Parashat Bo describes how one of the preparations for the Exodus from Egypt included having the Israelites “borrow” gold and silver vessels from their Egyptian neighbors. The Torah records that God arranged for the Egyptians to respond positively to those requests to the extent that the people “despoiled the Egyptians” (Shemot 12:36), leaving nothing behind. The midrashim emphasize this, using metaphors that described Egypt as being “like an abyss in the sea without fish” or “like a trap in which there is no grain.”
The Midrash Rabbah (with parallel sources in both the Babylonian and Jerusalem Talmud) describes that generations later, under the rule of Alexander the Great, the Egyptians summoned the Jewish community to a trial demanding the return of their “borrowed” valuables. According to the story, the Egyptians were joined by two other nations – the Canaanites and the Ishmaelites.
“In the days of Alexander the Macedonian (the Great), the Ishmaelites came to appeal against Israel about the birthright - and with them came two evil families: the Canaanites and the Egyptians.”
The first claim described by the midrash was that of the Ishmaelites, who claimed that as the first-born son, their forefather, Yishmael, deserved the inheritance of Avraham. At this point, the midrash does not describe the claims of the other two nations, but it is clear that the Jews needed someone who could offer an appropriate defense. This is the description of how their defense attorney was chosen:
“They [the Israelites] said, ‘Who will go and litigate with them?’ G'vi'ah ben Kosem said, ‘I will go and litigate with them.’ They said to him, ‘Be careful that you not ensure the land for them.’ He said, ‘I will go and deliberate with them. If I win, so much the better. And, if not, you will say, ‘What is this inferior one, that he should stand himself up for us?’” He went and litigated with them.”
Choosing the right representative must have been a difficult decision. The stakes were high, and the national homeland of the Jews was under threat. G’vi’ah convinces the Jewish leaders that he is the right choice by emphasizing that in the worst case they can deny that he truly represented them.
It is at this point that the trial begins. The first claimant is the community of Ishmaelites:
“Alexander the Macedonian said to them, ‘Who is claiming against whom?’ The Ishmaelites said, ‘We are claiming against them, and from their Torah do we come against them: It is written (Devarim 21:17), ‘But he will recognize the firstborn the son of the disliked wife.’ And by right Yishmael should take a double portion!”
The claim of the Ishmaelites is based on the laws of inheritance practices of the Jewish community based on Torah law. The eldest son deserves a double portion, even if he is the child of the wife who is disliked. Thus, the Ishmaelite nation should be recognized as the legitimate – and primary – inheritors of Avraham’s estate. The Land of Israel should belong to them and not to the Jewish people.
“G'vi'ah ben Kosem said, ‘My lord king, may a man not do what he wants for his children?’ He said to him, ‘Yes.’ And G'vi'ah said: ‘And is it not written: And Avraham gave all that he had to Yitzhak!’ They said to him, ‘And where is the deed of sending away, indicating that he distributed from his assets to the rest of his children?’ He said to him: ‘And to the sons of Avraham's concubines, Avraham gave gifts.’ And the Ishmaelites left from there shamefaced.”
G’vi’ah’s answer was that a will depicting the desires of the one making a bequest can overturn the laws of inheritance. If someone chooses not to bequeath to his legal heirs, he may do so. Avraham commanded that everything be given to Yitzhak and dismissed the concubines’ children with gifts. Hence the biblical laws of inheritance do not apply to Avraham’s children.
The next part of the trial related to the claims of the Canaanites.
“The Canaanites said, ‘From their Torah do we come against them. In every place in the Torah it is written, ‘to the Land of Canaan,’ ‘the Land of Canaan.’ They should give us our land!’ G'vi'ah ben Kosem said to Alexander, ‘My master, the king, does a man not do to his slave what he wants?’ He said to him, ‘Yes.’ G'vi'ah said: What is written? ‘Cursed be Canaan; The lowest of slaves shall he be to his brothers’ (Bereishit 9:25). Behold, the land is ours and they are slaves! And the Canaanites left from there shamefaced.”
The claim put forward by the Canaanites was based on the repeated references to the Land of Israel as “the Land of Canaan” throughout the Torah. This was suggested to mean that the Jews, themselves, recognize that the land belonged to the Canaanites. G’vi’ah’s reply to them was that the Torah declares them to be slaves. A slave owns nothing; all of his possessions belong to his master.
We now come to the final stage of the trial, where the Egyptians demand the return of the gold and silver that were taken from them by the Israelites during the Exodus from Egypt.
“Egypt said, ‘From their Torah do we come against them. Sixty multitudes went out from us laden with vessels of silver and vessels of gold, as it is written (Shemot 12:36): ‘and they despoiled Egypt.’ They should give us our silver and our gold!" G'vi'ah ben Kosem said to him, ‘My lord king, sixty myriad persons worked for them for 210 years - among them were silversmiths and among them were goldsmiths who take for their wage, a dinar a day!’ The philosophers (wise men) sat and calculated and did not get to a hundred years before the Land of Egypt was forfeited to the treasury to repay its debt. And the Egyptians left from there shamefaced.”
G’vi’ah is willing to negotiate with the Egyptians and to return their money, provided they assess the wages that the Israelites deserve for their work – six hundred thousand Israelites, who worked for two hundred and ten years. Once the calculations are made, the Jews would pay the difference. The accountants did the calculations, and after figuring just 100 years of work it became clear that all the money in the Egyptian treasuries would not be enough to pay the Israelites what they deserved.
The first two trials dealing with the claims of the Canaanites and the Ishmaelites questioned Israel’s right to their land. One claimed it by inheritance and the other claimed a natural right to the land. The trial initiated by the Egyptians involved a completely different matter. Here the legal question depended not on a foundational belief or the issue of inheritance. Here we are dealing with a question of civil law. The first two trials were matters that would be brought before the Supreme Court, but this one is a simple case that should be brought in civil court. Were it not for the fact that the litigants were two nations, it should not have reached the international court of Alexander the Great.
Why does the midrash choose to lump together this case with the previous ones?
Perhaps we can suggest that the claim made by the Egyptians, which looks like a discussion of actuarial questions, is actually a discussion of a question of justice, just as the question of national land ownership represents a question of justice. All three claimants are arguing that the Jews behave like international gangsters. They appropriate land that is not theirs (the claim of the Ishmaelites), they erase entire cultures and rewrite history (the claim of the Canaanites), and they enrich themselves by robbing countries (the claim of the Egyptians). All of this they do claiming the backing of God.
G’vi’ah’s response to these claims emphasizes that the nation of Israel lives in a world full of gangsters. In this world are many who exploit weaknesses, forgetting the concept of justice when questioning the practice of others. The answer to that involves cleverness and deep knowledge of one’s history and culture.
