The Israel Koschitzky
Virtual Beit MidrashThe Israel Koschitzky
Virtual Beit Midrash
Surf A Little Torah
Yeshivat
Har Etzion
PARASHAT SHEMOT
By Rav David Silverberg
In describing the torment that Benei Yisrael suffered during the
period of bondage in
The Rosh, cited in Hadar Zekeinim, advances an entirely different interpretation of this word, claiming that it means "separation." As we know from the Haggadah ("va-ye'anunu zo perishut derekh eretz"), one of the tactics employed by the Egyptians in oppressing Benei Yisrael and curbing their birthrate was the forced separation of husbands from their wives. According to the Rosh, the Torah refers to this form of oppression with the word be-farekh, which means that the slaves were forced to sleep away from home as part of their work program. Evidently, as noted by Rav Menachem Kasher in his Torah Sheleima, the Rosh associated the word be-farekh with the word parokhet the curtain in the Mishkan that partitioned the building into two chambers ("ve-hivdila ha-parokhet lakhem bein ha-kodesh u-vein kodesh ha-kodashim" 26:33).
Rav Kasher adds that this interpretation of be-farekh appears as well in the commentary to the Haggadah attributed to Rashi. (It is questionable whether or not Rashi indeed authored this commentary.) Interestingly enough, this commentary applies this definition of the root p.r.kh. also to a verse in Sefer Vayikra (25:43) in which the Torah forbids imposing slave labor upon an eved ivri, a Hebrew servant "lo tirdeh bo be-farekh." According to this Haggadah commentary, the Torah here instructs a master that he may not forcibly separate his servant from his wife. The Torah indeed allows a master to give his Jewish servant a gentile maidservant as a wife for the purpose of producing additional servants (Shemot 21:4), but it is forbidden to force the servant to separate from his original wife. The Rambam (Hilkhot Avadim 3:5) and the Ramban (Shemot 21:4) derive this prohibition from a different source, namely, the Torah's requirement that when a married servant is released after six years of service, "his wife shall leave with him" ("ve-yatz'a ishto imo" Shemot 21:4). This implies that the wife has been "with him" throughout his period of servitude, thus indicating that the master is not entitled to force his eved ivri to spend his nights with a maidservant rather than his original wife. According to the Haggadah commentary ascribed to Rashi, however, the source is the verse which forbids treating a servant be-farekh, which, according to this commentary, refers to the compulsory separation between husband and wife.
******
In the story of Moshe's early years as related in Parashat Shemot, the Torah twice tells of Moshe "leaving" or "going out of" the palace in which he was raised to observe Benei Yisrael's slave labor: "Moshe grew up and went out to his brethren to see their suffering He went out on the second day " (2:11,13). His first excursion brought him to the sight of an Egyptian beating an Israelite slave, and Moshe responded by slaying the Egyptian. During the second outing, he witnessed two Israelites quarreling with one another, and Moshe tried unsuccessfully to intervene.
The Midrash Shemot Rabba (1:32) makes the following, enigmatic comment concerning Moshe's two excursions: "That righteous man [Moshe] embarked on two yetzi'ot [excursions], and the Almighty recorded them [in the Torah] in immediate success to one another." Apparently, the Midrash found significance in the juxtaposition of these two excursions in the text beyond their obvious relationship in terms of the sequence of events. Somehow, these two yetzi'ot reflected Moshe's "righteous" quality which God found worthy of emphasis by recording them in the Torah next to one another.
Rav Dov Weinberger, in his Shemen Ha-tov, explains that Moshe's two yetzi'ot demonstrated the importance of addressing two different kinds of problems that Am Yisrael has often confronted. In his first excursion, Moshe encountered an external threat posed by an enemy nation the Egyptian taskmaster beating an innocent Hebrew slave. In the second episode, Moshe observed internal strife and conflict, quarrels and enmity among Benei Yisrael themselves. The Midrash, in noting the significance of the relationship between these two events, sought to instruct that we cannot afford to neglect the internal conflicts even as we confront external threats. Am Yisrael's struggles against enemies from without must not diminish from its efforts to resolve the problems that arise from within, and the endeavor to create and maintain peaceful and harmonious coexistence between the different groups of Jews. Even as the Egyptian taskmasters mercilessly beat their Hebrew laborers, Moshe still found it necessary to address as well the conflicts that raged among the slaves themselves.
Rashi (2:14) in fact comments that Moshe pointed to the internal strife he witnessed as the likely cause for the ongoing suffering of Benei Yisrael. It is thus particularly when the nation faces external threats that it must double its efforts to resolve its internal conflicts, and focus its attention on engendering greater care, concern, patience and sensitivity in the people's relationships with one another.
******
We read in Parashat Shemot that Moshe came upon two Hebrew slaves quarreling and he tried to intervene, turning to the offender and asking, "Why do you smite your fellow?" (2:13). Rashi, commenting on this verse, writes, "Two Hebrew men: Datan and Aviram; they are the ones who left over the manna." Based on a number of earlier sources, Rashi identifies the two quarreling Israelites as Datan and Aviram, whom the Torah introduces much later as participants in Korach's revolt against Moshe (Bamidbar 16:1). Rashi then adds that these two malcontents are also the ones who, as we read in Parashat Beshalach (16:20), disobeyed Moshe's command not to allow any manna to be left overnight. Datan and Aviram felt skeptical about Moshe's promise that manna would descend the following morning, and thus left some of their portion overnight, only to see it spoil by morning.
