Reparations and Despoiling Egypt/2/he

פיצויים לעבדות וניצול מצרים

גישות פרשניות

סקירה

הפרשנים חלוקים בשאלה האם המצרים התכוונו לתת את הזהב, הכסף והבגדים לבני ישראל כמתנה או כהלוואה בלבד. המחלוקת מתבטאת בעיקר בהבנות שונות של העברית המקראית, אך מושפעת גם ממשמעותה של המילה "שאל" בתפיסות העולם של הפרשנים השונים.

ההסבר כי המצרים נתנו את רכושם לעם ישראל במתנה הינו הדרך הפשוטה ביותר לפתור את הסוגייה המוסרית, אך מעלה את השאלה, מדוע המצרים נתנו מתנות לעבדיהם לשעבר? על מנת לענות על שאלה זו, יוספוס ורש"ר הירש בוחנים את מצבם הנפשי של המצרים ואת מערכת היחסים שנוצרה בינם לבין עם ישראל לאחר עשרת המכות. הם מציעים כי חלק מהמצרים גילו הערכה מחודשת לעם ישראל ונתנו להם מתנות כאות חברות, בעוד אחרים ראו בהם אויבים והציעו להם את המתנות כשוחד על מנת לזרז את העזיבה שלהם. גם רשב"ם מתייחס להקשר המיידי בו מצויה יציאת מצריים, אך הוא טוען כי המתנות נתנו מתוך פחד לא-לוהי עם ישראל ועל מנת להיות בחסדיו הטובים. מצד שני, ר' סעדיה ומלבי"ם מתייחסות להקשרה הרחב של הפרשה, ומציעים כי המתנות שמשו כפיצויים לעבדותם של בני ישראל, או לחלופין, שמשו כתחליף לרכוש אותו השאירו במצריים.

הפרשנים אשר רואים ברכוש הלוואה מניחים כי זהו רכוש אשר ניתן לעבדים בהלוואה על מנת לשמשם בעבודתם הרוחנית, אך עליהם להתייחס הן לבעיה המוסרית אשר עולה מכך שהבצעה כאן הערמה על המצרים, והן לשאלה מדוע א-לוהים ציווה דבר שכזה? פרשנים אחדים מצדיקים את הפרשה על ידי הסתכלות מנקודת מבט רחבה יותר והתייחסות לסבל אותו חוו בני ישראל. הם מניחים כי הרכוש אמור לפצות על מאות שנים של עבדות או על הרכוש שהופקע מבני ישראל. אחרים, כגון פילו ור' יוסף בכור שור, מתרכזים דווקא בהתנהגותם החמורה של המצרים, וראו ברכוש שנלקח שלל מלחמה או רכוש עליו למעשה המצרים ויתרו כאשר גירשו את עם ישראל ממצרים. לעומת זאת, אבן עזרא טוען כי אין צורך בהצדקה, ושלא-לוהים מותר לעשות כל העולה בדעתו ברכוש שלו. 

לגישות שונות אלו השלכות לגבי שאלות נוספות המתקשרות לשאלה המקורית. כיצד העם המצרי התייחס לעם ישראל, הן במהלך שנות העבדות והן בזמן יציאת מצרים? האם עם ישראל שועבד רק בידי המדינה או גם בידי המצרים באופן יחידני? האם פרעה וכל העם המצרי ידעו כי עם ישראל עוזב לתמיד ולא רק לשלושה ימים? לבסוף, האם לרכוש היה שווי רב, והאם הוא קשור בהבטחת א-לוהים בברית בין הבתרים שהעם יצא ממצרים "ברכוש גדול", והאם ניתן ללמוד משהו מפרשה זו לגבי ההשלכות המוסריות של קבלת שוחד?

כדי להסביר את טבעה של העברת רכוש המצרים, פרשנים מציעים שתי גישות מרכזיות, כשכל אחת מן הגישות הללו מתחלקת לתת גישות נוספות: 

מתנות

על פי גישה זו, פירושו של השורש ש.א.ל בסיפור זה הינו לבקש מתנה¹ - ראו שאל לדיון בלשני בנושא. מאחר והרכוש ניתן במתנה, לא היתה דילמה מוסרית האם על העם לשמור את הרכוש. התומכים בעמדה זו חלוקים באשר לטבען של המתנות ולמניעיהם של המצרים לתת מתנות אלו: 

חברות

המתנות נתנו כאות לחברות בין המצרים לבני ישראל

מקורות:יוספוסב׳:י״ד-ט״ואודות יוספוס, רש"ר הירששמות ג׳:כ״בשמות י״א:ב׳-ג׳שמות י״ב:ל״ואודות ר' שמשון רפאל הירש²

"רֵעֵהוּ" – קריאה זו מסתמכת  על הפסוק "וְיִשְׁאֲלוּ אִישׁ מֵאֵת רֵעֵהוּ וְאִשָּׁה מֵאֵת רְעוּתָהּ" אשר ממנה ניתן להסיק כי היחסים בין המצרים לבין עם ישראל היו יחסי שכנות טובה³ או אפילו חברות. ⁴ יוספוס, אשר כותב לקהל יעד הנמצא תחת שלטון רומי, מנצל את ההזדמנות הזו על מנת להציג אופציה הכוללת יחסים טובים בין השולטים לנשלטים.⁵ בדומה לכך, רש"ר הירש מציע כי לאחר מכת חושך, בה בני ישראל הוכיחו את מוסריותם ואת כנותם בכך שלא ניצלו את המצרים⁶, גישתם של המצרים כלפי היהודים השתנתה והם נתנו את המתנות בשמחה וכאות כבוד⁷. רש"ר הירש, אם כן, מציג את בני ישראל כמושאים להערצת הגויים ואב-טיפוס לאידיאל של מענטש-ישראל.⁸

רקע פולמוסי – נדמה כי יוספוס נענה להתפלמסות האנטי-יהודית של העידן היווני-רומי אשר אשר האשימה את היהודים בגנבת רכושם של המצרים⁹. ראו יוספוס נגד אפיון א':כ"ו שם הוא מצטט את מאנטו¹⁰ אשר מאשים את היהודים בבזיזת המקדשים המצריים כאשר עזבו את מצריים.¹¹

עזבו לתמיד או לשלושה ימים בלבד – Josephus and R. Hirsch assume that the Egyptians were giving parting gifts as they knew the Israelites were leaving for good.¹² Josephus, in fact, never makes mention of any request to leave for only three days – see Three Day Journey.

