Mockery

At times like this, murder casts a long shadow over any discussion about the mockery of religious symbols. Before I comment on mockery, I cry out emphatically: all life is sacred! Murder is evil! This is true, regardless of the motives or the identity of the victims, be they people who drew cartoons, a Muslim policeman protecting the cartoonists, Jewish shoppers, Nigerians, Assyrians in Iraq or Syrians. Closer to home, I am outraged by the domestic violence murder of Leila Alavi by her ex-husband. Enough! Enough! It is disappointing to me that some of these murders have failed to galvanize the world or communities while the free speech of the cartoonists is front and centre. Clearly, the issue of free speech relates to broader questions about extremist interpretations of Islam and, more broadly and problematically, to Muslim and non-Muslim relations in general.

As a bridge- builder and a student of the Torah, I think it is worth exploring the issue of mockery.  I am in two minds about this issue and it seems that traditional teachings are as well. The bottom line for me is that we need to uphold freedom of expression as well as peace and interfaith respect. I don’t know where to draw the lines and I don’t have the answer, but I see value in exploring the question.

The case for mockery:
Abraham is a hero to Jews (1) and Muslims (2) for his mockery. In a story that is found in both traditions, Abraham smashed the idols in an idol- worshipping society and then satirised the people’s beliefs by sarcastically setting up the scene to make it appear that the biggest idol smashed the smaller ones.  Rather than criticize him for his rudeness or disrespect of the religious symbols of his neighbours, we see this violent expression of intolerance of “wrong religion” as virtuous. Elijah, the prophet, sarcastically taunted the worshippers of Baal at a public gathering. "Call with a loud voice, for he is a god. [Perhaps] he is chatting or he is chasing [enemies] or he is on a journey; perhaps he is sleeping and will awaken (3)”. Perhaps, God Himself used some harsh humour. When God sent Moses to Pharaoh, he told him that there will be resistance, followed by miracles.  “I will place my signs (or miracles) in his midst and so that you will tell in the ears of your sons and your son’s son, how I toyed (4) with Egypt…(5)”. Humour and mockery can be a tool in the battle of ideas. Because we value truth, we must allow cartooning and satire as one means of teasing out the truth.

The case against mockery:
Despite the value of robust pursuit of truth, Moses seemed to call for tact toward the religious sensibilities of the Egyptians. When Pharaoh suggested that the Hebrews could worship in Egypt, Moses objected to this, stating that “it is not right to do it like this” (6). Moses had two reasons for his assertion that is was “not right”, both relating to the fact that, at that time, Jewish worship involved slaughtering sheep which were worshipped by the Egyptians. One reason was “on principle and out of respect… being that they worship the constellation of Aries and sheep are holy for them, it is not proper to denigrate their faith in their faces… the second, and a separate reason, was the danger of a violent response by the Egyptians”. The respect that Moses calls for, is not an absolute principle of interfaith respect. A short time after Moses asserts the inappropriateness of the Hebrews’ disrespect for the Egyptian God, the Hebrews are instructed to slaughter a lamb for each family (8). Tact, it would seem, is more important in some circumstances than others.

Response to Mockery:
There can be no justification for murder as a response to blasphemy on the part of non-adherents to any particular faith in a world with differences of belief. (Whether punishment for blasphemy is ok within single faith populations is a separate question.) My unqualified outrage against murder motivated by intolerance, does not prevent me from seeking to understand why someone who does not share my perspective on this, might see it differently. The Pope compared the cartoonists to someone insulting his mother and suggested that he would be tempted to punch someone like that in the nose. In the case of the possible Egyptian reaction to the provocation of seeing their gods slaughtered, Jewish scholars suggest that “by law and by right, the Egyptians would pelt us with stones (9)”. In my view, this sort of violence can be understood AND is absolutely wrong.

Conclusion: Navigating the rights and wrongs of mockery is difficult and contestable. Anger about opposing views about what to allow or not allow is to be expected, especially from those on the receiving- end of mockery. Wherever people stand on this issue, they are entitled to hold their strong views, but no one is entitled to use violence or threats of violence to impose their views on others. At the same time, no one should use this debate or the crimes of some people as justification for generalised hatred. We can agree to disagree, agreeably.

