Commentaire sur L’Exode 13:26

Kap. 13. V. 1. Wie oben Kap. 12, 21 usw. ist uns hier bei dem zweiten Gesetze wiederum ein schlagendes Beispiel der תשב׳׳פ gegeben. Auch bei diesem, wie bei jenem ersten Gebote wird uns nicht nur Gottes Ausspruch an Mosche, sondern auch Mosche Mitteilung des Gesetzes an das Volk bezeichnet. Der Satz, in welchem uns das Wort Gottes an Mosche berichtet wird, enthält nur den kurzen Ausspruch: קדש לי כל בכור וגו׳. Die Mitteilung von Mosche ans Volk enthält aber Sätze und nähere Bestimmungen, die in jenem Worte Gottes an Mosche nicht mit berichtet waren. Wäre, wie bei allen später folgenden Gesetzen, nicht auch Mosche Mitteilung an das Volk berichtet, so wäre uns nur der einfache allgemeine Satz קדש לי וגו׳ als תשב׳׳כ, als schriftliche Lehre überkommen, und alles, was in dieser Mitteilung an das Volk an näheren Bestimmungen über das Mazzagesetz, die Pflicht der Haggada, das Tefillingebot, sowie insbesondere auch die näheren Bestimmungen über die Ausführung des קדש לי כל בכור-Gesetzes, wie sie V. 11 ff. enthalten sind, wären der תשב׳׳פ verblieben und uns nur durch mündliche Tradition bekannt. Diese ersten Gesetze sind uns somit ein lehrendes Beispiel über die Art und Weise, wie Gott, der Gesetzgeber der תורה, die Offenbarung seines Willens uns zum Bewusstsein gebracht haben wollte.

פטר כל רחם THE FIRST OFFSPRING OF EVERY WOMB — The words mean: that which first openeth the womb, the root פטר meaning to open, as in (Proverbs 17:14) “As one makes an opening (פוטר) for water so is the beginning of strife”; and so, too, is (Psalms 22:8) יפטירו בשפה i. e. “they open the lips”.

SANCTIFY UNTO ME. This means that they are to consecrate the firstborn at once so that the commandment be applicable in the wilderness. This chapter adds many commandments: that they remember the day [when they left Egypt] and that the month was Aviv,³⁶⁴Verses 3-4. and that they keep this ordinance in its season.³⁶⁵Verse 10. This is an allusion to the intercalation [of an extra month] in the lunar year,³⁶⁶A lunar year — i.e., twelve lunar months — totals 354 days, 8 hours, 48 minutes and 36 seconds, as opposed to the solar year, which consists of 365 days, 6 hours and 48 seconds (Mishneh Torah, Z’manim, Hilchoth Kiddush Hachodesh, 9:2). There is a difference of nearly eleven days, and in order to exclude the possibility of the Passover being shifted from the spring, it is therefore necessary to interpolate an additional month about once every three years. since we are to observe the Passover only in the month of Aviv, [which is the spring]. On the subject of leavened bread, this chapter adds: Neither shall there be leaven seen with thee, in all thy borders.³⁶⁷Verse 7. At the conclusion, it adds the commandment of the frontlets.³⁶⁸Verse 16.

קדש לי כל בכור, they all have to be redeemed just as other sanctified items which cannot be used for their designated purpose can be redeemed; otherwise they are forbidden for secular use. This prohibition is spelled out in Deuteronomy 15,19 in the words לא תעבוד בבכור שורך, “you are not allowed to perform work with your firstborn ox.” The amount designated here by the Torah for redeeming a human being is the minimum applicable mentioned in connection with this legislation in chapter 27 in Leviticus. Whereas a fully mature male over 20 is valued at 50 shekel, the 30 day old infant is valued at 5 shekel.

פטר, a word describing an opening, an orifice. The word occurs in this sense in Proverbs 17,14 פוטר מים ראשית מדון, “starting a quarrel is like opening a sluice..”

קדש לי כל בכור, “sanctify for Me every firstborn, etc.” In practice these animals (as well as the males of the people) were to be treated as special immediately the Israelites reached the desert. Ibn Ezra, commenting on the singular mode קדש לי, instead of קדשו לי, says that in the interest of brevity Moses is here presented as if he embodied all the people. Some sages believe that the commandment for Moses to “sanctify” is equivalent to “to purify,” The firstborns, at this stage, represent the priests, until after the sin of the golden calf, when they were replaced by the Levites and the direct descendants of Aaron. At any rate, the major function of the priests is to purify the people, the opposite of “defiling them.” Unless the priest is instructed by the Torah to defile himself, such as burying his next of kin, he is to refrain from contact with anything that confers ritual impurity.

That is the first to open the womb. . . Rashi is answering the question: Does not every infant open the womb [through its birth]? Thus he explains, “The first to open. . .”

V. 2. קדש לי כל בכור. Es war uns unmittelbar zuvor, Kap. 12, 51, das Frühere rekapitulierend und dies Neue einleitend, gesagt worden, wie die Stammes-Familien- und Häusergruppen, in welche sich die Nation zum Peßachopfer gesammelt, auch beim Auszuge blieben, wie Gott sie על צבאותם "nach diesen ihren Heeresgruppen" hinausführte, wie somit überhaupt die Nation in diese Gruppen geschieden verharrte. Heißt es ja daher vielleicht auch: בצאת ישראל וגו׳ היתה וגו׳ ישראל ממשלותיו und nicht ממשלתו (Ps. 114, 2), indem Israel sich Gott als eine "Mehrheit von Reichen" als eine unbegrenzte Zahl von seiner Waltung und Leitung sich unterstellenden Kreisen darbot.

כל בכור, “every firstborn;” this refers to the firstborn human male; in earlier times sacrificial rituals were performed exclusively by such firstborn males.

לי הוא IT IS MINE — I have acquired him for Myself through My having smitten the first born of the Egyptians.

באדם, originally, all sacrificial service was performed by the firstborn.

I have acquired them for Myself. . . Rashi is answering the question: Does not everything in the world belong to Him? Thus Rashi explains, “I have [already] acquired them for Myself.” I.e., every firstborn is holy even without your sanctifying it. Nevertheless, “Sanctify to Me all the first-born” in order to receive reward.

Damit nun aber diese individuell gesonderten Gruppen nicht auseinanderfallen damit in allen der eine, sie alle um den einen einzigen Gott und seinen Willen einigende Gedanke der gemeinsamen Bestimmung lebendig bleibe, bestellte Gott sich lebendige Träger und Vertreter dieses Gedankens innerhalb der Familien und Häuser, indem er sprach: קדש לי וגו׳, ,"heilige mir", eigentlich: "Stelle mir absolut bereit jeden Erstgebornen, die Eröffnung jeden Mutterschoßes unter Jisraels Söhnen unter den Menschen und unter dem Viehe; mein ist er", und bestellte damit die erstgebornen Söhne als seine Vertreter, als die Träger, Pfleger und Verfechter seines Willens in Mitte der Familien, sowie die Erstgeburt der Herden zum Ausdruck der Hörigkeit und Hingebung des Familieneigentums an diesen Willen, auf, dass durch die Wirksamkeit der Erstgebornen und die Weihe der Erstgeburten die Häuser und Familien der göttlichen Gesamtbestimmung der Nation erhalten bleiben, und in jedem Hause und jeder Familie nur die eine große Nationalaufgabe in der ganzen Mannigfaltigkeit der Familien- und Häusereigentümlichkeiten zur Erfüllung komme.

באדם ובבהמה, “of man or domesticated beast;” this comparison of the firstborn human being to the firstborn domestic animal, means that just as a firstborn human being belongs to G-d, so a firstborn domestic animal belongs to the priest, G-d’s representative on earth. Just as the redemption of a firstborn human being takes place on the thirty first day of his life, so the firstborn domestic beast has to be given to the priest on the thirty first day of its life. (Mechilta Pisscha 16)

Diese gottesdienstliche Weihe der Erstgebornen fällt nicht zusammen mit dem erbrechtlichen Vorzug Erstgeborner. Es kann ein Sohn בכור לכהן sein, ohne בכור לנחלה zu sein und umgekehrt. (Siehe Bechoroth 46 a.) Zum gottesdienstlichen Träger der Familien ist jedes erste von einer Mutter geborene Kind bestimmt, wenn dieses erste Kind in natürlicher Geburt (mit Ausschluss des יוצא דופן) geboren und ein Sohn ist. Er muss בכור לולדות ולרחמים und זכר sein, wie dies hier durch die Bestimmung ausgesprochen ist, dass er בכור und פטר רחם sein müsse, und dass sich das Gesetz nur auf die männliche Erstgeburt bezieht, ist (Dewarim 15, 19) ausdrücklich ausgesprochen.

Indem diese gottesdienstliche Erstgeburt an פטר רחם geknüpft und daher, z. B. הבא אחר נפלים nicht בכור לכהן ist, so begreift sich das Gesetz sofort in tieferem Grunde als eine Weihe des Mutterschoßes. Indem das erste Kind, wenn es seinem Geschlechte nach dazu fähig ist, nicht nur dem Hause und der Familie, sondern in erster Linie gleichsam für Gott innerhalb des Hauses und der Familie geboren wird, wird damit in tieferem Grunde dem durch dieses Kind zum Mutterschoß gewordenen Schoß des Weibes, somit allen folgenden Kindern, somit allen Geburten, dadurch allen in Israel sich erbauenden Häusern und Familien die Gotthörigkeit vindiziert! (Findet dieser Gedanke bei der Erstgeburt des Tieres ja sogar seinen konkreten Ausdruck in der Bestimmung (Chulin 70 a.), dass jedenfalls der Raum, vielleicht sogar die Berührung des Mutterschoßes bei der Geburt die Heiligung der Erstgeburt bedingt). Überhaupt erst im רחם und durch denselben wird der בכור קדוש. Es liegt somit seine Heiligkeit nicht in ihm. Es ist vielmehr der רחם, d. h. die durch ihn nur zum Ausdruck kommende Weihe und heilige Bestimmung des Mutterschoßes, die ihm selber die Heiligkeit erteilt. Dass aber diese Weihe nur an die männliche Erstgeburt geknüpft ist, liegt in der Bestimmung der Geschlechter. Zur nationalen Vertretung ist überhaupt nur das Männliche berufen. Das Männliche ist, wie schon sein Name זכר (von זכר, Erinnerung bewahren) ausdrückt, Wahrer der nationalen Überlieferungen. —

בכור, siehe oben (Kap. 4, 22). — :פטר Hinauslassen, auch hinaus gelassen werden (verwandt mit פתר: den verschlossenen Inhalt eines Traumes usw. herausheben, פדר das aus dem übrigen Organismus ausgeschiedene Fett), פטר רחם würde zunächst auf das Kind sich beziehen lassen und: das aus dem Mutterschoß Entlassene bedeuten. Allein dann würde es eine jede Geburt bezeichnen. Es muss daher wohl auf den Mutterschoß bezogen werden und das Öffnen des bis dahin verschlossenen Raumes bezeichnen. So wie פטורי ציצים: aufgeschlossene Blüten. — רעם .רחם: die heftigste Erschütterung, Donner. רחם, nach gegensätzlicher Bedeutung des ח: Schutz vor jeder Erschütterung, bezeichnet den mütterlichen Raum, der das werdende Kind vor jeder Erschütterung schützend umschließt, daher רַחֵם: die muttergleiche, vor allem Übel zu schützen bemühte Fürsorge. לי הוא: sie gehören mir an, meine Ansprüche in der Familie und an die Familie zu vertreten.

זכור את היום הזה REMEMBER THIS DAY — This teaches that one must make mention of the Exodus from Egypt every day (Mekhilta d'Rabbi Yishmael 13:3; cf. Rashi on Deuteronomy 27:9).

This teaches that mention of the Exodus from Egypt should be made every day. [Re”m explains that Rashi knows this because] זכור is written with a קמץ , therefore it implies a constant remembering, as Rashi explains in Parshas Yisro, on “Remember the Shabbos day” (20:8). There, the Nachalas Yaakov disagrees at length with Re”m, and concludes: It seems to me that Rashi derived the mentioning of the Exodus every day from the word הזה (this). For the verse could have [omitted הזה and] said simply, “Remember the day on which you came out from Egypt,” as the Torah says in: “In order that you shall remember the day on which you came out from Egypt” (Devarim 16:3). Therefore, when this verse says היום הזה , this implies that every day should be to you as if you left Egypt today, similar to: “On this day you have become a nation (ibid 27:10),” on which Rashi explains: “Every day should be to you as if today you entered the covenant.” Deriving the mention of the Exodus from היום הזה fits well [with Maseches Berachos 12b, which states that] only at daytime would we mention the Exodus, [if not for the extra verse in Devarim 16:3 which teaches to mention it also at night]. This is understandable if we learn from היום הזה , as the Exodus itself was during the daytime. But if we learn from זכור , which implies constant remembering, [and thus it includes the nighttime as well, there is no need for an extra verse].

V. 3. ואמר משה וגו׳. Nichts dürfte mehr zum Nachdenken auffordern, als die Art und Weise, wie Mosche hier den ihm in dem vorhergehenden Verse erteilten Auftrag an das Volk ausführt. Wir haben schon bemerkt, wie wir darin ein eklatantes Beispiel von תש׳׳בפ vor Augen haben. Allein es bleibt noch zu erwägen, in welchem Zusammenhange diese, scheinbar ganz anderartigen Gebote und Bestimmungen zu dem ihm gewordenen Auftrage stehen, und zwar muss dieser Zusammenhang ein sehr inniger und wesentlicher sein, da sie offenbar als Ausführungen dieses einen Gebotes: קדש לי כל — בכור gegeben sind. Heilige mir alle Erstgeburt, hatte Gott zu Mosche gesprochen und Mosche legt dem Volke das Gedächtnis des Auszuges und des Chamezverbotes ans Herz, erinnert sie daran, dass sie im Halmmonat ausziehen, und dass sie im Lande dereinst das Peßach- und Mazzafest feiern sollen, erteilt die Pflicht der Haggada und der Tefillin und dann erst geht er zur Ausführung des ihm gewordenen Gebotes der Heiligung der Erstgeburt über!

Suchen wir jedoch den leitenden Gedanken aller der Aussprüche und Bestimmungen, welche hier zur Einleitung des Erstgeburtgesetzes teils in Erinnerung gebracht, teils neu gegeben werden: so stellt sich kein anderer als der heraus: Berufung des ganzen Volkes in den: Dienst Gottes auf Grund der Erlösung aus Mizrajim und Erziehung aller Kinder für diesen Dienst. Damit springt aber der innige und wesentliche Zusammenhang dieser Sätze mit dem Gesetze über die gottesdienstliche Weihe der Erstgebornen sofort in die Augen.

Die Heiligung bestimmter Personen, Sachen, Zeiten, Räume, hat gar leicht den verderblichen Wahn im Gefolge, als sei die Heiligkeit und Heiligung der menschlichen Verhältnisse auf diese Personen, Sachen, Zeiten und Räume beschränkt. mit der Dahingebung dieser Objekte und Beziehungen sei dem Heiligen ein gebührender Tribut gezollt, und der Anspruch des Heiligen an alles Übrige damit abgekauft, alle übrigen Menschen und Dinge, Tage und Häuser seien damit den sogenannten niedern Interessen des Lebens verfallen. Es liegt am Tage, wie ein solcher Wahn die bevorzugende Weihe einzelner Momente die entsittlichendste Weihelosigkeit aller übrigen Lebensbeziehungen herbeiführen ließe.

Als daher die Heiligung der Erstgebornen in den Kreis des jüdischen Volkes eingeführt werden sollte, hatte Mosche zuvor das Volk zu erinnern, wie die Erlösung aus Mizrajim sie alle auf eine Linie Gott gegenüber stelle: Mizrajim war für alle בית עבדים, ein Sklavenhaus, geborne Sklaven waren sie dort alle, und nur die starke Gotteshand hat sie daraus erlöst, diese Tatsache soll durch den Nichtgenuss des Brotes der Selbständigkeit bei der Wiederkehr des Erlösungstages für immer im Gedächtnis bleiben.

Sie sollten sich umschauen: im Halmmonat treten sie in die Freiheit hinaus. Derselbe Gott, der den Frühling in der Natur herbeiführt und die winterlich gefesselt gewesenen Keime zu Licht und Freiheit gerufen, das ist derselbe Gott, der auch ihren Frühling herbeigeführt und sie aus dem winterlich fesselnden ägyptischen Grabe zu Licht und Freiheit und Lebensentwickelung gerufen. Allein wie die Natur, so stehen auch sie erst im Halmmonat. Haben Reife und Fruchtvollendung erst anzustreben. Haben halmgleich erst "gierig" (siehe Kap. 9, 31) mit frischer Lust aus dem Boden der Freiheit und der Gotteshörigkeit alle in ihm und durch ihn gewährten Säfte und Kräfte zu trinken, und sie und sich durch sie der Frucht ihrer Gottesbestimmung entgegen zu führen.

Sie kommen in ein Land, das ihnen zur Freiheit auch den selbständigen Boden der reichsten Fülle bringen kann, bringen soll, das ein Land des Überflusses sein kann (siehe Kap. 3. 8), das aber bisher nur in kanaanitischer Üppigkeit entartete Völker gezeitigt. Wenn sie in das Land gekommen sein werden, so wird ihre erste Aufgabe daher sein, sich in diesem Halmmonate durch Vollbringung dieser Gedächtnisfeier in den Dienst Gottes zu stellen. Dann wird nicht ein Tag wie jetzt, dann wird ein voller Tageskreis von sieben dieser allgemeinen Erinnerung und der allgemeinen Diensthingebung geweiht sein, und es wird nicht nur der erste, es wird dann auch der ins gewöhnliche Leben hinüberführende siebente Tag zum Festkreis um Gott sammeln, es wird dann sieben Tage das Brot der Unselbständigkeit in Händen sein, sieben Tage kein Brot der Selbständigkeit im ganzen jüdischen nationalen Gebiet erblickt werden. Auf dem Eindruck eines solchen Festes soll dann die Erziehung aller Söhne für diese nationale, Gott dienende Bestimmung beginnen, Hand und Auge, Tat und Gedanke aller in den Dienst Gottes genommen und der Mund aller zu Herolden der göttlichen Lehre gemacht werden.

Erst nach dieser Proklamierung der ewig erneut zu beherzigenden und zu betätigenden Berufung aller und Erziehung aller für den Dienst und die Lehre Gottes auf dem! historischen Grund der Erlösung folgt die Heiligung der Erstgebornen und der Erstgeburten, die nun keinen anderen Sinn haben und in keiner anderen Bedeutung aufgefasst werden kann, als: dass sie ein Mittel sein soll, die Berufung und Erziehung, sichern. Das ist aber in Wahrheit nichts anderes, als die Ausführung dessen, was, wie wir gesehen haben, in der Bestimmung פטר רחם des gottesdienstlichen Erstgebornengesetzes bereits ausgesprochen war, indem diese Bestimmung die Heiligung der Erstgeburt als Weihe des Mutterschoßes, somit aller folgenden Kinder begreifen lässt.

זָכור וגו׳: bleibe stets eingedenk, daher die Infinitivform. — בית עברים ,מבית עבדים ist ein Haus, in welchem der Vater und die Mutter und folglich auch die Kinder Sklaven sind. Das waren ihre Häuser in Mizrajim. Sie waren dort geborene Sklaven. Hier, wo die gleiche heilige Bestimmung aller Kinder proklamiert werden soll, kommt daher diese Bezeichnung ihres Zustandes in Mizrajim zum erstenmale vor. Sie werden erinnert, dass ohne die Erlösung durch die starke Hand Gottes sie und ihre Kinder alle noch Sklaven wären, somit alle in gleicher Weise Gott mit ihrer freigewordenen Persönlichkeit angehören. — ולא יאכל חמץ: in dem איסור אכילת חמץ erhält die Tatsache, dass בחזק יד הוציא וגו׳ ihren dokumentierenden Ausdruck. Zugleich liegt in dem Ausdruck לא יֵאָכֵל: sorgt dafür, daß חמץ nicht gegessen werde, להזהיר גדולים על הקטנים, die Pflicht der Eltern, überhaupt der Erwachsenen, auch die noch unmündigen Kinder nicht in Übertretung der jüdischen Pflichten hineinzugewöhnen, לעשות המאכיל כאוכל (siehe מכילתא. z. St. und קרבן אהרן zu ת׳׳כ. Wajikra 11, 13). Eine Warnung, die dem ganzen Inhalte dieses jüdischen Erziehungskapitels entspricht.

בחדש האביב IN THE MONTH ABIB — But would we not know in which month they went out (even though it were not stated here)? But Moses spake to them as follows: See the kindness which God has bestowed on you — that He brought you forth in a month that is fitted for going out, not hot, nor cold nor rainy. In the same sense it says (Psalms 68:7) “He bringeth forth the prisoners בכשרות” i. e. in a month that is fitted (כשר) for going out (Mekhilta d'Rabbi Yishmael 13:4:1).

בחודש האביב, the reason that the Passover festival is to be observed in spring is so that it will coincide with the legislation of marking the lunar new year with the month of spring, the month of rejuvenation. Our sages have been very careful when calculating a permanent calendar to ensure that Passover never occurs before the spring equinox.

האביב; the time when the earliest harvests ripen. Compare the use of the word אביב in this context in Job 8,12 עודנו באבו לא יקטף, “while still tender not yet plucked.” The word also occurs in Song of Songs 6,11 in this senseלראות באבי הנחל, “to see the budding of the vale.’ The dagesh in the letter ב in the word באבי replaces the missing letter ב from the word אביב.

היום אתם יוצאים, “this is the day on which you are leaving.” The reason why the Torah had introduced the prohibition of eating leavened food is as a hint for all future generations that the anniversary of the Exodus is to be a day when anything leavened is out of bounds to the Jewish people. Seeing that on the original date of the Exodus it was springtime, the Torah adds that we must make sure that Passover will always occur in the spring season, [not before the spring equinox. Ed.] The Hebrew word אביב for spring is rooted in the term אב, the first, the leader; the barley from which the first בכורים, one omer of it is offered on the second day of Passover, is always the first ripe grain during the spring in locations such as the land of Israel, or countries even closer to the equator.

V. 4. בחדש האביב. Dieser Hinweis auf die Identität Gottes in der Natur und in der Geschichte, sowie auf die parallelen Erscheinungen in beiden geht durch die ganze jüdische Gotteslehre. Die Tatsache, dass die Erlösung im Halmmonat geschah, ist für das Gedächtnis derselben so wesentlich, dass sie zur Seite des קידוש החדש (Kap. 12, 2) das zweite Moment bildet, welches unser Kalenderwesen regelt. Während die Monatheiligung durch den Mondumlauf bedingt ist, hängt die Wiederkehr einer Jahreszeit, hier des Frühlings, vom Laufe der Sonne ab, und war daher nach Dewarim 16, 1 Vorkehrung zu treffen, dass der Erlösungstag, der 15. Nissan, immer in den Frühlingsanfang falle, woraus עיבור שנה, die unsere Mondjahre mit dem Sonnenjahr ausgleichende Einrichtung unserer Schaltjahre, hervorgeht.

היום אתם יוצאים; this is an exclamation equivalent to: “remember that you are leaving Egypt in the month of spring” (nature’s renewal)

אל ארץ הכנעני וגו׳ TO THE LAND OF THE CANAANITE — And although it enumerates here only the five peoples, all the seven nations are implied (Mekhilta d'Rabbi Yishmael 13:5:1) for all are included in the generic term Canaanite, although there was one of the races of Canaan which had no other name than that of Canaanite (whilst the other races had, beside the generic name Canaanite, some special designation as Hittite etc.: hence under the term Canaanite one may understand either the one race bearing this name or any of the other races. Here, therefore, the introductory word הכנעני alludes to the particular tribe so called and to the two others included in this generic term, or it may allude to three tribes included in the generic term. In either case we get the “seven peoples of Canaan”).

