Vaerá

 Daf Shvui No. 115

Parashat Va'era

And By My Name, The Lord, I did not Make Myself Known To Them (Exodus 6,3)

Professor Yosef Faur

Department of Talmud

In a section of "The Book Megillat Starim" (published by Poznanski in Hatzofe L'chochmat Yisrael, 25, 1921, pages 177-179), Rav Nissim Gaon (990-1062) develops the principle that (in contrast to the general concept of "divinity", which is attainable through rational thought) the concept of G-d is known only in the "consciousness of feeling" (translation from the Arabic original "alam eltz(r)orýi", the exact meaning of which is: intuition). The people of Israel achieved this supreme knowledge because they stood together:

"... At Mount Sinai and heard "I am the Lord your G-d" from the Almighty himself. From that day on they knew G-d intuitively; having seen the sounds pressing through the cloud and the fog, it seemed to them to be the actual form of the letters and their shapes written in the air in the order of the words."

Thus they realized by intuition "that the Holy One Blessed Be He himself spoke to them". The uniqueness of the Children of Israel stems from the fact that they were fortunate to get to know of "The Creator and His own attributes through intuition". Thus they are the witnesses testifying before all mankind as to the sublime existence of G-d: "they testify that the Lord exists, alive and present in the world, since they learned this fact intuitively". From this exact standpoint Israel alone are capable of being the witnesses - in the sense that the Arabic word "shahid" (believer) refers to one who gives a testimony of faith before others as to what he feels internally. In the light of this Rav Nissim Gaon explained the passage in Isaiah (43,12) "And you are My witnesses, says G-d" in the plain sense of the words. To this height only the People of Israel can ascend: "... The Holy One Blessed Be He made his people Israel unique in knowing Him intuitively... Therefore they deserved the title - witnesses". This is the intent of the prophet Amos (3,2): "Only you have I known from among all the families of the earth". This is to say : "I have made you unique to know Me ... through intuition". After discussing the various scriptural references and problems which apply to this principle , he concludes:

"And it becomes clear from all these Biblical verses and the proofs for the arguments I have brought that all the prophets who heard the words of the Lord, and all Israel, from the day they stood at Mount Sinai and heard "I am ..." and "You shall not have..." from the mouth of G-d, already knew the Lord clearly through intuition".

Accordingly Rabbi Yehuda Halevi (1075-1141) made a sharp distinction between belief in the Lord and belief in god in general. Belief in the Lord has two major characteristics: it cannot be attained through any logical process, through rational means, but only in "that prophetic vision"; and it belongs exclusively to the People of Israel. Belief in the Lord generates an existential transformation in the believer. In the words of Rabbi Yehuda Halevi: "G-d gave him another heart...it is thus that man becomes a servant, loving the object of his servitude and willing to sacrifice his life for the one he loves...". Thus the belief in the G-d of Abraham is different from that of Aristotle (The Kuzari, part 4, 15-16). One may, therefore, differentiate between the belief in the Oneness of G-d in Israel and the monotheism which exists among certain classes of the pagan peoples .

The historian of religion Paul Radin ( 1887-1959) in the ninth chapter of his classic work "Primitive Religion" (New York, 1957), proved that what is usually called monotheism among pagan peoples is not a religious principle but a philosophical one: "We are here not dealing essentially with a religious belief at all but with a philosophical concept". Monotheism among such peoples does not operate in their spiritual lives but is "an artificial and static synthesis" in the hands of a limited group of religious leaders. If it is at all legitimate to call this idea monotheism, claims Radin, "it would be just as legitimate to call Socrates or Seneca a monotheist. Monotheism in its strictly religious connotation implies that it is the official faith of the whole community. Such a faith is never found among primitive people". In this light one can well understand the promise of G-d that the Covenant at Sinai had two purposes (which are, in fact, one). First of all, it was intended to make Israel "a Kingdom of priests" (Exodus 19,6) meaning that unlike the pagan nations this knowledge is not the exclusive property of some kind of elite group, but is the heritage of the entire nation. The second purpose is that this knowledge comes to create a substantial change in the people. This is stated in the the continuation of the passage: "and a Holy People" - this is not simply an intellectual concept, but a belief, which transforms the Children of Israel into a Holy People.

