Komentaryong Sumisipi para sa Genesis 29:17

Regarding the matter of “beautiful in appearance and form”: Some say that this description is not appropriate for animals but only for humans, which is why the text changes from appearance to form, and this is why Rashi explains it as a sign for creatures [humans]. However, it seems to me that this is not correct, because the verse explicitly states that he was shown [cows that were] beautiful in appearance, so this description certainly applies to animals as well. Furthermore, would they show a person something that doesn’t exist in reality, like an elephant passing through the eye of a needle? Rather, it must certainly apply to animals as well, and it refers to when all their limbs are full of flesh and not lean — this is their beautiful appearance. Healthy of flesh is an explanation of beautiful in appearance, because otherwise how would one know if the flesh inside is healthy or sick, if not for the beautiful appearance that testifies to the health of the flesh within? The “form” is a different matter that doesn’t depend on the health of the flesh, as Rashi explains on the verse Rachel was beautiful in form and beautiful in appearance (Genesis 29:17), as it refers to the shape of the face — for example, if the nose isn’t crooked or longer than it should be, and similarly with the eyes, lips, and such features. Now, this verse says that he saw seven cows coming up from the Nile that were beautiful in appearance and healthy of flesh — this is natural, for although the Nile doesn’t have divine power, its natural function is that its waters irrigate the land and cause grass to grow for animals until they become fat and fresh. However, the Nile doesn’t have the power to make them beautiful in form with straight rather than crooked nose, eyes, and mouth, nor to make these features neither too large nor too small, as this is the work of God who made all His creatures with proper form. Pharaoh, to honor his deity according to his foolish belief that the Nile possessed divine power, attributed this power to his god, saying that the cows came up from the Nile both healthy of flesh and beautiful in form. This suggests not only that they came up healthy of flesh, which isn’t such a novelty since all waters can naturally do this, but even that the Nile caused them to be beautiful in form, as if it had created them in this state, according to his belief. Therefore, in this account, he put healthy of flesh before beautiful in form, in the manner of “not only this, but even this.” And regarding the thin cows, he reversed the order, saying poor and ugly in form and thin of flesh, meaning not only were they ugly in form and strange in appearance, which isn’t so significant and the absence of which isn’t such a novelty, but they were even thin of flesh, contrary to nature, which is significant.

“Our toil” (Deuteronomy 26:7): This refers to the (“Banim”) boys, as it is said, “Let every new born boy be cast into the Nile and let ever girl live” (Exodus 1:22): What is it about the expression “Our toil” that leads the Maggid to assume that it is referring to the Israelite boys who were drown in the Nile River? The word “Amal, toil” or “burden” is often used to refer to labor whose outcome is purposeless and in vain. See Ecclesiastes, 1:3, “What profit has a person of all his toil wherein he toils under the Sun?” or Job 4:8, “They sow wickedness and reap toil.” The Hebrew boys were born and immediately killed by the Egyptians so that the labor of carrying them for nine months and then giving birth to them was in the end in vain. Their mothers toiled and carried these children only to see their sons die. But why, then, does the Maggid also quote the final part of the verse, “and let every girl live?” Since the girls were allowed to live the labor of carrying them was not in vain. Pharaoh’s decree would appear to have been directed at the baby boys and not the girls. They were drowned in the Nile and not the girls. The girls, however, were also “born in vain” since they would remain single and alone all their lives if the Israelite boys were all put to death. They would not be able to establish Jewish homes. Pharaoh’s decrees affected both the boys and the girls. The Israelite boys were killed so that the girls would have no one to marry among their own people. Rabbi Epstein explains the derivation of the words “Ben, son” and “Bat, daughter” in light of this comment. He derives the word “Ben,” from the Hebrew verb “boneh” which means “to build,” because it was the job of the boys to build a future for the Israelite people. He then suggests that the word “Bat” comes from the word “Bayit” or “house.” How could the women establish a “Bayit” if there were no men with whom to help build it?

חוג is an expression of encircling, as in (Isa. 44: 13): “and with a compass (ובמחוגה) he rounds it.” (Compas in French, zirkel in German, as in Gen. 29: 17, Isa. 5:22, 44:13, and Job 22: 14.)