What You Don’t
Do Can Be More Powerful
Than What You Do
R. Yaakov Bieler
פרשת
וארא, תשס"ט
R. S.R.
Hirsch employs an insight based upon the manner in which the Egyptian plagues
are presented in the Tora, to suggest a striking aspect of the
Jewish concept of Shabbat:
R.
Hirsch on Shemot 9:29
…Let us note that not only the onset of the plague but
also—and primarily—its cessation at God’s Will constituted the most striking
sign of God’s Omnipotence. For even the most sublime revelation of His Creative
and Productive Power would be insufficient, even today, to convey to the
nations the pure conception of the God of Israel. At most, such a revelation
would present Him as the Highest Power of all Powers, the most Forceful of all
Forces, whereas in the Jewish conception, God is the free Master over His Work,
Whose Creations do not escape His Control. It was primarily through the cessation
of the plague at God’s Command, its cancellation and its differentiation—by
God’s Order—between
To flesh out R. Hirsch’s observation, several components
of the account of the Exodus must be scrutinized. Initially, what sort of time
frame did the plagues entail? One Midrashic source suggests that the ten
plagues extended over the course of an entire year.
Pesikta Zutrata Shemot 3
(On the verse Shemot 3:18 “And they will listen to
your voice, nd you and the elders of Israel will come to the king of Egypt and
you will say to him, ‘God, the Lord of the Ivriyim [Hebrews] Nikra
[happened, revealed Himself] to us and now we will go a journey of three days
into the desert and we will offer sacrifices to God, our Lord..”)
…What does “Ivriyim”[2] connote? Said
the Holy One, Blessed Be He, to him (Moshe), “Tell Pharoah that ten plagues are
prepared for him and in the end, into the sea he will be thrown. For this
reason it is stated “Ivriyim”—the first “Yud”[3]
represents the 10 plagues;[4]
the letters “Yud” “Mem” (the final two letters of the word) is a
reference to the sea (Yam is the Hebrew word for “sea”);[5]
“Nikra”—(the numerical value of the word is) 355, i.e., over the course
of an entire year[6]
the Egyptians suffered plagues.[7]
Another Midrash subdivides the year period
among the individual plagues. Two possibilities are offered for the length of
all but one[8]
of the series of national calamities that ultimately resulted in the release of
the Jews from Egyptian bondage.
Shemot Rabba 9:12
(On Shemot 7:25 “And there were filled seven
days after HaShem smote the river [with the plague of blood]”)
R. Yehuda and R. Nechemya.
One of them says: For twenty four days he (Moshe by way
of Aharon) would rebuke them before the plague arrived, and seven days the
plague would affect them. (This would appear to be the most straightforward way
to understand the verse.) And one of them says: For seven days he would rebuke
them, and twenty four days the plague would affect them. (This view understands
the verse as stating that the seven days that were filled were the days of
rebuke for the next plague following the twenty four days of actual plague.)[9]
[10]
Once we
posit that each plague lasted for a certain period of time, it follows that
each plague had a clear beginning and end, as opposed to assuming that the
actual plague was only momentary. It is interesting to note that the efforts of
Pharoah’s magicians were never directed at ending a particular plague,
only replicating its beginning.[11] Wouldn’t it have been a greater show of
power and a refutation of Moshe’s claim to represent the ultimate Divine Force,
if they could thwart the effects of the attempt to disrupt Egyptian life,
rather than merely intensify the problem? Furthermore, while Pharoah is apparently
sometimes warned by Moshe regarding oncoming plagues,[12]
the Tora devotes many more verses to the negotiations regarding the cessation
of some of the plagues.[13]
When Moshe answers Pharoah’s summons concerning removing the frogs (8:4), the
king makes what many of the commentators consider a strange request. Upon being
asked, when he would like the plague to stop, Pharoah says, (8:6) “Tomorrow.”
