate. Conceivably it could also be interpreted, \u201cwhereas the Lord did such-and-such for me,\u201d which is similar to the way the word is used in 2 Sam. 12:21, where it means \u201cwhile,\u201d not \u201cbecause.\u201d Ibn Ezra\u2019s remark is not correct. See further my comment to v. 16.
\nExodus 13:9
\nRASHI
\nThis\u2014the exodus from Egypt\u2014shall serve you as a sign on your hand and as a reminder on your forehead. You must write down these Torah passages and bind them on your head and arm. On your hand. Your left hand. We know this from the unusual spelling of \u201cyour hand\u201d in v. 16, where this expression is repeated. Instead of \u05d9\u05d3\u05da, it is spelled \u05d9\u05d3\u05db\u05d4, to permit the inference \u05d9\u05d3 \u05db\u05d4\u05d4, your weaker hand.
\nRASHBAM
\nA sign on your hand. According to the straightforward sense at its most profound level, it should be a reminder as permanent as if it were written on your hand, as in Song 8:6, \u201cLet me be a seal upon your heart, like the seal upon your hand.\u201d On your forehead. Like the sort of jewel customarily worn as an ornament on a gold chain on the forehead.
\nIBN EZRA
\nAs a sign on your hand and \u2026 a reminder on your forehead. This might have two explanations. First, after the manner of Prov. 3:3, \u201cLet fidelity and steadfastness not leave you; bind them about your throat, write them on the tablet of your mind.\u201d That is, think of them and speak of them frequently. And what is it that must be a \u201csign\u201d? That with a mighty hand the Lord freed you from Egypt. V. 16 would be interpreted similarly. The second way to interpret them is literally, referring to the tefillin worn on the head and the arm. Since this is the tradition passed down by the Sages, the first possibility is eliminated, having no faithful witnesses as does the second interpretation. Moreover, the \u201cProverbs\u201d of Solomon are more correctly translated as \u201cmetaphors\u201d or \u201callegories,\u201d but there is not a verse in the Torah that is, God forbid, allegorical\u2014it is to be understood literally. So we shall not separate the verse from its straightforward sense, since the literal meaning here does not contradict reason as it does in \u201cCircumcise the foreskin of your heart\u201d (Deut. 10:16), which common sense tells us we must interpret metaphorically. Hand. According to Moses Gikatilla, \u201chand\u201d in the Bible generally refers to the left hand, but words of tradition are strong enough to require no additional strengthening.
\nNAHMANIDES
\nIn order that the Teaching of the Lord may be in your mouth. The verse would be clearer if this clause were at the end of the verse. The point is that one should inscribe the exodus on one\u2019s hand and forehead in order to remember it always, to keep the Teaching of the Lord in one\u2019s mouth in order to observe His commandments, for He is your Lord who redeems you from the house of bondage.
\nADDITIONAL COMMENTS
\nA sign on your hand. This is still part of what \u201cyou shall explain to your son\u201d (v. 9)\u2014the arm tefillin is a single \u201csign,\u201d with all four passages written on a single scroll (Hizkuni). The hand is mentioned before the forehead because the heart (with which the arm tefillin is associated) outranks the brain (Abarbanel). A reminder on your forehead. This is the only one of the four passages used in the tefillin where it is called a \u201creminder\u201d; in the others it is a \u201csymbol\u201d (Gersonides).
\nExodus 13:10\u201312
\nExodus 13:10
\nRASHBAM
\nThis institution. The institution of the passover.
\nIBN EZRA
\nYou shall keep this institution. It would be correct to connect this to the passover offering. But it also goes with the institution of tefillin, which it immediately follows. We will rely on tradition, which connects it with the latter.
\nExodus 13:11
\nRASHI
\nWhen the Lord has brought you into the land. Some of our Sages understood this passage to mean that the \u201cfirst issue\u201d was not set apart while they were in the wilderness. Those who think it was set apart in the wilderness interpret the verse as follows: If you fulfill this commandment in the wilderness, you will deserve to enter the land and fulfill it there. As He swore to you. When did He swear this to you? \u201cI will bring you into the land which I swore to give to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob\u201d (6:8). And has given it to you. You should consider it as being given directly to you today, not as an inheritance from the Patriarchs.
\nIBN EZRA
\nThe Canaanites. They alone are mentioned, being the ancestors of all the other peoples. To you and to your fathers. \u201cI will assign all these lands to you and to your heirs\u201d (Gen. 26:3).
\nNAHMANIDES
\nWhen the Lord has brought you into the land of the Canaanites. The law of the \u201cfirst issue\u201d does not apply anywhere except in the land of Israel. But the straightforward sense of v. 2, \u201cConsecrate to Me every first-born,\u201d would be: every first-born currently found among the Israelites. For it is because He saved them from the death suffered by all the other first-borns in Egypt that He commanded that they be consecrated to the service of God, doing whatever He should command them. But He did not command that the already living ones be redeemed until Num. 3:40\u201350, when the Levites are substituted for the first-born. The commandment here, applying to future births, was not in effect while they were in the wilderness, only later when they came into the land. As He swore to you. As He swore to your fathers to give to you, as in v. 5. Or perhaps, according to the rabbinic rule that saying something twice implies an oath, the fact that God told them twice that he would bring them to the land is the equivalent of his \u201cswearing\u201d to them: \u201cI have come down to rescue them from the Egyptians and to bring them out of that land to a good and spacious land, a land flowing with milk and honey\u201d (3:8); \u201cI will bring you into the land which I swore to give to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob\u201d (6:8).
\nExodus 13:12
\nRASHI
\nEvery male firstling that your cattle drop. The word translated \u201cdrop\u201d here implies an untimely birth, a miscarriage. The verse indicates that a miscarriage is counted as the firstling, exempting subsequent births. \u201cDrop\u201d does not necessarily imply miscarriage; the same word is used in Deut. 7:13 for \u201cthe calving of your herd.\u201d But the purpose of this expression in our verse is indeed to teach about miscarriages, for the verse has already said \u201cevery first issue.\u201d If you suggest that the repetition points to the sanctification of animals that are otherwise unfit for sacrifice, you will find that Deut. 15:19 has already explained, \u201cYou shall consecrate to the Lord your God all male firstlings that are born in your herd and in your flock\u201d; \u201cyour herd and your flock\u201d imply animals that are fit for sacrifice. But if \u201cevery first issue of the womb\u201d refers to a human first-born, then \u201cdrop\u201d may have its ordinary meaning here.
\nRASHBAM
\nSet apart. You shall set it apart from your animals and give it to the priest to sacrifice. Drop. Release from the womb.
\nIBN EZRA
\nYou shall set apart for the Lord every first issue. V. 2 has already made clear that the first-born were to perform the service of God; they are the \u201cpriests\u201d of 19:22, the \u201celders\u201d of 24:1, and the \u201cyoung men\u201d of 24:5. Even their animals were to be special, the first-born animals. The implication of our verse is, You shall set apart from yourselves every first issue, for those who serve the Lord. This commandment, too, was given on the 15th of Nisan.
\nNAHMANIDES
\nYou shall set apart. Literally, \u201ctransfer.\u201d You shall transfer it from the herd to be the Lord\u2019s. The rest of the section describes how this \u201ctransfer\u201d is to take place for each different species. Rashi writes that this setting apart applies only to the human first-borns.
\nADDITIONAL COMMENTS
\nEvery first issue of the womb: every male firstling. If the first is a female, neither it nor any subsequent male is set aside (Gersonides).
\nExodus 13:13\u201316
\nExodus 13:13
\nRASHI
\nFirstling ass. The firstlings of other animals unfit for sacrifice are not mentioned. The text decided to include this one because of the comparison in Ezek. 23:19\u201320 of the Egyptian first-born to asses. Moreover, the asses helped Israel on their way out of Egypt. For there was not a single Israelite who did not take with him many asses loaded with Egyptian silver and gold. You shall redeem with a sheep. You shall give a sheep to the priest, after which you may use the firstling of the ass as you like, and the sheep belongs to the priest as a secular, not a consecrated, possession. You must break its neck. Break its neck from behind with a hatchet and kill it. Having deprived the priest of income, the ass\u2019s owner is deprived of his own income. And you must redeem every first-born male among your children. Elsewhere, in Num. 18:16, the redemption price is fixed at five shekels.
\nRASHBAM
\nYou must redeem. This went into effect after the Levites were sanctified to serve God \u201cin place of all the first-born\u201d (Num. 3:12), in the second year, when the Tabernacle was erected, at \u201cfive shekels per head\u201d (Num. 3:47): \u201cTake as their redemption price, from the age of one month up, the money equivalent of five shekels by the sanctuary weight\u201d (Num. 18:16).
\nIBN EZRA
\nEvery firstling ass you shall redeem. Since this was the only animal the Israelites had that was unfit for sacrifice, no other species needed to be redeemed in this way. Break its neck. Some think the expression means \u201cwrite \u2018holy\u2019 on its neck,\u201d but this is implausible. Anyone who thinks so is a stiff-necked ass! The explanation provided by those who have transmitted our religion\u2014\u201cbreak its neck\u201d\u2014is correct. For every first-born that is not sacrificed on the altar or redeemed must be killed, like the first-born of Egypt. God let the Israelite first-born escape this fate only to make them ready for His own service. Deut. 21:4 makes clear that \u201cbreak its neck\u201d is correct. You must redeem every first-born male. We need to know what the redemption price is; but we cannot know this from the text, only from tradition.
\nExodus 13:14
\nRASHI
\nIn time to come. The word so translated sometimes means simply \u201ctomorrow\u201d; at other times, it refers to an indefinite future, as it does here and as the Reubenites and the Gadites use it in Josh. 22:24. What does this mean? This is the foolish child, who does not know how to ask a more serious question, and simply stammers, \u201cWhat is this?\u201d Elsewhere, in Deut. 6:20, we have \u201cWhat mean the decrees, laws, and rules that the Lord our God has enjoined upon you?\u201d which is the wise son\u2019s question. Thus we have the \u201cfour sons\u201d of the Passover haggadah: the wicked one, the one who does not know how to ask, the one who asks awkwardly, and the one who asks wisely.
\nIBN EZRA
\nIn time to come. Judah Halevi (may he rest in peace) derives this word, mahar, from ahar (\u201cafter\u201d), with the sense \u201ctomorrow,\u201d the day \u201cafter\u201d today; here, \u201cin after times.\u201d
\nExodus 13:15
\nIBN EZRA
\nThe Lord slew every first-born. This defines the \u201cmighty hand\u201d of v. 14, for it was by means of this that they were able to leave Egypt, not by means of the earlier plagues. As the poet says, \u201cWho struck Egypt through their first-born, His steadfast love is eternal\u201d (Ps. 136:10). Therefore. Not because God slew the Egyptian first-born, but because He saved ours. The verse did not say this because it was obvious at the time. Every first male issue. Of animals that may properly be sacrificed to God.
\nADDITIONAL COMMENTS
\nThe Lord slew every first-born. The first-born of Israel would have been slain, too, had it not been for His passing over them, just as Lot would have been killed in Sodom had he not escaped (Sforno).
\nExodus 13:16
\nRASHI
\nA symbol. The reference is to tefillin. Because the tefillin worn on the head has four compartments, it is called by the Hebrew word used here, totafot. Tot means \u201ctwo\u201d in Coptic, and fot means \u201ctwo\u201d in Tunisian. Menahem ibn Saruk connects the word to the word hatef, \u201cproclaim\u201d (Ezek. 21:2) and to al tattifu yattifun, \u201c \u2018Stop preaching!\u2019 they preach\u201d (Mic. 2:6) to suggest that it refers to speech. This would go well with the language used in v. 9, \u201ca reminder on your forehead.\u201d Anyone who sees the tefillin on someone\u2019s forehead would remember the miracle and speak about it.
\nRASHBAM
\nSo it shall be. OJPS is correct that v. 16, too, is included in what you are to say to your son, as we can see from the end of the verse, \u201cthe Lord freed us from Egypt.\u201d For the Holy One said this whole section to Moses, and Jews are supposed to repeat it to their children. Moses did not say this verse to Israel on his own, as NJPS thinks. What reason would there be for Moses to tell the Israelites \u201cit shall be as a sign upon your hand and as a symbol on your forehead that with a mighty hand the Lord freed us from Egypt\u201d? It is the father who is supposed to say this to his son.
\nIBN EZRA
\nIt shall be as a sign. The two commandments, that of the first-born and that of eating unleavened bread, are the \u201csign.\u201d But tradition tells us to take the verse literally and bind these passages on our arms and foreheads, and this is the truth. Symbol. Like \u201creminder\u201d of v. 9. Some think this unusual word totafot is etymologically related to hattef of Ezek. 21:2, \u201cProclaim to Darom\u201d; but I consider this farfetched.
\nNAHMANIDES
\nA symbol. The derivation of this Hebrew word is unknown. The language specialists take it to be from the root \u05e0\u05d8\u05e3, \u201cdrip,\u201d in which case the metaphor would be that of Deut. 32:2; the story of the exodus would \u201cdistill as the dew\u201d for all who hear it. In the Hebrew of the Sages the word refers to something worn on the head, and they are masters of the language, which they themselves spoke. So we should accept the traditional explanation of this word as referring to the tefillin worn on the forehead. The Hebrew word is plural, indicating the four compartments of the head tefillin, as is the tradition of our holy fathers, who saw the prophets and the ancients wearing head tefillin with four compartments all the way back to Moses. The root meaning of this commandment is that we must keep the exodus on our arm and on our forehead\u2014opposite our heart and our brain, the centers of thought. \u2026 Through the great public miracles one comes to admit the hidden miracles that are the foundation of the entire Torah.\u2026 The hidden miracles will become public when the promises of the Torah about blessings and curses come true.\u2026 With God\u2019s help I will explain this further in my comment to Lev. 26:11.
\nADDITIONAL COMMENTS
\nSymbol. The word derives from a verb meaning \u201cto peer\u201d (Bekhor Shor). Your hand. The additional \u05d4, the fifth letter of the alphabet, alludes to the five boxes of the tefillin\u2014one in the hand tefillin and four in the head tefillin (Abarbanel).
\nExodus 13:17\u201318
\nABARBANEL\u2019S QUESTIONS
\n\u2666 Why does the text say (v. 17) \u201cwhen Pharaoh let the people go\u201d rather than \u201cwhen Israel left\u201d?
\n\u2666 Why does the text not give the true reason God did not lead them by the way of the Philistines, which was so that He could split the sea and drown the Egyptians?
\nExodus 13:17\u201318
\nRASHBAM
\nWhen Pharaoh let the people go. The Holy One intended to bring them to the land of Canaan, but He did not wish to lead them by way of the land of the Philistines, for it was nearer. It was the way to enter Canaan immediately. When they would encounter the difficulty of the Canaanite wars, they would head back for Egypt, as in fact they wanted to do several times\u2014\u201cIt would be better for us to go back to Egypt!\u201d (Num. 14:3); \u201cLet us head back for Egypt\u201d (Num. 14:4); \u201cWe remember the fish that we used to eat free in Egypt\u201d (Num. 11:5). So He led the people roundabout, by way of the wilderness, a more distant region: \u201cit is eleven days from Horeb to Kadesh-barnea by the Mount Seir route\u201d (Deut. 1:2). But only the Philistines separated Egypt and Canaan, as is proved by the story of Isaac. Because of a famine, Isaac was on his way from Canaan to Egypt. When the Holy One told him, \u201cStay in the land which I point out to you\u201d (Gen. 26:3), Isaac stayed in Gerar, with Abimelech, king of the Philistines. Armed. For they were going to take possession of the land of Canaan: \u201cI will take you out of the misery of Egypt to the land of the Canaanites\u201d (3:17). The word is used with the same meaning in Josh. 1:14.
\nExodus 13:17
\nRASHI
\nAlthough it was nearer. The Hebrew says, \u201cFor it was nearer\u201d\u2014and easy to return by that road to Egypt. There are many midrashim based on this expression. The people may have a change of heart about having left, and decide to return. When they see war. E.g., the opposition of the Amalekites and Canaanites in Num. 14:43. If they tried to go directly to Canaan, they would simply turn back. Given that when God took them roundabout they said, \u201cLet us head back for Egypt\u201d (Num. 14:4), how much more likely they would have been to do so if he had led them directly to Canaan!
\nIBN EZRA
\nAlthough it was nearer. Literally, \u201cbecause it was nearer.\u201d It was Moses Gikatilla who said that it means \u201calthough,\u201d as in 34:9 and several other places. But there is no need to read it that way here. The reason God did not lead them \u201cby way of the land of the Philistines\u201d was because it was nearer. It is known that from Egypt to Canaan by the direct route is a journey of 10 days. If it were longer, how could Jacob\u2019s sons have made it to Egypt by donkey in a time of famine? But the Israelites had never seen war, and had been other men\u2019s slaves. When Pharaoh came after them, not one of them lifted his hand against him. Amalek, too, came after Israel with \u201cmeager numbers\u201d (Deut. 26:5) and managed to cut down the stragglers. They would have been overwhelmed by the Amalekites had it not been for \u201cMoses His chosen one\u201d (Ps. 106:23). The people may have a change of heart. This is the Torah speaking human language; God knew they would have a change of heart.
\nNAHMANIDES
\nAlthough it was nearer. See the comments of Rashi and Ibn Ezra. In my opinion, for them to be correct \u201cit is nearer\u201d would have to come after \u201cGod said\u201d: \u201cGod did not lead them by way of the land of the Philistines, for God said, \u2018It is nearer, and the people may have a change of heart.\u2019 \u201d In fact, the JPS translations have it right. When they see war. For the Philistines will not let them cross peacefully, and they will return to Egypt. But by the wilderness route they will not see war until they reach the land that has been given to them, starting with that of Sihon and Og, kings of the Amorites. By that time they will be far from Egypt. There was no expectation that they would go back to Egypt on account of the war with Amalek at Rephidim (17:8\u201313), for they did not have to pass through that country; Amalek came out deliberately to make war against them out of hatred for them. If they had tried to head back to Egypt at that point, it wouldn\u2019t have done any good, for Amalek would have chased them all the way. Moreover, they were far from Egypt by then, on the circuitous route they had followed, and would not have known the short way back. Rashi\u2019s comment on \u201cwhen they see war\u201d is taken from the Mekilta.
