ר"ע תיתד תונויצל ינויערה גוחה ,םולשו זוע
'And they should put it on the doorposts and on the lintel': on the inside. But perhaps it really means on the outside? This is what the verse means by 'and the blood should be as a sign for you' - a sign for you, and not for others. (Mechilta Bo Masehet Depascha Parasha 6)
Many have said that putting the blood on the lintel and the two doorposts was to show that they could publicly slaughter what was abhorrent to the Egyptians, because the fear of them had already fallen on the Egyptians, and they were not afraid that they would stone them. But if that were the case, it would have been on the gate to the courtyard. But in fact, the blood was only daubed in secret, with the courtyard gate shut, and they did the slaughtering in the afternoon so no-one would see since it was close to nightfall, and no-one left his house until morning, for they went on their way and each person closed his courtyard gate, because the Egyptians thought they would return. Only the reason for the blood on the lintel was to be a ransom for everyone who ate in the house and a sign to the destroying angel when he saw it, as though it were a label. (Ibn Ezra Exodus XII, 7)
We were commanded to slaughter the Paschal lamb and sprinkle its blood on the doorway in Egypt on the outside (Leviticus I,2) to cleanse ourselves of those notions and publicly declare their opposite, and inculcate the opinion that the deed you think is a cause of destruction is what saves from destruction (Maimonides, Guide of the Perplexed, III, 46)"What Sin Did the Captives Commit? What Sin Did the Animals Commit?"
After nine severe plagues that fail to achieve the desired end comes the tenth plague, the most severe of all, after which Pharaoh is broken, summons Moses and Aaron, and beseeches them "Rise up and get you forth from among my people, both you and the children of Israel, and go, serve the Lord, as you have said." The last plague strikes a mortal blow in every Egyptian household, without distinction, indiscriminately:
"And it came to pass, that at midnight the Lord smote all the firstborn in the land of Egypt, from the firstborn of Pharaoh that sat on his throne unto the firstborn of the captive that was in the dungeon; and all the firstborn of cattle." (XII, 29)
One can understand the fact that Pharaoh's firstborn is punished. One can equally well understand that the firstborns of the oppressors and torturers who made the slavery and persecution possible are punished. But why is the firstborn of the captive in the dungeon killed? And why are the firstborn animals killed? A natural response on the part of anyone reading these questions is that they are hypocritical and forced, that they are the questions of a 'bleeding heart'. After all, when we are talking about a nation like the Egyptians, there is no room for any moral distinctions, and it is permissible to strike at them without discrimination or scruple. However, it turns out that these 'bleeding heart' questions did indeed trouble the sages, both here and in many other places.
Mechilta , Masechta Depascha Bo, Parasha 13 (Edition Horovitz-Rabin, pages 43-44):
"Unto the firstborn of the captive: What sin did the captives commit? But it was so that the captives should not say, "Our god brought punishment upon them, our god is strong and stood firm, our god is strong, for the punishment did not prevail against us." Another opinion: To teach you that the captives rejoiced at all the decrees Pharaoh decreed against Israel, as it says: "He that is glad at calamities shall not go unpunished" (Proverbs XVII, 5), and it is written "Rejoice not when thy enemy falleth" (Proverbs XXIV, 17)... "And all the firstborn of the cattle: What sin did the cattle commit? But it was so that the Egyptians should not say "Our god brought punishment upon us, our god is strong, for it brought punishment upon us, our god is strong and stood firm, our god is strong, for the punishment did not prevail against us."
I do not seek to make a critical examination here of the answers that the Mechilta proposes to the questions under discussion. Perhaps they are inadequate from a moral point of view, for the fact that the captives were glad at Israel's calamities, for example, did not justify such a severe penalty. What I wish to emphasize is two more general points. Firstly, the fact that the rabbis take the bleeding hearts' questions seriously, and try to answer them. Secondly, that the answers attempt to explain the matter under discussion in terms that the preacher and his audience can understand (and perhaps also agree with). I will explore this in a little more detail.
As far as the first point is concerned, it is important to be aware of the fact that misgivings about what seems like punishment of the innocent are raised by the Talmudic sages in many places, as they are by later authorities. They are put forward in accordance with the requirement that "a man should die for his sin" (Jeremiah XXXI, 29), that "the soul that sins will die" (Ezekiel XVIII, 4). So, for example, the Sages ask concerning the punishment of Achan's family, "If he sinned, wherein lies the sin of his sons and daughters?" (Sanhedrin 44a). And even regarding Amalek, "If the adults sinned, what was the sin of the children; man sinned, but what sin was committed by the animals?" (Yoma 22a). The expectation that God will not kill the righteous along with the wicked finds its classic expression in Abraham's argument over Sodom, which takes for granted that doing justice means avoiding harm to the innocent.
