A.
Pharaoh changes his mind about allowing the bnei Yisra’él to get away, and resolves to pursue the fugitives with all the forces at his command: ויקח שש מאות רכב בחור וכל רכב מצרים ושלשם על כלו: (“And he took 600 choice vehicles, and all the vehicles of Egypt, and officers [were] over it all”; XIV, 7).
Rashi comments: ומהיכן היו הבהמות הללו? אם תאמר משל מצרים, הרי נאמר "וימת כל מקנה מצרים", ואם משל ישראל והלא נאמר "וגם מקננו ילך עמנו", ומשל מי היו? מהירא את דבר ד'. מכאן הי' רבי שמעון אומר כשר שבמצרים הרוג טוב שבנחשים רצוץ את מוחו (“And from where did [the Egyptians get] these draft animals? If you say, from the Egyptians’ [stock], it is said, ‘and all the livestock of Egypt died’ [IX, 6]; and if [you say] from Israel’s, does it not say, ‘and also our livestock will go with us’ [X, 26]. Whose were they? [They were the property] of ‘the one who feared the word of Ha-Shem’ [X, 20]. From here, Rabbi Shim‘on used to say, 'The most upright [kasher] of the Egyptians, kill [harog], the best of the snakes, crush its head!'”).
Rashi’s source is the collection of midrashim known as the M’chilta. Clearly, any Egyptian whom the Torah describes as “fearing the word of Ha-Shem” is the most kasher amongst them, and yet it was thanks to such Egyptians that Pharaoh retained the ability to pursue the fleeing bnei Yisra’él. That said, the midrash as cited by Rashi raises two questions:
1. Why does Rabbi Shim‘on make specific reference to the best of the Egyptians and the snakes, and use the specific expressions “kill with a sword” (which is the precise definition of harog), and “crush” in their connection?
2. Why does Rashi depart from his usual custom of citing midrashic statement anonymously, and specifically mention Rabbi Shim‘on here?
B.
The Talmud tells us: ארבע מיתות נמסרו לבית דין, סקילה, שריפה, הרג וחנק (“Four methods of execution were transmitted to the Sanhedrin: Sqila [‘stoning’], sreifa [‘burning’], hereg [‘death by the sword’], and cheneq [‘strangulation’]”; סנהדרין מ"ט: במשנה). The gmara then goes on to discuss how specific methods of execution are assigned to specific categories of capital crime.
The above, of course, is true of a properly ordered Torah-state run in accordance with halacha. To our great chagrin, due to our many sins, this is not today any longer the case: We have neither béyth ha-Miqdash nor Sanhedrin to deal with such issues, yet, nonetheless, תנא דבי אלי' כל השונה הלכות בכל יום מובטח לו שהוא בן עולם הבא שנאמר "הליכות עולם לו" אל תקרא "הליכות" אלא "הלכות" (“It was taught in the study hall of Eliyahu ha-Navi, anyone who studies halachoth every day is assured of being part of the world to come, as it is said, ‘the ways [halichoth] of the world are His’ [Habakkuk III, 6]; read not halichoth but halachoth”; מגילה כ"ח).
So halachoth are a part of the very structure of the universe, halichoth ‘olam. What happens when we have no Sanhedrin to administer them and judge capital cases?
מיום שחרב בית המקדש אף על פי שבטלו סנהדרין ארבע מיתות לא בטלו. לא בטלו? הא בטלו להו! אלא דין ארבע מיתות לא בטלו. מי שנתחייב סקילה או שנופל מן הגג או חי' דורסתו, מי שנתחייב שריפה או נופל בדליקה או נחש מכישו, מי שנתחייה הריגה או נמסר למלכות או ליסטים באין עליו, ומי שנתחייב חנק או טובע בנהר או מת בסרונכי (“From the day the Béyth ha-Miqdash was destroyed, even though the Sanhedrin was abolished, the Four Deaths were not abolished. Not abolished?! They were abolished! Rather, the judgment of the Four Deaths was not abolished: Someone who is liable for sqila either falls from a height or a wild animal pounces on him; one who is liable for sreifa either falls into a fire or a snake bites him; one who is liable for hereg is either turned over to the non-Jewish authorities or bandits set upon him; and one who is liable for cheneq either drowns in a river or dies of a disease which constricts the throat”; כתובות ל.).
