‫פרשת בא‬
In order to understand the events that the Torah teaches us, I find it helpful to
attempt to visualize the events under discussion, trying to imagine that which
occurred.
One such scene that I think about is the final meeting of Moshe and Aharon with
Par’o. That meeting took place between the ninth and tenth plagues, those of
Choshech-darkness and B’choros-the killing of the first-born Egyptians.
Par’o calls Moshe to appear before him in his palace (Perek 10/Posuk 24). He
forbids Israel from taking their cattle for offerings to Hashem. Moshe insists that
there will be offerings and Par’o banishes Moshe from his palace, with the threat
of death.
The narrative of the Torah continues with Moshe announcing the imminent
Makkas B’choros, the panic in Egypt and the tranquility among Israel. We read
(Sh’mos Perek 11/ P’sukim 6-7):
‫ ולכל בני‬:‫והיתה צעקה גדלה בכל ארץ מצרים אשר כמהו לא נהיתה וכמהו לא תסף‬
‫ישראל לא יחרץ כלב לשנו למאיש ועד בהמה למען תדעון אשר יפלה ה' בין מצרים ובין‬
:‫ישראל‬
There will be a great cry in all of the Land of Egypt, such as which never was and
such will not continue. To all of B’nei Yisroel, a dog will not howl, regarding a
person or an animal in order that you should all know that Hashem distinguishes
between Egypt and Israel.
The following verse concludes the section with Moshe’s exiting the palace for the
final time.
‫וירדו כל עבדיך אלה אלי והשתחוו לי לאמר צא אתה וכל העם אשר ברגליך ואחרי כן אצא‬
:‫ויצא מעם פרעה בחרי אף‬
[Moshe continues,] All of your servants will come down to me and prostrate
themselves before me saying, ‘go out, you and all the people that are at your feet
and afterwards I will go out [of Egypt]’ and Moshe went out from Par’o angrily.
All of this would be quite understandable and would require little imagination
were this to be the entire content of this section.
However, there is what appears to be an interlude in the midst of this section that
does not seem to be directly related to Moshe’s appearance in the House of
Par’o.
The entirety of this interlude (Perek 11/P’sukim 1-3) reads:
‫ויאמר ה' אל משה עוד נגע אחד אביא על פרעה ועל מצרים אחרי כן ישלח אתכם מזה‬
‫ דבר נא באזני העם וישאלו איש מאת רעהו ואשה‬:‫כשלחו כלה גרש יגרש אתכם מזה‬
‫ ויתן ה' את חן העם בעיני מצרים גם האיש משה גדול‬:‫מאת רעותה כלי כסף וכלי זהב‬
:‫מאד בארץ מצרים בעיני עבדי פרעה ובעיני העם‬
Hashem said to Moshe, ‘One additional plague I will bring upon Par’o and upon
Egypt and then he will send you out from this [place]; when he sends, it will be
complete, he will surely banish you from this place. Speak, please, in the ears of
the people that they should ask1 a man from his friend and a woman from her
friend silver vessels and gold vessels. Hashem placed the favor of the people in
the eyes of Egypt; also the man Moshe was very great in the Land of Egypt in the
eyes of the servants of Par’o and in the eyes of the people.
The second half of the interlude seems to be completely out of place. It
interrupts the flow of the events of the meeting of Moshe and Par’o. What is the
relationship between the asking of goods from the Egyptians to the immediate
past and future plagues that will bring about the end of slavery.
This term is used many times in regards to the articles that Israel took from the
Egyptians. Since it usually means ‘borrowed’, great questions are raised regarding
the morality of ‘borrowing’ and not returning.
1
There is an alternative to the translation of ‘borrow’ and that is ‘ask’. That is how
we translate the term in this article. This translation is in conformity with many
of the commentators.
In fact, Mizrachi wants to deduce from Rashi that this section is merely a
repetition of that which was already told to Moshe.
He deduces it in the following manner. The first verse (Posuk 4) of the concluding
section of Moshe’s speech to Par’o reads:
:‫ויאמר משה כה אמר ה' כחצת הלילה אני יוצא בתוך מצרים‬
Moshe said, ‘Thus says G-d, about midnight, I will go out in the midst of Egypt.’
