Archive for Vaera

Vaera: Rivers of Blood

Copyright 2015 Neal Joseph Loevinger

Torah Portion: Vaera 
Pharaoh turned and went into his palace, paying no regard even to this. . . . .(Shemot/ Exodus 7:23)
This week we begin the plagues upon Egypt, along with the famous subtext of the hardening of Pharaoh’s heart. What caught my eye this week is Pharaoh’s reaction to the first plague, that of turning the river into blood. After the Egyptian magicians did something similar, Pharaoh’s heart was “strengthened” or “hardened” [vayehezak, from the word for strength] and he paid no heed to Moshe and Aaron. Then the Torah adds another detail: the verse above, we see that he turned and went into his palace, and literally “didn’t put this on his heart either,” 
“Either?” What else did Pharaoh choose to ignore? Some commentators suggest that gam le’zot [e.g, “this too” or “this as well”] refers to the fact that there are two miracles described in Chapter 7, one of turning the rod into a snake and one of turning the river into blood. So “this too” or “this either” could mean that Pharaoh’s heart was hardened against believing in these two miracles; he didn’t take heed to either one. 
That’s a very plausible and simple way to read the text, but in the light of recent events, it occurred to me that Pharaoh is choosing not to see two different things when the river is turned to blood. First, according to the simple reading of the text, he is turning away from Moshe’s demonstration of God’s power, and therefore turning away from Moshe’s message of liberation for the Hebrew slaves. Yet in a very real sense, the river was “turned to blood” long before Moshe and Aharon showed up: you may remember that at the very end of Exodus 1, Pharaoh orders all the male Hebrew babies thrown into the river, in order to break, reduce and demoralize the people. 
Remembering this, it seems to me that Pharaoh paying no attention to “this either” implies that the plague of turning water to blood has no effect on a man who is already morally cold to the blood he ordered spilled into that same water. To put it another way, there was already a river of blood and the hearts of the rulers were hardly broken, so why should a parlor trick matter? Pharaoh goes home and sets nothing on his heart, because his heart has already learned to ignore the suffering around him. 
Lest you think I am describing some uniquely morally deformed monarch, whose example is far removed from the ordinary citizen who may be reading this, let me remind you that at approximately the time that the world’s attention was focused on the horrific attacks on journalists and Jews in Paris, another militant Islamic group, Boko Haram, was murdering hundreds, if not thousands, in Nigeria. The Syrian civil war rages on, leaving hundreds of thousands dead, and blood is spilled daily in Iraq, Congo, and Sudan, to name just a few of the ongoing conflicts in the world. There are rivers of blood being spilled, and it’s so easy to go home and set nothing on our hearts, because it’s so far away, and so complicated, and there’s not much we can do anyway. . . . . 
All of which might be true, but the day we stop caring is the day Pharaoh wins. 
“Let my people go” means envisioning a world without rivers of blood. That world seems far away, but the whole point of Exodus is to remind us that Pharaoh doesn’t get the last word. Freedom and justice and peace are possible, but only if we don’t turn away and go home. 

Shabbat Shalom, 
The views expressed are my own and do not reflect that of Vassar Brothers Medical Center or Health-Quest.

Leave a Comment

Vaera: Master over Pharaoh

Copyright 2013 Neal Joseph Loevinger

Torah Portion: Vaera

The Holy One said to Moses, “See! I have made you master over Pharaoh, and Aaron, your brother, will be your prophet.” (Shmot/ Exodus 7:1)

Good afternoon! Last week we introduced Moshe and learned that the Israelites were groaning under slavery in Egypt; this week the confrontation between Moshe and Pharaoh begins in earnest.

Last week Moshe was commissioned at the burning bush to go back to Egypt, but he hesitates, not sure if he has the right or standing to speak to the king or represent the Israelites. So God both commands and reassures him, thus reorienting Moshe from the belief that he had to be accepted by humans in order to speak words of prophetic justice. The narrative is seemingly interrupted by a genealogy of the heads of the clans- we’ll discuss that another time- but when it picks up again in chapter 7, God says, as in the verse above, that Moshe will be an Elohim to Pharaoh, and Aharon will be the speaker or prophet.

