Commentary for Exodus 6:35

עתה תראה וגו׳ NOW THOU SHALT SEE etc. — You have criticised My methods of guiding the world. You are not like Abraham to whom I said. (Genesis 21:12) “for through Isaac shall seed be raised unto thee” and to whom I afterwards said, (Gen 22:2) “bring him up as a burnt offering”, and yet he did not criticise My ways, therefore, עתה תראה NOW THOU SHALT SEE — what will now be done to Pharaoh thou shalt see, but thou shalt not see what will be done to the kings of the seven nations of Canaan when I shall bring them (the Israelites) into the Holy Land (cf. Sanhedrin 111a).

כי ביד חזקה ישלחם, He will send them off in spite of the Israelites. The reference is to the fact that the Israelites will be expelled by him, not released, as the Torah reports in Exodus 12,33.

. עתה תראה, now that you have seen yourself the sin of Pharaoh who has the nerve to hold on to the Israelites with the authority of his office, you will see that he will not only release them voluntarily, but ביד חזקה ישלחם, not only will he release them, but he will be forced to get rid of them post haste due to the problems he will have while they are still in his country.

עתה תראה אשר אעשה לפרעה, "Now you are about to see what I shall do to Pharaoh, etc." The word עתה was G'd's answer to Moses' ומאז באתי, that G'd had made things worse for Israel than prior to Moses' appointment. G'd told Moses that not only would the additional hardships cease forthwith but also the hardships endured by the people up until then would come to an end immediately. We have already mentioned that slave labour ceased from the time the river Nile was struck and turned into blood. G'd made it plain to Moses that not only had he been wrong in assuming that the most recent decree of Pharaoh would last for twelve months, but even his previous decrees would become inoperative at once.

עתה תראה, “now you will see;” according to Rashi the word “now” means that whereas Moses would witness the redemption from Egypt, he would not witness the entry of the people into the Holy Land. Both the accusation Moses leveled against G’d that He had worsened the fate of the people, and the failure to speak to the rock instead of hitting it in Numbers 20, 5-14, combined to his not being allowed to witness conquest of the land of Canaan.

To the kings of the seven nations when I will bring them (Yisrael) to the Land. You might ask: It seems that Hashem is hinting now to Moshe that he will not enter the Land. Yet later, in Parshas Beha’alosecha (Bamidbar 10:29), and it says, “We are traveling to the place,” Rashi himself explained that Moshe thought he would enter the Land. The answer is: He thought he would enter but would die before conquering the seven nations, as B’nei Yisrael fought a long time before conquering them. But a difficulty remains, for earlier, it says, “Please send the one You usually send” (Shemos 4:13), and Rashi explained: “I [Moshe] am not destined to bring them into the Land.” Thus, it clearly implies that Moshe knew he would not enter the Land. The answer is: Moshe thought he would not bring them into the land as their leader, but would still enter as one of the people. But a difficulty still remains: Later on in Parshas Beshalach, it says, “You will bring them and plant them on the mountain of Your inheritance” (Shemos 15:17), and Rashi explains: “Moshe prophesied that he would not enter the Land [at all].” The answer is: Moshe surely prophesied this, but not as a full prophecy, i.e., he prophesied without realizing the content of his prophecy.

Now you will see what I will do to Pharaoh. Until this point, the B’nei Yisrael were still lacking sufficient merit for to be redeemed, and there was not enough sin to fill the measure for Pharaoh. However, due to the difficult oppression at the end of their servitude the affliction and suffering of the B’nei Yisrael reached its limit, and the measure of Pharaoh’s wickedness was complete. For not only did Pharaoh not heed the word of Hashem and let them go, he even rebelled against Hashem by increasing their affliction (Malbim).

Kap. 6. V. 1. עתה, dies ist gerade der Moment, den ich erwartet. Es muss sich erst diese völlige Ohnmacht, diese Verzweiflung gezeigt haben, muss erst am Tage liegen, dass durch Menschen nichts auszurichten und gewöhnliche Vorstellungen bei Pharao nutzlos sind, es müssen erst Mosche und Aaron den Vertretern des Volkes gegenüber in ihrer völligen nackten Nichtigkeit verstummt dastehen, ehe die Erlösung als Gotteswerk beginnen kann. Mit diesem Moment war auch der letzte Schein etwa vorhandener natürlicher Hilfsmittel geschwunden, war Mosche nur als Werkzeug und das Werk als Gotteswerk gekennzeichnet. יד חזקה, die höhere, unwiderstehliche Gotteshand soll darin sichtbar werden, darum war dieser Moment der Verzweiflung nicht zu ersparen.

עתה תראה, “now you are about to see, etc;” according to Rashi, this is a criticism, G–d saying to Moses that when He subjected Avraham to a test of his faith, [when He had asked him to offer his son Yitzchok as a sacrifice, Ed.] the latter did not question His judgment, as opposed to Moses. [This editor does not understand the comparison, as Moses was concerned about his people, and when Avraham had heard about the impending destruction of Sodom and all its inhabitants, he also engaged in a dialogue with G–d requesting an explanation, and the Sodomites were far from being his people. Ed.] Our author, in referring to Avraham’s having asked G–d for a sign that he would fulfill His promise to make him into the founder of a great nation, Genesis 15,8 does not consider this as a criticism of G–d’s attributes. He supposedly asked only by what merit he had deserved to be given such a promise. G–d told him then that it was the merit of the sacrifices he would be about to be asked to offer forthwith.

כי ביד חזקה, because through a combination of (My) strong hand and coupled with (his) obstinacy, i.e. ויד חזקה, he will expel them from Egypt. When G-d said in 11,1 that Pharaoh would dispatch, ישלח, the Israelites, He referred to his dispatching them permanently, not for a three day trip into the desert.

כי ביד חזקה ישלחם this means: for on account of My strong hand (i. e. the strong hand which I will use against him, the ב in ביד denoting “on account of”) — which will prove strong against him he will send them away.

וביד חזקה יגרשם מראצו, in contrast with his keeping the Israelites enslaved in his country at this time, he will eventually be forced to expel them by force so that not a single one of them will remain behind.

Due to My strong hand . . . I.e., we should not explain that Pharaoh will let them go by his strong hand, as in “The Egyptians pressed the people to hurry them” (Shemos 12:33), because this point is stated in the end of our verse (“and by [a] strong hand, he will drive them out from his land”).

G'd also answered Moses concerning what Moses had perceived as G'd's failure to respond to the way Pharaoh had slighted Him. This is why He told Moses that He would smite him until Pharaoh would dismiss the Israelites because he had experienced G'd's strong hand. We explained already that G'd delayed the final plague in order to punish Pharaoh for his blasphemy.

יגרשם ,ישלחם, scheinbar zwei Widersprüche, ישלחם: wider seinen Willen, יגרשם: wider Israels Willen; beides soll sich verwirklichen. In dem Momente der Erlösung soll weder Pharao noch das Volk den Auszug wollen — לא יכלו להתמהמה — wie in der Geburt Mutter und Kind willenlos der Wirkung einer höheren Macht unterliegen, so soll Israel bis in den letzten Moment Sklave bleiben und als Sklave erscheinen, damit aus der Geschichte seiner Rettung für alle Zeit nur die Gottestat hervorleuchte!

וביד חזקה יגרשם מארצו AND WITH A STRONG HAND SHALL HE DRIVE THEM OUT OF HIS LAND — against the will of the Israelites themselves will he drive them out of his land: they will not have sufficient time to prepare provisions for themselves for the journey. So, indeed, does Scripture state: (Exodus 12:33) “And Egypt was urgent (תחזק. lit., was strong) upon the people etc.”.

He will drive them out against their will. This seems to mean: Because of Hashem’s strong hand on Egypt, Pharaoh will drive the people out. But the Re”m explains: Because of Pharaoh’s strong hand on the people, he will drive them out. However, his explanation is not correct. (Nachalas Yaakov)

וביד חזקה, "and with a mighty hand, etc." This second reference to G'd's mighty hand was a preview of the consternation G'd would cause at the time of the killing of the firstborn when the Torah reports that there was not a single house in Egypt in which not at least one person died at that time (compare Yalkut Shimoni on Exodus 12,30 where it is explained that if there was no actual firstborn in a specific house at the time, the oldest would be killed). As a result of all this the Egyptians would not only dismiss the Israelites but would actually יגרשם, "expel them," as each Egyptian feared for his own life every minute (compare Exodus 12,33). G'd answered Moses' other argument as to why He had allowed things to get worse in the next פרשה.

......

וידבר אלהים אל משה AND GOD SPOKE UNTO MOSES — He took him to task because he had spoken so censoriously when he said, (Exodus 5:22) “Wherefore hast thou done so evil to this people”.

AND G-D SPOKE UNTO MOSES. Rashi explains that He spoke to him harshly¹Rashi’s interpretation is based either on the name Elokim (G-d) mentioned here, which signifies the Divine attribute of justice (Mizrachi), or on the two words Va’yedabeir Elokim (And G-d spoke), whereas the usual expression in the Torah is Va’yedabeir Hashem (And the Eternal spoke) (Gur Aryeh). because he had been critical when he said, Wherefore hast Thou dealt ill with this people?²Above, 5:22. AND HE SAID UNTO HIM: “I AM THE ETERNAL, Who am faithful to recompense reward to those who walk before Me wholeheartedly.”³“Whole-heartedly.” This word is not found in our printed texts of Rashi. But see Genesis 17:2 and 25:27 where it is found in connection with Abraham and Jacob respectively. See also Rashi, ibid., 26:2, where a similar expression is mentioned in connection with Isaac. All three patriarchs were thus whole-hearted in their worship of G-d. In this sense we find the phrase explained in many places, etc. 3. “AND I APPEARED UNTO ABRAHAM, etc., BY THE NAME ‘E-IL SHA-DAI’ (G-D ALMIGHTY). I made many promises to him,⁴“Him”: Abraham. In our texts of Rashi: “Them,” which refers to all three patriarchs, and so it is mentioned further on. and in all cases I said to him, I am G-d Almighty.⁵Genesis 17:4 (to Abraham), 35:11 (to Jacob). BUT BY MY NAME, THE ETERNAL, WAS I NOT KNOWN UNTO THEM.” It was not written here, [“But My Name, the Eternal], I did not make known to them.” Rather, it is written, [But by My Name, the Eternal], was I not known unto them, meaning: “I was not recognized by them in My attribute of keeping faith, by reason of which My Name is called Eternal, which denotes that I am certain to fulfill the words [of My promise]. Indeed I made promises to the patriarchs⁴“Him”: Abraham. In our texts of Rashi: “Them,” which refers to all three patriarchs, and so it is mentioned further on. but did not fulfill them [during their lifetime].”
All these are the words of Rashi. His intent is to explain that the fulfillment of His promise [to the patriarchs] had not taken place. Even though the time for the fulfillment had not arrived [in their lifetime, and consequently the absence of such fulfillment was no indication of a lack of His “keeping faith” since the time had not arrived], yet He was not known to the patriarchs in the fulfillment of His promise.
But with all this interpretation, Rashi has not properly explained the language of the text.⁶The Hebrew text reads: ush’mi Hashem lo nodati lahem (literally: and My Name the Eternal I was not made known to them). Ramban’s point is that according to Rashi’s interpretation, the verse should have read either (a) lo hodati (I did not make known), or (b) ush’mi Hashem lo noda lahem (and My Name the Eternal was not known to them). [According to his interpretation], it should be said, lo hodati [“and My Name, the Eternal, ‘I did not make known’ to them,” instead of lo nodati (I was not made known), as the text reads]. Or it should have said, “and My Name, the Eternal, lo noda (was not known) to them.” Perhaps according to Rashi’s opinion, the sense of the verse is: “and My Name is the Eternal, v’lo⁷Ramban adds here the letter vav to the word lo — v’lo — thus making it independent of the expression ush’mi Hashem. Accordingly, there are two separate thoughts expressed: “and My Name is the Eternal,” which denotes that “I am certain to substantiate My promise,” and “I was not made known to them by that Name since I made promises to them but did not fulfill them.” nodati lahem,” meaning that “I was not made known to them by that Name.”
And the learned Rabbi Abraham ibn Ezra explained that the letter beth of the words b’E-il Sha-dai (by the Name G-d Almighty) connected [with the ensuing words ush’mi Hashem, making it ubish’mi Hashem], which has the following meaning: “And I appeared unto Abraham, etc., by the Name E-il Sha-dai (G-d Almighty), but by My Name the Eternal I was not made known unto them.”⁸Thus according to Ibn Ezra, the sense of the verse is as if it were written: “And I appeared into Abraham…b’E-il Sha-dai ubish’mi — [instead of ush’mi] — Hashem lo nodati lahem (and by My Name the Eternal I was not made known to them).”
The purport of the verse is that He appeared to the patriarchs by this Name [E-il Sha-dai], which indicates that He is the victor [and prevailer]⁹See Vol. I, pp. 215-6 and 556-7, for further discussion of this theme. See also end of Seder Bo in this volume. over the hosts of heaven, doing great miracles for them except that no change from the natural order of the world was noticeable, [as was the case with the miracles performed through Moses our teacher]. In famine, He redeemed them from death, and in war from the power of the sword,¹⁰Job 5:20. and He gave them riches and honor and all the goodness, just like all the assurances mentioned in the Torah [in the section dealing] with the blessings and curses.¹¹Leviticus 26:3-46 and Deuteronomy 28:1-69.
It is not [in nature] that man should be rewarded for performance of a commandment or punished for committing a transgression but by a miracle. If man were left to his nature or his fortune, his deeds would neither add to him nor diminish from him. Rather, reward and punishment in this world, as mentioned in the entire scope of the Torah, are all miracles, but they are hidden. They appear to the onlooker as being part of the natural order of things, but in truth they come upon man as punishment and reward [for his deeds]. It is for this reason that the Torah speaks at great length of the assurances concerning this world, and does not explain the assurances of the soul in “the World of Souls.”¹²This is the world to which the soul goes following the death of the body. At the resurrection, body and soul will be reunited. That world, according to Ramban, is Olam Haba (the Coming World). Ramban thus distinguishes between Olam Han’shamoth (the World of Souls) and Olam Haba. The Olam Han’shamoth is concomitant with this world, and Olam Haba is the world of the future. These [assurances mentioned in the Torah as recompense for the observance or transgression of the Divine Commandments] are wonders which go contrary to nature,¹³“For it is not by nature that the heavens become as iron because we have sowed our fields in the Sabbatical year, etc.” (Ramban, Vol. I, p. 557.) while the existence of the soul [after the death of the body] and its cleaving unto G-d are the proper way inherent in its nature that she returneth unto G-d Who gave it.¹⁴Ecclesiastes 12:7. I will yet explain it further¹⁵Leviticus 26:11. if G-d accomplishes it for me.¹⁶See Psalms 57:3.
Thus G-d said to Moses: “I have appeared to the patriarchs with the might of My arm with which I prevail over the constellations and help those whom I have chosen, but with My Name Yod Hei with which all existence came into being I was not made known to them, that is, to create new things for them by the open change of nature. And Wherefore say unto the children of Israel: I am the Eternal,¹⁷Verse 6. and inform them once again of the Great Name, [i.e., the Tetragrammaton], for by that Name I will deal wondrously with them,¹⁸See Joel 2:26. and they will know that I am the Eternal, that maketh all things. ”¹⁹Isaiah 44:24.
All the words of Rabbi Abraham ibn Ezra on this matter were thus correct except that he was as one who prophesies but does not know it.²⁰The source of this expression, “he prophesied but did not know what he prophesied,” is in Sotah 12b. Ramban uses the expression here to intimate that Ibn Ezra did indeed allude to the correct interpretation of the verse, namely, that the letter beth in b’E-il Sha-dai is connected also to ush’mi Hashem, making it ubish’mi Hashem, as explained above (see Note 8). But, suggests Ramban, there is still a question to be raised on Ibn Ezra’s explanation, as explained further in the text. Even according to his interpretation, the verse should have said, “And I made Myself known to Abraham, etc., by the name of E-il Sha-dai, but by My Name Hashem, [which describes My true essence], I did not make Myself known to them,” or it should have said, “but by the Name Hashem I did not appear to them.”²¹In other words, why does the Torah use two separate terms: va’eira (and I appeared) and nodati (made Me known)? One term — “appear” or “made Me known” — should have sufficed in both cases. However, Ibn Ezra can answer this by saying that because the prophecy of the patriarchs came to them in the visions of the night,²²Genesis 46:2. See also Ramban, ibid., 15:1 (Vol. I, p. 193). He said here, Va’eira (And I appeared) to them, and because that of Moses was face to face²³Deuteronomy 34:10. He said here, “I made Me not known to them [the patriarchs] as I made Myself known to you [Moses].”