\nADDITIONAL COMMENTS
\nThe people. Not just \u201cthe Israelites,\u201d but also the mixed multitude and the spies he sent along with them (Hizkuni). Although it was nearer. Literally, \u201cfor it was near\u201d\u2014to Egypt (Gersonides). From Egypt to Jerusalem by way of Ashkelon is no more than an eight-day journey (Abarbanel). Being the direct route, it was full of travelers who could inform the Egyptians of where they were or inform them of the Egyptians\u2019 coming, which would frighten them into returning (Sforno). When they see war. With Pharaoh. For if God had led them by way of the land of the Philistines, there would have been no sea to drown Pharaoh\u2019s army in (Bekhor Shor).
\nExodus 13:18
\nRASHI
\nGod led the people roundabout. Off the straight road, and by a more circuitous one. By way of the wilderness at the Sea of Reeds. Rather, \u201cto the Sea.\u201d But suf means a \u201cmarsh\u201d\u2014the Marsh Sea. Armed. Leading them roundabout through the wilderness was a way of making sure that they got to the land armed. Had God taken them by the direct route, they would not have been as well armed as necessary. They would have been like a man moving from one place to another with the intention of buying whatever he needed. But one who sets forth into the desert must bring everything he needs with him. The whole purpose of this verse is to prepare the ear so you will not wonder (when later there is war with Amalek, Sihon, Og, and Midian) where the Israelites got the weapons with which they defeated them. The translations are correct, as confirmed by Onkelos here and to Josh. 1:14. Another reading derives hamushim from hamesh, \u201cfive\u201d\u2014they went up \u201cfifthed,\u201d that is, four-fifths of them having died during the three days of darkness.
\nIBN EZRA
\nRoundabout. By a longer route. The root of the verb is \u05e1\u05d1\u05d1 pay no attention to those who claim it is \u05e0\u05e1\u05d1. By way of the wilderness at the Sea of Reeds. That is, the wilderness of the Sea of Reeds. But the word suf is not to be translated \u201creeds\u201d here; it is a place-name, the Suf Sea. Some say it was so named because of the reeds all around it, but others think the name is derived from sof (\u201cend\u201d)\u2014for it was the sea at the end of the world, the ocean. But that is a major mistake. It is a sea east of Egypt. Even the Mediterranean is much bigger than this sea. Armed. This is mentioned because the theme of war was introduced in the previous verse. Remember that they left Egypt defiantly, not like fleeing slaves. It is clear from the comparison of Num. 32:30 and Josh. 1:14 what the word means. Some think it means \u201cloaded\u201d with everything they needed, but 12:39 tells us they did not even have provisions. Besides, what would be the point of mentioning that here? Others, because the Hebrew word hamushim resembles the word hamesh (\u201cfive\u201d), say it refers to the \u201cfifth rib,\u201d opposite which a sword is worn. The midrash takes it to mean that only one out of every 500 of them came out of Egypt, but this is a controversial opinion offered by a single individual\u2014not at all a tradition. We already have enough trouble with the Islamic scholars who ask, \u201cHow could 55 males produce 600,000 males in just 210 years, let alone doubling and redoubling that number when you include the women and children?\u201d (They do not include Jacob and his sons in the count, for they had no further children after coming down to Egypt.) But if you consider that after 46 years Jacob had 69 male descendants, then in another 46 years his 13 sons\u2014counting Ephraim and Manasseh in place of Joseph\u2014would have over 700 descendants; after 92 years, over 9,300; after 194 years, over a million and a half. And that is still less than 210 years. Even 10 sons in every generation, not 13, would be more than enough. Had only one-fifth of one percent of the Israelites escaped, it would not have been redemption but a sick evil\u2014just the opposite of what the text says. In short, it is a midrash, and need not be taken seriously. But perhaps the one who originally offered this midrash had some deeper meaning in mind.
\nNAHMANIDES
\nGod led the people. Once they left Succoth (v. 20), the pillar of cloud began to lead them. It was this that led them roundabout, by way of the wilderness. The Israelites followed it until it settled \u201cat Etham, at the edge of the wilderness\u201d (v. 20), where they encamped. The Israelites went up armed. Even though God led them roundabout, they were still afraid of running into the Philistines who lived in the nearby cities. So they went prepared for war. Some say it means that they left Egypt \u201cdefiantly,\u201d thinking themselves redeemed, rather than like fleeing slaves.
\nADDITIONAL COMMENTS
\nRoundabout. On a route with no travelers to tell them that Pharaoh was pursuing them (Sforno). Armed. Rashi\u2019s point is that since the people were armed, leading them \u201croundabout\u201d was not because they were afraid of the Egyptians (Hizkuni). \u201cFully equipped\u201d\u2014they had left nothing of their own behind and had even gotten things from the Egyptians; so they had no reason to go back to Egypt (Gersonides). Despite their being armed, they lacked combat experience and hence did not have the courage to make a stand (Sforno).
\nExodus 13:19\u201321
\nABARBANEL\u2019S QUESTIONS
\n\u2666 Why are details like the Israelites\u2019 being \u201carmed\u201d (v. 18) and Moses\u2019 taking Joseph\u2019s bones (v. 19) not given when the Israelites are first described as leaving, in 12:37?
\n\u2666 How can God, who is not material, be described as going before them (v. 21)?
\n\u2666 Did Israel really \u201ctravel day and night\u201d as if they were fleeing?
\nExodus 13:19
\nRASHI
\nWho had exacted an oath. Notice the doubling of the verb in Hebrew; he had made them swear to make their children swear. Why didn\u2019t he simply make his own sons swear to take his bones to Canaan immediately, as they had done for Jacob? Joseph thought: \u201cI was in power in Egypt and was given the opportunity to bury my father in Canaan; but the Egyptians will not let my children do so.\u201d Hence he exacted an oath that when they were redeemed and left Egypt they would bring him along. You shall carry up my bones from here with you. It was literally the children of Israel\u2014that is, Jacob\u2019s sons, his brothers\u2014from whom he exacted this oath. We learn from the words \u201cwith you\u201d that they brought the bones of all the brothers with them.
\nIBN EZRA
\nMoses took with him. Not only did all the Israelites living in that generation go up out of Egypt, but they also brought up the most honored of them all, the one through whom they had gone down to Egypt in the first place. Before his death, he had made them swear to pass this obligation down through their children in every generation. Now Moses took care to fulfill the oath so that no guilt should fall upon Israel. The bones of Joseph. The bones are mentioned specifically because the flesh and all the rest becomes infested with maggots, so that after a few years only the bones remain.
\nADDITIONAL COMMENTS
\nMoses took with him the bones of Joseph. As leader of the generation, it was his responsibility (Sforno).
\nExodus 13:20
\nRASHI
\nThey set out from Succoth. On the second day. The first day\u2019s journey had brought them from Rameses to Succoth.
\nIBN EZRA
\nEtham. This is the wilderness of Shur, as I will explain in my comment to 15:22.
\nExodus 13:21
\nRASHI
\nTo guide them along the way. The verb is in the causative conjugation, implying \u201cto cause someone or something to guide them.\u201d And what was it that guided them? The pillar of cloud, with the Holy One, in all His glory, leading it before them. Even though He \u201cwent before them,\u201d He prepared the pillar of cloud to guide them; they would follow it. The pillar of cloud did not give light as did the pillar of fire, it simply guided them.
\nRASHBAM
\nThe Lord went before them. An angel who would lead the pillar of cloud and the pillar of fire before the Israelites. By day \u2026 by night. So that when Pharaoh heard, he would realize they were fleeing and pursue them.
\nIBN EZRA
\nThe Lord went before them. We know that God \u201chigh aloft forever dwells\u201d (Isa. 57:15). God\u2019s power went with Israel: \u201cWho made His glorious arm march at the right hand of Moses\u201d (Isa. 63:12). Even though 20:2 says, \u201cI the Lord am your God who brought you out of the land of Egypt,\u201d He brought them out by means of a messenger, as Num. 20:16 points out: \u201cWe cried to the Lord and He heard our plea, and He sent a messenger who freed us from Egypt.\u201d So the one who \u201cwent before them\u201d here is the messenger, an angel, called \u201cLord\u201d because he is God\u2019s agent. Some unthinking people are surprised at this. Why can\u2019t they open their eyes and read 14:19? Then they will understand what is happening here, in v. 22. In a pillar of cloud by day. Some of the ancients say that there were seven clouds, but in my opinion there were only two, or perhaps even just one. It is to be explained this way. He went before them in a pillar of cloud by day, to show them the way and to protect them: \u201cHe spread a cloud for a cover\u201d (Ps. 105:39). It is called a \u201cpillar\u201d because it did not look like a normal cloud, but like a pillar extending from heaven to earth. In a pillar of fire by night to give them light. It may be that the pillar of fire was inside the pillar of cloud at night, as it says of the cloud over the Tabernacle, \u201cfire would appear in it by night\u201d (40:38). Day and night. That is, constantly. The encampment was so large that they had to travel by short stages, both day and night.
\nNAHMANIDES
\nThe Lord went before them. Literally, \u201cAnd the Lord went before them.\u201d The Sages said long ago that everywhere the text has \u201cand the Lord,\u201d it refers to God and His heavenly court. The Holy One went before them by day and His court went before them by night. Thus the Lord would have been present in the pillar of cloud, and His court would have been present in the pillar of fire, to give them light. \u201cYou, O Lord, appear in plain sight when Your cloud rests over them and when You go before them in a pillar of cloud by day and in a pillar of fire by night\u201d (Num. 14:14). In Exodus Rabbah I have seen the following midrash: \u201c \u2018The Lord is marching before you, the God of Israel is your rear guard\u2019 (Isa. 52:12). During the exodus I and My court accompanied you, but in the future I alone will do so.\u201d The deeper meaning of this midrash is as I have pointed out. In the first redemption, the Holy One was with them during the day, and His court was with them at night. But in the future, God\u2019s court and its aspect of judgment will raise itself up to the aspect of mercy. The Tetragrammaton will lead them and the God of Israel follow them, and \u201cnight is as light as day; darkness and light are the same\u201d (Ps. 139:12), for they will all be in the united aspect of mercy. Ibn Ezra has misunderstood Isa. 63:12, for that passage continues, \u201cThus did You shepherd Your people to win for Yourself a glorious name\u201d (Isa. 63:14).
\nADDITIONAL COMMENTS
\nThe Lord went before them. This is to speak of it in human terms. He went before them in what emanated from Him, and His providence accompanied them (Gersonides). Some who think themselves wise say that \u201cthe Lord\u201d here refers to the Active Intellect, or the pillar of cloud, or Moses, but all of these are impossible; it refers to the God who created the world (Abarbanel). In a pillar of cloud. Since the Shekhinah was not revealed to them, the pillar went along with them so they would know which way to go (Bekhor Shor). That they might travel day and night. So Pharaoh would realize they were fleeing (Hizkuni). This refers to the pillars; the Israelites did not travel at night except for the night on which the sea was split (Abarbanel).
\nExodus 13:22\u201314:2
\nABARBANEL\u2019S QUESTIONS
\n\u2666 Once Pharaoh had let the Israelites go, why did God entice him to follow them by having the Israelites \u201cturn back\u201d (v. 2)?
\n\u2666 Hadn\u2019t the Egyptians already been punished enough (by the plagues) for what they had done to Israel? Why did they have to be drowned?
\nExodus 13:22
\nRASHI
\nDid not depart. This verb too is causative. The verse is to be translated, \u201cHe [the Holy One] would not let the pillar of cloud by day and the pillar of fire by night depart from before the people.\u201d Each pillar would overlap the other. That is to say, the pillar of cloud would rise for the day before the pillar of fire vanished, and vice versa.
\nRASHBAM
\nDid not depart. The verb is causative. What the verse really says is that \u201cHe\u201d (the Holy One) \u201cwould not let the pillars depart from before the people.\u201d JPS translates as if the verb was in the simple active, but that is a different form; see Josh. 1:8.
\nIBN EZRA
\nDid not depart. The verb is causative; God would not let them depart. These two clouds\u2014if indeed there were two\u2014were with Israel until they reached the sea, at which point, in my opinion, they left them. For once Pharaoh\u2019s army was drowned in the sea, there was no need to travel at night. Note that it was Moses who \u201ccaused Israel to set out from the Sea of Reeds\u201d (15:22), albeit at God\u2019s command. It was not the cloud that did so. The cloud did not return to them until they built the Tabernacle. \u201cFor over the Tabernacle a cloud of the Lord rested by day\u201d (40:38), after which, \u201cwhenever the cloud lifted from the Tent, the Israelites would set out accordingly\u201d (Num. 9:17). If the cloud was with them all through the wilderness of Sinai, why does God say to them, \u201cI will come to you in a thick cloud\u201d (19:9)?
\nExodus 14:2
\nRASHI
\nTo turn back. Toward Egypt. They drew closer to Egypt during all of the third day, in order to fool Pharaoh into thinking, as he does in v. 3, \u201cThey have lost their way.\u201d Pi-hahiroth. This is Pithom, the store city they had built for Pharaoh (1:11), now called Pi ha-Herut, \u201cthe mouth of freedom,\u201d because it was there that they became free men. The place was located between two tall, vertical crags, and the valley between them was called \u201cthe mouth of the crags.\u201d Before Baal-zephon. This \u201cBaal of the North\u201d alone remained of all the gods of Egypt, in order to mislead them into thinking that their god was tough enough to protect them; of this, Job 12:23 says, \u201cHe exalts nations, then destroys them.\u201d
\nIBN EZRA
\nTell the Israelites to turn back. In truth, an intelligent person ought not to inquire as to why God performed a certain action. For all His actions are wise ones, and human wisdom is nothing compared to His. I mention this because you will see in this passage that God trickily commands the Israelites to turn back in order to draw Pharaoh out to chase after them so that he will drown in the sea. God\u2019s thoughts are deep! Pi-hahiroth. It is called Penehahiroth in Num. 33:8. Since the mouth, pi, is in the face, pene, the two words are interchangeable in place-names. Before Baal-zephon. They say that the Egyptian magicians made bronze images by virtue of the constellations of the zodiac (and this is what Baal-zephon was) in such a way that no slave fleeing Egypt would be able to pass. This is how Pharaoh knew \u201cthat the people had fled\u201d (v. 5).
\nADDITIONAL COMMENTS
\nTell the Israelites to turn back. I do not want you to be liars\u2014you said you would go a three-days\u2019 journey into the wilderness and return, and you borrowed things that you promised to bring back (Bekhor Shor). Pi-hahiroth. Rashi\u2019s comment is based on a midrashic reference to the Egyptian custom that any escaped slave who managed to reach Pi-hahiroth was given his freedom (Hizkuni).
\nExodus 14:3\u20135
\nABARBANEL\u2019S QUESTIONS
\n\u2666 Since Pharaoh expected the people to return, why is he said to have had \u201ca change of heart\u201d (v. 5) when he heard they were fleeing?
\nExodus 14:3
\nRASHI
\nPharaoh will say. When he hears that the Israelites are turning back toward Egypt. Astray. OJPS \u201centangled\u201d is preferable. They are captive, stuck. (See the similar words in Job 38:16, Ps. 84:7, and Job 28:11.) They are captive in the wilderness, not knowing where to go or how to get out of it.
\nRASHBAM
\nThey are astray. They are nevukhim, that is, there are nivkhei yam (\u201cthe sources of the sea,\u201d Job 38:16) before them. That is why they have turned back\u2014they have no idea where they are going! For the wilderness has closed in on them. It has closed the way on them. For it is a place of \u201cseraph serpents and scorpions\u201d (Deut. 8:15) and wild animals, and they are worried about what may be behind them as well. That is why they have turned back from their encampment \u201cat Etham, at the edge of the wilderness\u201d (v. 2), and now they have come back between Migdol and the sea, to camp by the sea. So they are \u201call at sea\u201d\u2014the sea is before them. They have nowhere to flee, either backward or forward. To repeat: nevukhim means closed in by the nivkhei yam, the sea, that is in front of them.
\nIBN EZRA
\nAstray. The word would indicate not merely that they were lost, but that they had no idea where to go. Grammatically, it is a Niphal passive of \u05d1\u05d5\u05da\u2014it has no connection with nivkhei yam of Job 38:16, which comes from \u05e0\u05d1\u05da. Closed in on them. Because of the protective idol.
\nADDITIONAL COMMENTS
\nThe wilderness has closed in on them. They are trapped between our fortifications and the sea (Abarbanel).
\nExodus 14:4
\nRASHI
\nThat I may gain glory. When the Holy One revenges Himself on the wicked, His name is magnified and glorified. \u201cI will punish him with pestilence and with bloodshed; and I will pour torrential rain, hailstones, and sulfurous fire upon him and his hordes and the many peoples with him. Thus will I manifest My greatness and My holiness\u201d (Ezek. 38:22\u201323); \u201cGod has made Himself known in Judah, His name is great in Israel \u2026 He broke the fiery arrows of the bow, the shield and the sword of war\u201d (Ps. 76:2,4); \u201cThe Lord has made Himself known: He works judgment\u201d (Ps. 9:17). Pharaoh and all his host. Pharaoh was the originator of the sin and so was the first to be punished. They did so. This is noted in praise of the Israelites, who turned back toward Egypt at Moses\u2019 orders. Instead of saying, \u201cHow can we turn back toward our pursuers? We have to flee!\u201d they said, \u201cWe have nothing to go on but whatever the son of Amram tells us.\u201d
\nIBN EZRA
\nI will stiffen Pharaoh\u2019s heart. As if he had forgotten the plagues he had been afflicted with on Israel\u2019s account. That I may gain glory through Pharaoh. Then My Glory\u2014that is, as NJPS usually translates the noun form of this word, My Presence\u2014will appear in the world to drown Pharaoh and his army. The Egyptians shall know\u2014those of them who are left, as well as those who drown, before their death\u2014that I am the Lord. And they did so. This is shorthand to say that the Israelites did turn back and so forth, as God had told Moses to command them to do.
\nNAHMANIDES
\nI will stiffen Pharaoh\u2019s heart and he will pursue them. Because of Pharaoh\u2019s fear of them after the killing of the first-born, when he said, \u201cbring a blessing upon me also\u201d (12:32), he did not have it in his heart to pursue them. Even if they fled, he would let Moses do what he wanted with them. This is why God had to \u201cstiffen Pharaoh\u2019s heart\u201d to make him pursue them. God will have to do this yet again in v. 17.
\nADDITIONAL COMMENTS
\nHe will pursue them. Making it his fault that they cannot come back and return what they borrowed (Bekhor Shor). That I may gain glory. That the Israelites will recognize My glory and My might (Gersonides). The Egyptians shall know that I am the Lord. And the Israelites will no longer need to fear that the Egyptians will pursue them. The point is not that it would bring the Egyptians to faith in the Lord (Gersonides).
