What did the Israelites take with them when they left Egypt?
In Genesis 15:14 God tells Abraham that after the four hundred years of enslavement and oppression in a strange land, “they shall go free with great wealth.”
Prior to their departure from Egypt, Exodus 12:35 tells us that the people “borrowed objects of silver and gold, and clothing,” from the willing (according to the midrash) Egyptians.
In Exodus 12:36, though, the language is different, more harsh. It says, “thus they stripped the Egyptians.”
From the accounts of the golden calf and the building of the desert mishkan, we know that the Israelites in the desert had a great deal of gold, silver, and other valuable materials. But two interesting questions are raised:
- How should we understand Exodus 13:18, which tells us that “the Israelites went up armed out of the land of Egypt.”
- How is it that only one month after the exodus they were apparently out of food?
Topic #1: Arms
The first question is raised by the uncertain meaning of the Hebrew word חמשים, chamushim. Both the Old and New JPS translations use the word “armed.” Rashi, looking at the early midrashim, at the Targum, and at the use of the word in Joshua 1:14, understands that the people were literally equipped with weapons, which would be needed in the battles in the wilderness that are subsequently recorded in the text. Ibn Ezra, Ramban, and others follow the same line. Chizkuni says they were fully armed and “you are not to wonder where they had taken all those arms from.” Steinsaltz comments that they assumed they would eventually have to fight and so had prepared themselves for that eventuality.
Some translations understand chamushim as a derivation of the Hebrew word meaning “five” and present the verse as indicating a pattern of movement e.g. that they marched in ranks of five, or in an orderly formation. The King James and other versions use the word “harnessed,” which suggests both a kind of order and possibly a level of control. The NRSV uses “prepared for battle” without comment on how they might have been prepared. William Propp in his Anchor Bible version does not see the issue literally. He understands the word to mean “resolute,” which suggests a state of mind rather than a physical preparedness.
But the commentators have a fair point. The Israelites did battle against Amalek shortly after their deliverance at the Sea of Reeds as recorded in Exodus 17. Presumably, then, they did have the capacity to fight and that probably included some kinds of weaponry. Since they almost certainly owned no arms during the time of their oppression, there is only one likely explanation for their having them at the time of the battle with Amalek.
The likely possibility is suggested by the difference between the accounts in Exodus 12:35 and 36. The “borrowing” of gold and silver is understood to indicate the Egyptians’ willingness to provide those things. The midrash suggests the Egyptians actually pressed their valuables on the Israelites. Whether that was out of generosity, as some say, or to speed the process of their leaving, is not important for us. But why, then, is the account in verse 36 needed?
The verb in verse 36 is from the Hebrew root נצל, meaning to strip or despoil. In a different form it means to plunder. It does not have the sense of voluntariness that the “borrowing” in verse 35 has. So, it is possible that the process recorded in verse 36 is a forceable taking of goods in addition to those voluntarily given in verse 35. If that is the case, those additional goods might have included the weapons later used to fight the desert battles. If we look at the verse in that way, the better translation would be “and they stripped or despoiled or plundered the Egyptians” That puts the whole process in a different light. It might also help to explain the change of heart and pursuit by the Egyptians. The Egyptians felt aggrieved at the loss of more than they wanted to give the departing Israelites.
Using the word “thus” as the conjunction between the two ideas expressed in 12:35 and 12:36 suggests there was only one voluntary process. Using the word “and” allows for two separate and quite different processes. That change helps understand how the Israelites might have been “armed” as they left Egypt.
Topic #2: Food
The 12th century Tosafist known as the Bekhor Shor takes a different approach to the meaning of חמשים. He looks back to Genesis 41:34 in which Joseph says to Pharoah, “Let Pharoah take steps to organize the land of Egypt in the seven years of plenty.” The Hebrew translated there as “organize” is וחצש, v’chimesh, which is formed from the same three root consonants as chamushim and, like chamushim, is seen as having an uncertain meaning. In the Genesis context it has to do with the management of food. So, borrowing from that use, the Bekhor Shor infers that here the word also refers to food. His view is not that they went up “armed” but that they “were stocked with food.”
