Parshat Shmot
by Rabbi Avi Billet
After Moshe and Aharon are reunited and they convince the nation of Israel that they were sent by God to redeem them (4:30-31), they come and declare before Pharoah, “Send My nation to celebrate for me in the wilderness!” Pharaoh refuses, denying God’s divinity and existence, causing Moshe and Aharon to say, “The God of the Hebrews has called upon us, so let us go on a three day journey to bring offerings to our God, lest we be smitten by a plague or by the sword.” (5:1-3)
The two verses which follow this show Pharaoh’s response, but they are introduced with a subtle difference. And, while similar, have 3 other distinct differences.
The King of Egypt said to them, “Moshe and Aharon, why are you distracting the people (עם) from their work? Get back to your own business!' (5:4)
Pharaoh said, “The peasants (עם הארץ) are becoming more numerous, and you want them to take a vacation from their labors!” (5:5)
First the King of Egypt, then Pharaoh. Each one says something different. It would not be farfetched for the "king of Egypt" to say two different statements. But why does he need to be introduced twice, and each time a different way? There is particularly no need for a reintroduction since Moshe and Aharon do not respond to the things he says in verse 4.
Let us look at three different ways of understanding these noted differences.
Rav Samson Raphael Hirsch says verse 4 was the king speaking to Moshe and Aharon personally but publicly. You’re using this ‘God-talk’ to just disturb people. The king is having a premonition to the famous line uttered by Wesley at his capture in “The Princess Bride” – “We are men of action, lies do not become us.” Don’t bring some ridiculous unheard of God into any conversation of whom to worship. This is the king talking to those who have taken the role of leaders – this is a political conversation between the top diplomats of each nation.
As Pharaoh, on the other hand, he speaks to them confidentially, using the term “Am Haaretz” (which we defined above as ‘peasants’) to describe his own nation of Egyptians that has multiplied, forcing an economy that can only survive only if each subject works diligently at his occupation. You, Moshe and Aharon, are asking for the Hebrew slaves to get a week off (3 days journey, 1 day of worship, 3 days return journey). Were the slaves to get a week off, you can only imagine what kinds of vacation the Egyptian population would demand. Everyone needs to make their contribution to society! If they walk off the jobs, the economy would collapse!
The Alshikh views these verses similarly, though he reverses the interpretation, suggesting verse 4 describes the Egyptians, while verse 5 describes the Israelites.
Alshikh describes the scene in very plain terms, that Moshe and Aharon approaching the palace would cause a stir amongst the Egyptian population, many of whom would follow Moshe and Aharon to witness their impertinence in asking the king for favors, thereby abandoning their own tasks and jobs for the day. The king of the Egyptians is therefore blaming Moshe and Aharon for causing Egyptians to take a day off through distracting them.
As Pharaoh, who has caused the Israelites to be enslaved, he notes the impossibility of letting the Israelites take a day off, as they have increased manifold. Noting their increased numbers, Pharaoh then takes steps, in verses 6-9, to increase their labor, making it more difficult for them to rebel because their responsibilities – getting their own straw for the bricks instead of being supplied with it – make their brick tally so much more difficult to achieve.
Malbim notes the distinction between “Why are you distracting the people (ha’am) from their ‘work’ (‘ma’asav’ in Hebrew)?” (verse 4) and “you want the ‘am ha’aretz’ to take a vacation from their labors (‘mi’sivlotam’ in Hebrew)?” (verse 5)
‘Am’ refers to the tribe of Levi, who were exempt from labor, while ‘Am Ha’aretz’ are the poorest and lowliest of the nation, those whose labors are ‘sivlot.’ The ‘maasim’ of the Tribe of Levi refers to commerce, and work in the house and the field. ‘Sivlot’ is the back-breaking slave labor of the rest of the nation.
Being distracted (verse 4) is also different than taking a vacation (verse 5). A distraction is temporary, which is followed by the distracted person going back to work. But a vacation breaks the rhythm of never-ending labor, a rhythm which, once broken, is very difficult to return to.
