Exegetical and Hermeneutical Commentary of Exodus 9:32
But the wheat and the rye were not smitten: for they [were] not grown up.
32. spelt ] ‘bread made from spelt is frequently found in Egyptian tombs’ (Lepsius, in a private letter to Dillmann). ‘Spelt’ (Isa 28:25, Eze 4:9 ) is a cereal closely allied to wheat, which it much resembles ( NHB. 479; and, with fuller particulars, EB. ii. 1532). LXX. ; Aq. Sym. .
were not grown up ] are late (see Ges. Thes. p. 137); i.e. are habitually late in coming up: as stated above, they are about a month later than flax and barley.
Fuente: The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges
Verse 32. But the wheat and the rye were not smitten] Wheat, chittah, which Mr. Parkhurst thinks should be derived from the Chaldee and Samaritan chati, which signifies tender, delicious, delicate, because of the superiority of its flavour, c., to every other kind of grain. But this term in Scripture appears to mean any kind of bread-corn. Rye, cussemeth, from casam, to have long hair and hence, though the particular species is not known, the word must mean some bearded grain. The Septuagint call it , the Vulgate for, and Aquila , which signify the grain called spelt; and some suppose that rice is meant.
Mr. Harmer, referring to the double harvest in Egypt mentioned by Dr. Pocock, says that the circumstance of the wheat and the rye being aphiloth, dark or hidden, as the margin renders it, (i.e., they were sown, but not grown up), shows that it was the Indian wheat or surgo rosso mentioned Ex 9:31, which, with the rye, escaped, while the barley and flax were smitten because they were at or nearly at a state of maturity. See Harmer’s Obs., vol. iv., p. 11, edit 1808. But what is intended by the words in the Hebrew text we cannot positively say, as there is a great variety of opinions on this subject, both among the versions and the commentators. The Anglo-Saxon translator, probably from not knowing the meaning of the words, omits the whole verse.
Fuente: Adam Clarke’s Commentary and Critical Notes on the Bible
The Hebrew word may be rendered either dark or hid, to wit, under the ground, whereby it was secured from this stroke; or late, as divers of the Hebrews and other interpreters render it. This kind of corn coming later up, was now tender and hidden, either in the ground or in the herb; whereby it was in some measure secured both from the fire by its greenness and moisture, and from the hail by its pliableness and yielding to it, whereas the stalks of barley were more dry and stiff, and therefore more liable to the hail and fire.
Fuente: English Annotations on the Holy Bible by Matthew Poole
But the wheat and the rye were not smitten,…. Bruised, broken, beat down, and destroyed by hail: the word by us rendered “rye”, and by other “fitches” or “spelt”, is thought by Dr. Shaw q to be “rice”, of which there were and still are plantations in Egypt; whereas rye is little, if at all known in those countries, and besides is of the quickest growth; and he observes that rice was the “olyra” of the ancient Egyptians, by which word the Septuagint render the Hebrew word here; and from Pliny r we learn, that “olyra”, and “oryza”, or rice, are the same, and which with the Greeks is “zea”, by which some translate the word here:
for they were not grown up; and so their leaves, as the same traveller observes, were at that time of so soft and yielding a nature, that the hail by meeting with no resistance, as from the flax and barley, did them no harm; and so the Septuagint and Vulgate Latin versions render it: “they were late”; and so the Targum of Jonathan and Jarchi interpret it: for the wheat harvest with the Jews, and so with the Egyptians, was later than the barley harvest, there being about a month’s difference between them: some render the word “dark or hidden” s because, as Aben Ezra says, they were now under ground; and if this was the case, indeed the reason is clear why they were not smitten; but this was not the case, for, according to Pliny t, there was but one month’s difference in Egypt between the barley and the wheat; but rather they are said to be so, because the ear was as yet hid, and was not come forth; it just began to spindle, or, as the above traveller explains it, they were of a dark green colour, as young corn generally is, as contradistinction to its being of a bright yellow or golden colour, when it is ripe; for, adds he, the context supposes the wheat and the rice not only to have been sown, but to have been likewise in some forwardness, as they well might be in the month of Abib, answering to our March.
q Travels, tom. 2. c. 2. sect. 5. p. 407. Ed. 2. r Nat. Hist. l. 18. c. 7. 9. s “caliginosa”, Montanus, Vatablus; “latuerant”, Tigurine version; “latentia”, Junius & Tremellius, Piscator, Drusius. t Ut supra. (Nat. Hist. l. 18. c. 7. 9.)
