AND HE RAISED THE STAFF AND STRUCK THE WATER THAT WAS IN THE NILE BEFORE

THE EYES OF PHARAOH AND BEFORE THE EYES OF HIS SERVANTS, ND

ALL THE WATER THAT WAS IN THE NILE TURNED

TO BLOOD.

(Shemot

7:20)

and all the water that was in the Nile turned to blood – Eichhorn and others following him believe that the blood

and all the other plagues were natural phenomena that reoccur annually in

Egypt, and that while Moses intended for Pharaoh to understand that the Lord,

God of the Hebrews, causes all these things to happen and that He rules over

the entire earth, the waters of the Nile flood the land in the month of Tammuz

and look thick and red (be it because of the redness of the soil in Kush, from whence they originate, or because of the many

small creatures that make the water look red in other countries as well,

causing the masses to believe that blood had fallen from heaven), and they

stink and are foul to drink… Moses could not have thought to turn the king's

mind towards him through [taking credit for] natural events that take place

every year without producing some miracle that departed from the ways of the

world. It is known that even when performing miracles God likes to preserve

something of the ways of nature. Thus, in the plagues of Egypt I believe it could be that

something like them occurred naturally, some in one year, some in another. However,

in that year they all took place together and each of them involved some new

and unnatural element. Thus, in the case of the blood,

the fact that the redness of the water was so foul that it killed the fish was

a new phenomenon which we do not find mentioned in the accounts of travelers. This

proves that the waters were befouled and damaged much more badly than in other

years. It was unnatural, as if the water had actually turned into blood.

(ShaDaL

Shemot 7:20)

All these words, saying (20:1) – God does all things together. He puts to death and brings to life at the

same time; He wounds and heals at the same time. If there is a woman giving

birth, people going down to the sea, men traveling through deserts, or who are

incarcerated in prison, though one is in the east and another in the west, one

in the north and another in the south – He hears them all simultaneously, for

so it says, I form the light, and create darkness, etc. (Isaiah 45:7). Dust is changed to man, and man is changed

back to dust, as it says, And turns the

shadow of death to the morning (Amos 5, 8). What does to the morning imply?-As it was at first. What does

it say at the beginning? – And all the waters that were in the river were

turned to blood (Shemot 7:20). Later,

the blood became water again. Living flesh dies, but the dead flesh comes to

life again. The rod became a serpent, but afterwards it became a rod again. The

sea became dry land, but later it became sea once more, and so it says, That calls for the waters of the sea, and pours

them out upon the face of the earth (Amos loc. cit.). Similarly, the command: Remember the Sabbath day to keep it holy

has its opposite, And on the Sabbath day two he-lambs of the first year (Bamidbar 28: 9). The command: You shall not uncover the

nakedness of thy brother's wife (Vayikra 18:16) has its opposite in: If brethren dwell together, etc. (Devarim 25:5), and all these things were said

simultaneously,-hence And God spoke all

these words, saying.

(Shemot Rabbah 28:4, Soncino translation)

On Humility and Protest

Yehonatan Avraham

Gorenberg

Humility is one of Moses' chief qualities. When

Moses' brother and sister spoke disparagingly of him in parashat Beha'alotkha, the Torah responds: Now this man Moses

than any person on the face of the earth (Bamidbar

12). The Shir HaKavod

["Anim Zemirot"]

uses the word anav as an appellation for

Moses: "He showed the knot of the tefillin to the anav."

We find further examples of Moses' humility: when Joshua asked to jail Eldad and Medad, who had been

prophesizing in the camp, Moses tells him, If only all the Lord's people were prophets,

that the Lord would bestow His spirit upon them! (Bamidbar 11). That is to say, instead of being jealous for his own unique prophetic

status, Moses is prepared to have others share the prophetic role. Humility is

usually viewed as a positive trait. As the Amora

Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi said: "Humility is the greatest of all" (Avoda

Zara 20b), i.e., it is the greatest of the virtues.

Moses'

humility comes to light from the very beginning of his career as a prophet. Immediately

after God first reveals Himself to him, Moses modestly replies: "Who

am I that I should go to Pharaoh, and that I should take the children of Israel out of Egypt?" (Shemot 3:11). He tries again and again to convince God

that he is unworthy to speak before Pharaoh and the Israelites: "I

am not a man of words (4:10), and, send

now [Your message] with whom You would send" (4:13). Even after entering Egypt and speaking to Pharaoh, he

tells God, "Behold, I am of closed lips; so how will Pharaoh hearken to

me?" (6:30). Moses is so humble

that he is not prepared to protest to Pharaoh against the enslavement of the

Israelites in Egypt.

