Musar zu Schemot 6:32

If the obligation of a laborer hired for a day's labor is as great as the Talmud described, how much greater must be our obligation to be dedicated in our service to the Lord, who is guaranteed to pay us our reward! Surely we must serve Him both by day and by night, for do we not combine within ourselves the status of day- and night-laborer? The subject matter of wasting time is fraught with profound mystical significance, as every particle of time is a separate unit and none of it must be lost. A particle of time is perceived as an extension of G–d's eternity, or a mini-branch of the branches represented by His Ineffable Name. G–d Himself alludes to this when He says in Parshat Va'eira 6,2 אני י-ה-ו-ה. Rashi explains that this means that G–d can be trusted to pay the reward of those who walk before Him. All aspects of "time" are anchored in a mystical dimension of this name of G–d.

וידבר אלהים אל משה. G–d spoke harshly with Moses because Moses had been adamant in saying to G–d: "Why have You caused things to get worse for this people and why have You sent me?" Moses was guilty of questioning the ways of G–d, and that was why G–d expressed regret at the passing of the patriarchs who had never been guilty of questioning His ways. Rashi explained all this at length. We therefore have to learn from this to be extremely careful not to question G–d, whether it is when He confers benefits or when He appears to afflict us. G–d is the true צדיק. Sometimes we think that what happens to us is bad; G–d however, knows that it is all for our good even if we fail to recognise this at the time.

וידבר אלהים אל משה ויאמר אליו אני השם. I have expounded at length in my treatise on Passover, as well as in my commentary on the Haggadah shel Pessach on the opening lines in our portion, commencing with Exodus 6,2 until the words לא נודעתי להם in verse 3. All the miracles performed by G–d in Egypt which defied all known laws of nature, were invoked by the Ineffable Four- lettered Name י-ה-ו-ה which symbolises G–d as היה, הוה, יהיה the One who created the world ex nihilo and who is eternal.

וידבר אלהים אל משה ויאמר אליו אני השם. I have expounded at length in my treatise on Passover, as well as in my commentary on the Haggadah shel Pessach on the opening lines in our portion, commencing with Exodus 6,2 until the words לא נודעתי להם in verse 3. All the miracles performed by G–d in Egypt which defied all known laws of nature, were invoked by the Ineffable Four- lettered Name י-ה-ו-ה which symbolises G–d as היה, הוה, יהיה the One who created the world ex nihilo and who is eternal.

וידבר ה' אל משה ואל אהרן ויצום אל בני ישראל. Rashi comments that G–d commanded them to lead the people by displaying even-temperedness and tolerance. We must learn from this that any leader must suffer the burden of governing the people of Israel, not become angry with them or harass them. A leader of the Jewish nation must relate to them like an ox to his yoke. When he does that he will be amply rewarded by our Lord in Heaven.

G–d had planned for the Exodus to become mankind's renewal, and this was the revelation to Moses when He taught him that He had not truly revealed His name i.e. the four-lettered name (Exodus 6,3). All this had been in answer to Moses' question "when they say to me what is His name, what shall I tell them?" (Exodus 3,13). At that time G–d had revealed to Moses the concept of חידוש העולם as I have explained at length in my commentary on the Haggadah Shel Pessach.

Yalkut Shimoni item 177 on Exodus 6,12, where we have another instance in which Moses uses the word לאמור when speaking to G–d, says that there are altogether four such instances. Rabbi Eleazar ben Azaryah claims that Moses demanded that G–d reply to him, i.e. “לאמור, whether He would redeem the Children of Israel or not. G–d responded in Exodus 6,1: "Now you will see what I shall do to Pharaoh, etc." A similar incident occurred when the Torah reported Moses as using this expression in Numbers 12,13 when he wanted an immediate answer whether G–d was going to heal Miriam or not. There, too, G–d is reported as responding to this outcry in verse 14, indicating that Miriam would be healed after a week. We also have such an instance in Numbers 27,15 where Moses wanted a reply from G–d to his request that He appoint a suitable leader in his stead. G–d responded in verse 18 that Joshua would be the new leader of the people. Lastly, the Yakut quotes the verse in our portion where Moses supposedly demanded an immediate response to his request to enter ארץ ישראל.