Malbim argues that when Moshe came to speak to the people (in 4:30) to convince them of his being sent by God, there is no way he was able to communicate with the back-broken laborers, because they had no rest or respite from their slavery. He must have been speaking to his fellow tribesmen, Levi, who were not so consistently needed at their tasks, as they did not participate in the slave labor.
The king saying at the end of verse 4, “Go to your labors (l'sivloteicheim)!” was his way of saying, “You’re looking to get your otherwise excused tribe of Levi (the 'am') involved in slave labor? Watch yourself!” And then Pharaoh (verse 5) checked himself thinking, “If I employ the tribe of Levi and the elders, it will get the rest of the nation ('am ha'aretz'), who are many, to relax from their labors – either in protest, or because they’ll see an expansion of laborers which will cause them to take less responsibility for their own tasks.” In other words, the statement of Pharaoh (verse 5) was checking the hasty statement made by himself in his role as king (verse 4), essentially negating it so the labor will continue.
These perspectives show that there were political considerations beyond just pure evil ascribed to the king. This does not excuse how Pharaoh viewed his role, nor how Egypt as a whole enslaved the Israelites. But it is interesting to think that the people we read of were real, and were looking at a world that was not just black and white.
Every situation on a world stage is complicated. Evil can be viewed in black and white terms, but until people on different sides are able to talk to one another, understand the other perspective, and come to a table in which real agreements can be made (with each side needing to bend a bit), negotiations between opposing sides will remain difficult, if not impossibly insurmountable.
Showing posts with label slavery. Show all posts
Showing posts with label slavery. Show all posts
Thursday, December 31, 2015
Tuesday, June 9, 2015
Pharoah - Yes!; Pharaoh - No
Parshat Shlach
by Rabbi Avi Billet
Last weekend earned some off-the-track Jewish attention. On Thursday of last week, Mexican jockey Victor Espinoza made his way to the Chabad Ohel and the grave of the Lubavitcher Rebbe. The spiritual man was looking for some divine intervention to help him win the Triple Crown.
On Saturday, the “Jewish horse,” the ironically named American Pharoah, owned by the Jewish Egyptian-American Zayat family, running under the aforementioned jockey, did indeed make history, being the first horse to win the coveted horse-racing title in 37 years.
The CBS report on Espinoza’s visit to the Rebbe noted that it was probably the first time anyone prayed for a pharaoh at the Ohel. But I suppose that the horse’s purposely misspelled name makes it alright.
Watching Ahmed Zayat explain how God comes first for his family, and hearing of their plans to camp out in Belmont for Shabbos in order to be present for the race, one can’t help but think that while their horse’s name might include a nod to their Egyptian origins, they have no intent to ever return there. Not that this is surprising. Why would anyone who had suffered or been oppressed by Egypt ever want to return there?
This is precisely the dilemma we are faced with when we read Bamidbar 14:2-4: “The entire community was saying, 'We wish we had died in Egypt! We should have died in this desert! Why is God bringing us to this land to die by the sword? Our wives and children will be captives! It would be best to go back to Egypt!' The people started saying to one another, 'Let's appoint a [new] leader and go back to Egypt.'”
Having been the victims of slavery and oppression, we wonder how the Israelites could possibly contemplate returning to Egypt, even when faced with what seems to be the dangerous nature of the Canaanites. Even if Canaan seems to be a less than favorable option, having seen that they can survive in the wilderness, wouldn’t no-man’s-land be a suitable alternative over a return to bondage?
The simplest answer is the most obvious one. They may not have preferred Egypt, but at least they were familiar with Egypt. They knew what to expect.
And the Chizkuni interprets along these lines when he suggests the Israelites were saying, “When we were in Egypt, when someone died he would leave his belongings to his relatives or neighbors. But now, anything a person “leaves behind” is lost.”
