Parshat Terumah
by Rabbi Avi Billet
In the descriptions of three of the elements of the to-be-constructed mishkan, the Torah includes the phrase "as you saw/were shown in the mountain."
In other words, in receiving the descriptions of how things are to be made for the mishkan, Moshe was also provided with a visual aid to better understand what the items in question should look like.
The Torah does not shy away from repeating phrases such as "As God commanded Moshe" and the like, which support a running theme in the Torah's narrative. As our phrase in question is repeated, but only three times, it stands to reason the three items or instructions thereof are connected.
We are told that Moshe saw a vision of the Menorah (25:40), how to set up the Mishkan in its entirety (notably through erecting the beams that make up the walls) (26:30), and what the Mizbeach was supposed to look like (27:8). Aside from all of the three items beginning with the same consonant, what could be a connection between three items that are so different?
The menorah is made out of solid gold, the beams are made of wood and covered with gold, and the mizbeach is made of wood and covered with copper.
If anything, the ark, the table, the small mizbeach and the beams would be in the same category, all made out of wood and covered with gold. Perhaps the cover for the ark and the menorah could be classified similarly as they are both of more complex and intricate design and made out of a solid piece of gold.
I think that the Menorha, Mishkan and Mizbeach have in common that they all serve the entire nation.
The mishkan itself and the mizbeach do this in a more obvious way. The building will be the center of Jewish life. It is the central image of that which we look to for inspiration in our quest to get close to God, as a place on earth where God's presence is identifiable. The mizbeach is the place where all sacrifices offered by the people will be brought, and it therefore serves the important function of channeling the connection people will be looking to make with God. The mizbeach is also used every day, and even had a prohibition against its fire extinguishing.
How does the menorah serve the entire nation? More pointedly, how does the menorah stand unique amongst all the other vessels? The Ark, for example, is the symbol of the Torah! While it is usually hidden, it is taken out to lead the people in battle!
The menorah is unique because even though just like the smaller mizbeach, the table, and the ark its place is hidden from the view of the general public, it is the only item in the mishkan which not only has a daily use (the ark sits idly, and the table is touched once a week when the show-bread is replaced), but whose function is a conglomeration of the participation of the entire nation.
One need look no further than the beginning of the next parsha (end of Ch. 27) to understand the role every member of the nation has in the functioning of the menorah.. As the Ibn Ezra writes (27:20), "There is an eternal commandment for the community to always provide the olive oil that will allow the candles to burn forever."
It therefore comes as no shock that the visions of the mishkan, mizbeach and menorah were shown to Moshe on the mountain.
If we were to symbolically contemporize these three things, the mishkan would be our community center (the shul building, perhaps), the mizbeach would be the specific place we serve God (such as the sanctuary) and the method of doing so (prayer), and the menorah would be that which shines forever because it is fully supported by our communities.
Maybe the parallel to the menorah is the Torah, maybe it's our children, maybe it's our way of life, maybe it's the values we continue to live, sacrifice and strive for, maybe it's just our hopes and dreams for our collective future.
None of these happen or work automatically. A divine blueprint is the best guide for making things work and having them be successful.
Moshe was given that blueprint for physical and tangible vessels of the mishkan. May we merit to be enlightened with a similar blueprint that will help our own "candles" burn forever.
Thursday, February 23, 2012
Thursday, February 16, 2012
Mentorship 101
Parshat Mishpatim
by Rabbi Avi Billet
Chapter 24 describes the immediate events preceding Moshe's trek to the mountain for forty days and nights. Aharon, Nadav, Avihu and the seventy elders accompany Moshe as he is about to commence his hike up the mountain.
Where did Yehoshua come from, and what was his role in all of this?
Explaining Yehoshua's sudden presence, Ramban says he was one of the elders. When Moshe leaves Aharon and Chur in charge, he does so because Yehoshua alone is accompanying him. This is a tribute to the greatness of Yehoshua. But how far up the mountain is Yehoshua allowed to go?
When Moshe emerges in chapter 32, the first person he meets is Yehoshua, who is similarly unaware of the Golden Calf fiasco. This leaves open the suggestion that Yehoshua is somewhere on the mountain – a point which can easily be read in to the verses quotes above.
How did they survive if they did not bring supplies? Ibn Ezra maintains Yehoshua was close enough to where the manna fell that he could easily sustain himself.
As for Moshe, the question of food becomes a little more complicated. In Devarim 9, Moshe recounts to the second generation his multiple trips up the mountain (chapters 24 and 32-34) – and how "I did not eat bread and I did not drink water" during the 40-day periods I was up there.
Could he really have gone 40 days without any food?
After all is said and done, we know Moshe is a human being. Special – yes. But very human. The Talmud (Yoma 4b) says the food that had been in Moshe's intestines were purged during the seven day waiting period (before he entered the cloud), until he was ready to become sustained by spiritual food. (The Alshikh calls this "getting sustenance from the 'ziv haShechinah.'")
We should recall that in lieu of saying "I did not eat anything," he singled out bread and water as the things he did not eat – while allowing that he may have still eaten something else.
The Talmud (Sukkah 5a) says Moshe never entered the realm of God, and God never rested in the realm of Man. If so, Moshe was always in the physical realm – and yet he never ate physical food. Physical food, as we know has good qualities, as well as negative parts which our digestive system rejects. The Talmud (Yoma 75b) discusses what the people ate in the wilderness: Abirim bread (based on Tehillim 78:25) – which is bread that ministering Angels eat. It is called Abirim because it is absorbed in Eivarim, the limbs of the body, and does not produce waste.
The Sfas Emes quotes the Zohar that says the "angelic food" is not what was given to the people. The angels are given it in its original, spiritual form, but by the time it reaches the human realm, it is in the form of a kind of bread, which they called "Mon" (manna).
The Maharsha therefore suggests that Moshe ate Manna on the mountain because it is a spiritual food, and it was only "bread" (specifically) that Moshe said he did not eat, as opposed to saying he did not eat at all.
How did Moshe get the food?
There is a debate as to how Moshe entered the mountain. One approach has a path opening for him to walk upon (Yoma 4b). The other side has him entering a cloud which elevated him to the top, in a Mary-Poppins-inspired move.
If he went up using the latter method, we have to assume God provided for him. But if he walked up on the path, is there room to suggest he did so to leave the line open back to Yehoshua?
The opening Mishnah in Avos says Moshe transmitted the Torah to Yehoshua. Rashi contradicts this in Shmot 34:32, when he leaves Yehoshua out of the chain of the heritage transmission. When did Yehoshua learn directly from Moshe, to the point that he is the top on the list in Avos? [His "not leaving the tent" in 33:11 may be a different breeding ground for his own personal learning, but leaves no indication of his being part of the mesorah transmission in the same way Rashi describes Moshe, Aharon, Aharon's sons and the elders as being links in a chain.]