Now, if as appears, there was one continuum of speech on the part of Moshe
Rabbenu, Vayomer Moshe, is superfluous. Either both of the words could have
been omitted or at least Moshe is unnecessary because we know that it is he who
is talking.
How do we justify these words?
Rashi explains:
‫ בעמדו לפני פרעה נאמרה לו נבואה זו שהרי משיצא מלפניו לא‬- '‫ויאמר משה כה אמר ה‬
:‫הוסיף ראות פניו‬
Moshe said, “Thus says G-d”-While he [Moshe] was standing before Par’o this
prophecy was said. [This is deduced] because when Moshe left Par’o, he did not
see him again.
Mizrachi writes:
‫ אבל הפרשה הקודמת יתכן שנאמרה לו קודם בואו לפני‬.‫בעמדו לפני פרעה נאמרה לו‬
‫ "ואני ידעתי כי לא יתן אתכם‬:)2‫ כב‬- ‫יט‬/‫ והיא מה שנאמרה בפרשת ואלה שמות (ג‬,‫פרעה‬
The last two verses to which Mizrachi refers read in their entirety:
‫ ושאלה אשה משכנתה ומגרת ביתה‬:‫ונתתי את חן העם הזה בעיני מצרים והיה כי תלכון לא תלכו ריקם‬
:‫כלי כסף וכלי זהב ושמלת ושמתם על בניכם ועל בנתיכם ונצלתם את מצרים‬
I will place the grace of this people [Israel] in the eyes of Egypt and when you go,
you will not go empty. A woman will ask from her neighbor and from the one who
lives in her house vessels of silver and vessels of gold and clothing and you will put
them upon your sons and upon your daughters and you will empty Egypt.
2
These verses were said during the episode of the ‫סנה‬-the “Burning Bush”.
‫מלך מצרים להלוך ולא ביד חזקה ושלחתי את ידי והכיתי את מצרים בכל נפלאותי אשר‬
‫אעשה בקרבו ואחרי כן ישלח אתכם ונתתי את חן העם הזה בעיני מצרים כו' ושאלה אשה‬
',‫משכנתה" כו‬
While he was standing before Par’o this prophecy was said-But the previous
section was possibly said prior to Moshe coming to Par’o. It is what was said in
Parshas Sh’mos, I Hashem know that the King of Egypt will not let you go, not
even with a strong hand. I will cast My Hand and I will smite Egypt with all of My
wonders that I will do in its midst and then he will send you. I will place the grace
of this people [Israel] in the eyes of Egypt…and a woman will request from her
neighbor.
That is, Vayomer Moshe is a reflection of a ‘fresh’ prophecy that was said at that
moment. The fact that Rashi does not comment similarly regarding the
‘interlude’ indicates that it was not given to Moshe now but was ‘inserted’ for
some particular purpose.3
Thus, our imaginative theatrical vision is Par’o sitting on his throne with Moshe
addressing him. Suddenly the spotlight on Par’o is doused and it is focused
exclusively on Moshe as G-d speaks to him. Perhaps there is a secondary
shadowy light showing Par’o and his entourage in some state of suspended
The contemporary Rashi supra - commentary Leket Bahir disputes this
interpretation. [This interpretation of Mizrachi is cited by Sifsei Chachomim and it
is the latter who is questioned.]
3
He shows that there are different texts of Rashi in which his comment that ‘this
prophecy was said while Moshe was before Par’o’ is listed regarding the ‘interlude’
was well. According to that text, this entire section was told to Moshe in the House
of Par’o. Leket Bahir tells us that this is how the Taz in his Divrei Dovid on Rashi
understands the correct reading and traces it to Ramban on our verse and says it
more accurately reflects the Midrash (Sh’mos Rabba) which serves as the source of
this commentary of Rashi.
Whether or not the ‘interlude’ was said earlier and the Torah writes it here or it was
part of a prophecy given to Moshe Rabbenu at the time of his last meeting with
Par’o, its placement and the meaning of its placement needs to be examined.
animation. When Hashem concludes speaking to him, the spotlight is lit again
showing Moshe and Par’o.
