Purposes of the Egyptian Bondage

Exegetical Approaches

Overview

The Egyptian slavery is the only Biblical instance of national suffering which is not explicitly linked to any sin. Commentators thus divide between seeking candidates for a sin which might have deserved such a severe punishment, or trying to uncover non-punitive goals of the Egyptian experience. In doing so, exegetes use the Egyptian exile and the character of the Israelites in Egypt as a prism through which they view similar issues that arose regarding their own times and exile.

Complicating the task is the fact that the process of the exile and bondage was a lengthy one which spanned several generations, not all of whom behaved in the same manner or were affected in the same way. Those who take the punitive approach must therefore decide whether to look for a sin of Avraham who was the first to be warned of the punishment but didn't experience its consequences, a sin of Yosef's brothers who were exiled, or a sin of the Israelites who were enslaved. Similarly, those who adopt the educative/formative theories must also grapple with which generation needed the experience most and whether the goals were attained through the exile, bondage, or redemption. Thus, the central question becomes tangled in knotty theological issues such as collective punishment, children suffering for the sins of parents, afflictions of love, holding the righteous to a higher standard, free choice, and Divine providence.

Each approach has advantages and disadvantages, and they are not mutually exclusive. Creating an amalgam of the various options which allows for multiple generations and objectives may thus enable one to arrive at a fuller understanding of the dynamics of the process.

Punitive

This approach views the Egyptian experience as a punishment for a sin. It subdivides regarding which generation was the guilty party, why other generations were also either punished or informed of the punishment, and what the nature of the relationship is between the exile and the bondage:

Avraham (Generation of the Prediction)

Avraham, to whom the decree was first foretold, is the one who sinned, but the later generations of the exile and slavery were the ones who suffered the consequences.

Sources:Three Amoraic opinions in Bavli NedarimNedarim 32aAbout the Bavli, Vayikra Rabbah11:5About Vayikra Rabbah, Targum Yerushalmi (Yonatan)Bereshit 15:13About Targum Yerushalmi (Yonatan), TanchumaKedoshim 13About the Tanchuma, R. Yochanan b. Zakkai in Pirkei DeRabbi Eliezer (Higger)47About Pirkei DeRabbi Eliezer, RambanBereshit 12:10Bereshit 15:12About R. Moshe Nachmanides

Identifying the sin – These sources all agree that the Egyptian experience was a punishment for Avraham, but they suggest various possibilities for what was his sin:

• In Bereshit 15, Avraham displayed a lack of faith in Hashem when he asked for a sign that he would inherit the land ("בַּמָּה אֵדַע כִּי אִירָשֶׁנָּה") – Shemuel in Bavli NedarimNedarim 32aAbout the Bavli, Vayikra Rabbah11:5About Vayikra Rabbah,¹ Targum Yerushalmi (Yonatan)Bereshit 15:13About Targum Yerushalmi (Yonatan), TanchumaKedoshim 13About the Tanchuma, R. Yochanan b. Zakkai in Pirkei DeRabbi Eliezer (Higger)47About Pirkei DeRabbi Eliezer.
• In Bereshit 14, Avraham acted inappropriately in drafting Torah scholars for battle – R. Elazar in Bavli NedarimNedarim 32aAbout the Bavli.²
• After his victory in the War of the Kings in Bereshit 14, Avraham squandered a golden opportunity to keep the people of Sedom³ as part of the spoils, absorb them into his household, and convert them⁴ – R. Yochanan in Bavli NedarimNedarim 32aAbout the Bavli.⁵
• During the famine in Bereshit 12, Avraham demonstrated a lack of faith in Hashem by leaving the land of Israel for Egypt and endangering Sarah⁶ – RambanBereshit 12:10Bereshit 15:12About R. Moshe Nachmanides.⁷

Did Avraham sin? The Torah itself does not identify any of these actions of Avraham as sins,⁸ leaving ample room for debate whether any should be regarded as sins.⁹ Ramban's view, in particular, aroused the ire of several commentators.¹⁰ Furthermore, the Ma'asei HashemMa'asei Mitzrayim 1About R. Eliezer Ashkenazi points out that understanding the Covenant as a punishment would be incongruous with the festive context and atmosphere of the event.¹¹

Proportionate punishment? The Akeidat YitzchakShemot #36About R. Yitzchak Arama and Ma'asei Hashem observe that even assuming that one or more of these actions could be considered a sin, the punishment would seem rather harsh and disproportionate.¹² It is possible though that this approach could explain that the righteous are held to a higher standard.¹³ Alternatively, see below for the possibility that only the exile was a punishment for Avraham (and not the slavery).

Punishing children for the sins of fathers – The Akeidat Yitzchak and AbarbanelBereshit 15, Question 15About R. Yitzchak Abarbanel reject this approach as being antithetical to the Torah's doctrine that only the sinner himself is punished. If Avraham sinned, why did he deserve to live out his life in peace, while his descendants suffered the consequences of his actions?¹⁴ Shemot Rabbah5:22About Shemot Rabbah places a similar argument in the mouth of Moshe, with Moshe asking Hashem why the descendants of Yishmael and Esav were not also punished, and why specifically the generation of the slavery suffered more than their ancestors. For more on this issue, see Punishing Children for their Parent's Sins.

Why in Egypt? Abarbanel notes that the opinions in the Bavli do not provide an answer to this question. In contrast, Ramban's approach notes that the exile to Egypt paralleled Avraham's going down to Egypt ("במקום המשפט שמה הרשע והחטא"‎).¹⁵

Why foretold to Avraham? The advantage of these approaches is that, according to them, the prophecy predicting the exile occurred after the sin which caused it.¹⁶ Since Avraham's transgression was the cause of the exile, it was only appropriate that he receive the prophecy, and once the decree was in place, subsequent generations could do nothing to commute the sentence.¹⁷ According to Shemuel's opinion, the punishment is decreed immediately following the purported sin,¹⁸ while according to R. Elazar and R. Yochanan it comes in the very next story.¹⁹

Relationship between exile and bondage – This approach could maintain that both the exile and slavery were part of Avraham's punishment.²⁰ Alternatively, only the exile was the punishment for Avraham's action,²¹ and the slavery was the punishment for the sins of later generations.²²

The Israelites' idolatry in Yechezkel 20 – According to RambanShemot 2:25Shemot 12:40About Ramban, the bondage started before the idolatry,²³ and the Israelites' sins were therefore the cause not of the original exile and bondage, but rather of the lengthening of the exile to 430 years.²⁴

Yosef's Brothers (Generation of the Exile)

Yosef's brothers, in whose time the exile came to pass, were the ones culpable, but the events were predicted long before that, and the brunt of the bondage was felt only by the subsequent generations.

