The Half-shekel

And the Lord spoke to Moses, saying: When you take the sum of the Children of Israel, according to their number, then every man shall give a ransom for his soul unto the Lord … This shall they give, everyone who passes among those who are numbered, half a shekel after the shekel of the sanctuary – the shekel is twenty gerahs – half a shekel for an offering to the Lord.  The rich shall not give more, nor the poor give less than the half shekel, when they give the offering of the Lord, to make atonement for your souls.                                      Exodus 30:11-13,15

          Rabbi Yehonatan Eybschutz explains the Torah’s insistence on the use of the half shekel in taking a census, as well as its insistence that each individual give the exact same amount. Israel is a single, united people, and therefore, the nation is indivisible. Thus, the use of the half shekel conveys the message that no individual is complete.  Without his fellow man, the Jew is considered as only half a person, and requires another Jew to become whole. The insistence that the rich may not give more than half a shekel teaches that no matter how personally successful an individual Jew is, he is still dependent upon his fellow Jew. Correspondingly, the poor may not give less than half a shekel, teaching that each Jew is equally important, even the individual who appears to be totally unsuccessful.

          Ultimately, each Jew has infinite value as a person, regardless of his/her personal success or lack thereof. This concept is demonstrated by the halacha that if gentiles surround a city and demand that a single Jew be sent out to be executed or they will kill the entire population, no Jew may be sent out. A common criminal may not be handed over to the gentiles in order to save the greatest sages of the generation. This halacha is understandable only in light of the axiom of the value of each Jew as a Jew.

Parashat Shekalim and Purim

            Parashat Shekalim is always read as we approach Adar of Purim.

            Among the messages of Parashat Shekalim is the unity of Israel and the equality of each Israelite. “The rich shall give no more and the poor no less ...” [Exodus 30:15]

            For Haman, there was equality of all Jews. He wanted “to destroy, to kill and to cause to perish all Jews ...” [Esther 3:13] Haman did not distinguish between Sefardi and Ashkenazi, Hassid and Mitnagid, religious and secular Jews.

            The salvation of the Jews began with the Jews themselves uniting, with Esther instructing Mordechai to “go gather all the Jews ...” [Esther 4:16]

            This concept is conveyed in a Talmudic statement:

Reish  Lakish  said: it  is  revealed and  known  before He  Who  spoke and  brought  the world into being that Haman  would  pay  shekels  for  (the  right  to attack) the  Jews  [Esther 3:9] therefore  He preceded  their shekels  to  Haman’s, as  we learn “On the first of Adar an announcement is made concerning the (half) shekels.”

                    Babylonian Talmud, Megila 13b

          Reish Lakish sees the half shekel as the “cure” for the 10,000 shekels Haman offered King Ahaseurus for the right to attack the Jews.

          We can understand Reish Lakish’s comment on a symbolic level. Haman’s shekels resulted from Israel’s disunity. Haman began his presentation to Ahaseurus by saying “there is a certain people scattered and dispersed (m’forad = disunited)…. [Esther 3:8] As has been the case so often in Israel’s history, our lack of unity left us vulnerable to our enemies.

            The antidote to Haman (and our other oppressors) is the unity of Israel, as represented by the half shekel.

            Ultimately, it will be the unity of Israel which will lead to rebuilding the Temple and reinstitution of the half shekel.

            May we have the wisdom to initiate our unity and not wait for our enemies to force unity upon us.

Knowing How It Feels

Do not oppress a foreigner. You know how it feels to be a foreigner, for you were foreigners in Egypt.                  Exodus 23:9

While these words were addressed directly to the Children of Israel, for whom Egypt had been a personal experience, we who believe Torah to be God’s expressed words, read the verse (and all verses) as being addressed to us as well.

In essence, the Torah mandates that the lessons of Israel’s national history must become part of the national psyche. Though we may be a hundred generations removed from our nation’s sojourn in Egypt, we must continue to feel compassion for the foreigner, knowing what it is like to be one.

Retaining and maintaining a first-hand attitude towards the Egyptian enslavement is mentioned in the repetition of the Decalogue [Deuteronomy 5:14] as the basis of the mitzva of Shabbat:

You must remember that you were slaves in Egypt, when God your Lord brought you out with a strong hand and an outstretched arm. It is for this reason that God your Lord has commanded you to keep the Sabbath.

