Acharei Mos: Why is the esnachta on לַפָּרֹכֶת?

The placement of the etnachta on the second pasuk in Acharei Mot seems a bit odd:

The etnachta usually marked the logical midpoint of the pasuk, yet this does not seem to be the case here. Namely, the etnachta is at the place of the double-dashes, [--]:

and the LORD said unto Moses: 'Speak unto Aaron thy brother, that he come not at all times into the holy place within the veil [--] before the ark-cover which is upon the ark; that he die not; for I appear in the cloud upon the ark-cover.

We should expect that it would appear after the word "ark", or after the phrase "that he die not", rather than in the middle of the description of the holy place.

Rabbi Yaakov Tzvi Mecklenburg, in his sefer haKsav vehaKabbalah, asks this very question:

He writes:

haKsav vehaKabbalah

"within the veil -- the author of the trup connected אֶל-פְּנֵי הַכַּפֹּרֶת [namely, the phrase immediately following the etnachta] with the end of the verse, rather than putting the break in the statement via the etnachta upon וְלֹא יָמוּת, for the primary reason that he should not come [there] is because of the revelation of the Divine Presence, and that is upon the ark-cover [kapores] between the cherubs. Therefore he placed the etnacha on the word לַפָּרֹכֶת."

I am not sure who רל"ש is. Anyone know?

Meanwhile, here is how Shadal addresses the issue:

"וְאַל-יָבֹא בְכָל-עֵת אֶל-הַקֹּדֶשׁ -- The trup assigned here is quite strange, for the etnachta should properly be under וְלֹא יָמוּת. [Josh: Here he rewrites the trup as it would be were the etnachta moved over.] And perhaps the position of the author of the trup is like Rabbi Yehuda [in Menachot 27b], that within the veil is a prohibition [punishable by lashes] while before the ark-cover is [punishable] by death:

[Thus:

 רבי יהודה אומר כל היכל כולו ומבית לפרכת בארבעים ואל פני הכפרת במיתה

'Rabbi Yehuda said: the entire heical as well as mibeit laparochet is with forty [lashes], while el penei hakapores is [punished] with death'. 
]

And it is further possible to say that perhaps, in the Second Temple, there was one who said that nowadays, that there is no ark and no ark-cover, it is fitting that it would be permitted to enter into the Holy of Holies. Therefore the Sages saw fit to split the statement in the verse as if it were two statements, namely 

1. "that he come not at all times into the holy place within the veil" (even if there is no ark or ark-cover there, it is forbidden to approach there, and still)
2. "before the ark-cover which is upon the ark" (do not come at all times) - "lest you die" -- 

[Thus] during the time that the ark is there, there is death, and at the time the ark is not there, there is not death, but there is still a prohibition [warning]. And the authors of the trup (who were after the closing of the Talmud) appointed the trup based on the reading which was received orally from the Sages of the Second Temple era."

I would note that the Chachamim in the gemara, as per the gemara's parsing, also separate the pasuk in an odd way:
רבנן סברי אל הקודש בלא יבא מבית לפרכת ואל פני הכפרת בלא ימות
ור' יהודה סבר אל הקודש ומבית לפרכת בלא יבא ואל פני הכפרת בלא ימות

The Malbim has the same idea as Shadal. In his commentary on the Sifra, HaTorah veHamitzvah, he writes the following.

Malbim

"And the position of Rabbi Yehuda that מִבֵּית לַפָּרֹכֶת relates to the earlier part [of the verse], and also it is only with a warning [prohibition], and אֶל-פְּנֵי הַכַּפֹּרֶת alone falls under 'lest he die'. (And the author of the trup who pointed the etnachta upon the word לַפָּרֹכֶת, it appears that his position was like Rabbi Yehuda."

Meanwhile, William Wickes, in his book on the system of trup, on page 41-42, considers this pasuk to be one instance of many of a trup pattern which occurs during specification:

The red arrow points to where he mentions the specific pasuk:

In a lengthy footnote, #21, he discusses this pasuk and argues with Shadal, Malbim, Geiger and Dillman in attributing the trup to the interpretation of Rabbi Yehuda in Menachos. While he is not unwilling to say that trup, particularly strange trup, was influenced by Rabbinic interpretation, here he does not think it likely since Rabbi Yehuda is a daas Yachid. On the contrary, he suggests that perhaps Rabbi Yehuda drew on the trup (really caused by reason Wickes gave) in order to support his own unique position.

See also Rashi on Yoma 52b, d"h vayaalu olot kevasim:


If there is a nafka mina in disputes as to the proper trup, and if as Malbim and Shadal say, the trup is like Rabbi Yehuda, and if Rambam paskens like the Chachamim, should we change our trup to match?

Haftaras Naso pt ii -- Shimshon, and making the goat for the malach

See part i here and part ii here.



Next pasuk:

טו  וַיֹּאמֶר מָנוֹחַ, אֶל-מַלְאַךְ ה:  נַעְצְרָה-נָּא אוֹתָךְ, וְנַעֲשֶׂה לְפָנֶיךָ גְּדִי עִזִּים.

15 And Manoah said unto the angel of the LORD: 'I pray thee, let us detain thee, that we may make ready a kid for thee.'

The Malbim writes:

[יג, טו]
נעצרה נא אותך -באשר לא ידע אם הוא נביא או מלאך, אמר: אם נביא אתה - נעצרה אותך לסעוד אצלנו. 
ואם מלאך אתה - נעשה לפניך גדי עזים לקרבן:

'let us detain thee' -- since he did not know if he was a navi or a malach, he said 'if you are a navi', then נַעְצְרָה-נָּא אוֹתָךְ; and if you are a malach, then נַעֲשֶׂה לְפָנֶיךָ גְּדִי עִזִּים, as a sacrifice."

Earlier, I spoke of Malbim's multivalent approach -- taking the dispute among Rishonim as to whether it was a navi or an angel, and placing that ambiguity into the text itself. The alternative on this pasuk itself would be that they are offering him a meal of goat. But this is obvious, and need not even be said. The point is that this is a chiddush here, and a continuation of the ambiguity, from the Malbim.

I don't know whether they know at this point whether this is a man, an angel, or God. My strong guess would be that Manoach and his wife believe this is a navi, and this is not mere ambiguity, since Manoach said earlier (in pasuk 8), בִּי אֲדוֹנָי--אִישׁ הָאֱלֹהִים אֲשֶׁר שָׁלַחְתָּ, and so it is Hashem sending someone, and ish haelokim is perhaps to be contrasted with malach haelokim in 9 and 15. For a parallel, see Avraham with the malachim, and what nouns are used to describe them at various points. More on this in the next pasuk.

