Immediately following the exodus from Egypt and the splitting of the Sea of Reeds, the first opportunity for the freshly minted “Jewish people” to interrelate with HaShem and His Prophet Moshe, was at Mara (Shemot 15:22-27). It was here that in response to the people’s request for potable water, HaShem taught Moshe what was to be done in order to sweeten bitter waters, and the thirsty Jews were able to drink to their hearts’ content. The entire incident is categorized in 15:25 as a “Nisayon” (test/trial) of the people, but it is unclear from the text what is the nature of this test, and whether or not the people are to be considered to have passed or failed.

Two general types of “trials” in the desert.

                Rabbeinu Bachaye (15:22) asserts that travels in any desert constitute a “Nisayon.”[1]   The biblical commentator then points out that if spending time in the desert in general is by definition a challenging trial, then “walking in the great and awesome desert together with their wives and young children and not having water for three days during the summer, there is no greater test in the entire world.” But if his contention is valid, why does the Tora specifically mention that at Mara the people were tested, when in fact every moment spent in the desert is a test in one form or another? Rabbeinu Bachaye suggests that when they saw the spring at Mara from afar, they had high expectations of replenishing their water supply that had over the three days journey from Egypt just run out. Their deep disappointment upon realizing that the tempting water was in fact undrinkable, sharpened their upset, frustration and desperation, creating a situation by which their collective faith and trust in HaShem could be evaluated and ultimately strengthened by demonstrating how God could easily Alleviate the problem. [2]  Consequently, the commentator suggests that there are two levels of “testing” in the desert: a) simply having to be there over an extended period of time even while in possession of the requisite equipment and supplies, and b) spending time in the desert compounded by worrisome shortages, heat, thirst, and hunger.  By extension, the two subsequent instances in Parshat BeShalach when the term “test/trial” appears, 16:4 and 17:2, 7, involving shortages of food and water, could be similarly understood to be consistent with the acute type of desert “Nisyanot” i.e., b), rather than a).[3]  

A “test” of learning survival techniques.

However, to understand the term “Nisayon” in 15:25 as a general reference to desert hardships, or even a reflection of the sorts of specific needs that anyone facing such a situation has to cope with, independent of the unique context of the particular verse in question appears to be problematic from a methodological point of view. It is difficult to ignore the clear parallelism between the earlier exclusionary adverbial phrase[4]  in the verse “SHAM Sam Lo Chok U’Mishpat” (THERE He Gave Him a Statute and a Law) and its coda, “VeSHAM Nisahu” (and THERE He Tested Him). Apparently, the “Chok U’Mishpat” are part and parcel of the “Nisayon”. RaMBaN’s (15:25) literal and homiletic interpretations regarding the relationship between these elements in the verse are evocative in terms of how much at variance they are from one another. On the one hand, from the “Peshat” (literal meaning) perspective, the commentator suggests that “Statute and Law” have to do with how one is to conduct oneself in the desert, and therefore the test was not simply to see the manner in which the people will react to difficult conditions, but rather to instruct the formerly over-dependent slaves in self-reliant survival techniques and then to see whether they have understood and are able to apply them on their own. Learning the life-saving qualities of certain plants and animals can come in handy when facing starvation or dehydration both now and in the future.

A “test” of learning how to develop a meaningful social contract.

But in addition to simply learning about desert flora and fauna, another area of needed instruction and subsequent testing for the Jews who have just now emerged from Egyptian bondage is the nature of appropriate interpersonal relationships among freemen and freewomen. If they are to ultimately be transformed from a disorganized rabble of individuals who can think of nothing other than their own day-to-day personal survival into a highly functioning nation imbued with civility and humanity, RaMBaN writes,

They are given laws regarding a) how one person is to love the next, b) that the advice and direction of elders are to be heeded, c) the nature of modesty that is to apply to conduct within their individual tents involving women and children, d) the behavior that is to be undertaken with respect to outsiders who may come to the camp in order to engage in commerce, and e) rules governing an encampment so that the Jews will not be like marauders who engage in a wide range of abominations without embarrassment…

RaMBaN cites as a parallel to 15:25 a verse at the end of the book of Yehoshua, where it is stated, (Yehoshua 24:25) “And Yehoshua entered into a covenant with the people on that day and he gave him (the people) a ‘Chok U’Mishpat’ in Shechem.” In contrast to those who wish to interpret Shemot 15:25 as indicating that at least a portion of the Tora laws intended to be given in their entirety at Sinai, are already being revealed at Mara as an introduction to the law code that will be formally offered to the people in a few weeks,[5]  by the end of the book of Yehoshua, this same phraseology cannot be understood in a like manner, since the Tora was given long before, during the era of Moshe’s leadership. RaMBaN further suggests that the verse in Yehoshua may be referring to various pieces of social legislation that are attributed to Moshe’s successor in Bava Kama 80b.

Our Rabbis taught: Yehoshua laid down ten stipulations: a) that cattle be permitted to pasture in privately owned wooded areas (as opposed to planted fields), b) that wood may be gathered by all in privately owned fields, except in a field where fenugreek is growing, c) that shoots from trees be permitted to be cut by all in all places with the exception of those growing out of olive trees, d) that a spring emerging aboveground for the first time may be used by the townspeople, e) that it is permitted to fish with a hook in the Sea of Tiberius provided that no sail is set that would interfere with the navigation of other boats, f) that it is permitted for one to relieve himself at the back of a fence, g) that it is permitted for the public to use paths in private fields until the time when the second rain is expected, h) that it is permitted to use private sidewalks in order to avoid the road-pegs, i) that one who has lost his way in the vineyards be permitted to cut his way out when either going up or coming down, j) that a dead body which anyone finds has the right to acquire the spot where it is found and be buried there.

Consequently, this approach of RaMBaN suggests that in order to ready the Jewish people for developing and adhering to a social contract once they come into Israel, the desert in general, and Mara in particular, serve as a “proving ground” wherein the Jews could become accustomed to functioning as independent citizens, both respecting the rights of others even as they insist upon the privileges due themselves and their families. During their travels in the desert, the laws and customs governing these interactions were modified and refined, until the people conquer the land of Israel and permanently institute these types of rules by which their society is to be governed.

A “test” to learn how to properly approach God.

                But RaMBaN contends that there were spiritual goals as well that could be represented by the terms “Chok U’Mishpat”. The commentator suggests that in addition to learning how to act towards one another, i.e., “Mitzvot Bein Adam VeChaveiro” (Tora, Rabbinic and social Commandments between man and man), the people were being introduced to proper etiquette and procedure in terms of their relating to HaShem, “Mitzvot Bein Adam LaMakom” (Commandments between man and God). “He would Afflict them with desert conditions, and they would have to learn how to respond to starvation and thirst, how to call upon God properly, as opposed to constantly complaining.” Furthermore, the theological symbolism of the manner by which the bitter waters were sweetened was shown and explained to Moshe who in turn was expected to teach the lesson regarding HaShem’s “Hashgacha Pratit” (Divine Intervention) to the people. Midrashim such as Mechilta and Tanchuma on 15:25 claim that the branch that was shown Moshe came from a tree that itself was bitter, and yet when thrown into bitter water, the water counter-intuitively became sweet. Implied is that at least on occasion, even when something attributed to HaShem appears bitter at the outset, and it seems that additional bitterness is intensifying the situation, ultimately things may turn out sweet and palatable. The test then becomes one of seeing whether the people are able to suspend their customary pessimistic expectations of disaster, developed during their years of slavery in Egypt, and when confronted now with a difficult situation, whether they can develop the patience and faith that all will turn out well. At the Sea of Reeds, their dire predictions in 14:10-12 were refuted, and it is expected over time that they build confidence in HaShem’s Concern and Protection. And unfortunately, when repeatedly in Shemot and BaMidbar, the expectation of the Jewish people trusting in God’s Providence and Redemption is not realized in the generation that itself left Egypt, HaShem Decrees that that generation’s children will be given the task of entering and conquering Israel in place of their parents.

A “test” introducing Mitzvot representative of the entire corpus of Tora law.

As for the standard Rabbinical interpretation of “Chok U’Mishpat” found in Sanhedrin 56b, i.e., that the specific Commandments of respecting parents, Shabbat, the Red Heifer, and the need for civil law were given to the Jews at Mara in order to acquaint them with Jewish Tora law, and see whether or not they would embrace these laws joyfully and with enthusiasm, RaMBaN insists that these laws did not become obligatory at this point, but were instead only intended for reflection and optional observance, in the manner that the forefathers were supposed to have observed Mitzvot (see Kiddushin 4:14). Such an understanding of the test therefore is not in terms of the ability to comply with the tenets of Tora laws, but rather how they would be understood, and in turn what would be concluded regarding the Intentions of HaShem Who is Giving them. Such an approach is reminiscent of Kiddushin 31a.

Ulla Rabba gave the following interpretation in the doorway of the Nasi’s residence: What is meant by the verse (Tehillim 138:4) “All of the kings of the earth will acknowledge You HaShem when they hear the Words of Your Mouth”? The WORD of Your Mouth is not said, but rather the WORDS of Your Mouth. At the moment that HaShem Declared, (Shemot 20:2, 3) “I Am the Lord Your God; You shall have no other gods before Me”, the nations of the world said, “For His own Honor He is Demanding.” But when He Said, (Shemot 20:11) “Honor your father and your mother”, they changed their minds and acknowledged the propriety of the initial Commandments.[6]  

Rava said: This lesson is learned from here—(Tehillim 119:160) “The Beginning of Your Words are True”. Does this imply that only the Beginning is True, but not the End? But rather from the End of Your Words, you can recognize that the Beginning is true.

The skepticism regarding HaShem’s Intentions that the Talmud attributes to the nations of the world, in light of how the people repeatedly challenge God’s Authority, could very well have been shared by the Jews themselves. And therefore some of these Commandments are presented early in order to gauge popular reaction as well as approaches for how to best educate the people to accept and enact these Laws.

Who is testing who?

While the test at Mara at first glance seems to be something that HaShem Designed so that the Jews would undergo a type of “training” prior to their entry into the land of Israel, further analysis reveals that according to the Tora, tests and trials are not only understood to emanate from God; while the Jewish people are sometimes on the receiving end, they are also accused by God Himself of having subjecting Him to tests of their own. During the course of the difficulties that arise due to the negative report of the land of Israel presented by ten out of the twelve spies,[7]  God States, (BaMidbar 14:22-23) “For all of the men who have seen My Glory and My Signs that I have Done in Egypt and in the desert, yet have TESTED ME THESE TEN TIMES and have not hearkened to My Voice, surely they will not see the land that I have Sworn to their fathers…” In contrast to RaShBaM and Ibn Ezra, who interpret “Ten Times” as an expression simply connoting numerous times rather than “ten” specific instances, RaShI, assumes the number “ten” is to be taken literally, and cites the Talmud in Erchin 15a which attempts to identify the particular instances to which HaShem is Alluding:[8]

It was taught: R. Yehuda said: With ten trials did our forefathers test the Holy One Blessed Be He—a) two at the sea, b) two because of water, c) two because of manna, d) two because of the quails, e) one in connection with the Golden Calf, and f) one in the wilderness of Paran.

a) “Two at the sea”—one at the going down, and the other at the coming up. At the going down: (Shemot 14:11) “Because there are not sufficient graves in Egypt you have taken us to die in the desert?” At the going up…for Rabba bar Mari said, “It is written (Tehillim 106:7) ‘But they were rebellious at the sea, even at the Sea of Reeds; nevertheless He Saved them for His Name’s Sake.’ This teaches that Israel was rebellious at that very hour, saying, ‘Just as we go up from this side, so will the Egyptians go up from the other side’…

b) “Two because of water”—one at Mara and one at Refidim. At Mara it is written: (Shemot 15:23) “And when they came to Mara, they could not drink.” And it is written: (15:24) “And the people murmured against Moshe.” At Refidim it is written: (17:1) “And the people encamped at Refidim and there was no water to drink.” And it is also written: (17:2) “Wherefore the people strove with Moshe.”

c) “Two because of manna”—[9] (16:27) “And it was the Seventh day, and some people went out to gather, and they did not find.”[10] (16:20) “But they did not listen to Moshe, but some of the people left the Manna until the morning, and it bred worms and stank…”

d) “Two because of the quails”—of the first and second quails. Of the first: (Shemot 16:3) “When we sat by the fleshpots…” Of the second: (BaMidbar 11:4) “And the mixed multitude that was among them…”

e) “The Golden Calf”—as it happened (see Shemot 32:1 ff.)

f) “The wilderness of Paran”—as it happened (see BaMidbar 13-14.)

                It is notable that among the ten events that are categorized as tests of God by the Jewish people cited in Erchin, the four[11]  that stem from Parshat BeShalach can simultaneously be viewed as tests emanating from HaShem to evaluate the people’s spiritual state. And although the actual term “Nisayon” is not used by the Tora with respect to the other six occasions cited by the Talmud, it is not difficult to recognize their dual natures as well, i.e., these situations are both tests by and of God. While God was Ready to Save the Jews at the Sea despite the skepticism of some, as was mentioned above, He did not immediately Make it clear how this was going to take place, and considerable faith is required of the people before the splitting of the Sea actually transpires—see e.g., Sota 37a. HaShem not only positively responds to the request for meat, but He also evaluates and ultimately punishes those who are improperly insistent upon obtaining it (see BaMidbar 11). The Golden Calf reflects a major shortcoming on the part of the people; yet Rabbinic sources and commentaries, e.g., RaShI on Shemot 32:31 and Keli Yakar on 15:22 based upon Berachot 32a suggest that ordering the Jewish people to despoil Egypt before they left (Shemot 12:36) as well as giving them the opportunity to collect the jewels from the drowned Egyptian forces at the Sea of Reeds (see Mechilta on 15:22) provided these newly freed slaves with a powerful temptation to use the precious metals that they had acquired for illegal idolatrous purposes. Finally with respect to the spies, while in retrospect Moshe admits in Devarim 1:22-23 that the impetus to send the delegation originated with the people, the initial account in BaMidbar 13:2 gives the impression that HaShem at least Authorized the spy mission, if He did not out and out Command Moshe to send the representatives of the tribes to scout out the land of Israel.

The double-edged sword of a test.

In order to place someone in a situation where he will be tested, one runs the risk that the tables will be turned. Instead of the one being tested demonstrating mastery, self-control and competence, he may lash out at the examiner, clearly evidencing a lack of preparedness and even comprehension of the task at hand and the skill set required for meeting the challenges being posed. The Jewish people have certainly experienced their share of “Nisyanot” throughout their history, as well as having presented a number of their own challenges to HaShem. Let us hope that we can learn from our challenges, go thereby from “Chayil L’Chayil” (from strength to strength), to live up to HaShem’s Expectations of us individually, communally and nationally.

[2] While the newly freed slaves can be expected to not be experienced and overly confident in terms of God’s Involvement with them due to their long years of suffering and servitude, when HaShem demonstrates that He will Produce water and food for them, these specific memories can serve as benchmarks for the future development of newfound trust and faith.

[3] When the term “Nisayon” is used in Devarim, for the most part it again is associated with the specific events in Shemot where the term first appeared. Devarim 6:16 cites the paradigm of “Massa”, the place where the second dispute over water occurs in Shemot 17. Devarim 8:16 invokes the past problems with the Manna, that originally became an issue in Shemot 16, although it rears its head again in BaMidbar 11:6-9 and 21:5. The only other instance where the term “Nisayon” is invoked by HaShem in Devarim, is in order to account for why false prophets sometimes can perform seemingly miraculous signs, i.e., in order for HaShem to be Able to test the Jewish people as to the extent of their exclusive love for Him and His Mitzvot. Since the events recorded in the book of Shemot take place while no one but Moshe can claim to be HaShem’s Prophet—even Korach challenged the designation of Aharon as Kohen Gadol, but not that of Moshe as the conduit of God’s Will to the people (see BaMidbar 16:10)—it is not remarkable that no paradigm for such a challenge is to be found in Shemot, in contrast to demands for water and food.

[4] The term “Sham” (there) suggests that an event took place in a specific locale to the exclusion of anywhere else.

[5] From the time of the Exodus from Egypt until the receiving of the Tora that is commemorated by the festival of Shavuot, seven weeks elapsed (VaYikra 23:15). The splitting of the Sea took place on the seventh day following the Jews’ fleeing Egypt (see e.g., RaShI on Shemot 14:5). And only three days more pass (15:22) before the test of Mara leaving about five and a half weeks until the giving of the Tora.

[6] Perhaps it is more than coincidence that Respecting Parents is one of the Commandments given at Mara in light of the passage in Kiddushin that attributes to this Mitzva the basis for justifying those Commandments leading up to it.

[7] Originally twelve, Kalev and Yehoshua refused to give a negative report.

[8] Another Rabbinic source that takes literally the Tora’s contention in BaMidbar that there were specifically ten trials in the desert is Avot 5:4 which focuses upon the association of the number ten and events during and following the Exodus—“Ten miracles were performed on behalf of our Forefathers in Egypt, and ten at the Sea. Ten plagues God Brought upon the Egyptians in Egypt and ten at the Sea. Ten trials did our Forefathers try God, Blessed be He, in the desert, as it is said (BaMidbar 14) ‘And they tested Me these ten times and they did not hearken to My Voice’”. Commentators on the Mishna such as Tosafot Yom Tov, strive to identify precisely which ten trials are being referenced, despite the listing in Erechin.

[9] The Talmud paraphrases the verse in 16:29 which records what Moshe says to the people AFTER they have already gone out to search for manna on Shabbat. This verse does not demonstrate how the people tried God, but rather what the Divine Response to the trial was, i.e., a reiteration of the rules applying to Manna gathering on the Seventh Day. 16:27 is a more appropriate reflection of the non-compliance on the part of the people. Similarly, with regard to the leaving over of the Manna, the Talmud cites 16:19 in which the instructions given by Moshe for the people not to leave the Manna over are recorded. However, if one wishes to illustrate how the people defied Moshe’s directive, the next verse, 16:20, has to be accessed. If all that one pays attention to is the order that was given, why should it be assumed that it was not carried out? Only in combination with the verse that describes the result can it be said that this constitutes a test of God by the people. In fact, the two verses cited by Erchin with respect to the Manna are examples of God Testing the people, rather than vice versa!

[10] Told in 23-26 that a double portion would fall on Erev Shabbat and that no Manna would be in the fields on Shabbat itself, thereby precluding the necessity for going out to gather manna on Shabbat.

[11] It could be contested that the challenges associated with the Manna cited by the Talmud have more to do with how and when it is to be gathered, rather than the untoward demands for food in the first place. However, it could be countered that the reason for the people’s impatience with respect to not collecting Manna on Shabbat and attempting to save some from one weekday to the next, was due to the same lack of faith in HaShem that caused them to challenge whether He would Give them food in the first place.

                Part of the “Brit Bein HaBetarim” (the Covenant between the Pieces) (Beraishit 15:9-21) is the Divine Promise that when the Jews finally are redeemed from the servitude and oppression that they will suffer in a land that “is not theirs”, they will emerge with “great wealth” (15:14). Although HaKetav VeHaKabbala strives to define this “wealth” as not only finite precious material objects, but also as  a positive historical evolution of the Jewish people by means of  lessons learned during the course of the Egyptian exile, e.g., a demonstration of the impotence of false gods, as well as an appreciation of HaShem’s Omnipotence and the wondrousness of His Miracles, nevertheless even R. Yaakov Tzvi Mecklenberg  admits that the simple meaning of 15:14, along with the apparent import of verses in Parashiot Shemot[1] and Bo[2] appear  to emphasize the acquisition of  monetary wealth.

The repetition of the Promise that the Jews would leave Egypt enriched suggests the importance of this Promise.

The importance of the Divine Promise that the Jews will leave Egypt materially enriched originally made to Avraham in Beraishit, is reflected in this prophecy and its fulfillment being mentioned on three different occasions in Sefer Shemot.  In Shemot 3:21, Moshe is told by God before he even agrees to return to Egypt and confront Pharoah, , “And I will Place the ‘Chen’ (grace) of this people in the eyes of Egypt, and it will be that when you go (out from Egypt) you will not go empty-handed.” The prediction is repeated by God to Moshe  a second time just prior to “Makat Bechorot” (the plague of the firstborn), (11:3) “And God will Place the grace of the people in the eyes of Egypt; also the man Moshe is very great in the land of Egypt in the eyes of the servants of Pharoah and in the eyes of the people.” NeTzIV suggests that the reason why HaShem Informs Moshe about the Promise a second time is because Moshe might have thought that there had been a change in the Divine Plan.[3]  While God had also Mentioned to His Prophet early on that the Egyptian ruler would not immediately agree to allowing the Jews to leave (3:19-20), Moshe is nevertheless shocked when Pharoah in addition to refusing to free the slaves, also imposes harsher work quotas upon the Jews (5:7-9). Moshe registers his dismay when in 5:22-23 he accuses HaShem of Maltreating the very people that He had Said He would Redeem. Consequently, HaShem Reassures Moshe in 11:3 that not only is the plan for redemption still on track, but that the Commitment regarding the enrichment of the Jews would also be carried out as originally promised independent of where the Jews might currently be religiously.

The obtaining of Egyptian property by the Jews is mentioned for a final time when the Tora describes what takes place following the Plague of the Firstborn and immediately prior to the Jews’ leaving Egypt. We read how God is True to His Word: (12:36) “And God Placed the grace of the people in the eyes of Egypt, and they (the Egyptians) caused them (the Jews) to borrow and they despoiled Egypt.”

The hardening of one heart; the softening of others.

Amos Chacham in Da’at Mikra notes the parallelism between the hardening of Pharoah’s heart by HaShem during the last five plagues (9:12; 9:34—10:1,[4]  10:20, 27; 11:10)  and the “softening” of the Egyptians’ hearts with regards to their “lending” the Jews  their silver and gold, reflecting a disconnect between the Egyptian leader and his nation. 

Are the respective attitudes and actions of Pharoah and the Egyptians indicative of their own intentions and choices?

However, one can question whether the actions on the part of both Pharoah and his subjects should be regarded as reflections of either their respective evil or good intentions in light of the direct Divine Catalyst for what they do.  RaMBaM, Mishna Tora, Hilchot Teshuva, Chapt. 5 goes to great lengths to explain how only when an individual has free choice can he be both held accountable as well as praised and rewarded for his actions:

(5:4) If HaShem would Decree regarding an individual to either be a righteous person or an evildoer, or if there would be some factor inherent in an individual’s basic makeup  that would inevitably direct him to take a certain path, or to develop a certain personality trait, or to form a certain opinion, or to act in a certain manner, as some fools who delve into astrology maintain, how could He Command us by means of His Prophets, “Do this”,  “Don’t do that”,  “Improve your ways and do not follow your evil tendencies” since from his very earliest beginnings it has already been decreed, or his nature has been so constituted that he embark upon a path that cannot be altered? And what purpose would there be for the entire Tora (which lists positive and negative commandments along with their rewards and punishments), and based upon what law or judgment could a sinner be punished or a righteous person rewarded? (Beraishit 18:25) “The Judge of the entire world, should He not Engage in Justice?”[5]  

Consequently, while Pharoah can be morally criticized and properly punished for the first five instances when he turns down Moshe’s and Aharon’s request to free the Jews, this is not true with regard to his responses for the last five plagues (see fn. 4).  Similarly, if the converse process, i.e., instead of forcing someone to do evil, he is made to do good, lies at the heart of the decision by the Egyptians to offer their precious possessions to the Jews, they also cannot be regarded as having treated the Jews favorably, since God is merely manipulating them to only give the impression that the Egyptians have high regard for Moshe and his people. 

What role did despoiling Egypt play in the events of the Exodus?