Notes:
1) Bereishit Rabba 38:13
2) Qur'an 21:51-70
3) Kings I, 18:27
4) Rashi, Chizkuni, also Ramban who refers to psalms (2:4) “the one who sits in the heaven, will laugh, the Lord will mock them”. Haemek Davar suggests that Pharaoh was given the opening to follow the path he had chosen for himself, the path of Mockery of the Hebrew slaves, but he was now the butt of the joke.  Another view is that the Hebrew word התעללתי that these commentators translate as ‘mocking’, actually means “deeds” – Rashbam or miracles – Unkelus, Targum Yonatan Ben Uziel
5) Exodus 10:1-2
6) Exodus 8:22
7) Malbim
8) Exodus 12:3
9) Targum Yonathan Ben Uziel, Biur Yonasan, Sechel Tov

Dismantling Oppression

This past Saturday Jews read (what is arguably) our most important story[i], the Exodus from Egypt. One element of this account is the devastating process of dismantling the oppressive and powerful Egyptian system of enslavement. 

The Exodus story calls us to treat the vulnerable, particularly “the stranger”, with love and to never oppress them. Subjugation has many forms, from gross mistreatment to being part of a system which at best unknowingly continues to perpetuate inequality. Assuming that the Critical Race theorists are right, there is a need to disrupt an oppressive order that I, as a middle class white male, am part of. Or as my colleague Donna Jacobs Sife taught me, we can all oppress others over whom we have some power. This gives me another reason to be interested in the ways that oppressive systems can be subverted and replaced and in more equal and just ways of interacting and being.  This post is about one scenario from our past in which the transition is very harsh. 

While the simple story is that the Israelites were freed from bondage, there is a subtext about humiliating the Pharaoh and his people. Moses is told by God to “Come to Pharaoh, for I have hardened[ii] his heart and the heart of his servants[iii]”. An odd thing for God to do if all he wants to accomplish is for Pharaoh to free his people. However it seems that  God is acting as a puppeteer putting on a dramatic show by miraculously making Pharaoh recalcitrant so that; “I will place my signs (or miracles) in his midst and so that you will tell in the ears of your sons and your son’s son, how I toyed[iv] with Egypt…and you will know that I am God[v]”. According to this, the ten plagues were not unavoidable necessities on the path to freedom but ends in themselves, perhaps needed to change the power dynamic between the Israelites and the Egyptians.

Shortly after this element of what I might call psychological warfare is articulated, Moses asks Pharaoh on behalf of God; “how much longer will you refuse to humble[vi] yourself before Me[vii]?” On completing his discussion Moses deliberately turns his back on Pharaoh when leaving his presence, rather than walk out backwards as is the custom in Australian courts where one would not turn their back on the bench.

Pharaoh shows some signs of giving in, but is still bargaining with Moses about who will be allowed to go, first seemingly agreeing to Moses' demand to let all the Israelites go including children[viii] but then immediately insisting that only adult men can go. So God is not the only one “toying” with people, Pharaoh is doing it too. Commentary sees this as him “clowning with” or mocking the Israelites and that this leads to an escalation where the very order of the world is changed with darkness replacing light[ix]. The harshness of the reaction seems to me to be about the need for Pharaoh to now be the butt of the joke rather than the one making the jokes, for the power balance to be set right.

The shift in the relationship also plays out in the Paschal lamb offering the Israelites were commanded to bring. According to commentary the lamb was an object of worship for the Egyptians or a symbol of the zodiacal sign of the lamb which they worshipped[x]. The choice of sacrifice would be a dramatic act in the changing relationship between former slave and former master. “Laying ones hand on a sheep or a goat was sacrilege in Egyptian eyes. The Egyptians would suddenly be confronted by the spectacle of the their former down trodden slaves having the audacity to take hold of the gods they worshipped, the lamb and tie them to the legs of their bed…then with the Egyptians powerlessly looking on the blood of the slaughtered animals would be publicly displayed on the doorposts while their carcases would be served up, its form still familiar to onlookers: “his head with his legs[xi]” [xii]”.  

In the one pleasant scene (regarding the relationship between slave holding Egyptian nation and the Hebrew slaves) in this story, we have the Egyptians referred to as the friends of the Israelites from whom they were to request[xiii] silver and gold utensils[xiv].  These were readily given as gifts[xv] by some Egyptians[xvi], or as encouragement to hurriedly leave Egypt[xvii] by others. The Egyptians did not hate the Israelites on account of the plagues, but instead they added love and found favour in their eyes, saying we are the wicked ones…[xviii]. Egyptians cried and regretted the wickedness with which they had treated them. Moses himself, the key player in bringing the plagues to the Egyptians was also greatly admired[xix].

