Yithro

This parsha has a definite centerpiece: the Ten Commandments: the most widely accepted (catholic?) text in the Bible. These are the statements/laws that were directly communicated by Gd to Moses and Israel and  set in stone. This parsha marks a transition in style. Up until now, the Torah told a story. Now, the style changes to legalisms and details.

Yithro is a story that sets the stage for that transition. It begins with Yithro, Moses’ gentile father-in-law approaching Moses and the newly victorious and  liberated people. He comes with the wife and children that Moses had abandoned to advance the story of the Exodus.

 Yithro had been the righteous father, father-in-law and grandfather. He had sustained the abandoned family. The behavior of Moshe demonstrates the problem of conflicting goals. Moshe  abandoned his wife and children to liberate the Israelites. I can conceive of a law that would make that behavior a crime. The circumstances dictated that the rule that a man support his spouse and family had to  be bent. The problem with rigid law is revealed by the story. 

Now, after the Israelite victory over Egypt, Yithro sees Moshe consumed by the impossible task of judging the nation all day. Yithro recognizes that this situation is not viable. It will kill Moshe and make the people disgusted. 

Yithro proposes a novel approach. Announce a set of laws.

וְהִזְהַרְתָּ֣ה אֶתְהֶ֔ם אֶת־הַחֻקִּ֖ים וְאֶת־הַתּוֹרֹ֑ת וְהוֹדַעְתָּ֣ לָהֶ֗ם אֶת־הַדֶּ֙רֶךְ֙ יֵ֣לְכוּ בָ֔הּ וְאֶת־הַֽמַּעֲשֶׂ֖ה אֲשֶׁ֥ר יַעֲשֽׂוּן׃

and enjoin upon them the laws and the teachings, and make known to them the way they are to go and the practices they are to follow.

This is a move from intuitive judgment to laws that will be set in stone. The problem is that laws set in stone are not perfectly sensitive to the situations in which they are applied. The law is not enough. A system  of judges is still needed. But the law assures that everyone works within the same set of rules. The law builds confidence in the hierarchical judicial system that is credited to Yithro

וְאַתָּ֣ה תֶחֱזֶ֣ה מִכׇּל־הָ֠עָ֠ם אַנְשֵׁי־חַ֜יִל יִרְאֵ֧י אֱ

אַנְשֵׁ֥י אֱמֶ֖ת שֹׂ֣נְאֵי בָ֑צַע וְשַׂמְתָּ֣ עֲלֵהֶ֗ם שָׂרֵ֤י אֲלָפִים֙ שָׂרֵ֣י מֵא֔וֹת שָׂרֵ֥י חֲמִשִּׁ֖ים וְשָׂרֵ֥י עֲשָׂרֹֽת׃ 

You shall also seek out, from among all the people, those who are capable and who fear Gd—trustworthy ones who spurn ill-gotten gain. Set these over them as chiefs of thousands, hundreds, fifties, and tens, and  

וְשָׁפְט֣וּ אֶת־הָעָם֮ בְּכׇל־עֵת֒ וְהָיָ֞ה כׇּל־הַדָּבָ֤ר הַגָּדֹל֙ יָבִ֣יאוּ אֵלֶ֔יךָ וְכׇל־הַדָּבָ֥ר הַקָּטֹ֖ן יִשְׁפְּטוּ־הֵ֑ם וְהָקֵל֙ מֵֽעָלֶ֔יךָ וְנָשְׂא֖וּ אִתָּֽךְ׃ 

let them judge the people at all times. Have them bring every major dispute to you, but let them decide every minor dispute themselves. Make it easier for yourself by letting them share the burden with you.

When the Israelites were preparing to receive the Torah, there is a hint that  they wanted to hear it directly from Gd.  The people tell Moshe: We will do everything that Gd says.

כֹּ֛ל אֲשֶׁר־דִּבֶּ֥ר יְ

Rashi's comment on the next sentence: 

את דברי העם וגו'. תְּשׁוּבָה עַל דָּבָר זֶה; שָׁמַעְתִּי מֵהֶם שֶׁרְצוֹנָם לִשְׁמֹעַ מִמְּךָ, אֵינוֹ דּוֹמֶה הַשּׁוֹמֵעַ מִפִּי שָׁלִיחַ לַשּׁוֹמֵעַ מִפִּי הַמֶּלֶךְ, רְצוֹנֵנוּ לִרְאוֹת אֶת מַלְכֵּנוּ (מכילתא): 

את דברי העם וגו׳ THE WORDS OF THE PEOPLE etc. — He said to Gd: “I have heard from them a reply to this statement — that their desire is to hear the commandments from You and not from me. One who hears from the mouth of a messenger is not the same (in the same position) as one who hears directly from the mouth of the King himself. It is our wish to see our King (cf. Mekhilta).

Ultimately the people are too terrified to continue this process and ask Moshe to bring them the Law in a human way. The law could have undermined the system of judges. The experience at Sinai demonstrates the necessity of human intervention.

This week, daf yomi (Menochoth 29b) tells a story that reflects on another  problem in a law set in stone: times change. 