\nExodus 14:5
\nRASHI
\nThe king of Egypt was told. He had sent overseers along with them. When the three days they had set aside for their journey were up and the overseers realized that they were not coming back to Egypt, they came back and told Pharaoh on the fourth day. The Egyptians pursued them throughout the fifth and sixth days. On the night preceding the seventh day, the Israelites went down into the sea. The next morning they sang the Song at the Sea, and that was the seventh day of Passover, which is why the Song at the Sea is the Torah reading for the seventh day of Passover. A change of heart. Not just a change, but (as the Hebrew word implies) a complete reversal from when he had told them: \u201cUp, depart from among my people\u201d (12:31). The courtiers too had originally said, \u201cHow long shall this one be a snare to us? Let the men go to worship the Lord their God!\u201d (10:7), and now they wanted to chase after them to get the things they had lent them. From our service. OJPS \u201cFrom serving us\u201d is preferable.
\nRASHBAM
\nThe people had fled. Once they had reversed course without completing the three-day journey to sacrifice to God, it was clear that they were fleeing.
\nIBN EZRA
\nThe king of Egypt was told that the people had fled. See my comment to v. 2. But in my opinion he knew because Moses had told him, \u201cWe must go a distance of three days into the wilderness\u201d (8:23). Pharaoh took this to mean that Moses knew where they were going to sacrifice and how to get there. When he heard that Israel had turned back from the wilderness route to follow another route, then he realized that everything Moses had told him was a trick. His intention was not to sacrifice, but to flee. If they were going to sacrifice, why had they turned back without doing so? One who is fleeing often is confused about which road to follow.
\nNAHMANIDES
\nWhen the king of Egypt was told that the people had fled. The chronology given by Rashi here again follows the Mekilta. Everything is going as God had predicted in v. 3 that it would. Pharaoh was told that they were wandering around, not going to a particular place to sacrifice. Moreover, the Israelites had left Egypt defiantly, with \u201ca banner for rallying\u201d (Ps. 60:6). They left joyfully, \u201cwith festive music, with timbrel and lyre\u201d (Gen. 31:27), like people who had been restored from slavery to freedom, not like slaves who were going to be returning to their tasks. And Pharaoh \u201cwas told\u201d all this.
\nADDITIONAL COMMENTS
\nWhen the king of Egypt was told that the people had fled. By some of the \u201cmixed multitude\u201d (12:38), who had returned to Egypt because even these first few days in the desert were too much for them (Abarbanel). What is this we have done? The king and his courtiers were like a dog returning to his vomit (Abarbanel). Our god, Baal-zephon, has stopped them in the wilderness. If we had asked his help, we would never have had to let them go (Sforno).
\nExodus 14:6\u20139
\nExodus 14:6
\nRASHI
\nHe ordered his chariot. Rather, \u201che\u201d\u2014himself\u2014\u201charnessed his chariot.\u201d Took his men with him. He \u201ctook\u201d them along by force of words: \u201cLet\u2019s hit them, seize our money, and let them go. Just come with me, and I will not treat you as other kings do. Other kings send their men ahead of them into battle, but I will precede you.\u201d (V. 10, \u201cPharaoh drew near,\u201d implies that he drew near to the Israelites by hurrying before his troops.) \u201cOther kings get first crack at the spoils, but I will share equally with you.\u201d (As 15:9 says, \u201cI will divide the spoil.\u201d)
\nIBN EZRA
\nHe ordered his chariot. OJPS \u201che made ready his chariots\u201d is closer to the literal meaning, but NJPS has the correct sense. Similarly, when \u201cSolomon completed the construction of the Temple\u201d (1 Kings 6:14), he did not do the work himself.
\nExodus 14:7
\nRASHI
\nPicked. Choice. The phrase is really in the singular\u2014each and every chariot of the 600 was individually chosen. The rest of the chariots of Egypt. Now what animals pulled these chariots? Egyptian ones? But \u201call the livestock of the Egyptians died\u201d (9:6). Israelite ones? But \u201cour own livestock \u2026 shall go along with us\u201d (10:26). So whose were they? They belonged to \u201cthose among Pharaoh\u2019s courtiers who feared the Lord\u2019s word [and] brought their slaves and livestock indoors to safety\u201d (9:20). This is what led R. Simeon to say, \u201cThe only good Egyptian is a dead one.\u201d With officers in all of them. This translation, following Onkelos, is correct.
\nRASHBAM
\nPicked chariots. The important, choice chariots. Officers. Because it is repeated in 15:4, \u201cthe pick of his officers are drowned in the Sea of Reeds.\u201d
\nIBN EZRA
\nHe took six hundred of his picked chariots. The most select of all the chariotry that he had. Officers. Literally, \u201cthirds.\u201d The king is of the first rank; his subordinate is called mishneh, literally his \u201csecond,\u201d and the officers of the next rank down are called \u201cthirds.\u201d
\nADDITIONAL COMMENTS
\nSix hundred of his picked chariots. He had so little respect for Israel that he took only this small number (Abarbanel). With officers in all of them. The success of an army depends on the wisdom of its commander (Sforno).
\nExodus 14:8
\nRASHI
\nThe Lord stiffened the heart of Pharaoh. For he was undecided whether or not to pursue them; God made sure that he did. Defiantly, boldly. NJPS interprets the metaphor of the literal \u201cwith a high hand\u201d (OJPS).
\nRASHBAM
\nDefiantly, boldly. They were not at all worried until they saw Pharaoh and his people chasing them\u2014but then they were \u201cgreatly frightened\u201d (v. 10).
\nIBN EZRA
\nThe Israelites were departing boldly, defiantly. They did not leave like people who were fleeing, for they had with them all the weapons of war.
\nADDITIONAL COMMENTS
\nDefiantly. Thinking that their greater numbers insured victory, which just proves how little they understood of war. A small, trained group is much more dangerous than an untrained mass (Sforno).
\nExodus 14:9
\nIBN EZRA
\nThe Egyptians gave chase to them. The apparent repetition of v. 8 is merely stylistic. See similarly 20:15. All the chariot horses of Pharaoh. The Hebrew is singular\u2014\u201cevery chariot horse\u201d\u2014to say that they did not arrive scattered, but all at once. We learn from 1 Kings 10:29 that four horses pulled each chariot. His horsemen and his warriors. The \u201cwarriors\u201d are the infantry.
\nExodus 14:10\u201312
\nABARBANEL\u2019S QUESTIONS
\n\u2666 Why did the Israelites not trust God enough not to be frightened (v. 10)?
\n\u2666 How is it possible that the Israelites simultaneously \u201ccried out to the Lord\u201d in frightened prayer (v. 10) and asked Moses sarcastically whether there weren\u2019t enough graves in Egypt (v. 11)?
\n\u2666 Why did the Israelites ask Moses, \u201cWhat have you done to us, taking us out of Egypt?\u201d? Had they forgotten it was God who did so?
\n\u2666 When had the Israelites said (as they claim in v. 12), \u201cLet us be, and we will serve the Egyptians\u201d?
\nExodus 14:10
\nRASHI
\nPharaoh drew near. The verb is really in the causative: He brought himself near, making every effort to precede his troops, as he had promised them he would. The Egyptians advancing upon them. The verb is singular. They were advancing with one heart, as one man. Another reading, from the Tanhuma: They saw the angel of Egypt approaching them from heaven to aid the Egyptians. The Israelites cried out. That is, they fell back on the ways of the Patriarchs and prayed, as did Abraham at \u201cthe place where he had stood before the Lord\u201d (Gen. 19:27), Isaac when he \u201cwent out walking in the field toward evening\u201d (Gen. 24:63), and Jacob, who \u201ccame upon a certain place\u201d (Gen. 28:11).
\nIBN EZRA
\nPharaoh drew near. This form of the verb is always transitive. He drew his troops near.
\nNAHMANIDES
\nThe Israelites cried out to the Lord. Onkelos translates \u201ccried out\u201d to mean not prayer but complaint, as when the foremen \u201ccried out\u201d to Pharaoh, \u201cWhy do you deal thus with your servants?\u201d (5:15). They would be complaining to God that He had brought them out of Egypt. But the Mekilta has it that they adopted the practices of their ancestors, that is, that they prayed, as Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob had done. As our Sages have pointed out, \u201cthe people\u201d is used with negative comments and \u201cthe Israelites\u201d with positive ones. And see the following comment.
\nADDITIONAL COMMENTS
\nGreatly frightened. Knowing that many of them were embittered at having lost their first-born and having been robbed of the things the Israelites took from their houses (Abarbanel). The Israelites cried out to the Lord. Not in prayer, but in complaint (Abarbanel).
\nExodus 14:11
\nRASHBAM
\nWas it for want of graves? The Hebrew uses a double negative. To die in the wilderness. Where \u201cthere is no food and no water\u201d (Num. 21:5). Even if no one were chasing us, we would die of starvation.
\nIBN EZRA
\nWas it for want of graves? The Hebrew is a double negative, when one would be sufficient. (See Num. 12:2 for a similar example.) It is a phenomenon of Hebrew style.
\nNAHMANIDES
\nWas it for want of graves in Egypt that you brought us to die in the wilderness? It is not right that people who have been crying out to God to save them should kick at the way He saves them and say that they would have been better off if He had not rescued them. Rather, it is correct to explain the text to mean that there were conflicting groups, and the text tells what each of them did. One group cried out in prayer to God, and another denied His prophet and would not admit to having been saved, saying they would have been better off not being rescued. It is this latter group who \u201crebelled at the sea, at the Sea of Reeds\u201d (Ps. 106:7), and the former group, the good Israelites, who \u201ccried out to the Lord\u201d (v. 10). To die in the wilderness. Not \u201cto die in war.\u201d Even before seeing war, they were afraid to go into the wilderness lest they die of hunger and thirst. They may have told Moses this while still in Egypt, when \u201cGod led the people roundabout, by way of the wilderness at the Sea of Reeds\u201d (13:18). Or they may have asked right at the start, \u201cWhere are we going? If by way of the Philistines, they will fight us. If by way of the wilderness, \u2018it is better for us to serve the Egyptians than to die in the wilderness\u2019 [v. 12].\u201d It might also be explained that the people believed in God and prayed to Him to save them, but that they had some doubts about Moses\u2014perhaps he was leading them out only to rule over them. Even though they saw the signs and wonders, they thought that Moses had performed them by his own skill; or perhaps that God had brought them upon the Egyptians simply on account of the wickedness of the gentiles. For if what He wanted to do was to save them, Pharaoh would not be chasing them.
\nADDITIONAL COMMENTS
\nYou brought us to die in the wilderness. Pharaoh\u2019s army cannot defeat us, but they can block our access to food and water (Sforno).
\nExodus 14:12
\nRASHI
\nWe told you in Egypt. Where did they say this? \u201cMay the Lord look upon you and punish you\u201d (5:21).
\nIBN EZRA
\nThe very thing we told you in Egypt. Even though we do not find it written that they had told him this, we know that they did, for they could not have told him that they had said something they did not in fact say. It is referred to in the text in the general statement \u201cThey would not listen to Moses\u201d (6:9). In any case, there are many things in the Bible that we learn about like this, only secondarily.
\nNAHMANIDES
\nIs this not the very thing we told you in Egypt? The Mekilta continues: \u201cHaving put \u2018leaven in the dough,\u2019 they came to Moses and said, \u2018Is this not the very thing we told you in Egypt?\u2019 \u201d \u201cLeaven in the dough\u201d is the evil inclination. What the Mekilta means is that originally they had prayed to God to put into Pharaoh\u2019s heart that he should turn back. Once they saw that he was not leaving, but was drawing nearer to them, then they thought, \u201cOur prayer has not been accepted,\u201d and the evil notion of questioning Moses\u2019 actions reentered their hearts.
\nADDITIONAL COMMENTS
\nIt is better for us to serve the Egyptians. They may have thought, as Pharaoh did, that it was the God of Israel who was causing the evils that were afflicting them in the desert; this would account for Moses\u2019 reply (Gersonides).
\nExodus 14:13\u201316
\nABARBANEL\u2019S QUESTIONS
\n\u2666 Why did Moses think it would reassure the Israelites to tell them (v. 13) they would never see the Egyptians again? They might have replied, \u201cIf we\u2019re dead we won\u2019t see the Egyptians, the Canaanites, or anyone else either!\u201d
\n\u2666 Moses wasn\u2019t \u201ccrying out\u201d to God\u2014why did God tell him (v. 15) to stop?
\n\u2666 Why did God blame Moses for the fact that the Israelites were not moving, when they had stopped on His instructions?
\n\u2666 Shouldn\u2019t \u201clift up your rod and hold out your arm\u201d (v. 16) be the other way around?
\nExodus 14:13
\nRASHI
\nThe Egyptians whom you see today. The OJPS translation is more accurate.
\nIBN EZRA
\nStand by, and witness. For you will not be making war; you will merely see the deliverance which the Lord will work for you today. It is surprising that a camp of 600,000 armed men were afraid of their pursuers and would not fight for their lives and those of their children. The answer, of course, is that the Egyptians had been the Israelites\u2019 masters. The generation of the exodus had learned from their youth to bear the yoke of the Egyptians, and they were submissive by nature. How could they suddenly fight their masters? In any case, the Israelites were malingerers and not trained in war. Look, when Amalek came upon them with a scant few men, had it not been for Moses\u2019 prayer they would have overwhelmed the Israelites. God, who \u201cperforms great deeds\u201d (Job 5:9) and by whom \u201cactions are measured\u201d (1 Sam. 2:3), arranged for that whole generation of males to die in the wilderness\u2014for they would not have had the gumption to fight the Canaanites\u2014to be replaced by a generation that had not known exile and whose character was noble. And see my comment to 2:3, about Moses.
\nNAHMANIDES
\nThe Egyptians whom you see today you will never see again. In the opinion of our Sages, \u201cye shall see them again no more forever\u201d (OJPS) is not a statement of fact, but a commandment. But if it were so, the language of the verse would have made this explicit. Moreover, it would have been a commandment given to the Israelites by Moses, for it is not mentioned in what God says to Moses in vv. 1\u20134. Contrast the Law of the King, which says, \u201cMoreover, he shall not keep many horses or send people back to Egypt to add to his horses, since the Lord has warned you, \u2018You must not go back that way again\u2019 \u201d (Deut. 17:16). It is clear from the language that this really is a commandment, not a mere statement.
\nExodus 14:14
\nIBN EZRA
\nYou hold your peace! According to v. 10, they had been crying out to God.
\nADDITIONAL COMMENTS
\nYou hold your peace. And stop grumbling (Hizkuni). Perhaps he told them this to keep the noise from revealing their location to the Egyptians (Gersonides). After you see \u201cthe deliverance which the Lord will work for you today,\u201d you will hold your peace (Abarbanel).
\nExodus 14:15
\nRASHI
\nWhy do you cry out to Me? We learn that Moses was lingering over his prayer. The Holy One said to him, \u201cThis is not the time to pray at length, for Israel is in trouble!\u201d Another reading: \u201cWhy do you cry out? (This belongs) to Me!\u2014it is My business, not yours.\u201d As it says later, \u201cWill you question Me on the destiny of My children, will you instruct Me about the work of My hands?\u201d (Isa. 45:11). Tell the Israelites to go forward. All they have to do is go forward. The sea will not stand firm before them. The merit of the Patriarchs, and the faith the Israelites showed in Me by leaving Egypt, will be enough to split the sea for them.
\nIBN EZRA
\nWhy do you cry out to Me? Perhaps Moses too had been crying out, or perhaps the reference is to Israel, for Moses was their emissary and their king. Go forward. Little by little until you reach the shore of the sea.
\nNAHMANIDES
\nWhy do you cry out to Me? Ibn Ezra thinks the reference is to Moses as Israel\u2019s emissary. But if so, why would God ask this? Israel should be crying out to God! Perhaps it means, Why are you letting them cry out to Me? Tell the Israelites to go forward! I have already told you that I intend to \u201cgain glory through Pharaoh\u201d (v. 4). Our Sages have explained that it was, indeed, Moses who was \u201ccrying out\u201d and praying to God, and this is correct. For he did not know what to do. Despite the fact that God had told him He would \u201cgain glory through Pharaoh,\u201d he did not know how to proceed. For he was on the shore of the sea with the enemy gaining in pursuit. He prayed that God show him \u201cwhat path to choose\u201d (Ps. 25:12). So the point of \u201cWhy do you cry out to Me?\u201d is this: \u201cYou should have just asked Me what to do. There is no need for you to \u2018cry out.\u2019 I have already informed you that I will \u2018gain glory through Pharaoh.\u2019 \u201d The text does not tell us specifically that Moses cried out to God, because he was among the Israelites who \u201ccried out to the Lord\u201d in v. 10.
\nADDITIONAL COMMENTS
\nWhy do you cry out to Me? The mere fact that Moses was sure of God\u2019s deliverance would not necessarily have stopped him from praying; he might have thought that the miracle needed to be instigated by prayer. But apparently Moses was already so constantly attached to God that this was unnecessary (Gersonides). \u201cMoses, we have no time right now to listen to the complaints of the Israelites\u201d (Abarbanel). Moses was worried that the rebellious Israelites would refuse to follow him into the sea; God reassured him, \u201cSpeak to the Israelites and they will go forward\u201d (Sforno).
\nExodus 14:16
\nIBN EZRA
\nLift up your rod. God tells Moses to split the sea before they begin to move forward. For He did not tell Moses to strike the sea, merely to hold out his arm over it, as he did in 9:23. We know that it was not the rod that split the sea; it was merely the signal. As v. 21 tells us, it was a strong east wind brought by God that split the sea.
\nExodus 14:17\u201319
\nABARBANEL\u2019S QUESTIONS
\n\u2666 It would make sense for God to want the Israelites to know \u201cI am Lord\u201d (v. 18), but why did He care that the Egyptians knew it? They were all about to be dead anyway!
\n\u2666 We learned in 13:21 that \u201cthe Lord went before Israel.\u201d So who is \u201cthe angel of God, who had been going ahead of the Israelite army\u201d (v. 19)?
\nExodus 14:17
\nIBN EZRA
\nThey will go in after them. We know that the Sea of Reeds is not in between Egypt and the land of Israel. Hence there was no need for the Israelites to go into the sea. God commanded that they do so in order to draw the Egyptians in after them to drown. The Israelites approached the sea from the wilderness of Etham and left it to enter that same wilderness, as I will explain in my comment to v. 22.