The next pasuk:

טז  וַיֹּאמֶר מַלְאַךְ ה אֶל-מָנוֹחַ, אִם-תַּעְצְרֵנִי לֹא-אֹכַל בְּלַחְמֶךָ, וְאִם-תַּעֲשֶׂה עֹלָה, לַה' תַּעֲלֶנָּה:  כִּי לֹא-יָדַע מָנוֹחַ, כִּי-מַלְאַךְ ה הוּא.

16 And the angel of the LORD said unto Manoah: 'Though thou detain me, I will not eat of thy bread; and if thou wilt make ready a burnt-offering, thou must offer it unto the LORD.' For Manoah knew not that he was the angel of the LORD.

The Malbim writes:

יג, טז] והשיב אם תעצרני לסעודה לא אוכל, ואם תעשה עולה לה' תעלנה כי זובח לאלהים יחרם בלתי לה' לבדו.ובאר כי מנוח נסתפק ולא ידע בברור שהוא מלאך ה'. ולכן הסתפק בדבריו אם יעצרהו לסעודה או יקריב קרבן.

"And he responds 'If you detain me' for a meal, 'I will not eat, and it you make a burnt offering, make it to Hashem'. For one who sacrifices to gods shall be utterly destroyed, except to Hashem alone. (Shemot 22:19) And it explains {J: at the end of the pasuk} that Manoach was in doubt and did not know for certain that this was a malach of Hashem. And therefore he was doubtful in his words, if he was going to detain him for a meal, or if he would sacrifice a sacrifice."

And thus, Malbim clarifies the lack of knowledge in pasuk 16 as uncertainty and ambiguity, rather than definite lack of knowledge. This is possible, but it is a slight stretch, I think.

Of course, if we don't say like the Malbim, then why the sudden mention of sacrifice? Unless, by default, a meal of meat (from a kid) meant a sacrifice. And / or, the idea was that they would sacrifice even to this man, who they did not know was a malach.

Alternatively, if he is saying 'don't thank me', the next obvious target would be the One who sent him. And that would be Hashem.

There is quite the difficulty here, in identifying just what it is Manoach does not know. Recall the three possibilities of what the malach is:

1. a regular man, sent by no one
2. a malach, in the sense of angel
3. a malach, in the sense of prophet (Ralbag)

If we say he was (2), then Manoach could have thought (1) or (3), but probably (3), given the ambiguity of Manoach's wife, etc. If we say he was really (3), then what did Manoach think he was?

I suppose we could say (1). It is slightly difficult to make out Radak, but I think that is what he means:

כי לא ידע -טעמו דבק עם נעצרה נא אותך.

"For he did not know -- its meaning is connected with 'let us detain thee'"

That is, since they thought he was a normal individual, rather than a prophet of Hashem, they sought to give him a meal. And Radak also gives a parsing of the pasuk, showing how to introduce the Olah.

ואם תעשה עולה -כלומר זה גדי עזים שאתה אומר שתעשה לפני, לא אוכל ממנו ואם תרצה אתה לעשות ממנו עולה תעשה. 

ובאמרו לה' – לפי שאותו הדור היו עושים הרע בעיני ה' והיו מעלים עולות לאלהים אחרים.

"And if you make an olah -- that is to say, this goat that you say you will make before me, I will not eat of it. And if you wish to make of it an olah, make it.


And when he said LaHashem: this is because that generation would do the evil in the eyes of Hashem, and they would offer burnt-offerings to other gods."

This brings me to related, quite interesting point -- the alternation between HaElokim and YKVK in this story. When in the mouths of Manoach and his wife, it is HaElohim, while in the mouth of the narrator, it is always YKVK.

In order to develop this point, I'm going to need to survey the entirety of the perek. But the focus should eventually return back here.

Thus, the narrator speaks at the beginning of the perek, and refers to YKVK:

ג  וַיֵּרָא מַלְאַךְ-ה, אֶל-הָאִשָּׁה; וַיֹּאמֶר אֵלֶיהָ, הִנֵּה-נָא אַתְּ-עֲקָרָה וְלֹא יָלַדְתְּ, וְהָרִית, וְיָלַדְתְּ בֵּן.

3 And the angel of the LORD appeared unto the woman, and said unto her: 'Behold now, thou art barren, and hast not borne; but thou shalt conceive, and bear a son.

and then, in the words of Manoach's wife:

ו  וַתָּבֹא הָאִשָּׁה, וַתֹּאמֶר לְאִישָׁהּ לֵאמֹר, אִישׁ הָאֱלֹהִים בָּא אֵלַי, וּמַרְאֵהוּ כְּמַרְאֵה מַלְאַךְ הָאֱלֹהִים נוֹרָא מְאֹד; וְלֹא שְׁאִלְתִּיהוּ אֵי-מִזֶּה הוּא, וְאֶת-שְׁמוֹ לֹא-הִגִּיד לִי.

6 Then the woman came and told her husband, saying: 'A man of God came unto me, and his countenance was like the countenance of the angel of God, very terrible; and I asked him not whence he was, neither told he me his name;

he is not (explicitly) a malach but an ish, and is of HaElohim, of "the Gods". And he might be a malach (messenger / probably angel), but of HaElohim.

Next:

ח  וַיֶּעְתַּר מָנוֹחַ אֶל-ה, וַיֹּאמַר:  בִּי אֲדוֹנָי--אִישׁ הָאֱלֹהִים אֲשֶׁר שָׁלַחְתָּ יָבוֹא-נָא עוֹד אֵלֵינוּ, וְיוֹרֵנוּ מַה-נַּעֲשֶׂה לַנַּעַר הַיּוּלָּד.

8 Then Manoah entreated the LORD, and said: 'Oh, LORD, I pray Thee, let the man of God whom Thou didst send come again unto us, and teach us what we shall do unto the child that shall be born.'

The narrator says El-Hashem. Manoach does not say YKVK (as other Biblical characters do when they address Hashem) but Manoach says Adonay, which is plural for My Lords. And he refers to the ish haElohim, man of the gods.

And, as a followup:

ט  וַיִּשְׁמַע הָאֱלֹהִים, בְּקוֹל מָנוֹחַ; וַיָּבֹא מַלְאַךְ הָאֱלֹהִים עוֹד אֶל-הָאִשָּׁה, וְהִיא יוֹשֶׁבֶת בַּשָּׂדֶה, וּמָנוֹחַ אִישָׁהּ, אֵין עִמָּהּ.

9 And God hearkened to the voice of Manoah; and the angel of God came again unto the woman as she sat in the field; but Manoah her husband was not with her.

Here, this is the narrator. And in both cases, it refers to HaElohim. This would provide a counter-example to the pattern I am trying to establish. We could read it as a chink in editorial emendation (see Shadal on YKVK in Bereshit despite ushmi Hashem lo nodati, as deliberate choice by Moshe), or written from the perspective of Manoach, given the setup in the prior pasuk. I think that even with this admitted exception, a general pattern emerges.