 מַר רַב יְהוּדָה, אָמַר רַב: בְּשָׁעָה שֶׁעָלָה מֹשֶׁה לַמָּרוֹם, מְצָאוֹ לְהַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא שֶׁיּוֹשֵׁב וְקוֹשֵׁר כְּתָרִים לָאוֹתִיּוֹת, אָמַר לְפָנָיו: רִבּוֹנוֹ שֶׁל עוֹלָם, מִי מְעַכֵּב עַל יָדֶךָ? אָמַר לוֹ: אָדָם אֶחָד יֵשׁ שֶׁעָתִיד לִהְיוֹת בְּסוֹף כַּמָּה דּוֹרוֹת וַעֲקִיבָא בֶּן יוֹסֵף שְׁמוֹ, שֶׁעָתִיד לִדְרוֹשׁ עַל כׇּל קוֹץ וָקוֹץ תִּילִּין תִּילִּין שֶׁל הֲלָכוֹת. 

§ Rav Yehuda says that Rav says: When Moses ascended on High, he found the Holy One, Blessed be He, sitting and tying crowns on the letters of the Torah. Moses said before God: Master of the Universe, who is preventing You from giving the Torah without these additions? God said to him: There is a man who is destined to be born after several generations, and Akiva ben Yosef is his name; he is destined to derive from each and every thorn of these crowns mounds upon mounds of halakhot. It is for his sake that the crowns must be added to the letters of the Torah.

When the Almighty was writing the law, Gd attached crowns to the letters, symbols that Moshe would not be able to interpret; but Rabbi Akiva, generations later, would use these thorns to interpret the law, presumably for his time. 

This fascinating Aggadah (Talmud story) goes on to reveal the mysterious and dangerous nature of the Divine plan. The Divine plan was probably the context in which the authors of the Talmud saw the law.

Does justice depend on the circumstances? Some situations call for creative solutions, but the boundaries demand respect.

 Beshalach: 

Miracles abound in this week's parsha. The Hebrew root נס, nes, is scattered through the parsha, with a variety of meanings. 

 וַיֹּ֣אמֶר מִצְרַ֗יִם אָנ֙וּסָה֙ מִפְּנֵ֣י יִשְׂרָאֵ֔ל

Miżrayim said, Let us flee ( anusah) from the face of Yisra᾽el; 

וַיָּ֨שׇׁב הַיָּ֜ם לִפְנ֥וֹת בֹּ֙קֶר֙ לְאֵ֣יתָנ֔וֹ וּמִצְרַ֖יִם נָסִ֣ים לִקְרָאת֑וֹ

and the sea returned to its strength when the morning appeared; and Miżrayim fled(nasim) towards it;

In these instances, the word is translated as running, flight. I am sure that is correct, but as a non-native Hebrew speaker, I recognize a cognate word: אנס, anos a word that implies compulsion, entrapment. Certainly the Egyptians who were about to be engulfed by the sea's return to its former, natural state were trapped and forced to drown. 

The relationship between entrapment and flight seems appropriate to me. Flight is the natural reaction to impending danger and אנס,anos, implies a dangerous entrapment, a rape. 

Several times, the phoneme, the sound fragment נס, nes, is used to mean a trial, a test: 

 וַיּוֹרֵ֤הוּ יְ

 עֵ֔ץ וַיַּשְׁלֵךְ֙ אֶל־הַמַּ֔יִם וַֽיִּמְתְּק֖וּ הַמָּ֑יִם שָׁ֣ם שָׂ֥ם ל֛וֹ חֹ֥ק וּמִשְׁפָּ֖ט וְשָׁ֥ם נִסָּֽהוּ׃ 

So he cried out to GD, and GD showed him a piece of wood; he threw it into the water and the water became sweet.

There a fixed rule was made for them; there they were put to the test (nisahu):

The test is not specified. This test might have been in the past. This sentence is the culmination of a story. Immediately after the drowning of the Egyptian army in the sea that had come together again, after the most miraculous splitting, the people came to Marah, a place named for the bitter water there. They grumbled and murmured against Moshe. Gd answered Moshe's entreaty by showing him a piece of wood. When the wood was added to the water, the water sweetened. Was the test concealed in these events? Was the test when the people  confronted bitter water, and they reacted by murmuring, and thus received a rather low grade ( Rashi's take)?  

The word נס, nes, meaning  banner  is inside the נִסָּֽהוּ׃, nisahu, the word we have been translating as test. That evokes the idea that the problem of the bitter water and the solution of the wood ( pointed out to Moshe by Gd)  was a demonstration. It was a miracle: an unexpected positive outcome; a rescue from a desperate circumstance. Gd had shown Moshe the wood, so we know where to attribute the credit. Gd had miracled the people. This is how seemingly  impossible problems will be solved: by a combination of faith, knowledge and human effort. 

The manna, the wonderous food from heaven, was another test/miracle. When the people complain about starvation, Gd says to Moshe: 

הִנְנִ֨י מַמְטִ֥יר לָכֶ֛ם לֶ֖חֶם מִן־הַשָּׁמָ֑יִם וְיָצָ֨א הָעָ֤ם וְלָֽקְטוּ֙ דְּבַר־י֣וֹם בְּיוֹמ֔וֹ לְמַ֧עַן אֲנַסֶּ֛נּוּ הֲיֵלֵ֥ךְ בְּתוֹרָתִ֖י אִם־לֹֽא׃ 

And GOD said to Moses, “I will rain down bread for you from the sky, and the people shall go out and gather each day that day’s portion—that I may thus test them, to see whether they will follow My instructions or not.

