SALT | Vaera 5784 - 2024

In loving memory of   
Yitzchak and Sheva Shayndel Schwartz z"l  
whose yahrzeit is 13 Shvat  
by Avi and Sarah Schwartz

MOTZAEI

         "God spoke to Moshe and Aharon, and He commanded them to [go] to Benei Yisrael and Pharaoh king of Egypt… " (6:13).  This verse informs us that God sent Moshe and Aharon on two missions - one to Pharaoh, and the other to Benei Yisrael.  The commandment regarding Pharaoh becomes immediately clear at the end of the verse: "to deliver Benei Yisrael from the land of Egypt."  But what did Moshe and Aharon have to tell Benei Yisrael?

         The Talmud Yerushalmi (Rosh Hashanah 3:3) claims that the answer is found in Sefer Yirmiyahu 34:14.  The prophet declares in the Name of God that when taking Benei Yisrael out of Egypt, God entered into an agreement with the nation that they would set their indentured servants free every seven years.  This agreement served as a precondition, it seems, to the Exodus. The Yerushalmi views this obligation as the missing piece to the puzzle in our verse in Parashat Va'era: Moshe and Aharon had to command Benei Yisrael to set their servants free.

         The association between this obligation and the Exodus is clear. The Torah in Sefer Vayikra (25:55) explains the laws regarding freeing servants as follows: "For it is to Me that Benei Yisrael are servants: they are My servants, whom I freed from the land of Egypt."  The requirement of setting indentured servants free relates to the recognition that a person ultimately serves no master other than the Almighty Himself.  This likewise constitutes a primary message of the Exodus: Benei Yisrael's subjugation to Pharaoh undermined, to one extent or another, their sense of servitude to God.  Their agreement to free indentured servants had to precede their own freedom from bondage in order to underscore the purpose of this freedom: to serve God. The yoke of Pharaoh was to be immediately replaced by the yoke of Heaven.

         If so, then we can perhaps suggest another interpretation of our verse.  The final clause, "to deliver Benei Yisrael from the land Egypt," may now modify both missions charged to Moshe and Aharon, that to Pharaoh as well as to Benei Yisrael.  Moshe and Aharon must not only order the king to release his slaves, but also prepare Benei Yisrael for their deliverance.  This required a keen understanding of the fundamental axiom, "For it is to Me that Benei Yisrael are servants."

SUNDAY

         Towards the beginning of Parashat Va'era God addresses Moshe and declares the famous "four expressions of redemption," which are generally understood as the source for the obligation of drinking four cups of wine at the seder.  It should be noted, however, that although the She'iltot refers to this obligation as a Biblically-ordained mitzva, a position advanced by the "Keli Chemda," as well, the generally accepted position views this obligation as a rabbinic ordinance.  The "four expressions" in Parashat Va'era are but an allusion ("asmakhta").

         Nevertheless, this mitzva has earned a level of stringency not found even among other obligations of Biblical origin.  The mishna in Masekhet Pesachim requires even the poorest among Benei Yisrael to drink four cups, even if this entails selling their clothing (Shulchan Arukh, O.C. 472:13).  The stringency likely evolves from the particular element of "pirsumei nisa" publicizing the miracle, latent within this obligation.  Similarly, the Rambam rules that one must sell his clothing in order to purchase oil and wicks for Chanuka candles, as well.  Here, too, the element of "pirsumei nisa" affords the obligation an added level of stringency.

         What is it about "pirsumei nisa" that warrants such stringency?

         An interesting explanation is presented by the Avnei Nezer (Shut, O.C. 501).  He explains that generally speaking, the halakha does not require one to sell his clothing for the performance of a mitzva, since God equates genuine desire to fulfill a mitzva with the actual performance itself.  If someone truly years to fulfill a requirement but simply does not have the wherewithal to do so, his desire itself amounts to the performance of the mitzva.  This mechanism, however, cannot work when the obligation involves "pirsumei mitzva."  When the halakha requires one to publicize a miracle, then he simply cannot do so in his heart and mind, whereas his feeling do not reach the public.  Only the Almighty Himself can read a person's heart and take his thoughts into consideration.  When it comes to publicizing a miracle, however, there is no option other than the actual performance of the mitzva.

