“And all of these servants
of yours will come down to me and they will bow to me and say, “Leave – you and
all of the nation at your feet.” And
afterwards I will leave. And he left
from Paroh in anger.” (Shemot 11:8)
I work with teenagers.
Many – maybe even most – have some ambivalence towards authority. This ambivalence can turn to outright
antagonism when the student feels that he or she has been wronged by a figure
of authority. I do not think that these
feeling just go away as teenagers develop into adults. Instead, adults develop greater control over
expressing these feelings. Nonetheless,
each of us probably knows at least one adult who struggles with controlling
resentment towards authority. And this
struggle is always the most volatile when an actual wrong has occurred. So, this raises an interesting
question. How far should we go in
opposing wrongs done to us? Is there a
point at which we are overreacting and just expressing an innate antipathy
towards authority? What is that
point? In order to gain some insight
into the Torah’s perspective on these issues, let is consider Moshe’s
relationship to Paroh.
Now, this relationship is a perfect paradigm for
analyzing our question. Moshe was
commanded by Hashem to vigorously oppose Paroh. This opposition to Paroh was not over imagined wrongs. Paroh was evil and deserved to be
destroyed. Yet, did Moshe set limits
upon himself? Did he feel that there
was some level of restraint that must be retained even when dealing with an evil
despot like Paroh?
Let us begin our investigation by considering our
passage. Moshe tells Paroh about the
plague of the firstborn. He tells Paroh
that all of the firstborn in Egypt will die – except the firstborn of Bnai
Yisrael. Then, he tells Paroh that his
servant will come to him – Moshe. They
will prostrate themselves before him and beg him to leave Egypt with Bnai
Yisrael.
In the end, the scenario that Moshe described did not unfold precisely as he
predicted. Actually, Paroh himself
sought out Moshe and begged him to lead Bnai Yisrael out of Egypt. This discrepancy between Moshe’s prediction
and actual events concerned our Sages and they offered an interesting
explanation. According to Rebbi Yannai,
Moshe knew that Paroh would himself seek him out. However in deference to Paroh’s position as ruler, Moshe did not
reveal to Paroh that he would humiliate himself.[1] Rebbi Yannai’s position reflects a
sentiment expressed by Rebbi Channina.
Rebbi Channina taught that a person should regularly pray for the
welfare of the government. He explained
that if it were not for the presence of government authority, there would be no
order or safety in society.[2] Rebbi Yannai maintains that Moshe’s behavior
reflected his conflict was with Paroh
as an individual. But he respected
Paroh as the head of his government.
Moshe did not wish to show disrespect or undermine this position.
“Go to Paroh in the
morning. He will go out to the water
and you should stand opposite him on the bank of the river. And the staff that was transformed into a
serpent you should take in your hand.” (Shemot 7:15)
The Sages were not unanimous in their support of
Rebbi Yannai’s position. Their dispute
focuses on the above passage from Parshat VaEra. Hashem tells Moshe to demand that Paroh release Bnai
Yisrael. If Paroh refuses, Hashem will
turn the water in Egypt into blood.
Hashem tells Moshe to confront Paroh in the morning as Paroh goes out to
the water. Resh Lakish and Rebbi
Yochanan dispute the tone of Moshe’s message.
Rebbi Yochanan shares the perspective of Rebbi Yannai. He comments that Moshe was required to
address Paroh with respect. But Resh Lakish
disagrees. He asserts that Moshe was
required to demonstrate disrespect to Paroh.[3] This raises an obvious question. We understand Rebbi Yannai and Rebbi
Yochanan’s reasoning. They maintain
that Moshe was required to keep the dispute focused. His dispute with Paroh could not turn into a rebellion against
authority. Moshe must make clear that
his conflict is with Paroh the individual but he is not an anarchist. Why does Resh Lakish disagree with this
reasonable approach?
But before we can begin to understand the dispute
between these Sages we must recognize and deal with another difficulty in Resh
Lakish’s position. There is no question
that in our parasha – as explained
above – Moshe omitted telling Paroh that he himself would be required to
humiliate himself and beg Moshe to lead Bnai Yisrael out of Egypt. Rebbi Yaanai and Rebbi Yochanan can easily
explain this act of deference. But
according to Resh Lakish, Moshe was required to humiliate Paroh. How can Resh Lakish account for Moshe’s
apparent deference to Paroh?
“And the servant of Paroh
said to him, “Until when will this be a menace to us. Send the men and they
will worship Hashem their G-d. Do you
not yet know that Egypt is being destroyed?” (Shemot 10:7)
Moshe tells Paroh that Egypt will be overrun by
locusts. The locusts will consume any
foodstuffs that survived the plague of hail.
Paroh refuses to relent. But
Paroh’s servants oppose him. They
strongly advise him to release Bnai Yisrael and they question the soundness of
his judgment.
It is interesting that the Chumash includes this
dialogue between Paroh and his ministers in the account. We have to wonder why this element is
included in the narrative.
Perhaps, the answer is that this dialogue reveals
that in the battle between Moshe and Paroh, Paroh’s own ministers had begun to
believe that Paroh could not prevail.
Paroh was a mighty king. Paroh’s
ministers are characterized as his servants.
Yet, these ministers accepted that Moshe was more powerful than
Paroh.
If we this is the message of this incident, we have
an incident into Resh Lakish’s position.