As well, the words “you shall remember that you were a slave in Egypt” are used by the Torah as the underpinning of other mitzvot: giving severance pay to one’s emancipated Hebrew slave [Deuteronomy 15:15]; celebration of the pilgrimage festivals [Deuteronomy 16:12]; social justice [Deuteronomy 24:18]; gifts for the poor from one’s fields in the Land of Israel [ibid.22].

All of these verses provide the practical meaning of the Haggadah’s statement that one must always see himself as having left Egypt. The feeling of personal experience must be translated into compassion for those who suffer as our ancestors suffered in Egypt.

Shmitta as Social Legislation

You may plant your land for six years and gather its crops. But during the seventh year, you must leave it alone  and withdraw from it . The needy among you will then be able to eat (from your fields) just as you do, and whatever is left over can be eaten by wild animals. This also applies to your vineyard and your olive grove.                                                               Exodus 23:10-11

            Thus the Torah introduces the laws of shemitta, the Sabbatical year.

            Rabbi Yosef Zvi Rimon writes that Israel’s wise men throughout the generations have suggested that the laws of shemitta convey a variety of aspects:

                        Between man and God (bein adam laMakom)

                        Between man and fellow-man (bein adam l’ḥavero)

                        Between man and himself

                        Between man and his Land.

            Maimonides, in the Guide for the Perplexed [3:39] expounds upon the bein adam l’ḥavero aspect, and writes:

Among the commandments we have listed in the laws of shemitta and yovel (the jubilee year) some are intended to convey sympathy with our fellow-men and to promote the well-being of all mankind, as is stated “That the poor of thy people may eat" [Exodus 23:11]

However, if the intent of the sabbatical year is to provide the needs of the weaker social strata, it apparently would suffice to declare the year’s produce ownerless, and we may ask why the Torah forbade working the fields.

Rabbi Rimon quotes Rabbi Aharon Lichtenstein, who explains that through the combination of declaring the produce ownerless and the prohibition of working fields during shemitta, the Torah creates a situation which provides for the needs of the poor while preventing the provider from feeling superior to the recipient. In essence, the farmer is not the one who provides for the needs of the poor, rather everything comes from the generous hand of the Creator, Who is the true owner of the fields.

Rabbi Yitzḥak Nissenbaum (1869 – 1943) wrote in a similar vein:

There exists the potential for developing two classes: the wealthy property owners and the poor who own no land, and this situation can lead to feelings of mastery and tyranny for the first group and feelings of inferiority and servility for the latter. Shemitta comes in order to ensure the psychological equality of the Hebrew nation. During shemitta, once every seven years, there is no ownership of fields … throughout this year the fields are free for everyone. Thus, the wealthy ones appreciate that their wealth is not durable and the poor ones that their poverty is not permanent.

            Rabbi Rimon adds a comment of Sefat Emet: “the mitzva of shemitta conveys unity … the hand of the wealthy and of the poor are equal during this year.”  Through the equality created by the laws of shemitta, the donor cannot feel superiority over the recipient.   Following this line of reasoning, Sefat Emet explains the dependence of the laws of shemitta upon the presence within the Land of “all its residents” [Babylonian Talmud, Arachin 32b]. The mitzva of shemitta is not a mitzva of individuals, rather there is a direct correlation between Israel’s unity and the ability to fulfill the mitzva, and it is through the unity of the People of Israel that shemitta can be observed.

            Based upon the is elucidation, it is clear why the Torah presents shemitta in Parashat Mishpatim, a Parasha which deals largely with laws of bein adam l’ḥavero.

To and From the Temple

You shall celebrate three pilgrimage festivals unto Me in the year. You shall keep the Festival of Matzot: seven days you shall not eat leavened bread as I have commanded you, at the appointed time of the month of spring, for in this month you came out of Egypt, and you shall not appear empty-handed in My Presence.              Exodus 23:14-15

The Torah commands us to visit the Temple three times per year, and whenever one ascends to the Temple, he may not appear in the Temple empty handed, but must bring a small offering.

My father commented that even more so, one must not leave the Temple empty-handed.

