Crossing the Sea; Twin Destinations

You will lead the people You have redeemed with Your mercy; You will guide (them) to Your holy dwelling with Your strength.                               Exodus 15:13

            As we noted in a previous Dvar Torah, verse thirteen presents a shift in the content of the Song of the Sea, from praise of God for His battle against His and His nation’s enemies, to a future focus, praising God for leading His nation into the Promised Land.

            Midrash Lekaḥ Tov expounds the verse thus: 

“You will guide them with Your strength” – through the merit of Torah, as the verse states: “The Lord will give strength to His people.” [Psalms 29:11]

“To Your holy dwelling” – through the merit of Your holy dwelling, which is the Temple, as the verse states: “A peaceful dwelling.” [Isaiah 33:20]

            Based upon this Midrash, with the Song of the Sea, Israel praises God for taking us out of Egypt in order to give us Torah and bring us into the Land, where we will build the Temple. Building the Temple constitutes the apex of Israel’s entry into its Land, and realization of the ultimate level of sanctity, as our Sages taught: “The Land of Israel is holier than any other land,” and the peak of sanctity is the Holy of Holies of the Temple. [Mishna, Keilim 1:6-9]

            Thus, the Song of the Sea presents the twin destinations of the exodus: Mount Sinai and Mount Moriah.

An Interesting View on Interest

If you (singular) lend money to My people, to the poor who are with you (singular), you (singular) shall not be to him as a demanding creditor, nor shall you (plural) put charge him interest.            Exodus 22:24

            Our Sages understood the verse to present two mitzvot: a positive command to lend money to the poor, and a negative command prohibiting (both taking and giving) interest on the loan. [Maimonides Sefer haMitzvot, Positive Mitzva 197, Negative Mitzva 237; Sefer haḤinuch, Mitzvot 66;74]

            It should be noted that in the original Hebrew, the verse begins with the singular “you,” and switches to the plural.

            Rabbi Shimshon Raphael Hirsch explains that interest is not intrinsically opposed to the Torah’s system of justice, but interest does clash with “the principle upon which Jewish life is to be founded.”  The Torah’s outlook is that an individual’s wealth is a gift from God, and the prohibition against interest expresses the concept that one’s money should be regarded as also belonging to God. Thus, the decision to make a loan to a fellow – Jew who is need is not an arbitrary decision of the lender, rather it is a mitzva. The lender is not merely an individual, but part of “My people,” a member of the nation which founded on the spirit of Torah.

            This approach, which sees the prohibition of interest on loans is an acknowledgement of God, explains the fact that the Torah forbids not only taking interest, “But in quite equal degree the Torah expressly prohibits the payment of it.”

            At first glance, the words of the verse “My people” and “who are among you” appear unnecessary. Based upon his exposition, Rabbi Hirsch explains that the positive command to lend money is worded in the singular, since it is addressed to the lender, who is usually an individual. Further, the addition of the phrases “My people (ami) and “who are among you” (imi) conveys the thought that the individual is part of the community and the nation. The verse teaches that the lender must understand and appreciate that he is connected to the borrower, and feel that he is part of “my (lower case m) nation.” In a clever play on words (or more exactly, on the vowels of the words “ami” and “imi” (which contain the same consonants), Rabbi Hirsch comments that it is the feeling of “imi” (literally “with me” which creates “ami,” the feeling of common nationhood.

            Ultimately, Torah teaches that Jewish society must be based upon acceptance of mutual responsibility among Jews.

            Ba’al haTurim [Leviticus 25:36] notes that the gematriya of “ribit” (interest) equals 612, implying that violating the prohibition of taking/giving interest is the equivalent of violating the remaining 612 mitzvot.

            Rabbi Hirsch adds:

The duty of lending money without interest is one of the rocks on which Jewish social life rests.

In a much higher sense does the rich man need the poor man, than the poor man needs the rich one. The poor man finds in the rich man only support for his material necessity, but the rich man finds in him the means for carrying out his highest spiritual and moral calling, to render to God the tribute of acknowledging that every halfpenny of our possession is lent to us by God.

