One foundational question that the Torah challenges us to ask is: what is our responsibility toward others? This week’s portion, Shemot, is no exception.
At the beginning of Sefer Shemot, the Book of Exodus, the fortunes of Jacob’s family begin to shift. After everyone from the Genesis part of the story dies, we pick up our story a few generations later.
But the Israelites were fertile and prolific; they multiplied and increased very greatly, so that the land was filled with them. A new king arose over Egypt who did not know Joseph. And he said to his people, “Look, the Israelite people are much too numerous for us. Let us deal shrewdly with it [the people], so that they may not increase; otherwise in the event of war they may join our enemies in fighting against us and rise from the ground.” (Exodus 1:7-10)
First, we learn that the population of Israelites grew. “The land was filled with them” seems like something written from an Egyptian perspective, which is to say, it felt like Israelites were everywhere.
Second, we are told that a new Pharaoh took power. The pshat, the surface reading of the text, would make this relatively obvious. Generations have passed. It couldn’t possibly be the same Pharaoh, right?
Enter, Rav and Shmuel on Sotah 11a.
Rav and Shmuel disagree about this verse. One says he was actually a new king, and one says that his decrees were transformed as if he were a new king.
The one who says that he was actually a new king holds that it is because it is written “new.”
And the one who says that his decrees were transformed holds that it is because it is not written: “And the previous king of Egypt died and a new king reigned.” Because no death was specified, this indicates that the same king remained. Accordingly, the words: “Who knew not Joseph” (Exodus 1:8), mean that he was like someone who did not know him at all. Although he certainly knew Joseph and his accomplishments, he acted as if he didn’t.
A new king arose because the Torah says, “a new king arose.” This makes a ton of sense. The other option, it is the same guy who acted as if he didn’t know Joseph is a bit outrageous.
So we have to ask ourselves, why is this argument in here?
If we temporarily accept this view, it reminds us that we, human beings, can be driven by our fear to make foolish decisions. Pharaoh saw the benefits of Joseph’s wisdom and experience. But now, when Israelites seem to be increasing in power, though remaining solidly in the minority, his fears take over.
A new leader without institutional knowledge might misunderstand the history and context and decide out of fear. We see this kind of thing all the time. To have an old leader change their mind and make a decision out of fear feels much more challenging.
Regardless, this Pharaoh decides that the Israelites are dangerous, so what are they to do?
The Torah text clarifies that Pharaoh fears the Israelites could help Egypt’s enemies. There’s no evidence that they would do this, of course.
So Pharaoh begins to think about how to resolve this by seeking advice and input, according to the Talmud:
Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Abba says that Rabbi Simai says: Three people were consulted by Pharaoh in that counsel regarding what should be done with the Jewish people. They were Balaam, and Job, and Yitro.
Pause. WHAT?
According to Rabbi Simai, Pharaoh consulted three individuals:
Balaam, of talking Donkey fame
Job, who has a whole book describing his suffering
Yitro, Moses’ father-in-law
A brief detour to talk about these three individuals:
Now, other than Yitro, I had never considered that Balaam and Job could be contemporaries with Pharaoh and Moses, but based on a bit of research, it is certainly possible. There are two caveats:
The Torah is a bit fuzzy with numbers, and we will accept that fuzziness as permission to do the same. Second, the rabbis were willing to bend reality a bit for their own purposes, so we will do that too (but not too much).
Balaam is presented to us, the readers, near the end of the forty years in the desert, making it possible for him to be alive throughout the Exodus and consultable by Pharaoh. He would be exceedingly old, though. If he had been born at the same time as Moses, he would be somewhere in his 120s and is explicitly not an Israelite.
You can read my piece about Balaam here.
According to a discussion in Bava Batra, Job could be many things. Opinions range from he was made up, a non-Jewish prophet, a Jew, and possibly Dina’s husband and Jacob’s son-in-law. Arguments are made that he lived throughout the entire time Jacob’s sons entered Egypt until the Israelites entered the land of Israel, during the time of the Judges, or even during the Book of Esther.
It is unclear what his identity is here precisely, but the rabbis deem it possible that he lived contemporaneously with the Pharaoh in our story, so we’ll accept that. However, I have a hard time believing that he was Jewish based on the arguments and the book of Job itself, so we’ll keep him in his non-Jewish prophet status, not unlike Balaam.
Yitro is Moses’ father-in-law and appears throughout the story. He is famously not a part of the people and considered a wise advisor to Moses, as presented in his eponymously named Torah portion.
You can read my piece about Yitro and his wisdom here.
So Pharaoh consults these three men about what to do about this growing population of Israelites in Egypt. What do they suggest?
Balaam, who advised Pharaoh to kill all sons born to the Jewish people, was punished by being killed in the war with Midian (see Numbers 31:8).
Job, who was silent and neither advised nor protested, was punished by suffering, as detailed in the eponymous book in the Bible.
Yitro, who ran away as a sign of protest, merited that some of his children’s children sat in the Sanhedrin in the Chamber of Hewn Stone… (you can read the proof texts for Yitro here.)
Each provides a different view and experiences the consequences of their position.
The text itself only says that Balaam gave advice and was killed. Rabbi Steinsaltz’s commentary suggests that this is because he was the one who came up with the plan that baby Israelite boys should be killed. (In Exodus Rabbah, Pharaoh’s astrologers are blamed.)
The Gemara is making the point that Balaam, like later on, suggested that the Israelites should come to harm and that he is killed as punishment for this suggestion.
In the retelling here, Job neither rejects nor supports the oppression of the Israelites and is punished by suffering. This is in profound contrast with the message of the Book of Job itself! In the Book of Job, one of the lessons we are meant to learn is that the purpose of our suffering is unknowable to anyone but the Divine.
While I’m not entirely sure that running away is exactly a protest, the Talmud expresses that Yitro rejects the idea that the Israelites should be harmed and is rewarded for this position.
Why does this matter?
The Talmud presents three responses to violence and harm by a leader and the people who follow them. While Pharaoh is given primary responsibility and blame, without the support of the people, his desire to oppress the Israelites would not have happened.
The three views are Balaam’s support, Job’s acquiescence, and Yitro’s rejection.
None of them are Israelites and would not personally be impacted by their choice. This teaches us that we are to protest and resist the oppression of others. That our silence is insufficient and support abominable.
Not just when it comes to trying to protect ourselves, but this story in the Talmud makes clear: we have to be there for others.