AND IT SHALL BE WHEN THE ETERNAL SHALL BRING THEE INTO THE LAND OF THE CANAANITE, AND THE HITTITE, AND THE AMORITE, AND THE HIVITE, AND THE JEBUSITE. “Although it enumerates here only five peoples, all of the seven nations³⁶⁹The five nations mentioned here and the Perizzite and the Girgashite. See Ramban above, 3:8. are implied. They are all included in [the generic term] Canaanite although there was one of the races which had no name other than that of Canaanite.”³⁷⁰Thus under the name Canaanite, one may understand either that particularly so-called nation or any of the other six nations who, besides bearing the generic name Canaanite, were also known as Hivites, etc. In the verse before us, the Canaanite thus refers to the particular nation and to the two other nations, i.e., the Perizzite and the Girgashite, which are not specifically mentioned here, since they are included in the generic name Canaanite. Thus the language of Rashi.
It is true that they are all included in [the generic term] Canaanite, for they were all his sons.³⁷¹Genesis 10:15-16. Therefore when Scripture says, And it shall be when the Eternal shall bring thee into the land of the Canaanite, it alludes to all of the seven nations, and thus everywhere does Scripture make use of the term, “the land of Canaan.” But here, [according to Rashi’s interpretation], there is no reason why Scripture should mention most of them and yet leave some of them included in the term Canaanite!
In the opinion of our Rabbis,³⁷²In the Sifre mentioned further on in the text. the land of these five nations mentioned here was a land flowing with milk and honey, but not so the land of the remaining two nations [omitted here]. Therefore He gladdened them only with this land [of the five nations]. Thus the Rabbis taught in the Sifre with respect to first-fruits:³⁷³Sifre, Ki Thavo, 300. “And He hath given us this land, a land flowing with milk and honey.³⁷⁴Deuteronomy 26:9. Just as the land flowing with milk and honey mentioned elsewhere, [i.e., in the verse before us], refers to the land of the five nations, so also the land flowing with milk and honey mentioned here [in the case of the first-fruits] means the land of the five nations. Rabbi Yosei says that first-fruits are not brought from beyond the Jordan since it is not a land flowing with milk and honey.” Thus the land of the two nations, [the Perizzite and the Girgashite], were excluded from the law of first-fruits because theirs is not a land flowing with milk and honey, and for the same reason, Rabbi Yosei also excluded the land beyond the Jordan, which belonged to the Amorite.³⁷⁵Numbers 32:33. And the Amorite mentioned here [among the five nations whose land was flowing with milk and honey], is the Amorite who lived in the Land of Israel proper. A text similar [to the one in the Sifre] is found in the Mechilta on this chapter.
It is further taught in the Sifre:³⁷⁶Sifre, Shoftim, 164. “And they, [i.e., all the tribe of Levi], shall have no inheritance³⁷⁷Deuteronomy 18:2. — this refers to the inheritance of the five nations; Among their brethren — this refers to the inheritance of the two nations.” The Rabbis [of the Sifre] thus separated these five nations as different, because theirs was the main land which He promised them, for that was the land flowing with milk and honey. And Rashi, in the section of Shoftim V’shotrim, experienced difficulty in explaining this Beraitha.³⁷⁸Upon quoting the text of the Sifre — though with a different version — Rashi comments there: “I do not, however, know for certain what the Sifre means.” Rashi then proceeds to suggest his interpretation, and then mentions still another version of the text of the Sifre in question. The intent of Ramban’s words here that Rashi experienced difficulty in explaining this text in Deuteronomy 18:2 is thus clear. (See Note 209 above on the meaning of the word Beraitha.)
Now according to this opinion [that only the land of the five nations mentioned here was flowing with milk and honey], Scripture stated above, [And I am come down to deliver them… and to bring them up] unto a good and large Land, unto a Land flowing with milk and honey,³⁷⁹Above, 3:8. [and then proceeds to mention the five nations listed here as well as the Perizzite]. However, it does not add the Perizzite there on account of its land flowing with milk and honey, but because it was part of the good and large Land.
These are the six nations mentioned everywhere,³⁸⁰See further, 23:23 and 34:11. for the Girgashite, [the seventh nation], emigrated of his own accord, and is not mentioned in the Torah except in the verse: And He shall cast out many nations before thee, the Hittite, and the Girgashite, and the Amorite, and the Canaanite, and the Perizzite, and the Hivite, and the Jebusite, seven nations.³⁸¹Deuteronomy 7:1. This is why He said many nations, [i.e., because all seven are mentioned]. And it is also written: But thou shalt surely destroy them: the Hittite, and the Amorite, the Canaanite, and the Perizzite, the Hivite, and the Jebusite,³⁸²Ibid., 20:17. but He did not mention the Girgashite, thus alluding to the fact that he would not war against the Israelites but instead would emigrate of his own accord.

והיה בי יביאך ה׳ אל ארע הכנעני, "It will be when G'd brings you to the land of the Canaanite, etc." The reason that this particular commandment is conditional on arrival in the Holy Land is either in accordance with what I have written on Exodus 12,25, or in order that the story of the Exodus should not be forgotten once the Israelites had lived in the Holy Land for many generations.

והיה כי יביאך ה' אל ארץ הכנעני, “It will be when the Lord will bring you to the land of the Canaanite,” according to Rashi all the land inhabited by the seven Canaanite tribes is included in this Nachmanides opines that this is self-evident, seeing no other tribes have ever been resident there. If anything is not clear, it is why only some (5) of the 10 tribes making up the Canaanite nation have been listed here? The view of our sages is that the lands occupied by the five tribes mentioned here is the area in the land of Israel which the Torah repeatedly describes as “the land flowing with milk and honey.” The other 2 tribes whose land was conquered by the Israelites under Joshua [not including 3 more tribes mentioned in the promise to Avraham in Genesis 15, 19-21. Ed.] was not as fruitful. Generally speaking, only six of the tribes are mentioned, as the 7th, גרגשי, according to tradition, preferred to emigrate rather than to confront Joshua militarily.

והיה כי יביאך ה', “It will be when the Lord brings you, etc.” This is already the commencement of the next paragraph which starts in verse 11. The first time the word יביאך is spelled plene, with the letter י in the middle; the second time, (verse 11) that letter י is missing. The first arrival in the land of Israel took place under the leadership of Joshua who fought ten wars (battles) before taking full possession. They were: Jericho, Ai, Giveon, Makkedah, Libnah, Lachish, Eglonah, Chevronah, Dvirah, Mey Marom. (they appear in Joshua 6,20; 8,24; 10,8; 10,28; 10,29; 10,31; 10,34; 10,38; 11,1) The letter י then is an allusion to these “ten=י wars.”
אשר נשבע לאבותיך, “which He had promised to your forefathers on oath.” The oath had been given to the patriarchs as the prophet said in Micah 7,20: “which You have sworn to our forefathers in days of yore.” The second time reference is made to the Holy Land, the word יבאך is spelled defectively, with the letter י in the centre missing. This is an allusion to Israel being gathered in from exile when no wars of conquest will be needed for them to resettle in the land. The repeated mention of G’d’s oath in that verse is also a reminder that the wonderful predictions and words of comfort by our prophets consoling us about our misfortunes and promising a better future will all be fulfilled. In verse eleven we find the additional words ונתנה לך, “and He will give it to you.” The message is that at that time the land will become a permanent gift to us never again to be taken away from us. The Torah speaks of a period which we have never experienced up until this date.
אל ארץ הכנעני, “to the land of the Canaanite, etc.” The land of Israel is here described as “the land of the Canaanite, seeing that Canaan was a cursed slave and it is legally impossible for such a slave to have title to any land. A slave can never take over property that belongs or belonged to his master. Seeing that the land of Israel by rights was given to the Jewish people, in the absence of the Jewish people G’d had to give it (temporarily) to such a cursed slave nation in order to ensure they could not establish legal title to that land while Israel was not around. It was similar to a king who has a minor son and who temporarily hands over his country to a regent pending his son becoming of age.

Who had no other name except “Canaanite.” Rashi is answering the question: Elsewhere, where all seven nations are enumerated, why is Canaan mentioned with them? There, it is unnecessary for Canaan to be mentioned in order to include other nations. Thus Rashi explains: “One among the family of Canaan. . .” (Re”m) Alternatively, Rashi is answering the question: Since all seven nations are included in “Canaan,” why did it need to say, “the Chittites, the Emorites. . .”? Just saying “Canaanite” should have sufficed. Rashi answers that one nation had no other name, thus if it would be written only “Canaanite” we would think [it means only that nation, and] the other nations were not included. Thus it is written “Canaanite” — and afterwards, “the Chittites, the Emorites. . .” so that we will ask why are only five nations enumerated. And then we will be compelled to answer that they are all included in “Canaanite.”

V. 5. אל ארץ הכנעני וגו׳, es werden hier nur fünf von den sieben Völkerschaften des Landes genannt. Nach מכילתא z. St. und כי תבוא ספרי (siehe רמב׳׳ן) war nur das Land dieser fünf hier erwähnten großer Fruchtbarkeit fähig. Vielleicht waren auch diese Völker die üppigsten und verderbtesten. Es wäre dann um so bezeichnender, dass nach dem erwähnten ספרי nur von dem Lande dieser Völker ביכורים gebracht werden. Wird ja in ביכורים der Segen des Landes dem Gesetze zu Füßen gelegt und damit das Zwiefache ausgesprochen, dass nur der Huldigung des Gesetzes der Segen verdankt und dieser Dank sich in treuer Verwirklichung des Gesetzes betätigen werde.

והיה כי יביאך, “it will be when Hashem will bring you, etc.” the Torah repeats that the prohibition to eat leavened products on Passover will remain in force also when the people are settled in their own country.

נשבע לאבתיך WHICH HE SWORE UNTO THY FATHERS — In the case of Abraham it says, (Genesis 15:18) “On that day the Lord made a covenant with Abram [saying, To thy seed I will give this land]”; in the case of Isaac it says, (Genesis 26:3) “Sojourn in this land … [for to thee and to thy seed I will give all these countries]”; and in the case of Jacob it says, (Genesis 28:13) “the land wheron thou liest [to thee will I give it and to thy seed]” (Mekhilta d'Rabbi Yishmael 13:5:4).

Hashem made a covenant with Avram. . . You might ask: It says in Parshas Va’eira (6:3), “I revealed Myself to Avraham. . . as Almighty Shaddai, but My Name Ad-noy I did not make known to them.” [Thus, how could Hashem have used the Name Ad-noy to swear to Avram]? The answer is: Hashem gave Avram mere good tidings, [without yet keeping the promise. Whereas v. 6:3 means: “I was not recognized by them by My attribute of keeping trust,”] as explained there by Rashi. You might ask: If so, [that it was mere good tidings,] where did Hashem swear to Avram? The answer is: [It was good tidings accompanied by an oath. For] Hashem twice stated to Avram His words of promise, and this repetition constitutes an oath. For example it says, “As I swore regarding the floodwaters of Noach” (Yeshayah 54:10), regarding which Rashi comments in Parshas Noach (Bereishis 8:21), “We find in Scripture no oath regarding this, except for His repeating His words regarding this.” Rashi is referring to the words לא אוסיף which are written twice in that verse.

זבת חלב ודבש FLOWING WITH MILK AND HONEY — milk flows from the goats and honey flows from the dates and from the figs.

את העבודה הזאת THIS SERVICE — that of the Paschal offering. But has it not already been said above, (Exodus 12:25) “And it shall come to pass when ye be come into the land … [that ye shall keep this service]”? Why then does it repeat it again? On account of a new matter that is introduced here; viz., in the former chapter it says, (v. 26) “And it shall come to pass when your children shall say unto you, What mean ye by this service?” and there Scripture is speaking about a wicked son who excludes himself from the Israelite community (by saying ye, as though he does not wish to participate in the service), whilst here it states, (v. 8) “And thou shalt tell thy son”, referring to a son who does not know how to enquire, and Scripture teaches you that you yourself must open up the conversation with Agadic explanations which attract the heart (cf. Mekhilta d'Rabbi Yishmael 13:14:1; Shabbat 87a).

Behold, in the first night of Passover the Holy One of Blessing instructed that a person clarifies her/his mouth. The forces of the mouth are eating, drinking and speaking. And the Holy One of Blessing commanded the eating of matzah, the drinking of the [four] cups and with that the eating and drinking of the entire year is clarified, since these mitzvot will defend a person the entire year, so that prohibited things won't come to one's mouth. And regarding the force of speaking the Holy One of Blessing instructed the telling of the exodus from Egypt, and with that there is defense from speaking prohibited things all the year. And this is so that "The Torah of Ad-nai will be in your mouth" - that all forces of the mouth will be very clarified and, and full of words of Torah.

AND IN THE SEVENTH DAY SHALL BE A FEAST TO THE ETERNAL. This means that they are to bring their Festival-offering on the seventh day [of Passover] and are not to delay it any longer, for after that, one can no longer make amends for it. However, as far as the Festival-offering³⁸³Upon going up to the Sanctuary on the three Festivals of Pesach, Shevuoth, and Succoth, one is obligated to bring a Festival peace-offering. (See “The Commandments,” Vol. I, pp. 60-61). That Festival-offering should be brought on the first day of the festival and not later than on the seventh day of Passover or on Shmini Atzereth, which is the eighth day of Succoth. The Festival of Shevuoth, though only one day, has a similar seven-day extension period (Chagigah 9 a). is concerned, amends can be made for the first day of the festival all seven days. Both [the first and seventh] days of Passover are alike with respect to the law of a holy convocation, as He said above, And in the first day there shall be to you a holy convocation, and in the seventh day a holy convocation.³⁸⁴Above, 12:16.

V. 6. שבעת ימים. Mosche sprach diese Worte am 15. Nissan, dem Tage des Auszuges, der, wie bereits oben bemerkt, an diesem ersten Peßach der einzige Mazzatag war. Bei der Gedächtniswiederkehr dieses Tages soll das Mazzagebot sieben Tage dauern, und dann auch am siebten Tag ein חג לד׳ sein. Darum ist hier der erste Festtag nicht weiter erwähnt.

שבעת ימים תאכל מצות, “you will eat matzot for seven days.” Here too the Torah repeats this to leave no doubt that this law will remain in force when the people have reached their destination and settled in the land of Canaan (Israel).

וביום השביעי חג, “and the seventh day you will observe as a festival.” “Why did the Torah here not mention that the first day was also to be observed as a festival?” (Our author appears to be the only one having raised this question.) Possibly it had already been answered by Sh’mot rabbah who points out that a reminder of this has already been found in verse three, where the Torah commanded “to remember this day (the 15th of Nissan) on which the Lord took you out of Egypt.”

מצות יאכל את שבעת הימים,“unleavened bread shall be eaten during the duration of these seven days.” The expression את שבעת הימים is the same as if the Torah had written בשבעת הימים “on these seven days.” We find something similar in Chronicles II 30,22 ויאכלו את זבחי המועד שבעת ימים, “they ate of the sacrifices of the festival during the seven days.” Our sages there mention that the word את is meant to include the last eight hours of the 14th of the month, or if they were outside the boundaries of Eretz Yisrael that they observed an eight’s day of Passover. [Rabbi Chavell, basing himself on Torat Chayim, claims that the fact that apparently matzah was permitted already two hours before noon on the fourteenth of Nissan is proof that chametz was already forbidden. Ed.]

בעבור זה FOR THE SAKE OF THIS — for the sake that I should carry out His commands, such as this Passover offering, this unleavened bread and this bitter herb (cf. Mekhilta d'Rabbi Yishmael 13:8:1).

IT IS BECAUSE OF THAT THE ETERNAL DID FOR ME. This is equivalent to saying, “It is because of that which the Eternal did for me when I came forth out of Egypt.” A similar case is the verse: And thou shalt show them the way they are to go in,³⁸⁵Further, 18:20. [which means “wherein they are to go”]. There are many such cases. The father is thus stating [to his son]: “It is because of that which G-d did for me when I came forth out of Egypt that I observe this service.” It is similar to that which is stated further on: Therefore I sacrifice to the Eternal all that openeth the womb.³⁸⁶Verse 15.
The intent of the word zeh (that) [in the verse, It is because of ‘that’], is: “tell him ‘that’ which you yourself see, i.e., what G-d did for you when you came forth out of Egypt.” And our Rabbis have explained³⁸⁷Mechilta on the verse before us. that the word zeh (that) alludes to the unleavened bread and bitter herbs that are laid before him.
It is possible that the purport of the verse, And thou shalt tell thy son… It is ‘ba’avur’ (because) of that the Eternal did for me when I came forth out of Egypt, is equivalent to the verse’s saying “such and such did G-d do unto me.” The word ba’avur also serves to indicate something within a subject itself, [and it does not only convey the idea: “because” of some other subject]. This is as the case in the verse, ‘ba’avur’ the child that was alive thou didst fast and weep,³⁸⁸II Samuel 12:21. [which means “while” the child was alive], and not “because”. [David did not fast and weep “because” the child was alive; he fasted and wept “while” the child was alive so that it should get well.]
Rabbi Abraham ibn Ezra said that the purport of the verse is: “Because of that which I do and worship Him by eating the Passover-offering and the unleavened bread, the Eternal did for me wonders until He brought me forth out of Egypt.” But it is not correct. I will yet explain this verse.³⁸⁹Further, Verse 16, beginning with: “By way of Truth.” See Ramban’s discussion there which helps to explain why he did not find Ibn Ezra’s — and incidentally, also Rashi’s — explanation of the verse satisfactory. In Ramban’s opinion, the delivery from Egypt, besides having the purpose of enabling Israel to fulfill G-d’s commandments — as Rashi and Ibn Ezra so interpret the verse here — also served another very high purpose, as explained there.

והגדת לבנך, "you shall tell your son, etc." The expression והגדת instead of ואמרת is unusual and our sages in Shabbat 87 state that the term implies "words which are as tough as tendons." Another peculiarity is the expression ביום ההוא, "on that day," whereas immediately afterwards the verse concludes with the expression בעבור זה, "on account of this." The Haggadah shel Pessach as well as the Mechilta understand the verse as referring to a time when Matzah and bitter herbs are in front of you, i.e. at night. Seeing that I know that the time for that recital is at night, why did the Torah have to mention "on that day" at all? Furthermore, why do we need the word לאמור seeing that the Torah already wrote והגדת, "you shall tell?"

בעבור זה, this was the reason G’d performed miracles for me so that I would subsequently perform this sacrificial service for Him. We find something analogous to this thought in Psalms 118,24 זה היום עשה ה' נגילה ונשמחה בו, “This is the day that the Lord has made, in order for us to exult and rejoice on it.”

בעבור זה עשה ה' לי בצאתי ממצרים, “on account of this the Lord has done for me when I left Egypt.” The verse is Israel’s justification to future generations for performing the rites of gratitude on the annual celebration of Passover, and why all generations are duty bound to continue this tradition. We have a similar verse in the same vein in 13,15 על כן אני זובח לה' כל פטר רחם הזכרים וכל בני אפדה, “this is why I continue to offer as a sacrifice every first born male sheep to the Lord, whereas I redeem every first born male son of his respective mother.” The reason why the Torah uses the pronoun זה, “this,” is that you are to tell these experiences of yours to your children now. In other words, you who have experienced “this,” have to tell your children what happened on “that” day when they had not yet been born. Ibn Ezra understands the words בעבור זה וגו', to mean that G’d performed all these miracles in order for me to annually commemorate them by the performance of the rites legislated here.

Because I will fulfill His mitzvos, such as. . . [Rashi knows this] because it is written זה , which implies that the father is pointing to something specific [when speaking] to his son.

And you must tell your son [child]. This is the positive commandment of relating the story of the Exodus, which applies only “on that day.” This is in contrast to the earlier verse, “Remember this day” (Shemos 13:3), which is an injunction merely to mention the exodus but it applies every day.

V. 8. הגדת וגו׳. Wie bereits Eingangs bemerkt, ist hier, an dem Feste des immer auf Grund der Erlösung zu erneuenden Ausbaues der jüdischen Häuser, sofort auch die jüdische Erziehungsaufgabe gezeichnet. Nicht nur durch stille Gewöhnung allein sollen unsere Kinder in die treue Erfüllung des göttlichen Gesetzes eingeführt, und auch nicht durch bloßes Moralisieren soll dies bewirkt werden. Mit lebendigem Beispiel sollen wir in der Erfüllung vorangehen und gleichzeitig durch Belehrung über unser Tun Geist und Herz unserer Kinder wecken, damit sie mit Verständnis und Bewusstsein die Mizwoth üben lernen und ihre Begeisterung für ihre jüdische Aufgabe eine bewusstvolle werde. — בעבור זה, um dieser Übungen willen, um alles dessen willen, was du mich üben siehst. Als ich aus der Knechtschaft zur Freiheit zog, habe ich zur Gewinnung dieser Freiheit nur das eine beitragen können, dass ich die ewige Verpflichtung zur Erfüllung dieser Gebote übernahm. Diese Übernahme war der einzige Grund und die Erfüllung der einzige Zweck der Erlösung. Alles andere hat Gott für mich getan. Daraus kannst du den unschätzbaren Wert dieser Übungen ermessen. Unsere ganze, auf Gott gegründete, von Gott abhängige Existenz beruht auf ihnen.

והגדת לבנך, “you will tell your son, etc.;” the son who is too young to pose the question, you will tell without his having asked: “why did G-d saw fit to make Pharaoh kick out the Jews before their dough had even had a chance to be baked into bread? Did He not have the power to keep them there until they could at least have taken baked bread with them?” You will answer the question you have put into the mouth of the שאינו יודע לשאול, the child that is as yet not curious to formulate his own questions: בעבור זה, “in order to make sure that I will observe these commandments involving the Passover sacrifice, the unleavened bread, and the bitter herbs as a commemoration of all the miracles he performed for me then when I came out of Egypt.”

עשה ה' לי GOD DID FOR ME — Here is an indication of the reply to be given to the wicked son: that one should say to him, “God did for me” — and one should not say “what God did לנו, for us” — thus implying “not for thee”, for if thou hadst been there (in Egypt) thou wouldst not have been regarded as worthy of being redeemed (Mekhilta d'Rabbi Yishmael 13:14:1).

This is an allusion to a response to the evil son. . . You might ask: Why is the allusion to the response to the evil son here, in the middle of what is actually the response to the son who does not know what to ask, [as Rashi says (v. 5)]? The answer is: The message alluded to the evil son applies also to the son who does not know what to ask. The message is that Hashem performed the miracles only for the righteous who know the Torah. The ignorant people did not have the merit for these miracles, and were not worthy on their own to be redeemed, only through the merit of the righteous. We need not ask: [If the alluded message applies to the son who does not know what to ask,] perhaps the whole response is for him alone. How do we know that there is an allusion to a response to the evil son? The answer is: Since it is written “for me,” it implies for me and not for him. I.e., he would not have been redeemed at all. This must refer to the evil son, since the son who does not know what to ask would indeed have been redeemed in the merit of the righteous. However, the evil son would have died during the three days of darkness.

We may have to understand all this in accordance with the statement in Pessachim 116 that when one recites the Passover story one begins with aspects which reflect discredit and concludes with aspects which reflect credit on the Jewish people. The discredit consists of the fact that our ancestors were pagans, something one can hardly boast about. The Torah therefore hints at this procedure by writing והגדת, "you will relate matters which are as tough as tendons;" you will conclude with אמירה, i.e. לאמור, words which recall that you were meritorious. The words ביום ההוא are a hint of the future redemption when the night will be called "day" (compare Psalms 139,13). It is also a reminder that the night preceding the morning of the Exodus was illuminated for the Jews (see our comment on 12,30). The Torah adds the words בעבור זה so that we will not err and conduct these ceremonies during the hours which belong to the day but at the time when we have to consume Matzah, i.e. in the evening. Possibly the words והגדת and ביום ההוא have been placed next to one another in order that we will also include the miraculous way in which that night turned into bright daylight for the Jews.

בעבור זה עשה ה' לי, according to Rashi this is a hint of the answer to be given to the son called רשע in the haggadah of Pessach. Rashi means that this is the answer to be given to the wicked son who does not even bother to ask about what is special on these days, and especially on the first night. The word לי, “for me,” and not for someone like him, would make this a suitable answer for the wicked son described in the haggadah as reacting to all the ritual he observes with a derisive: “why are you going to all this trouble?” The word לי implies that if he had been there at the time, G-d most certainly would not have bothered either with redeeming him or any of the miracles leading up to it.