Freedom and the Three Pillars

And these are the social laws (Mishpatim) which you shall put before them. If you buy a Hebrew slave (eved Ivri), six years he shall work and in the seventh he shall go out free for nothing.         Exodus 21:1-2

          The previous parasha, Yitro, presented the Ten Commandments. The end of Parashat Yitro deals with the laws of the altar. Our parasha sets forth social legislation. It has been pointed out that this corresponds to the Mishna [Ethics of the Fathers 1:2] which states:

Upon three things does the world stand: upon Torah, upon avoda  (service) and upon g’milut ḥassadim (acts of kindness)

          The Ten Commandments, of course, represent the first of the three pillars upon which the world stands, Torah; the altar is the second; the Temple service and our parasha presents the final pillar, g’milut hassadim.

          Thus, the Book of Exodus is organized according to the three pillars upon which the world stands.

          My father added a comment. The first part of the Book of Exodus, up to the description of giving the Torah at Mount Sinai, deals with the redemption from Egypt. This is the necessary prelude to the three pillars upon which the world stands. Without freedom, one cannot have Torah, service and gmilut hassadim. Thus, the exodus precedes the Torah's presentation of the three pillars. Yet there is a reciprocal interaction: commitment to Torah brings true freedom, as our Sages teach us: none is free, save he who deals with Torah.

The Hebrew Slave

And these are the social laws (Mishpatim) which you shall put before them. If you buy a Hebrew slave (eved Ivri), six years he shall work and in the seventh he shall go out free for nothing.         Exodus 21:1-2

          The wording of the verse appears a bit odd. It would seemingly have been better to write: "when you purchase a Hebrew as a slave...", since he is not yet a slave.

          My father suggested that the Torah, in choosing its phraseology wishes to tell us that the individual being discussed is already a slave, since he has a slave mentality. One who values freedom would do his utmost to avoid being sold into slavery.

          Similarly, the statement by a Hebrew slave that “I will not go out free” [verse 5] seems quite emphatic, versus a statement to the effect “I do not wish to go free”. My father explained that the Torah’s message is that one who chooses to remain a slave would not be free in any circumstance. This Hebrew slave, who feels himself a slave, who has a slave mentality, would not truly be free, even if he had no master. Even if he ceased being a slave, he would not be free.

          Some of the classical commentators note the use of the word Ivri (Hebrew) as opposed to the more common Yisrael (Israelite). One suggestion is that the choice of Ivri is a play on words on the word avaryan (felon), since an Israelite thief is sold as a slave by the court if he cannot make restitution. My father noted that Abraham is referred to as Ivri. Our Sages explain the name as being derived from ever (side), and comment "the whole world stood on one side and Abraham on the other". That is, Abraham's philosophy clashed with the philosophies accepted by others. Perhaps the use of the term Ivri to describe the Israelite slave is intended to describe him as standing "on the other side of all of Israel". The People of Israel value and appreciate their freedom, while the one who is sold as a slave does not. Further, the name Yisrael represents the people on its lofty level [having been given to Jacob after he fought the angel to a draw], and this name does not apply to one who accepts servitude to another person.

Relationships: With Fellow-man and With God

The following Dvar Torah is taken from my father’s writings.

          Parashat Mishpatim is closely related to Parashat Yitro. Rashi comments that the conjunctive vav (“and”) teaches continuity, that just as the Commandments given at Sinai, so too were the laws presented in our Parasha.

            Although the mishpatim (“ordinances”) are essentially economic and social laws, which every society establishes to govern itself, the Torah emphasizes that these laws, too, are God-given. That Torah regulates every aspect of our lives, is evident from the fact that the first half of the Ten Commandments deal with our relationship to God, but the next five commandments pertain to relationships with our fellow man. Thus, all the rules which govern justice, economic and interpersonal relations within Jewish society come from Sinai, as did the Ten Commandments.

          Our obligations to our fellow man are ordained by the Almighty. All men are part of God’s creation, and we therefore must act properly towards our fellow man.

          If we divorce God from our relationship with our fellow man, and base it solely upon liberal humanitarian considerations, we court disaster because it can easily be perverted, and human ideals can evaporate quickly. Thus, the Torah teaches that our relationship with fellow men must be based upon our relationship with He who created us all, because His ideals are immutable and cannot be corrupted.

Different Strokes for Different Slaves

This Dvar Torah is taken from my father’s writings.

If you buy a Hebrew servant, six years shall he serve and in the seventh year he shall go out into freedom for nothing.                          Exodus 21:2

          There are different criteria for emancipating slaves: a male Hebrew slave is set free after serving six years, a Jewish maidservant achieves her freedom at puberty, and a Hebrew servant who chose to stay enslaved after six years is set free with the onset of the Jubilee year, while a Canaanite servant achieves freedom if his master destroys his limb. Each of these criteria conveys a symbolic message concerning appreciation of freedom.