וידבר אלוקים אל משה; in the land of Egypt,

'אני ה, the One Who maintains the entire universe all alone. I have not only called it into existence, but I also maintain it, and there is no other prime cause which exercises any independent influence on any part of My universe. Compare Nechemyah 9,6 ואתה מחיה את כולם “and You alone provide the nourishment to keep all creatures alive.” Unless I had given My consent no creature could continue to exist.

וידבר אלוקים אל משה, G'd spoke sternly to Moses, etc. Why did the Torah not tell us what G'd said? Besides, why did G'd refer to Himself as י־ה־ו־ה after He had already told Moses who He was in 3,15? At that time He had added: "this is My name forever!" Why then did He have to tell Moses at this juncture אני ה׳?

וידבר אלוקים....וארא אל אברהם, “G’d said….I have appeared to Avraham, etc.” Rashi explains that instead of writing הודעתי, “I have made known,” the Torah wrote a passive mode לא נודעתי, “I have not become well known.” This means that G’d’s attribute of Hashem had not become properly known, familiar, to the patriarchs. Seeing that this attribute reveals more of G’d’s essence than such attributes as shaddai, or elokim, the element of G’d’s fulfilling commitments He made of a long term nature, such as the promise to Avraham that his descendants would survive 400 years of exile and enslavement and proceed to the land of Canaan and take it over as their ancestral homeland, this attribute would from now on become better known. G’d implies that seeing that the time frame after which the redemption was supposed to occur had not yet been completed, the fact that this attribute of G’d had not yet been appreciated was not a reflection of G’d having withheld important information. Rashi also quotes an alternate commentary which suggests that the people should have inquired after this attribute of G’d, [why He had failed to keep His promises, the ones made to the patriarchs, Ed.] and that G’d now explains the reason why He had not yet seen fit to do so. Rashi rejects such a commentary saying that the time for G’d fulfilling His promises had not arrived yet, so that such a complaint would have been inappropriate. The problem with such interpretations is that already during the very first revelation of G’d to Avraham at the covenant between the pieces (Genesis chapter 15), the Torah clearly states that “the word of Hashem came to Avram,” In other words, G’d introduced Himself to Avram not as shaddai or as elokim, but by His name Hashem.” He had added further that His claim on Avraham’s obedience was based on His having saved him from the furnace Nimrod had thrown him into in Ur Casdim. Rashi’s rejecting לא נודעתי as meaning “I have not made known,” is based on this appearance of G’d precisely as the attribute of Mercy, an essential attribute, as Avraham had not had a claim to being saved at the time, seeing he had voluntarily submitted to that test of his faith. [my words based on Rabbi Yitzchok Arama. Ed.] The question is why did G’d have to tell Moses: “I am Hashem,” seeing that He had been known as such to the patriarchs. I believe that the answer is simple. G’d tells Moses that although He had been known in His capacity as Hashem to the patriarchs, [compare how Avraham describes Mount Moriah after the binding of Yitzchok, as compared to the opening lines of that chapter (Genesis 22) Ed.] He had not appeared in that guise to the Jewish people as yet. The problem was that the people had not enquired as to the difference between these various attributes of G’d, i.e. when He would prefer to relate to them under one heading (attribute), and when He would prefer to relate to them under a different heading (attribute). Knowing all this, we can better understand Moses’ question to G’d in 3,13 “which of Your attributes (name) shall I say to them is the one which will orchestrate the redemption?” According to the interpretation of לא נודעתי להם, “I have not been known to them,” Moses’ question at that time should have been: “when they ask me what shall I tell them?” Rashi’s explanation that the entire paragraph contains a criticism of Moses who had questioned G’d’s handling of the situation since He had appointed him as leader, was to contrast his behaviour with that of the patriarchs who, even when faced with what appeared G’d’s inexplicable behaviour, had not questioned this. [I find all this somewhat strange. Avraham, when having to come to terms with G’d’s treatment of others, such as the people of Sodom had questioned G’d’s judgment, though he had never questioned it when it concerned his own fate. Moses too, questions why his people are suffering more; he does not question his own image being tarnished. Ed.] At any rate, we must not mistakenly understand G’d as saying that He had not been known as possessing the attribute of Hashem, but as explaining that only now had the time come to guide the fate of the Jewish people under that heading. Ibn Ezra writes that the letter ב in the word בא-ל, suggests that it applies also to an additional factor, i.e. meaning ”with.” [as in “and in addition to”, i.e. ובשמי ה', “and with My additional name, etc.” Ed.] Accordingly, we are to understand the line וארא אל אברהם ואל יצחק ואל יעקב בא-ל שדי ובשמי ה' לא נודעתי להם, “My task in appearing to the patriarchs as the attribute shaddai, i.e. the attribute which governs My power to control nature, the sun, moon, etc., was different from My task at this time when I have to demonstrate My power on earth, a domain basically assigned to man. [some of these words are my own, though I trust they reflect that of the author quoted. Ed.] The patriarchs had been taught that their experience when G’d saved them from famine, from the sword during war, etc., that these were phenomena not related to their specific good deeds, but to G’d exercising His השגחה, benevolent providence, as part of the השגחה כללית, supervision of the universe as a whole. [When directing phenomena devoid of free will such as nature, G’d employs a different attribute from that which He has to employ when facing opposing forces equipped with a free will, such as man. Ed.] During His guidance of the universe at the time of the patriarchs, He did not confront man’s free will. The blessings and curses promised in the Torah are not addressed to the conduct of individuals but to the conduct of mankind as a whole or the Jewish people as a whole, [although G’d warns individuals not to use the people as a whole as an umbrella to hide their individual misdeeds (Deuteronomy 29,17-20) Ed.] The real reward in this life for observing the Torah’s commandments is something known only to G’d, the lawgiver, it is in the nature of a נס נסתר, “a hidden miracle,” i.e. when it does occur no one can pinpoint it as something unnatural. [the concept is familiar from the string of “natural” coincidences and their timing which combine to make up the Purim story. Ed.] These apparent coincidences are actually part of the process of reward and punishment, except that they are not recognized by us as such at the time. The reason why the sages tell us that astronomical influences, i.e. mazzal, do not govern the lives of the Israelites is that the same G’d Who runs nature, also interferes in an invisible manner in what astrologers believed was a forecast of their fates in the stars. This does not mean that astrology is “for the birds,” on the contrary, it means that the Creator can manipulate the events forecast by astrology in a manner which changes their impact on the individuals whom He chooses to be so impacted. Such intervention enabled Rivkah to become pregnant and have children, and it resulted in the Jewish people surviving a bloody encounter forecast by the stars, by the blood in question becoming the blood of the mass circumcision performed by Joshua, instead of becoming the loss of their lifeblood. Moses had actually posed two questions to G’d. 1) Why did you send me on this mission at all? 2) Why have you so far failed to save the Jewish people from their misery? Concerning his second question G’d answered him: “now you are going to see why I sent you. You will witness what I am about to do to Pharaoh.” Concerning Moses’ first question G’d said: “I am Hashem.” G’d told him that He had used the patriarchs to demonstrate His stature as shaddai, the G’d controlling events from the heavenly throne, whereas now He would employ Moses to demonstrate how He organized events on earth, by Moses being as it were “His hand and His outstretched arm.” It is your task to make My attribute of Hashem familiar both to the Israelites and to the Egyptians, i.e. the rest of mankind.

He spoke to him with severity. . . Rashi infers this since it is written אלהים , [a Name] which denotes Divine judgment. Alternatively, Rashi infers this since it is written וידבר , an expression which denotes harsh speech. (Re’m) And we need not ask: In many verses it is written וידבר ה אל משה לאמר , yet there it does not imply harshness. [Why then is it different here?] The answer is: Usually, after וידבר it is written לאמר , [which implies soft speech]. Thus וידבר is general (klal), and לאמר is a specific (prat) which tells us what is included in וידבר . But here there is no לאמר written afterward, since ויאמר אליו אני יהוה is not a prat but an independent clause. It relates to what Moshe said [at the end of Parshas Shemos] — “Why did you send me?” — as Rashi here explains. [Alternatively,] it seems to me that [Rashi infers this since] it says afterward אני יהוה , [a Name denoting Divine mercy,] which is the opposite [of the Name אלהים that the verse began with]. And that is why Rashi makes this comment here, and not in the other places. (Maharshal)

V. 2. אני ד׳. Dieses kurze Wort enthält die ganze Antwort auf Mosches Verzweiflung, die bereits in dem vorangehenden Verse im allgemeinen eine tröstende Entgegnung gefunden, welche nunmehr ausführlich entwickelt wird.

'אני ה, “I am the Lord;” even though I have told you that you will be elohim as far as Pharaoh is concerned, I did not mean that Pharaoh is to stand in awe of you. He too is to stand in awe of Me. Rashi understands the line as “I am the One who is certain to reward and punish as and when required.” If you were to ask how the 4-lettered tetragram conveys that G-d rewards and punishes, and that this applies to this attribute of His more so than to any other attribute, this is the meaning when He explained in Exodus 3,14-15 that the very fact of His being eternal, and enjoying a full view of past and future developments, “this enables Me to mete out both reward and punishment equitably as I can foresee the implications of all of My actions.”

ויאמר אליו אני ה׳ AND HE SAID UNTO HIM, I AM THE LORD, Who am faithful to recompense with a full reward those who walk before Me. Nor have I sent you with no purpose in view (cf. 5:22), but to fulfil the promise which I made to the early patriarchs. In this sense we find that the phrase is to be explained in many passages: אני ה׳ signifies, I am the Lord, Who am faithful to exact punishment — when it is spoken in reference to a matter that demands punishment, as, for instance, (Leviticus 19:12) “And thou profanest the name of thy God; I am the Lord”; and when it is spoken in reference to observing the Divine commands — as in, (Leviticus 22:31) “Ye shall keep my commandments and do them; I am the Lord” — it signifies, “I am the Lord Who am faithful to give reward.”

'אני ה, My name will convey that I am the One able to keep all His promises.

By way of the Truth, [the mystic teachings of the Cabala], the verse can be explained in consonance with its plain meaning and intent.²⁴Ramban is suggesting that whereas in other places the mystic teachings of the Cabala do not reflect the plain meaning of Scripture, here “the way of the Truth” is in harmony with the plain meaning and import of the text. He is saying: “I the Eternal appeared to the patriarchs through the speculum of E-il Sha-dai,” just as is the sense of the verse, In a vision do I make Myself known to him.²⁵Numbers 12:6. “But Myself, I the Eternal did not make Myself known to them, as they did not contemplate [Me] through a lucid speculum so that they should know me,” just as is the sense of the verse, And there hath not arisen a prophet since in Israel like unto Moses, whom the Eternal knew face to face.²³Deuteronomy 34:10. The patriarchs did know the Proper Name of the Eternal, but it was not known to them through prophecy. Therefore when Abraham spoke with G-d, he mentioned the Proper Name together with the Name Aleph Dalet²⁶Genesis 15:2. See Ramban, ibid., 17:1 (Vol. I, p. 216). or Aleph Dalet alone.²⁷Ibid., 18:30. The purport thereof is that the revelation of the Divine Presence and His communication with them came to them through an ameliorated attribute of justice,²⁸See Vol. I, p. 543. and with that attribute was His conduct towards them. But with Moses, His conduct and His recognition to him were by the attribute of mercy, which is indicated by His Great Name, [i.e., the Tetragrammaton — the Eternal], just as is denoted in the verse, He caused His glorious arm to go at the right hand of Moses,²⁹Isaiah 63:12. and it is written, So didst Thou lead Thy people, to make Thyself a glorious name.³⁰Ibid., Verse 14. Therefore Moses does not henceforth mention the name E-il Sha-dai, for the Torah was given with His great Name, as it is said, I am the Eternal thy G-d.³¹Further, 20:2. This is the sense of the verse, Our of heaven He made thee to hear His voice, that He might instruct thee; and upon earth He made thee to see His great fire.³²Deuteronomy 4:36. I have already alluded to the explanation of the word hashamayim (the heaven).³³In Genesis 1:8 (Vol. I, p. 37). May the Holy One, blessed be He, open our eyes and show us wonders in His Torah.

It is not in vain that I sent you. . . In other words, Moshe said (5:22): “Why did you send me?” and Hashem answers him: “It is not in vain that I sent you”. (Re’m) The Re’m’’s words on this verse, [in which he also says that “Elohim spoke (harshly) to Moshe” refers back to Moshe’s question of “Why have you brought harm?”] are too lengthy to quote. However, it seems to me that this is not Hashem’s answer to what [Moshe said] before, in the way the Re’m explained it. Rather, Rashi means to say as follows: Hashem spoke to Moshe with משפט , i.e., harshly and unpleasantly, because Moshe spoke harshly when he said “Why have You brought harm. . .?” [But Hashem’s harshness was not for this question itself,] as this is merely the beginning of [the more important phrase:] “. . .Why did you send me?” where Moshe was concerned over his own honor, as Rashi explained ad loc. [And that is why Hashem spoke harshly.] And when Rashi here explains, “It is not in vain that I sent you,” this also is not in answer to [Moshe’s question] which came before. Instead, [it is an independent point in which] Hashem is saying to Moshe, “Perhaps you think that you will not succeed in your mission? [This is not so;] it is not in vain that I sent you. . .” (Maharshal)

Inasmuch as Moses had spoken in an unseemly manner in the presence of the Almighty, something that he never would have dared to do if G'd had not previously shown him His smiling face as represented by the attribute י־ה־ו־ה, G'd had to show him a different attribute i.e. אלוקים before answering him in detail. The Torah introduces this chapter (from verse 2) by letting us know that G'd spoke in His capacity as the attribute of Justice, i.e. אלוקים.

אלקים waltende Unsichtbare. Es ist derjenige (אלה) ist: der in dem Sichtbaren אלקי׳ der alles bisher Geschehene unsichtbar gelenkt hat. Die ganze Verzweiflung, all der Hohn, das Elend und der Jammer, waren bisher aus den natürlichen Verhältnissen geflossen, die Gott sich so hatte gestalten lassen. Sie waren das Ergebnis aus Ägyptens Entartung und Macht und Israels Ohnmacht und Schwäche. Nunmehr aber אני ה׳: מהוה חדשות der, unabhängig von den bestehenden Verhältnissen, ja in völligem Gegensatz zu ihnen, seinen Willen ins Dasein Setzende. Mit diesem Momente soll eine ganz neue Welt im Schoße der Menschheit ins Dasein treten, die von allen Bedingungen, von welchen die bisherigen weltgeschichtlichen Erscheinungen bedingt waren, unabhängig ist.