Yalkut Shimoni item 177 on Exodus 6,12, where we have another instance in which Moses uses the word לאמור when speaking to G–d, says that there are altogether four such instances. Rabbi Eleazar ben Azaryah claims that Moses demanded that G–d reply to him, i.e. “לאמור, whether He would redeem the Children of Israel or not. G–d responded in Exodus 6,1: "Now you will see what I shall do to Pharaoh, etc." A similar incident occurred when the Torah reported Moses as using this expression in Numbers 12,13 when he wanted an immediate answer whether G–d was going to heal Miriam or not. There, too, G–d is reported as responding to this outcry in verse 14, indicating that Miriam would be healed after a week. We also have such an instance in Numbers 27,15 where Moses wanted a reply from G–d to his request that He appoint a suitable leader in his stead. G–d responded in verse 18 that Joshua would be the new leader of the people. Lastly, the Yakut quotes the verse in our portion where Moses supposedly demanded an immediate response to his request to enter ארץ ישראל.

Another difficulty is the commentary of our sages quoted by Rashi on 22,5, where Abraham said to the lads accompanying him ואני והנער נלכה עד כה, "I and the lad will go until there." This is interpreted as a severe criticism of G–d by Abraham who queried, "I want to see where is G–d's promise of כה יהיה זרעך, thus (i.e. so numerous) will be your descendants" (Genesis 15,5). At first glance it appears as if Abraham questioned that G–d would fulfil His promise. How do we reconcile this with G–d's reported rebuke to Moses in Exodus 6,2 describing G–d as having appeared to the patriarchs as א-ל שדי, meaning that G–d did not have any need to justify Himself, seeing that the patriarchs accepted all of G–d's commands without the slightest question (compare Shemot Rabbah 6,4). G–d's comment that He is sorry that the likes of the patriarchs no longer exist seems totally out of place in view of Rashi's interpretation of the words עד כה!

Concerning this Midrash one may ask: Where did Moses take the nerve to speak to G–d in such a fashion? One may, of course, simply point out that the very fact that Moses did not achieve what he asked for because G–d told him עתה תראה, meaning that he would experience only the part of the redemption from Egypt which would occur now, but not the conquest of the Holy Land, proves that his request was not couched in acceptable language. [This editor has another question, i.e. how could the request in Exodus 6,12 be answered in Exodus 6,1?] Similarly, had Moses phrased his question in more acceptable language, Miriam might have been healed immediately instead of after seven days. Again, if Moses had phrased his question concerning a leader for the Jewish people in more acceptable language would he maybe have seen one of his own sons appointed as his successor?

Concerning this Midrash one may ask: Where did Moses take the nerve to speak to G–d in such a fashion? One may, of course, simply point out that the very fact that Moses did not achieve what he asked for because G–d told him עתה תראה, meaning that he would experience only the part of the redemption from Egypt which would occur now, but not the conquest of the Holy Land, proves that his request was not couched in acceptable language. [This editor has another question, i.e. how could the request in Exodus 6,12 be answered in Exodus 6,1?] Similarly, had Moses phrased his question in more acceptable language, Miriam might have been healed immediately instead of after seven days. Again, if Moses had phrased his question concerning a leader for the Jewish people in more acceptable language would he maybe have seen one of his own sons appointed as his successor?

ויקח אהרן את אלישבע בת עמינדב אחות נחשון. The additional words "sister of Nachshon," prompted the Talmud in Baba Batra 110 to comment that before marrying a girl one should check out her brother's moral character.

The introductory line of our portion: וידבר אלקים אל משה ויאמר אליו אני י-ה-ו-ה, means that G–d told Moses that he, Moses, would be אלקים, whereas He would be active in His capacity as י-ה-ו-ה, i.e. greater than any אלקים.

