Difference between revisions of "Who was Enslaved in Egypt/2"
m |
m |
||
Line 51: | Line 51: | ||
<point><b>"וַיָּשִׂימוּ עָלָיו שָׂרֵי מִסִּים"</b> – These sources split with some suggesting that this refers to a labor tax<fn>See Rashi, Ibn Kaspi, Seforno, Or HaChayyim, Shadal, and R. D"Z Hoffmann. Or HaChayyim uniquely understands the "שָׂרֵ֣י מִסִּ֔ים" to refer to the Israelites themselves, rather than officers who were in charge of them.  Originally, the Israelites were put in charge of other laborers who were similarly taxed to work for the king.  This, though, was a  ruse, to ensure that whatever work was not complete would be completed by the Israelite "officers" who slowly found themselves burdened with more and more work until they became not officers but simply slaves.</fn> and others claiming it points a monetary one.<fn>See R. Bachya, Abarbanel and Rav Hirsch.</fn>  The former understand the phrase "וַיִּבֶן עָרֵי מִסְכְּנוֹת לְפַרְעֹה" to be  a description of the labor tax, while the latter assumes it refers either to a second stage of the oppression<fn>See R. Bachya and Abarbanel.</fn> or to the work which the people's monies were funding.<fn>See R. Hirsch.  He does agree that eventually the people were enslaved to do hard labor as well, as seen in the verse, "וַיַּעֲבִדוּ מִצְרַיִם אֶת בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל בְּפָרֶךְ".</fn></point> | <point><b>"וַיָּשִׂימוּ עָלָיו שָׂרֵי מִסִּים"</b> – These sources split with some suggesting that this refers to a labor tax<fn>See Rashi, Ibn Kaspi, Seforno, Or HaChayyim, Shadal, and R. D"Z Hoffmann. Or HaChayyim uniquely understands the "שָׂרֵ֣י מִסִּ֔ים" to refer to the Israelites themselves, rather than officers who were in charge of them.  Originally, the Israelites were put in charge of other laborers who were similarly taxed to work for the king.  This, though, was a  ruse, to ensure that whatever work was not complete would be completed by the Israelite "officers" who slowly found themselves burdened with more and more work until they became not officers but simply slaves.</fn> and others claiming it points a monetary one.<fn>See R. Bachya, Abarbanel and Rav Hirsch.</fn>  The former understand the phrase "וַיִּבֶן עָרֵי מִסְכְּנוֹת לְפַרְעֹה" to be  a description of the labor tax, while the latter assumes it refers either to a second stage of the oppression<fn>See R. Bachya and Abarbanel.</fn> or to the work which the people's monies were funding.<fn>See R. Hirsch.  He does agree that eventually the people were enslaved to do hard labor as well, as seen in the verse, "וַיַּעֲבִדוּ מִצְרַיִם אֶת בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל בְּפָרֶךְ".</fn></point> | ||
<point><b>Were the Israelites the only ones taxed?</b> This position assumes that the Israelites were singled out to be oppressed.<fn>See, however, Or HaChayyim in the above note who suggests that originally they were not all that different from others who were taxed to work for the state, but eventually they found themselves with a much larger work burden.</fn>  This works with the fact that the verses present the oppression as a solution to the demographic problem presented by the Israelites in particular.  See also R. Hirsch<fn>See also Ibn Kaspi.</fn> who asserts that the root "פרך" means to separate<fn>He points to the shared root with the word "פָרֹכֶת" whose function is to separate.</fn> and that through the bondage, Paroh separated the Israelites from the rest of Egyptian citizens who still had personal rights.</point> | <point><b>Were the Israelites the only ones taxed?</b> This position assumes that the Israelites were singled out to be oppressed.<fn>See, however, Or HaChayyim in the above note who suggests that originally they were not all that different from others who were taxed to work for the state, but eventually they found themselves with a much larger work burden.</fn>  This works with the fact that the verses present the oppression as a solution to the demographic problem presented by the Israelites in particular.  See also R. Hirsch<fn>See also Ibn Kaspi.</fn> who asserts that the root "פרך" means to separate<fn>He points to the shared root with the word "פָרֹכֶת" whose function is to separate.</fn> and that through the bondage, Paroh separated the Israelites from the rest of Egyptian citizens who still had personal rights.</point> | ||
− | <point><b>Freedom of movement</b> – Rashi, following <a href="ShemotRabbah5-16" data-aht="source">R. Yehoshua b. Levi</a>  explains that Aharon had freedom of movement since the tribe of Levi were not included in the bondage.  The others might explain that the elderly (Aharon was over 80) were exempt from the work tax.<fn>This might be different form other models of slavery where one is enslaved until death.</fn></point> | + | <point><b>Freedom of movement</b> – Rashi, following <a href="ShemotRabbah5-16" data-aht="source">R. Yehoshua b. Levi</a>,  explains that Aharon had freedom of movement since the tribe of Levi were not included in the bondage.  The others might explain that the elderly (Aharon was over 80) were exempt from the work tax.<fn>This might be different form other models of slavery where one is enslaved until death.</fn></point> |