Furthermore, it appears that this ostensible “good deed” on the Egyptians’ part is, at least according to RaShI, designed by God to supply  Pharoah with the leverage by which he could eventually urge the Egyptian people to join him in pursuing the Jews to the Sea of Reeds:  

RaShI on Shemot 14:6 “VaEt Amo Lakach Imo” (And his [Pharoah’s] people he [Pharoah] took with him)   

He (Pharoah) drew them with words.[6]  “They smote us with plagues, TOOK OUR POSSESSIONS and we sent them out!?  Come my nation…”

Pharoah is portrayed as appealing to the Egyptian sense of having been taken advantage of by the Jews’ who now that they have traveled beyond the journey of three days that Moshe originally requested (5:3; 8:23), appear to not only have no intention of returning to their former state of enslavement, but, adding insult to injury, they also intend to permanently keep the objects that they had ostensibly only “borrowed” from the Egyptians.  The ensuing moral outrage on the part of the Egyptians concerning both their lost slave labor as well as their personal possessions, convinces them to throw caution to the wind, forget about the massive destruction and hardships that they had just recently suffered, and attempt again to inflict pain and devastation on the Jews, despite the power evidenced by God Acting on the former slaves’ behalf. Although the text regarding the Egyptian’s final pursuit only notes that it is Pharoah’s heart that is hardened in terms of his deciding to chase the Jews (14:8), “And HaShem Hardened Pharoah’s heart, the king of Egypt, and he pursued after the Jewish people…”, it would appear that the soldiers manning the 600 chariots that joined the king (14:6) no longer retained any of the “grace” that had been placed in their eyes earlier on, following the Plague of the Firstborn in Shemot 12:36.  Consequently, HaShem’s Orchestrating the Egyptian’s feeling positively towards the Jews could be paradoxically understood to contribute to setting up the Divine Coup de Grace for Egypt and its armies.[7]  

Perhaps the Grace with which the Egyptians looked upon the Jews was genuinely felt and God “Assisted” the Egyptians to act upon their own intentions.

In contrast to the apparently literal reading of the verses in question that attributes the “grace” with which the Egyptians looked upon the Jews to a Supernatural Influence comparable to the manner in which Pharoah’s heart was hardened from Above, both RaMBaN as well as R. Shimshon Raphael Hirsch suggest that the Egyptians’ positive feeling towards the Jews came from within the Egyptians themselves and was well-deserved by the Jews.

RaMBaN argues that a close reading of the Biblical text in 11:3 would make it impossible to assume that God’s Placing the “grace” of the Jews in the eyes of the Egyptians at this point prior to “Makkat Bechorot” is synonymous with what is stated in 12:36 regarding the borrowing of possessions after the final plague, when the Jews are about to leave Egypt. The commentator claims that in 11:3, the language “VaYitein“ should not be understood as “And He WILL Place the grace of the people” in the future, i.e., an exact reference to the next chapter when the Jews actually ask for the Egyptians’ property, but rather “And He PLACED”, i.e., the text is describing something that has already happened at this point in Chapt. 11. The grammatical issue in play is how to understand a future form of a verb that is introduced by a “Vav”, known as the “Vav HaHipuch”, the reversing Vav, i.e., in most instances in the Tora, the connotation of the future tense of the verb is reversed to be understood as something that pertains to the past. The Tora often employs such a construct to refer to what has already occurred rather than to what is about to take place. [8] RaMBaN suggests that the “grace” being referred to in Chapt. 11 is a reflection of a newly repentant attitude on the part of the Egyptians concerning their past ruthless treatment of the Jews.  Contrary to the reasonable expectation that as a result of the unrelenting plagues that have destroyed crops (hail, locusts) and livestock (wild animals, plague, hail) as well as discomforted and killed segments of the people themselves (blood, frogs, lice, wild animals, boils, darkness, the plague of the firstborn), the Egyptians would be filled with additional loathing and hatred for the Jews, the commentator contends that the opposite had taken place. The plagues, rather than fanning the flames of hatred, aroused a sense of guilt within those who had taken advantage of the Jews, stripping the Egyptians of their elaborate rationalizations and sense of entitlement and demonstrating to them that an Awesome Power was going to punish them and thereby defend the victims of their cruelty. RaMBaN has the Egyptians at least thinking, if not actually saying, “We have done evilly, even perpetrated violence. It is altogether appropriate that ‘Elokim’[9] should Show you favor.” Consequently, RaMBaN suggests an additional dimension to the many references by HaShem to His Desire to demonstrate to the entire Egyptian people (as opposed to Pharoah and his servants whom God does not Allow to repent until after the final plague and the miracle of the splitting of the Sea) His total control of the forces of nature, e.g., 7:5; 9:14, 16; 14:4. The Egyptians come to recognize not only the Omnipotence of the God in whom the Jews believe, but also their duplicity in having abused the Chosen People for so many years. Could this have been a positive motivation for the “Eiruv Rav” (the mixed multitude) wishing to accompany the Jews when they left Egypt?[10]   

Was a positive Egyptian predisposition towards the Jews recent or more long-standing?

R. Hirsch appears to go farther than RaMBaN, and not only suggests that a change of heart was experienced by the Egyptian people independent of HaShem’s Influence, but that it was precipitated by specific Jewish behavior. In his comment on 3:21, R. Hirsch claims that antipathy evidenced by Egyptians towards Jews was an abnormal state of affairs, and that looking upon the Jews with favor was a more “normal” Egyptian attitude. “The hate of the mass of the nation against the Jews in Egypt did not exist originally. It was artificially called into being and fostered from above by Pharoah and his government.” [11]

                What substantiation could we bring to R. Hirsch’s presumption? In addition to the Tora’s own statement in Devarim as to how appreciative Jews should forever be to the Egyptians for having taken them in while Canaan was stricken with severe famine (Devarim 23:8), the following inferences can be drawn from verses in Beraishit and Shemot:

a)  When the Jews originally come to Egypt during Yaakov and Yosef’s lifetimes, they are welcomed and granted an area of their own in which to live (Beraishit 45:17-20; 47:1-12).

b)   The Jews flourish in Egypt and experience rapid population growth (Shemot 1:7).

c)   The new king that begins to rule over Egypt frightens the Egyptians into thinking that the Jews pose a potential threat as a fifth column, should Egypt ever be attacked from without (1:9-10).

d)   If we assume that the midwives that helped Jewish women give birth were actually Egyptians rather than Jews,[12] the Tora presents a clear example of common Egyptian folk who do not wish to participate in the new Pharoah’s genocidal schemes (1:17).

e)   Even Bat Pharoah is not ready to go along with her father’s decree, at least not in the case of Moshe (2:6).

f)   There are some among Pharoah’s own servants who heed Moshe’s warnings about the impending hail and thereby save their possessions (9:20).

g)   While there does not seem to be great protests when the plagues begin, it appears that the Egyptians become disillusioned by Pharoah’s obstinacy in not letting the Jews leave and thereby relieving the pressure on the country and its citizenry that was due to the continued plagues (10:7). While the speed with which the Egyptians wish the Jews to finally leave could be attributed to their fright as a result of the death of the firstborn, it could also be a reflection of the attitude of those cohorts who never agreed with enslaving the Jews in the first place and who are finally taking advantage of the opportunity to publicly evidence a viewpoint that previously had been impossible to express (12:33).  

Jewish personal behavior as a catalyst for Egyptian “grace”?

                In addition to assuming that originally, the Egyptians never harbored ill feelings towards the Jews, and it was only the result of government propaganda and anti-Semitism[13]  that soured the relationship,[14] R. Hirsch claims that the positive emotions categorized as the perception of Jewish “grace” leading to the Egyptians generously lending their possessions to their Jewish neighbors were engendered not due to Divine Influence, but rather as a result of the Jews’ personal behavior.

R. S.R. Hirsch on Shemot 11:2-3

 …The people had just proved their sterling moral quality in the most brilliant manner. For three days long their oppressors, chained in blindness, were completely helpless in their power; for three days long all their treasures lay open in their houses, and no Jew took the opportunity to take the slightest advantage either against their persons or their possessions. At the moment when they recovered the use of their eyesight and found all their possessions untouched, God Made this recognition of the moral nobility of the Jews at last overcome  the Egyptians’ antipathy to the Jews. This moral greatness on the part of the people, more than all the miracles he performed, made the man Moses great in the eyes of the Egyptians…

Ibid. (12:36)

…It can very well be that the subject of “VaYenatzlu” is also the Egyptians. “And they (the Egyptians) stripped Egypt.” The honesty and magnanimity which the Jews displayed during the three days of darkness had so raised the opinion of the Egyptians towards Israel, that they pressed their possessions upon them before they asked, and stripped themselves of their treasures. (Earlier, in the introduction to verses 11:2-3, R. Hirsch tries to make a case that “Sha’al MeiEit” as opposed to “Sha’al MeiIm” suggests an outright gift as opposed to only a loan.)

R. Hirsch applies to the events towards the end of the Exodus a profoundly different emphasis than is normally presented by traditional commentators. The plague of darkness is often characterized as the time when the Jews specifically looked through the Egyptians’ possessions in order to be in a position to ask for articles that their owners might otherwise have denied possessing, as in Shemot Rabba 14:3. It is also reputed to have been a period during which those Jews who were refusing to leave Egypt due to their comfortable circumstances died in order that their defiance of God’s Plan for His People not be in evidence once their co-religionists had left—see Mechilta on Shemot 13:18. For R. Hirsch to instead maintain that these three days constituted a demonstration of Jewish self-discipline and moral virtue to the point that negative stereotypes and false accusations would be discarded, constitutes not only an innovative understanding of the events at hand, but also a utopian hope for how Jews in R. Hirsch’s own day in 19^th century Germany as well as we today should strive to respond to narrow-mindedness and prejudice. Naturally Jews must protect themselves from physical threats and discrimination. But at the same time, they should seek out venues for Kiddush HaShem whereby those not afflicted with deep-seated hatred, or even what Jean Paul Sartre has referred to as “the mental illness” of anti-Semitism, might be forced to evaluate the harsh depictions and caricatures of Jews and Judaism.

Approaching the views of RaMBaN and R. Hirsch re the borrowing of valuables as complementary.

It is possible that the two basic views regarding the origins of the “grace” that was perceived by the Egyptians for the Jews, i.e., that this attitude was Divinely inspired, or that it originated from within the hearts of the Egyptians themselves, can be seen to complement one another, although the commentators themselves do not appear to suggest such an approach. Sometimes human beings require “Siyata D’Shmaya” (Assistance from Heaven) in order to do the right thing, to see what is obvious, to cease deluding themselves into believing lies and misrepresentations. It is as if one has to act as a Prophet, to form opinions from a Divine Perspective, rather than relying  on his own petty, often biased takes on the world and its inhabitants. While “seeing” and “hearing” should be done reflectively and introspectively, a certain crucial moral, ethical objectivity is often lacking as a result of political perspectives and personal biases. Just as the text suggests at least according to some commentators that the Egyptians and Jews were finally reconciled after a terrible, abusive relationship, let us hope that similar transformations can take place, with God’s Help if necessary, between feuding individuals, family members, community members, religious groups and nations of the world.

“And I will Place the grace of this people in the eyes of the Egyptians. And it will be, that, when ye go, ye will not go empty=handed; but every woman shall ask of her neighbor, and of her that sojourns in her house, jewels of silver, and jewels of gold, and raiment; and ye shall put them upon your sons, and upon your daughters; and ye shall spoil the Egyptians.’” 

[2] Ibid. 11:2-3

“’Speak now in the ears of the people, and let them ask every man of his neighbor, and every woman of her neighbor, jewels of silver, and jewels of gold.’ And God will Place the favor of the people in the eyes of the Egyptians. Also the man Moshe was very great in the land of Egypt, in the eyes of Pharaoh’s servants, and in the eyes of the people.”

Ibid. 12:35-6

“And the children of Israel did according to the word of Moses; and they asked of the Egyptians jewels of silver, and jewels of gold, and raiment. And God Placed the grace of the people in the eyes of the Egyptians, and they caused them to borrow. And they despoiled the Egyptians.”   

[3] Such a change does not reflect “indecision”, as it were, on God’s Part, but rather that it is possible that the people’s status had changed in the interim from more deserving of Divine Consideration to less so. If their already difficult workload could be increased due to some new iniquity, perhaps other benefits would also be cancelled in light of some general shortcoming on their parts. The principle “Shema Yigrom HaChet” (lest sin [on the part of the promis-ee] cause [a reevaluation of a previous Divine Promise]) reflects the idea righteous individuals never assume that what has been promised to them will be fulfilled because they recognize their own imperfections and the inability for a human being to maintain a steady spiritual level from minute to minute, let alone day to day and year to year. See e.g., Berachot 4a; Sanhedrin 98b; Rabbeinu Yona on Avot 2:13.

[4] Although the implication in 9:34 with regard to the plague of hail is that Pharoah hardened his own heart in not granting permission for the Jews to leave, in the very next verse (10:1) God Takes credit for Pharoah’s negative response. This is consistent with the idea that after the first five plagues when Pharoah is described as hardening his own heart (7:23; 8:11, 15, 28; 9:7), he is no longer given this prerogative. While Pharoah may be under the impression that he is independently making up his own mind—suggested by 9:34—in fact, the Tora states that this is not the case. By extension, one can wonder whether, if according to the view that a similar manipulation of the Egyptians’ free choice took place in order to get them to lend their most precious possessions to the Jews, they were aware that something artificial and against their will was taking place, or whether they felt that this was a natural disposition on their parts.

[5] RaMBaM here incorporates what Avraham said to HaShem during the course of his negotiations concerning the sparing of the inhabitants of Sodom and Amora. RaMBaM seems to imply that not only does Avraham argue against destroying innocent people along with evildoers, which appears to the overt focus of his comments based upon Beraishit 18:24-25, but that even the elimination of the evildoers must be based upon the presumption that they must not inevitably do evil, although Beraishit 13:13 might lend itself to such a fatalistic interpretation, unless one posits that the evil of the Sodomites was acquired rather than intrinsic behavior. But one has to wonder about people who have spent their entire lives in an amoral or immoral environment, to what extent is it reasonable to expect them to separate themselves from the values and behaviors of the society around them?

[6] RaShI consistently  interprets the verb L-K-Ch when used in connection with human beings, as opposed to objects, as connoting verbal persuasion as opposed to literal physical coercion, e.g., Beraishit 2:15; 16:3; Shemot 14:6; VaYikra 8:2.

[7] Although it was predicted in Beraishit 15: 13 that a people would enslave and afflict the Jews, suggesting that if they were carrying out a Divine Plan, the Egyptians should be exempt from punishment (see RaMBaM cited earlier in the essay), it is assumed that they went further than their mandate allowed, e.g., nowhere in the “Brit Bein HaBetarim” did it ever say that children would be killed. See e.g., RaMBaN on Beraishit 15:14 and Shemot 3:9. But for HaShem to Give the impression that something good was happening via the Egyptians looking favorably upon the Jews, when in fact these feelings and the actions based upon them, i.e., the lending of precious possessions, would lead to something bad appears somewhat cynical.

[8] Aside from merely being viewed as an archaic literary form, the Vav HaHipuch vis-à-vis when the Tora is describing a Divine Action, can allude to the theological assumption that God is above time, a concept connoted by the Tetragrammaton, consisting of a combination of the past, present and future forms of the Being verb, Heh-Vav-Heh.

[9] While the Tetragrammaton is the term for HaShem that is pertinent to Jews, in most cases when non-Jews refer to the God worshipped by the Jews, they use the term Elokim, as in Shemot 5:2-3 where commentators point out how in order to properly convey the Jewish concept of God to Pharoah, Moshe has to switch from the Tetragrammaton to the term Elokim. Furthermore, the attitudinal stance of “Yirat Elokim” (fear of God) is attributed to non-Jews, as in Beraishit 20:11; 42:18; Shemot 1:17.

[10] All sorts of negative motivations are attributed to the “Eiruv Rav”, e.g., they wanted to “jump on the bandwagon”, to share in the power that the Jews obviously now possessed, to obtain a portion in the new land to which the Jews were traveling, etc. Is it impossible to suggest that they felt badly about the moral level of Egyptian society, and they now wished to join an obviously more righteous society? Could Yevamot 79a be a paradigm for such an attitude?

[11] Commentators like Sephorno suggest that when God Hardens Pharoah’s heart, it was not to make him do something that was against his nature, but rather, on the contrary, since Pharoah did not really want to release the Jews, God Made it possible to resist the pressure of the plagues in order to do what he really wished to do. We might say by extension that the Egyptians may have felt positively disposed to the Jews, but out of fear of Pharoah’s reprisals, repressed those feelings and distanced themselves from the slaves. God Placing the grace of the Jews in their eyes then allowed them to do what they personally really wanted to do.

[12] E.g. Otzar HaMidrashim, 474: “And there were additional pious women converts from the nations: Asnat, Tziporra, SHIFRA, PUAH, Bat Pharoah, Rachav, Ruth and Yael.”

[13] The Egyptians were descendants of Cham rather than Shem—see Beraishit 10:6. Therefore while the term “anti-Semite” ironically applies to those who discriminate against some of Israel’s Middle Eastern antagonists, who claim to be the descendants of Yishmael, and who therefore trace their lineage through Avraham, a descendant of Shem, someone antipathic towards Egyptians would not technically qualify to be called an “anti-Semite”.)

[14] Commentators like RaMBaN and R. Hirsch will have to account for Pharoah’s ability to sway the Egyptians into chasing the Jews, if in fact they looked upon them favorably. Perhaps one could say that even if the emotion that led the Egyptians to lend their possessions to the Jews was a positive one, they reacted indignantly to being exploited by those whom they had viewed favorably when it was reported that the Jews never intended to return to Egypt and by implication return the borrowed property to their original owners.

The final total demoralization of the Jewish people during their enslavement in Egypt is reflected in Shemot 6:9.

And Moshe spoke in just this way (he related all that HaShem had Instructed him to say[1] to the children of Israel, and they did not listen to Moshe because of “Kotzer Ruach” (shortness of breath/spirit) and “Avoda Kasha” (difficult work).

The people’s disinterest or perhaps even inability to take heart from Moshe’s relaying HaShem’s message this second time appears to be in stark contrast to their original reception of God’s Word, as conveyed by Moshe and Aharon in 4:31.

And the people believed, and they heard that HaShem had Remembered the children of Israel, and that He had Seen their affliction, and they bowed down and prostrated themselves.

It would appear that Moshe’s assumption that the people would ultimately believe neither in him nor in the Word of God—see4:1[2]—if not immediately borne out in Parshat Shemot, is eventually confirmed in Parshat VaEra.

Factors contributing to the people’s not paying attention to Moshe the second time around.

                Yet, the Tora does supply mitigating circumstances—“Kotzer Ruach” and “Avoda Kasha”—that account for this relatively quick reversal on the part of the people,  when they go from viewing their immediate futures in optimistic terms to despairing of all remedies for their dire plight. Reading the Tora in a straightforward manner, however intensely the Jews may have been laboring prior to Moshe’s arrival, the “hard, breaking work”[3] becomes even more acute as a result of Pharoah’s negative response to the request to allow the Jews to travel for three days in order to worship HaShem in the desert. Shemot 5:7-9 describes the new demands that will be made of the Jewish slaves in order to combat their apparent “laziness” (5:8, 17), i.e., while their production quotas will remain unchanged, they will from this point on have to also obtain the raw materials by which to fabricate the bricks that they are commanded to make. Consequently, if they had little spare time for themselves prior to Moshe’s arrival, their lives now become even more desperate. They not only figuratively, but even literally have no time to listen to anything that will cause them to lose focus from their onerous tasks at hand. They tell Moshe and Aharon (5:21) that as a result of the ill-fated negotiation with Pharoah, the Egyptians, by means of the intensified work requirement, now have a better pretext than ever to beat Jewish slaves to death for failure to meet production expectations. Consequently, if all things had remained “equal” the people would have continued to believe in HaShem’s Promises of Redemption, contrary to Moshe’s expressed cynicism; however, either because they were literally too exhausted to stop and listen to Moshe and Aharon’s words a second time, or they realized that should additional attempts be made to try to convince Pharoah to allow them to leave Egypt even for a short time, their situation might deteriorate even further, if they valued their own lives and the lives of their families, they simply couldn’t afford  to take these Divine Promises seriously. Consequently, rather than criticizing the Jews for displaying a lack of belief, the Jewish people could be viewed more charitably at this point as being under extreme duress,[4] with at least a figurative “gun being held to their respective heads” by the Egyptian ruler. Midrash HaGadol[5]  applies to the verse describing the Jews’ unwillingness to take seriously that God was Prepared to finally redeem them, the statement, “MiKan Ein Adam Nitfas Al Tza’aro” (from here it can be concluded that an individual should not be held accountable for what s/he does or says while experiencing severe trauma).[6]

Not having time to reflect prevented the people from taking Moshe’s second appearance seriously. 

                A more psychologically subtle approach to the people’s inability to listen to Moshe the second time that he comes to them, is offered by RaMBaN and Sephorno. RaMBaN writes that as a result of the constant pressure applied by the Egyptian taskmasters, “Lo Yitnum LiShmoa Davar VeLaCheshov Bo” (they would not permit them to hear a matter and think about it.) Sephorno feels that they would not only have paid attention to Moshe’s message had the work not been as difficult, but they would have been able to reflect upon it, understand it and accept its implications. Consequently, what is at issue is not whether Moshe was perfunctorily “listened to” by the people, but rather was he “heard”, i.e., was there opportunity, interest and even energy to take his words to heart, to analyze them, to ask questions in order to achieve clarity with regard to what was being proposed. Particularly concerning matters of belief and faith, as well as what lies in store for a people that has been long oppressed, hearts and minds will not be altered by a brief oral presentation in the midst of an intolerable workload and fear for one’s life. Whereas they were ready the first time that Moshe came to take seriously and deeply believe the possibility that the time for Redemption has arrived, when the process not only failed to begin, but was perceived as retrogressing, with even worse conditions being imposed upon the Jews, they decided that there was no point in thinking about these promises any further. In order to have faith, the believer needs to have confidence in his leaders as well as in God Himself; when their hopes were raised, only to have them resoundingly shattered, the Jews were reluctant to trust and believe again, perhaps as a defense against being let down in the future. 

Shabbat as a day of reflection and study.

R. Yaakov Kaminetsky[7] explains the deterioration of the Jews’ situation and their inability or lack of interest in taking God’s Promises seriously in Shemot 6 in terms that offer guidance for our contemporary experience of living as Jews in a society that does not always reinforce the values of our tradition. The commentator references several Midrashim with regard to the Jews’ observance of Shabbat during their years in Egypt.[8]  With respect to Shemot 2:11 (an aspect of which was discussed in the essay on Parshat Shemot  http://text.rcarabbis.org/parashat-shemot-coming-of-age-and-searching-for-oneself-by-yaakov-bieler/  ), Shemot Rabba 1:28 states that not only did Moshe empathize with the harsh labor imposed upon his brethren, as explained by RaShI, but that he also tried to do something about it.

“He saw/understood[9] their burdens”—He saw that they had no rest. He went and said to Pharoah, “Whoever owns a slave, if the master does not allow him to rest one day per week, he will die. So too with your slaves, if you do not leave them alone one day per week, they will die.”[10] He said to him, “Go and institute for them in accordance with what you have said.” Moshe then went and instituted for them the day of Shabbat as a day of rest.

Shabbat was not only a day to recover from the physical strain of slavery.

Once it is established that the Jews rested on Shabbat at least during  the time leading up to Moshe’s demands that they be released from slavery,[11] the Rabbis imagined that they would have spent at least part of their Shabbatot engaged in textual study.[12]  It is intriguing to consider what those texts may have been. One possibility based upon an event taking place later at Sinai, is that these texts were the history of the Jewish people up until the Exodus. Shemot 24:7 recounts how a “Sefer HaBrit” (book of the covenant), which according to RaShI was the Tora text from Beraishit until the giving of the Tora at Sinai, including the commandments given at Mara—see Shemot 15:28, RaShI—was read to the people prior to their declaring “Na’aseh VeNishma” (we will do and we will hear/understand). If this is the case, then the delight of the enslaved Jews might have originated from passages such as Beraishit 15:14, where Avraham is told at the “Brit Bein HaBetarim” (the Covenant between the Pieces) that eventually the oppressors of the Jews would be judged and that the Jews would emerge from their servitude with great wealth, as well as Beraishit 50:25 in which Yosef evidences a high level of certainty that God would Redeem His People, the question not being “if”, but rather “when”.