\nNAHMANIDES
\nI will stiffen the hearts of the Egyptians. When the Egyptians see that the sea splits to let the Israelites pass through on dry ground, they will not have the heart to pursue them with evil intent, for none of the previous miracles was as marvelous as this one. It was really insanity for them to go into the sea, but God turned their counsel into foolishness and stiffened their hearts to make them do it.
\nADDITIONAL COMMENTS
\nI will gain glory through Pharaoh. For he was not physically harmed in any of the previous plagues (Abarbanel).
\nExodus 14:18
\nIBN EZRA
\nLet the Egyptians know. Those who remain. When I gain glory through Pharaoh. Who himself will drown along with his chariots and his horsemen.
\nExodus 14:19
\nRASHI
\nThe angel of God. Normally the expression used is \u201cthe angel of the Lord.\u201d \u201cGod\u201d always indicates the attribute of justice, teaching us that the Israelites were on trial at this moment, to determine whether they should be rescued or should perish with the Egyptians. Followed behind them. To separate the Egyptian camp from the Israelite camp, in order to absorb the arrows fired at them and the stones catapulted at them by the Egyptians. The pillar of cloud shifted. When it grew dark. Instead of completely vanishing, as it ordinarily did at night once the pillar of fire appeared, this time it shifted behind the Israelites to conceal them from the Egyptians in the dark.
\nRASHBAM
\nThe angel of God, who was leading the pillar of cloud ahead of the Israelite army, now moved and followed behind them. As a result, the pillar of cloud shifted from in front of them and took up a place behind them. For the angel led it to a position where it would separate the Egyptian camp from the Israelite camp, and \u201cput darkness between you and the Egyptians\u201d (Josh. 24:7), so that they could not come near each other all night.
\nIBN EZRA
\nThe angel of God. The great angelic officer in the cloud who is referred to in 13:21. Moved and followed behind them. This took place before the instruction in v. 15 to \u201cgo forward.\u201d The translation should be \u201chad moved.\u201d As I have already noted, there are many such cases. Note that the consecutive verses 19\u201321 each consist of 72 Hebrew letters. So you will find it written in some books that each of them represents the mystical name of God. Apparently they write this because the letters of the name of God add up to 72. According to the Book of Raziel, one who wants a question answered in a dream should recite Ezek. 1:1, another verse of 72 letters, before going to sleep. The pillar of cloud shifted. There are some who say that the angel of God was the cloud. Let them show us anywhere in the Bible that the pillar of cloud is referred to as \u201cthe angel of God\u201d! Why would they be referred to separately in this verse if they were the same thing? Prophecies and rebukes are repeated stylistically in different language, but not simple facts like this.
\nNAHMANIDES
\nThe angel of God. Ibn Ezra thinks the angel \u201chad moved\u201d behind them. In my opinion, the angel moved behind them just at nightfall. This \u201cangel of God\u201d is an allusion to the Holy One\u2019s heavenly court. For in some places in the text God\u2019s aspect of judgment is referred to as an \u201cangel.\u201d It was this that dwelled in the pillar of fire and went before them at night to light the way. This is why he is identified as the angel of \u201cGod,\u201d which traditionally indicates the aspect of judgment. So grammatically it may not be \u201cthe angel of God,\u201d but simply in apposition, \u201cthe angel, God.\u201d I have seen in the Mekilta of R. Simeon b. Yohai that R. Jonathan b. Yohai asked R. Simeon why everywhere else this angel is called \u201cthe angel of the Lord,\u201d but here \u201cthe angel of God.\u201d He replied, \u201cEverywhere it says \u2018God,\u2019 that implies the divine aspect of judgment.\u201d This is an allusion to what we have said. This angel, in the pillar of fire, now moved and followed behind them; and the pillar of cloud shifted from in front of them and took up a place behind them. So both pillars were behind them.
\nADDITIONAL COMMENTS
\nThe angel of God. This might mean Moses, for a prophet can be referred to in these terms. He moved now to the place of greatest danger (Gersonides). It cannot mean the Active Intellect, or the cloud, or Moses\u2014it refers to the pillar of fire (Abarbanel). Behind them. For once the sea was split, the path ahead was obvious (Sforno).
\nExodus 14:20\u201321
\nABARBANEL\u2019S QUESTIONS
\n\u2666 How could the cloud with the darkness give \u201clight by night\u201d (v. 20, OJPS)?
\n\u2666 Why did Moses have to hold his arm over the sea, if it was the east wind (v. 21) that performed the miracle?
\nExodus 14:20
\nRASHI
\nIt came between the army of the Egyptians and the army of Israel. It is comparable to someone walking along the road, with his son walking in front of him. If bandits come along to capture him, he takes his son from in front and puts him behind him. If a wolf chases after him, he puts his son in front. If there are bandits in front and a wolf behind, he takes him in his arms and fights them. \u201cI have pampered Ephraim, taking them in My arms\u201d (Hosea 11:3). Thus there was the cloud with the darkness for Egypt, and the pillar of fire cast a spell upon the night. Rather, with OJPS, \u201cgave it light by night there\u201d\u2014for Israel. It preceded them all night, as it usually did, leaving a foggy darkness on the side toward the Egyptians. The one camp could not come near the other camp.
\nRASHBAM
\nThere was the cloud with the darkness for the Egyptians, and the pillar of fire \u201cgave \u2026 light\u201d (OJPS) all night for Israel, so that the one, Egypt, could not come near the other, Israel, all through the night.
\nIBN EZRA
\nIt came. Rather, \u201che,\u201d the angel, came. The cloud with the darkness. Facing the Egyptian camp. Cast a spell upon the night. Rather, \u201cgave it light by night\u201d (OJPS)\u2014as it did every night, for Israel, who traveled by night and would cross the sea by night. According to Ibn Janah, the verb that OJPS translates \u201cgave light\u201d here really means to make the night dark. See Ps. 139:11, where the word usually translated \u201clight\u201d has the opposite meaning: \u201cSurely darkness will conceal me, night will provide me with cover.\u201d See also M. Pes. 1:1, where \u201cthe light of the 14th [of Nisan]\u201d really means \u201cthe night of the 14th.\u201d But this kind of explanation is the opposite of enlightening. How can the same word mean a thing and its opposite\u2014unless it is used as a euphemism, as when Naboth is accused of \u201cblessing\u201d God, that is, reviling Him (1 Kings 21:13). Even in Psalm 139, as I explain in my Psalms commentary, the word really does mean \u201clight,\u201d and B. Pes. 3a explains that the language of the mishnah is also euphemistic. What point would there be in saying that the night was dark? Every night is dark! So it must mean the obvious, \u201cgave light by night,\u201d just as the pillar of fire had done ever since they left Egypt. How could they cross the sea if there was no light? Note that \u201cthe Lord looked down upon the Egyptian army\u201d at \u201cthe morning watch\u201d (v. 24), at which time most of the Israelites had already crossed the sea.
\nNAHMANIDES
\nIt came between the army of the Egyptians and the army of Israel. That is, the pillar of cloud was between the Egyptians and the pillar of fire, not between the pillar of fire and the Israelites. Cast a spell. Rather, \u201cgave it light\u201d (OJPS). The pillar of fire, being tall and not blocked by the pillar of cloud (as it was for the Egyptians), gave the Israelites light. Unlike other nights, the light was not to guide them on their journey, for it was behind them, not in front of them. Had the pillar of fire remained in front, the Israelites would have hurried forward, but the Egyptians would have been blocked from seeing by the pillar of cloud, and would not have followed. As it was, the Israelites moved slowly, and the Egyptians, seeing the fire through the cloud, followed closely. But they could not approach them because of the two pillars in between: The one could not come near the other all through the night. Only \u201cat the morning watch\u201d (v. 24) did the pillar of fire leave the Israelite camp, as it always did. But today, God made it look down upon the Egyptians so it could be useful to the Israelites by throwing them into a panic with its great heat\u2014\u201ca flame that consumed the wicked\u201d (Ps. 106:18). I have already explained in my comment to Gen. 1:2 that the essence of fire is darkness. So \u201cthe cloud with the darkness\u201d (earlier in this verse) refers to the pillars of cloud and of fire. In short, the pillar of fire gave light to the Israelites, but the cloud kept the Egyptians in the dark, just as when a cloud covers the sun. God did everything by means of these two pillars. That is the correct explanation for these verses.
\nADDITIONAL COMMENTS
\nIt cast a spell upon the night. To darken it (Bekhor Shor).
\nExodus 14:21
\nRASHI
\nWith a strong east wind. With an east wind, the strongest of all winds. This is the wind with which the Holy One punishes the wicked: \u201cLike the east wind, I will scatter them before the enemy\u201d (Jer. 18:17); see also Hosea 13:15, Ezek. 27:26, and Isa. 27:8. The waters were split. Not \u201cthe sea,\u201d but \u201cthe waters\u201d\u2014all the waters on earth.
\nRASHBAM
\nA strong east wind. The Holy One did this in a natural way, with the wind baring and drying the streambed.
\nIBN EZRA
\nThe Lord drove back the sea. Or perhaps \u201chad driven back\u201d the sea. All that night. The wind did not stop even while the Israelites were crossing. Split. That is, they stood like a wall and there was a single place where it was dry.
\nNAHMANIDES
\nMoses held out his arm over the sea and the Lord drove back the sea with a strong east wind. The intention of the Blessed One was to make it look as if the wind were drying out the sea: \u201cA blast, a wind of the Lord, shall come blowing up from the wilderness; his fountain shall be parched, his spring dried up\u201d (Hosea 13:15). \u201cHe exalts nations, then destroys them; He expands nations, then leads them away\u201d (Job 12:23)\u2014and thus He did to Egypt. For they thought that it might be the wind that was splitting the sea, rather than God doing it for Israel. Wind could not split the sea into a series of dry channels, but they did not think of that. They followed after them out of their lust to do them evil. This is the sense of \u201cI will stiffen the hearts of the Egyptians so that they go in after them\u201d (v. 17). \u201cI will pursue my enemy and capture him in the sea! There is no escape from me!\u201d They did not remember until v. 25 that \u201cthe Lord is fighting for them against Egypt.\u201d
\nADDITIONAL COMMENTS
\nA strong east wind. This wind is at the ready to be used for punishment; see 10:13, Gen. 41:6, and Hosea 13:15 (Bekhor Shor). The waters were split. \u201cThe deeps froze in the heart of the sea\u201d (15:8) shows that the waters were split only about a third of the way down, and the bottom two-thirds solidified; otherwise the Israelites would have had to climb all the way down to the sea bottom to cross (Hizkuni). The east wind blew opposite where the Israelites were standing, at the shallowest part of the sea, and dried a path; on either side, the waters remained as they were (Gersonides).
\nExodus 14:22\u201325
\nABARBANEL\u2019S QUESTIONS
\n\u2666 How did the Egyptians dare pursue the Israelites into the sea (v. 23) between the \u201cwalls\u201d of water?
\nExodus 14:22
\nIBN EZRA
\nThe Israelites went into the sea. Not that they crossed the sea; even a distance of half a league would be considered going \u201cinto\u201d the sea. OJPS \u201cthe midst of the sea\u201d follows the Hebrew literally, but the word does not imply that they literally got halfway across, any more than Num. 11:4, \u201cthe riffraff in their midst,\u201d implies that the \u201criffraff\u201d were in the exact center of the Israelite camp. Of course the Israelites did not literally go into \u201cthe sea\u201d at all, merely into the place where the sea had been at nightfall. Forming a wall for them. The water solidified; see 15:8. After most of the Israelites had gotten out, the water, which had been a wall for them, turned back into liquid and came back upon the Egyptians (v. 26), separating the Egyptians from the shore. That is why v. 27 says literally that the Egyptians fled \u201ctoward\u201d the water; they thought they could get past it to dry land. There is no doubt that the pursuers had seen the light and had followed the Israelites\u2019 path.
\nADDITIONAL COMMENTS
\nThe waters forming a wall for them. That is, a barrier, so the Egyptians could not come at them from right or left, but only from behind, where the cloud shielded them (Gersonides).
\nExodus 14:23
\nRASHI
\nAll of Pharaoh\u2019s horses. Literally, \u201cPharaoh\u2019s every horse\u201d\u2014all of Pharaoh\u2019s horses meant no more to God than a single horse.
\nIBN EZRA
\nThe Egyptians came in pursuit of them. Also at night.
\nADDITIONAL COMMENTS
\nInto the sea. Not realizing where they were because of the darkness (Hizkuni).
\nExodus 14:24
\nRASHI
\nAt the morning watch. The night is divided into three four-hour periods called \u201cwatches\u201d; the last of them, just before morning, is called \u201cthe morning watch.\u201d I believe the term ashmoret, \u201cnight watch,\u201d is derived from the mishmeret, the \u201cwatch\u201d of the ministering angels that sing praises to God in three shifts during the night. Onkelos uses the same Aramaic word to translate both. The Lord looked down. As in Gen. 18:16, the verb implies \u201cto look down with intent to destroy.\u201d From a pillar of fire and cloud. The pillar of cloud would come down and make the ground like mud and then the pillar of fire would boil it, which made the hooves of their horses come apart. Threw the Egyptian army into panic. Rather, \u201cinto confusion\u201d\u2014by taking away their battle flags. In The Baraita of 32 Rules we read: \u201cEverywhere in the Bible that uses the word \u2018panic\u2019 is a reference to God\u2019s thundering. The classic example is 1 Sam. 7:10, \u2018The Lord thundered mightily against the Philistines that day. He threw them into a panic.\u2019 \u201d
\nRASHBAM
\nA pillar of fire and cloud. With thunder and hail and flashing fire and clouds, as in \u201cthe Lord thundered mightily against the Philistines \u2026 [and] threw them into confusion\u201d (1 Sam. 7:10). Panic. Caused by the thunder.
\nIBN EZRA
\nAt the morning watch. In my opinion there are three watches during the night, and this refers to the third of them, from 2 am to 6 am. Saadia, basing himself on Judg. 9:33, \u201cEarly next morning, as the sun rises,\u201d says that morning does not begin until sunrise. But he is incorrect, for why would the text add \u201cas the sun rises\u201d if morning already implied this? \u201cSo she lay at his feet until morning, and rose before one person could distinguish another\u201d (Ruth 3:14) shows that \u201cmorning\u201d begins before it is fully light. The Lord looked down. The angel. From a pillar of fire and cloud. OJPS \u201cthe pillar of fire and of cloud\u201d is closer; he looked from between the two pillars. Panic. \u201cHe let fly His shafts and scattered them\u201d (Ps. 18:15).
\nADDITIONAL COMMENTS
\nA pillar of fire and cloud. They had been halfway between the two camps; now He moved them closer to the Egyptians (Sforno).
\nExodus 14:25
\nRASHI
\nHe locked the wheels of their chariots. The wheels were burnt by the intensity of the fire, and the chariots were dragged along the ground. Those who were in the chariots bounced around until their limbs came apart. They moved forward with difficulty. Literally, \u201cstubbornly.\u201d It was measure for measure: \u201cHe became stubborn and reverted to his guilty ways\u201d (9:34). Against Egypt. Or, as it could also mean, \u201cin\u201d Egypt. Just as the Egyptians who were at the sea were struck, so were those who had remained behind in Egypt.
\nRASHBAM
\nHe locked the wheels of their chariots. Rather, \u201cThey turned the wheels.\u201d When the Egyptians realized their confusion, they struggled to turn the wheels of the wagons around in order to flee, but they could not; they could steer them around only with the greatest difficulty. For the wagons and chariots were fighting to get past each other. And why did they do this? Because the Egyptians said, \u201cLet us flee from the Israelites, for the Lord is fighting for them against us, against Egypt.\u201d
\nIBN EZRA
\nLocked. The verb is not from \u05e1\u05e8\u05e8, as some think, but is the causative form of \u05e1\u05e8\u05e8 (\u201cto remove\u201d). They unharnessed the horses from the chariots so they could run faster, but panic prevented them from doing so. Those who derive it from \u05e1\u05e8\u05e8 mean that the forward charioteer acted \u201cin opposition\u201d to the others, turning to flee and obstructing them. They moved forward with difficulty. The implication is that they were unable to turn back. The Egyptians said \u2026 \u201cThe Lord is fighting for them.\u201d This makes clear what God meant in v. 4 about the Egyptians knowing (before they died) that He was Lord.
\nADDITIONAL COMMENTS
\nHe locked the wheels of their chariots. Rather, \u201cEgypt removed the wheels of its chariots\u201d so they would not roll deeper into the sea (Bekhor Shor).
\nExodus 14:26\u201329
\nExodus 14:26
\nRASHI
\nThat the waters which are standing like a wall may come back to their place and cover the Egyptians.
\nRASHBAM
\nHold out your arm. When the Israelites had reached the opposite shore of the sea.
\nIBN EZRA
\nThat the waters may come back. The waters, which had walled them off, returned to their previous state.
\nExodus 14:27
\nRASHI
\nAt daybreak. Literally, \u201cat the turning of the morning.\u201d Its normal state. Rather, \u201cits original strength.\u201d Fled at its approach. Literally, \u201cfled toward it.\u201d They were so wild with panic that they ran toward the water! The Lord hurled the Egyptians into the sea. Like someone upending a pot to empty out its contents. The Egyptians went head over heels into the sea and were smashed in it, but God gave them the strength of \u201cyouth\u201d (which the root of the verb used here can also mean) to live on and suffer: He \u201cyouthened\u201d the Egyptians. Onkelos translates \u201cHe confounded them.\u201d There are many midrashic interpretations of this unusual word.
\nRASHBAM
\nThe Egyptians fled at its approach. Literally, \u201ctoward it.\u201d When they turned the wheels of their chariots to flee, the sea reached them before they had completely turned, so that they were actually facing the sea as it approached. \u201cBut the Israelites had\u201d already \u201cmarched through the sea on dry ground\u201d (v. 29).
\nIBN EZRA
\nIts normal state. Its original strength. At its approach. Literally, \u201ctoward it.\u201d They thought that by heading for the shore they were fleeing the water, when in fact they were running right into it. May the bones of Hiwi al-Balkhi be ground into dust, who said that Moses took the Israelites through the water at low tide, and that Pharaoh did not understand the tides and took his people into the sea when the tide began to come in! This explanation is insane. Low tide would not leave \u201cwalls on their right and on their left\u201d; the water recedes and the whole shore is dry. Moreover, the tide takes hours to turn, but the Israelites were still coming out of the sea when Pharaoh and his army drowned.