As you probably know, Elohim usually means “God” in the Hebrew Bible, but it can also mean human judges or authorities. (Cf. Psalm 82, for example.) So while the Jewish Publication Society, for example, translates this phrase as “placed you in the role of God to Pharaoh,” many other translators and commentators assume the more secular meaning of lord or master. The only problem is: that also raises questions, since a major theme of the story is Pharaoh refusal to recognize any authority other than himself! As king he not only initially ignores Moshe’s requests, he mocks them.

So in what sense is Moshe a “master” or “lord” over Pharaoh? As I read it, the verse is not about political but moral authority. Pharaoh may be king, but he is hardly master even over his own thoughts and impulses, whereas Moshe stands on the side of justice and prophetic ethics, giving him a steadfastness and clarity that the arrogant Pharaoh can never have. Moshe is “master” over Pharaoh because the good and right will, we believe, eventually win out over the corrupt and violent aspect of human nature. To put it another way: Pharaoh is concerned with the well-being of Pharaoh, but Moshe’s quest is grounded in a concern for the welfare of the people and the justice of God- and which do you think gives you greater mastery over self and gathers more power over the course of a long struggle?

Moshe becomes master to Pharaoh not only because he seeks freedom for his people, but because he is grounded in a wider sense of history and purpose than Pharaoh, the archetype of power-seeking and ego in human history, could even imagine. That’s the kind of vision and deep sense of connection to God, self and others that carries us through the inevitable conflicts and transitions of life; only by seeing something beyond ourselves can we find deep purpose, courage and mastery over self, which is the most important mastery of all.

Shabbat Shalom,


Leave a Comment

Vaera: Willful Blindness

Copyright 2012 Neal Joseph Loevinger

Torah Portion: Vaera

 “And the Lord said to Moses, ‘Early in the morning present yourself to Pharaoh, as he is coming out to the water, and say to him, ‘Thus says the Lord: Let My people go that they may worship Me.’ ”  (Shmot./ Exodus 8:16)

Good afternoon! 

Sorry about last week’s Torah commentary- or, more accurately, lack thereof. We do our best but even the well-oiled machinery of rabbineal-list seizes up every now and again. 

This week we’re reading the story of the plagues against Egypt– you know, blood, frogs, lice, these are a few of my favorite things- and Pharaoh’s inability to let the people go or even fully realize what is happening around him. The verse above is the prelude to the fourth plague, the swarms of swarming flies (as translated in JPS) which leave no Egyptian house untouched. What strikes me as interesting is the commandment to meet Pharaoh at the water, presumably as he is emerging from a bath in the river. 

Note that the first two plagues, blood and frogs, affect the river, and the third, the infestation of lice, moves onto the land. Scholars have noted that the plagues encompass every aspect of the natural world- water, land, sky- as if to show the Egyptians the futility of worshiping localized gods of some subset of the cosmos. It’s also interesting that Pharaoh goes back into the water so soon after the river was blood and then teeming with frogs, as if he’s convinced himself that the river is safe now that the danger has moved elsewhere. 

Yet the river is not safe- not because it’s teeming with frogs but because Pharaoh can’t hide from the moral message of Moshe and Aharon. He wishes to believe that the problem is solved as soon as the symptom goes away- but this never works, and indicates to us that Pharaoh is acutely human, hardly a great leader and much less a god on earth. Self-deception, seeing what we want to see, is an inevitable aspect of the human condition; we face great challenges, as individuals and collectively, but we don’t always want to truly see the evidence of those challenges right before our eyes. Like Pharaoh, we go back to the water- that is, our old habits of heart and mind- as the course of least resistance. It’s just so easy to pretend that the world hasn’t changed and so hard to admit that new realities demand a new way of being. 

This little detail, tucked into the larger story, reminds me that Pharaoh is best understood not only as a great and evil villain, but also as a tragic figure, one who simply could not understand the world changing around him until it was too late. Great leaders help the world move forward by confronting and naming hard truths. Few of us rule empires, but any spiritually and morally conscious person can strive to grow in our perceptions and understandings, refusing to retreat into a comfort zone which requires no sacrifice, empathy or ethical reflection. Pharaoh going back into the water is such a profound image of a man unwilling to see and unable to change; seeking truth wherever it is found, and reckoning fearlessly with its implications, is the basis of any true spiritual practice. 

Shabbat Shalom, 


Leave a Comment

Vaera: The Inner Frog. . . .

