Skip to main content

Shemot | The Leader

Text file

by Rav Josh Joseph (machzor 1988) [special thanks to my wife, Julie, for her help]

 

I.  NO LEADER FOR THE NO-NAMES?

 

          A new book, a new story.  With the conclusion of the tale of the patriarchal and matriarchal family, we are now prepared to embark on a journey describing the evolution of the Israelite nation.  Many questions face us as we approach this portion of the narrative: how is the sojourn in Egypt?  When will they exit and return to their own land?  Moreover, we wonder who will lead Israel out of Egypt, who is destined to continue the tradition of leadership we witnessed in the book of Genesis.  We wonder, indeed, if there is such a person who has the capability to guide not just a family but a nation and maintain its safety.  Can such a person even exist?

 

          In fact, the end of Genesis seems to signify the end of the heroic character's central role in the development of our story.  The lone stalwart of faith no longer figures to play a critical part in the evolvement of the family started by Abraham and Sarah in conjunction with God, and carried through Isaac and Rebecca, and then Jacob, Rachel and Leah.  In fact, this first book ends with the selection of all of Jacob's – Israel's children.  No one is left out of the covenant with God.  Indeed, in his blessings to his children, Jacob seems to predict that survival and success will depend on the brothers, the twelve tribes, learning to successfully complement and help each other.  The evolution of a nation is apparently dependent upon cooperation and coordination.  Leadership, then, seems destined for the hands of the many, and out of the hands of the single pilot.

 

          The beginning of the book of Exodus, the first chapter, seems to suggest that this hypothesis is correct.  Already in verse 9, Pharaoh paints the picture for us:

 

"And he [Pharaoh] said to his PEOPLE; behold, the PEOPLE of the sons of Israel are greater and more numerous than we.  Let us outsmart HIM, lest HE grow more numerous and if war should occur, HE might join our enemies, and fight us..."

 

          "The children of Israel" can no longer simply imply "the sons of Israel," but the people, the nation of Israel.  This is no mere family, but a rapidly growing populace that has managed to remain whole and separate from the Egyptian nation.  Moreover, the text seems to imply that this growing mass has no focal point, no figurehead, no hierarchical system for individual importance.

 

          This can be clearly seen through the ambiguity with which the narrative relates to characters beyond the first few verses of the chapter.  After listing Jacob's sons, verse 6 tells us:

 

          "And Joseph died and all his brothers, and all that generation."

 

          The focus is clearly closure to the Genesis story.   From that point onward there is no use of personal names.  As we have mentioned the descendants of Jacob and his sons are merely referred to as the "sons of Israel" - or "nation" [verses 7, 9, 12, 13, 20].

 

          The one possible exception -i.e., where someone may actually be referred to by a personal name - is the connection to the midwives, Shifra and Puah.  In his translation of the text to Aramaic, Onkelos (Aramaic translation, 2nd century) does not translate Shifra and Puah, implying that these were the midwives' real names.  The Ibn Ezra (Rabbi Avraham ben Ezra, Spain, 1092-1167) and the Chizkuni (Rabbi Chizkiya ben Manoach, France, mid-thirteenth century) also seem to understand that these were the actual names, as they explain that these were not the only midwives, rather they were in charge of all Egyptian child-deliverers.

 

          However, some suggest that Shifra and Puah may not have been authentic names.  Rashi (Rabbi Shlomo ben Yitzchak, France, 1040-1105) cites the gemara, Sota (11b) and states the following:

 

Shifra: this is Yocheved, because she improves [makes beautiful; "meshaperet"] the child; Puah: this is Miriam since she calls aloud, talks to and speaks with the child the way women pacify a crying child.

 

          Similarly, the Maharam mi-Rotenburg (Rabbi Meir ben Baruch of Rotenburg, Germany, d. 1304) discusses two ideas, two interpretations of these "names."  He, too, quotes the gemara in Sota, as did Rashi.  But he also explains as follows:

 

"... because the midwives have a procedure for children that are born dead whereby they take a tube of reed and they put it in the [baby's] bowels and they blow, thereby returning the baby's wind [air]; and Shifra was the first midwife to perform this act..."

 

          Certainly the simple reading of the story is that these were in fact the real names.  So why does the gemara - and Rashi and Maharam in turn - endeavor to explain that these were not authentic names?  What might be gained by such an approach?