But, that which is fascinating is the interlude.
Not only was this matter already told to Moshe at the Burning Bush, but the way
that it is told in ‘real time’ is different than the way it is told in our Parsha at the
‘interlude’ and is different than the way that it is narrated when the actual event
occurred.
To understand the three times that this is mentioned, it is worthwhile to see the
three sections contiguously.
Section I
‫כב‬-‫פסוקים כ‬/‫שמות פרק ג‬
‫ושלחתי את ידי והכיתי את מצרים בכל נפלאתי אשר אעשה בקרבו ואחרי כן ישלח‬
‫ ושאלה אשה‬:‫ ונתתי את חן העם הזה בעיני מצרים והיה כי תלכון לא תלכו ריקם‬4:‫אתכם‬
‫משכנתה ומגרת ביתה כלי כסף וכלי זהב ושמלת ושמתם על בניכם ועל בנתיכם ונצלתם‬
:‫את מצרים‬
This is the section that was sad at the Burning Bush
Section II
‫ג‬-‫פסוקים א‬/‫שמות פרק יא‬
‫ויאמר ה' אל משה עוד נגע אחד אביא על פרעה ועל מצרים אחרי כן ישלח אתכם מזה‬
‫ דבר נא באזני העם וישאלו איש מאת רעהו ואשה‬:‫כשלחו כלה גרש יגרש אתכם מזה‬
‫ ויתן ה' את חן העם בעיני מצרים גם האיש משה גדול‬:‫מאת רעותה כלי כסף וכלי זהב‬
:‫מאד בארץ מצרים בעיני עבדי פרעה ובעיני העם‬
This is the section that is written when Moshe is in the House of Par’o for the final
time.
The translation of this verse is: I Hashem will send My Hand and I will smite
Egypt with all of My wonders that I will do in its midst; afterwards he [Par’o] will
send you [away].
4
Section III
‫לו‬-‫פסוקים לה‬/‫שמות פרק יב‬
‫ וה' נתן את חן‬:‫ובני ישראל עשו כדבר משה וישאלו ממצרים כלי כסף וכלי זהב ושמלת‬
5
:‫העם בעיני מצרים וישאלום וינצלו את מצרים‬
This is the section that tells what happened when our ancestors left Egypt. B’nei
Yisroel acted according to Moshe’s word and they asked from Egypt vessels of
silver and vessels of gold and garments. Hashem gave the favor of the People in
the eyes of Egypt and they gave them that which they requested and [Israel]
emptied out Egypt.
The attention of even the most casual and superficial reader is drawn to the many
differences that exist in each of these sections that should merely be a reflection
of each other.
For the purpose of our discussion, we will note the following apparent
‘discrepancies’.
What is the relationship between the ‫ חן‬- the grace and favor that Moshe and
Israel found in Egypt and the request for the vessels and garments of the
Egyptians?
When I see section I, I can surmise that the ‫ חן‬is a prerequisite for the asking for
the possessions of the Egyptians. That seems to be a reasonable premise. Why
else would they respond favorably to such an unreasonable request?
However, in Section II, the ‘interlude’ and in Section III-the telling of the actual
event, the ‫ חן‬is mentioned only after the ‘asking’. That different order implies
that the ‘asking’ was independent of the ‫ חן‬and that the ‫ חן‬was distinctively
separate from the ‘asking’.
The second discrepancy regards the ‫שמלות‬-the clothing. In Sections I and III,
when foretold at the bush and in actuality, the asking for the garments were
The translation of these verses is:
B’nei Yisroel did according to the word of Moshe and they asked from Egypt vessels
of silver and vessels of gold and clothing. Hashem placed the favor of the people in
the eyes of Egypt and they responded to their asking and they emptied out Egypt.
5
mentioned. At the interlude, in the House of Par’o, there is no mention of them;
they are omitted.
Of course, the fundamental issue involved is –what is the purpose of asking for
the vessels and the clothing?
In our focused interlude we have a further discrepancy between it and the
presentation at the Burning Bush. In the interlude, Hashem tells Moshe, ‫דבר נא‬.