Next:

יג  וַיֹּאמֶר מַלְאַךְ ה, אֶל-מָנוֹחַ:  מִכֹּל אֲשֶׁר-אָמַרְתִּי אֶל-הָאִשָּׁה, תִּשָּׁמֵר.

13 And the angel of the LORD said unto Manoah: 'Of all that I said unto the woman let her beware.

This is the narrator, and so it is malach Hashem.

Next, a bunch of references to Hashem, from the narrator:

טז  וַיֹּאמֶר מַלְאַךְ ה אֶל-מָנוֹחַ, אִם-תַּעְצְרֵנִי לֹא-אֹכַל בְּלַחְמֶךָ, וְאִם-תַּעֲשֶׂה עֹלָה, לַה' תַּעֲלֶנָּה:  כִּי לֹא-יָדַע מָנוֹחַ, כִּי-מַלְאַךְ יְהוָה הוּא.	16 And the angel of the LORD said unto Manoah: 'Though thou detain me, I will not eat of thy bread; and if thou wilt make ready a burnt-offering, thou must offer it unto the LORD.' For Manoah knew not that he was the angel of the LORD.
יז  וַיֹּאמֶר מָנוֹחַ אֶל-מַלְאַךְ ה, מִי שְׁמֶךָ:  כִּי-יָבֹא דבריך (דְבָרְךָ), וְכִבַּדְנוּךָ.	17 And Manoah said unto the angel of the LORD: 'What is thy name, that when thy words come to pass we may do thee honour?'
יח  וַיֹּאמֶר לוֹ מַלְאַךְ ה, לָמָּה זֶּה תִּשְׁאַל לִשְׁמִי--וְהוּא-פֶלִאי.  {פ}	18 And the angel of the LORD said unto him: 'Wherefore askest thou after my name, seeing it is hidden?' {P}

And at this point, the malach has informed Manoach just whose messenger / angel he is, for he said to offer it as an olah to YKVK.

Therefore, when Manoach brings the sacrifice in the next pasuk:

יט  וַיִּקַּח מָנוֹחַ אֶת-גְּדִי הָעִזִּים, וְאֶת-הַמִּנְחָה, וַיַּעַל עַל-הַצּוּר, לַה'; וּמַפְלִא לַעֲשׂוֹת, וּמָנוֹחַ וְאִשְׁתּוֹ רֹאִים.

19 So Manoah took the kid with the meal-offering, and offered it upon the rock unto the LORD; and [the angel] did wondrously, and Manoah and his wife looked on.

he brings it to YKVK specifically. Next,

כ  וַיְהִי בַעֲלוֹת הַלַּהַב מֵעַל הַמִּזְבֵּחַ, הַשָּׁמַיְמָה, וַיַּעַל מַלְאַךְ-ה, בְּלַהַב הַמִּזְבֵּחַ; וּמָנוֹחַ וְאִשְׁתּוֹ רֹאִים, וַיִּפְּלוּ עַל-פְּנֵיהֶם אָרְצָה.	20 For it came to pass, when the flame went up toward heaven from off the altar, that the angel of the LORD ascended in the flame of the altar; and Manoah and his wife looked on; and they fell on their faces to the ground.
כא  וְלֹא-יָסַף עוֹד מַלְאַךְ ה, לְהֵרָאֹה אֶל-מָנוֹחַ וְאֶל-אִשְׁתּוֹ; אָז יָדַע מָנוֹחַ, כִּי-מַלְאַךְ ה הוּא.	21 But the angel of the LORD did no more appear to Manoah or to his wife. Then Manoah knew that he was the angel of the LORD.

These are all from the narrator. Though note the realization that Manoach had was that he was a malach YKVK.


Then,

כב  וַיֹּאמֶר מָנוֹחַ אֶל-אִשְׁתּוֹ, מוֹת נָמוּת:  כִּי אֱלֹהִים, רָאִינוּ.

22 And Manoah said unto his wife: 'We shall surely die, because we have seen God.'

This does not necessarily mean a reversion to a disbelief that it was an agent of YKVK. Elohim might encompass angels. Tehillim 82:6, for example:

ו  אֲנִי-אָמַרְתִּי, אֱלֹהִים אַתֶּם;    וּבְנֵי עֶלְיוֹן כֻּלְּכֶם.

6 I said: Ye are godlike beings, and all of you sons of the Most High.

Or, alternatively, for Manoach, a malach YKVK is a physical manifestation of Hashem on earth. So, seeing an angel means for him seeing Hashem. And YKVK is, for him, an instance of Elohim. So this is no contradiction.

Manoach's wife argues with him:

כג  וַתֹּאמֶר לוֹ אִשְׁתּוֹ, לוּ חָפֵץ ה לַהֲמִיתֵנוּ לֹא-לָקַח מִיָּדֵנוּ עֹלָה וּמִנְחָה, וְלֹא הֶרְאָנוּ, אֶת-כָּל-אֵלֶּה; וְכָעֵת, לֹא הִשְׁמִיעָנוּ כָּזֹאת.

23 But his wife said unto him: 'If the LORD were pleased to kill us, He would not have received a burnt-offering and a meal-offering at our hand, neither would He have shown us all these things, nor would at this time have told such things as these.'

The remainder of the chapter is from the narrator, and exclusively uses YKVK.

כד  וַתֵּלֶד הָאִשָּׁה בֵּן, וַתִּקְרָא אֶת-שְׁמוֹ שִׁמְשׁוֹן; וַיִּגְדַּל הַנַּעַר, וַיְבָרְכֵהוּ ה.	24 And the woman bore a son, and called his name Samson; and the child grew, and the LORD blessed him.
כה  וַתָּחֶל רוּחַ ה, לְפַעֲמוֹ בְּמַחֲנֵה-דָן, בֵּין צָרְעָה, וּבֵין אֶשְׁתָּאֹל.  {פ}	25 And the spirit of the LORD began to move him in Mahaneh-dan, between Zorah and Eshtaol. {P}

End of survey.

Thus, it seems likely to me that Manoach (and possibly his wife) were polytheists, and uncertain up to a point as to the sender of this malach. And that might just be what Manoach did not know. It certainly was part of what Manoach did not know. But given the followup of:

כא  וְלֹא-יָסַף עוֹד מַלְאַךְ ה, לְהֵרָאֹה אֶל-מָנוֹחַ וְאֶל-אִשְׁתּוֹ; אָז יָדַע מָנוֹחַ, כִּי-מַלְאַךְ ה הוּא.

21 But the angel of the LORD did no more appear to Manoah or to his wife. Then Manoah knew that he was the angel of the LORD.