         

           

Goodness, The Goodness, All the Goodness

Jethro rejoiced over all the good things the Lord had done for Israel in rescuing them from the Egyptians.                                                              Exodus 18:9

Rabbi Yehoshua says: Moses related the goodness of the manna, saying: “In the manna which the Lord gave us, we taste bread and meat, fish, grasshoppers (some species of which are kosher), and all the tastes in the world, as the verse states ‘goodness, the goodness, all the goodness, for all the goodness’” (i.e. the Midrash reads separately the components of the phrase “all the good things”).

Rabbi Elazar of Moda’I says: Moses related the goodness of the well, saying: “The well which the Lord gave us, we taste the flavor of honey, the flavor of milk, the flavor of new wine and aged wine, and all the flavors in the world, as the verse states ‘goodness, the goodness, all the goodness, for all the goodness’.”

Rabbi Eliezer says: Moses related the goodness of the Land, saying: “The lord is destined to give us the Land of Israel and the World to Come, and a new world and the Kingdom of David, Priesthood and Levites, as the verse states ‘goodness, the goodness, all the goodness, for all the goodness’.”

                             Mechilta d’RebbiShimon bar Yoḥai

            At first glance, the opinions of the sages who disagree with Rabbi Eliezer seem more reasonable, since the manna and the well were already given to Israel in practice by the time of Jethro’s visit, while the Land and its ancillary “goodness,” the House of David and the World to Come, remained in the future. However, Rabbi Eliezer’s opinion is of great significance, since entry into the Land was the purpose of the exodus, as the verse states:

He brought us out from there in order to bring us to the Land he had sworn to our ancestors that he would give us.                                        Deuteronomy 6:23

The simple meaning of the verse is that “God took us out of Egypt for the purpose of bringing us to the Land and giving it to us,” as Malbim writes. The exodus takes on meaning specifically because of Israel’s entry into the Land. Thus Rabbi Eliezer sees the Land as constituting “all the good things the Lord had done for Israel.”

            We can also understand from Rabbi Eliezer’s comment that Moses hinted to his father-in-law that the Nation of Israel is forward-looking. Israel not only appreciates the goodness God has already done for them, but is confident that He will continue to do goodness for His nation.

            We may note two additional differences between Rabbi Eliezer’s definition of “the goodness” and those of his protagonists:

1] The manna and the well were physical “goodness,” while the goodness of the Land combines physical and spiritual goodness;

and

2] The manna and the well were temporary goodnesses. With the death of Miriam, the well disappeared, and manna stopped descending from heaven when Israel reached the edge of the land of Canaan. [Exodus 16:35] Israel’s connection to the Land, on the other hand, has an eternal dimension. Even when exiled from the Land, the Nation of Israel remained faithful to her, and she remained faithful to her nation and its sons. For close to two millennia, the Land has served as the source of hope for the nation’s ultimate redemption.

            In light of the centrality of the Land to the life of the Nation of Israel, it is not surprising that Rabbi Eliezer defines the Land as “the goodness” which God did for Israel.

Moses and Phinehas

Therefore (lachen) say to the Children of Israel : I am the Lord, and I will bring you out from under the burdens of Egypt …                         Exodus 6:6

          Ba’al haTurim connects our verse’s use of the word “lachen” with its use concerning Phinehas:

Therefore (lachen) say: Behold, I give him My covenant of peace (briti shalom).    Numbers 25:12

and notes the Midrash which teaches that just as Moses was God’s messenger to take Israel out of Egypt, so too, Phinehas (who is the prophet Elijah, in our Sages’ tradition), will be the Divine agent to take Israel out of its final exile.

          My father noted an additional (and related) lesson from the common use of the word “lachen” in the two verses: the true and ultimate redemption will be God’s covenant of peace, the time when Israel will be privileged to live in peace and tranquility in its own Land.

          The letter “vav” of the word “shalom” is truncated, teaching that the ultimate peace will be achieved only through Israel fighting for its existence.

          With God as the redeemer, as promised in our verse, there is an absolute guarantee that the ultimate peace will arrive.