It seems only reasonable that, given the opportunity to gather gold and silver, the Israelites would have also taken care to pack food. If the Egyptians were willing to supply gold and silver, why not grain and other foodstuffs? It might be argued that the Israelites assumed they would be going immediately to Canaan where food was expected to be plentiful. And that is fair enough. But in Exodus 12:38 we find that they left with “very much livestock, both flocks and herds.” After all, they had been shepherds and keepers of animals since the time of Abraham. And yet, in Exodus 16:1 we find that the community began to grumble about the lack of food “on the fifteenth day of the second month after departure.”
That, itself, brings up an interesting question. Rashi tells us that we should understand that this means they had brought food enough for 61 meals from the dough they prepared for the passover feast. Why 61? That suggests the period of time measured is 30 days; that the grumbling began on the afternoon of the 31st day. The Bekhor Shor, in his comment to Genesis 41:34, also specifies that the people had taken food enough for 30 days and began to grumble when it ran out.
So, we really have two questions: a) how is it that the 15th day of the second month after leaving Egypt is understood to mean they had been traveling for 30 days rather than the apparently obvious 45 days, and b) what happened to the “very much livestock?”
The answer to the first question is that the seemingly straightforward interpretation of “on the fifteenth day of the second month after their departure from the land of Egypt” could not be allowed. The rabbis of the Talmud needed the interpretation of that period to parallel their interpretation of Exodus 19:1, “On the third new moon after the Israelites had gone forth from Egypt …” In order for the rabbis to find that the Sinai event and the observance of Shavuot to be on the same day, Ex 19:1 had to be understood to mean “on the third new moon of the year” rather than on the third new moon after the exodus event. So, the reference in Ex 16:1 must be interpreted as referring to the 15th day of the second month of the year, not the second month after the exodus event. In that interpretation, the Israelites would have been traveling from the 15th day of the first month to the 15th day of the second month, or 30 days, which Rashi, the Bekhor Shor, and others all understand.
For a detailed analysis of the rabbinic solution to coordinating the dates of the Sinai event and Shavuot see here:
https://www.charleslightner.com/the-rabbinic-solution-to-linking-shavuot-and-sinai/
The second question is, what happened to the livestock?
The verse at Exodus 12:38 seems clear: they had flocks and herds aplenty. Midrash Tanchuma looks forward in the text to Numbers 32:1, and notes that during the desert years, “The Reubenites and the Gadites owned cattle in very great numbers.” The midrash concludes that it was not lack of flesh, specifically, or even of food in general that caused the people to grumble. The halachic midrash Sifre to Bamidbar agrees with Tanchuma. That is, the people had flocks and herds during the wandering and those provided food.
The grumbling, it is suggested in one interpretation, was not about a general lack of provisions but rather about a specific perceived lack. It was not just food but specific food. The manna might have been physically uniform but, in the Israelite’s mouth it became whatever it was the individual actually desired. So, the manna was not the only food; its function was to supplement the food the people actually had in a way that would satisfy them. Of course, they complain about the food again in Numbers 11, so that argument is not convincing.
Alternatively, the midrash finds the grumbling was not actually among the Israelites themselves but among the mixed multitude that accompanied them on their journey. In that view the non-Israelites were grumbling because they were prohibited from engaging in illicit sexual activity. We will not pursue that further.
It is not likely that the flocks and herds that the Israelites had in Egypt were actually taken with them through the desert years. We recall that the Hebrews were settled in Goshen specifically because the well-watered Nile delta area was favorable land for raising animals. The desert is not. If they did bring the animals with them, expecting them to survive the short journey back to Canaan, the reality of their situation would not have allowed them to be a source of food for very long after the wandering was decreed. The Gadites and the Reubenites probably acquired their animals through the wars fought in the last year or so of the desert period.
The midrashim always look to explain anomalies and often they venture into the fanciful. In this specific case the answer is probably found in the realm of source analysis. The accounts of the exodus are composed from several strands of text representing multiple sources. The Redactor might have had no text that accounted for the question of the animals and chose to refrain from creating a solution to an issue he did not see as a problem.
The fact that the people brought food enough for thirty days probably suggests that they expected that it would last them for the duration of their journey back to Canaan.