Section Ill. THE GOVERNANCE OF ISRAEL
The Household of Israel
had taken place previously in Egypt, when Pharaoh asked Abram why he
misinformed him and said that Sarah was his sister, he kept silent and did
not reply that he had thought that "there was no fear of God in this place"
(Gn 13:19). Why? In fact, there was plenty of fear of E/ohim in Egypt-not
of God the Creator of the heaven and the earth, but ofCosmocrator-Pharaoh.
Hence the function of atheism (seePs 14:1; 53:2; and below Chapter 33):
negation of God will invariably lead to belief in an Adam-E/ohim (see below
Chapter 25).
Early in Jewish history, during the bondage in Egypt, a clash took place
between the mightiest of the mighty and the lowest of the low. On one side
of the arena stood Pharaoh, King of Egypt. To appreciate the magnitude of
this encounter, it should be remembered that Pharaoh was not a mere human,
but as Ezekiel would later teach, a Cosmocrator with dominion over the
whole universe (see below Chapter 28). Referring to the Nile, Egypt's god
and source of sustenance, Pharaoh declared: "Mine is the Nile." Unlike other
humans a Cosmocrator is not engendered by a biological father (see the
below at n. 170). He owes nothing to anyone and has the inherent
right to rule over everything and every one with unlimited power (see below
Chapters 31, 33). Thus, Pharaoh boasted: "and I had .myse1:'
(Ez 29:3)." On the other side of the arena stood what tn the hterarchtc
mind represents the lowest echelon of existence: n:o Hebrew.women, each
challenging "Pharaoh, King of Egypt." Pharaoh tS.sued a dtrect to
those lowly beings: kill every male infant during deltvery! For the first ttme
in history a Rex was disobeyed. It was a matter of fear of God: "and the
midwives feared God" and therefore they refused to comply with Pharaoh's
command (Ex 1: 15-17). Other cases of non-violent refusals to obey pagan
as well as Jewish authorities crisscross throughout the Hebrew Scripture.
According to Jewish law there is a duty-not simply the right-to disobey
such an order. 56
ss See Gn 40:20: 'n7Yl!' and the note by A. S. Yahuda, The Language ofthe Pentateuch (Oxford:
Oxford University Press, 1933), p. Ill. Concerning the ritual by whic?
himself, see R. G. Bauval, "The Seeding of the Star Gods: A Ferbhty mstde. the
Cheops's Pyramid?" in Discussions in Egyptology 16 (1990), pp. 9--21. On the tdea of a ktng-
god-Cosmocrator of the world, see below nn. 95, 320. . . . . .
s6 See Milton R. Kravitz, "'Conscience, Natural Law and CIVIl Dtsobedtence tn the Jewtsh
Tradition", in Of Law and Man, ed. Shlomo Shoham, (New York .a?d Tel Aviv: Sa.bra Books,
1971), pp. 159-175; particularly pp. 168-172. The first case ofmthtary men
!"
to obey
a king's order as a matter of conscience is registered in I Sam 22:.17. D'!n 6 Da?tel not only
refused to obey the king, but he actually went ahead and pmyed m vtolatton ofhts order. The
Book of Maccabees registered many dramatic cases of civil disobedience. What is significant
about this type of civil disobedience is the readiness to submit to legal punisJ:lment. To break. the
law and then refuse to submit to the proper authorities is not civil disobedtence but rebelhon.
108
15.
In light of the preceding, the rabbinic statement, "On account of righte-
ous women our ancestors were redeeme<,l from Egypt," gains depth and
••
prectstOn. 57(
n t he c100tsteps of the two Hebrew midwives, Jews throughout
the centuries kept on saying 'No!' to the Pharaohs of their time.