I am not sure what to make of all of this. Perhaps it is a warning to all of us about acting like or being complicit with a Pharaoh in any form of oppression, that when oppressive power structures are put in place their dismantling by an external force will be painful. It is far better to voluntarily embrace change sooner than wait for it to be forced from the outside.  Yet, it has been said that “freedom is never voluntarily given by the oppressor; it must be demanded by the oppressed[xx]”. There are surely various ways freedom can be demanded and demonstrated by the oppressed, none will be comfortable for “the oppressors”, but I would imagine there are various degrees to that discomfort. Equally, there are choices for those previously privileged about how to respond to the need for change in the relationship. We are called to make gracious, genuinely remorseful and generous choices.

---

[i] I argue for it being the most important story because in the revelation at Mt. Sinai God introduces himself as the liberator from Egypt in the opening sentence of the Ten Commandments, every day the Exodus from Egypt is mentioned at least three times in the regular prayer routine is also part of the Kiddush prayer which sanctifies the Sabbath.

[ii] The word in the Torah that is translated as harden, is Hichbadti which is more accurately translated as made heavy (Targum Unkelus and Yonatan Ben Uziel), in a play on words it is also related to the word “Kaved” meaning liver, that God made Pharaoh’s heart like the liver “which hardens when it is exposed to fire...his heart became like a liver and he did not accept the words of God (Shemot Rabba 13:4, Torah Shlaima Parshat Bo, 3, p2)

[iii] Exodus 10:1

[iv] Rashi

[v] Exodus 10:1-2

[vi] Translation follows Unkelus and Rashi

[vii] Exodus 10:3

[viii] Exodus 10:10

[ix] Mishnat Rabbi Eliezer 6, p199, cited in Torah Shlaima, parshat Bo p.9

[x] Mimonedes cited in Leibowitz, N. (1996) New Studies in Shemot Exodus p.198

[xi] Exodus 12:9

[xii] Akedat Yitzchat, R. Yitzchak Arama, cited in Leibowitz, N. (1996) New Studies in Shemot Exodus p.200

[xiii] A more common translation is “borrow”, in that the Israelites would borrow from their Egyptian neighbours, the translation I am using follows Rashbam for the purpose of exploring this particular approach in interpretation.

[xiv] Exodus 11:3

[xv] Sechel Tov, cited in Torah Shlaima Bo p.27

[xvi] Kadmonius Hayehudim book 2 14:6 cited in Torah Shlaima ibid

[xvii] Hadar Zekainim, cited in Torah Shlaima ibid

[xviii] Ramban

[xix] Exodus 11:3

[xx] Martin Luther King Jr http://en.proverbia.net/citastema.asp?tematica=492

Enemies

Tyrant Turned to Toy  by Divine Power

When I first started out as a Rabbi, I did a lesson for young adults in which I talked about the greatness of God expressed in punishment of the wicked. A participant challenged me; why would we aspire to that instead of just wishing for peace for all. Good point, I thought.


Since then, I have been moved by the way some Christians seek to love their enemies. I see that idea as radical, visionary and subversive; not accepting the dynamic of conflict and hate but rather insisting on a spiritual approach grounded in love. This is not a comparison between Judaism and Christianity or their histories, I am well aware of the blood shed by Christian crusaders. I also think the fact that Jews were powerless for 2000 years is a factor. This is an honest exploration of my own tradition and familiar stories to discover ideas about the response to enemies I had not noticed before. I have discovered some legalistic elements, but most exciting was a radical and subversive aspect to what could seem to be callous harshness.

Playing with enemies?!

According to one traditional translation[1], we have a seemingly scary idea about enemies. God tells Moses that in the future, “you will tell into the ears of your son and your son's son how I played with the Egyptians[2]”. Putting aside other translations that reject the meaning of “played with” instead rendering the Hebrew word הִתְעַלַּלְתִּי, as “my actions[3]”, can it be right that God has fun punishing people?! A sloppy translation of another verse would seem to support this idea, “just as the Lord rejoiced over you to do good for you and to increase you, so will the Lord rejoice over you to annihilate you and to destroy you[4]”.  The Talmud argues convincingly that the meaning here is not that God will rejoice over annihilation but rather will cause others to rejoice[5] in the destruction of the Jews. The Talmud categorically states that God does not rejoice in the downfall of the wicked[6].