Fuente: John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible
(32) The wheat and the rie.Rie, or rye, is a wrong translation. It is a grain which has never been grown in Egypt. The only three kinds of grain cultivated were wheat, barley, and the holcus sorghum, or doora. There is no doubt that this last is intended by the Hebrew cussemeth, which is a word derived from the Egyptian. The wheat is a full month later than the barley in Egypt, and does not come into ear till March. The holcus sorghum may be grown at any time, except during the inundation. If sown with the wheat, it would ripen about the same period.
They were not grown up.Heb., they were late, or dark. The ear was undeveloped, and lay hid in the low tufts that grew like grass.
Fuente: Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers (Old and New Testaments)
Exo 9:32. For they were not grown up Margin of our Bibleswere hidden or dark. Bochart reads it, for they were not yet eared. Parkhurst, from Fuller, upon the word [] apel, observes, that hidden, its true meaning, here signifies concealed, or involved in the hose or blade: for Pliny informs us, that, in Egypt, barley is cut in the sixth month after sowing, bread-corn the seventh; barley-harvest being in April, wheat and rye in May. In the plague of hail, therefore, the stalks of barley, being become pretty hard and stiff, resisted the hail, and so were broken off; whereas the wheat-stalks, being tender and flexible, gently yielded to the stroke of the hail, and so escaped its violence, and preserved the wheat in the hose. This interpretation agrees with Bochart. The wheat and rye here mentioned were not such as we use. The wheat is supposed by some to be a kind of grain, which the Greeks call spelt; and Dr. Shaw supposes the word, which we render rye, to signify rice. See Travels, p. 407. But the author of the Observations is of a different opinion from him and the forementioned expositors. “Dr. Pococke,” says he, “has made a remark which I have observed in no other traveller, namely, that there is a double seed-time and harvest in Egypt: rice, Indian-wheat, and another sort, which produces a large cane, and has an ear like millet, (which they call the corn of Damascus, and in Italian surgo rosso,) being sown and reaped at a very different time from wheat, (which in that country, it seems, is all bearded,) barley, and flax. The first, he says, are sown in March, before the Nile overflows the land, and reaped about October; whereas the wheat and barley are sown in November and December as soon as the Nile is gone off, and they are reaped before May. Dr. Shaw seems not to have been aware of this, who supposes that rice was sown at the same time with flax, wheat, and barley; yet it seems natural, that as wheat and barley are sown as soon as the inundation is over, and reaped before it returns, so those sorts of grain, which require much water, should be sown before it begins, and be reaped just as it finishes: and though I have met with no direct observation of this kind, yet Norden confirms one part of it; for he tells us, that he saw a great plain, covered with Turkey-wheat, the 20th of November, which began to be ripe, and that he saw the Arabs cutting their harvest in a neighbouring plain the 29th of that month. If then this be fact, it will explain, very determinately, what is meant by the wheat and rye’s being dark or hidden at the time of the plague of hail, Exo 9:32 for it must mean that they were sown, but not come up; contrary to the opinion of Dr. Shaw, who supposes that the expression imports, that they were of a dark green, and consequently yielded without hurt; while the barley and the flax, being forwarder, were destroyed. This will also shew what the wheat was which, being hidden in the earth, escaped: it was Indian-wheat, or surgo rosso, which sort of wheat, with the rye, escaped; while the barley, the wheat bearded like barley, and the flax, were smitten.”
Fuente: Commentary on the Holy Bible by Thomas Coke
Exo 9:32 But the wheat and the rie were not smitten: for they [were] not grown up.
Ver. 32. See Trapp on “ Exo 9:31 “
Fuente: John Trapp’s Complete Commentary (Old and New Testaments)
not grown up: Heb. hidden, or dark, Exo 10:22
Reciprocal: Exo 10:5 – the residue Rth 1:22 – in the beginning Isa 28:25 – in the principal
Fuente: The Treasury of Scripture Knowledge
Exo 9:32. They were not grown up Were hidden, or dark, as the margin reads it; or late, as many interpreters render the expression. This kind of corn, coming later up, was now tender, and hidden, either under ground, or in the herb, whereby it was secured both from the fire, by its greenness and moisture, and from the hail, by its pliableness and yielding to it: whereas the stalks of barley were more dry and stiff, and therefore more liable to be injured and destroyed by the fire and hail.