Another reason that the Torah had to write the word לאמור in addition to והגדת is that the former was addressed to "your son." A father of girls or a husband not blessed with children might have concluded that since he had no son he would be free from the obligation to conduct the annual סדר celebration; the Torah writes לאמור, to tell us that even if the person is all alone he must relate what happened during that night to himself. Seeing that this is so, you may well ask why the Torah had to speak about a father telling his son at all? Perhaps I would not have known that under certain conditions one must "tell oneself" the Haggadah shel Pessach unless the Torah had used extra verbiage. Perhaps the Torah hinted that if someone is particular about telling of the Exodus, G'd will eventually grant him a son to whom he can relate these events.

בעבור זה, "on account of this, etc." Perhaps the word זה (numerical value 12) alludes to 12 commandments connected with the Passover observance. The first three are the lamb, the unleavened bread, and the bitter herbs; then there is the Haggadah followed by the seven days of the festival and the benediction over wine on the night of the festival. The Torah has to phrase it as בעבור זה עשה because the seven days of the festival do not count as seven separate commandments in the list of 613 commandments.

והיה לך לאות AND IT SHALL BE FOR A SIGN UNTO THEE — i. e. the Exodus from Egypt shall be to thee as a sign

AND IT SHALL BE FOR A SIGN UNTO THEE UPON THY HAND, AND FOR A MEMORIAL BETWEEN THINE EYES, THAT THE LAW OF THE ETERNAL MAY BE IN THY MOUTH; FOR WITH A STRONG HAND HATH THE ETERNAL BROUGHT THEE OUT OF EGYPT. To be interpreted [properly, the verse must be transposed]: “And it shall be for a sign unto thee upon thy hand and for a memorial between thine eyes, that with a strong hand hath the Eternal brought thee out of Egypt, that the law of the Eternal may be in thy mouth.” The meaning thereof is that you are to inscribe the exodus from Egypt [in the phylacteries] upon your hand and between your eyes, and remember it always in order that G-d’s law be in your mouth, [so that you will] observe His commandments and teachings, for He is your Master Who redeemed thee out of the house of bondage.³⁹⁰Deuteronomy 13:6.

כי ביד חזקה הוציאך, by changing the rules governing the inert, eternal components of nature. This point was spelled out in Joshua 4,24 when he referred to G’d having split the waters of the Jordan to enable the people to wade across. The verse there reads: “so that all the nations of the earth will know that the hand of the Lord is very powerful.”

לאות על ידך, according to the true meaning: an exhortation that this memory should be with you permanently, as if the subject matter had literally been inscribed on your hand. We find a similar syntax in Song of Songs 8,6 שימי כחותם על לבך, “place it on your heart as if it had been engraved there like a seal,”

והיה לך לאות על ידך ולזכרון בין עיניך, “and it shall be for you a sign on your arm and a reminder between your eyes.” This means that the passages of the Torah written here shall be worn regularly on your arm and be placed between your eyes, so that you will remember all this. The reason such a parchment is also to be placed on your arm is to symbolize the חוזק יד, “the strong hand,” G’d employed in order to orchestrate your redemption from Egypt. It is a reminder of all the miracles.

הוציאך ה' ממצרים, “G’d has taken you out of Egypt.” In verse 14 the Torah writes: “G’d has taken us out of Egypt. This is to teach us that the redemption of the fathers was the redemption of the sons, the next and subsequent generations. This is precisely what we say annually in the Haggadah shel Pessach “He, G’d, did not only redeem our ancestors but He redeemed us, this very generation, also at the same time together with them.” We cite the verse Deut 6,23 in support of this where Moses, quoting the fathers of later generations, said: “and He took us out of there in order to bring us, to give us the land which He had sworn to our forefathers.”

The weak hand. כהה means “dark,” i.e., the right hand is more important than the left hand [which is called “dark”].

V. 9. Es dürfte dieser und der folgende Vers noch zu der vom Vater an den Sohn zu richtenden Belehrung gehören. Die Erinnerung an diese Erlösung soll nicht eine bloße Gedächtnisfeier sein, sondern es soll damit die Tatsache, dass du deine ganze jetzige freie Existenz nur der starken Hand Gottes verdankest, somit ihm mit deinem ganzen Wesen angehörest, zum Wahrzeichen für all dein Tun, zur Erwägungsbasis für all dein Denken werden, damit jedes Wort, das du sprichst, — und im Worte prägt sich alles Wollen und Denken des Menschen aus — aus der Lehre Gottes fließe, somit du ein Verkünder der Gotteslehre werdest. Dein ganzes, tätiges und geistiges Sein soll in der Lehre Gottes wurzeln und aus der Lehre Gottes hervorgehen, und somit durch dich die Lehre Gottes zum Ausdruck und zur Vergegenwärtigung kommen. —

, והיה לך לאות על ידך, “it shall be a symbol, (tangible reminder) for you on your hand (and arm);” all of this is part of what you are to tell your son. It is inscribed on the first parchment inside the phylacteries.

על ידך ולזכרון בין עיניך UPON THINE HAND AND AS A MEMORIAL BETWEEN THINE EYES — meaning, that you shall write these paragraphs (verses 1—10 and 11—16) and bind them upon the head and upon the arm.

בין עיניך, like a precious jewel which one places on one’s forehead as a decoration.

והיה לך לאות וגו׳, wie oben 12, 13 והיה הדם לכם לאות על הבתים. Wie dort das Blut zum "Zeichen für euch", d. h. der Ausdruck unserer Hingebung und der Hingebung unserer Häuser an die von uns übernommene Bestimmung sein sollte, so soll die Tatsache der Erlösung in einem Zeichen an unserer Hand sowohl unsere Beherzigung dieser Tatsache, als auch die Hingebung unserer Hand an die Konsequenz dieser Tatsache, an unsere Gotthörigkeit, zum Ausdruck bringen. Die Gotthörigkeit unserer "Hand" ist die allererste Konsequenz aus dieser Erlösung. Wir hatten keine Hand in dieser Erlösung. Nur Gottes Hand war für uns stark. Nur dieser Hand verdanken wir die Wiedererlangung unserer "Hand" die in Mizrajim nicht unser war. Wir erhielten sie aber nur unter der Bedingung wieder, um die durch Gott frei gewordene Hand fortan nur in seinem Dienste zu verwenden.

לך לאות, “for you as a symbol;” logic dictates that first and foremost the phylacteries are to serve as historical reminder for you (sing.) on your arm (where not everyone can see it, but once you have put on phylacteries as a historical reminder for yourself, it must also serve as such for all the other Jews, (and gentiles) i.e. you must wear another one of the phylacteries on your forehead to trumpet this message to all who see you, i.e. בין עיניך, literally: “between your eyes.” Thus will be fulfilled what is written in Deuteronomy 28,10: וראו כל עמי הארץ כי שם ה' נקרא עליך, “and all the nations of the earth will see that the name of the Lord has been proclaimed upon you.”

על ידך UPON THY HAND — on the left hand; that is why the word is written יָדְכָה in its full form (not יָדְךָ) in the second section (v. 16), so that we should explain it (by dividing this word into two: יד כה) as meaning the hand that is weak (כהה) (Menachot 36b).

Die Überlieferung lehrt, dass dies Zeichen nicht auf der Hand, sondern an dem das ganze Handorgan regierenden Muskel des Oberarmes zu tragen sei. Wenn dieses sich ohnehin schon aus der Natur der Sache ergeben dürfte, da ein stets zu tragendes und, wie sich aus Dewarim ergibt, an die Hand zu bindendes Zeichen die Tätigkeit der Hand hindern würde, so ist dies auch überdies durch die Parallele mit dem Gedenkzeichen am Haupte gegeben, das ebenfalls mit בין עיניך ausgedrückt ist, und doch nur die Stelle am Vorderhaupte bedeutet, wo von dem Sitze der Gedanken aus das Auge die Weisung für seinen Dienst erhält, und ebenso durch die Bestimmung, dass — entsprechend dem הצנע לכת לפני ד׳ — das Wahrzeichen unserer Taten nur לנו und nicht והיה לך לאות ,לאחרים לאות sein soll, notwendig, dass es an einem in der Regel verdeckten Teil des Handorgans getragen werden soll (Menachoth 36, 6). — בין עיניך, wie ולא תשימו קרחה בין עיניכם למת (Dewarim 14, 1) wo offenbar mit diesem Ausdruck die Stelle am vordern Oberhaupte bezeichnet ist. —

למען תהיה תורת ד׳ בפיך. Nicht der toten Schrift, dem lebendigen Worte ist die Gotteslehre anvertraut, so: בפין ובלבבן לעשתי (Dewarim 30, 14). ואשם דכרי בפיך (Jes. 59, 21) ודברי אשר שמתי בפיך (das. 51. 16) und nicht nur um. sie andere zu lehren, sondern um sie selbst zu lernen, werden wir nicht auf die bloße Schrift, sondern auf das hingewiesen, was unserem Munde anvertraut worden. So heißt es in höchst bezeichnender Weise: es weiche nicht dies Buch der Lehre von deinem Munde, לא ימוש ספר התורה הזה מפיף (Josua 1, 8). Durch das geschriebene Wort der Lehre sollst du immerfort das ins Bewusstsein rufen, was deinem Munde übergeben worden. Selbst dem einsam Lernenden will das göttliche Wort wesentlich gesprochen und durchs lebendige Wort eingeprägt werden. Jeder ist zuerst sich selbst Herold des Gesetzes und durch seinen Mund soll es zuerst den Weg zum eigenen Innern finden. Daher auch der Satz (Sabb. 28 a.): לא הוכשרו למלאכת שמים אלא עור בהמה טהורה בלבד, es sind ס׳׳ת תפלין ומזוזת nur auf Pergament von zum Genuss erlaubten Tieren zu schreiben. Schon der Stoff, auf welchen die Lehre des göttlichen Gesetzes geschrieben wird, soll uns sagen, wie Gott zum Propheten (Ezech. 3, 1) gesprochen: אכול את המגלה הזאת "iss diese Rolle!" d. h. nimm ihren Inhalt ganz in dich auf, lass ihren Inhalt, dir in Fleisch und Blut übergehen! —

מימים ימימה means FROM YEAR TO YEAR (ימים frequently signifies a year) (Menachot 36b).

את החוקה, the statute involving the Passover.

ושמרת את החקה הזאת למועדה מימים ימימה, the Torah repeatedly warns the people concerning the meticulous observance of the Passover. However, this verse is only meant to inform us that from this year onward they would know that the date of observing the Passover will always occur on the anniversary of the Exodus. This also again proves that the calculation of the new moon does not rely on actual sightings.

מימים ימימה, “from year to year;” this is a reminder that one has to examine one’s תפילין, phylacteries once every year to check the writing on the parchments. This is the opinion of the school of Hillel. (His disciples) They based themselves on the fact that elsewhere the meaning of the word ימים means “days,” or maximum “a year.” The school of Shammai holds that they need to be examined only once in a lifetime. Hillel the elder, is reputed to have shown someone the phylactery of his grandfather. (Mechilta, Pisscha, section 17). In the Talmud Sanhedrin folio 92, Yehudah ben Beteyrah who claimed to be one the dead resurrected by the prophet Ezekiel, is reputed to have shown the phylacteries that his father had bequeathed to him as stemming from that generation. (about 300 years prior)

והיה כי יביאך AND IT SHALL COME TO PASS WHEN [THE LORD] SHALL BRING THEE … [THOU SHALT SET APART etc.] — There are some of our Rabbis who learned from this statement that the firstborn who were born in the wilderness were not thus hallowed. He who says that these were thus hallowed explains this “coming” (i. e. this verse, which appears to make the hallowing of the firstborn dependent upon their arrival in the land) as follows: if you observe it (this command) in the wilderness, you will be privileged to enter the land and to observe it there (cf. Bekhorot 4b).

AND IT SHALL BE WHEN THE ETERNAL SHALL BRING THEE INTO THE LAND OF THE CANAANITES. This is stated because the law of that which “openeth the womb” [mentioned in Verse 12], applied only from the time they came to the Land of Israel.³⁹¹See my Hebrew commentary p. 344 for correctness of this reading as based on Ramban manuscript. It is also borne out by Ramban’s statement further on in this section: “But the commandment… did not apply to the firstborn in the wilderness.”
In line with the plain meaning of Scripture, the verse, Sanctify unto Me all the firstborn, [mentioned in Verse 2 above] means all the firstborn living at that time. Since He redeemed them from death when He smote in the land of Egypt, He commanded [in that verse above] that they be sanctified to Him to do the work of G-d, whatever He will command them to do. He did not command them at this time concerning the redemption of the firstborn, but only after He exchanged them for the Levites and He commanded the redemption of the firstborn that were over and above the number of the Levites.³⁹²Numbers 3:44-47. But the commandment [as expressed in the verse, Sanctify unto Me all the firstborn], did not apply to the firstborn in the wilderness. Now, [in the verse before us], He commanded that when they shall come into the Land of Israel, the law should apply to the firstborn of both man and beast³⁹³Verse 12. and the firstling of an ass,³⁹⁴Verse 13. and then He commanded the law of their redemption for the generations.³⁹⁴Verse 13.

והיה כי יביאך, "It will be when He will bring you, etc." The Torah underlines once more that it is G'd who will bring you to the Holy Land so that you should not forget about His commandments in the belief that you yourself have achieved all this, especially after your border will gradually extend further and further. Although this commandment is not applicable until after conquest of the land, it remains in force even if the land is lost as it is a commandment that involves the body and not the earth. Kidushin 36 teaches that all commandments which are performed by one's body apply throughout the ages and wherever a Jew resides.

והיה כי יביאך ה', “it will be when the Lord will bring you, etc.” The commandment to redeem the first born sons, and to sacrifice the first born male sheep, etc., do not become operative until you get to the Holy Land. Nachmanides writes that the instruction “sanctify for Me all the firstborn, etc.,” refers to all the ones fitting this definition who are now part of the Jewish community and their flocks. One of the reasons why the commandment may not have been practiced in the desert is that the boys in question had not even been circumcised. At any rate, the commandment, while in existence, remained in limbo, in common with many other commandments, until the people reached their destiny in their own land. The firstborn donkey was to be redeemed There is a dispute in the tractate Zevachim if the commandment did apply in the desert, but seeing that we cannot resolve it, it is not worth pursuing.

I will bring you to the land about which I raised My hand. . . Above, it is written that Hashem swore to your fathers (v. 5), while here it is written, “He swore to you.” This implies that Hashem swore twice, once to your fathers, and once to you. The oath that was to you is in the verse “I will bring you to the land about which I raised My Hand. . .” (6:8), for the beginning of that section deals with the oath to the fathers, and then concludes, “Therefore say to the B’nei Yisrael. . .” which Rashi explains as, “In accordance with that oath.” If so, why did it repeat, “To the land about which I raised My hand [as an oath]”? Thus we must say that the second oath was to the B’nei Yisrael. (Nachalas Yaakov) However, Re”m explains [differently]: “He swore to you” in this verse means that He swore for your sake. The oath was made to your fathers, but sometimes it is called the oath of the children since the oath was for their sake.

V. 11. והיה כי יביאך וגו׳. So lange Israel noch auf dem Zuge zu dem Lande seiner Selbständigkeit war, so lange waren die Adlerfittiche der göttlichen Vorsehung sichtbar, die allein sie durch Wüsteneien sicher und ungefährdet trugen, so lange hing die Existenz aller in gleicher Weise unmittelbar an der Kraft der göttlichen Allmacht, so lange dauerte noch eigentlich der Auszug aus Ägypten fort; sie waren noch mitten in der Erlösung begriffen, und es war weder das Bewusstsein der Zusammenhörigkeit, noch das der Gotteshörigkeit gefährdet. Erst wenn die letzte Spur des ägyptischen Verhängnisses verwischt, das Land ihnen geworden, das ihnen Selbständigkeit und Wohlstand versprach, und jeder sich mit den Seinen "unter dem eigenen Weinstock und dem eigenen Feigenbaum" befinden werde, erst da wird die Gefahr nahe liegen, dass die einzelnen Familiengruppen und Häuser sich ganz ins Sonderbewusstsein verlieren, das Bewusstsein der Zusammenhörigkeit in der einen gemeinsamen Gottesaufgabe einbüßen und Menschen und Güter in die Interessen des Hauses und der Familie aufgehen lassen könnten. Da wird vor allem die praktische Bedeutsamkeit der Institution der gottesdienstlichen Erstgeburtsweihe beginnen, und darum tritt auch hier diese Institution im Zusammenhange mit dem Eintritt und der Besitzergreifung des Landes auf. Nach ריש לקיש (Bechoroth 4b.) wären auch in der Tat nur die beim Auszuge aus Mizrajim vorhanden gewesenen Erstgeburten, sowie die im ersten Jahre in der Wüste geborenen nach dieser Institution zu weihen gewesen. Dann aber קדשו ופסקו, wäre bei allen ferner Geborenen die Erstgeburtsweihe bis zum wirklichen Eintritt ins Land sistiert gewesen. ר׳ יוחנן ist dort jedoch der Ansicht, es sei die Institution mit dem Auszuge in volle Kraft getreten und habe ununterbrochen fortgedauert, קדשו ולא פסקו, und wäre dann der Satz: .והיה כי יביאך וגו׳ והעברת וגו׳ ¬dahin zu verstehen: — wie dies auch von dem V. 5 hin sichtlich des Tefillingebotes (Kiduschin 37 b.) verstanden wird — עשה מצוה זו ישבשבילה תיכנס לארץ, d.i. erfülle dies Gebot, denn um seinetwillen kommst du ins Land! Wir glauben dies nicht also verstehen zu müssen, als ob hier die והיה כי יביאך ,ביאה, als Folge des והעברת וגו׳ aufgefasst würde, da ja offenbar in diesen Sätzen das והעברת als Folge des והיה כי יביאך erscheint. Es scheint vielmehr, dass bei Geboten, die nicht an den Landesbesitz geknüpft sind und selbst vor dem Besitz des Landes zur Erfüllung waren, wie בכור ,תפלין der Gedanke והיה כי יביאך וגו׳ nur die Wichtigkeit des Gebotes hervorheben sollte. Das Gebot ist so bedeutsam und wichtig, dass dessen Erfüllung wesentlich mit zu dem Zwecke der Verleihung des Landes gehört. Gott verleiht dir das Land, damit und weil du als Besitzer des Landes diese Mizwa erfüllen sollst und wirst. Ohne diese Mizwa wäre der Landesbesitz mangelhaft in seinem Zwecke, ja vielleicht verderblich für deine Bestimmung.

והיה כי יביאך, “it will be when He brings you, etc.” the reason this introductory line is repeated here is so that we should not think that only the firstborn that came out of Egypt needed to be sanctified. The Torah therefore makes it clear that this law continues to apply to children born as firstborn to their parents in the Hoy Land (and in the Diaspora in due course)

נשבע לך HE SWORE UNTO THEE — And where did He swear this unto thee? (Exodus 6:8) “And I will bring you unto the land concerning which I did lift up my hand etc.” (cf. Rashi on this verse where he explains that “lifting up the hand” denotes taking an oath) (Mekhilta d'Rabbi Yishmael 13:11:2).

AS HE SWORE UNTO THEE AND TO THY FATHERS. The meaning of it is that “He swore to your fathers to give it to you,” just as it is said above, which He swore unto thy fathers to give thee.³⁹⁵Verse 5. It may be that G-d’s word by itself is called “an oath,” for thus He said twice:³⁹⁶“And the repetition of an expression may be regarded as an oath” (Shebuoth 36 a, and see also Rashi to Genesis 8:21). And I am come down to deliver them out of the hand of the Egyptians, and to bring them up out of that land unto a good land,³⁹⁷Above, 3:8. and again it says, And I will bring you in unto the land concerning which I lifted up My hand.³⁹⁸Ibid., 6:8.

כאשר נשבע לך ולאבותיך, “as He has sworn both to you and to your forefathers.” The meaning of this phrase is: “He has sworn to your forefathers to give it to you, the present generation.” Alternately, the Torah means that any word of G’d is equivalent to an oath, seeing that He has repeated the promise twice. He had said: (Exodus 3,8) “I will go down to save them from Egypt and to bring them up from there”, as well as: “I shall bring you to the land I swore to give to your forefathers.” Furthermore: “I will bring you to the land I swore to your forefathers.”

You should consider it as if He had given it to you on the same day. . . Rashi is answering the question: Is it not superfluous to say, “He will have given it to you”? Once He brings you to the land, surely He will have given it to you. Thus Rashi says: “You should consider it. . .”

אל ארץ הכנעני, “to the land of the Canaanite;” the reason why the Canaanites had a legal claim to that country was that the children of Chet, a friend of Avraham, honoured Abraham and when they heard that G-d had promised this land to our forefathers, they emigrated from that land to make it available to the descendants of Avraham. In appreciation of that, G-d rewarded them by this land becoming known as “the land of Canaan.” (Mechilta Pisscha, chapter 18.) [According to my version of the Mechilta, printed in the chumash with Malbim’s commentary, it was not one of the Hittites that was so “generous,” but Canaan the grandson of Noach, whom his grandfather had cursed. According to that version he was rewarded with being given a land in Africa superior to the land in which he had resided at the time. Canaan, a grandson of Noach may well have still been alive during the lifetime of Avraham. I do not know how this jives with Canaan having been condemned to be a slave to his brothers. Ed.]

ונתנה לך AND SHALL GIVE IT TO THEE Let it be in thine eyes (regard it) as though He had given it to thee on that same day (when on each occasion you carry out this command) and do not regard it as an inheritance from your ancestors (Mekhilta d'Rabbi Yishmael 13:11:4).

כאשר נשבע לך, “as He has sworn to you.” The meaning of the line is: “you will receive it as an ancestral heritage as G-d had sworn to your forefathers.

והעברת This word והעברת is an expression for “setting apart”. Similarly it says, (Numbers 27:8) “And ye shall set his inheritance apart (והעברתם) for his daughter” (Mekhilta d'Rabbi Yishmael 13:12:1).

V’HA’AVARTA’ UNTO THE ETERNAL ALL THAT OPENETH THE WOMB. This is an expression of setting apart, i.e., that one is to remove the firstling from the flock and it is to be for the Eternal. Then He reverts and explains that this “setting apart” means that every first male offspring dropped by a beast, and every first offspring of an ass and every firstborn son of a man shall be the Eternal’s. But Rashi commented: “And thou shalt set apart unto the Eternal all that openeth the womb. Scripture is speaking of the firstborn of man.”

והעברת, you will remove it from your flock and give it to the priest to offer as a sacrifice.

והעברת כל פטר רחם, “you shall set apart every first born issue of the womb, etc.” Rashi says that the verse speaks of human firstborns, seeing that there is a break in the verse before it continues mentioning first born animals. Nachmanides writes that the word והעברת refers to the setting apart of these animals from the flock as something sacred for G’d. Having made that point, the Torah goes into further detail, commencing with the words וכל פטר שגר בהמה, detailing three categories of firstborns.

והעברת כל פטר רחם לה', “you will transfer every firstborn of the womb to Hashem.” The Torah employs the term העברה in this instance to indicate that the status of being something secular has been removed from such firstborn seeing it had already been designated as sacred while inside the רחם אמו, the womb of its mother.

Should you ask: does it refer also to a first-born of an unclean animal? In other words, you might suggest that שגר in this verse does not refer to one prematurely born, just as שגר אלפיך does not. Even though it is already written, “Every one that [is first to] open the womb,” [apparently forcing us to say that שגר refers to one prematurely born, you might suggest:] perhaps שגר comes to include the first-born of an unclean animal.

V. 12. והעברת ל־, wörtlich: so sollst du an allen andern Verhältnissen vorüber- und Gott zuführen, d. h. mit Lossagung von allen andern Beziehungen Gott weihen. So auch: אתם נצבים וגו׳ לעברך בברית וגו׳, d. h. mit Lossagung von allem andern in den Bund mit Gott einzutreten. Hier nun: Wenn du Besitzer des Landes und dort nun mit deinen Hausesgruppen wirklich sesshaft geworden bist, dann sollst du alle männlichen Erstgebornen deiner Menschen und Güter mit Lossagung von allen Privatbeziehungen zum Ausdruck der Gotteshörigkeit aller Deinigen und alles Deinigen Gott zuführen, d. h. Gott weihen. —

'והעברת כל פטר רחם לה, “you shall set apart for the Lord every first issue of the womb;” we encounter a similar expression in Numbers 27,8: והעברתם את נחלתו אל בתו, “you will set side his inheritance for his daughter.” In that instance, the inheritance of potential male heirs is set aside for a female heir, a daughter if there is one. Here too, the firstborn is set apart from the other heirs as an inheritance for the Lord.