God's responds strongly to Moses' humility: "Who gave man a

I will instruct you what you shall speak" (6:11-12). Later, the Torah even says that,

the Lord's wrath was kindled against Moses (6:14).

When he relinquished the respect due him in Bamidbar, Moses' humility was

considered a virtue. However, when Moses becomes meek and flees his moral duty,

his humility enflames God's anger against him.

The notion of the immorality of the Egyptian

bondage (and he saw their troubles – Shemot 2),

and the mission with which God charges him in its wake, are not concerned with

Moses' personal honor. As a result, he has no right to refuse his mission and

to avoid registering his protest with Pharaoh. Protest against injustice is not

a matter of personal taste or opinion, and humility does not excuse one from

giving voice to such protest.

This conclusion is made clearer by a midrash found in Eikha Rabbah 4:3

(a variant may be found in Gittin 55b which

emphasizes a different angle on Rabbi Zekharia ben Evkolus's responsibility for the destruction of the Temple):

It

happened that a Jerusalemite once gave a dinner and instructed one of his

household, 'Go and bring me my friend Kamza'; but he

went and invited Bar Kamza who was his enemy. The

latter entered and sat among the invited. When the host came in and found him

among the guests, he said to him, 'You are my enemy, and yet you sit in my

house! Get up and leave my house!' He answered, 'Do not put me to shame, and I

will pay you the cost of what I eat.' He said to him, 'You will not recline at

the meal!' He said to him, 'Do not put me to shame, and I will sit without

eating or drinking anything'; but he replied, 'You will not recline at the

meal!' He pleaded, 'I will pay the cost of the whole meal'; but the host said, 'Go

away!' R. Zekharia b. Evkolus,

manner] but did not intervene. Bar Kamza at once

left the house, and said to himself, 'They feast and

sit in luxury; I will go and inform against them.' Soncino translation)

Later, the midrash describes how Bar Kamza convinced the Roman authorities that the Jews were

disdainful towards the sacrifices sent from Rome

to the Temple, and that the authorities should

respond by destroying the Temple.

The midrash concludes:

R. Yosse said: The meekness of Zekharia

b. Evkolus burnt the Temple.

According

to R. Yose, R. Zekhariah

ben Evkolus acted "meekly" towards the

host. He relinquished his status as a sage and avoided making a stand and

voicing his authoritative condemnation of the host. He failed to protest Bar Kamza's humiliation. In our own parasha, Moses' humility

also becomes a failing. The truth is that R. Zekharia

was not taking his own honor lightly; rather, he was taking the host's

misbehavior lightly. His humility made him view moral truth as a personal

matter. His silence allowed the host to publicly embarrass Bar Kamza, which was an objectively evil deed. This type of

humility, which amounts to an unwillingness to stand up for moral truths,

brought about the destruction of the Temple.

R. Zekharia ben Evkolus

is typical of many people in our own society – including religious society. We

have turned morality into something relative, a matter of taste. "Everyone

has their own opinion" has become a common slogan, even if the opinion

under discussion is clearly immoral, even when people advocate racism and

violence, presenting them as belonging to the Torah. We have erased the

commandment surely rebuke your fellow and say instead let each man do

what is right in his own eyes. Every opinion, no matter how repugnant, is a

"controversy for the sake of Heaven" and never "the controversy

of Korah and his congregation." Since truth is seen as something personal,

anyone who rejects immoral opinions is considered to be arrogant because he

insists upon "his own" view while rejecting the views of "others."

Relativism

in morals, failure to insist on moral truth, and refusal to reject those who

reject it are seen as humility, but this is the humility of R. Zekharia ben Evkolus, who burnt

down the temple. This is the humility of Moses at the beginning of his

prophetic career, which brought down God's anger down upon him. God gave man

a mouth so that he might protest and take a stand for moral truth. We must

learn from Moses' mistake and leave behind us the path of Zekharia

ben Evkolus, which leads to destruction.

Yehonatan Avraham Gorenberg

is a student in Yeshivat HaKibbutz

HaDAti – Maalei Gilboa

Moses' Pedigree

The Torah tells us that the

biological pedigrees of the Patriarchs and of Moses do not jibe with later

Torah prohibitions. This comes to teach us that a person's level, the level he

achieves in his consciousness of God, is not connected to biological factors.

