EXODUS 23 - The ProActive Imperative

My Favorite Rashi in Parshat Mishpatim ...

Ever wonder whether laws in the Bible are just randomly thrown together, or whether there is an intentional pattern to their appearance? My teacher, R. Menachem Leibtag shlit”a, describes the lists of commandments in Parshat Mishpatim as being a four stage progression starting with going from YIRAH (fear) between man and man (Ex. 21:1 – 22:16), YIRAH between man and G-d (22:17 – 22:19), AHAVAH between man and man (22:20 – 23:9), and AHAVAH between man and G-d (23:10 – end) [the full presentation of his ideas can be found here – www.tanach.org]. I prefer a different understanding of these stages (it may be a pure semantics) but to me this presentation provides the basis of both the formation of the ethical personality and the special responsibility of the Jewish people in this world. The first two levels are fundamentally reactive – they deal with torts (damages, injuries, etc) that ideally a person should only meet in the theoretical framework of study [hopefully, no one will become a frequent visitor to small claims courts]; or religious violations (idolatry, etc.) that are the responsibility fo the courts to punish.
The turning point is level three (22:20 - 23:9). This section is bounded off by the statement that you (the Jewish people) are obligated to fulfill these laws, as you were once slaves in the land of Egypt. In other words, you are obligated by an ethical imperative because of your unique background. Most, if not all, of these laws cannot be enforced within the court of law – they are obligatory upon each individual’s conscience. The prime example of a law in this section is, “When you see your enemy’s donkey struggling underneath its load, you must stop and help. (Ex. 23:5)” No court could reasonably convict a person for walking away – after all, perhaps he didn’t see it, perhaps he had an important appointment – any number of feasible excuses. However, this distinction is the difference between the Jew and the non-Jewish legal systems. Most systems of law only ask people to refrain from causing damage to others, and indeed, this is the foundation of all ethical behavior (see Hillel’s comment to the person who wanted to know the Torah on one foot). However, the Jew is required to pursue “kedusha”- holiness. This means the transformation of “Do not steal”, to “return your brother’s lost object” – “Do not kill” to “Do not stand idly by when your friend’s life is in danger” – in all cases, becoming a person who actively tries to improve the world, not someone who passively stands at the side, refraining from causing damage. [That ethics in Judaism are based on the building of ethical relationship with others as the foundation, only upon which can a person actively build a relationship with G-d, is other learned from this progression, but that is the topic for another discussion.]

Where does Rashi fit into the discussion? While discussing this idea with my students this week, I noticed that in level 3, which I claim to be to consist of proactive commandments, we find the following statement (22:24):
If (IM) you shall lend money to the poor among you in my people …
I immediately thought – there goes the whole theory. Before any of my students caught it, however, my eyes glanced down towards Rashi, who immediately comments:
Rabbi Yishmael states that in all of the Torah, the word IM (if) implies optional, except in three places [where it signifies a mandatory comment] – and this is one of them.
In other words – lending money to help another person is not an optional, nice thing to do. It is an obligation. Immediately, I pointed out this Rashi to my students, who seemed suitably impressed (after all, if Rashi says it …)

SAMUEL 1 15 - The Voice and the Word of G-d

Many times in discourse, what is not said is as significant as what is said. The story of Saul’s failure to obey G-d and Samuel in the battle against Amalek is a prime example.

Samuel, on G-d’s command, commands Saul to eradicate Amalek, in recompense for the attack upon the Jewish people as they left Egypt. No one, neither man nor beast, is to be left behind. The words that introduce this discussion are, “Listen, to the voice of the word of G-d. (HEBREW – “Shema leKol Divrei Hashem.” *) After the battle, where Saul has kept alive the King of Amalek, Agag, and the best of the flocks, Samuel approaches him. Preemptively, Saul states, “Ï have fulfilled (note - but he doesn't say I have listened to [SHAMATI]) the word (DEVAR) of Hashem.” Unwittingly, he omits the word ‘voice’ (KOL). Samuel immediately points out (v. 14), “Then what is the voice (KOL) of the sheep bleating and oxen bellowing that I hear (SHOMEIA).”