 

          Apparently there is an attempt here to diminish the importance of the individual, the potential leader.  Again, we see a description of the children of Israel as a nebulous mass, without outstanding, remarkable characters.  That is not to say that what Shifra and Puah accomplished was not outstanding; simply put, the narrative - according to the opinions cited above - did not want the reader to focus on the individual; rather, we are to consider the nation of Israel as one whole.

 

          Furthermore, no character in the beginning of Exodus is referred to by name.  Consider the opening verses of the second chapter: [note the CAPS, mine]

 

"And there went A MAN of the house of Levi and he took [as a wife] A DAUGHTER of Levi.  And THE WOMAN conceived and bore A SON; and she saw him that he was good and she hid him for three months.  And when she could no longer hide him she made him a raft ... and she put THE CHILD therein ... and HIS SISTER stood afar off to uncover what would happen to him.  And THE DAUGHTER of Pharaoh came down to bathe ... and she saw the raft ... and she opened it and she saw [him] THE CHILD and behold THE BOY wept ... and HIS SISTER said to THE DAUGHTER of Pharaoh ... should I go call a nurse ... that she may nurse THE CHILD ... and THE MAIDEN went and called THE MOTHER of THE CHILD.  And Pharaoh's daughter said - take away THIS CHILD ... and THE WOMAN took THE CHILD ... and THE CHILD grew and he was brought to the daughter of Pharaoh to be her son..."

 

          There is no use of a personal name: the father is nameless as is his wife; the boy is not named and neither is his sister; even the daughter of Pharaoh is merely referred to as a relative of her father.

 

          What's in a name?  The Sforno (Rabbi Ovadia Sforno, Italy, 1470-1550), at the beginning of this book, states the following:

 

"These:" those recorded here were worthy of being referred to by name because each one was deemed worthy as a person through his name which teaches us about his nature and personality ... however, those that came along after their deaths were not deemed righteous..."

 

          Abraham Darom and R. Ze'ev Gotleib (authors of footnotes on same, in Torat Chaim) noted on this that

 

"A name of a person is his essence, and calling one by his name denotes the importance of his character..."

 

          From this, we can see that the ambiguous description is purposeful.  The reader is not supposed to care - yet - about individuals, but about events, as there are no focal characters in our account.  What makes this fact even more striking is the absolute absence of any reference to God throughout this description of life in Egypt at the beginning of Exodus.  Without human and Divine intervention and guidance, how will the children of Israel ever develop into a nation?  How will they leave Egypt?

 

          So, until this point we are led to believe that there are no charismatic people, no leaders to take the helm of the Israelite ship.  "He looked and saw there was no person" - no leader.  Who is it that has this moment of epiphany, who recognizes this reality?  It can only be one who is destined to lead himself; it is, of course, Moses.

 

          The narrative's ambiguous description of its characters ends abruptly where we last left off [in chapter 2, verse 10].  The anonymous boy who came from anonymous parents and family grows up in the house of the anonymous daughter of the king.

 

"And the child grew and he was brought to the daughter of Pharaoh to be her son and she called him Moses "because out of the water I drew him" ["meshitihu"].

 

          The reader is finally given a name, finally pointed to a possible hero.  Out of all the ambiguous characters emerges a focus.  Now, it is clear to us that the ambiguity has been purposeful - so that we focus only on the key figure, Moses.  Even after his name-giving other characters maintain their anonymity:

 

"and he went out and he saw AN EGYPTIAN MAN hit a HEBREW ... and he went out a second day and there were two HEBREWS ...."

 

          Thus, with the naming of Moses our story gains focus.  The centrality of Moses' birth in the narrative is stated by the Ramban (Rabbi Moses ben Nachman, Spain, 1194-1274):

 

          "At this point, Scripture desires to shorten the subject until the birth of the redeemer takes place."

 

          Moses's birth is the main point; all other facts are relatively insignificant.

 

          Some of our questions have been answered; we now know who will lead the children of Israel out of Egypt.  But two points remain unclear: who is this mysterious man and why was he chosen?