          The seventh year parallels Shabbat, the seventh day: Shabbat sanctifies time, and through that sanctification, man too is sanctified and achieves freedom. Indeed, the seventh is to God sanctified in days, years (shemitta) and in shmitot Yovel, the Jubilee year, in which land reverts to its original owner and all Hebrew slaves are freed, [Kli Yakar Exodus 20:8] teaching that the source of all sanctity, whether of time place or man, is the sanctity of God Himself.

          Reaching puberty symbolizes that through achieving maturity one should come to appreciate the value of freedom.

          There are those who must wait until the Jubilee year, when freedom is declared throughout the Land and for all, to appreciate their personal freedom.

          Others can appreciate freedom only when it costs them a limb.

Slavery and Sanctity

          Naḥmanides quotes Midrash Rabba which says: “all of Torah depends upon mishpatim, therefore God presented the social laws following the Ten Commandments”, to explain the juxtaposition of our parasha to the previous parasha.

          Further, Naḥmanides comments that the Torah begins the presentation of social laws with the Hebrew slave because freeing the slave in the seventh year is a reminder of the Exodus from Egypt, mentioned in the first commandment.           Naḥmanides quotes Deuteronomy [15:15]: “You shall remember that you were a slave in Egypt and God your God redeemed you, therefore I command you to do these things” as explicit support of this connection.

          Additionally, notes Naḥmanides, the law of the Hebrew servant is a reminder of the work of creation, as is Shabbat. “The seventh year for a (Hebrew) slave suspends working for his master, as Shabbat does. For the seventh is choicest among days, years and shemittot (Yovel, the Jubilee year follows a cycle of seven shemittot, Sabbatical years). And all is a single matter, which is the secret of the days of the World”.

          In summary, Naḥmanides asserts that the law of the Hebrew slave is worthy of opening the corpus of social laws because of the emancipation of the seventh year, which evokes memories of creation and of Shabbat.

          My father explained the point thus: the sanctity of time, of man and of place (the Land) all flow from the same source: God’s sanctity. God endowed His entire creation with sanctity, and took His people out of Egypt in order for them to be aware of the sanctity of the three spheres. Being aware of the concept of sanctity, the People of Israel are to realize it in their daily lives by applying sanctity to their relations to time, to fellow man and to the Land.

Retaining the Sapphire Brick

Moses then went up, along with Aaron, Nadav and Avihu, and seventy of Israel's elders. They saw a vision of the God of Israel, and under His feet was something like a sapphire brick, like the essence of a clear (blue) sky.                                                    Exodus 24:9-10 

Rashi, quoting our Sages, explains that the “sapphire brick” had been at God’s feet during the Egyptian enslavement of the Israelites, as symbol of their suffering, since they were forced to make bricks.

Rabbi Shlomo Wolbe noted that at the greatest divine revelation in history, God chose to reveal but a single attribute of His: that He, as it were, “bore the yoke of one’s fellow” [Mishna Avot 6:6, one of the forty-eight attributes through which Torah is acquired]. Even more, the implication of our verse is that even after redeeming His people from Egypt, God did not remove the sapphire brick.

Clearly, the revelation to Moses and the elders, coming as part of the preparation for the revelation at Sinai [Rashi 24:1], has an internal connection with giving the Torah. The attribute of bearing the yoke with one’s fellow is the essence of all mitzvot bein adam l’ḥavero (between man and fellow man). Yet this attribute is, as well, the basis of God’s relationship with His people.

The divine name with which God sent Moses on his mission to bring the Israelites out of Egypt was “eheyeh asher eheyeh” (“I am that I am”). [Exodus 3:14] Our Sages understand the name to mean “I will be with them in this suffering and I will be with them in the subjugation they will suffer at the hands of other nations.”

Rabbi Wolbe notes the difficulty in reaching the level of truly bearing our fellow’s yoke, both in sorrow and in joy, and relates two stories. The Ḥafetz Ḥayyim, in his later years, refused to sit on a comfortable chair, saying “the Jewish People are suffering, how can I be comfortable?”