Generally when someone is troubled or in pain, they would like the problem to
be resolved as soon as possible. Some attribute to Pharoah the attitude of
wishing to see if Moshe, as God’s representative, could really control the
phenomenon, and consequently made an unconventional, and what he perceived to
be a completely unexpected request. Of course, not only did this “test” not
faze God, it only caused greater discomfort to the Egyptian people.
Another
dimension of God’s Ability to fine-tune the plagues was the pin-point manner in
which they effected only Egypt proper, but not the land of Goshen,[14]
the area set aside for Jewish habitation when they first arrived in Egypt (Beraishit 45:10; 46:34; 47:4,6). It
is one thing to be able to unleash something dangerous and disturbing, such as
a plague, quite another to limit and ultimately end/recall it.[15]
God’s
Control over miracles in terms of restoring situations to their pre-miracle
state, is reflected in the signs that He Provided to Moshe in order to gain the
attention of first the Jews, and then Pharoah. When Moshe’s staff transforms
itself into a serpent, Moshe is also told what to do to turn it back into a
staff (Shemot 4:4). The same is true for his hand becoming leprous and
then being restored to health (Ibid. 7.) As for the third sign, water turning
to blood and remaining in this state (Ibid. 9,) the Midrash suggests that this
might have been an ominous personal message to Moshe:
Shemot Rabba 3:13
(On Shemot
4:9) “…And you will take from the waters of the
river…”)
He (HaShem) Hinted to him (Moshe) that because of
something that he will say to
And when Aharon’s throwing down his staff and
its becoming a crocodile[17] is replicated by Pharoah’s
magicians, Aharon’s crocodile eating the others is yet another way for God to
impose limitations on someone else’s ostensible demonstration of their
miraculous abilities.
The
theme of imposing limitations and ending miraculous doings is incorporated in a
Midrashic explanation for one of the classical names of God:
Beraishit Rabba 5:8 (also 46:3 on Beraishit 17:1)
(On
the verse Beraishit 1:10 “And God Called the dry land ‘Yabasha’…”)
…R. Natan in the name of R. Acha and R.
Berechya in the name of R. Yitzchak said: (Beraishit 17:1) “I am Keil
Shakai”[18]—I
Who Said to the heavens and the earth “Dai” (enough), for if this had not been
so, they would have continued to expand until this moment.
Therefore, even with regard to the natural
miracles that are involved in the conduct of the world on a day-to-day basis,
we can understand God not only continually Bringing things into existence,[19] but also setting limitations
upon that ongoing Creation.
To
the extent that man is enjoined to emulate God’s Ways, as in Devarim
28:9 “…When you observe the Commandments of the Lord, your
God, and you will walk in His Ways,” the
idea of placing limitations upon one’s creativity at least in certain places at
certain times, becomes a religious imperative. R. Soloveitchik, ZaTzaL,
expresses this aspect of the Jewish spiritual lifestyle in the following
manner:
What is heroism in the Halacha? What does the Halacha
recommend
to us, that we may attain heroic stature? The answer is: one must perform the dialectical movement. The Halachic catharsis
expresses itself in paradoxical movement in two opposite directions - in surging
forward boldly and in retreating humbly. Man's heroic
experience is a polar, antithetic one. Man drives forward only to retreat and to reverse,
subsequently, the direction of his movement. The
Torah wants man, who is bold and adventurous in quest
for opportunities, to act heroically, and at the final moment, when it
appears to him that victory is within reach, to stop
short, turn around, and retreat. At the most exalted moment of triumph
and fulfillment man must forego the ecstasy of victory and take defeat at his
own hands. Jacob acted in this manner; he engaged in the dialectical
performance. He did not consummate his victory; instead, he set free the
antagonist whom he had defeated and whom he
could have destroyed. By freeing the defeated enemy
Jacob defeated himself. He withdrew from a position he had
won through courage and fortitude. He
engaged in the movement of recoil…
Halacha teaches that at every level of our total existential
experience - the aesthetic-hedonic, the emotional,
the intellectual, the moral-religious—one must engage in the dialectical movement
by alternately advancing and retreating...[20]
The idea that
man must at times cease from his activities in accordance with God’s Example,
serves as the basis for the continuation of R. Hirsch’s commentary on Shemot 9:29:
In
this spirit the Jew celebrates the last of the days of Creation, the Sabbath.
