Avodah Mailing List

Volume 12 : Number 088

Friday, February 6 2004

• Re: Avodah V12 #87
• Re: Reversing a gazeira by Chazal? (Kilayim 9:2)
• Midrash and Method
• Re: zfardea=crocodile?
• Re: Reversing a gazeira by Chazal? (Kilayim 9:2)
• Re: Hot pad selfheating footwarmer on Shabbos
• YU's new Eruv
• Re: daf yomi & R. Chaninah
• Parshas Hamon Seguloh
• Re: Direction of Tefillah
• Re: Nesher

A  question

Names of Tanaim and  Amaoraim
      How come we find no tanaim or amoraim with the names Avraham, Moshe,
Aharon, David, or Shelomo ?

RELUCTANCE to give the names of the Avos was not the problem. For we
see that the names YITZCHAK, YAAKOV, and YOSEF were given. Also, the
problem went away. In the time of the Rishonim, these names were given.

R' Sholom Simon asked <<< The Bartenura seems to say that nowadays, since
everyone can distinguish these from cotton or linen, it is muter. Is
this reversing a gazeria from Chazal? >>>

On the one hand, I've found these sort of cases so often that they
don't shock me any more. On the other hand, like RSS, I too would like
to understand the mechanism by which we've disposed of such halachos.

For example, theres a gemara which requires us to have almonds floating
in almond milk to prevent confusion about its pareve status. Thirty
years ago, everyone cited that gemara as requiring us to serve pareve
coffee creamer in its original paper carton, so that no one would think
it was milk. At some point in the intervening years, it seems that someone
decided that pareve creamer is so common that we no longer need to follow
that rule, and it is now very common for me to see such creamers by the
coffee at a simcha, without any pareve indicator at all. (It is served
in a keli called a "creamer", but using that word in this context could
get confusing, and I can't think of a good synonym.)

I think there are things related to Avodah Zara which are like this too,
like how we have no compunction against saying their names or drawing
pictures of the sun and moon because "everyone knows" that we don't
actually believe in them.

Akiva Miller

AishDas is proud to be hosting a new email list by Rav Meir Levin titled
"Midrash and Method". Here's an excerpt from the introduction (complete text
at <http://www.aishdas.org/midrash/intro.htm>:
    Our approach will be as follows. We will present the verse or passage
    along with its Midrashic comment. We will use classic commentaries to
    identify the difficulty that occasioned this comment. We will then
    quote the midrashic selection statement by statement, attempting
    to determine how it solves the problem, the role that it plays
    in supporting or referencing the proposed solution, whether it
    represents an aggadic tangent or part of the continuing argument,
    and its overall contribution to the point that is being made. We will
    tend to earlier, exegetically more consistent, Tannaitic midrashim
    but refer to other parallel passages to help us along the way.

    Let us then proceed into the world of our Sages who are our mentors
    and at whose feet we sit. Let us drink deeply of their unsurpassed
    wisdom, let us drink out of the font of their Divine inspiration. May
    we merit to in some measure be called their students and may we
    share in the profound inheritance that they left us.

You can get a taste of the material by looking at this week's issue, below.
(Formatting is limited by the restrictions of Avodah's digesting software.)
The list's web site is at <http:/www.aishdas.org/midrash>.

To subscribe, email the word "subscribe" to <midrash-request@aishdas.org>.

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger             "I hear, then I forget; I see, then I remember;
micha@aishdas.org        I do, then I understand." - Confucius
http://www.aishdas.org   "Hearing doesn't compare to seeing." - Mechilta
Fax: (413) 403-9905      "We will do and we will listen." - Israelites

Midrash and Method
on the weekly parasha by
Meir Levin

	And Moshe caused B'nei Yisrael to journey from Yam Suf (Exodus
	15,22)

    R. Yehoshua: This travel they traveled solely by Moshe's command. All
    other journeys they traveled according to the word of the Almighty,
    as it says:...by the word of Hashem they encamped and by the word
    of Hashem they traveled...( Numbers 9); however, this journey was
    solely by the word of Moshe, as it says And Moshe caused Bnei Ysrael
    to journey...