 

II. MOSES WHO?

 

          As Moses grows he wanders out of the palace - both literally and figuratively - to the point that he must flee for his life.  His personal development is described in three brief anecdotes that are contained within a few verses; by verse 23, Moses has already attained an advanced stage in life and witnesses God's revelation at the burning bush.  So, whatever extant kernels of Moses's personality in his youth must be gleaned from this sparse account.  What type of person is Moses, what kind of leader?

 

(A)  Egyptian vs. Hebrew:

 

          The first story reads as follows:

 

"And it came to pass in those days, and Moses grew up and he went out to his brothers and witnessed their suffering; and he saw an Egyptian man beating a Hebrew of his brothers.  And he checked this way and that and saw there was no person, and he beat the Egyptian and hid him in the sand."

 

          Is this the action of a future leader of the children of Israel?  It seems as if this is pure vigilantism; how could Moses judge what was right in this situation?  How is it justifiable to kill this Egyptian who had not killed but just beaten the Hebrew?  [Note: on this point Rasag (Rabbi Sa'adia Gaon, Persia, 892-942) apparently takes issue; he states that from the phrase "and he hit" we see that Moses did not have the intent to kill when he hit the Egyptian, and thus the killing was not premeditated, just an unfortunate outgrowth of the more justifiable 'measure for measure,' beating for beating.]

 

          Thus, this description in the verses seems to imply that Moses' was merely an emotional outburst.  Perhaps one may understand the Ramban in this light. He states:

 

"And he went out to his brothers" - this indicates that they told him he was a Jew, and he desired to see them because they were his brothers. And he witnessed their suffering and burden and he could not suffer it, and so he killed the Egyptian..."

 

          Though we admire Moses's loyalty to his people, as well as his ability to act upon his passions, we still wonder whether one should not be more in control of one's emotions if one is to lead the masses.  This is the problem upon which the midrash and commentaries focus, and within which they defend and describe more fully Moses's actions.

 

          Rashi expounds upon the midrash and states the following:

 

"'And Moses grew up' - But did it not already write 'and the child grew up?'  R. Judah son of R. Ilai said: 'The first refers to stature and the second to greatness, since Pharaoh appointed him over his house;' 'and he witnessed their suffering' - He decided in his eyes and heart to grieve for them; 'an Egyptian man' - He was a taskmaster appointed over the officers of Israel...; '"beating a Hebrew' - He hit and whipped him, and he was the husband of Shlomit daughter of Divri, and the Egyptian had seen her and at night he took him [the Hebrew] out of his house, and he [the Egyptian] went into the house and slept with his wife, she thinking it was her husband.  And the husband returned and sensed the matter and when the Egyptian saw that the Hebrew had sensed the matter, he hit and whipped him all day; 'and he checked this way and that' - He [Moses] saw what he [the Egyptian] had done to him at home and what he did to him in the field...; '"and saw there was no person' - that no one was destined to come from him and convert."

 

          Rashi's explanation clarifies a number of points.  First, it seems possible that since Moses had stature even amongst the Egyptians he had the right and the power to punish the Egyptian had the latter erred.  Apparently, his appointment over the house gave him legal privilege which enabled him to dispense justice.  This is certainly clear if we accept Ibn Ezra's understanding of "and he went out to his brothers-- i.e., the Egyptians."  According to this interpretation, Moses left the palace with the express purpose of watching over and minding his fellow Egyptian officers.  [Note: according to Asher Veiser (footnotes to same in Torat Chaim) this is a typographical error, and should read 'Hebrews.'  This comment also seems fitting considering the rest of Ibn Ezra's comments on same.]

 

          Second, Moses was not merely acting on whim, but rather made a concrete decision to feel for and to defend his brothers in the field.  Further, his decision had legal basis since the Egyptian had slept with the Hebrew's wife and then beat him for no valid reason other than to appease his own guilt.  Finally, he prophesied that the Egyptian would not provide the world with great descendants in the future providing more logical rationale to beat him.

 

          Similarly, the Chizkuni states:

 

"He [Moses] judged upon him a death sentence since non-Jews are not allowed to sleep with the wives of others."

 

          According to these interpretations, Moses acted in an orderly fashion and in a just manner.  His reaction was not merely instinctual and emotional, but he harnessed his passions, applied logical reasoning, and acted rationally, albeit forcefully.  Seen in this light, Moses's actions seem not only justifiable, but commendable.