Paroh was a powerful ruler. His
entire persona was dependant upon the manner in which he was viewed by his
servants, ministers, and followers.
Moshe told Paroh that his servant would seek him – Moshe – out and ask
that he lead Bnai Yisrael from Egypt.
According to Resh Lakish, Moshe was not sparing Paroh or showing him
deference. He was adding to Paroh’s
humiliation. He was telling Paroh that
his most trusted servants would abandon him.
Forced to choose between their loyalty to their king and their fear of
death, they would realize that Paroh could not protect them and they would
abandon him. They would run to Moshe to
seek salvation. Paroh would be revealed
to be powerless and fragile.
In short, there are two possible reasons for Moshe
telling Paroh that his servants – and not Paroh himself – would ultimately
appeal to Moshe to lead the people from Egypt.
According to Rebbi Yannai and Rebbi Yochnan, this was consistent with
Moshe’s policy focusing on his conflict with Paroh as an individual and
avoiding turning this dispute into a campaign of anarchy. According to Resh Lakish, Moshe was heaping
additional humiliation upon Paroh. He
was telling Paroh that in the end his most faithful servants will abandon him.
This leaves us with one question. Why does Resh Lakish disagree with the
reasonable approach and considerations of Rebbi Yanai and Rebbi Yochanan?
“And a new king arose over
Egypt that did not know Yosef.” (Shemot 1:8)
This passage is one of the opening passages of Sefer
Shemot. Rashi’s comments on this
passage are very well-known. Rashi
quotes a dispute between Rav and Shmuel.
According to Rav, the passage is to be understood literally. A new king arose that did not know
Yosef. But Shmuel disagrees. He contends that no new king assumed
power. However, the existing king
adopted a new outlook and set of policies.
He disavowed any recognition of the guidance and counsel that Yosef had
provided to Egypt’s people and leadership.
In other words, he chose to forget his debt to Yosef. [4]
As interesting as this dispute is, it is difficult
to understand its importance. What
difference does it make – in term of the overall account of the redemption from
Egypt – whether the king was actually new to the throne or only new in his
policies? In order to answer this
question, we must analyze the dispute more carefully.
In its context, the passage above is providing an
explanation for the oppression of Bnai Yisrael by the Egyptians. The Torah tells us that Yosef and his
brother had died, Bnai Yisrael prospered in Egypt and then a new king arose who
did not know Yosef. There are two ways
to understand this last element – the new king. One possibility is that the new king simply was not a
contemporary of Yosef. He did not have
intimate knowledge of Yosef’s contribution to Egypt. To him Yosef was an historical figure without relevance to the
current age. What was real was the
prosperity of Bnai Yisrael. Faced with
the phenomenon of this astounding prosperity and lacking any sense of debt to
Yosef, the king exhibited the same xenophobia that has surfaced over and again
in our own times. However, according to
Shmuel, this king knew Yosef. He chose
to ignore his contribution to Egypt.
Why was he compelled to engage in this fanciful denial? He must have felt threatened by Yosef or by
something that Yosef represented.
There is a fascinating comment made by our Sages
regarding Yosef’s power and influence.
Our Sages assert for forty years Yosef served as the minister of
Paroh. In the following forty years,
Yosef’s power eclipsed that of Paroh and his influence extended over the entire
civilized world.[5] With this comment as a backdrop, it is not
difficult to identify the probable roots of Paroh’s attitude towards
Yosef. After Yosef’s death, Paroh began
to see Yosef as a usurper whose power and influenced had surpassed that of the
throne of Egypt. Paroh’s battle was not
an expression of xenophobic paranoia.
It was an attempt to reestablish the position of the Parohs to its
former – pre-Yosef – zenith. In other
words, the destruction of Bnai Yisrael was an attempt to erase the memory of an
embarrassing episode in the history of the Paroh’s. It was an attempt to rewrite that history.
Viewed in this manner, Rav and Shmuel’s provide two
opposing perspectives on the conflict between Moshe and Paroh. According to Rav, Moshe’s conflict was with
Paroh as an individual. As an
individual, Paroh was an evil, paranoid racist. But according to Shmuel, Moshe’s conflict was not a personal battle. Paroh was attempting to reassert the
supremacy of the authority of the Parohs through the oppression and destruction
of Bnai Yisrael. Moshe was battling
this corrupted expression of political authority.
Perhaps, these two perspectives are also reflected
in the dispute between Rebbi Yannai, Rebbi Yochanan and Resh Lakish. Rebbi Yochanan and Rebbi Yanai’s position
corresponds very well with Rav’s postion.
Paroh’s hatred of Bnai Yisrael was an expression of his own personal
wickedness. Accordingly, Moshe opposed
Paroh on a personal level. But he did
not allow the dispute to turn into a battle with authority. But according to Shmuel, Paroh’s entire
campaign against Bnai Yisrael stemmed from an attempt to reassert the power of
the Parohs and to destroy a people – Bnai Yisrael – that were a reminder of the
former weakness of the Parohs. From
this perspective, Resh Lakish’s position makes sense. Moshe needed to prove that Paroh’s reinterpretation of kingship
was corrupt. No king can be the
omnipotent ruler that Paroh would have the world accept. For Moshe win this battle, he was required
to publicly humiliate Paroh. And
according to Resh Lakish this was accomplished when Paroh’s own servant
abandoned him to beg Moshe’s mercy.