The Israel Koschitzky Virtual Beit Midrash

Surf A Little Torah
Yeshivat Har Etzion

PARASHAT SHEMOT

By Rav David Silverberg

            The Ramban, in his famous introduction to Sefer Shemot, defines this sefer as the book of exile and redemption.  While this is obviously the theme to which the first half of the sefer is devoted, as it tells of the Egyptian bondage and the Exodus, this theme is less obviously manifested in the second half of Sefer Shemot, which tells of the Revelation at Sinai and the construction of the Mishkan.  The Ramban addresses this question and explains:

When they left Egypt, even though they had left the house of bondage, they were still considered exiles because they were in a land not their own, lost in the wilderness, and when they came to Mount Sinai and built the Mishkan, and the Almighty then had His Shekhina reside among them, they then returned to the stature of their forefathers…and they were then considered redeemed.

According to the Ramban, the exile did not end with the Exodus from Egypt.  To earn redemption, Benei Yisrael had to achieve both physical freedom and spiritual freedom.  Therefore, Sefer Shemot, the book of redemption, does not end with Benei Yisrael's departure from Egypt and the drowning of the pursuing Egyptian army.  It reaches its conclusion with the completion of the Mishkan and God's taking residence, so-to-speak, among Benei Yisrael, at which point they returned to the spiritual level of the patriarchs.

            While the Ramban's basic point is clear, one complicating factor must be addressed, namely, the importance of returning to Eretz Yisrael as part of the process of redemption.  Rav Yaakov Kopel Schwartz, in his work Yekev Efrayim, notes the difficulty in the aforementioned passage, where the Ramban speaks of Benei Yisrael as "considered redeemed" upon the construction of the Mishkan, even before they had entered Eretz Yisrael.  Recall that the Ramban considered Benei Yisrael still in exile after the Exodus because "they were in a land not their own, lost in the wilderness."  How was this condition resolved through their receiving the Torah and construction of the Mishkan?  How could we consider Benei Yisrael "redeemed" while they still lived in Sinai, in a "land not their own"?

            This problem is magnified in light of the Ramban's comments just prior to the passage cited above: "Now the exile is not completed until the day when they return to their place and they return to the status of their forefathers…"  Here the Ramban clearly speaks of two prerequisites for complete redemption: the nation's geographic return to their homeland, and their spiritual return to the level of Avraham, Yitzchak and Yaakov.  How, then, could Sefer Shemot – the book of exile and redemption – conclude with the construction of the Mishkan, before Benei Yisrael's entry into the Land of Israel?

            Rav Yehuda Shaviv, in his work Bein Haftara Le-parasha (Parashat Teruma, p. 87), claims that when the Ramban describes Benei Yisrael as "considered redeemed," he refers to a state of partial redemption.  The nation was "considered redeemed," but were not fully redeemed until they arrived in Eretz Yisrael and built the Beit Ha-mikdash.

            Still, the Ramban's definition of "redemption" in this respect remains difficult to understand.  If Sefer Shemot could conclude after a partial redemption, before Benei Yisrael earned complete redemption by entering the land, then seemingly it could have just have easily concluded after the "partial redemption" of the Exodus.  The Ramban evidently felt that the stage reached after the construction of the Mishkan marked a significant enough achievement that Benei Yisrael could then be "considered redeemed," even without realizing complete redemption.  The precise definition of these distinct stages, however, remains unclear.

*******

            Towards the beginning of Parashat Shemot we read, "A new king arose over Egypt, who did not know Yosef" (1:8).  The Gemara in Masekhet Eruvin (53a) and Sota (11a) cites a famous debate between Rav and Shemuel as to whether or not the Torah refers here to a new king, or a new policy.  While one view maintains the literal meaning of the verse, that a new ruler ascended to the throne, the other argues that the same Pharaoh continued his reign but changed his policy of kind treatment of Benei Yisrael that he had followed out of appreciation for Yosef.

            The Ben Ish Chai, in his work Ben Yehoyada, claims that what underlies this dispute is the question as to the precise meaning of the word chadash ("new"), whether it denotes only an actual new entity, or even a "revised edition" of an old entity.  The first view accepts the narrow definition of chadash, and therefore insists that the Torah refers here to a new king.  According to the second view, chadash may also refer to a modification, in which case the Torah could speak here of a change in policy, and not a change in person.