 

          Even the Ramban seems to explain Moses's actions in a similar vein, though with a slight variation:

 

"And Moses grew up" - This is to be understood that he grew to manhood ... it was no longer necessary to wean him ... for he was to stand in the presence of  kings. After that, he grew to manhood in maturity of mind."

 

          The Ramban does mention Moses's stature in the presence of kings.  But he also focuses on Moses's intellectual development in order to stress that Moses did not merely act on emotion alone.

 

          Furthermore, the Netziv (Rabbi Naftali Tzvi Yehuda Berlin, Lithuania, 1817-1893) ascribes a greater vision to Moses and clothes him with a higher moral purpose.  On the verse "and he checked this way and that" - Rashi merely states that it is the simple meaning - i.e., he literally checked his surroundings.  This, too, implies that Moses paused before he hit, thought before he acted.

 

          The Netziv takes this a step further.  He opines that Moses merely sought to bring the man to justice but realized that in Egypt no law existed to protect the Hebrew from his Egyptian attacker, and so he took the law into his own hands.  As the Sefer Ha-ktav ve-Hakabala (Rabbi Yaakov Tzvi Mecklenburg, Central Europe, 1785-1865) suggests, Moses wanted someone else to save the Hebrew but "he looked and there was no person," no savior but himself.  Not only is Moses upholding what is just, righting a wrong; he realizes that he must step forward and lead the children of Israel to justice.  He endeavored to alter the legal system, a system that provided for injustice on a daily basis.  He recognized that he alone was in a position to solve this problem, to fill the void of leadership atop the nation of Yisrael.

 

          These interpretations paint Moses as a humanitarian who is loyal to his kind, and who defends the weak from their oppressor.  Moreover, he is passionate and in control of those passions.  Finally, he is a visionary who realizes that Israel needs leadership in order to right their civil and legal status.

 

(B)  Hebrew vs. Hebrew

 

          The second anecdote provides Moses with a second epiphany, though entirely contradictory to the first:

 

"And he went out the second day and, behold, two men of the Hebrews were fighting; and he said to the wicked one - 'why are you hitting your fellow?;' and he said 'who made you man, ruler and judge over us? are you considering killing me as you killed the Egyptian?;' and Moses feared and said 'so, the matter is known;' and Pharaoh heard of the matter and he sought to kill Moses; and so Moses ran away from Pharaoh..."

 

          All of Moses's assumptions are overturned.  First, he thought he was ready and grown enough to lead.  But, as Rashi points out

 

          "Who made you man...?' - when indeed you are still a boy."

 

          Similarly, the Chizkuni states:

 

"You still have not attained the status of man, and you seek to be ruler and judge."

 

          Moreover, Moses thought that the children of Israel wanted a "man, ruler and judge," a leader, as they certainly lacked one!  But what of this people who reject him and any notion of having a representative to do battle, even if it is in their defense, for their own benefit?!  Rashi states that these two men were Datan and Aviram, who later fought with Moses even in the desert.  What a stubborn lot!  They would not even allow Moses to chide them.  [See Ramban, Sforno for explanation of 'said''; Rashi says that Moses killed by reciting the sanctified name of God, but others explain that the Hebrew merely asked if Moses was planning on killing him.  Ramban and Sforno maintain that the Hebrew did not think Moses wanted to kill him, but simply would not tolerate Moses's chiding, reproof, criticism.]

 

          Furthermore, Rashi explains:

 

"And Moses feared" - ... He was worried because he saw in Israel wicked people, informers.  He said, 'Since this is so, perhaps they are not fit to be redeemed;' "So, the matter is known" - ... 'I wondered what was the sin of Yisrael more than all seventy nations to be punished with hard labor, but I see they deserve it;'; "And Pharaoh heard" - they informed upon him.

 

          Perhaps Moses was ready to lead a nation, an oppressed mass that needed guidance and help to overcome their predicament.  But this was not a group that deserved salvation.  The children of Israel were narrow-thinking, independent-minded, and stubborn.  This is a reality with which Moses is confronted repeatedly throughout the sojourn in the desert.

 

          So, Moses finds himself 'a rebel without a cause' - he is a leader without a nation, a visionary without a project.  The children of Israel have gone from a nation without a leader to a leader without a nation.  Moses is left with no one to whom he can turn - so, he runs away.

