The Targum on Yevarechecha

In Naso, in my Mikraos Gedolos, I noticed the following discrepancy between the Targum Onkelos and the Targum (Pseudo-) Yonatan on three famous pesukim in Naso. The Targum Onkelos reads:

That is, it is a translation into Aramaic. Meanwhile, the Targum Yonatan reads:

having first the Biblical Hebrew and only afterwards an expansive Targum into Aramaic.

Looking to Shadal in Ohev Ger, we get a clue as to what is going on:

247. יְבָרֶכְךָ, יָאֵר, יִשָּׂא, these three pesukim do not have Targum (מא”ד, and Savyonita). And so is correct according to the halacha, that Birkat Kohanim is read and not translated. Also, the author of the sefer יא”ר, even though he writes at length about the Targum of אָמוֹר לָהֶם [which are the words immediately preceding יְבָרֶכְךָ], writes not a matter or half a matter regarding Birkat Kohanim. It appears from his silence that his girsa was without a Targum on it.

So while my Mikraos Gedolos had a Targum Onkelos on these pesukim, dfus Savyonita does not. This Chumash with Onkelos, which Shadal often refers to, has the nice feature of trup on the Targum Onkelos. Here is what appears there. The Chumash:

and the Targum, on the facing page:

At Mechon Mamre as well, they note that in the early Yemenite manuscripts, there is no Targum on these three pesukim, even as they give one:

ו,כג דַּבֵּר אֶל-אַהֲרֹן וְאֶל-בָּנָיו לֵאמֹר, כֹּה תְבָרְכוּ אֶת-בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל:  אָמוֹר, לָהֶם.  {ס}	מַלֵּיל עִם אַהֲרוֹן וְעִם בְּנוֹהִי לְמֵימַר, כְּדֵין תְּבָרְכוּן יָת בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל:  כַּד תֵּימְרוּן, לְהוֹן.  {ס}  (בכתבי יד תימן עתיקים אין ברכת כוהנים בתרגום אונקלוס:
ו,כד יְבָרֶכְךָ יְהוָה, וְיִשְׁמְרֶךָ.  {ס}	יְבָרְכִנָּךְ יְיָ, וְיִטְּרִנָּךְ.  {ס}
ו,כה יָאֵר יְהוָה פָּנָיו אֵלֶיךָ, וִיחֻנֶּךָּ.  {ס}	יַנְהַר יְיָ שְׁכִינְתֵיהּ לְוָתָךְ, וִירַחֵים יָתָךְ.  {ס}
ו,כו יִשָּׂא יְהוָה פָּנָיו אֵלֶיךָ, וְיָשֵׂם לְךָ שָׁלוֹם.  {ס}	יִסַּב יְיָ אַפּוֹהִי לְוָתָךְ, וִישַׁוֵּי לָךְ שְׁלָם.  {ס}  )

Interesting that Targum Yonatan has both the Hebrew and the Aramaic, thus also fulfilling having and not having a Targum. If Targum Yonatan was ever read aloud in shul as the Targum, this would make sense.

What does Shadal mean that Bikrat Kohanim is read but not translated? This is a reference to Megillah 25b:

ברכת כהנים נקרין ולא מתרגמין מ"ט משום דכתיב (במדבר ו, כו) ישא:

There is an interesting contrast to what seems to be the text of the Mishna (on the previous amud) there, that it isn’t read either:

מתני' מעשה ראובן נקרא ולא מתרגם מעשה תמר נקרא ומתרגם מעשה עגל הראשון נקרא ומתרגם והשני נקרא ולא מתרגם ברכת כהנים מעשה דוד ואמנון נקראין ולא מתרגמין אין מפטירין במרכבה ורבי יהודה מתיר ר' אליעזר אומר אין מפטירין (יחזקאל טז, ב) בהודע את ירושלם:

See Dikdukei Soferim on this:

As well as this interesting discussion in Hebrew Wikipedia:

במשנה במסכת מגילה נאמר שברכת כהנים אינה נקראת בקריאת התורה. אמירה זאת נחשבה תמוהה והביאה לפירושים רבים. על פי התלמוד, הכוונה היא שלא מתרגמים את פסוקי ברכת כהנים לארמית בעת הקריאה בציבור. על פי פירושו של חנוך אלבק, בעת קריאת התורה, היה הקורא מפסיק לקרוא והכהנים היו עומדים ומברכים את העם במקומו. יוסף היינמן כתב שאמירה זאת לא כוונה לקריאה בתורה אלא לכך שבעת קיום נשיאת כפיים הכהנים הורשו לומר את הפסוקים בעל פה. רחמים שר שלום[9] טוען שהאיסור על קריאת ברכת כהנים התקיים בעת שהקריאה בתורה לא נעשתה על הסדר, ונועדה למנוע מצב בו כולם קוראים את ברכת כהנים בגלל הפופולריות של הפסוקים.