    R. Eliezer says: They traveled by the word of the Almighty for we
    find in several places that that they journeyed only by the command
    of the Almighty. So what does it mean (that) Moshe caused them
    to journey? (It is) to make known the goodness of Israel for as
    soon as Moshe told them " come, go.." they did not say: "how will
    we go into the desert without provisions". Instead, they believed
    and followed Moshe. Of them it states: To go and proclaim in the
    ears of Jerusalem, I remembered for you kindness of your youth,
    the love of your betrothal, your going out after me into the desert,
    land not sown (Yirmiah 2,2).

    Similarly we find that he turned backwords their itinerary three
    stops as it says:...and they traveled form Chiroth and they traveled
    form Marah and encamped at Eilim...and they traveled from Eilim
    and encamped by Yam Suf. So we find that they they returned for the
    honor of Aharon, for his burial place... (ibid).

    Rabbi Eliezer says: They traveled by the word of the Almighty for
    so we find in several places. What does and Moshe caused them to
    journey tell us? That he forced them with a rod. When they saw the
    corpses of men who cruelly and with hard labor enslaved them, they
    thought:" Apparently no men have remained in Egypt".

    Let us appoint a leader and return to Egypt. We will make an idol
    and it will descend in front of us and we will return to Egypt. You
    might think that they planned it but never carried it out, so it
    says (confirming the fact that actually started to do so):..and they
    refused to listen and they did not remember your wonders which You
    performed for them and they hardened their necks and they appointed a
    leader to return to their slavery. However you the G-d of forgiveness,
    gracious and merciful, long-suffering and great of kindness and you
    have not abandoned them...even they made a molten calf (Nehemia 9).

    R. Yehuda ben Ilay says: An idol passed through the sea with Israel
    and Moshe caused it to go away as it says: Moshe caused them to
    journey away from Yam Suf -- from the matter that was (there) with
    Israel in the Yam Suf. What is that? It is the idol.

As Midrash goes, this passage is clearer than many others. For one
thing, it quite explicitly indicates that the difficulty that occasions
its comments is to be located within the words "And Moshe caused
to journey". It also provides us with two opposing views, those of
R. Yehoshua and R. Eliezer and a disagreement is always a good starting
point for analysis. It is a straightforward passage with which to begin
our study of Midrash.

Yet, it is certainly not bereft of difficulties. From whence derive
the diametrically opposing views expressed by the two protagonists; in
addition the nature of the evidence that they adduce to support their
interpretations is not entirely clear. Neither is the application of
their statements to the quoted Biblical passage self-evident. We will
see that the Midrash begins by cueing us into the difficulties that it
sees in the verse but then proceeds to the underlying issue which is of
great theological import. Once stated, it can be discussed and referred
back to the text.

Let us proceed sentence by sentence.

	And Moshe caused B'nei Yisrael to journey from Yam Suf (Exodus
	15,22).

This verse describes an event that immediately follows the Song of the
Sea. The previous two verses informed us that Miriam also sang the first
lines of Moshe's song; our verse represents an unexpected break from
that song. It is in fact so unexpected that it is jarring. Why did the
people journey, to what end, and by whose initiative? We do not know --
there is a gap which the Midrash will now seek to fill by providing the
"missing" information and background.

In addition, the verse also contains a contradiction for this is the only
time that a journey in the desert is described as having been initiated
by Moshe. It is even more surprising because it is the first journey,
all subsequent ones being described as by the word of Hashem. Nowhere
in the Torah is there an indication of when and on what occasion Hashem
started to direct their journeys.

    R. Yehoshua: This travel they traveled solely by Moshe's command. All
    other journeys they traveled according to the word of the Almighty,
    as it says:...by the word of Hashem they encamped and by the word
    of Hashem they traveled...( Numbers 9); however, this journey was
    solely by the word of Moshe, as it says " And Moshe caused Bnei
    Ysrael to journey...