Sources:Mishnat Rabbi Eliezer8About Mishnat Rabbi Eliezer,²⁵ Opinion cited (and rejected) by Akeidat YitzchakShemot #36About R. Yitzchak Arama, but developed by Abarbanel (Approach #1)Bereshit 15:12, Approach 1About R. Yitzchak Abarbanel²⁶

The sin – Abarbanel says that Yosef's brothers committed a threefold sin in plotting to kill Yosef, throwing him into the pit, and then selling him.²⁷

Proportionate punishment? The Torah legislates death as the punishment for kidnapping and selling a person,²⁸ and a number of Rabbinic Midrashim discuss the gravity of the brothers' sin and its lasting consequences.²⁹

Collective punishment? Although Yosef and Binyamin were not involved in the sale,³⁰ their descendants were still exiled and enslaved in Egypt. The Akeidat Yitzchak views this as a fatal flaw in the logic of this approach.³¹ Abarbanel, though, attempts to explain why the punishment affected each and every member of Yaakov's family:

• Yosef – According to Abarbanel, Yosef sinned (albeit unintentionally) by boasting about his dreams.³²
• Binyamin – Abarbanel posits that Binyamin was punished even though he did not sin because the principle of collective punishment applies when the majority sins.³³
• Yaakov – Abarbanel explains that Yaakov sinned in giving a special tunic to Yosef and thereby provoking the jealousy of the brothers.³⁴
• Reuven – Abarbanel suggests that Reuven was involved in the hatred of Yosef,³⁵ even though he did not participate in the sale.

Relationship between exile and bondage – According to this approach of Abarbanel, the exile and slavery were both stages of the same punishment. Alternatively, only the exile was the punishment for the brothers, and the slavery was an additional punishment for the sins of later generations.³⁶

Punishing children for the sins of fathers? This approach must grapple with the question of why the generation which sinned got off relatively easy, while the subsequent generations endured the harsher stages of the punishment. Abarbanel adopts RalbagShemot 20:5About R. Levi b. Gershom's position that sometimes children continue to suffer the natural consequences of the punishment which their parents received.³⁷ Abarbanel notes that Shemot 20:5 limits this collateral punishment to four generations, and thus Hashem promises Avraham that the fourth generation will return to the land of Israel. Alternatively, the slavery was an additional punishment given to the later generations for their own severe sins – see below.

Why in Egypt? Abarbanel explains that since Yosef's brothers sold him to be a slave in Egypt, their descendants were punished measure for measure³⁸ in becoming slaves in Egypt.³⁹

Divine decree vs. free will – The Akeidat Yitzchak and MaharalGevurot Hashem 9About R. Judah Loew of Prague reject this approach on the grounds that the decree of the exile preceded the sin of the sale of Yosef. Hence, they contend that Hashem arranged for the sale in order to facilitate the fulfillment of the earlier decree, rather than the earlier decree being a punishment for the later sale.⁴⁰ Abarbanel, however, points to Devarim 4:25-26 as an analogous case of a punishment being predicted before the sin occurred.⁴¹

Why was the punishment foretold already to Avraham? Abarbanel explains that the prophecy about the Egyptian Exile was a parenthetical comment, necessary only in order to explain to Avraham the delay in the inheritance of the land. Thus, Hashem mentioned only the punishment and not the sin.

Brothers not explicitly rebuked in the Torah – AbarbanelBereshit 45About R. Yitzchak Abarbanel, in a different passage, suggests that the fact that the Torah doesn't explicitly criticize the brothers' actions argues against the possibility of attributing sin to them.⁴² However, one can respond that the Torah renders its moral judgment in a more subtle way by showing how the brothers (and their descendants) were punished for their actions.

The Israelites' idolatry in Yechezkel 20 – Abarbanel⁴³ explains that the bondage started before the idolatry,⁴⁴ and the Israelites' sins were therefore the cause not of the original exile and bondage, but rather of the lengthening of the exile to 430 years.⁴⁵

Israelites in Egypt (Generation of the Enslavement)

The generation during which the slavery began was the one that sinned and was thus responsible for its own plight. The exile, though, preceded the sin in Egypt and thus came, not as part of the punishment, but rather for a different reason.

Sources:Damascus Document3:2-6About Damascus Document, TanchumaShemot 5Shemot 10About the Tanchuma, Tanchuma (Buber)Vaera 17About Tanchuma (Buber), Shemot Rabbah1:81:30About Shemot Rabbah, RashiShemot 2:14About R. Shelomo Yitzchaki, RadakBereshit 15:14About R. David Kimchi, RalbagShemot 2 Toelet 8Bemidbar 15:41About R. Levi b. Gershom, Nimmukei YosefShemot 1:10About R. Yosef b. David of Saragosa, SfornoIntroduction to the TorahBereshit 15:13Bereshit 46:3Shemot 1:14About R. Ovadyah Sforno

Identifying the sin – Many of these sources attempt to find a textual hook for a ritual prohibition or obligation which was violated, while others attribute the punishment to problematic interpersonal behavior:

• Eating blood – Damascus Document3:2-6About Damascus Document. The prohibition of eating blood dates back to Noachide law⁴⁶ and is one of the most often repeated prohibitions in the Torah.⁴⁷
• Ceased performing circumcision – TanchumaShemot 5About the Tanchuma,⁴⁸ Shemot Rabbah1:8About Shemot Rabbah.⁴⁹ Circumcision was an extremely logical candidate as it was the only commandment given as a covenant with Avraham's descendants.⁵⁰ For discussion of the various opinions as to whether the Israelites practiced circumcision in Egypt, see Israelites' Religious Identity.
• Idolatry – RadakBereshit 15:14About R. David Kimchi,⁵¹ Nimmukei YosefShemot 1:10About R. Yosef b. David of Saragosa,⁵² and SfornoIntroduction to the TorahBereshit 15:13Bereshit 46:3Shemot 1:14About R. Ovadyah Sforno⁵³ develop this approach based on the explicit verses in Yechezkel 20. It is unclear though whether this idolatry preceded the bondage.⁵⁴
• Tale-bearing and informing – TanchumaShemot 10About the Tanchuma,⁵⁵ Tanchuma (Buber)Vaera 17About Tanchuma (Buber), Shemot Rabbah1:30About Shemot Rabbah,⁵⁶ RashiShemot 2:14About R. Shelomo Yitzchaki, RalbagShemot 2 Toelet 8Bemidbar 15:41About R. Levi b. Gershom.⁵⁷ These sources learn from the story of Moshe's killing of the Egyptian taskmaster that informants existed among the Israelites.⁵⁸

Proportionate punishment? The sins listed are serious ones, but textual evidence for their prevalence amongst the Israelites exists only for idolatry.

