(continuation)

The Scripture in Chronicles expresses gratitude for God’s mercy, but it comes short of stating “ki tov” which could be read as “for it (=destruction of Egyptians) is good” rather than “for He is good”. Rabbi Jonathan takes this omission by the Scripture to indicate at least on a homiletical level that God’s destruction of the wicked cannot be taken as something intrinsically good. 

A second objection to the celebratory reading, this time from an Aggadic rendition of the Exodus episode showcasing the humanistic ideology is drawn from the same Rabbi Jonathan:

For R. Samuel b. Nahman  said in R. Jonathan's name: What is meant by, And one approached not the other all night? ( Ex. XIV, 20) In that hour the ministering angels wished to utter the song [of praise] before the Holy One, blessed be He, but He rebuked them, saying: My handiwork [the Egyptians] is drowning in the sea; would ye utter song before me! (bSanhed 39b)

The angels wish to sing praise to God for destroying the wicked Egyptians who were destined to harm the Jewish People. However, God rebukes the angels for praising Him and refuses to be consoled as it is ultimately human life, the creations of His hands that has been extinguished.

The Aggadah draws on God’s paternal feelings towards His creations as the main source of His inconsolability at the news of their death. Nevertheless, the Talmud treats this personal factor which would serve to distinguish God from humans as merely incidental. 

Rabbi Aha’s passage concerns human behavior, as opposed to Rabbi Jonathan’s which relates to God’s behavior. The Talmud’s apposition of these passages draws upon the motif of Imitatio Dei. God’s actions dictate a cosmic and universal law intended to be a paradigm for human behavior. Just as God does not rejoice at the fall of even the most wicked humans so too humans and certainly the Jewish People should not rejoice at the fall of the wicked.

Rabbi Jose b. Hanina provides what appears, based on the parallel passage in the Babylonian Midrash of Esther to be a response to the Talmud’s opposition:

Said R. Jose b. Hanina1: He Himself does not rejoice, yet He causes others to rejoice. Scripture supports this too, for it is written, [And it shall come to pass, that as the Lord rejoiced over you to do good . . . so yasis will the Lord] cause rejoicing [over you by destroying you],( Deut. XXVIII, 63) and not yasus [so will the Lord rejoice etc.]15 This proves it.

This passage suggests that God rejoices at the destruction of iniquitous Israel in the very same manner that He rejoices at Israel when it is meritorious. The seemingly offensive implication that God rejoices at the demise of humans and especially of His Own People is interpreted away by Rabbi Jose b. Hanina.2 The new reading shifts the act of celebration away from God and places it upon humans. As Rashi explains, “God will cause others to rejoice when He punishes you”. 

Rabbi Haninah’s reconciliation seems to reject or at least nuance to some degree the necessity of Imitation Dei and creates a synthetic and complex ideology according which God and humans are not at all times and circumstances accountable to the same moral virtues. This synthetic ideology introduces a dichotomy between divine and human law, a dichotomy that is actually sustained by God Himself who actively participates in making the gentiles rejoice at the downfall of wicked Israel. While God Himself does not rejoice at the downfall of humans, He metes out punishment in terms of human values. 

In the final analysis it appears that while the Talmud of the Land of Israel adopts a humanistic ideology at the rejoicing of the elimination of wicked people, the Babylonian Talmud is not completely amenable to parting with the celebratory ideology. 

Sources permitting rejoicing 

Notwithstanding the reservations expressed by the Talmud of the Land of Israel to the celebratory ideology, it does contain at least one passage which clearly express this ideology. This teaching bears a parallel in the Tosefta.

Rabbi Yose the Galelean says: Once the Children of Israel ascended from the Sea and saw their enemies as dead corpses thrown on the sea shore they all sang praise. (Tosefta 6:2)

Rabbi Nehemia said: When our fathers ascended from the sea they saw the carcasses of the iniquitous people who enslaved them and worked them with hardness and that they were [now] all dead carcasses thrown out on to the sea shore, they wished to sing praise and the holy spirit rested upon them, and even the youngest of Israel sang song like Moses. (ySotah 5:4).  

These teachings suggest quite straightforwardly that rejoicing at the demise of an enemy is not only permissible but completely proper and even imperative. The Shekhinah is actively involved in enabling the singing of praise at the savior of the Jewish People. The Shekinah animates not just the adults, but even the children who with its aid were able to sing praise to the Lord. 

The Shekhinah’s participation in celebrating the demise of the Egyptians which was inspired by the people’s urge to praise God at the sight of the dead Egyptians suggests a celebratory ideology in both human and divine realm. 

A closer reading, however reveals differences in the ideological background between the versions of the Tosefta and Talmud of the Land of Israel. While the Tosefta is politically focused, the Talmud of the Land of Israel is ethically focused. The Tosefta’s version of the text stresses the national status of the Egyptian as the enemies, while the Talmud stresses their wickedness and personal wrong doing to the individuals of the Jewish People. The Talmud’s formulation which stresses the personal nature of the event and elaborates on the corpselike state of the Egyptian bodies as observed by the Jewish People presents the mental state of the Jewish People in which the abused faces the abuser. The ones facing or are victims of evil may rejoice at demise of evil doers.

It would appear that even in this formulation the Talmud of the Land of Israel does not go so far as allowing one to celebrate the demise of a political enemy.