Copyright 2010 Neal Joseph Loevinger

Torah Portion: Va’era

Good afternoon!

Our last commentary for the Gregorian year 2011 is Va’era, in which Moshe calls a whole bunch of plagues down on Pharaoh and the land of Egypt, including, of course, frogs:

“If you refuse to let them go, then I will plague your whole country with frogs.The Nile shall swarm with frogs, and they shall come up and enter your palace, your bedchamber and your bed, the houses of your courtiers and your people, and your ovens and your kneading bowls. The frogs shall come up on you and on your people and on all your courtiers.'” (Shmot/ Exodus 7:27-29)

Now, in the translation above, there’s a distinction made between the frogs going “in” to the palace, the bed, the houses, and even the ovens and kneading bowls, and “up on you” [Pharaoh] and “your courtiers.” In Hebrew, however, it’s all the same preposition, the letter bet, which can mean “in,” or “on,” among other meanings, depending on context. Our friend Rashi chooses to understand the latter part of the sentence as conveying the same meaning as the first part: e.g., the frogs are “in” Pharoah and his courtiers. In fact, Rashi takes this to mean that the frogs would enter into the innards of Pharoah and his court and croak there!

Here’s a perfect example of things being less ridiculous than they seem- as opposed to many other phenomena, most of which appear on cable news, which are far more ridiculous than we general acknowledge. The frogs being “in” Pharoah is not, I think, to be taken literally, but is instead a metaphor within a metaphor, since the plagues themselves can be seen as a narrative assertion that no man, least of all Pharaoh, is a god. Nature will not be controlled by humankind; we are, instead, humbled by it.

The image of the frogs entering into Pharaoh and croaking from within him is at once playful, even comic – reminding us that ridicule is the ultimate weapon against tyrants- and also a visual metaphor for an inchoate awareness that the status quo of Egypt will not stand. I think Rashi means to suggest that with the plague of frogs, something is beginning to rumble and croak, as it were, within Pharaoh- not within his body, but within his conscience, perhaps, or at least consciousness.

Thus the force of verse 8:11, in which Pharaoh’s heart is hardened as soon as the frogs are lifted; it’s quite amazing the extent to which human beings can shut out awareness of things which discomfort or disturb a carefully constructed view of self and surroundings. Pharaoh is not stupid: the awareness of his precarious position can enter him, but the work of reevaluating his relationship to the world is perhaps too hard, perhaps too scary, perhaps too humbling, perhaps too unsettling.

Yet to be introspective is to be human: if you hear a frog croaking within you, or any other sign that the world is calling you to see it anew, listen and reflect, learn and grow! Pharaoh could not, but we can.

Shabbat Shalom, and happy solar New Year,


Leave a Comment

Vaera: Faith and Justice

Copyright Neal Joseph Loevinger 2010

Torah Portion Vaera ; Shmot/ Exodus 6:2 – 9:35.

Vaera tells of the first plagues in Egypt, but Pharaoh does not relent.

Greetings from my childhood state of Maryland, where I’ve just concluded  a rabbinic retreat, with learning and reflection on the practice of prayer and the meaning of liturgy- which is a great thing since that’s our theme for this year’s Torah  studies. In this week’s Torah portion, Vaera, there’s plenty of prayer on the part of both Moshe and Pharaoh, but the connection to the siddur [prayerbook], is a little more obscure- but it’s  there all right, in both the morning and evening liturgies.

In both the morning [shacharit] and evening [ma’ariv] services, after the recitation of Shma [declaration of Divine unity], there is a paragraph of praise, in which God is extolled for defeating our enemies and bringing Israel to salvation. This paragraph precedes a direct quote from the song at the Sea of Reeds- we’ll get to that in future weeks. For this week, it’s enough to notice some uncomfortable language in our praises:

” . . . . vindicating us with miracles before Pharaoh, with signs and wonders in the Land of Egypt. God smote, in wrath, Egypt’s firstborn, brought Israel to lasting freedom and led them through divided waters as their pursuers sank in the sea. . . . ” (from Siddur Sim Shalom.)

