Once again we will open our discussion of the parasha through Parashat Mishpatim.

As we recall from the previous shi’ur, we attempted to understand the status of the elders of Israel specifically, and in a more general sense the nature of the Hebrew Law, through Parashat Mishpatim – while explaining its connection to Parashat Shemot.

We will continue our discussion of Parashat Mishpatim, aiming to understand our parasha, Parashat Va’era, through this discussion of Mishpatim.

Parashat Mishpatim opens with the following verses:

“These are the laws that you must set before them: If you buy a Hebrew slave, he shall serve six years, but in the seventh year he is to be set free without liability.”

(Shemot 21:1,2)

Thus, the first commandment of the civil judicial system is the case of the “eved ivri” – “Hebrew slave,” from where the Torah then moves on to discuss the laws of the “ama ivri’ya” - the “Hebrew maidservant,” and then on to the laws of civil liability and damages.

In the previous shi’ur we dealt primarily with the position and content of Parashat Mishpatim, and only marginally with the eved ivri, this time we will deal with the question raised by these verses: Why does the Torah choose to specifically open the entire framework of civil legislation with the laws of the eved ivri and the ama ivri’ya?

It is important to note that the reality of the eved ivri applies in two sets of circumstances. The first instance is when a thief is unable to return the value of that which he stole; he is then sold by Bet Din to defray his liability. The second instance is when a person deteriorates into extremely difficult financial circumstances that he sells himself as a slave. (As an aside it is important to mention that the term “slave” employed here has no similarity to the brutal institution of slavery that we are familiar with from other cultures and nations. This slavery is rather a financial agreement whereby the employee commits himself to is employer for a period of time, yet does not forego his own sovereignty or lose his identity. To the contrary, the slave’s social rights are well-anchored in the Hebrew Law, which led our Sages to state: “He who purchases an eved ivri – it is as if he purchases a master for himself!” (Kiddushin 20a).)

Why did the Torah open this collection of civil laws with a reality that is rather uncommon?

Another rationale in ordering the laws between man and his fellow can be observed in the Mishna as compiled by Rabi Yehuda ha’Nasi (Rabi Yehuda the Prince) who did not open the laws of N’zikin (“Damages”) with the laws of the eved ivri, but rather with the four major categories of damages, continuing with the other types of damages, laws of monetary relationships between people, laws regarding neighbors, etc.

We might answer, as many have offered in attempt to find the solution, that Parashat Mishpatim begins specifically with this issue since Bnei Yisra’el were slaves who had just left their house of bondage. And since they had tasted the taste of slavery, they were now demanded not to act in the same manner to their brothers.

This is a good solution, yet it does not answer our question entirely. For if the Torah desired to teach us how we are required to distance ourselves from the moral degeneration that was prevalent among the various nations, the Torah should have included the laws of the Canaanite slave together with the laws of the eved ivri and the ama ivri’ya indicating how in this too there is a distinction between Yisra’el and the Gentiles. However the laws of the Canaanite slave are not recorded in Parashat Mishpatim, but are rather brought in Vayikra – therefore this answer is incomplete.

Let us leave this question for now, and deal with another.

In our parasha, Moshe is commanded to address Yisra’el and inform them of the upcoming redemption. Moshe begins his mission, yet is faced with the people’s reaction as described in the verses:

“Moshe told this to Bnei Yisra’el , but they did not listen to Moshe, for their spirits were crushed and they were (oppressed) with difficult labor.”

(Shemot 6:9)

The verses then continue to describe the dialogue between God and Moshe Rabbenu:

“And God spoke to Moshe saying: ‘Go and tell Pharaoh, king of Egypt, to send Bnei Yisra’el from his land.’ And Moshe spoke before God saying: ‘Indeed Bnei Yisra’el did not listen to me, how then should Pharaoh listen to me, a man of impeded speech!’”

(Shemot 6:10-12)

Let us consider the implicit question in these verses.

Moshe Rabbenu answers God’s command, with a ‘a fortiori’ argument. Moshe says that Bnei Yisra’el did not listen to him, so how then will Pharaoh heed his voice? We must ask whether this is in fact a valid ‘a fortiori’ argument. For Bnei Yisra’el did not listen to Moshe “for their spirits were crushed and they were (oppressed) with difficult labor.” In other words, the intensity of their enslavement prevented them from properly considering Moshe’s words. Why then would Pharaoh not heed Moshe’s words?

Secondly, Moshe’s reasoning that he is “a man of impeded speech” seems disconnected to the dialogue occurring before us. Why does he make repeated use of the excuse that he is “a man of impeded speech,” for God has already refuted this claim, telling him: “Who places a mouth in man…” (Shemot 4:11.)

In summary, we would like to clarify the exact nature of Moshe’s logical “a fortiori” argument, as well as his claim that is “a man of impeded speech.”