Posts so far for parshat Naso

2013

1. Kehas and Gershon get a Vaydaber. Merari does not. Or HaChaim explains it as a special elevation to Gershon. I explain it as due to the interjection at the end of the instruction for Kehas.

2. May the Sotah take the bitter waters intravenously? I was in a bit of a fun mood, so I posted the following question (and subsequent answer) at Mi Yodea. Deleted, under the purim torah policy. :(

2012

1. Did Chazal know the meaning of Hebrew words? Given a Tannaitic dispute about the respective meaning of chartzan and zag, some Protestant scholar says no. Shadal says yes, and explains how something so basic can be a matter of dispute. Also, that Targum Onkelos is merely attributed to Onkelos.

2. YUTorah on Naso

3.  Naso sources, 2012 edition.

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

5. Haftaras Naso part two, about the differences in the retelling of the story of the malach.

6. And part three, about the making of the goat for the malach.

2011

1. Naso sources -- further expanded. For example, many more meforshei Rashi.
   .
2. Impure to the bone? Part ii. Continuing a topic from last year on parshat Naso, about whether לטמי means bone or impure, and whether דאינשא should be present.
   .
3. YU Torah on parashat Naso.
   .
4. How shall we pronounce the first וּבָאוּ in parashat Naso?  Is it mile'eil or mi'le-ra? I weigh in, considering the meaning of Minchas Shai.
   .
5. An explanation for that cryptic Minchas Shai on ובאו --  If marking a telisha on the place of stress is so rare, why does Minchas Shai note its absence? This on Naso.

2010

1. Naso sources -- revamped, with more than 100 meforshim on the parasha and haftara.
   a
2. If a man does not have a redeemer -- Why is Rashi inconsistent in his explanation of this phrase, between Naso and Behar?
   a
3. Sotah, and Identical Twin Sisters -- A statement about identical twin sisters, one of whom is a Sotah, seems oddly out of place. It is a taus sofer, as several meforshei Rashi explain? This is quite plausible. On the other hand, I give a reason why it might well not be, at least not in its entirety.
   a
4. Impure to the bone, or just Impure? Rashi explains Onkelos, who deviates from his usual manner and explains tamei lenefesh as tamei to the bones of a dead person. This sort of expansion is quite irregular. But maybe Rashi isn't really saying this. And even if Rashi says this, this may not be what Onkelos says, or what Onkelos means, as Shadal explains.
   .
5. Ibn Kaspi and the (poisonous?) bitter waters -- Ibn Kaspi, perhaps, sheds light on the Ibn Ezra I discussed last year, that the kohen put poisonous bitter herbs into the water.

2009

1. Naso sources -- links by aliyah and perek to an online Mikraos Gedolos, and links to many meforshim on the parshah and haftarah.
   .
2. Thanks, DovBear, for the link and discussion! Check out this post and the comment section there, all about 2008's post on The Nature of the "Bitter" Waters. What precisely in Ibn Ezra's comment make Shadal and Avi Ezer draw their conclusions about Ibn Ezra's intent?
   .
3. As a followup to the above, in "Poisonous Sota Water?!", I carefully translate and parse Ibn Ezra and Avi Ezer, in an attempt to demonstrate exactly what Shadal saw in Ibn Ezra. Then, I relate another supercommentary on Ibn Ezra, namely Mechokekei Yehudah, and show how he says more or less the same thing -- that the kohen puts a potentially harmful agent in the water -- while disagreeing with Shadal's take on Ibn Ezra that it was always fatal and up to the kohen to decide whether to put it in.
   .
4. Then, as an additional followup, some more takes on Ibn Ezra's "sod" of the bitter waters (or waters of bitter substances), from another Ibn Ezra supercommentator, from a Karaite, and from Torah Temimah.
   .
5. The bitter waters operating with gender equality -- Baal Haturim's supplemental support to a midrash of it affecting both adulteress and adulterer, and whether the gematria is really the mechanism of derivation here.
   .
6. Amen | Amen; is the pasek meaningful as the Baal Haturim takes it, or is it something almost mechanical as a result of the duplication, which was anyway the source for the midrashic conclusion?
   .
7. Yaer Hashem as a revival of Yitzchak? The Baal Haturim connects this part of the famous priestly blessing to a midrash in Pirkei DeRabbi Eliezer which has Yitzchak actually die at the akeida only to be resurrected.
   .
8. In the haftarah, questions about chronology. At what point were Shimshon's parents told about his birth? Was it during the forty year subjugation under the Philistines, or before it? And how the "missing" first pasuk might help resolve this.
   a
9. How can you have a nazir who runs after women? Ralbag resolves this by relating the two, that this is supposed to offset and restrict Shimshon's nature.
   a
10. Who spoke to Manoach and his wife? An angel or prophet? Ralbag interprets this as prophet, in a way that can have repercussions across Tanach.
    a
11. How is the birth of Shimshon connected to parashat Naso? Besides the obvious nazir connection. That Manoach did not suspect his wife of adultery.