Think about the negative episode of Korach, in which those swallowed by the ground lost everything, leaving nothing for whatever surviving children they may have had.
Tzlafchad, who is much more positively portrayed in the Torah, also leaves nothing to his daughters upon his death (a controversial reality until the law is clarified).
In this light, the desire to return to Egypt is really to return to a life that is relatively routine, when a nation is not living out of suitcases, and when they can settle in a reality that is, at least to their knowledge and experience, normal.
The Alshikh adds an insight that touches completely on the psyche of the people, due to their awareness of history. The people knew that the promise to Avraham had been for his children to be strangers in a strange land for 400 years. They also knew that from the time Yaakov came down to Egypt until the Exodus, only 210 years had passed. Many may have felt there were 190 years to go, albeit in a different location. And this was the rub, because they knew how their women and children had been treated in Egypt: relatively well. But there was a tremendous amount of uncertainty as to how a Canaanite or Emorite bondage would have translated into mistreatment of the women and children. And so, the return to Egypt was offered as an option because it seemed the better of two evils.
We are the beneficiaries of 20-20 hindsight. We know that the choices and decisions, as well as the thought processes of the Israelites were out of line. We know they followed the advice of 10 spies instead of the two righteous ones who were faith-driven men preaching what they knew to be correct on account of their relationships with the Divine. We know that if the spies incident had gone differently, the people likely would have been in the land within days or weeks, not 40 years. And we know that had Moshe led them into Canaan, they wouldn’t have experienced Canaan as “an evil” in any way.
The question is if we would have behaved any differently? How many people are ready to leave a less-than-perfect yet familiar life to branch off into the “eretz lo zarua” – the land of the unknown? Who feels comfortable moving to a new place where the promises that have been offered haven’t been actualized yet?
While hopefully our options are not even remotely similar to Egyptian bondage or Canaanite bondage, life presents its own set of challenges that sometimes push people to seek personally greener pastures in education, employment, self-employment, what neighborhood, state, or country to live in, and in how to raise a family.
Some people may not like that the Zayats attended the Belmont race. Perhaps horse racing is not in the spirit of Shabbos. But I think that with the bad press certain elements of the Orthodox world have been getting, the example the Zayats set in stating that God comes first, in wearing their Shabbos clothes to the races and in camping out so they could be in attendance without driving, is a welcome Kiddush Hashem.
Seeing a Jewish family engage in their greener pasture while respectably honoring their God does not even fall into the equation of the lesser of two evils. Maybe not all of us would have done the same in similar circumstances (honestly, most Americans do not understand the subtleties of Shabbos questions). But the Kiddush Hashem aspect cannot be overlooked. It is a hallmark of the Jewish people that the spies, and people who followed them, overlooked. You honor God first. And then pray that everything else will fall into place.
And with American Pharoah, it seems everything did.
by Rabbi Avi Billet
Last weekend earned some off-the-track Jewish attention. On Thursday of last week, Mexican jockey Victor Espinoza made his way to the Chabad Ohel and the grave of the Lubavitcher Rebbe. The spiritual man was looking for some divine intervention to help him win the Triple Crown.
On Saturday, the “Jewish horse,” the ironically named American Pharoah, owned by the Jewish Egyptian-American Zayat family, running under the aforementioned jockey, did indeed make history, being the first horse to win the coveted horse-racing title in 37 years.
The CBS report on Espinoza’s visit to the Rebbe noted that it was probably the first time anyone prayed for a pharaoh at the Ohel. But I suppose that the horse’s purposely misspelled name makes it alright.
Watching Ahmed Zayat explain how God comes first for his family, and hearing of their plans to camp out in Belmont for Shabbos in order to be present for the race, one can’t help but think that while their horse’s name might include a nod to their Egyptian origins, they have no intent to ever return there. Not that this is surprising. Why would anyone who had suffered or been oppressed by Egypt ever want to return there?
