THE TOTAL NUMBER OF PERSONS THAT WERE OF JACOB'S ISSUE CAME TO SEVENTY, YOSEF ALREADY BEING IN EGYPT. YOSEF DIED, AND ALL HIS BROTHERS, AND ALL THAT GENERATION. BUT THE ISRAELITES WERE FERTILE AND PROLIFIC; THEY MULTIPLIED AND INCREASED VERY GREATLY, SO THAT THE LAND WAS FILLED WITH THEM.

(Shemoth I:5-7)

 

"They multiplied and increased very greatly... "

"I will bestow my blessing upon you and make your descendants as numerous as the stars of heaven and the sands on the seashore; and your descendants shall seize the gates of their foes."

(Bereishit 22:17)

As the stars rule only at night, so Israel rules over the Torah only at night.

An alternative explanation: Just as the stars respect each other, and there is peace between them - "He who makes between his celestials" - so do the righteous respect other and love each other. And just as their exists no contention between the stars, so does the good inclination direct the righteous.

Another explanation: Just as a single star can set the entire world afire, so can the righteous - such as Elijah, for whom fire descended when he said: "If I am a man of God, may fire descend from the heavens and consume you and the fifty men, etc." (II Kings 1:12)

(P'sikta Rabbati Parsha 11)

 

 

"A NEW KING AROSE . . . AND THEY BUILT STORE CITIES

FOR PHARAOH - PITHOM AND RAAMSES"

Yair Eldan

 

In three famous disputes (Bavli, Sotah 11a), Rav and Shmuel argue the meaning of the facts transmitted in the opening passages of the Book of Shemot. The best known of the three is the dispute as to the identity of the "new king", a dispute quoted by Rashi:

Rav and Shmuel [argued]: One said: "A new king"; the other said: "[the same king, but] he issued new decrees."

The second dispute deals with the reason for terming the cities constructed by the Israelites for Egypt 'arei miskanot' - 'storage cities':[1]

One said: "Because they endanger their masters," and one said: "Because they impoverish their masters."

The third dispute relates to the source of the names "Pithom" and "Raamses":

One said: "Its name was Pithom, and why was it called Raamses? Because it would crumble one bit at a time."[2] And the other said: "The city's name was Raamses, and why was it called Pithom? Because the mouth of the depths [pi tehom] would swallow it one bit at a time."

These three disputes, which reveal one handbreadth but conceal two, are related by a single theme. All three attempt to cope with our retrospective attitude to the issue of the servitude of the Children of Israel in Egypt. Was it a case of "the same king, who issued new decrees?", the same madam in different garb, the repeated and re-repeated story resulting from the eternal metaphysical relations between the nations and the Jews? Or was this a "new king", a new situation, different from preceding situations, one which is subject to change by us, a situation dependent upon the character of the people involved?

This silken thread is also discernible in a dispute regarding the nature of the enslavement - is this a servitude of existential character - labor which "endangers" its subjects? Or was it an emotional, passing servitude - labor which "impoverishes their owners"? Again - the metaphysical struggle versus the dynamic conception.

And as regards the third dispute - which carries heavier weight, Raamses or Pithom? Raamses, the crumbling building, built and destroyed, necessitating rebuilding upon a foundation of ruins, reminding the Israelite slaves again and again of the Sisyphusian effort demanded of them? The description of the construction work serves, in double meaning, both as a metaphor for time and also as an actual description of the great effort demanded of the Children of Israel. The ruins are also the past which calls to the Children of Israel from every corner, making it clear to us that we are dealing with the a metaphysical conflict which has neither beginning nor end. Or is our subject Pithom - the possibility that the built structure will be swallowed up in the earth, that the past will not repeat itself, that our pain will be different, that the servitude will come to an end. The controversy instills in us the desire to differentiate. On one hand, Shmuel, informed in the ways of the nations and in their knowledge, Shmuel the astronomer and the physician, is probably the more optimistic of the two as regards gentile-Jew relations. Rav, man of Halakha, most sagacious, mentor of talmidei hahamim, is probably the more pessimistic. Today, as the 1700 year old dispute is still alive in us, perhaps two things should be remembered: a.) The facts which lay at the basis of the dispute were accepted by both sages - both agreed that the Children of Israel were enslaved, and both concurred that they were tortured with hard labor.