The wording above is from the ma’ariv service but the phrasing in the morning is comparable in theme. Viewed through the lens of a simple theology of God working in history, on our side and against the enemies of Israel, the praises above are clear enough. From another perspective, the words are troubling, for they seem to have a triumphalist tone, celebrating the downfall of an enemy rather than regarding all suffering as tragic. That  is the sensibility of our Passover tradition of taking drops of wine out of the cup in acknowledgment of the suffering of the Egyptians during the plagues; one might imagine that the siddur would similarly temper its praise when terrible retributions are mentioned.

Personally, I can’t connect the work of prayer- which is necessarily both a humbling and expansion of the self towards greater compassion- with praises to God for wreaking vengeance on our enemies. So maybe the mention of the “signs and wonders” after the Shma can be understood as a particular image of a general principle: that the God of Israel is found on the side of those who struggle against oppression, with those who suffer and not with their tormentors. From God-consciousness, or faith, arises a sense of moral accountability beyond that which is immediately apparent, and it is that larger moral vision which is the object of our praise.

In other words- I’m not praising God for plagues in Egypt, as such. Leaving aside questions of historical veracity, the mention of the plagues, is, for me, a reminder that faith in God means faith that justice will eventually triumph, even if- to paraphrase Dr. King- the arc of  history takes a long time to bend in that direction. Not only that, but remembering this in my prayer makes it about my own accountability rather than another’s, and in this way, the very act of praying pushes me towards participation in acts of justice rather than acquiescence to Pharaoh. Rather than triumphalism, recalling the Exodus celebrates our experience of God as Liberator, and reminds us each day to make the Exodus real again for all who cry out.

Shabbat Shalom,


Leave a Comment

Vaera: The Nile is Mine

Copyright 2011 Neal Joseph Loevinger

Torah Portion: Vaera

Perhaps it’s warming up around here just a bit, but certainly our
haftarah this week is a “hot one.” The prophetic text associated with
the Torah portion Va’era is primarily about Egpyt- or, in Hebrew,
“Mitzrayim,” the “narrow place”- and its eventual downfall. In the
Torah portion, Moshe confronts Pharaoh and demands freedom; in our
haftarah, the prophet Yechezkel (Ezekiel) portrays Egypt as a
treacherous ally that will be punished by God in the days to come.

According to our Etz Hayim commentary, the ancient nation of Israel
tried to make an alliance with Egypt when the Babylonians were
besieging Jerusalem around 586 B.C.E. The prophet scorns those who
would place their trust in evil nations, and regards Mitzrayim as
especially arrogant:

“Thus said the Lord God:
I am going to deal with you, O Pharaoh king of Egypt,
Mighty monster, sprawling in your channels,
Who said,
My Nile is my own;
I made it for myself.” (Ezekiel 29:3)

This latter phrase is repeated a few verses later:

“And they shall know that I am the Lord — because he boasted, ‘The
Nile is mine, and I made it.’ ” (Vs. 9)

Now, we know Egypt did a terrible thing in enslaving the Israelites in
the days of Moshe, but what’s so bad about claiming “the Nile is mine,
I made it? ” Why should the prophet or anybody else care what Pharaoh
thinks about the Nile river?

To me, what’s striking about these lines is the extraordinary
arrogance of Pharaoh- here representing the nation- in believing that
somehow they made, or control, nature itself. In philosophical terms,
this is called anthropocentrism- the belief that humans are the center
of all value. To be clear: I am making no claims about what the
ancient Egyptians actually believed, and even less so does any
discussion of an ancient text bear on the modern country called Egypt.
Rather, we’re looking at what the prophet believed that Egypt
believed, and which, of course, he found highly problematic.

Yet the message of prophet is more relevant than ever: if we, as
individuals or as a society, believe that the natural world exists
only to meet our needs, if we place ourselves above the ecological web
rather than within it, surely it’s only a short step to deciding that
other people exist only to meet our needs as well. Seen this way,
Egypt/ Mitzrayim is not so much a place, but a worldview, one
concerned with power and taking, with human ego at the center of an
ethics of dominance and violence.

That is what the prophet reject: not a group of people, as such, but a
way of thinking; it’s a rejection of egocentric entitlement, which
almost inevitably leads to the question: how can others serve me?
That, in turn, precludes the really important question: how can I
serve others? If I think everything belongs to me, then I use it; if I
think that I’m a steward for others, including future generations,
then I guard and protect the earth and its inhabitants.

Pharaoh sees the world as his for the taking; the prophetic tradition
sees the world and all its relationships as gifts with the opportunity
for caring.

