HaMaayan/The Torah Spring
                      Edited by Shlomo Katz

                         Parashat Sh'mot
                    Volume V, Number 13 (198)
                   19 Tevet / January 5, 1991

                        Parasha Overview

   Ramban introduces the Book of Sh'mot with the following
thoughts:  The Torah concluded Sefer B'reishit, which is the book
of the creation of the world and its components, and of the events
which befell the Patriarchs.  The stories in this last group also
describe a type of creation, specifically that of the Jewish
people.  [This is the principle of "Ma'aseh Avot Siman L'Banim" -
"The happenings of the forefathers are a foretaste for the
children."]
   Now the Torah begins another book, one which shows how the hints
in the previous book became real events in the lives of the
Patriarch's descendants.  Specifically, the Book of Sh'mot
describes the exile in Egypt and the redemption from it.  It also
describes the construction of the Mishkan, because the redemption
>from Egypt could not be considered complete until Bnei Yisrael had
reached the level of their ancestors.  This did not happen with the
physical exodus from Egypt, but only with the giving of the Torah
and Hashem's "resting" His glory on the Mishkan (Tabernacle).
  
              ************************************

  "Acknowledge Hashem, declare His Name, make His acts known...
Remember His wonders which He wrought [and] His marvels... Thus
Israel came to Egypt... And He made His nation exceedingly
fruitful... He turned their hearts to hate His nation, to plot
against His servants."  (Tehilim 105:1,5,23,24,25)
   These verses are difficult to understand, writes R' Yosef Dovber
Halevi Soloveitchik.  As the opening verses suggest, the 105th
chapter of Tehilim is devoted to the kindness that G-d showed to
the Patriarchs and the generations which preceded the Exodus.  How
does the report that G-d caused the Egyptians to hate Bnei Yisrael
demonstrate G-d's kindness?
   Chazal teach that as long as Bnei Yisrael were in Egypt they
neglected the Mitzvah of Brit Milah (circumcision).  Yet this
presents a difficulty in light of the verses's calling Bnei Yisrael
G-d's "servants."  (See verse 25 quoted above, and see Sanhedrin 47
where the expression "G-d's servant" is interpreted to refer only
to the righteous.)  Certainly a person who willfully neglects the
Mitzvah of circumcision cannot be called righteous!  (Even though
we find that at the time of the Exodus there were idol-worshippers
among the Jews, certainly, before the pain of their servitude took
hold, Bnei Yisrael were righteous!)
   The above questions may be resolved as follows:  Bnei Yisrael
knew that they would remain in Egypt for several centuries, and
they therefore sought ways - within the Torah - to make their lot
easier.  What did they do?  After performing a circumcision, they
would perform a second operation which would hide the fact that the
circumcision had been done.  (This is called "Moshaich Orlato.") 
They reasoned that the more similar people's bodies are, the closer
their hearts can come.  Perhaps the servitude that was imposed upon
them would then be lighter.
   Although they violated no commandment - "Moshaich Orlato" is
only a Rabbinic prohibition - their actions were bound to lead to
assimilation.  After all, the very reason for the Mitzvah of Brit
Milah is to set Bnei Yisrael aside as a separate and distinct
people.  What was Hashem's response?  "He turned [the Egyptians']
hearts to hate His nation, to plot against His servants."  This was
certainly one of Hashem's kindnesses, for had the Egyptians not
hated Bnei Yisrael, they would have assimilated and disappeared
long before the arrival of the Exodus.  (Bet Halevi:  Parashat
Sh'mot) 