The Zohar (Sullam edition Balak page 64), is very explicit in describing Bileam's low character, giving many examples of his appearing to credit himself with great insights and thereby misleading those who considered him a great Seer. Here are a few quotes from that passage in the Zohar "This wicked man took great pride in claiming to know everything. By doing so he misled people into believing that he had attained a very high stature. He blew up every little achievement of his. Whatever he said concerned the domain of the forces of impurity. He spoke the truth, literally speaking. Anyone listening to him would form the impression that he was the most outstanding of the prophets of the world. When he described himself as שומע אמרי קל, ויודע דעת עליון, "privy to the words of G–d, aware of the knowledge of the Supreme One," the impression is formed that he spoke about the G–d in Heaven, whereas in fact he was privy only to אמרי קל, as distinct from אמרי הקל. Had the Torah added the letter ה, we would have credited Bileam with being addressed directly by G–d. As it is, he communicated with the forces of טומאה, forces considered by the nations as deities, though they really were אל אחר, forces of nature that are no better than idols. When he speaks about knowing the דעת עלין, the listener forms the impression that Bileam claimed to be privy to G–d's range of knowledge, whereas in fact he was privy only to the עליון "the highest" of the forces of impurity that G–d has allowed to govern part of nature. Bileam, technically speaking, spoke truthfully, since he was privy to a power which in its field was considered supreme. However, the listener did not know that this power had no independent authority at all but was only an agent of G–d. When Bileam described himself in 24,4 as אשר מחזה שדי יחזה "someone who has visions of G–d, a reader would assume that this was really so, that Bileam could see what no one else could see. However the term מחזה שדי refers to a branch of the three branches that originate in the name Shaddai, corresponding to the three letters in that word. He would have some access to the domains of חסד, גבורה, תפארת. The Zohar continues that עמלק employed these three spiritual domains in his attack against Israel, and that Balak, whose name contained the last two letters of עמלק, felt encouraged that it would help him in his confrontation with the Patron of Israel.

At this point Moses revealed to them that they would not again observe the שר של מצרים as he had been. His demise was about to occur amongst tremendous miracles which they would witness. At that moment G–d's promise of והצלתי אתכם, "I will save you from their deity and take you to be My people" (a higher spiritual level by far) would be fulfilled. As to proof of its immediacy, they would observe G–d doing the fighting on their behalf. An even more immediate proof: None of the projectiles the Egyptian army hurled at the Israelites caused any damage. They were all caught by the angel described as travelling between the camp of the Israelites and that of the Egyptians (as per Rashi 14,19).