The Shakh quotes the Medrash Tanchuma who says that while on the mountain, Moshe the human forgot everything he learned on a daily basis until God gave him all the knowledge as a gift. The change happened when his own physical matter became spiritual.
The Talmud (Baba Batra 75a) records how Yehoshua was like the moon to Moshe's sun. Yehoshua, as the leadership heir-apparent, is slated to reflect the light of the teachings of Moshe, just as the moon reflects the light of the sun. Yehoshua's accompanying Moshe serves the purpose of demonstrating the connection they'll carry as the links in the mesorah (heritage) that they bear to this day.
Is it such a stretch to suggest that Moshe communicated with Yehoshua on a daily basis while he was on the mountain? If there was a path from Moshe to Yehoshua, perhaps there was a transfer of manna (which the Talmud Yoma 76a says also fell in Yehoshua's merit), and a transmission of information which Moshe soon forgot afterwards.
If Yehoshua was the first link in the chain of mesorah, his presence on the mountain served a purpose. He could provide food for and help his mentor in a fitting manner, and he can be a sounding board for Moshe to practice teaching as quickly as Moshe learned the information.
This is the best way to learn, says a different mishnah in Avos (1:4). Lay at the dust of the feet of the scholars.
We learn from Yehoshua how to get close to a teacher, how to play the role of facilitator and learner, and the patience to wait until it is your turn to shine.
by Rabbi Avi Billet
Chapter 24 describes the immediate events preceding Moshe's trek to the mountain for forty days and nights. Aharon, Nadav, Avihu and the seventy elders accompany Moshe as he is about to commence his hike up the mountain.
"God said to Moshe, 'Come up to Me, to the mountain, and remain there. I will give you the stone tablets, the Torah and the commandment that I have written for [the people's] instruction.' Moshe and his aid Yehoshua set out. Moshe went up on God's Mountain. He said to the elders, 'Wait for us here until we return to you. Aaron and Chur will remain with you. Whoever has a problem can go to them.'" (24:12-14)Rashi says "I don't know why Yehoshua is here, but maybe he is serving the role of "student who accompanies teacher." This answer leaves much unsaid.
Where did Yehoshua come from, and what was his role in all of this?
Explaining Yehoshua's sudden presence, Ramban says he was one of the elders. When Moshe leaves Aharon and Chur in charge, he does so because Yehoshua alone is accompanying him. This is a tribute to the greatness of Yehoshua. But how far up the mountain is Yehoshua allowed to go?
When Moshe emerges in chapter 32, the first person he meets is Yehoshua, who is similarly unaware of the Golden Calf fiasco. This leaves open the suggestion that Yehoshua is somewhere on the mountain – a point which can easily be read in to the verses quotes above.
How did they survive if they did not bring supplies? Ibn Ezra maintains Yehoshua was close enough to where the manna fell that he could easily sustain himself.
As for Moshe, the question of food becomes a little more complicated. In Devarim 9, Moshe recounts to the second generation his multiple trips up the mountain (chapters 24 and 32-34) – and how "I did not eat bread and I did not drink water" during the 40-day periods I was up there.
Could he really have gone 40 days without any food?
After all is said and done, we know Moshe is a human being. Special – yes. But very human. The Talmud (Yoma 4b) says the food that had been in Moshe's intestines were purged during the seven day waiting period (before he entered the cloud), until he was ready to become sustained by spiritual food. (The Alshikh calls this "getting sustenance from the 'ziv haShechinah.'")
We should recall that in lieu of saying "I did not eat anything," he singled out bread and water as the things he did not eat – while allowing that he may have still eaten something else.
The Talmud (Sukkah 5a) says Moshe never entered the realm of God, and God never rested in the realm of Man. If so, Moshe was always in the physical realm – and yet he never ate physical food. Physical food, as we know has good qualities, as well as negative parts which our digestive system rejects. The Talmud (Yoma 75b) discusses what the people ate in the wilderness: Abirim bread (based on Tehillim 78:25) – which is bread that ministering Angels eat. It is called Abirim because it is absorbed in Eivarim, the limbs of the body, and does not produce waste.
The Sfas Emes quotes the Zohar that says the "angelic food" is not what was given to the people. The angels are given it in its original, spiritual form, but by the time it reaches the human realm, it is in the form of a kind of bread, which they called "Mon" (manna).
The Maharsha therefore suggests that Moshe ate Manna on the mountain because it is a spiritual food, and it was only "bread" (specifically) that Moshe said he did not eat, as opposed to saying he did not eat at all.
How did Moshe get the food?
There is a debate as to how Moshe entered the mountain. One approach has a path opening for him to walk upon (Yoma 4b). The other side has him entering a cloud which elevated him to the top, in a Mary-Poppins-inspired move.
If he went up using the latter method, we have to assume God provided for him. But if he walked up on the path, is there room to suggest he did so to leave the line open back to Yehoshua?
The opening Mishnah in Avos says Moshe transmitted the Torah to Yehoshua. Rashi contradicts this in Shmot 34:32, when he leaves Yehoshua out of the chain of the heritage transmission. When did Yehoshua learn directly from Moshe, to the point that he is the top on the list in Avos? [His "not leaving the tent" in 33:11 may be a different breeding ground for his own personal learning, but leaves no indication of his being part of the mesorah transmission in the same way Rashi describes Moshe, Aharon, Aharon's sons and the elders as being links in a chain.]
The Shakh quotes the Medrash Tanchuma who says that while on the mountain, Moshe the human forgot everything he learned on a daily basis until God gave him all the knowledge as a gift. The change happened when his own physical matter became spiritual.
The Talmud (Baba Batra 75a) records how Yehoshua was like the moon to Moshe's sun. Yehoshua, as the leadership heir-apparent, is slated to reflect the light of the teachings of Moshe, just as the moon reflects the light of the sun. Yehoshua's accompanying Moshe serves the purpose of demonstrating the connection they'll carry as the links in the mesorah (heritage) that they bear to this day.
Is it such a stretch to suggest that Moshe communicated with Yehoshua on a daily basis while he was on the mountain? If there was a path from Moshe to Yehoshua, perhaps there was a transfer of manna (which the Talmud Yoma 76a says also fell in Yehoshua's merit), and a transmission of information which Moshe soon forgot afterwards.
If Yehoshua was the first link in the chain of mesorah, his presence on the mountain served a purpose. He could provide food for and help his mentor in a fitting manner, and he can be a sounding board for Moshe to practice teaching as quickly as Moshe learned the information.