These are not our only questions on these verses. God’s reaction to Moshe is also unclear:

“So God spoke to both Moshe and Aharon, and He commanded them to go to Bnei Yisra’el and to Pharaoh in order to deliver Bnei Yisra’el from the Land of Egypt.”

(Shemot 6:13)

What is the exact nature of this command? Will commanding Yisra’el and Pharaoh resolve Moshe’s claims? This is another unclear point that we must consider.

The transition to the next topic in the parasha is also quite surprising:

“These are the heads of the family-houses: the sons of Re’uven, Yisra’el’s firstborn, Chanoch and Pa’lu, Chetzron and Karmi, these are the families of Re’uven.”

(Shemot 6:14)

Why does the Torah deal with the familial lineage of the tribes now? Moreover, only three tribes are mentioned – Re’uven, Shim’on, and Levi – while the others are omitted!

Let us summarize all that we have said thus far. We have raised two general questions: The first one relating to Parashat Mishpatim – which opens with the laws of the eved ivri. Why is the first compilation of civil laws opened with the laws of a peripheral, rare reality?

Our second question relates to the passage that deals with the dialogue between Moshe and God, after Moshe is commanded to inform Bnei Yisra’el of the impending redemption. What is Moshe’s logic in claiming a seemingly logical argument paralleling Bnei Yisra’el’s refusal to heed him to Pharaoh’s projected lack of interest in what he will say to him? We also questioned God’s response to Moshe; and finally we questioned the juxtaposition of the record of the familial lineage of the three tribes to our parasha.

We will now pose a third question that lies within Parashat Shemot.

The verses describe Moshe’s fleeing from Egypt and his marriage to Tzippora as follows:

“And Pharaoh heard of this, and he sought to kill Moshe, but Moshe fled from Pharaoh, and he settled in the land of Midyan, and settled near a well. Now the priest of Midyan had seven daughters. They came to draw water, and filled the troughs to water their father’s flock, but shepherds came and drove them off. Moshe rose and saved them, and he watered their flock. When they returned to their father, Re’u’el, he said: ‘ How is it that you have come back so soon today?’ They answered , ‘An Egyptian rescued us from the shepherds, he even drew water for us and watered the flock.’ He said to his daughters, ‘Where is he then? Why did you leave the man? Ask him in eat bread.’ And Moshe consented to stay with the man, and e gave his daughter, Tzippora, to Moshe.”

(Shemot 2:15-21)

Then we are told of the birth of Moshe’s son:

“And she gave birth to a son, and he called his name ‘Gershom’ – for he said: ‘I have been a stranger in a foreign land.’”

(Shemot 2:22)

Let us examine this verse. Gershom’s name is given to him by Moshe, his father, as the verse states: “and he called his name ‘Gershom.’ The meaning of the name is “I have been a stranger in a foreign land.”

The fact that Moshe was a stranger in a foreign land is correct. But why call your son by this name? What hope does this name represent? What is the significance of this name? We know that each of the tribes’ names holds within it deep, rich meaning. Here, at first glance it seems that this name is nothing more than a historical account of Moshe’s life until this point. It also seems apparent that Gershom’s birth represents a historical turning point in his life, for immediately afterwards the verses describe this transformation that begins to take hold of his life:

“And it was during this time that the king of Egypt died, and Bnei Yisra’el groaned under the bondage and cried out. And their cry for help from the bondage rose up to God. And God heard their moaning, and God remembered his covenant with Avraham, Yitzchak, and Ya’akov. And God saw Bnei Yisra’el, and God knew.”

(Shemot 2:23-25)

Thus far we have raised a number of questions, let us now begin to clarify matters.

Let us open with our third question, regarding the name “Gershom,” and through our examination of this issue we will move to understand the other issues.

If we were to ask ourselves where Anti-Semitism began as a movement – meaning the translation of the inner hatred into real actions, the majority of us would designate the verses beginning:

“A new king arose over Egypt who did not know Yosef…”

(Shemot 1:8)

Yet this is an error.

Anti-Semitism began in the verse preceding that which we just mentioned:

“But Bnei Yisra’el were fertile and prolific, they multiplied and increased very greatly, and the land was filled with them.”

(Shemot 1:7)

When Bnei Yisra’el multiplied and increased in this manner, the incidence of Anti-Semitism becomes part of reality.

But there is more to it than this. This anti-Semitic outburst is not purely out of jealousy, which simply causes an incidental outburst, an exception of anti-Semitic behavior. Rather these two verses hint at a historical norm, a natural law that appears time after time in the Diaspora, which exacts a heavy toll from our people.

Let us examine the occurrence of events as they are described in the parshiyot of the last few weeks.