This is precisely the dilemma we are faced with when we read Bamidbar 14:2-4: “The entire community was saying, 'We wish we had died in Egypt! We should have died in this desert! Why is God bringing us to this land to die by the sword? Our wives and children will be captives! It would be best to go back to Egypt!' The people started saying to one another, 'Let's appoint a [new] leader and go back to Egypt.'”
Having been the victims of slavery and oppression, we wonder how the Israelites could possibly contemplate returning to Egypt, even when faced with what seems to be the dangerous nature of the Canaanites. Even if Canaan seems to be a less than favorable option, having seen that they can survive in the wilderness, wouldn’t no-man’s-land be a suitable alternative over a return to bondage?
The simplest answer is the most obvious one. They may not have preferred Egypt, but at least they were familiar with Egypt. They knew what to expect.
And the Chizkuni interprets along these lines when he suggests the Israelites were saying, “When we were in Egypt, when someone died he would leave his belongings to his relatives or neighbors. But now, anything a person “leaves behind” is lost.”
Think about the negative episode of Korach, in which those swallowed by the ground lost everything, leaving nothing for whatever surviving children they may have had.
Tzlafchad, who is much more positively portrayed in the Torah, also leaves nothing to his daughters upon his death (a controversial reality until the law is clarified).
In this light, the desire to return to Egypt is really to return to a life that is relatively routine, when a nation is not living out of suitcases, and when they can settle in a reality that is, at least to their knowledge and experience, normal.
The Alshikh adds an insight that touches completely on the psyche of the people, due to their awareness of history. The people knew that the promise to Avraham had been for his children to be strangers in a strange land for 400 years. They also knew that from the time Yaakov came down to Egypt until the Exodus, only 210 years had passed. Many may have felt there were 190 years to go, albeit in a different location. And this was the rub, because they knew how their women and children had been treated in Egypt: relatively well. But there was a tremendous amount of uncertainty as to how a Canaanite or Emorite bondage would have translated into mistreatment of the women and children. And so, the return to Egypt was offered as an option because it seemed the better of two evils.
We are the beneficiaries of 20-20 hindsight. We know that the choices and decisions, as well as the thought processes of the Israelites were out of line. We know they followed the advice of 10 spies instead of the two righteous ones who were faith-driven men preaching what they knew to be correct on account of their relationships with the Divine. We know that if the spies incident had gone differently, the people likely would have been in the land within days or weeks, not 40 years. And we know that had Moshe led them into Canaan, they wouldn’t have experienced Canaan as “an evil” in any way.
The question is if we would have behaved any differently? How many people are ready to leave a less-than-perfect yet familiar life to branch off into the “eretz lo zarua” – the land of the unknown? Who feels comfortable moving to a new place where the promises that have been offered haven’t been actualized yet?
While hopefully our options are not even remotely similar to Egyptian bondage or Canaanite bondage, life presents its own set of challenges that sometimes push people to seek personally greener pastures in education, employment, self-employment, what neighborhood, state, or country to live in, and in how to raise a family.
Some people may not like that the Zayats attended the Belmont race. Perhaps horse racing is not in the spirit of Shabbos. But I think that with the bad press certain elements of the Orthodox world have been getting, the example the Zayats set in stating that God comes first, in wearing their Shabbos clothes to the races and in camping out so they could be in attendance without driving, is a welcome Kiddush Hashem.
Seeing a Jewish family engage in their greener pasture while respectably honoring their God does not even fall into the equation of the lesser of two evils. Maybe not all of us would have done the same in similar circumstances (honestly, most Americans do not understand the subtleties of Shabbos questions). But the Kiddush Hashem aspect cannot be overlooked. It is a hallmark of the Jewish people that the spies, and people who followed them, overlooked. You honor God first. And then pray that everything else will fall into place.
And with American Pharoah, it seems everything did.