2008

1. The trup on umichsei hatachash
• may be reversed. Trup charts and discussion to illustrate.
2. Ufkudav -- As Hashem Commanded Moshe
• Understanding Rashi on this pasuk, which may involve getting the correct girsa of Rashi. And an analysis of Sifsei Chachamim's analysis.
3. Venistera, And She Is Defiled
• Is this saying that she was secretly defiled? That there was a separate action of seclusion?
4. The meaning of "And She Was Not Seized"
• Does this refer to rape? Or to her being caught in the act? If the latter, by whom? By witnesses or by her husband?
5. The Nature of the "Bitter" Waters
• Were they merely bitter in (potential) effect? Or were they physically bitter? Or were they poisonous? And if poisonous, was this due to trickery of the kohen who made a private determination that she was guilty -- thus eliminating any Divine role in any of this? Is this similar to trickery in how the ketores saved the people in the mageifa? How will Avi Ezer try to save Ibn Ezra from this heresy? How will Shadal reject this Ibn Ezra as a matter of peshat?
6. The bitter waters of Sotah as a selective abortive agent for bastards
• a weird theory, I grant you, but read it to see if it makes any sense
7. "Sitting" in Taanis, and Critiquing Homiletic Divrei Torah
• In which I critique a homiletic interpretation of a gemara relating to nazir, then discuss whether it is legitimate to critique homily. Finally, I find a version of the devar Torah, attributed to the same source, which better (though not entirely) accords with the shakla veTarya of the gemara.
• As a quick followup, the Seforno on the relevant pasuk in Naso.
8. The segol of Pera
• Understanding Rashi's grammatical point that the segol in the word pera is only there because it is the construct form. Even in absolute form it would remain the same. Shadal notes a variant girsa of Rashi which has him potentially referring to the patach, but even so, Rashi is not correct. I suggest that Rashi differs as to the pattern in play, and is working off the form as it appears in Aramaic, in Targum Onkelos.
9. HaMearerim as Accursed, Causing Curse, or Something Else
• A discussion of what Rashi means in his assessment of the word -- prickly rather than causing curse (the latter is Onkelos); then as it occurs in the Samaritan Targum and in Targum Pseudo-Yonatan, discerning.

2007

• A midrash, and my expansion, on why converts are great. And I link it to Shavuot.

2006

• Naso roundup from other blogs

2005

• Healed at Sinai (Naso/Shavuot)
• A midrash that all were healed in order to receive the Torah. We look at the derivations, then suggest a vector for the genesis and development of the midrash.
• Na Only Connotes Please
• cross-listed from Behaalotecha. We consider the meaning of X only connotes Y, and cite in part a midrash in Bamidbar Rabba about Shimshon.

2004

• A Hair-Raising Experience
• eh. I tried to make a link from a nazir's consecrated hair, burned on the altar, with the Indian hair wigs.
• Count
• C++ code to count the sons of Gershon.

to be continued...

May the Sotah take the bitter waters intravenously?

I was in a bit of a fun mood, so I posted the following question (and subsequent answer) at Mi Yodea:

May the Sotah take the bitter waters intravenously?

In Naso, we read (Bamidbar 5:32) that the kohen blots out the curses (which include Hashem's name) in the bitter waters and then gives for the woman to drink (5:24).