Please6 speak to Israel that they should ask for the articles in question. Why does
G-d’s request need to be a plea? Rashi explains:
‫ בבקשה ממך הזהירם על כך שלא יאמר אותו צדיק‬,‫ אין נא אלא לשון בקשה‬- ‫דבר נא‬
‫ (שם יד) ואחרי כן יצאו ברכוש גדול‬,‫אברהם (בראשית טו יג) ועבדום וענו אותם קיים בהם‬
:‫לא קיים בהם‬
Speak ‫נא‬-The word ‫ נא‬is an expression of request. [Hashem was saying to
Moshe,] ‘I request you [to tell them to please ask from the Egyptians.] Hashem
warned Israel regarding this so that the Tzaddik Avraham should not say, “they
will enslave them and they will afflict them’ G-d fulfilled; ‘Afterwards they will go
out with great property’, G-d did not fulfill for them.
The implication is that were Israel not to have asked for the articles from the
Egyptians, they would not have left with the great possessions that G-d promised
them.
This is such a difficult proposition! We are learning regarding the Exodus. We
are learning that the Presence of G-d was manifest in Egypt at the time of the
Exodus. Is it feasible to think that G-d who took them out of Egypt with His
outstretched arm was incapable of providing them with great possessions?
He Who brought the ten plagues upon Egypt could not provide them with gold
and silver and garments?
In his commentary to this verse, Ibn Ezra’ writes:
‫ כי הוא עתה‬,‫נא‬:-the word ‫ נא‬means ‘now’.
That is, there is a certain level of urgency implied by the word ‫נע‬.
explanation of its meaning as ‘please’ also conveys that sense of urgency.
6
Rashi’s
I think that one approach to understanding this section in light of the many
difficulties that it presents is to view the requests of Egyptian property as having a
dual purpose. One focus is Moshe Rabbenu and a second focus is the entirety of
B’nei Yisroel.
The focus on Moshe Rabbenu is the focus on the leader, the individual who is
unique in his own nature and who is to lead the people spiritually, not only
physically.
A leader has to be able to understand strategy and tactics. Strategy refers to the
overall goals and their purpose. It refers to the final status which is being sought.
If the emphasis is on spiritual, not only physical, then that strategy will accentuate
the understanding and appreciation of the goal that will be reached, not only its
physical properties.
However, in order to reach a goal, particularly one that seems most challenging,
the strategy must be accompanied by a proper set of tactics that will lead, step –
by – step to the desired outcome.
At the outset of that which will become his lifetime mission, Moshe Rabbenu is
told to pass on a message to the enslaved B’nei Yisroel. That message tells them
that they will not leave Egypt empty-handed. They will not leave Egypt as
impoverished former slaves, whose recently attained freedom is of little value
because they lack any wherewithal to independently sustain themselves.
They will not leave Egypt with a national persona of a “loser”.
How can our ancestors imagine anything else?
They are told that a miracle will take place. Their immediately former masters
will begin to look at them differently. They will look at them differently not
because their personal feelings have changed. That is inconceivable to the
masses who are being told that a miraculous Exodus will be taking place in the
near future.
They are being told that the change in the attitude of their soon –to – be former
masters will be the result of another miracle that G-d will perform to them. In
the midst of destruction that will befall Egypt, the Egyptian people, partners to
their King in wanton persecution of Israel, will see the beauty of B’nei Yisroel.
They will see their grace and be attracted to them.
That grace will not be by word only. It will express itself by willing gifts of
precious possessions that will enrich Israel.
These are willing gifts, explains Rashbam, not temporary loans of beautiful items.
These are gifts which are 7‫במתנה גמורה וחלוטה‬. The objects are fully gifts and
objectively so. Immediately, these impoverished slaves will be enriched and can
imagine that they can leave their dependency on Egypt behind them because they
will no longer need their support.
Thus, when our enslaved ancestors were approached and informed about the
impending geula, their personal and physical needs were taken into account to
provide them with an incentive to await the Redemption.