R. Yehoshua points out the difficulty and asserts that this particular
journey was in fact commanded by Moshe and that it was an exception. We
will return to his view later. In the meantime, the Midrash presents
another opinion.

    R. Eliezer says they traveled by the word of the Almighty for we
    find in several places that that they journeyed only by the command
    of the Almighty. So what does it mean (that) Moshe caused them to
    journey? (It is) to make known the goodness of Israel for as soon as
    Moshe told them "come, go.." they did not say: "how will we go into
    the desert without provisions". Instead, they believed and followed
    after Moshe.

R. Eliezer elects to bring our verse into an agreement with the
verse in Numbers. All journeys were commanded by G-d. Why is Moshe
then mentioned? It is to make known that the Jews followed him with
complete trust.

One commentator (R. Avrohom of Slonim) suggests that R. Yehoshua and
R. Eliezer disagree about the route that Bnei Yisrael took out of the Red
Sea. According to R. Yehoshua, they followed Moshe along the relative
safety of the outlines of the shore ultimately weaving their way back
to the starting point on the shore of the Red Sea. This was a reasonable
course that did not require G-d's guidance whereas according to R. Eliezer
they headed directly out into the desert, demanding a great deal more
trust. At that time, the Cloud of Glory was still behind them, where it
moved to serve as a buffer between the pursuing Egyptians and the escaping
Israelites (see Ibn Ezra). " Instead, they believed and followed after
Moshe". In other words, our verse is set off from the preceding narrative
because the immediate leader has changed. Previously it was the Cloud
of Glory; now it is Moshe. It is still, however, "by the mouth of Hashem."

    Of them it states: "To go and proclaim in the ears of Jerusalem, I
    remembered for you kindness of your youth, the love of your betrothal,
    your going out after me into the desert, land not sown (Yirmiah 2,2).

The citing of this verse brings us to the crux of the issue. It is well
recognized that in the Torah we encounter two opposing perceptions of
the Jewish people's behavior in the desert. On one hand they are viewed
as rebellious, ungrateful and stiff-necked. Rebellious have you been
with Hashem from the day that I have known you (Deuteronomy 9,24). On
the other hand, they are described as G-d's special inheritance that he
personally sustains and protects throughout the trials of the desert, as
for example, throughout Exodus 16, the story of the Mann. Similarly, the
prophetic utterances that see the sojourn in the desert as a long string
of rebellion and backsliding (for example Psalms 78) are balanced by ones
like our verse in Yirmiah and in Hoshea 2,16. There they are portrayed as
praiseworthy and completely righthouse. In general, R. Yehoshua throughout
the Mekhilta tends to the first view while R. Eliezer Hamodai adopts
the second. R. Eliezer generally follows the first view, although he
sometimes nuances it to admit some responsibility on the part of B'nei
Yisrael. I must note that, as in our passage, determining R. Eliezer's
position is complicated by the repeated confusion between R. Eliezer and
R. Eliezer Hamodia that one finds in various manuscripts of the Mekhilta.

"The generation of the desert have no portion in the World-to-Come...
these are words of R. Akiva. R. Eliezer says: Of them it states Gather
for me my Chassidim, who sundered my covenant over a sacrifice (Pslams
50).... Says R. Yochanan: "R. Akiva left behind his (usual) benevolence
for it states: To go and proclaim in the ears of Jerusalem, I remembered
for you kindness of your youth, the love of your betrothal, your going
out after me into the desert, land not sown. Others are admitted through
their merit, they themselves are not"(Sanhedrin 110b)?

This very issue, of course, became a "theological football" with the
rise of Christianity. The Church fathers latched on to the accusation
that Jews have always been a recalcitrant and rebellious people with no
redeeming features of any kind. They, therefore, ascribed all positive
references in the Torah to proto-Christians and all negative ones to
the Jewish nation. Discarding this all important nuance enabled them to
dissociate the Church from its Jewish origins.