Second - and perhaps even more important: taking a position contrary to an earlier position, and a bit of humor, are also part of the Rav-Shmuel tradition; these are essential for the possibility of communication between people of different opinions. This can seen in a fourth dispute: Who are the "midwives of the Hebrews?"

"Rav and Shmuel argue - One says: "A woman and her daughter - Yocheved and Miriam", and one says: "A daughter-in-law and her mother-in-law - Yocheved and Elisheva."

Rav and Shmuel present two approaches to the perception of reality: an optimistic perception of reality which holds the potential for changes and the ability to change, as against a view of static, deterministic reality which continually repeats itself. When this controversy is presented in the form of "woman-daughter" and "woman-daughter-in-law" relations, we cannot help but smile. When the question "Is there a reality in which mothers-in-laws and daughters-in-law are allies?" is asked in all seriousness, it has an effect of release. Role reversal is possible here. One who is a pessimist regarding Jew-gentile relations, one whose world outlook is static, who believes that "the goyim are always against us", that we are "a nation which dwells alone" - can definitely believe that for the sake of an alliance against the goyim reality can change -- mother-in-law and daughter-in-law can join forces to fight the decree of the old-new king. So, by weaving a web of disputes, by creating one common basis, and adding a little smile, communication between opponents seems possible.

Yair Eldan is a lawyer

 

MOSHE'S COMPLEX IDENTITY

Pinchas Leiser

 

In blessed memory of

My mother and teacher

Miram Leiser, daughter of Pinchas and Channah

Who went to her final resting place on 21 Tevet 5756

 

THE CHILD GREW, she brought him to Pharaoh's daughter, and he became her son.

She called his name: Moshe; she said: For out of the water, I pulled him.

Now it was some years later MOSHE GREW UP;

HE WENT OUT TO HIS BROTHERS, and saw their burdens.

He saw and Egyptian man striking A HEBREW MAN, ONE OF HIS BROTHERS.

He turned this way and that way, and seeing that there was no man there, he struck down the Egyptian and buried him in the sand.

(Shemoth II, 10-12)

 

            Moshe's first act as an adult, is to go out to his brothers and to beat/kill the Egyptian who struck his Hebrew brother. (Commentators differ as to Moshe's intentions).

            Rashi's explanation - based on the Midrash Tanhuma - is well known. The Egyptian was an overseer who had killed the husband of Shelomit bat Divri, after having been intimate with her.

            The usual, simple, reading of the text has Moshe going out to his Hebrew brothers after his reaching maturity; most commentators interpreted the first "his brothers" in a the passage as referring to Moshe's Hebrew brothers.

 

Ramban, for example:

"And the meaning of "went out to his brothers" - because they told him that he was a Jew, and he wanted to see them because they were his brothers, and he saw their suffering and their hard labor, and he could not tolerate it, therefore he killed the Egyptian who beat the oppressed." (Ramban, Shemot 2:11)

In other words, Pharaoh's daughter, who had raised Moshe, revealed to him that he was really an adopted Jewish child. His going out to his brothers is actually a return to his Hebrew roots, like an adopted child seeking - upon reaching eighteen - to open the adoption file and to meet his biological parents. Therefore, out of identification with his fellow Hebrew, he strikes the Egyptian.

 

Ibn Ezra reads the text in a most interesting and unconventional manner:

 " 'And he went out to his brothers' - the Egyptians... and the meaning of "from among his brothers" ["beating a Hebrew man from among his brothers"] after mentioning "a Hebrew man" is that he was a member of his family, as with "people who are brothers".

(Ibn Ezra, Shemot, ibid., ibid.)

 

The redactor of Ibn Ezra's commentary for the Mossad Harav Kook edition (printed in "Torat Hayyim"), remarks: "It would seem that the text should read 'The Hebrews' rather than 'the Egyptians' - but there is no evidence of such a version. It is not realistic to assume that "the young typesetter" should replace a rational and acceptable version with a puzzling one. The more puzzling version which is printed in most Humashim allows us to read the complexity of this passage, according to Ibn Ezra's profound commentary.