It is likely, however, that those unfortunate slaves were incapable of imagining
that their tortuous masters would give them any type of gift, certainly not
Rashbam and others show that expressions of ‫ שאלה‬do not inherently mean
‘borrowing’, even in this context. They cite the verse in Tehillim (Perek 2/Posuk 8)
that writes: ‫שאל ממני ואתנה גוים נחלתך ואחזתך אפסי ארץ‬. Request from Me and I
Hashem will give you the nations of your inheritance and you will grasp the ends of
the earth.
The response of ‫ואתנך‬-I will give you [a permanent possession] as a response of ‫שאל‬to request or to borrow indicates that in some contexts ‫ שאל‬refers to the receipt of a
permanent gift.
7
Rashbam concludes this comment with the words: ‫ותשובה למינים‬. This is the
response to those critics of Torah who say that Israel stole from the Egyptians.
However, see Ibn Ezra’ there who writes:
‫ ואין טעם לשאול‬.‫ כי מצוה עליונה היתה‬,‫ ואלה הלא יראו‬.‫ויש מתאוננים ואומרים כי אבותינו גנבים היו‬
‫ כי הכל שלו‬,‫ ואין זה רע‬.‫ והוא נתן עושר למי שירצה ויקחנו מידו ויתננו לאחר‬,‫ כי השם ברא הכל‬,‫למה‬
.‫הוא‬
There are those who complain and say that our ancestors were thieves. But those
critics cannot see that this was a Divine command and thus there is no reason to
ask ‘why’, because Hashem created everything and He gave wealth to whom He
wished and He can take [the wealth] from him and give it to another. There is no
evil here because all belongs to G-d.
valuables. Thus, in order that they could appreciate the Divine promise, they
were to be told regarding the ‫ חן‬that they would enjoy from the Egyptians prior to
being told about the asking for the valuables of the Egyptians.
Not only that, they were told that the valuables that they would receive could be
for their own personal use.
That is the reason why ‫שמלות‬, clothing is mentioned. The Posuk tells us of the
purpose of the clothing: ‫ושמתם על בניכם ועל בנתיכם‬. You will place them upon
your sons and upon your daughters. Instead of being slaves, distinguished by the
poverty of their wares, they would dress their children as aristocracy8.
If the Torah was referring to clothing in general, it would have used the word ‫בגד‬.
‫ שמלות‬imply particular and distinguishable garments.
That is why, when
discussing the Mitzvah of ‫השבת אבידה‬-returning lost articles, the Torah writes ‫שמלה‬
instead of ‫בגד‬. The Torah writes (D’vorim Perek 22/Posuk 3):
‫וכן תעשה לחמרו וכן תעשה לשמלתו וכן תעשה לכל אבדת אחיך אשר תאבד ממנו ומצאתה לא תוכל‬
:‫להתעלם‬
So you should do (to return the lost article) for his donkey and so you should do for
his ‫שמלה‬-clothing and so you should do for any article that your brother lost from
himself and you found it you may not hide.
8
The Torah only requires the restoration of articles that have a ‫סימן‬, a distinguishing
mark. The word ‫ שמלה‬shares the same root word with ‫ סמל‬which also means a
distinguishing mark.
When a husband accuses his wife of infidelity and her father wishes to bring a clear
proof of her innocence, the Torah provides a metaphor for the clarity of his proof.
The Torah writes (D’vorim Perek 22/Posuk 17):
‫והנה הוא שם עלילת דברים לאמר לא מצאתי לבתך בתולים ואלה בתולי בתי ופרשו השמלה לפני זקני‬
:‫העיר‬
He made an accusation saying, ‘your daughter was with another man, [the father
responds], ‘this is the proof that my daughter was not with another man and they
spread the ‫ שמלה‬garment before the elders of the city.
They did not spread a ‫בגד‬, a non-distinguished type of garment. Rather it was a
‫ שמלה‬indicating that the proof is distinguished and conclusive.
Finally, when the Torah forbids one gender dressing in the specific, identifiable
clothes of the other it also uses the word ‫שמלה‬.
We read (ibid. Posuk 5):
However, there was another purpose for this Mitzvah, a purpose that was
conveyed specifically to Moshe Rabbenu, providing him with an insight unique to
him.
It appears that the word ‫נא‬, ‘please’, is a most powerful carrier of that message.
