meta: {"file": "/data/tomer/Sefaria-Export/txt/Tanakh/Commentary/Shadal/Torah/Shadal on Exodus/English/merged.txt"}
text: Shadal on Exodus
  שד"ל על שמות
  merged
  
  This file contains merged sections from the following text versions:
  -Sefaria Community Translation
  -
  
  Shadal on Exodus
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  Verse 1
  
  
  
  Verse 2
  
  
  
  Verse 3
  
  
  
  Verse 4
  
  
  
  Verse 5
  
  
  
  Verse 6
  
  
  
  Verse 7
  
  
  
  Verse 8
  
  
  
  Verse 9
  
  
  
  Verse 10
  
  
  
  Verse 11
  
  
  
  Verse 12
  
  
  
  Verse 13
  
  
  
  Verse 14
  
  
  
  Verse 15
  
  The Hebrew midwives - the understanding of our sages, o blessed memory, and Onkelos, and Rashbam, and Ramban and Ra"z is that those midwives were from the seed of Israel, and the understanding of the Alexandrian translator, and[Eusebius Sophronius] Hieronymos, and Yoseohus Flavius, and Don Itzchak [Abrabanel] is that they were Egyptian, these midvives of the Hebrews. And this is right, since how does it make any sense that [Pharaoh] would order Jewish women to destroy all the children of their own people and believe that they won't reveal such a thing? And [Philiphus] Klericus affirms that if they were not Jewish the text should have read "midwives to the Hebrews". And the Ra"z comes and says that it should read "the midwives that served the Hebrews" - and this has no standing, since the text could have said "the midwives that served the Hebrews" by omitting the word 'et' as it does in (Jer. 31:29) "every man that eats  sour grapes". And what is proved by the phrase 'the midwives feared God' is no proof at all, since it is not written here Hashem, rather, E-lohim, and everyone who has a god (a God of truth or a god of falsehood) would fear killing babies that did not sin at all, whatever people they are from. And an example of this is what is said regarding Amalek 'and he attacked you in the rear, and you were tired and exhausted, and he did not fear E-lohim' (Deu. 25:18) and my dear student, R. Yaakov Chay Pardo, may the tzadik's memory bring blessings to us, adds that if they were from another people it made more sense to say they did this out of fear and not of love, since if they were Jewish what need would there be to remind us that they feared God, since all humans love the children of their own people. Also, what they point out that the names Shifra and Puah are not Egyptian, but come from Hebrew roots, this is not relevant, since they would come from the Land of Goshen, that is closer to the land of Israel (see Gen. 46:34), and it is possible that they just spoke a language closer to Hebrew like Cannanite, and so their names would be closer to Hebrew and Cannanite. And another thing that is clear is that for a people that is "many and strong"  makes no sense to have only those two midwives, and so Rabbi Ibn Ezra and (and after him the Ra'z) says that those two were the supervisors of the all the midwives; and Rabbi Ovadia Sforno says that Pharaoh talked first to the midwives of his city, and after them not doing his bidding,  he did not trust others from other places; and more, this is happening far away from his eyes, since Israel is living in the Land of Goshen and not in Egypt. How else could we explain that the land is full of them, but that "in the land of Goshen, where Israel lived, there was no hail"? And I say that Pharaoh did not want to talk to all the midwives at once, since if all of them would kill all the Israelite babies at one moment, the thing would be known and publicized.And if just two of them were going around killing them - and not all the other midwives, others could say it  was an accident, and he thought to order all the midwives in small groups, so that the matter would not be known [if it had worked with those first two].
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  Verse 1
  
  
  
  Verse 2
  
  1 "He saw an angel": and then it explains what he saw, since in all places the Holy Blessed One does [G!d's own] mission. 
  "In the heart of the fire": libah instead of lehava, and thus in the Mishna [Bava Qama 6:4]. From the bush [sneh]: from the thorn bushes that were on that mountain, and thence it was called Sinai (cf. ibn Ezra). Now the bush was on fire, but it was not really burning, but was surrounded by flames like a burning object, since the fire was flashing between the thorns, but did not take to them, and thus at first Moses saw the fire amid the bush, and the bush flashing with fire, and then he saw that it was not burnt, and he said: 'Let me turn aside to see' why this bush is not burning. The root b.'.r. in Qal is an active verb, and its meaning is the flames of fire and also the burning of the object which is on fire, since it is customary in the world that there is no separation between the flames and the burning, but here the bush was on fire, but was not burnt.
  "Consumed": Passive pa'al, see my grammar, sections 374, 422.
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  Verse 1
  
