Parshat Yitro
by Rabbi Avi Billet
While the debate over what Moshe’s father-in-law “heard” (וישמע יתרו) opens up the discussions on the first verse of the parsha, several verses later the Torah tells us “Vayichad Yitro” over all the good that God had dealt towards Israel.
The word “Vayichad” has many possible definitions, though the most common suggestion is that “he rejoiced.” As such, many commentaries note that Yitro celebrated the good done to Israel, but not the bad meted out to Egypt, because he had ties to Egypt and, in general, identified with the suffering of their people – even if deserved – because the humanitarian concern looks at individual plights, rather than the punishment given to a nation that had enslaved the Israelites. (Seforno, SR Hirsch, Malbim, etc)
Along this line, the Talmud (Sanhedrin 94a – wide lines) notes that the word “Vayichad” comes from the word “chidudin,” goosebumps, as his skin reacted negatively to the news of the trauma Egypt had suffered, even as he was happy for the Israelites. (Rashi)
Another viewpoint, also mentioned in the Talmud in the name of Rav, is that the word Vayichad comes from “Chada,” sharp, suggesting Yitro used a sharp blade to circumcise himself, e.g. to convert to Judaism. (See also Medrash Tanchuma, Baal Haturim, Hadar Zekenim)
Of course, on the most simple level, Yitro could have been rejoicing over the good that God had done for the people – beyond the Exodus, the splitting of the sea, and the war with Amalek, all of which are mortal salvation. Saving a life is wonderful, but it isn’t inherently “beneficial” if people will die anyway. So what is the “goodness” over which Yitro rejoiced? Rashi mentions the providing of the Manna, the well (water), and the gift of the Torah.
Midrash Sechel Tov notes that the gift of Manna was that it could have any flavor (think how soy can be cooked to taste like anything), while the gift of the well was that its water could taste like old wine, new wine, milk, honey, and all kinds of delicious things.
One wonders if Roald Dahl was reading this Midrash when he put together Willy Wonka’s Chocolate Factory. (I doubt he was reading the Midrash).
While the Midrash doesn’t continue to describe the benefits of the Torah, perhaps there are two possible reasons why.
Firstly, there is a debate whether Yitro came before the giving of the Torah, or after. There are several arguments for each direction, which we will not be going into now. Suffice it to say, this encounter is presented in the Torah before the giving of the Torah, on the one hand, while on the other hand, what law is Moshe presiding over in the second half of Chapter 18, if not Torah law?
Secondly, while there are certainly those who think that they can fit the Torah into any box that they want to, unlike the Manna and the well’s water, the Torah can’t taste like anything.
Surely there is much flexibility within the Torah lifestyle and halakha system to live a life under the service of God, while conforming to halakhic dictates. There will always be debates as to which is the “best” way to do things.
But just as there are debates in the Talmud about everything, there will be debates from now until the Messiah comes as to what is considered best practice. And that is OK.
But there are some things which do not fit into the realm of the Torah’s ways. Whether one follows the “49 ways and 49 ways” (Sofrim 16), 48 ways (Eruvin 13b) or “70 faces” (Bamidbar Raba Naso 13), there is a limit to the number of ways of understanding the Torah which are “correct” or “acceptable.”
The challenge facing us is to know what fits in the realm of “Yeah” and what fits in the realm of “Nay.”
If Yitro rejoiced over the gift of the Torah, perhaps he rejoiced because it was good for the Jews and gave them a sense of purpose. And if, indeed, he became a Jew, he rejoiced over the role it could play in his life. However, it is unclear how Yitro came to grips with a Torah reality, as he soon departed from being with the Jewish people, to return home. Of course, some suggest he went home to convert others to Judaism. But that story is unclear.
Maybe Yitro suffered from the syndrome that some who join the Jewish people for motivations that are not completely sincere also suffer from. That when the going gets tough, commitment falls apart.
I cherish and know many Jews who converted from other faiths, who are dedicated, righteous, and who take their Judaism more seriously than many Jews-from-birth. Whether it is converts, or people who find themselves at odds with their upbringing – whether Chassidic, Lubavitch, Modern-Orthodox, Liberal – I hope everyone can find a place within the larger tent of Judaism that reflects of the 48, 49 or 70 faces, without abandoning it altogether.