15. The Household oflsrael
Genesis, the first book of the Hebrew Scripture, begins with a single
individual, Adam, and concludes with the establishment of the first family,
the household of Jacob, progenitor of the children of Israel. God creates
the individual, who in tum creates the family, which eventually creates
the State. The man of Genesis is not a helpless creature. He was endowed
with "the image of God" (Gn I :26-27; 9:6), bestowing on him self-reliance
and the faculty to "rule" over the animal world (Gn I :28-30; 9:2-5). The
environment he inhabited was "very good" (Gn I :3 I). Above all, Adam
was endowed with an extraordinary faculty permitting him to establish an
institution that would upgrade the quality of human life and make this world
a friendlier environment. To fully appreciate this faculty it should be noted
that "all" that God made was "very good" (Gn I :31 ). And yet, about Adam
it was written "that it is not good for man to be alone, I will make for him
a parallel-complementary (11m) mate" (Gn 2: 18). 58 The purpose of having
this class of mate was not biological reproduction. Other members of the
animal kingdom reproduce without a "parallel-complementary mate." The
"not good" of Adam pertains to his mental and psychological development.
As if without this special class of mate, he would remain unfulfilled and
incapable of reaching individuation. With this purpose in mind, man was
endowed with the mental and psychological apparatus that would enable him
to establish an organic, psychosomatic relationship. "Thus a man will leave
his father and mother and cleave (p::m) unto his wife; and they shall become
a single flesh" (Gn 2:24). The operative term 'to cleave,' 'to bond' (1?J11)
for a detailed analysis ofthe halakha on this matter, see Jose F'aur, "On Martyrdom in Jewish
. Law: Maimonides and Nahmanides," (Heb.) Annual of Bar-/lan University: In Memory of
Prof. Meyer Simcha F'eldblum, 30-31 (2006). pp. 373-407.
" See Sola lib. Cf. the reading in Ya/qu/ Shim 'oni, 2 vols. (Jerusalem: Ch. Vegshel, n.d), on
,. Ez #354, vol. 2, 419c; Ps #795, vol. 2, 464b. See "On Martyrdom in Jewish Law," n. 25.
As with a pair of organs and limbs 'complementary' to one another, thus enabling each other
to function properly; e.g., right and left hands or feet, that are not ;dentical, but complementm11
to each other. In this connection, the expression "and Adam knew his wife Eve" (Gn 4: i)
is not merely a euphemism for marital relations, but serves to indicate that Adam had the
psychological and intellectual capacity to actually know his mate.
109
 Section Ill. THE GOVERNANCE OF ISRAEL
refers to a unique human faculty whereby one an-other may be horizontally·
linked (nm) to a second an-other and form a psychosomatic entity (see
Appendix 13).
'Family' is the first human institution. Its purpose is to upgrade human
life, and permit Adam's children to attain individuation. In this fundamental
aspect, the 'family' of Scripture is not a 'privilege' awarded by a political,
social, or religious organization, without whose recognition the offspring is
to be regarded as 'illegitimate'-the bestioni or 'monstrous' and 'bastard'
children of pagan humanity; but an institution intrinsic to the very 'image of
God' innate in all humans. The stories about the Patriarchs in Genesis attest
to this primary institution: the family is independent of a political and social
establishment. The Hebrew term for 'household' (n•J, rather than
standing for the extended family, cf. Gn 12:3; Am 3:2; etc.) means not only
'house'but 'inside' (in opposition to 'outside'). It also stands for 'corporation,'
as in the 'fellowship' of individuals sharing a common bond; particularly,
that of 'immediate family' and 'household.' Exodus opens with a statement,
on the surface of little significance, stating that together with Patriarch Jacob,
his children came down to Egypt, "a man arid his household" (Ex 1:1). It
encodes a key-concept, essential for the understanding of the book: prior to
their arrival, each of Jacob's sons succeeded in organizing his own 'house.' 59
The syntax is revealing. The Hebrew suffix o 'his' (in the construct 1/n•J)
refers to both subjects of the sentence: Patriarch Jacob and the sons. In plain
words the Hebrew household had been patterned according to the archetype
of Ja;ob, and individually shaped by each son. This archetype must be
conceived of, more or less, in terms of the 'genotype/phenotype' model
of biology, admitting a level of morphological diversity and individuation,
while retaining at the same time the characteristic of the biotype. The
future families constituting the Household of Jacob, too, are conceived of
in terms of 1/n•J. Jews do not reproduce clones, but in terms of 'genotype/
60
phenotype,' admit variation and differentiation within the original archetype.