Thursday, August 1, 2013
Remember That You Were A Slave
Parshat Re'eh
by Rabbi Avi Billet
There are six remembrances that are included in the siddur at the end of Shacharis: Remembering the Exodus, Shabbos, God's presence at Mt. Sinai, what happened to Miriam, how you provoked God in the desert, and to destroy Amalek.
This list does not include all the times the word "Zachor" (to Remember) appears in the Torah. Nor does it include any of the 7 times we are told "V'zacharta" (and you shall remember) – all of which appear in the book of Devarim (5:15, 8:2, 8:18, 15:15, 16:12, 24:18,22).
Interestingly, the instruction to remember Sinai is really "not to forget" as the verse does not even have the root word "Zachor."
Why are the "V'zacharta"s not included in the daily remembrances? Five of them are repeats: "Remember that you were slaves in Egypt." One of the "V'Zacharta"s is a reminder of the 40 years journey. The remaining one reminds us to remember God, for He is the One Who gives us the strength to prevail.
Our original list of 6 does include a reminder of the 40 years, though instead of it being about how God tested US for 40 years to see if we'd nevertheless fulfill the mitzvos (as is the second of the "V'Zaharta"s in 8:2), it focuses on how we provoked God. Our daily pick of these two (the latter case) is more important for us because it reminds us not to repeat what we did wrong.
Perhaps remembering the Exodus, Shabbos and God's presence at Sinai would be enough to remind us on a daily basis to remember God Who gives us strength, the other non-"you-were-slaves" "V'Zacharta."
Which leaves us wondering why remembering that we were slaves in Egypt is not part of the Siddur-six. Perhaps it doesn't bear its own mention because it is subsumed in the "remembering the Exodus."
And yet, it is mentioned five times in Devarim, twice in our parsha. Even if it is not a remembrance of its own merit, the fact that it is repeated so much should suggest it is quite an important detail in the overall remembrance of the Exodus.
This assumption requires us to see how the instruction appears in each context.
The first one (5:15) appears in the context of the Ten Commandments, as a reminder for why we must keep Shabbos – because we were slaves in Egypt - and this was one of the first ingredients of freedom from Pharaoh. One day off per week.
The second one (15:15), the first of the two in our parsha, comes in the context of describing how to send off the Eved Ivri, the Hebrew servant, from his servitude. He must be treated well, and must be sent on his way with a full suitcase and an ample supply of food.
The third reminder of being a slave (16:12) comes in the context of instructions surrounding celebrating the holiday of Shavuos, which, at least on the calendar, coincides with the penultimate moment of the Exodus process – the receiving of the Torah. As the commentaries point out, the Exodus from slavery was designed to bring us to that moment: at Sinai, receiving the Torah. Remembering our most humble beginnings at that point helps us appreciate Shavuos even more.
The final two reminders of our slavery come in Devarim 24 – the former as part of the ethics of how to treat the stranger and the orphan in judgment, and the latter instruction is to leave some of your produce for them and the widow. Your having been a slave in Egypt helps you empathize with the plight of these people, and sensitizes you to treat the needy and society's weakest in a manner that helps preserve their dignity.
Remembering having been a slave leads to a number of different lessons, primarily focusing on identification, empathy, and appreciating the good we have in our lives. There are too many details attached to the single remembrance to warrant its own daily remembrance, while the reminder of the Exodus essentially covers it anyway.
But, truth be told, even if it is not a specific mitzvah to remember that we were slaves, it is a detail of our history that should not be overlooked. It helps put things in perspective and reminds us of most important priorities: caring for our fellow man, appreciating the freedoms we enjoy, and celebrating our special relationship with God.
by Rabbi Avi Billet
There are six remembrances that are included in the siddur at the end of Shacharis: Remembering the Exodus, Shabbos, God's presence at Mt. Sinai, what happened to Miriam, how you provoked God in the desert, and to destroy Amalek.
