Commento su Esodo 10:26

פרסה is the hoof of the foot; in old French plante.

וגם מקננו ילך עמנו, "our cattle also shall go with us, etc." Why did Moses have to add that the Israelites would take along their own cattle seeing that Moses had already said they would even take along livestock donated by Pharaoh? Obviously, Pharaoh's animals would be in addition to their own! We have to assume that Moses was concerned lest Pharaoh misunderstand the words גם אתה as referring to the children. Pharaoh might have understood that Moses had demanded that not only would they take their children but they demanded that Pharaoh give them in addition of his own herds. To avoid such a possible misunderstanding, Moses, as if correcting himself, said "also our cattle will go with us. This is a very forced explanation. Another difficulty in the verse is Moses' having to justify that they would take their cattle because they would use some of it as sacrifices. What new facts did he reveal to Pharaoh with these words? If he wanted to tell Pharaoh that their sacrificial acts would include the slaughtering of sheep (a sacred animal in Egypt) he had already told Pharaoh this when he told him that Pharaoh himself would supply animals for that purpose. Another curious statement by Moses in this verse is his comment "we do not know what we must serve the Lord until we get there." Apparently Moses indicated that he did not know how many animals G'd would require of them and that was also the reason that he expected Pharaoh to contribute to the number of animals. However, if that were the reason, Moses should have spoken not about "what" would be required but about "how much" would be required.

The hoof of the foot. Rashi is answering the question: פרסה implies that Moshe requested only the animals with “split hooves” ( מפרסת פרסה ). Yet this cannot be, for in the beginning of the verse, does it not say, “Our own flocks will also go with us,” implying every animal? Therefore Rashi explains that פרסה means “the hoof of the foot, (plante in Old French).”

V. 26. פרסה, da פרסה auch von dem einhufigen Pferde vorkommt, פרסוח סוסיו, so kann פרסה nicht, etwa von פרס, brechen, schon die gespaltene Klaue bedeuten. Vielmehr scheint es, von der Bedeutung פרס, ausbreiten, decken, die den Huf bildende Horndecke zu bedeuten, in welcher die Klauen der Huftiere stecken, und hieße dann פרסה: Huf. — מה נעבר את ד׳. Es kommt nur noch einmal in dieser Konstruktion vor: Jes. 19, 21 ועבדו זבה ומנחה, und merkwürdigerweise auch von Ägypten. Sollte עבד את auch faktitiv, jemanden, oder etwas dienstbar, zum עבד machen bedeuten, wofür vielleicht ועבדום Bereschit 16, 13 spräche, welches Onkelos ויפלחון בהון übersetzt, dann könnte מה נעבר את ד׳ heißen: was wir Gott dienen lassen, was wir Gott dienstbar machen sollen, das heißt: was wir im Opfer Gott zum Dienste unterordnen sollen, und dann wäre der Ausdruck, gerade an Ägypter und von Ägyptern gebraucht, in hohem Grade bezeichnend. Was sonst Ägypter als Gott verehren und dem sie sich dienend unterordnen, das wird im jüdischen Opfer Gott dienend untergeordnet. Siehe oben Kap. 8, 22.

לא נדע מה נעבד means WE DO NOT KNOW WITH WHAT WE MUST SERVE we do not know how heavy will be the service: perhaps He will ask more than we have in our possession.

The magnitude of the service. [Rashi explains as he does because] it cannot be that they did not know what the service would be. For note that they said, “Our own flocks. . . We must take from them to worship Hashem our God.” Similarly, many times previously they said, “To sacrifice to Hashem.”

Moses may have wanted to rebut one possible argument namely that they did not need to take along all kinds of species, only the ones suitable as sacrifices. This is why Moses said: "we do not know what (species) we will be required to offer as sacrifices." Therefore, Moses said we have to take along even those species which ultimately will not be used as sacrifices. This is also why he added: "not a hoof will remain." This reference included such animals as horses, mules, camels and donkeys as they are all included in the term מקנה. When Moses appeared to imply that the Israelites would even use the last-mentioned species as sacrificial animals we must understand this comment as similar to the Talmud Avodah Zarah 24 interpreting Samuel I 15,15 to mean that when King Saul referred to certain types of animals saved by the people for sacrifices, the proceeds of the sale of certain animals were also included. The expression: "we will take from them to sacrifice" does not have to mean that the actual animals mentioned have to serve as offerings. The words ממנו נקח have to be translated as "from their proceeds we will take, etc."

When Moses added "and we do not know what we shall serve," this means that he did not know what part of the value of the animals would be required in order to meet G'd's requirements and what part of the herds could safely remain behind. The word מה can have two meanings. 1) "how much," 2) "what," in the sense of "what is the nature of, etc." Moses referred to the fact that G'd would reveal what and how much He required. Perhaps G'd would demand that the people build an altar for Him made of gemstones or some other expensive way of displaying respect and admiration for Him. While it is true that Moses had always spoken about the fact that the Jewish people would "slaughter" animals, he had at the same time referred to some other undefined עבודה, service to G'd. After all, during the original revelation at the burning bush (4,23) G'd had told Moses to tell Pharaoh: "let My people (My firstborn son) go in order that they may serve Me (joyfully)!" This was a general statement which provided for more more ways of serving the Lord than merely the offering of sacrificial animals. As a result, Moses explained, they would need to take along everything they possessed in order to meet their obligations vis-a-vis G'd. This was also why Pharaoh would have to contribute of his own property.

Moses added the apparently gratuitous words עד בואנו שםה, "until we arrive there," because he anticipated Pharaoh challenging his competence as a prophet if he did not even know what kind of service his G'd demanded. Pharaoh might say to him: "if you really do not know, why do you not ask your G'd before setting out on a trek into the desert with all those herds?" Moses may also have reasoned that Pharaoh would not believe him in any event, preferring to believe that Moses was trying to trick him. At any rate, this answer of Moses to Pharaoh was obviously one that Moses invented and is not to be regarded as an instruction given to him by G'd. Pharaoh realised that Moses had acted on his own and that was the reason he was so angry at Moses. As long as Moses delivered messages from G'd, Pharaoh could have been angry at G'd but not at Moses, His messenger. As a result of his anger at what he perceived to be Moses' arrogance, Pharaoh forbade Moses to bother him again.