rosends
Well-Known Member
I have been looking for a place to put this - it is more of a free form problem, rather than one with a tidy answer, so I'll lay it out and you can move to the next thread.
In this past week's parsha, Ki Tavo, we read at the beginning of the seventh aliya (text and translations from sefaria.org)
וַיִּקְרָ֥א מֹשֶׁ֛ה אֶל־כָּל־יִשְׂרָאֵ֖ל וַיֹּ֣אמֶר אֲלֵהֶ֑ם אַתֶּ֣ם רְאִיתֶ֗ם אֵ֣ת כָּל־אֲשֶׁר֩ עָשָׂ֨ה יְהוָ֤ה לְעֵֽינֵיכֶם֙ בְּאֶ֣רֶץ מִצְרַ֔יִם לְפַרְעֹ֥ה וּלְכָל־עֲבָדָ֖יו וּלְכָל־אַרְצֽוֹ׃
Moses summoned all Israel and said to them: You have seen all that the LORD did before your very eyes in the land of Egypt, to Pharaoh and to all his courtiers and to his whole country:
---------------
Question -- to whom is he speaking? I mean that pretty specifically. I know the general answer is "the Children of Israel" but at this point, who was that?
Everyone who was over 20 years old at the time of the exodus (except Joshua and Kalev I think, plus Moshe, himself) was dead. But the population had not decreased so there must have been births during the 40 years in the desert. This large chunk of the population, born after the Exodus would NOT have seen what this pasuk refers to, or the verse after it ("הַמַּסּוֹת֙ הַגְּדֹלֹ֔ת אֲשֶׁ֥ר רָא֖וּ עֵינֶ֑יךָ הָאֹתֹ֧ת וְהַמֹּפְתִ֛ים הַגְּדֹלִ֖ים הָהֵֽם׃
the wondrous feats that you saw with your own eyes, those prodigious signs and marvels.")
Why claim that the people to whom he spoke saw what they didn't?
I have found 2 commentators who address this. The first is the Ibn Ezra who, according to sefaria, writes,
"You have seen, as well as the subsequent verse “I led you…” [: 4] and the subsequent mention of how ‘Og came out to wage war [: 6] are to be understood in the sense of, “There are among you those who have witnessed the signs which God performed in Egypt;"
So the Ibn Ezra's answer is "the text says 1 thing, but it means something else entirely." I find this wholly unsatisfying as it never addresses the remaining question "then why write it that way?" The answer to that might be a discussion of poetic language or figures of speech, or something else which ignores the issue.
The only other commentator I found on sefaria who brings it up is the more modern "Birkat Asher" who writes שאלתי עצמי, והא בסוף מסעי המדבר עומדים, וכל יוצאי מצרים כבר אינם. (I translate it is "I asked myself, and yet, they were standing after all their travels and all those who left Egypt were not there!") and his second comment which he views as an answer is that this shows that those under 20 at the Exodus weren't dead. In other words "SOME of you" is the meaning. He falls in line with the Ibn Ezra.
I remain unconvinced. The text makes a series of claims. In other places, the text has heaven and earth act as witnesses and the commentators don't ignore this, but discuss its significance. When it says that Jews not yet born witnessed the revelation at Sinai, no one explains this to mean "some." But here, the only explanation is "he means 'some'" and even that seems like a convenience, an afterthought brought about only by one classical commentary.
So now I feel like I'm missing something -- is it wrong of me to discount the simple (and overly simplistic) Ibn Ezra? The guy was wicked smart and I must be missing something. Right?
Help.
In this past week's parsha, Ki Tavo, we read at the beginning of the seventh aliya (text and translations from sefaria.org)
וַיִּקְרָ֥א מֹשֶׁ֛ה אֶל־כָּל־יִשְׂרָאֵ֖ל וַיֹּ֣אמֶר אֲלֵהֶ֑ם אַתֶּ֣ם רְאִיתֶ֗ם אֵ֣ת כָּל־אֲשֶׁר֩ עָשָׂ֨ה יְהוָ֤ה לְעֵֽינֵיכֶם֙ בְּאֶ֣רֶץ מִצְרַ֔יִם לְפַרְעֹ֥ה וּלְכָל־עֲבָדָ֖יו וּלְכָל־אַרְצֽוֹ׃
Moses summoned all Israel and said to them: You have seen all that the LORD did before your very eyes in the land of Egypt, to Pharaoh and to all his courtiers and to his whole country:
---------------
Question -- to whom is he speaking? I mean that pretty specifically. I know the general answer is "the Children of Israel" but at this point, who was that?
Everyone who was over 20 years old at the time of the exodus (except Joshua and Kalev I think, plus Moshe, himself) was dead. But the population had not decreased so there must have been births during the 40 years in the desert. This large chunk of the population, born after the Exodus would NOT have seen what this pasuk refers to, or the verse after it ("הַמַּסּוֹת֙ הַגְּדֹלֹ֔ת אֲשֶׁ֥ר רָא֖וּ עֵינֶ֑יךָ הָאֹתֹ֧ת וְהַמֹּפְתִ֛ים הַגְּדֹלִ֖ים הָהֵֽם׃
the wondrous feats that you saw with your own eyes, those prodigious signs and marvels.")
Why claim that the people to whom he spoke saw what they didn't?
I have found 2 commentators who address this. The first is the Ibn Ezra who, according to sefaria, writes,
"You have seen, as well as the subsequent verse “I led you…” [: 4] and the subsequent mention of how ‘Og came out to wage war [: 6] are to be understood in the sense of, “There are among you those who have witnessed the signs which God performed in Egypt;"
So the Ibn Ezra's answer is "the text says 1 thing, but it means something else entirely." I find this wholly unsatisfying as it never addresses the remaining question "then why write it that way?" The answer to that might be a discussion of poetic language or figures of speech, or something else which ignores the issue.
The only other commentator I found on sefaria who brings it up is the more modern "Birkat Asher" who writes שאלתי עצמי, והא בסוף מסעי המדבר עומדים, וכל יוצאי מצרים כבר אינם. (I translate it is "I asked myself, and yet, they were standing after all their travels and all those who left Egypt were not there!") and his second comment which he views as an answer is that this shows that those under 20 at the Exodus weren't dead. In other words "SOME of you" is the meaning. He falls in line with the Ibn Ezra.
I remain unconvinced. The text makes a series of claims. In other places, the text has heaven and earth act as witnesses and the commentators don't ignore this, but discuss its significance. When it says that Jews not yet born witnessed the revelation at Sinai, no one explains this to mean "some." But here, the only explanation is "he means 'some'" and even that seems like a convenience, an afterthought brought about only by one classical commentary.
So now I feel like I'm missing something -- is it wrong of me to discount the simple (and overly simplistic) Ibn Ezra? The guy was wicked smart and I must be missing something. Right?
Help.