Divine decree vs. free will – This approach must explain how the prophecy to Avraham could precede the sin. Radak states that Hashem knew the people would sin, and he points to Devarim 31-32 as an analogous case of a punishment being predicted before the sin occurred.⁵⁹ Ralbag goes a step further and maintains that had the Israelites exercised their free will and not sinned, the exile would not have been so harsh.⁶⁰

Why were the Israelites' sins not recorded in the Torah? This approach, in particular, must address why the Torah does not mention the sins,⁶¹ despite their resulting in a very significant punishment.⁶² It is possible that the Torah's silence results from its not wanting to mitigate the responsibility of the Egyptians in enslaving the Israelites.⁶³

Why was the punishment foretold already to Avraham? Sforno suggests that Hashem wanted Avraham's descendants in Egypt to know that their trials and tribulations were all coming from Him (to punish them for their sins).⁶⁴

Relationship between exile and bondage – As the exile preceded the Israelites' sins in Egypt, this approach must come up with a different explanation for the purpose of the exile (and why it was in Egypt). Ralbag explains that the exile was needed so that the Israelites' faith could be strengthened by seeing Hashem's miracles. On the other hand, Sforno proposes that the exile in Egypt facilitated growth into a large nation without the risk of losing their national identity.⁶⁵ Alternatively, one could posit that the exile was a punishment for the sin of Yosef's brothers, while the bondage was a punishment for the Israelites' sins in Egypt.⁶⁶

What ultimately brought about the redemption? According to Sforno, a portion of the Israelites repented.

Gratitude for the redemption – Since Hashem saved the Israelites despite their sins, gratitude is the obvious response.⁶⁷

Educative

This category subdivides regarding whether the educational objective was in the theological or moral-ethical sphere, and if the goal was achieved through the suffering or the redemption.

Spread Monotheism

The redemption demonstrated Hashem's power, and the exile and bondage were merely a necessary prelude for this objective.

Sources:Sifre DevarimDevarim 406About Sifre Devarim, RalbagShemot 2 Toelet 8Bemidbar 15:41About R. Levi b. Gershom,⁶⁸ Ma'asei HashemMa'asei Mitzrayim 1About R. Eliezer Ashkenazi

Target audience – The Sifre speaks of promulgating God's glory throughout the world,⁶⁹ Ralbag focuses on strengthening the Israelites' belief in Hashem and preparing them to receive the Torah,⁷⁰ and the Ma'asei Hashem combines both themes.

Why foretold already to Avraham? According to Ralbag, Hashem explains the process through which Avraham's descendants would become prepared to inherit the land, in response to Avraham's concern that they would not be worthy. The Ma'asei Hashem adds that Avraham was thrilled by the news that his descendants would be the vehicle through which the wonders of Hashem would be proclaimed to the world.⁷¹

Relationship between exile and bondage – This approach could view both the exile and bondage as merely a means to achieving the goals of the redemption stage. Ralbag, though, views the slavery as a punishment for the sins of the Israelites in Egypt.⁷²

Historical parallels – R. Eliezer Ashkenazi claims that the purpose of the current exile, like the Egyptian Exile, is to allow for the dissemination of monotheism to the entire world.

Afflictions of Love

The exile and bondage were a manifestation of Divine love, as they raised the spiritual level of the Israelites, brought them closer to Hashem, and prepared them to receive the Torah and the land of Israel.

Sources:R. ChananelCited by R. Bachya Shemot 5:22About R. Chananel b. Chushiel,⁷³ R. BachyaShemot 5:22About R. Bachya b. Asher,⁷⁴ RanBereshit 12:10-13Bereshit 15:13Bereshit 15:14About R. Nissim Gerondi, R. Chasdai CrescasOhr Hashem 3:1:8:2cited by Abarbanel Bereshit 15About R. Chasdai Crescas,⁷⁵ Midrash HaHeifetzBereshit 37:15About Midrash HaHeifetz, Tzeror HaMorBereshit 15:9About R. Avraham Saba,⁷⁶ MalbimBereshit 15:13About R. Meir Leibush Weiser

Suffering without sin – The concept of "afflictions of love" ("ייסורין של אהבה") appears already in Amoraic literature,⁷⁷ but commentators disagree as to whether these afflictions sometimes come even without there being any sin whatsoever.⁷⁸ Ran⁷⁹ and R. Chasdai maintain that they come even without sin,⁸⁰ and that this was the case in Egypt.⁸¹

Religious identity in Egypt – This approach views the Israelites in Egypt as a completely righteous nation.⁸² As Abarbanel points out, though, this portrait appears to be at odds with the text of Yechezkel 20.⁸³ Abarbanel also argues that the Israelites' subsequent behavior in the desert would seem to indicate that the "afflictions of love" in Egypt were a complete educational failure.⁸⁴

Goal of the afflictions – While R. Chananel and R. Bachya propose that the afflictions increase the reward of the righteous and the punishment of the sinner, Ran explains that afflictions humble a person and distance him from the physical desires of this world, thus preparing him for spiritual closeness to Hashem.⁸⁵ In the case of the Israelites in Egypt, Ran cites Rashbi's statement from Bavli Berakhot 5a that afflictions prepared the Children of Israel to receive the Torah and the land of Israel.⁸⁶ Abarbanel, though, rejects Ran's understanding, noting that while the Torah describes the events of the forty years in the desert as an educational process,⁸⁷ it never does the same regarding the Egyptian bondage. Furthermore, Abarbanel questions why the same goals could not have been achieved without such a harsh persecution, and why the Torah views the Exodus as the ultimate act of Divine kindness if the Israelites had done nothing to deserve to be enslaved in the first place.

Why in Egypt? Abarbanel cites R. Chasdai Crescas⁸⁸ as saying that Hashem chose Egypt because it was the world's leading center of black magic, and thus He could better demonstrate His supremacy over all forms of sorcery.

Divine decree vs. free will – According to Ran, the Egyptians exercised free choice in enslaving the Israelites, and Hashem merely did not intercede because of the benefits from the slavery which the Israelites accrued. For more, see Exile and Enslavement – Divine Design? and Divine Plans and Egyptian Free Choice.

Why foretold already to Avraham? Ran explains that the prophecy is Hashem's response to Avraham's concern that his descendants would be unworthy of inheriting the land. In it, Hashem explains how the trials and tribulations the people will undergo will prepare them to love and fear Him.⁸⁹ The Tzeror HaMor adds that the prophecy was Avraham's reward for his righteousness.⁹⁰

Relationship between exile and bondage – According to Ran and R. Chasdai Crescas, both were part of the afflictions of love.⁹¹

"כּוּר הַבַּרְזֶל" – This expression appears three times in Tanakh,⁹² and all of the cases describe the slavery in Egypt. While in earlier exegesis⁹³ this phrase is understood as merely a reference to the harsh labor conditions in Egypt, the Tzeror HaMor is one of the first to focus on the use of a smelting furnace for refining metals⁹⁴ and to understand the phrase as a metaphor for the refining of the Israelites' spiritual character in Egypt.⁹⁵

Gratitude for the redemption – According to this approach, we feel gratitude because the entire process was for our benefit.