As it were, G-d says that He does not want Avraham Ovinu to accuse Him of not
fulfilling His promise to Avraham.
The subject here is no longer personal gain and individual importance. The
subject is now the continuity of history of the budding nation. Avraham Ovinu
was the founder of our people and he has to approve the events that arise.
During his lifetime, at ‫ברית בין הבתרים‬, extraordinary events were put into
motion that led to the enslavement in Egypt and the Exodus from there. Moshe
Rabbenu replaces Avraham Ovinu and must guarantee his right to be the
successor by seeing that the fullness of the promise of that covenant was
completed, not just its afflictions.
‫שמלות‬, special clothing is not mentioned to Moshe Rabbenu as he stands before
Par’o for the very last time. Aristocratic clothing is not the topic for discussion.
Receiving extraordinary garments is not enticing or even interesting. On the
other hand, supplying the Nation with a treasury of gold and silver that can be
used in the service of the Mishkan finds its place in the goals of the developing
nations.
When the events will come to fruition, they will take the garments-but that was
not a topic of the discussion with Moshe during this interlude.
:‫ל'קיך כל עשה אלה‬...‫לא יהיה כלי גבר על אשה ולא ילבש גבר שמלת אשה כי תועבת ה' א‬
The clothing of a man should not be upon a woman and a man should not wear the
‫ שמלה‬clothing of a woman; whoever does this commits an abomination to G-d.
Identifiably women’s clothing is prohibited and the Torah uses the word ‫ שמלה‬to
denote this.
Thus, the Torah says that the people will be able to don upon their children special
clothing, distinguished and rich – learning.
This is a formative moment for Am Yisroel. The independence from Par’o and
Egypt is at the door and Moshe Rabbenu is reminded of the long-term significance
of the moment, not just the immediate confrontation with the Egyptian ruler.
Here, too, the ‫ חן‬is mentioned. But its positioning is different in relationship to
asking for the Egyptian gifts. At the Burning Bush, that ‫ חן‬preceded the directive
to seek the Egyptian property so that the people would understand that such
requests would be feasible. However, at this moment, with the Divine
communication with Moshe for Moshe, when there is no need to persuade or
convince him that the requests from the Egyptians will be fulfilled, the note of ‫חן‬
is in its rightful place, separate from the requests that would be delivered to the
Egyptians.
It is true that there will be an appreciation of Israel and Moshe among the
Egyptians. However, that appreciation is distinct from another miraculous eventthe ‫ חן‬to be felt as the relationship disintegrates.
Egypt is in the midst of turmoil and upheaval. Civil order is lost. We read (Perek
12/Posuk 30):
‫ויקם פרעה לילה הוא וכל עבדיו וכל מצרים ותהי צעקה גדלה במצרים כי אין בית אשר אין‬
:‫שם מת‬
Par’o arose at night, he and all of his servants and all of Egypt and there was a
great cry in Egypt because there was not a house that did not have death.
Can we imagine the terror that existed in Egypt that night? All of Egypt arose.
The Torah is not given to exaggeration. When it writes “all” of Egypt it means it
literally. When the Torah writes that there was not a house that did not have
death, it means it literally. Every single Egyptian house was in complete and
absolute turmoil.
In fact, we may even imagine that it was not hard for the Egyptians to part with
their possessions because their minds were elsewhere. That might not have been
a test whatsoever.9
What was remarkable, however, is that in the midst of turmoil, upheaval and
destruction, a time when even nice people are unable to think clearly or be
generous, at that moment Israel and Moshe Rabbenu would be held in esteem.
In that blackest of Egyptian days, the inherent value of Israel and the uniqueness
of Moshe Rabbenu were able to penetrate the veil of grief, anguish and misery
that enveloped the Egyptians.
There seems to be a tension in understanding the willingness, or lack thereof, of
the Egyptians to part with their possessions.
One of the reasons that Rashi offers for ‫מכת חושך‬, the ninth Plague of Darkness was
in regard to the possessions that Israel was to request.