            On this basis, the Ben Ish Chai hinges this debate between Rav and Shemuel on a dispute recorded in the Mishna in Masekhet Sota (43a).  The Mishna there addresses the exemption granted to certain groups of soldiers during warfare, including soldiers who had "built a new house" but have yet to moved in (see Devarim 20:5).  Rabbi Yehuda, as cited in the Mishna, held that this exemption would not apply to a person who had recently dismantled his house and rebuilt it in the same form and dimensions.  In his view, the Torah refers here only to somebody who constructed a "new" house, and not somebody who had rebuilt his old house.  The Rambam, in his commentary to this Mishna, claims that Rabbi Yehuda represents the minority view, and the majority opinion extends the exemption to even such a case, of a soldier who had rebuilt an old house.  The Ben Ish Chai contends that Rabbi Yehuda follows the first interpretation of our verse, whereby chadash must refer to a new king; he therefore limits the exemption to cases of an actual new house.  The majority position, however, echoes the second interpretation of the verse, which defines the term chadash more liberally, to include a revised entity.

            The Ben Ish Chai adds that from the Gemara's presentation of the debate it appears that Rav championed the narrow definition of chadash, whereas Shemuel interpreted the verse as a reference to a change in policy, rather than a new ruler.  Generally speaking, Halakha follows Rav's opinions with respect to issurei, ritual laws, while Shemuel's view is accepted in situations involving monetary or civil law.  The Ben Ish Chai reasons that the issue of exempting soldiers from military duty belongs to the latter category, of civil law.  Hence, we should follow Shemuel's ruling, and thus exempt even those who had recently rebuilt an old house.  Indeed, the Rambam, in his commentary to the Mishna, sides with the majority opinion, rather than accepting Rabbi Yehuda's view which is explicitly mentioned in the Mishna.

******

            Parashat Shemot records Pharaoh's efforts to curb Benei Yisrael's rapid population growth in Egypt, and his explanation to his people why the Israelites' fertility rate posed a danger to the country: "…lest they increase, and when war visits [the country] they will join our enemies, fight against us and ascend from the land" (1:10).  Many commentators addressed the question of why Pharaoh feared the prospect of Benei Yisrael "ascending from the land."  If he disliked them, and if he viewed them as disloyal subjects who would likely side with the enemy during warfare, why would he not want them to leave Egypt?  For this reason, Chazal (Sota 11a) and several commentators (Ibn Genach, Chizkuni) explain that Pharaoh here speaks euphemistically and in truth refers to the possibility of his own nation "ascending from the land" as a result of Benei Yisrael's alliance with his foes.

            The Rashbam, by contrast, explains, "They will wage war against us and ascend from the land – to return to the land of their forefathers, and it is not good for us to lose our servants…"  According to the Rashbam, Pharaoh feared Benei Yisrael's mass departure from Egypt because of the loss of their vital services to the country.

            Shadal notes the obvious difficulty with the Rashbam's explanation, namely, that Benei Yisrael had yet to be enslaved.  Pharaoh expresses this concern as part of his presentation of his plan to enslave Benei Yisrael, and it is therefore hard to understand why the Rashbam would explain this remark as a reference to the potential loss of slave labor.

            Shadal cites a possible explanation of the Rashbam's comments from his son, who suggested that the Rashbam refers here to Benei Yisrael's role as the country's shepherds.  As we know from Parashat Vayigash (46:34), Egypt abhorred shepherding, and this was precisely the vocation Benei Yisrael pursued in Egypt.  It stands to reason that Egypt desperately needed shepherds to care for their sheep for the production of wool, and they therefore came to rely on Benei Yisrael's services in this regard (much like Jews in Medieval Europe served as moneylenders).  Pharaoh thus had good reason to fear Benei Yisrael's mass exodus from Egypt – even before their enslavement – as this would spell the end of the country's wool industry.  It was to this role of Benei Yisrael, perhaps, that the Rashbam referred when he spoke of Egypt losing its "servants."

