Some Beshalach Thoughts, and Recommending Torah Temima

I wrote many posts on parashat Beshalach over the years on parshablog. This roundup, up to the year 2012, has about forty-two posts.

Since then, in 2014, I suggested that in this verse,

וְחִזַּקְתִּ֣י אֶת־לֵב־פַּרְעֹה֮ וְרָדַ֣ף אַחֲרֵיהֶם֒ וְאִכָּבְדָ֤ה בְּפַרְעֹה֙ וּבְכׇל־חֵיל֔וֹ וְיָדְע֥וּ מִצְרַ֖יִם כִּֽי־אֲנִ֣י יְהֹוָ֑ה וַיַּֽעֲשׂוּ־כֵֽן׃

Then I will stiffen Pharaoh’s heart and he will pursue them, that I may gain glory through Pharaoh and all his host; and the Egyptians shall know that I am יהוה. And they did so.

the use of וְחִזַּקְתִּ֣י, to stiffen, instead of something involving the word כבד as appears elsewhere, is to avoid the repetition later in the verse with וְאִכָּבְדָ֤ה בְּפַרְעֹה֙, which has a different sense of obtaining glory.

I recently noticed that Sefaria now has Torah Temima aligned with pesukim in the parasha. For a while, you could have read this on HebrewBooks. Here is a page of that Chumash:

Note that it has the pesukim, Onkelos, and Rashi. Then, there is the Torah Temima up top, which is a yalkut / collection of statements from Chazal relating to each pasuk. More important than that, IMHO, is the bottom portion, written, or collected, or plagiarized, whatever, by the same author, Rav Baruch HaLevy Epstein, with analysis of these sources. I’ve sometimes seen “Torah Temima” presented as just the top part, which is not as useful, since it all appears elsewhere (and indeed, Sefaria would have linked many of these relevant sources automatically). The greater contribution is the bottom commentary.

You might miss it. Here is what it looks like on Sefaria if you are not careful:

But you have to click on the blue hyperlink Hebrew footnotes (סז, סח), to expand the commentary:

The comment here is as follows. In Mechilta, regarding וַיְהִ֗י בְּשַׁלַּ֣ח פַּרְעֹה֮ אֶת־הָעָם֒, “and it was, when Pharaoh sent out the nation”, the explanation is “there was no (mere) sending out here but accompaniment, and what reward did they receive for this?(Devarim 23:8) לֹא־תְתַעֵ֣ב מִצְרִ֔י / you shall not abhor an Egyptian.”

See Mechilta deRabbi Yishmael and deRashbi, where these words are written, with various prooftexts of this usage.

Rabbi Epstein comments:

נראה דלכן מפרש שלוח זה לשון לויה, כמו בפ' וירא ואברהם הולך עמם לשלחם, ולא כפשטיה משום דבאמת יצאו ישראל ממצרים בעצמן ולא הו"ל להכתוב לתלות יציאתו בשלוח פרעה אלא בעצמן וכמו הכתוב בתהלים קי"ד בצאת ישראל ממצרים. גם יש לפרש כונת הענין אין שלוח כאן אלא לויה משום דלפעל שַֹלֵחַ גם הוראת גָרֵשֹ כמו ושלחה מביתו (תצא) וכן יש לפרש גם כאן ומקביל היטב לדברי הקב"ה כשלחו כלה גרש יגרש אתכם מזה, אולם מזה שכתוב בסוף הפסוק פן ינחם העם – ושבו מצרימה נראה כי היתה כאן הסברת פנים והנהגה מנומסת מהמצרים בעת היציאה עד שנראו למו כאוהבים נאמנים הדורשים שלומם וטובתם, והיו שבים מצרימה בראותם מלחמה מצד עמים אחרים, ולכן דרשו בשלח על לויה. ובמכילתא הלשון אין שלוח בכ"מ אלא לויה, ונראה דט"ס הוא, דבאמת הלשון שלוח כפשטיה, ורק כאן פירושו לשון לויה, וצ"ל כמו שהעתקנו אין שלוח כאן אלא לויה.
ויש להוסיף באור והסבר לענין הלויה זו, כי כמבואר בפ' בא היה פרעה רוצה להפיס דעת משה וישראל, כמ"ש קומו צאו וגו' גם צאנכם גם בקרכם וגו' וברכתם גם אותי, ומצינו בתכונת מלכי מצרים שכשהיו צריכין להפיס דעת האנשים היוצאים מהם היו מלוים אותם על דרכם מפני שהוא דרך הכבוד, וכמו באברהם שבעת שיצא מפרעה אחר שנכשל בלקיחת שרה ופייסו במתנות הרבה כתיב עוד ויצו עליו פרעה אנשים וישלחו אותו, וה"נ כן. .

That is, roughly:

It seems that the reason that it explains shiluach as accompanying, as in parashat Vayera, “and Avraham went with them to send them off”, and not according to its straightforward meaning, is because in truth, the Bnei Yisrael left Egypt of their own accord. The verse did not need to attach their leaving with Pharaoh’s sending, but rather to themselves. This is like the verse in Tehillim 114:1, בְּצֵ֣את יִ֭שְׂרָאֵל מִמִּצְרָ֑יִם, “when Yisrael went out of Egypt”.

