Imágenes de páginas
PDF
EPUB

Spring), in which the barley is already ripe, it is also inferred from the Book of Esther, in which it clearly says, "In the first month, that is the month of Nisan." 2 How then does the other passage say, "The feast of the ingathering in the end of the year:" this festival which is Tabernacle, when the crops. are housed, does not fall at the end of the year, but in wn (Tisri, or September), six months after Nisan (which the first verse says is to be the first month). How is this to be understood?

RECONCILIATION.

Assuming that the world had a beginning, there were two opinions among the ancient sages respecting the month in which it was created.

One was that of R. Eliezer3, who held that it was created in Tisri (September); and the other by R. Joshua, who asserted it to have been in Nisan (March), but both admitted its creation to have been at an equinox, when the days and nights are equal, which only occurs in those two months. Reasons are not wanting on both sides of the question; for R. Eliezer, who maintained that the creation of the world was in September, says, That on its creation all things appeared in perfection, as it is said in the Guemara of Rosh Ashana javarai ¡npipa (in their height and beauty), and according to this, the trees were brought forth loaded with their fruits; and our first parents, Adam and Eve, immediately they were made, benefited of them for food; and the period of such fructification is not March, on the verge of winter, but September, which is in autumn. Besides this, when God brought the people of Israel out of Egypt, he commanded that the same month (March) in which they went out should thenceforward be accounted as the first month of the year; and if that month had always been the first, there was no necessity to ordain anew that it should be esteemed as such.

On the other hand, the opinion of R. Joshua may be also favourably received, that it took place in March, from that equinox being endowed with both humidity and heat, two requisites for the growth of all generative things; whereas, on the contrary, in September, all fall into a general tendency to decay. But setting all these reasonings aside, in which the human understanding may be easily deceived, the truth is, that wn (September) is the first month of the world; because, power precedes action, and conception, delivery. And, therefore, the year naturally commences at the time of sowing, when all plants are in the bosom of the earth, and not when they break through it; and accordingly, not only the Hebrews, but the Egyptians, Persians, Greeks, and all other Oriental nations, commence their year in September. The Divine command to Israel, that Nisan (March) should be held as the first month of the year, is in respect of festivals and solemnities, of which the first celebration is that of the Passover, called the feast of unleavened bread; thereby perpetuating the remembrance of the mercy he had shewn them, in delivering them from the slavery they had suffered, and giving them the blessing of liberty, as also in having ordained many precepts to commemorate the going out of Egypt.

It is also said in the Guemara,4 that the month of Nisan was considered the first of the year, in reckoning the commencement of the reigns of the kings of Israel, as is seen in 1 Kings, "And it came to pass in the four hundred and eightieth year, after the children of Israel were come out of the land of

2 Esther 3.7.

3 Rosh Ashana, c. 1.

4 Rosh Ashana, c.1.

Egypt, in the fourth year of Solomon's reign over Israel, in the month Zif, which is the second month,' ,"5 thus calculating the reign of Solomon by the era of the coming out of Egypt, to signify that both are alike reckoned from Nisan. But besides this, the creation of the world has ever been reckoned from Tisri, as various passages of Scripture reasonably shew.

1st. In Leviticus; it is commanded, that on the tenth day of the seventh month, which is Tisri, to hallow the jubilee. In another part, respecting the feast of tabernacles, which falls in the same month, it says, "In the fifteenth day of the seventh month, when ye have gathered in the fruit of the land, shall keep a feast unto the Lord seven days."7 Therefore, if the jubilee is ordered to be hallowed in this month, if follows that it was the beginning of the secular year.

ye

2nd. God commanded (in Deuteronomy 8) that the people should assemble at the feast of tabernacles, to hear the Law read and to learn it; if that month was not the beginning of the year (to consecrate such an act), it seems that it would have been better to have assembled in Nisan to hear it, than to wait six months to hear and learn what they ought to have done during that period, and which was of so much spiritual importance to them; but being read at the beginning of the year, it instructed them in their duties during the whole of the ensuing year.

66

[ocr errors]

3rd. The Lord ordains that on the seventh, or Sabbatical year, they should neither sow nor reap, first saying SOW and "not reap" after, as the proper time for sowing is Tisri, and not Nisan; it follows then, that the year began with Tisri, or sowing time, and we find above, that the hallowing thereof began in the seventh (sacerdotal) month, Tisri.