The question arises, why did Rashi find it necessary or even relevant to identify Datan and Aviram in this context as the men who left over their manna? In his commentary to this verse, Rashi should we would assume focus his attention on providing information necessary for a clear understanding of the story told here, about Moshe's confrontation with the two quarreling Israelites. Rashi, however, saw fit to add a comment in this context about Datan and Aviram's role in the manna narrative, as though there were some kind of connection between that narrative and ours.
Rav Meir Ha-kohen of
We might suggest a different point of connection between these two episodes, namely, that both reflect an attitude of arrogance and presumptuousness. Moshe instructed Benei Yisrael not to leave any manna over for the following day, and to trust in God's promise to provide sufficient quantities the next morning. Datan and Aviram, however, placed more confidence in themselves than in Moshe. He advised them to complete their portions, but they felt they knew better. It is this attitude, perhaps, with which Rashi sought to associate the episode of Datan and Aviram's quarrel. A person who lives with an exaggerated sense of self-assurance, with the feeling that he will always have the better solution or strategy than others, will likely find it difficult to forge peaceful relationships with other people. Datan and Aviram's inability to get along with one another was perhaps a product of the arrogance displayed in Parashat Beshalach, their presumption that they always knew better. Peaceful people are generally those who are prepared to listen to what others have to say, and who recognize that they might not necessarily have the correct or best answer to every question or solution to every problem. Datan and Aviram trusted only their own views and ideas, and were thus habitually confrontational and quarrelsome.
******
Parashat Shemot begins with a list of the names of Yaakov's sons who
moved from Canaan to
In what sense are the stars "beloved" by God? Why does the correspondence established between Benei Yisrael and the stars demonstrate the Almighty's immense love and affection for them?
Rav Leib Bakst of
Of course, it is unclear what exactly the Midrash has in mind when it tells of the moon voicing objection and experiencing distress. In any event, however, it emerges from this passage that the stars signify the attempt at pacification, soothing the emotional distress brought on by humiliation and a sense of inferiority.
Rav Bakst suggested that if, indeed, this is the symbolic significance of the stars, then we can perhaps begin to understand the Sages' intent when they speak of the "love" God shows to the stars. The Almighty "loves" efforts to heal broken hearts, to lift the spirits of those who are despondent. The special attention that God gives to the stars as He is said to "name" them twice each day represents the importance He affords to lending support to the downtrodden, as indicated in the verse, "For so says He is high aloft, who dwells forever, whose name is holy: I dwell on high, in holiness, yet with the distressed and lowly of spirit to revive the spirit of the lowly, and to revive the heart of the distressed" (Yeshayahu 57:15). Although God resides "high aloft," He also resides among those who feel lowly and distressed, making it a priority to lift their spirits and heal their emotional wounds.
It is in this sense that God truly loves Benei Yisrael as He "loves" the stars. When the Jewish people follow their ancient tradition of rachamanim benei rachamanim, showing care, concern and sensitivity for those who suffer, and lending assistance and support to those in need, then we earn the special love and affection shown to the stars. We earn this love when we live our lives with compassion and consideration for others, rather than in an endless pursuit of self-gratification.
******
Parashat Shemot briefly tells of the early years of Moshe's life. After his mother placed him in the river in an attempt to avoid Pharaoh's decree that all newborn Hebrews be killed, the infant is discovered by Pharaoh's daughter who raises him as her son. We then read that after Moshe grew older, he "went out to his brethren and observed their suffering" (2:11). Rashi explains, "He observed their suffering he committed his eyes and his heart to feel distressed for them" ("natan einav ve-libo li-h'yot meitzar aleihem"). Meaning, Moshe's intent was not merely empirical observation, but rather to empathize and share in the anguish and distress experienced by his fellow Israelites.
The Saba of Kelm, in his Chokhma U-musar, notes the striking similarity between Rashi's comments to this verse and a passage in his commentary later in this parasha. Before the narrative of the "burning bush" revelation, the Torah tells that God heard Benei Yisrael's cries that resulted from the harsh bondage they endured. We read, "God looked upon the Israelites, and God understood" (2:25). Rashi explains, "He committed His heart to them and did not ignore them with His eyes" ("natan aleihem leiv ve-lo he'elim einav meihem"). Curiously enough, Rashi describes God's response to Benei Yisrael's suffering in similar terms as He speaks of Moshe's empathy for the people.