This list does not include all the times the word "Zachor" (to Remember) appears in the Torah. Nor does it include any of the 7 times we are told "V'zacharta" (and you shall remember) – all of which appear in the book of Devarim (5:15, 8:2, 8:18, 15:15, 16:12, 24:18,22).
Interestingly, the instruction to remember Sinai is really "not to forget" as the verse does not even have the root word "Zachor."
Why are the "V'zacharta"s not included in the daily remembrances? Five of them are repeats: "Remember that you were slaves in Egypt." One of the "V'Zacharta"s is a reminder of the 40 years journey. The remaining one reminds us to remember God, for He is the One Who gives us the strength to prevail.
Our original list of 6 does include a reminder of the 40 years, though instead of it being about how God tested US for 40 years to see if we'd nevertheless fulfill the mitzvos (as is the second of the "V'Zaharta"s in 8:2), it focuses on how we provoked God. Our daily pick of these two (the latter case) is more important for us because it reminds us not to repeat what we did wrong.
Perhaps remembering the Exodus, Shabbos and God's presence at Sinai would be enough to remind us on a daily basis to remember God Who gives us strength, the other non-"you-were-slaves" "V'Zacharta."
Which leaves us wondering why remembering that we were slaves in Egypt is not part of the Siddur-six. Perhaps it doesn't bear its own mention because it is subsumed in the "remembering the Exodus."
And yet, it is mentioned five times in Devarim, twice in our parsha. Even if it is not a remembrance of its own merit, the fact that it is repeated so much should suggest it is quite an important detail in the overall remembrance of the Exodus.
This assumption requires us to see how the instruction appears in each context.
The first one (5:15) appears in the context of the Ten Commandments, as a reminder for why we must keep Shabbos – because we were slaves in Egypt - and this was one of the first ingredients of freedom from Pharaoh. One day off per week.
The second one (15:15), the first of the two in our parsha, comes in the context of describing how to send off the Eved Ivri, the Hebrew servant, from his servitude. He must be treated well, and must be sent on his way with a full suitcase and an ample supply of food.
The third reminder of being a slave (16:12) comes in the context of instructions surrounding celebrating the holiday of Shavuos, which, at least on the calendar, coincides with the penultimate moment of the Exodus process – the receiving of the Torah. As the commentaries point out, the Exodus from slavery was designed to bring us to that moment: at Sinai, receiving the Torah. Remembering our most humble beginnings at that point helps us appreciate Shavuos even more.
The final two reminders of our slavery come in Devarim 24 – the former as part of the ethics of how to treat the stranger and the orphan in judgment, and the latter instruction is to leave some of your produce for them and the widow. Your having been a slave in Egypt helps you empathize with the plight of these people, and sensitizes you to treat the needy and society's weakest in a manner that helps preserve their dignity.
Remembering having been a slave leads to a number of different lessons, primarily focusing on identification, empathy, and appreciating the good we have in our lives. There are too many details attached to the single remembrance to warrant its own daily remembrance, while the reminder of the Exodus essentially covers it anyway.
But, truth be told, even if it is not a specific mitzvah to remember that we were slaves, it is a detail of our history that should not be overlooked. It helps put things in perspective and reminds us of most important priorities: caring for our fellow man, appreciating the freedoms we enjoy, and celebrating our special relationship with God.
Wednesday, May 1, 2013
God, Egypt, and Care for Our Fellow Man
Parshat Behar Bechukotai
by Rabbi Avi Billet
The Torah gives three
examples of "Your brother becoming impoverished." (V'khi yamukh
achikha). The first has to do with selling family property, and how it returns
to the original owners at the Jubilee year.
The second and third
examples deal with a case where he can not sustain himself and is relying on
community assistance (25:35-38), or even needs to be sold into slavery to
support himself (25:39-42), respectively.
At the end of each of
the latter segments, a similar statement is made:
"I am God your Lord who
brought you out of Egypt land of Canaan Egypt
The idea of being slaves to God instead of slaves to men,
or of God's intent to "be a God for you" would likely make for a
great psychoanalytical study, were we not speaking of God.