This is the best way to learn, says a different mishnah in Avos (1:4). Lay at the dust of the feet of the scholars.
We learn from Yehoshua how to get close to a teacher, how to play the role of facilitator and learner, and the patience to wait until it is your turn to shine.
Friday, February 10, 2012
A Truly Humble Leader
Parshat Yitro
by Rabbi Avi Billet
As an introduction to the events that will unfold on the mountain, God tells Moshe to tell the people that they will soon become a kingdom of priests and a holy nation to God. (19:5-6)
The Torah then tells us that "Moshe came [back] and summoned the elders of the people, conveying to them all that God had said. All the people answered as one and said, ''All that God has spoken, we will do." Moshe brought the people's reply back to God. God said to Moshe, 'I will come to you in a thick cloud, so that all the people will hear when I speak to you. They will then believe in you forever.' Moshe told God the people's response." (19:7-9)
Rashi addresses the fact that Moshe conveyed the people's response the first time, saying it is a sign of respect to God to deliver the message, even though the Almighty and All-knowing knows what they said.
But the precedent is set that the people are told the message from God, they respond to Moshe, and then we are told that Moshe brought their reply to God. So how is that when God describes the thick cloud, Moshe does not convey the message to the people, they do not seem to respond, and yet Moshe tells God of their response? To what did they respond? What did they say? Why does Moshe seem to avoid sharing the second message of God with the people? And how did he then know what their response was if he didn't speak to them a second time?
Rashi explains that Moshe already knew the will of the people, namely "that they want to hear from You directly. After all, there is no comparison between hearing the king's message from his messenger versus hearing it directly from the king. 'We want to see our King.'"
Through trying to understand Rashi's exposition, the Kli Yakar has a novel approach to reading the text. Rashi does not address what the second response of the people is – only that Moshe was able to convey what they wanted. But the Kli Yakar posits that Moshe was in fact quoting the people, based on his understanding their will from their initial response, when he said the words "El Hashem – to God" in 19:9.
If the words "El Hashem" are not a quote, they are superfluous! The Torah should have said, "Moshe told their response אליו - to Him!" – obviously referring to God, with Whom Moshe is conversing. What was previously translated as "Moshe told God the people's response" should therefore be read, "Moshe [responded to God and] told Him the words of the people: 'To God.'"
This was a response to what God told him, "So that the people will hear when I speak to you and will also believe in you forever." Moshe knew from what the people had told him before that they were only interested in hearing from God. They had said, "We will listen to God" but said nothing about listening to Moshe!
The Kli Yakar is intellectually honest and boldly states that as nice as this interpretation is, the text does not really imply this. How then can we justify making the claim that Moshe felt he was not believed?
Because when God initially gave the message to Moshe, He told him to tell the people directly. But Moshe first went to the Elders instead, prompting the people to say 'We will do [only] all that God said' even though the Elders had not yet addressed them. Witnessing Moshe address the Elders indicated to them that everything would be through middlemen. They, on the other hand, did not want to have the middlemen - they wanted to hear directly from The Source.
This is the difference between "Vayashav" (and he brought their response) and "Vayaged" (and he told God). The first time Moshe returned to God he said "We will do all of God's instructions." He did not say, "Only if it comes from God directly" because he assumed God would convey His message according to the desire of the people.
But when God said, "I will be coming to you in a cloud, and they'll believe in you (Moshe)," Moshe realized God was planning to speak through middlemen. His response at that point reflected the notion that "The people don't want to hear from me. They are looking "el Hashem [to God]" because they only want to hear from You."
Only at that point were the people told, "If that's what they want, they need to prepare to greet the king… wash up, separate from spouses etc." (19:10)
Both the Alshikh and the Seforno begin their explanations of these verses with the notion that Moshe recognized that the people had not believed in his prophesy, and that God was looking to manufacture this experience so the people would believe him [Moshe, that is], and believe in his role as prophet forever.
In this light, I believe Moshe is demonstrating two tremendous leadership skills. On the one hand, he understands the subtleties of the desires of the people. The spoken and even the underspoken, or unspoken words are not lost on him.
On the other hand, he understands his role as leader, but not as ruler. It's never about Moshe. God tells Moshe, "Through this the people will believe in you," but this is the last thing Moshe wants to hear. He certainly does not want to convey to the people a message that says, "What you are about to see will prove that I am the leader chosen by God." He is happy being a shepherd who takes care of the people, and who presents their needs and desires to the Almighty, even if it comes as part of a rejection of who he is and the role he is meant to play.
by Rabbi Avi Billet
As an introduction to the events that will unfold on the mountain, God tells Moshe to tell the people that they will soon become a kingdom of priests and a holy nation to God. (19:5-6)
The Torah then tells us that "Moshe came [back] and summoned the elders of the people, conveying to them all that God had said. All the people answered as one and said, ''All that God has spoken, we will do." Moshe brought the people's reply back to God. God said to Moshe, 'I will come to you in a thick cloud, so that all the people will hear when I speak to you. They will then believe in you forever.' Moshe told God the people's response." (19:7-9)
Rashi addresses the fact that Moshe conveyed the people's response the first time, saying it is a sign of respect to God to deliver the message, even though the Almighty and All-knowing knows what they said.
But the precedent is set that the people are told the message from God, they respond to Moshe, and then we are told that Moshe brought their reply to God. So how is that when God describes the thick cloud, Moshe does not convey the message to the people, they do not seem to respond, and yet Moshe tells God of their response? To what did they respond? What did they say? Why does Moshe seem to avoid sharing the second message of God with the people? And how did he then know what their response was if he didn't speak to them a second time?
Rashi explains that Moshe already knew the will of the people, namely "that they want to hear from You directly. After all, there is no comparison between hearing the king's message from his messenger versus hearing it directly from the king. 'We want to see our King.'"
Through trying to understand Rashi's exposition, the Kli Yakar has a novel approach to reading the text. Rashi does not address what the second response of the people is – only that Moshe was able to convey what they wanted. But the Kli Yakar posits that Moshe was in fact quoting the people, based on his understanding their will from their initial response, when he said the words "El Hashem – to God" in 19:9.
If the words "El Hashem" are not a quote, they are superfluous! The Torah should have said, "Moshe told their response אליו - to Him!" – obviously referring to God, with Whom Moshe is conversing. What was previously translated as "Moshe told God the people's response" should therefore be read, "Moshe [responded to God and] told Him the words of the people: 'To God.'"