Historical parallels – R. Bachya says that the delayed redemption and intensification of the persecution toward the end of each of the Egyptian and current exiles is intended to increase both our reward and the punishment of our tormentors.⁹⁶ R. Chasdai Crescas adds that the excessive length of the current exile is not the result of sin, just as the Egyptian Exile was not a punishment for sins. Rather, he says, it is a manifestation of Hashem's kindness and is designed to bring us closer to him.⁹⁷

A Crucible

The purpose of the exile and bondage was to purge the Israelites from all of their impure elements.⁹⁸

Sources:Abarbanel (Approach #2)Bereshit 15, Approach 2About R. Yitzchak Abarbanel,⁹⁹ R. Moshe AlshikhBereshit 15:13About R. Moshe Alshikh

The situation before the descent to Egypt – Abarbanel depicts Yaakov's family in Canaan as having begun to mingle with the Canaanites and absorb their practices, and being unprepared to receive the Torah.¹⁰⁰

Religious identity in Egypt – Abarbanel cites the verses from Yechezkel 20 as proof that the Israelites worshiped idolatry in Egypt.

"כּוּר הַבַּרְזֶל" and the purgatory process – The Alshikh merges the Midrashic motif of "Only 1/5" ("וַחֲמֻשִׁים")‎¹⁰¹ with the metaphor of the smelting furnace and explains that the wicked part of the nation died off in Egypt.¹⁰² The righteous portion which remained could then proceed to Mt. Sinai for the revelation.¹⁰³

Why in Egypt? Abarbanel posits that Egypt was chosen because it was the world's leading center of idolatry, and the miracles of the Exodus could thus have a greater impact in spreading monotheism.¹⁰⁴

What ultimately brought about the redemption? According to this approach, the redemption came about after all of the impure elements were removed.

Instill Empathy for Less Fortunate

By experiencing exile and slavery themselves, the Children of Israel learned to feel empathy and care for the downtrodden and less fortunate members of society.

Sources:Nechama LeibowitzIyyunim Chadashim BeSefer Shemot pp.12-14About Prof. Nechama Leibowitz

Social justice and the Egyptian experience – The Torah references the Egyptian exile and redemption in numerous commandments which deal with social justice,¹⁰⁵ and the Exodus has become a global symbol of liberty, justice, and human rights.

Purpose or result? It is unclear whether the Torah is implying that this was the purpose of the exile and slavery, or merely a lesson that can be derived in retrospect.

Forging a National Identity

Egypt was an incubator in which Yaakov's family could overcome both the internal and external challenges it faced on the road to developing into a nation with its own unique identity.

A Melting Pot

The shared suffering of the entire nation in Egypt was intended to eliminate class distinctions and foster unity.

Sources:Pesikta ChadtaPesach (Otzar HaMidrashim, Eisenstein, p.488)About Pesikta Chadta,¹⁰⁶ R. S"R HirschBereshit 45:11About R. S"R Hirsch¹⁰⁷

The situation before the descent to Egypt – Before the Egyptian Exile, Yaakov favors Yosef and also distinguishes between the sons of his wives and the sons of his maidservants.¹⁰⁸ After the Exodus, though, all twelve tribes have equal status.

Shared experiences – The Pesikta Chadta speaks of the Egyptian experience being a great equalizer, as the entire nation participated together in both the slavery and in the commandments of the Paschal sacrifice.

"כּוּר הַבַּרְזֶל" – R. Hirsch emphasizes the fusing property of the blast furnace.

Historical parallels – R. Hirsch notes that both the Egyptian Exile and the current exile were caused by jealousy and internecine strife.¹⁰⁹

Preventing Assimilation

Yaakov's family needed to leave Canaan to stem the tide of intermarriage. Once their population had grown into a nation,¹¹⁰ they could then return and conquer Canaan.

Sources:ZoharParashat Shemot (14b-15a)About the Zohar, SfornoIntroduction to the TorahBereshit 15:13Bereshit 46:3Shemot 1:14About R. Ovadyah Sforno,¹¹¹ R. S"R HirschBereshit 45:11About R. S"R Hirsch,¹¹² NetzivShemot 1:7Harchev Davar Bereshit 15:14Bereshit 46:3Bereshit 46:34Bemidbar 23:9Haggadah Shel Pesach "Vehi Sheamedah"About R. Naftali Tzvi Yehuda Berlin, Y"M ImmanueliSefer Bereshit Hesberim VeHaarot pp.484-489

The situation before the descent to Egypt – R. Hirsch asserts that had Yaakov's family remained in Canaan they would have been assimilated into the surrounding nations. Immanueli adds that the sons of Yaakov had already begun to intermarry with the Canaanites.¹¹³

Why in Egypt? The Zohar and Sforno note that since the Egyptians were xenophobic and would not even eat with the Hebrews, let alone marry them, the chances of assimilation were much smaller in Egypt than in Canaan.¹¹⁴

Relationship between exile and bondage – According to Sforno, only the exile was intended to prevent intermarriage, but the bondage was a punishment for sins in Egypt. The Netziv, though, contends that the need for the bondage arose because the Israelites did not remain in Goshen¹¹⁵ and attempted to assimilate into general Egyptian society.¹¹⁶ Combining Sforno and the Netziv would thus create a position that each of the exile and slavery were designed to combat assimilation.¹¹⁷

Historical parallels – The Netziv draws historical parallels to his own day, and concludes that the root cause of anti-semitism throughout the generations is the Jewish desire to assimilate and be accepted in non-Jewish society. Similarly, R. Hirsch and Immanueli view Goshen as the prototype for Jewish ghettoes throughout history.

What ultimately brought about the redemption? According to this approach, the nation was able to be redeemed when it had achieved critical mass.

No Purpose

This option challenges the assumption of the previous approaches that the bondage was Divinely planned and therefore must have had a purpose. It contends that the exile and bondage were purely the result of natural processes and human choices.

Sources:Akeidat YitzchakShemot #36About R. Yitzchak Arama, Abarbanel (Approach #3)Zevach Pesach s.v. "Baruch Shomer" Approach #3About R. Yitzchak Abarbanel

Divine decree vs. free will – The Akeidah and Abarbanel view the Covenant as merely a foretelling of the future and not as a decree which obligated or compelled.¹¹⁸ For more, see Divine Plans and Israelite Free Choice.¹¹⁹

Why did Hashem not prevent the Egyptians from enslaving the Israelites? This approach does not address why Hashem waited for centuries on the sidelines before finally coming to the rescue of His chosen nation.

Gratitude for the redemption – According to this approach, we feel gratitude because Hashem redeemed the Israelites from the situation into which they got themselves.

¹ Vayikra Rabbah, Tanchuma, and Pirkei DeRabbi Eliezer all note that "‏יָדֹעַ תֵּדַע...‏" was Hashem's measured response to Avraham's "‏בַּמָּה אֵדַע...‏". For more fundamental applications of the "measure for measure" concept, see the approaches of Ramban and Abarbanel below.

