To download a copy of the text study in a nice formatted document click here.
The Egyptian's Anti-Dayyenu (download)
Blog, Uncategorized
Comments Off
Apr 112011
The Egyptian's Anti-Dayyenu
Blog
Comments Off
Apr 112011
The song we sing at the Seder table at Pesach, Dayyenu, has a memorable melody and offers thanks for all the wondrous deeds in the redemption of the Israelites from Egypt. It is first recorded in around the 10th Century, though there is extensive scholarly debate over whether it is in fact much older. For a brief overview of Dayyenu itself and a lay-person’s commentary on the Pesach Hagadah see: http://bit.ly/fDrEND (page 67). So, whilst the text below is from one of the oldest collections of midrashim, we are not suggesting that it was written with Dayyenu in mind nor spurred the authorship of Dayyenu. However, for us in our time, it resonates strongly almost as an anti-text. The Egyptians servants of Pharaoh do not give thanks to God for the ever increasing redemptive acts, rather they bemoan their fate to Pharaoh for each successive blow as slave-masters.
In our reading of the text we are going to do three things. First, we will read through the text and unpick the ‘grammar’ of the midrash – a look at the technical aspects of the components of the midrash. Secondly, we will try to establish the message of the midrash and ambiguities surrounding its meaning. Finally, we will consider whether there are any contemporary implications for our Seder table.
Mekhilta de Rabbi Ishmael – Beshallach 1
ויהפך לבב פרעה וגו’, לשעבר ויאמרו עבדי פרעה אליו עד מתי יהיה זה לנו למוקש ועכשיו ויהפך לבב פרעה ועבדיו ויאמרו מה זאת עשינו וגו’. אמרו אלו לקינו ולא שלחנו כדי הוא לנו אלא לקינו ושלחנו. או אלו לקינו ושלחנו ולא היו נוטלין ממונינו כדי הוא לנו אלא לקינו ושלחנו ונטלו ממונינו. משל למה הדבר דומה לאחד שאמר לעבדו צא והבא לי דג מן השוק יצא והביא לו דג מן השוק מבאיש אמר לו בגזירה או תאכל הדג, או תלקה מאה מכות, או תתן לי מאה מנה, אמר לו הריני אוכל התחיל לאכול לא הספיק לגמור עד שאמר הריני לוקה לקה ששים לא הספיק לגמור עד שאמר הריני נותן מאה מנה נמצא אוכל את הדג ולוקה ונותן מאה מנה. כך נעשה למצרים לקו ושילחו וניטל ממונם.
“And the heart of Pharaoh and of his servants was turned” (Exodus 14:5). A little while before, Pharaoh’s servants said to him, “How much longer will this man be a snare to us?” (Exodus 10:7) And now the heart of Pharaoh and of his servants was turned. They said, “What is this that we have done…” (Exodus 14:5) They said, ‘If we had been plagued and not let them go, it would have been enough for us. Rather we have been plagued and released them. Or even if we had been plagued and let them go and they had not taken from us our treasures it would have been enough for us. Rather we have been plagued, released them and they took our possessions. A parable: To what may this be compared? This is like a person who says to his servant, ‘Go and bring for me a fish from the market’. He goes and brings him a fish from the market. It smells foul. He decrees upon him – either eat the fish, or I’ll lash you one hundred times or give to me 100 maneh. He says to him, ‘I will eat’. He begins to eat, before he could finish he says, ‘I’ll take the lashes’. He is lashed 60 times and before he could finish he says ‘I’ll pay the money’. He finds that he has eaten the fish, taken the lashes and given the money. Similarly, it happened to Egypt that they were plagued, released them [the Israelites] and had their possessions taken.
Some additional notes
The Mekhilta de Rabbi Ishmael
This midrashic collection concentrates on the ‘legal’ sections of Exodus (from chapter 12), though it also deals with some narrative sections and does not cover all legal material. It is one of the oldest collections of midrashim in origin, known as one of the Halakhic Midrashim and dating from the Tannaitic period (the first two centuries of the Common Era), though it may have gone through revisions and redactions before reaching us today.