I would suggest that Saul honestly believed that his actions were congruent with G-d's request - he managed to deal a nearly fatal blow to the Amalekites, and the remaining animals were to be offered on the altar. However, as Samuel points out succinctly (v. 22) - "Has the Lord (as much) desire in burnt offerings and peace-offerings, as in obeying the voice of the Lord?"

[When grouped together in Tanach referring to the same speaker, the words KOL and DEVAR only appear in the context of G-d’s listening or speaking (Dev. 1:34, 4:12, 5:25; Dan. 10:6,9.]

ESTHER - Money and the Megillah

One of the interesting questions asked about the Megillah is its constant focus on money. The beginning of the Megillah describes the opulence of the king’s palace and treasures; the Megillah ends with the king placing a tax upon all the provinces of the land, an unusual ending that appears, at first glance, to be completely irrelevant to the story. In the middle, we are witness to the buying of the Jewish people for ten thousand talents of silver, the plaintive cry of Esther that the Jewish people have been sold, and the almost prideful statement that the Jewish people did not lay their hands upon the spoils o their defeated enemies.

I came across an interesting suggestion in Stephen Gabriel Rosenberg’s book Esther Ruth Jonah: Deciphered. He first identifies Achashverosh (as do many scholars) as Xerxes II (486 BCE – 461 BCE). History teaches that Xerxes, first set out against Egypt for two years – upon his return home in his third year, he spent extensive and elaborate consultations with all the constituent representatives of the Persian Empire before setting out for war against Greece in 481 BCE, only to be defeated at Salamis and Plataea in 479 BCE. This timeline corresponds perfectly with the opening of the Megillah. Esther, however is chosen as queen in the seventh year, after the humiliating defeats against the Greeks. Now, as he faces a bankrupt treasury and restless natives (the assassination attempt), Xerxes looks for new sources of revenue. Enters Haman with the idea that that year’s tax sources should come from the Jewish people, who are scattered across the Empire and would not involve subduing. Rosenfeld ingeniously suggests that instead of offering the king the 10 000 talents of silver up front, Haman is stating that if he is allowed to be the tax collector, he will provide that amount from the Jewish people. Achashverosh’s response is “the money is given to you”- as was common practice in those times, any excess taxes belongs to the tax collector personally. Rosenfeld suggests that Achashverosh (Xerxes) allowed Haman the right to put people to death (note that otherwise, the right of capital punishment belongs to the king alone – as Haman must approach the king for permission to hang Mordechai) if they fail to provide Haman with the necessary funds. Essentially, Achashverosh accepts Haman's idea that the Jews would provide the revenue for his continued campaigns, but was unaware of the intent to annihilate the Jewish people. The Malbim has already pointed out that Haman sent out two separate directives – the first being the official order of the king; and the second a private missive to the governers only commanding the Jews extermination, which, following Rosenfeld’s lead, we can hypothesize meant kill and confiscate their property. This also explains the Jews failure to flee Persia despite haveing 11 months to do so.

With this approach, we can understand both Esther’s cry to Achashverosh, whereupon she pleads that the penalty under Persian law for failure to comply with one’s tax burden was slavery, not death, and he realizes that the Jews also have powerful allies at the court. We also understand Achashverosh’s unwillingness to rescind the decree that he had issued, as he would have lost a year’s supply of revenue. Only the reassurance that any property acquired by the Jewish people in self-defense would be turned over in its entirety to the Persian authorities would mollify his ravenous desire. The Megillah ending, that the tax burden was to be shared equally among the people, provides a satisfying and fitting conclusion to our story.

[Thanks to R. Chayim Klein for introducing me to this book.]