A novel suggestion regarding the object of Shabbat study by the Egyptian slaves.

R. Kaminetsky suggests a different hypothesis as to the identity of the scrolls that the Jews studied on Shabbat. He argues that Psalm 92, entitled “Mizmor Shir Le’Yom HaShabbat” (A Poem for the Day of Shabbat), seems to not contain any reference to Shabbat aside from its title.[13] [14] Furthermore, RaShI on Bava Batra 14b, in which are listed the multiple authors of the book of Tehillim, including Moshe, offers the following comment: Moshe wrote Psalm 90, entitled “Tefilla LeMoshe”, as well as the next eleven Psalms in accordance with their order.” As soon as it is posited that Psalm 92 was authored by Moshe, that allows for the possibility of his having distributed it, along with the other Psalms attributed to him, to the Jews for their study during the period of their enslavement.[15]   R. Kaminetsky contends that the rationale for calling this Psalm one designated for Shabbat was because it was a key element in the people’s Shabbat study while they remained in Egypt. He thinks that a verse that was particularly meaningful to Jewish slaves and that gave them the strength to continue on under such adverse conditions was the final verse: (92:16) “To declare that the Lord is Just; He is my Rock, and there is no unrighteousness in Him,” a form of “Tzidduk HaDin” (justifying the judgment).  They would tell themselves from week to week that no matter what was happening, HaShem must have a Reason for Bringing this about, and that only trust in God was what was needed under these circumstances.[16]  By extension, the commentator continues, another of the scrolls that was studied carefully during the years in Egypt was the book of Iyov, whose authorship Bava Batra 14b also attributes to Moshe. The problem of theodicy certainly could have been on the minds of the Jews at that time, and the fact that God eventually heals Iyov and restores his life to normalcy may similarly have been of comfort to the Egyptian slaves.

The end of Shabbat Tora study led to the inability to believe Moshe’s optimistic predictions?

                But when Pharoah increases their labor as a result of Moshe’s asking that they be allowed to worship in the desert, not only could they no longer rest on Shabbat; they also lost their opportunity to think about and study the scrolls that gave them hope and confidence in a better future.[17] Once they lost even that glimmer of optimism that studying Psalms and Iyov supplied, concludes, R. Kaminetsky, they were unable to listen to Moshe’s words when he came a second time. Furthermore, in light of the Rabbinic tradition that the vast majority of Jews ended up not wishing to leave Egypt, but rather chose to remain, and died during the plague of darkness, would things have been different had they too participated in these studies and religious deliberations? Would they have continued to dream of a better future, rather than choosing to throw in their lot with their non-Jewish neighbors?

Conclusion.

                What does emerge from ideas such as these is the importance of not only being able to take a break from one’s work so that s/he does not become enslaved both mentally and physically, however important that work might be thought to be, but also to spend time on Shabbat engaged in relevant, inspiring spiritual activities, not least of which is Tora study. If this is what helped Jews survive the major portion of the Egyptian exile, then the potency of such learning for assuring that our own lives will continue to have meaning wherever we live and whatever we do, is clear and should be a significant component of each of our lives.

And God spoke to Moshe saying to him, ‘I am HaShem’. And I Appeared to Avraham, Yitzchak and Yaakov in the manifestation of “Keil Shaka” and by My Name “Yud-Keh-Vav-Keh” I was not known to them. And I have Fulfilled My Covenant with them to Give them the land of Canaan, the land of their sojournings in which they sojourned. And I have also Heard the cries of the children of Israel that result from the Egyptians enslaving them and I Remember My Covenant. Therefore say to the children of Israel, “I am HaShem, and I will Take you out from under the burden of Egypt, and I will Save you from your work, and I will Redeem you with an outstretched arm and with great judgments. And I will Take you to me to be a nation and I will Be to you for a God, and you will know that I am the Lord your God, Who Takes you out from under the burden of Egypt. And I will Bring you to the land that I Raised My Hand to Give it to Avraham, Yitzchak and Yaakov, and I will Give it to you as an inheritance, I am HaShem.”

[2] And Moshe answered and said: “But, behold, they will not believe me, nor hearken unto my voice; for they will say: The LORD hath not Appeared unto thee.”

Midrashim take Moshe to task for stating that the people would not believe him and ties the signs that HaShem Instructs him to perform in order to convince the Jews and Pharoah of Moshe’s Divine Mission, also implied rebuke for Moshe’s lack of faith in his co-religionists:

Shemot Rabba 3:12

“And Moshe answered and said: “But, behold, they will not believe me…” At that moment Moshe spoke improperly. The Holy One, Blessed be He, Said to him: (Shemot 3:18) “And they will listen to your voice”   and he said: (Ibid. 4:1) “And they will not believe me.” Immediately HaShem Responded to him in kind. He Gave him signs in accordance with his words. See what is written afterwards: (Ibid. 2) “And HaShem Said to him: ‘”MahZeh” (what is this) in your hand?’ And he said: ‘A staff.’’’ That is to say “MiZeh” (from this; the Midrash is punning on the word, reading it according to an alternate vocalization, substituting a Chirik for a Patach) in your hand you are worthy to be punished, for you have cast false aspersions upon My Children. They are believers, the children of believers: “Believers” because it is said, (Ibid. 31) “And the people believed”; children of believers because it is said (Beraishit 15:6) “And he (Avraham) believed in HaShem”. Moshe took on the act of the Serpent who spoke evilly against His Creator, as it is said, (Ibid. 3: 4)”Because God Knows”. As the serpent is punished, so you will eventually be punished. See what is written: (Shemot 4:3) “And He Said: ‘Cast it to the ground.’ And he cast it to the ground and it became a serpent.” Because he did an action of the Serpent, therefore he was shown a serpent, as if to say, you did the action of this. (Ibid. ) “And Moshe fled from before it.”

Midrash Tanchuma, Parashat Shemot, #20

Another interpretation: “And it will be if they do not believe you…” “And they will not believe me…” The Holy One, Blessed be He Said to him: (Shemot 4:2) “What is this in your hand?” (Ibid. 3) “And He Said: ‘Cast it to the ground…’”

He Said to him: You are saying “Lashon HaRa” (evil statements) concerning My Children (the Jewish people—see 4:22.)  Just as in the case of the Serpent Who said Lashon HaRa—see Beraishit 3:4-5—I Punished him with Tzora’at (a skin disease; although there is no explicit reference in the biblical text to the Serpent being afflicted with such a condition, since Tzora’at is paradigmatically associated with Miriam’s act of Lashon HaRa directed at her brother Moshe—see BaMidbar 12:10—it  stands to reason that the Serpent was likewise afflicted), you too, (Shemot 4:6) “’Put now thy hand into thy bosom.’ And he put his hand into his bosom; and when he took it out, behold, his hand was leprous, as white as snow. ” The Holy One, Blessed be He Said to him: You said concerning My Children that they weren’t believers, (Ibid. 9) “And it shall come to pass, if they will not believe even these two signs, neither hearken unto thy voice, that thou shalt take of the water of the river, and pour it upon the dry land; and the water which thou takest out of the river shall become blood upon the dry land.” The Holy One, Blessed be He Hinted to him a hint…Said R. Shmuel bar Nechemia: He Hinted you will meet your end by means of water, as it says (BaMidbar 20:10) “And Moses and Aaron gathered the assembly together before the rock, and he said unto them: ‘Hear now, ye rebels; are we to bring you forth water out of this rock?’” (One view as to why God Decreed at this point that Moshe would not enter Canaan was because he had once again spoken ill of the Jewish people by referring to them as “rebels”.    

Yet it is clear from Shemot 6:9 that the people did not believe Moshe when he made promises of redemption for a second time. Perhaps since they saw that his original promises did not come to fruition, they were justified in their skepticism of similar promises. Consequently this is not a reflection that the people lacked faith and the ability to believe; it was in Moshe as the initiator of the process of redemption that they had lost trust based upon his previous failure.

[3] See 1:11, 13; 2:23.

[4] The operant Halachic principle would consequently be: “Ones Rachmana Patrei” (an individual under duress is pardoned by Heaven), e.g., Avoda Zara 54a.

[5] Quoted in Tora Shleima, vol. 10, ed. R. Menachem Kasher, Beit Tora Shleima, Jerusalem, 5752, p. 15.

[6] Bava Batra 16b draws the same conclusion from Iyov 34:35, where rather than categorizing his rants against the Divine as evil, he is described as simply devoid of knowledge, i.e., he is incapable of thinking straight under these circumstances.

[7] Emet Le’Yaakov, R. Jacob Joseph School Press, New York, 5751, pp. 262-3.

[8] The assumption that the Jews observed Shabbat while in Egypt flies in the face of the well-known Rabbinic theme that they had become idolaters and had stopped observing their religious traditions. E.g.,

RaShI on Shemot 12:6

“And ye shall keep it (the Paschal lamb) unto the fourteenth day of the same month; and the whole assembly of the congregation of Israel shall kill it at dusk.”

This is an expression of inspection that (the Paschal sacrifice) requires four days of inspection regarding any blemishes prior to slaughter (i.e., some blemishes only arise after some time elapses. Consequently in order to assure that the potential sacrifice is free of such blemishes, it has to be obtained several days prior to the time of slaughter and carefully watched). And what was the reason that its taking was required to take place four days prior, something that was not made a requirement for subsequent observances of the Paschal sacrifice ritual? R. Matya ben Cheresh said: Behold the text states (Yechezkel 16:8) “ ‘Now when I Passed by thee, and Looked upon thee, and, behold, thy time was the time of love, I Spread my skirt over thee, and Covered thy nakedness; yea, I Swore unto thee, and Entered into a covenant with thee,’ Saith the Lord GOD, and thou becamest Mine. ”  The time for the fulfillment of the oath that I Swore to Avraham that I will Redeem his offspring has arrived. But they did not have to their credit the performance of Mitzvot that would render them deserving of redemption. As it says there (Ibid. 7) “I Cause thee to increase, even as the growth of the field. And thou didst increase and grow up, and thou camest to excellent beauty: thy breasts were fashioned, and thy hair was grown; yet thou wast naked and bare.” And He Gave them two Commandments, the blood of the Paschal sacrifice (that was to be applied to the doorposts in order to ward off the Plague of the Firstborn) and the blood of circumcision, that they engaged in circumcision on that very night, as it says (Ibid. 6) “And when I Passed by thee, and Saw thee wallowing in thy blood, I Said unto thee: ‘In thy blood, live; yea, I Said unto thee: In thy blood, live’”, blood being mentioned two times (corresponding to two separate Commandments involving blood, (ironically, Midrashim such as VaYikra Rabba 32:5 posit that the Jews deserved redemption for among other things, not having changed their names or their language. Yet beyond maintaining their cultural identity, their religious identity, at least according to this RaShI and other sources like it, went by the wayside.)  And it also says, (Zecharya 9:11) “As for thee also, because of the blood of thy covenant I Send forth thy prisoners out of the pit wherein is no water.” And since they were deeply involved with idolatry, he (Moshe) said to them:  (Shemot 12:21) “Then Moses called for all the elders of Israel, and said unto them: ‘Draw out, and take you lambs according to your families, and kill the Paschal lamb,” (an implication that the Jews should reject the Egyptian objects of idolatrous worship.) Draw your hands back from idolatry and take a lamb for the purpose of a Commandment.

One could probably say that the “Shabbat” that they observed was devoid of religious meaning and was simply a day when they rested from their work. The fact that Shabbat is one of the Mitzvot that may have been introduced to the people at Mara prior to Sinai—see Shabbat 56b—suggests that any previous Shabbat observance was incomplete at best.

[9] In the same manner as the root “Sh-M-A” (to hear) is explained as connoting hearing cognitively, or understanding, so too is the root “R-A-H” (to see) interpreted as representing a level of cognitive “seeing” or understanding.

[10] The Midrash presumes that Pharoah did not wish to exterminate the Jews. That is not clear from some of the policies that were instituted. If the male children were to be killed, as per Pharoah’s order that would certainly severely reduce the slave population. Furthermore, Rabbinic sources claim that another hindrance to Jewish population growth or even replacement, was the taskmasters attempting to prevent husbands and wives from spending any more time together than absolutely necessary. An approach that would reconcile such sources with the Midrash being presently considered is that rather than trying to wipe out the Jews, the Egyptian ruling class’ intent was to keep them a small enslaved minority within greater Egypt so that menial tasks could be assigned to them, and therefore preserving those who were alive was in Egypt’s best interests.

[11] Shemot Rabba 5:18 conjectures that following Pharoah’s rejection of Moshe and Aharon’s first proposal and his order to increase the difficulty of the Jews’ tasks, their ability to rest on Shabbat was revoked. 

“Increase the work for the people”—this teaches that they (the Jews) had in their hands scrolls which they would delight in from one Shabbat to the next, and on the basis of their studies they believed that the Holy One, Blessed be He, will Redeem them. This was possible because they were resting on Shabbat. Pharoah said to them, “‘Increase the work for the people so that they will work in it and will not rejoice in words of falsity.’ You shall neither delight nor rest on the day of Shabbat.”

[12]Several Rabbinic sources maintain that a goodly portion of Shabbat should be devoted to Tora study, particularly by those who are unable to study during the week. E.g., RaMA on Orech Chayim 290:2 :

Laypeople who do not engage in Tora study during the workweek, should engage in such study on Shabbat even more than the scholars who study Tora throughout the week. The scholars should spend extra time with respect to eating and drinking (i.e., physical pleasures), since their enjoyment during the week is their studies (i.e., spiritual pleasure).

[13] A Psalm, a Song. For the Sabbath day. It is a good thing to give thanks unto the LORD, and to sing praises unto Thy Name, O Most High; To declare Thy Lovingkindness in the morning, and Thy Faithfulness in the night seasons, With an instrument of ten strings, and with the psaltery; with a solemn sound upon the harp. For Thou, LORD, hast Made me glad through Thy Work; I will exult in the works of Thy Hands. How great are Thy Works, O LORD! Thy Thoughts are very deep. A brutish man knoweth not, neither doth a fool understand this. When the wicked spring up as the grass, and when all the workers of iniquity do flourish; it is that they may be destroyed forever. But Thou, O LORD, art on high for evermore. For, lo, Thine Enemies, O LORD, for, lo, Thine Enemies shall perish: all the workers of iniquity shall be scattered. But my horn hast Thou Exalted like the horn of the wild-ox; I am anointed with rich oil. Mine eye also hath gazed on them that lie in wait for me, mine ears have heard my desire of the evil-doers that rise up against me. The righteous shall flourish like the palm-tree; he shall grow like a cedar in Lebanon. Planted in the House of the LORD, they shall flourish in the Courts of our God. They shall still bring forth fruit in old age; they shall be full of sap and richness; To declare that the LORD is Upright, my Rock, in Whom there is no unrighteousness. 

[14] RaShI interprets the Psalm as dealing with the World To Come, and since Shabbat is referred to as “MeiEin Olam HaBa” (the essence of the World To Come) there is a connection between Shabbat and the Psalm. However, this would appear to not necessarily be in consonance with the simple meaning of the Psalm, a case where the question may be better than the answer.

[15] If Moshe was writing and distributing Psalms prior to his murdering an Egyptian and running to Midian, this implies a high level of Jewish sophistication prior to his encounter at the Burning Bush in Shemot 3:2 ff. And if it is posited, as we have in the essay for Shemot referenced above in the body of this essay, that he may have been only thirteen years old at the time of his flight, this suggests that he became conversant in these matters at an extremely young age. Of course, it is not necessary to reconcile all Midrashim, and it will prove impossible to do so on occasion. Nevertheless such speculations are intriguing and interesting.

[16] In a footnote (fn. 46), the editor of Rabbi Kaminetsky’s Chumash commentary notes that he once explained that the reason for the citation of the Exodus from Egypt in the Shabbat Kiddush liturgy is because it was the observance of Shabbat that kept the Jews from despairing during their years of enslavement.

[17] See fn. 11.

Here are four key points:

1. Tzeniut is a broad Jewish value whose practical expression is opposition to unnecessary and meretricious self-exposure, whether of the body or of the soul.  It relates to all people, male and female alike, and all of life.  Reducing it to a code for women’s dress and actions reflects an unhealthy obsession, equivalent to reducing love to an expression of (exclusively male) lust.

2. Tzeniut is intended to preserve and expand the domain of intimacy.  Intimacy is constructed by exclusivity of exposure, by sharing things about oneself that one does not share broadly.  People with inadequate emotional boundaries are less capable of achieving relationship though emotional sharing, and people with inadequate physical boundaries are less capable of achieving relationship through physical intimacy.

3.  Tzeniut is intended to preserve the integrity of personal space – physical, emotional, mental, and spiritual.  People who “spill” emotionally compel others to respond to them – to feel pity when they express suffering, anger when they express betrayal, and the like.  This legitimately feels like a violation.  The same is true of unwanted touch, or of unwanted visual erotic stimulation.

4. Tzeniut is one value in the complex web of Jewish values, which must constantly negotiate its place in that web.  It can be trumped, or attenuated, when it comes into conflict with other Jewish values.  From the halakhic perspective, once tzeniut is correctly defined as unnecessary self-exposure, it becomes clear that it should not be applied mechanically, but rather on the basis of a sensitive and dynamic understanding of the necessary. 

It should be clear that excessive tzeniut can be pathological.  People who never share their emotions do not experience ultimate intimacy, but rather intractable loneliness.  People who never react to others’ emotions do not become fully developed selves, but rather stunted and selfish.  The goals of tzeniut can only be fulfilled in a society that fosters intimacy and empathy. 

Similarly, in the erotic realm tzeniut is intended to maximize the space for marital intimacy, not to make husbands and wives chary of each other’s bodies, and to give people autonomous control of their sexuality, not to disassociate them from their physical selves.

With these understandings in hand, we can approach the question of how the value of tzeniut should play out in halakhic practice with regard to women’s public dress, voice, etc.

My starting point is a Talmudic passage in Tractate Taanit(23a-b).  The gemara there records that a delegation of rabbis observed a set of peculiar practices of the great but enigmatic Abba Chilkiyah, grandson of Choni the Circlemaker.  Among these was that when he returned from laboring in the fields, his wife would go out to the city gate to greet him in her best Shabbat clothing.  When the rabbis asked Abba Chilkiyah why she behaved so, he responded “so that I will not look at other women”.

Now the subtext of the story, the implicit challenge of the rabbinic delegation, is why Abba Chilkiyah justifies his wife’s behavior rather than reproving her for being immodest.  After all, while preventing him from looking at other women, is she not causing other men to look at her? 

The answer is that Mrs. Abba Chilkiyah has the right, perhaps even the obligation, to do what is necessary for her own marriage, regardless of the effect on other men.  In this regard she is not the halakhic exception, but rather the rule: all wives have the right and obligation to make themselves attractive to their husbands, even though this will inevitably increase their attractiveness to other men as well. 

But why should this be so?  Here we need to recognize that Halakhah does not directly obligate women to dress or behave modestly, however that is defined[1].   Rather, such obligations emerge from laws

1. regulating whether people, male or female,  can perform a set of ritual acts, such as making blessings, in the presence of people, male or female, who are exposing parts of their body that are defined halakhically as erva
2. regulating whether people, male or female, can perform a different but largely overlapping set of ritual acts in environments that are likely to stimulate them to erotic fantasizing
3. permitting men to divorce without a ketuvah, or forbidding men from remaining married to, women whose immodest behavior suggests the likelihood of adultery
4. forbidding people, male or female, to enter or remain in situations that are likely to result in illicit sexual liaisons
5. forbidding men to enter or remain in situations that are likely to result in a purposeless seminal emission
6. requiring at least men, and possibly women, to study Torah whenever possible

Indeed, we need to recognize that Halakhah does not directly obligate women to dress or behave modestly[1], however that is defined.  Such obligations emerge instead via the obligation v’lifnei iver lo titen mikhshol – “you must not place a stumbling block before the blind” (Leviticus19:14), The Talmudic Rabbis understood this verse metaphorically as creating a covenant of mutual responsibility, with the specific consequences that Jews are responsible not to create circumstances that cause others to violate prohibitions, preclude them from performing ritual obligations, or distract them from the study of Torah.  Each of these consequences is readily conceptualizable as an obligation to respect the others’ space.    

Now the “stumbling block” argument is always a potentially dangerous weapon.  Here is an illustration: The Talmud states that lifnei iver forbids fathers to give corporal punishment to grown children (Moed Qatan 17a), because this will cause the children to rebel and therefore violate their obligations to treat their parent with honor and reverence.  But what if children will rebel even when asked to perform minor household chores?  Worse, what if children learn this rule, and then give credible preemptive notice that they will disobey any parental command – does this effectively bar any exercise of parental authority?  If I tell my neighbor that if she ever cooks broccoli again, I will be driven to eat a cheeseburger – can I control her diet by claiming potential spiritual injury?

The answer is of course not – Halakhah does not allow one person to take advantage of the covenant of mutual responsibility so as to prevent another from living a normal fulfilling human life.  By the same token, Jewish law does not allow men to use erotic lifnei iver to prevent women from living normal fulfilling lives.

Now what constitutes a normal fulfilling life?  It should be clear that this is a sociologically dependent category.  In some societies it may be necessary to jog in public, but not in others; in some societies it may be necessary to sing in mixed company, but not in others; and so on.  It is likely that in each society, whatever is done habitually will have minimal erotic impact, and have minimal capacity to express intimacy.  None of these societies is intrinsically preferable according to Jewish law, so long as they are fully compatible with taking the obligations and values listed above with great seriousness.

Tzeniut is more easily implemented in a homogeneous society, where expectations of dress, behavior, and fulfillment are largely made by consensus.  It becomes much harder in a heterogeneous society, and harder still at the intersection of sharply distinct homogeneous cultures, where each side has difficulty even imagining why the other might see a particular behavior as an assault on psychological space, or conversely, as an infringement of normal human fulfillment.  

But people of good will negotiate such situations while making every effort to find solutions that serve everyone’s interests.  By contrast, thugs beat up their opponents and try to make them leave or hide.  No one who properly understands tzeniut could believe that physical, psychological and emotional assault, i.e. violent intrusions on the space of others, are viable means of implementing the values behind it.  The thugs in Beit Shemesh should be condemned by all those who hold tzeniut dear, not because they are overzealous, but because their understanding of tzeniut is warped. 

Going outside one’s immediate family as part of the process of identity formation.

The seminal event in Moshe’s coming of age, the action that simultaneously reveals to us his true essential nature, as well as the types of actions that he is destined to undertake throughout his life, appears in Shemot, 2:11. “And it came to pass in those days, and Moshe grew and he WENT OUT to his brothers, and he SAW (/understood)[1] regarding their burdens, and he SAW an Egyptian man beating a Hebrew man of his brothers.” Moshe’s curiosity that leads him to leave the safety and insularity of the Egyptian royal palace in order to see for himself the condition of Jewish suffering, sets in motion a chain of events whereby he kills an Egyptian taskmaster (2:12), realizes that his violent act of personal intervention has become public knowledge (2:14), and flees for his life to Midyan (2:15). The Tora has described a young person “going out” and “looking around” before, with disastrous results—(Beraishit 34:1) “And Dina the daughter of Leah, who was born to Yaakov WENT OUT TO SEE among the daughters of the land.” Dina’s adolescent desire to see her peers and contemporaries in settings and contexts other than those of her own family home in which she was growing up, was categorized as part of the process by which an adolescent explores his/her identity, values, and commitments. Not only does the individual reflect upon the lifestyle that s/he knows well in terms of a possible pattern of behavior in the years to come, but s/he is also interested in being able to compare and contrast these experiences and behaviors with those of others at a similar stage of life.