Non-Fun-Play

The meaning of God’s play with the Egyptian tyrants is about subversion of power rather than fun. The verse about Kings and Nation, “He Who dwells in Heaven laughs; the Lord mocks them[7]”, is explained as “a metaphor for mockery about something that is not considered anything[8]”. The tyrants with their exaggerated self-importance and trappings of power can seem invincible. Yet, the Jew, threatened, beaten, ridiculed and humiliated can take comfort that the Pharaoh in his/her own day may yet prove to be a plaything of God, like Saddam or Muammar in our recent times.

Funny Honda Boss

Here is a personal anecdote that is an illustration of the subversive power of humour.
As a Yeshiva student, I was sitting in the library late one night with a book while some of my fellow student has broken the lock to the kitchen and were frying shnitzels when they should have been in bed. The head of the Yeshiva, a bit of an absent-minded professor type, came screaming up the street in his orange Honda, vrrroommmrrmrmm.  He throws the door open to the building and screams at the top of his lungs, “Ahh Chutzpehhhhh!” All the guilty young scholars are by now safely in their beds, their lights out, while the Shnitzels continue to fry as if being cooked by ghosts. The authority figure- my Yeshiva head, runs up and down the stairs through the building like a ball in one of those old pinball machines. He finds no one, until he discovers me in the library. He gave me what sounded like a very harsh long angry lecture about how I was destroying the whole school. I put on a very sad puppy-dog face, nodded my head and was not in the least bit offended by the whole comic spectacle.

Does punishment upset God?

The mystics state that when we talk of divine emotions, these are not to be understood in human terms[9] at all and are essentially metaphoric. In this vain, one commentator understands the verse relating to rejoicing about the destruction of the Jewish people as being a message that one should not  “think that God will be harmed, or will mourn” if he must punish us[10]. This is linked to the verse “If you are righteous, what do you give Him? Or what does He take from your hand?[11]”

Other sources suggest that God does care about the suffering of the wicked. In introducing the story of the splitting of the red sea[12], in which the Israelites were saved while the Egyptians perished, the word Vayehi  וַיְהִי (literally “and it was”, but linked to vai, or oy vay) is used which traditionally is used in situations of pain and sadness. This is attributed at least in part to the death of the Egyptians[13]. We are told that the angels wanted to sing praises to God for the miracles at the red sea. God exclaims, “the work of my hands are drowning in the sea and you will sing praises?![14]” Even, this is not simple, in another version of the same story God objects because he wants  the angels to wait until after the Israelites sing of their own salvation before the angels get their turn[15], but does not object to the singing itself at a time of great human suffering.  Yet, the view is better known among Jews is not the one in which God is concerned with the sequence of the praises, but his rejection of the content of the angels praise because of his care about the destruction of the wicked. This view is also reflected in at least one meaning behind the ritual of pouring out drops of wine at the Passover Seder in sympathy for the suffering of the Egyptians[16].

Other less pleasant approaches – all out war and legalism

It might make sense to stop while I am ahead, yet I think it would not be completely honest. Jewish responses to enemies also include less attractive options such as fighting them directly, and acting cleverly or even legalistically. I have little I can say about the take-no prisoners-wars against Amalek[17] and Canaan except that they challenge me.

Another approach is also difficult. The “clever”/legalistic option which is seen in the Jews either borrowing (or asking[18]) their Egyptian neighbours for “silver and gold objects and garments[19]”, just before they left Egypt and never returned. There is a strong attempt to make this technically Kosher. After the Jews left Egypt, Moses having told Pharaoh that they were going to the desert for three days[20], the Jews suddenly turn back toward Egypt[21] . This was because God “did not want the Jews to be liars, as you had said we will go for three days and will return and borrowed vessels…therefore you should turn around to stand on your faithfulness…” Perhaps conveniently, Pharaoh goes out to war against them and does not allow them to return so it will be his fault that they cannot go back or return what they borrowed [22]. Oh well.

Yet, there is a broader context here. In the Talmud, this act is justified as constituting a round about way of receiving the unpaid wages for the Jewish slaves[23]. There is surely a difference between being legalistic when one is in the right or when is in the wrong. The message for me in this is that there are times when things get messy, where broadly speaking one is morally entitled to fight, even in those situations it is important to dot the i’s and cross the t’s. I don’t think it is about legitimising legal fictions and legalistic arguments in cases where the broad moral balance is against the action one is taking.    