Shabbat Shalom,


Leave a Comment

Vaera: Attacking the Right Problem

Copyright 2011 Neal Joseph Loevinger

Torah Portion: Vaera

Greeting from (finally) wintry Poughkeepsie! Our Torah portion this
week, Vaera, continues the story of Moshe, Pharaoh, and the plagues.
At first, Moshe isn’t the most confident fellow, but God appoints his
brother Aharon as his spokesman and they go together to demand freedom
for their people- and they bring plagues and wonders when Pharaoh
refuses. One of the more interesting plagues is that of frogs, which
are so many in number they cover the land:

“Aaron held out his arm over the waters of Egypt, and the frogs came
up and covered the land of Egypt. But the magicians did the same with
their spells, and brought frogs upon the land of Egypt” (Shmot/
Exodus 8:2-3)

The word for “frog” in Hebrew is “tzfardeah,” which is a collective
noun, like “sheep” or “fish”- it can mean one, or a whole bunch of
them. Thus, when it the Hebrew text says that “hatzfardeah” came up
and covered the land, the perfectly simple meaning is that lots of
frogs came up and hopped around. That being said, our friend Rashi
brings two interpretations to this verse, one of which follows the
simple meaning (that “frog” is a collective noun) and one of which
(from the Talmud) is more imaginative: that “hatzfardeah” [literally,
“the frog”] means one big frog came up out of the Nile, and when the
Egyptians struck it, it split up into many smaller ones.

It’s a special-effects scene that Steven Spielberg should film: a
giant frog (Frogzilla!) slowly emerges from the dark waters, sending
the Egyptians running in panic, until a few soldiers bravely rush the
giant beast, which divides itself into swarms upon swarms. This would
make a great movie scene, but when Rabbi Akiva originally suggested
that “hatzfardeah” meant one frog, the other rabbis teased him for
coming up with a ridiculous suggestion.

So if there is a simple grammatical explanation to the wording, why
would Akiva, and Rashi a thousand years later, suggest an
interpretation which seems so incredible? As silly as our “Frogzilla”
midrash is, it does suggest a certain moral truth: that attacking the
wrong problem only multiplies one’s troubles. After all, the frogs
were only brought upon Egypt as a sign that even Pharaoh was not the
ruler of heaven and earth; it was not the frogs that truly plagued
Egypt, but their own arrogance as a society, which lead them to
enslave the Israelites and benefit from their forced labor.

Thus, suggesting that the Egyptians attacked one giant frog, which
split up into swarms, may be seen as a parable of a society or
organization which is avoiding hard truths: it’s easy to attack an
obvious, external issue (like a giant frog) but unless it’s the real
problem, deep down in the hearts of the people, the difficulties will
only become more diffuse and pervasive.

For example, consider a congregation which blames its problems solely
on the rabbi or pastor, making them the problem, rather than seeking
to fully understand the tensions between conflicting dreams and
desires among the members of the community. Such a congregation can
fire its leader, but that will never solve its problems- only inner
change can do that.

Another example would be a family where one member is named by the
others as the source of its troubles- “if you would only stop [fill in
the blanks], everything would be fine!” Yet families are always
complicated webs of emotion, and no one person is ever fully to blame
for a whole system that’s in trouble.

To put it another way: change comes from within, when people look into
themselves and hold themselves to the highest standards of truth,
compassion, and justice. Seen this way, Rashi’s midrash of the giant
frog is no longer comical, but tragic, representing the human tendency
to see problems as “out there,” rather than “in here,” in the heart,
where t’shuvah, or inner redirection, really happens. One “frog” can
split into many, even to the point of covering the land, when we miss
the deeper source of our troubles. Yet therein lies the hope: that we
need not be like Pharaoh, of hardened heart and closed mind, but can
instead change at anytime- it requires only the gifts of desire and

Shabbat Shalom,


Leave a Comment

Vaera: Identity and Integrity

Copyright 2011 Neal Joseph Loevinger

Torah Portion: Vaera

Well, friends, Theo is back with the Red Sox, so I can’t think of a better time to read about signs and wonders! (now, if Theo can put together a team to put a plague on the Yankees, we’re really talkin’ miracles.)