MONDAY

         Yesterday we looked at the mitzva of drinking four cups at the seder, an obligation alluded to in the beginning of Parashat Va'era through the "four expressions of redemption."  We saw that the halakha requires a pauper to go so far as to sell his clothing in order to perform this mitzva, a stringency this obligation shares with that of Chanuka candles.  As mentioned yesterday, the Avnei Nezer explains that while generally one incapable of performing a mitzva "fulfills" the obligation through his yearning to do so, one cannot utilize this principle when it comes to obligations requiring one to publicize a miracle.  By definition, one cannot publicize a miracle by only wishing he could do so.

         The Avnei Nezer uses this theory to resolve an interesting question: why does this stringency not apply to kiddush on Shabbat?  If, as we saw, mitzvot involving "pirsumei nisa" (publicizing a miracle) require one to even sell his clothing for the sake of the mitzva, then why should kiddush be any different?  After all, kiddush serves to testify that God created the heaven and earth.  Can there be any greater miracle than that?  Does this mitzva not thus fall under the same category of "pirsumei nisa" as the four cups at the seder and Chanuka candles?

         The Avnei Nezer answers by distinguishing between the "pirsumei nisa" of kiddush and that of the four cups and Chanuka candles.  The latter two obligations require one to publicize the miracle to others.  At the seder, one must broadcast the miracle to his family; on Chanuka, one publicizes the miracle to passersby.  On Shabbat, however, one "publicizes" the miracle of creation to himself only.  Kiddush on Shabbat serves to reinforce one's own conviction and belief that God created the world.  As such, it does not deserve the same stringency as the four cups at the seder or Chanuka candles.  Since, as we saw, an impoverished individual can fulfill, on some level, mitzvot he is incapable of performing through his yearning to perform, he need not sell his clothing for the sake of kiddush.  Only mitzvot requiring the transmission of a message to others, such as the four cups at the seder and Chanuka candles, require the actual performance of the obligation at all costs.

TUESDAY

         As we've noted in the previous two "S.A.L.T."'s, it is commonly understood that the required four cups of wine drank at the seder on Pesach eve correspond to the "four expressions of redemption" in God's address to Moshe in Parashat Va'era.  These expressions are: "I will take you out"; "I will save you"; "I will redeem you"; "I will take you to Me as a nation" (6:6-7).  In the next verse, however, God proclaims what appears to be yet a fifth such expression: "I will take you to the land… " Many have suggested that the traditional "cup of Eliyahu" poured at the seder corresponds to this fifth expression.

         But what exactly is the relationship between this fifth expression and the previous four?

         The Or Ha-chayim answers based on the words standing in between the fourth and fifth expressions: "… and you shall know that I am Hashem your God, who takes you from the suffering of Egypt."  The Or Ha-chayim views this clause as a precondition for the fulfillment of the final promise, Benei Yisrael's entry into the land. Sure enough, as we know, on several occasions during the nation's journey through the wilderness God is prepared to destroy them until Moshe's intervention on their behalf.  Only if the nation demonstrates its unwavering loyalty to God's authority will He bring them into the land.

         Thus, this final promise stands apart from the previous four.  The first four relate specifically to the redemption from Egypt.  This God promises unconditionally, in fulfillment of His promise to the patriarchs. This very well may be the reason why God opens this address to Moshe by recalling His covenant to Avraham, Yitzchak and Yaakov.  This agreement obligates Him, as it were, to redeem Benei Yisrael from Egyptian bondage regardless of their worthiness.  But the final stage, Benei Yisrael's entry into the Promised Land, depends upon their willingness to accept and obey God's commandments. 

         This indeed is the "fifth cup" at the seder.  We sit around the table year after year waiting for Eliyahu HaNavi to participate in our seder, to come and bring all of Am Yisrael together to Eretz Yisrael.  We do not drink this cup, for we have not yet fulfilled the condition, "You shall know that I am Hashem."  We have yet to demonstrate our complete faith and trust in the Almighty and devotion to His laws.  Each year we invite Eliyahu into our homes, but, for many centuries now, he hasn't walked through the door.  Only once we internalize the message of the Exodus, of the acceptance of the yoke of Heaven, will we add this fifth cup to our seder.