I am Adonoy. This teaches that the entire world is perpetuated by Hashem, utilizing Divine Providence. In contradistinction to a house, for example, that once it has been built the builder ceases work and it stands on its own, the world continues to exist only because Hashem keeps it in existence. With this, Hashem answered Moshe’s question in which he implied that Pharaoh’s decree was merely a result of natural events without Hashem’s Providence; Hashem replied that nature is also a result of Divine Providence.

When G'd appears to make a turnabout at the end of our verse and refers to Himself as the attribute of Mercy this is in line with the principle expressed in Berachot 30 that "wherever there is גלה, joy in one's relationship with G'd, there must be רעדה, fear or dread, simultaneously." Although G'd had previously displayed His attribute of Mercy this did not mean that man should not display an appropriate degree of trepidation when facing Him.

Our verse may also be understood thus: וידבר אלוקים, G'd spoke to Moses on matters of justice. Since G'd wanted Moses to know that his argument had been heard and considered, He added: אני השם. The use of this attribute at this juncture is equivalent to G'd asking Moses: "how could you attribute to Me a negative virtue such as being the originator of harm befalling My people? My outstanding characteristic is the sttribute of חסד, love, mercy, etc." Even the prophet Jeremiah has already made it plain that evil never originates with G'd (compare Lamentations 3,38: "Evil does not originate from G'd (but only Good)." The letter ו in front of the word והטוב in the verse in Lamentations refers to the fact that G'd does not interfere if a person wants to be good or evil. These decisions are up to each individual. It is up to man to choose good rather than evil. When you study the Bible you will find that whenever G'd mentions that the wicked are being remembered when they receive their deserts, the Bible underlines that the evil they are being punished for is of their own making. Compare in this respect Samuel I 24,13: "Wicked deeds come from wicked men." Jeremiah 2,19: "Your evil deeds will cause you to be disciplined." Isaiah 64,6: "You have made us melt because of our iniquities." There are many more similar quotations in the Bible. In view of this what gave Moses the right to assume that the Israelites' additional hardships were not due to something they had done themselves? It is also possible that the Israelites had not yet been adequately punished for whatever they had been guilty of prior to Moses' appointment. Perhaps some of the people had even become guilty of lack of faith after Moses had accredited himself as their prophet and leader. Your best proof that this was possible is the fact that the elders who set out to face Pharaoh together with Moses and Aaron dropped out on the way. Perhaps G'd would not have allowed Pharaoh to make the decree of withholding straw if the elders had not abandoned Moses on the way? At any rate Moses had been too quick to describe what happened to the people as being G'd's fault.

Perhaps G'd simply responded to the two questions Moses had raised in their proper order. G'd responded harshly to the question: "Why have You let evil happen to the people? Moses' question/accusation had been inappropriate. The Torah was so concerned about Moses' honour that it did not spell out the fact that he had spoken in an inadmissible fashion. G'd responded kindly to Moses' question: "Why have You sent me?" G'd may even have hinted that in due course Moses would have to answer for his question and this is why the details are not spelled out here. When G'd reverted to "I am the merciful G'd," this was the answer to "Why have You sent me?" G'd meant that He had sent Moses because He could not longer sit idly by when His people were being tortured, and this is why He had decided to advance the date when they would cease to suffer by sending Moses now so that he could orchestrate a string of plagues with which G'd would hit the Egyptians. Moses would begin to see immediately how at least the slave labour would come to an end.

Perhaps we can understand G'd manifesting Himself simultaneously as the attribute of Justice and the attribute of Mercy through reference to Bamidbar Rabbah 3,6 where we find a discussion about what merit led to the Exodus of the Jewish people from Egypt. One of the sages quotes Psalms 68,7 מוציא אסירים בכושרות to mean that the word כושרות is a combined form of בכי, weeping, and שיר song. Accordingly, two attributes of G'd were at work during the Exodus. G'd applied His attribute of Justice to the Egyptians, hence weeping, whereas He applied His attribute of Mercy to the Israelites, hence song. In our verse we find a parallel to that when G'd is introduced as אלוקים i.e. His attitude to the Egyptians, and immediately afterwards as י־ה־ו־ה i.e. as His attitude to the Jews. We have a principle that once G'd allows the destructive forces free reign, those forces do not distinguish between the guilty and the innocent. This principle is especially apparent when the innocent and the guity dwell in close proximity to one another, something that was certainly the case with Jews and Egyptians at that time. Moses would have assumed that when G'd would bring the plagues on the Egyptians there would be a negative fallout also on the Israelites. This is why G'd hinted already at this time that whereas He would act as אלוקים against the Egyptians, He would at one and the same time act as השם towards the Jews so that they would not suffer from any of these plagues. All of this is spelled out later in greater detail such as that even in the midst of such a plague as darkness no darkness engulfed a single Jew (compare Exodus 10,23). The same occurred in 9,6 during the plague of pestilence when not a single one of the animals owned by Jews died.

We have a tradition expressed in Bereshit Rabbah 73,3 that "wicked people can cause the attribute of Mercy to be converted into the attribute of Justice." Our verse may refer to such an instance. It commences with the attribute of Justice, and continues by mentioning the attribute of Mercy. This is a way of the Torah telling us that the attribute of Mercy agreed with what the attribute of Justice was about to do to Pharaoh and the Egyptians.

In the same Midrash where we are told that the wicked may cause the attribute of Mercy to co-operate with the attribute of Justice, we are also told "hail to the righteous who are able to convert even the attribute of Justice to co-operate with the attribute of Mercy." Accordingly, the Torah i.e. וידבר אלוקים ויאמר may tell us that the reason the verse commences with G'd as His attribute of Justice and then appearing as the attribute of Mercy is, that even the attribute of Mercy had agreed to the proposal of the attribute of Justice that the Jews should cease to perform slave labour and that the means to bring this about was the infliction of the plagues on the Egyptians.

We may also see in this verse G'd's response to Moses' amazement why He had not reacted to the insult Pharaoh had committed when he denied His existence. The words וידבר אלוקים are directed at Pharaoh who was about to experience proof of G'd's existence by being subjected to a string of retributory plagues. G'd could have eliminated Pharaoh in a single plague if He had employed only the attribute of Justice. The reason He chose not to do so was that He wanted to acquaint Pharaoh with one of His other attributes, i.e. His long patience, ארך אפים. G'd is in no hurry to conclude His dealings with the recalcitrant sinners, giving them a chance to repent. This is why we have input by the attribute of Mercy even in His dealings with Pharaoh.

On the other hand, G'd may have demonstrated that His harshness, i.e. וידבר אלוקים was reserved for the messenger, i.e. Moses. The Jewish people, i.e. the ones under the messenger's care, were not to suffer from the mistake their leader had made. This is why G'd continued: ויאמר השם.

G'd may also have told Moses here that although He ought to employ the attribute of Justice against him at this stage, He did not do so because He kept in mind that that attribute was reserved for people who had committed a sin consciously (compare Rosh Hashanah 17 defining עובר על פשע). It is well known that Moses was extremely humble; as a result, G'd employed His own attribute of being נושא עון, demonstrating a forgiving nature, when reacting to Moses' error in this instance. He alluded to this when He told him אני השם.

Finally, G'd may have revealed a mystical dimension of His to Moses when He explained that He could combine the attribute of Justice and the attribute of Mercy within Himself; this was a new aspect of G'd's unity which Moses had not been aware of.

וארא AND I APPEARED — to the patriarchs.

בא-ל שדי, a promise concerning the future that I have not yet fulfilled.

וארא, in a vision, a communication by G’d just below that of the level we know as נבואה, prophecy. Genesis 18,1 was one such example of G’d “appearing” to Avraham after his circumcision.

וארא אל אברהם, I used to appear to Abraham, etc. The reason G'd did not lump the three patriarchs together but referred to each one by name is, that G'd's relationship with each one of the patriarchs was based on something unique to the patriarch in question. Abraham was unique in that he recognised his Creator without having had guidance from another human being. If someone had foreknowledge of the existence of G'd and His power, he does not deserve special credit for conducting himself in line with such knowledge. Every intelligent being would choose good over evil once he possessed such knowledge. Abraham did not possess any of these advantages which would have acquainted him with G'd's attributes. We have explained in connection with Isaiah 41,9 that the reason G'd called Abraham "the one who loves Me" was because his faith and morality was the result of his being a "self-starter." He cleaved to his faith in G'd in spite of the most demanding tests G'd subjected him to.

To the fathers. It is merely for brevity that Rashi says “to the fathers” rather than saying, as the verse does, “To Avraham, to Yitzchok, and to Yaakov.” (Re’m)

V. 3. Und diese ganz neue Gottoffenbarung war von dem ersten Anfange der jüdischen Geschichte vorbereitet, alle Gänge derselben führten zu diesem Momente hin. "Ich war schon 'ה, selbst da ich dem Abraham, Isaak und Jakob nur als א׳ ש׳ sichtbar ward und mein beabsichtigtes Walten als ה׳ ihnen in ihrer Lebenserfahrung noch nicht offenbar werden ließ." Ihr wundert euch, dass es bisher immer schlimmer geworden, dass selbst deine Sendung bisher nur ein Mittel war, das Elend eurer Lage bis zum äußersten Extreme zu führen — seht ihr denn nicht, wie eure ganze bisherige Geschichte nur ein abwärts steigender Weg gewesen? Abraham der נשיא אלקים in Mitte der Völker — und Jakob, der arme dienende Knecht, der erst "um sein Weib dienen musste und dann für sein Weib zu dienen" hatte! Ich hätte euch ja in aufsteigender Linie führen können. Statt Abraham im hundertsten Jahre einen Sohn erhalten zu lassen, hätte ich schon von ihm eine Familie im siebenzigsten entstehen lassen, die Nachkommenschaft in glücklichen, günstigen Verhältnissen zu einem Volke auf heimischem Boden heranblühen lassen können. Dann wäre aber eben dieses Volk nicht das Gottesvolk, nicht das עם ד׳, das Gott als ה׳ offenbarende Volk geworden. Dann würde auch dieses Volk wie alle anderen Völker nur in dem Sicht- und Tastbaren wurzeln, würde auch es nur auf materiellem Boden stehen, in materieller Macht und Größe seine Macht und Größe finden, und Geistiges und Sittliches nur insofern anstreben, als das Materielle dafür Raum lässt und es dem Materiellen selber frommt. Und es soll doch im Gegenteil seinen Boden nur in Gott und in der freien sittlichen Erfüllung des göttlichen Willens, und nur von diesem Gott und diesem Streben aus und für dasselbe auch irdischen Halt und Boden gewinnen! Es war ja das Bewusstsein von dem freien, allmächtigen Gott und dem durch diesen Gott freien Menschen geschwunden, es waren ja Menschen und Völker theoretisch und praktisch in die Gebundenheit der Materie versunken! Durch das Auftreten des Abrahamvolkes sollte dieses Bewusstsein wieder geweckt, und die Menschen aus dieser Gebundenheit erlöst werden. Darum musste dieses Volk da anfangen, wo andere Völker aufhören. Es musste, an sich selbst verzweifelnd — בגעל נפשך — in seinem Blute verendend, am Boden liegen (Jecheskel 16, 5) und nur durch Gottes Schöpferruf zum Volke erstehen, und so schon das bloße Dasein dieses Volkes den Völkern verkünden: אני ד׳!

ושמי ה' לא נודעתי להם, Rashi explains this as follows; “and My attribute (name) of Hashem I have not let them be familiar with.” It is significant that G-d did not use the active causative mode of הודעתי here. In answering the question why He had not done so, what comes to mind is first: “they did not bother to ask Me about it.” [They should have asked as I revealed Myself to Avraham as such already at the covenant between the pieces in Genesis 15,7, where G-d told Avraham that He had saved him miraculously in order to give him (his descendants) that land in which He appeared to him. G-d reminds Moses that neither Avraham nor Yitzchok or Yaakov, to all of whom He had spoken far less that He had to Moses, ever questioned what they could have questioned about G-d’s judgments. To quote just one such example: when after having been told by G-d that his descendants would inherit the land of Canaan, and it came to burying his wife Sarah there, he could not even do this without paying a minor fortune for a cave, he surely might have asked Me about this. They believed Me on My word alone, without the need for any miracles or proof. They could not have known me by My real name, as I had made promises and had not yet kept them. My true name is based not only on My ability to promise but on My ability beyond question to also keep My promises. Now, G-d says, “I will explain to you why I did not reveal Myself to the patriarchs as the attribute of Hashem. The promises I made to them referred to a distant future.” They would not live to see their fulfilment. The promises I made to you and through you to My people, will be fulfilled within the immediate future. As this occurs, the past partially passive mode of the root ידע will be appropriate, i.e. “I will have become known as Hashem.” Seeing that this is so, the people should not have asked: “what is His name?” Who asks about something that he knows and is familiar with? Rashi also explains why the conjunctive letter ו in וגם in verse 4 is appropriate. The word: הקימותי is not to be confused with “I have kept (a promise),” but is to be understood as the promises made to the patriarchs still being in effect, and the fact that they had not yet been fulfilled is due to their having been made by G-d in His capacity as שדי, “the G-d whose promises are meaningful because He is able to fulfill them and no one can stop Him from doing so.” The reason that the time for fulfilling them has arrived is because the Children of Israel’s outcry on account of their suffering is justified.

באל שדי BY THE NAME OF GOD ALMIGHTY — I made certain promises to them and in the case of all of these I said unto them, “I am God Almighty”.

'ושמי ה, we have to explain the sequence as follows: “Although I have revealed Myself to the patriarchs as the attribute of Shaddai, My principal name, the one that represents My essence, etc.” We are faced with a repetition here, hence לא נודעתי להם, “I did not reveal Myself to the patriarchs as My principal attribute but only as My attribute Shaddai. But to you, Moses, I have revealed My principal attribute which I described as אהיה and זכרי ה'. In your lifetime I plan to fulfill My promise.”

בא-ל שדי, by the attribute which demonstrates that I have created existence as such, as was pointed out in Genesis 17,1.

I was not recognized by them by My attribute of keeping trust. . . Rashi is answering the question: In Parshas Lech Lecha (Bereishis 9:7) it is written אני יהוה וגו ’ (“I am Adonoy who took you out from Ur Casdim”). [If so, why does our verse imply that the fathers did not know the Name of Adonoy?] Therefore Rashi explains: “ לא הודעתי is not written here. . .”

Isaac possessed another unique characteristic; he had submitted without question to his father's request made in the name of G'd to give his life for that G'd. He did not even ask for an explanation of why he had to give his life.

Darum war die Herbeiführung dieses, die Offenbarung Gottes als ה׳ bedingenden Momentes, in welchem die Hilflosigkeit der Nachkommen Abrahams gipfelte, von vornherein der Gottesplan, als er die Geschicke der Väter abwärts führte und sich ihnen nur als den "Allgenügenden" zeigte, an dessen Hand man siegreich allen Wechsel des Lebens durchmache. —

ושמי ה׳ לא נודעתי להם BUT BY MY NAME THE LORD WAS I NOT KNOWN TO THEM — It is not written here לא הודעתי [My name the Lord] I did not make known to them, but לא נודעתי [by My name, the Lord], was I not known [unto them] — i. e. I was not recognised by them in My attribute of “keeping faith”, by reason of which My name is called ה׳, which denotes that I am certain to substantiate My promise, for, indeed, I made promises to them but did not fulfill them [during their lifetime].