Conclusion

There is more to the sources than first meets the eye. While playing games with people is generally wrong, when God does it to a tyrant there could be a message of hope in it. Despite Judaism’s ultimate aspiration for universal peace, it is has a range of ideas about managing conflict until that time. One of these is the deep sadness of the loss of every human life, even if he is a soldier in the army of a wicked oppressor. Of course, using legalistic arguments to defend the indefensible is inexcusable, yet legalistic considerations have their place in the pursuit of justice, even the case of an unforgivable crime such as the slavery in Egypt. The letter of the law must be considered, even if one is in the clear according to its spirit. Some of this is uncomfortable for me, other aspects are inspiring, but this is what I have been able to find for now.  

---

[1] Rashi, Ramban, Chizkuni, translate הִתְעַלַּלְתִּי as meaning either played with or mockery, relating to a similar word to in Isaiah 3:4, the same understanding of the word is supported by MaHari Kra, Metzudat Tzion, and Metzudat David

[2] Exodus 10:2

[3] Targum Unkelus, Targum Yonatan Ben Uziel. Another alternative relating to pruning a vineyard is found in a manuscript of Lekach Tov, cited in Torah Shlaima parshat Bo, p3-4

[4] Deuteronomy 28:63

[5] Talmud Sanhedrin 39b, the spelling of the word relating to rejoice over the destruction  is spelled  יָשִׂישׂ  which means will cause others to rejoice, if it mean that God Himself would rejoice the spelling would have been with ו a instead of a י

[6] ibid

[7] Psalms 2:4

[8] Meiri commentary on the Psalms

[9] Tana Dbei Eliyahu

[10] Ibn Ezra commentary on Deuteronomy 28:63, this is so out of step with the Talmud Sanhedrin that Avi Ezer states that Ibn Ezra must have overlooked it

[11] Job 35:7

[12] Exodus 13:17

[13] Ohr Hachayim

[14] Talmud Megila 10b, and Sanhedrin 39b

[15] Shemot Rabba 23:8

[16] Rabbi Yitzchok Abarbanel in his Passover commentary Zevach Pesach, cited on http://www.askmoses.com/en/article/169,2202336/Why-do-we-pour-wine-out-of-the-cup-at-the-Seder.html

[17] Exodus 17, is where it first appears 

[18] The Hebrew word is וְשָׁאֲלָה which although it can mean borrow, it can also mean ask for an outright gift which is how it is understood by Rabbenu Bachaya and Rashbam, cited in Leibovitz, N, (1996) New Studies in Shemot, The Joint Authority for Jewish Zionist Education, Jerusalem, p.188

[19] Exodus

[20] Exodus 3:18

[21] Exodus 14:2-4

[22] Bchor Shor, Mosad Rav Kook edition, 2000, Jerusalem p.120

[23] Talmud Sanhedrin 91a

Liberation – Dignity, Denigration, Compensation (Bo)

Does liberation and dignity for group A, depend on the denigration of group B? is that the right approach? What else restores dignity?

A scream borne of the frustration of the youth of Gaza with their life situation, Israel, Hamas, Fatah, and the world [1] has taken off on Face-Book this week. It went from 7000-12,000 likes in 3 days. They call for peaceful action, and cry out for a normal life, or dignity. It follows the “them = perpetrators, us = victims” line, and includes an accusatory cartoon portraying the US, as Uncle Sam enjoying himself in a pool of Gazan blood and Israel as ex-PM Olmert covered in blood walking out of the pool. As a Jew this FaceBook page raises some questions.

Justice, safety, peace, dignity and normal lives for all the people living in the holy land is vital. The following is not an attempt to comment on the core claims or counter claims of this important argument and reality. Instead, it addresses a secondary issue of fighting fair, how outraged should one feel when the other side does something we object to? The starting point is surely, the Talmudic “Lshitato”, judging details according to their own view of the context, is their behaviour reasonable? What are the ethics of liberation struggles generally?

Mockery & Satire

As part of liberating the Jews from Egypt, God tells “Moses to come to Pharaoh...so that I will put these of my signs within him “and in order that you tell into the ears of your son and your son's son how I made a mockery of the Egyptians, and [that you tell of] My signs that I placed in them, and you will know that I am the Lord”[2]. This translation is not the only one. Early translations found no humour in the plagues, instead it has it as “what I have wrought upon Egypt”[3].  Regardless, the idea of mockery of evil is justified, “He that sits in heaven laughs, the Lord has them in derision[4]”.