² It is unclear what body of Torah literature the scholars of Avraham's era would have been studying, but this may be linked to the Midrashic motif of the Academies of Shem and Ever. See M. Avioz, "‏מדוע נשתעבדו בני ישראל במצרים?‏", Bar Ilan University Weekly Parashah Sheet (Shemot 5761) who suggests that this position reflects a desire during the Roman period to solidify the communal standing and support of Rabbinic scholars.

³ The words "תֶּן לִי הַנֶּפֶשׁ" in Bereshit 14:21 may hark back to "וְאֶת הַנֶּפֶשׁ אֲשֶׁר עָשׂוּ בְחָרָן" in Bereshit 12:5.

⁴ It is possible that had Avraham done so, the destruction of Sedom might have been averted, and Avraham's inheritance of the land of Israel might have transpired by mass conversion and education rather than by conquest. Thus, by in effect choosing the conquest route, Avraham was required to wait four generations before inheriting the land until "the iniquity of the Amorites was complete".

⁵ See E. Urbach, חז"ל פרקי אמונות ודעות, (Jerusalem, 1969): 489-490 (n. 88*) and Avioz (see note above) who read this statement as a manifestation of R. Yochanan's generally positive attitude toward proselytizing. Interestingly, R. Eliezer Ashkenazi maintains that Avraham, in fact, kept the people and only returned the material possessions to the king of Sedom.

⁶ It is unclear whether these constituted a single sin or two distinct sins. See the analysis in Endangering Sarai in Egypt which notes that Ramban in Derashat Torat Hashem Temimah mentions only the sin of endangering Sarah.

⁷ Ramban's opinion fits within his general position that the actions of the Patriarchs established the patterns and templates which charted the course of history for their descendants. For more, see the discussion of the parallels below and Ma'aseh Avot Siman LeBanim. Cf. Ramban Bereshit 16:6 where he posits similarly that as a result of Sarah's harsh treatment of Hagar, Hashem caused Hagar's descendants to oppress the Jewish people. While Ramban views Sarah's actions as leading to the Ishmaelite (Arab/Muslim) persecutions, Y. Zakovitch, "יציאת מצרים בספר בראשית", Al HaPerek 3 (1987): 25-34, sees them as the cause of the bondage in Egypt (which functioned as a "measure for measure" punishment for the oppression of Sarah's Egyptian maidservant, Hagar). While the latter theory may find support in the root ענה which links the stories of Bereshit 15–16 (appearing in 15:13, 16:6,9, and numerous times in the story of the actual slavery in Egypt), it would work better if the sin in Bereshit 16 preceded the story of the Covenant.

⁸ In fact, the Torah never attributes any sin to Avraham. Commentators debate the meaning of "אָבִיךָ הָרִאשׁוֹן חָטָא" in Yeshayahu 43:27, with RashiYeshayahu 43:27About R. Shelomo Yitzchaki claiming that this refers to Avraham's lack of faith expressed by "בַּמָּה אֵדַע כִּי אִירָשֶׁנָּה". Radak and others, though, interpret the verse as referring to Adam. Radak's position is in accordance with his commentary on Bereshit 15:8,14 where he maintains that Avraham displayed full faith in Hashem ("‏וְהֶאֱמִן בַּה'‏"), and that the slavery was a punishment for the sins of the Israelites in Egypt and not for any sin of Avraham.

⁹ On the general issue of attributing sins to the Avot, see Avot and Mitzvot.

¹⁰ Ralbag argues that it would have been the "piety of fools" for Avraham to risk his life by remaining in Israel during the famine and relying on a miracle (cf. Pirkoi b. Bavoi, RS"R Hirsch, and the Netziv in Avraham's Descent to Egypt). Additionally, the RanBereshit 12:10-13About R. Nissim Gerondi notes that this incident of the famine was counted (by various Rabbinic sources) as one of the ten tests which Avraham passed with flying colors (see also Avot DeRabbi Natan 1:33 that Hashem brought the Ten Plagues in the merit of Avraham's ten tests). He further points out that according to Ramban's reasoning, Avraham and Yitzchak should have also been punished for their similar actions in Bereshit 20 and 26. For more, see the extended analysis of Avraham's actions in Avraham's Descent to Egypt.

¹¹ See Bereshit 15:1,6,7,18-21. The Ma'asei Hashem further suggests that had the prophecy to Avraham been a punishment, the day of the Covenant should have become an annual day of mourning. If the prophecy was a punishment, one also would have expected Hashem to make this explicit to Avraham.

¹² In light of this, the Keli YekarBereshit 15:8About R. Shelomo Ephraim Luntschitz and Tzeidah LaDerekh (on Rashi Shemot 2:14) attempt to the various opinions in the Bavli as coming to explain why Hashem upset Avraham by sharing with him the news of the impending exile rather than giving the cause of the exile itself. According to this, only the communication of the prophecy to Avraham was a rebuke for his relatively minor infraction, but the the exile and slavery themselves happened for a different reason entirely. Similarly, Ma'asei Hashem suggests that the opinions in the Bavli are coming to explain only why the slavery portion constituted slightly more than half of the four hundred years rather than exactly half.

¹³ See Bavli BK 50a: "שהקדוש ברוך הוא מדקדק עם סביביו אפילו כחוט השערה".

¹⁴ It is possible that this approach could argue that the worst punishment Avraham himself could have received was that his descendants would be enslaved and that the fulfillment of the Covenant would be delayed.

¹⁵ Ramban cites Bereshit Rabbah40:6About Bereshit Rabbah and synopsizes its extensive list of parallels between the two stories. For a similar list in table form, see Y. Zakovitch's article cited above. See also Foreshadowing of the Egyptian Bondage in Bereshit 12.

¹⁶ R. Elazar and R. Yochanan (and Ramban) must maintain that the Avraham stories are presented in chronological order and the Covenant of Pieces occurred after the battle (and Avraham's sin) in Bereshit 14. Shemuel, on the other hand, could hold like the view in Seder Olam Rabbah that the Covenant occurred when Avraham was seventy and before the events recorded in Bereshit 12-14. For more, see Duration of the Egyptian Exile.

¹⁷ The Ma'asei Hashem, though, wonders why the Patriarchs could not have prayed for the reversal of the decree.

¹⁸ See, however, Ma'asei Hashem who notes that the opinions in the Bavli are not consistent with Bereshit Rabbah40:6About Bereshit Rabbah, which implies that the Egyptian experience was decreed already at the time Avraham went down to Egypt. Yet, see the note above that were Shemuel to maintain like Seder Olam Rabbah that the Covenant took place when Avraham was seventy, his opinion could work in tandem with Bereshit Rabbah.

¹⁹ For Ramban, though, there is a greater gap between the sin and punishment which is more difficult to explain (see Ramban's attempt in his comment to Bereshit 15:12).

²⁰ R. Elazar in the Bavli and the Tanchuma refer explicitly to the slavery as the punishment.