When the children of Ya’akov reach Egypt, Pharaoh asks them: “What is your occupation?” (Bereshit 47:3,) and they answer, “You servants are shepherds, also us, and our fathers too,” (ibid.) But then they add, “We have come to stay awhile in the land,” (ibid. 47:4.) In other words, “we have come to be foreigners in your land, this is not our place, this is not our inheritance! We have come to Egypt temporarily due to the famine in Canaan.” This is a most impressive statement, which holds in it the deep appreciation of the connection to Eretz Yisra’el. If we remember that this declaration is made by those who are brothers to Yosef, the brothers of the leader of the superpower of the time, it is all the more impressive that these people still consider themselves foreigners in Egypt. They do not forget their source, nor do they forget where it is they would like to return to. In the words of the Haggada:

“Teaching us that they did not come (to Egypt) in order to settle permanently.”

At the beginning of Shemot, however, we are witness to another development:

“But Bnei Yisra’el were fertile and prolific, they multiplied and increased very greatly, and the land was filled with them.”

(Shemot 1:7)

This description does not solely tell us of their natural growth in quantity, but far more than that. The expression “increased very greatly” is rooted in the word “power, might,” describing an increase in power and influence.

More so, the description “and the land was filled with them” is more than a purely quantitative description, but also a qualitative description of Yisra’el, without whom the land of Egypt would have been considered empty.

The transition from this to “And a new king arose over Egypt” is very swift.

At the basis of these issues lies the historical law that repeats itself throughout history – as long as Yisra’el forgets that they are living temporarily in the Diaspora and not settling there, when they forget their connection to Eretz Yisra’el and instead cleave to the land of their exile, immediately a “new king who did not know Yosef” appears who persecutes and subjugates them. It may take a generation or two, but we must not be misled, this “new king who did not know Yosef” will certainly come.

This simple but difficult truth is explained by the Netziv of Volozhin on the verse

“And a new king arose who did not know Yosef.” This is what he writes:

“For after they established their home among them, they found that it was good for them to become similar to the Egyptians, and it would not be apparent that these are Jews. And it is for this reason that the Midrash explains that God changed their hearts to hate his nation. And we already explained in the Book of Bereshit, on the verse “Your descendants will be foreigners,” (Bereshit 16:13,) that this is the reason that in every generation they arise to annihilate us – for we do not desire to be as foreigners, distinct from the other nations.”

(Ha’amek Davar)

The Netziv writes that after Yisra’el established their home in Egypt “they found that it was good for them to become similar to the Egyptians, and it would not be apparent that these are Jews.” But then the Divine reaction is not long in coming – “God changed their hearts to hate his nation.”

The Netziv thus explains God’s words to Avraham at the Covenant between the Parts (Brit bein ha’b’tarim) when He said “Your descendants will be foreigners in a land that is not theirs.” The Netziv explains that this verse defines the difficult test that Bnei Yisra’el will be required to experience while in their exile. A test that will offer them two possibilities: the first is to remember that they are only “foreigners,” while the second is the option of naturalization in the Diaspora – the desire to become one and the same with those nations among whom the Jew finds himself, (even if this desire is accompanied by a religious, Jewish, framework.)

Yet the Divine reaction is quiet clear. If Yisra’el remember that they are foreigners – all the better; however if they do not remember this, the nations will remind them. The nations will remind the Jews that they are but strangers, and the conclusion of the verse will be realized: “And they will serve them, and they will be afflicted for four-hundred years.”

“This is the reason that in every generation they arise to annihilate us – for we do not desire to be as foreigners, distinct from the other nations.”

In his commentary to Bereshit, on the Brit bein ha’b’tarim we find the Netziv’s opinion in further detail. He explains the words of the Haggada:

“And it (Brit bein ha’b’tarim) has stood firm for our fathers and for us… in every generation there are those who stand against us to annihilate us. But the Holy One, Blessed is He, saves from their hand.”

“And this is what the author of the Haggada says: ‘And it’ – this is the statement ‘for your descendants will be foreigners’ that has stood firm for our fathers and for us for in every generation there are those who stand against us to annihilate us for we act in contrast to the Divine Will which is to remain as foreigners, for this concerns the central essence of the nation.”

What is it that has as a merit for our fathers and for us throughout the generations? The fact that we have not lost the knowledge of “for your descendants will be foreigners,” that is to say the knowledge that we are foreigners in the exile and the Diaspora, and not citizens.

This is how the Netziv explains the words of the Haggada “And it (Brit bein ha’b’tarim) has stood firm for our fathers and for us.” However, to our dismay, when this knowledge is forgotten by Yisra’el, then there is destruction and terrible devastation.

The Netziv then continues, establishing that despite this fact, that we must be distinct from the gentiles among whom we live in the Diaspora, which is illogical – but this is the only way that we will survive the lengthy exile.