\nNAHMANIDES
\nTo its normal state. Rather, \u201cat His strength.\u201d God\u2019s power caused the wind to blow the sea back. \u201cYou rule the swelling of the sea, when its waves surge\u201d (Ps. 89:10).
\nADDITIONAL COMMENTS
\nAt daybreak. Literally, \u201cwhen the morning began to turn\u201d\u2014as it got close to noon (Bekhor Shor). The Lord hurled the Egyptians into the sea. The wind and the waves did this (Gersonides).
\nExodus 14:28
\nRASHI
\nThe waters turned back and covered the chariots and the horsemen\u2014Pharaoh\u2019s entire army. Despite the apparent preposition \u201cto\u201d before \u201cPharaoh\u2019s entire army\u201d in the Hebrew text, it is merely a feature that one finds occasionally in the Hebrew language marking the object of the verb. See, e.g., 27:3 and 27:19.
\nIBN EZRA
\nNot one of them remained. The Hebrew idiom is \u201cthere did not remain of them up to one,\u201d which some think means that Pharaoh did escape; but this is midrash. Ps. 106:11 is clear: \u201cWater covered their adversaries; not one of them was left.\u201d God intended to \u201cgain glory through Pharaoh and all his warriors, his chariots and his horsemen\u201d (v. 17), starting with Pharaoh, and did so. \u201cThe foe\u201d\u2014Pharaoh\u2014\u201csaid, \u2018I will pursue, I will overtake, I will divide the spoil\u2019; You made Your wind blow, the sea covered them\u201d (15:9\u201310). But why should I go on about this? We are plainly told that God \u201churled Pharaoh and his army into the Sea of Reeds\u201d (Ps. 136:15).
\nNAHMANIDES
\nThe waters turned back and covered the chariots and the horsemen\u2014Pharaoh\u2019s entire army. The linguistic feature identified by Rashi is not operative in this verse. It should be translated, \u201cThe waters turned back and covered the chariots and the horsemen and Pharaoh\u2019s entire army.\u201d The army is not the chariots and horsemen, it is the army that he brought with him to fight: \u201call the chariot horses of Pharaoh, his horsemen, and his warriors\u201d (v. 9). \u201cCovering\u201d regularly takes a preposition in Hebrew (e.g., 26:14, Lev. 4:8, Isa. 11:9).
\nExodus 14:29
\nIBN EZRA
\nThe Israelites had marched through the sea on dry ground. OJPS is correct here; \u201chad marched\u201d of NJPS is misleading. The Israelites were still marching through. This repetition of v. 22 points to a miracle within the miracle\u2014while the Egyptians were drowning, the Israelites were walking through the sea on dry ground at no great distance from them. \u201cAt the blast of Your nostrils the waters piled up, The floods stood straight like a wall\u201d\u2014the east wind dried the sea for the Israelites, while \u201cYou made Your wind blow, the sea covered them\u201d\u2014an opposite wind simultaneously blew the walls of water back on the Egyptians (15:8, 10). Don\u2019t be surprised that the Israelites passed through in a single night, even though the 600,000 men were only a quarter of the complete total. Perhaps the women and children went by a different route, or perhaps there really were 12 paths through the sea, as our Sages said. Remember that the Israelites did not cross the sea; they entered and left on the same side. See my comment to 15:22.
\nExodus 14:30\u201315:1
\nExodus 14:30
\nRASHI
\nIsrael saw the Egyptians dead on the shore of the sea. For the sea dumped them up on the shore so that the Israelites might not think, \u201cThe Egyptians got out just as we did, but farther down the shore, and are still pursuing us.\u201d
\nRASHBAM
\nIsrael saw the Egyptians dead and drowned in the sea. On the shore of the sea. It was the Israelites who, as soon as they were \u201con the shore of the sea,\u201d saw the sea turn back upon the Egyptians and saw the Egyptians drown in it. That is the point of the straightforward sense. I have explained \u201cThey heard the sound of the Lord God moving about in the garden\u201d (Gen. 3:8) the same way.
\nIBN EZRA
\nThe Lord delivered Israel. At this point. For up until this point they were still afraid of Pharaoh. Dead on the shore of the sea. Some of the Egyptian corpses were tossed up on shore, while others \u201csank like lead in the majestic waters\u201d and \u201cthe earth swallowed them\u201d (15:10,12).
\nADDITIONAL COMMENTS
\nThe Lord delivered Israel that day. By the death of those who wished to enslave them. For up to that point they were still like fleeing slaves (Sforno).
\nExodus 14:31
\nRASHI
\nThe wondrous power. This is half right, as is OJPS \u201cthe great work.\u201d It is literally \u201cthe great hand,\u201d that is, the great power exhibited by the hand of God. There are many biblical idioms using the word hand, and all refer literally to the hand; the commentator must explain each one individually in a way that is appropriate to its context.
\nRASHBAM
\nThey had faith in the Lord. That even in the wilderness they would not die of starvation.
\nIBN EZRA
\nWhen Israel saw. When Israel saw this great blow inflicted on the Egyptians, they feared God, just as David did when God struck down Uzzah when he touched the Ark (2 Sam. 6:1\u201311). They had faith in the Lord. They believed that He was real. And His servant Moses. That Moses was God\u2019s servant and would not do anything but what He commanded him.
\nNAHMANIDES
\nIsrael saw the wondrous power. Rashi takes it to mean \u201cthe great power\u201d; Onkelos translates it \u201cthe power of the great hand\u201d; Ibn Ezra takes it as \u201cthe great blow,\u201d following \u201cthe hand of the Lord will strike your livestock in the fields\u201d (9:3). But according to the Way of Truth, the verse means that He revealed to them the \u201cmighty hand\u201d of His aspect of judgment, which the Lord had wielded against the Egyptians. For it was there among the Egyptians and striking at them. This was the \u201cright hand\u201d of which the Israelites sang, \u201cYour right hand, O Lord, glorious in power, your right hand, O Lord, shatters the foe!\u201d (15:6), and the \u201carm of the Lord \u2026 that made the abysses of the Sea a road the redeemed might walk\u201d (Isa. 51:9\u201310). The people feared the Lord. \u201cThe people\u201d refers to all of them collectively. But when the text says \u201cthe Israelites,\u201d it means only certain individuals. See my comment to v. 11.
\nADDITIONAL COMMENTS
\nThe wondrous power. Literally, \u201cthe mighty hand.\u201d They saw it only as one \u201csees\u201d a foot by the imprint it leaves in snow or mud (Abarbanel). And His servant Moses. Following Onkelos, \u201cand the prophetic nature of His servant Moses\u201d (Hizkuni).
\nExodus 15:1
\nRASHI
\nThen Moses \u2026 sang. The verb is in the future singular. \u201cThen,\u201d when Moses saw the miracle, he decided that \u201che would sing.\u201d Future verbs occur with the same function in Josh. 10:12, \u201cJoshua would address the Lord,\u201d and 1 Kings 7:8, \u201cSolomon would construct a palace \u2026 for the daughter of Pharaoh.\u201d Here too Moses\u2019 heart told him that he should sing, and so he did. Similarly Joshua\u2019s intention was also followed by the corresponding action: \u201cHe said in the presence of the Israelites: \u2018Stand still, O sun, at Gibeon, O moon, in the Valley of Aijalon!\u2019 \u201d The same is true for the song of the well: \u201cThen Israel willed to sing this song: \u2018Spring up, O well\u2014sing to it\u2019 \u201d (Num. 21:17). The case is somewhat different with 1 Kings 11:7: \u201cSolomon would build a shrine for Chemosh the abomination of Moab.\u201d The Sages of Israel have explained this verse to mean that he intended to build it but never did. We learn that the future form of the verb can be used to express intention. This is to settle the verse in accordance with its straightforward meaning. But the Sages offered the following midrash: \u201cThis is an allusion in the Torah to the resurrection of the dead\u201d\u2014then Moses will sing. They say the same about each of the verses we have mentioned other than the one about Solomon building a shrine for Chemosh. This usage of the future form is not the same as the usage by which it expresses the continual past, as in \u201cThis is what Job would always do\u201d (Job 1:5); \u201cOn a sign from the Lord they would make camp\u201d (Num. 9:23); and so forth. This latter is a sort of combination of past and future. But this usage cannot apply to the one-time event mentioned in our verse. He has triumphed gloriously. Following Onkelos, He has out-triumphed the triumphant. Another reading: The point of the doubling of the verb is to say that He performed an action impossible for flesh and blood to perform. When two human beings fight and one wins, he throws the other off his horse. But God threw the horse and the chariot too into the sea. The word literally means \u201cproud\u201d or \u201cexalted,\u201d a word that applies to any action that could not possibly be done by someone else. Thus the NJPS translation of Isa. 12:5, \u201cFor He has done gloriously,\u201d would perhaps be better as \u201cFor He has done Himself proud.\u201d You will find repetition throughout this poem: \u201cThe Lord is my strength and might; He is become my deliverance\u201d (v. 2); \u201cThe Lord, the Warrior\u2014Lord is His name!\u201d (v. 3); and so forth all the way through. Another reading of the doubled verb: No matter how much I praise Him, there is yet more to be said\u2014unlike kings of flesh and blood, to whom praise is offered that they do not even deserve. Horse and driver. The two of them harnessed together. The water tosses them up in the air and then they sink into the depths, never parted. Hurled. This is the straightforward meaning\u2014i.e., to cast or throw. But the midrash interprets this word, ramah, to mean \u201cthrow upward\u201d (larom) and \u201ccast\u201d of v. 4 to mean \u201cthrow downward,\u201d following its use in Job 38:6, \u201cwho laid down its cornerstone.\u201d
\nRASHBAM
\nHe has triumphed gloriously. The root of this verb literally means \u201cto be high,\u201d but in fact it is used in a number of places, as here, to connote military victory. Hurled. The unusual Hebrew verb is the same one Onkelos normally uses in Aramaic to translate the more common Hebrew verb meaning \u201cto throw.\u201d
\nIBN EZRA
\nThen Moses \u2026 sang. Biblical Hebrew frequently follows the word \u201cthen\u201d with the past tense expressed by a \u201cfuture\u201d form; e.g., Deut. 4:41, Josh. 10:12, and 1 Kings 11:7. Arabic does the same. But in my opinion this is meant to be the present tense, which does not exist in Biblical Hebrew and hence is sometimes expressed by the future and sometimes by the past. The verb is in the singular because Moses alone composed it, and he taught it to the Israelites, who repeated it after him. They said, each individually\u2014or perhaps, literally, \u201cthey said\u201d to everyone in future generations \u201cto say\u201d\u2014I will sing to the Lord. Triumphed gloriously. \u201cHighly exalted\u201d (OJPS). He showed how exalted He is. For the horse is mighty and exalted (as God admits in Job 39:19, \u201cDo you give the horse his strength?\u201d), and the rider too is mighty, but He hurled the two of them into the sea as easily as one might shoot an arrow. (See Ps. 78:9, where this verb means exactly that.)
\nNAHMANIDES
\nThen Moses \u2026 sang. Rashi explains the future tense verb by saying that \u201cMoses\u2019 heart told him that he should sing, and so he did,\u201d and gives other examples. But what would he say about \u201cThey made a calf at Horeb\u201d (Ps. 106:19), which uses the same future form; Ps. 78:40,45,47, and in fact that whole psalm; 2 Kings 8:29 and 20:14? In fact, Biblical Hebrew often uses the future form to indicate the past tense and vice versa. It is a phenomenon of language that a narrator places himself at whatever point in the story he wants: sometimes in the present, \u201cthen Israel sings this song\u201d (Num. 21:17), as if they were singing in front of him; sometimes in the future, to confirm that something will happen by treating it as if it already has (which is why many of the latter examples come in prophetic literature). Triumphed gloriously. \u201cNo matter how much I praise Him, there is yet more to be said\u201d (Rashi). He takes the verb to be an indicator of quantity, and this may be so, following the usage in Ezek. 47:5, \u201cthe water had swollen into a stream that could not be crossed.\u201d But the opinion of Onkelos, who takes it to mean \u201cexalted,\u201d is correct\u2014He is exalted over the horse who is so exalted in war, and over the one who rides him. For He has hurled the two of them into the sea. Similarly v. 7 and the rest of the occurrences of this verb in the chapter. One who \u201cprides\u201d himself literally stands taller.
\nADDITIONAL COMMENTS
\nThen Moses and the Israelites sang. The verb is causative. Moses sang and had the others sing with him (Bekhor Shor). They said. Literally, \u201cThey said to say\u201d\u2014to recite this song every day (Hizkuni). After each line sung by Moses, the Israelites sang this line as a refrain (Abarbanel). I will sing to the Lord. It should be translated, \u201cI will sing of the Lord\u201d\u2014in imagery, because I cannot speak of His essence (Gersonides). Horse and driver. Pharaoh\u2019s horse, and his driver, Pharaoh (Sforno).
\nExodus 15:2
\nExodus 15:2
\nRASHI
\nMy strength and might. OJPS follows Onkelos: \u201cmy strength and song.\u201d They and NJPS all understand that the second word is implicitly preceded by \u201cmy,\u201d though it does not occur in the Hebrew text. Grammatically one would expect \u201cmy strength\u201d to be uzzi, not ozzi, a surprising vocalization that is found only in the three cases where it occurs in combination with zimrat\u2014here, Isa. 12:2, and Ps. 118:14. That word too is given unusual vowels, and \u201cmy\u201d does not occur in any of the three cases. Moreover, in all three cases it is followed by the phrase \u201cHe has become my salvation.\u201d I therefore think that in order to make sense of the words in this expression we much conclude that ozzi is not \u201cmy strength,\u201d but a noun with the suffix -i such as is found in Ps. 123:1, Obad. 1:3, and Deut. 33:16. Zimrat is in construct with \u201cLord,\u201d and carries a meaning like that in Lev. 25:4 and Isa. 25:5, where it means \u201cpruning\u201d or \u201ccutting.\u201d Thus the meaning is: \u201cThe strength and revenge of our God have become our deliverance.\u201d The imperfect \u201cconsecutive\u201d verb that does not actually follow another verb, as it ought to, is not a difficulty. You will find similar examples in 9:21, Num. 14:16 and 14:36, 1 Kings 6:5, and 2 Chron. 10:17. This is my God. He appeared to them in all His glory and they would point to Him. As the Mekilta says, \u201cA maidservant saw at the sea what all the prophets never saw.\u201d I will enshrine Him. This follows Onkelos; the noun form of this verb means \u201chabitation\u201d in Isa. 33:20. Another reading takes it from the word meaning \u201cbeauty,\u201d as if to say, \u201cI will recount His beauties and His praise to all who dwell on earth,\u201d as in the dialogue from Song 5:9\u201310, \u201c \u2018How is your beloved better than another, O fairest of women?\u2019\u2014\u2018My beloved is clear-skinned and ruddy, preeminent among ten thousand.\u2019 \u201d She goes on through the rest of the chapter describing his beauty. The God of my father. God\u2019s sanctity did not begin with me. I have depended on His sanctity and godliness since the days of my ancestors.
\nRASHBAM
\nThe Lord is my strength and might. The Lord is the strength and the song and the praise of Israel. The suffix on \u201cstrength\u201d does not mean \u201cmy\u201d; it carries no meaning (other examples: Jer. 49:16; Ps. 123:1; Lam. 1:1). \u201cMy strength\u201d is uzzi, as in Ps. 59:18, not ozzi, as here. Zimrat is a noun in the construct form but not immediately followed by the noun it is in construct with (as in Isa. 51:21). This is my God. \u201cThis\u201d is simply referential, as when the people refer to \u201cthis man Moses\u201d (32:1) after he has gone up the mountain and not returned. They did not actually see God. I will enshrine Him. OJPS \u201cglorify Him\u201d is correct; the root refers to physical glory, that is, beauty, as in Jer. 6:2, not habitation, as in Isa. 27:10, as the parallel phrase, I will exalt Him, proves. Both refer to glorifying God.
\nIBN EZRA
\nLord. \u201cYah\u201d is one of the three forms of God\u2019s name, all derived from the verb \u201cto be\u201d; see my comment to 3:15. My strength and might. Rather, \u201csong\u201d (OJPS). Rashi distinguishes between ozzi and uzzi, but he offers no other example of such a form; and see ozzekha in v. 13 of this very poem. As far as what he says about the imperfect \u201cconsecutive\u201d verb that does not actually follow another verb, anyone who knows Arabic would understand the difference between these examples. According to Moses Gikatilla, the unusual pointing of zimrat indicates that it means \u201cmy song\u201d; but does he think that \u201cthe Sea of Chinnereth\u201d in Num. 34:11, which has this pointing, means \u201cmy sea\u201d? If someone should say those forms are irregular, I would tell him to add this one to them. In my opinion it is in construct, referring to a song about God. \u201cMy strength, and the splendor of my strength, is the Lord. I do not praise my own might for throwing horse and rider into the sea, but I gain my strength from God and will therefore sing praise to Him, for He is become my deliverance.\u201d This is my God. Rather, \u201cmy power.\u201d I will enshrine Him. As the Aramaic translator has it, \u201cI will build Him a sanctuary.\u201d Since He is my God, I will build Him a shrine so that He may live with me always. Saadia thinks it means \u201cI shall dwell with Him,\u201d but this is the opposite of what the verse says. It continues: This is He who was the God of my father, that is, of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, and I will exalt Him forever.