Timing of the gift and its repetition – Josephus places the actual giving of the gifts at the hour of the Exodus (Shemot 12:35–36), as this is an appropriate point for a farewell gift.¹³

"וַיַּשְׁאִלוּם" – Josephus and R. Hirsch suggest that the Egyptians gave gifts of their own initiative.¹⁴

"וַיְנַצְּלוּ" / "וְנִצַּלְתֶּם" – R. Hirsch explains that the root means to remove from one's self,¹⁵ and that the subject of the verb is the Egyptians. Josephus simply makes no mention of any despoiling of Egypt.

Reason for command and relationship to the "בִּרְכֻשׁ גָּדוֹל" promised at the Covenant of the Pieces – While R. Hirsch views the gifts as fulfilling the Covenant, Josephus makes no mention of gold and silver and gives no indication that the presents were of considerable value.¹⁶

"דַּבֶּר נָא" – R. Hirsch suggests that the Israelites did not want to lose their moral high ground and honorable reputation by asking for gifts.¹⁷ Thus, Hashem needed to urge and command them to do so, with "נָא" meaning please.¹⁸

Fear

The gifts were given out of fear and to hasten the Israelites' departure.

In addition to their first explanation, they suggest that other Egyptians gave merely so that the Israelites would leave quicker and the plagues would cease.¹⁹

מקורות:JosephusAntiquities 2:15:6About Josephus, R. S"R HirschShemot 3:22Shemot 11:2-3Shemot 12:36About R. S"R Hirsch

Biblical support – This view may find support from the verses in Tehillim 105:37–38 which juxtapose the fear of the Egyptians with the Israelites leaving laden with gold and silver.²⁰

Leaving permanently or just for three days – See above that Josephus and R. Hirsch assume that the Egyptians wanted the Israelites to leave and never return.

Timing of the gift – See above that Josephus places the story of the gifts at the hour of the actual Exodus, after the death of the first borns.

"וַיַּשְׁאִלוּם" – See above that Josephus and R. Hirsch suggest that the Egyptians gave gifts of their own initiative.

"וַיְנַצְּלוּ" / "וְנִצַּלְתֶּם" – See above that R. Hirsch explains that the root means to remove from one's self, and that the subject of the verb is the Egyptians.

Reparations

The articles were given as reparations for centuries of unpaid wages.

מקורות:R. SaadiaCommentary Shemot 11:1Commentary Yeshayahu 66:2About R. Saadia,²¹ Moshav ZekeinimShemot 11:2About Moshav Zekeinim's understanding of Rashbam,²² ChizkuniShemot 3:22About Chizkuni,²³ perhaps R. BachyaShemot 11:2About R. Bachya²⁴

"מֵאֵת רֵעֵהוּ" – As compensation was exacted from individual Egyptians, the Israelites must have been slaves to private Egyptians. This is, in fact, the position taken by R. Bachya Shemot 1:10 "הפקיר פרעה את ישראל שכל אחד ואחד מהמצריים יהיה לו רשות לקחת מישראל לעבוד עבודתו"‎.²⁵ See Nature of the Bondage.

Leaving permanently or just for three days – This approach assumes that everyone (both the Israelites and Egyptians) knew that the Israelites were leaving for good, and thus it was time for compensation or parting הענקה. See Three Day Journey.

Timing of the gift and "דַּבֶּר נָא" – Chizkuni interprets "נָא" as now,²⁶ i.e. at the time of Chapter 11 and before the last plague. This would have been a better time for negotiating reparations than waiting for the harried hour of the Exodus, at which time the Israelites were packing and the Egyptians were burying their dead.²⁷

Reason for command and relationship to the "בִּרְכֻשׁ גָּדוֹל" promised at the Covenant of the Pieces – R. Saadia Bereshit 15:14 says that this promise was fulfilled through the gold and silver gifts.²⁸

Contemporary moral dilemma over accepting German reparations – R. Zalman Sorotzkin in Oznayim LaTorah Shemot 11:2 brings this quandary to life by drawing a contemporary parallel to the debates which raged in Israel in the early 1950s over the propriety of requesting and accepting West German reparations.²⁹ He suggests that there was a similar situation in Egypt, where many bereaved Israelite parents were opposed to negotiating a settlement and accepting "blood money" from the Egyptians,³⁰ and thus Hashem had to make a special request for them to do so.³¹

Property Swap

The items were given in exchange for Israelite property left behind in Egypt.

Chizkuni and Malbim propose that the Israelites were instructed to make a swap with their Egyptian neighbors, according to which the Egyptians would give the Israelites portable valuables in exchange for all of the property the Israelites were leaving behind in Egypt.

מקורות:ChizkuniShemot 11:2About Chizkuni,³² MalbimShemot 3:22About Malbim³³

"מִשְּׁכֶנְתָּהּ וּמִגָּרַת בֵּיתָהּ" – Malbim explains that the verse specifies Egyptian neighbors and tenants, as they were the ones who were poised to take possession of the Israelite houses and non-portable property.³⁴

Real estate holdings – Chizkuni cites Bereshit 47:27 to prove that the Israelites amassed significant land holdings in Egypt. Chizkuni is following Ibn EzraLong Commentary Shemot 3:22About Ibn Ezra who notes that the words "וּמִגָּרַת בֵּיתָהּ" indicate that the Israelites had Egyptian tenants.³⁵ This has ramifications for understanding the nature of the slavery and the living conditions of the Israelites – see Where in Egypt Did the Israelites Live?.

Leaving permanently or just for three days – This approach assumes that both the Israelites and Egyptians knew that the people were planning on leaving for good. See Three Day Journey.³⁶

Timing of the gift and "דַּבֶּר נָא" – Chizkuni and Malbim both explain that "נָא" means now,³⁷ i.e. at the time of Chapter 11 and before the last plague. This would have been the last opportunity for orderly transactions and property swaps.

"וַיְנַצְּלוּ" / "וְנִצַּלְתֶּם" – Malbim maintains that the root means to rescue (הציל), and that by this method, the Israelites will salvage some of their wealth.³⁸

Reason for command and relationship to the "בִּרְכֻשׁ גָּדוֹל" promised at the Covenant of the Pieces – If the Israelites were compensated for significant land holdings, it would have indeed amounted to significant wealth.

Religious Sponsorship

The gifts were given to sponsor the Israelites' religious worship.

מקורות:RashbamShemot 3:22About Rashbam³⁹

The Egyptians' motives – Although Rashbam himself does not elaborate, his approach may view the giving of gifts as an attempt to find favor with the God of the Hebrews and avert further plagues.⁴⁰ For similar Biblical cases of Gentile support of Israelite worship in order to ward off plagues or gain Divine favor, see the offering of gold vessels with which the Philistines returned the ark in Shemuel I 6:1-9⁴¹ and the Persian sacrificial contributions in Ezra 6:8–10.