He writes:

“And regarding the fact that by human logic it seems to the contrary that when we are as citizens and residents among them they will not act as badly to us. Regarding this the Haggada said ‘Go out and learn what Lavan the Aramean desired to do,’ but it seems that all Lavan desired was to cheat Ya’akov through his sheep, or simply thieve from him. And aside from this he seemed to be generous toward him, but in truth the scriptures testify that he in fact desired to uproot everything. From this understand that the reality is identical in every generation, only God saves us from their hands. Sometimes this (salvation) is hidden from us, and sometimes it is revealed in the open.”

In other words, despite “the fact that by human logic” it seems that “when we are as citizens and residents” among the Gentiles “they will not act as badly to us” – this is untrue! And this we learned from Lavan who requested that Ya’akov herd his sheep, in order to assist him that he should be with him, and from this point he then desired to uproot everything

Therefore, Yisra’el’s sin in the Diaspora is their desire to be ‘citizens.’ Their sin is in forgetting that they are only foreigners in their land of sojourn. This historical truth accompanies our nation and takes on a real and difficult form – especially when we consider the warnings of a number of the Torah giants that lived prior to the generation of the Holocaust.

One of these was Rav Simcha Ha’Kohen of Dvinsk, the author of the commentary “Meshech Chochma” on the Torah, who passed away in 1926, approximately 13 years prior to the Second World War and the Holocaust of European Jewry.

He comments on the verse in Parashat B’chukotai:

“Then even when they are in their enemies’ land I will not grow so disgusted with them nor tired of them that I would destroy them and break My covenant with them, since I am God their Lord.”

(Vayikra 26:44)

His comments gain a shocking significance after observing the course of history in the modern era. His words contain a prediction of what was to occur in Europe. He writes:

“And the Jew will never forget his source and will never be considered a complacent citizen.”

(Vayikra 26:46)

Today, the expression “complacent citizen” can be replaced with a modern term, “a liberal citizen.” Now Rav Simcha Ha’Kohen describes those of Yisra’el who attempt to be complacent citizens, then he who tries to be absorbed in society acts as follows:

“He will leave the studies of his religion, in order to study languages that are not his, will study that which destroys as opposed to that which mends.”

He will learn the negative aspects of the non-Jewish society, as opposed to those positive aspects. However the deterioration does not stop here but brings the person to the stage where:

“He will think that Berlin is Jerusalem.”

At this point the Meshech Chochma uses a sentence that we, today, can appreciate how frightening it is.

God’s reaction is not late in coming, a reaction contained in the words of the Prophet Hoshe’a:

“Rejoice not, O Yisra’el, for joy, as other people; for you have gone lewdly astray from your God.”

(Hoshe’a 9:1)

For then the Meshech Chochma writes:

“A powerful, stormy wind will come, will uproot him from his roots, will leave him to the Gentile from afar whose language he has not learned. He will know that he is a foreigner, his language is our Holy Tongue, and foreign languages are changed like clothing, his source is from the foundations of Yisra’el, and his comfort is that offered by the Prophets of God – who prophesied as to the descendants of Yishai at the end of days.”

Therefore the storm that will batter Yisra’el, that in our generation we can testify already struck those who thought that “Berlin is Jerusalem, comes in order to teach them that they are foreigners; in the word of the Meshech Chochma, “He will know that he is a foreigner.”

These are the words of Rav Simcha Ha’Kohen of Dvinsk. We have no way of knowing how many years prior to the Holocaust they were composed. In any event, he describes the historical law that the feeling of being foreigners while in the Diaspora is that device that has stood strong for our fathers, preventing their annihilation, (as the Netziv explained.) However, sadly, when this law is forgotten, despite the fact that the Jews have observed the way of God, a “stormy, powerful wind” comes upon them.

This existential balance was already noted by the author of the “Kli Yakar,” who lived in Spain approximately five-hundred years ago, regarding the verse in Bereshit:

“Yisra’el lived in Egypt, in the Goshen district. They acquired property there, were fertile, they increased very rapidly.”

(Bereshit 47:26)

These are his words: (This quote is brought from the commentary on the Torah, “Shem mi’Shemu’el” of the Rebbe of Sokotchov. We will bring the Shem mi’Shemu’el’s response afterwards.)

“‘Yisra’el lived in Egypt, in the Goshen district. They acquired property...’ In the Kli Yakar he writes that this verse notes the wrongdoing of Yisra’el, for God decreed that ‘your descendants will be foreigners,’ yet they desired to be residents in a place where it was decreed that they should be foreigners etc. The verse accuses them with this settling in Egypt where they desired to become rooted in a land that was not theirs, and they had not said this Pharaoh, for they had said they simply came to sojourn, but now they were going back on their word.”

According to the Kli Yakar then, Yisra’el’s sin was that God decreed that they should be as foreigners in a foreign land, yet they desired to be residents in a location where it was decreed that they bee foreigners.

Therefore the entire verse “Yisra’el lived in Egypt, in the Goshen district. They acquired property there, were fertile, they increased very rapidly,” is an indictment against Bnei Yisra’el.