    Similarly we find that he turned backwards their itinerary three
    stops as it says:...and they traveled from Chiroth and they traveled
    from Marah and encamped at Eilim...and they traveled form Eilim and
    encamped by Yam Suf. So we find that they returned for the honor of
    Aharon, for his burial place (ibid).

This passage does not flow well with the preceding statement of
R. Eliezer. I suggest that we adopt the interpretation of Merkevet
Hamishna that it in fact returns us to the position of R. Yehoshua. It
brings proof from the other time that B'nei Yisrael turned backwards;
that time it was to bury and eulogize Aharon. That event serves as a
model for our situation. In that case, they turned back for the sake of
Aharon. In our case, they did so upon Moshe's request. These two instances
of following these two leaders may be related to the previously cited
verse from Yirmiah, which the Targum translates as follows: "after me
into the desert -- after my messengers, Moshe and Aharon", referring to
these two journeys.

Until now we have addressed the contradiction; now we begin to deal with
the gap. The following passage attempts to provide the missing details.

    Rabbi Eliezer says: They traveled by the word of the Almighty for
    so we find in several places. What does "and Moshe caused them to
    journey" tell us? That he forced them with a rod. When they saw
    the corpses of men who cruelly and with hard labor enslaved them,
    they thought: "Apparently no men have remained in Egypt". Let us
    appoint a leader and return to Egypt. We will make an idol and
    it will descend in front of us and we will return to Egypt. You
    might think that they planned it but never carried it out. It says
    (confirming that they actually started to do so):...and they refused
    to listen and they did not remember your wonders which You performed
    for them and they hardened their necks and they appointed a leader
    to return to their slavery. However you the G-d of forgiveness,
    gracious and merciful, long-suffering and great of kindness and you
    have not abandoned them...even they made a molten calf (Nehemia 9).

R. Eliezer (some emend to read R. Eliezer Hamodai) now presents the
unfavorable view of the generation of the desert. The verse form Nehemia
exemplifies the opinion that B'nei Yisrael behaved badly in the desert and
that it was only G-d's grace and kindness that ensured their survival. It
also intimates that there were transgressions that took place before the
Golden Calf, presumably the one that is described in our passage. Here
as well the B'nei Yisrael refused to follow and were led by force.

It is important to realize that such overarching ideas are guiding
principles of interpretation and affect and determine how we approach
individual verses. Throughout the Mekhilta we find individual passages
or verses being interpreted in ways that seem to be far removed form
their simple meaning. However, these are examples of being true to the
big picture at the expense of the local. Each Tanna attempts to present
an internally consistent and theologically unified interpretation of
the desert narrative. As the Torah presents a complex, multileveled
and, at times, intentionally contradictory picture, these attempts at
harmonization invariably result in some compromise between the most simple
local interpretation and being faithful to the large picture. For us,
the readers, both variants are correct for "these and those are words of
the Living G-d". (The reasons for why the Tannaim pursued harmonization
and did not adopt the approach of "eilu v'eilu" is of great interest and
importance but would take us too far beyond the scope of this forum.) Some
Midrashim took another tack to harmonized the opposing indications within
the text by positing diverse groups within the nation, some righthouse
and others sinful (see one example in Mekhilta to 14,13). One group
expressed one attitude and the other another.

Parenthetically, the Mekhilta here seems to be making a well-known
psychological point. How often do we confuse meanness with fortitude and
cruelty with courage, machismo with manliness. When the Jews saw their
cruel oppressors' bodies they committed this common error. "When they
saw the corpses of men who cruelly and with hard labor enslaved them,
they thought: "Apparently no men have remained in Egypt".

Adducing a return to idol worship is simply following the idea of Israel's
unremitting sinfulness to its logical conclusion.

    R. Yehuda ben Ilay says: "An idol passed through the sea with
    Israel and Moshe caused it to go away as it says Moshe caused them
    to journey away from Yam Suf -- from the matter that was (there)
    with Israel in the Yam Suf. What is that? It is the idol".

