Bo answers

Bo 5715

1. The “heretical” question would be: if the Jews indeed only “borrowed” the various jewels and garments from the Egyptians under the pretext that they would be returning to Egypt after travelling into the desert for three days to worship HaShem,¹ implying that even when Pharaoh begrudgingly granted permission for the Jews to leave after the plague of the first-born,² it was with the understanding that the Jews would only be gone only temporarily, in the end, when it became obvious that they have no intention to return,³ wouldn’t their retaining what they “borrowed” constitute thievery, with HaShem’s having Put them up to this deception, being “guilty”, as it were, of deceiving the Egyptians, an example of Geneivat Da’at?

2.  Josephus: The gifts were in order to a) speed them on their way and b) demonstrate that the Egyptians regretted having treated the Jews so harshly.

   Sanhedrin 91b: What was taken from the Egyptians constituted at least part of c) the wages owed to 600,000 workers for 430 years of labor.

   Midrash Chemdat Yamim: The women were the ones who specifically took jewels, etc. from the Egyptians, because despite the decree that the male newborns were to be cast into the river,⁴ the text never decisively states that this was carried out to the letter. This suggests that bribery went on allowing at least some of the children to be saved. Consequently, d) theJewish women⁵ were given the opportunity to recover their property that had been used for bribes by means of this “borrowing.”

   Rabbeinu Yona, Rabbeinu Bechaye, RaShBaM: e) The term “She’ela” is used in biblical passages as a reference to gift giving, and not only borrowing. Obviously in this context, the Egyptians gave outright gifts to the Jews, thereby obviating the ethical issue.

   Rabbeinu Chananel, Chizkuni, Cassuto: f) The Commandment of “Ha’anaka”⁶ that provides for a Jewish master to give his newly-freed Jewish servant possessions (ostensibly to prevent him from immediately slipping back into poverty which led him to become a Jewish servant for six years in the first place), serves as a paradigm for Jews being entitled to gifts from the Egyptians upon their release from slavery.

   Chizkuni on Shemot 11:2, d.h. Kelai Kesef U’Klai Zahav: The commentator implies that when the Jews became enslaved, their property had been confiscated by the Egyptians, and therefore g) the “borrowing” was a means for recovering these possessions.

   Benno Jakob: In order that Jews would eventually be able to apply to Egyptian converts the same positive attitude that the Tora enjoined them to apply to all converts to Judaism,⁷ an attempt had to be made h) to mitigate the resentment and bitterness arising from the harsh servitude that the Jews experienced in Egypt. Consequently, the Egyptians were made to give the Jews gifts by means of God Manipulating their emotional attitudes and placing the grace of the Jews in their eyes.

3.   The passage in Sanhedrin suggests that despite the fact that God Placed the grace of the Jews in the eyes of the Egyptians to influence them to offer their precious possessions to the Jews, this feeling “wore off” and eventually the Egyptians resented having parted with their valuables. Perhaps it wasn’t only Pharoah and his servants who exclaimed their dismay when they realized that the Jews had fled (see fn. 3) , but all of the people, feeling cheated by having their possessions taken from them under false pretenses or psychological manipulation.

4.  a)  In the example from Yehoshua 15, although in v. 18, the term “לשאול” appears, it is defined in v. 19 by the verbs “תנה”, “נתתני”, “ונתנה”, “ויתן”. Just as she already possessed Gulot Mayim, she was given in addition Gulot Aliyot and Gulot Tachtiyot. Furthermore, when it comes to asking to be given land, one does not “borrow” the land, but rather asks for it be given outright and permanently. Consequently this is a support to the contention that in the context of taking valuables from the Egyptians they were not borrowed but rather given.

יהושע פרק טו

(יח) וַיְהִי בְּבוֹאָהּ וַתְּסִיתֵהוּ לִשְׁאוֹל מֵאֵת אָבִיהָ שָׂדֶה וַתִּצְנַח מֵעַל הַחֲמוֹר וַיֹּאמֶר לָהּ כָּלֵב מַה לָּךְ:

(יט) וַתֹּאמֶר תְּנָה לִּי בְרָכָה כִּי אֶרֶץ הַנֶּגֶב נְתַתָּנִי וְנָתַתָּה לִי גֻּלֹּת מָיִם וַיִּתֶּן לָהּ אֵת גֻּלֹּת עִלִּיּוֹת וְאֵת גֻּלֹּת תַּחְתִּיּוֹת: פ

And it came to pass, when she came unto him, that she persuaded him to ask of her father a field; and she alighted from off her ass; and Caleb said unto her: 'What wouldest thou?' And she said: 'Give me a blessing; for that thou hast set me in the Southland, give me therefore springs of water.' And he gave her the Upper Springs and the Nether Springs. 

b)  In the example from I Melachim 2:20, Adoniyahu has a request of Bat Sheva, i.e., that Avishag, David’s concubine, be given to him, his intention being to try to publicly demonstrate that he should succeed his father in the kingship. When Bat Sheva relays this request, although she uses the language “שאלה” initially, what is being requested is not that Avishag be loaned, but rather permanently given to Adoniyahu, as becomes clear in v. 21. Once again, the language of “שאלה” connotes permanent giving.