Moshe’s age at the time that he “went out”.

Consequently, it is not difficult to imagine that Moshe too must have been beset with serious questions regarding his true identity when he reached adolescence. Although Shemot Rabba 1:27 presents hypotheses that Moshe was either twenty or forty[2] when he went out to see about his brothers, it is reasonable to approach the verb “G-D-L” in Shemot 2:11 in a manner similar to how it is understood in Beraishit 25:27, “The youths ‘VAYIGDELU’ (GREW), and Eisav was a man knowledgeable of hunting, a man of the field, and Yaakov was a simple man dwelling in tents.” RaShI comments on the chronological stage of development being described by the verse in Beraishit:

“As long as they were small, their particular preferences and actions could not be discerned and no one could draw any conclusions about their inherent natures. When they reached the age of thirteen,[3] this one (Yaakov) headed for the houses of study and this one (Eisav) turned towards idolatry.”[4]   

Therefore, it is likely that Moshe was similarly only thirteen at the time when he decided to undertake his fateful expedition to “see” his brethren, and thereby obtain a greater understanding about himself.

What catalyzed Moshe’s original interest in “his brothers”?

Yet what is less comprehensible is HOW Moshe came to know that he was Jewish in the first place to the extent that he should identify with the Hebrew slaves in Egypt and wish to keep abreast of their situation. Nechama Leibowitz, ZaTzaL[5]  articulates the problem succinctly:

The Tora does not recount how Moshe, who was raised by Bat Pharoah and before whom all doors of opportunity were open, reached the decision to abandon his lofty social position, “his opportunities for a bright future”, and to instead identify with a group of oppressed and downtrodden individuals, to whom he may have been related by birth, but not in terms of his education and lifestyle. The Tora does not reveal whether these concerns developed over a long period and were the result of intense inner conflicts, or the consequence of a sudden, precipitous decision that was immediately acted upon. The Tora is not a psychological novel and does not come to satisfy biographical curiosity, and consequently all that is stated regarding Moshe’s leaving one group (the Egyptians) and identifying with another (the Jews) is the single verse, 2:11.

Shemot 2:10 notes that while Moshe’s infant years were spent in the care of his mother Yocheved, she returned him to Pharoah’s daughter when “he had grown”. Since Yocheved was specifically recruited to serve as Moshe’s nursemaid (2:7-9) it is most likely that he had to be given back to the royal family once he was weaned. To obtain a sense of the length of time weaning a child might take, one could consider the case of Shmuel as a correlative. Chana vows that should HaShem finally Grace her with a child, she would dedicate him to serve in the Mishkan (Tabernacle) during his entire life (I Shmuel 1:11). However, Chana insists on keeping the newborn with her (Ibid. 22) “Ad Yigamel HaNa’ar” (until the youth is weaned). RaShI and RaDaK define this amount of time as typically a period of twenty-four months, the view attributed to R. Eliezer in Ketubot 60a.

But how much of a sense of Jewish identity could Yocheved, Amram and/or any other family member have imparted to Moshe during the two short years at the beginning of his life?[6]   How cognitively astute could he possibly have been? What would he remember, beyond some dim recollections of people and sensory experiences?

Bat Pharoah may have undertaken an enlightened approach re Moshe’s identity.

Amos Chacham, in his commentary to Sefer Shemot,[7] speculates that Bat Pharoah, Moshe’s royal patron, was responsible for his interest in the Jews, and that she acted in a manner strikingly consistent with modern attitudes with respect to allowing adopted children to become acquainted with their biological parents:[8]  

It is customary for members of the royal family to travel throughout the lands of their kingdom in order to be aware of the situations of their subjects. And Moshe chose to check up on his brothers. Based upon this, it is reasonable to conclude that Pharoah’s daughter did not conceal Moshe’s true identity, i.e., that he was a Jew, from him. Consequently even while in Pharoah’s palace, he might have been aware of his parents and family.

Did Moshe’s father maintain a relationship with him well-after his being returned to Bat Pharoah?

A curious Midrashic insight (Shemot Rabba 3:1 interpreting Shemot 3:6, “And He Said: I Am the God of YOUR FATHER”) implies that Moshe at age eighty (7:7) still remembered his father Amram’s voice, and therefore must have had some sort of significant relationship with him beyond those initial formative years when he was being nursed in the family home, prior to being brought to the Egyptian palace:

Said R. Yehoshua HaKohen bar Nechemia: The moment when HaShem Revealed Himself to Moshe, Moshe was a complete novice with respect to prophecy. Said the Holy One, Blessed Be He: If I Reveal Myself to him in a loud voice, I will Frighten him; in a soft voice, he will not properly respect prophecy. What did He Do? He Revealed Himself to him in the VOICE OF HIS FATHER. Moshe said: Here I am, what does father wish?[9] Said Hashem: I Am not your father. I Am the God of your father. I have Come to you in a manner that would attract you in order that you not be frightened.

Is it possible that Moshe conducted clandestine meetings with Amram over the years? In line with Amos Chacham’s approach, did Pharoah’s daughter even facilitate such meetings? Unfortunately, textual evidence for any such interaction is sorely lacking, but is intriguing to consider, nevertheless.

Did Moshe’s circumcision serve to spark his curiosity?

Another possibility for what constituted the catalyst for Moshe’s awareness of his connection to the Jewish people could be his curiosity about his circumcision. Although there are Rabbinic sources that suggest that the Jews in Egypt had ceased to practice this particular ritual—see e.g., RaShI on 12:6—such sources are countered by others that suggest, that at least in Moshe’s case, the practice was still being observed. One such alternative view is expressed in association with 2:6, where Pharoah’s daughter, upon finding Moshe in the basket that his mother had devised so that she could hide him among the reeds, exclaims, “This is one of the Hebrew children.” Commentators offer various possibilities regarding why she drew such a conclusion, and many of them focus upon her noticing Moshe’s circumcision:

a.   RaShBaM: She saw that he was a boy and circumcised, which led her to conclude that he had been abandoned not because his parents did not want him, but rather to save him from the decree against Jewish boys.

b.   Ibn Ezra: …His limbs were well-developed, explaining the use of the term “Na’ar” (youth) as opposed to “Yeled” (boy) (in Shemot 2:6); she saw that he was circumcised, and because of his overall beauty, she had compassion for him.

c.   RaMBaN: She recognized that he had been hidden in order to either attempt to save him, or at least not have to watch as he is put to death. Why would an Egyptian child be treated in such a manner? There are those who say that she saw that he was circumcised, but this would mean that she had to remove his clothing before making such an observation, and there is no need to read such an action into the text (when all that is stated is that the basket was “opened”.) (It would appear that RaMBaN does not negate from a logical standpoint the view that Bat Pharoah drew her conclusion about Moshe’s identity from his circumcision. The commentator just believes that the Biblical text does not bear out such a conclusion. However, if Moshe had been left in the basket covered by or swaddled in a blanket, it is reasonable to imagine that at least part of the covering had become undone and therefore the circumcision was readily apparent as soon as the basket was opened–yb.)

The assumption that Moshe’s circumcision was what distinguished him from other Egyptian children is based upon the premise that the Jews were the only ones to practice circumcision in contrast to the other cultures in the Middle East. Amos Chacham[10] rejects this assumption and writes, “(after citing RaShBaM’s approach)   …but this is not a perfect answer, for it is known that many of the Egyptians themselves circumcised their children.[11]  

Did Moshe “look” Jewish?

When Amos Chacham himself[12] suggests that Bat Pharoah decided that Moshe was a Jewish child based upon his facial appearance or by the clothing which he was wearing, another possible explanation for Moshe’s sense of alienation from the Egyptian majority presents itself. To what extent were the Jews physically distinct from their Egyptian masters? When Avraham and Sara had to leave Canaan and travel to Egypt due to a severe famine, he comments to his wife in Beraishit 12:11 that he now recognizes how beautiful she is. Among the various hypotheses regarding what precipitated such a realization after several years of marriage, Ibn Ezra suggests that Sara’s beauty, unremarkable as it may have been in Canaan, was extremely noticeable in Egypt because “human physiogamies differ due to climate and atmosphere.”[13]

However a counterargument against insisting upon Moshe’s possessing a unique “Jewish look” could be offered based upon an aspect of the story of Yosef, as well as a later incident in Moshe’s life. When Yosef becomes administrative ruler of Egypt and personally supervises the distribution of food during the years of famine, there is never any indication in the accounts of his interactions with his brothers that they suspect him of being anything other than an Egyptian—see e.g., 42:8, 30; 43:26; 44:14—until he explicitly reveals his identity in 45:3. If Jews possessed a distinct “look” or racial profile distinct from Egyptians, wouldn’t the brothers have been curious about Yosef’s identity? Similarly, when Moshe saves Yitro’s daughters from the shepherds’ harassment in Shemot 2:17, they report to their father that “an Egyptian man” saved them (2:19), never suspecting that Moshe was anything but Egyptian. Never having met him before, and not knowing anything about his past history, why would they have been so certain that he was Egyptian unless he completely looked the part? While stereotypes and preconceptions sometimes cause one to overlook obvious characteristics or indicators, it is also possible that in this case there were no physical indicators of specific cultural origin.

Don Yitzchak Abrabanel’s creative interpretation of 2:10 suggests yet another possible basis for Moshe’s quest to find out more about his origins. Whereas the verse is understood by most commentators as attributing to Bat Pharoah the naming of Moshe, particularly in light of the verse’s explanation of the name as connoting “from the water I drew him up”, Abrabanel contends that it was Yocheved, Moshe’s birth mother who named him. The commentator argues that with regard to proper names of characters, it would not make sense for the Tora to translate the names given in another language to Hebrew. Consequently, if Moshe was the name by which everyone referred to him, then it must have been a Hebrew name, rather than one translated from the Egyptian, a name bestowed upon him by someone who spoke Hebrew, Yocheved, as opposed to Bat Pharoah who was most probably not conversant in this language.[14]   Having a Hebrew name could hardly have been lost upon this boy, and when he became an adolescent, it is understandable that he would make a concerted effort to uncover his true origins and his relationship with his people.

What really matters.

Perhaps the reason why the Tora is not specific about what brought about Moshe’s search for his identity is that the search itself is more important than what brings it about. And just as the Tora describes such searches undertaken by various Biblical personalities,[15] similar developmental issues play themselves out in every human being’s life at one point or another. What is of importance as far as the Tora is concerned is the manner in which the individual hopefully finally does develop into a committed, caring, and devoted member of his family and community.   

[2] Perhaps assuming that Moshe was only a teenager would make it difficult to understand how he would be able to physically overcome the Egyptian taskmaster. However, the view that instead of striking him physically, Moshe pronounced the Tetragrammaton in order to kill his adversary, e.g., Midrash Tanchuma, Parashat Shemot, Chapt. 9, would alleviate the issue of how much physical strength would be needed on the part of Moshe to accomplish this fete. Nevertheless, it could still be maintained that a certain modicum of maturity would be required before Moshe would have been initiated into the mystical nature of the Divine Name and how It could be utilized in such a manner. R. Menachem Kasher, in fn. 81 on Shemot 2 in his compilation, Tora Shleima, (p. 73) finds sources that provide the following alternatives for Moshe’s age at this time: 12, 18, 20, 21, 29, 32, 40, 50, 60, leading to the conclusion that to establish this fact beyond a doubt will be impossible. Nevertheless, as has already been explained, a strong case can be made for this taking place when Moshe was younger rather than older.

[3] Traditional commentators are bothered by the assumption that Eisav was already engaged in idolatry at the age of thirteen. The standard interpretation of Beraishit 15:15 “and you will buried at a good old age” is that despite Avraham’s living quantitatively only to the age of 175 (25:7), which is relatively short when compared to the age of Terach, Avraham’s father at the time of his passing, 205, and that of Avraham’s son Yitzchak when he died, 180 (35:28), qualitatively not seeing his grandson Eisav diverting from the traditions that Avraham had developed, would constitute a benefit. Yet if it is assumed that already at thirteen Eisav was grievously sinning, this would mean that Avraham was alive to notice: Avraham lived for 175 years; he was 100 at the time of the birth of Yitzchak (21:5); Yitzchak was sixty when Eisav was born (25:26), making Avraham 160 at that juncture. This means that Eisav was fifteen at the time of Avraham’s death. Positing that he already was engaged in idolatry at thirteen results in creating the possibility that Avraham would find out, obviating the promise of his being buried at “a good old age”!? Talmud Yerushalmi, cited by Ba’alei Tosafot, both quoted in Malka Shel Tora, (Yeshayahu Deitch, Vol. 1, Zohar Press, Yerushalayim, 5742, p. 400) suggest that initially Eisav sinned secretly, and only after Avraham’s death did he publicize his beliefs and rituals. The Vilna Gaon (Ibid.) interprets that Eisav spent between thirteen and fifteen studying the premises and assumptions of idolatry and only began to practice these observances once Avraham had died. This latter view again reinforces the theme of experimentation and exploration that oftentimes mark the adolescent years. What is less clear is why should Yaakov have taken one path, and Eisav the diametrically opposed other? To what extent were these paths independently and deliberately chosen for themselves, as opposed to constituting a contrary set of practices and beliefs in contrast to that of the sibling twin? This particular dichotomy between the twins is already posited to have existed in utero. Consider RaShI on 25:22: “’VaYitrotzetzu HaBanim BeKirbah’ (and the children struggled within her)–…and our Rabbis interpreted the phrase as an expression of ‘Ritza’ (running), i.e., when she (Rivka) would pass the portals of the Yeshiva of Shem and Ever, Yaakov would run and struggle to emerge; when she would pass the entrance to an idolatrous temple, Eisav would run and struggle to emerge…”

[4] The simple meaning of “a man knowledgeable of hunting, a man of the field” does not appear to immediately bring to mind associations with idolatry.  While it could be maintained that this thesis/anti-thesis tension is fabricated exclusively from its starting point, i.e., if Yaakov is associated with the tents of Tora and study, then Eisav must be the opposite, and therefore this means idolatry, another line of reasoning that could lead to associating the act of hunting with idolatry would be based upon Nimrod who a) is the first individual categorized as a hunter (10:9), b) that the Tower of Babel is built in his kingdom (10:10) and therefore possibly at his initiative, and c) that the Rabbis viewed the Tower as designed to “wage war with Heaven” (Midrash Tanchuma [Buber], Parshat Noach #28—Said R. Shimon bar Yochai: They took an idol and placed it at the top of the Tower. They said: If HaShem Decrees upon us Decrees, this will stand in opposition to Him and stop Him. This expression, (11:4) “And we will make for ourselves a NAME” is associated with idolatry, as it states, (Shemot 23:13) “And the NAMES of other gods do not mention.”) In addition, Nimrod is identified as the potentate who casts Avraham into a furnace due to the latter’s refusal to acknowledge idolatrous gods—see e.g., RaShI on Beraishit 11:28.

[5] “VaYigdal Moshe VaYetzeh El Echav”, in Iyunim Chadashim B’Sefer Shemot, Jewish Agency, Yerushalayim, 5730, p. 34.

[6] Although in Ketubot 60b, R. Yehoshua’s view that nursing could last until the child was four or five is cited along with that of R. Eliezer, and were we to assume that Moshe remained with Amram and Yocheved until this point, perhaps more lasting impressions may have been made upon him in terms of cultural and religious identity, would Pharoah’s daughter have allowed Moshe to be taken care of for so long?

[7] Da’at Mikra, Sefer Shemot, Vol. 1, Mosad HaRav Kook, Yerushalayim, 5751, pp. 23-24.

[8] “One of the misconceptions that adoptive parents have,” says Marshall Schechter, M.D., professor emeritus in child and adolescent psychiatry at the University of Pennsylvania School of Medicine, “is that they have done something to make the child want to search. They haven’t. Everyone needs to know that they are part of a continuum of a family…As more is learned about genetics, scientists are discovering that many talents and personality traits have a genetic basis. So it should not be surprising that TEENAGERS who focus on developing an identity should begin thinking about their origin.”—    http://naic.acf.hhs.gov/pubs/f_adoles/f_adolese.cfm

[9] Shemot Rabba 45:5 presents the same conceptual idea with slight variations:

                a. The statement is attributed to R. Yehuda son of R. Nechemia.

                b. Moshe’s response to God’s Call is: “Father has come from Egypt (it is unclear if the punctuation at the end of this exclamation should be a “!” or a “?”).

[10] Da’at Mikra, p. 21, fn. 8*.

[11] While anthropologists and archaeologists have demonstrated that circumcision was practiced throughout the Middle East, it appears to have served as a puberty rite rather than as a ritual carried out on newborns. Consequently, in order to refute the approach of the traditional commentators that Bat Pharoah was able to recognize Moshe’s Jewishness by his circumcision, it must not only be demonstrated that circumcision was an Egyptian practice, but that it was also performed on very young children.

                One Midrashic theme traces Egyptian circumcision back to Yosef:

Beraishit Rabba 91:5

…When the famine became more severe in the land, the Egyptians gathered and came to Yosef. They said to him: Give us bread. He said to them: My God does not feed the uncircumcised.

Go circumcise yourselves and I will give you (food). They went to Pharoah and they screamed and cried before him…and he said: Go to Yosef and do whatever he says. They said: We went to him and he said to us ridiculous things and said “Circumcise yourselves.” He said to them: Idiots! Didn’t I say to you that you should serve him and also acquire for yourselves grain? Didn’t he call out to you during all of those years of plenty and command you “Know that the famine is coming!” You have only yourselves to blame for this situation. Why didn’t you store up in your homes grain for two, three and four years? They said to him: All the grain stored in our homes rotted. He said to them: Don’t you have flour left over from yesterday? They said to him: Even the bread that we have in our baskets rotted. He said to them: Go to Yosef. Whatever he says to you, you should do. He said to them: If he can decree regarding the grain that it rot, lest he decree against us and we die. He said to them: Go to Yosef. If he says to you to cut off part of your flesh, listen to him…

[12] Da’at Mikra, p. 21.

[13] Such an approach parallels a discussion in the Talmud involving Hillel:

Shabbat 30b-31a

Our Rabbis taught: A man should always be gentle like Hillel, and not impatient like Shammai. It once happened that two men made a wager with each other, saying, He who goes and makes Hillel angry shall receive four hundred zuz. Said one, ‘I will go and incense him.’ That day was the Sabbath eve, and Hillel was washing his head. He went, passed by the door of his house, and called out, ‘Is Hillel here, is Hillel here?’  Thereupon he robed and went out to him, saying, ‘My son, what do you require?’ ‘I have a question to ask,’ said he. ‘Ask, my son,’ he prompted. Thereupon he asked: ‘Why are the heads of the Babylonians round?² ‘My son, you have asked a great question,’ replied he: ‘because they have no skillful midwives.’ He departed, tarried a while, returned, and called out, ‘Is Hillel here; is Hillel here?’ He robed and went out to him, saying, ‘My son, what do you require?’ ‘I have a question to ask,’ said he. ‘Ask, my son,’ he prompted. Thereupon he asked: ‘Why are the eyes of the Palmyreans  bleared?’ ‘My son, you have asked a great question, replied he: ‘because they live in sandy places.’ He departed, tarried a while, returned, and called out, ‘Is Hillel here; is Hillel here?’ He robed and went out to him, saying, ‘My son, what do you require?’ ‘I have a question to ask,’ said he. ‘Ask, my son,’ he prompted. He asked, ‘Why are the feet of the Africans  wide?’ ‘My son, you have asked a great question,’ said he; because they live in watery marshes.’ ‘I have many questions to ask,’ said he, ‘but fear that you may become angry.’ Thereupon he robed, sat before him and said, ‘Ask all the questions you have to ask,’ ‘Are you the Hillel who is called the Nasi  of Israel?’ ‘Yes,’ he replied. ‘If that is you,’ he retorted, may there not be many like you in Israel. ‘Why, my son?’ queried he. ‘Because I have lost four hundred zuz through you,’ complained he. ‘Be careful of your moods,’ he answered. ‘Hillel is worth it that you should lose four hundred zuz and yet another four hundred zuz through him, yet Hillel shall not lose his temper.’

[14] Both Yocheved and Bat Pharoah are subjects in Shemot 2:10 and therefore the pronoun “she” with respect to the giving of the name could apply to either of them equally.

[15] E.g., Avraham and Yaakov engage in self-discovery when they leave home; Rivka evolves once she is away from her family; Yosef undergoes major changes from the time that he is sold into slavery, etc.

                In the essay for Parshat VaYeshev, “A Powerful Adolescent Commitment to Righteousness”,[1] Yoseph’s special qualities that caused ChaZaL to categorize him as a “Tzaddik” already at the relatively tender age of seventeen were discussed. His repeated adherence to a powerful idealism that precipitated certain exceedingly unpopular behaviors vis-à-vis his brothers, as well as his resistance to considerable sexual temptation once he was sold into slavery in Egypt, were attributed to typical adolescent insistence upon consistency, justice, and loyalty, despite powerful pressures to act to the contrary.[2]  In Parashat VaYechi, when explaining a peculiar phrasing in Beraishit 47:31, RaShI once again invokes Yoseph’s righteousness, but this time it refers to his actions at a later point in his life, after he has been appointed administrative ruler over Egypt at age 30 (41:46).

Beraishit 47:31

And he (Yaakov) said: ‘Swear to me.’ And he (Yoseph) swore to him. And Yisrael (Yaakov) bowed himself on the bed’s head.

RaShI

“On the bed’s head”…Another interpretation: because his “bed” (the offspring which he had fathered) were whole, for there was no evil-doer among them,[3]  for behold Yoseph was a king, and furthermore he had been kidnapped and forced to live among the nations, and nevertheless he has maintained “TZIDKO” (his righteousness).

While RaShI’s comment mainly attributes to Yaakov a sense of deep satisfaction based upon his recognition of Yoseph’s having maintained his Jewish identity despite his political success in a foreign environment,[4] as evidenced by Yoseph’s obeying his father’s demand that he swear to bury Yaakov in Canaan (47:29-30),[5] he also invokes the sobriquet of “Yoseph HaTzaddik” (Yoseph, the righteous).

Not all Rabbinic approaches describe Yaakov as sanguine about Yoseph’s behavior during his reign in Egypt.

                But are all of Yoseph’s adult behaviors, in contrast to those he engages in while still an adolescent, truly worthy of the complementary and exemplary title of Tzaddik? Consider the Rabbinical discussion swirling around Yoseph’s reunion with his father after twenty-two years of separation.

Beraishit 46:29

“And Yoseph readied his chariot and went up to meet Yisrael his father towards Goshen. And he appeared before him, and he fell on his neck, and he cried on his neck exceedingly.”

Although the scene is obviously an emotional one, it is not altogether clear that both parties involved were equally personally moved. On the one hand, only singular rather than plural pronouns are used in the verse suggesting that only either the father or the son was embracing and crying, but that these overtures were not being reciprocated.[6]  Furthermore, an omission that would appear to be inconsistent with Yaakov and Yoseph’s finally meeting after so many years of separation is the absence of any reference to kissing, in contrast to the dramatic reunions described in 29:13; 33:4, 45:15 and Shemot 4:27. On the one hand, we could understand that Yoseph, who has to maintain a dignified appearance before his Egyptian subjects, cannot make his feelings public, and just as he acted privately with his brothers (45:1) he would try to wait for a private moment alone with his father. RaShI, however, suggests that it was in fact Yoseph who allowed his emotions to overpower him,[7] in contrast to Yaakov who was holding himself back in order to fulfill the of reciting the Shema,[8]  the Divine Commandment taking priority over an individual’s seeing to his/her personal matters, however pressing and emotionally powerful they may appear to be.

“…but YAAKOV did NOT fall on Yoseph’s neck and did NOT kiss him. And the Rabbis say he was reciting the Shema prayer.”