R. Yehuda fills in the gap in a different way... He, like R, Yehoshua
sees Moshe as the one responsible for ordering the journey away from the
Yam Suf but he veers sharply away from ascribing continued sinfulness to
the Jewish People. The Talmud tells us in Sanhedrin 103b that Micah's
image passed with B'nei Yisrael inside the sea. Moshe cause them to
travel away from this image which remained inside the sea as it closed
over the Egyptians. Perhaps R. Yehuda is expressing his perception of
this event as the pivotal point in the history of the Exodus. The quick
turning away from the Egyptians and the idol now buried along with them
on the bottom of the Red Sea is emblematic of a sharp break with the
idolatrous past. Both views of the Jews are correct; however, the negative
one pertains to the period before the great miracle of the splitting of
the Red Sea while the positive one belongs to the time after it.

The passage that we had studied begins with a contradiction but quickly
focuses on the "big" question of how our forefathers in the desert to
be viewed -- as wholly righthouse epitomes of faith or wholly sinful
rebellious folk sustained only in the merit of G-d's kindness and
grace. This central question runs through a number of other passages in
the Mekhilta and remains an indispensable key to many difficult Midrashic
passages. After the thelogical issue had been bared, the Midrash proceeds
to fill the gap that is created by the abrupt discontinuity in our
verse. The way in which it accomplishes this task integrates with the
previous issue and allows other approaches to resolve it. As an exercise,
reread the passage in its totality in-light of the approach advanced here.

It is specifically this co-mingling of exegesis, theology, hashkafa and
musar that makes the study of Midrash such a profound and satisfying
experience. May we merit to study and the words of our Sages and partake
of their wisdom.

Best wishes and blessings,
Meir Levin

R' Micha asks:
>...the mateh turned into a nachash at the seneh, and into a sanin before
>Par'oh. However, one setumah away (Shemos 7:15 as opposed to 7:10) the staff
>is the one that turned into a nachash. Are there two matos?

The answer is yes - one passuk is describing Aharon throwing down his
stick, other is talking about Moshe throwing down his stick. Even if
it's the same stick, I think that a stick that can turn into a snake,
can also turn into a crocodile (but I'll have to check my Handbook
Of Miracles (TM) to be sure). Certainly the change of names used is
significant. (Even if it wasn't a crocodile, it was a snake with the
choice of name that has crocodilian overtones, as per Yechezkel, since
the name tanin can refer to both creatures.)

>The ra'ayah RNS brings there... be'einai also works if we assume the
>medrash rabba is referring to a water snake. Perhaps even better, since
>venom is considered a form of sereifah.

When it says in Yechezkel "Thus says the Lord God: Behold, I am against you,
Pharaoh king of Egypt, the great tanin that lies in the midst of his
streams, which has said, My river is my own, and I have made it for myself"
- this is not talking about a sixty centimeter water snake found in ponds
everywhere. This is talking about the great Nile crocodile, top predator in
Egypt and object of worship by the Egyptians.

Nosson Slifkin
www.zootorah.com

Assuming it's a gezeirah made by a Sanhedrin, presumably one would need
another Sanhedrin to revoke it. Even the Rambam, in our oft debated Hil'
Mamrim pereq 2, who doesn't require gadol mimenu bichokhmah uvminyan
does assume it's another beis din.

However, there is another situation (also discussed here, but much
longer ago) in which a takanah (presumably including a gezeirah) can
be overridden. If the reason for the takanah is included in the text of
the takanah itself, it implies a conditional.

The problem is that Chazal don't use quotations marks or "ad kan leshono"
or the like. So you don't know where the text of the takanah ends,
and where the amoraim's statement begins.

One case where this lead to machloqes is WRT basar kafui. Meat must be
kashered within three days of shechitah because otherwise the dam is
irrevocably absobed by the meat. What about meat frozen to the point of
being solid and unabsorbant? If the "because..." was part of the takanah,
then such freezing should stop the clock. If not, then one must obey
the takanah.