שגר בהמה DROPPED BY BEAST— a premature birth; and this is termed שגר because its mother casts it out (שגר) and expels it (שלחתו) from the womb before its due time (שגר is a synonym of שלח “to let go”). Scripture teaches you that although it is a premature birth it is nevertheless holy by reason of its being first born, in so far that it exempts from the law regarding the firstborn the young that comes (is born) after it (Mekhilta d'Rabbi Yishmael 13:12:2). It is true that an animal that is not a premature birth) is also called שגר, as (Deuteronomy 7:13) “the שגר of thy kine” (where it speaks of blessing this, and it is therefore evident that it cannot there denote a premature birth), but this שגר (i. e. its use here) is intended only to tell us something about a premature birth, because, you see, it has already written in this verse: “Every first offspring of the womb”! And if you say that also the firstborn of an unclean animal (and not a premature birth) is implied by שגר (and that this also must be hallowed) then I reply that Scripture comes and expressly states in another passage, (Deuteronomy 15:19) “[All the firstling males that are born] of thy herd and of thy flocks (thus only clean animals) [shalt thou sanctify etc.]”. Another meaning may be given in explanation of והעברת כל פטר רחם “thou shalt set apart every first born of the womb” — viz., that Scripture by the term פטר רחם is speaking of the firstborn of man (consequently the following words, שגר בהמה, need not denote an animal of premature birth, but an animal born in the natural course as it certainly means in Deuteronomy 7:13, and we thus avoid the necessity of here assigning to שגר a meaning different from that which it bears in the latter passage).

שגר, an expression describing something being ejected from the belly, the womb.

There is a possible alternate explanation. And according to this explanation, שגר does not refer to one prematurely born.

שגר, lautverwandt mit שקר ,שכר ,שיר, aus sich hinaussetzen, Ausdruck für die tierische Geburt, rabbinisch heißt es überhaupt: fortschicken. — אשר יהיה לך haben wir übersetzt: das dir gehören wird. Nur wenn sowohl das Muttertier als das zu werfende erste Tier ausschließlich jüdisches Eigentum ist, unterliegt es der Erstgeburtsweihe.

וכל פטר שגר בהמה, likewise every male firstling that emerges from the womb of a beast;” at that time the Israelites did not own any ritually impure beasts except donkeys; (no camels or horses) this is why there was no need for the Torah to add the expression: טהורה, “ritually pure,” in our verse.sworn to your forefathers.“and every firstling of a donkey;” this paragraph has been repeated because the laws about the firstlings of donkeys, and the redemption of them was a totally new concept.בבניך תפדה, “as well as amongst your sons, you have to redeem.” This law did not become applicable until after the Levites had become sanctified in lieu of the firstborn sons during the second year of the Israelites in the desert. (Numbers 3,45)

פטר חמור AND EVERY FIRST OFFSPRING OF AN ASS — but not the first offspring of other unclean animals. This exception is the enactment of Scripture, because the firstborn of the Egyptians are compared to asses (Ezekiel 23:20; Bereishit Rabbah 96); and a further reason for this exception is because they (the asses) were of assistance to the Israelites when they left Egypt, for there was not a single Israelite who did not take with him from Egypt several asses laden with the silver and gold of Egypt. (Bekhorot 5b).

That is that He commanded us to put on the hand tefillin. And that is His saying, "And you shall tie them as a sign upon your hand" (Deuteronomy 6:8). And this command was already repeated four times. And the proof that the head tefillin and the hand tefillin are two commandments is their saying in the Gemara (Menachot 44a) in surprise at one who thinks that one not put on the head tefillin or the hand tefillin without the other, but rather only if they are both together - and this is the language of the statement - "one who does not have two commandments, should he also not do the one commandment?" This means to say, should one who cannot do two commandments not do the one - that is not the case, but rather he should do the one commandment that presents itself. Hence he should put on either one of them that presents itself to him. Behold it has been made clear to you that they called the hand tefillin and the head tefillin, two commandments. And these two commandments are not obligatory for women on account of His, may He be exalted, saying, as a reason for their obligation, "in order that the Torah of the Lord may be in your mouth" (Exodus 13:9) - and women are not obligated in Torah study. And so did they explain in the Mekhilta. And likewise did they explain all the regulations of these two commandments in the fourth chapter of Menachot. (See Parashat Bo, Vaetchanan and Ekev; Mishneh Torah, Tefillin, Mezuzah and the Torah Scroll 1.)

תפדה, after the Levites had been sanctified to take the place of the firstborn who had participated in the sin of the golden calf, in the second year after the Tabernacle had been erected and inaugurated. At that time you will take 5 shekalim per head (Numbers 3,47) to effect this exchange. It included Levites of one month and up (males) Numbers 18,16)

וכל פטר חמור, “and every firstborn donkey, etc.” This legislation is restricted to the donkey, the only impure domestic animal whose firstborn male issue is not of secular status (as opposed to horses and camels, also widely considered as domestic beasts). Pessikta Zutrata on our verse explains that the reason is that the Egyptians have been compared to donkeys by the prophet Ezekiel (23,20) who wrote “their flesh (male organ) is the flesh of donkeys.” An additional reason is the tradition that even the poorest of the Israelites left Egypt with ninety donkeys’ loads of silver and gold. To commemorate the immense wealth the Israelites took out of Egypt the Torah legislated that the beasts which carried that wealth be treated as in a class by themselves. The firstborn males of such donkeys needed to be redeemed before they could be used for profane purposes. Equating donkeys with Egyptians reminds one of the plague of the dying of the firstborn Egyptians.

This is a Scriptural decree. . . As stated in the first chapter of Bechoros (5a). Rashi added his own explanation by saying, “Because the Egyptian first-born. . .”

V. 13. Wir haben schon zu Bereschit 49, 11 entwickelt, wie im Gegensatz zum Pferde der Esel das Tier des friedlichen Wohlstandes ist. Der Esel war das Lasttier für die bewegliche Habe. Die drei Kategorien der Erstgeburtsweihe: בכור ,בכור אדם פטר חמור ,בהמה טהורה repräsentieren somit den Menschen, seine Nahrung und seinen Besitz, und zwar kommt in der Erstgeburtsweihe des Menschen die Gotteshörigkeit der Familie, des zur Nahrung dienenden Viehes die Gotteshörigkeit der Familiennahrung, und in derjenigen des Esels die Gotteshörigkeit des Familieneigentums zum Ausdruck.

וכל פטר חמור, “and every firstling of a donkey;” this paragraph has been repeated because the laws about the firstlings of donkeys, and the redemption of them was a totally new concept.

תפדה בשה THOU SHALT REDEEM WITH A LAMB — one gives a lamb to the priest, and the first offspring of the ass is then permitted to be made use of, whilst the lamb remains in the priest’s possession with the character of a non-holy object (חולין — an ordinary animal) (cf. Bekhorot 9b).

The sheep is not sacred in the possession of the kohein. [Rashi is explaining that] the sheep does not become forbidden to be used, in place of the firstling donkey [which becomes permitted to be used]. Rather, the sheep is ordinary property and the kohein may use it as he wishes.

Die erstgebornen Söhne sollten die Weihe der Priester haben und die Opfer ministrieren: עד שלא הוקם המשכן עבודה בבכורות (Sebachim 112 b). Sie waren die "Jünglinge der Söhne Israels", die Mosche bei der Schließung des Gesetzesbundes (Schmot 24, 5) als Repräsentanten des nationalen Vereins der Familien Israels die Opfer der Hingebung und der Freude bringen ließ. Durch sie sollte das Bewusstsein der nationalen Gotteshörigkeit und der nationalen Gottesaufgabe innerhalb der Häuser und Familien seine Träger und Vertreter haben.

בבניך תפדה, “as well as amongst your sons, you have to redeem.” This law did not become applicable until after the Levites had become sanctified in lieu of the firstborn sons during the second year of the Israelites in the desert. (Numbers 3,45)

וערפתו THEN THOU SHALT BREAK ITS NECK — one breaks its neck with a hatchet from behind and so slays it (Bekhorot 13a). The reason is: he (the owner of the ass) has caused a loss to the possessions of the priest (by not giving him the lamb), therefore must he suffer loss in his own possessions (Mekhilta d['Rabbi Yishmael 13:13:2).

בכור בהמה טהורה hatte die Bestimmung, auf dem Altare des Nationalheiligtums — בכור אינו קרב בבמה Bechoroth 4, 2 — als Mahlopfer, קדשים קלים dargebracht zu werden. (Später wurden sie zu diesem Zwecke den כהנים als Eigentum überwiesen, Bamidbar 18, 15 f.). In ihm wurde den Familien das Bewusstsein erhalten, dass auch die Nahrung der Familien, der Segen der Herden, im Dienste der heiligen Nationalaufgabe stehe, und auch die Nahrung des Hauses sich nicht durch Egoismus entweihen solle.

וכל בכור בניך תפדה AND ALL THE FIRSTBORN OF MAN AMONGST THY SONS SHALT THOU REDEEM — His redemption money is fixed in another passage (Numbers 18:16) at five Sela’im.

פטר חמור soll durch ein שה, den allgemeinen Repräsentanten einer jüdischen Persönlichkeit vom Peßach her (siehe Bechoroth 12 a.), ausgelöst werden. Nach Bechoroth 11 a. konnte auch in Ermangelung eines שה die Auslösung durch den Wert des פטר חמור geschehen. So lange die Auslösung nicht geschehen, ist jede Benutzung des ל Tieres verboten, es ist אסור בהנאה, und unterbleibt die Auslösung, so muss es durch Genickschlag getötet und begraben werden. Das שה oder die Werte der Auslösung wurden ebenfalls später (Bamidbar das.) den כהנים überwiesen. Sehen wir uns diese Gesetzesbestimmungen an, so begegnen wir ähnlich wie oben bei שבירת עצם בפסח (Kap. 12, 46) dem Gedanken: Lebloser — durch das Lasttier repräsentierter — Besitz hat an sich weder Wert noch Bedeutung. Er gewinnt Wert und Bedeutung nur, wenn er zur lebendigen Umwandlung und seine Benutzung dem göttlichen Heiligtum der Gesamtaufgabe zugute kommt. Erst wenn dieser bei allem im Auge zu haltende Zweck in der Auslösung seine Anerkennung gefunden, wird das Tier der Benutzung hingegeben. Es ist dann jeder Verwendung des Besitzes zu Privatzwecken die Förderung des heiligen Gesamtzweckes selbst bereits als letztes Ziel aufgeprägt. Der Private aber, der vermeint, dadurch, dass er seinen Besitz den heiligen Gesamtzwecken vorenthält, seinen Privatbesitz nur umsomehr zu vergrößern, der ist in einem kläglichen Irrtum befangen. אם לא תפדה וערפתו steht über jedes jüdische Vermögen geschrieben. Wer es selbstsüchtig sich zu erhalten vermeint, erteilt ihm selber den Nackenstreich der Vernichtung. Nur bedingungsweise hat Israel wieder ein Besitzrecht erhalten. Die Erhaltung jeglichen Besitzes ist für Israel an die Lösung der Bedingung geknüpft, seinen ganzen Besitz nur im Dienste Gottes, d. h. in Erfüllung der ihm von Gott gesetzten Aufgaben zu verwenden. —

וכל בכור אדם בבניך תפדה. Auch für die erstgebornen Söhne ist schon hier eine Auslösung bestimmt, obgleich diese doch nach ursprünglicher — erst mit der Verirrung des goldenen Kalbes eingebüßten — Bestimmung eine priesterliche, gottesdienstliche Weihe behielten. Ohne diese Auslösung hätten sie wahrscheinlich ausschließlich diesem priesterlichen Berufe angehören müssen und wären damit aus dem Verbande der Familien ausgeschieden. Allein das sollten sie eben nicht. Sie sollten, in das ganz gewöhnliche Familienleben wie jeder andere Sohn verwebt, dort mustergültig die heilige jüdische Gesamtbestimmung tragen, vertreten und veranschaulichen. Sind es ja nicht die Tempel, sondern die Häuser, in denen diese Aufgabe in wahrer, letzter Wirklichkeit zur Erfüllung kommt. Die Auslösung unserer erstgebornen Söhne spricht daher den Gedanken aus, dass auch das ganz gewöhnliche Leben unserer Kinder dem wahren, wahrhaftigen Dienst der heiligen Gesamtaufgabe zugute kommen soll.

כי ישאלך בנך מחר WHEN THY SON ASKETH THEE מחר — There is a usage of the word מחר that refers to “now” (i. e. to the period of time that is nearest to “now” viz., to-morrow), and there is another usage of מחר that refers to a day following after the lapse of some time, as, for example, this מחר here and as, for example, (Joshua 22:27) “That your children may not say to our children in time to come (מחר)” which occurs in the chapter about the sons of Gad and the sons of Reuben (Mekhilta d'Rabbi Yishmael 13:14:1).

מה זאת?, a reference to the unusual legislation of having to redeem the firstborn impure animal donkey seeing that its body could not have been sanctified due to its inherent impurity. Similarly, the need to break this animal’s neck as an alternative to redeeming it sounds peculiar to the son who is asking.

והיה כי ישאלך בנך, "It will be when your son enquires of you, etc." The Torah means that when your son observes you perform the ceremony of redeeming a firstborn he will ask you the reason for that commandment. In that event you are obligated to explain the meaning of the commandment. If the son does not ask you, you are not obligated to answer him except on the night of the Passover. This is the reason the Torah added the word מחר, "tomorrow;" This means that even if your son will ask you already tomorrow you are immediately obligated to tell him the reason for this commandment. The Torah adds the word לאמור to indicate that what is meant is a situation when your son expects an answer to his question. If the son, however, simply asks מה זאת, i.e. "what is this all about?" a derisive way of questioning, then you are under no obligation to answer him at that time.

כי בחוזק יד הוציאנו ממצרים, “for with a strong hand did He take us out of Egypt.” Having said this as a kind of “headline,” the Torah now continues to describe how this “hand” of G’d manifested itself. It was primarily the simultaneous killing of the firstborn that resulted immediately in the release of the Israelites. The contrast with the earlier plagues, which did not result in the release of the Israelites, is clear to anyone. This is why I perform sacrificial rites on every anniversary of that event.

V. 14. מחר, davon מחיר, der Tausch, der Tauschwert, מחר: der statt des heutigen eintretende Tag, morgen. Wo es aber nicht den morgenden Tag bezeichnet, da bedeutet es eine von der jetzigen verschiedene Zeit. So וענתה בי צדקתי ביום מחר (Bereschit 30, 33), wenn ich aus dem Dienst treten werde. מחר יאמרו בניכם לבנינו (Josua 22, 24), wenn die Geschichte unserer Gegenwart vergessen sein wird. So auch hier: wenn die Spuren der Knechtschaft und der Erlösung aus der unmittelbaren Wahrnehmung geschwunden sein werden. — מה זאת, was bedeutet diese bevorzugende Weihe der Erstgebornen? — בחזק יד, mit Gewalt, wider Willen und mit Brechung der Macht des uns festhaltenden Herrn. — הוציאנו: Wir waren alle Sklaven, sind alle nur durch Gott wieder Menschen geworden und gehören daher alle mit allem in gleicher Weise Gott an.

?מה זאת, “what is the significance of this?” Seeing that your son observes that neither a gentile nor an uncircumcised Israelite is permitted to partake of the Passover meat, something that sets the festival of Passover apart from all other festivals, he is entitled to ask the reason for this. An alternate explanation: the words: מה זאת, do not refer to Passover and the unleavened bread, the reason for which we have already read about. However, the son asks, on the new concept of redeeming something that was perceived as sacred for something that was perceived as secular; you, the father, are to answer him in the words of the Torah that we imitate what G-d had done with the firstborn sons and beasts of the Israelites in Egypt on that night when He exempted them from execution at His hands. In exchange for being saved, we offer a sacrifice.

מה זאת WHAT IS THIS? — This is the question of a dull child who has not sufficient understanding to question very profoundly and who therefore asks in an indefinite fashion, “What is this?” In another passage (Deuteronomy 6:20) it states, “[When thy son asketh thee…], What mean the testimonies and the statutes and the judgments … [which the Lord our God hath commanded you?]” This, however, is the question of a wise son. The Torah in mentioning four different explanations of the Passover sacrifice-rite to be given by a father to his children, is speaking in reference to four different types of son: the wicked son (12:25 and in the second half of 13:8), and one who has not sufficient understanding how to ask (in the first half of 13:8), and one who asks in an indefinite manner (13:14), and one who asks in a wise fashion (Deuteronomy 6:20) (cf. Mekhilta d'Rabbi Yishmael 13:14:1; Jerusalem Talmud Pesachim 10:4).

בחוזק יד הוציאנו ה' ממצרים, due to the urgency with which the Egyptians wanted to get rid of us (12,33) we left Egypt traveling in coaches, just as the family of Yaakov had arrived in Egypt hundreds of years ago in coaches supplied by Pharaoh himself. Both the coaches materialised miraculously, as well as the many donkeys needed to transport the new found riches of the people. Seeing that the donkeys had therefore had a constructive part to play in the redemption of the Israelites, this is reflected in their not being treated like all other impure beasts. This degree of minor sanctity accorded the firstborn donkey may be redeemed in exchange for a pure animal, so that the donkey can then be used in the regular way.

The question need not necessarily be exactly "what is this all about?" Any question whose upshot appears to be that the questioner wants to be told what our tradition is all about is to be answered forthwith. It is clear therefore that the Torah does not speak of the night of the Passover but of the commandment to sanctify the firstborn of the womb. When our sages (Mechilta) comment that the four occasions when the Torah cites the sons as asking refer to four different types of children this is all homiletics.

ויהי כי בקשה פרעה, seeing that Pharaoh had put so many obstacles in the path of our eventual liberation he is himself compared to a donkey as we know from Ezekiel 23,20, the prophet describing the flesh of the Egyptians as similar to donkeys. Pharaoh could have easily redeemed himself by releasing the Israelites, i.e. the Israelites are compared to the שה, the lamb. As a result of failing to do so, G’d chose to kill the firstborn instead.

ויהי כי הקשה, all of this you are to tell your son. This is also clear from verse 16 where it is stated that this whole paragraph was said by G’d to Moses. The Israelite is to say to his son: “G’d has taken us out of Egypt.” Moses did not say this verse to the people on his own account, [he could not refer to himself as having been redeemed seeing he had not been enslaved. Moses’ sons had not been enslaved either. Ed.]

ולטוטפות בין עיניך, “and as an ornament between your eyes.” The word טוטפות describes the part of the head on which the phylacteries are worn. The expression appears in tractate Shabbat, 57B as the area where the straps of the phylacteries surround the forehead. Alternately, it describes the part of the head which faces the ground, as per the proverb in Megillah 14 that ducks have a tendency to appear to look at the ground while at the same time seeing far into the distance with their eyes. The word used to describe this kind of vision is מטיפין. The reason the Torah uses the word לטוטפות in the plural mode is because, according to an ancient tradition, the phylacteries of the head are divided into 4 separate compartments, each containing one of the relevant four paragraphs of the Torah referring to the subject. Nachmanides writes that the origin of the custom to wear the phylacteries of the hand on the upper left arm, and the phylacteries of the head on one’s forehead, is that Judaism if taken seriously, requires input by both the heart and the brain, the upper left arm being close to man’s heart, whereas the forehead is immediately outside the seat of the brain. This is the reason why the Torah says that the Exodus and all that it implies should be symbolized “between your eyes,” i.e. the phylacteries with the relevant paragraphs from the Torah should be positioned on the part of body closest to the seat of our memory banks. Brain functions properly only because man has a faculty that enables him to store sensations called memory. The knot with which the straps of the phylacteries of the head is tied, is placed at the rear end of the head, the area near which our memory banks are located in the brain. References to the phylacteries appear in the paragraph dealing with sanctification of the firstborn, as well as in the paragraph detailing observance of that commandment once the Israelites would take possession of the Holy Land, seeing this particular commandment is tied directly to the Exodus from Egypt, as something which must remain as a kind of visual image. The other commandment, also contained in one of these paragraphs, commits to our memory the fact that our G’d is unique and has demonstrated unique powers. The obligation to perform the commandments of the Torah is anchored in these two fundamental considerations. [Moses sums this up in Deut. 4,35 אתה הראת לדעת: “you (the Jewish people as the only one) have been granted visual evidence of the existence and manifestation of power of the Lord your G’d.” Ed.] I will now proceed to explain some general rules applicable to many of the commandments of the Torah. [this is still Nachmanides. Ed.] Ever since idolatry exists in our world, starting with the generation of Enosh, [a grandson of Adam! Ed.] mankind’s knowledge about G’d the Creator has become confused. Some people claimed that the universe preceded ”G’d,” whereas others deny only that G’d the Creator has any knowledge of any specific individual; still others do believe that G’d has such knowledge but they dispute that G’d supervises and directly or indirectly intervenes in the fate of individual people. By doing this, they reduce mankind to the level of the fish in the ocean over whom G’d does indeed not exercise individual supervision. As a result of this lack of G’d’s supervision of man’s individual fate, the concept of reward and punishment does not apply to man either. Once G’d intervenes in the world by performing acts involving the community or an individual, this discredits all those who deny that the Creator still has an interest in the well being or otherwise of His subjects on earth. If such intervention by G’d in people’s lives, or the performance of super-natural miracles have been announced in advance and with specific dates and places, this still better authenticates our belief that the Creator does indeed continue to take a supervisory interest in His creatures. It demonstrates that G’d communicates with chosen individuals and reveals His secrets to them. By doing such things on occasion, the truth of the Torah is perpetuated, and this is why the Torah wrote in connection with such advertised miracles:למען תדע כי אני ה' בקרב הארץ “in order that you will realize that I the Lord am active on earth.” (Exodus 8,18) This disabuses people who believe that historical and other events on earth are the result of pure chance. In Exodus 9,29 למען תדע כי לה' הארץ, the Torah tells us that the miracles that are about to occur will demonstrate ownership of the earth by G’d, rebutting those who claim that the universe preceded the existence of G’d. G’d created the universe out of “nothing,” i.e. He provided matter, without which there could not be a material universe. Finally, the Torah quotes G’d saying: למען תדע כי אין כמוני, “in order that you should know that there is No One like I.” (Exodus 9,14) These were the three theological principles which Pharaoh had denied, and it took all the plagues to convince him that not only had he been wrong, but that he had been a terrible sinner. Having established that even such a pagan as Pharaoh had finally become convinced of the error of his ways, surely, no one in his right mind expects a private revelation by G’d of His powers every time he entertains some doubt about something! In view of the unreasonable nature of such a request, G’d provided us with some commandments, the performance of which is designed to keep alive within us the memory of the lessons learned not only by Pharaoh but also by the Jewish people at the time. Affixing the relevant passages of the Torah to the doorposts of our homes and gates, placing the phylacteries containing these passages on our heads and arms daily, are all part of this training in remembering that what our forefathers transmitted to us as experiences they lived through had indeed occurred, and we have reason to be eternally grateful for G’d’s intervention in the lives of our forefathers at that time. The story of the Exodus and what preceded it is not only a lesson in the kindness G’d extended to a people who had become assimilated and was outwardly, and mostly inwardly, indistinguishable from its host nation, but is a basic lesson in what constitutes our perception of what we are about, and what ultimately, the universe is about, i.e. the greatness of the Creator. Our sages taught us to relate to so-called מצוות קלות, commandments which because they appear easy to fulfill are not presumed to confer much reward for those observing them, as if they were of the same weightiness as מצוות חמורות, commandments which either are difficult to fulfill, or which carry death penalties as an indication that G’d appears to be more concerned about them than about the other kind. It is not up to us to evaluate the relative merit of G’d’s commandments. What is important for us to remember is that just because G’d does watch over what we are doing, none of us can afford not to be engaged in some manner of service of the Lord, even if such service is indirect, such as earning a living in order to honour the Sabbath by eating better quality food, and wearing better quality clothes. etc. We must at all times retain the awareness that we are G’d’s creatures, and as such we must be guided in our behaviour by the desire to please our Creator. We cannot lay claim to even part of the rewards of observing the Torah until we have embraced it by believing fully what our sages have taught us. We must be convinced that unless we, the Jewish people, collectively will observe the Torah, we cannot for long survive successfully. Our continued existence is bound up with remaining loyal to the covenant G’d made with Avraham, our first patriarch. Our mode of conduct must be living testimony to the ongoing existence and benevolent interest of G’d in His people and mankind at large.