The Rabbinic tradition cited by RaShI[9]  is reminiscent of R. Akiva’s extraordinary heroism and deep faith, described in Berachot 61b when while being tortured, the martyr recites the Shema to demonstrate that his love of God was truly “with all of his soul” as he had been proclaiming twice a day throughout his life. Yaakov too, according to this Rabbinic perspective, even when he is about to embrace his long-lost son, places his devotion to God first and concludes his prayers before giving his son his full attention.

A different way of understanding Yaakov’s failure to kiss Yoseph upon their reunion.

However, a reference in one of the minor Talmudic tractates casts a darker shadow upon Yaakov’s failure to kiss Yoseph.

                Masechet Kalla 3b

Baraita: Defer your personal desires in favor of the Desires of Heaven, for we see regarding Yaakov that he did not kiss Yoseph.

Gemora: Why didn’t he kiss him? He thought, “Since he has been in exile, women were seduced by his attractiveness.[10] [11] 

It is written, (46:29) “And he appeared before him and he fell on his neck.” He (Yoseph) wanted to kiss him (Yaakov) and he (Yaakov) did not allow him (Yoseph) to do so. Therefore it is written, (Ibid.) “And he cried on his neck exceedingly” (as a result of Yaakov’s refusal to allow Yoseph to kiss him, Yoseph cried).[12]  

This is why when he (Yaakov) died, he (Yoseph) kissed him, as it is written (50:1) “And Yoseph fell upon the face of his father and he cried over him and he KISSED him.” He said, “I have been in the presence of my father for the past thirty-three years[13]  and I have not kissed him on the mouth. Now when I am about to bury him, I shouldn’t kiss him?” 

And this is parallel to what is written (48:8) “And Yisrael saw the children of Yoseph and he said, ‘Who are these?’” Is it possible that up until this point he did not know who they were? But rather he was asking their father whether they were born from a mother[14]  to whom Yoseph had given a “Ketuba” (a marriage document that is a feature of all traditional Jewish weddings.) And once he (Yaakov) saw the “Ketuba”, his mind was put at ease and he kissed them (but he continued not to kiss Yoseph!)

Said Rava: We learn from here (from Yaakov’s continued refusal to kiss Yoseph) that Yoseph was aroused by her (the wife of Potiphera—even if he did not actually engage in sexual activity with her).

Rava’s opinion, i.e., that even if Yoseph did not actually engage in a sexual liaison with his master’s wife, he was nevertheless more physically involved with her than he should have been, reflects one side of a Rabbinic argument regarding Beraishit 39:11.

And it was on a day like this, and he (Yoseph) came to his house to do his work, and there was no one there from amongst the members of the household.

Sota 36b:

“To do his work”—Rav and Shmuel (debate the meaning of this phrase, but we do not know which took which position.)

One said: His actual, literal work.

And one said: He entered to take care of his “needs”.[15]

                Consequently, according to this view, the recitation of Shema was a mere pretext for Yaakov to avoid kissing Yoseph, rather than a sign of the patriarch’s placing his responsibilities to God ahead of his feelings for his family in general and his children in particular.

                Masechet Kalla’s passing reference to Yaakov’s enquiries concerning Ephraim and Menashe are expanded in other Midrashic sources, all suggesting Yaakov’s suspicions with respect to Yoseph’s having possibly exploited his good looks and power to engage in inappropriate liaisons. Consider the following example:

Beraishit 48:8-9

And Yisrael saw the children of Yoseph and he said, “Who are these?” And Yosef said to his father, “These are my children that HaShem has Given me ‘BaZeh’ (in this).” And he (Yaakov) said, ‘Take them now to me, and I will bless them.”

Pesikta Rabbati #3:

What is meant by “BaZeh”? That he (Yoseph) brought Osnat, their mother, before his father, (as opposed to only the Ketuba) and he said to him, “Father, with your permission (bless these boys) even for the sake of this ‘TZADEKET’ (righteous woman).”[16] Yoseph began to plead and said to him, “Father, my children are TZADDIKIM! They are like me! They are my children!”[17]

While Yaakov originally loved Yosef fiercely, did something change once father and son were reunited in Egypt?

                The Midrash thus creates an amazing irony in the stories of Yaakov and Yoseph. Originally the Rabbinic tradition attributed Yoseph’s ultimate ability to resist Mrs. Potiphera’s enticements to the powerful impression that his father and his father’s values had made upon him—in Beraishit Rabba 87:7 and 98:20 R. Huna in the name of R. Matna suggest that at the last moment, just before he was going to sin, Yosef saw his father’s face, and this supplied him with the resolve or at least caused him sufficient embarrassment to refuse to go any further. Yet although Yoseph in fact remained a Tzaddik in the full sense of the word, he could never fully convince his father of this fact, and Yaakov goes to his grave unsure about what to think of his beloved son.

Objective evidence of Yoseph’s righteousness is provided only much later.

                The Midrash portrays Yoseph’s public exoneration as taking place not only after Yaakov’s death, but after Yoseph’s own passing.

Mechilta D’Rabbi Yishmael, Parshat BeShalach, the introductory portion.

The coffin of Yoseph would travel (during the forty years of wanderings in the desert) alongside the Holy Ark.

Passersby would inquire, “What is the nature of these two containers?” They would reply, “This is the coffin of someone who has died, and this is the Ark of the One Who Possesses Eternal Life.”

And they further asked them, “And what was the nature of this individual that he merits traveling alongside the Holy Ark?”

And they would say to them, “The one whose remains are in this coffin fulfilled the laws that are contained in this Holy Ark.”

The Midrash proceeds to list the Ten Commandments and the manner in which Yoseph fulfilled every one of them, including (Shemot 20:12; Devarim 5:16) “Do not engage in adultery”, where the Midrash points out that Yoseph resisted the advances of Mrs. Potiphera.

                While it is wonderful for us to think about Yoseph’s greatness and his mighty inner strength and resolve, he must have nevertheless been devastated that his father would just not accept his protestations of both innocence as well as righteousness. It is hard enough to maintain a level of Tzidkut; to be doubted after you have sacrificed so much must have been extremely difficult.

[2] See http://web1.tch.harvard.edu/cfapps/A2ZtopicDisplay.cfm?Topic=Cognitive%20Development particularly the section on “Late adolescence”.

[3] The comment is made in contrast to Avraham whose son Yishmael had to be exiled (21:10 ff.), and Yitzchak, who was aggrieved by the actions of his son Eisav (e.g., 26:35). Although ChaZaL maintain that both of these wayward sons eventually repented—see RaShI on 25:9 and Beraishit Rabba 67:13—nevertheless their descendants are not considered progenitors of the Jewish people in contrast to all of the sons of Yaakov. Although Reuven (35:22), Shimon and Levi (34:25, 30) all do things that invoke their father’s immediate ire as well as deathbed rebuke (49:3-7), they are nevertheless never disenfranchised from the Jewish people.

[4] This parallels RaShI’s interpretation on 32:5, where Yaakov tells Eisav that despite his having spent considerable time in the presence of the immoral and corrupt Eisav, he emerged spiritually and morally unscathed.

[5] See Be’er Yitzchak on 47:31. It could have been considered an insult to Egypt if the Vice Vizier refused to bury his family members in the land over which he was ruling; nevertheless Yoseph swore to his father that Yaakov would be buried in Canaan, and carries out that oath. RaShI on 50:6 suggests that Yoseph expends political capital in order to obtain permission to return Yaakov to Canaan, since the only reason why Pharoah acquiesced to Yoseph’s request was when Yoseph threatens to expose particular royal shortcomings if he is refused.

[6] The consistent use of the singular masculine pronoun, i.e., and HE fell upon HIS neck, and HE cried on HIS neck exceedingly, as opposed to the plural form that would have then read “and THEY fell upon ONE ANOTHER’S necks, and THEY cried on ONE ANOTHER’S NeckS exceedingly, suggests that whereas one of the two completely gave in to his emotions, the other did not.

[7] Yoseph’s emotionalism and difficulty with respect to self-control is suggested by the two instances of the verb “VaYitapek” in Beraishit 43:31 and 45:1.

[8] The assumption that the Forefathers and Foremothers essentially fulfilled the Commandments of the Tora, such as the twice-daily recitation of Kriyat Shema, is based in least in part upon Beraishit 26:5, as it is interpreted in Kiddushin 82a.

[9] In his critical edition of RaShI’s commentary, R. Avraham Berliner (reprinted by Feldheim, Jerusalem, 5730, p. 90) notes a number of sources that allude to this Midrash, but do not state it explicitly. These include Tshuvot HaGaonim #45 in the name of R. Yehudai Gaon, and Masechet Derech Eretz Zuta #1.

[10] The idea that Mrs. Potiphar was not the only one unduly attracted by Yoseph’s appearance is captured in the following Midrash:

Midrash Yelmadeinu, Yalkut Talmud Tora, Beraishit #161

(Beraishit 39:7) “And the mistress of his master lifted her eyes”—One time, all of the Egyptian women gathered and came to see the attractiveness of Yoseph. What did Mrs. Potiphar do? She took Etrogs and distributed them to each one, and she gave a knife to each one, and called Yoseph and set him before them. When they looked upon his attractiveness, they cut their hands. She said to them: And look how you respond after only a short time (in his presence), I, who am around him constantly, all the more so!…

[11] According to Rabbinic tradition, Yoseph’s brothers were also suspicious of his having engaged in dubious sexual activity due to his attractive appearance. Consider the following Midrash:

Beraishit Rabba 91:6

Said R. Yehuda bar Simon: Yoseph also was aware that his brothers would come to Egypt in order to purchase food. What did he do? He set up guards at all of the entrances to the country, and said to them: “Look carefully at all those who come to buy food and write down their names as well as the names of their fathers.” In the evening they would bring him the information accumulated that day.

When the sons of Yaakov came, they each used a different entrance, but their names were written and brought to Yoseph. That evening he found there was one who was called Reuven ben Yaakov, and another Shimon ben Yaakov and one Levi, etc. Each guard had the name of one of the brothers. Immediately Yoseph ordered that all the food storage houses cease operations except for one. He gave the names to the individual in charge of the single food storage house and told him that as soon as these individual come to him, he is to arrest them and bring them to Yoseph.

Three days passed, and they did not appear. Immediately Yoseph took seventy  soldiers from the palace guard and sent them to search for the brothers in the market. They went and found them in the section of the market where prostitutes could be obtained. And what were they doing in the market for prostitutes? They said: “Our brother Yoseph is exceedingly handsome. Perhaps he has been sent to a brothel. They were caught and brought before Yosef…

Although these suspicions did not attribute to Yoseph willing participation in such activities, but rather only in his capacity as a slave, nevertheless when it is discovered that he has been free for a significant period, suspicions of his personal activities in such a context would be understandable.

This Midrash suggests that Yoseph on the one hand, and the brothers on the other, were searching for one another. While the biblical text explains clearly what Yoseph’s intentions were, i.e., to test the brothers in order to establish whether their attitudes towards Rachel’s children had changed significantly over the course of twenty-two years, why they were looking for Yoseph after all this time is less clear. Did they think that perhaps they could help Yaakov out of his state of depression—but then why had they not travelled to Egypt before? Had they expressed previously an interest in journeying to Egypt to Yaakov, might this have aroused suspicions on the part of their father that there was some ulterior motive behind such an expedition? Only now, that Yaakov has himself sent them do they have sufficient “cover” to pursue their curiosity or even desire to make amends for what they had previously done? Did their respective consciences bother them only after they were imprisoned by Yoseph (42:21), or had this been bothering them from a significantly earlier time, perhaps when they saw the initial effect of Yoseph’s disappearance upon their father? 

[12] The association between crying and being wrongfully suspected of improper behavior is made by RaShI on 29:11 and 50:17. However other instances of crying are simply understood as evidence of extreme frustration and emotional turmoil.

[13] Yaakov is 130 when he comes to Egypt (47:9) and dies at 147 (Ibid. 28). Yoseph is seventeen when he is sold (37:2). It would appear that Yoseph was too young prior to his being sold for kisses to have been withheld due to suspicions of improper behavior, and once he and Yaakov are reunited, Yaakov was unprepared to truly trust him.

[14] Other fundamental questions raised by Rabbinic sources include whether Yoseph should have married an Egyptian in light of Devarim 23:9, or for that matter a non-Jewess at all. Midrash Aggada (Buber edition) 41:45 suggests that Osnat was actually the child of Dina and Shechem who was left on the doorstep of the Potiphera’s as a foundling.

[15] RaShI on 39:11, adds to the latter point of view the word “Ima” (with her), i.e., “his work with her” suggesting that Yoseph intended to fulfill his sexual needs with the woman who had been urging him to do so for some time.

[16] I.e., even if you do not consider me a Tzaddik, surely the mother of Ephraim and Menashe is a Tzaddeket, with her children therefore being deserving of your blessing.

[17] I. e., if my children are Tzaddikim why can’t you believe that I am and have been a Tzaddik as well?

Yosef, the brilliant administrator who possesses a gift for management that is glaringly apparent to all with whom he comes into contact, first manifesting itself in his being placed in charge of Potiphera’s household (Beraishit 39:4), then a whole prison (39:22) and finally an entire nation whose inhabitants he is expected to feed during seven years of harsh famine, also seems to have a clear plan with regard to where his family will live, once they come to join him in Egypt. As soon as he reveals his identity to his brothers, and attempts to assuage their guilt arising from their having sold him into slavery over two decades before, Yosef says to them to tell their father Yaakov, (45:9-11)

…God has Placed me as master over the entire land of Egypt. Come down to me; do not remain where you are. And you will dwell in the land of GOSHEN, and you will be close to me, you, your children and your grandchildren, your sheep and your cattle and all that you possess. And I will support you there…

What are some of the considerations that influenced Yosef to essentially attempt to “ghettoize” his family?

Keeping the Jewish herder culture separate from the agricultural Egyptians.

One approach assumes that Yosef was separating the Egyptians from the Jews in order to avoid possible conflicts between the two cultures. According to Atlas Da’at Mikra,[1]

(Goshen) is located near the seat of the monarchy during the period of Yosef’s rule, in the northern portion of the Nile Delta. The Biblical text emphasizes that Goshen was the (45:18; 47:6, 11) “best of the land” and that the house of Yaakov ate there (45:18) “the fat of the land”. On the other hand, it is remarkable that Goshen was a relatively uninhabited area in which there was virtually no indigenous Egyptian population. The reason for this was (46:34) “…it was an abomination for Egypt, anyone who was a shepherd,” i.e., it was the best of the land for anyone who was a herder, but not for the permanent farmers who comprised the majority of the Egyptians.

According to all of these indicators, as well as the testimonies of other ancient sources, Goshen was located in the eastern portion of the Nile Delta. It was a place that had sufficient water for pasture lands, but not for intense Egyptian agriculture. Furthermore, Goshen was located not all that far from Egypt’s eastern border, which was comprised of a desert area that stretches all the way to southern Canaan. Families of nomads would frequently seek shelter in Goshen during times of famine and drought. Therefore Egyptians did not enter this area of immigrants who were essentially shepherds. Yet, since Yaakov and his family were coming as long term residents, they encamped near one of the eastern most tributaries of the Nile Delta, which allowed them to benefit from the “best of the land” as was befitting to them in light of their relationship to Yosef.

Jews and animal husbandry have a long history beginning prior to Yaakov and his family.

In terms of the manner in which the family of Yaakov primarily supported itself, beginning already with Avraham, taking care of herds of animals is a, if not the, primary source of wealth and income for generation after generation. Avraham is first given significant amounts of animals as a result of his sojourn in Egypt and Pharoah’s ill-fated attempt to marry Sara (12:16). The number of animals that Avraham and Lot own becomes so considerable, that it leads to familial infighting and the ultimate parting of the ways of uncle and nephew (13:5-12). Owning herds, as opposed to engaging in agriculture, also allows Avraham to frequently relocate his encampment, as he traverses the length and breadth of Israel (13:17, 18; 20:1). Needing to take care of herds of animals also accounts for Avraham’s digging wells in a number of places (21:25—although the text states that Avraham remonstrates Avimelech regarding a single stolen well, 26:15 suggests that he made many wells during the course of his wanderings), in order to make possible watering these animals wherever they may be taken to graze. While Yitzchak’s predisposition for meat hunted by Eisav (25:28) suggests that he ordinarily did not have animals readily available to him for consumption, 26:14-15 clearly state that while Yitzchak may have begun as a farmer, he consolidated his wealth by means of the acquisition of great numbers of animals. And as for Yaakov, he serves as a shepherd for Lavan for twenty years (31:38).

The prototypical conflict between agriculture and animal shepherding.

The sharp and acrimonious dichotomy between those engaged in agriculture, in this case the Egyptians, as opposed to those who deal with domesticated animals, the Jews, is first established by the Bible by means of the ultimately fatal interaction between Kayin and Hevel (4:2). Although the Tora emphasizes the difference in quality between the sacrifices brought by each of the brothers (4:3-4), the competitive enmity between homesteaders who wish to close off their land to protect it from indiscriminate grazing by herds, and cattle and sheep ranchers who demand an open range and unlimited pasture land for their animals, is implied in this primordial story, and continues to be a classic confrontation that takes place throughout the history of human civilization. Consequently, if Egypt was primarily an agricultural society due to the regular overflowing of the Nile (Devarim 11:10), it is understandable that they would want to have as little to do as possible with a family of herders, and would be all too ready to allot to the Jews grazing land far from the center of Egyptian society.

An ideological reason for Egyptians preferring to distance themselves from those herding animals.

An additional reason that commentators suggest for why the Egyptians might be eager that Yaakov’s family take up residence in Goshen, is that domesticated animals in general, and sheep in particular, were the objects of Egyptian religious worship. Consequently, according to Egyptian beliefs, these animals should not be herded, shorn, milked, eaten, etc. Ibn Ezra on 46:33 compares Egyptian practice to what he observed in India, where he claims that everyone was vegetarian due to their worship of the types of animals commonly used for the purposes listed above. The hypothesis that since the Jews dealt with what the Egyptians considered holy animals in a manner that was sacrilegious for the native population, they had to be relegated to relatively uninhabited areas, revolves around the interpretation of the word “Toeiva” (abomination) in Beraishit 46:34. RaShI, Chizkuni and others understand the phrase “…because it is a ‘Toevia’ of Egypt- all those who shepherd sheep”, to connote that the Egyptians viewed as blasphemous the ill-treatment of their objects of worship. Consequently, since Yoseph’s family as guests and relatives of a high-ranking official, must be treated with respect, the Egyptians cannot insist that the Jews desist from shepherding; they are allowed to continue to engage in these practices as long as it is far from the centers of the Egyptian population. A parallel argument is made when Pharoah suggests to Moshe that rather than going into the desert to offer sacrifices of cows, goats and sheep to their God, the Jews should remain within Egypt proper and worship HaShem. (Shemot 8:22) “And Moshe said: It is not correct to do this, because ‘Toeiva’ of Egypt were we to sacrifice to the Lord our God. We would be offering up ‘Toeiva’ of Egypt before their eyes! Wouldn’t they stone us?”

Cultural rather than religious objections to animal herding.

Other commentators, such as RaShBaM and Da’at Zekeinim MiBa’alei HaTosaphot, approach the term “Toeiva” more literally, and attribute the Egyptian disdain for the Jews, not to any particular theological belief, but rather to gastronomic custom. While it could be contended that it is impossible to separate cultural practices from religious doctrines, this school of interpretation focuses upon the visceral response of disgust implied in the word “Toeiva”, as opposed to opposition to behaviors because of some symbolic association between the practice and one’s deeply held beliefs.  Perhaps as a result of the ease by which the Egyptians were able to grow outstanding agricultural crops, a vegetarian culture evolved that looked askance at all those who were carnivores. Principled vegetarians and certainly vegans are often opposed to taking animal life of any form based upon humanitarian and aesthetic considerations, rather than as a result of religious convictions.[2] The Divine Prohibition against the consumption of meat in the Garden of Eden is often cited as substantiation for claiming that consuming exclusively fruits, vegetables and grains constitutes a purer and more wholesome existence for all of mankind, independent of one’s faith system. Ibn Ezra explains that when Potiphera leaves Yosef in charge of his household, with the exception of “bread” (39:6), it is because the master of the house did not want his servant to contaminate the kitchen with his carnivorous tendencies. Ibn Ezra further states that Egyptian vegetarianism may account for why, when Yosef invites his brothers to dine, the Egyptians refuse to join them in the same room (43:32). Consequently, the basis for separation between the two peoples may have been a matter of social mores rather than theological disputes.

Perhaps the Egyptians just had a general animus towards animals, and, by extension, those who take care of them.

A fourth approach that parallels the first three is RaShBaM’s additional assumption that the Egyptians did not respect people who were shepherds because, in contrast to the hypothesis that they worshipped domesticated animals, they abhorred these animals and anyone who associated with them. While eating animals may have been particularly repulsive to the Egyptians, for a people to constantly be associated with animals, living with them, tending to them, feeding them, protecting them, etc. was demeaning in Egyptian eyes, and therefore they would look down upon the Jews as their inferiors if they lived in the same place.

Settlement in Goshen as a means of avoiding Yosef’s brothers causing additional disruptions.

However, most commentators do not understand the assignation of the Jews to Goshen as exclusively a means by which to avoid conflict between Jews and Egyptians; rather it is a deliberate strategy devised by Yosef to achieve various additional objectives, personal as well as national.

Chizkuni on 46:34 writes,

Yosef was worried that if the brothers would be made ministers in Pharoah’s house (see 47:6), they would attempt to lower him (Yosef)  from his position of power, since due to the “coat of many colors” (37:3, 23) they had sold him.

This commentator provides an interesting gloss on human nature in general, and the story of Yosef and his brothers in particular. Although a simple reading of the story suggests that once Yosef has tested the brothers to see whether they harbored the same enmity towards Binyamin as they had towards him (44:1 ff.), he was satisfied that they had learnt their lesson and that it was time to reunite with the entire family, Chizkuni suggests that the old enmity, at least in Yosef’s mind, continues to lie just below the surface. Over time, as the memory of their humiliation would fade, or perhaps specifically because of the humiliation that they had suffered at his hands, Yosef feared that the plotting against him would begin again and lead to further terrible results. Chizkuni’s approach calls to mind the following Talmudic debate: in

Yoma 86b

The Rabbis taught:

Transgressions which one has confessed this past Yom HaKippurim, one should not confess them on another Yom HaKippurim, unless he has repeated the sin. If one has not repeated the sin, and confesses them again on another Yom HaKippurim, concerning such a person it is said, (Mishlei 26:11) “Like a dog that returns to its excrement, so is a fool who dwells upon his  foolishness.”

R. Eliezer ben Yaakov says: (If he does this, not only is he not to be castigated, but)  he is all the more to be praised, as it is said, (Tehillim 51:5) “For my sins I know, and my transgressions are before me constantly.”

Even assuming that Yosef’s brothers felt remorse at this point in time over what they had done to Yosef and to their father twenty-two  years before, were there any guarantees that this sense of remorse will inform future choices that will confront them? On the one hand, to obsess over the past will prevent a person from moving on and involving himself in productive activities; however, not continually and directly confronting a weakness that may still potentially exist  is asking for trouble  and could lead to unfortunate repetitions of the original reprehensible behavior. An additional irony raised by Chizkuni, is that in the same manner that Yosef remains suspicious of his brothers to the end of his life, they return the favor by wondering when he would finally exact a full measure of revenge from them. See 50:15-17.

Living in Goshen out of consideration for Yaakov’s sensibilities.