The second story is of Rabbi Avraham Grodzhinsky, who was visiting his relatives in Warsaw, when, in mid conversation, he looked at his watch and suddenly began to sing and then got up to dance. After a long period of singing and dancing, Rabbi Grodzhinsky returned to his conversation and explained his behavior to his puzzled family: “One of my students is getting married now in Slabodka, since I am at such a great distance, I cannot provide joy to the groom, but I can participate in his joy here, since his joy is mine also.”

The Aleph Bet of Torah

            The first letter of the Ten Commandments is aleph, the first letter of the Hebrew alphabet.

            Our Sages note that the first letter of the Torah is bet, the second letter of the alphabet. According to the Sages, the letter aleph complained to the Creator, claiming priority. Being the opening letter of the alphabet, aleph argued that it should be privileged to start the description of creation.  God responded to the aleph that He cannot begin the description of creation with it because the word arur (curse) begins with it.  Creation must begin with the letter bet, the initial letter of the word bracha (blessing). However, to compensate the aleph, God told it that He will begin the Ten Commandments with aleph.

            The question is, if aleph represents a curse, why is acceptable to begin the Commandments with it?

            My father explained that the Sages’ intention is this: aleph, the first letter of the alphabet represents being static, avoiding change. Reaching bet, the second letter implies change. In the world of physical creation, there must be change. For creation to remain stationary and fixed is a curse. The blessing of creation is change, movement and progress. However, in the realm of Torah, there cannot be change. God’s law is fixed and immutable, applying equally to all generations.

Listening Together

And he took the book of the covenant and read in the hearing of the people, and they said: “All that God has spoken we will do and hear (na’aseh v’nishma).                  Exodus 24:7

            When the Children of Israel accepted Torah, their emphasis was on action: first “we will do”. The Ten Commandments and the remaining mitzvot revealed at Sinai are to serve as the Jews’ guide to life.

            It has been noted that in Parashat Yitro [19:8], the verse states:

And all the people answered together (yaḥdav) and said: “All that God has spoken we will do.”

while our verse does not have the word “yaḥdav”.

            The verse in Yitro was spoken prior to the revelation at Sinai, before the Children of Israel were endowed with the highest level of sanctity which unites and purifies the nation, therefore, it was necessary to add “yaḥdav”, to inform us that Israel had already achieved unity. Our verse was said by Israel after the revelation at Sinai, which united the nation, hence the word “yaḥdav” is unnecessary.

The House of Bondage

I am the Lord your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage.   Exodus 20:2

            Our verse is the first sentence spoken by God to the Children of Israel as we stood at Mount Sinai.

            Rashi and Naḥmanides explain "the house of bondage" as referring to Egypt.

            Based upon a Midrashic comment, which is seemingly unrelated to our verse, Or haHayyim offers a novel explanation of the phrase "the house of bondage". Our Sages taught that God entrusted the care of each land, other than the Holy Land, to one of his ministering angels, while He Himself cares directly for the Land of Israel. Thus, Or haHayyim suggests that "the house of bondage" (literally "the house of servants [or slaves]") does not refer specifically to Egypt, but to a land which is supervised by one of God's servants, an angel, that is, the entire world except for the Land of Israel. In His first direct communication with His chosen people, God hinted that the purpose of taking the Israelites out of Egypt was specifically to bring them to the Holy Land, where they would be under His direct supervision.

            During the period of Sefirat haOmer, we count the days between the exodus from Egypt and receiving the Torah at Mount Sinai in order to stress the fact that the goal of the exodus was to bring Israel to receive the Torah. It is certainly not by chance that Yom haAtzmaut (Israel's Independence Day) falls at this time of the year. Rather, it is a reminder that entering the Land of Israel with Torah as the national constitution is the completion of the purpose of the exodus from Egypt. 

Seeing Sounds

All the people saw the sounds, the flames, the blast of the ram's horn, and the mountain smoking. The people trembled when they saw it, keeping their distance.                                                                                     Exodus 20:15

            Our traditional commentators differ in their understanding of the phrase “all the people saw the sounds.” Chief among those who understand literally that the verse refers to a supernatural experience is Rashi, who comments: “they saw that which was spoken, that which is impossible in a setting other than the revelation at Sinai.” Kli Yakar [R. Ephraim of Lunschitz (1540 - 1619)] phrases the point more intensely, when he writes: “every word which left the mouth of the Holy One, blessed be He, became corporeal and so real that the letters of the words could be seen, as if they were written.”