After all, whether it was or was not for him, even Yitro knew that the Torah was considered one of the three great gifts that God gave to the Jewish people.
Thursday, January 28, 2016
Tuesday, January 19, 2016
Hard to See the Water, Hard to Change Your Life
Parshat B'Shalach
by Rabbi Avi Billet
They traveled from the Sea of Reeds, and they went out to the Shur Wilderness, and they walked for three days in the wilderness and they did not find water. And they came to Marah, and they were unable to drink water from Marah, for they were bitter… (15:22-23)
Today we are going to ask two questions, leaving one unanswered, while learning a lesson from the second.
First: Where was the Yam Suf - Sea of Reeds – and the splitting of the sea (note how it’s not a ‘crossing of the sea’)?
Second: Is this the three day journey of which Moshe spoke?
The first question is wrought with controversy. Targum Yonatan notes the view that the sea split into twelve “lanes” to allow for each tribe to go through at the same time. With 3 million people going through the sea, this would maximize the efficiency while minimizing the amount of time it would take to get to the other side of the sea-walls.
by Rabbi Avi Billet
They traveled from the Sea of Reeds, and they went out to the Shur Wilderness, and they walked for three days in the wilderness and they did not find water. And they came to Marah, and they were unable to drink water from Marah, for they were bitter… (15:22-23)
Today we are going to ask two questions, leaving one unanswered, while learning a lesson from the second.
First: Where was the Yam Suf - Sea of Reeds – and the splitting of the sea (note how it’s not a ‘crossing of the sea’)?
Second: Is this the three day journey of which Moshe spoke?
The first question is wrought with controversy. Targum Yonatan notes the view that the sea split into twelve “lanes” to allow for each tribe to go through at the same time. With 3 million people going through the sea, this would maximize the efficiency while minimizing the amount of time it would take to get to the other side of the sea-walls.
Sunday, January 17, 2016
Chiddush about Women and Tefillin
See here - the original post about Women and Tefillin - a list of links to articles and blog posts on the subject..
My shiur Shabbos afternoon was about women and tefillin. I thoroughly enjoyed reading this article as part of my preparation. But one thought came to me afterwards based on the position of Rabbi Eliezer Melamed (see his footnote there).
One of the suggested reasons why women should not wear tefillin is based on the rules surrounding how the body must be maintained while the tefillin are worn, what is called in halakha "guf naki." In simple terms - guf naki means no discharge can come from one's privates while wearing the tefillin. Since women can't control the menstrual discharge, then certainly until menopause or at least during those days of the month, the woman would be forbidden from wearing the tefillin out of respect for the honor owed to the tefillin.
One of the primary examples of a woman wearing tefillin appears in the Talmud in the form of the personality of Michal Bat Shaul. She is assumed to have been super righteous, so much so that her motivation was pure and the rabbis did not reprove her for her "untraditional" practice. Even though she was the only woman doing this.
But, in light of Rabbi Melamed, might I suggest another possibility as to why Michal was the only example the rabbis could come up with: The verse tells us in Shmuel II 6:23 that Michal never had children. Could it be she never menstruated, and then, unlike other women, the reasons why the rabbis didn't bother her was because her "guf naki" issue was a non-issue?
Just a thought?
My shiur Shabbos afternoon was about women and tefillin. I thoroughly enjoyed reading this article as part of my preparation. But one thought came to me afterwards based on the position of Rabbi Eliezer Melamed (see his footnote there).
One of the suggested reasons why women should not wear tefillin is based on the rules surrounding how the body must be maintained while the tefillin are worn, what is called in halakha "guf naki." In simple terms - guf naki means no discharge can come from one's privates while wearing the tefillin. Since women can't control the menstrual discharge, then certainly until menopause or at least during those days of the month, the woman would be forbidden from wearing the tefillin out of respect for the honor owed to the tefillin.
One of the primary examples of a woman wearing tefillin appears in the Talmud in the form of the personality of Michal Bat Shaul. She is assumed to have been super righteous, so much so that her motivation was pure and the rabbis did not reprove her for her "untraditional" practice. Even though she was the only woman doing this.