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger             "I hear, then I forget; I see, then I remember;
micha@aishdas.org        I do, then I understand." - Confucius
http://www.aishdas.org   "Hearing doesn't compare to seeing." - Mechilta
Fax: (413) 403-9905      "We will do and we will listen." - Israelites

On Sun, Feb 01, 2004 at 05:29:52PM -0500, Isaac A Zlochower wrote:
: The activation and use of heat producing materials on shabbat involves
: the issues of nolad and hatmanah bedavar hamosif hevel (aish is,
: presumably, not involved since there is, apparently, no glowing metal
: involved in the reactions)...

Regular eish doesn't involve glowing metal either. Glowing gasses, yes.

If a gacheles shel mateches isn't hav'arah, it's bishul. And the reason
given is because annealing metal is bishul. Here too there is heat and a
rapid state change. So even without eish, it could be more than hatmanah.

From: RJC <jcoh003@ec.auckland.ac.nz>
: A question which might help to shed light on this: If very finely divided
: iron dust is exposed to air, it will burst into flame. This is not a case
: of carbon combustion, rather a very fast 'rusting' reaction which looks
: like a carbon fire. 

And if a gacheles shel mateches, which has no combustion (nor carbon),
is even arguably bav'arah, wouldn't the actual burning of something
other than a carbon-based compound qualify?

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger             "I hear, then I forget; I see, then I remember;
micha@aishdas.org        I do, then I understand." - Confucius
http://www.aishdas.org   "Hearing doesn't compare to seeing." - Mechilta
Fax: (413) 403-9905      "We will do and we will listen." - Israelites

On Areivim, R' Steve Brizel posted a link (http://tinyurl.com/ysbby) to an
article in the YU newspaper about their new eruv, and I thank him for it.

Even *more* interesting was the site (www.yueruv.org) which it linked
to, which includes a pdf map, and fascinating "guidelines" and "faq"
pages explaining some of the problems and solutions.

One of the points raised on the site is that several "d'lasos"
(doors/gates?) were built on the city streets, and which will "be used
to close off the street once a year", to insure that the area is not a
Reshus Harabim D'Oraisa according to anyone.

I'm wondering if anyone on-list can describe what they look like, and
when they would be closed to cut off traffic? I can understand how the
city would allow a pro-forma s'chiras reshus for these ritual purposes,
but to allow us to close it off to traffic is really surprising, even
if it would be at 3 AM on a Sunday. (The faq explains that they not only
*can* be closed, but that they *will* be closed once a year.)

Akiva Miller

eli turkel wrote:
> In a recent daf Yomi R. Chaninah was not concerned about magic because it
> does not affect tzaddikim. This implies like Rambam that only tzaddikim are
> exempt from "ordinary" (magic) events.

"Ordinary" equals "magic"?

I would say it implies that R' Chanina didn't hold like the Rambam, and
believed magic existed.

> However, in the very next gemara R. Chaninah states that every small
> event comes from Heaven - against the Rambam.

If he believed in universal hashgachah peratis, at least for people,
then some of that HP comes by way of teva. Why can't some come by way
of kishuf?

I'd be curious to see RYGB's R' Tzdoq inside, as it's hard to say
that everything is lema'alah min hateva -- there is no teva left to be
lema'alah from!

-mi

Regarding "The segulah of saying Parshas Hamon - shnayim mikro ve'echod
targum." can anyone shed some light on this "segula" in particular and
others in general - how is it that reciting, reading etc. one part of
torah (as opposed to another part) becomes mesugal for a particular
thing? The Torah is the chahmas HaShem given to us to learn and perfect
ourselves accordingly - when we begin to use certain parts of it as
segulos etc.- it seems dangerously close to using it in inappropriate
ways (like making shir hashirim into a song) or making it in to a good
luck charm etc. (c.f. Lochesh al Hamakah) Are such ideas found in the
writings of the rishonim (either positively addresed or negatively) ?

kt
wac

[Micha:]
>But thinking about it, what calculation is necessary altogether? What you
>need is a sqrt(2) or pi ammah long rope, which can be produced by geometric
>construction given only Euclid. No algebra of any precision to produce a
>rope as accurately measured at the 10 ammah rope used for techumim.