We read (Perek 10/Posuk 23):
:‫לא ראו איש את אחיו ולא קמו איש מתחתיו שלשת ימים ולכל בני ישראל היה אור במושבתם‬
A person could not see his brother and could not arise from underneath himself for
three days and to all of Israel there was light in their dwellings.
9
Rashi writes:
‫ וכשיצאו והיו שואלין מהן והיו אומרים אין בידינו כלום אומר לו אני ראיתיו‬,‫שחפשו ישראל וראו את כליהם‬
:‫בביתך ובמקום פלוני הוא‬
Rashi is bothered by the need to emphasize the fact that Israel had light. What was
the purpose of that light in all of their dwellings, i.e. wherever they were?
The answer is, says Rashi, that during this plague of darkness for the Egyptians,
“Israel searched and saw the possessions of the Egyptians and when they left Egypt
and asked for the possessions, the Egyptians would say ‘we have nothing’. The
Israelite would reply, ‘I was that which is in your house and give the specific
location of the article.
The implication of this source is that the Egyptians were not too willing to part with
their possessions.
On the other hand, the Mechilta to Perek 12 Posuk 30 writes:
."‫ אלא מה שלא שאלו היו משאילים אותם‬,'‫"אין צריך לומר 'וישאילום‬
It is necessary to write that the Egyptians gave them that which they requested.
[Why does it emphasize that the Egyptians gave them-Even that which the
Israelites did not request, the Egyptians gave them.
Israel as a nation was recognizable and discernible in Egypt, not as slaves and not
as a fifth column10, but as a People, even at this primary stage of its development
that gained the esteem of the most hard-hearted of nations.
When the event happens in history11 we see that its purpose on both the
individual and national levels reaches fruition.
Silver and gold are retrieved from the Egyptians, providing personal wealth and
the ability to build the Mishkan in a few months hence. ‫ שמלות‬are retrieved
from the Egyptians, enabling the people to dress their children in finery, removing
the weight of slavery from their young selves.
The ‫חן‬, too, is found. The Torah writes of that ‫ חן‬in a way that signifies its two
purposes. It is not mentioned prior to the act of requesting, but only in regard to
the willingness12 of the Egyptians to part with their goods.
It is not mentioned prior to the act of requesting because there was an
empowerment of Israel. They made the requests not because they needed the
Egyptian’s permission. They made the request because that was G-d’s will. The
verse says as much when it writes ‫ובני ישראל עשו כדבר משה וישאלו ממצרים‬. Israel
did according to the word of Moshe and requested from Egypt.
There was ‫ חן‬as promised but it existed beyond the specific act of giving
possessions. It was recognition of the unique value of Israel and its leader.
The Torah here provides with a glimpse of how it addresses, the individual, the
nation and the nation’s leaders.
Par’o encouraged his people to enslave Israel in order to prevent them from
organizing an internal rebellion.
We read in the very beginning of Sefer Sh’mos (Perek 1/Posuk 10):
:‫הבה נתחכמה לו פן ירבה והיה כי תקראנה מלחמה ונוסף גם הוא על שנאינו ונלחם בנו ועלה מן הארץ‬
10
11
Section III.
12
See note 10.
With this simple command, Israel was readied to leave Egypt and assume its
participation in the building of the Mishkan. The distinction between Moshe
Rabbenu and his goals as a leader and the personal goals of the individuals and of
the nation in its infancy receive a focus. The confluence of it all occurs in history
enabling, enhancing and empowering the unique moment of the Exodus as
formative in its nature.
To view ‫ יציאת מצרים‬only in its majestic sense without seeing the small aspects
that made it successful is to overlook the process that HaKodosh Boruch Hu sent
in motion four centuries earlier.
Just as the slavery and affliction were a Divinely-decreed necessary step in the
creation of Am Yisroel, so was the promise of possessions a Divinely-decreed
requisite step in the creation of Am Yisroel.
When we seek to renew the covenant with HaKodosh Boruch Hu for the
redemption that is yet to arrive, we must look at the suffering and the reward as
the building blocks of our people. We can turn to Hashem and say, ‘fulfill the
promise to Avrham Ovinu. Servitude and affliction we have found. Let us find the
reward as well so that we may serve You fully.
Shabbat Shalom
Rabbi Pollock