This was a response to what God told him, "So that the people will hear when I speak to you and will also believe in you forever." Moshe knew from what the people had told him before that they were only interested in hearing from God. They had said, "We will listen to God" but said nothing about listening to Moshe!
The Kli Yakar is intellectually honest and boldly states that as nice as this interpretation is, the text does not really imply this. How then can we justify making the claim that Moshe felt he was not believed?
Because when God initially gave the message to Moshe, He told him to tell the people directly. But Moshe first went to the Elders instead, prompting the people to say 'We will do [only] all that God said' even though the Elders had not yet addressed them. Witnessing Moshe address the Elders indicated to them that everything would be through middlemen. They, on the other hand, did not want to have the middlemen - they wanted to hear directly from The Source.
This is the difference between "Vayashav" (and he brought their response) and "Vayaged" (and he told God). The first time Moshe returned to God he said "We will do all of God's instructions." He did not say, "Only if it comes from God directly" because he assumed God would convey His message according to the desire of the people.
But when God said, "I will be coming to you in a cloud, and they'll believe in you (Moshe)," Moshe realized God was planning to speak through middlemen. His response at that point reflected the notion that "The people don't want to hear from me. They are looking "el Hashem [to God]" because they only want to hear from You."
Only at that point were the people told, "If that's what they want, they need to prepare to greet the king… wash up, separate from spouses etc." (19:10)
Both the Alshikh and the Seforno begin their explanations of these verses with the notion that Moshe recognized that the people had not believed in his prophesy, and that God was looking to manufacture this experience so the people would believe him [Moshe, that is], and believe in his role as prophet forever.
In this light, I believe Moshe is demonstrating two tremendous leadership skills. On the one hand, he understands the subtleties of the desires of the people. The spoken and even the underspoken, or unspoken words are not lost on him.
On the other hand, he understands his role as leader, but not as ruler. It's never about Moshe. God tells Moshe, "Through this the people will believe in you," but this is the last thing Moshe wants to hear. He certainly does not want to convey to the people a message that says, "What you are about to see will prove that I am the leader chosen by God." He is happy being a shepherd who takes care of the people, and who presents their needs and desires to the Almighty, even if it comes as part of a rejection of who he is and the role he is meant to play.
Friday, February 3, 2012
Getting Angry, Speaking Calmly
Parshat B'Shalach
by Rabbi Avi Billet
After the splitting of the sea, the people begin to settle into their wilderness existence, and become the recipients of a daily dose of manna from heaven.
The instructions as to what this food is, how it is to be rationed, and how it is to be cooked and eaten are given piecemeal. In 16:19, Moshe tells the people not to leave any leftovers until the next day. Perhaps this was the precursor to every successful Passover program: no need to take leftovers to your room because there will always be a new helping of food the following morning.
For the second and last time, we find the people not listening to Moshe (the first was in 6:9, during the heart of slavery, before the plagues began). People leave food for the next day – and it spoils. Moshe's reaction is to get angry at them.
It is quite understandable why they did not listen to him in Egypt. His efforts to that point had only yielded more work and more suffering. The people, exhausted from their exertions, had not the wherewithal to listen to Moshe's promises of redemption.
In our story, however, why wouldn't they listen? After all, if the manna from heaven is so clearly a miraculous gift, and if since the last "not listening experience" you have witnessed this man bring about ten plagues, split the sea and drown your oppressors, why wouldn't you think there's something to what he's doing and saying? How could you come to ignore him completely?
Perhaps they ignored him because they were still living in a slave mentality reality. Perhaps a slave counts every morsel of food that comes his way, not believing he'll see something good again for a long time. So even though they were told not to leave anything over, either they couldn't help it because they were used to hoarding or they couldn't believe that such fresh food would literally spoil in the morning.
So why did Moshe get angry? Shouldn't he understand the mind games the people play with themselves?
A closer look at other times when Moshe gets angry with the word "Vayiktzof" may help us understand Moshe's impetus for bringing out his anger card. The commentary of the Baalei Hatosafot summarizes the three times this word is used to describe Moshe's getting angry. The other two incidents are: when Moshe's nephews do not partake of the goat sacrifice at the dedication of the Mishkan, shortly after their older brothers die; and when the soldiers return from the all-out Midianite war having spared the women of the nation they had been ordered to wipe out completely. [He also "got angry" at the Golden Calf incident, and when dealing with the Korach group – except that there the Torah uses the word "Vayee-char"]
In each case, the Baalei Hatosafot explain, Moshe forgot a law as a result of his anger: in the manna story - he forgot to tell the people not to collect manna on the seventh day; with his nephews - he forgot that after losing a close relative a mourner does not eat meat ; after the Midianite war - he forgot the laws concerning how to kosherize vessels they had seized in battle.
There are a number of common denominators in the three stories. I will focus on two of them. Firstly, the people deliberately ignored a direct command from God that had been channeled through Moshe. Secondly, Moshe was very aware that a precedent was being set as each circumstance was a first time episode.
It's a difficult balance. Sometimes anger is warranted, and sometimes anger only serves to bring a person down. In Moshe's case, the setback he suffered was that he forgot a law – God, Aharon and Elazar taught him the three laws, respectively.
But what was at stake? God's honor.
The difference between Moshe getting angry "for God's sake" and those who think "they know what God wants" is that he was the direct line, and knew exactly and explicitly what needed to be done. And, in every case, he was trying to set a precedent that people could one day turn to for guidance - namely through reading the Torah's account of precedent-setting moments.
But not everything works out "the way you want" and his personal outcome was forgetfulness. God did not get upset or punish people for violating the shabbos, for example. He just asked Moshe to give them a little rebuke. And when Moshe delivered the message as he was told, the people changed.
Sometimes an option that serves a more productive purpose than anger is saying in a clear and firm tone, "I stand for this exact thing that God said." If communicated properly and respectfully, there is a much better chance that people will listen.
by Rabbi Avi Billet
After the splitting of the sea, the people begin to settle into their wilderness existence, and become the recipients of a daily dose of manna from heaven.
The instructions as to what this food is, how it is to be rationed, and how it is to be cooked and eaten are given piecemeal. In 16:19, Moshe tells the people not to leave any leftovers until the next day. Perhaps this was the precursor to every successful Passover program: no need to take leftovers to your room because there will always be a new helping of food the following morning.
For the second and last time, we find the people not listening to Moshe (the first was in 6:9, during the heart of slavery, before the plagues began). People leave food for the next day – and it spoils. Moshe's reaction is to get angry at them.
It is quite understandable why they did not listen to him in Egypt. His efforts to that point had only yielded more work and more suffering. The people, exhausted from their exertions, had not the wherewithal to listen to Moshe's promises of redemption.