I do think that angel vs. human was part of it. Even though one could stress either the malach or the Hashem part, or both of them.

Haftaras Naso pt ii -- Shimshon, and differences in the retelling

See part i here.

Continuing the story of Shimshon's birth, Hatzlilponi, Manoach's wife, relates to her husband just what the malach told her:

ז  וַיֹּאמֶר לִי, הִנָּךְ הָרָה וְיֹלַדְתְּ בֵּן; וְעַתָּה אַל-תִּשְׁתִּי יַיִן וְשֵׁכָר, וְאַל-תֹּאכְלִי כָּל-טֻמְאָה--כִּי-נְזִיר אֱלֹהִים יִהְיֶה הַנַּעַר, מִן-הַבֶּטֶן עַד-יוֹם מוֹתוֹ.  {פ}

7 but he said unto me: Behold, thou shalt conceive, and bear a son; and now drink no wine nor strong drink, and eat not any unclean thing; for the child shall be a Nazirite unto God from the womb to the day of his death.' {P}

This is slightly different from what, earlier in the story, the malach told her:

ג  וַיֵּרָא מַלְאַךְ-ה, אֶל-הָאִשָּׁה; וַיֹּאמֶר אֵלֶיהָ, הִנֵּה-נָא אַתְּ-עֲקָרָה וְלֹא יָלַדְתְּ, וְהָרִית, וְיָלַדְתְּ בֵּן.	3 And the angel of the LORD appeared unto the woman, and said unto her: 'Behold now, thou art barren, and hast not borne; but thou shalt conceive, and bear a son.
ד  וְעַתָּה הִשָּׁמְרִי נָא, וְאַל-תִּשְׁתִּי יַיִן וְשֵׁכָר; וְאַל-תֹּאכְלִי, כָּל-טָמֵא.	4 Now therefore beware, I pray thee, and drink no wine nor strong drink, and eat not any unclean thing.
ה  כִּי הִנָּךְ הָרָה וְיֹלַדְתְּ בֵּן, וּמוֹרָה לֹא-יַעֲלֶה עַל-רֹאשׁוֹ--כִּי-נְזִיר אֱלֹהִים יִהְיֶה הַנַּעַר, מִן-הַבָּטֶן; וְהוּא, יָחֵל לְהוֹשִׁיעַ אֶת-יִשְׂרָאֵל--מִיַּד פְּלִשְׁתִּים.	5 For, lo, thou shalt conceive, and bear a son; and no razor shall come upon his head; for the child shall be a Nazirite unto God from the womb; and he shall begin to save Israel out of the hand of the Philistines.'

Specifically, no mention is made of

1. her being barren
2. no razor passing over his head
3. his saving Israel out of the hand of the Philistines.

At the same time, there is added one detail:

1. that the boy will be a Nazir to the day of his death

Malbim writes:

[יג, ז]
ויאמר לי הנך הרה -ומ"ש לה את עקרה לא הגידה מפני השלום. (ויקרא רבה צו פט). ש
וכן לא ספרה מ"ש מורה לא יעלה על ראשו שזה נכלל במ"ש כי נזיר אלהים יהיה וכן לא אמרה מ"ש והוא יחל להושיע, כי אחר שהפלשתים משלו אז יראה פן יתודע הדבר ויהרגו את הנולד, והוסיפה עד יום מותו והמלאך לא אמר זה בפירוש כי ידע שלפני מותו יחלל נזירותו.

"And he said to me, behold you shall conceive -- and that which he said to her, 'you are barren', she did not relate, because of shalom. (Vayikra Rabba 91:89) And so did she not relate 'no razor shall come upon his head' because this is encompassed within 'for a Nazir unto God he shall be'. And so she did not relate that which was stated 'and he shall begin to save', for since the Philistines rules then, she feared lest the matter become known and they kill the child. And she added 'until the day of his death', which the malach did not state explicitly, for he knew that before his death, he would profane his Nezirut."

This is the Malbim reading the text rather closely, and so noting the slight distinctions between one telling and another. Another explanation might be that the Torah (and so too Nach) is a pauper in one place and a rich man in another. And so, since we are going to be exposed to this info twice, each one can gloss over details or add details.

The next pasuk:

ח  וַיֶּעְתַּר מָנוֹחַ אֶל-ה, וַיֹּאמַר:  בִּי אֲדוֹנָי--אִישׁ הָאֱלֹהִים אֲשֶׁר שָׁלַחְתָּ יָבוֹא-נָא עוֹד אֵלֵינוּ, וְיוֹרֵנוּ מַה-נַּעֲשֶׂה לַנַּעַר הַיּוּלָּד.

8 Then Manoah entreated the LORD, and said: 'Oh, LORD, I pray Thee, let the man of God whom Thou didst send come again unto us, and teach us what we shall do unto the child that shall be born.'

The Malbim writes:

[יג, ח]
ויורנו מה נעשה לנער היולד -רצה לומר שהמלאך לא באר רק הנהגת האשה ולא למד אותם הנהגת הילד (בפרט שהיא לא ספרה לו מ"ש מורה לא יעלה על ראשו) ולכן בקש שיבא שנית להורות הנהגת הילד בפרט שהיא נזירות חדשה (כי נזירות שמשון משונה בדיניו שמטמא למתים והכביד שערו אינו מקיל בתער).ש

"and teach us what we shall do unto the child that shall be born -- that is to say that the malach only explained the practices of the woman, and did not teach them the practices of the boy (specifically, since she did not relate to him that which was stated 'a razor shall not pass over his head.' And therefore he requested that he come a second time to teach the practices of the boy, specifically, for it was a novel sort of Nezirus. (For the nezirus of Shimshon is unique in its laws, in that he may become ritually impure to the dead, and one whose hair is heavy does not lighten it with a razor.)"

This is possible, and fits into the general structure Malbim established with the differences between the two retellings. Though the malach, when he returns, does not seem to address this at all! Rather, it is how Hatzlilponi should conduct herself. So we see later:

יד  מִכֹּל אֲשֶׁר-יֵצֵא מִגֶּפֶן הַיַּיִן לֹא תֹאכַל, וְיַיִן וְשֵׁכָר אַל-תֵּשְׁתְּ, וְכָל-טֻמְאָה, אַל-תֹּאכַל:  כֹּל אֲשֶׁר-צִוִּיתִיהָ, תִּשְׁמֹר.  {ס}

14 She may not eat of any thing that cometh of the grapevine, neither let her drink wine or strong drink, nor eat any unclean thing; all that I commanded her let her observe.' {S}

Maybe Manoach simply wants to hear it for himself, directly. And maybe he wants to determine the nature of this malach. Is he a navi, an angel, or a random crazy man. And so this is a test to see if Hashem will send the malach again, and a further investigation once the man arrives. Perhaps related, is the connection to parashat Naso that of Nazir, or also that of Sotah?