  
  
  Verse 2
  
  
  
  Verse 3
  
  
  
  Verse 4
  
  
  
  Verse 5
  
  
  
  Verse 6
  
  
  
  Verse 7
  
  
  
  Verse 8
  
  
  
  Verse 9
  
  
  
  Verse 10
  
  
  
  Verse 11
  
  
  
  Verse 12
  
  
  
  Verse 13
  
  
  
  Verse 14
  
  
  
  Verse 15
  
  
  
  Verse 16
  
  
  
  Verse 17
  
  
  
  Verse 18
  
  
  
  Verse 19
  
  
  
  Verse 20
  
  We are forced to say that Scripture left out some of the generations between Kehat and Amram, for in [Numbers 3:28] the count for Kehat of all the males from a month and up was 8,600, and he only had four sons as his family, so each of those four sons would [have had to] have 2,150 sons. And behold Amram only had Aaron, Moses, and Miriam. Moses only had two sons, and Aaron four, so how is is possible for Amram, Yitzhar, Chevron, and Uziel to have 2,150 souls [each] in the second year after leaving the land of Egypt? Therefore, one must conclude as IB Koppe in his essay, "Israelitas non 215, sed 430 annos in Eagypt commoratos esse," Gottinga 1777, where he said (and Rossenmueller agreed with him) that Levi, Kehat, and Amram were not in sequential generations, but rather other generations were between them. And according to this, one can answer as its plain meaning the number of 430 years that Israel was in Egypt [Exodus 12:40]. And according to this, the powerful procreation of the Israelites in Egypt can be understood, which the Torah did not speak of as an actual miracle. And the wise Jost (Volume 1 page 2) said that the names mentioned here are family names, so it is saying that so long as the father was still alive, the children stayed bonded together as one family for the most part (even though sometimes sons would divide their fathers household, as was the case for Isaac and Ishmael in the lifetime of Abraham, and Jacob and Esau in the lifetime of Isaac), and with the death of the father the family would split, and sometimes even after the death of the father they would not split off until some time. So the plain meaning of this section according to his opinion is that the family of Levi remained one family unit, and was called "Levi" for the span of 137 years after the death of Jacob, and then, after Levi died, the family split into three, the names of which being Gershom, Kehat, and Merari. So, the family of Kehat stayed as one unit for 133 years, and afterward it was split into four families. And at the time of the exodus from Egypt, 137 years had already passed, and the Amram family was one family, of which came Moses and Aaron. So if you add together the three numbers of 137, 133, and 137, and add 17 years on that for how long the Israelites were in Egypt before Jacobs death, you have 424 years, meaning close to 430 years. Therefore (he says) whenever it says "the son of Yitzhar", "the son of Kehat", etc, it means "the descendant of Yitzhar", "the descendant of Kehat".
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  Verse 1
  
  
  
  Verse 2
  
  
  
  Verse 3
  
  
  
  Verse 4
  
  
  
  Verse 5
  
  
  
  Verse 6
  
  
  
  Verse 7
  
  
  
  Verse 8
  
  
  
  Verse 9
  
  
  
  Verse 10
  
  
  
  Verse 11
  
  
  
  Verse 12
  
  
  
  Verse 13
  
  
  
  Verse 14
  
  
  
  Verse 15
  
  
  
  Verse 16
  
  
  
  Verse 17
  
  
  
  Verse 18
  
  
  
  Verse 19
  
  
  
  Verse 20
  
  
  
  Verse 21
  
  
  
  Verse 22
  
  
  
  Verse 23
  
  
  
  Verse 24
  
  
  
  Verse 25
  
  
  
  Verse 26
  
  
  
  Verse 27
  
  
  
  Verse 28
  
  
  
  Verse 29
  
  
  
  Verse 30
  
  
  
  Verse 31
  
  
  
  Verse 32
  
  
  
  Verse 33
  
  
  
  Verse 34
  
  
  
  Verse 35
  
  
  
  Verse 36
  
  
  
  Verse 37
  
  
  