In our story, however, why wouldn't they listen? After all, if the manna from heaven is so clearly a miraculous gift, and if since the last "not listening experience" you have witnessed this man bring about ten plagues, split the sea and drown your oppressors, why wouldn't you think there's something to what he's doing and saying? How could you come to ignore him completely?
Perhaps they ignored him because they were still living in a slave mentality reality. Perhaps a slave counts every morsel of food that comes his way, not believing he'll see something good again for a long time. So even though they were told not to leave anything over, either they couldn't help it because they were used to hoarding or they couldn't believe that such fresh food would literally spoil in the morning.
So why did Moshe get angry? Shouldn't he understand the mind games the people play with themselves?
A closer look at other times when Moshe gets angry with the word "Vayiktzof" may help us understand Moshe's impetus for bringing out his anger card. The commentary of the Baalei Hatosafot summarizes the three times this word is used to describe Moshe's getting angry. The other two incidents are: when Moshe's nephews do not partake of the goat sacrifice at the dedication of the Mishkan, shortly after their older brothers die; and when the soldiers return from the all-out Midianite war having spared the women of the nation they had been ordered to wipe out completely. [He also "got angry" at the Golden Calf incident, and when dealing with the Korach group – except that there the Torah uses the word "Vayee-char"]
In each case, the Baalei Hatosafot explain, Moshe forgot a law as a result of his anger: in the manna story - he forgot to tell the people not to collect manna on the seventh day; with his nephews - he forgot that after losing a close relative a mourner does not eat meat ; after the Midianite war - he forgot the laws concerning how to kosherize vessels they had seized in battle.
There are a number of common denominators in the three stories. I will focus on two of them. Firstly, the people deliberately ignored a direct command from God that had been channeled through Moshe. Secondly, Moshe was very aware that a precedent was being set as each circumstance was a first time episode.
It's a difficult balance. Sometimes anger is warranted, and sometimes anger only serves to bring a person down. In Moshe's case, the setback he suffered was that he forgot a law – God, Aharon and Elazar taught him the three laws, respectively.
But what was at stake? God's honor.
The difference between Moshe getting angry "for God's sake" and those who think "they know what God wants" is that he was the direct line, and knew exactly and explicitly what needed to be done. And, in every case, he was trying to set a precedent that people could one day turn to for guidance - namely through reading the Torah's account of precedent-setting moments.
But not everything works out "the way you want" and his personal outcome was forgetfulness. God did not get upset or punish people for violating the shabbos, for example. He just asked Moshe to give them a little rebuke. And when Moshe delivered the message as he was told, the people changed.
Sometimes an option that serves a more productive purpose than anger is saying in a clear and firm tone, "I stand for this exact thing that God said." If communicated properly and respectfully, there is a much better chance that people will listen.
Thursday, January 26, 2012
A Sign For YOU
Parshat Bo
by Rabbi Avi Billet
When one reads through Shmot Chapter 12, it becomes quite clear that blood will play a significant role in bringing about the salvation of the Hebrew slaves at the midnight hour when Egypt will be struck its most devastating blow.
Verses 7, 13, 22 and 23, when run together, read something like this.
"They must take the blood and place it on the two doorposts and on the beam above the door of the houses in which they will eat [the sacrifice]. The blood will be a sign for you on the houses where you are staying. I will see the blood and pass you by (pasach). There will not be any deadly plague among you when I strike Egypt. {Instructions to the elders are to tell the people to] 'Take a bunch of hyssop and dip it into the blood that [will be placed] in a basin. Touch the beam over the door and the two doorposts with some of the blood in the basin. Not a single one of you may go out the door of his house until morning. God will then pass through to strike Egypt. When he sees the blood over the door and on the two doorposts, God will pass over that door, and not let the force of destruction enter your houses to strike.'"
The Ktav V'Hakabalah asks a seemingly obvious question. Does God really need the blood as a sign? If He wants to distinguish between the Egyptians who suffer in the plague and the Israelites who are spared, could He not just say "My wonders will be proven by the fact that Egyptians will die and Israelites will not"?
Ibn Ezra rejects the notion that the blood was a derivative of a public process aimed at showing the Egyptians who is boss. Were it so, he argues, the blood would have been put on courtyard gates instead of on the doorway of homes recessed from the street, and the slaughtering of the lamb would have taken place in the daytime, instead of closer to nighttime when people are already in their homes. Ibn Ezra even derives from "The blood will be a sign for you" that you, who cannot go outside all night, will be able to see the blood because it will be on the inside of your home.
But the Ktav V'Hakabalah has an entirely different perspective, which introduces much deeper symbolism than a mere "sticking-it" to the Egyptians. The Israelites had many obstacles to their own redemption. They were idolators! They needed to achieve a spiritual purity (taharah) that had eluded them for a very long time.
The Korban Pesach (Paschal offering) was meant to serve as a first step in their stepping away from and rejection of Egyptian idolatry of the sheep. The second element of their return to God was a complete rejection of their former fears of their Egyptian masters. And the last element of their return to God was the public nature of their actions.
He brings four examples of the how they publicized the deed: First, the animals were led through the street, before the slaughtering was done publicly (#2), while the gathering of families providing the third ingredient in drawing attention. The nail in the coffin, so to speak, was placing the blood on the doorpost for all to see.
Didn't the Ibn Ezra say the blood was placed inside the home, as a sign for the Israelites alone? He did. But the Ktav V'Hakabalah is one step ahead when he quotes the Mechilta who says the blood was placed on the outside. This public display of the blood of the lamb was another step in the rejection of the sheep-as-god mentality.
All this is very nice insofar as the process through which the people go. But it does not answer whether God needed a sign! The answer is that of course God did not need a sign. If God could distinguish between which animals were Egyptian-owned and which animals were Israelite-owned, He could surely distinguish between Egyptians and Israelites.
The reason for the blood, then, is that it is through blood that covenants are forged. A blood oath involves the mixing of bloods, "The process usually provides a participant with a heightened symbolic sense of attachment with another participant." (Wikipedia, "Blood Brother")
The Shakh claims that as males who are not circumcised may not participate in the eating of the korban pesach, a major circumcision festival needed to take place (based on 12:50). As such there were ample samples of blood available to be mixed together – blood from the lamb, from the circumcisions, and from the removal of the mucosal membrane (not from metzitzah!)
The blood, therefore, becomes highly symbolic. Putting it on the door is an indicator that those in the home fulfill the will of God. But the placement of this particular mixture of blood, stands to serve as a "reminder," so to speak, to God, of the mark of the covenant that connects this people to Him for eternity. This reminder is what prevents the death force from making its way into the homes of the Israelites.