4th. The sower, in the sixth year, could not reap in the seventh, neither could he sow in the seventh; therefore, if what was sown in the sixth could not be reaped in the seventh, no one would sow, and thus two years would elapse without sowing, and the prohibition is only for one; but what was sown in Tisri, the proper sowing season of the sixth year, might be reaped in the seventh. The conclusion is, therefore, that the year commenced in Tisri; as the Law commands that they should not sow, nor reap what had been sown and grown in the same year.

5th. The very verse of the contradiction clearly demonstrates that Tisri is the beginning of the year, as well as its termination; for it says, "The feast of the ingathering, in the end of the year." It says "the end of the year," for the feast of Tabernacles is in Tisri, which finishes the period of the year, at the end of one, it is evident a new one must necessarily commence.

This truth may be corroborated by what is said in the Guemara,9 that Adam, as soon as he came into the world, saw that the days were decreasing, which only happens from Tisri forward. In another part 10 it says, that all which God created, he created in perfection; and it also says as do Bereshit Raba,11 Midbar Raba,12 and Sirraba, that Adam and Eve were created of a perfect stature, like that of persons twenty years of age. Nachmanides adopts the same opinion (on the 12th chapter of Exodus), and R. Jonathan ben Uzziel (on the 8th chapter of 1 Kings), and so in the "Guemara of Rosh Ashana,' was instituted the prayer said in the additional service of the New "this is the day of the beginning

9713

זה היום תחלת מעשיך זכרון ליום ראשון Year

of thy works, a memorial of the first day."

To conclude in respect of the festivals, solemnities, and computations of the

5 1 Kings 6:1. 6 Lev. 25:9. 10 Rosh Ashana, c. 2.

7 Lev. 23:39.
11 C. 4.

8 Deut. 31:12. 9 Aboda Zara, c. 1.

12 C. 12.

13 C. 1.

reigns of kings, Nisan is the beginning of the year, but in regard to the creation and secular matters, it is Tisri.

The Oriental sages and the Chaldeans called this month Tisri, as Tisri is derived from nows (beginning) by transposing the letters. The targum of nnn (Achiloti) is also 'n' (Shariti), which means I began, as R. Maimon wrote in his Commentary on the Compendium of Almajest.14 From the same respect, the Greeks gave it a like name in their language. By this explanation the verses may be understood without any repugnance.

QUESTION 80.

Exod. 12:3. They shall take to them, every man a lamb, according to the house of their fathers.

Exod. 12:3. A lamb for every house.

The contradiction is in the same verse; for in the first part it says, that the paschal lamb should be taken for the house of their fathers, that is, among a family or relations; how then does it say in the latter part, a lamb for each house?

RECONCILIATION.

This doubt is easily solved; for as Aben Ezra and all other Commentators say, if a house consisted of a large family they were to take a lamb, but if a family, including relations, were few, they only took one among the whole, a little being sufficient for few eaters. And the law declares that when a house consisted of but few persons to fulfil the precept, they might take a lamb in company with their neighbours, requiring that each should do according to his means; so that by "the house of their fathers," as adduced in Mehilta, is to be understood for a family being small, but if large, and possessing means, they were to take a lamb for each house.

QUESTION 81.

Exod. 12:5. Your lamb shall be without

blemish, a male of the first year.

Exod. 12:5. Ye shall take it from the sheep or from the goats.

If the Lord commanded that they should take a lamb; how does it say from the sheep or from the goats?

RECONCILIATION.

The appellation nw, which we translate lamb, is equivocal, according to R. Abraham Aben Ezra, and is applied to two species, " D'aw (sheep and goats); and according to R. David Kimchi in his "Roots," it is properly the young of a goat or of sheep; in confirmation of which may be adduced the question put to R. Meir by a gentile, as related in Bereshit Raba, which

14 A work by Ptolemy.

K

1 C. 70.

was, "The law ordains that the firstling of an ass should be redeemed by a lamb, and he who had not a lamb might redeem it with a kid?" to which he learnedly replied, "Yes! for under one appellation both are comprehended, as proved in Deuteronomy, Dywan (lamb of the sheep, and kid of the goats)," the doubt is therefore solved, nw meaning both lamb and kid, and that either might be used for the paschal sacrifice.

R. Levi ben Gershon says that the sacrifice in Egypt was ordered to be of lambs, as it is proved by the Scripture, that the Egyptians greatly abominated sheep and lambs; but in future generations the sacrifice might be taken either from sheep or goats.

QUESTION 82.

Exod. 12:5. Ye shall take it from the sheep or from the goats.

Deut. 16:2. Thou shalt therefore sacrifice the passover unto the Lord thy God, of the flock, and of the herd.