            Moshe grew up in Pharaoh's abode, and if Pharaoh's daughter intended to save him - like one of the righteous women of the nations who rebelled against her father's decree - it is not reasonable to assume that she revealed to him his Hebrew origins. Why should she give up the son whom she raised and make him vulnerable to servitude?

            Moshe, however, according to Ibn Ezra, goes out to his Egyptian brothers, as an Egyptian who grew in Pharaoh's home, for this is the identity which he knows. But when he sees the Egyptian's action, he understands that his real brother is the persecuted Hebrew who is beaten and humiliated by the Egyptian. This discovery connects him anew to questions about identity which he must have asked himself in Pharaoh's home, to the founding story of his birth, to his being set upon the Nile because "they could no longer hide him," and to his saving by Pharaoh's daughter. Moshe, as he discovers his identity, reacts forcefully against the oppression, characteristic of a young freedom fighter rebelling with all his might against the enslavement, the oppression and the degradation of his compatriot. He discovers that, in order to become a true leader capable of freeing his people from the yoke of slavery, he must first undergo a period of maturation and moderation.

Along with the understanding expressed by many Midrashim for Moshe's extreme action, there is a later Midrash which expresses, in the name of The Holy One, Blessed Be He, criticism of the killing of the Egyptian, therewith rationalizing Moshe's punishment:

Said The Holy One, Blessed Be He to Moshe: "Moshe, whose son are you?" He replied: "Son of Amram."

"And Amram is the son of whom?" He replied, "Son of Kehat"... Said to him The Holy One, Blessed Be He: "Did anyone of them survive?" He replied: "All died."

Said to him The Holy One, Blessed Be He: "And you want to live!?"

He said to Him: "Master of the universe, Adam, the first man, stole and ate that which you forbade, and you punished him with death, and I - did I ever steal anything from you?! And you wrote about me "My servant Moshe, most loyal of all my house" - is it right that I die? . . He said to him: "Are you greater than Avraham whom I tested with ten tests?" He replied to Him: "Avraham - from him descended Yishmael, whose sons killed your sons." Said He to him: "Are you greater than Yitzhak?" He said to Him: "Yitzhak - from his loins descended he who will destroy your house and his children will kill your children." Said The Holy One, Blessed Be He, to him: "Did I command you to kill the Egyptian?" Said Moshe to Him: "But you killed all the firstborn of Egypt, yet I am to die because of one Egyptian?!" Said to him The Holy One, Blessed Be He: "Are you like me, extinguishing life and giving life? Can you bring to life as I do?" (From the Midrash "The Death of Moshe", "Beit Hamidrash". Quoted in New Studies in the Book of Shemot, by Prof. Nehamah Leibowits, z"l)

It is possible that the killing of the Egyptian can be understood against the background of Moshe's total identification with his people's suffering, after he discovered his identity as a son of a persecuted and humiliated nation, but sometimes total identification with suffering may blur the boundaries between the permissible and the forbidden. Even a fighter for justice who rises up against wrong perpetrated against his relatives and members of his people must observe limits and practice restraint and cannot "take the law into his own hands". Only God, who can also grant life, may take life.

Pinchas Leiser, Editor of "Shabbat Shalom" is a psychologist.

 

 "And the king of Egypt died and the Children of Israel groaned because of the labor and they cried out"

Even though the king was evil, his death disturbed them, for they feared lest he be succeeded by one even more evil.

(Rabeinu Behayeh, Shemot 2:23)

 

As long as that king was alive, they hoped that perhaps upon his death his decrees against them would be nullified, for this is the custom when a king dies, immediately all the prisoners in the land are freed. But when this one died, his decrees were not nullified; they said: Now this will go on forever, therefore "they cried out".