            Other commentators suggest a variety of explanations which understand the phrase to refer to a natural occurrence.  Rashi’s grandson, Rashbam posits that the words “saw the sounds” mean that the people saw the “hail and stones” which accompanied the sound of God’s voice. [Exodus 9:28] Others among the early commentators explain simply that the word “saw” in our verse’s context means “perceived.”

            Rabbi Shimshon Raphael Hirsch offers an additional suggestion: the ability to clearly identify the source of sound requires both vision and auditory perception. With closed eyes, one can determine only the general direction from which a sound emanates. Thus, the verse can be understood to mean that the Israelites clearly saw that the sounds heard at Sinai came from the flashes of lightning which accompanied the divine revelation, and therefore they knew the sounds to be the divine voice.

            Science offers additional insights into the possible meaning of “seeing sounds.” The speed of light is 874,030 times that of sound. Thus, the visual experience is more immediate and perhaps much more intense that the auditory experience. My cousin, physicist Professor Daniel Menachem Siegel comments that “vision is much richer and more complex than hearing, with so many more possibilities for interesting effects—rainbows, mirages and diffraction patterns and haloes and optical illusions of all sorts. Even physical optics is unbelievably complex, and when you get into the physiological/perceptual aspects, it becomes truly impossible. The best minds in physics sacrificed years of effort to understanding color vision, and it is still a puzzle. So I'd see the ‘seeing’ of the voices as giving more scope to the experience.”

            There is an additional aspect of the difference between vision and hearing. Light essentially is unlimited. Astronomers tell us that some stars which will be visible tonight ceased to exist billions of years ago, but due to the vast distances in space, we continues to see their light. In contrast, the distance which sound can travel is very limited. Therefore, we can understand “seeing the sounds” during the revelation at Sinai to mean that the sounds Israel heard while standing at the foot of “the mountain of God” [Exodus 18:5] took on the unlimited [and eternal]aspect of vision, since those sounds issued from the divine voice.

With a Single Voice

All the people answered as one and said, “All that God has spoken, we will do.”          Exodus 19:8 The people all answered with a single voice, “We will keep every word that God has spoken.”                           Ibid. 24:3

Be’er Moshe (Ḥassidic Master Rabbi Yeḥiel Moshe Epstein [1899 – 1971]) writes that Israel’s declaration “We will keep every word that God has spoken” is the root and foundation of the nation’s essence and national unity is the necessary condition for realizing the ability to keep God’s words. This is the reason for the Torah’s repetition of “the people answered with a single voice,” as Pirkei D’Rebbi Eliezer [41] comments: “the nation answered unanimously.”

            National unity is an essential aspect of Israel, as is Torah, and it was through unity that Israel was able to receive Torah. In fact, there is a reciprocal relation between unity and receiving Torah: on one hand, it was Israel’s unity which allowed it to receive Torah and on the other, it is Torah which helps unite Israel.

            Meshech Ḥochma notes that national unity is necessary for receiving Torah because no single Jew is obligated in all 613 mitzvot, since some apply only to Kohanim, others to Levites or the king, etc. Therefore the nation responded in unanimity “All that God has spoken, we will do,” for only the nation as a unified entity is qualified to make that declaration. 

620 Minus 7

Ba’al haTurim notes that the Decalogue is composed of 620 letters, corresponding to the 613 mitzvot plus the seven mitzvot of the Sons of Noaḥ.

The question has been raised: the mitzvot of the Sons of Noaḥ are included within the 613 mitzvot, so apparently, isn’t Ba’al haTurim guilty of double counting? Yet, as Israel’s obligation to fulfill mitzvot is grounded in sanctity, with which the Nation was endowed at Mount Sinai, while the gentiles’ obligation to fulfill the mitzvot of the Sons of Noaḥ is not grounded in sanctity, there is a substantive difference between the 613 and the seven mitzvot.

A Strange Land

Then Jethro, Moses’ father-in-law, took Zipporah, Moses’ wife ... and her two sons, of whom the name of one was  Gershom,  for he had declared: I was a foreigner in a strange  land,  and the name of  the other,  Eliezer: for the God of my father is my help and  delivered  me  from  the  sword  of  Pharaoh.                                                         Exodus 18:2-4

            My father noted the apparent irony in Moses’ choice of name for his first-born son: the Israelites in Egypt were certainly in a much more difficult situation than Moses in Midian. Moses lived freely in Midian, while his brethren in Egypt were enslaved and forced to perform hard labor.