Speaking of signs and wonders, Parshat Vaera begins with God “prepping” Moshe to confront Pharaoh, and ends with the plagues in full force. However, the text has a break in the action, just before the plagues begin, in which we find a family tree for Moshe and Aharon, going all the way back to Levi, the third son of Yaakov.

This genealogy ends with a confirmation of that the Moshe and Aharon who were commissioned by God to free the Israelites are the same Moshe and Aharon who confronted Parsha in Egypt:

“It is the same Aharon and Moshe to whom the Lord said, `Bring forth the Israelites from the land of Egypt, troop by troop.’ It was they who spoke to Pharaoh king of Egypt to free the Israelites from the Egyptians; these are the same Moshe and Aharon. ”
(Shmot/ Exodus 6:26-27)

This genealogical interpolation into the Exodus narrative links the family that came down to Egypt- Yaakov’s sons and their households- with the much larger nation which will
soon leave Egypt. This section of text also puts Moshe, who was raised as an Egyptian prince, firmly into the context of Israelite identity and history- it “proves,”as it were, that he is really an Israelite, and has a right to lead the people.

However, if you’ve been reading these email commentaries for more than a few weeks now, you know that the ancient rabbis look for moral and spiritual meaning in every
sentence of the Torah- this does not cancel out the more direct textual understanding, but adds to it. You also know that any time a word is repeated or used in an unusual way, the rabbis “perk up their ears,” as it were, and investigate what’s going on. In our
passage above, one phrase noticed by Rashi (among others) is the repetition of the phrase “Moshe and Aharon”- if we know it’s the same Moshe and Aharon who were commanded by God, why do we need to know it’s the same guys who confronted Parsha?

Rashi, quoting the Talmud, sees “the same Moshe and Aharon” as a statement about their essential integrity, not their public identity:

“These are the same Moses and Aaron”. . . . They remained in their mission and in their righteousness from beginning to end.

Rashi’s comment takes us from a straightforward family history to an ideal of human self-knowledge and steadfastness in the face of tremendous challenges. After all, Moshe and his brother had been commissioned by God, and were given signs and wonders which
confounded a great empire. It’s entirely possible that lesser people would have become arrogant, or self-important, or lost sight of the ultimate goal, which was not the destruction of Egypt, but the liberation of Israel.

Not every person is called directly by God to confront a tyrant- but each of us has a mission to change the world for the better. Each of us is given a unique responsibility and the task of using our gifts of mind and heart for lifting up the world. Yet it’s not so easy to
remain true to ourselves and our spiritual tasks when the world can push back with all kinds of pressures and distractions.

There is a famous story about Reb Zusya of Hanipol, who said that in Heaven, they wouldn’t ask him about why he wasn’t more like Moshe or Aharon- but why he wasn’t more like Zusya. “These are the same Moshe and Aharon”- they were fully engaged in the
needs of the community, but they retained their essential integrity and sense of a purpose greater than themselves. Nobody is ever going to ask why any of us aren’t more like Moshe- but all of us could stand to ask ourselves how we intend to be fully ourselves and
fully, consistently present in the task of fixing what’s broken, in ourselves and in the world.

Shabbat Shalom,


PS- as usual, the first link takes you to the text of the parsha and haftarah, and the second leads you to a page where you can find a summary of the parsha and additional commentaries:

Leave a Comment

Vaera 5761

Copyright 2011 Neal Joseph Loevinger

Torah Portion: Vaera

This d’var Torah was originally distributed by Kolel: The Adult Center for Jewish Learning during the year 5761 and can be found in its archives.

VaEra (Ex. 6:2-9:35)


The previous parasha ends with the Israelites suffering greatly in servitude to Pharoah; rather than heed God’s instruction to let his slaves go, Pharoah increases their workload and even refuses to give them straw for the bricks they must make. Moshe goes back to God, and in the beginning of this week’s Torah portion, God reassures him that the Israelites will indeed be delivered by God’s own action. The plagues upon Egypt then commence, but Pharoah will not be moved. Eventually, God “hardens” Pharoah’s heart, and the plagues upon Egypt continue, becoming more wondrous each time.