If the paschal sacrifice was to be of one of the species commanded in the first text; how does it say in the latter-flocks and herds (Hebrew-sheep and oxen)?

RECONCILIATION.

This contradiction is started in Siphré1 and solved thus: the verse in Deuteronomy must be interpreted, "Thou shalt sacrifice the passover to the Lord thy God from the flocks," denoting that sacrifice was to be of ¡s (sheep), which term, according to R. David Kimchi, means small cattle; and conformably to this, it commands in the first place, "Ye shall take of the small cattle, sheep or goats;" but herds (or oxen), afterwards mentioned, does not apply to the paschal sacrifice, which, as stated, was to be a lamb; but means the peace-offerings that were eaten during the festivals cooked with water, agreeably to the divine command, that every one should rejoice in his house on the festivals.

This exposition is adopted by Onkelos, R. Bechayai, and R. Abraham Aben Ezra; evidence of this is found in Chronicles, " And they roasted the passover with fire, according to the ordinance; but the other holy offerings they sod in pots, and in cauldrons, and in pans, and divided them speedily among all the people:"2 and they solve the doubt by saying, that the verse in Deuteronomy is to be understood, " And thou shalt kill the passover to the Lord thy God of the flocks and herds;" as if it had said, "You are to kill sheep and oxen, but for different purposes; the sheep, for the obligation of the paschal sacrifice, and the oxen, for the peace-offerings.'

[ocr errors]

Nachmanides, who is followed by Don Isaac Abarbanel, interprets the verse thus, "And thou shalt kill the passover to the Lord thy God," there making a stop, and then saying, "sheep and oxen;" so that no mention is made in this verse of what kind of animal that sacrifice was to be, from having precedently declared it, but only directs to kill more sheep and oxen to celebrate the feast with their household, the Levite, and the stranger, than were required for the offerings; and although, according to this interpretation, there

2 Deut. 14:1.

1 On the text.

2 2 Chron. 35:13.

should have been a conjunctive uniting the expressions, rendering them, "And thou shalt sacrifice to the Lord thy God the passover; and sheep and oxen;" the solution is easy enough; for this form is often made use of in Scripture, like the phrase biar y wow 3 "Sun, Moon stood still in her habitation," it should have been Sun and Moon; but similar phrases are innumerable, and it is the case in this text; but the doubt is solved by either of the two modes.

QUESTION 83.

Exod. 12:12. I will pass through the land of Egypt this night.

Exod. 12:13. The Lord will pass over the door, and will not suffer the destroyer to come in unto your houses to smite.

The smiting of the Egyptian first-born is stated in the first verse to have been done by God himself, "I will pass," &c., if so; how does the other verse attribute the miracle to a secondary cause, "the destroyer?"

RECONCILIATION.

The ancient sages hold (in Mehilta1) that the last plague inflicted on the Egyptians by the death of their first-born, was the direct act of the First Cause; and they deduce this from the text which says "The Lord smote all the first-born:"2 the same is inferred from the verse in the Agadah, (the evening service of the nights of the passover), which interprets it thus: "I will pass through the land of Egypt;" I myself, and not an angel. "And I will smite all the first-born;" I myself, and no seraph. "And on all the gods of Egypt I will execute judgment;" I myself, and not a messenger. "I am the Lord;" I am He and there is no other. By these words, signifying that this plague had no interposing cause that assisted in it, like the angel in the mortality of Sennacherib's army, nor Seraphim as in the destruction of the captains of fifties, who were sent against Elijah; neither was it performed by the great ambassador, or the Matatron, as observed by Nachmanides, but the First Cause himself directly operated in this act, as they conclude by saying, "I the Lord; I and no other." On this proposition the most able commentators have written, in order to render it consonant to the other verse; and firstly, the great Rashi understands for n'nw (destroyer), the dangers that happen on dark nights, when spirits of evil prevail, and those who go out of their houses incur risk. "The Destroyer," according to this reading, does not mean any particular angel or secondary cause, who assisted in this plague, but other agents who might produce injury.

Nachmanides learnedly says, that from the verse saying "I will not suffer the destroyer to enter your houses;" it is not to be inferred that the destroyer smote the first-born, and thus performed the miracle; but that the presence of a destroyer may be presumed: and from this proposition it may be collected, that, although God performed the miracle, the destroying angel assisted therein with all his force and rigorous powers. Thus a king in going from one city to another is accompanied by his princes and chiefs, so the Lord God in passing through Egypt was accompanied by the angelic hosts,

3 Habbakuk 3:10.

On the text.

2 Exodus 12:29.

« AnteriorContinuar »