There is also to explain the intent of the matter of “there is not sending here; only accompaniment, because the verb shaleiach also includes the word sense of driving out / divorce, as in (parshat) Ki Teitzei / וְשִׁלְּחָ֖הּ מִבֵּיתֹֽו / veishillecha mibbeito. And so, one could explain as well this as well here, and it would align well with Hashem’s words (Shemot 11:1) כְּשַׁ֨לְּח֔וֹ כָּלָ֕ה גָּרֵ֛שׁ יְגָרֵ֥שׁ אֶתְכֶ֖ם מִזֶּֽה / ‘indeed, when he sends you out, he will drive you out of here one and all.”

However, from that which is written at the end of the (local) verse, פֶּֽן־יִנָּחֵ֥ם הָעָ֛ם [בִּרְאֹתָ֥ם מִלְחָמָ֖ה] וְשָׁ֥בוּ מִצְרָֽיְמָה׃, “lest the nation reconsider … and return to Egypt”, it appears that there was here an attitude and behavior from the Egyptians, at the time of the exodus, such that they appeared to them as true friends who sought their peace and welfare, such that they would return to Egypt if they saw war from the side of other nations. Therefore, they [Chazal] interpreted beshalach as accompaniment.

And in the Mechilta, the language is “the meaning of shiluach in all places is only accompaniment”. And it appears that this is a scribal error, for in truth, the language / import of of shiluach is in its plain sense, and only here is its meaning accompaniment. And perforce, it must be as we have recorder here, “shiluach here only means accompaniment.”

And there is so add elucidation and explanation to this matter of accompaniment. For, is is explained in parashat Bo, Pharaoh wished to assuage the minds of Moshe and Israel, as is written (Shemot 12:32) ק֤וּמוּ צְּאוּ֙ מִתּ֣וֹךְ עַמִּ֔י גַּם־אַתֶּ֖ם גַּם־בְּנֵ֣י יִשְׂרָאֵ֑ל וּלְכ֛וּ עִבְד֥וּ אֶת־ה כְּדַבֶּרְכֶֽם׃ גַּם־צֹאנְכֶ֨ם גַּם־בְּקַרְכֶ֥ם קְח֛וּ כַּאֲשֶׁ֥ר דִּבַּרְתֶּ֖ם וָלֵ֑כוּ וּבֵֽרַכְתֶּ֖ם גַּם־אֹתִֽי׃ / “Arise and go out… also your sheep and your cattle… and you will bless me as well.” And we find in the attributes of the Kings of Egypt, that when they wishes to placate people’s minds who left them, they would escort them on their way, for this was a manner of honor. Just as by Avraham, that when he left Pharaoh after (the latter) had stumbled in the taking of Sarah, and placated him with many gifts, it is written further (Bereshit 12:20) וַיְצַ֥ו עָלָ֛יו פַּרְעֹ֖ה אֲנָשִׁ֑ים וַֽיְשַׁלְּח֥וּ אֹת֛וֹ וְאֶת־אִשְׁתּ֖וֹ וְאֶת־כׇּל־אֲשֶׁר־לֽוֹ / and Pharaoh commanded men upon him and sent him out, together with his wife and all that he had. And the same is true here.

A few thoughts.

First, as you can see, Torah Temima is a series of essays on maamarei Chazal on each verse, so it is quite elaborate. These are not mere footnotes — they are the very point of the commentary.

Second, I think he was way too quick to jump to a scribal error here, just because he did not like the wording. I wrote an entire article about the meaning of X is only Y.

For instance, ain mayim ela Torah is not a scribal error, but it does not mean that every instance of mayim means Torah rather than water. There is no prohibition in cooking the korban Pesach in a Torah! And ain na ela leshon bakasha does not mean that this is what it means everywhere. The prohibition is in eating the korban Pesach raw, not eating it please! But na means now. The purpose of the phrase ain X ela Y is that, in this instance at least, this is what we are saying it means, based on a demonstrated usage of that term in that sense elsewhere. So, the Mechilta need not be emended.

Third, yes, absolutely look to other pesukim to get a theme. Why should we want to say that this is an escort here, based on other peskim in the narrative. Looking at earlier Pharaohs for preexisting conduct to justify it is fine, but I don’t know how necessary.

Fourth, at least in the Mechiltas before us, it includes these verses as precedent. Mechilta deRabbi Yishmael begins:

(שמות יג,יז) ["וַיְהִי, בְּשַׁלַּח פַּרְעֹה אֶת הָעָם, וְלֹא נָחָם אֱלֹהִים דֶּרֶךְ אֶרֶץ פְּלִשְׁתִּים, כִּי קָרוֹב הוּא, כִּי אָמַר אֱלֹהִים: פֶּן יִנָּחֵם הָעָם בִּרְאֹתָם מִלְחָמָה, וְשָׁבוּ מִצְרָיְמָה."] "וַיְהִי בְּשַׁלַּח פַּרְעֹה אֶת הָעָם". אֵין שִׁלּוּחַ בְּכָל מָקוֹם אֶלָּא לִוּוּי, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: (בראשית יח,טז) "וְאַבְרָהָם הֹלֵךְ עִמָּם לְשַׁלְּחָם". (בראשית כו,לא) "וַיְשַׁלְּחֵם יִצְחָק".

or of Rabbi Shimon ben Yochai:

ויהי בשלח פרעה אין שילוח אלא לווי כמה דאת אמר (בראשית י"ח ט"ו) ואברהם הולך עמם לשלחם ואומר (שם כ"ו ל"א) וישלחם יצחק וילכו מאתו בשלום

I wonder also if there is a grammatical analysis. There is the kal and the piel, more intensive form. Usually, the kal just means to send while the piel means to drive out. So here, we have the intensive, so let us say that Pharaoh performed this escort.