\nNAHMANIDES
\nMy strength and might. Ibn Ezra explains, \u201cMy strength and the song of my strength is the Lord, who has become my deliverance,\u201d and so forth. This is certainly the straightforward sense of the text. But the full name \u201cLord\u201d is not used, only the abbreviated \u201cYah,\u201d though it is the way of our master Moses throughout the Torah to use the full Tetragrammaton, of which God told him, \u201cThis shall be My name forever, this My appellation for all eternity\u201d (3:15). But the Sages have already explained 17:16, where the short form is used again, as God\u2019s way of saying, \u201cNeither God\u2019s throne nor His name can be complete until the seed of Amalek is wiped out.\u201d According to the Way of Truth, the explanation is that the salvation at the sea was all through means of the \u201cangel of God,\u201d of whom 23:21 says, \u201cMy Name is in him.\u201d Remember that this angel, like the \u201cmighty hand\u201d mentioned in 14:31, alludes to God\u2019s aspect of judgment, the mighty hand of vengeance that split the sea, as the prophet explained (see my comment to that verse). It is this name of God that Moses describes as my strength and might, \u201cfor in Yah the Lord you have an everlasting Rock\u201d (Isa. 26:4). This is my God and I will enshrine Him. I will raise Him to the shrine on high. The God of my fathers, who appeared to them as El Shaddai, and whom I now exalt with the complete Name. For from now on, God will be a \u201cWarrior,\u201d and Lord will be His name (v. 3). \u201c \u2018Now I will arise,\u2019 says the Lord, \u2018Now I will exalt Myself, now raise Myself high\u2019 \u201d (Isa. 33:10). And perhaps \u201cthis\u201d alludes to the seven sefirot in Wisdom, as it does in 3:15. According to the Mekilta, this verse is interpreted to mean \u201cGod behaved with me according to His attribute of mercy, but with my fathers according to His attribute of judgment. For \u2018El,\u2019 the form of the word \u2018God\u2019 used here, indicates the attribute of mercy, as we see from its use in Num. 12:13, \u2018God, pray heal her!\u2019 \u201d Thus My God here indicates, \u201cHe will be \u2018El\u2019 with me in that He will raise Himself up to the level of mercy and be merciful in judgment.\u201d
\nADDITIONAL COMMENTS
\nI will enshrine him. Whether this or \u201cglorify Him\u201d (OJPS) is the correct translation, the sense is \u201cI am going to describe Him in terms of\u201d enshrinement or glorification; the poet is apologizing in advance for the human imagery he is about to ascribe to God (Gersonides).
\nExodus 15:3
\nExodus 15:3
\nRASHI
\nThe Lord, the Warrior. Rather, with OJPS, \u201ca man of war\u201d\u2014but in the sense in which, as Biblical Hebrew has it, a woman\u2019s \u201cman\u201d is her husband\u2014and this Hebrew use of \u201cman\u201d is regularly translated into Aramaic as \u201cmaster.\u201d Thus when David on his deathbed tells Solomon to \u201cshow yourself a man\u201d (1 Kings 2:2), he means \u201ca man of might.\u201d The Lord is \u201ca master of war.\u201d Lord is His name! He fights His wars not by means of weaponry, but by His name. As David said to Goliath, \u201cYou come against me with sword and spear and javelin; but I come against you with the name of the Lord of Hosts\u201d (1 Sam. 17:45). Another reading: Even when He fights his enemies with a vengeance, He retains his characteristic mercy for His creatures and continues to keep all things alive\u2014unlike the kings of the earth, who, when they are occupied with war, neglect all other business. For they cannot handle both at once.
\nRASHBAM
\nLord is His name! \u201cThe Lord has made Himself known: He works judgment\u201d (Ps. 9:17).
\nIBN EZRA
\nThe Warrior. More literally, \u201ca man of war\u201d (OJPS), but the word does not literally mean a human being; it refers to God\u2019s \u201cpersonality.\u201d A \u201cman of war\u201d is one who possesses warlike qualities; so NJPS has the sense. You will find the word used of heavenly beings in Isa. 40:26, of animals in Ezek. 1:9, and of angels in Dan. 1:19. God upholds those who love and cling to Him, and acts as a warrior against their enemies. Lord is His name! Let His name now be known! \u201cWho summons the waters of the sea and pours them out upon the earth\u2014His name is Lord!\u201d (Amos 5:8). He alone can do this. And see my comment to 23:21.
\nADDITIONAL COMMENTS
\nThe Warrior. Who can bring down evil on His enemies even when it is not astrologically due to them (Gersonides). Lord is His name! And it means what He told Moses it did, that He \u201cwould be\u201d with His people (Bekhor Shor). Moses is addressing Pharaoh here, who had denied (in 5:2) that he knew the Lord: \u201cLord, O warrior\u2014Lord is His name!\u201d (Abarbanel).
\nExodus 15:4\u20136
\nExodus 15:4
\nRASHI
\nHe has cast into the sea. \u201cCast\u201d is Onkelos\u2019s translation; the basic meaning of the verb is \u201cshoot.\u201d It is used again in 19:13. Drowned. The particular verb used here always has the specialized meaning, \u201cto sink in the mud,\u201d as in Ps. 69:2 and Jer. 38:6. This teaches that the sea became mud, to pay them back measure for measure, for making life bitter for the Israelites \u201cwith harsh labor at mortar and bricks\u201d (1:14).
\nIBN EZRA
\nHis army. The infantry.
\nADDITIONAL COMMENTS
\nPharaoh\u2019s chariots and his army. The second stage of the battle, against \u201cthe pick of his officers\u201d (Sforno).
\nExodus 15:5
\nRASHI
\nThe deeps covered them. Again, the verb is really a future one: \u201cThey sank into the Sea of Reeds so that the water might return and cover them.\u201d The additional yud in the middle of the Hebrew verb is unusual, though it does occur elsewhere (Deut. 8:13; Ps. 36:9). But the -mu ending is absolutely unique in the Bible. One would expect -mo, as in the rest of the poem. Like a stone. Compare v. 7, \u201clike straw,\u201d and v. 10, \u201clike lead.\u201d The wicked Egyptians were tossed up and down like straw; the ordinary ones sank like stone; the righteous ones sank like lead, coming to rest immediately.
\nRASHBAM
\nCovered them. The suffix of the verb ought to have been -o, as it is elsewhere in the poem, not -u, but it assimilated to the previous u in the verb. There is a similar example in the phrase \u201cits exits and entrances\u201d of Ezek. 43:11.
\nIBN EZRA
\nThe deeps covered them. The \u201cdeeps\u201d of the earth, that is; see v. 12. The switch of -o to -u in the verb is standard; see Ruth 2:8 for another example.
\nADDITIONAL COMMENTS
\nCovered them. This Hebrew word is grammatically unique, and we derive its meaning from the context (Bekhor Shor). This word and the other unusual forms in the poem confirm that it was originally sung; the extra syllables were necessary to fit the words to the music (Abarbanel).
\nExodus 15:6
\nRASHI
\nYour right hand. Notice that there are two right hands in this verse. When Israel does God\u2019s will, His left hand becomes another right hand. Glorious in power. To rescue Israel. And Your other right hand \u201cshatters the foe!\u201d But to me it would seem that it is the original right hand that is doing both\u2014something impossible for a human being, who cannot do two things at once with the same hand. But the straightforward sense of the verse is \u201cYour right hand, glorious in power\u2014what does it do? Your right hand shatters the foe.\u201d There are a number of biblical examples of this rhetorical device, e.g., Ps. 92:10, \u201cSurely, Your enemies, O Lord, surely, Your enemies perish.\u201d The yud at the end of ne\u2019dari, \u201cglorious,\u201d carries no meaning. There are similar examples in Lam. 1:1 and Gen. 31:39. Shatters the foe! It continually \u201cbatters and shatters them\u201d (Judg. 10:8).
\nRASHBAM
\nGlorious in power. The gender of the adjective shows that it refers to \u201cLord,\u201d not to \u201cyour right hand.\u201d Your right hand. This verse resembles Pss. 92:10, 93:3, and 94:3 in its use of the following rhetorical phenomenon: The sentence that begins in the first half of the verse is not completed until the second half of the verse; the first half introduces only the subject.
\nIBN EZRA
\nGlorious in power. The right hand may be grammatically either masculine or feminine. Or perhaps the masculine adjective here refers to God. Your right hand. It is repeated, like \u201cYour enemies\u201d of Ps. 92:10, to indicate that God does this time after time, times without number.
\nNAHMANIDES
\nYour right hand, O Lord, shatters the foe! Rashi takes it to mean, \u201cYour right hand, glorious in power\u2014what does it do? Your right hand shatters the foe.\u201d But in my opinion this is incorrect. For this repetition of phrases is regularly used to indicate that whatever it is will always be so\u2014even though the action is not described until after the first phrase is repeated. If our verse merely said \u201cYour right hand, O Lord, your right hand shatters the foe!\u201d it would be the same as the example that Rashi gives; see also Ps. 93:3 and Ps. 94:3. But here, the phrase \u201cglorious in power\u201d interrupts the repetition. The same objection holds against Ibn Ezra\u2019s suggestion that it is God who is \u201cglorious in power.\u201d It is more correctly explained as follows: \u201cYour right hand, O Lord, is glorious in power to throw down all who are haughty; your right hand, O Lord, shatters the foe with great strength.\u201d It is poetic parallelism of the kind found in prophecy. The enlightened person will understand how to interpret this verse according to the Way of Truth from the explanations I have given earlier. As our Sages said in Exodus Rabbah, \u201cHe drowns the Egyptians with one hand and saves the Israelites with the other.\u201d For it is \u201cthe Power\u201d that saves. \u201cLet the power of the Lord be great\u201d (Num. 14:17).
\nADDITIONAL COMMENTS
\nYour right hand, O Lord, glorious in power. Though what flows from God\u2014His right hand\u2014does only good, by rescuing the pious from their enemies it indirectly causes evil to the wicked (Gersonides).
\nExodus 15:7\u20139
\nExodus 15:7
\nRASHI
\nIn Your great triumph. If God\u2019s mere hand batters the enemy, then when He raises His hand in full \u201ctriumph,\u201d He will certainly break His opponents. Conversely, if merely by great triumph His enemies are broken, how much more so are they \u201cconsumed\u201d when He sends His wrath against them. You break Your opponents. You always break Your opponents\u2014literally, with OJPS, those who \u201crise\u201d against You. And who are those who rise against Him? Whoever rises against Israel. \u201cFor Your enemies rage, Your foes assert themselves\u201d (Ps. 83:3). And of what does their raging consist? \u201cThey plot craftily against Your people, take counsel against Your treasured ones\u201d (Ps. 83:4). The mere fact of plotting against God\u2019s people is what makes them God\u2019s enemies.
\nRASHBAM
\nYou break Your opponents. Rather, with OJPS, \u201cthou overthrowest,\u201d as in 19:21 and Isa. 22:19. It is a causative of \u05e1\u05d5\u05e8, not a simple active of \u05d4\u05e8\u05e1.
\nIBN EZRA
\nIn Your great triumph. Which is greater than that of the most triumphant human being. You break your opponents. OJPS \u201cThou overthrowest them that rise up against Thee\u201d better shows the deliberate contrast intended by the Hebrew. And You need no weapon of iron; Your fury\u2014that is, your burning anger\u2014consumes them like straw.
\nExodus 15:8
\nRASHI
\nThe blast of your nostrils. This was written of the Shekhinah in the image, as it were, of a flesh-and-blood king, in order to let people hear things from the ordinary world that they would be able to understand. When a man is angry, a blast comes from his nostrils. Thus: \u201cSmoke went up from His nostrils\u201d (Ps. 18:9); \u201cThey perish by a blast from God, are gone at the breath of His nostrils\u201d (Job 4:9). When God says in Isa. 48:9, \u201cI control My wrath,\u201d the Hebrew expression is \u201cI lengthen my nose\u201d\u2014that is, when His anger calms, His breathing lengthens; when He is angry He breathes quickly. That is how I see it. Biblical Hebrew also uses the image of the \u201cheating\u201d of the nose for anger; in \u201cthe Lord\u2019s anger will blaze forth\u201d (Deut. 7:4), the word for \u201canger\u201d is literally \u201cnose.\u201d The waters piled up. Onkelos translates ne\u2019ermu as: \u201cthe waters became shrewd,\u201d another meaning of this Hebrew root. But it is really a fancy word for \u201cpile,\u201d as in \u201cYour belly is like a heap [aremat] of wheat\u201d (Song 7:3), as the next phrase of our verse proves. It is to be understood this way: From the fiery blast of your nostrils the waters dry up and are piled into high heaps. A wall. This, correctly, follows Onkelos. The word refers to gathering: \u201cHe heaps up the ocean waters like a mound\u201d (Ps. 33:7). Froze. The same verb is used in Job 10:10, \u201cYou poured me out like milk, congealed me like cheese.\u201d The deeps hardened and became like stone, and the waters threw the Egyptians forcefully on the stone, fighting them with hardness of all kinds. In the heart of the sea. Rather, \u201cwith the heart of the sea\u201d\u2014with its strength. \u201cHeart\u201d is a metaphor for the essence, the strength of a thing. Thus: \u201cThe mountain was ablaze with flames to the heart of heaven\u201d (Deut. 4:11); Absalom was caught \u201cin the heart of the terebinth\u201d (2 Sam. 18:14).
\nRASHBAM
\nAt the blast of Your nostrils. \u201cWith a strong east wind all that night\u201d (14:21). Piled up. Like \u201ca heap of wheat\u201d (Song 7:3). A wall. The word etymologically refers to height. The same word is used when the Jordan splits: \u201cThe waters coming down from upstream piled up in a single heap a great way off\u201d (Josh. 3:16).
\nIBN EZRA
\nAt the blast of Your nostrils. \u201cThe Lord drove back the sea with a strong east wind all that night\u201d (14:21). The floods. The Hebrew word implies \u201cflowing,\u201d heightening the contrast with their standing straight like a wall. Froze. That is, solidified, enabling them to stand like a wall.
\nADDITIONAL COMMENTS
\nAt the blast of your nostrils. A man who wants to blow a strong breath must blow from his mouth; God can do it from His nostrils (Gersonides). The deeps froze. Here \u201cthe deeps\u201d refers not to the water but to the bottom of the sea; when the water cleared away, the sea bottom was not muddy, but solid, so the Israelites could cross. The same word in v. 5 does refer to the deepest part of the water (Gersonides).
\nExodus 15:9
\nRASHI
\nThe foe\u2014Pharaoh\u2014said to his people, when he tried to entice them: I will pursue, I will overtake them, and I will divide the spoil with my officials and my courtiers. I will bare my sword. That is, unsheathe it. Literally the verb means to \u201cempty\u201d; but in Biblical Hebrew one sometimes finds it used, as here, not with the thing that becomes empty, but with the thing that comes out of it: \u201cMoab \u2026 has not been emptied from vessel to vessel\u201d (Jer. 48:11). Subdue them. Rather, \u201cimpoverish them.\u201d The same verb is found in 1 Sam. 2:7, \u201cThe Lord makes poor and makes rich.\u201d
\nRASHBAM
\nThe foe said. When he saw the waters turned into dry land. I will bare my sword. Literally, \u201cI will empty\u201d my scabbard by drawing out \u201cmy sword.\u201d
\nIBN EZRA
\nMy desire shall have its fill of them. To seize their wealth. Ibn Janah discusses the grammatical difficulties of the verb. Subdue them. That is, destroy them.
\nNAHMANIDES
\nThe foe said. See Rashi\u2019s comment; and I have seen in Song of Songs Rabbah: \u201cR. Ishmael taught: \u2018The foe said, \u201cI will pursue, I will overtake, I will divide the spoil\u201d \u2019 ought to have been the beginning of the song. Why wasn\u2019t it put there? Because the Torah is not written in chronological order.\u201d Onkelos feels the same way, translating as \u201cthe foe had said,\u201d when he first decided to pursue them. But in my opinion the straightforward explanation is that it fits just where it is. For the text first says that they drowned in the sea and went down into the depths when the waters returned and covered the chariots and the riders. It then goes back to tell how this happened: \u201cAt the blast of Your nostrils\u201d (v. 8)\u2014the \u201cstrong east wind\u201d of 14:21\u2014\u201cthe waters piled up\u201d and \u201cthe deeps froze.\u201d Because of this, \u201cthe foe\u201d thought he could pursue and overtake them, divide their spoil, and let his desire \u201chave its fill of them.\u201d But \u201cYou made Your wind blow, the sea covered them\u201d (v. 10). The Torah mentions this because this very thought of \u201cthe foe\u201d was miraculously arranged by God, who stiffened their hearts and turned their counsel into foolishness, as I have explained in my comment to 14:17. This is why it says afterward, \u201cWho is like You, O Lord, among the celestials?\u201d\u2014performing great and miraculous feats that are opposite to each other, simultaneously saving Israel and luring the Egyptians to their deaths by one and the same action.
\nADDITIONAL COMMENTS
\nThe foe said. The third stage of the battle, against the masses of Egyptians who came solely for the spoil (Sforno).
\nExodus 15:10\u201312
\nExodus 15:10
\nRASHI
\nYou made Your wind blow. The translations are correct; the verb means \u201cblow,\u201d as in \u201cHe blows upon them and they dry up\u201d (Isa. 40:24).
\nRASHBAM
\nThe majestic waters. Waters as majestic as \u201cthe breakers of the sea\u201d (Ps. 93:4).
\nIBN EZRA
\nYou made Your wind blow. The verb nashafta may be related to neshef, the half-light after sunset and before sunrise. \u201cIn the half-light of dawn, You brought the wind that drowned them.\u201d With regard to the miracle of two winds simultaneously blowing in opposite directions, see my comment to 14:29. Sank. The Hebrew word is etymologically related to the word translated \u201cdepths\u201d in v. 5. Lead. The Hebrew word is oferet, perhaps because of the way afar, \u201cdirt,\u201d clings to it. For the other six metals\u2014gold, silver, mercury, copper, tin, and iron\u2014when buried underground will each diminish by a specified amount in a specified time. But lead will gain.
\nNAHMANIDES
\nYou made Your wind blow. Ibn Ezra relates the verb to \u201chalf-light,\u201d but Rashi has explained it very well. I would add that the same meaning is found not only with the root \u05e0\u05e9\u05e3 but also with \u05e0\u05e9\u05d1 (see Isa. 40:7); one finds these two consonants replacing each other in words with similar meanings and even in names (e.g., Shobach in 2 Sam. 10:16 is Shophach in the parallel verse, 1 Chron. 19:16). The same phenomenon is found in rabbinic Hebrew. The sense is that God\u2019s fierce wind blew the sea back on the Egyptians just as He had blown it clear for the Israelites. See my comment to 14:27. They sank like lead. In v. 5, \u201clike a stone.\u201d This sinking was God\u2019s work as well, for there were many among them who knew how to swim and were close to the shore. Certainly all of those on horseback might have been expected to escape, for horses are good swimmers. Those who were holding shields to float on ought to have made it, too. \u201cBut the Lord hurled the Egyptians into the sea\u201d (14:27), and not one of them escaped. God picked them up with His harsh wind and cast them down into the sea; the verb in 14:27 is translated \u201cto shake\u201d in Job 38:13.
\nExodus 15:11
\nRASHI
\nAmong the celestials. Rather, \u201camong the mighty\u201d (OJPS), as in \u201cthe mighty of the land he took away\u201d (Ezek. 17:13). Awesome in splendor. Rather, \u201cin praise\u201d\u2014I am too much in awe to praise you, lest my praises be too little.