²¹ Targum Yerushalmi (Yonatan) interpolates the description of the sin in the middle of the verse, linking it only to the exile. This possibility would somewhat reduce the problem of disproportionate punishment.

²² See below for various possibilities and for the options that the slavery was intended to be an educative or formative experience. The Keli Yekar and Tzeidah LaDerekh's approach cited above could even have three levels: Avraham's minor infraction was punished by knowledge of the prophecy, Yosef's brothers' sin was punished with exile, and the Israelites' sin was punished by slavery.

²³ This is how Ramban would respond to Radak's argument that there is no reason to look for sins of Avraham when there are sins of the entire nation explicitly mentioned. For further discussion of when the idolatry commenced, see Israelites' Religious Identity and the Beit HaLevi Parashat Shemot.

²⁴ For more, see Duration of the Egyptian Exile.

²⁵ Mishnat Rabbi Eliezer speaks only about the descent to Egypt, but not about the exile and slavery. Mishnat Rabbi Eliezer puts a different spin on the motif found already in Bavli Shabbat 89b and Tanchuma Vayeshev 18.

²⁶ See also Zevach Pesach s.v. "Baruch Shomer" Approach #1. Abarbanel is the first extant source to fully develop the notion that the Egyptian Exile was a punishment for the behavior of Yaakov's sons, but the kernel appears already in earlier sources. See Tosafot ShabbatShabbat 10b s.v. ה"גAbout Ba'alei HaTosafot and Zohar ChadashVayeshevKi TisaAbout the Zohar Chadash. Bavli ShabbatShabbat 10bAbout the Bavli notes the cause and effect relationship, but it does not say that there was a Divine punishment involved, merely that the sale led to the going down to Egypt.

²⁷ Yosef's brothers themselves acknowledge their guilt on a couple of occasions – see Bereshit 42:21, 50:15-20. Regarding whether the brothers were involved in the actual sale, see Who Sold Yosef.

²⁸ The connection between this law (Shemot 21:16) and the sale of Yosef is enshrined in the piyyut "Eleh Ezkerah" recited in Musaf on Yom HaKippurim. See also Bereshit Rabbati 37:26 and Otzar HaMidrashim (Eisenstein) pp. 444-449.

²⁹ See the SifraShemini 1About Sifra that the Children of Israel needed to bring a goat for a sin offering to atone for selling Yosef, Pirkei DeRabbi Eliezer37About Pirkei DeRabbi Eliezer that Yosef's brothers received atonement only with death, Esther Rabbah7:25About Esther Rabbah that Haman's decree was a punishment for this sin, and Midrash Mishlei1:13About Midrash Mishlei that the death of the Ten Martyrs resulted from the brothers' sin.

³⁰ Binyamin was still a young boy and presumably at home with Yaakov, and Yosef himself was the victim.

³¹ He also notes a difficulty from the opposite perspective that, according to a combination of Midrashim, although Levi played a lead role in the plotting against Yosef, his descendants were not enslaved in Egypt.

³² Abarbanel adds, though, that since Yosef's sin was unintentional, he merited burial in Israel, in contrast to the rest of his brothers who were punished by being buried in Egypt. Abarbanel rejects the view in the Midrash that the bones of all of the brothers were brought up from Egypt together with Yosef's. See Yosef's Bones for further discussion.

³³ Once Abarbanel needed to resort to this answer, he could have used it to explain Reuven and Yosef as well.

³⁴ Cf. Bavli ShabbatShabbat 10bAbout the Bavli which already notes Yaakov's responsibility but does not claim that the exile was a punishment. Abarbanel says that Yaakov's sin, like Yosef's, was unintentional and therefore his body was returned for burial in Israel.

³⁵ It is unclear what is Abarbanel's basis for this assertion.

³⁶ See below for various possibilities and for the options that the slavery was intended to be an educative or formative experience.

³⁷ Both cite the verse from Eikhah 5:7 "אֲבֹתֵינוּ חָטְאוּ [וְ]אֵינָם [וַ]אֲנַחְנוּ עֲוֹנֹתֵיהֶם סָבָלְנוּ". For more, see Punishing Children for their Parent's Sins.

³⁸ Abarbanel adds that there were other aspects of the punishment which reflect this same principle: The brothers threw Yosef into a pit and therefore the Egyptians threw their sons into the Nile, and the brothers' finding pasture for their sheep is involved in both their sale of Yosef and the descent to Egypt. According to Abarbanel, the sheep and goats of the Paschal sacrifice were intended as atonement for the sheep and goats involved in the story of Yosef's sale.

³⁹ See Bereshit 50:18 where Yosef's brothers themselves suggest that they be slaves to Yosef.

⁴⁰ They cite the Bavli ShabbatShabbat 89bAbout the Bavli and Bavli SotahSotah 11aAbout the Bavli as support for their understanding. They do not, however, raise the philosophical problem of how there can be free will following a Divine decree. This latter issue appears to underlie the statement of the Ma'asei Hashem: "ולא יתכן לומר שנגזר קודם, דבר הנמשך לסיבת‬ חטא".

⁴¹ See also the dire predictions of Devarim 31-32 cited by Radak below. Both cases in Devarim, though, describe not only the impending punishment but also the future sins. They can thus be construed as general warnings (or conditional decrees) intended to prevent the nation from disobeying the commandments of Hashem, rather than absolute Divine decrees with a specific time frame. This would be fundamentally different from the prophecy/decree of the Egyptian Exile which both specified a time period and could not have served as an admonition (as no sin is mentioned). Abarbanel does cite an additional parallel from Shemot 23:20 where, he claims, a punishment is predicted without mention of the sin, but as he notes, this only works according to Rashi's interpretation of the verse.

⁴² Abarbanel, in that passage, attempts to suggest that the brothers were not culpable for their actions because the events were preordained.

⁴³ Like Ramban above.

⁴⁴ For discussion of when the idolatry commenced, see Israelites' Religious Identity and the Beit HaLevi Parashat Shemot.

⁴⁵ For more, see Duration of the Egyptian Exile.

⁴⁶ This is the literal interpretation of Bereshit 9:4. For more, see Prohibition of Eating Blood.

⁴⁷ The prohibition of eating blood was a very significant one for the Qumran and Damascus Sects, and it played a central role in their disputes with the Pharisees. For more, see Prohibition of Eating Blood. Thus, it was no coincidence that they chose this to be the sin that the Israelites committed.

⁴⁸ See Tanchuma below for the additional sin of tale-bearing. According to the categorization here, the Tanchuma (and Shemot Rabbah) view the bondage and Paroh's decrees as a punishment, and this seems to be the implication of the words they cite from Hoshea ("בה' בגדו כי בנים זרים ילדו עתה יאכלם חדש את חלקיהם"). However, it is also possible that the intent of the Midrashim is that Hashem caused Paroh to hate the Israelites in order to prevent them from assimilating further, rather than to punish them. See below that this is the reading of the Netziv.