But the truth is, it doesn't end there. The next section
begins with a reference to the "brother becoming impoverished"
(though with a different language) (25:47), and it concludes with instructions
for when the Jubilee comes, and all slaves are freed, as God says, "[All
this] is because the Israelites are [actually] My slaves. They are My slaves
because I brought them out of Egypt
This last summary
sentence actually brings together the notions set forth by the earlier verses –
Israelites are slaves to their God, Who is their God because He took them out
of Egypt . The
focus on Egypt is so significant, not only because it reminds us of the other
times in the year when we mention Egypt (ever evening Kiddush, during the
Shema, and otherwise on a regular basis), but also because it is how we remind
ourselves of which precise moment turned a group of slaves who happened to
share a common ancestor, into a nation sharing a destiny forever.
Most significantly, the
Exodus from Egypt is mentioned in the first sentence of the Decalogue as well [Shmot
20:2 – "I am God your Lord, who brought you out of Egypt, from the house
of slavery"] – an
obvious connection on account of the next two verses in the Torah here, which
happen to be the last two verses of Parshat Behar, whose parallel to the
Decalogue is unavoidable: "[Therefore,]
do not make yourselves false gods. Do not raise up a stone idol
or a sacred pillar for yourselves. Do not place a kneeling stone in your land so that you can prostrate yourselves on it. I am God your Lord. Keep
My Sabbaths and
revere My sanctuary, I am God." (26:1-2)
We can argue that it is hard to come to grips with the seeming
obsession over our being God's servants or slaves.
But when we look at the
setup of all the different examples of the "brother becoming impoverished,"
and how not to lose focus of who we really are and how we should really
respond, it gives us a brand new look at what the Aseret HaDibrot (Decalogue)
is meant to represent for us.
Many are familiar with
the notion that the first five of the statements in the Decalogue refer to
one's relationship with one's Creator, while the last five statements refer to
relationships between men and fellow Man.
But in the Aseret
HaDibrot, all the commandments between fellow Man are written in the negative.
Don't murder, don't commit adultery, don't steal, don't swear falsely, don't
covet. There are no instructions for how to positively relate to
fellow Man.
So perhaps here, in
Parshat Behar, we have the underlying unified message: Caring for another
person means picking the other person up when he is down. It also means respecting
the humanity of the "other," never blurring the lines between slaves
of God and slaves of men, and being sure to help a brother in his hour of need.
Remembering Egypt and
of our being "slaves to God" both serve as grounding principles for
how we live out our Jewish lives with the proper foci.
We must know who we are
and what values we espouse. We must continue to model what it means to look out
for one another, to help others who are needy, and to look for positive ways
to be of assistance – not just negative things to avoid, in staying out of
people's way, but proactive care for our fellow Man.
And above all, remember
Egypt . Remember
what binds us to one another. Remember what binds us to our God, to our Torah
and to our Land. Remember that being a slave to God is very different from
being slaves to men. Particularly nowadays, in a free society, when people
choose whether to be slaves to God, we appreciate our commitment and dedication
to a "mitzvah-focused" life which grounds us and keeps us connected
to our God who took us out of Egypt .
Thursday, January 21, 2010
Taking Clothes Out of Egypt
This appears here in the Jewish Star
Clothes for the road
Parshat Bo
Issue of January 22, 2010/ 7 Shvat 5770
Clothes for the road
Parshat Bo
Issue of January 22, 2010/ 7 Shvat 5770
Before the instruction of “Hachodesh hazeh lachem” established the calendar for the Israelite nation, G-d told Moshe, “Now speak to the people discreetly and let each man request from his friend gold and silver articles. Let every woman make [the same] request of her friends.” (11:2)
This instruction follows the assurance God made to Moshe at the burning bush (3:21-22), and the promise God made to Avraham in Bereishit 15:14.