Biblical Verses
Exodus 14:5
וַיֻּגַּד לְמֶלֶךְ מִצְרַיִם כִּי בָרַח הָעָם וַיֵּהָפֵךְ לְבַב פַּרְעֹה וַעֲבָדָיו אֶל הָעָם וַיֹּאמְרוּ מַה זֹּאת עָשִׂינוּ כִּי שִׁלַּחְנוּ אֶת יִשְׂרָאֵל מֵעָבְדֵנוּ:
And it was told to the king of Egypt that the people had fled and the heart of Pharaoh and his servants was turned to the people. They said, “What is this we have done, for we have let Israel go from our enslavement?”
Exodus 10:7
וַיֹּאמְרוּ עַבְדֵי פַרְעֹה אֵלָיו עַד מָתַי יִהְיֶה זֶה לָנוּ לְמוֹקֵשׁ שַׁלַּח אֶת הָאֲנָשִׁים וְיַעַבְדוּ אֶת יְהֹוָה אֱלֹהֵיהֶם הֲטֶרֶם תֵּדַע כִּי אָבְדָה מִצְרָיִם:
Pharaoh’s servants said to him, “How long shall this one be a snare to us? Let the men go and worship the Eternal One their God! Are you not already aware that Egypt is lost?”
Other notes and references
100 Maneh
In Biblical and Talmudic times, 1 maneh was equal to 50 shekels. Therefore, it would have been equivalent to 5000 shekels or 10000 dinar (1 dinar was probably a day’s wage).
The Foul Smelling Fish – a Biblical Inter-text
Exodus 7:15-21 15 Go to Pharaoh in the morning; lo, he goes out to the water; and you shall stand by the river’s brink until he comes; and the rod which was turned to a serpent shall you take in your hand. 16 And you shall say to him, The Lord God of the Hebrews has sent me to you, saying, Let my people go, that they may serve me in the wilderness; and, behold, till now you would not hear. 17 Thus said the Lord, In this you shall know that I am the Lord; behold, I will strike with the rod that is in my hand upon the waters which are in the river, and they shall be turned to blood. 18 And the fish that is in the river shall die, and the river shall stink; and the Egyptians shall loathe to drink water of the river. 19 And the Lord spoke to Moses, Say to Aaron, Take your rod, and stretch out your hand upon the waters of Egypt, upon their streams, upon their rivers, and upon their ponds, and upon all their pools of water, that they may become blood; and that there may be blood throughout all the land of Egypt, both in utensils of wood, and in utensils of stone. 20 And Moses and Aaron did so, as the Lord commanded; and he lifted up the rod, and struck the waters that were in the river, in the sight of Pharaoh, and in the sight of his servants; and all the waters that were in the river were turned to blood. 21 And the fish that were in the river died; and the river stank, and the Egyptians could not drink of the water of the river; and there was blood throughout all the land of Egypt.
Step 1 – How does the midrash work?
| Notes | Translation | Midrash |
| This is the verse upon which the midrash is now going to provide an exegesis. | “And the heart of Pharaoh and of his servants was turned” (Exodus 14:5). | ויהפך לבב פרעה וגו’, |
| The midrash now contrasts two verses that appear contradictory and therefore need resolving. Previously, the servants, in addressing Pharaoh, feel ensnared by Moses (and the Israelites). They want to be rid of the problem of the slaves and say as much. | A little while before, Pharaoh’s servants said to him, “How much longer will this man be a snare to us?” (Exodus 10:7) | לשעבר ויאמרו עבדי פרעה אליו עד מתי יהיה זה לנו למוקש |
| However, in contrast to the earlier verse in which the servants seemed eager to release the Israelites, now they seem rueful of the decision. The midrash will now attempt to provide an explanation of this potential contradiction. | And now the heart of Pharaoh and of his servants was turned. They said, “What is this that we have done…” (Exodus 14:5) | ועכשיו ויהפך לבב פרעה ועבדיו ויאמרו מה זאת עשינו וגו’ |
The midrash has set out the problem in the text of Exodus. It appears that there is a contradiction between the sentiments of the servants of Pharaoh, who in one place urge the release of the Israelites and, in another, regret the decision. Of course, these two verses, in a close reading, may not seem so contradictory, but that is also part of the midrashic process in which the apparent ‘face-value’ reading of the text is shown to be lacking.