EXODUS 20 - The Ten Commandments and 4 more chiastic structures

Chiastic structures in Shemot part 2 – The Ten Commandments

This week being the week when Jews around the world read Parshat Yitro, with the Revelation at Har Sinai and the giving of the Ten Commandments, I wanted to share some different structural perspectives that any Bible reader will enjoy.

The first was pointed out to me by my dear friend and teacher, haRav Menachem Leitbag. SEE THE DIAGRAM ABOVE

Discussing the relationship between the commandments between Man and G-d (bein adam la-Makom) and between Man and his Fellow Man (bein adam la-Chaveiro), he notes that the Ten Commandments (despite the interruption in 20:15 when the people complain of fear during G-d’s speech – see the argument [ad loc] between the Ibn Ezra, Chizkuni, and Ramban as to this text’s chronological placement, the Ten Commandments are merely an introduction for a long series of commandments that ends in chapter 23.
While the Covenant (Brit) forms the outer layer of the section, the central axis, where the reader’s focus lies, consists of 21:1-23:9 – all commandments governing the behavior between man and man.
(We will, IY”H, develop more fully the relationship between Shabbat observance and slavery at another juncture – for now, note that the rationale for Shabbat as recorded in Sefer Devarim is to eliminate the difference between people, as the Jews were once slaves in Egypt.) [Diagram courtesy of www.tanach.org]

The second chiastic structure is found within the Ten Commandments themselves, and is mentioned by Professor Nechama Leibowitz in her book Studies in Exodus. She quotes the Ibn Ezra’s introduction to the Ten Commandments:
All the commandments can be reduced to 3 categories: precepts of the heart (thought), precepts of the tongue (speech), and precepts of the hand (doing). In each categories, the precepts can be sub-divided into active (believe/think this, say this, do this) and negatives (refrain from …).
The Ibn Ezra continues:
The precepts of the heart are the most important of all … many, however, imagine that thinking idolatry (for example) is no crime, whereas this is much worse than any other … The first commandment is the most important principle that underlies the remaining nine.
Nechama continues that the Ibn Ezra does not develop his idea further for the rest of the commandments, and using his categories, suggests the following chiastic structure:
BETWEEN MAN AND G-D --- BETWEEN MAN AND MAN
1. I am Hashem (thought) 6. Do not murder (action)
2. Have no other gods (thought) 7. Do not commit adultery (action)
3. Do not swear vainly with My name (speech) 8. Do not steal/kidnap (action)
4. Remember the Shabbat (speech/action) 9. Do not lie (speech)
5. Honour your parents (action) 10. Do not covet (thought)

In short, the Ten Commandments are chiastically structured:
1, 2 – THOUGHT
--3, 4 – SPEECH
----5-8 ACTION
--9 – SPEECH
10 - THOUGHT
I would suggest (different from her presentation) that the structure could also answer the question whether or not actions are more important than beliefs – between man and man – Judaism has always been a practical religion – the commandment to love your neighbour as yourself has always been translated into practical terms (Hillel’s dictum ‘what is hateful to your yourself, do not do to others), and acts of charity and kindness have value even if done half-heartedly – however, in the spiritual realm between man and the Creator, actions without intention are near meaningless…

Within the commandments, we see at least two chiastic structures. Noting that the first two commandments are joined together in the Torah text (see note below), I noted the following chiastic structure:
A – I am Hashem your G-d …
--B – You shall have no other gods …
----C – You shall not make likenesses (i) heavens above, (ii) on the earth (iii) and below
--B1 – You shall not serve them
A1 – For I Hashem am a jealous G-d …
Two substructures come out of this analysis: The prohibition against idolatry – first (and last) in thought, in the middle in deed in surrounded by the all-compassing first person revelation of “I am Hashem”. Secondly, the text moves seamlessly from past (I took you out of Egypt) to present (you shall not serve other gods) to the future (I will repay good and bad) ….