Let us return to our question we posed as to the name of Moshe’s firstborn son, Gershom. It seems that this name contains within it that truth, that timeless concept we mentioned above.

We must recall that Moshe Rabbenu grew up in the home of kings. He himself is described by Yitro’s daughters a “an Egyptian man.” All these show how involved Moshe was in Egyptian culture, yet when Moshe names his first child, he declares “I was a stranger in a foreign land.” In other words, Egypt, and Pharaoh and all his palaces – all these were a foreign, strange land in Moshe’s eyes.

Through his son’s name, Moshe reveals the realization of being a foreigner that he feels while in Egypt. He shows how a personality who could easily have been involved in the inner circles of the Egyptian hierarchy feels as a stranger, a person who knows that this is not his place.

Then, when Gershom is born and Moshe declares: “I was a stranger in a foreign land” the historical change takes place, and then immediately afterwards the verses state:

“And they cried out because of their slavery, and their pleas went up before God. God heard their cries and He remembered His covenant with Avraham, Yitzchak, and Ya’akov.”

(Bereshit 2:23,24)

Then the wheels of the redemption are set in motion.

Incidentally, even the greatest among our nation who lived among the Gentiles sometimes did not have this feeling of being a foreigner. The Shem mi’Shemu’el reacts to the words of the Kli Yakar who accuses Yisra’el of lacking this feeling of not belonging as follows:

“And I say – may his Master forgive him for heaping insult on these superior holy individuals…”

The Shem mi’Shemu’el is not prepared to accept this interpretation of the verses, and despite his greatness in Torah, there is a certain neglect of the Divine law. Instead, he offer an alternate explanation to the verses, which in a manner of speaking is the complete opposite of the words of the Kli Yakar.

He writes:

“Therefore we must say that it was by intent that Yosef caused the Egyptians to uproot their places of dwelling, in order that their roots be severed so as to weaken their might in order that they should not prevail as much over Yisra’el. And he did the opposite to Yisra’el, giving them property in Egypt, so that they be well entrenched. But even after moving the Egyptians from location to location, we do not see him giving them an inheritance in the land, but rather they remained foreigners, and any time he desired he could move them from location to location. This being the contrary to Yisra’el - who owned permanent property that they could leave to their children as an inheritance. In this manner Yisra’el had stronger roots and more Divine power in order that the Egyptians would not be able to prevail over them, causing them to settle, God forbid, in the exile.”

In other words, specifically in the Diaspora Yisra’el must feel that they have an inheritance, and the Gentiles must feel as foreigners. It is for this reason that Yosef acted out this policy of population transfer regarding the Egyptians, while he left Yisra’el in their location in Goshen.

Regarding the Kli Yakar’s remark that originally the tribes said that “they simply came to sojourn” and then afterwards the verse testifies that “They acquired property there, were fertile, they increased very rapidly,” the Shem mi’Shemu’el says:

“And the question he raised that originally they said ‘they simply came to sojourn’ and now they went back on their word, this is not a (valid) question, for the entire purpose of their acquiring property and cleaving to the land was in order that they not remain, God forbid, in Egypt, and in order that they fulfill their statement that the merely came ‘to sojourn,’ as the Sages stated: ‘this indicates that Ya’akov did go to Egypt in order to settle there, but rather to (temporarily) sojourn there.’”

In other words, specifically acquiring and possessing land in Egypt has the benefit of preventing their absorption and assimilation into Egyptian life.

Thus we have the words of a Torah Great who understood matters in a different light. We must note that he also, the Shem mi’Shemu’el, was active and died in the era directly prior to the Holocaust (approximately eighteen years before the Holocaust.) Unfortunately the lack of feeling as a foreigner in these dimensions brought the Nazi devil onto Yisra’el. Incidentally, his son, Rav David of Sokotchov , was murdered by the Nazis, and his grandson died in sanctification of God’s name and in defense of Eretz Yisra’el in the War of Independence in 1948.

To what an extent this attitude of being a stranger and a foreigner in the Diaspora has the potential to save Am Yisra’el while in exile, we find in the horrifying testimony of Rav Akiva Glasner, one of the greatest Rabbis of Romania during the Holocaust, who survived the death inferno. He wrote the following in 1946:

“In my soul and in my conscience, when I summate Rabbinic activity of over forty years, I feel the need to express a public confession, a public admission of “al chet,” (Literally “On the sin of,” the prayer whereby one confesses specific sins.) I admit that I myself, together with a immense number of my Rabbinic colleagues, did not fulfill our spiritual and religious missions in the required manner according to the needs of the great era through which we lived, which played a fateful and critical part in the life of our nation… During those twenty years after the First World War, were we not able, were we not obliged to do the impossible in order to encourage and realize the Aliyah (Immigration) to Eretz Yisra’el of a large part of our nation, who due to our shortcomings, instead of saving their lives in Eretz Yisra’el and taking part in the establishment of the State, that their presence could have been an important factor in the religious development of the National Homeland, and thereafter of the State of Israel, and instead were exiled to the camps of Auschwitz and Majdanek where millions were destroyed in the gas chambers?”