              ************************************

   "And G-d heard their shouts... and G-d saw Bnei Yisrael, and G-d
knew."  (Sh'mot 2:24-25)
   What is it that "G-d knew"?  R' Yosef Dovber Halevi explains: 
The Midrash records that the angels complained, "What is the
difference between Bnei Yisrael and the Egyptians?  Just as the
latter are idolators, so are the former!"
   Hashem answered, "Would you have Me judge an involuntary
transgressor ('onnes') as a willful sinner ('mazeed')?"  Whereas
the Egyptians worshipped idols by choice, Bnei Yisrael in Egypt
became idolators only because they were confused by the pain of the
exile. 
   Only Hashem knows when a transgression is truly involuntary. 
While it may sometimes appear that a person is being forced to sin,
we cannot say that he was truly entrapped unless he was not
predisposed to commit that sin.  However, if he would have
transgressed even without the pressure of external circumstances,
he is not an "onnes."  This is the meaning of the above verse,
"[A]nd G-d knew," i.e. He knew that the idolatry of Bnei Yisrael
was a true case of "onnes."  
   The preceding idea has Halachic applications as well.  For
example, the Gemara states that a couple which remains childless
for many years should divorce, yet the practice in "Chutz L'Aretz"
(the diaspora) is not such.  Why?  Because we assume that it is the
sin of living in the diaspora which has caused the childlessness,
and not the incompatibility of the couple.  The 18th century sage,
R' Pinchas HaLevi Horowitz (known as the "Ba'al Hafla'ah"), asks: 
Is this so?  Do we not follow the Halachic view that one is exempt
>from the Mitzvah of settling in Eretz Yisrael in times of economic
hardship?  Why then should people be punished for not settling in
Eretz Yisrael?  [Apparently, most, if not all of the last 2,000
years would fall within this exemption.]
   His answer is none other than the principle explained above.  A
person is not called an "onnes" unless the only factor which
induces his action or inaction is the one that "forces" him to
choose that course.  However, there are many people who have no
desire to settle in Eretz Yisrael, and the land's economic
difficulties are only an excuse that they give.  Such a person
cannot be called an "onnes."  (Bet HaLevi:  Parashat Sh'mot; also
in Haggadah Shel Pesach MiBet HaLevi, p. 153)
   Reminder: As always, nothing in HaMaayan should be relied upon
in actual practice.  All Halachic questions should be referred to
a competent Rabbi.

              ************************************

   "Pharaoh decreed only against the males, whereas Lavan sought to
uproot everything."
   Why, in the midst of the Seder - a time intended to praise
Hashem for the Exodus - do we downplay Pharaoh's decrees against
us, and thus implicitly downplay G-d's wonders?
   Hashem has promised that, regardless of our enemies' attempts to
destroy us, Bnei Yisrael will exist forever.  If so, Lavan's plan
to "uproot" Yaakov's entire future could not possibly have
succeeded.  No miracle was necessary to save us from him.  However,
Pharaoh's decree affected only a portion of the nation, and he
might have succeeded.  We praise Hashem that he did not.  [Intro.
to Da'at Torah, vol. 2 (R' Schwadron, "The Maggid of Yerushalayim,
" in the name of his mother)]

              ************************************

   Last week we began to discuss the Talmud's descriptions of the
teaching styles of different Tannanim - sages of the Mishnah.  This
week we continue that discussion.
   "R' Yossi has his reasons with him" has been given several
interpretations.  Rashi (Gittin 67a) writes that it was R' Yossi's
practice to explain the reasons for every statement that he made,
while elsewhere (Eruvin 51a), Rashi explains that R' Yossi's
lessons were presented in a straightforward manner.  This, in
contrast to the lessons of R' Meir, whose reasoning was often so
complex that R' Meir's own colleagues could not follow it.  (R'
Yaakov Emden:  Commentary to Gittin 67a; R' Yosef Shaul Nathanson: 
Divrei Shaul)
   "The teachings of R' Eliezer ben Yaakov are in small measure,
but pleasant," is a statement that presents the commentators with
some difficulty.  Rashi writes that R' Eliezer b.Y. taught very
little, but in all of those cases where he did speak, the Halacha
follows his view.  Is this a praise of R' Eliezer b.Y?  asks R'
Yosef Shaul.  True, it is praiseworthy that the Halacha always
follows his view, but why must Issi ben Yehuda tell us that R'
Eliezer b.Y. taught very little?  R' Yosef Shaul explains as
follows:
   The Talmud (Pesachim 3b) teaches that a person should always
teach his students using the most pleasant choice of words. 
Furthermore, the teacher should always use as few words as
possible.  What should he do if forced to choose between these two
rules?  In such a case, says the Talmud, the pleasant language
takes precedence.
   The Talmud's praise of R' Eliezer b.Y., writes R' Yosef Shaul,
is that he never had to make that choice.  He was able in every
instance to teach in a way that was both short (i.e. "in small
measure") and pleasant.  (Divrei Shaul)
  
              ************************************

   Eretz Yisrael is facing a dangerous drought.  Please recite
Tehilim and appropriate prayers on behalf of our brethren there. 
Thank you.
                     ********************

Posted by Alan Broder, ajb@grebyn.com (uunet!grebyn!ajb), who 
should be contacted to request back issues of HaMaayan or to get
on or off the direct email mailing list.

Shlomo Katz can not receive EMAIL, however I will pass on any
comment forwarded to me, or alternately, send your comments care of
yehuda@gwuvm.bitnet