Furthermore, Hizkuni, one of the classic Torah commentators, explains

that Providence

saw to it that Moses would be born from a coupling that would later be deemed

tainted – even if it was acceptable at the time of his birth – "in order

to keep him from being arrogant towards the community." Every leader and

sovereign faces the danger of becoming arrogant towards the community. Even if

the leader is a man of God, the loyal shepherd of Israel, he may still become

arrogant. That is why it is desirable that a leader always be reminded of

something that might be seen as tainting his pedigree.

This is the idea expressed by

the Sages' famous dictum: "A leader should not be set up over the

community unless a box of vermin is tied behind him, so that if he becomes

proud of himself they can tell him: 'Turn around!'" That is to say – "Remember

who you are!" That is a warning to leaders in every generation and every

age. In this connection the expected King Messiah is also trailed by a string

of illicit relationships and illegal marriages: Ruth the Moabite (the

descendant of Lot and his daughter), Judah and

his daughter-in-law Tamar, David and Batsheva, Solomon and Naama

the Ammonite.

(Prof.

Y Leibowitz, z"l, He'arot

le'Parshiyot ha'Shavua

pp. 43-44)

Omens are not Evidence

Israel's belief in Moses was not based upon the

miracles he performed; one who believes on the basis of miracles is spiritually

deficient, for it is possible that the omen was produced in secret and through

sorcery. The signs he produced in the desert were to serve specific needs, but

not for the purpose of offering proof of his prophecy. In order to drown the

Egyptians, he split the sea and engulfed them. We needed food, he brought down

the manna. They were thirsty, he split the rock. Korah's

band rejected him, the earth swallowed them. And so with all

the other miracles. And why did we believe in him at the Sinai

revelation? Our eyes – not those of strangers – saw; our ears – not those of

others – heard the fire and the sounds and torches. And he approached the mist,

and the voice spoke out to him, as we listened: "Moses, Moses – go and

tell them such and such." And so Moses says, Face to face did He speak

to you all (Devarim

5:4), and it is written, It

was not with your fathers that the Lord cut this covenant (Devarim 5:4). And from where do we know that the

revelation at Sinai was the sole proof of the unblemished truth of his

prophecy? It is written, I will come to you in a thick cloud, in order that

the people may hear when I speak with you and so trust in you forever after (Shemot 19:9); from this we deduce that prior to that

point, they did not believe in him with everlasting faith – their faith was

subject to thought and deliberation… From this we learn that whichever

prophet appears after our teacher Moses will not gain our trust because of a

miracle alone ("If he performs a miracle we shall heed him in whatever he

says"), but because of God's commandment which Moses commanded us in the

Torah, saying that if he gives a sign, to him, shall you listen (Devarim 18:15). Just as He commanded us to pass judgment

on the basis of the testimony of two witnesses, even though we cannot be

certain whether their testimony is true or false, so are we commanded to obey

the prophet, whether his sign be true or produced by tricks or sorcery.

Therefore, if a prophet rises up and performs great signs and omens, but seeks

to deny the prophecy of Moses our teacher, we do not heed him, and we know for

a certainty that those signs are sorcery and secretly prepared, for the

prophecy of Moses our teacher is not dependent upon signs, that we should weigh

these signs against those signs, but with our own eyes we saw it and with our

own ears we heard it, just as he did.

(RaMBaM, Mishneh Torah,

Hilkhot Yesodei ha'Torah, 8:1-3)

But [with] My name YHWH, I did not become known to them: Theology of Faith in the Promise

In his comments on this verse (6:2), Rashi relates to the details of Scripture's

wording, and writes: "It is not written here but My Name YHWH I did not

make known to them, but, I did not become known. [I.e.,] I was not

recognized by them with My attribute of keeping faith, by dint of which My name

is called YHWH, [which means that I am] faithful to verify My words, for I made

promises to them, but I did not fulfill [them while they were alive]." (Judaica Press translation).

God reveals Himself to the

Patriarchs as El Shaddai, the Promising God

who has yet to demonstrate His involvement. He is the God in whom people

believe as against the Beneficent God, in whom it is not so difficult to

believe. The latter does not even leave room for a relationship of faith since

He has already kept His promise.

RaMBaM interprets the name Shaddai

as "that His existence, may He be exalted, suffices for that" (Guide of the Perplexed

1:63, Pines translation). Or, as Leibowitz put it, "the God for whom it is sufficient,"

the God whose essence is within himself, rather than in the functions

He serves vis-à-vis the world (He'arot le'Parshiyot Ha'Shavua, pg. 42).