Rashi says that the test would be whether or not they follow the rules ( Shabbath, no left overs [generally]).  Ibn Ezra and Ramban emphasize the daily dependence on a miracle. I think they are making the association with the miracle meaning of nes. We lives thanks to unappreciated miracles every day. [I have taken many tests, and I have always felt that miracles contributed to my good grades. They generally ask the right questions]

The story of the lack of water in Refidim, which culminates with Moshe obtaining water from the rock  (this is not the bad one) is disturbing. 

וְאֵ֥ין מַ֖יִם לִשְׁתֹּ֥ת הָעָֽם׃

and there was no water for the people to drink.

יָּ֤רֶב הָעָם֙ עִם־מֹשֶׁ֔ה וַיֹּ֣אמְר֔וּ תְּנוּ־לָ֥נוּ מַ֖יִם וְנִשְׁתֶּ֑ה וַיֹּ֤אמֶר לָהֶם֙ מֹשֶׁ֔ה מַה־תְּרִיבוּן֙ עִמָּדִ֔י מַה־תְּנַסּ֖וּן אֶת־יְ

he people quarreled with Moses. “Give us water to drink,” they said; and Moses replied to them, “Why do you quarrel with me? Why do you try[test] GD?”

What kind of question is that? 

The 19th and 20th century commentators (Netziv, etc) make the story palatable by claiming that the Israelites were not actually dying of thirst. They had water, but they were worried about the future in a parched desert. There may be details in the text that support this position, and it may be correct, but this reaction to a valid concern seems harsh. Is it presumptuous to call out for salvation in a time of grave distress? Sometimes a miracle is needed! Perhaps the message is that a person needs to be careful about how that person asks for help. It is another test. 

The last usage of  נס, nes, is after the [partial] victory over Amalek, the eternal enemy of Israel

וַיִּ֥בֶן מֹשֶׁ֖ה מִזְבֵּ֑חַ וַיִּקְרָ֥א שְׁמ֖וֹ יְ

נִסִּֽי׃

And Moshe built an altar, and called the name of it the Lord is my Banner (nisi)

After a battle fought with soldiers, in which the Israelites prevailed only as long as Moshe's arms were raising the staff, Moshe confers the credit on Gd. All of the meanings converge. Gd performed a miracle (nes). Gd (and the situation) tested (nes) me, in that I had to keep the staff raised beyond my own strength. Gd forced (anas)  the people into this difficult situation. 

Miracles need collaborations between the Almighty and the puny human. It is always difficult when we are forced (anas) into these situations. The natural reaction would be to flee (nes). When it turns out well, it is a banner (nes) moment. We have passed the test (nes). 

Bo: the Battle with Technology

The story in this parsha is familiar. It is the story of the Exodus from Egypt. The retelling of the story is the core of the Passover seder, the ritual meal that reunites and joins that family to the Jewish people.

The prohibition of leavened bread is a key ingredient in the Passover observance.

The Torah says

כִּ֣י ׀ כׇּל־אֹכֵ֣ל חָמֵ֗ץ וְנִכְרְתָ֞ה הַנֶּ֤פֶשׁ הַהִוא֙ מִיִּשְׂרָאֵ֔ל

for whoever eats leavened bread ... that person shall be cut off from Israel.

The rejection of leavened bread on Passover is a deep, fundamental act. Many Reform Jews, who do not keep kosher, would never eat leavened on Passover. Chametz (leavened food) is a very different prohibition from the ban on pork. To eat leavened bread on Passover is to be cut off from Israel, to have left the people.

The penalty for eating leavened on Passover is a type of Divinely administered capital punishment, כְרְתָ֞, kareth. The ancient tabulators of the Torah counted 613 mitzvoth (commandments) . Only 36 are punished with Kareth. Partaking of the Passover ritual and male circumcision are the only two positive commandments that warrant this severe kareth punishment. Currently, since the destruction of the Temple in Jerusalem ( 70 CE), eating matzoh (unleavened bread) on the night of Passover constitutes the fulfillment of that commandment (and the protection from kareth).

Why are the prohibition on chametz ( leavened food) and the associated eating of matzoh (unleavened bread) so important? Why is this abstinence from leavened food (for a week) an act that is required for membership in the nation (and spares those who partake from an untimely death)?

Many conceptual symbols are attached to matzah. In Deuteronomy (16;3) when the Passover ritual is recalled, matzoh is assigned two meanings:

לֹא־תֹאכַ֤ל עָלָיו֙ חָמֵ֔ץ שִׁבְעַ֥ת יָמִ֛ים תֹּֽאכַל־עָלָ֥יו מַצּ֖וֹת לֶ֣חֶם עֹ֑נִי כִּ֣י בְחִפָּז֗וֹן יָצָ֙אתָ֙ מֵאֶ֣רֶץ מִצְרַ֔יִם לְמַ֣עַן תִּזְכֹּ֗ר אֶת־י֤וֹם צֵֽאתְךָ֙ מֵאֶ֣רֶץ מִצְרַ֔יִם כֹּ֖ל יְמֵ֥י חַיֶּֽיךָ׃


You shall not eat anything leavened with it; for seven days thereafter you shall eat unleavened bread, bread of distress—for you departed from the land of Egypt hurriedly—so that you may remember the day of your departure from the land of Egypt as long as you live.