לתת להם את ארץ כנען, to give the people the land of Canaan. The words ושמי ה' are connected to what was written at the beginning of the verse as I explained already. If the Torah had written הודעתי להם instead of נודעתי להם, the words ושמי ה' would have belonged to the statement לא הודעתי.

ושמי ה' לא נודעתי להם, the letter ב in the expression בא-ל שדי applies to the word ושמי. In effect what G’d is saying is that He has not made a point of becoming familiar to the patriarchs by His attribute Hashem when appearing to them, such as in the example mentioned. This was because He never experienced the need to change the laws of nature on their behalf. Seeing that the patriarchs could not have passed on knowledge about Me which I had not revealed to them, they in turn had not been able to pass on such knowledge to their children. I have to do this now in order to ensure that I can preserve the Children of Israel as My people.

For I made promises but have not fulfilled them. Rashi is explaining the difference between יהוה and אל שדי . He therefore explains: “For I made promises but have not [as yet] fulfilled them” — in other words, “I did not yet fulfill My promise because they were not worthy of it.” If so, there is indeed a difference between [the two Names]. For a promise in the Name of יהוה is unconditional, [and it is fulfilled] even if they were to sin.

Jacob was unique in not wasting a single drop of semen by producing offspring which was not worthy of him. All his children remained loyal to his teachings.

לא נודעתי להם. Wir finden freilich den Namen ה׳ bereits in der Geschichte und im Munde der Väter. Allein es ist hier durchaus nicht von einer bloßen Kenntnis des Namens die Rede. דעת שם ד׳ ist ein viel Tieferes, das in seiner Vollendung vielleicht erst am Ende aller geschichtlichen Erfahrung unser Erbteil wird. So Jesaias 52, 6 von dieser letzten Ge'ula: לכן ידע עמי שמי. Es heißt überhaupt: Verstehen, welche Gotteswaltung dieser Name bedeutet. Ein Verständnis, das vollständig erst aus der Erfahrung aller Zeiten reift, und die Väter standen erst am Anfang der Zeiten! ושמי ד׳ לא נודעתי להם, wie: נודע ד׳ משפט עשה Ps. 9, 17: als derjenige, dessen Name ד׳ ist, bin ich ihnen nicht zur Erkenntnis geworden.

G'd explained to Moses that He had not revealed His attribute of the four-lettered name י־ה־ו־ה which He had revealed to Moses to any of these three patrirachs, but had revealed to them only His attribute שדי. G'd now told Moses that in view of the revelations He had already made to him, he had displayed ingratitude by speaking to Him in an inappropriate, critical manner.

While it is true that in the Torah's report of G'd's communications with Abraham (Genesis 18,1) we find such an expression as וירא ה׳ אל אברהם, which seems to suggest that G'd revealed this aspect (the tetragram) of His attributes to Abraham, this is misleading. G'd may have dealt with him on that basis, but He had not confided that fact to Abraham, i.e. Abraham remained unaware of the difference between G'd in His capacity as אל שדי and G'd in His capacity as י־ה־ו־ה. This is what G'd meant when He said ושמי ה׳ לא נודעתי להם, "they were not informed of My name י־ה־ו־ה.

G'd also meant that the patriarchs were not aware of the unique simultaneous effectiveness of both of G'd's attributes, as we mentioned in connection with verse two. The mystical dimension of this is recorded in Kings I 18,39 when the assembled people realised this after Eliyahu's demonstration on Mount Carmel. The prophet Zachariah also makes reference to this phenomenon in Zachariah 14,9 when he describes that in the futre והיה ה׳ אחד ושמו אחד, people will realise that in spite of G'd's many attributes these are all part of the same Essence. G'd's name and G'd's Essence will be perceived as an indivisible unit, unlike all creatures whose names do not necessarily reflect anything about their essence. It was inappropriate for G'd to say לא הודעתי, "I have not made known," since it was G'd's "name" who was speaking. This is why the Torah had to write: לא נודעתי "I have not become known."

G'd may also have answered Moses' question why He had sent him on this mission before the time designated for the redemption. He explained that G'd's timetable is not absolute. When He had spoken to Abraham about a period of 400 years after which the Israelites would leave their exile and bondage with great wealth (Genesis 15,14), that timetable had been based on G'd having revealed His attribute אל שדי to Abraham. That attribute is one which is inflexible. It reflects the fact that G'd has set absolute limits to certain developments. However, that attribute is part of the overall attribute אלוקים, an attribute which governs G'd's manifestations in nature. G'd had not taught Abraham that by appealing to His attribute of רחמים, Mercy, the limitations which are part of the אל שדי syndrome can become more flexible. Since the prayers of the whole Jewish nation had reached His attribute of Mercy this is why He decided to respond before the time which had originally been designated for the redemption. G'd began by saying that he was י־ה־ו־ה in order to teach Moses that when one "knocks on the door of Mercy," such knocks are apt to evoke a response on the other side of that door.

There may be yet another nuance in G'd's saying "I have appeared to Abraham." The implied message is G'd's rhetorical question: "How could I turn a deaf ear to a nation who are the offspring of My most beloved Patriarchs, to each of whom I made a point of revealing Myself separately at the appropriate time. The Torah made a point of not writing אברהם,יצחק,יעקב, but of interposing the word אל each time. This underlines that each one of the patriarchs merited a revelation in his own right. In spite of all this, G'd continues, I still did not reveal the aspect of the attribute of Mercy to these patriarchs. One of the reasons I could not do this was because I had not yet demonstrated how this Mercy is expressed in practice, such as now when I am about to change My timetable for the redemption.

וגם הקמתי את בריתי וגו׳ Then, ALSO, when I appeared unto them by the name of God Almighty I ESTABLISHED and set up MY COVENANT between Myself and them

וגם הקימותי, I have also sworn, as per Onkelos in Genesis 31,53 on the word וישבע which he renders as וקיים. “G’d swore to keep His promise.” Compare a similar phrase but worded differently in Psalms 106, 44-45. “When He saw that they were in distress, when He heard their cry, He was mindful of His covenant and in His great faithfulness He relented.”

וגם הקימותי את בריתי, "And I also maintain My covenant, etc." G'd may have added here (according to our previous commentary) that even if He had already fulfilled His covenant with the patriarchs, they still would not have become privy to the degree of revelation that Moses had already now become privy to.

וגם הקימותי, “moreover, I have established;” I have also sent you in order for you to be the instrument through which I will keep My covenant with the patriarchs, if they are like them, to give them the land of Canaan

Also when I revealed Myself to them as Almighty Shaddai. . . Rashi is answering the question: How does our verse’s wording, “I also,” fit in with what precedes it? It would be understandable if it had been written in the preceding verse: And My Name Adonoy I did make known to them. Then, “I also” would mean: I also did this for them, [to establish My covenant]. Or if it had been written in this verse: I also did not establish My covenant, it would be understandable — [as it would fit in with “I did not make known”]. But since it is written, “My Name Adonoy I did not make known to them,” what does “I also established” mean? Therefore Rashi explains, “Also when I revealed Myself. . .” Rashi means that Hashem says, so to speak, “Do not think that since I revealed Myself to them as Almighty Shaddai rather than as Adonoy, I do not need to fulfill My promise. This is not true, because I also set up and established a covenant with them. For these two reasons, Almighty Shaddai and the covenant, I need to fulfill My word that I promised them. This is because, [when combined,] they are as if I had promised them with the Name of Adonoy [which is unconditional]. According to this, the phrase “I also established My covenant” refers back to “I revealed Myself to Avraham. . . as Almighty Shaddai,” rather than referring to “but My Name Adonoy I did not make known to them.”

AND I HAVE ALSO ESTABLISHED MY COVENANT WITH THEM … AND MOREOVER I HAVE HEARD THE GROANING OF THE CHILDREN OF ISRAEL.³⁴Verses 4-5. The meaning thereof is as follows: “I have appeared to the patriarchs by the Name ‘E-il Sha-dai’ and I have also established this covenant [by this Divine Name] before Me, and moreover with My Great Name I have now heard the groaning of the children of Israel, and I have remembered My covenant which I have established for them with Me.” The student learned [in the mystic lore of the Cabala] will understand.
Now as regards what our Rabbis have expounded:³⁵Shemoth Rabbah 6:4, and mentioned by Rashi in Verse 9 with variants. i.e., that [the Holy One, blessed be He, said to Moses], “Alas for those that are gone, [namely, the patriarchs], and are no more to be found! Many a time did I reveal Myself to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob by the Name E-il Sha-dai, and I did not inform them that My Name is the Eternal as I have said it to you, and yet none of them cast aspersions upon My dealings with them, etc. Moreover, none of them asked Me what My Name is, as you asked. Right at the beginning of My mission, you said to Me, ‘What is Your Name?’³⁶Above, 3:13. And at the end you said, For since I came to Pharaoh to speak in Thy name, he hath dealt ill with this people, etc.³⁷Ibid., 5:23. It is in connection with this [complaint] that G-d said to Moses, And I have also established My covenant with them, etc.³⁸Verse 4. That is to say, “Not only did I promise them the Land but I also established My covenant with them on that, and yet they did not find fault with Me” (ibid., Shemoth Rabbah). The purport of this Midrash likewise fits in with the text.³⁹See Rashi on Verse 9 where he explains that this Midrash does not fit in with the text for several reasons. Ramban proceeds to show that it can be fitted in with the verses. The Rabbis, of blessed memory, found it difficult to understand why G-d mentioned the prophecy of the patriarchs altogether, diminishing their accomplishment in prophecy and saying that He appeared to them only by the Name of E-il Sha-dai. What purpose did that serve? He could have said, “I am the Eternal, and wherefore say unto the children of Israel: ‘I am the Eternal, and I will bring you [from under the burdens of the Egyptians], and you shall know that I am the Eternal Who brought you out.’” Therefore the Rabbis explained that the message constituted a rebuke to Moses, telling him: “Behold, the patriarchs, whose accomplishment in prophecy was not as high as yours inasmuch as they contemplated Deity only through the Name E-il Sha-dai, believed in Me, And I have also established My covenant with them, and I have heard the groaning of their children for their sake. Surely you who have known Me by the Great Name and whom I have given My assurance [by that Name], you should have trusted in [My] mercies and assured Israel in My Name that I will do signs and wonders for them.” This interpretation too is correct and fitting.

V. 4. Ich war aber ה׳, hätte sofort sie und ihre Nachkommen als freien, selbständigen Volkskern herstellen können, als ich erst mein Bündnis mit ihnen errichtete, ihnen ein Land zu geben, in welchem sie lebenslänglich Fremdlinge blieben,

וגם אני הקימותי, Accordingly, the correct translation of the word הקימותי here is: “and also I have sworn,” exactly as in Genesis 3,53, where the word וישבע does not mean “I have sworn,” in the sense of “it is the truth,” but “I confirm solemnly something that I have promised already previously.”

לתת להם את ארץ כנען TO GIVE THEM THE LAND OF CANAAN — Of Abraham it is stated in the chapter that contains the commandment of the Circumcision, (Genesis 17:1, and 17:8) “[The Lord appeared to Abraham and said unto him], I am God Almighty etc., and I will give to thee and to thy seed after thee the land of thy sojourning”. Of Isaac it is stated, (Genesis 26:3) “[The Lord appeared unto him and said], For unto thee and unto thy seed I will give all these countries, and I will establish the oath which I sware unto Abraham, thy father”, and that oath here referred to which I sware to Abraham I uttered by the name of God Almighty. Of Jacob it is stated, (Genesis 35:9, 11, 12) “[And God appeared unto Jacob … and God said unto him], I am God Almighty; be fruitful and multiply, … the land which I gave [Abraham and Isaac to thee I will give it] etc.” So you see that I made certain vows to them and I have not yet fulfilled them.

The land of their sojourning. I promised them the Land because it is the land of their sojourning and they have become accustomed to Divine Providence in it, and not solely because it is a land of milk and honey. Hashem looks after the Land in detail, making it the place of abundant Providence. I promised this to their sons, for it is My Will to watch over them.

I have made vows to them but have not fulfilled. In other words, [Rashi is saying that] from the verses he cited, we see that Hashem made vows to them. However, from these verses we do not see that Hashem has not fulfilled [those vows]. Without citing a proof [for that point,] Rashi is answering why Hashem sent Moshe, [in response to Moshe’s question at the end of Parshas Shemos. The answer is]: Since “I have not yet fulfilled those vows,” I must send you in order to fulfill My word to the Patriarchs.

Put simply, G'd explains to Moses in our verse that He owed the patriarchs something over and beyond His having revealed Himself to the patriarchs as the אל שדי. That something was the fulfilment of His promise/oath that the people of Israel would be redeemed from bondage. The time had now arrived for that promise to be kept; G'd also explained to Moses why he had to wait for the redemption somewhat longer, i.e. that G'd now invoked His מדת הרחמים. G'd was afraid that Moses would not have the emotional fortitude to pursue his mission with all the necessary vigour when he saw Pharaoh's obstinacy, or when he would face the pursuing Egyptian cavalry behind him and the sea in front; G'd therefore explained to Moses that the purpose of the redemption was not only the Exodus but also the conquest of the Holy Land.

את ארץ מגוריהם, "the land in which they (the patriarchs) used to sojourn." Why did the Torah not content itself with describing the land the patriarchs had lived in as "the land of Canaan?" Why did the words את ארץ מגוריהם have to be added? Perhaps the Torah wanted to make us aware that the status of being aliens (which was part of the period of 400 years G'd had spoken to Abraham about) had already commenced during the lifetime of the patriarchs. This would have a great bearing on the timing of the Exodus. Still, this would leave open why the Torah had to use the word את twice when referring to that land. Use of that word creates the impression that the land of Canaan and the land in which the patriarchs sojourned were two different countries. Perhaps the Torah wanted to include the land of the Philistines [the coastal strip including Gaza, seeing that the Philistines were not of Canaanitic descent Ed.]. I have already explained this on Genesis 26,3.

וגם אני — Since I established and set up My covenant it is incumbent upon Me to fulfil it; therefore, שמעתי את נאקת בני ישראל I HAVE HEARD THE GROANING OF THE CHILDREN OF ISRAEL who groan (complain) אשר מצרים מעבדים אתם THAT THE EGYPTIANS ARE ENSLAVING THEM, ואזכר AND I REMEMBER that covenant which I have already made with them; because at the covenant “between the pieces” I said to him, (Genesis 15:14) “And also against that nation whom they shall serve will I pronounce judgment.”

וגם אני שמעתי את נאקת בני ישראל, "I have also heard the groaning of the children of Israel, etc." The word וגם, "and also," refers to something over and beyond the prayers of the Israelites to the attribute of Mercy. In addition to the prayers of the Israelites and G'd's love for the patriarchs, there was a third consideration which had a bearing on G'd's timetable for the redemption, namely the outcry of the Israelites due to the torture they were experiencing. This third element is referred to by G'd in our verse by the words: וגם אני, "also I." G'd reveals His name of אני as an aspect of the attribute of Mercy. Previously, this name had only appeared in conjunction with the tetragram. G'd revealed that there are occasions when people's groanings even when not accompanied by verbalised prayer reach the attribute of Mercy and evoke a response. This is why He added אשר מצרים מעבידים אותם, "the manner in which the Egyptians have enslaved them." I refer the reader to my comments on Exodus 2,23 in this respect.