It is noteworthy that the Amida prayer mentions "the God of Abraham, the

God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob" but we do not mention in our prayers

the "God of Moses," as if the God we pray to daily is that of the

Patriarchs and not the God of the Theophany at Sinai or of other revelations.

On the other hand, we read in Berakhot 33b:

A

certain [reader] went down in the presence of R. Hanina

and said, O God, the great, mighty, terrible, majestic, powerful, awful,

strong, fearless, sure and honored. He waited till he had finished, and when he

had finished he said to him, Have you concluded all the praise of your Master?

Why do we want all this? Even with these three that we do say, had not Moses

our Master mentioned them in the Torah and had not the Men of the Great

Synagogue come and inserted them in the prayer, we should not have

been able to mention them. (Based on Soncino translation)

The model for our prayers and

for our conception of God is the one written by Moses in the Torah and

established by the Men of the Great Synagogue. This means that there is a

traditional description of God which we are taught and which helps us to

conceive the revelation of the God to whom we pray.

Perhaps there is a tension here

between two religious conceptions:

On the one hand, we address in

our prayer, which is the service of the heart, the God of the Patriarchs, the

God who is sufficient in Himself, the God Who promises and in Whom we believe – and not to the revealed God Who interferes

in history for our benefit.

On the other hand, when we come

to describe Him for our own needs we must make do with minimalist descriptions

that have been established within the tradition by Moses and the Men of the

Great Synagogue. Then it is incumbent upon us to remember that, "they

imagined You but not as You are, the described You in

accordance with Your deeds." Every description or interpretation of Gods

deeds do not relate to His essence, but rather to his deeds, as they are

conceived and interpreted by us.

If so, it seems to me that the

authentic aspiration

of the Jew at prayer must be to connect with the Promising God, the God of

faith Who is beyond our abilities to describe, of Whom

it is written in Sifrei Ha'azinu (307): The God of faith – Who had faith

in the world and created it."

This demand for pure faith,

without connection to events, is not easy. The allure of changing historical

events in to the finger of God (as the Egyptian wizards would have it)

is powerful in every generation.

In addition, one enticed in

this direction we are subject to the real dangers of faith or love which are "dependent upon something" (teluya bedavar) and

a "cheap" theological interpretation of history in terms of human

needs be they individual or national.

Pinchas Leiser, editor

If you enjoy Shabbat Shalom, please consider contributing towards

its publication and distribution.

• Hebrew edition distributed in Israel

  $700

• English edition distributed via email $

  100

Issues may be dedicated in honor of an event, person, simcha, etc. Requests must be made 3-4 weeks in advance to

appear in the Hebrew, 10 days in advance to appear in the English email.

In Israel, checks made out to Oz VeShalom may be sent to Oz VeShalom-P.O.B.

4433, Jerusalem

91043. Unfortunately there is no Israeli tax-exemption for local donations.

US and British tax-exempt contributions to Oz VeShalom may be made through:

New Israel Fund, POB

91588, Washington, DC 20090-1588,

USA

New Israel Fund of Great Britain, 26 Enford Street, London W1H 2DD, Great

Britain

PLEASE NOTE THAT THE NEW ISRAEL

FUND IS NO LONGER ACCEPTING DONATIONS UNDER $100.

PEF will also channel donations and provide a tax-exemption. Donations

should be sent to P.E.F. Israel Endowment Funds, Inc., 317 Madison Ave., Suite 607, New

York, New York 10017 USA

All contributions should be marked as donor-advised to Oz ve'Shalom, the Shabbat Shalom project.

About us

Oz Veshalom-Netivot Shalom is a movement

dedicated to the advancement of a civil society in Israel. It is committed to

promoting the ideals of tolerance, pluralism, and justice, concepts that have

always been central to Jewish tradition and law.

Oz Veshalom-Netivot Shalom shares a deep

attachment to the land

of Israel and it no less

views peace as a central religious value. It believes that Jews have both the

religious and the national obligation to support the pursuit of peace. It

maintains that Jewish law clearly requires us to create a fair and just

society, and that co-existence between Jews and Arabs is not an option but an

imperative.

5,000

copies of a 4-page peace oriented commentary on the weekly Torah reading are

written and published by Oz VeShalom/Netivot Shalom

and they are distributed to over 350 synagogues in Israel and are sent overseas via

email. Our web site is www.netivot-shalom.org.il.