Matzoh is לֶ֣חֶם עֹ֑נִי, lechem oni, the bread of affliction. The word עֹ֑נִי, oni,is usually translated poverty. Bread was a luxury that the poor, afflicted slaves of Egypt could not afford. TheIsraelite slaves were relegated to eating matzoh. We are reminded of the poverty to raise our sympathy for the poor around us, to remember that their choices are limited, their preferences disregarded. The opulence of the seder ( in most modern Jewish homes) reminds us that we rose out of that state of affliction, thank Gd. To a modern, it evokes the idea that the discontent of poverty and affliction are stimuli for revolution and acts of rebellion. (Passover shmurah [guarded from chametz] matzoh costs $45.00 per pound).

The other reason given for matzoh is that it reminds us that we hurried to leave Egypt:

כִּ֣י בְחִפָּז֗וֹן יָצָ֙אתָ֙ מֵאֶ֣רֶץ מִצְרַ֔יִם.

for you departed from the land of Egypt hurriedly


Matzoh is the rejection of delay. Leavened bread tastes good, but it takes time, and it is filled with emptiness. The exodus required quicker decision and less hot air. When the mission is critical, delay allows for renegotiation, dilution and a lower probability of success. Delay is a tool used by a patient enemy, it is one of the ways the wealthy and powerful manipulate the legal system.

These thoughts live in the world of ideas. The rejection of chametz ( leavened food) has meaning that emerges from merely thinking about what you are doing. It is rejecting (foreign) technology.

The use of yeast to generate carbon dioxide and alcohol is the beginning of industrial biochemistry. The Egyptians were the ancient masters of the microbial world. They made beer and bread by nurturing the microbes. They preserved the dead by killing the microbes.

Matzoh was a rejection of the Egyptian way. It was an act of Luddism, it was anti-technological. Leavened bread is better than matzoh. It is softer, tastier, more versatile, has more variations Leavened bread is a clear advance over matzoh. It is the fruit of Egyptian technology

Ultimately, fermentation technology was adopted by the Hebrews. We make (leavened) Challah for the Shabbath. We also celebrated its rejection. Eating matzoh is an assertion of membership. The weeklong abstinence from the leavened is like abstaining from using a phone on Shabbath.

New technology threatens religion. This is a theme that traces from the earliest bible stories to the present. Transgression, stimulated by the new information technology (the drug effect of the forbidden fruit) caused the expulsion from Eden and the need for agriculture. The tower of Babel ( the first example of interchangeable parts [the bricks]) constituted an attack on Heaven. Ezekial’s wheels within wheels may have been the newly introduced technology of gears. At the time of the Exodus, leavened bread was a new, new thing.

Traditional religions cling to the old ways. They are founded on reverence for ancestors and customs. The fruits of technology are the product of the new ways, hence they raise the question of the practical value of the tradition. In addition, the new technology often generates its own (competing?) traditions

Bread making converts the technology to tradition. For thousands of years the miracle of leavening was unexplained. A series of steps, followed in order, without deviation, led to an excellent ( and interchangeable) product. The froth that rises from the production of beer (called bram) was mixed with milled wheat , water and other optional ingredients (a source of food for the yeast) to produce a product that was much more flavorful and much either to eat, than matzoh. But the ingredients are not simply mixed. The bram must be maintained. If it was heated excessively, or exposed to copper, it would no longer work. The mixture of flour water and yeast had to be kneaded and then left alone and kept warm for a defined period of time, before it was baked. The process became ritualized ( and remains so). Most modern scientific endeavors are also ritualized. The process is kept constant, regardless of opinions about mechanisms, and any deviation is intentional and carefully documented. Industrial production is ritualized recipes with a veneer of understanding.

Technology has always been sneaky and seductive. Religion can be a protection; it can help question the value and consequences of the latest, greatest, new, new thing.

I eat bread, but not on Passover.

Va'erah: The Science of Revelation

The parsha opens with Gd declaring to Moshe that this is the same Gd who appeared to the patriarchs. This is a statement of constancy. To a degree, this action is prompted by the interaction in the last parsha, when Moshe requests the name, an identifier, that makes communication possible.  The Gd that will liberate the Israelites from Egypt is not a new entity. Gd is the same entity that promised Abraham a reward for his obedience and courage; the Gd that rescued Isaac from the fervor of his righteous father when Abraham  brought him as a sacrifice; the same Gd that rescued Jacob from the wrath of his brother Esau and granted his clan safe passage into the Promised Land. Something spectacular is now promised and it is going to happen, but it is not disconnected from the birth of this people

Va'erah is not merely the key word in the first few verses, it is also the theme of the parsha.  Gd makes a public display of Divine power.   Previously,  an appreciation of Gd's role in the world was limited to those who would accept it, the patriarchs, Abraham, Isaac and Jacob.  I think this could have been Rashi's intention when he  wrote:

וארא. אֶל הָאָבוֹת:

וארא AND I APPEARED — to the patriarchs. on a verse that reads: 

וָאֵרָ֗א אֶל־אַבְרָהָ֛ם אֶל־יִצְחָ֥ק וְאֶֽל־יַעֲקֹ֖ב בְּאֵ֣

I appeared to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob as El Shaddai, but I did not make Myself known to them by My name

Rashi reminds us that in the time of patriarchs, they were the only ones who appreciated events in their lives (some of which were world events) as Divine intervention from the One Gd. 