But, in light of Rabbi Melamed, might I suggest another possibility as to why Michal was the only example the rabbis could come up with: The verse tells us in Shmuel II 6:23 that Michal never had children. Could it be she never menstruated, and then, unlike other women, the reasons why the rabbis didn't bother her was because her "guf naki" issue was a non-issue?
Just a thought?
Tuesday, January 12, 2016
Adjusting After Interactions = Lesson Learned!
Parshat Bo
by Rabbi Avi Billet
Four of the plagues involve living creatures coming to disturb the lives of the Egyptians: Frogs, Lice, Arov (purposely not translating as this one is complicated to identify), and the locusts. During the plagues of frogs and Arov, as well as before and after the locusts come, does Pharaoh admit wrongdoing or offer to let the Israelites go. There is no communication with Moshe and Aharon before, during or immediately after the lice. [He also offers to let them leave during the plagues of hail and darkness, changing his mind after each plague ended.]
If we pay careful attention to the language in the Torah, we see lessons being learned by Pharaoh, Moshe and Aharon, and even God. How so?
by Rabbi Avi Billet
Four of the plagues involve living creatures coming to disturb the lives of the Egyptians: Frogs, Lice, Arov (purposely not translating as this one is complicated to identify), and the locusts. During the plagues of frogs and Arov, as well as before and after the locusts come, does Pharaoh admit wrongdoing or offer to let the Israelites go. There is no communication with Moshe and Aharon before, during or immediately after the lice. [He also offers to let them leave during the plagues of hail and darkness, changing his mind after each plague ended.]
If we pay careful attention to the language in the Torah, we see lessons being learned by Pharaoh, Moshe and Aharon, and even God. How so?
Tuesday, January 5, 2016
Amram and Yocheved - A Forbidden Relationship?
Parshat Va'era
by Rabbi Avi Billet
Shmot Chapter 6 contains within it a family tree that seems to quickly plow through the families of Reuven and Shimon to get to the great detail which describes the family of Levi. It is important to know, for example, that Moshe is a human being, born of human parents, and to see his “yichus” (genealogy) in the context of seeing how he descended from Yaakov.
But there is one verse which stands out because it is a little odd.
"And Amram took Yocheved, his aunt, to be his wife." (6:20)
Considering a later verse in the Torah that Moshe would eventually teach to the Jewish people, how could Moshe record this little fact (which was also mentioned – though not as clearly – in 2:1) in the same Torah in which he’d declare “Do not commit incest with your father's sister, since she is your father's blood relative.” (Vayikra 18:12)?
by Rabbi Avi Billet
Shmot Chapter 6 contains within it a family tree that seems to quickly plow through the families of Reuven and Shimon to get to the great detail which describes the family of Levi. It is important to know, for example, that Moshe is a human being, born of human parents, and to see his “yichus” (genealogy) in the context of seeing how he descended from Yaakov.
But there is one verse which stands out because it is a little odd.
"And Amram took Yocheved, his aunt, to be his wife." (6:20)
Considering a later verse in the Torah that Moshe would eventually teach to the Jewish people, how could Moshe record this little fact (which was also mentioned – though not as clearly – in 2:1) in the same Torah in which he’d declare “Do not commit incest with your father's sister, since she is your father's blood relative.” (Vayikra 18:12)?
Shabbos in Boynton Beach
The highest traffic post on this blog is this first time I wrote about Shabbos in Boynton Beach. It's time for an update!
The stat is not that surprising, considering that a lot of people have connections to Boynton Beach, either through a friend or, quite often, an elderly parent who lives in the area, and they are looking to find the Orthodox Jewish Boynton Beach, so they can find the services that will help them have the kind of Shabbos they are looking for.
Things have changed mightily since that October 2009 blog post, as the neighborhood has undergone a tremendous upheaval - in a good way.
Since those days, the shul where I was a visiting rabbi, Anshei Chesed, has moved, has built a new building, has a full-website, a full calendar of activities, and, just last month, installed me as the first full-time rabbi!
COMMUNITY GROWTH
The community has grown exponentially. So many people have moved in - both to "snowbird" homes, and as full-time residents. There are a few more families with children, and many many more retired and semi-retired couples who have found their way to this hovel of Orthodoxy in the middle of Palm Beach County.
