Web hosting Custom Email SiteBuilder

Parsha Themes Archive

1. A NEW SEFER: Sefer Shemot (Exodus) opens up with familiar names: the names of the sons of Ya’akov, personalities to whom we know we can look for leadership. We seem to be on firm ground despite having just begun a new sefer (book). We expect things to continue as before. But this sense of familiarity quickly evaporates as we encounter the new realities of Sefer Shemot. In what ways does the opening of Sefer Shemot present unfamiliar territory? What is missing from Bnei Yisrael’s new reality? The answer to this question -- and the appearance of what is missing -- are primary themes of Parashat Shemot.

 

2. LEADERSHIP: Our discussions of Sefer Bereishit (Genesis) focused heavily on themes of leadership. Our discussions of Sefer Shemot, VaYikra (Leviticus), BeMidbar (Numbers), and Devarim (Deuteronomy) will also focus on leadership, as the career and personality of Moshe and other leaders offer great opportunities for insight. As each leader steps onto the scene, pay careful attention to his or her leadership style; ask yourself what leadership means in each context. Although many of us may think of leadership as a combination of charisma, power, “personal magnetism,” and other buzzwords, we will see that leadership comes in many different flavors. If you do not consider yourself “charismatic, powerful, personally magnetic,” etc. and you are asking yourself what leadership has to do with you, keep in mind that one of our goals is to think about different models of leadership and how our own characteristics and gifts offer us different leadership opportunities.

Sefer Shemot (Exodus) opens up with familiar names: the names of the sons of Ya’akov, personalities to whom we know we can look for leadership. We seem to be on firm ground despite having just begun a new sefer, and it seems that things will continue as before. Many mefarshim (commentators) offer various explanations for why the names of the sons of Ya’akov appear here, since they have recently been listed at the end of Sefer Bereishit (in Parashat VaYigash). But from a literary perspective, the names may appear here simply to establish Sefer Shemot as a literary entity independent of Sefer Bereishit. The “unnecessary” review of the names signals the distinctiveness of this book from the previous one (see Bekhor Shor; Abravanel and others offer examples from other books in Tanakh which open up with information we already know from previous books). But a look at the list of Ya’akov’s sons provides what may be a more satisfying answer: the Torah lists the sons of Ya’akov again to tell us that they are dead!

These are the names of the sons of Yisrael who came to Egypt: Ya’akov, the man and his household, came: Re’uvein, Shimon, Leivi, and Yehuda, Yissakhar, Zevulun, and Binyamin, Dan, Naftali, Gad, and Asher. All of the souls who came from the loins of Ya’akov were seventy souls; Yosef was [already] in Egypt. Yosef and all of his brothers died, and all of that generation [died]. Bnei Yisrael were fruitful, and swarmed, and increased, and became very, very mighty; the land was full of them.

First the Torah lists the sons of Ya’akov, followed by a summary of the total number of people who came to Egypt as part of Ya’akov’s household -- seventy people. The situation sounds as if it is under control: the whole group is only seventy people, and leadership for the group is amply provided by the sons of Ya’akov, who, as we know from VaYeishev, Mikkeitz, VaYigash, and VaYhi, include such capable leaders as Yosef and Yehuda. But the Torah quickly takes away this feeling of security by suddenly reporting two facts (I say “suddenly” because it is clear that these events take much longer to occur than their brief treatment in the Torah conveys):

1. Yosef, all of his brothers, and all of his generation are dead. In other words, all of the people we had been “depending on” for leadership, the mention of whose names had lulled us into believing for a moment that they were still here to lead, are gone. The family of seventy is left without a leader and no one appears to fill that vacuum. A crisis of leadership is brewing.

The Torah may be trying to communicate that with the death of the older generation and the explosive growth of Bnei Yisrael, a crisis of leadership is brewing: Who will represent Bnei Yisrael to the Egyptians, now that Yosef is gone? Who will organize them so that they can stand up for themselves, train them to defend themselves, provide spiritual leadership so they can maintain the monotheistic beliefs of the Avot in the midst of pagan Egypt? How will they preserve the moral values of the Avot if they do not remain distinct from the surrounding culture? Finally, despite the emphasis placed by Ya’akov and Yosef (just before their deaths, as we discussed on Parashat VaYhi) on the family’s connection to Eretz Yisrael and their repeated assertion that Hashem will return the family to Eretz Yisrael, how will the people maintain an emotional connection to the land and not become comfortable and complacent in fertile Egypt?

To see how effective the leaders and educators of Bnei Yisrael are in Egypt in perpetuating the values and beliefs passed down by the Avot, see Yehezkel 20:5-10 for the dismal report.