There is an interesting spelling in this pasuk, in מַה-נַּעֲשֶׂה לַנַּעַר הַיּוּלָּד. If there is a full shuruk, in a malei vav in הַיּוּלָּד, then we would not expect the dagesh chazak in the lamed. Only after short syllables, like a kubutz, should be in a closed syllable, formed by the dagesh chazak.

I would explain this as a krei and ketiv. The ketiv, which is malei vav, is actually the nifal. It is hayivaled. But this was interpreted as a pual, where the pual would have the kubutz. And so it is written with the dot in the center of the vav to indicate the pronunciation.

The next pesukim:

ט  וַיִּשְׁמַע הָאֱלֹהִים, בְּקוֹל מָנוֹחַ; וַיָּבֹא מַלְאַךְ הָאֱלֹהִים עוֹד אֶל-הָאִשָּׁה, וְהִיא יוֹשֶׁבֶת בַּשָּׂדֶה, וּמָנוֹחַ אִישָׁהּ, אֵין עִמָּהּ.	9 And God hearkened to the voice of Manoah; and the angel of God came again unto the woman as she sat in the field; but Manoah her husband was not with her.
י  וַתְּמַהֵר, הָאִשָּׁה, וַתָּרָץ, וַתַּגֵּד לְאִישָׁהּ; וַתֹּאמֶר אֵלָיו--הִנֵּה נִרְאָה אֵלַי הָאִישׁ, אֲשֶׁר-בָּא בַיּוֹם אֵלָי.	10 And the woman made haste, and ran, and told her husband, and said unto him: 'Behold, the man hath appeared unto me, that came unto me that day.'
יא  וַיָּקָם וַיֵּלֶךְ מָנוֹחַ, אַחֲרֵי אִשְׁתּוֹ; וַיָּבֹא, אֶל-הָאִישׁ, וַיֹּאמֶר לוֹ הַאַתָּה הָאִישׁ אֲשֶׁר-דִּבַּרְתָּ אֶל-הָאִשָּׁה, וַיֹּאמֶר אָנִי.	11 And Manoah arose, and went after his wife, and came to the man, and said unto him: 'Art thou the man that spokest unto the woman?' And he said: 'I am.'
יב  וַיֹּאמֶר מָנוֹחַ, עַתָּה יָבֹא דְבָרֶיךָ:  מַה-יִּהְיֶה מִשְׁפַּט-הַנַּעַר, וּמַעֲשֵׂהוּ.	12 And Manoah said: 'Now when thy word cometh to pass, what shall be the rule for the child, and what shall be done with him?'

Why again when she is alone in the field? And why does Manoach need to ask the malach whether he is the same who spoke to his wife earlier? I don't know, but these may be points to consider.

The Malbim writes:

[יג, יב]
עתה יבא דבריך מה יהיה משפט הנער -רצה לומר בפעם הראשון הגדת משפט האשה והנהגתה: עתה תורנו,
א) משפט הנער איך יתנהג,
ב) ומעשהו שאחר שיעדת אותו טרם נולד בודאי יעשה גדולות הודיענו מעשהו וגבורותיו.

"Now when thy word cometh to pass, what shall be the rule for the child -- the intent is to say, the first time you related the law of the woman and her conduct. Now, teach us:

1. the law of the child, how he shall conduct himself
2. and his actions, for after you have designated him before he was born, certainly he shall do great things. Inform us of his actions and his valorous acts."

This makes sense. The difficulties lie in the malach not explicitly saying anything to address this later, in fact only explicitly addressing the laws of the woman, and that he did address it earlier to the woman (though she did not explicitly relate this to her husband). The Malbim will address this next.

The Malbim does not want poetic repetition in mishpat and maaseihu, so one must be the laws pertaining to him and the other must be what he will do.

Next pesukim:

יג  וַיֹּאמֶר מַלְאַךְ ה, אֶל-מָנוֹחַ:  מִכֹּל אֲשֶׁר-אָמַרְתִּי אֶל-הָאִשָּׁה, תִּשָּׁמֵר.	13 And the angel of the LORD said unto Manoah: 'Of all that I said unto the woman let her beware.
יד  מִכֹּל אֲשֶׁר-יֵצֵא מִגֶּפֶן הַיַּיִן לֹא תֹאכַל, וְיַיִן וְשֵׁכָר אַל-תֵּשְׁתְּ, וְכָל-טֻמְאָה, אַל-תֹּאכַל:  כֹּל אֲשֶׁר-צִוִּיתִיהָ, תִּשְׁמֹר.  {ס}	14 She may not eat of any thing that cometh of the grapevine, neither let her drink wine or strong drink, nor eat any unclean thing; all that I commanded her let her observe.' {S}

The Malbim writes:

[יג, יג]
מכל אשר אמרתי אל האשה תשמר -רצה לומר זה דבר שאין צריך להודיע לך מה משפט הנער, כי תשאל מאת יודעי דת ודין ויורוך הלכות נזירותו (ולכן אמרו מנוח עם הארץ היה) ולא באתי רק להזהיר את האשה שזה דבר חדש.

והטעם שלא בא המלאך אל מנוח פי' מהרי"א: 

מפני שהיא היתה מוכנת יותר ממנו אל ראיית המלאך, ויש לומר מפני שנזירת שמשון אינו דבר הנידר ואינו בשאלה כי היה ע"י המלאך ואם היה ע"פ האב היה דבר הנידר כי האב מדיר את בנו בנזיר והיה דינו משונה.

"Of all that I said unto the woman let her beware -- The intent is that this matter is one which I need not inform you about, what the law of the child will be. For ask from those who know the religious law, and they will tell you the halachos of his Nezirus. (And therefore, they [=Chazal] say that Manoach was an Am HaAretz.) And I only am coming to warn the woman, for this is something new.


And the reason that the malach did not come to Manoach, the Abarbanel explains:

because she was prepared more than he was for seeing the malach. And there is to say that because the Nezirus of Shimshon is not something which can be vowed, and is not askable {to get out of it}, for it was via the malach. And had it been based on the father, it would have been something vowable, for the father may vow his son to be a nazir, and his law would be different."

Thus, according to Malbim, he wanted to know (and specifically asked) about the laws of the son, and the malach denied his query and only and explicitly answered by reiterating the laws for the woman.

This is certainly one way of handling it, but I cannot say that I am presently enamored with this resolution.

I would note that there is a further change from what was stated before, if one wanted to get technical about it. Here the malach says:

 מִכֹּל אֲשֶׁר-יֵצֵא מִגֶּפֶן הַיַּיִן לֹא תֹאכַל


and this was not stated earlier. The Malbim equated this with וְאַל-תֹּאכְלִי, כָּל-טָמֵא, yet here, in the very same pasuk, we find וְכָל-טֻמְאָה, אַל-תֹּאכַל.