| Notes | Translation | Midrash |
| The midrash now seeks to explain why there is no contradiction between the texts, using an imagined dialogue of the servants. In the first biblical verse quoted (Exodus 10:7) the last three of the ten plagues is yet to come (Moses has threatened Locusts). In Exodus 10:1, God tells Moses that he will harden the heart of Pharaoh and his servants (until this point Pharaoh’s hardened heart was seemingly without divine intervention and did not include the servants). The servants want rid of Moses and the Israelites (or at least the Israelite men) and implore Pharaoh to release them. Thus, at this point, the servants have been plagued and potentially asked for freedom for the Israelites. Notice how this statement implies a sort of unrepentant stance – it would have been enough if we’d just been plagued but still were slave-masters. But now we’ve been plagued and let them go. | They said, ‘If we had been plagued and not let them go, it would have been enough for us. Rather we have been plagued and released them. | אמרו אלו לקינו ולא שלחנו כדי הוא לנו אלא לקינו ושלחנו. |
| The power of the ‘Or’ that begins this sentence suggests a development in the text. Looking back to Exodus 12:35-36 (which itself is a continuation from chapter 11) “The Israelites had done Moses’ bidding and borrowed from the Egyptians objects of silver and gold, and clothing. And the Lord had disposed the Egyptians favorably toward the people, and they let them have their request; thus they stripped the Egyptians.” Thus the servants have realized that they have been plagued, they have let the people go and they have willingly handed over their possessions to the Israelites. The lack of penitence featured above continues – we also gave up our belongings. | Or even if we had been plagued and let them go and they had not taken from us our treasures it would have been enough for us. Rather we have been plagued, released them and they took our possessions. | או אלו לקינו ושלחנו ולא היו נוטלין ממונינו כדי הוא לנו אלא לקינו ושלחנו ונטלו ממונינו. |
Thus the midrash has provided an initial explanation of how the apparent contradiction in verses may be resolved. If we were to read this with a psychological bent we would easily resolve the difficulty – as the plagues were mounting on the Egyptians the servants of Pharaoh (who are powerless to make the decision for themselves) implore Pharaoh to release the Israelites. However, their attitude shifts when they realize they have suffered a triple ignominy – they wanted to release them having suffered seven of the plagues, but now they have also lost their possessions. No wonder they are rueful then and sing their own dayyenu. It would have been enough if…Now the midrash continues its exploration of the idea it has presented with a mashal (a parable).
| Notes | Translation | Midrash |
| The parable provides a further layer of explanation of the servants’ cry. A parable, used prevalently in rabbinic literature, is a convenient mechanism to provide an example for something that is difficult to describe in and of itself. Thus, parables are frequently used to help describe the behavior or attributes of God. The other advantage of a parable is that the analogies offered can never fit exactly. In the difficulty of finding a perfect fit, we come to appreciate the ambiguity and intricacies of the ideas being expressed. The components of the parable correspond to the situation described between the servants of Pharaoh and Pharaoh – we shall return to this below. Note that the servant is due to receive 100 lashes – which is a multiple of ten (perhaps corresponding to the ten plagues). He receives sixty lashes which would, in this ratio, be equivalent to six plagues. Exodus 10:7 occurred after the seventh plague not the sixth. On the other hand, sixty is a divisor of six hundred thousand – the number of Israelites who left Egypt (or they were as six hundred thousand, the biblical text Exodus 12:37, the verse right after we are told the Egyptians lost their possessions). This is just one example of the ambiguities in a parable – whether the lashes or the eating of the fish correspond to the plagues. Or perhaps they are a combination of the two. | A parable: To what may this be compared? This is like a person who says to his servant, ‘Go and bring for me a fish from the market’. He goes and brings him a fish from the market. It smells foul. He decrees upon him – either eat the fish, or I’ll lash you one hundred times or give to me 100 maneh. He says to him, ‘I will eat’. He begins to eat, before he could finish he says, ‘I’ll take the lashes’. He is lashed 60 times and before he could finish he says ‘I’ll pay the money’. He finds that he has eaten the fish, taken the lashes and given the money. | משל למה הדבר דומה לאחד שאמר לעבדו צא והבא לי דג מן השוק יצא והביא לו דג מן השוק מבאיש אמר לו בגזירה או תאכל הדג, או תלקה מאה מכות, או תתן לי מאה מנה, אמר לו הריני אוכל התחיל לאכול לא הספיק לגמור עד שאמר הריני לוקה לקה ששים לא הספיק לגמור עד שאמר הריני נותן מאה מנה נמצא אוכל את הדג ולוקה ונותן מאה מנה. |