"כְּלֵי כֶסֶף וּכְלֵי זָהָב" – Rashbam identifies the gold and silver articles as jewelry to be worn (together with the requested holiday clothing) when the Israelites sacrificed at Mt. Sinai.⁴² Rashbam Shemot 12:36 also links to the verse in Shemot 33:6 which mentions the ornaments that the Israelites were wearing at Mt. Sinai.⁴³ According to Rashbam, the items were actually used in religious worship, and this was not merely a ruse to get the Egyptians to part from their possessions.⁴⁴

"וְשַׂמְתֶּם עַל בְּנֵיכֶם וְעַל בְּנֹתֵיכֶם" – Shemot 3:22 specifies that the articles were to be placed on the Israelites' sons and daughters, and Shemot 32:2 records that even the children were bedecked with ornaments at Mt. Sinai.⁴⁵

Leaving only temporarily for three day journey – According to Rashbam, the Egyptians thought the Israelites were going to return to Egypt after their holiday,⁴⁶ but were nevertheless giving outright gifts to be used in the religious worship.⁴⁷

"וַיַּשְׁאִלוּם" – Rashbam emphasizes that the hiphil form of the verb also refers to the act of giving a gift.⁴⁸

"וַיְנַצְּלוּ" / "וְנִצַּלְתֶּם" – Rashbam appears to explain that the root means to remove.

Reason for command and relationship to the "בִּרְכֻשׁ גָּדוֹל" promised at the Covenant of the Pieces – As according to Rashbam, the genuine purpose of obtaining the items was for use in religious worship, there is no need to postulate any connection to a fulfillment of the Covenant with Avraham.⁴⁹ Accordingly, the "בִּרְכֻשׁ גָּדוֹל" promised in the Covenant may refer to the significant livestock with which the Israelites left Egypt (see Shemot 12:38) and not to the jewelry.⁵⁰ See רכוש for more.⁵¹

Polemical backdrop – Rashbam notes that his interpretation counters the claims of the (Christian) heretics ("ותשובה למינים"‎).⁵² See Josephus above and Rabbinic sources below that this episode was the basis of anti-Jewish polemic already in the Greco-Roman period.

Loans

According to this approach, the root שאל in this story means to borrow (i.e. ask for a loan), and the objects were originally given only as a loan for the Israelites' religious worship. See שאל for elaboration on the lexical issue. This approach subdivides in explaining the moral and legal justification for deceiving the Egyptians and ultimately keeping the objects:⁵³

Remuneration

The items served as partial remuneration for hundreds of years of slave labor.

מקורות:JubileesCh. 48About Jubilees, Wisdom of Solomon10:15–18About Wisdom of Solomon, PhiloOn the Life of Moshe I:XXVAbout Philo, Sifre DevarimDevarim 120About Sifre Devarim, Geviha b. Pesisa in Scholion Megillat Taanit25 SivanAbout Megillat Taanit, Bavli SanhedrinSanhedrin 91aAbout the Bavli and Bereshit Rabbah61:7About Bereshit Rabbah,⁵⁴ Ibn Ezra Short CommentaryShemot 3:22About Ibn Ezra,⁵⁵ RadakBereshit 15:14About Radak, RalbagShemot 3:22Shemot 3, Toelet 15About Ralbag, RanDerashot HaRan 11About R. Nissim Gerondi, AbarbanelShemot 3About R. Yitzchak Abarbanel, HaRekhasim Levik'ahShemot 11:2About HaRekhasim Levik'ah,⁵⁶ ShadalShemot 3:22About Shadal, U. CassutoShemot 3:22About Prof. U. Cassuto, and many others⁵⁷

Wages or הענקה – Most of these sources view the borrowed items as a replacement for owed wages. However, the Sifre, HaRekhasim LeVik'ah, and Cassuto suggest that it was intended to guarantee the fulfillment of the practice of a slave owner giving parting gifts (הענקה) to their slaves upon their emancipation. Cassuto points out that the language of the laws of הענקה in Devarim, "וְכִי תְשַׁלְּחֶנּוּ חָפְשִׁי מֵעִמָּךְ לֹא תְשַׁלְּחֶנּוּ רֵיקָם" is parallel to the language used by Hashem here,"וְהָיָה כִּי תֵלֵכוּן לֹא תֵלְכוּ רֵיקָם"‎.⁵⁸

"מֵאֵת רֵעֵהוּ" – As compensation was exacted from individual Egyptians, the Israelites must have been slaves to private Egyptians. See Nature of the Bondage.

"וַיְנַצְּלוּ" / "וְנִצַּלְתֶּם" – Ibn Ezra Short Commentary Shemot 3:22 and Radak Sefer HaShorashim s.v. נצל explain that the verb means saving (הציל), as the Israelites were salvaging some of what was owed to them.⁵⁹ Cassuto, on the other hand, renders the word as despoil or empty,⁶⁰ explaining that the verse is speaking from the perspective of the Children of Israel; taking even just a few possessions seemed to them to be "emptying" Egypt.

Why via deception? Commentators offer two suggestions to explain why Hashem instructed to mislead the Egyptians into thinking that the objects would be returned:

• Ibn Ezra Short CommentaryShemot 11:4About Ibn Ezra suggests simply that otherwise the Egyptians would not have loaned the objects,⁶¹ and Shadal Shemot 3:22⁶² provides other instances in which Hashem ordered the use of a ruse.
• Ran, though, assumes that Hashem could have enabled the Israelites to take the Egyptians' possessions by force. He therefore proposes that the entire stratagem as well as the 3 day ruse itself⁶³ was intended to induce the Egyptians to chase after the nation (in order to retrieve their loaned belongings)⁶⁴ and drown in Yam Suf.⁶⁵ According to Ran, Hashem worked his plan through natural means (דרך הטבע). For more, see A Three Day Journey.⁶⁶

Who knew that the Israelites would not return? Ibn Ezra Short CommentaryShemot 11:4About Ibn Ezra says that the Israelites knew, but they kept this secret from the Egyptians because otherwise the Egyptians would not have loaned them their objects.⁶⁷ Alternatively, even the Israelites did not know that they were leaving for good. For more, see Three Day Journey.

Reason for command and relationship to the "בִּרְכֻשׁ גָּדוֹל" promised at the Covenant of the Pieces – Radak views the remuneration as a fulfillment of the Covenant.