In this respect, the sign-on-the-door for humans is significant for them because their own blood is in it. But it really is for God, who reminds the people over and over that each plague was meant to make His name well known in the land. This goal is further represented by the blood on the door, a mark which is fresh, which will last long beyond when the Israelite's leave town, and will be seen by those who explore the ghost town of Goshen.
It is the symbol of God's dominance over the Egyptian deity, combined with the covenant He forged with Abraham, that brought about the creation of the nation that left Egypt with a strong hand.
by Rabbi Avi Billet
When one reads through Shmot Chapter 12, it becomes quite clear that blood will play a significant role in bringing about the salvation of the Hebrew slaves at the midnight hour when Egypt will be struck its most devastating blow.
Verses 7, 13, 22 and 23, when run together, read something like this.
"They must take the blood and place it on the two doorposts and on the beam above the door of the houses in which they will eat [the sacrifice]. The blood will be a sign for you on the houses where you are staying. I will see the blood and pass you by (pasach). There will not be any deadly plague among you when I strike Egypt. {Instructions to the elders are to tell the people to] 'Take a bunch of hyssop and dip it into the blood that [will be placed] in a basin. Touch the beam over the door and the two doorposts with some of the blood in the basin. Not a single one of you may go out the door of his house until morning. God will then pass through to strike Egypt. When he sees the blood over the door and on the two doorposts, God will pass over that door, and not let the force of destruction enter your houses to strike.'"
The Ktav V'Hakabalah asks a seemingly obvious question. Does God really need the blood as a sign? If He wants to distinguish between the Egyptians who suffer in the plague and the Israelites who are spared, could He not just say "My wonders will be proven by the fact that Egyptians will die and Israelites will not"?
Ibn Ezra rejects the notion that the blood was a derivative of a public process aimed at showing the Egyptians who is boss. Were it so, he argues, the blood would have been put on courtyard gates instead of on the doorway of homes recessed from the street, and the slaughtering of the lamb would have taken place in the daytime, instead of closer to nighttime when people are already in their homes. Ibn Ezra even derives from "The blood will be a sign for you" that you, who cannot go outside all night, will be able to see the blood because it will be on the inside of your home.
But the Ktav V'Hakabalah has an entirely different perspective, which introduces much deeper symbolism than a mere "sticking-it" to the Egyptians. The Israelites had many obstacles to their own redemption. They were idolators! They needed to achieve a spiritual purity (taharah) that had eluded them for a very long time.
The Korban Pesach (Paschal offering) was meant to serve as a first step in their stepping away from and rejection of Egyptian idolatry of the sheep. The second element of their return to God was a complete rejection of their former fears of their Egyptian masters. And the last element of their return to God was the public nature of their actions.
He brings four examples of the how they publicized the deed: First, the animals were led through the street, before the slaughtering was done publicly (#2), while the gathering of families providing the third ingredient in drawing attention. The nail in the coffin, so to speak, was placing the blood on the doorpost for all to see.
Didn't the Ibn Ezra say the blood was placed inside the home, as a sign for the Israelites alone? He did. But the Ktav V'Hakabalah is one step ahead when he quotes the Mechilta who says the blood was placed on the outside. This public display of the blood of the lamb was another step in the rejection of the sheep-as-god mentality.
All this is very nice insofar as the process through which the people go. But it does not answer whether God needed a sign! The answer is that of course God did not need a sign. If God could distinguish between which animals were Egyptian-owned and which animals were Israelite-owned, He could surely distinguish between Egyptians and Israelites.
The reason for the blood, then, is that it is through blood that covenants are forged. A blood oath involves the mixing of bloods, "The process usually provides a participant with a heightened symbolic sense of attachment with another participant." (Wikipedia, "Blood Brother")
The Shakh claims that as males who are not circumcised may not participate in the eating of the korban pesach, a major circumcision festival needed to take place (based on 12:50). As such there were ample samples of blood available to be mixed together – blood from the lamb, from the circumcisions, and from the removal of the mucosal membrane (not from metzitzah!)
The blood, therefore, becomes highly symbolic. Putting it on the door is an indicator that those in the home fulfill the will of God. But the placement of this particular mixture of blood, stands to serve as a "reminder," so to speak, to God, of the mark of the covenant that connects this people to Him for eternity. This reminder is what prevents the death force from making its way into the homes of the Israelites.
In this respect, the sign-on-the-door for humans is significant for them because their own blood is in it. But it really is for God, who reminds the people over and over that each plague was meant to make His name well known in the land. This goal is further represented by the blood on the door, a mark which is fresh, which will last long beyond when the Israelite's leave town, and will be seen by those who explore the ghost town of Goshen.
It is the symbol of God's dominance over the Egyptian deity, combined with the covenant He forged with Abraham, that brought about the creation of the nation that left Egypt with a strong hand.
Friday, January 20, 2012
Nominated for Best Supporting Role
Parshat Va'era
by Rabbi Avi Billet
I have a hard time understanding the role of Aharon, Moshe's brother, in the exodus story.
When he is first appointed to be the leader/redeemer of Israel, Moshe presents a number of arguments as to why he is not the best man for the job. He may even hint to the idea that Aharon would be a more worthy choice.
God's response in 4:14 is a display of anger, followed by "Is not Aharon the Levite your brother? I know that he knows how to speak! He is setting out to meet you, and when he sees you, his heart will be glad."
In other words, if you Moshe are nervous about speaking to Pharaoh, Aharon will take care of this for you. In fact, the first time we see Aharon speaking on Moshe's behalf is in 4:30, when he addresses the nation of Israel, convincing them that Moshe was sent by God: "Aaron related all the words that God had told Moses, and he demonstrated the miraculous proofs before the people."
When they came to Pharaoh in chapter 5, we were told "Moshe and Aharon then went to Pharaoh and said, 'This is what Hashem, God of the Hebrews, declares: 'Let My people leave, so they can sacrifice to Me in the desert.''" In this instance, the indications point to Aharon and Moshe sharing the limelight.
But after this, the narrative presents a different story.
In our parsha, "Moshe related this to the Israelites, but because of their disappointment and hard work, they would no longer listen to him." (6:9) Note how Moshe is the speaker.
A little while later, after twice claiming his unease with the prospect of speaking to Pharaoh after having being denied by his own people, we see "God said to Moses, 'Observe! I will be making you like a god to Pharaoh, and your brother Aharon will be your prophet. You must announce all that I order you to, and your brother Aharon will relate it to Pharaoh. He will then let the Israelites leave his land."