The fact that prior to their arrival to Egypt the Hebrews were organized as
a 'household' (n'J) will explain the first recorded miracle-a miracle without
which no other miracle could have taken place: Israel's discovery that they
were slaves! Jews were not the only slaves in Egypt. To pagan humanity
slavery is a 'natural' condition. All Egypt was a big "household (n'J) of
59 See the midrash published in Geonica, vol. 2, p. 326.
6u On this fundamental concept, see Jose Faur, "The Hebrew Species Concept and the Origin
of Evolution: R. Benamozegh's Response to Darwin," Rassegna Mensile di /srae/63 (1997),
pp. 43-66. The same characteristics are found in "God's seal," see MishnaSanhedrin 4:5 cited
above inn. 54 and Golden Doves, pp. 140-142.
110
15. The Household of Israel
slaves"-from the lowliest servant to the highest officer.61 In Plato's cave
the truth is discovered by an individual who breaks loose from his shackles
and discerned light shining above the cave. In Egypt, Israel discovered th;
light while deep inside the cave (cf. Dt 4:20, 35; IK 8:51; Jer 11 :4). Since
everyone was a slave, how did they discover that they were in bondage?
In utopian societies, old and new, crying for the wrongs of the system
equals insubordination. Expressions of grief are controlled by the state.
Unexpectedly, an opportunity arose. "And it came to pass in the course of
many days that the king of Egypt died." People were expected to lament
Pharaoh's death. Israel seized the moment and gathered to grieve. But
instead of lamenting the king's death, "the children of Israel came to weep
over their bondage, and they cried; and their supplication ascended to God
from their enslavement.''62 Only upon acknowledging their bondage, "God
remembered His covenant with Abraham, and with Isaac, and with Jacob,"
and sent Moses to save them (Ex 2:23-25; cf. I Sam 12:6, and Kuzari 11, 55).
Moses was the outcome-not the cause-oflsrael's momentous discovery!
Again: what brought about this discovery?
The Hebrews recognized Egyptian society for what it was, because prior
to their arrival they had been organized as the "household (n'J) of Jacob.''
The realization that they were in a "household (n•J) of slaves" came through
opposition to the "household (n•J) of Jacob.'' It will be clear now why before
leaving Egypt, God ordered the Hebrews to bring in celebration a Passover
lamb (Ex 12:1-14) and eat it "in a single house" (n•J, Ex 12:46). Right to
the point, the Aramaic version rendered it 'a corporation' (o11Jn), that is, an
'association of individuals engaged in common pursuit and responsibilities.'
(In Jewish law the family is conceived of as a corporation). It is by virtue
of being incorporated as a 'household' (n'J) that the Hebrews merited
freedom from Egypt. Accordingly, the Passover lamb is incumbent upon "the
household" (n•J; see Ex 12:3-4, 7). During the Passover night, God protected
" On the Greek attitude toward slavery, see M.l. Finley, "Was Greek Civilization Based on Slave
Labour?" in Slavery in Classical Antiquity: Wews and Controversies (Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press, 1960); Victoria Cuffe!, "The Classical Greek Concept of Slavery," Journal of
the Historyofldeas27 (1966), pp. 323-342. Ec 10:17 alludes to the fact that within a tyrannical
system the king himself is a slave. Therefore, Pharaoh was not free to choose; see Ex 7:3, 13,
14, 22, etc. and MT Teshuba 6:2. The same idea was echoed by Elias Canetti, Crowds and
Power, p. 358. Concerning the anxiety peculiar to despots he wrote:
It is the strongest in the mightiest. The concentration of anxiety is greatest in one who is
a source of commands, who creates orders and receives them from no one above him.