One reason leadership is particularly necessary is because Egypt is not a friendly place for Bnei Yisrael. The roots of latent Egyptian hostility are struck well before Paro commands that Bnei Yisrael be enslaved:

Any group, under any conditions, needs leadership. But in an unfriendly and uncertain environment, leadership is especially critical. People must have someone to look to for hope and guidance, someone to focus their energies and help them accomplish their goals -- and, when necessary, force them to face realities they would rather ignore. Yosef and his brothers are dead; the family of seventy has grown into a group the size of a nation. And the situation is about to get worse.

This vacuum of leadership is part of what enables Paro and his people to subjugate Bnei Yisrael. Paro himself testifies that Bnei Yisrael have become more numerous than his own people, that he fears that their strength threatens Egypt. We might have expected Paro to try to reach an agreement or treaty of some sort with Bnei Yisrael, as previous leaders (like Avimelekh) had done once they recognized the power in (or behind) Bnei Yisrael. But Paro is able to completely take advantage of Bnei Yisrael despite their strength. Among other causes, this weakness points to a lack of leadership. Even a powerful group is defenseless without leadership to direct its power and channel its energies. If leadership is not provided from within, by the appearance of a leader from among Bnei Yisrael, then leadership will be provided from without -- by a Paro, who will take advantage of the strength of the people for his own purposes.

What are Paro’s “purposes?” Why does he come up with the idea of making Bnei Yisrael suffer in various cruel ways?

A new king arose over Egypt who did not know Yosef. He said to his nation, “The nation of Bnei Yisrael is many, and more powerful than we are. Let us ‘wise up’ about him, lest he increase, and then, when a war breaks out, he will join our enemies, fight us, and go up out of the land!”

Paro seems to fear that Bnei Yisrael will leave Egypt and go wherever they choose (see Rashi, Ibn Ezra, Rashbam, Abravanel). Why? What does Egypt have invested in Bnei Yisrael’s remaining where they are?

Although this new king does not remember Yosef, Egypt became dependent on Yosef long ago to save it from starvation. This established a relationship which Yosef himself became confined by: when he wanted to leave to bury Ya’akov, he had to ask Paro for permission (and obsequiously, at that). We usually assume that, once released from jail to interpret Paro’s dreams, Yosef gains his freedom and has the power of the king, for all practical purposes. But it seems that he never gains complete freedom; one price of his being an indispensable asset to Egypt is that Paro keeps him under close watch and restricts his movements. Paro’s attitude toward Yosef may have trickled down and become the prevalent Egyptian attitude toward Bnei Yisrael.

One other hint of the economic dependency of Egypt on Bnei Yisrael appears in Parashat VaYigash: when Yosef’s brothers come down to Egypt with their father, Paro welcomes them. Knowing that the Egyptians consider shepherding an abomination, Yosef carefully prepares his brothers to let Paro know that they are shepherds. He suggests to Paro that his family live in the area of Goshen, not only because the area is well-suited for sheep, but also in order to achieve some seclusion from the Egyptian populace, who would object to their shepherding. Paro not only agrees to this arrangement, but also requests that Yosef find out if his brothers are good shepherds, and if so, to have them take care of his sheep as well! The Torah does not tell us whether Bnei Yisrael become the shepherds of the royal flock, but this remains a possibility. (If so, we have a pattern repeated here: Paro is unwilling to let Bnei Yisrael leave in the same way that Lavan was unwilling to let Ya’akov leave. Both Lavan and Paro see their flocks increasing under the care of this family and know that if Ya’akov/Bnei Yisrael leave, their success will come to an end.) Jewish history has provided plenty of examples of forced expulsion of Jews when religious or economic motives come into play. It stands to reason that when Jews are seen as essential to the economy, they may be forced *not* to leave.

Rashbam (and perhaps Abravanel and other mefarshim) implies that even before the Egyptians officially enslave Bnei Yisrael, they already look at Bnei Yisrael as either cheap labor or a potential source of slave labor. The Egyptians fear that this source of labor may one day develop feelings of independence and decide to leave Egypt. That the Egyptians look at Bnei Yisrael as potential slaves fits well with the hints we have mentioned that the Egyptians consider Bnei Yisrael a lower class: they refuse to share a table with members of Bnei Yisrael and consider Bnei Yisrael’s traditional and current occupation an abomination.