<point><b>Did women work as well?</b> This position might suggest that even women were enslaved.  See R. Shemuel b. Nachmani in <multilink><a href="BavliSotah11b" data-aht="source">Bavli Sotah</a><a href="BavliSotah11b" data-aht="source">Sotah 11b</a><a href="Talmud Bavli" data-aht="parshan">About the Bavli</a></multilink> who suggests that "עבודת פרך" refers to the switching of male and female labor roles.<fn>See also Tanchuma.</fn>  If so, it is not clear how Yocheved was free to nurse Moshe for the daughter of Paroh.  This position might suggest that the princess simply took her from a different task to work for her.  The fact that she paid her, rather than simply assuming that the work was expected of a slave, might relate to the princess' own personal conscience and not be indicative of how the larger Egyptian populace would have acted.</point> | <point><b>Did women work as well?</b> This position might suggest that even women were enslaved.  See R. Shemuel b. Nachmani in <multilink><a href="BavliSotah11b" data-aht="source">Bavli Sotah</a><a href="BavliSotah11b" data-aht="source">Sotah 11b</a><a href="Talmud Bavli" data-aht="parshan">About the Bavli</a></multilink> who suggests that "עבודת פרך" refers to the switching of male and female labor roles.<fn>See also Tanchuma.</fn>  If so, it is not clear how Yocheved was free to nurse Moshe for the daughter of Paroh.  This position might suggest that the princess simply took her from a different task to work for her.  The fact that she paid her, rather than simply assuming that the work was expected of a slave, might relate to the princess' own personal conscience and not be indicative of how the larger Egyptian populace would have acted.</point> | ||
<point><b>Own homes and possessions</b> – If the Israelites were slaves to the State rather than to individuals,<fn>R. Bachya, Abarbanel and R. Hirsch disagree and opine that they were also allowed to be taken as slaves by individual Egyptians.  See <a href="Nature of the Bondage" data-aht="page">Nature of the Bondage</a> for more.</fn> it is possible that they daily returned to their own homes.  It is not clear, however, how they would have had time or money to amass and care for individual possessions or cattle.  If the enslavement was a gradually worsening process, it is possible that they still owned possessions from the time that they were free or partially free. In addition, it is possible that Paroh's work ended at nightfall, and the Israelites tended to their own after dark.</point> | <point><b>Own homes and possessions</b> – If the Israelites were slaves to the State rather than to individuals,<fn>R. Bachya, Abarbanel and R. Hirsch disagree and opine that they were also allowed to be taken as slaves by individual Egyptians.  See <a href="Nature of the Bondage" data-aht="page">Nature of the Bondage</a> for more.</fn> it is possible that they daily returned to their own homes.  It is not clear, however, how they would have had time or money to amass and care for individual possessions or cattle.  If the enslavement was a gradually worsening process, it is possible that they still owned possessions from the time that they were free or partially free. In addition, it is possible that Paroh's work ended at nightfall, and the Israelites tended to their own after dark.</point> |
Version as of 05:15, 25 April 2016
Who was Enslaved in Egypt?
Exegetical Approaches
Overview
Commentators disagree regarding who was enslaved in Egypt and thus regarding the nature of the bondage as a whole. While the majority of commentators assume that the entire nation were slaves and view the experience as being extremely oppressive in both scope and intensity, not all agree. R"Y Bekhor Shor asserts that the Israelites worked in shifts. Each worked for Paroh for a period of weeks and then returned home. As such, individual Israelites were not always enslaved and had time for themselves and their families. Ralbag presents a third possibility, that Paroh had instituted a monetary tax and only those who could not pay it labored for Paroh instead. Thus, someone rich enough might not have ever worked for Paroh.
Rotation
The Israelites worked for Paroh in a rotation. Each labored for several weeks or months at a time and then was free to go home until the next shift.
- This depiction of the slavery raises the possibility that Paroh was not being punished for extremely cruel treatment of the Israelites but rather for not recognizing Hashem and granting the Israelites leave to worship Him.
- Ramban might suggest that it was not the State sponsored slavery that was being punished but the expanding of the bondage to individuals.
Needy
The Israelites were expected to pay a monetary tax to Paroh; only those who could not afford it worked instead.
- The concept that a foreign minority might have to pay a tribute to the controlling majority occurs often when one country subdues another. In Egypt, however, the Israelites had not been conquered by Egypt but rather come to live peacefully.
- The idea that a person without monetary means might substitute work for payment, finds its parallel in the laws of slaves, where a person can sell himself if he finds himself in debt. In Egypt, however, the Israelites had no real control over being in "debt", as the tax stemmed from Paroh as well.
Everyone
The entire Israelite nation was enslaved.