In Exodus 5,22 we hear Moses complain that Pharaoh has rejected his request. Not only did he not free Israel but actually he worsened their condition. The answer to Moses' complaint is found further on (6, 2-7) when G-d announces the process of phenomena and events in nature which will transform Israel into a people who know G-d intuitively. Rabbi Ovadiah Sforno (1470-1550) pointed out that the letter "bet" in the word "be-El Shaddai" relates also to the word "Ushmi" (see Ibn Ezra and Shadal) and therefore the meaning of the passage is: "And by My name, the Lord, I did not make myself known to them: in that revelation. And I did not change any law of nature for them". G-d did not announce His ways to our Forefathers through miraculous changes in nature , but in prophetic visions.

A similar view was held by Rabbi Yitzchak Karo (16th - 17th centuries), the uncle and teacher of Rabbi Sforno in his commentary to the Torah (Toldot Yitzchak). He draws a basic distinction between the miracles done in the time of the Patriarchs - in the name of G-d as "El Shaddai" - which are by nature "hidden miracles", and those done for Israel in Egypt, which were "visible miracles". The purpose of the miracles done by Moses in Egypt was not to convince Pharaoh but to initiate a complex chain of events which would reach their climax at the foot of Mount Sinai. At that point Israel would come to know G-d through "the knowledge of feeling". In this light we should understand the letter-conjunction "vav" in the word "V'yada'atem ki ani ..."(And you will know that I am the Lord , your G-d) (Exodus 6,7) as being causative. The passage then, means: Through these miracles you will finally come to know the Lord in the knowledge of feelings. The continuation "who freed you from the sufferings of Egypt" refers to the first passage in tTen Commandments: "I am the Lord your G-d who brought you out of the land of Egypt, from the house of bondage"(Exodus 20,2).

We must point out that according to Maimonides only: "the signs done by Moses in the wilderness - were done out of necessity" (Yesodey Hatorah 8:1). Not so the miracles performed in Egypt, whose purpose, in the words of Rabbi Yehudah Halevi, was to transform each individual in Israel into "a servant loving the object of his servitude and willing to sacrifice his life for the one whom he loves". (For details on the subject and sources see: Josef Faur, "Intuitive Knowledge of G-d in Medieval Jewish Theology", Jewish Quarterly Review 67 (1976-77),( 90-110).

                           Bar-Ilan University

Parashat Vaera 5773/January 12, 2013

       Parashat Hashavua Study Center

Lectures on the weekly Torah reading by the faculty of Bar-Ilan University in Ramat Gan, Israel. A project of the Faculty of Jewish Studies, Paul and Helene Shulman Basic Jewish Studies Center, and the Office of the Campus Rabbi. Published on the Internet under the sponsorship of Bar-Ilan University's International Center for Jewish Identity. Prepared for Internet Publication by the Computer Center Staff at Bar-Ilan University.

 

 

950

Tzvi Shimon*

Variation in Repetition in the Narrative of the Ten Plagues

In the protracted drama of the ten plagues we read time and again about Pharaoh and Moses meeting to deliberate on the request to permit the Israelites to go worship their Lord.  These meetings seem not to bring us any closer to a solution, rather their main function is to lay the groundwork for the next plague that will smite the Egyptians.  At first glance the meetings give a sense of impasse:  time and again Pharaoh summons Moses, only to send him off empty-handed.  But the use of repetition in the descriptions of these encounters provides a fine example of the highly sophisticated way in which Scripture uses this literary technique.

Repetition is a prominent and important characteristic of biblical narrative.[1]  Several scholars have shown the many and varied functions of repetition in the Bible, as distinct from the technical/formalistic character of repetition in epic poetry.  Actually, the exact repetition found in ancient epic poetry is less natural, whereas repetition with variation is the norm in biblical narrative[2] and creates analogies between incidents.[3]

Two types of repetition can be discerned.  One is repetition on the level of the plot—events that recur several times in similar form, such as a character appearing repeatedly before another character at short intervals.  The other is repetition in which the very same detail of the plot appears several times.  By repeating the same detail, the same event can be presented from different points of view, enabling us to compare a variety of perspectives at a given point in time or at different stages in the development of the plot.[4]  Biblical narrative makes extensive use of both types of repetition, each of them having an important role to play in making associations that set a point off in contrast or in presenting a pattern of progress and development.