“Therefore, say to the Israelites: ‘I am the LORD, and I will bring you out from under the yoke of the Egyptians. I will free you from being slaves to them, and I will redeem you with an outstretched arm and with mighty acts of judgment. I will take you as my own people, and I will be your God. Then you will know that I am the LORD your God, who brought you out from under the yoke of the Egyptians. . . .’ “

Moses reported this to the Israelites, but they did not listen to him because of their discouragement and cruel bondage. ” (Exodus 6:6-9, abridged)


After Pharoah increases the people’s workloads, the people complain to Moshe and Aharon that they’ve only made problems worse by speaking of liberation and freedom. (Cf. Exodus 5). So Moshe makes a poignant complaint to God, voicing his despair. God then reassures Moshe that indeed, this is the God of Avraham, Yitzhak, and Yaakov, and that the people will be liberated and brought to freedom. Moshe tries to bring hope to the people, but they were too discouraged to hear it.


We have quoted the New International Version above; the Jewish Publication Society translation is a little different:

    but when Moses told this to the Israelites, they would not listen to Moses, their spirits crushed by cruel bondage.

The contemporary Biblical scholar Nahum Sarna, in his commentary on Exodus which accompanies the JPS translation, points out that “discouragement” or “crushed spirits” is not a literal translation of the phrase kotzer ruach. [In modern Hebrew, the phrase ‘kotzer ruach’ today means ‘impatience.’- ed.]

    their spirits crushed. . .Literally, “from shortness of spirit.” Hebrew ruach is the spiritual and psychic energy that motivates action. Its absence or attenuation signifies atrophy of the will. Failure to energize the people must not deter Moses from persevering in his mission.

Rashi compares “shortness of spirit” to shortness of breath (the words are related)- you get the sense of the people oppressed spiritually as well as physically.

Sarna seems to be implying that the people could not have heard Moshe’s message of hope, even if they had wanted to. Suffering under Pharoah’s abuses, they had no will, no imagination, no ability to conceive of a different reality. This, to me, is the lowest point of the story; not only has Pharoah tried to crush the people physically, he’s robbed them of hope.

So what does God do? God sends Moshe and Aharon right back to Pharoah, continuing the confrontation. Perhaps the message here is that physical liberation must be accompanied by a reawakening of the imagination. Each encounter with Pharoah brings him down a little bit, making him a little more human and a little less invincible. Giving the people ruach, or spiritual energy, is not something that could happen all at once, but is built up with each victory.

For us, I see a clear implication: when you meet someone who is kotzer ruach, or “short of spirit,” don’t let their initial inability to hear encouragement discourage you. If you can, show them that a different reality is possible, that the roadblocks, like Pharoah, are not invincible. You might have to try ten times, like Moshe did, or even more, but it’s worth it- a sense of hope might be the most precious thing you can give another person.

Leave a Comment

Vaera 5760

Copyright 2011 Neal Joseph Loevinger

Torah Portion: Vaera

This d’var Torah was originally distributed by Kolel: The Adult Center for Jewish Learning during the year 5760 and can be found in its archives.

The previous parasha ends with the Israelites suffering greatly in servitude to Pharoah; rather than heed God’s instruction to let his slaves go, Pharoah increases their workload and even refuses to give them straw for the bricks they must make. Moshe goes back to God, and in the beginning of this week’s Torah portion, God reassures him that the Israelites will indeed be delivered by God’s own action. The plagues upon Egypt then commence, but Pharoah will not be moved. Eventually, God “hardens” Pharoah’s heart, and the plagues upon Egypt continue, becoming more wondrous each time.

“The Lord spoke to Moshe, saying: ‘Go and tell Pharoah king of Egypt to let the Israelites depart from his land.’ But Moshe appealed to the Lord, saying: ‘The Israelites would not listen to me; how then should Pharoah heed me- a man of impeded speech!'” So the Lord spoke to both Moshe and Aaron in regard to the Israelites and Pharoah king of Egypt, instructing them to deliver the Israelites from the land of Egypt.
(Exodus 6:10-13)

Moshe complains to God several times before this that God’s mission for him- to proclaim to Pharoah that he must free the Hebrew slaves- is impossible, or too difficult, or that Moshe is the wrong man for the job. Moshe seems not only to doubt his own capabilities but he also comes across as a bit jaded about human nature: he points out that a slave people isn’t likely to believe the wild reports of a wandering shepherd regarding their redemption, and Pharoah is even less likely to heed seditious suggestions in the name of an unknown God. In this verse, as before, Moshe protests that he is not a fluent speaker; it’s not clear whether this means that he had a physical speech defect, or was self-conscious and inarticulate. (Cf. 4:10.)