It now becomes important to connect to that One Gd because Gd will now reveal much more of Gd's power to the Egyptians, the enslaved Israelites and the world.  This is the big וָאֵרָ֗א  , revelation. 

The plagues are a progressive exhibition of Gd's authority and might. Their several purposes are stated

וְלֹֽא־יִשְׁמַ֤ע אֲלֵכֶם֙ פַּרְעֹ֔ה וְנָתַתִּ֥י אֶת־יָדִ֖י בְּמִצְרָ֑יִם וְהוֹצֵאתִ֨י אֶת־צִבְאֹתַ֜י אֶת־עַמִּ֤י בְנֵֽי־יִשְׂרָאֵל֙ מֵאֶ֣רֶץ מִצְרַ֔יִם בִּשְׁפָטִ֖ים גְּדֹלִֽים׃ 

When Pharaoh does not heed you, I will lay My hand upon Egypt and deliver My ranks, My people the Israelites, from the land of Egypt with extraordinary chastisements.

וְיָדְע֤וּ מִצְרַ֙יִם֙ כִּֽי־אֲנִ֣י יְ

And Miżrayim shall know that I am the Lord

The primary purpose of the plagues is to deliver the Israelites from the land of Egypt.  The שְׁפָטִ֖ים גְּדֹלִֽים, the great demonstrations of justice, are a broader message to Israel and all the world. Some of the  plagues are easily seen as redress for the attitudes and behaviors of the Egyptian masters. In the plague of blood, the Nile regurgitates the blood of the Hebrew male infants that Pharaoh had ordered drowned in it. The frogs are a manifestation of how the Egyptians felt about the Hebrews: they were obnoxiously everywhere, intercalating themselves into society, having excessive numbers of children. The Hebrews made the Egyptians' skin crawl, like a lice infestation. 

The battle of the staves is confusing. Aaron throws down his staff and it turns into a serpent. This appears to be a well known trick, so the wise men and sorcerers do likewise. Aaron's staff eats the other staves. The story is demonstration of Aaron's, hence Moshe's, hence Gd's, greater power. The the staff  is subsequently used to initiate many of the plagues. Did Aaron's magic wand gain additional magical powers from the the wands that it swallowed?  Certainly, we do not believe this, so the story becomes a demonstration of the absurdity of magic. But a magic devotee could see it differently. Aaron's staff was fortified by the staves that it swallowed and the magicians lost some their power .  The story allows alternative explanations. The parsha tries to direct us to the One Gd as the director of all events. 

The parsha ends with the seventh plague: hail. Hail is a meteorological event, a "natural" phenomenon.  To me, hail is a reminder of the miracle  that the earth is generally blessed with gentler forms of precipitation: rain and snow. Ice, solid water,  comes in many forms depending upon the pressure and temperature under which it forms ( there is not ice 9, Vonnegut's world destroying contagious ice). [ I used to tell my children, when they were small, stories  about a planet, named Dorton, on which the precipitation was large chunks of ice.]. 

The plague of hail is introduced by disclosing another purpose for these plagues

וְאוּלָ֗ם בַּעֲב֥וּר זֹאת֙ הֶעֱמַדְתִּ֔יךָ בַּעֲב֖וּר הַרְאֹתְךָ֣ אֶת־כֹּחִ֑י וּלְמַ֛עַן סַפֵּ֥ר שְׁמִ֖י בְּכׇל־הָאָֽרֶץ׃ 

Nevertheless I have spared you [Pharaoh] for this purpose: in order to show you My power, and in order that My fame may resound throughout the world.

 Gd warns  the Egyptians that they need to go inside during the plague of hail. This warning  demonstrated  the universal message of the necessity of  believing the word of Gd and acting upon it.   Those that feared Gd, brought their slaves and cattle indoors. Those that did not , left them outside and they were killed.

Science  does not explain everything. Magic cannot be trusted. The appreciation of everyday  miracles requires openness and  education. It can save your life. 

Shemoth: Names

We have names for each of the chapters of the Torah. A few are named for rituals or holidays. Most of the names are derived from the first unusual word in the chapter. Often, the relationship between the title word and the content of the chapter is ambiguous, it is not clear whether the title word captures the essence of the chapter or not. Perhaps the title word captures the essence, perhaps it is incidental. I think that Shemoth is not an accidental name.  I think that Shemoth is about the meanings of names and reputations and memorials (these are the definitions of Shemoth given in the Sefaria open source dictionary). 

The parsha opens by listing the names of the 12 tribal chiefs, the twelve sons of Israel. In the context of subsequent history, the union of these tribes into a single nation is the most significant development. The Egyptian experience of shared oppression (although the oppression may not have been equally distributed) fostered that unity and made all the children of Israel siblings, it gave them a common name. 