Timing of the loan and "דַּבֶּר נָא" – There are two possibilities within this approach:

• Ibn Ezra Short Commentary Shemot 11:2 and Radak Sefer HaShorashim s.v. נא interpret "נָא" as now,⁶⁸ i.e. at the time of Chapter 11 and before the last plague.
• In contrast, Ran, following R. Yannai in Bavli Berakhot 9a⁶⁹ interprets "נָא" as please.⁷⁰

Property Compensation

The objects were partial compensation for all of the property the Israelites were forced to leave behind in Egypt.

מקורות:R. Yehuda HeChasidShemot 11:2About R. Yehuda HeChasid, Akeidat YitzchakShemot #35About R. Yitzchak Arama, AbarbanelShemot 3About R. Yitzchak Abarbanel,⁷¹ ShadalShemot 3:22About Shadal⁷²

"מִשְּׁכֶנְתָּהּ וּמִגָּרַת בֵּיתָהּ" – Akeidat Yitzchak and Abarbanel explain that the verse specifies Egyptian neighbors and tenants, as they were the ones who were poised to take possession of the Israelite houses and non-portable property.⁷³

Who knew that the Israelites would not return? As the items were a loan, the Egyptians did not know. The Akeidat Yitzchak further explains that the Israelites needed to leave much of their property in Egypt, so that the Egyptians would not realize that they were leaving for anything more than a brief holiday. R. Yehuda HeChasid, in contrast, suggests that the Israelites were candid with the Egyptians that the possibility existed that they might not return, and thus left their property as collateral.

"וַיְנַצְּלוּ" / "וְנִצַּלְתֶּם" – R. Yitzchak Arama and Abarbanel propose that the word is related to התנצלות (excuse), and that the verse is saying that the Israelites have a good excuse and explanation for not returning the loaned objects.

Why via deception? Akeidat Yitzchak and Abarbanel suggest like the Ran above that the borrowing of the valuables was intended to induce the Egyptians to chase after the Israelites and drown in Yam Suf.

Reason for command and relationship to the "בִּרְכֻשׁ גָּדוֹל" promised at the Covenant of the Pieces – Abarbanel explicitly connects our episode with the fulfillment of Hashem's promise to Avraham.

Spoils of War

The items had the status of spoils of war.

מקורות:PhiloOn the Life of Moshe I:XXVAbout Philo, SefornoShemot 3:22About R. Ovadyah Seforno, NetzivShemot 11:2About Netziv,⁷⁴ J.D. Michaelis cited in R. D"Z HoffmannShemot 12:35About R. D"Z Hoffmann

Already in Egypt or only after Yam Suf

• Philo and Netziv view the Egyptian enslavement of the Israelites as creating a state of "as if they were at war", thus validating the Israelites' right to "carry off the treasures of the enemy, according to the laws of conquerors."⁷⁵
• Seforno and Michaelis, in contrast, focuses on Yam Suf as an actual battle.⁷⁶ At Yam Suf, the Egyptians schemed to despoil the Israelites,⁷⁷ and are thus despoiled themselves measure for measure.

Moral or legal justification?

• Philo and Netziv present a fundamental moral justification for borrowing the items with no intention of returning them.
• According to Seforno, the items originally needed to be returned, and it was only a subsequent legal loophole which obviated that obligation.
• Michaelis maintains that the Israelites initially intended to return the objects.

Who knew that the Israelites were leaving for good?

• According to Seforno, the Israelites themselves knew, but the Egyptians did not know and thus gave chase to retrieve their valuables.⁷⁸
• Netziv Shemot 7:5, 11:1–2, 12:35 posits that Paroh expelled the Israelites for good, but that the rest of the Egyptians were not aware of this.⁷⁹ See Three Day Journey.
• According to Michaelis, it would seem that the Israelites themselves may not have known.

Why via deception? Seforno Shemot 11:2 and Netziv Shemot 11:2, 12:35 explain that the borrowing of the articles lured the Egyptians into chasing after the Israelites and ultimately drowning in Yam Suf.⁸⁰ In contrast, Michaelis sees no deception on the part of the Israelites as they fully intended to return the objects.

"מִשְּׁכֶנְתָּהּ וּמִגָּרַת בֵּיתָהּ" vs. "מֵאֵת רֵעֵהוּ" – Netziv 11:2 attempts to account for this discrepancy between the original command in Shemot 3 and the later command in Shemot 11.⁸¹ According to him, the Israelites originally had friendly relations only with their immediate neighbors,⁸² but the assistance they provided to the Egyptians during the course of the Plagues gained them more friends and admirers.⁸³

"וְשַׂמְתֶּם עַל בְּנֵיכֶם וְעַל בְּנֹתֵיכֶם" – Netziv Shemot 3:22 explains that this was to maximize what the Israelites could borrow without making it obvious that they had no intention of returning.

"וַיְנַצְּלוּ" / "וְנִצַּלְתֶּם" – Philo and Seforno likely understood these verbs as to despoil,⁸⁴ as they describe the loaned items as "spoils."  Netziv 3:22, though, appears to render these verbs as to save (הציל).

Reason for command and relationship to the "בִּרְכֻשׁ גָּדוֹל" promised at the Covenant of the Pieces – According to this approach, the command may be intended to fulfill the Covenant, or to symbolize the totality of the Egyptian defeat.

Forfeited Claims

The Egyptians actively forfeited their claims to the objects or their hostile actions prevented the Israelites from returning them.

מקורות:R. Yosef Bekhor ShorShemot 3:22Shemot 14:2–4About R. Yosef Bekhor Shor, HaRekhasim Levik'ahShemot 11:2About HaRekhasim Levik'ah

Already in Egypt or only at Yam Suf – HaRekhasim LeVik'ah suggests that the forfeiture occurred already in Egypt when the Egyptians permanently expelled the Israelites. R"Y Bekhor Shor, though, suggests that Hashem commanded the Israelites to "return" ("וְיָשֻׁבוּ") in Shemot 14:2 in order to fulfill their promise to return after the three day journey with the borrowed articles. Accordingly, it was only when Paroh chased after them to do battle with them and did not permit them to return, that the Israelites no longer bore responsibility to return the items.⁸⁵

Who knew that the Israelites would not return? According to R"Y Bekhor Shor, Paroh and the Egyptians sent the Israelites for a three day journey only and expected their return.⁸⁶ HaRekhasim LeVik'ah, though, says that the Egyptians entertained this illusion only until the Exodus when they chased out the Israelites for good.