            In truth, however, there is no need to resort to this far-fetched reading of the Rashbam's comments, once we take into account the concluding phrase in this passage: "…it is not good for us to lose our servants, as they will call me a 'small kingdom'."  From this concluding phrase it is clear that what concerned Pharaoh was not the loss of servants, but rather the loss of subjects.  Indeed, the Hebrew word eved can be used to denote either "servant" or "subject," and the Rashbam in this passage undoubtedly used the word avadeinu to mean "our subjects," and not "our servants."  According to his interpretation of the verse, Pharaoh did not want Benei Yisrael to become a sizeable percentage of the population given the likelihood that they would leave in the advent of war.  The loss of a considerable sector of the population would destabilize the country and be a humiliation to the ruling authority.  Pharaoh therefore sought to limit Benei Yisrael's growth so that if and when they choose to leave the country, their departure would result in only a marginal drop in Egypt's population.

*******

            Towards the beginning of Parashat Shemot we read of Pharaoh's command to the meyaledot, the midwives, to kill every male infant born to Benei Yisrael.  The midwives heroically defied Pharaoh's order, for which they were rewarded by God (1:15-21).

            The Torah refers to the midwives as meyaledot ha-ivriyot, which is generally translated as, "the Hebrew midwives."  Abarbanel, however, contends that the midwives were Egyptian.  In his view, the word ha-ivriyot is not an adjective modifying meyaledot, but is rather its direct object, as if it were written ha-meyaledot et ha-ivriyot – "the Hebrews' midwives."  This understanding of the phrase helps explain why Pharaoh, who deemed limiting Benei Yisrael's growth critical for his kingdom's survival, would entrust this gruesome task to Hebrew midwives.  It seems far more logical, Abarbanel claims, that he issued this command to the Egyptian midwives responsible for caring for the expectant mothers of Benei Yisrael.

            Of course, one could respond that this was an integral part of Pharaoh's plan: to demoralize and destabilize Benei Yisrael's society by ordering some members to kill others.  This would achieve not only an increase in infant mortality, but also the dissolution of Benei Yisrael's traditionally cohesive social structure and sense of unity.

            Shadal also follows Abarbanel's approach, and cites a student as commenting that this theory would resolve yet another difficulty, as well.  The Torah tells, "The midwives feared God and did not do as the king of Egypt told them: they kept the children alive" (1:17).  If the midwives were Hebrew, their motivation for defying Pharaoh's decree would seemingly involve more than simply "fear of God."  They would, most likely, be repulsed at the thought of killing the infants of their own people.  "Fear of God" seems to denote a sense of subservience to divine authority that forces one to forego on his own instincts and desires.  The use of this phrase in the context of the midwives seems more reasonable if the midwives had a natural desire to obey the order but refused in deference to divine authority.  Shadal adds that the word "Elokim" employed in this verse is often used generically to refer to any perceived deity, and need not be taken as a reference specifically to the one God in which we believe.  It is thus possible that the Torah speaks here of the Egyptian midwives' loyalty to their religion's code of ethics, and that Elokim should really be read as elohim, as it refers to an Egyptian deity.

            In response, one could easily argue that even Hebrew midwives in this situation would require a sense of yir'at Elokim to refuse Pharaoh's order.  Even though they would obviously feel repulsed at the idea of slaying their own people, their instinct would, seemingly, have driven them to obey the order to save their own necks.  Thus, it indeed required conscientious religious devotion to disobey Pharaoh and keep the infants alive, and for this reason the Torah attributes their refusal to their "fear of God."

******

            As we discussed yesterday, the Torah in the beginning of Parashat Shemot tells of the heroism of the Hebrew midwives who defied Pharaoh's order to kill the newborn males among Benei Yisrael.  The Torah records as well God's response to the midwives' courageous disobedience: "It happened that when the midwives feared God, He made homes for them" (1:21).  Today we will present a brief survey of some of the many different interpretations that have been suggested for this ambiguous verse.

            Rashi, based on the Gemara (Sota 11b), explains "homes" in this verse as a reference to royalty and priesthood.  This approach follows the view adopted by Rashi in an earlier passage (1:15), identifying the Egyptian midwives as Yokheved and Miriam.  Yokheved's son, Aharon, founded the priestly tribe, and Miriam married into the tribe of Yehuda and was an ancestor of King David.