WEDNESDAY

         Before the seventh plague, the plague of hail, Moshe warns Pharaoh's servants to bring their animals and servants indoors in anticipation of the storm.  The next verses tell us that the "God-fearing" among the royal servants heeded the warning, while "he who did not pay attention to God's word" negligently left his slaves and cattle outdoors.

         Rav Chaim Shemuelevitz takes note of the Torah's description of the latter group.  These people did not lack fear of God.  Rather, they "didn’t pay attention."  They were simply negligent.  They knew what needed to be done, they understood what was happening, but they simply didn't act accordingly.  Out of laziness or sheer irresponsibility, they left their animals and slaves to perish in the hailstorm.

         From here we learn the critical lesson of proactive involvement in "the word of God."  Like Pharaoh's servants, we believe in Torah and mitzvot and generally consider ourselves bound by their authority.  Yet, we often "do not pay attention."  We let the obligations slip from our minds and carry on as if all is well.  The Torah here teaches us that one can fear God but still fail to take the necessary measures to fulfill God's Word.  When it comes to our religious obligations, we cannot let the tide carry us.  We must make a proactive effort to do that which we know must be done.

THURSDAY

         In describing the onset of the plague of frogs, the Torah surprisingly employs the singular form (8:2).  Rashi cites the Midrash that initially only a single frog assaulted the Egyptians.  As they beat the frog in an attempt to kill it, however, it spewed forth smaller frogs. The more the Egyptians attempted to kill it, the more frogs it produced.

         It stands to reason that this Midrash seeks to teach us more than the details of how scores of frogs made their way to Egypt.  Some - including the Steipler Gaon zt"l - have suggested that this Midrash comes to teach us a profound lesson about anger. The Midrash implies that even after the Egyptian exterminators saw that their beatings simply exacerbated the situation, they continued their frantic flogging.  Of course, they themselves intensified the plague, as their beatings produced more and more harmful frogs.  Common situations of anger generally unfold in a similar type of progression.  The more a person reacts to adversity with anger, the worse the situation becomes. Specifically, when victimized by another person, very often "beating" the matter simply adds strain to the already scarred relationship, while leaving the issue alone allows for the wounds to heal.  The natural tendency of anger often clouds sound reasoning and leads people to "beat the frog" despite the further deterioration of the situation that results.  The lesson, of course, is to learn from the Egyptians' mistake and try to resist the onset anger, allowing instead for the tensions to gradually ease.

FRIDAY

         Earlier this week we noted the ambiguity of a verse towards the beginning of Parashat Va'era: "God spoke to Moshe and Aharon, and He commanded them to [go] to Benei Yisrael and Pharaoh king of Egypt… " (6:13).  The subsequent chapters deal at length with Moshe and Aharon's mission to Pharaoh, their demand that he release the Hebrew slaves and his stubbornly defiant response. The Torah does not, however, present any details of Moshe and Aharon's discussion with Benei Yisrael (that is, subsequent to this commandment by God; earlier we do find Moshe and Aharon addressing the people directly).

         It seems clear that this instruction involved Moshe and Aharon's preparation of Benei Yisrael in anticipation of the Exodus.  Indeed, as we saw on Sunday, the Talmud Yerushalmi points to a single mitzvah required for redemption as the specific content of this preparation.  On the level of "peshat" (simple reading of the text), however, it would seem that a certain level of general conditioning was required before the people could leave bondage and emerge as a proud, independent nation.  But of what did this process consist?  How did it develop?

         It has been suggested that until the sacrificing of the Paschal lamb on the night of the Exodus, Benei Yisrael's preparation involved nothing more than what we find in the text: the ten plagues.  Having failed to convince the people through words (see 6:9), Moshe and Aharon said nothing more to the people than simply, "Sit back and watch."  Benei Yisrael's gradual transformation occurred as a result of their observation, taking note of everything around them and reaching the appropriate conclusions.

         The message emerging from this process is primarily an educational one: people often learn the most from watching and observing, rather than from direct instruction.  We can "teach" everyone around us through the example we set and the values we come to represent in their eyes.  By the same token, we ourselves learn not only from lectures and books, but also from what we see and hear around us.  As such, we must ascertain that these courses taught to us are indeed what we must learn, and not what we must avoid.