On the second point, attention should be paid to the answers that are not given to the questions mentioned. In no case is the answer 'How dare you question the Almighty? Who are you, dust and ashes, to query God's actions?" Avraham does preface his arguments with the statement "And I am dust and ashes", but this introduction does not prevent him from entering into unprecedented defiance of what seems to him injustice. Another answer not found is, "True, in terms of the human notion of justice, it was not right to punish a person who had not sinned, but in terms of divine justice, there is nothing wrong with this." This answer is not found because we do not find such a distinction in our sources, and because the justice ascribed to God is the justice human beings are enjoined to pursue. .For that very reason, the question of the justification of God arises so sharply, for if the assumption was that God has a justice of his own, there would have been no grounds for asking about the correspondence between His actions or commands and our idea of justice, and there would have been no point trying to resolve cases that seem to exhibit a lack of such correspondence. Once this problem arises, we are not exempt from dealing with it and trying to resolve it.
Professor Danny Statman teaches in the philosophy department at Bar-Ilan University.
And so it is with the two arms of a man, for the left arm is weak and is next to the heart, the seat of wisdom, for the intelligent part of the heart causes the arm to be weak, for the arm is busy with material concerns, but the right arm is next to the liver, seat of desire, which is not opposed to the arm, because there lies its main strength, but where the intelligence resides, there the arm is weak. And when it says here 'And it shall be for a sign on your arm', it is as though it said it should be for a sign on your heart, for the heart is the case of the arm's weakness, for the point of the tefillin is to be a reminder for a man where the intelligence resides in the brain and the heart. And concerning the tefillin for the head it said it should be 'between you eyes', for the eye and the heart are two pimps for sin (Talmud Yerushalmi Berachot 81 halacha 5), therefore these two places need something to remind them of the existence of the Almighty, may He be blessed, and his power, and they will thereby recoil from evil. (Kli Yakar Exodus XIII, 16).
Another response from a reader to the debate between Gidon Erlich and Danny Statman...
It seems to me that we have here a dialogue of the deaf, each side relating to the weak points of the other. The weak point of the argument for complete adherence to what Maimonides and the Torah say about peace was convincingly presented by Prof. Danny Statman - this generation is unfit for such a thing. However, in my opinion, one cannot talk of the commandment to make peace without stating at the outset the explicit consideration that it is a case of "when Israel's hand is insufficiently firm, and observance of the commandments and belief in them are not maintained to their fullest sense by the people that dwells in Zion." Constructing a case for peace as a religious value while ignoring these aspects is likely to be construed as an attempt to clothe a Reform idea in Orthodox dress. The test for the claims of those who pursue the "retouched" peace lies in the answer to the question whether, when Israel has the upper hand, and the people returns to keeping the Torah, they will then accept the full force of the Torah and Maimonides' perspective on peace, or not.
Dov Stein, Jerusalem
Apropos the quote from the late Prof. Yeshayahu Leibovich (Vayigash edition), from whom I learned a great deal during his lifetime, and continue to learn from his writings after his death, I permit myself to remark that:Leibovich adopts R. Akiva's position that "the ten tribes will not return", and adds: "He knew they were lost." But, it can't be helped, there are those in the Talmud who disagree with him (Sanhedrin 110b); in the Mishnah, R. Eliezer, and in the Beraitha, and later, R. Shimon son of R. Yehuda Ish Kfar Acco, and others - indeed, a long line of sages whose esteem for R. Akiva did not diminish their wish to present their contrary opinion, and even to justify it on a painful note: "R. Akiva has abandoned his kindliness," in similar fashion to the dispute in the Talmud over whether the generation of the wilderness does or does not have a place in the world to come.
Yohanan Dicastro, Sde Eliahu
As we have declared in the past, we are keen to turn the growing readership of "Shabbat Shalom" into active partners in our enterprise.
So far, we have done this by publishing letters to the editor, and publishing comments on the Torah and midrashim put forward by readers from all corners of Israel and the world. Other readers have volunteered to contribute their talents and translate the pamphlet into English, while yet other readers have contributed an illustration for the front page. Teenagers and children have also become partners. We thank anyone who has participated in this project in one way or another.
We would like to propose another channel for partnership between us and you, the readers.
|
|
|
| |
| Home |
The Movement Objectives and Principles You can Help! |
What's New Activities and Current Events |
Articles and Position Papers Peace Judaism and Israel |
|
|
|
|
Weekly Parsha (Hebrew) Weekly Parsha (English) |
Search Our Site | Links To Peace Movements |
Contact Us
OZ veSHALOM - NETIVOT SHALOM
P.O. Box 4433, Jerusalem, 91043 Israel
Tel: 02-5664218, for Shabbat Shalom only call 053-920206
ozveshalomns@gmail.com
©
Copyright 1997-2003 by Oz Veshalom. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.