In Tanakh, suffering on a national scale usually comes as punishment for evil deeds. Yet in the case of the Egyptian bondage, there is no indication that any particular sin was responsible for the decree.2 As a result, commentators throughout the ages have struggled to understand what necessitated Israel’s exile and subsequent slavery in Egypt. While doing so, many attempted to also answer the “bekhol dor vador” question: Why it is specifically our nation that is always targeted for persecution in every generation?3 Naturally, these commentators utilized their own exilic experiences to illuminate the narrative of the Egyptian encounter, while reciprocally using the Biblical story as a model through which to comprehend all future oppression.4 This bi-directional process leads to many fascinating insights.

Several commentators focus on how life in exile was critical for the formation of Israel’s national identity and the prevention of assimilation. R. Ovadiah Seforno (15th-16th century Italy) asserts5 that had Yaakov’s family remained in Canaan, they would have gradually absorbed the culture and values of their neighbors. Being exiled to a society that abhorred them6 and later enslaved them is what enabled the Children of Israel to grow and develop into a nation.7 As R. Hirsch (19th century Germany) further elaborates,8 in medieval times, ghettoes continued to play the same role as Goshen, ensuring that the Jews remained distinct and did not assimilate.

The Netziv (19th century Lithuania) moves in a similar direction,9 but focuses on the second stage of the narrative, the oppression, and its utility in combatting assimilation. In contrast to Seforno, he asserts that it was in Egypt that the Children of Israel first began to assimilate, and that it was anti-Semitism which proved to be their salvation. The Netziv adds that, historically, every time the Jews attempted to join surrounding society, the result was non-acceptance and even persecution, the perfect antidote to acculturation.10

R. Hirsch11 views the tribulations of exile as a vehicle not only for religious growth, but also for societal and interpersonal maturation. He claims that both the Egyptian and the current exiles resulted from jealousy and class distinctions. Yaakov’s preferential treatment of Yosef and the difference in status between the sons of his primary wives and those of his maidservants led to internecine strife. Similar sectarian divisions have plagued Judaism ever since. Anti-Semitism, though, is blind to such divisions, and it serves as the great equalizer, promoting unity and forging common experiential bonds.

Finally, R. Eliezer Ashkenazi (16th-century Poland) focuses12 on how the exilic experience affects not merely the nation of Israel, but also the world at large. The exilic encounter with other nations facilitates the spread of ethical monotheism and Torah values throughout the world, and the miraculous process of redemption from Egypt proclaimed Hashem’s existence to all.13 May it be His will that this process be completed speedily and during our lifetime!

Rabbi Hillel and Neima Novetsky are the founders of alhatorah.org, a project dedicated to developing resources that enhance the study of Tanakh and Parshanut.

Endnotes

1 This article focuses on the positions of only a selection of commentaries. For a more comprehensive treatment of the topic, see “Purposes of the Egyptian Bondage” at: http://alhatorah.org/Purposes_of_the_Egyptian_Bondage.

2 For an analysis of the midrashim and parshanim who nevertheless attempt to identify specific sins as responsible for the exile, see: http://alhatorah.org/Purposes_of_the_Egyptian_Bondage/2#Punitive.

3 See Tanchuma (Buber) Vaera 17 which places the following question in Moshe’s mouth: “רבונו של עולם מפני מה זאת האומה משתעבדת, שבעים אומות יש בעולם ואינן משועבדות אלא האומה הזאת בלבד”. 

4 In some cases, commentators are probably also motivated by a desire to counter Christian polemical claims that the misfortunes of the wandering and downtrodden exilic Jew are a sign of Divine rejection. See, for example, R. Chasdai Crescas (14th century Spain), who valiantly tries to explain that the Children of Israel suffered in both Egypt and his own day as part of “afflictions of love” which God brings upon the righteous.

5 Seforno, Bereshit 46:3.

6 Seforno notes that since the Egyptians were xenophobic (as per Bereshit 43:32) and would not even eat with the Hebrews, let alone marry them, there was a greatly reduced chance of assimilation in Egypt than in Canaan.

7 It is noteworthy that, similarly, Rabbinic Judaism developed and flourished in the aftermath of exile and destruction. By necessity, adversity leads to both self-reflection and innovation. 

8 R. Hirsch, Bereshit 45:11.

9 Ha’amek Davar, Shemot 1:7, Bemidbar 23:9, and Haggadah Shel Pesach s.v. Vehi Sheamedah.

10 In fact, the Netziv suggests that Hashem’s promise at the Covenant of Pieces that Abraham’s descendants would always remain foreigners is what maintained Jewish identity throughout history, and is the referent of “vehi” in “והיא שעמדה לאבותינו ולנו”. According to his reading, the Jewish people’s best efforts to assimilate instead engender the anti-Semitism of “בכל דור ודור עומדים עלינו לכלותינו”, through which “והקב”ה מצילנו מידם” and prevents our assimilation.

11 R. Hirsch, Bereshit 45:11.

12 Ma’asei Hashem, Ma’asei Mitzrayim 1.

13 He goes so far as to suggest that when Avraham heard news of the upcoming bondage and redemption, he was thrilled that his descendants would serve as the vehicle through which the wonders of Hashem would become manifest to the world.