The non-Jewish world, in thoughtless contrast, celebrates the first day,
Sunday. The outlook that considers the universe a result of natural forces can
perhaps explain the Sunday of Creation, but it cannot explain the fact of the
Sabbath of Creation. For why has the creation of new creatures ceased? After
all the same creative forces of nature still exist. That is why God Established
the Sabbath, the Sabbath with which Creation ceased, and not the days of
Creation, as a monument to the Creator.
Placing Shabbat observance
within the context of not only the Creation of the Universe, but also the
Exodus of Egypt, with respect to the manner in which God Proved His Omnipotence
supplies yet another level of meaning to one of the Jewish people’s most
characteristic observances.
[1] The
Hirsch Chumash—Sefer Shemos, trrans. Daniel Haberman,
Feldheim,
[2] The word is spelled with an extra “Yud”—Ayin, Vet, Reish, Yud, Yud, Mem—drawing the attention of the Rabbinic commentators of the Midrash.
[3] See fn. 2.
[4] The numerical value of the Hebrew letter “Yud” is 10.
[5] The culmination of the plagues was the drowning of Pharoah and his chariots at Yam Suf (the sea of reeds) in Shemot 14:26-8.
[6] Although both lunar and solar years are closer to 365 days, the Midrash takes into account not only the plagues, but also the victory at Yam Suf, which took place seven days after the actual Exodus from Egypt finally precipitated by the last of the plagues, the plague of the Firstborn. (It is not uncommon that numerical hints embedded within the Tora text are approximate rather than precise.) Furthermore it is interesting to note that the word representing all of these events is “Nikra” suggesting that each plague, and every miracle for that matter, constitute a greater or lesser manifestation of a Divine Revelation.
[7] “Nun” = 50; “Kuf” = 100; “Reish” = 200; “Heh” = 5, adding up to 355.
[8] Makat
Bechorot (the plague of the firstborn) lasted only momentarily and resulted
in the deaths of firstborn throughout
[9] Once again the numbers involved fall short of the days constituting a lunar or solar year. Only nine of the plagues—see fn. 8 re the plague of the Firstborn—could have each been protracted over the course of either seven or twenty four days, resulting in 279. There could have been a warning period for the last of the plagues, but that would only add either another seven or twenty four days, maximally resulting in 303. Perhaps included in the calculation is the period beginning with the first failed meeting with Pharoah (Shemot 5:1 ff.) including the interregnum between this first and the subsequent encounters (commencing with Ibid. 6:10) with the Egyptian ruler. (This would contradict the Midrashic contention in Shemot Rabba 5:19,20 that six months elapsed between Moshe and Aharon’s first and second meetings with Pharoah. The simple understanding of the biblical text does not lead to the conclusion that this much time was involved.)
[10] The assumption that there could have been lengthy warnings and negotiations prior to a plague is exemplified with respect to locusts. Not only is there an extensive warning given to Pharoah (10:3-6), but as a result of the imploring of his servants, Pharoah calls Moshe and Aharon back before the plague begins (10:8-11) to continue the conversation, although predictably Pharoah refuses in the end to comply due to God’s Hardening the king’s heart. R. Nachman’s principle, cited below in fn. 12, would allow us to presume a similar series of gives and takes in the other plagues as well.
[11] Blood—Shemot 7:22; Frogs—8:3; Lice—8:14 (in the latter instance, the magicians only attempted to replicate the plague, but did not succeed.)
[12] When the first nine plagues are divided into groups of three, the first two are accompanied by predictions, while the last one according to the literal interpretation of the text is unannounced.
Blood 7:15 ff. Frogs 7:27 ff. Lice 8:12
Wild animals 8:16 ff. Death of flocks 9:1 ff. Boils 9:8
Hail 9:13 ff. Locusts 10:3 ff. Darkness 10:21.