וגם אני שמעתי, “moreover, I have heard, etc.” an additional reason why I have sent you is that I have heard the groaning of the people, i.e. that they have repented their ways and seen fit to appeal to Me. Hence, just as I endure forever, so My promise will be in effect until carried out. I will demonstrate this with My outstretched arm. Concerning the opening line in our paragraph ושמי ה' לא נודעתי, something which we might have expected to have employed the same verb, i.e. ראה, for instance וארא אל אברהם...ושמי הי לא נראתי, “I have appeared to Avraham, but My name Hashem has not appeared, etc.” the reason for this is that, generally speaking, visions granted to the patriarchs occurred during the night, while they were asleep, whereas the manifestations of G’d you and your people will experience will all occur while you are fully awake. In other words, you will become privy to revelations of far greater dimensions than the ones granted to the patriarchs.

Just as I established and set up the covenant. . . Rashi is answering the question: What does “And also I have heard” mean? It implies that someone else heard, and also Hashem heard! Therefore Rashi explains, “Just as I established the covenant. . .” In other words, “also” refers back to the preceding. It is saying: Since I revealed Myself to them as Almighty Shaddai and established a covenant with them, and therefore I also must fulfill it, consequently, “I have heard.” [According to this,] “I have heard” is an independent clause, and it means: consequently I have heard. This section is to be understood as follows: At first, “Elohim spoke to Moshe” with severity because Moshe had said to Hashem, “Why have You brought harm to this people. . .?” Then, “. . .and said to him, ‘I am Hashem’,” refers back to what Moshe said, “Why did You send me?” Hashem is answering him, “I am Adonoy” and I can be trusted to keep My promise! [If so, how could] you ask, “Why did You send me”? And if you say: Why do I need to keep My promise, when it was made not by the Name Adonoy, rather by Almighty Shaddai — “but My Name Adonoy I did not make known to them”? However [this question is incorrect, because] “I also established My covenant,” therefore I also must fulfill it. For this reason, “I have heard. . .”

V. 5. und auch, als ich das namenlose, bis zur drohenden Vernichtung steigende Elend über ihre Nachkommen ergehen ließ, habe ich sehr wohl dieses Bündnisses gedacht, ja, ließ dieses eben zur Erfüllung dieses Bündnisses geschehen.

Therefore, I heard the groaning of the B’nei Yisrael, who groan . . . Rashi is explaining] that it is impossible to fulfill the promise to give them Eretz Yisrael until after the exodus from Egypt, which itself requires the fulfillment of “And also, I will judge the nation to which they will be enslaved” (Bereishis 15:14). That is why the phrase, “That the Egyptians are enslaving them” is added to the verse — [thus indicating that the Egyptians must first be judged]. This is the meaning of, “And I have remembered My covenant.” It is saying: Since I have remembered the covenant of bris bein habesarim, in which I promised to give them Eretz Yisrael, therefore I have remembered also, “I will judge the nation. . .” For both promises were made at the same time. This completes Hashem’s answer to [Moshe’s question]: “Why did You send me? Ever since I came to Pharaoh. . . he has done harm to this people. . .” (5: 22—23). [Hashem is answering: I cannot fulfill, “I will judge the nation” until I first harden Pharaoh’s heart and he does harm to B’nei Yisrael.] (Nachalas Yaakov; see elaboration there)

ואזכר את בריתי, "I have remembered My covenant." G'd means that He remembered both parts of the covenant, i.e. to redeem the people and to bring them to the Holy Land. [This had been a covenant with the patriarchs. What is new is that the present generation of Israelites would be the ones who would experience realisation of that covenant.] In this instance G'd spoke about a covenant which had not yet been spelled out but which follows immediately in the next four verses. G'd repeats the covenant only as an explanation of why He has advanced the date it is to become effective. The commentators who understand this covenant as a promise to punish the Egyptians are wrong; none of this has been mentioned in the verse following this declaration.

לכן THEREFORE, i. e. in accordance with the tenor of that oath (cf. Exodus Rabbah 6)

AND I WILL BRING YOU OUT FROM UNDER THE BURDENS OF THE EGYPTIANS. He assured them that He will take them out from the land of the Egyptians and that they will no longer suffer from their heavy burden.

'לכן אמור לבני ישראל אני ה. The Torah speaks of three reasons (stages of the redemption) why G’d at this time reveals knowledge about Himself which He had not revealed previously.

לכן אמור לבני ישראל אני ה׳. "Therefore, say to the Israelites: 'I am י־ה־ו־ה.'" Moses was to tell the Israelites in the name of G'd that He was the attribute of Mercy and that He had decided to invoke this attribute on their behalf. As a result, He would lead them out of Egypt and perform the other stages which would complete the process of redemption.

והוצאתי אתכם מתחת סבלות מצרים, “I will take you out from under the slave labour of Egypt.” This is G’d’s promise that He would take them out of the land of Egypt and that they would not again experience having to perform slave labour. Seeing that this promise still left open the possibility that after leaving Egypt the Israelites would be subjected to heavy taxation in their host country, G’d added:

From where do we derive that we drink four cups of wine at the Pesach [seder]? Rabbi Yohanan said: It corresponds to the four redemptions: 'I will take you out;' 'I will save you;' 'I will redeem you;' 'I will take you to me.' Three of these are found in this verse, and one in the verse immediately following. In all of the decisors and commentators and books of legends that bring this saying, it is brought using the language, "It corresponds to the four languages of redemption." But if we look in the Palestinian Talmud from which the phrase is quoted, the word "languages" is missing. Rather it says, "four redemptions." In my view, this is a very significant distinction. For if we understand it according to its plain meaning, the notion of four languages of redemption is not a reason to establish four cups of thanksgiving, since there is but one redemption, whether we speak of it using one word or four. But if there are four redemptions, then that explains the matter much better, for when we examine it well we find that there are four different ideas expressed in these four terms, and each one is its own complete idea unto itself and deserving of its own thanksgiving. In the first statement ("I will take you out"), we see that the Holy Blessed One took them out from under the labors of the Egyptians, which is to say that God lightened their labors--but they were not freed completely. Then God added to this, "And I will save you from their servitude," which means that they did not serve them at all. But even after these two promises, they were still servants to Pharaoh and had not achieved full redemption. Thus God added, "And I will redeem you," but even so they were not yet made a special acquisition of the Holy Blessed One, and so God added, "And I will take you to me to be a people, and I will be God to you." We see that within these sayings are included separate notions of redemption. The verses continue in a "not only this, but also this" fashion--that is to say, not only will I do this, but I will also do this, and not only that, but also this, etc. As such, the simple meaning is revealed: We are obligated to give thanks for each individual act that increased the redemption. And that is why [the Sages] established the four cups of thanksgiving. And why did they not establish a cup for the phrase "and I will bring you to the land?" We cannot say that it is because that language is unrelated to the redemption, since they established a cup for "and I will take you to me to be a people," which is likewise not specifically an aspect of redemption. Rather, the simple answer is that since we are still in exile, and the land is in the hands of foreigners, it is impossible to raise a glass of wine for this. And perhaps, in recognition of this, they established a special cup in the name of Elijah, as a remembrance and hint that we hope for his coming and for the resurrection of the nation and the land speedily in our days.

The trouble of the burden of Egypt. Here Rashi is answering the question: What does “under the burdens” mean? It implies that the burdens are [an actual physical object] spread on top of B’nei Yisrael, and Hashem is bringing them out from underneath. Therefore Rashi explains, “The trouble of the burden,” i.e., [it is a figure of speech and] B’nei Yisrael are like a person carrying a load, from under which he is brought out. Here too, Egyptian slavery is like a load on top of them, and Hashem, so to speak, is bringing them out from underneath it. But before (1:11) it said “burdens” without saying “under,” [thus prompting Rashi’s comment here].

V.6. Deshalb: אמר לבני ישראל, sage es ihnen, erläutere es ihnen, rede es ihnen in Geist und Herz hinein, und zwar nicht 'אל בני וגו, nicht direkt, sondern לבני וגו׳, für sie, sage es den זקנים, damit sie es dem Volke zum Verständnis und zur Beherzigung bringen, dass אני ד׳; nur als ד׳, im Widerspruch aller gegebenen Verhältnisse, וגאלתי וגו׳ ,והוצאתי וגו׳ ,והצלתי וגו׳, und dann: ולקחתי וגו׳.

אמר לבני ישראל אני ה׳ SAY UNTO THE CHILDREN OF ISRAEL, I AM THE LORD Who am faithful in My promise,

AND I WILL DELIVER YOU FROM THEIR BONDAGE. The Egyptians will no longer rule over them at all, nor will they subject them to be a servant under tribute⁴⁰Genesis 49:15. wherever they live.

1) והוצאתי אתכם מתחת סבלות מצרים there will be an immediate cessation of the Israelites performing slave labour for the Egyptians.

והצלתי אתכם, “I will save you,” i.e. you will not be subjugated to some other government at all.

The word לכן is a form of an oath as we know from Ezekiel 20,30-42. In that instance the prophet refers to our verse as something concerning which G'd had said: "I have raised My hand," i.e. a clear form of an oath.

ארבע לשונות של גאולה, vier Seiten, in welchen sich das Erlösungswerk darstellt und die zum Verständnis alles Folgenden aufgefasst werden müssen. והוצאתי והצלתי וגאלתי sind die Befreiung von dem gegenwärtigen Galut, ולקחתי: die dann zu erteilende Bestimmung, der Zweck des Ganzen.

והוצאתי אתכם AND I WILL BRING YOU OUT, — for so did I promise them: (Genesis 15:14) “and afterwards shall they go out with great substance”.

AND I WILL REDEEM YOU. He will bring such judgments upon them until the Egyptians will say: “Here You have the Israelites as a redemption for our lives.” The meaning of the word g’ulah (redemption) is close to the subject of mecher (sale), [thus implying that “I will buy you from the Egyptians”]. And the meaning of the expression, with an outstretched arm, is that His arm will be extended over them until He takes them out from Egypt.

2) והצלתי, on the day the Israelites would depart from Ramses, when they would cross the border out of the land of Egypt.

וגאלתי אתכם, “and I will liberate you.” I will perform so many judgments on the Egyptians that they will liberate you altogether in preference to enduring more plagues. The word גאולה is used here in the same sense as “selling,” i.e. setting free. The meaning of the words בזרוע נטויה, is that G’d will twist their arm until they release the Israelites.

G'd enumerates the steps of the redemption. 1) First "I will take you out from beneath the hard labour of Egypt;" this is the removal of the slave labour performed for the Egyptians. It would commence immediately with the plague of blood. Although this resulted in the dispersal of the taskmasters, the Israelites continued to perform light duty tasks. 2) "I will save you from their bondage;" this referred to the remaining kind of labour the Israelites performed for the Egyptians. 3) "I will liberate you;" this refers to the actual departure of the Israelites from the country. This also includes the splitting of the sea as the departure would have been meaningless without that final stage. The word וגאלתי must refer to a liberation which is not followed by pursuit. Following that stage the Jewish people would experience ולקחתי אתכם לי לעם," I will take you to be My people" which is a reference to the revelation at Mount Sinai when G'd gave us the Torah. At that point G'd would be able to say that: "I have truly become your G'd."

In drei Momenten ist das Galut gezeichnet: עבדות ,סבלות, und — da גאולה ohne Beifügung ist — גואל-losigkeit, גאולה-Bedürftigkeit. In dem ברית בין הבתרי׳ war dieses Galut Abraham als ענוי ,עבדות ,גרות, angekündigt. Diese drei Momente lagen verwirklicht vor. ענוי: die Peinigung, die Verkümmerung und Freudeberaubung des Daseins, in den סבלות, in den mit höhnender Härte aufgebürdeten Lasten Mizrajims. Es kann jemand עבד sein, ohne durch סבלות erdrückt zu werden, es kann jemand mit סבלות überbürdet sein, ohne עבד zu sein. עבדות: die Freiheitsberaubung, in עבדת מצרים in dem Sklavenstand, welchen Mizrajim über sie verhängt. גרות in der -גואלlosigkeit, das ist eben der גרות-Stand. So wird später im Gesetze der Fremde bezeichnet als: אין לאיש גואל Bamidbar 5, 8. גואל ist der Verwandte, der in der Not des Verwandten seine eigene erblickt und für ihn auftritt. Der Fremde hat als solcher in dem gewöhnlichen Staate keinen Annehmer. In der Misshandlung des geringsten Einheimischen erblickt jeder Einheimische sein eigenes Recht verletzt, er sieht in ihm den Rechtsboden erschüttert, auf welchem er selbst mit allen seinen Ansprüchen ruht. Der Fremde aber "hat hier kein Recht" und findet daher in keinem der "hier Berechtigten" einen Annehmer. "An dem Fremden kann hier kein Unrecht geschehen, weil er eben hier kein Recht hat, vielmehr alles, was ihm hier nicht geschieht, und was man ihm hier gestattet, reine Gnade ist". Das ist das Unglück des Fremden, Heimatlosen, Unberechtigten; aus ihm, weil sie in Ägypten גרים waren, erwuchs alles spätere Elend wie von selbst. Weil sie גרים waren, machte man sie zu עבדים und zu עניים מעונים. Darum steht in der geschichtlichen Ankündigung dieses Elends גרות voran: .גר יהי׳ זרעך וגו׳ ועבדום וענו אותם Hier aber, wo die Erlösung aus dem zur Verwirklichung gekommenen gegenwärtigen Elend verkündet wird, stehen die Momente in entgegengesetzter Folge: גרות ,עבדות ,ענוי. Es wird zuerst die Beseitigung des in der konkreten Gegenwart am empfindlichsten sich bemerkbar machenden Zustandes verheißen und dann bis zu der Wurzel des Ganzen zurückgegangen und deren Entfernung verkündet. —

סבלת מצרים means the encumbrance of the burdens of Egypt.

3) וגאלתי, on the day the pursuing Egyptians would be drowned in the sea, as testified in Exodus 14,30 ויושע ה' ביום ההוא, “on that day the Lord orchestrated salvation, etc.” After the death of the ones who enslaved, the enslaved are obviously free.

These latter words may also refer to Moses' prayer in Exodus 33,16 which Berachot 7 interprets to mean that G'd should not reveal Himself to any other nation nor give them prophets. The operative word in והייתי לכם לאלוקים then would be לכם, "for you exclusively."

והוצאתי אתכם מתחת וגו׳. Nicht: ich zertrümmere die Last, daß ihr dann von selbst euch erhebet. Ich lasse die Last Last sein, aber ich ergreife euch und führe euch unter ihr hervor und hinaus. Ihr bleibt völlig passiv bei der Erlösung. —

One could also understand this verse as speaking of four separate redemptions as does Shemot Rabbah 6,4. This may be alluded to in G'd first again repeating His attribute as the tetragram. Accordingly, the four activities of which G'd speaks here would each be a redemption from a different decree of Pharaoh. The words "I shall be your G'd" would then refer to G'd having proved that He kept His promise. The name אלוקים often occurs as symbolic of truth and honesty. The knowledge of G'd as the attribute of Mercy will become widespread amongst the people as a result of these four redemptions.