Not Playing Favorites

These are Aaron and Moses to whom God said: Bring out the Children of Israel from the land of Egypt according to their hosts. These are they who spoke to Pharaoh, king of Egypt, to bring out the Children of Israel, these are Moses and Aaron.    Exodus 6: 26-27

Rashi quotes Midrash Shemot Rabba which notes that some verses mention Aaron before Moses and others mention Moses before Aaron, to teach that they are equal.

The order within the verses seems opposite to what it should be. Verse 26, where Aaron is given primacy, refers to God’s instructions to deliver the Children of Israel from Egypt. Yet, God’s words were spoken directly to Moses.  Verse 27, “these are they who spoke to Pharaoh” mentions Moses first. Yet, it was Aaron who actually spoke.

Moses and Aaron are each listed first specifically in the area in which they were, in fact, secondary.

The lesson is the complete equality of those who fulfill God’s command.

A Valley and Two Sticks

And you, son of man, take one stick, writing on it “For Judah and for the children of Israel his companions;” then take another stick and write on it “For Joseph, the stick of Ephraim and the entire house of Israel his companions.” Then, joining them one to another, make them one stick, so that they become one in your hand.                                  Ezekiel 37:16-17

            The prophetic reading for Parashat vaYigash is Ezekiel’s vision of the union of the tribes of Israel in the end of days, symbolized by the miraculous merging of the stick of Judah and the stick of Ephraim into a single stick in the prophet’s hand.

            It is significant that the verses of the prophetic reading are the continuation of the chapter which presents Ezekiel’s vision in the valley of the dried bones. The first part of the chapter ends with the summary of the vision in the valley of the dried bones, in God’s words:

And I will put my spirit in you, and you shall live, and I will place you in your own Land; and you shall know that I God have spoken and done it, says God.                                                                      Ezekiel 37:14

The message of the vision in the valley of the dried bones is Israel’s return to its Land. Based upon this, we can appreciate the continuity of the two visions, for Israel can achieve true unity only within its Land. Zohar [Leviticus, Parashat Emor 93b] elucidates the verse “And who is like Your nation Israel, one nation in the Land” to mean that Israel can be considered a united nation only within the Land.

            Thus, it is not surprising that God explained the message of the prophecy of the sticks with the words:

And I will make them one nation in the Land [37:22] 

            And as if to stress the connection between the two visions, the “son of man” is instructed to explain to his compatriots the meaning of the union of the two sticks in his hand in the following words:

And say to them: “Thus says the Lord God: Behold, I am taking the children of Israel from among the nations where they have gone, and I will gather them from all around and I will bring them into their own Land. [37:21]

Almost exactly the same words of the vision in the valley of the dried bones, with a change from second to third person:

And I will bring you to the Land of Israel [37:12]

            After Israel’s return to its Land and the reunion of the tribes of Israel, God promises:

And they will live in the Land which I gave to Jacob, My servant, in which your fathers lived, and they will continue living there, they and their children and their children’s children, forever; and David, My servant will be their ruler forever. [37:25]

That is, the return of the tribes of Israel to their Land will be eternal, and they will never be exiled from her again.

            Concerning the reference specifically to Jacob, Malbim comments:

The verse refers to Jacob, since Jacob saw the miracle of the union of the stones into a single stone, as here the sticks united into a single stick, both symbolizing that Israel will be united as a single nation in the end of days.

            The vision of the union of the stick of Judah and the stick of Ephraim is, in fact, a repetition of the vision which Jacob saw as he began his journey into his first exile, when the stones he arranged as his pillow united into a single stone. (See Rashi, Genesis 28:11.)

            In essence, Ezekiel’s vision completes the huge circle of the history of the nation of Israel. Jacob, on his way to his personal exile, was informed of the unity of his twelve sons into a single nation, while Ezekiel’s prophecy is that at the end of days, Jacob’s children’s children will return to their Land and will realize their national unity for all eternity.

The First War as Archetype

Then Amalek came and fought with Israel at Rephidim.                                       Exodus 17:8

         The first battle fought by the Children of Israel was one of self defense against Amalek. It often happens that the first occurrence of an event serves as the archetype for that event’s recurrence. Indeed, there are practical lessons of the battle of Amalek which bear on Israel’s battles throughout the generations, including the battles of the Israel Defense Force.

