Parshat Beshalach
by Rabbi Avi Billet
Parshat B’shalach touches many subjects, but none capture the attention of readers and Torah followers as do the events surrounding the splitting of the sea. I often wonder why films that depict the Exodus typically portray the splitting of the sea and Sinai, but completely skip Mara, Eilim, Manna, Rephidim, and the battle with Amalek (also Rephidim).
Films in particular love to portray battles – so why not depict the weakened and tired recent-slaves turn into a force to be reckoned with against the evil Amalek?
Obviously the stubbornness of Pharaoh and his army, to chase after Israel is a compelling story, especially in light of the plagues. But still, upon careful examination, we’ll see that even the so-called “compelling story” is not so compelling because the role, intent and level of participation of all the players in the tale is not so one-dimensional and, were it portrayed more accurately, would make for a very tragic tale of greed, human manipulation, and sacrifice for a silly king willing to lose every one of his followers to hold onto a warped sense of dignity that had already been destroyed.
“And the king of Egypt was told that the nation had fled, and so the heart of Pharaoh and his servants turned with respect to the nation and they said. ‘What is this that we have done in sending away Israel from serving us?’ And he set up his chariot and he took his nation with him.” (14:5-6)
Netziv is of the view that the “nation” Pharaoh “took” with him was only soldiers. Malbim shares that opinion and suggests that the 600 chariots Pharaoh brought with him, and whichever horses, were all that was left of Egypt’s horses, because all animals were killed in the 5th plague unless brought indoors by those who feared God.
But I wonder if we’re reading the verse correctly. Considering that when referring to the slaves that have departed from their land, through being sent away, they call them “Israel,” who is the “nation” which caused Pharaoh and his servant to turn their hearts? Why would the “fleeing nation” in verse 5 refer to Israel, who had been sent away? In the second verse, Pharaoh takes his own “nation” with him in pursuit of Israel. Did Pharaoh turn on his own people, looking to enslave them in place of the now missing Israelites? Were they forced to chase after the Israelites – after all, Pharaoh “took” them, perhaps against their will? Is it indeed a fact that “the nation” and “his nation” refer to two different groups?
The reality is that each time “ha’am” (the nation) appears in this portion of text (as opposed to in the first verse of the parsha), the context is vague.
While it is true that Ramban famously refers to the Egyptians’ chasing the Israelites into the miraculously split sea as an act of madness, one wonders if the madness is on the part of all the Egyptians who gave chase, or madness of their leader who ordered them into the sea. From the Torah’s depiction, the reason for the chase is not given, is certainly not clear, and one wonders what anyone, including Pharaoh intended to be the outcome of the pursuit. After all, when Israel left Egypt, there seemed to be a common conception that the Egyptians encouraged and may have even forcedly had them leave in a more expeditious timeline than Israel had intended. People who so convincingly want Israel out don’t turn around so quickly after 3 days of quiet and calm to reenslave them. Did they want to kill the Israelites? That is not even hinted to in the text, except in the fears of the Israelites, who came to their own conclusions without even a shred of diplomacy or a summary of Egyptian intent.
In fact, Alshikh notes that most Egyptians were not on board with whatever it was that Pharaoh thought to do in giving chase. The only reason anyone came along was that Pharaoh “took them” in the sense of kingly cajoling. When he arranged his own chariot and saddled his own horse, which “loyal follower” of the king would not follow suit? When a king does indeed lead by example, fighting in the front of the charge, his people will dutifully follow.
More specifically, the Mechilta explains, “He took them with words saying, ‘Kings usually follow their soldiers, but I will lead! Kings usually plunder for themselves getting first pickings, but I will share equally with all of you! Not only that but I will open a treasury and pay you all silver, gold, precious stones and jewels!’”
This man is either a masochist, a manipulative liar, a sadist, or a combination of any of these. He is very insecure, very impulsive, and he hides his manipulation tactics in the guise of giving people choices.
This is a very different storyline than a people being on board with the idea that Israel “fled” or “escaped” or “broke promises” and all agreeing that the freed slaves needed to be pursued for a shared destiny that is actually never made clear.
Will the true story please stand up? This is a tragedy for every Egyptian forced into the role of being Pharaoh’s stool pigeon, who sacrificed his life for what Pharaoh personally deemed “the greater good” of Egypt.
Which just goes to show – leaders are only as good as when they give others the wherewithal to make their own decisions of what’s best for their future. The Egyptians who drowned were under the persuasive powers of a man who did not really accept no for an answer, and who made people who knew better engage in a wrongful pursuit and senseless battle only for the sake of his own pride.
Freedom is what the Egyptians lacked. Had they had freedom, they never would have joined their crazed-up-king on a suicide mission against a God that had already defeated them. Because when one wants to live, no amount of money or promise of riches can truly convince someone to take a risk that is much easier to avoid when opting out, while walking between two miraculously suspended walls always has the clear possibility of drowning those caught between the water’s crossfire.
No comments:
Post a Comment