נצל ,והצלתי וגו׳ das verstärkte ונשל הברזל, ,נשל: das Abfliegen des Eisens vom Schaft. הציל: machen, dass etwas, was von jemandem willenlos als Werkzeug oder Mittel gehalten wird, von diesem losgelassen werde. Mizrajim haben euch Blöcke auf den Nacken gelegt, ihr könnt nicht hinaus, das sollt ihr auch nicht können; denn es soll sich eben zeigen, dass aus Lasten, aus denen ihr euch nicht retten könnt, ich euch hinauszuführen vermag. Mizrajim hält euch als willenlose Sache fest, ich schlage es auf den Arm, dass es euch loslassen muss. —

נצל ,והצלתי וגו׳ das verstärkte ונשל הברזל, ,נשל: das Abfliegen des Eisens vom Schaft. הציל: machen, dass etwas, was von jemandem willenlos als Werkzeug oder Mittel gehalten wird, von diesem losgelassen werde. Mizrajim haben euch Blöcke auf den Nacken gelegt, ihr könnt nicht hinaus, das sollt ihr auch nicht können; denn es soll sich eben zeigen, dass aus Lasten, aus denen ihr euch nicht retten könnt, ich euch hinauszuführen vermag. Mizrajim hält euch als willenlose Sache fest, ich schlage es auf den Arm, dass es euch loslassen muss. —

AND I WILL TAKE YOU TO ME FOR A PEOPLE. That is, when you will come to Mount Sinai and you will accept the Torah. There, [at Mount Sinai], it was said, Then ye shall be Mine own treasure.⁴¹Further, 19:5.

ולקחתי אתכם לי לעם, this will occur at the revelation at Mount Sinai.

וידעתם כי אני ה׳ אלוקיכם, "you will know that I י־ה־ו־ה am the Lord your G'd." G'd means that the Israelites will now receive clear evidence which attribute of G'd it is that will set in motion the various steps of the redemption. They will also realise in retrospect that the attribute of Mercy had been predominant in all of G'd's actions.

ולקחתי אתכם לי לעם, “I will acquire you to be My people.” This will take place when you come to Mount Sinai and accept the Torah.

V. 7. ולקחתי. Wenn ihr aufgerichtet, frei und dem Bewusstsein eurer Menschenrechte wiedergegeben sein werdet, dann werde ich euch mir zum Volke nehmen. Sobald ihr frei werdet, werdet ihr mir zum Volke! Mir zum Volke, ohne Land, ohne Boden, allein durch mich!

וידעתם, then the Israelites will realise that all of G’d’s promises have indeed come true. We find a similar verse in Deuteronomy 11,2 וידעתם היום כי לא את בניכם אשר לא ידעו, “you will know this day, that not with your children who did not know, etc.” but

וידעתם כי אני ה' אלוקיכם המוציא אתכם, “then you will know that it is I, your G’d, Who is taking you out, etc.” Ibn Ezra says that according to astrology, the Israelites would have remained in exile still longer. G’d declared that He will supersede what is written in the stars concerning their fate. Nachmanides feels that this explanation does not conform to the tenor of the whole portion. He therefore suggests that the meaning is that when you will observe the brute force used by the Lord to bring you out of Egypt, and this will be witnessed by all the surrounding nations, you will realize that He is really your G’d, and that He has orchestrated all this on your account and for your benefit.

AND YE SHALL KNOW THAT I AM THE ETERNAL YOUR G-D WHO BROUGHT YOU OUT FROM UNDER THE BURDENS OF THE EGYPTIANS. The purport thereof, said Rabbi Abraham ibn Ezra, is that it was in the combined mighty power of the higher constellations that the children of Israel should yet stay in the exile. But this is not of the theme of the chapter. Rather He says: “When I will redeem you with an outstretched arm visible to all nations, you shall know that it is I the Eternal Who performs new signs and wonders in the world, and that I am your G-d and for your sake I had so acted, for you are the portions of the Eternal. ”⁴²Deuteronomy 32:9.

לי לעם, in dieser kurzen Zusammenstellung, in welcher hier zum erstenmale die ganze künftige Bestimmung Israels ausgesprochen wird, liegt die spezifische Verschiedenheit des durchaus einzigartigen Judentums, das man mit dem völlig ungeeigneten Namen "jüdische Religion" zunächst gedankenlos in die Kategorie der Religionen überhaupt, als auch eine Art Religion, einzuschachteln beliebt und sich hinterdrein wundert, in dem Inhalt dieser "Religion" so vieles zu finden, was weit ab von der gewöhnlichen Heerstraße der "Religionen" liegt. לי — לעם, Gott — zum Volk! Darin ists schon gesagt, dass das Judentum, das von Gott gestiftete Judentum, mit nichten eine "Religion" sei. Im Judentum gibt es auch das, was man sonst Religion nennt, aber der Begriff Judentum ist ein unendlich weiterer und anderer. In "Religionen" hat Gott nur Tempel, Kirchen, Priesterschaften, Gemeinden usw.; Völker stehen nur zu Königen, Obrigkeiten usw. in Beziehung und bauen sich von dem Begriffe des Staates, und nicht von Religion und Gott auf. Hier aber stiftet Gott keine Kirche, sondern ein Volk, ein ganzes Volksleben soll sich von ihm aus gestalten. Als Volk, nicht als bloße Konfession, ist Israel sein. Und wie gar anders schafft sich die heilige Sprache schon die Ausdrücke für die Begriffe: Volk und sein Korrelat: König. Das deutsche "König" ist: der Könnende, bei dem die Macht ist, und Volk: das Folgende, das zu gehorchen hat. (In romanischen Sprachen bildet sich der Begriff Volk noch wegwerfender und entwürdigender). Es ist also das Volk nur um des Königs willen da und ist gar nicht "Volk" ohne "König": Ganz anders in unserer heiligen Sprache. Der Begriff עם setzt gar keine Beziehung zu irgend einem Höhern oberhalb oder außerhalb voraus. Es ist ein völlig in sich abgeschlossener Begriff und setzt eine Vielheit von Menschen nur in Beziehung zu einander, (עִם rad מלך (עמם, Königsein heißt eigentlich Kopf sein für den andern, seine Intelligenz der Gesamtheit zu gute kommen lassen, die für die andern denken. (Vergl. das rabbinische נמלך: sich mit jemandem beraten, und das konkrete מלק). Der König ist also um der Volksgesellschaft willen da, damit diese unter einander und mit einander den Zweck ihrer Bestimmung erreiche; nicht aber die Volksgesellschaft um des Königs willen. Wenn also Gott spricht: ולקחתי אתכם לי לעם, so heißt das eben nichts anders, als: eure menschengesellschaftlichen Verhältnisse sollen durch meine Einsicht geleitet werden, eure menschengesellschaftlichen Verhältnisse sollen eine Offenbarung meines Geistes werden. Als daher ein späteres Geschlecht geneigt war, sein ganzes Verhältnis zu Gott in Opfer- und Tempelleben aufgehen zu lassen, und sich gegen die Vorwürfe menschengesellschaftlicher Entartung hinter den Ruf: !היכל ד׳! היכל ד׳ verschanzte, konnte ihm der Prophet entgegen donnern: היכל ד׳ המה! Tempel Gottes sollen sie selber sein! und weiterhin erläuternd hinzufügen: "denn an dem Tage, da ich sie aus dem Lande Mizrajim führte, habe ich mit euren Vätern nicht über Empor- und Mahlopfer gesprochen und habe sie nicht dafür in Pflicht genommen. Sondern das ist's, worauf ich sie verpflichtete: gehorchet mir, so werde ich euch zum Gotte und ihr werdet mir zum Volke sein usw." (Jirmija 7, 4. 22). Von Opfern hat Gott allerdings auch mit uns gesprochen, ja an dem Tage unserer Erlösung aus Mizrajim war es gerade ein Opfer, und nur ein Opfer, womit er uns konstituierte. Aber er hat uns nicht zu einer "Tempelgemeinde" "um der Opfer willen" konstituiert, sondern er hat uns durch Opfer zu einem "Volke" konstituieren wollen, und gerade eben jene allererste Opferinstitution hat den "Staat" in seinem wesentlichsten Grundriss aufgerichtet, wie wir das z.B. nachzuweisen hoffen. Wenn andere Völker ihren Einigungspunkt in dem gemeinsamen Boden haben, hat das jüdische Volk seinen Einigungspunkt in dem gemeinsamen Gott.

כי אני ה' אלוקיכם המוציא, that inasmuch as it is I, the Lord your G’d Who leads you out and watches over you very closely, AM THE ONE who will do everything that I promised.

ולקחתי אתכם לי לעם: durch והייתי לכם לאלקי׳ ;יציאת מצרים: durch וידעתם ;מתן תורה; וידעתם כי אני ד׳ אלקיכם המוציא וגו׳: durch die Wanderung in der Wüste, wo sie erst sich ganz mit der Erfahrung durchdringen sollten, daß ד׳ nicht nur einmal sie aus Mizrajim erlöst habe, sondern ihr Gott bleibe, der sie auch in der Gegenwart und in aller Zukunft vor dem Erliegen unter ägyptischen Bürden schütze und sie, von unter diesen" hinausführe. עבדים sind wir nie wieder geworden, גרים sollten wir nie wieder werden, סבלות aber werden wir zu tragen haben, so lange wir Menschen sind, und dass wir, so lange wir Gott treu bleiben, seines bleibenden und selbst wunderreichen Beistandes gewiß sein dürfen, dessen soll uns zuerst die Wanderung durch die Wüste für alle Zeiten überzeugt machen; dann erst

נשאתי את ידי I HAVE LIFTED UP MY HAND — I have lifted it up to swear by My Throne.

AND I WILL BRING YOU IN UNTO THE LAND CONCERNING WHICH I LIFTED UP MY HAND. “I have lifted it up to swear by My throne.” Thus the language of Rashi. Rabbi Abraham ibn Ezra said that it is an idiom [denoting the exercise of power], just like a man who lifts his hand to the heavens and swears, such as: For I lift up My hand to heaven⁴³Ibid., Verse 40. [to take an oath of vengeance]; And he lifted up his right hand and his left hand unto heaven, and swore.⁴⁴Daniel 12:7.
By way of the Truth, [the mystic lore of the Cabala], I lifted up My hand means that “I have raised the strength of My arm to Myself that I will give them the Land.” Similarly, For I lift up My hand to heaven⁴³Ibid., Verse 40. means that “I will lift up the great hand to the heavens since it abounds in eternal life.”⁴⁵According to Meir Abusaula (see Preface, Vol. I, p. XII, Note 21) the thought suggested here is that His Name will forever be in Israel’s midst, and thus He assured them eternal life. But the verse, And he lifted up his right hand and his left hand unto heaven,⁴⁴Daniel 12:7. has no relevance here, for that was said concerning the angel clothed in linen,⁴⁶Daniel 12:6. who swore by Him that liveth for ever.⁴⁴Daniel 12:7.

והבאתי אתכם אל, once they would mentally digest all this you would be worthy of My bringing you to the land, and I will give it to you.

והבאתי אתכם אל הארץ, "And I shall bring you to the land, etc." It is difficult to reconcile this promise with our tradition that G'd speaks the unvarnished truth when we know it to be a fact that the generation G'd was addressing at that time did not get to the Holy Land. Only the children of that generation actually crossed the Jordan and took possession of the land of Canaan. Every one of the people who left Egypt at an age of twenty or over died on the way. Our problem is even more serious in view of the statement of our sages (Shemot Rabbah 6:4) that the word לכן in 6,6, is a form of an oath.

ונתתי אותה לכם מורשה, “and I will give it to you as an ancestral heritage.” G’d did not speak about ירושה “an inheritance;” this means that the people leaving Egypt during the Exodus would not be the ones inheriting that land, but their offspring would.

והבאתי אתכם אל הארץ, “I will bring you to the land, etc.” Seeing that all the previous promises were meant to be realized in the immediate future, this promise too was intended to be fulfilled promptly. If the sin of the spies who talked the people into refusing to engage in a military struggle to oust the Canaanites had not occurred, this promise too would have been fulfilled promptly.
The prophet Ezekiel 34,13 speaks of similar four stages of redemption of the Jewish people in the future. I quote: “I shall bring them out from the nations and gather them from the lands and bring them to their ground and tend them on Israel’s mountains, etc.” When commemorating the Exodus annually on the night of the Seder we drink four cups of wine corresponding to these four stages of our redemption outlined by the above-mentioned four expressions. The reward received by the righteous for their conduct has been compared to a כוס, a cup, by David in Psalms 23,5 where he speaks of כוסי רויה, “my cup is abundant.” We find a similar reference in Psalms 16,5: “G’d is my allotted share and cup.” The word כוס, cup, in that context occurs also in Psalms 116,13 “I will raise the cup (in thanksgiving) for salvations experienced.” Isaiah writes something similar (Isaiah 66,11) “that you may suck from her breast consolation to the full.” The author continues to quote examples from the Bible showing that traditionally we either drank or will drink cups of wine as a form of thanksgiving to the Lord for salvations experienced or yet to be experienced.

To swear by My Throne. This is like saying, “To swear by My Kingship,” since a throne represents kingship, as [Pharaoh said to Yosef] in (Bereishis 41:40), “Only by [virtue of] the throne I will be greater than you.” (Gur Aryeh)

V. 8. והבאתי אתכם וגו׳. Israel soll somit völlig zum Volk konstituiert sein, bevor es ein eigenes Land erhält. Sein Volksdasein ist somit nicht durch den Besitz des Landes bedingt, vielmehr der Besitz des Landes war von der treuen Lösung seiner Volksaufgabe abhängig. מורשה: es war im Geiste schon den Vätern gegeben, ihr erhaltet es nur als deren Erben.

I believe that G'd Himself was already aware of this problem and that is why He prefaced the statement "I will bring you to the land, etc," with the words: "you will know that I am the merciful G'd who is about to take you out from under the slave labour of Egypt." The two statements are to be considered as conditions. What G'd meant was simply this. "Provided that you will have realised that I am the One who takes you out of Egypt and that I have demonstrated to be the merciful G'd,-then you will also experience that I shall bring you to the land which I have sworn to your forefathers and will give it to you as an inheritance." G'd was very careful to insert this condition in the very midst of the promise He made and not only as an afterthought. In the event that the Israelites would not fulfil the conditions laid down history would have to take its course in accordance with their conduct.

מורשה, “an inheritance.” G’d refrains from saying ירושה. There is a difference between מורשה andירושה . The people addressed were not the ones who would personally receive the land as a heritage seeing that all those who were adults would never get there due to the sin of the spies. They would, however, bequeath their claim to it to their children, i.e. they would be מורישים. This is why the Torah used the word מורשה instead of ירושה. We need to interpret the word מורשה in Deut. 33,4 in a similar manner. Torah cannot be handed down as an inheritance as if it were a house, a field, or a business, i.e. some object merely to be passed on from father to son. Inasmuch as Torah is an inheritance it remains such only for that particular generation. which stood at Mount Sinai and had received it as an inheritance, i.e. something inalienable, not to be stolen from them. The next generation had to study Torah on its own in order that it should become an inheritance for them also. However, the children of someone who “owned” Torah are predisposed to acquire it for themselves. Hence Torah is forevermore a מורשה for such children. Parents have been commanded not only to study Torah but to train their children in studying Torah, ושננתם לבניך, (Deut. 6,7). it is a מורשה, something to be transmitted to successive generations down the ages. By the same token later generations of Jews are as duty-bound to observe the commandments of the Torah as were those who had actually received it at Sinai. According to our sages the souls of those generations had already stood at Mount Sinai at the time when G’d revealed Himself to Moses and to the people (Pesikta Zutrata Va'etchanan 5,3). This concept is spelled out in detail in Deut. 29,14 “including all those who are not present (in the flesh) on this day.” (the day Moses renewed the covenant with the generation who would enter the Holy Land). G’d concluded this promise with the words אני ה’, seeing He had commenced the paragraph (verse 2).
The message is : “I Who make a promise can be relied upon to translate it into reality.”