The two words "לאמר" that we mentioned earlier as apparently superfluous, have something in common. The repeated "דבור" suggests that there was an exoteric (נגלה) as well as an esoteric (נסתר) element in what the Torah tells us here. In 25,10 the exoteric meaning is to inform the people of the noble lineage Pinchas was descended from, whereas in 25,12 they are to be informed of an additional dimension of Pinchas' greatness, i.e. that he is equated with the prophet Elijah. This is alluded to in the words "because he displayed jealous fervor on behalf of his G–d" (25,13). The letters in the expression “לאל-היו,” are identical with the word “לאליהו,” “to Elijah.” The latter also excelled by displaying jealousy on behalf of G–d, something that he himself is quoted as saying to G–d in Kings I 19,10. He referred to his having slain four hundred Jewish priests who had forsaken the Torah to serve the idol Baal instead. Elijah's performance on Mount Carmel was similar to that of Pinchas at Shittim. The name אליהו (which in the Bible is frequently spelled without the letter Vav at the end) contains two names of G–d, i.e. El and Ya-h. In his encounter with Zimri Pinchas restored the honor of the name El, since the Israelites at the time had been guilty of insulting that name of G–d by serving the El of the Moabites and Midianites, "וישתחוו לאלהיהן" (Numbers 24,2). The second of the Ten Commandments specifically prohibits a Jew prostrating himself before an alien deity (Exodus 20,4). Pinchas' deed restored the relations between G–d and Israel which the people's behaviour had upset. His deed, when analysed, consisted of discrediting a man and a woman who respectively were leaders of their tribes, or, in the case of Cozbi, whose father was an ancestral tribal head. The Torah emphasizes the word איש and אשה, when referring to these two both in 25,8, and in 26,14-15, although there is no need for this. We have mentioned repeatedly that the letters "י and ה" in the Hebrew for "man" and "woman" teach us that only when they remain aware of G–d's Presence in this world are they safe from burning up in the passion of their sexuality, seeing that without those letters of G–d's name their names would signal merely masculine and feminine "fire" respectively. The name of G–d contained in those two people whom Pinchas slew was Ya-h. These two had disgraced the name of G–d by their conduct. The Torah in order to draw our attention to all this repeats: …. ושם … איש … ושם האשה, (26,14, 26,15). Rashi already explained that at the count of the people after this episode the peculiarly worded names of the tribes i.e. ה-ראובנ-י, and not simply ראובן demonstrated that the name of each tribe contained the name of G–d. G–d thus personally testified-that the members of all these tribes were conceived while their respective parents maintained absolute chastity. This too is the meaning of Psalms 122,4: שבטי י-ה עדות לישראל, "Israel are G–d's tribes, as per G–d's personal testimony." The letter ו in the word שלום, is "amputated" in 25,12. Baal Haturim points out that the numerical value of that word equals זהו משיח, "this is the Messiah." By diminishing the size of that letter, it is as if one had not thought about the last letter in the name of אליהו. Elijah is the prophet who announces the imminent arrival of the Messiah and prepares people for that. Removing part of the letter ו is meant to convey to us that Elijah (as alluded to by the absence of the last letter in his name), will materialise when one least thinks of him.. The letters added to the names of the tribes during this count therefore can be viewed as making up the second name of G–d contained in the name אליה, the name Ya-h. The Torah informs us in Exodus 6,25 that Pinchas' father had married one of the daughters of Putiel, who according to Midrash Hagadol fattened (play on word Putiel) all the idols in the world and the other tribes despised him on account of his ancestry. Since the name פוטיאל concludes with the letters of the name of G–d, however, the Torah alerts us to the fact that he converted to monotheism, i.e. El Ya-h. The whole verse is an allusion to Joseph who controlled his desire in his involvement with the wife of his master Potiphar, whose similarly sounding name reminds us of what took place then. Just as Joseph preserved the holy covenant with G–d at that time, so Pinchas, his descendant maternally, restored the holy covenant with G–d by taking G–d's revenge on Zimri. As a result, G–d granted him "My covenant Peace." Targum Yonathan on that verse says that Pinchas was made into an angel who would live until he could announce the final redemption. It is further written (of Pinchas) that G–d's covenant of life and well-being was with him (Malachi 2,5), that "the true Torah was in his mouth. He walked with Me in peace and equity, nothing perverse was on his lips. He served Me with complete loyalty; he held many back from committing iniquity, for the lips of a priest guard knowledge and people seek Torah from his mouth, seeing that he is an angel of the Lord G–d of Hosts" (Ibid 6). This verse clearly alludes to Pinchas, since Pinchas became an angel, as our sages comment on Joshua 2,4, (Tanchuma quoted by Rashi). Since Pinchas held back many from sinning, he is described by the prophet as having the true Torah issuing forth from his mouth. "Truth" is an element that reinforces and strengthens religious belief and practice. It is not something merely personal, but is something that must be demonstrated to the community in order to be capable of convincing such a community to do penitence. Such a result is called אמת, truth. Truth is something of an everlasting nature.