A parable (mashal) in rabbinic literature often has a stated nimshal (comparison to the mashal). However, it is not always explicit and sometimes simply implied. In our midrash the nimshal is explicitly stated here:
| Notes | Translation | Midrash |
| The nimshal makes plain that the eating of the rotten fish, the lashes and the payment all correspond to the plagues, the release of the Israelites and the loss of their possessions, thus bringing us back to the beginning of the midrash. | Similarly, it happened to Egypt that they were plagued, released them [the Israelites] and had their possessions taken. | כך נעשה למצרים לקו ושילחו וניטל ממונם. |
Figuring out the parable
Parables in Rabbinic literature work on many levels. One of the interesting aspects to explore is where the correspondences between the characters in the parable and those in the Biblical text occur and where there is ambiguity. The table below shows some of the possibilities:
| The Mashal (the parable) | The Nimshal (comparison) |
| Servant | Pharaoh’s servants (and possibly Pharaoh?) |
| Master | Pharaoh / God? |
| Foul smelling fish | Slavery or the Israelites |
| Eating the fish | Plagues? |
| Lashes | The release of the Israelites / Plagues? |
| Money | Handing over their money |
Step 2 – The ambiguities of the mashal/nimshal lead us to the following thoughts:
In the first verse (Exodus 10:7) the servants of Pharaoh turn to him, whereas in Exodus 14:5 it is the heart of Pharaoh and the servants which is turned. This shift in the biblical text implies an ambiguity over who exactly is the servant owner in the parable. If it is Pharaoh why does the servant owner not suffer and ‘join’ with his servant in the experience as he does in the biblical story? If it is God on the other hand, Pharaoh does not figure in the parable at all. This ambiguity actually implies some of the significance of the biblical story in which it reads as if Pharaoh, who sets himself up to be divine, is contrasted to God. Initially, Pharaoh is able to make his magicians reproduce the plagues, but by the end he is a victim of them just as all the Egyptians. Initially, Pharaoh chooses whether to bring the plagues on his people, but later his heart is hardened by God.
Moreover, in the mashal there is an issue with the fish – did the servant buy a deliberately ‘off’ fish from the market? You don’t go to market to buy a rotten fish – and if he did what does that say? So who makes the fish go off? Perhaps, this is a hint towards the hidden hand behind the mashal. However, Pharaoh is the one who is causing the hardship on his servant (through no fault of the servant’s own). He lashes him, makes him eat the fish and takes the money. Could it be, hidden in the portrayal of the owner of the servant, another ambiguity over whether he is actually Pharaoh or God? Either way the servants seem at the mercy of forces that present them with little free choice – though they inflict the triple punishment on themselves when the payment in the first place would have sufficed.
A further ambiguity is at work in the character of the servant owner. If it was God we might expect him to be a king who sends a servant to fetch a fish from the market. Could it be possible that such an explicit sentiment of God’s subjugation of Egypt occurs through the enslavement of Israel? – Perhaps it would be too scandalous to say that God forced the Israelites into slavery but there is, even in the biblical text, a query regarding whether the enslavement is part of the divine purpose (see for example Genesis 15:13-14). Therefore, the fact that the servant owner is without title once again emphasizes that Pharaoh was not God, but leaves room for us to believe that God is working through this character. As if to remind us of this fact, the mashal has the servant paying 100 maneh to his owner. We know Pharaoh does not receive the property but the Children of Israel do. And, of course, though the servant owner lashes his servant, it is actually God who inflicts the plague because of Pharaoh’s hardened heart.
Perhaps the servant owner is merely a foil to help us understand the experience of the servant, but we can also entertain the possibility that the character’s ambiguities are significant.
Step 3 – Can this midrash bring anything to our own Seder at Pesach
i) Leaders and non-leaders – we are all responsible
The midrash reminds us that rabbinic literature was not afraid of imagining the experience and emotions of even their enemies and the pain that they underwent, sometimes at the behest of their rulers. The servant of the mashal is at the mercy of his owner, and suffers a threefold punishment. Similarly, the servants of Pharaoh were somewhat at the mercy of Pharaoh. However, they were not altogether innocent, as the unrepentant ‘if only we had only been plagued but not let them go’ statement implies and the servant’s choice to go through the threefold punishment rather than settle immediately with paying the money.