As clear as it seems that Aharon is going to be Moshe's mouthpiece, we don't really see that coming to fruition. Certainly not in the times they relate to Pharaoh.
So why all the hype about Aharon? Moshe is very clearly the leader, and while Aharon does speak once or twice in Moshe's place, Moshe seems very capable of holding his own – with the people and with Pharaoh. Why are they, in many respects, viewed as equals?
Because Moshe needed to grow into his role. That he was chosen by God on account of the character and qualities he possessed is clear. But, like any human leader, the fact of being chosen (or elected) does not mean the person is completely ready for the job. A President or Prime Minister might be a great leader, but it does not mean the person is prepared for all the intricacies of the job, or is even a great public speaker. This is why people like a press secretary and a public relations representative have jobs. Obviously a public speaking ability is a tremendous asset. But sometimes a person needs to grow into that comfort zone.
Moshe cared for the underdogs in every fight he ever encountered. And Egyptian bondage, in that sense, was perfect for him to battle head-on. No one is as needy for an advocate as are slaves.
But it's a little different when one does his own private vigilantism versus when one has to play political hardball, and stand up against a despot in an arena that is not only very real, but carries the safety and future of an entire nation on its shoulders.
Having lived in Egypt his whole life, and having been in the trenches with the people, Aharon was a great supporting character to wean Moshe into his new role.
But Moshe adapted quickly (there are plenty of commentaries who explain that he did not have a speech impediment, but was very nervous about his assignment) and was quickly able to say, "Thanks for offering Aharon as my support staff. He will be a tremendous help in other ways. But I no longer need him to be my mouthpiece."
May we all be blessed to have such loyal mentors in our lives. Moshe was able to fill his roll with such ease and so quickly because he had his brother Aharon guiding him, with class, dignity, and with a sense of support which said, "I'm there if you need me, but I look forward to cutting the strings and removing the training wheels so you will be able to fly on your own."
by Rabbi Avi Billet
I have a hard time understanding the role of Aharon, Moshe's brother, in the exodus story.
When he is first appointed to be the leader/redeemer of Israel, Moshe presents a number of arguments as to why he is not the best man for the job. He may even hint to the idea that Aharon would be a more worthy choice.
God's response in 4:14 is a display of anger, followed by "Is not Aharon the Levite your brother? I know that he knows how to speak! He is setting out to meet you, and when he sees you, his heart will be glad."
In other words, if you Moshe are nervous about speaking to Pharaoh, Aharon will take care of this for you. In fact, the first time we see Aharon speaking on Moshe's behalf is in 4:30, when he addresses the nation of Israel, convincing them that Moshe was sent by God: "Aaron related all the words that God had told Moses, and he demonstrated the miraculous proofs before the people."
When they came to Pharaoh in chapter 5, we were told "Moshe and Aharon then went to Pharaoh and said, 'This is what Hashem, God of the Hebrews, declares: 'Let My people leave, so they can sacrifice to Me in the desert.''" In this instance, the indications point to Aharon and Moshe sharing the limelight.
But after this, the narrative presents a different story.
In our parsha, "Moshe related this to the Israelites, but because of their disappointment and hard work, they would no longer listen to him." (6:9) Note how Moshe is the speaker.
A little while later, after twice claiming his unease with the prospect of speaking to Pharaoh after having being denied by his own people, we see "God said to Moses, 'Observe! I will be making you like a god to Pharaoh, and your brother Aharon will be your prophet. You must announce all that I order you to, and your brother Aharon will relate it to Pharaoh. He will then let the Israelites leave his land."
As clear as it seems that Aharon is going to be Moshe's mouthpiece, we don't really see that coming to fruition. Certainly not in the times they relate to Pharaoh.
So why all the hype about Aharon? Moshe is very clearly the leader, and while Aharon does speak once or twice in Moshe's place, Moshe seems very capable of holding his own – with the people and with Pharaoh. Why are they, in many respects, viewed as equals?
Because Moshe needed to grow into his role. That he was chosen by God on account of the character and qualities he possessed is clear. But, like any human leader, the fact of being chosen (or elected) does not mean the person is completely ready for the job. A President or Prime Minister might be a great leader, but it does not mean the person is prepared for all the intricacies of the job, or is even a great public speaker. This is why people like a press secretary and a public relations representative have jobs. Obviously a public speaking ability is a tremendous asset. But sometimes a person needs to grow into that comfort zone.
Moshe cared for the underdogs in every fight he ever encountered. And Egyptian bondage, in that sense, was perfect for him to battle head-on. No one is as needy for an advocate as are slaves.
But it's a little different when one does his own private vigilantism versus when one has to play political hardball, and stand up against a despot in an arena that is not only very real, but carries the safety and future of an entire nation on its shoulders.
Having lived in Egypt his whole life, and having been in the trenches with the people, Aharon was a great supporting character to wean Moshe into his new role.
But Moshe adapted quickly (there are plenty of commentaries who explain that he did not have a speech impediment, but was very nervous about his assignment) and was quickly able to say, "Thanks for offering Aharon as my support staff. He will be a tremendous help in other ways. But I no longer need him to be my mouthpiece."
May we all be blessed to have such loyal mentors in our lives. Moshe was able to fill his roll with such ease and so quickly because he had his brother Aharon guiding him, with class, dignity, and with a sense of support which said, "I'm there if you need me, but I look forward to cutting the strings and removing the training wheels so you will be able to fly on your own."
Saturday, January 14, 2012
Doing Egypt a Favor
Parshat Shmot
by Rabbi Avi Billet
Every time the United States considers a political or military confrontation with a foreign hostile nation, the liberal caveat is often emphasized that "we have no beef with the people of ___ - all we want to do is see this rogue regime ousted."
And so I wonder how much the people of Egypt really bought into Pharaoh's greater plans. Even most of Pharaoh's decrees seem to be focused on making life difficult for people – but genocide is never an option. The infanticide discussion lasted more verses than it seems to have been carried out.
Don't misunderstand and think I am defending Egyptian slavery. But after over a hundred years of the serf-state that Egypt had become one has to wonder if in their day-to-day interactions Everyman Egyptian and Everyman Israelite saw their status quo as a mere reality, the former being the upper class and the latter being the stranger-turned-serf-turned-slave, while the human side of their relationships were deeper.
To point, when the Israelites leave Egypt, there is much discussion as to how they received the wealth they took with them from Egypt. Was it borrowed, taken, or received as a gift or payment for the years of servitude? All of these approaches are discussed by the commentaries.
In her article on this subject, Nechama Leibowitz records a unique approach suggested by Josephus, who says "The Egyptians honored them with these gifts, [some] in order to hasten their departure, and others out of the good neighborliness and the friendship they bore them. When they went forth the Egyptians wept and suffered remorse for the way they had treated them ill."