V. 15. הקשה, Pharao verweigerte Gott, was Gott von ihm forderte, nannte sein, was doch durch und durch Gottes ist. Gott züchtigte den die Gotteshörigkeit verkennenden Trotz der Ägypter durch Tötung ihrer Erstgebornen. Ich weihe alle meine Erstgebornen Gott, um unser aller und alles Unsrigen Hörigkeit an Gott nicht zu vergessen.

כל בכור בארץ מצרים, the fact that the Torah does not speak about “every Egyptian firstborn,” but about “every firstborn in Egypt,” shows that basically, the Israelites, i.e. their firstborn were also guilty of death at the hands of G’d. He saved them by sanctifying them as His personal property.

על כן אני זובח, this act of grace by G’d at the time is the reason that I annually express my gratitude by slaughtering the firstborn male of any pure animal. [after giving it to the priest. Ed.] Seeing that the firstborn donkeys or any other impure animal are unfit as offerings on the altar, I redeem them in order to be able to make secular use of these animals as beasts of burden, etc. As far as the firstborn of my own sons are concerned, seeing that they were sanctified from birth, I redeem them in order that they can lead regular lives, as the priesthood is no longer an option for such firstborn ever since the sin of the golden calf.

ולטטפת this denotes the Tephillin; and because they consist of four houses (compartments) they are called טטפת, for טט denotes “two” in Katpi and פת in Afriki denotes “two״ (Sanhedrin 4b). Menachem ben Seruk, however, placed it in the same section (gave it the same meaning) as, (Ezekiel 21:2) “And speak (הטף) to the south״; and as, (Micah 2:6) “speak ye (תטיפו) not”; so that טטפת would be an expression denoting “speaking”, and corresponds to ולזכרון (in v. 9 where it really replaces טוטפת), because whoever sees them (the Tephillin) bound between the eyes will remember the miracle (so that they become a זכרון, a reminder) and will speak about it (so that they become a טטפת. something that causes one to speak about the miracle).

ULTOTAPHOTH’ BETWEEN THINE EYES. No affinity is known to this word. Linguists,³⁹⁹Menachem ben Saruk, quoted in Rashi. See also Ibn Ezra. however, associated it with the expressions: ‘v’hateiph’ (And speak) to the south;⁴⁰⁰Ezekiel 21:2. And my word ‘titoph’ (dropped) upon them.⁴⁰¹Job 29:22. Ramban evidently understands it: “and to them I spoke my word,” meaning “they followed my advice without question.” The figurative usage thereof is based on the verse: And the mountains shall drop (‘v’hitiphu’) sweet wine.⁴⁰²Amos 9:13. The figurative sense of the verse is that the mountains “will speak” of sweet wine. Thus the verse is saying that you should make the exodus from Egypt a sign upon your hand, and between your eyes a source for discourse distilling as the dew upon those that hear it.⁴⁰³See Deuteronomy 32:2. Our Rabbis, however, have called an object which lies upon the head totaphoth, just as they have said: “[A woman] may not go out [on the Sabbath] with a totepheth or head-bangles.”⁴⁰⁴Shabbath 57a. Rabbi Abahu said: “What is totepheth? It is a forehead-band extending from ear to ear.”⁴⁰⁵Ibid., 57b. Now it is the Rabbis [of the Talmud] who are the [true Hebrew] linguists, as they spoke the language and knew it and it is from them that we should accept [the explanation of the word ultotaphoth].
Now Scripture says totaphoth [in the plural] and not totepheth [in the singular] because there are many compartments in the phylacteries,⁴⁰⁶The phylactery of the head is divided into four vertical compartments, each compartment containing a scroll of one of the four Scriptural passages referring to this commandment. The phylactery of the arm contains one interior chamber which contains but one single scroll upon which all four sections of the Law are inscribed together. For fuller discussion of the subject, see “The Commandments,” Vol. I, p. 18-19. just as we have received their form from the holy fathers⁴⁰⁷A reference to the Sages of the Talmud, who received the true Tradition of the Torah. who saw the prophets and the ancient ones up to Moses our teacher doing so.
Now the fundamental reason of this commandment is that we lay the script of the exodus from Egypt upon the hand and upon the head opposite the heart and the brain, which are the pivots of thought. Thus we are to inscribe [on parchment] the Scriptural sections of Kadesh (Sanctify unto Me) [Verses 1-10], and V’haya ki y’viacha (And it shall be when the Eternal shall bring thee) [Verses 11-16], and enclose them in the phylacteries because of this commandment wherein we were charged to make the exodus from Egypt for frontlets between our eyes. [We are also to inscribe and enclose in the phylacteries the sections of] Sh’ma (Hear O Israel) [Deuteronomy 6:4-9] and V’haya im shamo’a (And it shall come to pass, if ye shall hearken) [ibid., 11:13-21] because we are charged to have the commandments [of the Torah] also for frontlets between our eyes, as it is written: And these words, which I command thee this day, shall be upon thy heart;⁴⁰⁸Deuteronomy 6:6. and they shall be for frontlets between thine eyes.⁴⁰⁹Ibid., Verse 8. This is why we also inscribe [on parchment] these two sections — [Sh’ma and V’haya im shamo’a] — for frontlets [even though the exodus is not mentioned in them], for they contain the commandments of the Unity of G-d, the memorial of all commandments, the doctrine of retribution, which states that the consequence of disobeying the commandments is punishment and that blessings come in the wake of obedience — and the whole foundation of the faith.⁴¹⁰“The whole foundation of the faith.” This may refer to the principle of the Unity of G-d which is indeed the root of faith, as Ramban describes it in Deuteronomy 6:4. However, in view of the fact that this principle has already been explicitly mentioned here by Ramban, the reference must be to some other doctrine. It is reasonable to assume that Ramban is here alluding to a point he has explained in many places — “a true principle, clearly indicated in the Torah… that in the entire scope of the Torah there are only miracles, and no nature or custom.” (See Vol. I, pp. 556-7; see also his commentary above, 6:2, and on Leviticus 26:11.) The theme appears also in his introduction to the Commentary on the Book of Job (Kithvei Haramban, Vol. I, pp. 17-19). In his “Sermon on the Perfection of the Torah,” (Ibid., p. 153) as well as at the end of this Seder, he states clearly that “a person has no part in the Torah of Moses our teacher” unless he believes in this principle. It is thus logical to assume that “the whole foundation of the faith” mentioned here is a reference to the above principle. Now of the phylactery of the arm, Scripture says, And it shall be for a sign unto thee upon thy hand,⁴¹¹Above, Verse 9. which the Rabbis explained⁴¹²Menachoth 36b. as referring to the left arm, which is opposite the heart.
By way of the Truth, [the mystic lore of the Cabala], the verse, It is because of ‘zeh’ (this) which the Eternal did for me,⁴¹³Above, Verse 8. is similar to ‘zeh’ (this) is my G-d, and I will glorify Him.⁴¹⁴Further, 15:2. The verse here thus states that it was because of His name and His glory that He did for us and brought us forth out of Egypt. And “this” shall be for a sign unto thee on the arm of your strength,⁴¹⁵See Psalms 89:11. just as it is written, For Thou art the glory of their strength.⁴¹⁶Ibid., Verse 18. Thus the sign [of the phylactery] is similar to the sign of circumcision⁴¹⁷Genesis 17:11. and the Sabbath.⁴¹⁸Further, 31:13. And since all [emanations] are one perfect unity, which is alluded to in “the sign” on the arm, our ancestors have received the tradition from Moses, who received it from the mouth of the Almighty, that [all four sections of Scripture inscribed in the phylacteries, as described above], are encased in one compartment. This is something like Scripture says, achothi kalah,⁴¹⁹Song of Songs 5:1. Literally, “my sister, the bride,” but here interpreted on the basis of the Hebrew roots which suggest “unity” (achothi, my sister — echad, one) and “totality” (kalah, bride — kol, all), as explained in the text. See also Vol. I, p. 292, where Ramban refers to this theme. because it is united and comprised of the thirty-two paths of wisdom⁴²⁰Sefer Yetzirah 1:1 [with which the world was created], and it is further written, His left hand is under my head.⁴²¹Song of Songs 2:6.
Then Scripture says, And it shall be for a memorial between thine eyes,⁴¹¹Above, Verse 9. meaning that we are to lay them at the place of remembrance, which is between the eyes, at the beginning of the brain. It is there that remembrance begins by recalling the appearances [of persons and events] after they have passed away from us. These frontlets circle around the whole head with their straps, while the loop rests directly over the base of the brain which guards the memory. And the expression, between your eyes, means that they are to be placed upon the middle of the head, not towards one side. It may be that in the middle of the head, there are the roots of the eyes and from these stems the power of sight. Similarly, the verse, Nor make ye any baldness between your eyes for the dead,⁴²²Deuteronomy 14:1. See Rashi, ibid., that the expression between the eyes means on the head adjoining the forehead. See also Rashi to Leviticus 21:5. [means baldness adjoining the forehead. Thus the expression between your eyes mentioned here in the case of the frontlets also refers to the identical place]. It is to explain this point, [i.e., that the phylactery of the head is not to be placed between the eyes, as the literal meaning of the words might indicate, but that it is to be placed upon the middle of the head adjoining the forehead], that He reverts here [in Verse 16 and instead of using the expression, and for ‘a memorial’ between your eyes, as stated in Verse 9], and says ‘ultotaphoth’ between your eyes. This is in order to explain that the commandment is not fulfilled by placing the phylactery between the eyes bottomward, but rather it is to be placed high on the head where it is to be there like totaphoth, [and we have seen above that the word totepheth was used by the Rabbis for an object which lies upon the head]. He uses the plural form [totaphoth, and not the singular totepheth], because the compartments in the phylactery of the head are many, as we have received the form by Tradition.
And now I shall declare to you a general principle in the reason of many commandments. Beginning with the days of Enosh⁴²³Genesis 4:26. See also Rambam, Mishneh Torah, Hilchoth Akum, 1:1, where he traces the process of intellectual degeneration by which mankind fell into gross idolatry. Ramban primarily follows here the process of deterioration as affecting the three basic principles of faith: the existence of the Creator, His providence over the world, and the truth of prophecy. The chief purpose of the commandments of the Torah is to guard Israel against deviating from these principles. when idol-worship came into existence, opinions in the matter of faith fell into error. Some people denied the root of faith by saying that the world is eternal; they denied the Eternal, and said: It is not He⁴²⁴Jeremiah 5:12. [Who called forth the world into existence]. Others denied His knowledge of individual matters, and they say, How doth G-d know? and is there knowledge in the Most High?⁴²⁵Psalms 73:11. Some admit His knowledge but deny the principle of providence and make men as the fishes of the sea,⁴²⁶Habakkuk 1:14. [believing] that G-d does not watch over them and that there is no punishment or reward for their deeds, for they say the Eternal hath forsaken the land.⁴²⁷Ezekiel 8:12. Now when G-d is pleased to bring about a change in the customary and natural order of the world for the sake of a people or an individual, then the voidance of all these [false beliefs] becomes clear to all people, since a wondrous miracle shows that the world has a G-d Who created it, and Who knows and supervises it, and Who has the power to change it. And when that wonder is previously prophesied by a prophet, another principle is further established, namely, that of the truth of prophecy, that G-d doth speak with man,⁴²⁸Deuteronomy 5:28. and that He revealeth His counsel unto His servants the prophets,⁴²⁹Amos 3:7. and thereby the whole Torah is confirmed. This is why Scripture says in connection with the wonders [in Egypt]: That thou [Pharaoh] mayest know that I am the Eternal in the midst of the earth,⁴³⁰Above, 8:18. which teaches us the principle of providence, i.e., that G-d has not abandoned the world to chance, as they [the heretics] would have it; That thou mayest know that the earth is the Eternal’s,⁴³¹Ibid., 9:29. which informs us of the principle of creation, for everything is His since He created all out of nothing; That thou mayest know that there is none like Me in all the earth,⁴³²Ibid., Verse 14. which indicates His might, i.e., that He rules over everything and that there is nothing to withhold Him. The Egyptians either denied or doubted all of these [three] principles, [and the miracles confirmed their truth].
Accordingly, it follows that the great signs and wonders constitute faithful witnesses⁴³³Isaiah 8:2. to the truth of the belief in the existence of the Creator and the truth of the whole Torah. And because the Holy One, blessed be He, will not make signs and wonders in every generation for the eyes of some wicked man or heretic, He therefore commanded us that we should always make a memorial or sign of that which we have seen with our eyes, and that we should transmit the matter to our children, and their children to their children, to the generations to come, and He placed great emphasis on it, as is indicated by the fact that one is liable to extinction for eating leavened bread on the Passover, and for abandoning the Passover-offering, [i.e., for not taking part in the slaughtering thereof].⁴³⁴Numbers 9:13. He has further required of us that we inscribe upon our arms and between our eyes all that we have seen in the way of signs and wonders, and to inscribe it yet upon the doorposts of the houses, and that we remember it by recital in the morning and evening — just as the Rabbis have said: “The recital of the benediction True and firm, [which follows the Sh’ma in the morning and which terminates with a blessing to G-d for the redemption from Egypt], is obligatory as a matter of Scriptural law because it is written, That thou mayest remember the day when thou camest forth out of the land of Egypt all the days of thy life.⁴³⁵Deuteronomy 16:3. [He further required] that we make a booth every year⁴³⁶Leviticus 23:42. and many other commandments like them which are a memorial to the exodus from Egypt. All these commandments are designed for the purpose that in all generations we should have testimonies to the wonders so that they should not be forgotten and so that the heretic should not be able to open his lips to deny the belief in [the existence of] G-d. He who buys a Mezuzah⁴³⁷Literally: “door-post.” It is a scroll of parchment on which are written the two Scriptural portions, Deuteronomy 6:4-9 and 11:13-21, and which is fastened to the right-hand door-post. for one zuz [a silver coin] and affixes it to his doorpost and has the proper intent of heart on its content, has already admitted the creation of the world, the Creator’s knowledge and His providence, and also his belief in prophecy as well as in all fundamental principles of the Torah, besides admitting that the mercy of the Creator is very great upon them that do His will, since He brought us forth from that bondage to freedom and to great honor on account of the merit of our fathers who delighted in the fear of His Name.⁴³⁸See Nehemiah 1:11. It is for this reason that the Rabbis have said:⁴³⁹Aboth 2:1. “Be as heedful of a light commandment⁴⁴⁰Here understood in the sense of a commandment, the fulfillment of which does not entail a great expense, just like a Mezuzah that can be bought for one zuz and affixed to the door-post. as of a weighty one,” for they are all exceedingly precious and beloved, for through them a person always expresses thankfulness to his G-d.
And the purpose of all the commandments is that we believe in our G-d and be thankful to Him for having created us, for we know of no other reason for the first creation,⁴⁴¹“The first creation.” In his “Sermon on the Perfection of the Torah,” where Ramban discusses the same topic (Kithvei Haramban, Vol. I, p. 152), the text reads: “for we know of no other reason for ‘the creation of man.’” See, however, my Hebrew commentary, in the fifth edition, p. 557, where I suggest that the term “the first creation” may be a reference to the period from Adam to Abraham. and G-d the Most High has no demand on the lower creatures, excepting that man should know and be thankful to G-d for having created him. The purposes of raising our voices in prayer and of the service in synagogues, as well as the merit of public prayer, is precisely this: that people should have a place wherein they assemble and express their thankfulness to G-d for having created them and supported them, and thus proclaim and say before Him, “We are your creatures.”
This is the intent of what the Rabbis of blessed memory have said:⁴⁴²Yalkut Shimoni, Jonah 550. See also Yerushalmi Taanith, II, 1. “And they cried mightily unto G-d.⁴⁴³Jonah 3:8. From here you learn that prayer must be accompanied by sound. The undaunted one wins over the abashed one.”
Through the great open miracles, one comes to admit the hidden miracles which constitute the foundation of the whole Torah, for no one can have a part in the Torah of Moses our teacher unless he believes that all our words and our events, [as dictated in the Torah], are miraculous in scope, there being no natural or customary way of the world in them, whether affecting the public or the individual. Instead, if a person observes the commandments, His reward will bring him success, and if he violates them, His punishment will cause his extinction. It is all by decree of the Most High, as I have already mentioned.⁴⁴⁴See Vol. I, pp. 215-216 and 556-558. The hidden miracles done to the public come to be known as is mentioned in the assurances of the Torah on the subject of the blessings and imprecations,⁴⁴⁵Leviticus 26:3-46; Deuteronomy 28:1-68. as the verse says: And all the nations shall say: Wherefore hath the Eternal done thus unto this land? … Then men shall say: Because they forsook the covenant of the Eternal, the G-d of their fathers.⁴⁴⁶Deuteronomy 29:23-4. Thus it will become known to all nations that their punishment came from G-d. And of the fulfillment of the commandments it says, And all the peoples of the earth shall see that the name of the Eternal is called upon thee.⁴⁴⁷Ibid., 28:10. I will yet explain this, with the help of G-d.⁴⁴⁸Leviticus 26:11.
Beshalach

Our sages (מנחות לז) explain that you place the Tefilin on the weaker hand, to teach us that Tefilin should be placed on the left hand. the reason for this is that the intellect and our physicality are problematic for on another; when the one rises, the other falls. When the physicality of an individual is afflicted, the strength of the intellect waxes. The reason for the affliction in Egypt is to bring the physicality of the Jewish people into the iron crucible (as mentioned in Deut.) and through that the intellect of the Jew would overcome it. Both young and old men will attest to this - when a man is young and immature, his physicality is in the ascendancy over his intellect, and when he gets older his intellect has the ascendency over his physicality. It is for this reason that Solomon (In Ecclesiastes) says "Don't say that your earlier days were better than your later ones because it is not out of wisdom that you ask it" - because at the age of 60 comes wisdom, length of days and understanding.

‎[This is a comment to the Torah’s‎‏ ‏statement, “It shall be a sign upon your Handידכה ‏‎.”] Our Rabbis ‎of blessed memory said (Menachot 37a), “’Yadchah (spelled with an extra hey implies the weaker ‎hand (yad kehah), which is the left hand. We need to understand why Hashem did not choose the ‎right hand to perform this mitzvah, since it is greater. Our Rabbis say that this is in order that (the ‎tefillin) be aligned next to the heart, which is towards the left side (of the body), and their words ‎are true. However it appears to me that there is an additional reason, for the Torah itself gives a ‎reason for the matter in saying, “Because with a strong hand.” You need to know that HaShem has ‎‎2 aspects within His attributes. The first is called “the great hand, yad hagedolah”, and the other is ‎called “the strong hand, yad hachazakah”. “The great hand” represents (G-d’s) aspect of kindness ‎and goodness; “the strong hand” represents His strength, which He repays the wicked according to ‎their wickedness. In removing Bnei Yisrael from Egypt, Hashem stretched out “the strong hand” ‎and struck His enemies with ten plagues. For this reason G-d said that tefillin, which contain the ‎written remembrance (of these events), should be placed on our weak hand (our left hand), which‏ ‏represents “the strong hand” that‏ ‏removed us from Egypt. This is why the‏ ‏pasuk here says, “for ‎with the strength of a hand.” This is correct. Granted that it says in many places (regarding ‎punishment), “the great‏ ‏hand,” in those instances G-d’s attribute‏ ‏of mercy concurred with the ‎attribute of justice, but the essence of justice is still‏ ‏performed through the “strong hand.”‎‏ ‏‎{Ed. ‎Note - Thus, despite the term‏ ‏‎“strong,” the “strong hand” which‎‏ ‏represents justice is, in fact, ‎weaker‏ ‏than the “great hand” which‏ ‏represents mercy. To symbolize the‏ ‏vengeance that G-d ‎exacted from‏ ‏Egypt through His “weaker hand,” we‏ ‏don our tefillin, which memorialize‏ ‏these ‎events, on our weaker hand.}‎

טט in the Kathphi language is two. . . Katheph is the name of a place where “two” is called טט . Similarly, Afrik is the name of a place where “two” is called פת . See Tosafos in Maseches Sanhedrin (4b). Rashi was answering the question: Here it is written ולטטפות , while in the section of kadeish (v. 9) it is written ולזכרון . Why are different words used [to describe tephillin]? To answer this, Rashi cited this explanation [about Kathphi and Afriki]. (Nachalas Yaakov) You might ask: According to this, tephillin should contain twelve compartments, since “totafos” is written three times. The answer is: One instance of “totafos” is needed for itself, [to tell us the mitzvah]. Another teaches “two” (compartments) in the Kathphi language, or “two” in the Afriki language. The third “totafos” teaches that in Kathphi four (compartments) are needed, or in Afriki four (compartments) are needed; if “totafos” were only written twice, then only two compartments would be needed. Another answer is: “Totafos” is not written three times for the sake of [new] commands. Rather, [the section of tephillin is] like a section that has been stated once and then repeated, just as many other sections of the Torah [are repeated in whole, for the sake of a certain new teaching that the repetition contains].

V. 16. ידכה, auch auf deiner Hand, obgleich du kein בכור bist. Dieser Vers gehört mit zur Rede des Vaters an den Sohn. — טוטפות, Stirnschmuck, wie (Schabbath 57 a.) erklärt wird, המקפת מאון לאזן, ein Diadem. Die Etymologie ist zweifelhaft. כי בחזק יד וגו׳. Dieselbe Tatsache, die die Weihe deines erstgebornen Bruders begründet, zeichnet auch dich und adelt auch dich, wie uns alle. Die Weihe deines erstgebornen Bruders sichert dir die deine — (über תפלין siehe zu Dewarim 11, 18.)

.והיה לאות על ידכה, “it shall be as a symbol on your hand;” the phylactery to be worn on the head is to serve as a symbol for the “strong hand,” with which G-d compelled the Egyptians to release the Israelites, as mentioned in the previous verse; the phylactery to be worn on the forehead however, is to be a reminder of the miracles G-d had performed as stated in Deuteronomy 6,22: ויתן ה' אותות ומופתים גדולים ורעים בפרעה ובמצרים לעינינו, “the Lord performed signs and miracles great and awesome before our eyes against Pharaoh and the Egyptians.”

So it is with the two hands of man, because the left hand is weaker. and it is weak because of its proximity to the heart, which is the source of intellect. (This is therefore the primary example of the intellect controlling the physical forces in man). However, the right hand is next to the liver which is the source of desire. The liver does not oppose the physical force in any way, because that is the source of its strength. The place in which the intellect dwells (the heart) makes the hand weak. Therefore when the verse says: והיה לאות על ידכה it is as if it is says that it should be a sign on your heart, because the heart is the reason that his hand is weak. Indeed, this is the reason of the Tefilin should be put on the arm, (to remember that the whole purpose of the exodus from Egypt is to teach this concept), and the Shel Rosh should be between the eyes, because the heart and the eyes are the two agents of sin (as seen in the Yerushalmi). Therefore these two places need something to remind them about the existence of G-d and his capacity, and through that will return from sin.

ידכה, the unusual spelling instead of ידך alerts us to the need to wear the phylactery on the left arm, our weaker arm. Seeing that we use our right arm for all manner of activities, it is not fitting that the holy name of G-d be attached to it. An alternate explanation: our sages have stated that seeing that the right arm and hand are used to attach the phylactery to our left arm, instead of vice versa, and in most instances the left arm or hand are called יד, there is nothing surprising in this.