Reason for command – HaRekhasim LeVik'ah explains that Hashem arranged for this transfer of wealth because He knew that the Egyptians would not abide by the established custom of sending slaves away with gifts (הענקה) – see compensation option above.

Why via deception? Neither commentator is explicit as to why Hashem resorted to deception, but they could adopts the options available to the positions above.

Timing of the loan and "דַּבֶּר נָא" – R"Y Bekhor Shor and HaRekhasim LeVik'ah interpret "נָא" as now,⁸⁷ i.e. at the time of Chapter 11 and before the last plague, rather than at the time of the harried departure. This interpretation is critical for HaRekhasim LeVik'ah's position as the act of borrowing must precede the forfeiture of the loan which, according to him, took place at the time of the Exodus.

"וַיְנַצְּלוּ" / "וְנִצַּלְתֶּם" – According to HaRekhasim LeVik'ah, the verb has the specific connotation of removing jewelry and valuables.

No Need to Justify

No justification is needed for Hashem's command since He owns everything in the world and is entitled to take from one nation and give to another.

מקורות:Ibn Ezra Long CommentaryShemot 3:22About Ibn Ezra,⁸⁸ Minchat YehudaShemot 12:36About R. Yehuda b. Elazar, Toledot YitzchakShemot 3:22About R. Yitzchak Karo⁸⁹

Hashem gives and Hashem takes – This idea is echoed in the words of Shemuel in Berakhot 119a who traces how the world's possessions move from one hand to another. They are collected from all the nations to Egypt by Yosef, transferred to the Children of Israel when they leave Egypt, returned to Egypt with Shishak, etc.⁹⁰

Reason for command – These commentators do not address this issue directly, but they could adopt the approach of Shadal Shemot 3:22 who suggests that the directive was intended to demonstrate that Hashem punishes the wicked⁹¹ and rewards the righteous.

Who knew that the Israelites would not return? This position would assume that the Egyptians did not know.

Why via deception? This position does not address this issue.

¹ בעמדה זו תומכים יוספוס אנטיוכוס ב': ט"ו: ו', ר' סעדיה גאון שמות ג': כ"ב, י"א: ב, י"ב: ל"ה-ל"ו, פרשנות של ר' סעדיה אשר ציטט ר' אברהם בן הרמב"ם י"א: ב', ר' חננאל שמות ג': כ"ב (צוטט על ידי ר' בכיה), ר' יונה אבן ג'נאח ספר הישרים: שאל, רשב"ם שמות ג': י"ב, י"א: ב', י"ב: ל"ו, ופרשנויות נוספות רבות.

² יוספוס ורש"ר הירש מציעים שניהם כי חלק מן המצרים נתנו את המתנות מתוך רצון טוב. 

³ ראו גם שמות ג': כ"ב שם כתוב במפורש "מִשְּׁכֶנְתָּהּ".

⁴ ראו וילנא גאון ומלבי"ם אשר מפרשים את הביטוי  "רֵעֵהוּ" כמתייחס לבני ישראל עצמם. הם מושפעים מהבנה רבנית כי המילה רֵע מתייחסת ליהודים בלבד –  ראו רֵע. ראו גם לקח טוב, שכל טוב, וחיזקוני שמות י"א: ב', אשר תוהים "וכי מצרים ריעיהם של ישראל היו"? הם עונים כי לאחר עשרת המכות, המצרים עברו שינוי. ראו רש"ר הירש למטה.

⁵ ראו היכן חיו היהודים? לדיון בשאלת המרחק בין מגורי היהודים למצרים. ראו שלבי העבדות לדיון בשאלה האם המצרי הממוצע היה קשור בשעבוד היהודים.

⁶ בשביל רש"ר הירש, נתינת המתנות מעידה על רמתם המוסרית הגבוהה של בני ישראל, ולא מהווה הוכחה לערמומיותם ושקרנותם. בכך, רש"ר הירש מנסה להפוך את השאלה המוסרית על ראשה.

⁷ ראו בהמשך את דעתו של יוסי הגלילי במכילתא דרבי ישמעאל י"ג אשר מציע, בדומה לרש"ר הירש, כי המצרים נתנו מרצונם, אך רק כהשאלה, כמו גם לקח טוב, שכל טוב וחיזקוני אשר מצוטטים בהערה קודמת.

⁸ ראו רש"ר הירשאודות ר' שמשון רפאל הירש על מנת להרחיב בדבר השפעות תפיסת עולמו על פרשנויותיו.

⁹ ראו פילון למטה אשר נדמה כנענה לטענות דומות, וראו מטה את התיאורים הרבניים של פולמוסו של גבייה בן פסיאה עם המצרים מול אלכסנדר הגדול.

¹⁰ מנטאו היה כומר והיסטוריון אנטישמי אשר חי במצרים התלמיית.

¹¹ ראו את עבודתו של ההיסטוריון הרומי קורדון פומפיוס (העבודה המקורית אינה קיימת כיום אך ישנו תקציר שלה בהתגלמותו של ג'סטין – ראו ל"ג: ב') אשר כותב כי משה "לקח בחשאי את רכושם המקודש של המצרים, אשר, לאחר ניסיון להשיב את רכושם בכוח, הוכרחו לחזור לביתם מפאת הסופות." [ראו מכילתא דרבי ישמעאל, בשלח, ויחי, אשר אומר כי בזמן שבני ישראל היו עסוקים בלקיחת רכוש המצרים, משה היה עסוק בגופתו של יוסף.] ראו גם יוספוס נגד אפיון  א': ל"ד אשר מצטט את ליסימאכוס אשר מאשים את היהודים בהיותם בוזזי מקדשים סדרתיים. מעניין לציין כי גם מכילתא דרבי ישמעאל י"ג מבין את לקיחת רכוש המצרים כהמסת פסליהם (סביר להניח שעל מנת לעקוף את איסור ההנאה מעבודת אלילים) לפני שנלקחו בידי בני ישראל. על פי כל המקורות הללו, "כְּלֵי כֶסֶף וּכְלֵי זָהָב" מובנים כי כפסלי זהב וכסף וקשורים ב "וּבְכָל אֱלֹהֵי מִצְרַיִם אֶעֱשֶׂה שְׁפָטִים אֲנִי ה'". מוטיב דומה עולה כמילניום לאחר מכן בהגדת הזהב – ראו ניצול המצרים באומנות – להמשך הדיון בנושא.

¹² See Josephus Antiquities 2:15:3 and R. Hirsch Shemot 12:31, 14:5.

¹³ See Introduction for the alternative possibility that the gifts were given already in Shemot 11 and that Shemot 12:36 is merely a flashback.

