They hint both at the Egyptian Exile and the Redemption 

The Book of Sh'mot, which Jews around the world begin reading aloud this week, is the second book of the Pentateuch. The Abarbanel names it the "Book of Exile and Redemption" – both of which appear dramatically in it.  

Sh'mot opens with the same six words that we read towards the end of B'reshit: "And these are the names of the children of Israel who came to Egypt" (B'reshit 46,8; Sh'mot 1,1). Many of the commentators seek to explain why, after the names of Yaakov's children were listed when they descended to Egypt, the Torah considered it necessary to list them again at the beginning of Sh'mot. Rashi explained that the reason is simply because the Torah wished to show the high affection in which G-d holds Bnei Yisrael. The Medrash Rabba explains differently:  

They are mentioned here [in Sh'mot] to allude to the Redemption. For instance, Reuven [which means 'See, it is a boy'] is reminiscent of G-d's words [setting the stage for Redemption], 'I have certainly seen the poverty of My nation [in its suffering in Egypt]' (Sh'mot 3,7). And Shimon [which stems from the root meaning 'to hear'] corresponds to 'G-d heard their cries' (2,24). And Levy [from the root meaning 'to accompany'] corresponds to the fact that G-d accompanied Israel in its troubles, as is written, 'I am with them in their troubles' (Psalms 91,15). And Yehuda [from the root meaning 'to thank'], for Israel thanked G-d… 

The Hassidic work Shem MiShmuel explains that G-d mentioned the names of the Tribes again just before the story of the enslavement to indicate that He created the cure – the future Redemption – before He brought upon them the disease, namely, the tribulations of the subjugation in Egypt. The names allude to the future Redemption; if the Creator had not created this cure, He would not have brought upon them the subjugation. 

This is a very different explanation than that of the Besht, Baal Shem Tov, the founder of Hassidism. His student R' Yaakov Yosef HaCohen Katz, in his work Tzofnat Pa'ne'ach, wrote in the name of his great teacher: 

The reason that Reuven, Shimon, etc. are listed here after already being listed [in B'reshit] during their lifetimes, is that in Sh'mot, the names are listed to their credit, but here, at the [beginning of the] Egyptian exile, the names allude to the exile of the soul… When they study Torah, for instance, Reuven wishes to boast about it, as if to say, "See I am a [Torah scholar];" and Shimon - so that his reputation [shom'o] will go forth, and Levi would connect to [accompany] pious men so that he will be considered pious and he will be praised… And therefore, from this spiritual exile that existed, the Children of Israel 'were fruitful and fertile and… they filled the land' (Sh'mot 1,7) – they turned the spiritual and inner into physical and material, and this brought about the physical exile, as the succeeding verse states: 'A new king arose over Egypt who did not know Yosef' (verse 8) – "new" in that he renewed decrees against Israel.   

The Besht understood that the names of the Tribes are to be understood here negatively; their descendants developed negative traits that can be derived from the tribal leaders' names. For instance, Reuven's descendants developed the negative trait of wanting to stand out ("See me!"), and similarly with Shimon; Levi's descendants began to do things not for the sake of Heaven, but rather to receive praise, as they "accompany" the pious men in order to impress others. And the same with the other tribes, in accordance with a "negative" understanding of their names. 

This is difficult! For we know that the Besht always sought to see the good in every one; why would he here, in Sh'mot, understand the names of the Tribes in this negative manner?  

It appears that the Torah itself leads us in this direction. We know that the names of the Tribes are listed in several places in the Torah, and often in different orders; each case must be studied to understand why its particular order was chosen. In this case, we note that the names of Yaakov's sons are divided into groups: The first four are "Reuven, Shimon, Levy and Yehuda" (1,2); the "and" makes it clear that they are one entity. This group is then followed by "Yisachar, Zevulun and Binyamin" – clearly again a group, this time of three. Next are two groups of two each: "Dan and Naftali; Gad and Asher." We must understand: Why are the sons of Leah – the first six names in this list – not mentioned together, but rather appear in two different lists? After all, in the list in B'reshit, and in Chronicles I (2,1), the six of them are mentioned in one group!  

It appears that the Torah is hinting to us that the four oldest sons of Yaakov, who were also born one after the other, took upon themselves to rise haughtily above the others and make the decisions for them. We know that after they were born, Leah stopped giving birth, until after the maidservants Bilhah and Zilpah gave birth to two sons each, at which point the Torah tells us that Leah bore Yisachar and Zevulun. Thus, the four oldest saw themselves as "special" in a way – as alluded to by their placement here in a separate group unto themselves.  

Yisachar and Zevulun were seemingly not thrilled with this arrangement, but they consoled themselves by remembering that they, like their oldest brothers, were the sons of Leah, and not of the handmaidens as were the other four brothers. And they therefore placed themselves above the latter four. The Torah also includes Binyamin with Yisachar and Zevulun, because he, too, was born of one of two Yaakov's original wives, Rachel; these three sons had a common denominator of being younger brothers of the first sons of the main wives, Rachel and Leah. 

Even within the last group – Dan and Naftali; Gad and Asher – there seemed to be hierarchy, as the Torah hints by the separation between the two pairs. It is very likely that Dan and Naftali, the sons of Rachel's handmaiden Bilhah, felt themselves above those of Leah's handmaiden Zilpah – for we know that after Rachel's death, Yaakov moved into the tent of Bilhah, and not of Zilpah.  

The Besht sensed that the Torah was telling us that there was a hierarchy among the sons of Yaakov, and that each group felt itself to be "above" the next one. And even within the different groups, there are indications that each member considered himself "above" the next one.  

Arrogance Leads to Exile – and the Opposite 

This type of situation, in which each member of Israel tries to one-up and be superior to his fellow, leads to the Gentiles coming and reigning superior over Israel, as the Besht concluded: Their character traits brought about physical exile and new decrees from the king of Egypt. 

And on the other hand, Moshe Rabbeinu, who grew up as an Egyptian prince, repressed what could have been his sense of superiority over others – and actually endangered himself in order to save his fellow Jews. As the Torah tells us, "he went out to his brethren and he saw their suffering, and he saw an Egyptian man striking a Hebrew man of his brethren; he looked to and fro and saw that there was no man, and he smote the Egyptian" (2,12). The Netziv (Ha'amek Davar) explains that he looked to see if anyone would be a "man" and deal with the injustice; when he "saw that there was no man," he realized it was up to him! This lack of superiority over others is what began to sprout the Redemption, after the trait of arrogance brought about the subjugation.  

Clearly the Besht did not come to dispute the Medrash. Rather, the names of the Tribes allude both to the causes of the Exile and to the future Redemption.


Translated by Hillel Fendel