January 8th: Shemot
THIS WEEK IN THE TORAH
Rabbi David E. Ostrich
Things have been good for Israel in Egypt for many, many years. The Torah does not say how long, but the temporary quality of this prosperity and tranquility is made clear in Exodus 1.8:
“A new king arose over Egypt who did not know Joseph. He said to his people, ‘Look, the Israelite people are much too numerous for us. Let us deal shrewdly with them, 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.’ So they set taskmasters over them to oppress them with forced labor…”
Rather than appreciate Joseph’s contributions to Egypt—and the significant increase in Pharaoh’s land holdings, this new Pharaoh turns on the people of his predecessor’s trusted servant and turns a good place into a site of oppression and tragedy. The irony of the Pharaoh’s historical ignorance is painful, and it calls to mind the folly of leaders who do not understand what came before them.
Perhaps it is just a natural function of my own elderliness, but I am often shocked by the lack of historical knowledge among those discussing public policy publicly—and how it skews the discussions and deliberations. Often old policies that need changing are criticized for current problems and not seen in the context of their origins. An example is the “Don’t Ask/Don’t Tell” policy enacted by President Clinton that allowed Lesbians and Gays to serve in the military without the threat of discovery, humiliation, and punishment. In 1992, this was gutsy and very controversial and changed centuries of overt persecution of Gays and Lesbians. It was about as far as progressives dared to tread. That it was not a complete solution should be no indictment of the effort and the individuals it helped. Some twenty years later—and a with an improved awareness of the contributions of Gays and Lesbians in the military, President Obama determined that a more complete solution was doable, and he made the appropriate changes.
Similarly, the current large-scale incarceration of African Americans was not the intended goal of the drastic penalties for criminals enacted in the 1990’s. The thought was that increased penalties would dissuade individuals from crime—crime being a major threat to citizens of every racial category. Why the plan did not work is a matter of a longer discussion, but, if one wants a fair discussion of governmental policy, it is important to know history and judge policies and policy makers in context.
One can even extend this principle to the controversies on Civil Rights and the Shelby Decision. Back in 1965, the focus on was the South and the ways that Blacks had been systematically deprived of their Constitutional right to vote. Thus, a number of counties with bad track records were put under the supervision of the Justice Department: any changes in districts or voting procedures had to be approved by the Federal Government. In Shelby County v. Holder, the Court ruled that things have changed since 1965 and that fairness requires that all districts where voter suppression is practiced (in other Southern counties and in many, many counties in the North) need to be included in the supervision system. Otherwise, the 1965-identified counties are being treated unfairly—and the rights of Blacks in other counties are not being protected adequately. The Court thus instructed the Congress to address the problem and fix it. In other words, the history and context of the issue is vitally important in understanding the justice of the decision—and the way forward.
In more local and congregational matters, it is extremely important for us at Brit Shalom to know how and why things were done in the past—what many call institutional memory. Our go-to board member for this important work is Ron Hodes who has been in the congregational leadership since the last century. (Some say since 1847, but the records are not complete that far back.) In the Board’s deliberations, it is not that policies and practices cannot be changed, but Ron helps us understand how things were done, why and how they might have been changed, and the continuing context of our congregation’s efforts to provide a Jewish center in Central Pennsylvania. Ron’s institutional memory is a real blessing.
Back to Exodus and the case of the new Pharaoh. His folly is not just in ignoring the past. He somehow thinks that morality and ethics have no place in his machinations. Note who is not consulted as the “God King” hatches his plan. The text says he consults the people, but there is no mention of any moral discussion—that part of life where God or the gods are supposed to provide us guidance. He ignores morality and, though he gets some well-built store cities out of it, his enslavement of the Hebrews raises the ire of God and ultimately destroys his country.
This notion of acting without the counsel of heaven—and the dire consequences—reminds me of a discussion later in Exodus about punishing thieves. Thieves who rob at night are punished more severely than those who rob in daylight. Why? As the Rabbis explain, a thief who robs people in daylight is just a brazen person who will look his victim in the eyes while he steals. However, one who sneaks in at night supposes that he is undetected—since his victims are asleep—and ignores the ever-wakeful Eye of God. He commits two crimes—theft of property AND disrespect for God, and thus he merits greater punishment.
Pharaoh behaves as though no one else is watching, and one of the lessons of the Exodus is that the Eternal One is always watching—watching and hoping and evaluating. Let us be careful in the decisions we make.