Seforno (1:8) develops this theme further, suggesting that even though Yosef’s deeds have certainly been written in the official Egyptian royal history, the new king refuses to *believe* that someone as capable as Yosef could have been part of the nation he sees before him now. Seforno adds (1:10) that part of what convinces Paro that Bnei Yisrael is the enemy are some of the elements which have faithfully fed antisemitism over the millennia: Bnei Yisrael have different customs (e.g., circumcision), a different language, and a different culture and value system. This, Seforno says, is behind the Egyptian refusal to break bread with Bnei Yisrael. Paro is not merely a leader facing a threatening group, he an antisemitic leader of an antisemitic society determined to maintain its source of cheap labor and determined to defend itself against the alien ‘inferiors’ whose number and strength have begun to worry him.

Several other hints complete the picture: the Torah uses the word “va-yishretzu” to describe the great increase in Bnei Yisrael’s population. The word “sheretz,” which in the Torah refers to swarming, rodent-like, creeping-crawling creatures, is hardly the word we would choose to describe our own growth! In all of the places “sheretz” appears in Tanakh -- 29 places, to my knowledge -- “sheretz” refers to people in only ONE other place (Bereshit 9:7). In every other context, “sheretz” is a swarming or creeping animal; for example, “All swarming creatures [sheretz] which swarm on the ground are disgusting; they are not to be eaten” (VaYikra 11:41).

If you wanted to describe a couple blessed with many children, you would not say, “They breed like rabbits!” or “They swarm like cockroaches!” unless you meant to be disrespectful and dehumanizing. And, shockingly, the frogs which are to swarm over Egypt in just a little while are described using the SAME WORD the Torah uses to describe the growth of Bnei Yisrael (from the perspective of the Egyptians): “The river shall swarm [”sharatz”] with frogs; they will come up into your house, your bedroom, on your bed, in the house of your servant, among your people, in your ovens and in your baking-pans” (Shemot 7:28; see also Tehillim 105:30, which uses the same word to describe the plague). By describing Bnei Yisrael’s growth in this way, the Torah is telling us that the Egyptians, frightened by Bnei Yisrael’s explosive fertility and already accustomed to looking at Bnei Yisrael as a lower, alien class, feel threatened by their “swarming,” rodent-like multiplication.

And it is no accident that just after describing Bnei Yisrael as experiencing such growth, the Torah reports that “the *land* was full of them” -- for a “sheretz” is (usually) a creature of the ground, as the above-quoted pasuk (verse) from VaYikra confi. The Egyptians see Bnei Yisrael as a population of useful creatures -- but who are growing toepidemic proportions. The “obvious” solution: strictly enforced population control.

No Jew living in (or after) the twentieth century needs to be reminded that there is barely a hair’s-breadth between merely *thinking* of a group of people as essentially inferior and actually *treating* the members of such a group as subhumans. If one wanted to convince a group of economically productive people to stay in the area, one would offer them attractive incentives; but if one wanted to get a *monkey* to stay in one’s area, one would simply put him in a cage. It is only because the Egyptians think of Bnei Yisrael as sub-Egyptian that they are able to enslave and murder them.

The Egyptians begin by imposing a human tax (what is usually referred to in Tanakh as “mas oved”) on Bnei Yisrael, demanding that the people perform physical labor -- building -- for them. This alone is not unusually cruel; many kings forced subjugated peoples to provide a set number of laborers for work, and many kings even demanded that their own people provide laborers for work required by the kingdom (including Shlomo HaMelekh! See I Melakhim 5:27). But the work imposed by Egypt is not to serve constructive national needs, but to erase any potential dreams of freedom by making it so difficult for the people to make it from day to day that no one will be able to raise his eyes above the struggle and develop a vision of freedom and independence. More practically, no one will have the energy to continue having children. When this strategy does not work -- “As much as they oppressed them, so did they increase and expand . . .” (1:12) -- the Egyptians turn to harsher measures. True enslavement begins with a vengeance, as the Egyptians force Bnei Yisrael into harsh slave labor.

When this too fails to control Bnei Yisrael’s growth (see Ibn Ezra 1:13), Paro turns to more direct methods: he instructs the midwives to kill all baby boys. This brings us back to the theme of leadership: Rashi (1:16) explains that Paro cares about killing only the boys because his astrologers have told him that a leader is to be born to Bnei Yisrael who will eventually lead them to salvation. Since Paro assumes that such a leader can only be a man, he must kill all of the boys. But it doesn’t take astrologers to know that a nation which suffers from a lack of leadership might become much more powerful if a leader appears! Paro knows that in order to control Bnei Yisrael, he must 1) reduce their population and 2) prevent them from developing leadership. As we said above, it is largely because of a lack of strong leadership that Paro is able to enslave and kill as he pleases. Paro is aware of this and knows that in order to maintain his latitude, he must extinguish any flickerings of leadership and independence which appear.