ולא שמעו אל משה BUT THEY HEARKENED NOT TO MOSES — they did not accept his words of comfort.

BUT THEY HEARKENED NOT UNTO MOSES FOR IMPATIENCE OF SPIRIT, AND FOR CRUEL BONDAGE. It was not because they did not believe in G-d and in His prophet [that they hearkened not]. Rather, they paid no attention to his words because of impatience of spirit, as a person whose soul is grieved on account of his misery and who does not want to live another moment in his suffering even though he knows that he will be relieved later. The “impatience of spirit” was their fear that Pharaoh would put them to death, as their officers said to Moses,⁴⁷Above, 5:21. and the “cruel bondage” was the pressure, for the taskmasters pressed upon them and hurried them [in their daily task],⁴⁸Ibid., Verse 13. which gave them no chance to hear anything and consider it.

ולא שמעו אל משה, now, although initially, they did believe in Moses and his mission. As we know from Exodus 4,31 ויאמן העם, “the people believed,” this was based on their expecting immediate relief from their servitude. Now they had not only not experienced relief, but a worsening of their condition.

ולא שמעו אל משה, to mentally absorb all this, so that they would have full trust in the salvation of G’d and give Him credit for this. This is where they were different from Avraham in his time, who believed implicitly in an impossible-sounding promise, and who gave credit to G’d for making such a promise. This was eventually the reason why this part of G’d’s promise was not fulfilled in the lifetime of the people who were being addressed at this time.

מקצר רות ומעבודה קשה, for impatience of spirit and cruel bondage. Perhaps the people did not respond positively to this assurance because they had not yet received the Torah. Since Torah broadens a person's mind, the Torah may hint at that by describing the Israelites' state of mind as "narrow minded, limited."

They did not accept words of comfort. [Rashi is explaining that] here, שמעו means “accept.” They had given up hope of being redeemed, as they considered it impossible for them to be redeemed from such hard labor. Thus, “to Moshe” means, to Moshe’s words of comfort.

V. 9. קוצר רוח ist wohl synonym mit und קצר אפים Gegensatz von ,ארך אפים somit: Ungeduld. Das Unmenschliche der Gegenwart lag in solcher Schwere auf ihnen, und dem zu genügen und sich auch nur die kleinste Erleichterung zu schaffen, nahm so ganz ihren Geist in Anspruch, dass sie nicht noch Geist übrig hatten, auch nur dem Gedanken an ein so Künftiges Raum zu geben, wovon ihnen Mosche zu sprechen hatte. Sie hatten gar keine Geduld, ihn ruhig anzuhören, so sehr waren sie von den Anforderungen des Augenblicks gedrängt, und so schwer lastete der Dienst auf ihnen.

ולא שמעו אל משה, “but they did not listen (accept) what Moses had said to them;” they were too afraid to accept what Moses said to them on account on the recent worsening of their condition as a result of Moses’ intervention and Pharaoh’s reaction to this. Pharaoh had succeeded at this stage in making the people forget their dreams of freedom or at least improved conditions, by burdening them with additional hard labour. (Compare 5,9) The words דברי שקר, there refer to Moses’ “false promises.”

מקצר רוח THROUGH ANGUISH (lit. shortness) OF SPIRIT — If one is in anguish his breath comes in short gasps and he cannot draw long breaths. In a somewhat similar manner to this I heard this section expounded by Rabbi Baruch the son of Rabbi Eliezer, and he cited the following verse to me in proof of his explanation: (Jeremiah 16:21) “This once will I cause them to know My hand and My might, and they shall know that My Name is the Lord”. Rabbi Baruch said: we may learn from this text that when the Holy One, blessed be He, fulfils His words, even when it is a matter of punishment, He makes it known that His Name is the Lord; and, of course, this is all the more so, when He fulfils His words in a matter of bestowing reward. — Our Rabbis explained it (this section) as having reference to what precedes it — that Moses said (5:22): “Wherefore hast thou done so evil [to this people]”. Whereupon God said to him, “Alas, for those that are gone (i. e. the patriarchs) and are no more to be found! I really have reason to deplore the death of the patriarchs. Many a time did I reveal Myself to them by the name ‘God Almighty’, and not once did they ask Me, What is Thy Name? (i. e. what is the name that describes Thy true essence); but thou hast at once said (Exodus 3:13) “[If they ask] ‘what is His name’, what shall I say unto them?!” (Exodus Rabbah 6:4; Sanhedrin 111a).

מקצר רוח, for it did not appear believable to their present state of mind, so that their heart could not assimilate such a promise.

He is short of breath. . . The verse is saying, so to speak: They would not listen to Moshe because of their great distress and hard labor. As a distressed person is normally short of breath, therefore it says “shortness of wind.”

ומעבודה קשה, and because of the cruel bondage. The reason that the Torah writes: "and because of the cruel bondage," is that they suffered from קצר רוח, impatience, quite independently of the effects of the bondage on their state of mind. They had become impatient at their fate when they pondered the additional workload Pharaoh had imposed upon them. A person who is in that frame of mind cannot even perform the labour he is normally capable of performing. This is why the Torah adds the words ומעבודה קשה.

וגם הקמתי וגו׳ ALSO I SET UP [MY COVENANT WITH THEM TO GIVE THEM THE LAND OF CANAAN], and yet when Abraham wished to bury Sarah he could not obtain a grave until he purchased one at a high price. So, too, in the case of Isaac, people strove with him for possession of the wells which he had dug. Similarly, of Jacob it is stated, (Genesis 33:19) “He purchased a parcel of field,” in which to pitch his tent. Yet none of them criticised My dealings with them, whilst you say “Wherefore hast Thou done so evil [to this people!]” — But this Midrashic exposition does not fit in with the text for several reasons. Firstly, because Scripture does not state “And they did not ask of Me regarding my Name, the Lord”. And if you say in refutation of my objection that they did not mean that ושמי ה' לא נודעתי actually signifies that they did not ask what is My Name, but it means “He did not tell them that this was His Name and yet they did not ask Him what it was”, then I reply that these words cannot mean that He did not tell them His name, for at the very first when He revealed Himself to Abraham at the Covenant “between the pieces’’ it is said, (Genesis 15:7) “I am the Lord (אני ה׳) who brought thee out from Ur of the Chaldees”. Further (secondly), how does the context run on to the statements which Scripture places after the above verses, viz., “And I have also heard etc.” and “Wherefore say unto the children of Israel etc.”? Therefore I say: let Scripture be explained in its literal sense so that each statement fits into its proper setting, but the Midrashic exposition may also be given, if you like, as it is said (Jeremiah 23:29) “Is not my word like as fire, saith the Lord, and like a hammer which, by the force of its own blow, the rock at which it strikes shatters in pieces”.

ומעבודה קשה, if it had not been for the heavy labour which they had to perform they would have paid much more attention to Moses’ words, and they would have understood that Moses’ arguments made what he said very believable.

This is all the more so when it is a fulfillment of reward. In other words, Rabbi Baruch is bringing proof to what Rashi explained before, on the verse: “. . .and said to him, ‘I am Adonoy’” (v. 2). There Rashi explained, “I can be trusted to properly reward. . .” [And Rabbi Baruch proves] that “even where punishment is involved, He lets it be known that His Name is Adonoy [a Name denoting Divine mercy]. This is all the more so when it is a fulfillment of reward,” since Hashem’s measure of giving reward is much greater than His measure of exacting punishment.

The people had good reason for becoming impatient at their fate because when Moses had come he had given them hope that their liberation was close at hand. This had given them a new and broader perspective on life. Now, when Pharaoh had decreed additional hardships their minds could concentrate only on how to cope with the immediate and even worse situation. The word מעבודה may therefore be understood as something comparative, i.e. the even greater bondage than had been their lot prior to Moses' coming.

As referring to what is discussed earlier. . . Rashi is saying that according to the Sages, the entire section beginning with “Elohim spoke to Moshe. . .” (v. 2) refers back to [Moshe’s question in the end of Parshas Shemos,] “Why have You brought harm?” Whereas according to Rashi, only the phrase “Elohim spoke to Moshe” relates to “Why have You brought harm” — while the rest of the section, starting from “. . .and said to him, “I am Adonoy” relates to “Why did you You send me?” as explained earlier. You might ask: Afterward the Sages explain that the section relates to [another question of Moshe:] “Should they ask, ‘what is His Name,’ what shall I tell them?” (Shemos 3:13). [So how can Rashi say that the Sages relate the whole section to “Why have You brought harm?”] The answer is: [“Elohim spoke to Moshe,” which teaches that] Hashem spoke with severity to Moshe, for both these questions. Rashi first said that the section relates to “Why have You brought harm. . .?” because that is the main factor that brought on all [of Hashem’s rebuke]. And while Hashem was rebuking Moshe for that, He also rebuked him for [his other question of] “Should they ask, ‘what is His Name?’” The proof is the fact that Hashem did not speak with severity to Moshe until he asked, “Why have You brought harm. . .?” Why did He not speak with severity right after Moshe said, “Should they ask, ‘what is His Name?’ what shall I say to them?” This shows that “Why have You brought harm. . .” was the cause for it all.

What shall I tell them? It is difficult to understand [Rashi’s explanation of the Sages’ view. For we could object:] That is the very reason why Moshe needed to ask [Hashem’s Name], as he did not know any of Hashem’s Names — whereas Hashem revealed Himself to the Patriarchs many times. Why should they ask? A further difficulty is that Moshe did not ask for himself, rather for Yisrael. [He asked,] “What shall I tell them?” Thus it seems to me that the following is the explanation of [the Sages’ view as cited in] the Talmud and Shemos Rabba: Hashem did not make known to the Patriarchs the Name יהוה , which is Hashem’s great and true Name, only the Name אל שדי , which is a mere description [of His traits]. Nevertheless, the Patriarchs did not question Hashem’s ways. Even though the Name of Hashem was mad known to him, he asked, “What shall I tell them?” Even so, Moshe questioned Hashem’s ways. (Nachalas Yaakov; see explanation there)

And when Avraham sought to bury Sarah. . . Rashi is explaining the verse according to the Sages’ view.

Until he had to buy it at a great expense. . . This means: Despite the fact that “I also established My covenant with them, to give them the land of Canaan,” I did not fulfill it in their lifetimes — as they needed to buy land at great expense. Nevertheless, they did not question My ways.

And they did not ask about My Name Adonoy. . . In other words, [the Sages explain] the verse “I revealed Myself to Avraham. . .” (v. 3) to mean that “many times I revealed Myself to them with the Name Eil Shaddai and they never said, “What is Your Name?” But if so, the verse should have continued: “And they did not ask about My Name, Adonoy — unlike you [Moshe], who did ask Me about this.”

He did not make known that that is His Name. . . [Rashi is saying] that either way we look at it, the Sages’ explanation is problematic. If the Sages hold that “I did not make known to them” means “they did not ask Me,” although He did inform the Patriarchs that His Name is Adonoy. But then the verse should have said, “And they did not ask about My Name, Adonoy” [as explained above]. And if the Sages maintain that “I did not make known to them” follows its literal meaning, [i.e., the Patriarchs did not know the Name Adonoy at all]. And the Sages added [a comment] to this, saying that the Patriarchs did not [even] ask Him [about His Name]. But then [a different problem arises:] Originally, when Hashem appeared to Avraham at bris bein habesarim, He said to him: “I am Adonoy. . .” [So clearly, they knew His Name]. Furthermore, the Sages cannot explain “I did not make known to them” as Rashi does, i.e., “I was not recognized by them by My attribute of keeping trust.” For that implies that Hashem indeed informed the Patriarchs of His Name. That being so, the Sages could not add [a comment] to this, saying that the Patriarchs did not [even] ask Him about His Name. For once He informed them that His Name is Adonoy, there is no need for them to ask. (Re’m)

And, furthermore, how is there continuity of context. . . [Rashi’s comment] is puzzling. Perhaps the Torah is saying as follows: Since the Patriarchs are beloved to Me for not questioning My ways, that is why “I have heard the groaning of the B’nei Yisrael” — for the Patriarchs’ sake, even though the B’nei Yisrael do not act properly. “Therefore say to the B’nei Yisrael, ‘I am Adonoy. . .’” (Re’m) But it seems that [Rashi’s comment is indeed understandable, because a difficulty arises] with the Re’m’s approach that the main reason for the redemption is Hashem’s love of the Patriarchs, although the Bnei Yisrael are not deserving. For earlier (3:11), Moshe asked [two questions]: “Who am I. . .? Am I able to bring the B’nei Yisrael out of Egypt?” And Rashi (ad loc) explained [the second question as follows]: “Even if I am worthy, what did the B’nei Yisrael do to merit that a miracle be performed for them. . .?” But according to the Re’m, Hashem should have replied: The miracle will come due to His love of the Patriarchs, although B’nei Yisrael are not deserving.

Divide into many parts. In other words, the stone divides into many parts through the hammer. Thus did Rashi explain it in Maseches Shabbos (88b). But Tosafos (ad loc) challenged this, and explained it differently. See explanation there.

AND THE ETERNAL SPOKE UNTO MOSES ‘LEIMOR’ (SAYING). The commentators⁴⁹R’dak in his Book of Roots, under the root amar (saying). said that throughout the entire Torah, the word leimor means “saying to Israel,” the purport thereof being that G-d said to Moses, “Say these, My words, to Israel.” Here the word leimor means “saying to Pharaoh.” But the verse stating [Laban’s words to Jacob], The G-d of your father spoke unto me yesternight ‘leimor’ (saying): Take heed to thyself that thou speak not to Jacob either good or bad,⁵⁰Genesis 31:29. does not fit in correctly with this explanation [since Laban was not commanded to relate these words to Jacob]. Similarly, there are many cases in Scripture where the term “saying” is repeated, [and it is not correct to say that it means “saying it to others”]. Thus: And the Eternal spoke unto Moses, saying: Speak unto the children of Israel, and say unto them;⁵¹Leviticus 18:1-2. And the Eternal spoke unto Moses, saying: Speak unto the children of Israel, and say unto them;⁵²Numbers 15:37-8. And they [Moses and Aaron] spoke unto all the congregation of the children of Israel, saying;⁵³Ibid., 14:7. Here the word “saying” could not mean “saying it to others,” since Moses and Aaron were already speaking directly to the people. And the children of Israel spoke unto Moses, saying: Behold we perish;⁵⁴Ibid., 17:27. And I spoke unto you at that time, saying.⁵⁵Deuteronomy 1:9. There are many other such verses. Likewise in this seder⁵⁶The portion of the Torah assigned for reading on a particular Sabbath. See Vol. I, p. 15. we find: And the Eternal spoke unto Moses and unto Aaron, saying: When Pharaoh will speak unto you, saying,⁵⁷Further, 7:8-9. and the word “saying” cannot correctly mean “saying it to others.”
The correct interpretation appears to me to be that in all places the word leimor indicates the clarification of a subject. The verse, And the Eternal spoke unto Moses, saying, means really explicitly, free from doubt or uncertainty. This is why this expression always appears in the Torah, for of Moses’ prophecy it was said, Mouth to mouth do I speak with him, even manifestly, and not in dark speeches.⁵⁸Numbers 12:8. And Laban also said to Jacob: “Yesternight G-d spoke unto me, saying⁵⁰Genesis 31:29. clearly that I should not harm you; except for that, I would have done you evil.” Similarly, the verse, And the children of Israel spoke unto Moses, saying: Behold, we perish,⁵⁴Ibid., 17:27. means that they said so explicitly to Moses and Aaron, shouting to them brazenly. [In Hebrew], the infinitive is used for clarification of a subject. Occasionally, it comes before the verb,⁵⁹Such as sachor s’charticha (I have surely hired thee), in Genesis 30:16. Here the infinitive sachor is written before the verb s’charticha. and sometimes it comes after the verb, such as: ‘omrim amor’ (they surely say) unto them that despise Me.⁶⁰Jeremiah 23:17. Here the infinitive amor is written after the verb omrim.