            Moses' choice of name for his first born son indicates his greatness. Moses expressed his feeling that his place was not in the comfort and security of Midian, rather with his fellow Israelites who suffered in the servitude and suffering in Egypt.

            Concerning the naming of Moses' first son, the verse tells us "he declared," while a similar phrase is absent from the naming of Moses' second son. My father explained that "he declared" indicates that Moses announced publicly his feeling of being out of place in Midian, and his desire/need to join his fellow Israelites. However, he refrained from public announcement of his salvation from the sword of Pharaoh, both for practical and ideological reasons. Moses did not want to risk a report reaching Pharaoh that he was in Midian, lest Pharaoh pursue him there. Equally, Moses, the humblest of men [Numbers 12:3], did not want to brag that he had merited a miraculous salvation.

            The reason for Moses’ choice of name for his first born son raises questions:

It would seem more appropriate to have named the son “Ger-po,” “a stranger here,” rather than Ger-shom, which implies “I was a stranger there.”

Why did Moses choose the past tense “I was a stranger …,” since he was still in the “strange land” of Midian?

            My father suggested that it is Egypt, rather than Midian, which Moses called “a strange land.” Despite having been raised as an Egyptian prince, and having been free of the Egyptian subjugation of Israel, Moses’ empathy with the suffering of his fellow Israelites brought Moses to the realization that he was a stranger in the land of his birth.

            Perhaps we can see in this explanation of Moses’ words a precursor of his burning desire to enter the land of Israel, as he pleaded, with God towards the end of his life [Deuteronomy 3:23-25]. 

            We can also see this as rectification of Moses “failure to admit to his Land.”  [Moses allowed the daughters of Yitro to refer to him as “an Egyptian man.” (Exodus 2:19) See Midrash Devarim Rabba 2:8]

Contemporary Impact

In the third month after the children of Israel were gone forth out of the land of Egypt, on this day came they into the wilderness of Sinai.                        Exodus 19:1 To teach us that every year one must see himself as standing at Sinai to receive the Torah, therefore the verse states “on this day”.       Mechilta

            Our Sages taught that on a daily basis (Kol-bo’s [14^th century] rewording of Mechilta’s elucidation of the verse; also see Rashi on Deuteronomy 26:16) one must see himself as having received Torah that day.

            Rabbi Zalman Baruch Melamed notes that our Sages made similar comments in two other connections:

In every generation, one must see himself as having gone out of Egypt, as the verse [Exodus 13:8] “On that day, you must tell your child, 'It is because of this that God acted for me when I left Egypt.'”                                                                                                                Mishna, Pesaḥim 10:5 The Land shall not be in your eyes as an inheritance from the Fathers, rather as if it were given to you now as a present (from God).                                                  Mechilta d’Rebbi Shimon bar Yoḥai 13:11

            Our Sages teach that we must be able to experience three things on a personal and contemporary level: Israel’s nationhood (which, in a sense began with the exodus from Egypt); receiving Torah and receiving the Land. In essence, our Sages teach that in each of these areas, there is a constant renewal, which should be felt by every Jew.

            Our Sages’ choice of these three areas is of great significance. The exodus conveys the message that God takes a hands-on approach in guiding the fate of His people. A direct and personal interaction between God and the chosen people is a defining characteristic of Israel’s nationhood.

            Torah is Israel’s national constitution, which ideally guides us in every aspect of our lives, as individuals and as part of the nation.

            The Land too is a crucial aspect of Israel’s nationhood, since it is clearly God’s will that His nation dwell within His Land.

            Thus, one must constantly be personally aware of each of these vital aspects of Israel’s nationality, understanding the contemporary impact of each on himself/herself and on the nation as a whole.

Physical and Spiritual Ascension

And Yitro, Moses’ father-in-law, came with his sons and his wife into the wilderness where he was encamped, at the mount of God.                          Exodus 18:5

            Rabbi Eliezer Waldenberg [Tzitz Eliezer vol. 11, p. 244] quotes Ḥatam Sofer, who notes that even though the Halacha obligates a man to live in the dwelling place of his wife, nonetheless, Yitro took Zippora, Moses’ wife to him, because Moses was encamped at the “mount of God.”

            Rabbi Waldenberg suggests that Ḥatam Sofer’s comments explain the Halacha stated in the Mishna [Ketubot 110b] and codified in Shulḥan Aruch [Even haEzer 75:4]:

(A man) may compel all (his household) to ascend (with him) to the Land of Israel, but none may be compelled to leave it. All (one’s household) may be compelled to go up to Jerusalem, but none may be compelled to leave it.