(From ‘Shivat Zion Nes La’Amim’ – R’ Avraham Livni)

Nothing more needs to be said.

Another horrifying testimony as to the exacting soul searching that a number of Rabbis carried out, while the fear and inferno raged in Europe, can be found in the book of Rav Yissachar Teichtal, one of the greatest Hungarian Rabbis, author of the book “Eim ha’Banim S’meicha,” who unfortunately was killed on the day Auschwitz was liberated.

In his book, which was written during the very days of the Holocaust, Rav Yissachar tries to find the logic of God’s hand behind the fire that raged outside. These are his words:

“And according to this, we must also explain the reason for the difficulties we must have before the coming of the Messiah. It is well known that this, the final redemption will be eternal, with no exile nor subjugation following it; and God desires that not even Jewish soul will be lost among the nations, as the verse states: ‘And you will be gathered up one by one, O children of Israel,’ (Yeshayahu 27:12,) ‘and no-one will be banished,’ (II Shemu’el 14:14.)”

(Eim ha’Banim S’meicha, pg. 71)

At this point Rav Teichtal then describes a tragic truth:

“And now, if the redemption occurred through goodness and the tranquility between the nations, there would be many, many of our brothers of Am Yisra’el who would not desire to leave, for what do they lack in the Diaspora? They are wealthy, important, and ministers among the nations, like the Rothschilds, and the Barons among the Jews who have achieved honor and rank, having been elevated to ministers and lords, what is the Messiah and Eretz Yisra’el to them? They have their Messiah and Jerusalem here, and need nothing more than what they already have.”

(ibid.)

These words contain the tragic truth, that when life is good for the Jews, they forget the Messiah and the land of the fathers, for “They have their Messiah and Jerusalem here, and need nothing more than what they already have.”

Rav Teichtal then notes that this problem stems from years before, already from the times of the Return to Zion at the time of Ezra:

“And the wealthy of Israel really did so, that they were living in tranquility in Babylon in the days of Ezra, as Rashi wrote in Kiddushin (69b) that even the pious who were wealthy and lived in tranquility in the Diaspora did not return to Israel with him, only the poor and downtrodden joined him.”

Rav Teichtal quotes the testimony of the Greats of Yisra’el who explain why the oppressive decrees and troubles are so common in the Jewish communities of Worms (Germany). He quotes the testimony of the author of the S’ma (Sefer Me’ir Einayim, a halachik work on the Shulchan Aruch) that:

“The fact that the oppressive decrees are so common in the community of Worms, more so than in other communities and countries, is due to the fact that after the destruction of the First Temple they settled in Worms, and after the conclusion of the seventy-year exile of Babylon, the exiles returned to Jerusalem and to Eretz Yisra’el. However, those who settled in Worms did not return to Eretz Yisra’el. And the people of Jerusalem wrote to the people of Worms urging them to come and settle Eretz Yisra’el, so that they may journey to Jerusalem, which is so far from them now, on the Three Pilgrimage Festivals. They did not assent to the request, and replied: ‘Settle, you, in the great Jerusalem, and we will live here in the small Jerusalem.’ For at that time they were very important in the eyes of the lord and the Gentiles, and they were very affluent. And it is for this that the decrees were imposed upon them more than other communities and countries.”

Rav Teichtal adds:

“And it appears relevant to me to add, that maybe it is for this reason that the area of Ashkenaz was always as a knife thrust into Yisra’el, for all the crises and oppressive decrees always began there, as we know from the events through the life of Yisra’el, from the Middle Ages until now in our generation. In any event, we see that they considered themselves to be secure in their countries, and therefore the catastrophes and the oppressive decrees and the exile came upon them.”

It is the cleaving to the exile, and the viewing of the Diaspora as a “small Jerusalem” that is the knife thrust into Yisra’el.

Now Rav Teichtal formulates that historical law that we have been dealing with:

“And so it is for this reason in all the countries of the Diaspora that since they diverted their attention from returning and settling in Eretz Yisra’el, therefore it is the counsel of the Great Counselor to continually bring exile and harsh subjugation upon them – in order that they will desire to return to Eretz Yisra’el. And I observed that Rav Ya’akov Emden (in the introduction to “The Ladder of Bet El”) wrote this also, that for diverting their attention from Eretz Yisra’el, immediately harsh decrees are brought upon Yisra’el. And this is true and clear, and it is the secret of the Exile, as the aforementioned Kabbalist himself wrote.”

After all we have said, we must ask ourselves why it is so difficult to feel as foreigners in the Diaspora? So much so that that God must “continually bring exile and harsh subjugation upon them – in order that they will desire to return to Eretz Yisra’el?”