Soon, a new character appears, מֶ֣לֶךְ מִצְרַ֔יִם, [the] king of Egypt. Is this Pharoah? Is the Pharoah a person with two or more titles? Perhaps this is not Pharaoh, it is the equivalent of the Prime Minister. This role could be an outgrowth of the (positive) experience that Egypt enjoyed when Joseph ruled Egypt as viceroy. Politics may have dictated that new King of Egypt negate the memory of his (distant) predecessor to consolidate power. The phrase that King Egypt uses to deny Joseph 

 לֹֽא־יָדַ֖ע אֶת־יוֹסֵֽף

did not know Joseph (E1;8)

is the same as Pharoah's subsequent denial of recognition for Gd

לֹ֤א יָדַ֙עְתִּי֙ אֶת־יְ

I do not know (this) [entity]

Pharaoh's denial can be understood rationally. This (ineffable) name had very recently been revealed to Moshe as part of the instructions to liberate the Israelites from their bondage. The lack of recognition can also be seen as a denial of an entity that sees the situation, recognizes the suffering and injustice and therefore demands remediation (I will be what I will be), Pharaoh is denying the need to answer to a power greater than himself; the need to answer to history. 

Pharaoh's lack of Gd recognition contrasts with the midwives who were ordered to kill the newborn Hebrew boys. 

וַתִּירֶ֤אןָ הַֽמְיַלְּדֹת֙ אֶת־הָ֣

But the midwives feared THE Gd, and did not as the king of Miżrayim commanded them, but saved the men children alive.

This HaElokim was the entity to which Joseph attributed the power of dream interpretation to the Pharoah who elevated Joseph. The Use of the definite article, הָ֣, hay, conveys an aspect of monotheism.

In the context of my own background, I find this passage about righteous midwives very interesting. Historian Manfred Oldenburg  (quoted by Fritzsche), noted few drastic consequences for soldiers refusing to execute Jews. That is not to deny that many families were killed for attempting to rescue Jews, and certainly not to take away from the honor of the families that courageously helped my parents survive.  The families that helped often feared HaElokim, the One Gd. The price of heroism is unpredictable.

Significance is overtly attached to many of the names. Moshe (Moses) carries the name given to him by his foster mother, the daughter of Pharaoh. His biological mother (and wet nurse) does not name him. Moshe is the one who is drawn up, the one who is rescued, the man who is tied to salvation. He is recognized as a Hebrew who has been raised in the Egyptian court. When he kills the cruel Egyptian taskmaster, establishing his revolutionary outlaw status, everyone is struggling with his identity: Moshe, the Hebrews and the Egyptians. 

Moshe becomes a stranger in Midian where he marries and names his son Gershom: "I was a stranger in a foreign land." Moshe was an Egyptian in Midian; He had been a Hebrew in Egypt.  Which does he mean? Both are true. 

When Moshe returns to Egypt on his mission of liberation, the story turns pitiful. It is not surprising that Pharaoh and the King of Egypt doble down on the Israelites. Their initial oppression worked extremely well. Looking good to the (Egyptian) administration has become their highest value. Their slavery  is mostly self-imposed.

This situation is reminiscent of the Nazi organized ghetto where a document that claimed employment would rescue a person from deportation … for a while. The rules became ever harsher, the documents fewer. The documents became more precious. When the government is the oppressor, compliance and confusion are the easy answers. But when compliance means deportation to the unknown, the law yields to survival. Building sympathy for the minimally less fortunate is hard. When you are a slave, when you have almost nothing, sympathy is too expensive.

That is what we see when Moshe approaches the Pharaoh and King of Egypt to give the Hebrews some time off. When he is rebuffed by the doubling down, the denial of raw material without a reduction in the demanded quota of bricks, the Hebrew elders and the Israelites are upset by  Moshe, no by Pharaoh’s edict. The arbitrary, persecutorial dictates of the Authorities are assumed justified, while the reasonable and beneficial request of Moses is dismissed as a grounds for increased persecution.

These chapters of the Torah, describing the enslavement and persecution of the (working class) Hebrews, the difficulty in enlightening  the persecuted to their plight, and the ultimate success of revolution feel  like a guidebook for Marx and Lenin.

Liberation begins with recognition of the situation and realizing that there are options. Sometimes sympathy is expensive; it can be worth the price.

 

 

 

 

 Vayechi: Zionism

Jacob is the last of the patriarchs. The patriarchal families are the anchors to the Promised Land, Canaan. Abraham obeyed the Divine instruction to move there. He liberated  the land from the five Babylonian/Persian kings who had invaded and subjugated the land, establishing  the right of conquest. He was crowned by the local priest ( Melchizedek).  He bought the burial plot from Ephron the Hittite, obtaining the rights of a purchaser. Abraham and Sarah were buried in the Promised Land, establishing that place as a pilgrimage destination for his descendants. 

Isaac never left the land, regardless of conditions including famine and the enmity of his neighbors. He was a birthright citizen. 

Jacob risked his life to obtain the blessing that granted him Isaac's legacy claim. Jacob  spent a fortune and risked his life when he confronted Esau to establish his claim to the land. Jacob's sons conquered Shechem with a combination of guile and military might. Jacob  buried his wives in the Land, Rachel in her own shrine and Leah in the family cemetery in Hebron.  

Jacob and his clan went to Egypt with Gd's blessing, because of famine in the region. This week's chapter opens with: 

וַיְחִ֤י יַעֲקֹב֙ בְּאֶ֣רֶץ מִצְרַ֔יִם שְׁבַ֥ע עֶשְׂרֵ֖ה שָׁנָ֑ה וַיְהִ֤י יְמֵֽי־יַעֲקֹב֙ שְׁנֵ֣י חַיָּ֔יו שֶׁ֣בַע שָׁנִ֔ים וְאַרְבָּעִ֥ים וּמְאַ֖ת שָׁנָֽה׃ 

Jacob lived seventeen years in the land of Egypt, so that the span of Jacob’s life came to one hundred and forty-seven years.