¹⁴ In contrast to the Biblical text, Josephus does not even make mention of the Israelite request. Cf. the opinions in the Mekhilta DeRabbi Yishmael below which derive from "וַיַּשְׁאִלוּם" that the Egyptians loaned the Israelites even more than they requested.

¹⁵ Cf. Ibn Janach s.v. נצל.

¹⁶ As according to Josephus, the gifts were given of the Egyptian's own initiative, it is unlikely that they amounted to a significant transfer of wealth. This dovetails with the account of Josephus in Antiquities 1:10:3 that the Covenant merely promised that Avraham's descendants would inherit the wealth of the nations of Canaan, and not that of Egypt (Cf. LXX Bereshit 15:14 which likely read "יצאו הנה ברכש גדול").

¹⁷ Again following R. Yosi HaGelili in the Mekhilta DeRabbi Yishmael that the Israelites gained the admiration of the Egyptians by being scrupulously honest during the plague of darkness. R. Hirsch also alludes to Avraham's declaration "אִם מִחוּט וְעַד שְׂרוֹךְ נַעַל וְאִם אֶקַּח מִכָּל אֲשֶׁר לָךְ וְלֹא תֹאמַר אֲנִי הֶעֱשַׁרְתִּי אֶת אַבְרָם" in Bereshit 14:23. See below for the Oznayim LaTorah's contemporary application.

¹⁸ R. Hirsch adopts the interpretation of R. Yannai in Bavli Berakhot 9a, and further emphasizes the Israelites' nobility. See below for alternatives.

¹⁹ See also Hadar Zekeinim, and compare to one of the suggestions in Mekhilta DeRashbi Shemot 12:36 that the Egyptians loaned their objects out of fear.

²⁰ See also Shemot 12:33-36 where the description of the giving of the items follows the death of the firstborns and the Egyptians expelling the Israelites out of fear that they were all going to die ("וַתֶּחֱזַק מִצְרַיִם עַל הָעָם לְמַהֵר לְשַׁלְּחָם מִן הָאָרֶץ כִּי אָמְרוּ כֻּלָּנוּ מֵתִים"). Also see Esther 9:3 for a parallel case in which where fear is the explicit motivation.

²¹ R. Saadia also makes a connection to the obligation of giving a parting gift (הענקה) to a servant – compare to the commentators below who maintain that the Israelites kept the loaned items in place of הענקה. There are several other places in which R. Saadia also notes that the story speaks of a gift – see Tafsir Shemot 3:22, 11:2, 12:35–36, and the citation of R. Saadia by R. Avraham b. HaRambam Shemot 11:2. See also the Ratzaby edition of R. Saadia's Commentary on Shemot which attributes R. Bachya's comments on 3:22 to R. Saadia. Finally, see the passage attributed to R. Saadia in Teshuvot HaGeonim, ed. H. Kisch (Budapest, 1912): 17, and translated from Arabic into Hebrew by S. Abramson, מפי בעלי הלשונות, (Jerusalem, 1988): 262. This last passage attempts to prove that it was a request for gifts from the timing of the request during the Exodus itself (it assumes that the Egyptians knew at the time of the Exodus that the Israelites were leaving permanently and would thus not have loaned them objects).

²² See, however, below for an alternative understanding of Rashbam.

²³ However, Chizkuni's commentary collates various interpretations; see Chizkuni 11:2 cited below.

²⁴ C. Chavel in his notes to the commentary suggests that this position should be attributed to R. Chananel due to its similarity to the position R. Bachya cites in the name of R. Chananel in 3:22. In contrast, Y. Ratzaby attributes it to R. Saadia. Cf. the numerous commentators cited below who justify a borrowing with no intention of returning using a similar explanation.

²⁵ R. Bachya here is closely following in the footsteps of Ramban Shemot 1:11.

²⁶ As do Ibn Janach Sefer HaShorashim s.v. "נא", Ibn Ezra Bereshit 12:11 and Short Commentary Shemot 11:2 and R. Avraham b. HaRambam Bereshit 48:9 and Shemot 11:2 (possibly citing R. Saadia). See נא.

²⁷ See the similar reasoning of Yefet b. Eli (manuscript cited and translated in Y. Erder, "התייחסותו של הקרא יפת בן עלי לבעיות מוסר לאור פירושו לכתוב בשמות ג, כא-כב", Sefunot 22 (1999): 321-322).

²⁸ If the gifts were supposed to be compensation for centuries of slavery, they may have indeed constituted significant wealth.

²⁹ R. Sorotzkin's commentary on Shemot was published in 1953, the year after the reparations agreement was signed. It is dedicated to the memory of his only daughter HY"D and her family who perished in the Shoah.

³⁰ The parallel is more precise if one assumes that the Egyptians knew they were giving a gift rather than a loan. R. Sorotzkin himself (Oznayim LaTorah Shemot 3:22) brings both possibilities, but appears to adopt the loan option.

³¹ The Oznayim LaTorah thus follows R. Yannai in Bavli Berakhot 9a who understands "נָא" as petitionary and says that Hashem wanted to fulfill His promise to Avraham at the Covenant of the Pieces. However, R. Sorotzkin attempts to avoid taking a position on whether people on an individual level should accept reparations, noting that Hashem specifically did not command the Israelites on this matter, but only requested of them.

³² However, Chizkuni's commentary collates various interpretations; see Chizkuni 3:22 cited above.

³³ Cf. R. Yehuda HeChasid, Akeidat Yitzchak, and Abarbanel below who use similar explanations to justify borrowing without returning.

³⁴ One could explain that "רֵעֵהוּ" in Shemot 11:2 means the same, however Malbim there offers a more complex interpretation. Compare also to the approach of Netziv below.

³⁵ Cf. Mekhilta DeRashbi and RashiShemot 3:22About Rashi who explain that the Egyptians lived together with the Israelites.

³⁶ However, see Malbim 11:2.

³⁷ See also the list of commentators above and Ibn Ezra below, and see נא.

³⁸ Cf. Ibn Ezra Short Commentary Shemot 11:2.

³⁹ Most commentators who adopt the position that the items were a loan would also explain that the Egyptians thought the loaned items would be used in religious worship. However, Rashbam is unique in that he attempts to apply this explanation within the option that the items were a gift (see also Rashbam Shemot 11:2 and 12:36 where he reiterates that the items were a gift).

