Parashat Shemot - 5761 - OU Torah Insights Project

By Rabbi Avraham Fischer. A publication of the Orthodox Union in cooperation with the Seymour J. Abrams Orthodox Union Jerusalem World Center

Parshat Shemot
January 20, 2001

PHARAOH INSTITUTED AN INGENIOUS PLAN to enslave and oppress the Children of Israel. Gradually, Egyptian society came to accept and even endorse the many years of oppression. Male babies were thrown into the Nile, and the work increased in intensity and cruelty. Meanwhile, Moshe, who grew up in the royal palace, but was forced to become a fugitive after killing an Egyptian, settled in Midian with Yitro, and began to raise a family.

AND IT WAS DURING THOSE MANY DAYS, that the king of Egypt died, and the Children of Israel sighed from the work and they cried out . . . (Shemot 2:23).

RASHI QUOTES THE MIDRASH (Shemot Rabbah 1:34) that, in fact, the king of Egypt became leprous, and required for his cure bathing in the blood of freshly-slaughtered Hebrew babies. It states that he died, based on the principle that “a leper is considered as dead” (Avodah Zarah 5a), but he was really alive.

IT IS WELL-KNOWN THAT RASHI utilizes only those midrashim that clarify a difficulty in the text. Here, Rashi does not even begin with the literal meaning that the king of Egypt actually died; apparently, Rashi considers the explanation that he became leprous to be the simple meaning of the text. But, why? What is there in this verse that leads the midrash, and consequently Rashi, to understand “the king of Egypt died” as a necessary figure of speech for leprosy?

THREE ANSWERS ARE SUGGESTED by Rashi’s commentaries and each one focuses on another part of the verse:

“AND IT WAS DURING THOSE MANY DAYS, that the king of Egypt died” – Malbim notes that it is not reasonable to report the death of the king as occurring over a long period of time (“during”). If the verse were speaking of the actual moment of death, then it should say, “it was after those many days,” or the like. But, the verse suggests a prolonged condition that is deathly, namely leprosy.

“THE KING OF EGYPT DIED” – The Vilna Gaon cites the Midrash on Kohelet (8:11) which observes that David Ha’melech is repeatedly called “King David” except when he takes ill, when it says, “And the days of David’s death drew near” (Melachim I 2:1); this is because “there is no dominion on the day of death.” So, how can Pharaoh be called “king” – how can he rule, if he is dead? It must be that he is not actually dead, but rather leprous.

“THE KING OF EGYPT DIED, AND THE CHILDREN of Israel sighed from the work and they cried out” – Siftei Chachamim explains that, after the death of the king who enslaved them, we should expect the Children of Israel to rejoice and feel relieved: perhaps his successor will annul the awful decrees against them. Instead, their reaction is one of grief. Thus, the midrash suggests, in all likelihood the king contracted leprosy, a state similar to death, and because of the ghastly cure he uses, they cry out even more than before.

EACH ONE OF THESE VIEWS can be challenged. To the Malbim it may be said that a death could occur sometime during the long period that Moshe was living in Midian (the Malbim himself mentions this). In response to the Vilna Gaon, the Malbim says that it is not entirely unheard-of that a king is called “king” when he dies, for example: “And it was after this that Nachash the king of the Ammonites died” (Divrei Ha’Yamim I 19:1).

A NUMBER OF COMMENTARIES challenge the assumptions of the Siftei Chachamim. The Ramban, for example, says that no matter how cruel a king can be, his death does not necessarily bring relief to those who suffer under his rule – they groan with anxiety because his successor can always be worse. Ha’amek Davar (R. Naftali Tzvi Yehudah Berlin of Volozhin, 19^th Century) says that when the king died, Egypt observed a period of official mourning, in which even the Hebrew slaves participated. It was only then, when they rested, that they had the opportunity to sense the extent of their servitude. Consequently, they sighed because of the labor they were compelled to return to after the national mourning.

WITHIN THIS DEBATE different insights are offered regarding the consequences of death. Malbim points out that death happens within a defined moment. The Vilna Gaon sees death as that which equalizes all people, commoners and kings alike. Siftei Chachamim regards death as the end of one’s influence on his surroundings.

J.G. SMITH IN PRINCIPLES OF FORENSIC MEDICINE (1821) writes: “If we are aware of what indicates life, which everyone may be supposed to know, though perhaps no one can say that he truly and clearly understands what constitutes it, we at once arrive at the discrimination of death. It is the cessation of the phenomena with which we are so especially familiar – the phenomena of life.” Therefore, what our commentaries see as the condition of death reveals the opportunities offered to us by life.

[I WOULD LIKE TO HUMBLY SUBMIT an observation that occurs to me, but which I have not been able to find in any of Rashi’s commentaries: What is missing from the text is that a new king arose, even though we know there is a Pharaoh whom Moshe later confronts. This answer is so simple that I am surprised no one suggests it.]