            It is because the Land and its capital are the “mount of God,” endowed with a unique level of sanctity, that one is obligated to dwell therein. And the purpose of dwelling within the Land is to be able to walk before God, in the “Land of the living” [Psalms 116:9] within the holy atmosphere which is conducive to spiritual development.

            Rabbi Waldenberg posits that ascending to the Land, and even more so, dwelling in Jerusalem, ultimately brings a Jew to great spiritual ascension.

It Takes Action to Impress Jethro

When Jethro, priest of Midian, Moses’ father-in-law heard of all that God had done for Moses and for Israel His people, that God had brought them out of Egypt ...                     Exodus 18:1

What report did he (Jethro) hear that brought him to convert? The splitting of the Red sea and the battle against Amalek.                   Rashi

 My father suggested that it was the proximity of the splitting of the Red Sea and the battle against Amalek which influenced Jethro to come to his son in law Moses.

Our Sages tell us that Pharaoh had three advisers: Balaam, who supported Pharaoh’s plan to throw the male children of the Israelites to their deaths in the Nile; Job, who remained silent; and Jethro, who protested the plan and expressed his opposition. Based on this Midrash, Jethro represents the enlightened liberal gentile, who supports the human rights of minority groups.

After the splitting of the Red Sea and punishment of the Egyptians, Jethro anticipated that the world would realize that the Egyptians were punished because of their oppression of the Israelites, and that Mankind in general would appreciate that there is a God of justice Who punished the Egyptians. Yet, shortly after the Israelites crossed the Red Sea, they were attacked by the tribe of Amalek. Not only did Amalek disregard the lesson of the Red Sea, but no other nation spoke in defense of Israel, or came to their aid against Amalek. It was the failure of the “enlightened” world to learn and apply the lessons of history which brought Jethro to lose faith in the nations of the world and to join Israel.

Unity Overcoming Hatred

And they departed from Rephidim and came to the wilderness of Sinai and there Israel encamped opposite the mountain. Exodus 19:2

          Our verse employs the singular form, vayiḥan (literally he encamped). Rashi, quoting our Sages, comments that at Mount Sinai Israel was united as a single person, with a single heart, hence the verse uses the singular.

          My saintly teacher, Rabbi Mordechai Rogov, notes that prior to the Israelites’ arrival at Mount Sinai, the Torah consistently uses the plural vayaḥanu (they encamped).

          One of the Midrashic interpretations of the origin of the name Sinai is that it is a derivative of the word sin’a (hatred). Our Sages tell us that hatred of Jews comes from Sinai, from the fact that we accepted the Torah, while other nations rejected it.

          Rabbi Rogov explains that the use of the singular form reflects Israel’s realization that its only defense against its hateful enemies is its unity.

          The Hebrew wording of the verse “they encamped opposite the mountain” can be understood to mean the unity with which Israel encamped served as the counter-balance to the hatred of Israel which descended from Sinai.

Standing Beneath Mount Sinai

And Moses brought the people forth out of the camp to meet God, and they stood at the foot of the mountain.                                         Exodus 19: 17

            Our Sages understood the verse in its literal meaning (“they stood beneath the mountain”) and comment:

This teaches that God held the mountain over them as a tub and said to them “if you accept the Torah, fine, if not, there will be your burial place.

                               Babylonian Talmud, Shabbat 88a

            Understanding the Sages’ comment literally implies that the Children of Israel were forced to accept Torah.

            Meshech Ḥochma (Rabbi Meir Simcha of Dvinsk, 1860 - 1926) comments that, indeed, the Divine revelation at Sinai was so intense that the Israelites’ natural free will was suspended and they had to accept the Torah.

            Rabbi Dr. Isidore Epstein presents a somewhat moderated version of the Meshech Ḥochma’s comment, and says the Sages’ intention is this: if the People of Israel (or any other people) could experience the most intense divine revelation of all time and remain unaffected, they are worthy of dying.

            My father explained our Sages’ intention based upon the Midrashic approach that the creation of the world was conditioned upon accepting Torah. Thus, had we stood at Mount Sinai and refused to accept Torah, not only would that have become the burial place of the Israelites, but the entire universe would have been returned to tohu vavohu (“unformed and void” [Genesis 1:2])