This approach hints to a society in which more than mere awareness of "the other" there was a familiarity between the natives and the visiting-slaves.
What, therefore, is the meaning of the message God gives Moshe at the burning bush, as to what "the Israelites will do to or for the Egyptians when they leave with silver vessels, gold vessels, and clothing?"
The Torah says "V'nitzaltem et Mitzrayim." (Shmot 3:22) Artscroll translates it "You shall empty out Egypt." The Living Torah (Aryeh Kaplan) suggests "You will thus drain Egypt [of its wealth]." Rabbi S.R. Hirsch (as translated to English by David Haberman) has it as "You will cause Egypt to deplete themselves." The Soncino Chumash: "ye shall spoil the Egyptians" – meaning, you'll take all their possessions as spoils.
Benno Jacob's commentary on this verse is most insightful and instructive. He suggested that owing to the root of "v'nitzaltem" (to save), and the fact that the word, when it appears elsewhere in the Bible, never has the direct object (in this case "Egypt") as being the one from whom the saving takes place (the direct object is always the one being saved), it must mean "You will save the Egyptians," – you will clear their name, and vindicate the humanity of the Egyptians.
To avoid bitter feelings, and to restore a sense of humanity to the term "Egyptians," a friendly parting and generous gifts would smooth the transaction. As Rabbi J.H. Hertz quotes B. Jacob, "the Israelites would come to see that the oppressors were Pharaoh and his courtiers, not the Egyptian people."
He concludes with the suggestion that this view would help them carry out the mitzvah in Devarim 23:8 "not to abhor an Egyptian." "It is for this reason that the Israelites are bidden to ask their neighbors for these gifts, to ensure such a parting in friendship and goodwill, with its consequent clearing of the name and vindication of the honor of the Egyptian people."
Many would like to argue that it is the loudmouth leadership in rogue regimes that become the mouthpiece for an unfortunate silent majority who would not agree if they had a voice and a chance to express an opinion without fearing for their lives. Was Egypt the same way?
The approach suggested by Benno Jacob lends itself to the possibility that like the rows and rows of trees at Yad Vashem dedicated to righteous gentiles who saved Jews during the Holocaust, not everyone in ancient Egypt was a cruel taskmaster.
If we believe in the possibility that humans are capable of being, want to be, or are good, we need to create opportunities for others to demonstrate this. We must open our minds to the possibility that those who seem to be the bitterest of our enemies may be stuck behind a façade they cannot break through on account of fear.
Let us hope and pray that those itching to befriend our people can do so in safety, peace, with no fear for their lives, and can have the redeeming experience they so desperately need so they can live out their lives as free men and women.
by Rabbi Avi Billet
Every time the United States considers a political or military confrontation with a foreign hostile nation, the liberal caveat is often emphasized that "we have no beef with the people of ___ - all we want to do is see this rogue regime ousted."
And so I wonder how much the people of Egypt really bought into Pharaoh's greater plans. Even most of Pharaoh's decrees seem to be focused on making life difficult for people – but genocide is never an option. The infanticide discussion lasted more verses than it seems to have been carried out.
Don't misunderstand and think I am defending Egyptian slavery. But after over a hundred years of the serf-state that Egypt had become one has to wonder if in their day-to-day interactions Everyman Egyptian and Everyman Israelite saw their status quo as a mere reality, the former being the upper class and the latter being the stranger-turned-serf-turned-slave, while the human side of their relationships were deeper.
To point, when the Israelites leave Egypt, there is much discussion as to how they received the wealth they took with them from Egypt. Was it borrowed, taken, or received as a gift or payment for the years of servitude? All of these approaches are discussed by the commentaries.
In her article on this subject, Nechama Leibowitz records a unique approach suggested by Josephus, who says "The Egyptians honored them with these gifts, [some] in order to hasten their departure, and others out of the good neighborliness and the friendship they bore them. When they went forth the Egyptians wept and suffered remorse for the way they had treated them ill."
This approach hints to a society in which more than mere awareness of "the other" there was a familiarity between the natives and the visiting-slaves.
What, therefore, is the meaning of the message God gives Moshe at the burning bush, as to what "the Israelites will do to or for the Egyptians when they leave with silver vessels, gold vessels, and clothing?"
The Torah says "V'nitzaltem et Mitzrayim." (Shmot 3:22) Artscroll translates it "You shall empty out Egypt." The Living Torah (Aryeh Kaplan) suggests "You will thus drain Egypt [of its wealth]." Rabbi S.R. Hirsch (as translated to English by David Haberman) has it as "You will cause Egypt to deplete themselves." The Soncino Chumash: "ye shall spoil the Egyptians" – meaning, you'll take all their possessions as spoils.
Benno Jacob's commentary on this verse is most insightful and instructive. He suggested that owing to the root of "v'nitzaltem" (to save), and the fact that the word, when it appears elsewhere in the Bible, never has the direct object (in this case "Egypt") as being the one from whom the saving takes place (the direct object is always the one being saved), it must mean "You will save the Egyptians," – you will clear their name, and vindicate the humanity of the Egyptians.
To avoid bitter feelings, and to restore a sense of humanity to the term "Egyptians," a friendly parting and generous gifts would smooth the transaction. As Rabbi J.H. Hertz quotes B. Jacob, "the Israelites would come to see that the oppressors were Pharaoh and his courtiers, not the Egyptian people."
He concludes with the suggestion that this view would help them carry out the mitzvah in Devarim 23:8 "not to abhor an Egyptian." "It is for this reason that the Israelites are bidden to ask their neighbors for these gifts, to ensure such a parting in friendship and goodwill, with its consequent clearing of the name and vindication of the honor of the Egyptian people."
Many would like to argue that it is the loudmouth leadership in rogue regimes that become the mouthpiece for an unfortunate silent majority who would not agree if they had a voice and a chance to express an opinion without fearing for their lives. Was Egypt the same way?
The approach suggested by Benno Jacob lends itself to the possibility that like the rows and rows of trees at Yad Vashem dedicated to righteous gentiles who saved Jews during the Holocaust, not everyone in ancient Egypt was a cruel taskmaster.
If we believe in the possibility that humans are capable of being, want to be, or are good, we need to create opportunities for others to demonstrate this. We must open our minds to the possibility that those who seem to be the bitterest of our enemies may be stuck behind a façade they cannot break through on account of fear.
Let us hope and pray that those itching to befriend our people can do so in safety, peace, with no fear for their lives, and can have the redeeming experience they so desperately need so they can live out their lives as free men and women.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)