The power of repetition in connecting events in a long narrative can be illustrated by its use in the story of the ten plagues.  The repetitions in this story provide a basis over time for bringing out dynamic contrasts that reveal changes and development in a specific character—Pharaoh.  This narrative contains repetition both of plot and of specific details.  An example of the latter is Pharaoh's refusal to let the people go:  his refusal is mentioned before the fact, in the element of prediction, when the Lord foretells that Pharaoh will not listen to Moses (Ex. 7:3-5; 11:9), and in the element of reporting, when Scriptures summarizes in hindsight Pharaoh's refusal to comply with the demand (Ex. 11:10).  In our opinion, these repetitions of detail are intended to bring out the point that the Lord determines all that takes place.  Pharaoh's refusal could be interpreted as stemming from a shortcoming of the Lord, indicating that He is not capable of imposing His will on the ruler of Egypt.  But the repetitions in the prediction and in the reporting of the action (where the course of events themselves is presented) emphasize the Lord's absolute command of all that transpires.  Pharaoh's refusal to listen to the Lord is described as a result of divine intervention, stiffening Pharaoh's heart and therefore ironically Pharaoh's refusal underscores the Lord's control of events.[5]

Aside from the repetitions of detail, the plot itself contains frequent repetitions of Moses' demand that Pharaoh let the people go and of Pharaoh's response to this demand.  These repetitions invite comparison between the ways in which Pharaoh reacts.  We shall focus on the instances in which Pharaoh de facto gives them permission to leave, saying, "Go worship," or "Go sacrifice," and not on those times in which he promises to let them go in the future on condition that the plague be removed and then goes back on his promise.  In the cases where he reneges on his promise he gives no permission at all.  Comparing Pharaoh's first negative response with other times when he gives permission to go worship the Lord reveals a sharp contrast between the first response and the last, but at the same time it also reflects a gradual change in Pharaoh's attitude from absolute refusal to total surrender:

Context	Pharaoh's Response
Moses' first request	But Pharaoh said, "Who is the Lord that I should heed Him and let Israel go?  I do not know the Lord, nor will I let Israel go." (5:2)
Before the plague of swarms of insects	Then Pharaoh summoned Moses and Aaron and said, "Go and sacrifice to your G-d within the land."  (8:21, 24)
Before the plague of locusts	So Moses and Aaron were brought back to Pharaoh and he said to them, "Go, worship the Lord your G-d!  Who are the ones to go?"…But he said to them, "The Lord be with you the same as I mean to let your children go with you!  Clearly you are bent on mischief.  No!  You menfolk go and worship the Lord, since that is what you want."  (10:8-11)
During the plague of darkness	Pharaoh then summoned Moses and said, "Go, worship the Lord!  Only your flocks…shall be left behind; even your children may go with you."  (10:24)
After the plague of smiting firstborns	He summoned Moses and Aaron in the night and said, "Up, depart from among my people, you and the Israelites with you!  Go worship the Lord as you said!  Take also your flocks and your herds, as you said, and begone!  And may you bring a blessing upon me also."  The Egyptians urged the people on, impatient to have them leave the country.  (12:31-33)

Pharaoh's response to Moses' first request is utterly negative in two regards:  recognizing the Lord and agreeing to let the people go.  Pharaoh does not recognize the Lord, saying, "Who is the Lord…I do not know the Lord" (Ex. 5:2), nor does he let the Israelites go.  Pharaoh's next four responses - in which he concurs with Moses' request - begin with Moses and Aaron being summoned to appear before Pharaoh and include Pharaoh granting permission, cast in terms of saying the people may "go sacrifice" or "go worship."  During the plague of swarms of insects Pharaoh agrees for the Israelites to sacrifice to their G-d in the land of Egypt.  He does not give a flat refusal, but his consent is limited and partial.  Pharaoh does not deny the existence of the Lord, but calls Him "your G-d"—the G-d of Israel but not his G-d.  Nor does he refuse to let the Israelites to go worship their G-d, but he limits the place of worship to the land of Egypt.