It is not sufficient to simply rely on the logic that the comforts of the Diaspora are the addictive drug that blurs the connection to Eretz Yisra’el as well the feeling as foreigners. There is another force that binds Yisra’el to the Diaspora – what is it?

The answer may very well be contained in the first questions we posed.

We asked why Parashat Mishpatim opens with the laws of the eved ivri, and in what we will understand as an entirely different context, we questioned the dialogue between Moshe and God.

Let us try and clarify these issues through the solution of one final question.

The verses that conclude this section are as follows:

“So God spoke to both Moshe and Aharon, and He commanded them to go to Bnei Yisra’el and to Pharaoh in order to deliver Bnei Yisra’el from the Land of Egypt.”

(Shemot 6:13)

The content of the command that God instructs Moshe and Aharon is furnished by the Jerusalem Talmud:

“‘And He commanded them to go to Bnei Yisra’el’ – what did He command them? About the parasha of liberating one’s slaves.”

(Jerusalem Talmud, Rosh Hashana, 3:5)

What is a command as to the liberation of one’s slaves doing in the middle of Parashat Va’era, at the height of Yisra’el enslavement to the Egyptians?

It is this very aspect, that in the throws of Yisra’el’s enslavement to Pharaoh, an enslavement that did not stop at the practical, physical, external plane - but was also the mental and psychological enslavement under the Egyptian mentality. Subjugation to the hierarchical network wherein one enslaves his fellow, whereby the lower echelons of society are enslaved and subjugated to those higher than them. Here is the place to break this pattern of thinking, and to command as to the laws of the eved ivri. (Once again, the eved ivri’s social rights and commercial identity blunt the force of the institution of slavery, to the point that our Sages stated: “He who purchases an eved ivri – it is as if he purchases a master for himself.”)

The Meshech Chochma explains this verse in a manner that enlightens us as to the complete nature of Bnei Yisra’el’s slavery in Egypt. These are his words:

“It may be that also then, in Egypt, there were many leaders of the nation who were honored ministers and lords, and they themselves would enslave members Bnei Yisra’el whom they purchased from Egyptians.”

So it would not be correct to say that all of Yisra’el in Egypt belonged to the slave caste, there were “honored ministers and lords” among them, yet these began to enslave their own brethren. Even these “honored ministers” were themselves enslaved to the Egyptian approach, to the caste system and the kingdom of slavery. Their subjugation to this system was so complete that they began to enslave their own nation.

The Meshech Chochma then posits a hypothesis:

“And maybe they were the three tribes of Re’uven, Shim’on, and Levi who acted as masters over their own people in Egypt.”

The Meshech Chochma continues offering the theory that this was the reason that it was these three tribes who received (if at all) undefined and disordered inheritances in Eretz Yisra’el.

“Levi – for it was not subjugated in Egypt, and therefore it did not receive a portion in the Land; also Re’uven did not inherit land across the Jordan, and regarding Shim’on, the verse “I will disperse them in Ya’akov,” (Bereshit 49:7,) was fulfilled (in his tribe), in accordance with the explanation of the Ramban.”

We must recall that social status of these three tribes was characterized as follows:

“Many of them were free men, as well as ministers, who would enslave Jews who were sold to them by Pharaoh’s regime.”

Those ministers and lords would purchase their brothers who were Pharaoh’s slaves, and enslave them themselves. It is as a result of this that God speaks to Moshe and Aharon such that “He commanded them to go to Bnei Yisra’el and to Pharaoh in order to deliver Bnei Yisra’el from the Land of Egypt.” God commanded Moshe and Aharon to go those members of Bnei Yisra’el who had subjugated and enslaved their brethren in Egypt, just as Pharaoh had done, and as Pharaoh, they too must free Bnei Yisra’el.

From all we have said thus far, we can see the degree of assimilation of sections of our nation into Egyptian culture and the Egyptian morality. They had become so absorbed into Egypt that they had become like the Egyptians into slave masters who had enslaved Yisra’el. This is what the Meshech Chochma continues with:

“Therefore God commanded that Bnei Yisra’el and Pharaoh set Bnei Yisra’el free from their slavery. And therefore juxtaposed to this command is the lineage of the three tribes, and the Torah concludes: ‘This then is what God said to Moshe and Aharon, ‘Bring Bnei Yisra’el out of the Land of Egypt by their armies,’’ that each family and tribe should be its own individual ‘army,’ or group, and they should not be enslaved one to his fellow.”

That is to say that the problematic juxtaposition of the topics that we mentioned can be explained as God teaching those three tribes that they may not enslave their brethren. Each and every member of Yisra’el must stand tall on his own two feet, and may never be subjugated to another. The Meshech Chochma then explains the excerpt from the Jerusalem Talmud, explaining why then the laws of the eved ivri were commanded to Yisra’el specifically then.