The Torah writes in Deut. 4,5: “ראה למדתי אתכם חקים ומשפטים,” "See I have taught you statutes and social laws, etc." G–d has taught us both the kind of laws the meaning of which it is given to us to perceive, and others whose meaning is not given to us to perceive. The reason why we have been taught laws the meaning of which we are able to understand, is so that we should be ready to accept on trust those laws which are beyond our understanding. Put differently: the very nature of גזרות, those laws detached from direct contact with the highest domain of רשימה, lead us to faith in the validity of חק. Now we will explain the 4 domains briefly referred to when we first introduced the Midrash on the meaning of the red heifer legislation. "Torah" is referred to in four different expressions, i.e. 1) תורת ה'; 2) תורת אלוקים, as we know from Nechemiah 8,8: ויקראו בספר בתורת האלוקים מפורש, ושום שכל, ויבינו במקרא, "They read from the book of the Lord's Torah, and explained it, putting their mind to it, and they understood the reading." 3) We find Torah referred to as תורת אמת; 4) We find Torah referred to as תורת האדם. These four expressions are in reality four nuances of what are basically two "Torahs." The first two are נסתרות, concealed matters, whereas the last two are נגלות, aspects of Torah whose meaning has been revealed. Each category has its subcategories. The first concealed "names" of Torah refer to the respective meanings of the Ineffable four-lettered Name of G–d, as well as to the meaning of the name אלוקים. The former contains the secret of ה' אחד ושמו אחד; as such it is applicable to the abstract spiritual world. The latter, on the other hand, which is equal in numerical value to the word הטבע, "nature," clearly describes G–d or Torah respectively being manifest in our physical world. In Exodus 18,11, we find that Yitro said עתה ידעתי כי גדול י-ה-ו-ה מכל האלוקים. He had realized that the dimension of G–d when He is called Yedud, (we will use this description when we mean the four-lettered Ineffable Name) is beyond the one when He manifests Himself as אלוקים. 2) We find in Exodus 9,16, that G–d told Moses that the purpose of the final three plagues was "למען ספר שמי," and the "name" referred to was Yedud. 3) G–d describes His name as Yedud in Exodus 6,3. In that instance, He makes it plain that this had been an aspect of Him that had not previously been revealed. 4) When the activities of Moses are described in the concluding verses of the Torah (Deut. 34,11), Moses is described as the messenger of the Yedud dimension of G–d. His function in performing the miracles referred to there had been to expand Israel's consciousness of G–d as the Master of טבע, i.e. the dimension of אלוקים, and to teach them that there are dimensions to G–d which are far beyond that realm. This aspect of G–d we have earlier referred to as רשימו.

Sometimes satisfaction and cheerfulness follow upon hearing: thus it is said (Lev. x. 20), "When Moses heard that he was content," just as anger ensues in the absence of assent and hearkening, as (Ex. xvi. 20), "Notwithstanding, they hearkened not unto Moses." ..."And Moses was wroth with them." Hatred also results from hearing, as thou must know from the case of Esau, of whom it is said (Gen. xxvii. 34), "When Esau heard," and then follows (id. xxvii. 41), "Esau hated Jacob." Mercy is known to result from "hearing"; thus God said (Ex. xxii. 26), "I will hear, for I am merciful." It is said of the righteous dead (Prov. i. 33), "Whoso hearkeneth unto me shall dwell safely." In contrast to this, it is said of the unrighteous (Job xv. 21), "A sound of fright is in his ears: in peace the despoiler shall come upon him," and so forth. Hard-heartedness results from the want of assent; thus it is said of Pharaoh in many places (Ex. ix. 12), "The Lord hardened the heart of Pharaoh and he hearkened not." A hard-hearted people is called (Deut. xxviii. 49), "A nation whose tongue thou shalt not understand, neither shalt thou hearken unto what it speaketh," and so forth.

There is, however, another aspect to that statement in the Torah. The explanation I propose will also answer the question of why the Torah had to write in 6,26: הוא אהרון ומשה אשר אמר ה' להם הוציאו את בני ישראל מארץ מצרים על צבאותם. "This is Aaron and Moses to whom G–d said: 'Take the children of Israel out of the land of Egypt with their armies.'" In the very sentence following, the Torah reverses the order and refers to: הוא משה ואהרון. What is the reason for this reversal in view of the fact that both Moses and Aaron are described as speaking to Pharaoh and demanding that he release the children of Israel? It appears that the Torah makes a point of showing that Moses and Aaron were of equal stature. How do we reconcile this with one of the thirteen Articles of Faith postulated by Maimonides that no prophet ever matched Moses? Why was Aaron given precedence in the first of the two verses ?

Another difficulty is that the same paragraph in the Torah which describes the suffering of the Jewish people also mentions the marriage of Aaron to Elisheva and that of his son Eleazar to one of the daughters of Putiel, etc., whereas we have a rule that we do not mix happy events with unhappy events.