       “And fought with Israel at Rephidim:” our Sages understood the place name “Rephidim” to mean “laxness of hands (rifyun yadayim) – the Israelites’ hands were lax in fulfilling Torah.” [Tanḥuma, Beshalaḥ 25] Kli Yakar adds that the name also implies internal disunity (pirud - detachment) within Israel, and explains that the detachment from God prevented the Israelites being saved by a miracle, while the internal disunity prevented the natural salvation of individual coming to aid of his comrade, since they were detached from each other. Indeed, until this day, the two keys to Israel’s victory are loyalty to God’s word and national unity.

         Moses appointed his disciple Joshua to lead the Israelites’ battle against Amalek, instructing him to “choose men for us,” [v.9] and the first-century sage Rabbi Yehoshua understood Moses’ instruction to mean “choose brave men who fear sinning.” [Lekaḥ Tov, Exodus 17:9] Yonatan ben Uziel translates “men who are brave and strong in fulfillment of mitzvot.” Alshikh (16^th century) comments that our verse refers to righteous men. The ideal Israelite/Jewish fighter combines bravery and righteousness.

            Moses, Israel’s “minister of defense” instructed Joshua, his chief of staff “go out and fight Amalek.” [v.9] Rabbi Yehoshua comments “Moses said to him: ‘go out from the protection of the Clouds of Glory and fight Amalek.’” [Mechilta d’Rebbi Shimon bar Yoḥai, 17:9] ibn Ezra phrases it thus: “leave the camp of Israel to fight against Amalek.” It is perfectly obvious that the battle must be joined outside the Clouds of Glory, which, according to Pirkei d’Rebbi Eliezer [43] protected the Israelite camp “as a city surrounded by a wall, so that no enemy or adversary could reach the Israelites.” The choice of a battleground outside the Israelite camp fits the IDF’s approach that battles are to be fought on the enemy’s soil, not within our borders.

            During the battle, Moses and all Israel were engaged in prayer, as Pirkei d’Rebbi Eliezer describes:

The Israelites went out of their tents and saw Moses kneeling and bowing on his knees, and they knelt and bowed on their knees; they saw him fall on his face, and they fell on their faces; they saw him raise his hands to heaven and they raised their hands to heaven.

                Mechilta d’Rebbi Shimon bar Yoḥai [17:12] adds that the entire congregation fasted throughout the day of battle, teaching that even civilians on the home front have an important role in determining the outcome of the campaign on the field of battle.

                “Moses, Aaron and Hur ascended to the top of the hill.” [v.10] 

Lekaḥ Tov expounds:

This was to recall the merit of the Fathers and Mothers, as the verse states: “From the top of the rocks I see them, from the hills I behold them” [Numbers 23:9] (the verse is understood Midrashically to refer to the Patriarchs and Matriarchs, see Targum Yonatan on the verse).               

       Beyond simply expressing an appeal to the merit of the ancestors of Israel, the Midrash implies that the Israelite warrior draws his strength from looking to our past and his appreciation of the fact that he is the legitimate continuity of Jewish history endows him with the strength to fight even against overwhelming odds.

     The inescapable conclusion and perhaps the essential lesson of the Israelites’ first battle is that physical strength is not sufficient to provide victory. The spiritual dimension, awareness of God’s protection of His people, must be added to the army’s physical prowess in order to achieve victory. Ultimately, it is the partnership between man and God which allows victory. (my father’s words)

Moses' Mission

And when the Lord saw that he turned aside to see, God called unto him out of the midst of the bush and said: “Moses, Moses,” and he said “Here I am.”   Exodus 3:4                                        

Moses’ first prophetic vision, and indeed, his appointment as a prophet took place at the burning bush, at Horev.

Zohar [1:85] notes that prophecy is given only in the Holy Land, and asks how Ezekiel was able to prophesy outside Israel. Zohar offers two answers: since Ezekiel prophesied on the banks of the River Kvar, the water, as it were connected him to the Holy Land; alternatively, Ezekiel’s prophetic career began in the Holy Land [though this is not stated explicitly in the verses] and therefore, he was allowed to continue prophesying even outside the Land.