            Rav Sa'adya Gaon explains this verse much differently, interpreting "He made homes for them" to mean that God ensured their protection.  In reward for the midwives' risking their lives on behalf of the Israelite infants, God provided them with secure hiding places where Pharaoh's servants could not find them.

            Ibn Ezra (Peirush Ha-katzar) and Chizkuni explained batim ("homes") in this verse as a reference to children.  God rewarded the midwives for saving the Hebrew children by blessing them with children of their own.  Shadal adds that it was traditionally childless women, who were not burdened by their own family responsibilities, who worked as midwives.  It was therefore a particularly meaningful reward to bless the midwives with their own children for their heroic efforts to save the infants Pharaoh had ordered them to kill.

            Rabbenu Yosef Bekhor Shor explains similarly, adding that batim refers to not only fertility, but general blessing and success.

            An entirely different approach is taken by the Rashbam, who claimed that the subject in this verse is Pharoah, and not God.  According to the Rashbam, the Torah here tells that Pharaoh ordered that the midwives be locked in certain buildings so that they cannot treat Israelite mothers.  Meaning, Pharaoh dismissed them from their duties to punish them for their defiance, and the "homes" mentioned in this verse refer to special buildings where the midwives were held.

            In a slightly different vein, Chizkuni (in his davar acher) explains that Pharaoh designated special buildings where all Israelite women would give birth, to ensure that no infant would escape his cruel decree that they be cast into the river.  "He made homes for them" means that he set aside facilities where the midwives would deliver all newborns among Benei Yisrael.

            A particularly novel interpretation of this verse is suggested by Rav Shimshon Refael Hirsch, who claimed that "lahem" ("them") modifies not the midwives, but rather Benei Yisrael.  In his view, this verse should be read as an introduction to the subsequent verse: "It happened that when the midwives feared God, and He made homes for them [Benei Yisrael], Pharaoh then commanded his entire nation, saying: You shall cast very newborn son into the river…"  As a result of the midwives' defiance, which led to Benei Yisrael's continued population growth, Pharaoh decided upon a different course of action, ordering that newborn males be cast into the water.

******

            We read in Parashat Shemot of Moshe's persistent refusal to accept the task that God assigns to him, to appear before Pharaoh and demand the release of the Hebrew slaves.  The Torah records in detail the lengthy exchange that ensues between God and Moshe (the Midrash famously tells that this exchange occurred over the course of an entire week), and it concludes with God "getting in the last word," so-to-speak.  He tells Moshe that Aharon will serve as his spokesman, and that He, God, would instruct them what to say before the Egyptian ruler and perform miracles through Moshe's staff (4:15-17).

            From there the Torah proceeds to tell of Moshe's request of his father-in-law to allow him to "return to my brethren in Egypt, that I may see whether they are still alive" (4:18).  In the very next verse, God appears to Moshe and orders him to return to Egypt "because all the people who sought your life are now dead."  Strangely enough, the historic mission upon which Moshe now embarks is entirely absent from these verses.  Moshe asks to return to Egypt for personal, family reasons, and God then appears to Moshe only to inform him that his life is no longer in danger back in Egypt; He says nothing of the leadership role he is to fulfill in his former homeland.

            Rav Zvi Dov Kanotopsky, in his commentary to the Haggadah entitled Night of Watching (cited by Rabbi Gil Student at http://hirhurim.blogspot.com/2006/08/moshe-leaving-midian.html), advances the novel theory that even at this point, Moshe has yet to accept the mission assigned to him.  Although the dialogue at the burning bush ends without any further argument on Moshe's part, he nevertheless had not acquiesced, he still deemed himself unworthy of the daunting task of national leadership.  Rav Kanotopsky explains Moshe's request of his father-in-law, and God's subsequent remarks to Moshe, as follows:

…the experiences of his prophecy had its effect and continued to trouble Moses to the point that he came to his father-in-law and announced that he was going to make a journey to Egypt to visit his brothers and to inquire about their welfare.  As a matter of fact, when he takes leave of Jethro, this is all he intends to do and this is all the text indicates.  It is at this point that G-d appears to Moses and tells him that it is proper for him not merely to visit Egypt, but to return to Egypt and to live with his brothers again…

In order words, although Moshe had yet to accept the mission, the prophecy continued to weigh heavily on his mind until he decided to at least make a brief visit to Egypt.  God then ordered him to settle in Egypt, and not merely to visit there. 