What if the woman is unable to swallow the waters due to their bitterness? Could she instead take it as an intravenous injection? Or do we insist that she swallow it?

After a few hours, I posted this response:

This is actually something explicitly prohibited by one of the Aseres Hadibros, namely commandment #3.

Devarim 5:10 states לֹא תִשָּׂא אֶת-שֵׁם-ה אֱלֹקֶיךָ לַשָּׁוְא, "Thou shalt not take the name of the Hashem your God in vein."

Alas, the answer was deleted as per their Purim Torah policy. It took a few hours, though, and first attracted a few answers. Poe's Law in action, I suppose. There are plenty of questions of this sort on the site, asked entirely earnestly. Right now the question still stands, as if I thought the question was really a good question.

Kehas and Gershon get a Vaydaber. Merari does not.

Summary: Or HaChaim explains it as a special elevation to Gershon. I explain it as due to the interjection at the end of the instruction for Kehas.

Post: Here is Or HaChaim on the first pasuk of parshas Naso:

The point he makes is that there is a separate dibbur for introducing the count of Gershon. That is, we have here a count of the families of the three sons of Levi.

Kehas is in parshas Bamidbar, in Bamidbar 4:1

:

And Gershon is in the beginning of parshas Naso, in Bamidbar 4:21:

And the count for Merari is a bit later, in Bamidbar 4:29.

The three are obviously a set, so why do Kehas and Gershon merit a separate dibbur while Merari does not?

Or HaChaim explains as follows:

“It is necessary to say Vaydaber a second time, and it is not sufficient with what was stated Vaydaber Hashem in the preceding counting of the children of Kehas in parshas Bamidbar because it [the count of Gershon] comes to say another matter besides the count, and this is that they should lift up and elevate them over the children of Merari. And this matter is a thing in and of itself, for this ‘Nesius’ is not in the same domain as the ‘Nesius’ of the children of Kehas, who were the carriers (‘Nosei’) of the Aron. For this reason, a separate dibbur was established for him. And therefore, when he commanded the counting of the children of Merari, he said ‘the children of Merari… you shall count’ [Josh:  but it does not say the word נשא like it does for the other brothers], it does not establish a dibbur by itself, for they have no ascendancy, but only a count, from that which it says Tifkod and not Tisa.”

In other words, there is a secondary meaning to the word נשא. It refers to an elevation rather than a count. And so we neatly explain why there is a special dibbur for Gershon at the same time that we explain the change in language by Merari.

I would explain the difference in a different way. The reason for the repetition of Vaydaber has nothing to do with Gershon, who was counted second, but with Kehas, who was counted first. Look at the full perek here to see the structure of the perek.

The structure is:

1. Vaydaber
2. Count Kehas
3. Duties of Kehas
4. Interjection (4: 17-20): Vaydaber: Kehas might die, Aharon and his sons should take these steps to prevent.
5. Vaydaber
6. Count Gershon also
7. Duties of Gershon
8. Count Merari
9. Duties of Merari

The big change is in [IV] the interjection at the very end of parshas Bamidbar.

That this interjection requires a Vaydaber should indicate to us that this is indeed an interjection, and a change of topic. If so, then naturally we need a Vaydaber (and a gam hem) to return us to the initial topic.

However, there is no such interjection at the end of Gershon. And so we can go straight to Merari, without an introductory Vaydaber.

Or HaChaim further comments as follows:

"To Moshe: And there [before, by Kehas at the end of parshas Bamidbar] it states [the Moshe] and to Aharon. This because there the command comes to Aharon in order that he perform the seder which is stated in the matter of the burden of the children of Kehas, for it is written 

וְשָׂמוּ אוֹתָם אִישׁ אִישׁ עַל-עֲבֹדָתוֹ, וְאֶל-מַשָּׂאוֹ. that they not die. Therefore it stated 'and to Aharon', while there is no necessity for this for the burden of the children of Aharon."

See above for the Vaydabers for Kehas and Gershon, to see one say "El Moshe veEl Aharon" and the other say "El Moshe". This explanation is plausible.

However, note that the command of vesamu osam has its own Vaydaber, directed to Moshe and Aharon. So why for the counting part and designation of duties part alone should Aharon be included? Perhaps because otherwise the separate instruction to Aharon would not make as much sense.

I would suggest an alternate explanation, that really even the second Vaydaber was to both Moshe and Aharon. But since the function of this is to recover from the interjection, a minimal Vaydaber will suffice.

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.