Many Jewish exegetes see these stories you mention as allegorical details. While there might have been genuine historical basis for what was written, the point for these interpreters is how and why the composition is presented.
The detail that the Egyptians were "stripped" by the exiting slaves is a cultural detail, shared not only by the Jews, but their neighbors in Egypt and Ur. The items represent the "spoils of war." The cultures from that area would take the riches of the conquered, which these had usually dedicated to their own gods, to show defeat over not only the conquered nations but also its deities. Note that it is from these items that the tabernacle and its utensils are later built, but previous attempts to use them to make a golden calf get rebuked. This is a symbol that these were not meant to be spoils for the Israelites as much as spoils for God who "defeated" the Egyptians. They are "God's spoils of war" and not those of Israel. Whether the Israelites historically took such things from their taskmasters is not as important as how they are used in the morality plays that follow.
And as for the Ten Commandments: note that the version followed by the Israelites as God's Word is not the version inscribed by God but the second pair inscribed by the "hand of Moses," a human being.
Again this is also an allegorical morality play, regardless of its historical validity. The lesson is that God uses humans to transmit his laws, that without tempering divine revelation with human hands and interpretation the result would have been slavery again but this time to divine standards. Blindly following divine revelation without adjusting it for humanity is not God's intention as God's commands must also be fitted to the current needs of humans.
Granted these ideas may seem shocking to some so used to Watchtower interpretation. I had a lengthy argument with several Fundamentalist Christians who felt it was wrong for Jews to view their own written texts this way, that unless these were viewed as historically correct details the Jewish exegesis was false, even audacious. "Who do those Jews think they are to be interpreting the Bible that way?" one even said to me. But for whatever it's worth, it is one approach that Jews find popular to build their theology upon, though it is not meant to be exhaustive or the only possibility, nor does it claim there are not problems with the text it interprets.
It should be noted that my posting this information in no way should be construed as any personal investment in it or representative of my personal convictions. The above is merely a posting of generalities of exegetical approaches taken from several Jewish sources which were not created by me and I don't necessarily subscribe to any of them personally,