The most dramatic use of mockery is the prophet Elijah’s sarcastic jibes at the prophets of the Baal at the contest to see which “god” would create a fire to accept his offerings. “And it came to pass at noon, that Elijah mocked them, and said: 'Call in a loud voice; for he is a god; either he is musing, or he is gone aside, or he is in a journey, or he sleeps, and must be awaked”[5]. Satire is an acceptable method for fighting evil, the difficulty with cartoons and satire is that exaggeration and even demonization is common.

Demonization Exaggeration & Hyperbole

We know from bitter recent experience that demonization leads to violence, that words are not harmless.  In the story of Joseph, before they seek to kill him they call him “this dreamer[6]” and cannot even bring themselves to say his name.

The story of Joseph is an example of the powerful many demonizing the one powerless individual. When it comes to blasting the powerful, the prophets don’t seem to hold back. “Behold the princes of Israel, every man was in for his own power, for the sake of bloodshed...A man commits abominations against his neighbours wife, a man would defile his daughter in law with lewdness, a man would afflict (rape) his sister, the daughter of his father”[7].  “Listen to the word of God chiefs of Sodom, give ear to the Torah of God nation of Gomorrah...your hands are filled with blood, ...how has the faithful city filled with justice become a prostitute? A place of justice, but now murders... your princes are wayward, friends of thieves, all of them love bribes”[8].  

Outcomes & Ethics

One angle to consider is the end result. Jewish law forbids the ransom of captives in excess of the market value of the captives for the simple reason that by paying more, it will simply encourage more kidnapping.

On the one hand, demonization of the other can perpetuate conflict.  In the real world we live in, causes draw attention to themselves through, carnage, crass simplification or creativity. Afghanistan gets billions, while Sudan gets lip-service because murderers came from there. I think Palestinians have learned to play the world media game to pursue their objectives, going back to Munich. If young Gazan’s put their energy into words on Face-Book and calling for peaceful action, even using offensive and crass cartoons and harsh combattitive words, can this mean less violence toward Israelis, less reprisals and a slowing of the vicious cycle. Who knows?

Dignity & Compensation

Aside from the questions of denigration, is the question of the link between monetary compensation and the restoration of dignity. In the Exodus story, Jews are instructed to borrow (or request) silver and gold from their Egyptian neighbours[9]. The purpose of this is to compensate the slaves for years of unpaid labour[10]. Jews follow this instruction but with a slight variation, in addition to silver and gold they receive clothing[11]. Of the three items, the clothing was cherished to them than the gold and silver[12].  It was important to the “God of law and justice (mishpat), that the goods come from the Egyptians… to save their wages from their (the Egyptians) hands. … because this way, our father Abraham would have some comfort about the difficult work performed by his children”[13].     

Admission and Apology

The former PM of Australia apologised to Indigenous Australians but did not offer compensation. Still, this had a powerful healing effect on many Indigenous people. The Jews never get a sincere apology from Pharaoh, only pretence and back-pedalling; the mockery by God or our own storytelling will suffice.

In today’s conflict there is little hope of a mutual acknowledgment of the others narrative, which brings us back to the big question of who is right, that I have chosen not to deal with. Instead, I conclude with the smaller question of how to react to the output of the Gaza Youth. Facebook’s option of “Like”, does not leave much scope for nuance, or “wait and see”, our tradition does.

[1] http://www.facebook.com/#!/pages/Gaza-Youth-Breaks-Out-GYBO/118914244840679?v=info

[2] Exodus 10:1&2, translation consistent with commentary by Rashi, Ramban and others http://www.chabad.org/parshah/torahreading_cdo/aid/15561

[3] Translation of Oonkelus, Targum Yontan Ben Uziel,  http://www.mechon-mamre.org/p/pt/pt0210.htm

[4] Psalms 2:4

[5] Kings I, 18:27

[6] Genesis, 37:19

[7] Ezekiel 22:6,10, &11

[8] Isaiah 1:10,15, 21,23.

[9] Exodus 11:2

[10] Talmud, Sanhedrin Perek Chelek

[11] Exodus 12:35

[12] Mechilta, with slight variation also in Rashi, on Exodus 12:35. (Rashi, changed from the Mechilta’s “Chaviva”- which means loved or cherished to “Chashuva”, more important. This in turn is interpreted by Maharshal, Sifsei Chachomim and Gur Aryeh, as the clothing being more significant for the Egyptians who expected the gold and silver to be returned as they are but expected the clothing to be modified to “Jewish style” dress, so found it hard to give away.

[13] Klei Yakar, on Exodus 11:2

---