The first phrase, arguably the main message, is that Jacob lived in Egypt for 17 years. The fact that underlies this statement is that Jacob and his clan did not leave Egypt. The famine had ended no more than five years from Jacob's arrival in Egypt, at least 12 years ago. Why didn't Jacob and his clan return to the Promised Land? 

One thought is that they were fulfilling Abraham's prophecy: 

וַיֹּ֣אמֶר לְאַבְרָ֗ם יָדֹ֨עַ תֵּדַ֜ע כִּי־גֵ֣ר ׀ יִהְיֶ֣ה זַרְעֲךָ֗ בְּאֶ֙רֶץ֙ לֹ֣א לָהֶ֔ם וַעֲבָד֖וּם וְעִנּ֣וּ אֹתָ֑ם אַרְבַּ֥ע מֵא֖וֹת שָׁנָֽה׃ 

And [God] said to Abram, “Know well that your offspring shall be strangers in a land not theirs, and they shall be enslaved and oppressed four hundred years;  (Gen 15;13). 

I do not believe that (normal)  people try to fulfill prophecies. Prophecies are declarations of the Almighty.  If the Almighty wills an event ( and does not have a  change of heart) , the events will occur regardless of  puny human actions. Working to fulfill a prophecy is an empty endeavor. 

Language is imprecise, all words are vague, with shades of meaning differing between  the speaker and the listener.  Words evolve.  We are in a constant game of "telephone." Imagine what "texting" someone meant in the 12th Century.

Zionism is an evolving word. Zionism was (and is?) associated with a prophecy. Early (pre 1903 [Kishinev Pogrom]  immigrants were motivated by the prophecy of return to the Holy Land. But the prophecy fulfillment motivation was distorted by legalisms. Migration to the Holy Land had become obligatory according to some (Nachmanides) although it remained outside of the 613 commandments listed by Maimonides.  Although the religious obligation may be related to the prophecy, the mitzvah  is a clear call to action, the prophecy is not. There is a high level disagreement about the mitzvah status of moving to the Holy Land. 

Zionism is tied to the ultimate  prophecy: Messianism. The attempt to bring the Messiah, taking action to fulfill the prophecy of ultimate salvation, has a  very checkered ( almost entirely negative) past. It has been the source of splinter sects, debauchery, murder, etc. The Messianist believes that she is saving the world. No sacrifice is too great. It is a very dangerous position!

I am a Zionist. I think that Zionism follows in the tradition of patriarch Jacob. The State of Israel was (and is) needed as a refuge  and protector for the Jews of the world. That is not the most beautiful fairy tale, but it is how it played out. 

Jacob and his clan went to Egypt to survive the famine.  They stayed because they were doing well economically, they were supported by the state and/or patron Joseph. They did not want to confront enemies and the possibility of another famine. The prophecy was in the background. They did not volunteer to become slaves because of Abraham's dream. Subjectively, they went about their normal lives with their normal motivations. The dream of the Promised land moved to the background.

The children of Israel traded their "freedom" for the slavery of the nourished. The bondage in Egypt began not with whips, but with the subjugation of dreams  to economic security. They became enslaved to sustenance. The dead need no bread.  They are a memory marked by the location of their remains. 

I plan to spend more time in Israel now that I am no longer tied to my practice. I feel more comfortable there.   I will be near the graves of my parents... and my own burial plot. 

May all the beautiful prophecies be fulfilled. I will not stand in their way. I will try to do what I believe is right. That is complex and fluid; Gd's will will prevail. 

 Vayigash: Assimilation

Vayigash is the origin story of the Israelite/Jewish exile.

Exile, Galuth, is an important character in Jewish history. The land promised to Abraham, the reward for his obedience, is a prize that is, almost always, out of reach. The land is offered as  the reward for a renewal of that obedience. 

The formal promise of the land to Abraham , the covenant between the parts, contains a long, bitter period of exile.

וַיֹּ֣אמֶר לְאַבְרָ֗ם יָדֹ֨עַ תֵּדַ֜ע כִּי־גֵ֣ר ׀ יִהְיֶ֣ה זַרְעֲךָ֗ בְּאֶ֙רֶץ֙ לֹ֣א לָהֶ֔ם וַעֲבָד֖וּם וְעִנּ֣וּ אֹתָ֑ם אַרְבַּ֥ע מֵא֖וֹת שָׁנָֽה׃ 

And [God] said to Abram, “Know well that your offspring shall be strangers in a land not theirs, and they shall be enslaved and oppressed four hundred years;

(Gen 15;13)

Exile is woven into the Promise of the land. Although the period of exile is terribly long, several lifespans, it is  finite. The bad times will end and there will a return. There is  a Promised Exile. This is the covenent that sets up  most of  the action in the five books.  It is a prophecy that predicts an outcome, and thus, it  might generate its own fulfillment. The Joseph story, which culminates in this week's parsha, with the descent of the 70 person Jacob family to Egypt, is the prequel to the main event: Moses leading the people out of Egypt and to the edge of the Promised Land. . 