  Verse 38
  
  
  
  Verse 39
  
  
  
  Verse 40
  
  
  
  Verse 41
  
  
  
  Verse 42
  
  
  
  Verse 43
  
  
  
  Verse 44
  
  But every slave: The circumcision of slaves is an obligation on the master, from Abraham (Genesis 17:12) and onward. We are also commanded about the rest of slaves on Shabbat and holidays. And all of this raises the status of the slave, that it be slightly less than his master. And therefore when he is circumcised, he immediately eats from the Passover sacrifice like his master. But at the end of the Second Temple [period], when character traits became corrupted through the kings of the House of Herod and Israel learned the ways of the gentiles and the kings and ministers and wealthy ones particularly loved to copy the Romans - and we know that the Romans were cruel to their slaves - there were Israelite masters that did not want to circumcise their slaves in order that [the slaves] should not think of themselves as Israelites or [even] as people. The Sages of Israel then arose and decreed that whoever would not circumcise his slaves would not eat from the Passover sacrifice. And in my opinion, their intention was that one who does not consider his slaves to be like people is not fit to be among those that celebrate the festival of freedom. This is the position of most of the Sages, and it is taught anonymously in the Mekhilta (and according to Rashi's textual variant, it is the opinion of R. Yehoshua; and according to Tosafot's variant, it is the opinion of R. Akiva). But R. Eliezer says, "The circumcision of his slave does not impinge upon his eating from the Passover sacrifice"... As he did not want anything that was not in the Torah or in the tradition to be innovated, and he never said anything that he did not hear from the mouth of his teacher. But the rest of the Sages of Israel would innovate ordinances according to the needs of the times. And they had to excommunicate R. Eliezer, as he would protest against everything that veered from that which was passed on to him from his teachers. 
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  Verse 1
  
  
  
  Verse 2
  
  
  
  Verse 3
  
  
  
  Verse 4
  
  
  
  Verse 5
  
  
  
  
  ... And 'that which I see' is that the understanding of the verse is certainly that God visits the iniquity of the parents even upon righteous children. And such was the faith of our fathers; and so did the Sages, may their memory be blessed, say - "A righteous one who has bad befall him is a righteous one that is the child of an evildoer!" And it is something to which [our] senses testify, that the father gives over to his child quite a few good and bad things. And perforce his ways and deeds bring good or bad to his offspring after him. And this phenomenon is one of the secrets of hidden providence in all of the events that happen in the world. 'And God did that they should fear before Him' - as every father loves his offspring; and the worry, lest his sins bring woes also to his children, stops him from always 'following his willful heart,' to one extent or another. And even if it does not stop him, behold those that see his children tormented because of his iniquity will cry out bitterly about him, and that man will 'become a parable and a byword.' And many 'will hear and fear and not do like his acts'... And behold, that which I said that the matter of the visiting of the iniquity of the fathers upon the children is something to which our senses testify, etc., is similar to that which Ralbag explained - that the punishment of the parents continues to the children by happenstance, in the way of "Our fathers sinned and are no more; and we must bear their guilt." And I also know that the understanding of the expression, "visiting the iniquity of the parents upon the children," is not that the punishment should continue to the children by happenstance, but rather that God punishes the children with a clear intention - as in (Exodus 32:34), "and I will visit their sins upon them"; (Hosea 4:9) "and I will visit its ways upon it." Likewise, the content of the word, "visit," is a directed punishment and not one by happenstance - as in (Hosea 9:7), "The days of visiting have come, the days of repayment have come"; (Isaiah 10:3), "And what will you do on the day of visiting." Nevertheless, this is the way of the Torah, to describe to us the the bad and the good as if they intentionally came down from Above as reward and punishment; even if they come about naturally, according to the way of the world. As there truly is nothing in the world that is by happenstance. For everything is the result of His causes, and everything is an outgrowth of the First Cause (see Kuzari 5:9). And just like God inscribed it into the laws of nature that the iniquities of the father bring bad to his offspring after him to threaten people, and just like the Torah said that the Lord is a jealous God, and vengeful and angry to threaten the Children of Israel; so too did it also say that He visits the iniquity of the parents upon the children - as if He did this by way of vengeance and fury - even though the thing happens naturally and is not revenge, God forbid. Rather, it is all for the good of people...