From the text in our Torah portion, it does not seem that the Israelites acted upon these instructions until later, after the plague of the Death of the Firstborns had taken its toll.
In 12:29-32, the plague takes place, the quite-defeated Paroh locates Moshe to tell him to take all his people and animals and to go worship their God as they had been requesting.
In 12:33, the Egyptian people seem to chase the Israelites with an unspoken “good riddance,” with the hope that the source of their misery — the Israelite/Hebrew slaves and their God — might not return.
The following verses detail the last things they did before leaving: 34 “The people took their dough before it could rise. Their leftover dough was wrapped in their robes [and placed] on their shoulders.” 35 “The Israelites [also] did as Moses had said. They requested silver and gold articles and clothing from the Egyptians.” 36 “God made the Egyptians respect the people, and they granted their request. [The Israelites] thus drained Egypt of its wealth.”
If we look back at the quote from 11:2 (first paragraph above), we see they were not commanded to request clothing. God only mentioned gold and silver articles, so how could 12:35 suggest they did as Moshe had told them?
Toldot Yitzchak warns us not to bring proofs from 3:22 when God indicated they will be leaving with clothing as well, because that was more of a strategy God was aware of than a commandment, the people would ask for clothing to give them more of a chance to delay the Exodus until the morning, rather than be forced to leave at night.
When 12:35 says, “the Israelites did as Moshe had said,” Toldot Yitzchak explains, this refers not to their borrowing of items but to the more important command of not leaving their homes until the morning (12:22). Just because Paroh had come out to see Moshe does not mean the danger had passed and that people could come outside.
If their “fulfillment of Moshe’s instruction” consisted of staying indoors, where did they get the idea to request clothing? As far as we can tell, the people were never instructed to request anything other than silver and gold. [Interestingly, Targum Yonatan leaves out the request for clothing in his interpretation of the verse.]
Toldot Yitzchak says there were two groups — “ha’am” — the masses who were unaware of proper protocol and left their homes in the night time when the Egyptians forced them out (12:33), and the “Bnei Yisrael” proper, who knew the rules, and would not budge from their homes until morning came. But as they were being prodded, they began requesting that clothing be brought to them, insisting they could not leave without proper attire.
Thus, those who asked for clothes were not following specific instructions to load up their suitcases, but were using delay tactics to stall until the morning when all of the people would leave together.
How long does it take to decide which jewelry you want to borrow? Not very long. Most people think, “If it is expensive, I’ll take it.”
Clothing is a different matter. Many people will only take clothing that looks nice on them, no matter how nice the clothing may be. Clothing is more a matter of personal taste than is jewelry.
Now we are left to understand the nature of the requests for the items in question.
Commentaries differ, and provide an entire range of interpretations as to whether the Israelites were requesting or “borrowing,” seeking compensation or a severance package, taking booty from their defeated enemies, accepting a peace offering for the God who defeated Egypt, or even giving cause to be chased after for the final pounding in the Red Sea.
No matter the specific interpretation, it is hard to imagine the word “she’eilah,” meaning “borrow,” in this context. In many places in the Bible, a “she’eilah” is a flat out request with no intent to return anything. And in the context of freeing slaves (Bereishit 31, Devarim 15 and Devarim 23), rather than leaving empty-handed, a slave is supposed to be let free with compensation for years of labor or toil, minimally with the means to make good on his own in the short-term.
For slaves with meager possessions, wealth is certainly warranted. To provide a sense of dignity, proper clothing is essential. While I don’t know what happens in real life, I’ve seen films in which “rehabilitated” prisoners are released from prison with a cheap business suit to give them a sense of dignity, so they can begin to make a go of their new lives looking like a mentch. If the clothes really do “make the man” (or woman), then having and wearing nice clothing is an important step in achieving emancipation.
And when those same garments are flattering, yet modest (says Jewish tradition), they certainly help bring out the essence of the person wearing them.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)