Based upon the Zohar, Rabbi Yehonatan Eybschutz questions Moses’ appointment as a prophet. Neither of Zohar’s answers is applicable to Moses. Since the burning bush grew in a desolate area [Shemot Rabba 2:5 comments that just as the bush grew in a waterless place, so the Children of Israel; were bereft of Torah and good deeds], there was no water to connect it to the Land. Since Moses was not privileged to enter the Holy Land, the second answer offered by Zohar cannot explain Moses’ appointment as a prophet.

Rabbi Yehonatan states we are forced to accept the answer suggested by Rabbi Yehuda haLevi in his philosophical magnum opus, Kuzari. Ezekiel and Moses were able to prophesy outside the Land because their prophecies were for the benefit of the Land.

Devarim Rabba [2:8] states that Moses argued with God for the right to be allowed to cross the River Jordan and enter western Eretz Yisrael thus: “You appeared to me at the burning bush … and You have taught ‘one who begins a mitzva must complete it’, and I have begun the mitzva of bringing the Israelites out of Egypt, but have not completed the mitzva by bringing them into the Land.”

Moses’ right to be a prophet rests upon the fact that his prophetic mission was to lead the Children of Israel out of the bondage of Egypt for the purpose of bringing them into their Land.

Indeed, this point is stated explicitly in the Torah [and mentioned in the Hagada]: “And He brought us out from there, that He may bring us in, to give us the Land which He swore to our fathers.” [Deuteronomy 6:23]

Connecting the Books

And these are the names of the sons of Israel who came to Egypt with Jacob, each with his household.                                                                 Exodus 1:1

            The initial letter of the Book of Exodus, the second book of the Torah, is the conjunctive “vav.” On the simplest level, Exodus continues the story of the descent of Jacob’s family into Egypt.

            However, it is possible to suggest a more specific connection. One of the last matters dealt with in Genesis is Jacob’s blessing of Joseph’s sons, in which he insisted on giving primacy to the younger son, Ephraim over Joseph’s firstborn son, Menashe. We noted in a previous Dvar Torah that the Book of Genesis is replete with sibling rivalry, beginning with Cain and Abel, continuing with Isaac and Ishmael, Jacob and Esau, and culminating in the conflict between Joseph and his brothers. Menashe’s acceptance of his grandfather’s decision that his younger brother will exceed him represents the end of sibling rivalry.

            In Shemot, we are told that Aaron, Moses’ older brother went out to greet his younger brother, who had been appointed by God as the savior of Israel, “with gladness in his heart.” [Exodus 4:14]

            Thus, Aaron’s acceptance of his younger brother’s ascendency over him is the direct continuation of Ephraim and Menashe, and therefore the second book of the Torah commences with the conjunctive “vav.”

Tomorrow

Moses said to Pharaoh, "I give you the honor of setting the time that I should pray for you, and for your servants, and for your people, that the frogs be destroyed from you and your houses, and remain in the river only." "Tomorrow," (maḥar) he answered. Moses replied, "As you have said, so you may know there is no one like the Lord our God.     Exodus 8:5-6

            The word “maḥar” appears seven times in connection with the ten plagues (including once as “mimaḥarat”), and it therefore serves as a “leading word.”

            Maḥar is first spoken by Pharaoh, while the remaining six times the word is spoken by God or by His messenger Moses, in connection with the plagues of arov (“harmful creatures” or swarms of flies [Midrash Shemot Rabba 11:4, the opinions of Rabbi Yehuda and Rabbi Neḥemia, respectively]), [8:19,25] dever, (a plague on the Egyptians’ livestock) [9:5,6] hail [ibid. 18] and locust. [10:5]

            Pharaoh’s response to Moses’ offer to end the plague of frogs seems strange. Since Moses offered the king of Egypt the opportunity to choose the time for ending his nation’s suffering, we would expect Pharaoh’s answer to be “immediately!”

            Rabbeinu Beḥayye explains that Pharaoh assumed that Moses knew “that the time had come for the plagues’ removal, based upon the alignment of the stars,” thus Moses no doubt expected Pharaoh’s answer to be “immediately.” In order to demonstrate, from his perspective, that the plague was not under the control of God and His messenger, Pharaoh asked that the plague be removed the next day.