Just on the idea of measuring things with ropes or such to get more
accurate calculations vs. estimating, the gemara in Sukkah 7b and 8a has
a whole discussion of Rebbi Yochanan and round sukkas, where he says that
a round sukkah needs to be able to fit 24 people is kosher. The gemara
uses some math to figure it out and concludes he wasn't being exact (lo
dak). However, if you take one of the proposals given by the gemara --
the people are 1 amah squares, a 4x4 square inside a circle inside another
circle, with the distance between the two circles 1 amah all around (to
fit the people sitting on the inside of the outer circle) it turns out
to be exactly 24 amahs -- the radius of the inner circle is 4 * sqrt(2),
add two to get the radius of the outer circle, and multiply by pi, and
you get 24. Basically, to me, it seems that Rebbi Yochanan just went
out and measured how big it should be (assuming he would only use the
halakhic pi and sqrt(2) when doing math, and not more accurate numbers).

The gemara, though, didn't want to use that way to solve the problem
though, they had to use calculations, as if the halakhic estimated math
becomes stronger than experimentation. Maybe techumim are different,
because they are really a set halakhic amount (unlike sukkot, which
according to some tana'im is more arbitrary (rosho v'rubo)), in which
case you'd have to use the real, more accurate observation than the
estimated math.

Shabbat Shalom
 --Russell 

The following extract from the Shema Yisrael "Midei Shabbos by Rabbi
Eliezer Chrysler - Parshas Beshalach" (V11#16) may be of interest....
 -----
G-d's Relatives

There are two basic interpretations of the phrase "ki korov hu",
that appears in the opening Pasuk of the Parshah. The Ramban and other
commentaries translate it as 'although it was near', meaning that although
the land of the P'lishtim was the nearest transit point between Egypt
and Eretz Yisrael, which is therefore the route that one would have
expected Hashem to use when guiding Yisrael after leaving Egypt, He did
not do that. He took them via the desert, so as to discourage them from
returning to Egypt as soon as the P'lishtim threatened them with war,
precisely because of the ease with which they would have been able to
return to Egypt.

*

Rashi, on the other hand, translates "ki korov hu", as 'because it was
near', meaning that Hashem did not lead them via the land of the P'lishtim
because, due to its proximity to Egypt, He feared that, the moment they
encountered war, they would have no trouble in retracing their steps,
to return to Egypt via the same route that they had come. According to
Rashi then, "ki korov hu" is part of the reason, and not a clause. See
also 'Relativity', Parshah Pearls.

The Ha'amek Davar, on the one hand, agrees with Rashi's translation of "Ki
... ", on the grounds that 'because' is one of the four interpretations
of "ki" given by Chazal, whereas 'although' is not. On the other hand,
he disagrees with Rashi's equating "ki korov hu'' with the reason that
follows. Because, as the Ramban asks on Rashi, if that is correct, the
Torah ought then to have inverted those words with "because Hashem said"
that follows it.

In addition, the Ha'amek Davar asks, firstly, why G-d needed to be
'afraid' that Yisrael would return to Egypt (Rabeinu Bachye actually
explains that it was not that G-d was afraid that they might return to
Egypt, but that He knew for sure that they would). Surely, he maintains,
G-d could have found ways and means of stopping them from being afraid,
or from returning to Egypt, as He in fact did, on the various occasions
when, in the course of the forty years in the desert, they threatened
to do just that. Indeed, Rashi himself alludes to those occasions,
casting doubts as to what G-d achieved by taking them the long way round.

And secondly, why, in the first place, the Torah needs to add the
words "because Hashem said"? Why would it not have sufficed to write
'because it was near, and the people might ... return to Egypt when they
encountered war'?