Finally – note the following structure of the fourth commandment - Shabbat:

A – Remember the Shabbat day to keep it holy. (Humans add sanctity )
B – Work for six days (Human labour)
C – you, your family, your possessions, your environs (the Self (from inner to outer))
B1 – For Hashem worked for 6 days … (Divine labour)

A1- Therefore G-d blessed the 7th day and sanctified it. (Divine sanctity)

Here, the text purposefully emphasizes that the actions that we take on earth are to be a reflection of the Divine plan for creation … note that this transfer only occurs when my entire self (from my physical self personally, expanding outwards until my possessions and environment are included) is involved in this process.

[side-note: the combining of the first two commandments – traditionally, while the Catholics numbering of the commandments combines the first two commandments (and splits the prohibition against coveting into two), Jewish thought, based on the Mechilta, maintains that there are two commandments. In the Torah scroll, however, the two are combined into one paragraph, with no parasha between them…]

EXODUS - CHIASMS IN SEFER SHEMOT - part 1

The chiastic structure (named after the Greek letter X – chi), A B C D C1 B1 A1 makes several appearances in Sefer Shemot. Generally, this structure serves two purposes – to focus the attention of the reader on the central axis, and to allow for comparisons between the differing branches. This entry will demonstrate how this structure is used to great effect in Sefer Shemot.
1] - During Moshe’s first meeting with Hashem, he makes several arguments against accepting the Divine mission to go to Egypt and redeem the Jewish people. Interestingly, Rashi constantly interprets Moshe’s excuses and the symbolism of the signs that he is given as reflecting his lack of faith not in God, but in the Jewish people. Where does the text allude to this approach? By arranging Moshe’s 7 speeches to G-d, something fascinating occurs.

A – “Here I am [HINENI]” (3:4) – the traditional response to the Divine call.
B – “Who am I that I should go to Pharoah and free the Children of Israel from Egypt?” (3:11)
C – “When I come to the Children of Israel and say to them, ‘The God of your fathers has sent me to you’, and they ask me, ‘What is His name?’, what shall I say to them?” (3:13)
D – “But what if they do not believe me?” (4:1)
C1 – “A rod.” (4:2) – Moshe here receives the first of three signs that he is to show the Children of Israel.
B1 – “Please, O Lord, I have never been a man of words …” (4:10) God’s response to this complaint is to appoint Aaron as his spokesman when they go before the royal court.
A1 – “Send who you will send!” (4:13) – Note that at this statement (the Jewish Study Bible translates it as “Make someone else your agent””, colloquially we would say today, “Anyone but me!”), God becomes angry and sends him from his presence (Rashbam [Breishit 32] even suggests that this is the reason for the attack on Moshe’s life at the inn.)

“How did Moshe regress from the eagerness of “Hineni” to the statement “Anyone but me!” What this structure demonstrates is that Moshe’s fundamental concern is not the prospect of encountering Pharaoh – indeed; the Torah will describe his unhesitating and fearless approach towards the Egyptian monarch. His overriding fear (as proven by its central location) is the encounter with the Jewish people (consider - of the three adult encounters that he has had, in the conflicts between the Egyptian taskmaster and the Jewish slave, the battle between the two Jews fighting, and the fight between Reuel’s daughters and the shepherds who harassed them, his only failure came when he intervened in the fight between the two Jewish slaves. The text alludes to the baseless ness of his fear – the Torah tells us that he will not require the use of any of them to convince the Jewish people – instead, two of three signs (the rod turning into a snake and the river turning to blood) serve as warnings and punishments to Pharaoh.)