Being able to imagine the experience of an Other (even a perpetrator of oppression) does not mean they are innocent or that their behavior needs to be excused or condoned. How society treats the weak and vulnerable is not just a reflection of its leaders, responsibility also lies with society.
ii) What is rotten is not always what we think
The fish itself is a curious aspect of this mashal. It could just be a part of the parable to enable us to understand the servant’s experience. But let us suppose that the fish is actually a representation of the Israelites, what makes it rotten is their enslavement, post enslavement it will become the people who stood at Mount Sinai.
Sometimes what we think is rotten, is a result of our action or inaction and actually opportunity to change is often present as a potential.
iii) Our freedom can sometimes feel remote and unrealizable
Throughout the Biblical text and in the midrash itself, we are filled with questions about who is actually ‘running’ the show. How are events orchestrated and does anyone, from the servant owner, servant to the fish- that-is-rotten have any control over things?
The story of Pesach is a reminder to cherish the freedoms that we have and to remind us that we each individually have to steer a path towards establishing our own freedom.
iv) The anti-Dayyenu
One of the striking elements of the midrash is the cynicism of the servants of Pharaoh who ‘sing’ their Dayyenu without praise, but with only shamefaced greed and desire. They suffer, for sure, but they are also incapable of celebrating the freedom from the situation – who wants to be unceasingly plagued on account of slaves and keep them after all? They do not offer thanks, but regret. Pesach is ultimately a time when we put ourselves in a position in which we have both responsibility for appreciating our own freedom and resolve to continue to work for the freedom of others. We try to take the non-cynical route every time. There is much that we can be thankful for, and should give thanks for – as in our Dayyenu. There is also much that is still to be accomplished:
We begin our seder with the wonderful, poetic and inspiring words:
“This is the bread of poverty which our ancestors ate in the land of Egypt. Let all who are hungry come and eat. Let all who are needy come and celebrate the Passover. At present we are here; next year may we be in the land of Israel. At present we are slaves; next year may we be free.”[1]
A stark reminder of: our present freedoms; our current responsibilities; and our aspirations and hopes for the future. A complete opposite to the anti-Dayyenu featured in our midrash. Next Year in Jerusalem!
[1] Translation by Joshua Kulp, found in Kulp J (2009) The Schechter Haggadah: Art, History and Commentary. The Shechter Institute of Jewish Studies: Jerusalem. p. 26
The Escapism of Esther and Scandal of Job
Blog
Comments Off
Mar 172011
I’ll never forget the experience of teaching the Book of Job at Finchley Progressive Synagogue. Specifically, no matter how we dealt with the biblical material, the narrative and theology, we could not get past a challenge that a member of the class kept raising: The start of the book, in which the devastating events are framed, sees Job’s experience as part of some challenge between God and HaSatan (the accuser). This backdrop to the book, which is veiled from the characters, but revealed to its readers, subverts every possible theological argument – because ultimately, God appears manipulative and far from benevolent. We were left, as many scholars of the Bible have suggested, with the impression that the Book of Job is more a book about how we react to the grief of our fellow human beings and treat them in their time of distress, than a text from which any clear theology can be built.
It certainly chimed with a session I ran at Shavuot some years ago about theological protest texts in rabbinic literature. As we grappled with material that even the sages from nearly 2000 years ago struggled to utter,(1) one member of the group said the unspeakable – only hinted at within the text – perhaps God is not all good.
We often hear and teach about God as all-present (omnipresent), all-knowing (omniscient), all-powerful (omnipotent) and wholly good (beneficent). When trying to understand how evil can exist in the world with a God with these attributes (theodicy), one usually resorts to limiting, in some way, one of these attributes; without this limitation we would be forced to ask, ‘Why does God let it happen?’. The often favoured resolutions to this dilemma are either: to limit God’s knowledge: God does not know everything about each individual life and the thoughts and actions of individuals, but perhaps only has knowledge of the grand history of the world from past to future. Alternatively, God’s power is limited: God has created a world in which there is free-will for every person and therefore it is impossible for God to intervene and annul this human trait (regardless of the evil being perpetrated).