In the second repetition, before the plague of locusts, pressure by his servants makes Pharaoh call back Moses and Aaron.  His proposal shows some progress in both respects, in comparison with his previous offer.  Now Pharaoh is willing to let the men go worship "the Lord, your G-d."  This time Pharaoh refers to G-d by a double name:  not only "your G-d," but also "the Lord."  At the outset Pharaoh declared, "I do not know the Lord," whereas now he knows Him and refers to Him by name.  Unlike his earlier consent, this time Pharaoh is willing to have the worshipping take place outside of Egypt, but limits permission to leave to the menfolk alone.  Later, during the plague of darkness, further progress occurs on both fronts:  Pharaoh refers to G-d solely by the name "the Lord," thus recognizing Him not only as the G-d of the Israelites but as a deity not restricted to one nation, and he permits the entire people, not only the men, to leave, but he says they may not take their livestock with them.  The process concludes with the final repetition, after the plague of firstborns.  This time Pharaoh gives in completely in both respects:  with regard to recognizing the Lord, Pharaoh not only acknowledges Him, but even asks Moses and Aaron to bring G-d's blessing on him as well; as for letting the people go, Pharaoh agrees to everything and twice emphasizes that, as Moses and Aaron had requested, they may leave with no restrictions imposed on his part.[6]  Pharaoh not only permits the exodus unconditionally, but even begs them to leave—"Up, depart."  This final repetition, in which Pharaoh complies totally in both regards, shows a reversal of his first response, negative in both respects.  Despite his first and last responses being at two opposing extremes, the transition between them is gradual.   Repetition is used to relate one response to the next and invites us to compare them, thus revealing the gradual process by which Pharaoh came to recognize the Lord and conceded the demand to let the people go.

That the process of Pharaoh giving in is gradual comes as no surprise.  Pharaoh's responses are not only a result of his heart being hardened by the Lord.  One can clearly detect a gradual increase in willingness to be flexible in complying with the Lord's demand.  Not only do we have a totally asymmetric power struggle here, with the Lord's hand prevailing over Pharaoh, but also recognition of the G-d of Israel by Pharaoh and his polytheistic country; the G-d of the Hebrew slaves prevails over the gods of the rulers.  As the plot unfolds it becomes clear that Pharaoh is not capable of giving up the reins.  Even when he is willing to make concessions, he wishes to curtail his compliance and thus maintain his status as the supreme force by which everything moves.  Arriving at total surrender and complete acknowledgement of the Lord's supremacy requires a long, complex process which cannot be achieved instantaneously, and even Pharaoh's final consent to allow the people to leave to worship the Lord is only temporary.  The Egyptians only come to know who is the Lord by means of one painful last blow, at the Sea of Reeds—"…that I may gain glory through Pharaoh and all his host; and the Egyptians shall know that I am the Lord" (Ex. 14:4).

Translated by Rachel Rowen

 

---

* Dr. Shimon is a lecturer in the Department of Bible and the Center for Basic Jewish Studies.

[1] The fundamental study of repetition in biblical narrative was written by Meir Sternberg, "Mivneh ha-Hazarah ba-Sippur ha-Mikrai:  Estrategiyot shel Odefut Informazionit," Ha-Sifrut 25 (1977), pp. 109-150.  Robert Alter, The Art of Biblical Narrative, New York 1981, ch. 5, arrives independently at similar conclusions.

[2] Sternberg (loc. cit., p. 129).

[3] Franz Rosenzweig, Naharayim:  Mivhar Ketavim, Jerusalem 1977, p. 16; Nehamah Leibowitz, Iyunim Besefer Bereshit, Jerusalem 1966, pp. 162-165.  According to Robert Alter, repetition in biblical narrative is "a sophisticated convention of purposeful minute variation of verbatim repetition" (p. 102).

[4] According to Sternberg (loc. cit., pp. 115-117), a pattern of repetition is generally comprised of a combination of two of the following three elements: prediction, action and reporting.  These elements generally come from (at least two) different sources of information.  The question of "excess information" is far more acute in repetition of specific details, since such repetition ostensibly provides us nothing new beyond the original recounting of the event and therefore one asks why include it at all.

[5] This notion is so clearly evident that it is stressed also in the repetitions of the action.  Events are described so as to emphasize constantly that when something happens it is the Lord who stiffens Pharaoh's heart—"But the Lord stiffened Pharaoh's heart" (Ex. 10:20, 27), or they are tied to the element of prediction, emphasizing that the fulfillment is "as the Lord had said" (Ex. 7:13, 22; 8:15; 9:35), or both at once (Ex. 9:12).

[6] At the end, Pharaoh refers to the people as "Israelites" (Ex. 12:31), closing the circle started with his first reference to them, when he refused to "let Israel go" (Ex. 5:2).  Throughout the middle of the story, before freeing the Israelites, Pharaoh refers to them as "the people" (Ex. 5:4, 7; 8:4), "the men" (Ex. 7:9), or simply "you" (Ex. 8:24; 9:28; 10:10).