⁴⁹ See Shemot Rabbah below for the additional sin of tale-bearing.

⁵⁰ Tanchuma and Shemot Rabbah present the abrogation of circumcision in the context of the Israelites' desire to assimilate ("נהיה כמצרים").

⁵¹ See note above for Radak's critique of the position that Avraham sinned.

⁵² The Nimmukei Yosef links the verses in Yechezkel to the description in Tehillim 105:25 of Hashem's causing the Egyptians' persecution.

⁵³ This is Sforno's understanding of the cause of the slavery. See below for his understanding of the need for the exile.

⁵⁴ For discussion of when the idolatry commenced, see Israelites' Religious Identity and the Beit HaLevi Parashat Shemot. Ramban and Abarbanel above maintain that the idolatry began only after the bondage, and therefore could have been responsible only for its lengthening.

⁵⁵ See Tanchuma above for the additional sin of not circumcising their sons.

⁵⁶ See Shemot Rabbah above for the additional sin of not circumcising their sons.

⁵⁷ Ralbag's explanation of the cause of the slavery includes internecine feuding and refusal to accept rebuke. See below for his understanding of the need for the exile.

⁵⁸ For sources which disagree and praise the Israelites for refraining from tale-bearing, see Israelites' Religious Identity.

⁵⁹ See the issues raised in the analysis above of Abarbanel's similar parallel to Devarim 4:25-26.

⁶⁰ He thus explains why the bondage did not start until after the death of the righteous generation of Yosef and his brothers. It is possible that according to Ralbag, despite the Divine prophecy, the slavery might still have been avoided entirely had the Israelites in Egypt not sinned, but he does not say this explicitly. See Ralbag's formulation "כי טוב הבחירה ינצח זה הסדור" and see Free Will for further discussion of his stance.

⁶¹ See Vayikra Rabbah 7:1 which notes that Hashem waited 900 years between the Exodus and Yechezkel before disclosing the Israelites' idolatry.

⁶² Other approaches also must account for why the Israelites' idolatry is described only in Yechezkel 20 (and perhaps Yehoshua 24) but not in the Torah. However, they could explain that it was only a small minority of the nation. It is more difficult to give this answer, though, if the sin led to a national punishment.

⁶³ In Shemot 1-2 there is also no discussion of Hashem's role in bringing about the slavery (cf. Tehillim 105:25). See Divine Plans and Egyptian Free Choice that this may also be to keep the focus on the Egyptian culpability.

⁶⁴ Compare to Devarim 31:19-26.

⁶⁵ See below for elaboration on both of these approaches.

⁶⁶ The Damascus Document attributes sins to both Yaakov's sons and to their descendants in Egypt.

⁶⁷ This is true even if they repented, but it would be especially true if one maintains that the sins persisted until the Exodus – see above.

⁶⁸ This is Ralbag's understanding of the need for the exile and redemption. See above for his position that the slavery was a punishment for sins in Egypt.

⁶⁹ L. Finkelstein's edition of the Sifre follows the Berlin ms. of the Sifre which reads "ובשביל". This might imply that there was a dual purpose. However, most manuscripts either do not have the "ו" or omit the word entirely.

⁷⁰ For more on Ralbag's position, see Purpose of the Plagues.

⁷¹ The Ma'asei Hashem explains that every fiber of Avraham's being was dedicated to the worship of Hashem, and the entire Covenant of Pieces reflects Avraham's concern that he was not capable by himself of spreading monotheism to the entire world. Thus, it was of no concern to Avraham that his descendants would be enslaved, as long as they would thereby achieve their raison d'être of increasing knowledge of God. R. Eliezer Ashkenazi brings support for his interpretation from the festive context of the Covenant, and from the fact that Avraham did not pray that his descendants should not be enslaved.

⁷² See above for analysis of Ralbag's position.

⁷³ R. Chananel and R. Bachya both focus on the final stage of the bondage after Moshe's initial overture to Paroh. It is not clear if they maintain the same position regarding the exile and the earlier stages of the slavery.

⁷⁴ It is not clear where the citation from R. Chananel ends and R. Bachya's own comment begins, but the second paragraph ("‏ודע כי עניני הגלות הזה הראשון...‏") which refers to Christian dominion is clearly from R. Bachya himself.

⁷⁵ R. Chasdai is following in the footsteps of his teacher, the Ran.

⁷⁶ Tzeror HaMor's interpretation appears also in the Minchah BelulahBereshit 15:13About R. Avraham Porto.

⁷⁷ See Bavli Berakhot 5a-b and Bereshit Rabbah 92:1.

⁷⁸ Rashi Berakhot 5a s.v. "yissurin" takes the approach that they can come even when there is no sin, while Ramban (Torat HaAdam pp.270-273) maintains that afflictions always come to purify from some degree of sin (Ramban distinguishes between the categories of נסיונות and ייסורין של אהבה). Rambam (Moreh Nevukhim 3:17,24) appears to reject the entire concept of ייסורין של אהבה.

⁷⁹ According to the Ran, נסיונות are a form of ייסורין של אהבה. The Ran develops his position also in Derashot HaRan 10 where he uses it to interpret the verses in Devarim 4:29-31.

⁸⁰ The position of R. Chananel and R. Bachya is more ambiguous. In his Kad HaKemach (s.v. Kippurim, pp. 209-211), R. Bachya appears to adopt the Ramban's position that even ייסורין של אהבה come because of a (small) sin, but from his commentary on Shemot 5:22 it would appear that they come without any sin at all. Even if R. Bachya maintains that there was a minor sin in Egypt, this position would still be fundamentally different from the exegetes in the punitive category above who believe that the exile/slavery were a deserved punishment for very significant sins.

⁸¹ See Abarbanel who argues and says that even if afflictions of individuals come without any sin, this would not be true of the suffering of an entire nation.

⁸² See also Ohr HashemOhr Hashem 3:1:3:3About R. Chasdai Crescas where R. Chasdai claims that had the Israelites assimilated, the decrees would have been less severe and they might have been accepted into Egyptian society.

⁸³ For further discussion, see Israelites' Religious Identity.

⁸⁴ Abarbanel notes that the generation of the Exodus needed to die out in the desert before the nation could enter the land of Israel. See also the MaharalGevurot Hashem 9About R. Judah Loew of Prague who points out that multiple generations died out in Egypt, and that the Ran's approach could work only to explain a case of a single generation which suffered and was then redeemed. The same issue would apply to R. Chananel and R. Bachya's approach, and they in fact speak of the afflictions of only the generation of the Exodus.

⁸⁵ The Ran adds that the Israelites will also see Hashem's might when he punishes the Egyptians for enslaving them. This is similar to Ralbag's explanation above.