            Rabbeinu Beḥayye adds that in agreeing to Pharaoh’s request to delay the termination of the plague of frogs until the morrow, Moses demonstrated that the plague was not under the control of the celestial alignment, nor of nature, but God’s power. Indeed, this is Moses’ intention in saying to Pharaoh “So you may know that there is no one like the Lord our God.”

            Rabbeinu Beḥayye’s comments are related to Pharaoh’s first remark to Moses:

Pharaoh replied, 'Who is haShem that I should obey Him and let Israel go? I do not recognize haShem. Nor will I let Israel leave.'                                       [5:2]

            Our Sages understood the name haShem to be composed of “haya hoveh v’yihiyeh” (He was, He is and He will be), and Pharaoh’s declaration denies haShem’s existence in past present and future. “I do not recognize haShem” is stated by Pharaoh in the past tense, but is correctly translated to mean the present as well. The result of this denial is: “Nor will I let Israel leave,” that is, even in the future I will not accept haShem’s existence.

            Therefore, God informed Pharaoh that “tomorrow” is dependent upon His will, for it is He alone who rules past present and future.

Seven Versus Seven

And I have come down to take them out of the hands of the Egyptians, guiding them out of that land into a good and spacious Land, into a Land flowing milk and honey; into the place of the Canaanite and the Hittite and the Amorite and the Perizzite and the Hivite and the Jebusite.                                           Exodus 3:8

            Rebbi Natan, the disciple and successor of Rebbi Naḥman of Braslav, comments that the seven nations of Canaan (of whom only six are mentioned in our verse) hide the sanctity of the Land:

They cover the sanctity of the Land of Israel, hiding the savor of the Land’s sanctity and keeping it secret.

It is our responsibility to reveal the Land’s sanctity.

            The seven nations of Canaan stand opposite the seven species for which the Torah praises the Land:

For the essential praise (of the Land of Israel) is that it is from her that the sublime grace emanates, which is the source of the taste of these fruits. Therefore, in opposition to the seven fruits which convey the praise of the Land, stand the seven Canaanite nations, who prevent the expression of Land’s quality.

            That is, the physical taste of the fruits of the Land of Israel express the Land’s sanctity.

            Based upon this thought, Rebbi Natan explains the wording of our verse:  “guiding them out of that land … into a Land flowing milk and honey; into the place of the Canaanite and the Hittite and the Amorite and the Perizzite and the Hivite and the Jebusite:”

For the matters are inter-dependent, since in order to conquer and overcome the seven nations, it is necessary to believe in the Land’s praise that it a Land flowing milk and honey; that is, that it exudes the sublime grace, which is the source of the sweetness of the seven species. It is through this appreciation that it is possible to subjugate and conquer all the seven nations, who represent the deterrents to realizing the sanctity of the Land, for the main deterrent is the failure to feel the Land’s sanctity.

            In order to overcome “Canaaniteness” and turn the land of Canaan into the Land of Israel, to reveal the spiritual facet of the Land and its sanctity, it is necessary to appreciate the Land in its physical level, and to understand that the Land’s material aspect expresses her spirituality.

With and Through Our Children

And Moses answered:  With our youth and with our aged will we go, with our sons and with our daughters, with our flocks and with our herds will we go…                                                    Exodus 10:9

          The prepositional letter bet, translated as “with”, can also be understood to mean "through". My saintly teacher, HaRav Mordechai Rogov, indeed explained the verse as meaning "through our children shall we go". Moses' answer to Pharaoh's questioning the Israelites' ability to achieve freedom from Egypt was "through our children and our elderly will we go". It is the unity of generations, which provides the strength to overcome all obstacles in the Hebrew's path to freedom. "Through our sons and daughters will we go", as long as the sons and daughters are "ours", are of the same spirit as the older generation, and follow in our belief in God, we will have the power to stay fast in our path and succeed. Moses continued "through our flocks and cattle will we go", so long as the sheep and cattle are ours, to be used in accordance with the divine will, we will be able to leave Egypt to worship God, despite any difficulties which we may encounter.