Kosher stats: One kosher restaurant; a significantly kosher variety, including a completely kosher bakery, at the local BJ's; ditto for Costco, which is about a 12-15 minute drive away; a fully kosher supermarket with a prepared foods counter, under the ORB, in Delray Beach - which is a 10 minute drive away. And, of course, all the local supermarkets (several Publix within 4 minutes from the shul, two Targets, etc) carry kosher products.
Eruv: The community Eruv is very large, encompassing a large area in Boynton Beach, from the turnpike to the I-95, 1.5 miles north of the shul, and 2.5 miles south of the shul. Kudos to Rabbi Ciment of Chabad for seeing to the construction of the Eruv, under the guidance of Eruv experts from Miami.
Anshei Chesed features daily minyan, morning and evening, all year round. Thank God, we have not had trouble getting a minyan, even in the "slow season" during the summer.
SHABBOS
Every Shabbos has an increasingly larger crowd - especially during December and January, and Pesach time, the busiest seasons of the year. We also have a teen minyan which meets several times a month, and we'll hopefully soon be starting a hashkama minyan on Shabbos morning.
I still speak 5 times on a typical Shabbos:
1. Friday night - before Bameh Madlikin, 2. Shabbos morning - Chumash class before davening, 3. Morning sermon, 4. Afternoon class - halakha or some timely subject, 5. Seudah Shlishit - short dvar Torah.
With God's help we will continue to grow. If you're planning to spend Shabbos in Boynton Beach, come by our shul! You will love our quiet, respectful davening and our friendly crowd at kiddush. Hopefully you'll also enjoy the other features of our shul, community, members and guests that make our shul a uniquely special place.
The stat is not that surprising, considering that a lot of people have connections to Boynton Beach, either through a friend or, quite often, an elderly parent who lives in the area, and they are looking to find the Orthodox Jewish Boynton Beach, so they can find the services that will help them have the kind of Shabbos they are looking for.
Things have changed mightily since that October 2009 blog post, as the neighborhood has undergone a tremendous upheaval - in a good way.
Since those days, the shul where I was a visiting rabbi, Anshei Chesed, has moved, has built a new building, has a full-website, a full calendar of activities, and, just last month, installed me as the first full-time rabbi!
COMMUNITY GROWTH
The community has grown exponentially. So many people have moved in - both to "snowbird" homes, and as full-time residents. There are a few more families with children, and many many more retired and semi-retired couples who have found their way to this hovel of Orthodoxy in the middle of Palm Beach County.
Kosher stats: One kosher restaurant; a significantly kosher variety, including a completely kosher bakery, at the local BJ's; ditto for Costco, which is about a 12-15 minute drive away; a fully kosher supermarket with a prepared foods counter, under the ORB, in Delray Beach - which is a 10 minute drive away. And, of course, all the local supermarkets (several Publix within 4 minutes from the shul, two Targets, etc) carry kosher products.
Eruv: The community Eruv is very large, encompassing a large area in Boynton Beach, from the turnpike to the I-95, 1.5 miles north of the shul, and 2.5 miles south of the shul. Kudos to Rabbi Ciment of Chabad for seeing to the construction of the Eruv, under the guidance of Eruv experts from Miami.
Anshei Chesed features daily minyan, morning and evening, all year round. Thank God, we have not had trouble getting a minyan, even in the "slow season" during the summer.
SHABBOS
Every Shabbos has an increasingly larger crowd - especially during December and January, and Pesach time, the busiest seasons of the year. We also have a teen minyan which meets several times a month, and we'll hopefully soon be starting a hashkama minyan on Shabbos morning.
I still speak 5 times on a typical Shabbos:
1. Friday night - before Bameh Madlikin, 2. Shabbos morning - Chumash class before davening, 3. Morning sermon, 4. Afternoon class - halakha or some timely subject, 5. Seudah Shlishit - short dvar Torah.
With God's help we will continue to grow. If you're planning to spend Shabbos in Boynton Beach, come by our shul! You will love our quiet, respectful davening and our friendly crowd at kiddush. Hopefully you'll also enjoy the other features of our shul, community, members and guests that make our shul a uniquely special place.
Thursday, December 31, 2015
Pharaoh as a Human Being? - Human Consideration of Egypt's Plight
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)