My inclination, at the moment, is that Manoach inquired about all of this -- what the law is for the son, for the wife, and for Shimshon's actions. And indeed, the malach answered about all of this. But, since this is the third time repeating it, the narrative will only bother with a bare-bones rehash. The second retelling was also stripped down, but not to such an extent.


And perhaps the malach went into greater detail about all of this, than in previous times. And the purpose of the malach coming back was more of Manoach ascertaining that this was really a malach, and to find out more about this fellow. And the reason it is relevant to bother retelling us this is: due to the wonders which will soon come about, at the hand of the malach.

Haftarat Naso part i -- prophecy of Shimshon's conception and birth

Summary: Considering the haftara of parashat Naso, which is the story of Shimshon's miraculous birth. I present Malbim, and use his commentary as a jumping off point. In this first part, the malach's first communication.

Post: From Shofetim 13:

ב  וַיְהִי אִישׁ אֶחָד מִצָּרְעָה מִמִּשְׁפַּחַת הַדָּנִי, וּשְׁמוֹ מָנוֹחַ; וְאִשְׁתּוֹ עֲקָרָה, וְלֹא יָלָדָה.	2 And there was a certain man of Zorah, of the family of the Danites, whose name was Manoah; and his wife was barren, and bore not.
ג  וַיֵּרָא מַלְאַךְ-ה, אֶל-הָאִשָּׁה; וַיֹּאמֶר אֵלֶיהָ, הִנֵּה-נָא אַתְּ-עֲקָרָה וְלֹא יָלַדְתְּ, וְהָרִית, וְיָלַדְתְּ בֵּן.	3 And the angel of the LORD appeared unto the woman, and said unto her: 'Behold now, thou art barren, and hast not borne; but thou shalt conceive, and bear a son.

The Malbim writes:

[יג, ב]
עקרה ולא ילדה -כי יצוייר עקרה אשר כבר ילדה בטרם שנעשית עקרה גם יצוייר שלא ילדה מסבה אחרת, ולכן כפל דבריו.

"barren and bore not --  For it is possible a barren woman who has already given birth before she became barren, and it is also possible that she had not given birth due to some other reason {than barrenness}, and therefore it doubled its words."

The Malbim acts here true to form. While Radak, Ibn Ezra, etc., maintain that there is something called kefel inyan bemilim shonot, poetic repetition, Malbim disagrees. There are no absolute synonyms in Biblical Hebrew, and if there is repetition, it is to give additional shades of meaning.

Here, I would agree that it is present for some purpose. It is important to stress the miraculous nature of Shimshon's birth. It is not just Divine foreknowledge at play here, but Divine intervention in bringing about this miraculous birth. Thus, she is an akara. And that she had not bore yet is there in order to signal that this was about to end. It also is the perfect poetic setup for the contrast in pasuk 3. akara is contrasted with veharita, 'shalt conceive', and velo yaladt is contrasted with veyaladt. Indeed, akara means barren in that she cannot conceive, and yalada refers to the end product, giving birth. So it is repeated in the introduction as a setup for the reversal in the next pasuk.

The word יָלַדְתְּ should not be pronounced with a sheva na under the daled. If it were so, then there would be no dagesh kal in the tav, under the laws of beged kefet. So, it is v'yaladt as opposed to v'yalad't. This is rather difficult to pronounce because we pronounce every daled as a plosive. Pronounce it as they used to, as the /dh/ as is "either", and you will have no problem.

The next pasuk is:

ד  וְעַתָּה הִשָּׁמְרִי נָא, וְאַל-תִּשְׁתִּי יַיִן וְשֵׁכָר; וְאַל-תֹּאכְלִי, כָּל-טָמֵא.

4 Now therefore beware, I pray thee, and drink no wine nor strong drink, and eat not any unclean thing.

The Malbim writes further:

[יג, ד]
ועתה השמרי נא -מדברים הגורמים היזק בטבע לאשה הרה, וחוץ מזה אל תשתי וכו' ומ"ש כל טמא פי' דברים האסורים לנזיר.

"Now therefore beware -- From things which cause damage in their nature a pregnant woman. And aside from this, drink not etc., and that which is stated any unclean thing, the meaning is [J: eating] items which are forbidden to a Nazir."

The Malbim is conducting a close reading of the pasuk. Perhaps he is noticing the vav in וְאַל-תִּשְׁתִּי יַיִן. In this way, the 'beware' is an entirely separate matter from 'and drink no wine', as well as from 'and eat no unclean thing'.

I would disagree, on the level of peshat. The malach's instruction is first general: Now beware. And then goes into the specifics, which is the drinking and eating.

A difficulty in this pasuk is what eat no unclean thing means, and why other laws of the Nazir, such as becoming impure to dead bodies, or not eating grapes, grape skins, or grape seeds, are not mentioned. Is this ignorance / divergence from the Torah law of Nazir?! Furthermore, what are these unclean things? Wouldn't any righteous Israelite not eat traif food as a matter of course? The Malbim solves this by equating eating 'all that is impure' with those items which are forbidden to a Nazir to eat.

Though one can point to the idea that Shimshon's nezirus was already different in one regard, namely becoming ritually impure, and in another, that it was accepted on his behalf. So if there was an extra prohibition of eating tamei and an absent prohibition of eating grapes, grapeskins, and grapeseeds, then that is certainly acceptable.

In terms of eating tamei, it might refer to:

• impure species
• neveilos
• treifos
• chullin which had become impure under the conditions which would render terumah impure

While Shimshon and his mother were no kohanim -- Shimshon was from the tribe of Dan -- and thus would not be eating terumah, perhaps this extra law of tamei refers to Chullin.

Or perhaps it refers to eating treifos. How could this be? Well, recall that Chazal say that Manoach was an am ha'aretz. Perhaps we could also say that he was not ritually observant. See how he makes the shidduch between Shimshon and Philistine women. See how he might not know the laws of Nazir (see Malbim below.) See how he does not know what to make of seeing a malach or navi. See how Shimshon conducted himself. So while they may have been God-fearing, especially after seeing the wonders of the malach, that does not mean that they would not regularly eat treif.

Or maybe they darshened the pesukim differently in those days. Recall that the prohibition of eating treifa appears twice. Once in Sefer Shemot, perek 22 (Mishpatim):

ל  וְאַנְשֵׁי-קֹדֶשׁ, תִּהְיוּן לִי; וּבָשָׂר בַּשָּׂדֶה טְרֵפָה לֹא תֹאכֵלוּ, לַכֶּלֶב תַּשְׁלִכוּן אֹתוֹ.  {ס}

30 And ye shall be holy men unto Me; therefore ye shall not eat any flesh that is torn of beasts in the field; ye shall cast it to the dogs. {S}

where the addressees are the common Israelites. And once in Vayikra 22,

ח  נְבֵלָה וּטְרֵפָה לֹא יֹאכַל, לְטָמְאָה-בָהּ:  אֲנִי, ה.