Halichoth ‘olam indeed; if Israel are unworthy to administer Divine justice, a “natural” means can always be found.
Armed with the above, let us reconsider the case of the Egyptians.
Recall that the worst of the Egyptians, as related in the first parasha in Exodus, sought, at the height of the oppression of the bnei Yisra’él, to drown Jewish infants in the Nile, i.e., to impose a sentence of cheneq on them (as we see from the above). The best of the Egyptians, on the other hand, revealed their hand in making their draft animals available to Pharaoh to pursue Israel. As our parasha itself attests a bit later, אמר אויב כו' אריק חרבי תורישמו ידי (“Said the enemy… I shall draw my sword, my hand will inherit them”; XV, 9), they sought to facilitate putting Israel to the sword.
Now, the Talmud tells us: בגוים כו' מחשבה רעה הקב"ה מצרפה למעשה כו' דכתיב "מקטל מחמס אחיך יעקב" וכי הורגו?! אלא מלמד שחשב עליו להורגו ובעלה עליו הכתוב כאילו הורגו (“Amongst the nations…the Holy One, Blessed is He considers an evil thought as the deed… for it is written: ‘…from killing; from your brother’s violence, Ya‘aqov’ [Obadiah I, 9-10]. Did [‘Esav] actually kill [Ya‘aqov]?! Rather, he thought about killing him, and Scripture considered it as though he was killing him;” ירושלמי פאה פ"א ה"א ועיי' פני משה שם).
With this in mind, then, we see that the intent of the most kasher Egyptians to assist in putting Israel to the sword would be considered for them as though they had actually done it (G-d for-bid). Midda k’neged midda, then, “measure for measure,” death by the sword can be seen as appropriate to them.
C.
Now let us take up “the best of the snakes.”
The worst of the snakes, that is, the most dangerous to human beings are those which are both venomous and aggressive. Unafraid of man, when the opportunity presents itself they strike at a man’s ankle or foot, injecting the venom which, as we have seen in the Talmud’s estimation above, is equivalent to sreifa.
The meaning of the “best of the snakes,” it seems to me, can be inferred from the Torah’s description of the tribe of Dan: יהי דן נחש עלי דרך שפיפן עלי ארח הנשך בעקבי סוס ויפל רכבו אחור (“Dan will be a snake on the path, a horned serpent on the way, which bites a horse’s ankles and its rider tumbles backwards”; Genesis XLIX, 17). The “best of snakes,” then, to whom a tribe of Israel might be compared, shies away from man, but strikes at the horse’s ankle, causing it to rear up and topple its rider. Such a fall from a height, we have seen, is equivalent to sqila, and so, midda k’neged midda, the sentence fitting for the best of the snakes would be the crushing death of sqila. Hence, the terms used in the midrash as quoted by Rashi match the characteristics of the most kasher of the Egyptians and the best of the snakes.
D.
What else was bothering Rashi about this verse the led him to forgo his usual practice and name the author of the midrash, Rabbi Shim‘on?
If we reexamine the mishna cited above, we see that it lists the possible death sentences in the order of their relative severity, from most severe to least severe: Sqila, sreifa, hereg, cheneq.
But now consider: If this is indeed so, then it means that the best of the snakes induces sqila, the most serious death sentence, whilst the worst of the snakes induces sreifa, which is less severe. The best of the Egyptians incurs hereg, which is more severe than the cheneq associated with the very worst of the Egyptians. The equations do not appear to make any sense. This, I believe, is what was bothering Rashi in connection with this drasha and our verse.
If we continue on in the mishna, though, we find that Rabbi Shim‘on disagreed with his colleagues about the order of severity of the Four Deaths; Rabbi Shim‘on held that the order should be: Sreifa, sqila, cheneq, and hereg. So, according to Rabbi Shim‘on, the most severe death, sreifa, is characteristic of the worst of the snakes, whilst the best of them are associated with the lesser sentence of sqila, and the worst of the Egyptians are associated with the relatively severe cheneq, whilst the best of them are associated with the less severe hereg.
In other words, the drasha only makes sense because it was said by Rabbi Shim‘on; hence, Rashi felt obligated to name the author.
Yet another glimpse of the depths within depths revealed by careful examination of the Torah’s many facets.
No comments:
Post a Comment