RaMBaN on 45:10 understands Yosef’s plan to have his family take up residence in Goshen as a means of protecting Yaakov. “Yosef knew that his father did not wish to live in the land of Egypt proper where the capitol of the country was located.” Yaakov’s desire to live “far from the madding crowd” is perhaps implicitly reflected in his response to Pharoah’s inquiry concerning his age. (47:9) “…The days of my sojourning[3] are 130 years. Few and terrible have been the days of my life, and I have not lived as long as my forefathers during the days of their sojourning.” RaShI similarly interprets the word “VaYeshev” (And he dwelled) in 37:1 to the effect that Yaakov wished to be left alone in peace to remain in Canaan once and for all after all of the vagaries and difficulties of his life up until that point. But God Decided that this was not to be and that even more challenging times for Yaakov—the mystery of what had happened to his beloved son Yosef, and the dilemma of potentially losing more children by allowing the brothers to go to Egypt in order to purchase food—lay ahead.

Goshen as an anti-assimilation strategy.

But aside from the personal issues that Yosef and Yaakov respectively may have been facing in their lives that justified having the Jews live in Goshen rather than in Egypt proper, an additional, more profound concern was probably haunting both father and son with regard to the Jews’ impending lengthy stay in Egypt. Would a minority people, originally numbering less than seventy,[4] be able to maintain its identity in the face of a sophisticated, successful, affluent, and powerful dominant majority culture? RaShI comments on 46:28 wherein we learn that Yaakov sent Yehuda as an advance party “LeHorot” (to show, teach) before him to Goshen”, to the effect that while the simple meaning may connote serving as a guide so that the family will know where to go, the Midrash claims that it was Yehuda’s responsibility to set up a place for Jewish learning (“Beit Talmud”)[5] so that instructions could be issued to the members of the family concerning their heritage and identity. R. Shimshon Raphael Hirsch, on 47:33, regarding Pharoah’s inquiry as to the profession of Yaakov’s sons, understands this particular interaction and strategy to constitute yet another manifestation of the principle “Ma’asei Avot Siman LeBanim” (the deeds of the forefathers are precursors for what is to occur to their children):

In a state like Egypt, where caste prevailed, and men were completely absorbed into their trade, and men were born as artisans, workers on the land, soldiers, etc., the first question was naturally about their profession. To Pharoah’s question they were to unashamedly acknowledge this unpleasant fact, for the disgust which the Egyptians had for their calling, which they could not disguise—just as altogether the dislike of the Jews by the nations—was the first means for the preservation of that race that was destined for an isolated path through the ages. Until the spiritual moral morn dawns for the nations of the world, the barriers that the false conception which they have, have raised against the Jews, have served to protect them from being infected by the barbarism and demoralization of the people in whose midst they will have to wander for centuries. That is why here too Joseph at once brought to the fore the aspect of his brethren which was unpleasant to the Egyptians with the expressed purpose of obtaining thereby for them a separated province in which to settle.[6]

The very limited success of this plan.

While the strategy of separation to prevent intermarriage was extended according to the Mechilta of Rabbi Yishmael, Parsha 5, to not changing their names, their language, not intermarrying and not reporting upon one another to the Egyptian government, Rabbinic tradition also contends that only a small percentage of the Jews actually left Egypt. Consider the interpretation of the Mechilta of R. Shimon bar Yochai, Chapter 13 on Shemot 13:18:

Not even one fifth left, and there are those who say one fiftieth, and there are those who say one five hundredth. R. Nehorai says not one five thousandth…[7]

While the Midrash is not adverse to exaggeration, at the very least, the long term benefits of residing in Goshen as well as the other attempts at insuring Jewish identity for the masses do not appear to have worked. Rabbinic sources suggest that Jews were guilty of idolatry, had ceased practicing circumcision, and were on the brink of total assimilation had God not Taken them out when He Did. Shemot Rabba 14:14 imagines what took place between the original settling in Goshen and the eventual time of the Exodus:

Why the plague of darkness (Shemot 10:21)? Blessed is the Name of the Holy One, Blessed be He, Who shows no favoritism and He Looks into human hearts, and Inspects human emotions. Since there were transgressors among the Jews, who had Egyptian patrons, and they enjoyed in Egypt honor, and wealth, they did not wish to leave Egypt…

The Midrash proceeds to explain that in order to create the illusion that all the Jews had left, those refusing to exit Egypt were done away with under the cover of darkness. Apparently Yaakov’s and Yosef’s concerns were well-founded.

Assimilation has been the enemy of strong Jewish identity from the inception of the nation. Apparently, in the case of the Egyptian exile, physical barriers could not assure Jewish continuity without a major Divine Intervention.   There are evidently no substitutes for deep belief in HaShem, commitment to full observance of Jewish tradition and practice, love of the Jewish people and the land of Israel in order to assure continued allegiance to Judaism and the Jewish ideal.

[2] The claim is made by some that vegetarians are typically more humanistic than their carnivorous counterparts. Yet the manner in which the Egyptians eventually treated the Jews would appear to beg this question.

[3] Yaakov depicts his life as one long series of wanderings. While this could be a figure of speech that could describe anyone’s life, i.e., a poetic means of suggesting that life on earth is temporal and fleeting, Yaakov would appear to be justified were his intent literal when one considers the time that he is forced to spend in Lavan’s home, and then his need to uproot himself and his family once more in order to journey to Egypt, where he eventually dies.

[4] Although the Tora (46:27) mentions seventy as the number of people that came down together with Yaakov to Egypt, the text notes that the number includes Yosef and his two sons who were already there. Consequently, since Yosef, Ephraim and Menashe had already acclimated to Egypt, it was the rest of the family that was most at risk in terms of culture shock and assimilation.

[5] Obviously to take the term literally, would constitute an anachronism in the sense that Ravina and R. Ashi’s compendium known as the Talmud was not completed until about 500 CE. On the other hand, Rabbinic tradition contends that the Forefathers and their families observed all of the commandments. It would be reasonable to assume that at the very least, the family’s cultural and theologically monotheistic traditions would be formally passed on from one generation to the next within some sort of structured setting. A parallel assumption is made concerning the institution of the Yeshiva of Shem and Ever. See “Stealth Tora Teachers—the Yeshiva of Shem and Ever” http://text.rcarabbis.org/parashat-noach-stealth-tora-teachers-the-yeshiva-of-shem-and-ever-by-yaakov-bieler/

[6] While R. Hirsch could put a spin upon the anti-Semitism of the Germany and German culture that he so much cherished, Nechama Leibowitz, ZaTzaL considered him to have been too naïve a romantic to realize how far this anti-Semitism could go and at what cost to the Jewish people.

[7] Considering that the first census of the Jewish people taken after the Exodus from Egypt amounted to 603,550 men above the age of 20 (BaMidbar 1:46), the Midrash suggests astronomical numbers of Jews occupied Egypt, the vast majority opting not to join Moshe and their fellow countrymen.

All of these questions are important but, in my opinion, they miss a deeper, more central and more resonant miracle that occurred ‘in those days at this time of year.’ Allow me to explain.

The decrees of Antiochus IV Epiphanes were, in many ways, unparalleled in the history of civilization. Paganism, by its very nature, is extremely eclectic and, by extension, tolerant. The expectation was that everyone would worship and respect everyone else’s gods. After all, there were so many gods around, what difference would one more or less make? Over time, given the phenomenological similarity between the various groups of Gods, they became identified with one another. Amun merged with Ra, Zeus merged with Jupiter, and Jupiter merged with Baal; and so on and so on. There was no push, or need, to force anyone to worship other gods. As a result, moreover, the concept of apostasy was almost non-existent. Apostasy was, by definition, non-existent. (Socrates was executed on a charge of atheism i.e. not believing in ‘the gods.’) The only group in the ancient world that rejected this arrangement was the Jews, who were commanded by God ‘not to have any gods besides Me.’

Historians are sharply divided as to why Antiochus decided to wipe out Judaism, to forbid the worship of the One True God, and to force them to worship Zeus Olympus. Whatever his reasons, it is clear that this was the first time that Jews had encountered an out and out attack on Judaism, in its totality. (The affair described in Daniel 3 were a partial precedent, but not long lived. On that occasion, moreover, the Jews were not asked to abandon Judaism but to bow down to an idol. This was, of course, a heinous sin and constituted grounds for martyrdom. It was, however, not on the scale that Antiochus and his Jewish Hellenizing collaborators conceived.) For the first time, the question of martyrdom arose. Just when and for what infractions was one obligated to die? (The famous determination that one is martyred only when forced to worship idols, murder or submit to sexual immorality was only made in the years before the Bar Kokhba Revolt. Cf. Sanhedrin 74a.)

A. The Beginnings of Kiddush Ha-Shem

There appears to have been little, or no, unanimity on this question. And the initial responses (if we are to trust the stories in I Maccabees) came first from the people:

Ch. 1, 41-50: Moreover King Antiochus wrote to his whole kingdom, that all should be one people, And everyone should leave his laws: so all the heathen agreed according to the commandment of the king. Yea, many also of the Israelites consented to his religion, and sacrificed unto idols, and profaned the sabbath. For the king had sent letters by messengers unto Jerusalem and the cities of Judah that they should follow the strange laws of the land, And forbid burnt offerings, and sacrifice, and drink offerings, in the temple; and that they should profane the Sabbaths and festivals: And pollute the sanctuary and holy people: Set up altars, and groves, and chapels of idols, and sacrifice swine’s flesh, and unclean beasts: That they should also leave their children uncircumcised, and make their souls abominable with all manner of uncleanness and profanation: To the end they might forget the law, and change all the ordinances. And whosoever would not do according to the commandment of the king, he said, he should die.

57-63: And whosoever was found with any the book of the Law, or if any was committed to the law, the king’s commandment was, that they should put him to death. Thus they did by their authority to the Israelites every month, to as many as were found in the cities. Now, on the five and twentieth day of the month they sacrificed upon the idolatrous altar, that is, upon the altar of God. At which time according to the order they put to death certain women, that had caused their children to be circumcised. And they hanged the infants about their necks, and rifled their houses, and slew them that had circumcised them. Howbeit many in Israel were fully resolved not to eat any unclean thing. Wherefore they would rather die, that they might not be defiled with non-kosher meats, that they might not profane the holy covenant: so then they died.

2Maccabees 6,7-19: And in the day of the king’s birth every month they were brought by bitter constraint to eat of the [idolatrous] sacrifices; and when the fast of Bacchus was kept, the Jews were compelled to go in procession to Bacchus, carrying ivy…. And whoso would not conform themselves to the manners of the Gentiles should be put to death…For there were two women brought, who had circumcised their children; whom when they had openly led round about the city, the babes handing at their breasts, they cast them down headlong from the wall. And others, that had run together into nearby caves, to keep the Sabbath day secretly, being discovered by Philip, were all burnt together, because they made a commitment to help themselves for the honor of the most sacred day. Now I beseech those that read this book, that they be not discouraged for these calamities, but that they judge those punishments not to be for destruction, but for chastening of our nation. For it is a token of his great goodness, when evil doers are not tolerated for long, but are quickly punished. For not as with other nations, whom the Lord patiently waits to punish, till they be come to the fulness of their sins, so He deals with us, Lest that, being come to the height of sin, afterwards he should take vengeance of us. And therefore he never withdraws his mercy from us: and though he punish with adversity, yet He never forsakes His people. But let this that we at spoken be for a warning unto us. And now will we come to the declaring of the matter in a few words. Eleazar, one of the principal scribes, an aged man, and of a well favored countenance, was constrained to open his mouth, and to eat swine’s flesh. But he, choosing rather to die gloriously, than to live defiled with such an abomination, spit it forth, and came of his own accord to the torment.

B. Warfare on Shabbat

The challenge of religious persecution was not the only unparalleled challenge that faced the Jews of Eretz Yisrael. An even more striking example is described in I Maccabees, 2: 31-38:

Now when it was told the king’s servants, and the army that was in Jerusalem, the city of David that certain men, who had broken the king’s commandment, had gone down into secret places in the wilderness, a great number pursued them, and having overtaken them, they besieged them, and made war against them on the Sabbath day. And they said to them, Let that which you have done hitherto suffice; come forth, and obey the commandment of the king, and you shall live. But they said, We will not come forth, neither will we do the king’s commandment, to profane the Sabbath day. So then they gave them the battle with all speed. Howbeit they [i.e. those in the cave] answered them not, neither cast they a stone at them, nor blocked the places where they lay hidden. Rather, they said, “Let us die all in our innocence: Heaven and Earth will testify for us, that you put us to death wrongfully.” So the Greeks rose up against them in battle on the Sabbath, and they slew them, with their wives and children and their cattle, to the number of a thousand people.

This behavior is problematic, to say the least. What happened to the iron-clad rule that פיקוח נפש דוחה שבת; that saving a human life trumps Sabbath observance? Did the Jews, at the time, think that Kiddush Ha-Shem required dying and not fighting? Did they think that there was a difference between saving a life medically and fighting? Did they think (as one scholar has suggested) that using weapons was forbidden on Shabbat? Or, had it never happened that Jews fought on Shabbat? (This is not so farfetched since, until the nineteenth century, wars were formal affairs carried out in set piece battles by relatively small armies.)

Whatever the explanation, it is clear that many pious people (including rabbis) thought that fighting on Shabbat was forbidden. Something had to be done, and Mattathias acted:

39-42: Now when Mattathias and his friends understood hereof, they mourned for them severely. And one of them said to another: “If we all do as our brethren have done, and fight not for our lives and laws against the heathen, they will now quickly root us out of the earth.” At that time therefore they decreed, saying, Whosoever shall come to make battle with us on the Sabbath day, we will fight against him; neither will we die all, as our brethren that were murdered in the secret places.”

I believe that Mattathias’ action was quite extraordinary. In order to understand why, we need to turn to yet another religious challenge that was posed by a happy occasion, the re-dedication of the Temple.

C. The Defiled Stones of the Altar

After the conquest of Jerusalem in Kislev, 165 B.C.E., the author of I Maccabees reports (42-47):

So he (i.e. Judah) chose priests of blameless conversation, such as had pleasure in the law: Who cleansed the sanctuary, and bare out the defiled stones into an unclean place. And when they consulted what to do with the altar of burnt offerings, which was profaned; They thought it best to pull it down, lest it should be a reproach to them, because the heathen had defiled it: wherefore they pulled it down, And laid up the stones in the mountain of the temple in a convenient place, until there should come a prophet to show what should be done with them. Then they took whole stones according to the law, and built a new altar according to the former.

The altar had, albeit, been destroyed by the Babylonians but it had never been profaned. Two questions had arisen: 1) Can one continue to use the original altar, built in the Days of the Return to Zion? 2) Did the defiled stones retain any sanctity, and thus require respectful disposal, or not? The decision was to rebuild the altar with new stones. However, they could not decide what to do with the old ones. So they put them aside ‘until there should come a prophet to show what should be done with them.’ If they decided the one question, why not the second? And why wait for a true prophet? (Most of the Talmudic questions that are left over for Elijah’s coming are theoretical.)

One could object that the question of the final disposition of the old altar was not a burning concern, so that it could be delayed. Later in I Maccabees, however, we find a passage that sheds a different light on the desire for a ‘true prophet.’

After finally defeating the Greeks, and attaining national autonomy as a client state of the Seleucid Empire, I Maccabees 14, 35-41) reports:

The people therefore sang the acts of Simon, and unto what glory he thought to bring his nation, made him their governor and chief priest, because he had done all these things, and for the justice and faith which he kept to his nation, and for that he sought by all means to exalt his people….Also that the Jews and priests were well pleased that Simon should be their governor and high priest forever, until there should arise a faithful prophet.’

The combined role of rule (ethnarchos) and High Priest was unprecedented and controversial (cf. Kiddushin 66a and Ramban, Gen. 49, 10 s.v. וזה היה). Notice, though, that even the Jews were unsure of their actions and made them conditional upon the arrival of a true prophet, who would decide whether their action was legitimate, or not.

D. The Miracle of תורה שבעל פה

The Hanukkah story occurred less than three hundred years after the cessation of prophecy, in the time of Malakhi. Up to that time, it appears that (with all due respect to the Rambam) prophets played an integral role in interpreting the Torah, and did not confine themselves to exhortations and predictions. Consider, when the Jews wanted to know whether they should continue to fast on the Tenth of Tevet, the Ninth of Tammuz, the Ninth of Av and the Third of Tishrei, they asked the prophet Zekhariah (Zekh. 8, 19). Once prophecy ceased, Judaism became totally a religion devoted to the interpretation of the record of Revelation, i.e. the Torah, as a way of knowing what God desires of man. This, apparently, worked well during the fourth and third centuries.

In the second century, however, questions arose and decisions had to be made for which there was no precedent, no obvious verse, and no Divine guidance. Mattathias and his generation had to courageously step forward and take responsibility; to try to discern what the Torah teaches when one is required to eat non-kosher food, desecrate the Sabbath, delay circumcision, dispose of the sacred stones of the altar, create a form of government never seen in Israel prior to that time, and yes, to create a new holiday with absolutely no Divine mandate (direct or indirect).

They were well aware of the risks involved. They yearned for the appearance of a true prophet in those unparalleled, troubled times. Yet, they knew they must be courageous and act for Torah, out of the conviction that the Torah must have an answer for each new circumstance. To deny that would be nothing short of blasphemy.

The unknown miracle of Hanukkah, then, is the spiritual courage of the Sages of that generation to stand up and be counted. They didn’t cower in Battei Midrash and say that they can’t decide, they aren’t worthy and so on. The times demanded heroism. God and His Torah demanded heroism. So they stood up and acted heroically, all the while aware that the True Prophet might disagree. In his absence, though, they would do their best for Fear of God and Love of God.

The Rav זצ”ל used to say that Hanukkah is the holiday of Torah she-b’al Peh. I never really understood why.

I think that now I do.

Did Rav Karo Absorb Kabbalah into Halakhic Discourse?  The Zohar as Deciding Factor

In his monograph on Karo, R. J. Zwi Werblowsky broadly contended that Karo’s works displayed a “well-known unwillingness to allow kabbalistic considerations or mystical experiences to influence halakhic decisions, which, he felt, should be arrived at exclusively by the traditional methods of rabbinic dialectic” (Werblowsky 184).  Werblowsky claimed that while theologically and emotionally significant, the Zohar and personal revelations played no role in Karo’s halakhic thought.  As proof, he cited a responsum from R. Shmuel Vital, who similarly asserted that Karo adjudicated according to “pshat,” with no non-legal influences.

Jacob Katz, however, showed that Karo did absorb mystical literary texts into Halakhic considerations.  Indeed, in his introduction to the Bet Yosef, Karo cited the Zohar in his long list of sources.  Moreover, Katz cites multiple cases in the Bet Yosef where Karo weighed the halakhic value of Zoharic prescriptions and later integrated them into the Shulchan Aruch (Katz 52-55).  Kabbalistic considerations primarily impacted the realm of common religious rites (Orach Chaim).  Regarding “hand-washing in the morning,” for example, the rishonim disagreed whether it represented a formal ritual with minute details (Rashba), or a mere hygienic device in the morning (Rosh).  Karo cites the Zohar to prove the former, and further notes:

ועוד כתובים שם בנטילת ידים שחרית חידושין שאינם נמצאים בפוסקים

Karo coolly incorporated these new rituals into his Shulchan Aruch (4:7-11), such as the requirement of pouring the water over another vessel and not directly unto the ground.

With regard to hand-washing, one might argue that the Zohar played an ancillary role in the decision.  The Zohar merely buttressed the opinion of the Rashba, while the additional requirements represent recommended but not necessary embellishments.  Yet in B.Y. O.C. 141, Karo gives decisive weight to the Zohar, noting its admonition that the oleh should not read the Torah along with the shaliach tzibbur.  Giving it primacy over the Rosh’s concern for a bracha le-vatala, he writes,

ומתוך לשון הרא”ש שכתב רבינו יתבאר לך שצריך העולה לקרות בנחת עם שליח ציבור כדי שלא תהא ברכתו לבטלה וכן כתבו התוספות… ורבינו הגדול מהר”י אבוהב ז”ל כתב שמעתי שכתוב בספר הזוהר שאין לקרות כלל אלא אחד וראוי לחוש לדבריו אם האמת הוא כך שאני לא ראיתיו כתוב אלא ששמעתיו עכ”ל ואני הכותב זכיתי למוצאו והוא בפרשת ויקהל (רב:) וז”ל ואסיר למיקרי באורייתא בר חד בלחודוי ושתקין ושמעין מלה מפומיה כאילו קבלין לה האי שעתא מטורא דסיני…וכיון דלדברי הזוהר אסור לקרות אלא אחד לבד ועכשיו שנהגו ששליח ציבור הוא הקורא העולה אסור לקרות אע”פ שלדברי הפוסקים צריך לקרות ואם לא יקרא כתבו דהוי ברכה לבטלה מאחר שלא נזכר זה בתלמוד בהדיא לא שבקינן דברי הזוהר מפני דברי הפוסקים. ועוד דהא איכא למימר דכל שהעולה שומע מה ששליח ציבור קורא ומכוין לבו לדבריו הרי הוא כקורא דשומע כעונה (סוכה לח:) הילכך צריך ליזהר העולה מלקרות עם שליח ציבור. ומיהו אפשר שאפילו לדברי הזוהר רשאי לקרות והוא שלא ישמיע לאזניו

Karo strikingly justifies his argument by noting that as long as the Zohar does not contradict an explicit Talmudic text, then it can gain precedence over other poskim.   Although Karo later finds a method of reconciling the Zohar’s admonition with the rishonim’s position, he clearly empowers the kabbalistic text with legal significance.

In other halakhot, Karo further develops his position that the Zohar cannot override a Talmudic ruling but can take primacy in medieval debates.  He employs this rule, for example, to follow, against some rishonim, the Zohar’s adamant proscription from donning tefillin on Chol Ha-Moed.  Noting that the Babylonian Talmud does not explicitly rule on the issue, he states,

ומאחר שבתלמודא דידן לא נתבאר דין זה בפירוש מי יערב לבו לגשת לעבור בקום עשה על דברי רבי שמעון בן יוחי המפליג כל כך באיסור הנחתן

If, on the other hand, Talmudic sources can be culled to refute the Zohar’s position, however, one can reject R. Shimon bar Yochai’s position.  Thus he rejects the Agur’s bewilderment how poskim disputed the Zohar’s position that only one blessing should be recited while donning tefillin, noting that his interlocutors have ample Talmudic support.

ואיני יודע למה תמה על זה יותר מכמה דינים שמצינו שכתב רבי שמעון בן יוחאי בספר הזוהר היפך ממסקנא דתלמודא ואין הפוסקים כותבים אלא מסקנא דתלמודא וטעמא משום דאפילו אם היו יודעים דברי רבי שמעון בן יוחאי לא הוו חיישי להו במקום דפליג אתלמודא דידן והמפרשים דלעולם צריך לברך שתים משמע להו דבהדיא קאמר תלמודא הכי ולפיכך פסקו כן כל שכן שבימי הפוסקים עדיין לא נגלה ספר המאור הקדוש בעולם

Karo plainly reasons that just as the Talmud frequently rejects R. Shimon b. Yochai’s position, so too can his position be rejected when it is found in the Zohar.  Be that is it may, Katz undoubtedly proves that Kabbalistic literature plays a role in Karo’s legal decisions.

Different Strategies of Incorporation

The scope and nature of this influence requires nuance and differentiation.  In a study detailing the numerous occasions that kabalistic sources influenced Karo’s halakha, Moshe Halamish showed the various ways in which Karo used the Zohar and other mystical sources, such as Recanti.  Sometimes the Zohar will serve to strengthen the side of the argument toward which Karo was leaning (Halamish 90-91).  In other cases, it will serve as a primary textual source for a law or minhag, such as requirement for levi’im to wash the hands of kohanim before nesiat kapa’im (OC 128) or for women to abstain from attending funerals (YD 359).  Bet Yosef will also include examples of minhagim in the Zohar that fill lacunae in the halakha, such as how many windows a synagogue should contain (OC 32), or the details of hand-washing in the morning, noted earlier.  In certain circumstances, however, Karo ignores or rules against the Zohar, even if there is no explicit contradictory Talmudic source (Halamish 95-96).  The Shulchan Aruch rejects, for example, the Zohar’s proscription of consuming meat for one hour after eating milk (YD 69:2), and its admonition from benefiting of the gid ha-nesheh (YD 65:10).  Karo empowers the Zohar with the legal status of other non-Talmudic rabbinic texts (even if he assumes it to be written in antiquity).  Its practices cannot override the Babylonian Talmud, and its ordinances are weighed against competing rabbinic arguments and medieval practices.  As Katz notes (53-54, footnotes), in a number of circumstances, Karo handles the Zohar in the same manner as he would other halakhic sources.