Another explanation is as follows: It mentions the weaker hand to teach us that man will not overcome (anything), but that G-d is the one who battles in any war. (Wearing Tefilin on the left weaker hand illustrates that) a man's hand is weak and he is unable to do anything with it unless G-d will help and strengthen his hand. This is the meaning of the verse in Psalms (תהלים טז ח) I place G-d opposite me always, He will never move from my right hand). At first, King David was upset that the heart should be on the left hand side, and the liver on the right hand side of a human being. This would indicate that G-d created man in such a way that his desires should be the main force, and his intellect subservient to his desires. Afterwards, David states: G-d is opposite me - his right hand supports my left hand. It is through that I am confident that I will never be moved - that the strength of his desires will never move him from the straight path. this is because the hand of G-d provides power and energy to the heart (intellect) which is opposite him as he stands in front of G-d. It is for this reason that he states afterwards: "Therefore my heart rejoices" to see that G-d is supporting my left hand. David ends the psalm stating: the pleasantness of your right hand is eternity" - not in my right hand, because the intellect is supported by the right hand of G-d which is opposite my left hand. Therefore, G-d commanded us to put on Tefilin, where the name of G-d is engraved on them on the weaker hand, to teach us that the strength of G-d's right hand gives our left hand strength. This is the meaning of the verse:כי בחוזק יד הוציאנו ה' ממצרים. G-d's right hand opposite man's left hand took us out of Egypt. This in turn teaches that no deed is dependent upon man's action, rather with the help of G-d.

ולטוטפות, the word means: “something to look at.” We find in this context in Deuteronomy 28,10: וראו כל עמי הארץ כי שם ה' נקרא עלדך, “and all the nations of the earth will see that the name of the Lord) has been proclaimed upon you.” (Compare Talmud megillah 14 מטייפין)

ויהי בשלח פרעה... ולא נחם AND IT CAME TO PASS WHEN PHARAOH HAD SENT [THE PEOPLE AWAY] THAT GOD GUIDED THEM NOT — The word נחם means He guided them, just as, (Exodus 32:34) “Go, guide (נחה) the people”, and (Proverbs 6:22) “when thou goest it shall guide (תנחה) thee”.

AND G-D LED THEM NOT BY THE WAY OF THE LAND OF THE PHILISTINES BECAUSE¹“Because.” Thus Rashi and Ibn Ezra render the Hebrew word ki, as will be explained. Ramban will suggest further on in the text that the word ki should be understood here as “although.” The J.P.S. translation follows Ramban’s explanation. IT WAS NEAR. “It would therefore be easy [for the Israelites] to return to Egypt by the same route. There are many Midrashic explanations, [but the above is the plain sense of Scripture].” Thus the language of Rashi. This is also the opinion of Rabbi Abraham ibn Ezra, who explained the purport of the verse to be that G-d led them not by the way of the land of the Philistines “because” it was near. They might therefore be filled with regret [when they experience war], and they would immediately return to Egypt.
In my opinion, if their explanations were correct, the expression for G-d said would have been mentioned in first place in the verse, in which case the verse would read: “and G-d led them not by the way of the land of the Philistines, for G-d said, Because it is near, lest peradventure the people repent!”²But actually the verse reads: and G-d led them not by the way of the land of the Philistines because it was near; for G-d said, etc. In other words, Ramban argues that according to Rashi and Ibn Ezra, the reason for G-d’s choice of the route by the wilderness and not by the land of the Philistines [because it was near], should have followed after the expression for G-d said. But the correct interpretation is that [the expression in question does not state the reason for G-d’s choice but merely] states that G-d led them not by the way of the land of the Philistines although it was near and it would have been advantageous to lead them by that route, for G-d said: Lest peradventure the people repent when they see war, and they return to Egypt.
The reason they would experience war if they went by the way of the land of the Philistines, is that the Philistines would surely not have given them permission to go peacefully through their land, and thus they might return to Egypt. But by the way of the wilderness, they would not see war until they came to the lands of Sihon and Og, the kings of the Amorites,³Deuteronomy 3:8. which were given to them [i.e. to Israel]. At that time, they were already far from Egypt, [and there was thus no reason to fear that they would be tempted to return to Egypt because of war]. The war of Amalek in Rephidim⁴Further, 17:8-13. was no reason for the Israelites to return to Egypt, since they did not pass through the land of the Amalekites. Rather, Amalek came from his country and warred against them because of his hatred of Israel. Even if they were to take their own course to return to Egypt, it would be to no avail since Amalek would fight them on the way. Besides, they were already far from Egypt because of the circuitous route which they had followed, and they knew of no other route.
Now Rashi commented: “When they see war. For instance, the war of the Canaanite and the Amalekite.⁵In Numbers 14:45 and so in Rashi here: And the Amalekite and the Canaanite came down. If they had proceeded by the direct route, they would have then turned back. For after He had made them go round by a circuitous way they said, Let us make a captain and go back to Egypt,⁶Ibid., 14:4. and how much more so would they have said it had He led them by a straight road!”⁷Mechilta on the verse before us.
The purport of that which Scripture states, and G-d led them not… But G-d led the people about, by the way of the wilderness,⁸Verse 18. is that when they journeyed from Succoth,⁹Verse 20. a pillar of cloud¹⁰Verse 21. began to go before them. It did not go by the way of the land of the Philistines but instead went by the way of the wilderness of Etham,⁹Verse 20. and the Israelites walked after it. The cloud then rested in Etham and they encamped there, and that was at the edge of the wilderness.⁹Verse 20.

ויהי בשלח...ולא נחם אלוקים דרך ארץ פלשתים, even though it had been G’d’s plan to lead the Israelites to Mount Sinai to receive the Torah there, and only from there to the land of Israel, as He stated Himself in Exodus 6,7-8 :”I will take you as My people, and I will bring you to the land, etc.,” at this point, G’d’s plan was to lead them to the Sea of Reeds, which was neither the route to the land of the Philistines, nor the route that led to Mount Sinai. [we must remember that Moses had stood at Chorev=Mt Sinai at the burning bush and he did not have to cross the sea to do this. Ed.] The major reason for this was to bring about the drowning of Pharaoh and his army in the sea. [it is important to always remember that due to man’s free will, G’d cannot deal with man in the way He deals with inert objects or even animals, none of which could oppose Him. G’d needs to create a scenario which gives man a chance to delude himself, thus bringing him to act in a manner enabling G’d to insure that His design will be carried out. Ed.] An example of G’d acting in this manner is described in Judges 4,7 where G’d Himself speaks about how He “dragged” Sisera and his army and 900 armoured vehicles across the river Kishon to face Barak. The simplest route to get to the Sea of Reeds was by traversing the land of the Philistines. דרך ארץ פלשתים, G’d did not want them to travel this route

ויהי בשלח פרעה את העם, It happened when Pharaoh discharged the people, etc. Why does the Torah employ the word ויהי which always indicates some painful experience? The Torah should have described the Exodus in glowing terms! Besides, why does the Torah attribute the Exodus to Pharaoh rather than to G'd? After all, He took us out of Egypt, something the Torah does not tire of mentioning on numerous occasions!

ויהי בשלח פרעה את העם, when G’d intended to bring them to the land of Canaan, but did not want to lead them through the land of the Philistines although it was the closest route,

ויהי בשלח פרעה....כי קרוב הוא, “It happened when Pharaoh had dismissed the people,… for it was near;” according to Rashi, the meaning of the words “for it was near,” is that it would afford too easy an opportunity for the people to return to Egypt. They would be tempted to do this if they had to face armed conflict. Nachmanides comments that if that were the meaning of the words כי קרוב הוא, the Torah should first have written the words כי אמר אלוקים , ”for G’d had said, etc.” The whole verse should then have read as follows:ולא נחם אלוקים דרך ארץ פלשתים כי אמר אלוקים כי קרוב הוא, לכן , “and G’d had not led them the route via the land of the Philistines, for He had said that even though it is nearer it is too easy to turn back from, therefore, etc.” It was better therefore to lead them on a more circuitous route as they would not then have the temptation to return to Egypt rather than face immediate armed conflict. [“the land of the Philistines” is a synonym for crossing any inhabited region which would be opposed by such inhabitants. Ed.] We find a similar construction in Psalms 41,5, רפאה נפשי כי חטאתי לך, “heal me for I have sinned against You.” Clearly, the meaning of the word כי could not be “for I have sinned against You,” but must be: “although I have sinned against You.” Some commentators understand the words כי קרוב הוא as not describing something spatial, but as referring to timing. G’d meant that an immediate arrival at the borders of the land of Canaan would then occur before the fourth generation of Canaanites had forfeited the patience of G’d, so that He could legally deprive them of their land and give it to the Israelites. [the word קרוב בימינו, “soon in our days,” and many other such uses of the word קרוב for relating to something that would occur soon are too numerous to need to be quoted. Ed.] Yet another interpretation of the words כי קרוב הוא understands it as describing the political common interests of the Philistines and the Egyptians that would cause the former to help the Egyptians recapture their slaves. Still another approach to the words כי קרוב הוא, sees in them a reference to the devastating defeat suffered by 200,000 members of the tribe of Ephrayim, who thirty years earlier had decided that the 400 years that G’d had spoken about to Avraham were at an end, and who had decided on their own, to escape from Egypt and when approaching the land of the Philistines were annihilated by them. G’d did not want to risk re-awakening such memories by making the people travel that route. The very word כי with its numerical value of 30 is a veiled reminder to the reader what it is all about. Moreover, G’d feared that if the Israelites would get involved in war before the three days travel into the desert that they had been given permission for were up, and on account of their fear they would return to Egypt, the Egyptians would be willing to let them return, whereas once the three days had passed, even if for some reason other than war, they would decide to return to Egypt, the Egyptians would not welcome them, but treat them as traitors who had broken their word. Therefore, G’d wanted a situation to develop which would make a return to Egypt even more dangerous an undertaking for the people than facing uncertain dangers by moving ahead.

Lead them. . . The ם of נחם is a suffix, not the third letter of the verb root. The word means “lead,” and not “rest” ( מנוח ) or “consolation” ( נחמה ).

ולא נחם אלוקים דרך ארץ פלשתים, He led them through the desert for a different reason, apart from the fact that the route through the land of the Philistines was the most convenient one. Had He led them in that direction, and He would have convinced the Philistines to allow the Israelites free passage, based on the longstanding treaty between Yitzchak and Avimelech, G’d could not have performed even a fraction of the miracles He had in mind to perform in order to strengthen the people’s confidence in Him.
Therefore, by making the Israelites take a circuitous route, G’d would be able not only to provide the people with manna, meat in the form of the quail, water produced by striking a rock, etc., etc., but the further away the Israelites would be from inhabited areas the greater would be the miracle that G’d could provide for several million people all of their needs. The lesson would also be taught that even in such inhospitable regions of the earth, the human species could survive if G’d wanted it so.
When G’d saved Chanayah, Mishael, and Azaryah from the fiery furnace, G’d could have saved these people by performing a far lesser miracle. However, He wanted to demonstrate His power at that time. (compare Daniel 3,27) G’d did not simply extinguish the flames in the furnace, for instance, but let it roar at its fiercest in order to show that if He wanted man to survive unharmed inside such a furnace it could be done, if only G’d wanted it. Or, to take the example of Daniel in the lions’ den. All G’d had to do was to kill the lions and Daniel would have been saved. The reason why G’d went to the trouble of preventing these starved lions from making a meal out of Daniel was to demonstrate to the onlookers the extent of His control over nature. (compare Daniel 6,23).
Another example of the same kind is found in Judges 7,2. If G’d would have allowed Gideon with 10,000 men to defeat the many times larger army of the Midianites, this would have been miracle enough. Why did G’d shrink the number of soldiers at Gideon’s disposal to 300? For no other reason than to make the miracle so much greater.
G’d wanted to teach the lesson that numbers did not matter at all; what counted was that the soldiers be G’d fearing men who had never bowed their knee to an alien deity. Prowess with a sword was not what was required, but lapping up water by hand and bringing it to one’s mouth is what distinguishes man from the beasts who lower themselves to the water.

(Exodus 13:17) "And it was, when G d sent ("shalach") the people": "sending" in all places is accompaniment, viz. (Genesis 18:16) "And Abraham went with them to send them," (Ibid. 26:31) "And Israel sent them." The mouth (of Pharaoh) that said (Exodus 5:2) "Israel, too, I will not send," it is that (mouth) which said (Ibid. 10:10) "I will send you and your children." How was he rewarded for this? (Devarim 23:8) "You shall not abominate an Egyptian." The mouth which said (Exodus 5:2) "I do not know the L rd," it is that (mouth) which said (Ibid. 14:25) "I will flee from before Israel, for the L rd wars for them against the Egyptians." How was he rewarded for this? (Isaiah 19:19) "On that day there will be an altar to the L rd in the midst of the land of Egypt and a pillar at its border to the L rd." The mouth which said (Exodus 5:2) "Who is the L rd that I should hearken to His voice," it is that mouth which said (Ibid. 9:27) "the L rd is the Tzaddik, and I and my people are the wicked" — wherefore He gave them a place for burial, as it is written (Ibid. 15:12) "You inclined Your right hand — the earth swallowed them up." (Ibid.) "that G d did not lead them ('nacham')." This "nichum" connotes leading, as in (Psalms 77:21) "You have led (nachitha) Your people like sheep," and (Ibid. 78:4) "And He led them (vayanchem) with a cloud by day, and all the night with a light of fire." "by way of the land of the Philistines, for it was near": Near (i.e., "close") is the thing of which the Holy One Blessed be He spoke to Moses (Exodus 2:12): "When you take the people out of Egypt, you will serve G d on this mountain." Variantly: "for it was near": It afforded easy return to Egypt, viz. (Ibid. 5:3) "Let us go a three days' distance in the desert." Variantly: "for it was near": Close (in time) was the oath that Abraham had sworn to Avimelech, viz. (Genesis 21:23) "And now, swear to me here by G d that you will not deal with me falsely (by trespassing on my land), or to my son or my grandson," and his grandson was still alive. Variantly: "for it was near": The first war (that with Egypt) was too close to the second (that with Canaan). Variantly: "for it was near": The Canaanites had only recently acquired the land, and (Genesis 15:16) "And they (the Israelites) shall return here in the fourth generation, for the sin of the Amorites is not yet complete." Variantly: "for it was near": The Holy One Blessed be He did not bring them directly to Eretz Yisrael but by way of the desert, saying: If I bring them there now, immediately each man will seize his field, and each man his vineyard and they will neglect Torah study. Rather, I will keep them in the desert forty years, eating manna and drinking from the well, and the Torah will be absorbed in their bodies. From here R. Shimon would say: The Torah was given to be expounded only by the eaters of manna, and, like them, the eaters of terumah (i.e., the Cohanim). Variantly: "for it was near": The L rd did not bring them in directly. For when the Canaanites heard that the Israelites were coming, they arose and burned all the vegetation and cut down all the trees, and razed the buildings, and stopped up the springs — whereas the Holy One Blessed be He said: I did not promise their fathers to bring them to a ruined land, but one full of all good things, viz. (Devarim 6:11) "and houses full of all good." Rather, I will keep them in the desert until the Canaanites arise and restore what they have destroyed. (Ibid.) "for the L rd said: Lest the people bethink themselves when they see war": This is the war of Amalek, viz. (Numbers 14:45). "Variantly: "for the L rd said, etc.": This is the war of the sons of Ephraim, viz. (I Chronicles 7:20-21), and (Psalms 78:9-72). They transgressed the appointed time (for the redemption) and the oath, viz. (Genesis 50:25). "for the L rd said, etc.": So that they not see the bones of their brethren strewn in Philistia and return (to Egypt). Now does this not follow a fortiori, viz.: If, when He took them in a circuitous way, they said (Numbers 14:4) "Let us make a head and return to Egypt," how much more so if He would take them in a straight way!

V. 17 u. 18. Die ideale Aufgabe des Gottesvolkes war in den vorhergehenden Institutionen des Peßachopfers, des Mazzafestes, der Erstgeburtsweihe und des Tefillingebotes gezeichnet. Die Erzählung kehrt zur konkreten Wirklichkeit des eben erst erlösten, erst an dem Anfang seiner Bestimmung stehenden Volkes zurück, und zeigt uns sofort, wie noch keineswegs das Volk jener idealen Stufe nahe gewesen, zugleich aber auch, wie so ganz und gar in ihnen selbst von jener Kraft und jenem Mute keine Spur vorhanden gewesen, die sich hätte selbst die Freiheit erkämpfen und erhalten können. Nicht nur die Gewinnung der Freiheit, auch die Bewahrung derselben war durch und durch Gottes Werk. Freiwillig, so lesen wir, wären sie in die alte Knechtschaft zurückgekehrt, wenn sie auf dem Wege zu der die Freiheit sichernden Selbständigkeit Kampf zu bestehen vor sich gefunden; und "sie waren doch gewaffnet aus Mizrajim gezogen!" Das Schwert fehlte nicht an der Rippe, aber das Herz fehlte unter derselben, es fehlte der Mut zum Kampfe, und es fehlte noch vor allem der unter allen Umständen vertrauensvoll sich Gott hingebende Sinn, der in dem Bewusstsein seiner Führung Willen und Mut, Kraft und Begeisterung zu allem findet. —

כי קרוב, “because the people were close to the Lord,” as stated in Psalms148.14: לבני ישראל, עם קרובו הללוי-ה, “for Israel, the people close to Him.” This is the reason why He led them as is the custom of the world, not on a magic carpet. An alternate interpretation of the line above: seeing that the land of the Philistines was so close to Egypt, as we know from Genesis 10,13-14:למצרים ילד את לודים...אשר יצאו משם פלשתים, “and Mitzrayim begat Ludim....from whom the Philistines are descended.”

1. AND IT WAS WHEN HE SENT, LED. He directed them as in (Exodus 32:34): "Go, lead the people..." and as in (Job 38:32) "and lead the Ursa Major ("Great Bear") with her sons?"

ויהי בשלח פרעה את העם, “It was when Pharaoh had let the people go;” the reason why the Torah did not write that “Pharaoh let the Israelites go,” is because the word העם included fellow travelers who had joined the Jewish nation, as well as spies who would report back to Pharaoh on the route they had taken.

כי קרוב הוא BECAUSE IT WAS NEAR, and it would therefore be easy to return by the same route to Egypt. — Of Midrashic explanations there are many (cf. Mekhilta d'Rabbi Yishmael 13:17).

כי קרוב הוא because this route was too close to Egypt, afforded too easy a way to return to Egypt. Also, seeing it was a much traveled route, too many travelers would be able to report to Pharaoh about the Israelites and also too many Egyptians could keep the Israelites informed of what transpired in their country. If the Israelites would have to face combat

כי קרוב הוא, and G’d feared that when faced with the need to conduct battles they would appoint an alternate leader in order to return to Egypt and submit to the Egyptians. We know that the Israelites tried to do this several times whenever they felt frustrated. (Examples are Numbers 14,3, Numbers 11,5) The disgruntled Israelites on such occasions “suddenly remembered” how good they had it in Egypt, citing the fish they ate for free, etc., as examples of their having been better off in Egypt. In light of what happened, although the Israelites did not have to face the armed might of the Philistines, G’d’s foresight in not leading them on that route seems extremely understandable. As a result of such considerations we find ויסב את העם דרך המדבר, that G’d made the Israelites take a much longer route in the direction of the Sea of Reeds. Moses described that had the Israelites traveled a straight path from their point of departure the whole journey would not have required more than 11 days. (Deuteronomy 1,2). Proof that the route to Egypt via the land of the Philistines is the shortest and most traveled route is furnished by Yitzchok’s declared intention to move to Egypt on account of the famine in the land of Canaan if G’d had not ordered him to stay in that land and he settled in the land of the Philistines while already on the way to Egypt (Genesis 26,3-6).

בראותם מלחמה, “when they would face armed conflict.” Rashi understands this as a veiled reference to the war against Amalek and the Canaanites. Nachmanides writes that neither the war against the Amalekites nor that against the Canaanites would trigger a desire by the people to return to Egypt. The Amalekites had attacked the Israelites not because the Israelites threatened them, but because they represented a spiritual threat to their way of life. They would also have attacked the Israelites if they had decided to remain in the desert without looking for a homeland. G’d simply wanted any war to be delayed until the Israelites were so far away from Egypt, that returning to Egypt simply would not be a viable option. Facing war, or rather, avoiding war against the Philistines, would leave open the option of return to Egypt.

And it was therefore easy to return by that route to Egypt. . . Rashi is answering the question: Every כי in Scripture is put there to give a reason. How does [“Because it was the shortest route”] give a reason for the preceding [statement that Hashem did not lead them that way]? On the contrary, Hashem should lead them via the shortest route! Thus Rashi explains that it was easy to return by that route, as it says afterwards, “For Elohim said. . .” I.e., what would cause them to return to Egypt? “Elohim said. . . should they encounter war.” The war would be the cause [for them to return].

The word ויהי may be justified in view of the pursuit by Pharaoh and the resulting fear the Israelites were to experience shortly. The Torah hints that the reason such a pursuit occurred was because Pharaoh had a hand in the Exodus, i.e. G'd had waited till Pharaoh himself had been willing to liberate the Jews. If it had all been G'd's doing such a pursuit would not have occurred. As soon as the Jews departed Pharaoh schemed to find a justification to pursue them and to convince his people that the attempt to bring the Israelites back would be worthwhile. We will explain later Pharaoh's reasoning in greater detail. All Pharaoh's scheming constituted something negative for the Israelites. It was far from a foregone conclusion that G'd would simply kill the Egyptians. We know from Megillah 10 that G'd is greatly concerned when the necessity arises to destroy His creatures. We do not recite the whole of Hallel on the seventh day of Passover when G'd eliminated the last of our Egyptian enemies because "when G'd's creatures drown in the sea it is no cause for rejoicing." Pharaoh had deluded himself that it was up to him to decide whether or not to allow the Israelites to depart. If so, he could just as easily renege as he had done during the course of his protracted encounters with Moses and Aaron. Israel had ample reason to be concerned about such an eventuality. For all these reasons the introductory ויהי is more than justified. In fact the conjunctive letter ו at the beginning of the words ולא נחם, indicates that Israel had additional reasons to be concerned of negative developments on the horizon.

Es wird diese Erzählung von dem gewöhnlichen Gottesnamen אלקים getragen und erst V. 21, wo die außerordentliche Führerschaft Gottes in den voranschreitenden Wolken- und Feuersäulen ihren sichtbaren Ausdruck erhält, kehrt der Name dieser außerordentlichen Führungen, ה׳, wie bei den außerordentlichen Wundertaten in Ägypten wieder. Es war das Ziel des Gottesvolkes, mit dem vollen Gottesbewusstsein in das unter der unsichtbaren Leitung Gottes sich entfaltende Völkerleben einzutreten. In einem solchen Leben gilt es, die eigene Kraft, nach dem ganzen Ausmaß menschlicher Begabung in von Gott gesteckten Zielen zu betätigen und das Gelingen dem für jedes treu gehorchende Wirken verheißenen Beistand Gottes anheimzustellen. Allein für ein solches Leben waren sie noch nicht reif. Zu einem solchen Bewusstsein, dass Gottes unmittelbare Vorsehung die ihr treu Gehorchenden nicht nur aus Untergang drohenden Momenten zu retten, sondern auch Tag für Tag unter allen Umständen zu erhalten wisse, sollten sie erst durch außerordentliche Erfahrungen erzogen werden, und diese Erziehung ist die Bedeutung der Wanderung durch die Wüste, die Bedeutung des "Umzugs", den sie Gott nun antreten ließ.

פן ינחם העם ושבו מצרים, “lest the people would reconsider and turn back to Egypt;” (if they would have to fight for their freedom with lethal weapons) The Philistines being so closely related to the Egyptians would take up arms in support of the Egyptians and they would push back the Israelites to Egypt. Rabbi David, grandfather of Rabbi Moshe, said that legally the land of the Philistines was a part of Palestine, as we do not find that Yitzchok ever left the land of Israel although he sojourned in the section populated by the Philistines for many years. (Genesis 26,6) Rabbi Moshe claims that a narrow tongue of land emanating in the land of the Philistines extended deep into the land of Israel. He concluded this, seeing that the Torah called the land: “the land of the Philistines.” An alternate approach: as soon as the Canaanites heard that the Israelites had left Egypt they reminded themselves of G–d’s promise to Avraham that the fourth generation of his descendants would return to the land of Canaan. (Genesis 15,16). In the event, the fourth generation had not yet been born and raised. In fact, G–d was forced to make the Israelites wander in the desert for 40 years so that they would not invade the land of Canaan prematurely, and without support from Hashem. Instead, they would spend their time studying the Torah, and receive their sustenance by way of miracle, bread from heaven, and water by means of a well which traveled alongside them all the time till the death of Miriam. Nonetheless, the Canaanites were now afraid that the Israelites would try to dispossess them of their country; in order to deny the Israelites the advantages of possessing their land they started a policy of systematically ruining the soil of their land. When G–d saw this, He was faced with a dilemma, seeing that He had promised to bring Avraham’s descendants to a land of bountiful fruit, ample rainfall, etc., if He waited with making good on His promise He could not keep that part of it. This dilemma is what the prophet Hoseah referred to when he wrote in Hoseah 7,15: ואני יסרתי זרועותם ואלי יחשבו רע; “but I braced, I strengthened their arms, and they plot evil against Me!”