“And it seems that this is the intention of the Jerusalem Talmud: “‘And He commanded them to go to Bnei Yisra’el’ – what did He command them? About the parasha of liberating one’s slaves” – that the Jews should liberate those of Yisra’el whom they themselves enslaved, as I have written. And this too is the meaning of the verse: ‘Thus says the Lord, the God of Yisra’el, I made a covenant with you fathers in the day that I brought them out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage,’ (Yirmiyahu 34:13) – meaning that ‘at the conclusion of seven years one shall release his brother being a Hebrew, who has been sold to you, and when he has served you six years, you will let him go free from you, but your fathers did not heed me, nor did they incline their ear,’ (ibid. 34:14.)”

In other words, using Moshe and Aharon, God desires to instruct those among Yisra’el who maintain the way of the Egyptians; for under no circumstances may they enslave their brethren.

Let us now return to the beginning of the verses, recalling that after Moshe announces the tidings of the redemption the verse states:

“Moshe told this to Bnei Yisra’el , but they did not listen to Moshe, for their spirits were crushed and they were (oppressed) with difficult labor.”

(Shemot 6:9)

“For their spirits were crushed and they were (oppressed) with difficult labor” does not necessarily mean that they were solely under intense physical pressure. It means that Yisra’el were so deeply enslaved to the Egyptian mentality that they were perfectly comfortable in that society. But then God commands Moshe:

“And God spoke to Moshe saying: ‘Go and tell Pharaoh, king of Egypt, to send Bnei Yisra’el from his land.’”

(Shemot 6:10,11)

And Moshe responds:

“And Moshe spoke before God saying: ‘Indeed Bnei Yisra’el did not listen to me, how then should Pharaoh listen to me, a man of impeded speech!’”

We asked as to the content of the a fortiori argument that Moshe uses, yet in the light of what we have said it is clear. Moshe’s basic claim is that Bnei Yisra’el have become so enslaved to the Egyptian culture that they will not listen to him as a result of their crushed spirits and their difficult labor – they are impatient and have become so assimilated into the Egyptian culture of “difficult labor” through the principle of enslaving others. How then will Pharaoh, the instigator of this ideology of slavery, and the supreme master of the empire of slavery, heed him? More so, Moshe is “a man of impeded speech” – a man of great morality who is entirely disconnected from the Egyptian reality.

What then does God expect of him, of Moshe - who in his greatness has no association with the Egyptian culture – to approach the head of the tyrannical ideology in order to convince him to free the nation of slaves? For then we see the following reaction, (which we have already mentioned,)

“So God spoke to both Moshe and Aharon, and He commanded them to go to Bnei Yisra’el and to Pharaoh in order to deliver Bnei Yisra’el from the Land of Egypt.”

(Shemot 6:13)

Here, as we mentioned from the Jerusalem Talmud, Bnei Yisra’el are commanded as to the laws of the eved ivri, a legal concept that uproots the Egyptian slave hierarchy from the Jewish world. Immediately following this we have the verses that describe the families and lineage of the three tribes of Re’uven, Shim’on, and Levi, that according to the Meshech Chochma were those who enslaved their fellow Jews. This is then in order to teach them and the coming generations that Am Yisra’el is one family made up of people equal to one another - despite their individual talents, responsibilities and tribal position.

In conclusion, Bnei Yisra’el assimilated entirely into the society in Egypt, becoming completely one with the atmosphere of the time. They were fearful of leaving Egypt and returning to Eretz Yisra’el – for they based their uniqueness on their political power and their ability to enslave their brethren. Slowly but surely they assimilated until God commands Moshe and Aharon to order Bnei Yisra’el out of Egypt, while the divine command was not solely directed at Pharaoh, but also at those Jewish taskmasters who persecuted their brothers.

At that same point in time Bnei Yisra’el is commanded as to the laws of the eved ivri, for this concept holds within it the formula for the correct attitude towards the weaker Jew who sells himself – or is sold by Bet Din – into slavery.

This is also the reason why Parashat Mishpatim opens with the laws of eved ivri and ama ivriya, in order to enshrine the concept of equality, which prevents the domination of one Jew by another. Yet here is not the place to mention the laws of the Canaanite slave, for the discussion is not one of all aspects of slavery, but rather comes to clarify the correct attitude of man to his fellow, based on the concept of equality.

Thus we see how great the deterioration in the Diaspora can be, when the nation lacks the feeling of being foreigners. And just as in Egypt there were those who were enslaved to the local ideology and thus were able to gain power and political influence, so too in every generation throughout the long exile there were similar individuals – yet the storm did not pass them by.

The understanding that we are strangers in a land that is not ours is the restraining force before catastrophe, and is the alternative to the Heavenly reminder, which is extremely painful when it comes. Only in our land, in the inheritance of our fathers are we capable of revealing that we are all the sons of one man – for we are all His children, the children of He who uttered and created the world.

Translated by Sholem Hurwitz.