*

He therefore explains that "ki karov hu" is the true reason why Hashem
took them via a roundabout way, though what it means is subject to the
many interpretations given by the Mechilta. Whereas "because Hashem ... "
is a subsidiary reason, as we shall explain shortly.

*

Among the explanations of the Mechilta, are 1. Because the first battle
was close to the second one. Although the Mechilta's meaning is unclear,
it is possibly a reference to G-d's battle with the Egyptians at the
Yam-Suf, and 2. Because the time of G-d's promise to Moshe that, after
leaving Egypt, Matan Torah would take place at Har Sinai, was imminent. In
that case, the Pasuk is referring to two major events that were due
to take place then, and which served as G-d's prime reason for leading
Yisrael into the desert, rather than taking the direct route to Eretz
Yisrael via the land of the P'lishtim - K'riy'as Yam-Suf and Kabalas
ha'Torah.

*

The Ha'amek Davar himself, presumably based on the Medrash that explains
"Ki korov Hu" to mean 'because G-d is a relative of Yisrael' (as the
Pasuk in Tehilim [148:14] specifically writes), and due to the personal
interest that one has in a relative's well-being, one's dealings with him
are often more intricate than they would be with a stranger, and less
comprehensible, too. Consequently, he refers to the Pasuk in Ha'azinu
(32:11/12 [see Rashi there]) comparing G-d's relationship with Yisrael
to that of a mother eagle hovering over her young, and concludes with
a reference to Yisrael's division from among the nations. He explains
that when the Torah describes how an eagle takes its young on its wings,
and flies with them high into the sky, it is preparing it, already from
birth, to fulfill the destiny of an eagle, which flies higher than all
other birds.

*

Likewise, when G-d took Yisrael out of Egypt, he immediately began to
train them for their special destiny, a destiny that is more elevated
that that of all the other nations. And in order to achieve this, he
took them round via a long route (like the eagle takes its young higher
in the sky than it seemingly needs to).

And the reason that G-d did this, he explains, is because He knew that
Yisrael were not yet ready to segregate from the nations in order to
fulfill that role, and would quickly have integrated among the P'lishtim.
To avoid that, they would need to spend more time in the desert, until
their training for their unique historic role was complete.

However, He did not wish to hurt Yisrael by conveying to them directly
how spiritually weak they were. That is why He added the reason that the
threat of war would cause them to retreat to Egypt. And that explains
why the Torah adds "because He said to them ... ". The major reason that
G-d took Yisrael via a longer route was to train them for their unique
spiritual destiny; but He told them that it was because of the wars that
they would encounter that He was doing so.

***

Parshah Pearls
(Based on the commentary of the Rosh on the  Chumash)

Relativity

" ... and G-d did not lead them by way of the P'lishtim, because (although)
it was near" 13:17.

The Rosh translates "ki korov hu", not because (or although) it was near,
but because they (the P'lishtim) were relatives (of the Egyptians -
see Rashi Bereishis 10:14).

And that is why G-d did not lead Yisrael from Egypt to Eretz Yisrael
via the land of the P'lishtim.

The Da'as Zekeinim mi'Ba'alei Tosfos translates "ki korov Hu" in the same
way, only according to him, it is not the P'lishtim who are relatives
of the Egyptians, but G-d who is a relative of Yisrael ('Hu', after all,
is one of Hashem's Names). And what the Pasuk is telling us here is that
G-d did not treat us in a conventional manner. Rather, because of that
relationship, He put into motion the special plan that He had in store
for us, including giving us the Torah at Har Sinai. See also main article.
 -----
All the best from
 -- Michael Poppers via RIM pager

*********************


[ Distributed to the Avodah mailing list, digested version.                   ]
[ To post: mail to avodah@aishdas.org                                         ]
[ For back issues: mail "get avodah-digest vXX.nYYY" to majordomo@aishdas.org ]
[ or, the archive can be found at http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/              ]
[ For general requests: mail the word "help" to majordomo@aishdas.org         ]