We are dealing with a Divine decree that was issued already prior to this incident, but the execution of which had been delayed pending certain actions by the human beings to whom it was to apply. The decree concerned the coming into being of the kingdom of David and all that this entailed. A single error of Saul sufficed to trigger its execution, whereas on the other hand when David committed several sins, this did not have fatal consequences for his dynasty (compare the discussion in Yuma 22b). What occurred here, was of a similar nature. G–d told Moses already in Exodus 6,1, after the latter had complained that his mission had resulted in additional hardships for the people he had been sent to liberate, עתה תראה, now you will see!" Sanhedrin 111, comments on this that it had already then been decreed that Moses would not lead the Jewish people into the Holy Land, that he would only experience the deliverance of the people from Egypt. A similar decree existed due to the conduct of the people, i.e. that that generation also would not see the Holy Land. This was because they did not deserve all the miracles that would be performed for them at the time of their entering the Holy Land. Had Moses led them then, the miracles he would have performed would have outclassed those performed when Joshua defeated the thirty-one kings, and the people simply would not have deserved such miracles. The Ralbag explains all this in connection with Joshua, 1,2, when G–d told Joshua: "My servant Moses has died, and now arise and cross this river Jordan!"

Moses therefore had good reason to complain that G–d had not indicated whom exactly He was going to send with him now -since the promise in 23,20 referred to the angel who would accompany Joshua when he invaded the land of Canaan. When the angel arrived in Joshua's time he identified himself as the angel G–d had spoken about in 23,20 saying "now I have come" (Joshua 5,14). He implied that he had not had permission to come during the lifetime of Moses. Although Moses had not yet been told that Joshua would lead the Jewish people in the conquest of the Holy Land and still thought that he himself would conduct that campaign, he did realise that the statement by G–d that He would send an angel presaged a sin on the part of the Jewish people and that as a result the שכינה would announce that G–d's direct Presence would not accompany them, just as Rashi explains. At that time Moses thought that the sin referred to would be something Israel would become guilty of in a far distant era, a time when the Temple would be destroyed and would subsequently be rebuilt and that at the time of this future redemption an angel would accompany the people of Israel back out of exile. He was certain, however, that as far as the present was concerned, G–d personally would lead the Jewish people in their ascent to the land of Canaan. This is why he was non-plussed saying: "You have not informed me," because he was not willing to accept the promise in 32,2 as, adequate. He explained the reason for his dissatisfaction with the words: "You have told me that I am persona grata." You might ask why it should have mattered so much whether an angel or G–d's personal presence would accompany the Jewish people on this journey. Moses reiterated that G–d had told him that he had become close enough to His Ineffable Name, i.e. ידעתיך בשם. This expression reflected the דבקות, affinity with G–d, which had been achieved. When the people left Egypt the plan had been to march to the land of Canaan without delay, a land in which the Ineffable Name is at home.

Eve was the reason that death came into our world, as we know. Vayikra Rabbah 20,2 on Psalms 75,5 states: "I said to wanton men: 'do not be wanton.'" Elisheva, daughter of Aminadav, did not rejoice in spite of five joyous events on the same day: The appointment of her husband as High Priest, the appointment of her brother-in-law Moses as king, her brother Nachshon as prince, her sons Eleazar and Itamar as deputy High Priests, and her nephew's Pinchas elevation to the priesthood. In spite of all this, her sons Nadav and Avihu entered the Sanctuary with אש זרה resulting in their death and turning her joy into mourning. This is why David warns us in the Psalm not to indulge in excessive joys. It is not given to the righteous to experience so much joy in this life. The Midrash mentions that G–d does not rejoice anymore in this world since He had to withdraw His שכינה due to Eve's sin but will rejoice only in the World to Come as we know from ישמח ה' במעשיו, that "G–d will once again rejoice in His accomplishments" (Psalms 104,31) [as He did when He completed the universe. Ed.]. In this world only the wicked experience true joy. There are several difficulties in this Midrash. Why does the author speak about Elisheva's having seen five joyous events on that day instead of the same joyous events "seen" by her husband Aaron? Did not her husband experience even greater joy on that day when he personally was elevated to the position of High Priest? He saw his brother crowned as king, his sons installed as deserving children, as mentioned in the Torah by the words למשפחותם לבית אבותם, "belonging to their families because they are descended from the house of their respective fathers," meaning that his sons are compared to him even more than to their mother? His sons became his deputies which demonstrated how closely they resembled their father in character traits. Some people want to answer our question by referring to the Talmud in Avodah Zarah 31 which regards the wife of a חבר, a pious person, as being equal to her husband. This means that she experienced that her sons regarded themselves as related to their mother as intimately as to their father. This is in line with the advice of our sages (Baba Batra 110a) who counsel a person to examine the brothers of a prospective bride to see what character traits he may expect to find in his bride. When the Torah reports the marriage of Aaron to Elisheva in Exodus 6,23, it stresses that Elisheva was Nachshon's sister. This proves that he was influenced by the character qualities of Nachshon. Still, I regard this answer as somewhat forced.