⁸⁶ Rashbi's statement is found already in Mekhilta Yitro Bachodesh 10 and Sifre Devarim 32. It is also cited in the context of other examples of afflictions of love in the opening passages of TanchumaShemot 1About the Tanchuma and Shemot Rabbah 1:1. These sources do not make the Ran's explicit claim that ייסורין של אהבה was the primary purpose of the Egyptian slavery, but it could be their implication.

⁸⁷ See Devarim 8:2-5,15-16.

⁸⁸ This precise point is not found in R. Chasdai's extant writings, but it is consistent with the ideas found in R. Chasdai's Derashat HaPesach (p.144) and Ohr Hashem 3:1:6:1 and in Derashot HaRan 3 and 5.

⁸⁹ In this aspect, the Ran is following the approach of Ralbag above.

⁹⁰ He also explains that Avraham did not pray for Hashem to rescind the decree, as he viewed it as a reward.

⁹¹ R. Chananel and R. Bachya, though, might understand the purpose of the exile differently.

⁹² They are: Devarim 4:20, Melakhim I 8:51, and Yirmeyahu 11:4.

⁹³ See Pirkei DeRabbi Eliezer (Higger) 47, Lekach Tov Devarim 4:20, Radak Melakhim I 8:51 and Yirmeyahu 11:4.

⁹⁴ See also his interpretations of Bereshit 12:10, 22:1, 45:23, and Shemot 19:5.

⁹⁵ This theme is then popularized by the Alshikh, Keli Yekar, and others.

⁹⁶ R. Bachya wrote his commentary over 600 years before the Shoah.

⁹⁷ R. Chasdai is likely attempting to provide comfort to his own community (which was decimated in the Spanish pogroms of 1391 and their aftermath), and to respond to Christian polemics regarding the wandering and downtrodden Jew. For R. Chasdai, the Jews of Christian Spain were reliving the experience of the Egyptian Exile on a daily basis. For more on R. Chasdai's view of his own exile, see Prof. Zev Harvey, R. Hasdai Crescas, (Jerusalem, 2010): 157-160.

⁹⁸ This approach is similar to the previous one ("Afflictions of Love") in that both view the suffering as raising the spiritual level of the Israelites. They differ, though, regarding the level of the Israelites at the outset. The previous approach understands the afflictions to be taking an already righteous people to a higher level, while the current approach views the suffering as transforming a nation of sinners into a more worthy one.

⁹⁹ Abarbanel in this approach combines two distinct theories. While his primary focus is on the refining process for the nation itself, he links this with the need for the Children of Israel and the Exodus to serve as a vehicle for proclaiming Hashem's power throughout the world (like the Sifre above). In contrast, the Abarbanel in Zevach Pesach s.v. "Baruch Shomer" Approach #2 emphasizes the international aspect.

¹⁰⁰ Cf. Sforno below, and see Yaakov's Sons' Wives.

¹⁰¹ See Mekhilta Beshalach Vayehi Petichta.

¹⁰² This position comes close to the punitive approaches analyzed above, however according to the Alshikh the emphasis is not on the people receiving the punishment but rather on the remaining portion of the nation which was purified.

¹⁰³ Abarbanel, on the other hand, presents Egypt as a test of whether the Israelites would maintain their faith in the midst of an idolatrous society. According to Abarbanel, the Israelites failed this test, but Hashem nevertheless redeemed them. This raises the difficulty of why Hashem would give them a test just so they would fail.

¹⁰⁴ In this respect, Abarbanel is following the course charted by the Ran and R. Chasdai Crescas – see above.

¹⁰⁵ See Shemot 22:20, 23:9, Vayikra 19:34, Devarim 5:15, 10:19, 15:15, 16:12, 24:18, and 24:22. Nechama Leibowitz also notes that the word "פרך" appears in the Torah only in the two contexts of the Egyptian slavery (Shemot 1:13-14) and how not to treat a slave (Vayikra 25:43-53).

¹⁰⁶ While the Pesikta Chadta does view Hashem's action as a punishment, it emphasizes the constructive nature and goal of the punishment.

¹⁰⁷ See below that R. Hirsch also develops the notion that emigrating to Egypt would prevent assimilation.

¹⁰⁸ See Bereshit 33:2. See also Yerushalmi Peah 1:1 which records that Yosef reported to Yaakov that the sons of Leah were disrespecting the sons of Bilhah and Zilpah and treating them as servants. While the Yerushalmi implies that this was a false report, from the Pesikta Chadta it would seem that there was more than a grain of truth in this claim.

¹⁰⁹ While the Egyptian experience created a measure of equality between the twelve tribes, conflict between the tribes never ceased throughout the entire First Temple era.

¹¹⁰ See Sforno in his Introduction to Sefer Bereshit that the land was promised to Avraham's descendants "כאשר יהיו לגוי מספיק לקבוץ מדיני".

¹¹¹ This is how Sforno understands the need for the exile. See above for his position that the slavery was a punishment for the Israelite's sins in Egypt.

¹¹² See above that R. Hirsch also presents the theme of the melting pot.

¹¹³ See Bereshit 38:2 and 46:10, and see Did Yaakov's Sons Marry Canaanites?

¹¹⁴ However, as Sforno himself notes based on Yechezkel 20, the Israelites did in fact absorb the Egyptian idolatrous customs.

¹¹⁵ For more, see Where in Egypt Did the Israelites Live?

¹¹⁶ While the Tanchuma and Shemot Rabbah above appear to view the bondage as a punishment for the Israelites' attempts to assimilate (see the earlier discussion of their position), the Netziv interprets Shemot Rabbah as saying that Paroh's decrees served as Hashem's vehicle for preventing further assimilation. According to the Netziv, Hashem's promise at the Covenant of Pieces that Abraham's descendants would always remain foreigners ("גֵר יִהְיֶה זַרְעֲךָ בְּאֶרֶץ לֹא לָהֶם") and never assimilate is what maintained Jewish identity throughout history, and is the referent of "והיא" in "והיא שעמדה לאבותינו ולנו". Despite the Jewish people's best efforts to assimilate which engender "בכל דור ודור עומדים עלינו לכלותינו", Hashem is "מצילנו מידם" and prevents our assimilation. This, the Netziv says, is what happened both in Egypt and in subsequent generations ("ובזה הגיע ויקם מלך חדש וגו'. וכן הוא בכל דור").

¹¹⁷ The exile was aimed at preventing assimilation in Canaan, and the slavery was intended to prevent assimilation in Egypt.

¹¹⁸ The Akeidat Yitzchak and Abarbanel note that Bereshit 15:13 makes no mention of Hashem playing any role in the exile or slavery. This stands in contrast to the following verse which emphasizes His role in bringing about the redemption. They make this same point about several other verses in Tanakh which describe the descent to Egypt as initiated by Yaakov and his family and not by Hashem, and Abarbanel contrasts these to the myriad verses which describe how Hashem actively brought the Children of Israel back to Israel.

¹¹⁹ See also Exile and Enslavement – Divine Design? and Divine Plans and Egyptian Free Choice.