The problem is, the Book of Job is scandalous. It seems as if no response is possible except one (unless one follows the rather complex paths of the medieval philosophers): God knows about Job, God is present everywhere (using the forces of nature and different peoples to accomplish the tasks), God is all powerful (able to destroy and bring to life in a miraculous way). But is God beneficent – we struggle to find the goodness in the destruction of one pious man’s entire life.
For me, then, we reach a point of understanding God in the book of Job not as God, but as a human portrayal of God, a character. The book does not reflect a ‘true’ story in the historical meaning of the word ‘true’. The book is a reflection of the human experience of this world in which dreadful, appalling and scandalous things happen to our fellow human beings at the hands of others and it feels like there is little or no explanation for this. No explanation except for ones like the imagined tragic comedy of two super-natural beings trying to outdo one another at the cost of human life, as in the Book of Job.
In this portrayal of God by an author, perhaps we see more of the human than of the divine – just as all works of art suggest at least as much about their creator as their subject. We then learn that to be human is to be jealous, to be insecure and fearful, to be able and willing to commit atrocities and to be wholly incapable of comforting our fellow women and men at times of loss.
I have a strong memory of a visit at university of a Forensic Psychologist who roundly criticised society’s response to the violent acts which people perpetrate against one another. He said it is too easy to resort to the view that these acts are the acts of the insane or mad. In claiming that someone is ‘mad’ when they murder and rape, society conveniently escapes a confrontation with what it can mean to be human – perfectly sane people, he argued, commit horrendous crimes and that does not make them suddenly insane, but it might magnify the truth that we might all be capable of similar acts – something that is nothing short of terrifying. In fact, the visiting lecturer preferred the term evil to insane – as if a word so laden with religious meaning was preferable to illness.
Last week, an atrocity was committed in the settlement town of Itamar. A family, including just a baby, were brutally murdered. The political background to this story is that the town of Itamar is in the Occupied Territories in the West Bank and that this was a terror attack – but this ‘background’ is fundamentally irrelevant to the perpetration of an act of such disturbing violence by one person against another.
And then, after Shabbat, I sat with someone on the bus in Haifa who described the anger he experienced in his office that day because of the attack. He then went on to say that whoever committed this crime was ‘an animal, they’re all animals’.(2) No less than the shock I felt with the ease with which he said these words to me, they still trouble me three days later.
First, dehumanising the perpetrator is the same as the escapism that labels criminals as mad. We ignore at our peril the reality that this horrific crime was committed by a human being. Secondly, dehumanising a people (in this case the Palestinians) is also an act of violence – to deny a human being their essential humanity is as scandalous as the theodicy in the Book of Job. We cannot, for one minute, deny the humanness of either an individual or of individuals who identify with a particular people, because in doing so we undermine the complex and contradictory attributes of what it means just to be. We can chose whether we murder or save life – one without the other leaves us with nothing and steals away too lightly the burden for our actions which we all must carry on our shoulders.(3)
So we turn to the Festival of Purim and the Book of Esther, which will be upon us in just a couple of days. For years, Jews have struggled with the substance and meaning of the Book of Esther. A book that lays claim to historical truth, yet is undoubtedly a work of fiction. A book that is more akin to pantomime and farce than most biblical literature. It is a book that magnifies the human, until the divine is eclipsed.(4) A book that magnifies the human, until we become mere caricatures of real human beings – with distorted attributes and actions for comedic and calamitous effect. In the Book of Esther we discover what it means when we lose sight of humanity. Perhaps Purim is the Jewish escapism from what it means to be human, but there is no truth to this escapism. Tomorrow we return to reality and must continue to uphold the highest ideals of being human, whilst never easing the burden of responsibility from anyone else on this tiny planet.
_____
(1) Specifically including a famous rabbinic text about the murder of Abel by Cain in which God is portrayed as a character who could have stopped the murder like a king watching gladiators.
(2) In the Haaretz article linked to this post you’ll notice that the IDF Chief of Staff describes the men as animals.
(3) Again thinking of Cain who says his sin is too much to bear (Genesis 4:13).
(4) God’s name is not mentioned once in the Book of Esther – something that has prompted much discussion.