A ruler can keep it hidden, or under control, for a longtime, but, in the course ofa life, it can
increase until, as with certain Roman emperors, it suddenly manifests itself as madness.
" This point was brought up to me in a conversation with my friend Benny Dweck over half
a century ago.
]//
 Section Ill. THE GOVERNANCE OF ISRAEL
not individual Israelites but the "houses" (n'J; Ex 12: 13). Similarly,
God sought to establish a covenant with the Jews, He charged Moses to fir8t
bring the proposal "to the household (n'J) of Jacob" (Ex 19:3).
During the Egyptian bondage the Hebrew 'household' (n':l) was further
organized into a 'consortium of households' (n1:!K n•:1). At the head of each
consortium stood an 'elder' (lpr, pl. C'lPT), representing their respective
consortium. God acknowledged their authority. When God announced to
Moses the Salvation of Israel, He ordered him to report to the "elders of
Israel" and include them in his mission to Pharaoh (Ex 3: 16-18; cf. 4:29-30;
12:21; 17:6; 18:12; 24:14). More significantly, God's proposal to make an
alliance with Israel was first brought "to the elders of the people" 'lPT)
for approval (Ex 19:7; cf. ibid. 24:1, 9, 14). Later, God ordered to
establish an assembly of "seventy elders" (Nu 11 :24--25) to govern JOtntly
with him (Nu 11:16-17, 24; cf. Ex 24:14).63 Collectively, these are
designated the 'Congregation' of Israel (Lev 4: 13), constituted
highest judicial and political authority of Israel.64 Alludmg to the orgamc
connection between the elders and the people, the Scripture referred to them as
"the eyes of the congregation" (Nu 15:24, cf. Lev 8:13). 65 Through the elders,
the people expressed their supreme judicial and pohttcal wtll. Concernmg the
authority ofthe 'Congregation' a Biblical scholar commented:
The Sabbath violator is brought before Moses, Aaron and the 'eda (Nu 15;J3 ff:l
and it is they who execute the blasphemer (Lev 24:14 ff.). That the eda IS
judicial rather than ecclesiastical in character is clear from the fact that the
daughters of Zelophehad appear before Moses, Eleazar, the princes and the
'eda to demand the rights of inheritance (Nu 27:2 ff.), as do the TransJordan
tribes bringing their plea for pasture land (Nu 32:2 ff.). 66
The 'Congregation' or Senate oflsrael consisted of6 representatives per tribe. excess 2
were eliminated as follows. Each elected officer picked a scroll from a box s:venty
scrolls with the word 'elder' and two with the word 'blank' (P 1m). The t'7o elde'; p1ckmg up
these two scrolls·were rejected; see Sanhedrin 17a. On the office of the elders, see Hanoch
Reviv, The Elders in Ancient Israel (Heb.) (Jerusalem: The
See Robert Gordis, "Democratic Origins in Ancient Edah, . m Alexander
Marx Jubilee Volume, English Section (New York: The Jewtsh Theologtcal_ of
rica, 1950), pp. 369-388. On the difference between 'eda and qahal, see 1b1d., pp. 376-3 •
and Em /a-Miqra, vol. 4, 34a; vol. 5, 50b-51a. . . I
S Sfji #41 pp 86-87· #306 and Em Ja-Miqra, vol. 3, 8b--9b; vol. 4, 38a-b.11us tenn 1mp Y
from
the elders flow not and judicial guidance,
knowledge and wisdom. In this context it would be mstruct1ve to note that Targum,
also
Maimonides, Guide I, 30, p. 43 (II. 16--22), interpreted '"J'l10" in /s.l2:3_in to l
in Nu 15:24, above. On the rationale for this interpretation, see 1b1d. .
"Democratic Origins in Ancient Israel-the Biblical 'Edah," p. 381. See ChtefRabbt J·H. Hertz,
The Pentateuch and Haflorahs (London: Soncino Press, 5758-1997), PP· 929-930.
