After Moshe announces the next plague would be the one called "wild beasts," Pharaoh answers:
"Pharaoh called to Moshe and to Aharon and said: 'Go and sacrifice to your G-d in our land (Egypt)."
"Moshe said: It is not proper to act in this way. For we will be offering the abomination of Egypt to our G-d. Consider if we were to sacrifice the abomination of Egypt in clear view of the people, would they not stone us?" (8: 22).
These animals might be an "abomination" because they are held to be sacred and an object of worship (i.e. they're sacrifice is an abomination to Egyptians). Rashi offers this as a second interpretation for our verse.
However, "abomination" may also be a way to avoid mentioning an Egyptian deity (and make a comment about it). This is the first understanding Rashi presents: "Moshe is referring to the deity of Egypt." In support of this reading, Rashi quotes a verse in II Kings: "…to Milkom the abomination (toeva) of the people of Ammon…" (23: 13). In this verse the term "abomination" represents a point of view-our point of view. Only in the eyes of Yisrael, would the Ammonite deity be called an abomination. Were we to ask them, the Ammonites (or the Egyptians in our verse) would presumably speak of their idols/deities respectfully.
However, if this last interpretation is correct, it is odd that Moshe would use that term when speaking directly to Pharaoh. Even if we agree that they didn't speak Hebrew, it is still reasonable to assume that the word used by Moshe in Egyptian was properly translated by the Torah. Whatever Moshe said in the local language, it meant toeva.
In response to this problem, it could be claimed that this was not what Moshe said to Pharaoh. When he spoke about the god of Egypt he used a neutral voice, and did not speak of the Egyptian idols with great disrespect. However, when the Torah recorded the story for posterity, it included this notion of "abomination".
Of course, if Rashi's second interpretation, "…the sacrifice that we sacrifice is an abomination to the Egyptians, for we are sacrificing their idol" is correct, the verse may indeed be a direct quote. Moshe would have said to Pharaoh that the people of Egypt would see as an abomination the sacrifice of their deity by the people of Yisrael. Rashi does not relate to the fact that the word is used twice in the verse.
Onkelos solves the problem in his translation by using a different word. Dachalin le, which they serve, in place of toeva. Clearly, Onkelos was aware of the problem but solved it with the special prerogative of a translator.
Rashi's position on the Onkelos translation is clarified in another verse in Sefer Bresheit: "They set it out for him, by himself and for them alone, and for the Egyptians who ate with him by themselves; The Egyptians could not bear to eat bread with the Hebrews, for it is loathsome [toeva] to the Egyptians." (43: 32)
Rashi explains: "It is a hateful thing for the Egyptians, to eat with the Hebrews". Explaining the word toeva as hateful.
Here the word is being used in the context of the Egyptian position. They would not eat together with the Hebrews because it was hateful to them. The word toeva has a general connotation of "hateful" and it is used in that way in this instance.
Rashi continues and says: "Onkelos gave a reason for this hateful feeling"
How does Onkelos translate? "the Egyptians could not eat with the Hebrews (bread/meat) since the very sheep that the Egyptians worshipped were eaten by the Hebrews."
Both Rashi and Onkelos agree that the word in this verse means "hateful" and Onkelos used the same meaning for the word in our parsha.
According to Rashi, Onkelos is explaining the reason for this hatred. They knew that the Hebrews did not respect their idols, and that the disrespect was very obvious during meals. This was a toeva to the Egyptians, a hateful thing.
Onkelos in our verse explains the word toeva in a similar manner. Rashi however deviates and cites two possibilities, one for the people of Yisrael, "abomination" and one for the Egyptians: "hateful".
The second interpretation would have sufficed. It was not necessary for Rashi to add the first interpretation which only complicates matters.
In a gemara (hulin 40a) Rashi notes a special halacha that is derived from our verse.
"In spite of the fact that animals that were served can be eaten, nevertheless they are considered foreign idols, and if someone sacrifices to them the sacrifice is forbidden. This is derived from the verse in which Moshe called these animals toevat mizraim."
Gut shabbos, Chaim Brovender
Missed a parasha? Visit the parasha archives...
Return to Yeshivat Hamivtar - Orot Lev