2. ALTHOUGH IT WAS NEARER: as we found with Isaac, when he would want to go to Egypt by the way of the land of the Philistines, as it is written: "And Isaac came to Abimelech, king of the Philistines in Gerar and then the Holy One said to him: 'Do not go down to Egypt' --perhaps that he would want to go that way.

ולא נחם אלו־הים, ”and G-d had not led them, etc.” G-d did not lead them on the shortest route that led to the land of Canaan; the letter ו in the word ולא is superfluous (if that was all this meant)

בראתם מלחמה WHEN THEY SEE WAR — For instance the war mentioned in (Numbers 14:45) “Then the Amalekites and the Canaanites came down etc.” If they had proceeded by the direct route they would have then turned back. This is evident, for what would have been the case? If, when He led them about by a circuitous way, they said, (Numbers 14:4) “Let us appoint another chief and go back to Egypt”, had He led them by a direct route how much the more certainly would they have spoken so.

בראותם מלחמה, when they would hear that the Egyptians were mobilizing for war preparatory to chasing after the Israelites, the latter would no doubt return to Egypt out of fear of being killed. This is why G’d decided to lead them on a route not frequented by travelers at all.

ויהי בשלח פרעה את העם ולא נחם אלוה-ים דרך ארץ פלשתים כי קרוב הוא, כי אמר אלוה-ים פן ינחם העם בראותם מלחמה ושבו מצרימה. “It was when Pharaoh sent off the Children of Israel that G’d did not lead them by way of the land of the Philistines, although it was near, for G’d said: ‘perhaps the people will reconsider when they see war and return to Egypt.’” The words: “perhaps the people will reconsider” are hard to understand; do we not believe that there is no such thing as the word “perhaps” in G’d’s vocabulary? Does He not know all in advance? Clearly G’d knew for certain how the Israelites would react when they saw they had to fight the Philistines! The meaning of the words פן ינחם העם, therefore must be: “so that the people will not reconsider.” Indeed our sages (Eiruvin 96) are on record that wherever the expression פן or the word ואל, occurs in the Bible the meaning is “so that not.” Example: (Genesis 3,22) ועתה פן ישלח ידו ולקח גם מעץ החיים, “and now so that he will not also stretch out his hand and take from the tree of life, etc.” G’d meant it was not appropriate to give Adam an opportunity to take from the fruit of the tree of life and to nullify G’d’s decree that he had become mortal by eating from it. Similarly, here: G‘d led the people through the desert instead of through the land of the Philistines in order not to grant them an opportunity to regret having left Egypt.

There are many Midrashic explanations. I.e., they give different explanations for, “Because it was the shortest route.” Accordingly, “Elohim said. . .” does not refer to, “Because it was the shortest route.” It rather refers to, “Elohim did not lead them. . ..” It is giving an additional reason why Elohim did not lead them: “Because Elohim said. . .”

Another detail to watch in our verse is the word עם. The Zohar second part, page 45 states that whenever Israel is described as עם it is an allusion to the mixed multitude of converts that joined the Israelites at the Exodus. In our portion you will find the Israelites are variously described as בני ישראל and as העם. For instance, in the next verse already the departing Israelites are referred to as בני ישראל. Apparently G'd wanted to make certain that we realised that the people described as העם were not natural born Jews. Our sages in Shemot Rabbah 42,6 consider Israel's corruption in the desert as inspired by these converts. They were the ones who wanted to appoint a new leader to take them back to Egypt (Numbers 14,4). They were also the ones who said: "make a god for us who will walk before us, etc." (Exodus 32,1). All this is alluded to in the word ויהי at the beginning of our paragraph. מThe meaning of the words בשלח פרעה את העם is that whereas G'd liberated the Israelites, Pharaoh allowed the newly converted fellow travellers to depart. G'd had been interested only in acquiring for Himself a great nation as His inheritance. Pharaoh's reasoning in allowing these newly convertedd Jews to depart with the main body of the Jewish people was that they would somehow prevail on the natural born Israelites to return to Egypt. In view of this we can understand even better why G'd did not let the Israelites travel a route to Canaan which would have taken them through territory owned by the Philistines although it was the shortest route. We may understand the word קרוב as describing people who had only recently converted to Judaism and were not yet rooted firmly in sanctity. When people like that faced the Philistines they might turn back and return to Egypt as the lesser of two evils.

ולא נחם. Während נהג auch, und zwar vorzugsweise das Führen willen- und vernunftloser Wesen bedeutet, ist נחה ausschließlich die Führung mit Willen und Vernunft begabter Wesen zu dem von ihnen ersehnten Ziele. Es ist lautverwandt mit נאה: ansprechend, wünschenswert sein, נהה: sich schmerzlich und unbefriedigt nach etwas sehnen, daher נהי, die Klage. נחה: zu einem ersehnten Ziele führen. — כי קרוב הוא enthält den Grund, weshalb der Weg durch das Philisterland eigentlich der natürlichste gewesen wäre. — וחמשים וגו׳, aus Josua 1, 14 und 4, 12 ist ersichtlich, daß חמוש zum Kampf ausgerüstet bedeutet. Schwierig ist die Ableitung. Sam. II. 2, 23 und 3, 27 und so auch 4, 6 und 20, 10 wird mit חמֶש die Stelle bezeichnet, wohin der Mörder vorzüglich den tödlichen Streich zu führen sucht. Sanhedrin 49 a. wird dies als die fünfte Rippe erklärt, wo die Galle und die Leber sitzt. Man meint nun, dass eben dort auch um die fünfte Rippe das Schwert geschnallt worden wäre, und daher חמושים Ausdruck für gewaffnet sei. Man hätte jedoch aus diesem Grunde eher glauben sollen, man habe diese Stelle durch Panzerung schützen müssen. Möglich, dass חמש verwandt mit חמץ ,חמס ist, und: mit den Mitteln zur Gewaltausübung versehen, bedeutet.

3. LEST THE PEOPLE REGRET: that they had left [Egypt].

דרך ארץ פלשתים כי קרוב הוא, “the route which runs through the land of the Philistines; although (or because), it was the shortest route.” According to our author what is meant is “although,” despite, the fact that it was the shortest route. We find a similar meaning for the word כי in Exodus 19,5: כי לי כל הארץ, “although the whole earth belongs to Me.” Another example of this meaning of the word כי is found in Psalms 41,5, “heal me although I have sinned against You.” רפאה נפשי כי חטאתי לך. Consider also Genesis 48,14: שכל ידיו כי מנשה הבכור, “he crossed his hands although Menashe was the firstborn.” In our context, although there was an additional boundary to be crossed between Egypt and the land of Canaan, namely the land of the Philistines, as we know from when while in the land of the Philistines G-d had commanded Yitzchok not to continue on to Egypt on account of the famine in the land of Canaan, (Genesis 26,1) so that it seemed strange that G-d did not lead the Israelites by this route, He was afraid that if they would find resistance to their traversing that land, they would refer to return to Egypt.

פן ינחם PERADVENTURE [THE PEOPLE] REPENT — peradventure they cherish a different thought (they change their mind) about having gone out and set their hearts on returning (cf. Rashi on Genesis 6:6).

For example, the war of: “And the Amaleikites and Canaanites. . .” [mentioned in Bamidbar 14:45. Rashi is saying] that it does not mean war in general. For they encountered war with the Amaleikites [Shemos 17:8, yet did not return to Egypt]. Although they defeated Amaleik, they were close to Egypt and could have returned, from fear of other wars. (Re”m, based on Mechilta) But the Maharshal explains: Rashi did not mention the nearby war with Amaleik (17:8) because Israel defeated Amaleik then. So there was little concern that they would set their hearts to return to Egypt. But in the war of “the Amaleikites came down,” Yisrael was stricken and smitten. Thus, there was concern that they would return.

The word קרוב may also suggest that these people came close to becoming sinful and as a corollary to also corrupt the (natural born) Israelites. They would indict themselves by their reaction when they would realise they were expected to battle the Philistines. As a result they would regret their recent conversion and would return to Egypt. The letter ו before ולא נחם would refer therefore to another potentially painful aspect of their departure courtesy of Pharaoh.

4. WHEN THEY SEE WAR: Pharoah's war that if they would not go by the way of the Red Sea and they drowned there, they would have pursued after them on a path where there is no sea. But if they needed to fight with him on dry land, then even the Philistines would go tward them and they would have a war before them and behind them.

כי אמר אלוקים פן ינחם העם, “for G-d had said: “lest the people have remorse;” we must not criticize this verse by saying that it cannot be reconciled with G-d’s Omniscience, i.e. that He did know all this in advance; besides, surely if G-d had wanted to He could have led the Israelites through the land of the Philistines without their coming to any harm; however, what is written here is an answer to the attribute of Justice which wanted to exploit that opportunity to accuse the Israelites of lack of faith in their G-d. Precisely, because G-d was aware that the Israelites were not yet in a condition to withstand the Satan, He decided not to give the Satan that opportunity at this time. We find an example of a similar situation in Genesis 3,22 where G-d is portrayed as being “afraid” that Adam and Eve after having eaten from the tree of knowledge and having forfeited immortality might eat from the tree of life in order to regain it, and to thereby nullify the penalty G-d had imposed upon them. The Torah, justifying G-d’s expelling them from the garden, wrote there: ועתה פן ישלח ידו, “and now, lest he will extend his hand, etc.” There too you could have asked: “seeing that G-d knew what would happen, why did He not remove the tree, instead of depriving mankind of access to the garden?”

They said, “Let us appoint a leader and let us return to Egypt”. . . Rashi is saying that the reason they did not return was because they lacked a leader. It was a long route and required a leader. But were they to have a leader, they clearly would return — despite their distance from Egypt. So if they had a short and straight route back to Egypt, not requiring a leader, they surely would return. Maharshal explains: Although they traveled a round-about route they still said, “Let us appoint a leader and let us return,” after merely hearing about Amaleik from their scouts. So had they taken a straight route, and encountered actual war, they surely would have returned all the way.

We also have a tradition mentioned in Shemot Rabbah 20,3 that Pharaoh accompanied the Israelites begging them to pray for him. The merit Pharaoh acquired by seeing the Israelites off enabled him to survive longer and pose a threat for Israel. We can deduce what negative effect Pharaoh's accompanying Israel had for the people by comparing this with the story related in Sanhedrin 96 according to which Nebuchadnezzar was greatly rewarded for recalling a messenger bearing a letter to Chizkiyah king of Yehudah congratulating him on his recovery from his sickness. In the original draft of that letter Nebuchadnezzar's scribe had extended greetings to Chizkiyah and to G'd in that order. Upon reflection, Nebuchadnezzar realised he should have first extended greetings to G'd. He personally ran after the messenger to recall him and change the order of greetings. The angel Gabriel interfered with Nebuchadnezzar after he had travelled only four steps. Rabbi Yochanan said that if the angel Gabriel had not stopped Nebuchadnezzar there would have been no remedy for Israel. Nebuchadnezzar's gesture of running four steps in order to accord due respect to G'd resulted in his being allowed to destroy the Holy Temple and the Jewish state. Imagine what negative effects for the Jewish people Pharaoh's gesture in accompanying the Israelites must have had on their fate! G'd apparently changed the Israelites's route to one that would discourage Pharaoh from continuing to accompany them. Had the Israelites travelled in the direction of the land of the Philistines, Pharaoh might well have accompanied them all the way and acquired great merit in the eyes of G'd. Put differently: The reason G'd did not lead the Israelites through the land of the Philistines was in order to deny Pharaoh sufficient merit to entitle him to succeed in his quest for the Israelites to return to Egypt.

5. AND RETURN: and even though the Holy One could have struck all of them dead, the Holy One wanted to increase the miracles and wonders to dry the sea and to cross the Israelites over and to drown the Egyptians.

בראותם מלחמה “when they would see they would be involved in war;” The Philistines would attack them, thinking that the Israelites were approaching in order avenge the 30000 men of Ephrayim they had killed 30 years previously when these people having miscalculated the time when their redemption was due had taken matters into their own hands and had marched out of Egypt in order to recapture their homeland. Their miscalculation had been that they thought the 400 years mentioned at the covenant of the pieces in Genesis 15,13 had commenced then and not at the birth of Yitzchok. Actually, the 430 years mentioned in Exodus 12,40 had commenced then, (although Rash’bam has trouble accounting for this). According to Yonatan ben Uzziel this may have been what Pharaoh had counted on. A grandson of Avimelch attacked the members of Ephrayim. According to Chronicles I 7,20, the battle with the Philistines occurred at Gat. According to some scholars the members of the tribe of Ephrayim killed during that battle were the “dried bones” resurrected by the prophet Ezekiel, (Ezekiel 37) כי קרוב הוא, “for he was very close to him;” according to some scholars Pharaoh and Avimelech of the Philistines were politically very close to one another, and Pharaoh counted on the Philistines to bring the Israelites back to him. He also counted on the promise of Avraham to Avimelech valid for 4 generations hence not to engage in hostilities against him. Actually, a grandson of the Avimelech with whom Avraham, had concluded a non aggression pact, a pact that his son Yitzchok had renewed, was still alive when the Israelites left Egypt. Avraham’s descendants did not engage in warfare with the Philistines for seven generations. (Moses was the seventh generation from Avraham). All these considerations prompted G-d not to lead the Israelites on the shortest route to the Holy Land. [Besides, if G-d meant for them to receive the Torah at Mount Sinai, this would have been quite impossible, and G-d had told Moses already at the burning bush that one of the reasons why He redeemed them earlier than expected was that they would receive the Torah at that site. Ed.] Our author also quotes the liturgist who in his poem makes reference to these points. For all the reasons quoted, G-d ensured that the Israelites did not take the route that had proven so tragic for the members of the tribe of Ephrayim some thirty years earlier.

Have second thoughts. ינחם means changing one’s mind. This follows Rashi’s second explanation on Bereishis 6:6. However, in Rashi’s first explanation there, it means “consolation.”

According to this approach, the extra letter ו in ולא נחם is a hint that even the short distance Pharaoh accompanied the Israelites caused the Israelites sufficient discomfort so that they viewed themselves in real danger when Pharaoh pursued them a few days later. Shemot Rabbah 21 refers to this by saying that the words ולא קרב זה אל זה כל הלילה indicate that Pharaoh's merit had not yet been neutralised by the Israelites' repentance until the latter cried out to G'd, i.e. מה תצעק אלי in verse 15.

When the Torah continues: כי אמר, "for G'd had said, etc." this is as if the Torah wrote "and because G'd said, etc." It refers to an additional reason that G'd did not let the people face the Philistines, i.e. the lack of faith in G'd of the newly converted ערב רב.

בראותם מלחמה, “when they come face to face with war.” This would have been a war on two fronts, the pursuing Egyptians at their back and the furious Philistines facing them, trying to force them back to their allies the Egyptians. Our author had explained already on Genesis 21,22 where the fact that the barren Sarah had given birth to a son for Avraham, that the prophecies given to him started to be taken seriously by the rulers of that time. Up until then they had not worried about these prophecies. In Joshua 13,3, we read about the Israelites indeed having had to face enemies on two fronts when Joshua had aged and not yet conquered all of the land of Canaan as he had been instructed to do. ושבו מצרימה. “and they will prefer to return to Egypt.” That this was a logical consideration is born out by the fact that the Israelites, even though not having taken that route, were on the point of voluntarily returning to Egypt on numerous occasions, on most occasions when they faced problems in the desert.

ויסב means HE LED THE PEOPLE ABOUT from the direct route to a circuitous route.

AND THE CHILDREN OF ISRAEL WENT UP ARMED OUT OF THE LAND OF EGYPT. This means that even though G-d led them about by the way of the wilderness, they still feared lest the Philistines who dwelt in the nearby cities come upon them. Therefore they were armed, as are people who go out to war. Some scholars¹¹Found in Ibn Ezra. say that Scripture is relating that they went out with a high hand,¹²Further, 14:8. “With a high hand carrying their arms and not like slaves who escape from their master” (Ibn Ezra). deeming themselves redeemed from bondage, and they did not leave like slaves escaping [from their master].

דרך המדבר ים סוף, that they should march to the Sea of Reeds via the desert. On that route they would neither encounter travelers headed in the direction of Egypt, nor would they encounter travelers who had come from Egypt who could report that Pharaoh was going to chase them, until Pharaoh would actually catch up with them by which time a “voluntary” return to Egypt and slavery would not be of any advantage to them anymore, as their surrender would not then be acceptable to Pharaoh.

וחמושים עלו בני ישראל, and the Israelites went up armed, etc. It is possible that if the Israelites had not been armed they would not have listened to Moses' (G'd's) order to make an about turn away from the land of the Philistines so that they would not face an immediate battle. The Israelites therefore needed two reasons for not returning to Egypt at the slightest danger, i.e. possession of arms and the unlikelihood of having to use these arms. Combining these two factors would result in לא ינחם, that they would not have second thoughts.

As a result of such considerations we find ויסב את העם דרך המדבר, that G’d made the Israelites take a much longer route in the direction of the Sea of Reeds. Moses described that had the Israelites traveled a straight path from their point of departure the whole journey would not have required more than 11 days. (Deuteronomy 1,2). Proof that the route to Egypt via the land of the Philistines is the shortest and most traveled route is furnished by Yitzchok’s declared intention to move to Egypt on account of the famine in the land of Canaan if G’d had not ordered him to stay in that land and he settled in the land of the Philistines while already on the way to Egypt (Genesis 26,3-6).

וחמושים עלו בני ישראל, “and the Israelites were armed when they went up.” The Torah records that although G’d led the Israelites in the direction of the uninhabited desert, where normally no encounter with sizable hostile forces need to be anticipated, they were armed, enabling them to cope with such unforeseen eventualities. They were still afraid that the Philistines or neigbouring tribes might fight a war of aggression against them, as opposed to defending their territory’s sovereignty. Alternately, the phrase is meant to depict the Israelites as marching with full confidence, not as people with a slave mentality.

סוף is a term meaning a marsh. [Rashi is saying] that we should not think סוף means “end,” in which case it would mean, “They traveled to the end of the sea.” Thus he explains, “ סוף is a term meaning a marsh,” i.e., a sea full of reeds. Therefore the meaning of ים סוף here is as if it were written לים סוף . (Maharshal)

1. AND THE ISRAELITES WENT UP IN ARMS: as in (Genesis 41 [:34]) "And he armed the land of Egypt" when there was sustenance for them that they were sustained on the further way, for they were fed for one month from food those [reserves] that they did not ask for [food] from [15th Nisan] until 15th Iyyar.

דרך המדבר ים סוף, “the route through the desert bordering the sea of reed.” The word של, “of” was omitted here as something that the reader can fill in for himself, just as it has been omitted in “הארון הברית,” in Joshua 3,14, where we read: הארון הברית instead of הארון שהוא ארון הברית, “the ark, which is the ark housing the covenant.” In Genesis 2,9 we find a similar construction, i.e. עץ הדעת טוב ורע, where we would have expected instead: עץ שהוא דעת טוב ורע, “the tree which is (the key) to knowledge of good and evil.”

ים סוף is the same as לים סוף TO THE RED SEA. The word סוף has the meaning of a marshy tract in which reeds grow; examples are: (Exodus 2:3) “She placed him in the reeds (בסוף)”; (Isaiah 19:6) “The flags and the reeds (וסוף) shall wither”.

וחמושים עלו, although they had left Egypt fully armed. They did not have the courage to face the Egyptians in combat in spite of their being armed. They felt too inexperienced to face trained warriors.

וחמושים, fully armed. The expression חמושים meaning armed occurs in Joshua 1,14 and is implied in Exodus 3,8 where G’d declared His intention to lead the Israelites to the land of Canaan, Obviously, the Canaanites were not expected to hand over their land without a fight.

An alternate explanation. . . one of every five went out. . . There is a question on the first explanation: What is the proof [from “You shall pass by with arms”]? In the context of that verse, there is no other way to explain חמושים . Therefore Rashi presents the alternate explanation. And he also presents [the first explanation] so that the verse does not depart from its simple meaning [completely], and חמושים has the [simple] meaning of “armed.”

וחמושים, according to Rashi, the meaning of the word is: “armed.” According to Rashi, the fear of the Israelites was not due to their not having arms with which to defend themselves. They were well armed. You are not to wonder where the Israelites had taken all these arms from, arms which they used in the desert for several wars, starting immediately after they had crossed the sea of reeds and had been attacked by the Amalekites. They needed these arms again when the conquered the land of Canaan under the leadership of Joshua. An alternate explanation of the word: חמושים. The word refers to provisions for the journey. The word is used in Genesis 41,34, where it describes the provisions stored by Joseph in anticipation of the seven years of famine that were to follow the seven years of plenty. In practice this meant (according to tradition) that the dough the Israelites took with them lasted them a whole month until the 15th of lyar, when the heavenly food, the manna took over. The reason for the need for that miracle had been that G-d took the people on a detour through the desert. (Compare Mechilta)

וחמשים — The word חמשים means provided with weapons (Mekhilta d'Rabbi Yishmael 13:19:2). — [Because He led them by a circuitous route through the wilderness He brought it about that they went up from Egypt well-provided; for had He led them circuitously by the route of an inhabited district they would not have provided for themselves every thing that they needed, but only a part, like a person who is travelling from place to place and intends to purchase there whatever he will require. But if he were setting out for the wilderness he must provide all that he will require. — This verse (statement in the verse) is written only with the view of making the ear understand (preparing you for a later statement) viz., that you should not wonder with regard to the war with Amalek and the war with Sihon and Og and Midian where they obtained weapons, since they smote them with the sword]. In a similar sense it says, (Joshua 1:14) “and ye shall pass over armed (חמשים)”. Onkelos, too, translated it by מזרזין which signifies “armed” in Aramaic, just as he translates the word וירק in (Genesis 14:14) וירק את חניכיו which means, “And he armed his trained servants” by וזריז. Another explanation of חמשים is: only one out of five (חמשה) went forth from Egypt, and four parts of the people died during the three days of darkness because they were unworthy of being delivered (Mekhilta d'Rabbi Yishmael 13:19:3; cf. Rashi on 10:22).

השבע השביע HE HAD STRAITLY ADJURED — He had made them swear that they would make their children swear. But why did he not make his sons swear that they would take him to the land of Canaan immediately on his death, as Jacob had made his sons swear? Joseph said: I was a ruler in Egypt and I had sufficient power to do what my father desired; but my sons — the Egyptians will not permit them to do this. Consequently he made them swear that when they would be delivered and would go forth from there that they would take him up with them (Mekhilta d'Rabbi Yishmael 13:19:8).

"And Moses took the bones of Joseph with him": this verse is juxtaposed to the previous verse "the jews ascended(Egypt) armed. because it states in the midrach Yalkut of this portion that the jews would journey in the desert with two arks, that of the ark of the Shechinah(the tablets of moses) and that of Joseph and the nations of the world would ask , what is the point of having this ark of joseph together with the ark of the coveneant and they would answer,"this one fulfilled what is in this one", for joseph fulfilled all the ten commandments etc.

ויקח משה את עצמות יוסף עמו, seeing that he was now the leader of the nation it was up to him to make good on the oath Joseph

פקד יפקד אלוקים, "when G'd will surely remember you, etc." The reason the Torah repeats the word פקד is in order to emphasise the manner in which Moses kept faith with the promise made to Joseph by his brothers. The first time the word פקד simply means that G'd will certainly keep His promise to redeem the Israelites. This included only removal of the negative aspects of the Jews' exile. There was, however, also a positive aspect to the bondage, the one described in Genesis 15,14, namely that the Israelites would leave Egypt as wealthy people. According to Bechorot 5 not a single Israelite took less than ninety donkeys' loads of silver and gold out of Egypt. Joseph foresaw that the Israelites' preoccupation with loading the animals with all these valuables were a reason for their leaving his bones behind; this is why he made the brothers swear that even the preoccupation with their newly acquired wealth should not make them forget his bones at that time. In any event Moses was the only one who instead of loading his animals with valuables went in search of Joseph's remains and eventually loaded Joseph's bier on his donkey (compare Shemot Rabbah 20,19). At a later date G'd rewarded Moses by letting him keep the splinters of the precious stones from which he carved the second set of tablets.