            In the next verse, the Torah tells that Moshe took his family and went to Egypt, in fulfillment of God's command, and the verse then adds, "Moshe took the staff of God in his hand."  Rav Kanotopsky explains:

But…almost as an afterthought, he also takes the "rod of G-d" with him – the rod which will serve as a symbol of leadership, as a sign of the Divine mission and as an instrument of miracles.  This is really the first indication that Moses is still considering the possibility of accepting the mission of G-d, and of becoming the redeemer of Israel.

Even though he has still not fully resigned himself to accepting the task charged upon him at the bush, Moshe nevertheless takes his staff, as a he inches closer towards full acceptance.

******

            We read in Parashat Shemot of the marriage of Moshe's parents, Amram and Yokheved: "A man from the Levite family went ahead and married Levi's daughter" (2:1).  Rashi famously cites from the Midrash that Amram and Yokheved had been previously married, but Amram decided to divorce his wife in response to Pharaoh's edict to have all newborn males killed.  Amram's example was followed by many other couples among Benei Yisrael, who divorced rather than continuing to beget children. Miriam, Amram's daughter, persuaded him to rethink his decision, and Amram and Yokheved remarried.

            Torah Sheleima (p. 53) cites a passage from a manuscript entitled Midrash Ha-cheifetz, which comments on this verse, "He married Levi's daughter – with likuchin [halakhic betrothal]; on this basis it was said that in Egypt they [Benei Yisrael] were commanded with regard to mitzvot – referring to the mitzva of marriage and divorce."  As Rav Menachem Kasher explains in his annotation, this passage refers to a comment in the Mekhilta (Yitro, Ba-chodesh section, chapter 3) that makes reference to commandments that were issued to Benei Yisrael during their stay in Egypt.  The Rambam mentions this point in Hilkhot Melakhim (9:2), noting that it was specifically Amram – the leading rabbinic figure of the time – who received these commandments.  The Kesef Mishneh, who apparently had not seen the aforementioned passage in the Mekhilta, comments that he does not know the source of the Rambam's claim that Benei Yisrael received additional commandments in Egypt.  Clearly, this claim originates from the Mekhilta, and, according to the Midrash Ha-cheifetz, the mitzvot conveyed to Amram in Egypt were specifically those pertaining the marriage.

            It has been noted that this comment of the Midrash Ha-cheifetz appears to lend support to the position held by numerous Rishonim that marriage constitutes an independent mitzva.  This is the view held by the Rambam, both in Sefer Ha-mitzvot (asei 213) and Mishneh Torah (Hilkhot Ishut 1:1), as well as by the Rashbatz (Zohar Ha-raki'a, asei 71), Semag (asei 48) and Semak (asei 183).  The Rosh, by contrast, in Masekhet Ketubot (1:12), denies the halakhic status of marriage as an independent mitzva, as it serves merely to facilitate procreation.  In principle, the Rosh argues, a person can marry a pilegesh (concubine), which does not require the formal marriage procedure, beget children from her, and never be required to marry.  The Midrash Ha-cheifetz appears to reflect the opposite view, as it very clearly refers to marriage as a mitzva.

            Of course, one might refute this inference based on the simple fact that the Midrash Ha-cheifetz speaks here of both marriage and divorce.  Divorce, quite obviously, is not a "mitzva" in the sense of an obligatory act.  We refer to divorce as a "mitzva" in the sense that it entails a detailed procedure prescribed by the Torah; the Torah obviously does not require or even encourage divorce, but it does present a series of guidelines to follow when one chooses this course of action.  Similarly, it could be argued that the Midrash Ha-cheifetz did not perceive marriage as a mitzva in the sense of an obligation as the Rambam and other Rishonim understood, but rather as a procedural mitzva, corresponding to divorce.