8 That which dieth of itself, or is torn of beasts, he shall not eat to defile himself therewith: I am the LORD.

where from the context, it is targeted towards kohanim specifically. Perhaps this repetition was darshened at the time of Manoach to exclude the common Israelite, with the Leviim and specifically Kohanim taking the place of the Yisraelim, as they do in other matters of holiness.

If so, not eating traif would indeed be an innovation for Manoach's wife.

Sefer Shofetim continues:

ה  כִּי הִנָּךְ הָרָה וְיֹלַדְתְּ בֵּן, וּמוֹרָה לֹא-יַעֲלֶה עַל-רֹאשׁוֹ--כִּי-נְזִיר אֱלֹהִים יִהְיֶה הַנַּעַר, מִן-הַבָּטֶן; וְהוּא, יָחֵל לְהוֹשִׁיעַ אֶת-יִשְׂרָאֵל--מִיַּד פְּלִשְׁתִּים.

5 For, lo, thou shalt conceive, and bear a son; and no razor shall come upon his head; for the child shall be a Nazirite unto God from the womb; and he shall begin to save Israel out of the hand of the Philistines.'

The Malbim writes:

[יג, ה]
כי הנך הרה -דומה כאילו הנך הרה עתה עד שצריכה את להשמר תיכף. 

וחז"ל (מד"ר נשא) אמרו: 

שהיה שכבת זרע במעיה ברגע שדבר עמה המלאך קלטה, וזה שאמר תחלה והרית בעתיד ואח"כ אמר כי הנך הרה בזו הרגע ולכן אמר ויולדת בחולם, מורכב מן ההוה והעבר המהופך, שכבר הוכנה ללדת.

"For lo, thou shalt conceive -- It was as if, behold, she was conceiving right now, such that she needed to beware immediately. And Chazal (in Midrash Rabba on Naso) said:

that there was semen in her womb at the time, and at the moment that the malach spoke with her it took,

and this is what is stated at first וְהָרִית, in future tense, and afterwards said כִּי הִנָּךְ הָרָה, at that moment. And therefore it states וְיֹלַדְתְּ with a cholam [chaser by the vav],  grafted from the present-tense and the reversed past tense, for she was already prepared for giving birth."

Again, a close reading from the Malbim in support of a derasha. And even if we don't take the derasha absolutely literally, in tone the text is transmitting this message, such that is is "as if" she was now conceiving.

Are there other reasons one could give for this repetition of כִּי הִנָּךְ הָרָה וְיֹלַדְתְּ? Perhaps this is to stress the certitude of it, and also, as a bridge / introduction. For the text moved past the mother's required conduct when she was pregnant and forward into the future (where the hara will be completed, and the yoladt will be completed), such that a new set of rules will be necessary, for the child. Also, since the child shall be a Nazirite from the womb, it pays to recall the conception and birth once more.

Not many details are given as to Shimshon's required conduct. Just that he shall have no razor pass over his head. We might extrapolate about drinking wine, eating grapes, [not eating impure], no contact with a dead body [though this last apparently does not apply to Shimshon]. Why? For one halacha of Nazir was mentioned, and he was called a Nazir. But maybe we cannot extrapolate.

Next, in Shofetim:

ו  וַתָּבֹא הָאִשָּׁה, וַתֹּאמֶר לְאִישָׁהּ לֵאמֹר, אִישׁ הָאֱלֹהִים בָּא אֵלַי, וּמַרְאֵהוּ כְּמַרְאֵה מַלְאַךְ הָאֱלֹהִים נוֹרָא מְאֹד; וְלֹא שְׁאִלְתִּיהוּ אֵי-מִזֶּה הוּא, וְאֶת-שְׁמוֹ לֹא-הִגִּיד לִי.

6 Then the woman came and told her husband, saying: 'A man of God came unto me, and his countenance was like the countenance of the angel of God, very terrible; and I asked him not whence he was, neither told he me his name;

The Malbim writes:

[יג, ו]
איש האלהים בא אלי -כי היתה מסופקת אם הוא איש או מלאך, רצה לומר מצד היותו מלובש בחומר הוא איש האלהים ומצד יראתו הוא כמלאך וזה שאמר כמראה מלאך כו' מצד שהוא נורא מאד. 

ולא שאלתיהו אי מזה הוא כו' -כי היה המנהג לשאול על מקומו, והמשיב היה מגיד את שמו, כמו שאמר ויאמר לו מיכה מאין תבא ויאמר לוי אנכי.

"a man of God came unto me -- For she was in doubt whether he was man or angel. That is to say, by virtue of his being clothed in a body, he was a man of God, and by virtue of his awesomeness, he was like an angel {malach}. And this is what is stated כְּמַרְאֵה מַלְאַךְ, etc., by virtue of his being נוֹרָא מְאֹד.


and I asked him not whence he was -- for this was the custom to ask upon one's place [of origin], and the person would respond with his [?] name, just as is said {in Shofetim 17:9}:

ט  וַיֹּאמֶר-לוֹ מִיכָה, מֵאַיִן תָּבוֹא; וַיֹּאמֶר אֵלָיו לֵוִי אָנֹכִי, מִבֵּית לֶחֶם יְהוּדָה, וְאָנֹכִי הֹלֵךְ, לָגוּר בַּאֲשֶׁר אֶמְצָא.

9 And Micah said unto him: 'Whence comest thou?' And he said unto him: 'I am a Levite of Beth-lehem in Judah, and I go to sojourn where I may find a place.'

"

This is a wonderful multivalent approach by the Malbim. He knows the meforshim differ as to whether this is a malach in the sense of angel or a navi. For instance, the Ralbag insists it is a human navi, and indeed is Pinchas, for no prophecy would come to two people together. Thus:

[יג, יא-טז] והנה זה המלאך שדבר אל מנוח ואל אשתו היה נביא בהכרח כי אין מדרך הנבואה שתהיה יחד לשנים בזה האופן, הנזכר בזה המקום, והנה אחשוב שזה הנביא היה פנחס. והנה לא רצה לאכול מגדי העזים, כמו שלא רצה לאכול מהבשר והמצות שהביא אל פניו גדעון, כדי לישב יותר בלב מנוח ואשתו כי הוא מלאך ה', כדי שיהיו נזהרים מכל מה שאמר להם. 

Though the standard interpretation is a malach as heavenly angel. And each has textual evidence. Malbim reads this ambiguity back into the text, such that the deliberate ambiguity reflects the uncertainty of Manoach and his wife.