Relative Weight of Different Laws in Shulchan Aruch

Katz and Halamish, however, both overemphasize the significance of Karo’s inclusion of a Zohar practice in his code.  Katz, followed by Chalamish, assert that Karo made all prescriptions in Shulchan Aruch “binding for all Israel,” unless otherwise explicitly noted with terms such as “It is commendable to take care…”  (Katz 54, Halamish 91).  Katz’s bases himself on a paragraph in the introduction to the Bet Yosef where Karo admonishes his readers not to accept his lenient opinions if the local practice is to prohibit the action.   According to Katz, this caveat allowed Karo to codify in a social vacuum and “measure the merits of the literary sources” according to halakhic reasoning alone (Katz 53).  As such, all conclusions drawn in the Shulchan Aruch derive from the same methodology and enjoy equally binding status.

Yet Katz misreads Karo’s statement in his introduction to the Bet Yosef.  Karo refers the reader to Pesachim 51a, in which the Talmud asserts that a community that has taken upon itself a stringent practice cannot simply switch to the more lenient opinion.  As Karo himself codifies in Yoreh Deah 214:1, the stringent practice transforms into a neder that cannot easily be changed, if at all.  Yet this does not mean that Karo dismissed the significance of contemporary practice.  In a previous paragraph, he explain that where widespread practice goes against his the consensus of his three primary poskim – Rif, Rosh, and Rambam –he will rule according to the minhag ha-olam (contemporary practice).  Karo understood that social factors played a role in psak halakha (halakhic adjudication), and as we shall see, played a significant role in his literary agenda.

More significantly, Karo’s statement does not shed any light on the relative weight each of his rulings.  Even if Karo entirely based his rulings through halakhic analysis of literary sources, that does not mean that he attributed the same weight to each se’if (section) in Shulchan Aruch.  Some laws stem from the Talmud and are explicated by all of its major commentators.  They are entrenched in the halakhic discourse and have been accepted, in one form or another, throughout the Jewish world.  Other laws, however, clearly do not enjoy such a rich tradition.  They are local minhagim, or fine details within the law, and lack the antiquity and pervasiveness of other laws.  Surely there is a difference, both in severity and obligation, between the mitzvah of eating on erev Yom Kippur (604:1, based on a Talmudic drasha), reciting a vidui before the seudat mafseket (606:1, based on a Talmudic din), and going to the mikvah or receiving lashes (606:7, 607:6, based on Ashkenazic minhagim).  Yet all are included in Hilchot Yom Ha-Kippurim of the Shulchan Aruch.  Karo achieved literary greatness precisely because he wrote a code (Shulchan Aruch) that organized his rulings from the sources culled in Bet Yosef.  Through both resources, the scholar could easily understand the relative weight behind each law within the code.

The Shulchan Aruch’s presentation of the morning hand-washing laws, cited above, display the distinction in the weight of the laws.  When resolving the dispute between Rashba and Rosh regarding hand-washing in the morning, Karo moderates the force of his ruling by introducing it as a praiseworthy vigilance  (OC 4:7).

טוב להקפיד בנטילת ידים שחרית בכל הדברים המעכבים בנטילת ידים לסעודה

Yet when ruling with regard to proper washing order with the right hand, Karo authoritatively states (4:10),

נוטל כלי של מים ביד ימינו, ונותנו ליד שמאלו, כדי שיריק מים על ימינו תחילה

Halamish believes that in the former case, he moderates his tone because the Zohar tips the scales in a disputed ruling.  In the latter case, however, where the Zohar serves as the source of the (textually) uncontested practice, it was “accepted in the Shulchan Aruch as an obligatory ruling” (Halamish 91).

Halamish’s example, however, does not convince and seemingly proves the opposite conclusions.  For starters, the necessity for washing in the proper order (4:10) stems from his conclusion in 4:7 that morning hand-washing deserves the treatment of a proper ritual.  As such, the law can only attain the status of the “hakpadah” required in by his earlier ruling.  Moreover, Halamish himself later acknowledges that he cannot find a consistent formula for Karo’s literary devices.  He introduces Zohar-based laws with modifying language like “yesh omrim,” “ha-minhag ha-nachon,” “tov la-hakpid,” but in other places simply states the law (Halamish 91-92).  The precise intention (if he had one) and legal significance behind Karo’s different word selections remains elusive.  Yet the very fact that he frequently uses such modifying language indicates that he believed that the minhagim or ordinances found in the Zohar do not always achieve an unequivocal normative status.[1]

Rav Karo’s Literary Agenda and the Inclusion of a Broad Range of Sources

This distinction between the relative obligatory nature of different se’ifim in Shulchan Aruch dovetails nicely with Yisrael Ta-Shma’s analysis of Karo’s literary agenda.  The Magid Mesharim makes clear that Karo desired that his magnum opus, the Bet Yosef, would turn his works into authoritative codes not only in Eretz Yisrael but throughout the world.  As the magid tells him (Magid 5),

ואמרין מאן ההוא גברא דמלך מלכי המלכים חפץ ביקרו הא הוא תנא סבא דארץ ישראל האי הוא ריש מתיבתא דארץ ישראל, הא הוא מחברא רבא דארץ ישראל וגם אם תתנהג ע”פ מנהגותי אזכך לגמור כל חיבורך ופרושיך ופמקותיך מכל שגיאה וטעות ולהדפיסם ולפשטם בכל גבול ישראל

In order to achieve this goal, however, Karo needed to include sources well beyond his own background of Spain and Eretz Yisrael.  As such, his works included not only Sephardic pillars such as Rambam, Rif, and Rosh, but also the writings of Ashkenazic poskim.  While Karo favored the former (although not exclusively) in areas of dispute, he included in the latter’s ruling in areas where the Sephardic poskim disagreed, to fill in the details of laws, or in a large number of minhagim where matters were uncontested.  As Ta-Shma pithily writes, “R. Yosef Karo’s rulings were Sephardic in quality and Ashkenazic in quantity” (Ta-Shma 158).   That is to say, while the Sephardic tradition received priority in the fundamentals of halakhic practice, many of the details or minhagim codified in the Shulchan Aruch, which have relatively lesser halakhic value, stemmed from Ashkenazic origin.  This made the work more attractive to Ashkenic readers, who expected their poskim and practices in any halakhic handbook.

In this regard, Karo used the Zohar in a similar fashion.  At times it helped to decide disagreements, on other occasions it provided details to certain rituals, and frequently it established new minhagim.  His inclusion of the Zohar helped the Shulchan Aruch gain acceptance not only in the emerging Kabbalistic centers in Turkey and Safed, but also in Greece, where the Zohar had achieved halakhic status unprecedented in the world (Ta-Shma 163-169).  Nonetheless, the work did not achieve the decisive status of more classical halakhic works such as Alfasi’s Haghot or Rambam’s Mishneh Torah, and its rulings were weighted accordingly.

Although the Zohar might not have achieved superior status in Karo’s hierarchy of halakhic texts, its very inclusion into the world of authoritative sources represented a major revolution.  The Sephardic world had just begun to cite the Zohar in Halakhic contexts, with major figures such as a R. David Ibn Zimra and R Jacob ben Habib sporadically quoting it, sometimes even without seeing the text inside (Katz 43).  In Eastern Europe, moreover, poskim entirely ignored the Zohar (since many of them had not seen the work), and even after the publication of the Shulchan Aruch, major figures such as the Maharshal viciously opposed its inclusion in the halakhic canon (Ta-Shma 161).  Karo empowered the Zohar with halakhic significance, quoting it (and other Kabbalistic works) dozens of times.  The inclusion of the Zohar in his writings significantly impacted the influence of Kabbalistic teachings for centuries.

The Evidence from Magid Mesharim

While Karo’s incorporation of the Zohar in halakhic discourse is readily apparent in the Bet Yosef and Shulchan Aruch, only in his Magid Mesharim does he reveal the personal significance of this achievement.  Long neglected by rabbis and academics alike as a forgery, R. J. Zwi Werblowsky conclusively proved that Karo penned this diary of mystical revelations from his personal magid, or angel.  Werblowsky, and more recently, Rachel Elior, extensively detailed the theological and mystical teachings in this work.  Our comments will focus on the significance of the magid on Karo’s legal works and his view of the relationship of halakha and kabbalah.

A quick purview of Magid Mesharim immediately reveals Karo’s obsession with completing his composition of the Bet Yosef and receiving scholarly approval for it.  The magid repeatedly assures him that the great sages of previous centuries and the heavenly hosts bless his work, and through proper concentration and behavior, he will produce a flawless work (Elior 677).  His rulings, the magid assures, even receive divine sanction, as he emphatically states (Magid 381),

חזק ואמץ אל תירא ואל תחת כי כל אשר אתה עושה ה, מצליח וכל אשר עשית והורית עד היום הזה ה’ מצליח בידך וכן מסכימים במתיבתא דרקיעא חי ה’ כי פסק זה אמת ויציב הלכה למשה מסיני הלכה כוותך … לכן חזק ואמץ אל תירא כי כל אשר עשית והורית עד היום הזה ה’ מצליח ומסכים בו וכן כל מה שתעשה ותורה מכאן והלאה הב”ה יצליח ויסכי’ על ידך

The magid goes on to condone Karo for constantly scrutinizing his ruling, but assures him that he need not fear his continued success.

ולמה חרדת על הפסק ההוא הלא נתן ה’ לך לב לדעת ולהכיר כי דברך אמת וצדק כי אעפ”י שאתה תמיד חושד סברתיך וזו מדה טובה היא מ”מ נכרים דברי אמת וע”כ אל יפול לבך עליו כלל כי במתיבתא דדקיעא מסכימים לדבריך כאשר אמרתי והלא לך למנד’ דמן שמיא משגיחי’ בך

Karo’s diary thus reveals the tremendous psychological strain to produce Bet Yosef and the significant role these mystical revelations played in prodding Karo to complete it.

Equally significantly, Magid Mesharim reveals the religio-political and theological goals behind Karo’s magnum opus.  In the introduction to Bet Yosef, Karo mourns the geopolitical status of the Jewish people following the expulsion from Spain.

With the Jews scattered throughout the world, he writes, halakhic practice has splintered into local rites, with “multiple Torot” being observed.  His composition seeks to transcend the geopolitical crisis and create a “virtual nation” centered around his codification.  He lists the poskim from the entire Jewish world that he cites to assure the book’s users that his “torah” can unify the Jewish people.

The Strain to Unify the Worlds of Halakha and Kabbalah

Yet as the Magid Mesharim shows, Karo’s goals extended beyond the unification of halakhic practice.  On numerous occasions, the magid lauds Karo for unifying the worlds of halakha and kabbalah.  Karo’s inclusion of the Zohar and other Kabbalistic texts attempted not only to encompass the full range of ritual practice, but also to unite the theological and legal orbits that he inhabited (Ta-Shma 162).  The following passage (Magid 258) particularly highlights this goal.

ואת כי תדבק בי ובתורתי וביראתי ומשניותי ולא תפריד אפילו רגע אחד ואתן לך מהלכים בין העומדים האלה ואזכך לגמו’ כל חיבורך בלי שו’ טעו’ ולהדפיסם ולפשטם בכל גבול ישראל עמי ואגדלה שמך בתלמידים יותר מיצחק אבואב בחירי לכן חזק ואמץ בתורתך כאשר אתה עושה בתורה במשנה בגמ’ רש”י ותוספות ובפסק ובקבל’ כי אתה מקשר אותם זה בזה וכל מלאכי מרום דורשים שלומך וטובתך ואל תצטער במזונות כי כבר אמרתי לך פעמים אין מספר כי פרנסתך מזומנת לא תחסר דבר כי אתה מושגח מאד בכל ענייניך רק כי תדבק בי ובתורתי ויראתי ועבודתי

Physical needs, the magid exhorts Karo, should not be your concern, since your flawless composition will spread throughout the world as you unite the worlds of psak and kabbalah.

Karo understood the significance of his project and believe that his efforts would include him within the chain of great composers in halakhic history.  In one of the first revelations, the magid tells Karo that the dynasty of writers that culled all of Torah She-Ba’al Peh, including R. Yehuda Ha-Nasi and Maimonides, support his endeavors (Magid, 7)

והא מימות משה רבן של כל הנביאים לא איכתיבא אורייתא דבעל פה עד יומי רבי מיומוי לא אתפרש כלא משנה עד דאתא רב אשי וליקט וחיבר ופירש ופסק. ומיומוי לא הות הלכתא אלא קצת מהלכות כגון הלכות פסוקות וכו’. עד דאתא הרי”ף והרמב”ם והרא”ש ופסקו הלכות בכוליה גמרא והרמב”ם הפליא לעשות למללא על כל אורייתא ומאז ועד השתא לא אתעורר חד ללקט מילי כולהו כמה דאתעוררת אתה

The example of R. Yehuda Ha-Nasi seems particularly significant since Karo’s revelations always took place during his study of mishna.  As a posek, one would expect Karo to primarily study gemara and its commentators and not the mishna, from which one cannot derive normative halakha.  Undoubtedly, the ability to study the realm of kodshim, which can only be manifested in Messianic times, influenced Karo.  Yet one wonders whether Karo heard the magid’s voice specifically while studying the text of the sage who first compiled all of Torah She-Ba’al Peh in a time of geopolitical uncertainty.  Only the study of his predecessor could strengthen him to accomplish his lofty goals of codification and unification.

The other sage on this list who composed an independent work that codified all of Torah She-Ba’al Peh, of course, was Rambam.[2] Karo decided to compose Bet Yosef as a commentary on the Tur, and not Mishne Torah, because the former included a variety of opinions while the latter represented the psak of one figure alone.  Nonetheless, Karo always discusses Rambam’s positions at length in Bet Yosef, and frequently quotes him verbatim in Shulchan Aruch.[3]

A comparison of these two codifiers and their larger projects might shed light on how to read Magid Mesharim.  Like Karo, Rambam engaged in both the realms of theology (in Rambam’s case, philosophy, in Karo’s case, kabbalah) and halakha.  As such, he devotes a significant portion of the Moreh Nevuchim to philosophically interpreting the Torah’s mitzvot (ta’amei ha-mitzvot).  While the impact of Rambam’s philosophy on his halakah is disputed amongst scholars, it is clear that he included elements of his philosophy in his code (e.g. Sefer Ha-Madda), yet espoused other philosophical ideas in his Moreh Nevuchim without embracing their halakhic implications in Mishne Torah.  In other words, Rambam represented a codifier whose works represent a careful (if not delineated) balance between philosophy and halakha.[4]

Magid Mesharim reveals that the balance between law and kabbalah similarly strained Karo.  As we have seen, Karo pioneered the mass use of the Zohar in his code, a project for which the magid extensively praises him.  Magid Mesharim also reveals some of the mystical considerations that Karo included in his rulings.  As Werblowsky noted (185-187), many of the magid’s references to Karo’s discussions in Bet Yosef only sought to encourage him, but did not impact his actual ruling.  For example, regarding the laws of ritual immersion, he writes (Magid 194),

פירוש נמי דמפרש הרמב”ם הרוב קושטא אינון ובההיא דצפורן שפרשת וכתבת שני דרכים חייך דקב”ה חייך בפלפולא דילך אבל אורחא בתראה הוא ברירו דמלה ומ”מ לא תמחוק קדמאה דיקריה דקב”ה סליק מיניה אף על גב דלאו קושטא איהו כיון דאיהו חריפא דוגמת נפחא דבטש בפרזלא ונצוצין מתנציצין לכל עבר

The Magid praises Karo for his learned deliberation on two different opinions yet affirms the divine validity of Karo’s final conclusion.  In this case, the magid represents a mere psychological promoter.

Yet in the same passage, the magid’s Kabbalistic teachings relate to the content of Karo’s psak.  Regarding the year-round use of a river as a mikveh, the magid forbids its use in the early spring (because of the excessive amount of “dripping water”) in accordance with the opinion of Rosh and R. Isaac of Dampierre and against Rabbenu Tam.  However, he justifies his opinion because this was the position of R. Meir of Rothenburg, whose pious death in prison made him pure and unblemished (Magid 196).  Karo does not always follow the ruling of R. Meir of Rothenburg.  This seems to be an example where Karo’s own desire for a “pure death” of martyrdom, well documented throughout the Magid (Elior 673-675), impacted his deliberations.  Yet the magid continues that post facto, one can rely on the opinion of R. Tam, and remarkably justifies this distinction based on Kabbalistic teachings (Magid 197).

ומהשתא תנדע דלכתחילה אין לטבול בנהרות באתר דמתפשטי מחמת גשמים משום דרמיז לחסד וגבורה דמסאבי סחרי לון, ומ”מ אי טבלה בדיעבד סלקא לה טבילה משום דאף ע”ג דמסאבי סחרי לון לית רשו להעלא ולקרבא לון כלל הלכך בדיעבד עלתה לה טבילה

In this remarkable passage, kabbalistic factors dictate direct halakhic implications.

This text, however, remains unique in its broad use of mystical considerations for direct legal consequences.  Moreover, as Werblowsky notes (173), the post factum leniency, while implied in the Tur, does not appear in Bet Yosef, and thus it remains unclear to what extent Karo fully embraced this distinction.  Nonetheless, the text remains revealing because it highlights one of Magid Meisharim’s larger goals of kabbalisticly interpreting halakha.  In many occasions, this represents a form of classical ta’amei ha-mitzvot.  Karo examines a mitzvah, such as yibum (Magid 261) or taharat metzora (226), and kabbalisticly interprets its significance.  On other occasions, however, the subject of interpretation is not a mitzvah of the Torah, but a particular law discussed by Chazal, such as mayim acharonim (281) or semichat geula le-tefilla, the prohibition of interruptions between birkot keriat shema and the Amidah.[5] Indeed, the magid’s elucidation of minutia in rabbinic halakha characterizes much of the uniqueness of the text.  The legal significance of the text stems from its mystical interpretations, not its halakhic innovations.  In Moreh Nevukhim, rabbinic Judaism confronted medieval philosophy, and a rationalistic divine law emerged.  In Magid Mesharim, the scholarly Karo confronts the magid’s world of symbolism and reveals a rich and learned Kabbalistic halakha.

Magid Mesharim as Journal of Spiritual Journey

Above all, however, Magid Mesharim represents a deeply intimate and meandering spiritual journey.  Unlike the systematic and thoroughly edited Moreh, Karo’s diary, published posthumously and possibly against his wishes, rambles loosely from topic to topic.  The revelations are not published chronologically, and seem to be incomplete (Benayahu 401-402).[6] Most importantly, the content itself does not seem to have undergone revision by Karo (presumably because it was not intended to be published), but rather stemmed from ecstatic revelations.  Much of the work details the magid’s exhortations to Karo for great spiritual punctiliousness, and never omits the most intimate of sins or harshest criticisms.[7] Mordechai Pachter has gone so far as to claim that one should read the book as a sefer mussar, full of rites of prayer, asceticism, and repentance.  This designation, however, might obfuscate the deeply personal nature of the exhortation, and Elior’s classification as an autobiographical spiritual journey seems more accurate.

The personal nature of the work helps explain the discrepancies between the magid’s halakha and Karo’s rulings in Bet Yosef.  In Shulchan Aruch (OC 597), for example, Karo ordains that one who fasts on the first day of Rosh Hashanah following a fateful dream must continue for their rest of their lives to fast on both days of the holiday.  The magid, however, seems to dictate that Karo should only fast on the first day after a he himself experiences a fearful dream (Magid 375).  A similarly small discrepancy exists regarding the requirement to review the weekly parasha (Magid 403, OC, Greenwald).  These types of inconsistencies, however, appear particularly natural when one recognizes the unpredictable nature of Karo’s revelations and their ad hoc recordings.  Karo similarly takes upon himself certain stringencies, such as not making any interruptions or skipping any letters in prayer (Magid 276), even though he allows both under certain circumstances in Shulchan Aruch (Halamish 89).  These exhortations, however, clearly exemplify individual punctiliousness aimed at unique spiritual ascension.[8] Halakhic fastidiousness and individual reproaches characterize mystical revelations and precisely serve to distinguish spiritual autobiographies from normative codes.

In his haskamah to the most recent edition of Magid Mesharim, Rabbi S. Deblinski of Bnei Brak quotes a tradition in the name of R. Chaim Volozhin that revelations from a magid do not happen in a vacuum.  Rather, they reflect the spiritual aspirations of the receiver that stem from the depth of his soul, and the revelations from above only help him to the extent that he desires it.  R. Yosef Karo desired to unite the worlds of halakha and kabbalah in a harmonious union.  Through both his codes and spiritual diary, we see how much he accomplished.

Works Cited

Benayahu, Meir, Yosef Behiri:  Maran Rebbi Yosef Karo (Hebrew), Jerusalem:  Yad Harav Nissim, 5751.

Elior, Rachel,  “R. Yosef Karo ve-R. Yisrael Ba’al Shem Tov,” Tarbiz 65:4 (5756), p. 671-709.

Halamish, Moshe, “Kabbalah Be-Pesikah Shel R. Yosef Karo,” Da’at 21 (5747-48), p. 85-102.

Karo, Yosef, Sefer Magid Mesharim Le-Maran Rebbi Yosef Karo, ed. Yehiel Bar Lev, Petah Tikva: no publisher listed, 1990.

Katz, Jacob,  Divine Law in Human Hands:  Case Studies in Halakhic Flexibility, Jerusalem:  Magnes Press, 1998.

Pachter, Mordechai, “Sefer ‘Magid Meisharim’ le-R. Yosef Karo Ke-Sefer Mussar,” Da’at 21 (5747-48), p. 57-83.

Ta-Shma, Yisrael, “Rebbi Yosef Karo Bein Ashkenaz Le-Sefard,” Tarbiz 59 (5750), p. 153-170.

Werblowsky, R.J. Zvi, Joseph Karo:  Lawyer and Mystic, JPS, 1977.

Gruenwald, Yekutiel (Leopold), Ha-Rav R. Yosef Karo U-Zmano, New York:  Feldheim, 1953.

Works Consulted

Tamar, David, “Dinim Ha-Meyuchasim Al Ha-Zohar Ve-Al Ha-Kabbalah Be-Shulchan Aruch U-Bet Yosef,” Sinai 115 (5755)

Arbel, Vita Daphna, Beholders of Divine Secrets, Albany:  SUNY, 2004

Urbach, Ephraim, “The Tradition about Torat Ha-Sod in the Tannaitic Period” (Hebrew), Studies in Mysticism and Religion Presented to Gershom G. Scholem on His Seventieth Birthday by Pupils, Colleagues, and Friends, ed. Ephraim Urbach et al, Jerusalem: Magnes Press, 1967.

[2] The works of Rav Ashi, Rif, and Rosh encompassed much or all of Torah She-Ba’al Peh, but were commentaries not written in a systematic, codifying manner.  Significantly, in his introduction to Mishne Torah, Rambam as well justified his bold codification of halakha by citing the precedent of R. Yehuda Ha-Nasi, who, like the Rambam and Karo, felt obligated to write his code because of geopolitical exigencies.

[3] Later in life, of course, he also wrote a commentary to Mishne Torah that provided the sources for Rambam’s rulings.

[4] There obviously exist many differences between Rambam and Karo.  The comparison merely serves as an analogy to help understand the legal significance of Magid Mesharim.

[5] Chalamish (87-88) notes that the magid’s exhortation of Karo for failing in this requirement deeply impacted him to the point where he repeats this law three times in Bet Yosef.  Yet as Chalamish himself ntoes, Karo introduces the din as a case when common practice has demanded punctiliousness (pashat ha-minhag”), and not that the law bears tremendous significance.  Once again, the influence of the magid’s ruling remains ambiguous.