Most of Jewish history has been spent in exile  dreaming  of redemption. Recent history has added complexity to the dream covenant.  A Jewish state in (part of) the Promised land of the bible is not enough.  The Orthodox continue to pray a return to Zion. What are they praying for? Nothing less than Heaven on earth will satisfy the vision of the promise.

 Egypt is an escape from famine, not a permanent home.  The impermanence of the Egyptian sojourn is clearly expressed by the Israelites  when the come down to Egypt.

וַיֹּאמְר֣וּ אֶל־פַּרְעֹ֗ה לָג֣וּר בָּאָ֘רֶץ֮ בָּ֒אנוּ֒

They said moreover to Par῾o, To sojourn in the land are we come;

Pharaoh and Joseph do more, They provide a land grant, a potentially permanent new home: 

וַיּוֹשֵׁ֣ב יוֹסֵף֮ אֶת־אָבִ֣יו וְאֶת־אֶחָיו֒ וַיִּתֵּ֨ן לָהֶ֤ם אֲחֻזָּה֙ בְּאֶ֣רֶץ מִצְרַ֔יִם

And Yosef provided abodes for his father and his brethren, and gave them a possession in the land of Miżrayim

When the Israelites came to Egypt, the dream of the covenant was strong. They are deeded land and things change.  It is not clear when their motivation for returning to Canaan faded. Perhaps they were reluctant to "return" to a land subject to occasional famines; a place where the local tribes are probably conspiring against the devious destroyers of Shechem; that land where Esau is lurking.  Meanwhile, they became quite comfortable in  Egypt. The Babylonian exile, a millennium later, was similar. Only a small fraction of the Jews "returned"  to the Promised Land from Babylon ( or Persia)  when they had the opportunity.  The Babylonian (majority)  "remnant" came to dominate Jewish thought. 

The Egyptian experience could have turned out differently. The Israelites could have stayed permanently. They could have remained in Goshen.  They could have reacted to their persecution with rebellion and, possibly, local conquest.  Perhaps it was not a  coincidence that the final, definitive victory, that destroyed the Egyptian military also  put the (impassable) Sea of Reeds between the Israelites and any plan of return to Egypt.  Perhaps, later, when the rebels in the dessert threatened  to return to Egypt, they imagined themselves as masters in a land of plenty, not slaves.

The identification of Egypt as exile reflects the Torah's vision of world order. Nations are assigned territories by Gd. They cannot march into places that were not designated for them and claim sovereignty. Famine can dictate migration; considerable economic gain might justify ( temporary) emigration from the assigned land. But people do not have the right to conquer foreign lands . Colonial empires are not for Jews; more often, the Jews are exploited as foreigners, even in the Promised Land. 

The story  of migration to Egypt  reveals the  tension between assimilation and identity. Joseph instructs his brothers to present themselves as cattle-breeders rather than shepherds when meeting Pharaoh, knowing that shepherds are considered abhorrent to Egyptians.  However, the brothers ignnore this advice, proudly  (or ignorantly) declaring themselves shepherds like their ancestors. This tension between assimilation and tradition would play out countless times as Jews migrated to new lands.

I saw the  conflict between the newcomers and the assimilated play out in my family . When my parents came to America, the more assimilated American cousins tried to teach them how to be American: the right phrases and gestures. My parents were lost. The world of their childhood was a dreamlike legend both  to them and their American host-peers. The Yiddish language was now reserved for witticisms; otherwise, it was to be forgotten along with the traditions it recalled.

Settled immigrants and newer immigrants are in a  dance. Those who came earlier sacrificed their pasts and endured the hardships of pioneers. They were forced to adapt and found appealing aspects in the new ways. Those who prospered were  in a position to rescue their kin. Along with the welcome came a mixture of advice and dominance.   The acclimatized, now naturalized citizens, want to keep the wealth and power they have acquired through assimilation. The newcomers dredge up the old resentments and stereotypes. They remind the assimilated of things they  have lost. 

My parents tried to become American, but there were limits to how much they could change .  American non-kosher food was too foreign; they never lost their accents.  It is only now that I see how intelligently they selected from the menu of possible Americanisms, along with the clever rejections. Those choices are most of what I am. 

I married an Amerikainer, a woman whose roots were in the uppermost corner of the West coast, the most American place in America. Her American forebearers  stretch back to  the  colonization of Puget Sound by Europeans, five generations. Her parents spoke perfect English, no Yiddish. Her grandmother made Rice Krispy cookies. But the spark of the dormant  traditions was in her. She was sent to Jewish school, exposed to our history in a favorable light. She grew to love it.  Now our children have it, in their own, hybrid, ways. I am very hopeful for the next generation as I see them sing our songs. 

Chanuka celebrates the victory of Jewish tradition over the temptations of assimilation. A new tradition, the lighting of the menorah, comes to preserve the old portfolio of beliefs and practices. The Jews rejected becoming Greek, but they became proficient in many of the arts the Greeks developed. Chanuka is the paradigm of selective assimilation, a trick that is modeled in  Vayigash. 

 

The tension between assimilation and tradition, the complex dynamics between established immigrants and newcomers, and the challenge of maintaining identity while adapting to new surroundings all echo the patterns first seen in Vayigash. The  choices made for immediate survival can have long-lasting consequences for identity. 

Make your choices carefully.