Digging a bit deeper into the question of Moshe’s “impeded speech,” we find that even explanations of the term fudge a bit as to whether it is a physiological or emotional problem. In this verse, quoted above, the literal translation of Moshe’s complaint is that he has “uncircumcised lips,” which doesn’t help us at all. Rashi says that “uncircumcised” means “closed,” or “stopped up,” and gives several examples from other verses to corroborate this definition. However, he doesn’t say what it actually means to have “closed” lips- it could be a kind of thickness of speech, or it could mean that his words don’t flow very well, that he has inadequate rhetorical skills.

Moshe makes his complaint a bit differently in the earlier verse referred to: “Oh Lord, I am not a man of words, not yesterday and not from the day before, nor from the time You have spoken to Your servant, for I am heavy of mouth and heavy of tongue.” (4:11) Kaved in this verse literally means “heavy,” and is sometimes also translated as “slow of mouth and slow of tongue,” or something like that. Once again, it’s not clear exactly what Moshe means; the only thing that’s clear is that Moshe thinks this condition disqualifies him from being God’s agent in the task of confronting Pharoah.

Nachum Sarna, a Biblical scholar, in his book Exploring Exodus: The Heritage of Biblical Israel, offers a third possibility. Moshe grew up as an Egyptian, speaking the language of the land- perhaps he’s trying to tell God that after so many years in the land of Midian, his fluency in Egyptian isn’t what it used to be. Thus, he doesn’t possess the language skills to engage in this task of high-level communication and negotiation.

After looking at the various interpretations of what Moshe’s protests, Sarna does something unusual for a Bible scholar (whether of the old-time rabbinic variety or of the modern academic persuasion): he tells us that the exact nature of Moshe’s problem really doesn’t matter at all. Moshe felt inadequate to address Pharoah as God’s agent; God replies that it’s God’s words, not Moshe’s, that will be spoken. To quote Sarna:

    To this, God replies with what in effect is . . the essence of Biblical prophecy. The chosen messenger conveys not his own word but the word of God, and he does so because he irresistibly compelled by a Force and a Will more powerful than his own. Prophetic eloquence is not a matter of native talent, but of revelation that derives from the supreme Source of truth that is external to the speaker. The facile talker, the golden-tongued, the consummate demagogue, is not the recipient of the prophetic word or the vehicle of its transmission. Prophetic eloquence is a divine gift bestowed for [a] purpose on him who is elected, often against his will, to be the messenger. In these circumstances, experience and talent are irrelevant qualities.

To me, this explanation of Moshe’s protests is reassuring and discomforting at the same time. It’s reassuring because we can take from it hope that indeed, despite our human limitations and frailties, we can accomplish our unique tasks in life. To be sure, most of us don’t have a destiny as dramatic as Moshe’s, but each of us is commissioned for <something,> and given tools and talents and challenges to meet as best we can. Moshe, despite his absolutely extraordinary life, is also just like all the rest of us: called by God to be a partner in the work of Redemption, called by a God Who has faith in us even when we don’t have faith in ourselves. It’s reassuring to think that God chose not the strongest or the fastest or the smartest or the most beautiful, but implanted Divine Truth into a person “slow of mouth and slow of tongue.” If Moshe could rise to the occasion and speak words to Pharoah that would change the whole course of human history, then I too can rise to the occasion and express to the world whatever sparks of Divinity I have been given.

Yet this is exactly what is discomforting about these verses: they strip from us all our excuses, all our rationales for procrastination, all our lack of self-confidence masquerading as humility. By appointing Moshe, the man of “uncircumcised lips,” as a prophet-president-diplomat-preacher (i.e., a man completely dependent on words), God is telling the rest of us: you have to get on with your spiritual mission in life, despite your limitations, despite your self-doubts, despite all the problems that seem to be in the way. It’s much easier to shrug off the task as beyond our capacities, or to wish fervently, as Moshe did, that God would appoint someone else in our place. Not everyone is chosen to lead a nation of slaves to freedom, but each of us must consider seriously and apply to ourselves Rabbi Tarfon’s famous challenge: “You are not obliged to finish the task, but neither are you free to neglect it.” (Pirke Avot 2:21)

Leave a Comment