What this parallel might convey, the
******
As we read in Parashat Shemot, Moshe lived for a period of time with his
father-in-law, Yitro, in Midyan, until God appeared to him and commanded him to
return to
The question arises as to how Rashi's interpretation of this verse would
account for the word kol ("all") that God includes in His comments to
Moshe. If God refers only to two
individuals Datan and Aviram then it would, seemingly, suffice for Him to
tell Moshe that "the people wishing to take your life had died." The word anashim ("people") is a
plural term and thus clearly refers to no fewer than two people ("mi'ut rabim
shenayim"). Why, then, if God speaks of only two
individuals, does He inform Moshe that "ALL the people" who tried killing Moshe
had already perished? Indeed, a
number of other commentators preferred other approaches in explaining this
verse. Ibn Ezra (Peirush Ha-katzar) and Seforno explain that God refers here
to Pharaoh and his servants, and the Rashbam similarly claims the "all the
people" refers to Pharaoh and the malshinim the collaborators who wished to see Moshe
executed.
In defense of Rashi's interpretation, Rav Yaakov Kaminetzky, in his
Emet Le-yaakov, suggested that the word kol alludes to Datan and
Aviram's family members. Later, in
Parashat Korach, we find that the miraculous punishment visited upon Datan and
Aviram for challenging Moshe and Aharon affected their families, as well: "The
earth opened its mouth and swallowed them and their families" (Bamidbar
16:32). It would appear that Datan
and Aviram's family members were likewise sinful and envious of Moshe's
stature. Quite possibly, just as
they supported and abetted Datan and Aviram's efforts to oppose Moshe in the
wilderness, they similarly cooperated with them in pursuing Moshe in
We might suggest a different theory in defense of Rashi's interpretation, one which might also explain why Rashi resorted to this Midrashic reading of the verse at all. What fault did he find with the interpretation mentioned earlier, that the verse refers to Pharaoh and his cohorts? Is this not the simplest and most obvious reading of the text?
It would appear that Rashi sought to explain the meaning and purpose behind the word kol ("all") in this verse. This term is often used to emphasize the inclusion of an entity or group that one would not have otherwise thought to associate with the given context. In our verse, had the Torah simply written that "the people" who pursued Moshe had died, we would have naturally understood that it refers to Pharaoh and his servants and collaborators. After all, these were the primary figures involved in the effort to have Moshe killed. The Torah, however, added the word kol to indicate that other, less obviously relevant, parties were also involved in this effort. Rashi therefore explained that the Torah alludes here to Datan and Aviram. Rashi's intent is not that the verse speaks only of Datan and Aviram, but rather that the word kol serves to include these two malcontents among the others who had conspired to kill Moshe. The verse thus refers to Datan and Aviram in addition to those who were more obviously involved in the pursuit of Moshe, namely, Pharaoh and his men.
Thus, even according to Rashi's approach the phrase kol ha-anashim ("all the people") refers to more than two individuals.
*******
We read in Parashat Shemot of God's revelation to Moshe at the burning bush, and His command to Moshe to approach Pharaoh and demand Benei Yisrael's freedom. Moshe initially refuses, raising several different arguments for why he felt unable to accept this mission, including the fact that he is, as he describes, "kevad peh u-khvad lashon" literally, "heavy of mouth and heavy of tongue" (4:10).
This phrase is conventionally understood as a reference to some sort of speech impediment. Rashi, for example, writes, "I speak heavily," seemingly referring to a lack of fluidity in speech and articulation. Ibn Ezra, in his Peirush Ha-arokh, similarly explains that Moshe stuttered and stammered as he spoke. Rabbenu Chananel, in his commentary, even lists the letters that Moshe could not easily pronounce.
The Rashbam, however, takes strong issue with this interpretation of the
verse. He writes, "Is it possible
that a prophet, whom God encountered face-to-face and who received the Torah
from His hand, would stutter in his speech? And this matter is not in the words of
the Tanna'im or Amora'im, and one should pay no heed to external
works." The Rashbam therefore
explains the expression kevad peh u-khvad lashon as a reference to
Moshe's limited knowledge of the Egyptian language. Moshe had fled
Shadal, in his commentary, rejects the Rashbam's approach, claiming that it is inconceivable that Moshe was unfamiliar with the language with which he had grown in Pharaoh's palace. Rather, Shadal claims, Moshe refers here to his generally poor oratory skills. Moshe spoke fluent and fluid Egyptian, but he lacked the poise and confidence required for effective public speaking. Shadal compares Moshe's comment to Yirmiyahu's reaction upon receiving his first prophecy: "Alas, I am not qualified to speak, for I am but a young lad" (Yirmiyahu 1:6). Yirmiyahu was capable of speaking, but because of his youth he did not have the confidence to speak persuasively before the people. Moshe was already quite old at the burning bush, but he nevertheless felt lacking in his oratory skills because of his generally meek and humble demeanor.
This debate also affects the meaning of a later verse (4:12), where God promises, "I shall be with your mouth." Seforno, following the conventional reading, claims that God here guarantees Moshe that He would cure his impediment. Ibn Ezra, interestingly enough, writes that God here informs Moshe that the words he would have to speak before Pharaoh would not contain any of the letters that Moshe found difficult to pronounce. Shadal sharply rejects this interpretation, rhetorically challenging Ibn Ezra to identify the letters that are absent from Moshe's comments to Pharaoh throughout the subsequent parashiyot. Shadal therefore offers a different interpretation in accordance with the approach he developed, namely, that God gradually assisted Moshe in developing the self-assurance and poise that would facilitate effective and persuasive speech.