The final plague, the plague of the Firstborn, while not predicted immediately prior to its occurrence, was foreshadowed in God’s Instructions to Moshe in 4:22. Whether he ever actually articulated this threat to Pharoah is not explicitly mentioned in the text; yet R. Nachman ( Otzar HaMidrashim, Eisenstein, 32 Hermeneutic principles of Aggada, p. 268) maintains that “the words of Tora are ‘impoverished’ (sparse) in one place and “rich” (detailed) in another, and therefore even if the threat is not subsequently repeated, that does not mean that it was not conveyed at some point. By extension, were we to apply R. Nachman’s principle to all of the plagues, and, one could insist that the concept that one does not punish someone without warning is normative, all of the plagues may have been preceded by warnings, whether mentioned explicitly or not.
[13] As the
plagues become increasingly severe, Pharoah realizes that allowing them to go
on indefinitely—he is not privy to the idea that each would only last maximally
either seven or twenty four days (see Shemot Rabba 9:12)—would cause
even more devastation than had already been effected. Consequently he engages
Moshe in discussions, not realizing that they were futile because of God’s Plan
to bring the full array of plagues to bear on
Frogs—8:4-7 Wild animals—8:21-25 Hail—9:27-32
Locusts—10:8-11; 24-29
[14] Wild animals—8:18 ff. Death of flocks—9:4 ff. Hail—9:26
With respect to the plague of locusts, while
[15]
This would appear to be the underlying
assumption of “The Sorcerer's Apprentice”, for which Walt Disney supplied visuals to
accompany Paul Dukas’ tone poem, so memorably presented in the animated film Fantasia.
…the English name of Goethe's poem Der Zauberlehrling
(1797). The name also refers to Paul Dukas's
L'apprenti sorcier symphonic poem of 1897 which was inspired by
Goethe's poem. Goethe, in turn, had got the idea from Lucian's story
of Philopseudes…
The tale begins as an old sorcerer departs his workshop, leaving his apprentice
with chores to perform. Tired of fetching water by pail, the
apprentice enchants a broomstick to do the work for him - using magic he is not yet
fully trained in. The floor is soon awash with water, and the apprentice
realizes that he cannot stop the broom because he does not know how.
Despairing, he splits the broom in two with an axe, but each of the
pieces transforms into a whole broomstick. The broomsticks take up pails and
resume their work, now faster than ever. When all seems lost in a massive
flood, the sorcerer returns and quickly breaks the spell, saving the day…--Wikipedia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Sorcerer's_Apprentice
[16] This is an example of the application of the hermeneutic principle “Gezeira Shava”, i.e., two topics that may appear in widely separated places in the bible, by virtue of their sharing a particular word, are linked together with respect to some detail or concept.
[17] The
terminology in the two instances where Moshe is first shown the sign, and when
it is actually carried out in Pharoah’s presence, is different. In Shemot
4:3, the word “Nachash” is used, whereas in 7:10, 12, the staffs
transform into “Taninim”. One explanation for this inconsistency is that
whereas in the former instance, the sign was a rebuke to Moshe (see Shemot
Rabba 3:13 above) in the sense that just as the primordial serpent had
spoken ill of God (Beraishit 3:5), so too had Moshe inappropriately cast
aspersions upon the Jewish people as a whole (Shemot 4:1), the sign had
different significance for Pharoah. Since the crocodile was a royal symbol in
"King Crocodile" is
another of the possible regional kings or chieftains in
[18] In order to avoid pronouncing the Divine Names, slight alterations are made, in this case “Kuf” is substituted for “Alef” in the first Name, and “Kuf” is substituted for “Dalet” in the second.
[19] See Midrash Tehillim 96:1 “HaMechadesh BeChol Yom Tamid Ma’aseh Beraishit”.
[20] R. J.B.Soloveitchik, “Catharsis”, in Tradition , Vol 17. No. 2, Spring 1978, pp. 43-4.