(Hizkuni, Shemot 2: 23)

 

From the experience of human history, we recognize the situation in which the joy over a the fall of an incompetent regime is transformed into sorrow and grief when people discover the nature of the opposition which replaced the previous government. Many changes of rule and political upheavals which were intended initially to correct injustices and to erase evil and iniquities, ended up by making matters worse. From this aspect, not much has changed in our world over the last 3500 years since the first Pharaoh was replaced by the second one.

(Y. Leibowitz, Seven Years of Discussions of the Weekly Parasha, p. 198)

 

 

 

Editorial Board: Pinchas Leiser (Editor), Miriam Fine (Coordinator), Itzhak Frankenthal and Dr. Menachem Klein

Translation: Kadish Goldberg

This weekly publication was made possible by:

The Moriah Fund, the Tisch Foundation and private donors

 

To our readers:

We will be happy to have you actively participate in "Shabbat Shalom" by:

·        Letters to the editor

·        Publication of Divrei Torah (in coordination with the editorial board)

·        Membership in Oz V'Shalom - Netivot Shalom and payment of dues.

For details, contact Miriam Fine (053-920206 or 02-6730196)

 

If you enjoy Shabbat Shalom, please consider contributing towards its publication and distribution.

• Hebrew edition distributed in Israel $1000
• English edition distributed via email $ 100

Issues may be dedicated in honor of an event, person, simcha, etc. Requests must be made 3-4 weeks in advance to appear in the Hebrew, 10 days in advance to appear in the English email.

 

US, Canadia or British tax-exempt contributions to OzveShalom may be made through the New Israel Fund or through P.E.F. Israel Endowment Funds, Inc.

Contributions should be marked as donor-advised to OzveShalom/Netivot Shalom, the Shabbat Shalom project.

New Israel Fund, POB 53410, Jerusalem 91534 (Please include Israeli address and telephone number)

New Israel Fund, POB 91588, Washington, DC 20090-1588, USA

New Israel Fund of Canada, 801 Eglinton Ave. West, Suite #401, Toronto, Ontario M5N 1E3 Canada (Canadian tax exemption)

New Israel Fund of Great Britain, 26 Enford Street, London W1H 2DD, United Kingdom (British tax exemption)

P.E.F. Israel Endowment Funds, Inc., 317 Madison Ave., Suite 607, New York, New York 10017 USA

 

About us

Oz Veshalom-Netivot Shalom is a movement dedicated to the advancement of a civil society in Israel. It is committed to promoting the ideals of tolerance, pluralism, and justice, concepts which have always been central to Jewish tradition and law.

 

Oz Veshalom-Netivot Shalom shares a deep attachment to the land of Israel and it no less views peace as a central religious value. It believes that Jews have both the religious and the national obligation to support the pursuit of peace. It maintains that Jewish law clearly requires us to create a fair and just society, and that co-existence between Jews and Arabs is not an option but an imperative.

 

Oz Veshalom-Netivot Shalom`s programs include both educational and protest activities. Seminars, lectures, workshops, conferences and weekend programs are held for students, educators and families, as well as joint seminars for Jews, Israeli Arabs and Palestinians. Protest activities focus on issues of human rights, co-existence between Jews and Arabs, and responses to issues of particular religious relevance.

 

9,000 copies of a 4 page peace oriented commentary on the weekly Torah reading are written and published by Oz VeShalom/Netivot Shalom and they are distributed to over 350 synagogues in Israel and are sent overseas via email. Our web site is www.netivot-shalom.org.il.

 

Oz Veshalom-Netivot Shalom`s educational forums draw people of different backgrounds, secular and religious, who are keen to deepen their Jewish knowledge and to hear an alternative religious standpoint on the subjects of peace and social issues.

 

Oz Veshalom-Netivot Shalom fills an ideological vacuum in Israel's society. Committed both to Jewish tradition and observance, and to the furthering of peace and coexistence, the movement is in a unique position to engage in dialogue with the secular left and the religious right, with Israeli Arabs and with Palestinians.

 

Our activities are funded by donations and one part time employee.

 

OzveShalom/Netivot Shalom                   Tel./Fax 972-2-5664218

Pob 4433                                             Email: ozshalom@netvision.net.il

Jerusalem 94310, Israel                     www. netivot-shalom.org.il