[6] It is possible that the work is organized around the parshiyot, and not chronologically, because the publisher viewed its most significant contribution to be its novel interpretations of halakha.

[7] Including for suffering and sexual sins.

[8] Halamish (90) incorrectly attributes to the magid the extreme Kabbalistic position prohibiting conversion.  A careful examination of the passage (Magid 391) clearly indicates that Karo forbids conversion when the prospective convert desires to marry a Jew, as SA Y.D. 268:12 ordains.

Taking an individual who comes from humble beginnings as well as from a despised national group and transforming him into someone who others will perceive as capable of leading and ruling, is the challenge confronting Pharoah vis-à-vis Yosef in Parashat Miketz.[1] While Pharoah astutely perceives Yosef’s formidable abilities to administer Egypt during the prophetically predicted famine, he nevertheless has to overcome Yosef’s recent history of being first a Hebrew slave compounded by his then becoming a prison inmate accused and convicted of making overtures towards his master’s wife. Won’t the Egyptians quite naturally be inclined to dismiss any of Yosef’s directives or actions as those of a person who exists at best on the periphery of society and therefore not entitled to rule?

Strategies employed by Pharoah to achieve this aim

The text mentions a number of specific tactics that Pharoah adopts to supply Yosef with a new persona in order to cover-up his immediate past:

Beraishit 41:42-3, 45

1) And Pharoah removed the ring from upon his finger, and placed it on Yosef’s hand;

2) and he dressed him in linen garments;

3) and he placed a golden chain around his neck.

4) And he (Pharoah) caused him (Yosef) to mount the chariot of the second-in-command that he possessed;[2]

5) and they called out before him “Avrech”[3] and he was placed in charge of the entire land of Egypt…

6) And he called Yosef’s name “Tsofnat Pane’ach”;

7) and he gave him Osnat, daughter of Poti Phera, Priest of Ohn for a wife, and Yosef went out over the land of Egypt.

While most of the changes imposed by Pharoah upon Yoseph are essentially external, i.e., matters of dress, ornamentation, public proclamation and transportation, the final two alterations mentioned in the verses cited above focusing upon Yosef’s name and marital status, appear more substantial and existential.

The implications of a name change

Jewish tradition views name changes whereby an individual decides[4] that either he or someone else is to be referred to differently going forward from how he has been known in the past, as extremely meaningful. According to the following Midrash, whether one preserves his name or not is indicative of the degree that one is loyal to his past and to family and cultural tradition, and rejects opportunities to assimilate into the majority society.

VaYikra Rabba 32:5

R. Huna said in the name of R. Kappara: Because of four things were the Jewish people redeemed from Egypt:

1)  They did not change their names,

2)  their language,

3)  they did not speak badly of one another,

and   4)  there was not found among them an individual who engaged insexual immorality.

“They did not change their names”–

Reuven (Beraishit 29:32) and Shimon (Ibid. 33) were their given names, and Reuven  (Shemot 6:14) and Shimon (Ibid. 15) were the names with which they left Egypt.

They did not call Yehuda “Rofeh” (doctor?),[5]^,[6]

Nor did they call Reuven “Luliani”

Nor Yosef “Lastis”

Nor Binyamin “Aleksandri”…

Whereas VaYikra Rabba emphasizes the positive aspects of preserving one’s given name, the Talmud discusses a context in which changing one’s name reflects positively upon one’s spiritual growth, and the rejection of a life associated with transgression.

Rosh HaShana 16b

R. Yitzchak said: Four things cancel the evil decree against a person (i.e., punishment for his/her iniquities):

1) Charity;

2) Crying out (prayer);

3) Changing one’s name;[7]^,[8]

and    4) Changing one’s actions.

There are also those who say:

5) Changing one’s location/environment.

In another historical instance related by the Talmud, people cease referring to an individual by his given name as a result of his embarking on a life of iniquity.

Chagiga 14b-15a

The Rabbis taught: Four men entered the “Pardes” (lit. orchard/garden):[9] Ben Azai, Ben Zoma, “Acher” (lit. “the other”, a reference to Elisha ben Avuya who had formerly been a colleague of the other three) and R. Akiva…

Ben Azai looked and died…

Ben Zoma looked and became demented…

“Acher” uprooted the “shoots growing from the ground” (a metaphor for detaching himself from Jewish tradition in some fundamental manner).

R. Akiva departed (the Pardes) unscathed…

What does it refer to (i.e., what happened to “Acher”)? He saw that permission was granted to Matatron[10] to sit[11] and write down the merits of Israel.[12]

He (“Acher”) said: It is taught as a tradition that in Heaven there is no sitting, no competition,[13] no back,[14] and no weariness (hence, no need for sitting).[15] Perhaps, God Forbid, there are two deities,[16] as it were…

A “Bat Kol” (a Voice from Heaven) Issued forth and declared: (Yirmiyahu 3:22) “Return, you sinning children—with the exception of ‘Acher!’”[17]

Thereupon he said: Since I have lost the World to Come, let me enjoy the World of the Here-and-Now.

So “Acher” went out and engaged in sin.

He went out, found a prostitute and inquired regarding her services.

She said to him: Are you not Elisha ben Avuya?

But when he tore a radish out of the ground on Shabbat[18] and gave it to her, she said: “This is ‘Acher’ (lit. another, someone else).”

One could suggest that when Pharoah renames Yosef, he is attempting to achieve similar objectives to those reflected in these three sources, i.e., a) he wished to give Yosef either a new name or at least an official title that would obliterate any traces of his Hebrew name associated with his lowly past and his ethnic origins,[19] b) that such a new name would serve to prevent people from dredging up memories of the crime that he had been accused of by Mrs. Potiphar,[20] and c) perhaps such a name/title  would allow him easy entrée into the Egyptian lifestyle that certainly was less restrictive morally and ritually than the manner in which he had lived until this point.

Enhancing Yosef’s status via marriage

Just as significant as Yosef’s name change, is his arranged marriage to Osnat. What was Pharoah hoping additionally to accomplish by means of this act? One relevant issue to Pharoah’s thinking revolves around a debate among Biblical commentators as to whether Osnat’s father, “Poti Phera” (45:41), is identical to “Potiphar”, Yosef’s original master when he first arrives in Egypt (39:1 ff.) Aside from the difference in the form of the name—it first appears as a single word, and later as two words)—the difference in profession, he is first identified as the Head of the Butchers/Executioners, and now as the Priest of Ohn, has to be accounted for if the contention is to be made that they are one and the same individual. RaMBaN suggests the most creative approach to resolving this apparent inconsistency, when he writes that just as Mrs. Potiphar was attracted to Yosef due to his exceptional physical appearance, Mr. Potiphar also made homosexual advances towards him. Rabbinic tradition in Sota 13b and Beraishit Rabba #86 maintains that it was because of these overtures that Potiphar became a “Saris” (impotent)[21]^,[22]—see 39:1—due to Divine Intervention in order that Yosef would not be attacked.[23]^,[24] Potiphar was so mortified over what he had attempted to do, that he renounced his former life, including his wife, and became a Priest, in effect his name change constituting another example of the passage in Rosh HaShana listed above, where the penitent identifies himself going forward as “someone else”.

Accepting the premise that Yosef’s first master eventually becomes his father-in-law, why would Pharoah think that this will help solidify Yosef’s ruling position? Chizkuni and Da’at Zekeinim MiBa’alei HaTosafot maintain that by marrying Potiphar’s daughter, Yosef silences a potential critic. (They obviously would not accept RaMBaN’s contention that Potiphar had become a penitent.) Had Yosef married someone else, either his first master or his master’s wife could have at any time brought up the earlier scandal and undercut Yosef’s authority significantly. However, now that they had the welfare of their daughter to think about they would be far more reticent about revisiting the past. Furthermore, by marrying Osnat, Yosef is tacitly demonstrating that he was innocent of the charges leveled against him by Mrs. Potiphar, who would most certainly not have allowed him to marry her daughter had he actually tried to make advances towards the mother.

However, even if we maintain that Potiphar and Poti Phera are two different people, marrying Osnat is still a shrewd move in terms of helping Yosef in his new political position. Abravanel, a reliable source for gaining insight into how a king might think in light of his extensive experience actually dealing with the likes of the royal houses of Spain, Portugal and Italy, suggests that by marrying Yosef off to an important, high-ranking Egyptian family, his wife’s relatives could be relied upon to give Yosef advice and assistance regarding how to effect the directives that he wished to institute. R. Hirsch, rather than focusing upon the “Protektsia” issue, reflects upon Yosef being married altogether and the effects that such a state will have in terms of his properly ruling, in contrast to his having remained single.

R. S.R. Hirsch on 41:45

…Even today the public are somewhat shy of placing their confidence in a bachelor. Added to this, the task which was to be entrusted to Yosef would be furthered if he himself had a wife and family. If the people agreed to restrict themselves wisely during the seven years of plenty there could be enough for thirty-five years. If senseless squandering took place, death from famine would ensue. Yosef was to exercise this wholesome and necessary control. He would have the most beneficial influence if he, the first in the land, set the example of simple living in his house and family life. But for that a wife and family were necessary. A single man without wife and family is not felt to be so intimately together with the general public at times of stress and anxious worry, but with wife and children, even if he is prince or king, he participates in the trouble of the people.[25]

Changing Yosef’s outwards appearance but not his inner soul and existential identity

It is interesting to reflect upon how one can alter his/her identity by techniques represented in the story of Yosef. Pharoah was obviously successful in helping Yosef gain credibility and authority to the point where he was able to guide Egypt through difficult times, while at the same time furthering HaShem’s Grand Plan for Jewish history and the redemption of His People. Perhaps the most telling phrase of this entire section of the story of Yosef is the end of 41:45, where after all that takes place and the changes that are made, in the final analysis, “…VaYetzei Yosef Al Eretz Mitzrayim”, or as RaShI puts it in his comment to Shemot 1:5, “And all of Yaakov’s offspring were 70 souls and Yosef was in Egypt”—“…This is to make known the righteousness of Yosef; he is Yosef who shepherded his father’s flocks; he is Yosef who was in Egypt, was made king and maintained his righteousness throughout.” Yosef may have looked different and he may have traveled in different circles, but in the final analysis, Yosef remained the same.

Ibn Ezra on Shemot 2:3

…And the plans of HaShem Run deep, and who is able to discern their Foundations?
And He Alone Directs His Plans. Perhaps HaShem Made it come about that Moshe would be raised in the palace of Pharoah, in order that his soul would rise to a high level for educational purposes and accustoming him to the outlook of royalty, and avoiding his being lowly and accustomed to servitude. Consider that he killed the Egyptian when Moshe perceived that he was engaged in immoral violence. He also saved the Moabite shepherdesses from the shepherds who were treating them violently, while they were attempting to water their flocks with the water that they had drawn. Furthermore, if he had grown up among his brethren, and they would have been familiar with him from his youth, they would not have feared him, because they would have considered him one of them.

[2] The components of Yosef’s external appearance very much parallel what Achashveirosh does on behalf of Mordechai when the king decides to reward his subject for having saved his life from the hands of two assassins:

Esther 6:8-9

1) (clothing) Let there be brought royal garments that the king has worn;

2) (transportation) And a horse that the king has ridden upon;

3) (ornamentation) And let a royal crown be placed upon his head…

4) (proclamation)…And let there be called before him, “This is what is done on behalf of a person whom the king wishes to honor.”

[3] The term is difficult to understand. The general connotation is a summons for obeisance. Among the hypotheses for its particular meaning are: a) father to the king; b) a father in wisdom but soft/young in years; c) someone to whom everyone must feel subjugated; d) an expression calling upon all those present to bow down; e) an individual bringing blessing into the midst of the land.

[4] Obviously when HaShem Changes someone’s name, as in the cases of Avraham (Beraishit 17:5), Sara (Ibid. 15) and Yaakov (Ibid. 32:29; 35:10), there is profound significance. This essay is more concerned about name changes that come about purely by human choice.

[5] This specific example suggests that not only an actual name change, but even when a person insists upon being known by a particular title, could constitute a denial of the origins of one’s identity. However most commentaries understand this word as a Latin translation of the Hebrew name, in keeping with the other examples that are given in the Midrash. See the next footnote.

[6] While some commentators on the Midrash suggest connections between Yehuda and “Rofeh” and Reuven and “Luliani”, Eitz Yosef reverses these two examples, i.e., Reuven is connected with “Rofeh” or “Rufus”, and Yehuda with “Lulianus”. The commentator speculates that “Rofeh” might be a shortened version of Reuven, or, in my opinion more interestingly, the Latin term based upon the color of the precious stone in the High Priest’s breastplate representing this particular tribe—a RUBY (perhaps the Midrash’s example should then be read “Ropeh”? ) (See Shemot 28:17; 39:10). If the latter is the case, then the nickname that is given is quite sophisticated Jewishly, but nevertheless an obliteration of the original Hebrew given name which in turn could lead to loss of Jewish identity and assimilation. Several examples that exchange Hebrew for Yiddish are still extent, as “Dov Baer”, “Zev Volf” and “Tzvi Hirsch”. However, since both names are often used together, and Yiddish is clearly a Jewish language, the same concerns are probably not relevant. The commentator adds in a similar vein that “Lulianus” is Latin for lion, a reference to the tribe of Yehuda’s association with lions in Yaakov’s blessing to the tribe’s progenitor in Beraishit 49:9.

[7] It is interesting to note that when the Talmud quotes R. Yitzchak’s proof text for the efficaciousness of changing one’s name in terms of the process of repentance, it is Beraishit 17:15—“As for Sarai your wife, you shall no longer call her Sarai, but Sara will be her name. And I will Bless her and cause her to conceive a child with you.” While it could be argued that just as the change in Sara’s name indicates a change in her status, going from one who objectively would remain childless to one who had the ability to conceive, nevertheless, such a verse implies a certain supernatural aspect to the name change, i.e., without God Standing behind such a change, it would not reflect anything different about the individual. R. Yitzchak’s overall comment appears to emphasize that which is incumbent upon an individual in order to repent, as opposed to what will be Divinely Done to someone in order to catalyze a change in his/her status. Should one conclude that R. Yitzchak is subtly suggesting that repentance can only take place with Divine Assistance, as indicated by Yoma 38b:

Resh Lakish said: What is the meaning of: (Mishlei 3:34) “If it concerneth the scorners He Scorneth them, but unto the humble He Giveth grace”? i.e., if a man comes to defile himself, the doors are opened to him, but if he comes to purify himself, he is helped. In the school of R. Ishmael it was taught: It is as when a man sells naphtha and balm : If [a purchaser] comes to measure naphtha, he [the shopkeeper] says to him: Measure it out for yourself; but to one who would measure out balm he says: Wait, till I measure together with you, so that both I and you, may become perfumed.

[8] RITVA explains why a name change is important to being a “Ba’al Teshuva” (a penitent):

Changing one’s name reflects that he is no longer the individual who regularly committed transgressions in order that people will not remember him  for evil (thinking of this person’s name should not automatically cause people to curse or recall his misdeeds). Furthermore, the individual by means of the name change, is able to free himself from the horoscope that was associated with his past, as in the case of Avraham (the name changes of Avraham and Sara symbolized that they were no longer limited by being childless, as the astrological readings for Avram and Sarai had seemed to indicate).

[9] Clearly “Pardes” is a metaphor. However, it is unclear as to what it truly means. Some claim they explored mystical ideas; others ideas in philosophy and theology.

[10] The chief angel of God, Given maximum responsibility of all of the Heavenly Hosts. An Aggadic view cited in Bava Batra 121b is that Matatron originally was Chanoch, who rather than dying, was “Taken” by God—see Beraishit 5:24.

[11] Angels are always depicted as standing. Therefore, if Matatron is sitting, he must have been Given some extraordinary status vis-à-vis HaShem, or he must be something comparable to God Himself, if that were possible. This latter conclusion was the one drawn by “Acher”, leading to his apostasy.

[12] This is a reference to what Rosh HaShana 32b states takes place each Rosh HaShana, when the Books of Life and Death are open, and each person is inscribed in one or the other for the coming year.

[13] All angels should be given the same privileges and abilities. If one angel stands out from the rest,
Acher” questions whether he may be more than a mere angel.

[14] One should only be able to see the faces of the angels, not their backs. Seeing Matatron’s back again leads “Acher” to the conclusion that he was inappropriately greater than the rest of the angels. See for e.g., Shemot 34:33.

[15] If sitting is unnecessary in terms of relieving a tired feeling because the Heavenly Host was never supposed to tire, then this type of body language is symbolic of status, and places the sitter in a superior position as compared to those who are required to stand, similar to a king who sits on a throne, while his subjects are made to stand out of deference to him.

[16] When considering the historical context during which “Acher” lived, i.e., the Roman occupation of Palestine and the cruel persecution of Jews and Judaism, one can understand how he might have employed the belief in dualism to address the most difficult of theological problems, namely theodicy or “Tzaddik VeRa Lo” (why do bad things happen to a righteous person?)

[17] I have always wondered whether there actually was such a “Bat Kol”, or whether this was a figment of “Acher”’s imagination, arising from either his conviction that he could not resume his traditional beliefs once again, or a justification for not attempting to do so.

[18] Thereby deliberately violating the Primary Category of “Melacha” (physical creative activity) of “Kotzer” (harvesting), and demonstrating that he is not observant of Jewish law.

[19] There is a significant dispute among the Biblical commentators regarding whether “Tzophnat Pa’aneach” is Hebrew or Egyptian. While the Targumim, RaShI, RaMBaN, Ibn Kaspi and NeTzIV maintain that the term was Hebrew, RaShBaM, Bechor Shor, Abrabanel, Chatam Sopher, ShaDaL and R. Hirsch insist that it is Egyptian. (ShaDaL claims that it means “Hieronymus, savior of the world”!) Naturally from the point of view of giving Yosef a “new identity”, it would make more sense for him to now be referred to in Egyptian. Chatam Sofer even mentions that had Yosef been given a Hebrew title, this would have aroused the suspicions of his brothers when they first come to Egypt, and the entire trial to which they are subjected could never have been administered. Consequently, it was “Min HaShamayim” (lit. from Heaven, i.e., by Divine Decree) that Pharoah would choose to refer to his new second-in-command in Egyptian. RaMBaN takes a counter view when he contends that it would be that much more honor for Yosef for him to be known by a Hebrew title, indicating his acceptance into the ruling Egyptian classes, despite his Hebrew origins. Ibn Ezra reflects a historical dilemma when he states that if the term is a translation of the Egyptian into Hebrew, we don’t know what Yosef was actually called by Pharoah, and if these words are in fact Egyptian, then we don’t really know what they mean, since we cannot expect that ancient Egyptian and Hebrew would necessarily share cognates. Perhaps this is why Da’at Zekeinim MiBa’alei Tosafot resorts to looking at these two words as an acronym (“Tzadik Pitpeit Neged Ta’avato Potiphar Ina Nafsho Chinam” [a righteous individual successfully struggles against his Evil Inclination; Potiphar afflicted him for no reason]) while Ba’al HaTurim approaches their meaning via “Gimatria” (“Tzadee”=90; “Peh”=80; “Nun”=50; “Taf”=400; “Peh”=80; “Ayin”=70; “Nun”=50; “Chet”=8 = 828 which is equivalent to “Megaleh Nistarim” [who reveals that which is hidden] “Mem”=40; “Gimel”=3; “Lamed”=30; “Heh”=5; “Nun”=50; “Samech”=60; “Taf”=400; “Reish”=200; “Mem”=40 = 828. [Purists will object to the latter computation “working” only when the word “Nistarim” is written “Chaser”, i.e., in a reduced form, lacking a “Yud” that would ordinarily come between the “Reish” and the “MeM” and would then add another 10 to the total.])

A similar problem exists with respect to Moshe’s name in Shemot 2:10, i.e., although the Bible offers an interpretation for the name that makes sense in Hebrew—“Min HaMayim Mishiteihu” (from the water I drew him out), there are many commentators who claim that the name is actually an Egyptian one, and that the Bible is simply making a pun when it interprets “Moshe” through a Hebrew lense. On the one hand, Pharoah’s daughter, realizing that he was a Jewish child may have wanted to honor his origins by actually giving him a Hebrew name, in terms of his being able to pass relatively unnoticed growing up in the royal palace until the day that he goes out and kills the Egyptian taskmaster, it would make more sense that he had an actual Egyptian name. Of course, a middle course could maintain that Bat Pharoah’s name for the foundling was one that she used with him privately, and that in public he had an actual Egyptian name.

[20] As opposed to only covering up past shortcomings, MaLBIM on 41:45 suggests that Pharoah was positively advertising to all that Yosef was a “man of God” and therefore either guiltless of the accusations or a true penitent:

“…He (Yosef) reveals hidden secrets (“Tzophnat”—that which is “Tzaphun”, hidden; “Pa’aneach”—to decode, reveal) by means of the Spirit of God which is upon him. He has within him a Divine Spirit. For this reason he gave to him the daughter of the High Priest (Osnat bat Potiphar Kohen Ohn) because in this manner everyone would believe that he is a man of God…”

[21] The term “Saris” can also be interpreted as meaning a servant/courtier. It is likely that in royal courts where there were extensive harems, a requirement for a man to serve in such an environment was that he would undergo treatment or an operation that would render him impotent. However, it is not necessary to assume that this was always the case.

[22] If Potiphar and Poti Phera are one and the same, and if “Saris” suggests impotence, then in order for Osnat to actually be his biological daughter—naturally if she were adopted as maintained by some sources in ChaZaL, there is no problem—he came to this state later in life.

The assumption that Osnat in fact was a foundling left on the doorstep of Mr. and Mrs. Potiphar, is utilized by ChaZaL in order to avoid another issue, i.e., did Yoseph marry an Egyptian woman? Were Osnat in fact the daughter of Dina and Shechem who was abandoned in Egypt, then Yosef does in fact marry someone other than a Canaanite or Egyptian. Although in two earlier essays on Parashat VaYeishev (http://www.kmsynagogue.org/RabbiSpeeches/5764/VaYeshev.html http://www.kmsynagogue.org/RabbiSpeeches/5766/VaYeshev2.html ) the difficulty of Yaakov’s sons apparently marrying Canaanite women was discussed, there may have been greater objections to someone marrying an Egyptian instead of a Canaanite (although according to those who claim that Sara gave Hagar to Avraham as an actual wife, as well as the view that Ketura was Hagar, Avraham marries an Egyptian!) Or perhaps because of Yosef’s being known as “Yosef HaTzaddik” (Yosef the righteous)—see http://text.rcarabbis.org/parashat-vayeishev-a-powerful-adolescent-commitment-to-righteousness-by-yaakov-bieler/ –a higher level of conduct is expected of him than of the rest of the brothers.

[23] The paradigm for such an assertion is what happens to Pharoah and Avimelech when they attempt to be intimate with Sara in Beraishit 12:17 and 20:4, 7, 17, 18.

[24] It is clear that Yosef spending time in prison is part of the Divine Plan, in order that he is eventually noticed by Pharoah and given the opportunity to prepare Egypt for the arrival of the rest of his family. Perhaps the reason why Yosef’s incarceration comes as a result of his resisting Mrs. Potiphar’s advances, rather than those of her husband, is because Mr. Potiphar was embarrassed to publicly discuss this matter in light of his having brought Yosef into his home, whereas Mrs. Potiphar could more virtuously maintain that she was an innocent victim of an unprovoked attack.

[25] See RaShI on 41:50, based upon Ta’anit 11a. R. Hirsch’s commentary can also be used to explain the Halacha of the requirement for a “Shliach Tzibur” (the individual who leads prayers) during the “Yomim Noraim” (the days of Awe, i.e., Rosh HaShana and Yom HaKippurim) appearing in Shulchan Aruch, Orach Chayim 581:1.