Then a strange event takes place: Paro finds out that the midwives have not been carrying out his orders to kill all baby boys. He summons them and demands an explanation. The midwives respond with what seems a flimsy excuse:

The midwives said to Paro, “The women of Bnei Yisrael [”Ivriyyot”] are not like Egyptian women -- they are “HAYYOT.” Before the midwife can get to them, they have already given birth!”

The mefarshim debate the meaning of the word “hayyot.” Hazal (Sota 11a), Rashi, and Abravanel take it quite literally and explain that the midwives mean that the women of Bnei Yisrael are like animals, which give birth without the aid of midwives. Some mefarshim suggest that “hayyot” means “energetic” or “quick”; others suggest that it means “midwives” (as it does in Hullin 4:3) -- the women who give birth are skilled as midwives themselves, so they do not summon the official midwives for help. Unless we accept that “hayyot” means midwives, which seems unlikely since this word is not usually used to mean “midwives” in Tanakh, how could the midwives hope to satisfy Paro with the explanation that the women of Bnei Yisrael are either “animals” (Hazal) or “quick at giving birth”? Why would Paro believe that these women are different than other women?

Rabbi Dan Jacobson (a friend of mine) suggested that Paro’s willingness to accept this explanation is one more manifestation of the Egyptian view of Bnei Yisrael as inherently inferior. Paro is not surprised to hear that the women of Bnei Yisrael are “hayyot,” “animals,” and that they therefore give birth without the aid of midwives; this merely confirms his deeply held beliefs about Bnei Yisrael’s inferiority. These people, “swarmers” who “fill the land,” not only reproduce in the numbers that the lower animals do, they even give birth as lower animals do. They are simply uncivilized, and do not require trained medical assistance, as the more refined and complex Egyptian women do.

If “hayyot” means “energetic” or “quick” (as some mefarshim suggest), Paro is again not surprised to hear that there is a biological difference between the women of his nation and those of Bnei Yisrael. “Scientists” of Nazi Germany expended much effort and research “discovering” ways in which the Jew was biologically (not just culturally or psychologically) different than the Aryan. This was important because part of dehumanizing the Jew was “proving” that he was of a different race than the Aryan. Once this had been “proven,” it could be easily “demonstrated” that the Aryan was superior in every way and that the Jew was not truly human.

Until now, only the midwives had been instructed to carry out Paro’s “population control” scheme. Paro’s final step, once he sees that they cannot help him, is to bring his entire nation into the effort to put Bnei Yisrael in their place:

Paro commanded his entire people, saying: “Any boy who is born -- throw him into the river! Any girl -- let her live.”

Lest we imagine that only Paro and a small group of bloodthirsty maniacs are responsible for murdering the babies of Bnei Yisrael, the Torah makes it clear that the entire nation is not only complicit, but actively involved in the murders. I hate to belabor the point -- especially a point this painful and horrifying -- but anyone who has trouble imagining how “normal” people could drown newborn, helpless babies in the Nile need only look back fifty years and witness how “normal,” highly cultured Germans murdered Jews of all ages in terrifyingly horrible ways with customary German efficiency.

One other fascinating parallel to the Holocaust is worth mentioning at this point: the Holocaust produced some heroes, “righteous gentiles” who protested against the madness by saving Jews when they could, often at enormous personal risk. Abravanel claims that the midwives discussed above were indeed “righteous gentiles” -- that in fact, they were not midwives from among Bnei Yisrael, but Egyptian midwives who had been assigned to Bnei Yisrael (Abravanel interprets “me-yaldot ha-ivriyyot” to mean “the midwives *of* Bnei Yisrael,” not “the Israelite midwives”; he supports this by asserting that Paro would never have trusted members of Bnei Yisrael to kill babies of their own nation) and who flouted Paro’s orders to kill the baby boys because, as the Torah says, “they feared Hashem.”

One other “righteous gentile” also appears in our parasha: Paro’s daughter, who finds Moshe floating in a box in the Nile, realizes he is a child of Bnei Yisrael, and nevertheless adopts him. This brings us to the next major unit of Parashat Shemot: the appearance of Moshe Rabbeinu.

Parashat Shemot begins by stressing the lack of strong leadership which plagues (no pun intended) Bnei Yisrael. But the second half of the parasha fills the vacuum with the birth, initiation, and first acts of leadership of Moshe Rabbeinu. We will focus on Moshe Rabbeinu in next week’s shiur.

Comments: please address all comments to eitan@juno.com

Archive: http://victorian.fortunecity.com/brutalist/608, believe that URL or not!

Subscribing:send a message to listproc@vjlists.com, leaving the “subject” line blank. In the body of the message, write, SUBSCRIBE PARSHA-THEMES your name

Unsubscribing: same as above, but substitute UNSUBSCRIBE