The benediction we pronounce before eating bread, in which we thank G–d for making bread available, teaches us more than we suspect at first glance. The Talmud Berachot 38 debates whether the formula should be the one that has since been adopted, i.e. המוציא לחם מן הארץ, or whether the definitive article ה, should be omitted. Why does it matter so much which formula is used? Everybody agrees in the Talmud that the word מוציא means "brought forth." Rabbi Nechemiah feels that the word מוציא means that the bread has already been produced, whereas the other Rabbis feel that also the expression המוציא refers to bread that has already been brought forth, and they prove this from Deut. 8,15: המוציא לכם מים מחלמיש צור, "(The G–d) who brought forth water for you from the flinty rock." Rabbi Nechemihaim dalfin satah thinks that the meaning is "He is in the process of bringing forth." He proves this from the use of that word in Exodus 6,7: "who is about to bring you out of the labours of Egypt." [a verse that describes a situation prior to the Exodus. Ed.]

When the people began to sleep with the daughters of Moab as reported in Numbers 25,1, and even Zimri the prince of the tribe of Shimon cohabited brazenly with Kosbi, a Midianite princess, it became necessary for Pinchas, who was a descendant of the tribe of Joseph on his mother's side – בנות פוטיאל – to repair the damage inflicted by this immoral act by means of killing the chief perpetrators, Zimri and Kosbi. When the Holy Covenant with G–d had been breached by the Israelites, it took a descendant of Joseph, who had starred by maintaining that Holy Covenant, to restore the harmonious relationship between Israel and G–d. [The word Putiel which appears in Exodus 6,25 as a father-in-law of Elazar, Pinchas' father, is a play on words, i.e. pitpet – someone who can overcome his passions. Eleazar clearly had been interested first and foremost to marry into a family with such a background, the name of his wife and Pinchas' mother being a secondary consideration. Ed.] In Numbers 38, 6 Moses and the leaders of the community are described as והמה בוכים, "they were crying." I have found a comment in a book called עשרה מאמרות, that the letters in the word בכים are the initials of the words ברוך כבוד ה' ממקומו. The relevance of this comment escapes most commentators. When considering my approach, however, the words of Rabbi Menachem Azaryah (author of עשרה מאמרות) make good sense. We have said that due to the holiness of the seed of Yehudah impregnating Tamar and in line with the allusion found in the word אי"ה, the Jewish people would ultimately attain the level of holiness which makes it necessary for the angels to inquire from them where G–d's holiness is to be found. In our days the angels can chant only ברוך כבוד ה' ממקומו, "Blessed be the Lord from His place" (wherever that may be). Rabbi Menachem Azaryah told us in a cryptic manner that Moses and the elders cried because -through an act by Zimri and his brethren- Israel would be placed in the position of not knowing where the site of G–d's holiness was to be found. It required a Pinchas, i.e. Elijah the prophet who will announce the arrival of the Messiah until Israel would once again be able to supply the angels with the correct answer as to the whereabouts of the site of G–d's holiness.