112
15. The Household of Israel
Through the Congregation, the elders conferred legitimacy on th.e deci-
sions taken by the national leaders, includ.ing Moses (Nu 32:2 ff.) and Joshua
(Jos 15:1, 16:1, 17:1, 18:1,22:12 ff.). They also continued the appointments
of kings (see !K 12:20; I Ch 11 :3), and expressed fonnal approval by
participating in the coronation ceremony.67
Alone in the ancient world, Israel was not organized into 'social classes.'
A renowned Biblical scholar points out the uniqueness of!srael's society:
But it would be a mistake to see in ancient Israelite society the contrasts found in
other societies, past or present, between 'nobles' and 'plebeians,' 'capitalists' and
'proletariat.' In Israel, there never really existed social classes in the modem sense
of groups conscious of their particular interests and opposed to one another.6s
A decisive factor in the internal cohesiveness of Israel was the belief in their
common ancestry. All members of the original twelve tribes were regarded
as 'children' of Patriarchs Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. This, however, was an
inclusive element, transcending ethnicity. People from diverse backgrounds
were assimilated into the original tribes. Let us recall that among those com-
ing out with the Israelites from Egypt were the "mixed multitude" consisting
principally of intermarried couples (see Ex 12:38; and cf Neh 13:3). Prose-
lytes were fully-fledged members of the nation, sharing also the history of
Israel. Each proselyte, too, had to offer the Paschal sacrifice and celebrate the
miracles that God wrought for 'his' ancestors (see Ex 12:48-49; Nu 9:14)69
Consistent with this doctrine, Maimonides issued a legal decision to a proselyte
ascertaining that he may lead in the prayers and say: "Our God and the God
of our Fathers, since the Patriarch Abraham is your father-and of all those
who join lsrael."70 Given that ethnicity was not exclusive, later, under the
monarchy, the 'tribe' became 'clan,' in the wide, non-ethnic sense of this tenn.
This territorial disposition of the tribes was itself modified by the administrative
organization under the monarchy. Sure, everyone remembered to which tribe
he belonged, but the unit of society which survived, and which to some extent
retained the ancient customs, was the clan. In practice, after the settlement, the
village stood for the clan, and in many genealogies of Chronicles, names of
villages replace names of ancestors. 7 1
" See "Democratic Origins in Ancient Israel-the Biblical 'Edah," pp. 384-387.
" Roland de Vaux, Ancient Israel, vol. I (New York: McGraw-Hill, 1965), p. 68.
" See Samuel David Luzzato, Commentary to the Pentateuch (Heb.) (Tel·Aviv: Dvir, 1965),
p. 453.
10
Letters and Essays of Maimonides (Heb.), vol. I, p. 234; cf. Homo Mysticus, pp. 127-131.
Cf. Perush ha-Mishnayor, on Bikkurim I:4, vol. I, p. 417; MT Bikkurim 4:3; Homo Mysticus,
pp. 127·131.
" Ancient Israel, vol. 1, p. 13.
113
 Section Ill. THE GOVERNANCE OF ISRAEL
By the end of the monarchy, Israel society was close to that of a modem
state, rather than to European monarchies. Here is what Professor Morton
Smith wrote:
Accordingly, 'lsrael,' before the Assyrian and Babylonian conquests, seems
to haVe been about as distinct an entity as 'Austria' is today. That is to say,
there was a nucleus of persons united by common int_erest, common language,
common tradition, common religious feeling (loyalty to local shrines and
to the national god), and such ethnic uniformity as can be produced by. the
amalgamation of many elements, but on every side this nucleus blended mto
the surrounding population. 72
Let us review some of the ideas discussed above. Humanity began with
Adam, an individual created with the 'image of God' within. Given that for
the Hebrews there is only One God, and given that Adam is the progenitor
of all humanity, it follows that every human is created in God's image (cf.