Cf. Yefet b. Eli the Karaite (in Y. Erder, "התייחסותו של הקרא יפת בן עלי לבעיות מוסר לאור פירושו לכתוב בשמות ג, כא-כב", Sefunot 22 (1999): 319-320) who emphasizes that the gifts received from the Egyptians were all dedicated to the Tabernacle. Erder notes that Yefet is attempting to remove any suspicion of impropriety from the Israelites. Yefet's interpretation also supplies a motive for Hashem's command. Just as Moshe declares (Shemot 10:25) that Paroh will provide sacrifices for the worship of Hashem, so too the Egyptian people will contribute materials for the construction of the Tabernacle. Each of these actions signified the Egyptians' submission to the God of Israel.

It is, however, possible that according to Rashbam the use in religious worship was merely the reason that the Israelites were instructed to make the request, but not what motivated the Egyptians to give the gifts. This may be how Moshav ZekeinimShemot 11:2About Moshav Zekeinim (above) understood Rashbam, as he cites him as saying the Israelites demanded the articles as compensation for their work.

⁴⁰ Cf. Shemot 10:25 where Moshe says that Paroh will also contribute sacrifices and Shemot 12:32.

⁴¹ There are numerous other parallels between the two stories – see Shemuel I 6.

⁴² See other examples of "כְּלֵי כֶסֶף" and "כְּלֵי זָהָב" as jewelry in Bereshit 24:53 and Bemidbar 31:50 (and see Rashbam Bereshit 24:53 who explains similarly and links all three verses). See also Ibn EzraLong Commentary Shemot 3:22About Ibn Ezra who explains that Hashem's original instruction specified that the women should make the request because it was more common for them to wear jewelry, and see HaRekhasim LeVik'ah below who explains that the verb נצל has the specific connotation of stripping of jewelry. However, cf. ArtapanusEusebius Ch. 27About Artapanus and R. Yosef Bekhor ShorShemot 3:22About R. Yosef Bekhor Shor who identify the articles as drinking vessels (see also Esther 1:7), and see the footnote above for the interpretation that they were idols. For various artistic depictions, see Despoiling Egypt in Art.

⁴³ See R. Yannai in Bavli Berakhot 32a cited below who links the gold and silver to the gold used in making the Golden Calf at Sinai.

⁴⁴ Cf. R. Yosef Bekhor ShorShemot 3:22About R. Yosef Bekhor Shor and RalbagShemot 3:22About Ralbag who explain that the Egyptians loaned the items for purposes of worship, but that Hashem ensured that the Israelites would be able to keep the objects in order to enrich them and compensate them for their slave labor.

⁴⁵ Both of these verses specify wives, sons, and daughters.

⁴⁶ See Rashbam Shemot 3:22, 13:21.

⁴⁷ Rashbam thus views only the three day request as a ruse, but not the request for gold and silver vessels. Cf. Ibn Ezra and the Ran below who connect between the two, and see Three Day Journey.

⁴⁸ The hiphil form appears only here and in Shemuel I 1:28. See R. Yonah ibn Janach s.v. שאל who argues that in both instances the הפעיל means to give a gift, rather than to lend. See שאל for further discussion.

⁴⁹ Cf. R. Yosef Bekhor Shor and Ralbag above.

⁵⁰ As according to Rashbam much of the jewelry was used and destroyed soon after in the sin of the Golden Calf, it would be strange for it to be emphasized in Hashem's promise to Avraham. But cf. Mekhilta DeRabbi Yishmael Bo (Pischa 14) which explains the Covenant of the Pieces as referring to gold and silver.

⁵¹ However, see Seforno Shemot 12:38 that the cattle belonged only to the ערב רב which joined the nation.

⁵² A similar explanation appears also in the early 15th century polemical work Sefer HaNizzahon of R. Yom-Tov Lipmann-Muhlhausen.

⁵³ Each variation of this position also needs to explain why Hashem resorted to deception.

⁵⁴ There are some variations between these three sources. In Megillat Taanit and the Bavli, Geviha b. Pesisa responds on behalf of the Jews and he claims wages for a full 430 years of slavery in Egypt, as per the Biblical verse. In Bereshit Rabbah, though, his name is given as Geviah b. Kosem and he speaks of only 210 years in Egypt. For more on how many years were spent in Egypt, see Duration of the Egyptian Exile.

⁵⁵ In contrast to his position in his Long Commentary cited below.

⁵⁶ He adds that the Egyptians forfeited their legal claims on their possessions when they expelled the Israelites – see below.

⁵⁷ This may also be the approach taken by Ezekiel the TragedianCited by Eusebius 9:29About Ezekiel. However, it is difficult to determine whether he viewed the items as a loan or a gift. Cf. R. Saadia, Chizkuni, and R. Bachya above who explain that the Egyptians themselves gave gifts willingly as remuneration / הענקה.

⁵⁸ Cassuto in a different work, ספר בראשית ומבנהו, (Jerusalem, 1990): 202-204 (a translation of the Italian original published in 1934), points to a further parallel in the story of Yaakov's acquiring of a significant portion of Laban's herds. There, too, Yaakov's actions seem morally questionable, and Cassuto explains that Hashem was simply ensuring that Yaakov would receive the parting gifts deserved by a departing servant (as Lavan himself had no intention of giving them). He notes that Yaakov's words "כִּי עַתָּה רֵיקָם שִׁלַּחְתָּנִי" (Bereshit 31:42) are similar to the verses in Shemot and Devarim, and that the root נצל appears in both Shemot ("וְנִצַּלְתֶּם אֶת מִצְרָיִם") and in Bereshit 31:9 ("וַיַּצֵּל אֱלֹהִים אֶת מִקְנֵה אֲבִיכֶם וַיִּתֶּן לִי").

⁵⁹ Ibn Ezra draws a parallel to "וַיַּצֵּל אֱלֹהִים אֶת מִקְנֵה אֲבִיכֶם וַיִּתֶּן לִי" in Bereshit 31:9, in which Hashem similarly intervenes to make sure Yaakov receives the wages due him from Lavan. Cf. Malbim Shemot 3:22. See also the

⁶⁰ Cf. the opinions in Bavli Berakhot 9b and Pesachim 119a, R. Yonah ibn Janach s.v. נצל, and Rashi Shemot 3:22.

⁶¹ He further proposes that this was one of the main purposes of the three day ruse – see A Three Day Journey.

⁶² Following in the footsteps of Rashbam Shemot 3:12.

⁶³ In this part of his theory, Ran was preceded by Shemot Rabbah 3:8 and Ibn EzraLong Commentary Shemot 10:10Short Commentary Shemot 11:4About Ibn Ezra – see A Three Day Journey.