2] The Exodus from Egypt also contains several stories that are doubled: twice they encounter external enemies, twice they run out of water, twice they are given charges towards sanctity. Textually, the story is structured as followed:
A – The Sanctification of the Firstborn (KADESH LI)
B – The Splitting of the Red Sea
C – The sweetening of the waters at Marah [Ibn Ezra suggests that this first encounter with water, so soon after leaving Egypt, is an allusion to and reversal of the first plague – in Egypt, G-d punished the Egyptians by turning the waters of the Nile to blood; here, God rewards the people by turning the bitter waters to sweet]
D, D1 – The arrival at the oasis of Eilim / The receiving of the Man at Refidim
C1 – The hitting of the rock and the waters from Horev
B1 – The war against Amalek
A1 – The entry of the people into the covenant at Sinai as a GOY KADOSH – a holy nation. [Note that this is preceeded by Yitro’s arrival and the

A quick comparison of the different branches of the structure reveals some interesting insights:
* Upon leaving Egypt, only the firstborn were to be sanctified, and the children were to be given limited instruction on specific rituals and historical events, and only upon the initiative of the questioners. By the time the Jewish people arrive at Sinai, they are all to all participate in the hearing of the Divine commands, and all are considered holy. They are to be active in the pursuit of knowledge.
* At the Red Sea, Hashem personally fought on behalf of the Jewish people; by the time that they battle the Amalekites, it is the Jewish people who physically fight the battle, connected to Hashem of course through the supplications of Moshe Rabbeinu.
* In both stories, Moshe takes wood upon the Divine command and provides the people with water. However, in the first story, Moshe does so with stagnant water, that will not accompany the Jewish people upon their journey. Hepersonally apportions the water. The second time, the water is flowing, and will stay with the Jewish people for 40 years in the desert. It is the people who actively run to the rock at Horev.
How does the Manna serve as the central focus of the story? I would suggest that the comparison with Eilim provides the clue. At the oasis in Eilim, again, the Jews remain passive while Hashem provides their needs. With the Man, while Hashem provides the food, the people become the active gatherers of their sustenance. They maintain their connection with Hashem in two manners – through the equal sharing of the produce, and the refraining of gathering on Shabbat.

{In appreciation to R. Yitz Etshalom who showed me these structures - his presentations, which are more developed and somewhat different from my own, can be found at www.torah.org in the advanced Mikra section}

SHMUEL 1 ch. 11-15 - King Shaul goes to war

The Tanach tells us in detail of three times that Shaul goes to war: a successful battle against Nachash haAmoni to rescue the people of Yavesh Gilead from his domination in Chapter 11, the wars that he fights against the Phlistim in chapters 13 and 14, and finally the battle against Amalek in chapter 15 that will ultimately cost him his kingdom. The progression (regression) from one war to the other is apparent – in the first battle, he is overcome by the “spirit of G-d” (reflective of his earlier prophetic stint that led to the people’s wonderment), and more importantly is able to gather all 12 tribes of Israel together to face their common foe. In chapters 13 and 14, Saul fails twice in the religious dimension – offering the sacrifice before the arrival of the prophet (and foreshadowing his devotion to the ritual over the living word of G-d), and causing the people to refrain from eating on the day of the battle though a vow. While the original battle is won, the people are too exhausted to complete the job (what Civil War general N. B. Forrest called ‘keeping up the skeer’, allowing the Philistines to escape and regroup. In addition, the people sin grievously when they fall upon captured animals, eating of the blood, while war hero Jonathan inadvertently eats honey and finds himself under the threat of death penalty. Saul has failed in the religious realm and was only moderately successful militarily. In chapter 15, Saul violates the express command of G-d at the people’s behest in order to save the best of the livestock. Militarily, it appears that he was successful, but the reoccurrence of the Amalekite attacks later in the book refute that possibility.
Is there a common link between these stories that can shed some light on Shaul’s behavior? Significantly, in all three battles, before Shaul goes to war, he counts the people with him. In fact, the central verse of the first story”, verse 8, states that “Shaul mustered them in Bezek, and the Israelites numbered 300 000 and the men of Judah 30 000.” If, however, the three stories are read together, excluding Shmuel’s farewell address in chapter 12, then the middle revolves around Jonathan’s statement to the servant, that “nothing prevents the Lord from victory through the many or through the few”. This highlights the contrast between Shaul, with his reliance on the people, and Jonathan, with his reliance on Hashem.