Malbim also deals with the divergence between her related non-asked question and his related non-response. That is, she does not ask אֵי-מִזֶּה הוּא, and he did not relate to her אֶת-שְׁמוֹ. The resolution is to make this into a custom.

I am not sure if the cut off quote from later in Shofetim is deliberate. Michah said to him 'whence comest thou?' and the man indeed responded 'Levi I am', though that is not his name but his tribal identity. And the answer is in the uncited continuation, 'of Beth-lehem in Judah'.

Perhaps et shemo means the name of the place. And perhaps that was even what Malbim meant. Or perhaps the idea is simply that this man is untraceable, such that if Manoach wants to ask the man/angel further questions, he would be unable to. For they don't have his name nor his location. And she neither thought to ask, in shock, as to either of these pieces of information, nor did the man / angel supply any of this sort of information. And the two actors (Manoach's wife and the malach) and the two bits of information are not strictly joined to one another, but perhaps function as a sort of hendiadys.

Perhaps to be continued...

The Karaites and Naturally Occurring Manna

An anonymous commenter here pointed to the following question at mi.yodeya and suggested I could help out.

The Malbim Makes reference from other Meforshim to a Karite, who says that Maan is a Natural phenomenon. Does this phenomenon still exist? Does anyone know what it is called in English? any articles would be appreciated?

Here is what I wrote there, with some addition edits and points:


I don't know about Karaites, but see this post at RationalistJudaism that this was the position of Rambam, as well as that of some Yemenite midrashim:

"Rambam seems to have shared the view found in certain Yemenite Midrashic texts (and see too Ibn Ezra to Shemos 16:13), that manna is essentially a naturally-occurring substance. It was miraculous in it occurring with unnatural properties (according to the Epistle Against Galen) and with constantly fortuitous timing (according to the Guide). (See the extract from Rabbi Nataniel ben Yeshayah, Nûr al-Zalâm, written in 1329, published in Y. Tzvi Langermann, Yemenite Midrash: Philosophical Commentaries on the Torah, pp. 216-217.)"

He also links there to a NY Times article about a similar naturally occurring phenomenon:

Also, to Ibn Ezra who rejects someone who suggests that it is natural:

 ירקב שם חוי שאמר: כי המן הוא הנקרא בלשון פרסי תרנגבי"ן ובלשון ערבי מ"ן ובלשון לע"ז מנ"א. כי קושיות רבות עמדו עליו. האחת כי איננו יורד היום במדבר סיני כי ההר ידוע ואני ראיתי זה הדומה למן במלכות אלצכי"ר. והוא יורד בניסן ובאייר ולא בחדשים אחרים. ועוד: אם תשימהו לשמש לא ימס. ועוד: כי בלילה לא יבאש. ועוד: כי איננו חזק ואין צורך שידוכנו אדם במדוכה, שיעשה ממנו עוגות. ועוד: כאשר יושם בלשון יומס. ועוד: כי איננו משביע שיוליד דם טוב, רק הוא נכנס ברפואות. ועוד: כי ביום השישי היה יורד משנה. ועוד: כי לא היה יורד בשבת. ועוד: כי ירד לכל מקום שיחנו. ועוד: כי עבר עימהם את הירדן, ולא שבת עד חצי ניסן על דרך הפשט.

Note that Ibn Ezra says ירקב שם חוי, may the name of Chivi rot. This would appear to be a reference to Chivi al Balchi. According to Wikipedia, scholars think he was either a Jew or a Gnostic Christian. Further, even Karaites opposed Chivi as a heretic. To cite Wikipedia:

Hiwi was the author of a work in which he offered two hundred objections to the divine origin of the Bible.^[1] Ḥiwi's critical views were widely read, and it is said that his contemporarySaadia Gaon found in Babylonia, in the district of Sura, some school-masters who, in teaching children, used elementary text-books which were based upon Ḥiwi's criticisms.^[2] Saadia not only prohibited the use of these books, but combated Ḥiwi's arguments in a work entitled Kitab al-Rudd ala Ḥiwi al-Balkhi.^[3] Both Saadia's and Ḥiwi's books are lost.

Ḥiwi's book seems to have been one of the most important contributions to skeptical Jewish literature. Only a few of his objections are preserved, in quotations by other authors. In this way it became known that Ḥiwi raised the question why God preferred to live among unclean mankind instead of living among the clean angels (Judah ben Barzillai), and why He required sacrifices and showbread if He did not eat them, and candles when He did not need light.^[4] Another objection of his was based on the claim that God broke a promise which He had made under oath.^[5] All these objections are preserved in Saadia's Kitab al-Amanat^[6], among twelve other objections of a similar kind, most of which are supposed to have originated with Ḥiwi. They point out several discrepancies in the Scriptures, and infer therefrom a non-divine authorship. Ḥiwi even objected to the teaching of the unity of God, and referred toDeuteronomy xxxii. 9. In this case, as in several others, Saadia combats Ḥiwi without mentioning his name.

Some others of Ḥiwi's views are preserved in Ibn Ezra's commentary on the Pentateuch. The passing of the Israelites through the Red Sea Ḥiwi explained by the natural phenomenon of the ebb-tide; and the words "the skin of his [Moses'] face shone" ("ḳaran," literally, "cast horns" or "rays"; Exodus xxxiv. 29) he explained as referring to the dryness of his skin in consequence of long fasting (see Ibn Ezra on the passage in Exodus). Ḥiwi further inquired why manna from heaven no longer descends in the desert of Sinai as it is said to have done in olden times (Ibn Ezra to Ex. xvi. 13).

These few instances of Ḥiwi's criticisms are sufficient to show his skeptical and irreverent spirit, the cause of which D. Kaufmann traced back to anti-Jewish polemical Pahlavi literature.^[7]Rosenthal (1948) also indicates that all of these Biblical difficulties can be traced to Manichaean dualist views. Karaites and Rabbinites agreed in denouncing Ḥiwi as a heretic. His real surname, "Al-Balkhi," is correctly preserved in one instance only; in all others it is changed into "Al-Kalbi" (אל-כלבי = "the dog-like").

If some Karaite said it, I assume Ibn Ezra would have known who said it and been able to name him. Rather he gives this Chivi character as saying it, as well as those who follow after him. (See here, in this longer version of Ibn Ezra, where he refers to "Chivi haPoshea vechol hazonin acharav").

Perhaps Malbim was aware that this was actually a Karaite, or else falsely inferred that the fellow was a Karaite because Ibn Ezra opposed him, and Ibn Ezra often opposed Karaites.

I've looked at a Karaite peirush myself (namely, Aharon ben Yosef) and don't see any mention or endorsement of this idea.

By the way, here is the Malbim on the Torah, but I am not sure where, precisely, he refers to this rejected position.