Gn 9:6). A consequence of this view is belief in the dignity of the common man
and woman, and rejection of all forms of racial and ethnic discrimination (see
Appendix 18). This gave rise to the principle of justice and equality. Hence
the fundamental juridical principle-the first in legal history-declaring that
"a single Law and a single judicial procedure must apply to you the alien
sojourning among you" (Nu 15:16, cf. ibid. v. 29). Josephus has an Important
passage about this principle:
The considerations given by our legislator to the equitable treatment of aliens
also merits attention. It will be seen that he took the bestofall possible measures
at once to secure our own customs from corruption, and to throw them open and
ungrudgingly to any who elect to share them. To all who desire to come and
Jive under the same laws with us, he gives a gracious we1come, holding that
it is not family ties alone which constitute relationship, but agreement in the
principles of conduct. 73
By way of illustration, let us point out the remarkable fact that the mbbis
included two proselytes, Shema'ya (1st century B.C.E.) and
(1st century B.C.E.), in the chain of tradition stemming from Moses
A bot 1: 10). Moreover, the mbbis declared that every single human bemg-
not only Jews-"constitutes a complete world" (Mishna Sanhedrin .4:5; Jew
or gentile as in the original text, see above n. 54). 'Slaves' too are mcluded.
It is worthy of note that the Hebrew 'ebed is the equivalent of a in
Western society, rather than 'slave' in its common semantic connotation:
12 Morton Smith, Palestinian Parties and Politics That Shaped the Old Testament (New York:
Columbia University Press, 1971 ), p. 18.
7J Against Apion II, 209-210, vol. 1, pp. 377-379; cf. ibid. 261, p. 397.
114
16. Humanity before Statehood
To us it. means hideous cruelty, the selling of a human being into the
of an.other person who could do him exactly as he pleased. We
thmk of the temble slave-trade which existed a century ago, and we shudder.
We, who love the Bible, may feel some "regret that it tolerates slavery;
and noble-hearted men abol.ish it, even leaders of religion opposed
them With the argument. 1t had the sancti9n of God's Revelation. They
who to argue in th1s manner either spoke in shameful ignorance or told
consciously a conscious lie. In fact the Hebrew term 'ebed does not correspond
to the modern term 'slave. '74
The Hebrew 'ebed was not plain 'property' to be disposed of by the owner
as he pleases. It would suffice to point out that if in the course of chastising
a 'slave' he died under the master's whip, the master is subject to capital
punishment (see Ex 21 :20).
16. Humanity before Statehood
Jewish institutions emerged from the sacredness of the individual, expressed
in the doctrine that every human is created in "the image of God" (see
Gn 9:6). The individual, in tum, established the household and family, which
in turn contmcted the 'Law' or Constitution of Israel, which is both 'divine'
and 'everlasting'-two legal doctrines having nothing to do with theology.
In reference to the quality of 'divine,' the Tara requires no promulgation by
a political authority, and therefore is immune from government intervention.
Consequently, it is 'everlasting' in the sense that it cannot be abrogated by
any civil or divine. Later, the people, through their respective elders,
representmg the households of Israel, constituted themselves as a nation; and
thereafter, with David, into a monarchy. The evolution individual-> household
->law->state->citizen is exceptional. It means, above all, that human rights
are a given, inherent in the image of God within. It proposes that the individual
does not depend on the state. But, rather, that he creates the household which
then create the state. A corollary of this principle is the belief that the
ruhng authorities are not hierarchically superior to anyone: they, too, are
equally bound to the same Law (see below Chapter 33).
The first book of Scripture begins with the story of a single individual,
Adam, ending with the establishment of the first family, Patriarch Jacob's
" R. Abraham Cohen, Sabbath Sermons (London: Soncino Press, 1960), p. 240, see ibid.,
PP· 239-243. Cf. The Special Laws, 34, Philo, vol. 7, p. 327: and the note of Chief Rabbi
pp. 404-405.
1. H. Hertz, The Pentateuch and Hajtorahs,
115