⁶⁴ The roots of this approach first appear in the writings of ArtapanusEusebius Ch. 27About Artapanus, and it was adopted by Akeidat Yitzchak, Abarbanel, Seforno, Or HaChayyim, and Netziv – see below. Rashi Shemot 14:5 suggests similarly that the Egyptians chased to retrieve their possessions, but he does not say that this was the intent of Hashem's original command. See HaKetav VeHaKabbalah Shemot 3:18 who argues against the Ran, noting that Shemot 14:5 says that the Egyptians chased to retrieve their slaves but does not mention their vessels.

⁶⁵ According to the Ran, it was only at Yam Suf that the people understood Hashem's plan, and this brought about their complete belief in Hashem and Moshe (Shemot 14:31).

⁶⁶ See also Hardened Hearts.

⁶⁷ Cf. LXX Shemot 11:2 that adds secrecy to the instructions, and see Mekhilta DeRabbi Yishmael Bo 5 and other sources which praise the Israelites for not revealing the secret to the Egyptians (see Israelites' Religious Identity). See Netziv below who derives this from Hashem's specification that Moshe should speak "in the ears of the people."

⁶⁸ This is consistent with Ibn Ezra's position in Bereshit 12:11 and Long Commentary Shemot 4:13, 11:2. See נא and also R. Saadia and Ibn Janach above.

⁶⁹ See also R. Yannai in Bavli Berakhot 32a who depicts Moshe as placing responsibility for the sin of the Golden Calf on Hashem himself, as He urged the Israelites to obtain the gold which was later used to make the Calf.

⁷⁰ See also Ramban Shemot 11:3 who understands that the Egyptians loaned the objects only as the Israelites were departing.

⁷¹ G. Blidstein in his article "ביזת מצרים במקורות חז"ל", Sinai 67 (5730): 234, suggests that the 1492 expulsion from Spain and the concomitant loss of property may resonate in Abarbanel's interpretation. However, it should be noted that Abarbanel's interpretation here (and in general – see About Akeidat Yitzchak and Abarbanel) "borrows" from the Akeidat Yitzchak who wrote his commentary already in the 1480s.

⁷² Cf. Chizkuni and Malbim above who maintain that the Egyptians themselves gave gifts willingly as compensation for the Israelites' property. See also R. D"Z Hoffmann Shemot 3:22.

⁷³ Cf. Malbim above.

⁷⁴ This position may be reflected in the parallel Rabbinic terms "ביזת מצרים" and "ביזת הים" found in the Mekhilta DeRabbi Yishmael Bo 13 and many other Midrashim.

⁷⁵ Or, in the language of Netziv, " ולא היה בזה שמץ עַוְלָה, שהרי בדין היה להקב"ה לצוות לבוז ג"כ". See also Netziv Shemot 14:9 where he adds that all of Egypt chased after the Israelites, and not just Paroh's army. This allows Netziv to view even the vessels borrowed from the common folk as spoils of war.

⁷⁶ The encounter at Yam Suf is described using combat terminology in Shemot 14:14,25, 15:3,9.

⁷⁷ See Shemot 15:9 "אָמַר אוֹיֵב אֶרְדֹּף אַשִּׂיג אֲחַלֵּק שָׁלָל".

⁷⁸ See Seforno Shemot 11:2, 14:5.

⁷⁹ Netziv Shemot 11:2 explains that Hashem specified that Moshe should speak "in the ears of the people" so that secrecy would be maintained. Cf. LXX.

⁸⁰ Cf. Ran, Akeidat Yitzchak and Abarbanel above. Netziv argues further that the Israelites themselves would have preferred not to borrow the items (and to be upfront with the Egyptians about their plans to depart permanently) and thus avoid the need for the confrontation and miracles at Yam Suf. He explains (in similar fashion to the Vilna Gaon's interpretation in Kol Eliyahu Shemot 11:2) that this is the meaning of the analogy brought in the Bavli Berakhot 9b of the servant who would prefer to forego riches in order to be released earlier.

⁸¹ Cf. Malbim.

⁸² Netziv posits that Hashem's original plan in Chapter 3 was for the Exodus to occur immediately – see __.

⁸³ He then tries to utilize this distinction to explain why "שְׂמָלֹת" are mentioned only in the earlier verse. Cf. the attempt of the Toledot Yitzchak Shemot 12:34–35.

⁸⁴ Similar to the opinions in Bavli Berakhot 9b and Pesachim 119a.

⁸⁵ R"Y Bekhor Shor provides only a post facto justification for keeping the items (i.e. he solves the problem of גניבת ממון), but does not explain the propriety of the original act of deceptive borrowing (גניבת דעת) when there was no intent to return (for HaRekhasim LeVik'ah's justification of this, see below). This difficulty could be obviated if one assumes that the Israelites themselves originally thought they would be returning – see Three Day Journey.

⁸⁶ See note above and Three Day Journey for the possibility that even the Israelites themselves thought they would be returning.

⁸⁷ Cf. R. Saadia, Ibn Janach, and Ibn Ezra above and see נא.

⁸⁸ Ibn Ezra Long Commentary Shemot 10:10 makes a similar statement regarding the three day ruse. Contrast to his position in his Short Commentary Shemot 3:22 cited above. Y. Erder, "התייחסותו של הקרא יפת בן עלי לבעיות מוסר לאור פירושו לכתוב בשמות ג, כא-כב", Sefunot 22 (1999): 325, suggests that Ibn Ezra may be responding to the exegesis of Yefet b. Eli, the Karaite.

⁸⁹ See also Or HaChayyimShemot 12:35About R. Chayyim b. Atar who says that this command had the status of a הוראת שעה.

⁹⁰ In Midrash Mishlei 23:5 one finds a related Midrash which speaks only of how the articles taken by the Israelites made their way back to Egypt. This version might be motivated by a lingering discomfort with the episode and a desire to answer all claims by having the possessions ultimately return to Egypt. However, G. Blidstein in his article "ביזת מצרים במקורות חז"ל", Sinai 67 (5730): 233–243 notes that although some Rabbinic sources (see Mekhilta DeRabbi Yishmael Beshalach Vayehi and Bereshit Rabbah 28:7) view the despoiling of the Egyptians with a critical eye, they are mostly concerned with the corruptive influence of wealth and running after riches, rather than with the issue of how to justify deceiving or taking from the Egyptians. They either thought that the Israelites were so obviously deserving of compensation that this issue need not be addressed (see Sifre Devarim 120 and Bavli Sanhedrin 91a cited above) or, like Ibn Ezra, that Hashem's commands need not be defended.

⁹¹ See Bereshit 15:14 where the promise of wealth immediately follows the punishment of the subjugating nation.