\nRASHBAM
\nWho is like You, O Lord. The same phenomenon of repetition I described in v. 6 occurs here as well. Thus it means, \u201cWho is like you, O Lord, among the celestials\u2014who is there among them as majestic in holiness as You?\u201d Awesome in splendor. Rather, \u201cin praises\u201d (OJPS). The praises that are said of You make You fearful and awe-inspiring. \u201cWhen Israel saw the wondrous power which the Lord had wielded against the Egyptians, the people feared the Lord\u201d (14:31).
\nIBN EZRA
\nThe celestials. These are the angels who move the spheres. They are literally \u201cthe gods,\u201d whereas the \u201csons of the gods\u201d of Ps. 29:1 are the stars. See further my comment to 33:23. Majestic in holiness. For you are \u201cmajestic on high\u201d (Ps. 93:4). \u201cHoliness\u201d refers to the Throne of Glory in the highest of the heavens, which are holier than the lower heavens. Awesome in splendor. \u201cFearful in praises\u201d (OJPS). Man is afraid to sing God\u2019s praises, for He is high above everything, known only by the fact that He is constantly working wonders, which obligates us to praise Him. But \u201cwho can tell the mighty acts of the Lord, proclaim all His praises?\u201d (Ps. 106:2).
\nNAHMANIDES
\nWho is like You, O Lord, among the celestials? Rashi is correct that the word used here, elim, implies strength and power; but NJPS is correct in relating the word in this context to divine beings. God is called \u201cGod [el] Most High\u201d (Gen. 14:22), that is, the el who is above all the other elim. The \u201csons of the elim,\u201d translated \u201cO divine beings\u201d in Ps. 29:1, has the same meaning; the same beings are called by both names, \u201celim\u201d and \u201csons of the elim.\u201d The Mekilta takes our phrase to mean, Who is like You among those who serve before You on high? \u201cFor who in the skies can equal the Lord, can compare with the Lord among the divine beings, a God greatly dreaded in the council of holy beings, held in awe by all around Him?\u201d (Ps. 89:7\u20138). Thus Who is like You, majestic in holiness? means, Who is as majestic as You in the holy habitation in heaven? Awesome in splendor. Rashi and Ibn Ezra agree that it means \u201ctoo awesome to praise.\u201d In my opinion it means \u201cawesome in praises\u201d\u2014He performs awesome deeds that are praiseworthy, for He got revenge on those who crossed His will, and saved His servants. This makes Him awesome and praiseworthy indeed. Though earthly kings inspire fear by persecution and torture, God does so by His praiseworthy deeds.
\nADDITIONAL COMMENTS
\nThe celestials. The intellects that move the heavenly bodies (Gersonides). Working wonders. Ordinarily the breath of the nostrils is hot, while it is the breath of the mouth that cools food; but \u201cat the blast of Your nostrils \u2026 the deeps froze\u201d (v. 8) (Hizkuni). Changing the nature of things already existent, which none of the intellects that move the heavenly bodies can do (Gersonides).
\nExodus 15:12
\nRASHI
\nYou put out Your right hand. OJPS \u201cstretched out\u201d makes the image a bit clearer. When the Holy One stretches out the fingers of His hand, the wicked fall to their deaths, for everything is in His hand, and falls when He lets it go. \u201cWhen the Lord stretches out His hand, the helper shall trip and the helped one shall fall\u201d (Isa. 31:3). Picture a man holding a glass\u2014when he opens his hand the slightest bit, it falls and shatters. The earth swallowed them. This tells us that at least they had earned burial, which they did by admitting \u201cThe Lord is in the right\u201d (9:27).
\nRASHBAM
\nYou put out Your right hand. \u201cThen the Lord said to Moses, \u201cHold out your arm over the sea\u201d (14:26).
\nIBN EZRA
\nYou put out Your right hand, the earth swallowed them. The earth swallowed \u201cthe foe\u201d (v. 9). When the earth saw that You had put out Your right hand, it swallowed them up. For everything that happens below on earth (e.g., 14:21) corresponds to something above in heaven. The \u201cwonder\u201d (v. 11) is that You, the highest of the high, stretched out Your hand, and the earth, lower than the lowliest, swallowed them up. \u201cYour right hand\u201d metaphorically represents \u201cYour strength.\u201d
\nNAHMANIDES
\nYou put out Your right hand, the earth swallowed them. After You made Your wind blow and the sea covered them, You stretched forth Your right hand and Your arm (v. 16) over them and the earth swallowed them. That is, after they drowned, the sea cast them up on shore, as the sea ordinarily does: \u201cIsrael saw the Egyptians dead on the shore of the sea\u201d (14:30). There they met their end and \u201creturned to dust\u201d (Eccles. 12:7). \u201cSwallowing\u201d here refers to destruction; the same Hebrew verb is used this way in Job 10:8, Lam. 2:2, and Isa. 3:12. But our Sages interpret the verse to mean that at God\u2019s command, the earth actually opened its mouth and swallowed them. For they deserved decent burial by virtue of having admitted, \u201cThe Lord is in the right\u201d (9:27). But \u201cputting out the right hand\u201d always implies vengeance and destruction. Perhaps, however, they meant that God put out His hand to have the sea cover them, and that \u201cthe earth swallowed them\u201d was the burial they had earned.
\nExodus 15:13\u201316
\nExodus 15:13
\nRASHI
\nYou guide them. Onkelos translated \u201cyou bear them,\u201d but he was not careful to use the root in its Hebrew meaning.
\nRASHBAM
\nIn Your strength You guide them. The present tense of NJPS is correct, not the past of OJPS. You are guiding Israel now in order to bring them in to take possession of Canaan, Your holy abode.
\nIBN EZRA
\nIn Your love. The reference is to the pillars of cloud and of fire, which are what actually led them. You lead the people. All the commentators treat this past tense form as a future. I have already pointed out (in my comment to 12:17) why the prophets use the past tense to indicate future. The point would be that God will lead them to Jerusalem, His holy abode. But I think the \u201choly abode\u201d refers to Mount Sinai, where \u201cthe Presence of the Lord abode\u201d (24:16). There they will serve God, and there the Torah will be given to them. Your strength. Not their own strength.
\nNAHMANIDES
\nYou lead \u2026 You guide. Ibn Ezra treats these past tense forms as the \u201cprophetic perfect,\u201d indicating the future. In my opinion, the tense is the same as in the previous verse. \u201cYou have led the people\u201d by means of the pillar of cloud, and \u201cYou have guided\u201d them, by the strength of Your right hand, to Your holy abode, to which they are going. To Your holy abode. The Temple; \u201cthe sanctuary, O Lord, which Your hands established\u201d (v. 17). As the Mekilta puts it, \u201c \u2018Abode\u2019 means the Temple. \u2018When you gaze upon Zion, our city of assembly, your eyes shall behold Jerusalem as a secure abode\u2019 [Isa. 33:20].\u201d
\nADDITIONAL COMMENTS
\nThe people you redeemed. When you led them out of Egyptian territory to Succoth (Sforno).
\nExodus 15:14\u201315
\nRASHBAM
\nThe dwellers in Philistia \u2026 the clans of Edom \u2026 the tribes of Moab. All of these were nations that neighbored the land of Israel.
\nIBN EZRA
\nThe peoples hear. The reference is to Seir, \u201cthe territory of your kinsmen, the descendants of Esau\u201d (Deut. 2:4). Philistia \u2026 Edom \u2026 Moab are mentioned because they are between Egypt and Canaan; none of these nations actually fought with Israel in the wilderness. The \u201cmighty men\u201d of Moab (OJPS) are literally \u201crams,\u201d leading their flock. All the dwellers in Canaan are aghast. Because of the rumors they have heard.
\nExodus 15:14
\nRASHI
\nAgony grips the dwellers in Philistia. For they had killed the Ephraimites who had left Egypt by force, before the time appointed for the exodus, as is explained in 1 Chron. 7:21, which tells us that \u201cthe men of Gath \u2026 killed them.\u201d
\nNAHMANIDES
\nThe peoples hear, they tremble. That is, when they hear, they will tremble at the blows of God\u2019s hand. If the past tense of the first verb and the future tense of the second verb are to be interpreted literally, it might mean, The peoples have heard all that God did in Egypt, and will tremble constantly in fear of the disease that He put among the Egyptians.
\nExodus 15:15
\nRASHI
\nThe clans of Edom \u2026 the tribes of Moab. Isn\u2019t it correct that they need not have feared? The Israelites were not going after them. But they were aggrieved to see Israel gain such glory. All the dwellers in Canaan are aghast. Rather, with OJPS, \u201care melted away.\u201d The same verb is used in \u201cYou soften it with showers\u201d (Ps. 65:11). They were saying, \u201cThey are coming after us, to wipe us out and take possession of our land.\u201d
\nExodus 15:16
\nRASHI
\nTerror and dread descend upon them. Terror on those who are far, dread on those who are near. As Rahab tells the spies in Jericho, \u201cDread of you has fallen upon us, and all the inhabitants of the land are quaking before you. For we have heard how the Lord dried up the waters of the Sea of Reeds for you when you left Egypt\u201d (Josh. 2:9\u201310). Till Your people cross over the Arnon; till Your people cross the Jordan\u2014as Onkelos translates. Whom You have ransomed. Whom You loved more than other nations, like an object acquired at a high price, which one loves.
\nRASHBAM
\nThrough the might of Your arm. The meaning is the same as if it said \u201cthrough your mighty arm,\u201d even though the Hebrew words are reversed from the expected order. The same phenomenon is found in \u201cYour holy temple\u201d of Ps. 65:5, which really says \u201cYour temple holiness.\u201d Till Your people cross. Both times, this phrase refers to the crossing of the Jordan into the land of Israel. The straightforward explanation is that it is repeated rhetorically, as in v. 6.
\nIBN EZRA
\nTerror and dread descend upon them. As the continuation of the verse shows, the pronoun does not refer to the Canaanites, but to the Philistines, Edomites, and Moabites, through whom the Israelites would have to pass on their way to Canaan. Till Your people cross over. While they pass through, the other peoples must be still and not fight them. The phrase is repeated twice because they \u201cskirted the hill country of Seir a long time\u201d (Deut. 2:1). Ransomed. Literally, \u201cbought.\u201d They were slaves to the Egyptians, and You bought them to be Your slaves.
\nNAHMANIDES
\nTerror and dread descend upon them. This is to be read as a prayer: \u201cMay terror and dread descend upon them\u201d so that they do not come out to face Israel in battle. Ibn Ezra thinks this refers only to Philistia, Edom, and Moab, the nations whose territory the Israelites would have to \u201ccross over,\u201d not to the Canaanites. And in fact these nations did not fight the Israelites. Even though the Edomites \u201cwent out against them in heavy force, strongly armed\u201d (Num. 20:20) to prevent them from passing through their territory, they did not fight them. Had terror and dread not descended upon them, they would have wanted to fight Israel out of their hatred for them. Ammon is not mentioned, for Ammon and Moab are essentially the same nation. It may be that this terror prevented even the Canaanites from opposing them until they had crossed the wilderness. For, according to our Sages, \u201cthe Canaanite, king of Arad, who dwelt in the Negeb\u201d who \u201cengaged Israel in battle and took some of them captive\u201d (Num. 21:1), was not really a Canaanite but an Amalekite.
\nExodus 15:17\u201318
\nExodus 15:17
\nRASHI
\nYou will bring them. Moses prophesied that he himself would not enter the land; he does not say \u201cYou will bring us.\u201d The place You made to dwell in. Literally, \u201cto sit in\u201d\u2014the Temple below is aligned with the Throne on high. The sanctuary, O Lord, which your hands established. The cantillation mark on mikdash makes clear that it is \u201cthe sanctuary, O Lord,\u201d not \u201cthe sanctuary of the Lord.\u201d Beloved is the sanctuary, for the whole world was made with a single hand\u2014\u201cMy own hand founded the earth\u201d (Isa. 48:13)\u2014but the sanctuary is made with both hands. And when will the sanctuary be made with God\u2019s two hands? When \u201cthe Lord will reign for ever and ever!\u201d (v. 18)\u2014in the future, when the kingdom is entirely His.
\nRASHBAM
\nSanctuary. The unusual pointing of this Hebrew word means that it should not be pronounced as it usually is, mik-dash, but mi-k\u2019-dash.
\nIBN EZRA
\nYou will bring them and plant them. Better, \u201cmay You bring them and plant them.\u201d It is a prayer that they stay there a long time without being exiled. \u201cI will plant it in Israel\u2019s lofty highlands, and it shall bring forth boughs and produce branches and grow into a noble cedar\u201d (Ezek. 17:23). Your own mountain. The same word refers in Deut. 3:25 to \u201cthat good hill country\u201d on the western side of the Jordan. The place You made to dwell in. But this phrase suggests that it alludes to Mount Moriah, the Temple Mount, where the Shekhinah would dwell. Your hands established. Better, \u201cprepared.\u201d The place mentioned, opposite the most holy spot on high, You prepared in advance for Yourself to dwell in. For all places on earth change depending on which star is above them. Those learned in astronomy will understand what I mean.
\nExodus 15:18
\nRASHI
\nFor ever and ever. The pointing shows that the vav of va\u2019ed is not \u201cand\u201d; it is part of the root. Contrast Jer. 29:23.
\nRASHBAM
\nThe Lord will reign. After they settle in the land of Israel, the kingship of the Holy One will be known throughout the world.
\nIBN EZRA
\nThe Lord will reign. When the Temple is built for His name, then God\u2019s kingdom will appear on earth. For ever and ever. One Spanish scholar, relating olam to the verb ne\u2019elam, \u201cto be hidden,\u201d understands the phrase to mean \u201cFor the hidden and for the revealed.\u201d Others would make it \u201cbearing witness,\u201d as in Jer. 29:23. The meaning would be: He is king, and He bears witness that every heart should enthrone Him. But I think the phrase is shorthand for le-olam ve\u2019ad olam, \u201cfrom eternity and for eternity.\u201d The vowel change is easily explained grammatically, and the unusual use of the word is matched in Isa. 57:15, shokhen ad, \u201cHe who high aloft forever dwells.\u201d The point would be that kingship suits the God who performed all these wonders
\nNAHMANIDES
\nThe Lord will reign for ever and ever! That is to say, He has now shown that He is king and ruler over all, by saving His servants and causing those who rebelled against Him to perish. So may it be His will to do in all generations forever! He will \u201cnot withdraw His eyes from the righteous\u201d (Job 36:7) nor let the wicked escape him. There are many verses to this effect; e.g., \u201cThe Lord shall reign forever, your God, O Zion, for all generations. Hallelujah\u201d (Ps. 146:10) and \u201cThe Lord shall be king over all the earth; in that day the Lord shall be one and His name one\u201d (Zech. 14:9). Onkelos was afraid to translate it literally as referring only to the future, since God\u2019s kingdom is eternal, and so used the present tense: \u201cThe Lord\u2019s kingdom is forever and ever,\u201d as in \u201cYour kingship is an eternal kingship\u201d (Ps. 145:13). But I do not really understand his opinion in this matter, for there are also such verses as \u201cMay the glory of the Lord endure forever\u201d (Ps. 104:31) and \u201cLet it be fulfilled that Your name be glorified forever\u201d (1 Chron. 17:24), as well as \u201cMay His great name be magnified and sanctified\u201d of the Kaddish. But perhaps these verses follow the deeper meaning of the blessings.
\nADDITIONAL COMMENTS
\nThe Lord will reign for ever and ever! God will rule over us; let no other king rule over us, and do not give us into some other nation\u2019s power (Bekhor Shor). Having rescued them, He had earned the right to rule them; as the Israelites told Gideon in Judg. 8:22, \u201cRule over us\u2014you, your son, and your grandson as well; for you have saved us from the Midianites\u201d (Abarbanel).
\nExodus 15:19\u201321
\nExodus 15:19
\nRASHI
\nFor the horses of Pharaoh went into the sea. Rather: When the horses of Pharaoh went into the sea, the Lord turned back on them the waters of the sea.
\nRASHBAM
\nFor the horses of Pharaoh. Rather, this verse is connected with what follows: When the horses of Pharaoh went into the sea, and when the Israelites had already marched through the sea on dry ground, then, after \u201cthe Lord turned back on them the waters of the sea\u201d (v. 19), \u201cMiriam \u2026 took a timbrel in her hand\u201d (v. 20).
\nIBN EZRA
\nFor the horses of Pharaoh. In my opinion, this verse too is part of the song, emphasizing the miracle within a miracle that I explained in my comment to 14:29. Although the verse only mentions \u201cthe horses of Pharaoh, with his chariots and horsemen,\u201d Pharaoh too was drowned in the sea, as I have pointed out in my comment to 14:28.
\nNAHMANIDES
\nFor the horses of Pharaoh, with his chariots and horsemen, went into the sea. Ibn Ezra believes this verse is part of the song; but it is not, for it is prose, not poetry. What it means is as follows: \u201cMoses and the Israelites sang\u201d (v. 1) the intervening song when the horses of Pharaoh, etc., went into the sea\u2014immediately, that very day, not the next day or some time afterward. It might even mean that they sang the song while Pharaoh\u2019s army went into the sea\u2014while they themselves were still crossing on dry ground, they sang this song.
\nADDITIONAL COMMENTS
\nThe horses of Pharaoh. This verse is indeed connected with the song, for it explains why the Lord should rule Israel for ever and ever (Abarbanel).
\nExodus 15:20
\nRASHI
\nMiriam the prophetess. And when did she prophesy? When she was still only Aaron\u2019s sister. Before Moses was born, she said, \u201cMy mother is going to bear a son who will save Israel\u201d (B. Sotah 11b). Another reading: She is called \u201cAaron\u2019s sister\u201d because he risked his life for her when she became leprous. A timbrel. This is a kind of musical instrument. In dance with timbrels. The righteous women of that generation were so confident that God would perform a miracle for them that they brought timbrels with them from Egypt.
\nRASHBAM
\nThe prophetess. Anyone who offers praise to God or rebukes the people is called a prophet. Aaron\u2019s sister. She is identified as Aaron\u2019s sister, and not Moses\u2019 sister, because Aaron was the first-born. See my comments to Gen. 28:9 and Gen. 36:22.
\nIBN EZRA
\nThe prophetess, Aaron\u2019s sister. Some say that she is called this because at the time she prophesied, before Moses\u2019 birth, she was only \u201cAaron\u2019s\u201d sister. But she may have been called \u201cAaron\u2019s sister\u201d in Egypt to distinguish her from some other Miriam. As I have explained in my comment to 2:2, Aaron and Miriam were both older than Moses, and before Moses became a prophet, Aaron was already quite prominent. With timbrels. When the Israelites sang this song, the women instrumentalists played along the whole time.