ויקח משה את עצמות יוסף עמו, “Moses took the earthly remains of Joseph with him.” Actually, the Torah should have written this verse already when reporting the very first move of the Israelites out of Ramses. (12,37) Why did the Torah report it as if belonging to the second day of the Israelites’ journeys? We may have to answer that whereas on the first day the Israelites took the remains of all the sons of Yaakov collectively, whereas only on the second day did they get around to separating Joseph’s coffin from those containing the remains of the other brothers.

ויקח משה את עצמות יוסף, “Moses took the remains of Joseph, etc.” While the Israelites were still preoccupied with material concerns such as demanding silver and gold from the Egyptians, Moses was preoccupied with nobler matters, needs of the soul, by performing the commandment of seeing to it that Joseph would eventually be interred in Eretz Yisrael. This was in accordance with Proverbs 10,8 quoted in Sotah 13, that “he whose heart is wise accepts commands.” Joseph had acquired the merit of having brought his father Yaakov to burial in Eretz Yisrael; as a result he received the distinction of having his own remains taken out of Egypt by someone greater than him, by Moses. In return for having performed this commandment Moses himself was interred by someone greater than he himself, by the Almighty personally, as we know from Deut. 34,6: “He (G’d) buried him in the valley, etc.” I have discussed this matter in connection with Joseph’s death (Genesis 50,28). We have also found a Bereshit Rabbah 87,10 that Moses needed to take Joseph with him as otherwise he could not have split the Sea of Reeds. This miracle occurred as a compensation for Joseph who at the time had fled from the presence of his master Potiphar’s wife, placing himself in a most embarrassing situation by leaving his garments inside the house (Genesis 39,12). The Torah describes his departure there as וינס ויצא החוצה, “he fled-and went outside.” We find the same word וינס applied to the motion of the Sea when G’d (Moses) parted it (Psalms 114,3 ) הים ראה וינס, “the Sea saw and fled.” What did the Sea see which made it retreat? “It saw the remains of Joseph.” We find another similarity of expression between what happened to the brothers and Joseph and to something which happened at the Sea. In Genesis 50,21 when Joseph tries to calm his brothers’ fears that now that Yaakov was dead he would revenge himself on them, וינחם אותם וידבר על לבם, “he comforted them and spoke to their heart.” A the splitting of the Sea we find the expression (Exodus 15,8) בלב ים, “in the heart of the Sea.”

Swear that they will make their children swear. [How does Rashi know this? The answer is:] It cannot be that [the repetitive השבע השביע is merely because] the Torah speaks as people do, [and the oath was for Yoseif’s generation alone]. For how is it possible that Yoseif’s generation would leave Egypt? They needed to be in Egypt for 400 years, or at least for 210! Furthermore, [if Yoseif’s oath was for that generation alone,] how would [we explain the word כי ? I.e., how would] the oath be the reason [for Moshe to take along Yoseif’s bones]? Perforce, “He made them swear that they will make their children swear.” This is preferable to Re”m’s explanation. (Nachalas Yaakov)

V. 19. Es dürfte zu erwägen sein, warum diese Tatsache hier und nicht oben bei dem ersten Aufbruch von Raamses berichtet worden. Soll es vielleicht den Gegensatz hervorheben? Sechsmalhunderttausend bewaffneten Männern wurde die Zuversicht nicht zugetraut, dass sie aus jedem zum Besitze des von Gott verheißenen Landes führenden Kampfe eben dieser Verheißung willen siegreich hervorgehen würden — und der wahre Jude, wie Josef, blickt selbst über seinen Tod hinaus mit Zuversicht auf die Erfüllung göttlicher Verheißungen hin und findet sich nicht getäuscht. Gott ist שומר אמונתו לישני עפר auch in diesem Sinne. So betrachtet, waren diese dem Zuge vorangetragenen Gebeine Josefs die lauteste Predigt an das um seines Kleinmuts willen in den Umweg durch die Wüste geführte Volk.

כי השבע השביע, the repetition of the words “he made swear repeatedly,” was that Joseph did not know which generation would experience the Exodus. Joseph had told his brothers that by committing them to this oath he was not asking them for a favour: they who had been instrumental in his being dragged to Egypt as a slave if they wanted to complete the act of repentance,must ensure that he would be brought to burial in the land of his forefathers from where he had been kidnapped. He had performed a mission on his father’s behalf when he came to Sh’chem (Genesis 37,14) and this is why he expected to be buried near there. This is where he was interred eventually, as we know from Joshua 24,32.

והעליתם את עצמתי מזה אתכם THEN YE SHALL BRING UP MY BONES AWAY HENCE WITH YOU — It was his brothers whom he made swear thus; consequently this tells us that they (the Israelites who left Egypt) must have brought up with them the bones of all Jacob’s sons (lit., the tribes) since it is said “with you” (with your own bones) (Mekhilta d'Rabbi Yishmael 13:19:11).

Another point, because Moses saw that the lord blessed is he, was leading them towards the sea of reeds , and moses thought"lest the sea stop us, it will split in the merit of joseph" the reason we explained above in Parshat Vayeishev

השבע השביע את בני ישראל, any obligation undertaken communally must be honoured by the leader of that community when the time and opportunity presents itself to discharge that obligation.

Why did he not bind his sons by oath. . . Meaning: And then he would not need to make them swear to make their children swear. Rashi answers, “Yoseif said: ‘I was a ruler in Egypt. . .’” This, explains why Rashi asked his question on the verse rather than on his explanation of it. [It is because the repetitive השבע השביע clearly shows that Yoseif made them swear to make their children swear.] Furthermore, [this explains] why Rashi did not ask this question in Bereishis 50:25, where the oath itself is stated. [It is because Rashi’s question arises only due to the words השבע השביע ]. (Devek Tov)

מזה אתכם, "with you from this place." The word מזה does not mean "from here," i.e. that Joseph thought the brothers would have to locate his remains exactly in the place where he made them swear this oath. Joseph used the expression as the reason he asked the brothers to swear such an oath. He considered it as a small repayment of all the favours he had done for the brothers during their stay in Egypt. He went so far as to hint that taking his bones out of Egypt for burial in the Holy Land would compensate for the time when they had separated themselves from their brotherhood with him; the angel had told Joseph in Genesis 37,17 that the brothers נסעו מזה "had departed from זה" (the number 12, symbol for the 12 brothers, compare Bereshit Rabbah 84). Joseph used the words מזה אתכם to indicate that if the brothers would fulfil their oath he would consider them as having re-instated him in their midst. The sin they had committed against him at that time would then have been wiped out. In other words, Joseph would forgive the brothers posthumously, for simply swearing the oath.

Moshe took … with him. While the rest of Yisrael were collecting booty, Moshe was occupied with mitzvos. The phrase “with him” hints that Moshe disdained to take from the spoils because unlike the good deed of tending to the dead, it would not go “with him” to the next world. On account of this the Sages (Sotah 13a) apply to him the verse, “One who is wise in heart takes (i.e. acquires) mitzvos” (Mishlei 10:8). Moshe may have chosen this particular mitzvah to engage in at this time to remind B’nei Yisrael of the day of death so that they would be less enthralled by the plunder.

It was his brothers that he bound by this oath. . . [Rashi is saying that here,] “B’nei Yisrael” means Yaakov’s sons. And the meaning of “Elohim will surely remember you” is that He will remember your children, who are in your place. Otherwise, [if Yoseif was not speaking to his brothers,] why would it say אתכם ? Therefore Rashi explains that Yoseif bound his brothers by this oath, and אתכם is referring to his brothers’ bones. Thus, the verse means as follows: “Elohim will surely remember you,” i.e., “your children.” “You must carry up” is Yoseif’s command [to his brothers]: Make your children swear to carry my bones up with yours.

ויסעו מסכת AND THEY JOURNEYED FROM SUCCOTH — on the second day, for on the first day they had come from Rameses to Succoth (Exodus 12:37).

V. 20. קצה ist jeder äußerste Punkt eines räumlichen Gegenstandes, somit Anfang sowohl als Ende.

ויסעו מסכות, “they journeyed from Sukkot;” on the second day.

לנחתם הדרך TO GUIDE THEM IN THE WAY — It (the ל of לנחתם) is punctuated with Patach, because it (the word) is like לְהַנְחוֹתָם (being a contracted form of this); similar is, (Deuteronomy 1:33) “לַרְאֹתְכֶם the way in which ye shall go”, which is the same as לְהַרְאֹתְכֶם to show you. Thus, too, here: לנחתם means as much as להנחותם to make them be guided i. e. by means of an agent. And who was this agent? The pillar of cloud — and the Holy One, blessed be He, in His glory (Himself) led it before them. Nevertheless He Himself did not act as their immediate guide, but He provided the pillar of cloud that they might be guided by means of it, for, as a matter of fact, as the Scriptural account shows, it was by means of the pillar of cloud that they set forth on their journeys. The pillar of cloud was not for giving light to them but to show them the way.

AND THE ETERNAL WENT BEFORE THEM. The Sages have already said,¹³Bereshith Rabbah 51:3. See Vol. I, p. 260. “Wherever the phrase And the Eternal is mentioned, it means He and His Celestial Court.” The Holy One, blessed be He, went before them by day, and His Celestial Court by night.¹⁴This sentence is not part of the above Midrash. See my Hebrew commentary, p. 348, for a similar interpretation in the Zohar, the mystical commentary on the Torah. If so, the explanation of the verse is that G-d¹⁵Literally: “the Name,” i.e., the Great Divine Name known by the attribute of mercy. (Ricanti, interpreting the meaning of Ramban.) See my Hebrew commentary, p. 348. abode in the midst of the cloud, and He went before them by day in a pillar of cloud. By night, His Celestial Court abode in a pillar of fire to give them light. This is similar in meaning to that which the verse says: Inasmuch as Thou Eternal art seen face to face, and Thy cloud standeth over them, and Thou goest before them, in a pillar of cloud by day, and in a pillar of fire by night.¹⁶Numbers 14:14.
I have seen in Eileh Shemoth Rabbah:¹⁷Shemoth Rabbah 19:7. “For ye shall not go out in haste, neither shall ye go by flight; for the Eternal will go before you.¹⁸Isaiah 52:12. In the past, I and My Celestial Court went before you, as it is said, And the Eternal went before them by day, but in the World to Come,¹⁹Here referring to the Messianic era. I Myself will go before you, as it is said, For the Eternal will go before you, and the G-d of Israel will be your rearward.”¹⁸Isaiah 52:12. The secret of this Midrash is as I have mentioned, i.e., that at the first redemption, the Holy One, blessed be He, was with them by day and His Celestial Court by night, but in the World to Come,¹⁹Here referring to the Messianic era. the attribute of His Celestial Court will be elevated in mercy and the Eternal — the Tetragrammaton — will go before them, for the G-d of Israel will then assemble His people, and the night will shine as the day, the darkness even as the light,²⁰Psalms 139:12. as everything will then be united in the attribute of mercy.
Rabbi Abraham ibn Ezra commented that Scripture here speaks according to the language of men, since it was the power of G-d and His messenger that went with Israel, [thus, and the Eternal went before them would mean “and the angel of the Eternal went before them”], similar in meaning to the verse, He caused His glorious arm to go at the right hand of Moses.²¹Isaiah 63:12. Now it is true that the verse here is similar in meaning to the verse, He caused His glorious arm to go at the right hand of Moses,²¹Isaiah 63:12. but it is not as Rabbi Abraham ibn Ezra understood it.²²See above, 6:2, for Ramban’s understanding of the verse in Isaiah, and see also further, 14:29, which states: And the angel of G-d, who went before the camp of Israel, journeyed. It was this verse apparently that forced Ibn Ezra to arrive at his interpretation here. See Ramban, ibid., for a fuller discussion. And it is further written, So didst Thou lead Thy people to make Thyself a glorious Name,²³Isaiah 63:14. [thus indicating that it was the Holy One, blessed be He, Himself that went before the people, and not, as Ibn Ezra explained, that the reference here is to an angel].

וה' הולך לפניהם, from the time the Israelites had reached Sukkot, at the border of Egypt, just beyond, G’d’s presence had manifested itself the moment they entered the desert.

וה׳ הולך לפניהם יומם, And G'd would walk in front of them by day, etc." The Torah chooses the word לנחותם to indicate that G'd made the journey comfortable. When it was hot G'd made the cloud spread over them to protect them against the sun. The cloud performed this function only by day. The cloud described here has nothing to do with the column of cloud which preceded the Israelites which smoothed rough passages and showed them the way to go. We have some proof for this in Deut. 1,33 where the Torah is specific by stating that the cloud in front of them was "to seek you out a place where to pitch your tents. The column of fire by night was to show you the way you were to walk, and a cloud by day." The Torah speaks of three separate phenomena then, 1) to seek you out the way; this cloud was with them all the time. 2) The column of fire to enable them to see at night. 3) a cloud by day. The latter was the cloud which we described as providing shade against the heat of the sun. We do not agree with Rashi who understands the word לנחותם as להנחותם, and that the letter ה is missing. Rashi tries to prove his point by citing לראותכם (Deut. 1,33) as a parallel. According to our interpretation the letter ה is also not missing in the verse in Deuteronomy.

וה' הולך, the angel accompanying the Israelites on their journey positioned himself at the head of the marching columns in the guise of a pillar of cloud by day and a fiery column of flame at night.

וה' הולך לפניהם, “and the Lord would walk in front of them, etc.” Ibn Ezra writes that this verse is an example of the Torah using syntax man is familiar with, and the meaning is that the Divine power in the form of His messenger traveled with the Israelites. Nachmanides writes that he has mentioned on previous occasions that whenever we encounter the formulation וה', this always refers to Hashem together with the celestial court of Justice. The Torah narrates that G’d’s glory was enveloped in the cloud above the Israelites which would move continuously a short distance ahead of the main body. At night, the celestial court would be enveloped in the pillar of fire.

Here, too, to lead them by means of an agent. . . I.e., לנחותם is a transitive verb involving a secondary object [i.e., the “agent”]. Rashi proves this from לַראתכם (Devarim 1:33), which must be the same as להראותכם (to show), for otherwise it would be like לִראותכם in the simple verb form, and mean “to see you.” But this meaning would not fit into the context of the verse. Perforce, it is the same as להראותכם . Here too, לַנחותם means the same as להנחותם (to lead them). (This is not in accordance with Re”m’s explanation.)

V. 21. וד׳ הולך וגו׳ בעמוד וגו׳. Die Wolken- und Feuersäule war das sichtbare Zeichen der besonderen Führung Gottes und hier zugleich Mittel derselben. — לנחותם, so viel wie להנחותם: sie durch die Säulen führen zu lassen.

., “and the Lord, etc:” the letter ו at the beginning of the word indicates that G-d’s “entourage” accompaniedHim.” An alternate interpretation: the letter ו, as we mentioned already on Genesis 19,24, refers to the angel Gavriel.

יומם ולילה, the reason that they traveled both by day and night was to make Pharaoh rethink his decision and to see in them people who were in flight.

להאיר להם, “in order to provide light for them.” These two clouds were needed to provide artificial light for them, as the Israelites being enveloped in these clouds, could not tell whether it was day or night beyond the clouds they saw.

Hashem Himself, in His glory, led it before them. Rashi is answering the question: Is it not written, “Hashem went before them,” not the pillar of cloud? Thus Rashi explains that Hashem Himself led the pillar of cloud before them. We need not ask: If Hashem went before them, why was the pillar of cloud needed? For Rashi explains: “Nevertheless, He provided the pillar of cloud to lead them by its means. . ..”

ולילה בעמוד אש להאיר, and at night in a pillar of fire to provide light." According to Shabbat 22 the Israelites "walked" during the entire forty years only by light provided by G'd which was so powerful that it enabled them to look even into the darkest spot. [The discussion in the Talmud centers around the question why Aaron had to light the candelabra in the Tabernacle when G'd had already illuminated all with His own light. Ed.] The Talmud cannot speak of the hours of darkness as this would not agree with the language employed there. If that were the meaning, what does the Talmud mean "they marched only by the light of the heavenly fire?" Surely the Talmud means that the Israelites did not march by sunlight during the days. Why then would the night not be as bright as the day so that they had no need for a special column of fire at all? If we want to understand what took place at that time we must pay attention to the words ללכת יומם ולילה, "to walk by day and by night." Why was the Torah not satisfied with writing: "in order to provide light for them," and had to add the words: "to walk by day and by night?"

ללכת יומם ולילה, “to keep marching both by day and by night, in order to convince Pharaoh that the Israelites were fleeing. This would make him pursue them.

The pillar of cloud was not providing light, but rather to show them the way. [Rashi knows this] because during the day they do not need light. Perforce, it showed them the way. When Scripture writes, “To provide them with light,” it refers only to the pillar of fire. However, the pillar of fire also showed them the way, as it is written, “So that they could travel by day and by night.” (Nachalas Yaakov)

We must conclude therefore that A) the light G'd provided for the Israelites at that time never departed from the camp of the Israelites as our sages explained, but that B) it also never extended beyond the boundaries of that camp either. There was a good reason for this. In the terrible desert which normally is the domain of impurity, a region in which the forces of the קליפה are at home (Zohar section 1, page 126), the Israelites were the beneficiaries of the heavenly light within the boundaries of their camp; outside their camp it was night (dark) for them just as it was for everybody else. Normally, the Israelites did not travel at night. Whenever G'd wanted them to travel at night, however, they did not require the light dispensed by the pillar of fire within their camp as G'd's light illuminated every place within their camp. The pillar of fire was needed only to illuminate the way beyond the boundaries of their camp. This is what the Torah had in mind when it wrote להאיר להם, "to provide light for them." The reason G'd had to provide this additional light was "so that they could travel by this light both by day and by night." Just as the Israelites were able to see into the distance by day without recourse to the pillar of fire, so at night the pillar of fire provided illumination for them equal to that of the sunlight by day. This then explains the wording of the Torah לראותכם בדרך אשר תלכו בה (Deut.1,33), "to enable you to see by it." This is not in agreement with Rashi's explanation.

לא ימיש means He — the Holy One, blessed be He — did not let depart (did not remove) את עמוד הענן יומם ועמוד האש לילה THE PILLAR OF CLOUD BY DAY NOR THE PILLAR OF FIRE BY NIGHT. — This tells us (we may gather from this) that the pillar of cloud handed over the camp to the pillar of fire and the pillar of fire handed it over to the pillar of cloud — that before the one set the other rose (Shabbat 23b).

לא ימיש, the subject is G’d. The word is in the transitive modern hiphil, meaning that G’d would not allow the pillar of cloud and the column of fire to depart from being at the head of the people either by day or by night.

לא ימיש עמוד ענן יומם, “the pillar of cloud would not depart by day, etc.” The reason the Torah repeats this is to teach that the two pillars were complementary to each other as explained by the sages in Shabbat 23.

Hashem [did not remove] the pillar of cloud by day. . . [Rashi knows this] because ימיש is a causative verb. Otherwise, [if it meant “the cloud did not depart”], it should be vocalized יִמּוֹשׁ .

עמוד הענן יומם, “the pillar of cloud by day;” The only other time when the word: יומם occurs in the Torah is when it describes a period when the sun shines on earth. On the other hand, the expression יום, occurs also both in the Torah and in the rest of the Bible when describing a particular day regardless of whether is daylight at the time. In the Torah we find: ביום הכותי כל בכור (Numbers 3,13) although we know that it was at midnight. In the Book of prophets we find the word יום applied to something that happened at night in Kings II 7,9: היום הזה יום בשורה, “this day, the day of good tidings.” It is clear from the context that these words were spoken at night. The speakers added: “let us wait with bringing this news until morning.” In Psalms 88,2 we read: יום צעקתי בלילה נגדך, “a day when I cry out at night before You.”

Before one would depart the other would arrive. [Rashi knows this] because otherwise, why is [this verse of] לא ימיש necessary? [The previous verse] already said, “Hashem went. . . in a pillar of cloud. . . and at night in a pillar of fire.”

לא ימיש, “it did not depart;” the word used is in the future tense, however; we would have expected the Torah to have written: לא מש instead.

That is that He commanded us to consecrate firstborn animals - meaning, to separate and designate them for what is appropriate for one to do with them. And that is His, may He be blessed, saying, "Consecrate to Me every firstborn" (Exodus 13:2). And it is explained in the Torah that these animals are only cattle, sheep and the species of donkeys. And this command about the firstborn pure animal was already repeated - and that is the commandment that we are speaking about now - when He said, "Every firstborn that is born, etc." (Deuteronomy 15:19). And this law of the firstborn pure animal is that they bring it to the priest, he offers its fat and its blood, and they eat the rest of it in Jerusalem. And the regulations of this commandment have already been completely explained in Tractate Bekhorot. And at the end of Tractate Challah (Mishnah Challah 4), it is explained that this commandment is only practiced in the Land. And the language of the [Sifrei] (Sifrei Devarim 106:2) is, "I might think that one brings the firstborn from outside of the Land (to be sacrificed). [Hence] we learn to say, 'And you shall eat before the Lord, your God [...] the tithe of your grain [… and the firstborn]' (Deuteronomy 14:23). From the place where you bring the grain, you bring the firstborn." Behold it has been made clear to you that that this commandment is only practiced in the Land - whether the Temple is in existence or whether it is not in existence, like it is [not in existence] now in our times - like the tithe of grain. (See Parashat Bo, Re'eh; Mishneh Torah, Firstlings 1.)

And that is that He commanded us to redeem the firstborn man, that we should give the money to the priest. And that is His saying, "you shall give me your firstborn sons" (Exodus 22:28). And He explained to us how this giving should be: And it is that we redeem him from the priest; and it is as if [the priest] already acquired him, and we purchase him from him for five sela - and that is His saying, "but surely redeem the firstborn man" (Numbers 18:15). And this commandment is the commandment of redeeming the son. And women are not obligated in it - indeed it is one of the commandments of the son that is upon the father, as it is explained in Kiddushin (Kiddushin 29a). And all of the laws of this commandment have already been explained in Bekhorot. However Levites are not obligated in it. (See Parashat Mishpatim; Mishneh Torah, Firstlings.)

And that is that He commanded us to redeem the firstborn man, that we should give the money to the priest. And that is His saying, "you shall give me your firstborn sons" (Exodus 22:28). And He explained to us how this giving should be: And it is that we redeem him from the priest; and it is as if [the priest] already acquired him, and we purchase him from him for five sela - and that is His saying, "but surely redeem the firstborn man" (Numbers 18:15). And this commandment is the commandment of redeeming the son. And women are not obligated in it - indeed it is one of the commandments of the son that is upon the father, as it is explained in Kiddushin (Kiddushin 29a). And all of the laws of this commandment have already been explained in Bekhorot. However Levites are not obligated in it. (See Parashat Mishpatim; Mishneh Torah, Firstlings.)

That is that He commanded us to behead the [firstborn] donkey if we do not redeem it. And that is His, may He be blessed, saying, "if you do not redeem it, you must behead it" (Exodus 34:20). And the regulations of this commandment have already been explained in Tractate Bekhorot. And the questioner may challenge and say, "But why did you count its redemption and its beheading as two commandments; and why did you not count them as one commandment, such that its beheading be from the laws of the commandment - like [you explained] in the seventh principle?" Behold God knows that the analogy requires this, were it not that we found with our Rabbis a language that indicates that they are two commandments. And that is their saying, "The commandment of redemption precedes the commandment of beheading; the commandment of levirate marriage precedes the commandment of chalitzah" (Bekhorot 13a). And just like a levirate wife is suited for either levirate marriage or chalitzah; and levirate marriage is one commandment and chalitzah is [another] commandment - so too, is a [firstborn] donkey suited for either redemption or beheading; and each of them is a commandment, as we have said. (See Parashat Ki Tissa; Mishneh Torah, Firstlings.)