מלכים א פרק ב

(כ) וַתֹּאמֶר שְׁאֵלָה אַחַת קְטַנָּה אָנֹכִי שֹׁאֶלֶת מֵאִתָּךְ אַל תָּשֶׁב אֶת פָּנָי וַיֹּאמֶר לָהּ הַמֶּלֶךְ שַׁאֲלִי אִמִּי כִּי לֹא אָשִׁיב אֶת פָּנָיִךְ:

(כא) וַתֹּאמֶר יֻתַּן אֶת אֲבִישַׁג הַשֻּׁנַמִּית לַאֲדֹנִיָּהוּ אָחִיךָ לְאִשָּׁה:

c) In the final example from Shemot 22:13, what is being discussed is liability of one of the forms of “guards”:

תלמוד בבלי מסכת בבא מציעא דף צג עמוד א

משנה. ארבע שומרים הן: שומר חנם והשואל, נושא שכר והשוכר

THERE ARE FOUR BAILEES: A GRATUITOUS BAILEE, A BORROWER, A PAID BAILEE AND A HIRER. A GRATUITOUS BAILEE MUST SWEAR FOR EVERYTHING.  A BORROWER MUST PAY FOR EVERYTHING.  A PAID BAILEE OR A HIRER MUST SWEAR CONCERNING AN ANIMAL THAT WAS INJURED,  CAPTURED [IN A RAID] OR THAT PERISHED;  BUT MUST PAY FOR LOSS OR THEFT.

If the object had been given as a gift to the “borrower”, why is there any liability vis-à-vis the one who had given the gift, since it is now the complete property of the receiver? The only way that this context would make sense is if the verse in Shemot 22 is talking about someone who literally borrowed an object from another and then the object is damaged, destroyed or stolen.

5.  Both Rabbeinu Chananel and Benno Jakob are referencing the verse in Devarim 15 to explain why it is totally appropriate for a former master to give his slave parting gifts when the slave goes free. If the Tora institutionalizes such a practice re a Jewish master and a Jewish slave, even if such a law cannot be imposed in places which are not Jewish theocracies or even if there were, since the Egyptians are not Jewish and this law is not one of the Noachide Commandments, it would not be the letter of the law in a relationship between an Egyptian master and a Jewish slave,⁸ nevertheless it can serve as a paradigm of ideal relationships between masters and former servants. In other words, while it may be Din when it comes to situations where both parties are Jews, it is Lifnim MiShurat HaDin in cases where either one or neither parties are Jews. Benno Jakob even supplies a psychological rationale for such a Commandment: during the course of the servitude, due to the demands made by the master upon the servant, a certain resentment may have grown. Consequently, the gift will hopefully make up for those less than pleasant moments so that the two would be able to have a positive relationship going forward.

6.  See 2 “Chizkuni on Shemot 11:2, d.h. Kelai Kesef U’Klai Zahav” above.

7.  The word does not only connote “despoiling” but also “saving”, as in MaLBI’M’s commentary below:

יחזקאל פרק יד

(יד) וְהָיוּ שְׁלֹשֶׁת הָאֲנָשִׁים הָאֵלֶּה בְּתוֹכָהּ נֹחַ דנאל דָּנִיֵּאל וְאִיּוֹב הֵמָּה בְצִדְקָתָם יְנַצְּלוּ נַפְשָׁם נְאֻם אֲדֹנָי יְקֹוִק:

Though these three men, Noah, Daniel, and Job, were in it, they should deliver but their own souls by their righteousness, saith the Lord GOD.

מלבי"ם יחזקאל פרק יד פסוק יד

…ודניאל ניצול מחרב ומחי'ה רעה. המה בצדקתם ינצלו נפשם, פה אמר רבותא שהגם שבא התוכחה היותר קשה בכ"ז יועיל צדקתם להציל נפשם, ואין צריך לומר פה שלא יצילו בנים שזה פשיטא:

Consequently, particularly if we follow Midrash Chemdat Yamim as well as the additional comment of Chizkuni, i.e., that the possessions of the Jews had either been given as bribes or had been confiscated from the Jews when they were enslaved, then the interpretation of Ohr HaChayim becomes relevant:

אור החיים שמות פרשת שמות פרק ג פסוק כב

(כב) ונצלתם וגו'. כאן רמז היתר הצלת אדם ממונו מאנס...

From here is a hint that it is permitted to save one’s possessions from someone who has taken them by force.

8.  See fn. 5.

9.  If the purpose of taking the possessions of the Egyptians is in order to establish a positive relationship between the Jews and the Egyptians post-Exodus, why does HaShem have to Manipulate their minds to make them give the Jews their valuables. Both Benno Jakob and Cassuto answer that since the Egyptians would not do this naturally on their own and there is no  Beit Din that would enforce such a rule, HaShem had to Influence the Egyptians to give giftrs to the Jews.

10. Benno Jakob: The Egyptians would not take the initiative to give gifts.

     Cassuto: There is no Beit Din that could enforce such a rule. (In effect, according to Sanhedrin 91b, Alexander the Great enforces the rule, albeit only after the Egyptians initiate a claim to recover what they gave the Jews.)