\nNAHMANIDES
\nAaron\u2019s sister. In my opinion, since Moses and Miriam were both mentioned in connection with the song, the text wished to mention Aaron as well. Connecting his sister the prophetess with him does him honor, especially since he too was a prophet and holy to the Lord. It may also be a result of the tendency for biblical verses to identify family members by their relationship to the eldest brother; see also 1 Chron. 2:42, where Caleb is identified as \u201cbrother of Jerahmeel,\u201d the eldest brother according to 1 Chron. 2:9.
\nADDITIONAL COMMENTS
\nMiriam the prophetess, Aaron\u2019s sister. The biblical text generally identifies women by naming their eldest brother; e.g., 6:23; Gen. 33:3 (Bekhor Shor).
\nExodus 15:21
\nRASHI
\nMiriam chanted for them. Moses told the song to the men; he would speak and they would repeat after him. Miriam told it to the women.
\nIBN EZRA
\nChanted. The Hebrew word may refer to \u201csinging\u201d (32:18) or to \u201cresponse\u201d (e.g., Deut. 26:5; see my comment there).
\nNAHMANIDES
\nMiriam chanted for them. Rather, \u201cMiriam responded to them.\u201d The pronoun is masculine\u2014Miriam responded to what Moses and the male Israelites had sung by singing the first verse of the song over again to have the women repeat it.
\nADDITIONAL COMMENTS
\nSing to the Lord. They repeated the entire song (Bekhor Shor).
\nExodus 15:22\u201325
\nABARBANEL\u2019S QUESTIONS
\n\u2666 Why is the list of marches in Numbers 33 not given here, when Israel sets out in v. 22?
\n\u2666 How could God let Israel go for three days in the wilderness without water?
\n\u2666 What was the \u201ctest\u201d of v. 25?
\nExodus 15:22
\nRASHI
\nMoses caused Israel to set out. Against their will. For the Egyptians bedecked their horses with jewelry of gold, silver, and precious stones, and the Israelites would find them in the sea. They got a greater amount of plunder at the sea than they did in Egypt itself. That is why Moses had to force them to set out.
\nIBN EZRA
\nMoses caused Israel to set out. In my opinion the pillars were there to enable them to travel day and night. But once Pharaoh drowned, they were no longer afraid for their lives and so had no need to travel at night. (Num. 9:15\u201322 does not prove that they traveled at night.) Moses instructed them (at God\u2019s command) when and where to go. There were only six stages in the journey to Mount Sinai, less than 40 days travel. The weather was mild, not too humid or too cold, and whoever had no tent could simply sleep in the air. Once they got to the wilderness of Sinai, they built booths, for they would be staying there until they built the Tabernacle. They had brought acacia wood with them from Egypt for this purpose, as I shall explain in my comment to 25:5. It is these booths that are commemorated by the Feast of Booths. Once the Tabernacle was built, God came down upon it in the form of a cloud; from which time again \u201cYour cloud rests over them and \u2026 You go before them in a pillar of cloud by day and in a pillar of fire by night\u201d (Num. 14:14). The wilderness of Shur. That is, the wilderness of Etham. Notice that three days travel from here brings them to Marah, while in Num. 33:8, \u201cthey made a three-days\u2019 journey in the wilderness of Etham and encamped at Marah.\u201d Perhaps Etham and Shur were the two cities of that region, or perhaps it had two names for some other reason. Remember that Israel did not go into the sea in order to get to Canaan, but merely to draw the Egyptians in to drown there.
\nADDITIONAL COMMENTS
\nMoses caused Israel to set out. Either because some of them wished to remain to see what Egyptian goods the sea might cast up, or because they all wished to stay and celebrate at the place where they were saved. But God set them going by means of the pillars (Gersonides). Since the order of march described in Numbers 2 was not set up until they reached Sinai, Moses had to organize them for the march this time (Abarbanel). They traveled three days. Three encampments\u2014Etham, Pi-hahiroth, and Marah (Hizkuni).
\nExodus 15:24
\nRASHI
\nGrumbled. In Hebrew and Aramaic they use a reflexive verb for this form, just as we do in French\u2014the action is something that affects the one who is acting.
\nADDITIONAL COMMENTS
\nThe people grumbled against Moses. This was the first time Moses had directed their travels; they thought he did not know what he was doing. But God arranged that, before reaching Sinai, they should be in need of Him and know that there was indeed a God in Israel (Abarbanel).
\nExodus 15:25
\nRASHI
\nThere He made for them a fixed rule. At Marah, He gave them some of the sections of the Torah to occupy themselves with: the Sabbath, the red heifer, and the establishment of a judicial system. He put them to the test. And He saw how stiff-necked they were. Instead of consulting politely with Moses\u2014\u201cBeg mercy for us, that we should have water to drink\u201d\u2014they grumbled.
\nRASHBAM
\nShowed him. Rather, \u201ctaught him.\u201d There He made for them a fixed rule, and there He put them to the test. There, at Marah, by means of the test He had arranged by making them thirst for water and then sweetening it for them, He began to train them that they must accept the rules that He would teach them and He would fulfill their needs. What was the \u201cfixed rule\u201d that He made for them? \u201cHeed[ing] the Lord your God diligently, doing what is upright in His sight, giving ear to His commandments and keeping all His laws\u201d (v. 26).
\nIBN EZRA
\nA piece of wood. We have no idea what kind of wood this was, for the text does not tell us; it was simply a miracle. You could take all the trees in the world of whatever kind of wood it was and throw them into a puddle and they would not sweeten it. It was simply a divine decree\u2014a great miracle. If it was a pool of water rather than a spring, it must have been something like what Elisha did in 2 Kings 2:19\u201322. Of this our Sages said, \u201cHuman beings use the sweet to cure what is bitter, but God cures the bitter with the bitter.\u201d Even if it was flowing water, which one might think could change, it was simply a divine decree. Note that this is the reverse of the first plague God struck against the Egyptians, where He turned the Nile foul. A fixed rule. To discipline them and teach them. He put them to the test. To show who would rely on God\u2019s saving them and who would grumble.
\nNAHMANIDES
\nThe Lord showed him a piece of wood. In this situation the verb clearly means \u201cshowed,\u201d but since elsewhere I have never found it to mean anything but \u201ctaught,\u201d I conclude that the particular kind of wood that was used has the natural ability to sweeten water, and that God taught this to Moses. But our Sages say that the wood itself was bitter; hence this was a double miracle, like the salt that Elisha threw into the spring in 2 Kings 2:19\u201322. In this case He literally had to \u201cteach\u201d Moses where to find the tree, because it did not grow in that particular location; or perhaps God made it appear for him miraculously. Again, I have found in Midrash Tanhuma: \u201cIt does not say \u2018He showed him,\u2019 it says, \u2018He taught him\u2019\u2014He taught him His ways.\u201d The way of the Holy One is to sweeten the bitter by means of the bitter. There He made for them a fixed rule. Rashi\u2019s comment here follows the opinion of our Sages. But if this is correct, why doesn\u2019t it say here something like, \u201cThe Lord spoke to Moses, saying: Command the Israelite people,\u201d and then spell out the commandments, as it did, for example, in 12:3? It certainly does this for all the commandments given at the Tent of Meeting, on the steppes of Moab, and even in the case of the special passover celebrated in the wilderness (Num. 9:2). Rashi\u2019s choice of language, \u201cHe gave them some of the sections of the Torah to occupy themselves with,\u201d suggests that Moses indeed informed them of these laws and taught them that the Holy One was going to command them\u2014just as our father Abraham learned the Torah before it was given. The purpose was to get them used to obeying commandments, and to find out whether they would indeed accept them willingly and joyfully; this is the meaning of He put them to the test. In v. 26, Moses informs them that God will be giving them commandments. But the contextual meaning of giving them \u201ca fixed rule\u201d is as follows: Now that they had entered the great, awesome wilderness, \u201ca parched land with no water in it\u201d (Deut. 8:15), Moses gave them certain practices to follow about their food and other needs, by which they could live until they came to \u201ca settled land\u201d (16:35). \u201cA statute and an ordinance\u201d (OJPS) need not imply \u201claw\u201d in the sense of a Torah commandment; it means a sensible rule. The word OJPS translates as \u201cordinance\u201d is used about David in 1 Sam. 27:11: \u201cSuch was his practice as long as he stayed in the territory of the Philistines.\u201d In Gen. 40:13 it is translated \u201ccustom,\u201d and in Jer. 30:18 as \u201cits proper place.\u201d Alternatively, the phrase might mean that Moses educated them in the rules of the desert: to bear hunger and thirst, and to pray about them to the Lord rather than complain; as well as rules to live by: to love each other, to follow the counsel of their elders, to behave modestly in their tents (as regards their wives and children), and to deal peacefully with those who come into the camp to sell things; as well as disciplinary regulations, so that they would not be like marauding bands who commit every kind of abomination without shame, as God commanded in the Torah, \u201cWhen you go out as a troop against your enemies, be on your guard against anything untoward\u201d (Deut. 23:10). The exact phrase\u2014\u201cfixed rule\u201d (NJPS) or \u201cstatute and ordinance\u201d (OJPS)\u2014is used again in Josh. 24:25, not in connection with the commandments of the Torah, but in connection with rules of behavior in civilized communities, like the 10 stipulations that Joshua laid down when the Israelites entered the land or the like. There He put them to the test. This lets us know that He deliberately led them by this route, where there was no water, and brought them to the place of the bitter water, as a test: \u201cHe subjected you to the hardship of hunger \u2026 in order to test you by hardships only to benefit you in the end\u201d (Deut. 8:3,16).
\nADDITIONAL COMMENTS
\nHe cried out to the Lord. Because miracles must be instigated by the prophet through prayer (Gersonides). A piece of wood. According to R. Joshua b. Korha in the Tanhuma, it was a variety of cedar (Kimhi). Put them to the test. Sweetening the water was like doing a favor for a difficult person to see whether the kindness would draw him back to do right (Bekhor Shor).
\nExodus 15:26
\nABARBANEL\u2019S QUESTIONS
\n\u2666 Why does v. 26 need four separate expressions for obeying God\u2014and why are the \u201crules\u201d not mentioned in any of them?
\n\u2666 What are the \u201cdiseases\u201d of v. 26, and why should God promise not to inflict them on His people, the Israelites, as He had on His enemies, the Egyptians?
\nExodus 15:26
\nRASHI
\nIf you will heed the Lord your God diligently. This means accepting the obligation. Doing. This refers to actually doing what the laws say. Giving ear. Listening for the precise details. All his laws. Perhaps OJPS \u201cstatutes\u201d gives the sense better. The Hebrew word refers to decrees for which no reason is given. The evil inclination argues: \u201cWhat need is there to prohibit these? Why are they prohibited?\u201d It refers to laws like the mixture of kinds (Lev. 19:19), the eating of pork (Lev. 11:7, Deut. 14:8), the red heifer (Num. 19:1\u201310), and so forth. I will not bring upon you any of the diseases that I brought upon the Egyptians. And if I do bring them upon you, they will be as if I had not, for I the Lord am your healer. That is the midrashic interpretation. The straightforward sense is this: As your healer, I teach you Torah and commandments, that you may be saved by them, like a doctor who tells someone, \u201cDon\u2019t eat this particular food, for it will put you at risk for this particular illness.\u201d As Prov. 3:8 says of God\u2019s teaching, \u201cIt will be a cure for your body, a tonic for your bones.\u201d
\nRASHBAM
\nThe diseases that I brought upon the Egyptians. By turning their water into blood, so that they had no water to drink. The reference is to diseases caused by bad water; see my comment to 23:25. I the Lord am your healer. As I healed the water by making it sweet. Elisha uses the expression explicitly in 2 Kings 2:21: \u201cThus said the Lord: I heal this water; no longer shall death and bereavement come from it!\u201d
\nIBN EZRA
\nIf you will heed the Lord. With regard to the journey. What is upright in His sight. Which one knows by one\u2019s conscience. Giving ear to His commandments. Which He will give in the future. Keeping all His laws. By which the world operates. Then I will not bring upon you any of the diseases that I brought upon the Egyptians, which you saw, and you need not fear other diseases, for I the Lord am your healer, just as I healed the bitter water. You need no other healer, for no doctor could have \u201ccured\u201d this water. So you must be careful not to rebel against Him, and to love Him, for He will treat you well.
\nNAHMANIDES
\nHe said. Moses said. Doing what is upright in His sight, giving ear to His commandments and keeping all His laws. Ibn Ezra explained \u201cwhat is upright\u201d as a reference to the positive commandments and \u201cgiving ear\u201d as a reference to the negative commandments; the Mekilta takes \u201cwhat is upright\u201d as applying to business dealings: \u201cEveryone who deals in good faith, so that people are comfortable dealing with him, it is accounted to him as if he had fulfilled the entire Torah.\u201d I will discuss this further in my comments to Deut. 6:18, \u201cDo what is right and good in the sight of the Lord,\u201d if the good God is good to me. I will not bring upon you any of the diseases that I brought upon the Egyptians, for I the Lord am your healer. See Rashi\u2019s comment. But the straightforward sense of the verse is that \u201chealer\u201d is not a noun, like \u201cdoctor,\u201d but a verb\u2014I am the one who heals you. It is not the way of a master to tell his servants, \u201cIf you do all I ask, I will not kill you by means of horrible diseases,\u201d and none of the promises in the Torah are of this kind. This verse is not a promise, but a warning that they should not be among His enemies, like the Egyptians. If they heed Him, they will escape from all these diseases that are liable to come upon those who cross His will as did the Egyptians. It is comparable to the threat issued in Deut. 28:60, \u201cHe will bring back upon you all the sicknesses of Egypt that you dreaded so, and they shall cling to you.\u201d But \u201cI the Lord am your healer\u201d is a promise\u2014I will remove from your midst all diseases that occur as an ordinary part of life, just as I \u201chealed\u201d the water. Ibn Ezra points out in his comment to v. 25 that this \u201chealing\u201d of the water is the reverse of the first plague directed against the Egyptians, showing that God can turn bitter water into sweet and sweet into bitter\u2014He can act in either way. So one must fear Him and love Him, so that He will treat one well, as He sweetened the water for the Israelites. With regard to the switch from the third person \u201cHis commandments\u201d to the first person \u201cI the Lord,\u201d I have explained this many times. Here, the switch from \u201cthe voice of the Lord\u201d to \u201cI\u201d means that if we heed the voice of our God by obeying the commandments of the Lord, the Name will heal us. On this same basis the Sages established the blessing formula, \u201cBlessed are You, O Lord our God, king of the universe, who has sanctified us by His commandments and commanded us.\u201d For the blessings are an acknowledgment of God\u2019s kingship, and they are commanded to us eternally. A word to the wise is sufficient. But let me enlighten you by remarking that every blessing that mentions kingship speaks in the third person out of respect for the eternal kingship by which He has sanctified us, and for what He has done for us. But blessings in a series, which do not contain the kingship formula, are formulated in the second person: e.g., \u201cBlessed are You, O Lord, the Holy God,\u201d and so forth. The Aleinu prayer is framed in the third person, since in it God is called \u201cthe King of the kings of kings.\u201d Understand this.
\nADDITIONAL COMMENTS
\nWhat is upright in His sight. The intrinsically useful commandments, like returning lost objects, loving one\u2019s neighbor, and the like (Gersonides). His laws. The ones whose reasons are not obvious (Gersonides). The diseases that I brought upon the Egyptians. All human diseases can be linked to one or another of the Egyptian plagues, since all are caused by an imbalance in one of the four humors, each of which is linked to one of the four elements: water, earth, fire, and air (Abarbanel). I the Lord am your healer. Just as a doctor watches his patient\u2019s diet, My laws are meant to protect you from unhealthy living (Bekhor Shor).
\nExodus 15:27\u201316:1
\nExodus 15:27
\nRASHI
\nTwelve springs of water. They had been arranged so there would be one for each tribe. Seventy palm trees. One for each of the 70 elders.
\nIBN EZRA
\nTwelve springs of water. This is mentioned to show how good the place was. This is why they stayed there so long. Assuming that Pharaoh left for Baal-zephon\u2014a two days\u2019 journey\u2014as soon as he was told the Israelites were fleeing, then he drowned on the 21st of Nisan. Three days without water brings us to the 24th. In my opinion, the Israelites did not spend more than a day at Marah, but encamped at Elim \u201cbeside the water\u201d for 20 days or so. They then left Elim on the 15th of the second month (16:1). Seder Olam comes to the same conclusion. Seventy palm trees. Saadia explained this to mean \u201cseventy kinds of palm trees.\u201d Others claim there were 70 trees for each tribe, or even for each person. But there is no need for this kind of thing. For the 12 springs and the 70 trees were not created at this moment for Israel. This was not the time of year when dates are ripe, anyway. But the date palms show that the water here, as opposed to that at Marah, was sweet.
\nNAHMANIDES
\nTwelve springs of water and seventy palm trees. It is not that big a deal to find 70 palm trees in one place. In low-lying areas one might find a thousand of them or more. And multiple springs flow from valleys and mountainsides. The text would not bother to tell us just this. Ibn Ezra\u2019s explanation, that the water here, as opposed to that at Marah, was sweet\u2014for otherwise the date palms would not flourish\u2014and that the Israelites stayed here longer than they did elsewhere, is not satisfying. For the same information is given in Num. 33:9, where this phrase is repeated even though the story of Marah is not told. In fact, none of the other stops mentioned in Numbers 33 are described except for this one. Rashi thinks the 12 springs were for the 12 tribes and the 70 trees for the 70 elders. I do not know whether he means they were created miraculously for them at that moment. But according to the comment of R. Eleazar of Modi\u2019im in the Mekilta, \u201cFrom the day that the Holy One created His world, He created there 12 springs, corresponding to the 12 tribes of Israel, and 70 palm trees, corresponding to the 70 elders.\u201d The text tells us this to let us know that each tribe camped at its own spring, and the elders sat in the shade of their trees to praise God for creating the trees for them there in that arid land. Our Sages have another midrash on this verse in Sefer ha-Bahir, a comment that we consider quite wonderful.
\nADDITIONAL COMMENTS
\nThey encamped there. To occupy themselves with the study of the Torah He had given them as a \u201cfixed rule\u201d (Hizkuni).<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n