 

(C)  The daughters vs. the shepherds

 

          The third story involves Moses mediating between two parties yet again:

 

"And Moses ran away from Pharaoh and he stayed in the land of Midian, and he stayed at the well.  And the Midianite priest had seven daughters and the came and drew water and filled the troughs to water the flock of their father.  And the shepherds came and drove them away, and Moses rose up and saved them, and watered their sheep ... And they told him [their father] 'An Egyptian man saved us from the shepherds' ... And Moses was content to stay with the man, who gave his daughter Tzippora to Moses.  And she gave birth to a son and he called him Gershom, 'since I have been a stranger ["ger"] in a strange land.'"

 

          Moses no longer desires to stand out as a leader, but tries to blend in with the people around him - note that the daughters refer to him as an Egyptian.  We also see that Moses has learned to settle, as the word "settled" is repeated several times with regard to his stay in Midian.  In fact, Rashi compares his actions to those of Jacob who also ran away and "settled" in the place to which he ran.  Furthermore, though Moses realized that there was no place for him in Egypt, he allows for the possibility that that might be only a temporary situation; he still considers himself a stranger in Midian.

 

          Moreover, Moses again witnesses confrontation.  But, this time he is successful.  The Sforno states:

 

"And Moses rose up and saved them" - ... he did not try to ... reprove them, just rose to save the oppressed from their oppressors."

 

          Here, we see that Moses has learned how to win, when the use of force is necessary and when help is required and appreciated.  He is naturally a humanitarian, a do-gooder, and he knows now when to apply those characteristics, traits, values.  Thus, from this last story we see that Moses has grown through his experiences, and is now aware of his capabilities and disabilities.

 

III.  CONCLUSION: SO, WHY MOSES?

 

          These anecdotes, then, provide us with much insight into Moses's character, personality and leadership abilities.  He is loyal to his kin, and passionate about his beliefs.  He recognizes the importance of being part of a nation, and not live amongst strangers.  He has experience - the only one in all Israel -- with stature and leadership responsibilities.  He is a shrewd, careful decision-maker and can harness his emotions and act in an orderly and just manner.  He thinks logically and is a visionary.  He attempts to right wrongs and defend the oppressed: he is a humanitarian par excellence.  He realizes his own importance and leadership potential, but also when leadership and action are required, necessary and appreciated, and when not - when to not stand out.  He realizes the children of Israel's importance and potential as well as their problems: stubbornness and close-mindedness.

 

          That being said, we can now see why Moses is the quintessential leader.  His innate, sensitive character mixed with the harsh experiences of life have given him a vast spectrum of perspectives, and provided him with an open mind able to see beyond his narrow world.  Moreover, the freedom he enjoyed both physically and spiritually from lordship make him unique in Israel.  This uniqueness makes him the best leader possible for a nation stuck in slavery for hundreds of years.  The psychology of such a nation is such that the people could not see beyond their own selves, families, lands.  They have no concept of freedom, no open mind with which to imagine such a foreign idea.  It is not even an idea that enters their collective consciousness, it does not exist in a their realm of thinking.  Only Moses has the experiences and traits to be the visionary, to imagine a freed nation; only he has a history of desire to see the oppressed redeemed, to know that the wrongs must be righted.  This is why God chooses Moses, why he is the one for the job.

 

          As we mentioned above, there is no reference to God in the beginning of Exodus.  Finally, though, after Moses has settled in to Midian and in to his personality, God 'remembers the children of Israel' and initiates the process for their redemption.  Only after Moses has developed into the proto-leader that is needed can this process begin.  Only then, is there a leader with the capabilities to take the children of Israel out of Egypt and lead them to freedom.

 

          Thus, the stage is set.  The reader has been provided a hero and the theme of the book has been outlined.  The development of the Israelite nation and its relationship with God can now commence through the medium of all mediums, the mediator, their leader: Moses.

 

Copyright (c)1996 Yeshivat Har Etzion.  All rights reserved.

This website is constantly being improved. We would appreciate hearing from you. Questions and comments on the classes are welcome, as is help in tagging, categorizing, and creating brief summaries of the classes. Thank you for being part of the Torat Har Etzion community!