"Lo Meis Ad Echad."

.וַיָּמָת כֹּל מִקְנֵה מִצְרָיִם וּמִמִּקְנֵה בְנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל לֹא מֵת אֶחָד.I

and all the livestock of the Egyptians died, but of the livestock of the children of Israel not one died.

ז. וַיִּשְׁלַח פַּרְעֹה וְהִנֵּה לֹא מֵת מִמִּקְנֵה יִשְׂרָאֵל עַד אֶחָד

7. And Pharaoh sent, and behold, not until one of the livestock of Israel died

The term, "ad echad," is a little ambiguous.

 כח. וַיָּשֻׁבוּ הַמַּיִם וַיְכַסּוּ אֶת הָרֶכֶב וְאֶת הַפָּרָשִׁים לְכֹל חֵיל פַּרְעֹה הַבָּאִים אַחֲרֵיהֶם בַּיָּם לֹא נִשְׁאַר בָּהֶם עַד אֶחָד: 

28: And the waters returned and covered the chariots and the horsemen, the entire force of Pharaoh coming after them into the sea; not even one of them survived.

 The ibn Ezra brings our verse as a proof that just as here, "ad echad," means every single animal died,  so too, "ad echad," means every single Egyptian died (and not like chazal, who say pharaoh remained alive).( He brings additional support for this from the pasuk in tehillim, "וַיְכַסּוּ-מַיִם צָרֵיהֶם;    אֶחָד מֵהֶם, לֹא נוֹתָר. And the waters covered their adversaries; there was not one of them left," which clearly states that  no one  stayed alive, as further proof.

The Kehillas Yitzchak notes a difference between verses 6 and 7. In the first pasuk, the Torah says not one animal died from, "bnei yisrael." In the next pasuk, when in regard from pharaohs point of view it uses the term, "yisrael."

The Midrash in parshas Vayikra tells us about  a Jewish woman named Shlomis Bas Divri, who due to being overly flirty, was force to bear a child from an Egyptian father. Her name stems from the word, "dever," for she brought plague upon her son. Simply this means that she brought him into the world as the son of an Egyptain, and he pronounced the name of Hashem with a curse, and so she watched him be stoned.

The Ramban notes that before Matan Torah, Judaism was paternally hereditary. Therefore Ben Shlomis was not technically Jewish. After Matan Torah, as is the halachah today, a man born to a Jewish mother but gentile father  is  considered Jewish. 

So in verse 6, all the livestock of bnei yisrael was spared. The cattle of Ben Shlomis, who was not a ben yisrael,  did die. But to Pharaoh, in verse 7, he was still living among the Jews, and therefore he considered him to be Jewish. All but one cattle of the, "Jews" survived. Since at least a piece of the, "Jews," were killed, Pharaoh did not feel pressure to release them from bondage. 

This also sheds light on the meaning of, "she brought a plague upon her son." For if his father had been Jewish, he would have been spared from the plague of dever.

Have a Good Shabbos.

                

Everybody wants Mashiach?

A couple shabbasim ago , my rav spoke beautifully about the Rokeach and the term "Vayigash"; and at the end he made a comment about the events in Bet Shemesh. He said that while all the other Jewish (even Charedi) organizations did condemn the actions of the group of chareidim, we still couldn't all get together with one unanimous response," They are not us."

Not only is there a diversity among the responses, which has been discussed by Rabbi Natan Slifkin and Rabbi Harry Maryles (probably many others as well, but they are two of the main bloggers who i follow) , but there is also a sufficient lack in attempts toward achdus,  by secular chilonim and even by other ultra-orthodox Rabbonim. I posted an angry response to the most recent link, however, it has not yet been posted.

In it, i pretty much described the lack of achdus calling the chareidim, "animals," promotes. If we can call Jews who are slightly less observant in some areas (middos) of their Judaism, "animals;" then they have the right to call someone who , in their eyes, is lacking in areas of tznius, "an animal;" and therefore exempt themselves from all chiyuvim of, "achdus." Sadly, there seems to be no hope in re-establishing achdus in klal yisrael. It is arguable that the chiloni-chareidi civil war was/is inevitable. Unfortunately, it seems as if it is going to divide the other parts of Judaism also. I'm scared it is going to divide the so widely used term, "orthodox."

The only solution is really Mashiach. Which brings me to a topic that i have often wondered about. Traditionally, there are two forms of the coming of Mashiach. The first is where klal yisroel is, "zoche," and the alternative is where we hit rock bottom and will be lost if not for our last hope. Generally, the coming of the former Mashiach is described as prestigious and supernatural, while the coming of the latter is accompanied with a can of worms around his neck, poor, riding on a donkey, and through natural means. We dont seem to be headed in the, "zoche," direction...

Ignoring all the arguements about the specifics (techiyas hameisim and malchemes gog u' magog, and what "y'mos mashiach" will be like) , are the kids in MBC right? does everybody want mashiach? whether the former or the latter form of the coming of mashiach, the majority of people i know would respond to the coming of mashiach with a comment similar to: "oh, you. we didn't think you'd make it..." Many of my rebbeim often mention that many people are too comfortable with their lifestyles to be willing to leave to Eretz Yisrael along with mashiach.

Then there are the individual problems with both comings (lol tht sounds funny :p).

If he comes supernaturally, then i guess everyone will be willing to follow him, regardless of what "sect," of judaism he is in. The only problem is that modern rationalists and scientists may be skeptic about his, "osos  u' mofsim." Also, many people will be scared of another fake messiah. I kind of always expected my response to be something like YEEEEEEAAAAAHHHHWOOOOOOHOOOOOYEEEAAAHHAAHAHAHAHWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!W00000000000000000000000000000TYEEEEEEAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHH! but i dont know how realistic that is. at max, I will probably be like, "whoa, this guy is legit. :O!"

We seem to be at an opportune time for a Mashiach to come who will naturally be mikarev all of klal yisrael and then everyone else too. I used to wonder that it would be extremely difficult for such a thing to happen. Anyone with slightly lower standards than the far right would be called an apikorus by them. Anyone who would demand that a chareidi lifestyle is obligatory would be called a lunatic and radical by those on the left. And then there would be people like me, who would say that its impossible for mashiach to be on either side, because it wouldnt work out. To me, the only answer to the daati-chiloni-chareidi / ultra-orthodox vs. modern orthodox war is mashiach. I used to doubt the ability of mashiach due to the lack of achdus. I now realize that mashiach is the answer  to the lack of achdus. I still don't know how things are going to turn out, but I'm hoping for the best.