ויאמר…. בא דבר אל פרעה, He said:" come and speak sternly with Pharaoh, etc." Moses was to tell Pharaoh that G'd had instructed him to speak to Pharaoh and to demand that he should let the Jewish people depart from his land. The letter ו at the beginning of the word וישלח is significant because it does not make sense as a conjunctive letter; nothing else had been demanded prior to that in the conversation described. It must therefore refer to Moses telling Pharaoh that his first instruction had been to tell him that he spoke at the behest of G'd. It was quite an event that an ordinary individual should present himself at court without invitation and make demands on the Monarch. The manner in which these demands were to be made was even more astounding.

וידבר ה' אל משה לאמור, “the Lord spoke to Moses, saying, etc.” Nachmanides writes that some commentators claim that whenever the word לאמור appears in the Torah in the context of something being addressed to Israel, it means that G’d instructed Moses to address the text following to the Children of Israel, whereas in this verse there is an exception and the words of G’d were to be relayed to Pharaoh Such an approach is flawed, for when Lavan related to Yaakov that G’d had addressed him during a dream on the night before, warning him that he was not to harm Yaakov even by word of mouth, he quoted G’d as prefacing His remarks to him with the word לאמור, (Genesis 31,29). The same difficulty is obvious in all the instances when the Torah wrote וידבר ה' אל משה למור, followed by the words דבר אל בני ישראל וגו', “speak to the Children of Israel, etc.” If the wordלאמור had already meant that Moses was to relate what follows to the Israelites, why would we need the words דבר אל בני ישראל, “say to the people of Israel,” at all? He believes therefore that the word לאמור precedes the instruction to Moses to be precise in his instructions to the Children of Israel, not to leave anything in doubt, not to speak allegorically, or by hinting only. The reason why this is so is because Moses, as the only prophet on such a level, received clear and unmistakable instructions from G’d. Other prophets received what our sages call “blurred visions.” If Moses were not to relay what he had been told clearly and unmistakably, why would G’d have troubled Himself to spell His instructions out to him in the first place? This is what G’d told Aaron and Miriam in Numbers 12,6-8, when He warned them not to compare their level of prophetic insights to that of Moses, with whom G’d spoke as clearly as a man speaks to his fellow man.

V. 10. So hatte Mosche wiederum seine völlige Unzulänglichkeit erfahren. Und indem er diese Erfahrung machte, forderte ihn Gott noch einmal auf, mit seiner Sendung zu Pharao zu gehen.

Moreover, it appears that Moses was to demand not only that Pharaoh should not object if the Israelites would leave of their own accord, but he was to demand that Pharaoh actually give them a "send-off."

!בא דבר אל פרעה, “go and speak sternly to Pharaoh!” G-d implies that He will go with Moses on this mission. On the other hand, at the time when Moses is bidden to go outside instead of into the city, G-d uses the term: לך, [as when G-d instructed Avraham to leave Charan and to go to a land which He would show him (Genesis 12,1). Ed.], as in Exodus 7,15 where G-d is told to speak to Pharaoh at the banks of the Nile.

ואיך ישמעני פרעה HOW THAN SHALL PHARAOH HEAR ME? — This is one of the ten inferences from minor to major which are found in the Bible (Genesis Rabbah 92:7).

BEHOLD, THE CHILDREN OF ISRAEL HAVE NOT HEARKENED UNTO ME because You have done nothing [for Israel] so that my words should be acceptable to them. AND HOW THEN SHALL PHARAOH HEAR ME? AND besides, I AM OF UNCIRCUMCISED LIPS, and I am not fit to speak before a great king.
It is possible to explain that Moses thought that due to his deficiency — for he was of uncircumcised lips — the children of Israel would not hearken to him, for he could not frame [words] to speak⁶¹Judges 12:6. kindly to them, words of good cheer and comfort, and all the more how could he speak to Pharaoh?
Now the reason that Moses again broached this argument [of his speech-impediment, when he had already mentioned it above in Chapter 4, Verse 10], is that G-d did not originally command him that he was to speak before Pharaoh. He merely said, And thou shalt come, thou and the elders of Israel, unto the king of Egypt, and ye shall say unto him.⁶²Above, 3:18. In that case it was possible that the elders should speak [before Pharaoh] and Moses would remain silent. Then Moses said that he was ashamed even to speak to the people, saying, I am not a man of words.⁶³Ibid., 4:10. Whereupon the Holy One, blessed be He, answered him, And he [Aaron] shall be thy spokesman unto the people.⁶⁴Ibid., Verse 16. And so indeed Moses and Aaron did when they first came to the people, as it is said, And Aaron spoke all the words which the Eternal had spoken unto Moses, and did the signs in the sight of the people.⁶⁵Ibid., Verse 30. But now Moses himself was commanded, Wherefore say unto the children of Israel: I am the Eternal,⁶⁶Verse 6. and he did speak to them as He commanded him, but they did not hearken to him.⁶⁷Verse 9. Now when He again commanded Moses to speak to Pharaoh,⁶⁸Verse 11. Moses said, “How can I speak to him, I who am of uncircumcised lips.” Then the Holy One, blessed be He, associated Aaron with him, and gave both of them a charge unto the children of Israel,⁶⁹Verse 12. that they should say to them whatever He will command them, and unto Pharaoh⁶⁹Verse 12. to bring them forth out of his land. Now Rashi commented: “[And He gave them a charge unto the children of Israel, and unto Pharaoh, king of Egypt]. That is to say, He gave them a command with regard to the children of Israel and His mission on which He had sent them to Pharaoh.” But there is no need for this.⁷⁰According to Rashi, the command of His mission to Pharaoh was the one with regard to Israel. But according to Ramban, there was also a command with regard to Israel, as explained in the text.

הן בני ישראל לא שמעו אלי, he believed that this was due to the fact that from the moment he had started speaking to Pharaoh the latter had become worse in his attitude and the people, putting two and two together, had concluded that his mission had failed. If he felt that way, Pharaoh would certainly not pay any heed to him and continue doing what he liked.

לפני ה׳ לאמור הן בני ישראל לא שמעו אלי, in G'd's presence, saying: "here the Israelites do not listen to me, etc." What is the meaning of the word לאמור in this context? Who was G'd to communicate Moses' comments to? Perhaps we should not understand this verse as Moses' contemplating to refuse this mission but as a comment addressed to himself, bemoaning his failure thus far. The word לאמור could be a rhetorical comment Moses made that instead of results, all his attempts of speaking to Pharaoh would remain just that, words.

הן בני ישראל לא שמעו אלי, “behold, even the Children of Israel have not listened to me, etc.” according to Rashi this was one of the ten occasions when we encounter an “a fortiori” method, i.e. a logical argument in the Torah. This comment seems uncalled for, seeing that the Torah had spelled out that the reason why the Children of Israel did not listen to Moses was because the terrible conditions under which they laboured had which made them unable to think rationally, i.e. they suffered from קוצר רוח, “impaired intellectual judgment.” Seeing that Pharaoh did not suffer from that same ailment, where was the logic that Moses referred to? Seeing that the commentators are obviously aware of this counterargument, they explain Moses’ argument as follows: “if even the Israelites themselves are afraid of leaving Egypt seeing the very discussion of such a plan brought additional hardship upon them, surely this knowledge will fuel Pharaoh’s determination not to let them go.” Alternatively, Moses simply meant that when Pharaoh saw that the Israelites themselves did not pay heed to their leader, why should he pay heed to him?

“ והערל ” [meaning:] and become obstructed. . . In other words, Rashi is saying [ והאטם as] an explanation of והערל .

V. 12. לפני ד׳, nicht אל ד׳. Es kommt dies nicht weiter vor. Nur gleich hier V. 30, wo dies Faktum wiederholt wird. Nicht zu Gott, sondern zu sich äußerte er es, so dass, um menschlich zu sprechen, Gott es hörte. Es war das die natürliche Stimmung und der natürliche Zweifel, der unwillkürlich in ihm laut werden musste. ערל שפתים ist mehr als das obige כבד פה ולשון; dieses bezeichnet nur eine Schwerfälligkeit der Organe, ערל ist aber derjenige, der über das, was ihm organisch oder naturgemäß zu Gebote stehen sollte, keine Macht hat. Wenn ich auch die Schwerfälligkeit des Organs überwinde, fehlt es mir doch an der eigentlichen Kraft der Rede, das Wort erstirbt mir im Munde; mit dem besten Willen dem Volke das Herrlichste zu verkünden und sie dafür zu begeistern, sie damit aufzurichten, gebricht mirs an Kraft, an Geschicklichkeit, gelingt mirs nicht, wie ich soeben erfahren.

הן בני ישראל לא שמעו אלי, “seeing that(even) the Children of Israel do not listen to me, etc.” According to the plain meaning of the text what Moses is saying is that the people do not listen to him, so what chance is there that Pharaoh would listen to him. In the event that one would excuse their failure to listen to him to their state of mind, i.e. they did not have a chance to indulge in day dreams, he adds that he attributes their failure to listen to him to his speech impediment, and therefore does not blame them. Alternately, perhaps Moses was not aware of the Torah having told us, the reader, that the reason why the people did not listen to him was their state of mind, i.e. impatience. I have heard from my teacher a Rabbi from Lisbon, that what Rashi meant when describing Moses’ logic here as unassailable, that the reason given as their state of mind, was an additional reason. His logic went as follows. Normally, when a potential redeemer promises his people that he has come to redeem them from slavery, they will be overjoyed. Seeing that the Israelites’ reaction to his message had been so negative, how much more negative would Pharaoh’s response be to their demanding a holiday!

ערל שפתים OF UNCIRCUMCISED LIPS — It really means obstructed as regards the lips. So, too, in respect to all forms derived from ערל I say that they signify obstructed. E. g. (Jeremiah 6:10) “their ear is עֲרֵלָה — stopped up so that it will not hear; (Jeremiah 9:25) “עַרְלִי in heart” — their hearts are closed so that they will not understand; (Habakkuk 2:16) “Drink thou, also וְהֵעָרֵל” — and become thou closed up (in thy senses) through intoxication caused by the cup of curse mentioned in that passage; the foreskin (ערלה) of the flesh is so called because the membrum is closed up and covered by it; (Leviticus 19:23) וערלתם ערלתו signifies, make for it (the tree) a closure (אוטם) and cover by means of an inhibition that will prove a barrier against eating it; (Leviticus 19:23 “Three years shall it be to you as ערלים” — it shall be closed up and covered and barred so that it many not be eaten.

This was especially so, seeing that he was also an ערל שפתים, afflicted with a speech handicap. He mentioned this as he did not believe that Aaron would accompany him other than for the time he identified himself as G’d’s emissary when he spoke to the people.

ואיך ישמע אלי פרעה?, “how can Pharaoh be expected to take me seriously?” We need to understand the sequence of events as follows: originally Moses had been instructed to take the elders with him when they would speak to Pharaoh. (3,18) It is possible that at that point the elders did the talking, while Moses was silently listening. Moses was also too shy to speak to the people, as we know from his having told G’d that he was not איש דברים, someone qualified to appeal to people by his oratory. At that point, G’d had assured him that his brother Aaron would make a good mouthpiece for him, and that he would formulate what Moses intended to say to the people. He would also perform the miracles, etc. Now that G’d suddenly tells Moses to speak to the people himself, without Aaron as his mouthpiece, and after having done so, the people did not respond to him, he asked G’d how he could possibly expect Pharaoh to be more responsive than his own people? G’d now added Aaron to be Moses’ spokesman in all interviews with Pharaoh. The Torah also confirms that Aaron addressed the people conveying all that G’d had said. (4,30) He had commanded both of them to address the people of Israel, but it was enough that one of them should be the actual speaker during these encounters. Now that G’d commands Moses himself to be the speaker, He repeats once more that He is the One Who had appeared to him previously. When G’d now said (verse 13) that he and Aaron are to speak both to the people and to Pharaoh, Moses is satisfied. The procedure was that G’d would tell Moses what was to be said, and he would tell Aaron of the instructions he had received, and Aaron would address these instructions to Pharaoh or the people, in accordance of what the situation called for. Aaron’s part in all this was comparable to the part of a prophet throughout the ages who would be commanded by G’d to relay a message to the people, except that in Aaron’s case the instructions would come from Moses, so that Moses fulfilled the role normally fulfilled by elokim. Hence G’d told him that he would have that role vis a vis Aaron. This was a major promotion for Moses, and enhanced his stature considerably. Moses merited this promotion due to his humility, not wanting to arrogate to himself a role unfitting for someone suffering from a speech handicap. This is also why the Torah testifies at a later stage, (11,3) that “Moses was considered as a person of great stature both in the eyes of Pharaoh and in the eyes of the Egyptians generally.” This does not conform to Rashi’s explanation that the words וידבר ה' אל משה לאמור in verse 10 are an introduction to what follows in verse 13. The fact is that verses 10-12 are, while verse 13 is a separate paragraph, if you will, as is evident by their being written as separate paragraphs. We therefore do not need Rashi’s comment that Moses was to deliver the stark message and Aaron was to elaborate on it. Consequently, we stick by our explanation that Moses delivered the message in the presence of Pharaoh, but that Aaron addressed it to Pharaoh.

This is one of the ten a fortiori inferences in the Torah. Rashi is telling us: Do not say that “How then will Pharaoh listen to me” is a separate statement [from “B’nei Yisrael have not listened to me”], and it means that Pharaoh will not listen for a different reason, which is: “I whose lips are covered.” Therefore, [to exclude this,] Rashi explains: “This is one of the ten a fortiori inferences.” Thus [it follows that] the entire verse is one statement: [because Moshe’s lips are covered, therefore B’nei Yisrael did not listen — how then will Pharaoh listen?] This explains why Rashi switched the order of the verse and explained “I whose lips are covered” before explaining “How then will Pharaoh listen to me.” The a fortiori inference is as follows: To B’nei Yisrael, the redemption is good tidings and they should have listened to me, yet they did not. To Pharaoh, it is bad tidings — all the more so he will not listen! You might object: This inference can be refuted, as B’nei Yisrael did not listen to Moshe for the reason of their great distress, as explained above (v. 9), [whereas Pharaoh is not in distress]. The answer is: Moshe did not know that B’nei Yisrael failed to listen out of distress; he thought it was because his lips are covered. Although the Torah writes that it was because of their distress [that they did not listen], as this was the true reason, Moshe did not know that. Thus he considered his inference to be solid, [although in truth it was refutable]. [You might ask:] Nevertheless, even after Hashem revealed to Moshe that they failed to listen due to their distress, [why is Moshe’s inference incorrect?] He could have incorporated the refutation into the a fortiori, as we find a number of times in the Talmud, [and reasoned as follows: To B’nei Yisrael, the redemption is good tidings and despite their distress they should have listened to me, yet did not. To Pharaoh, it is bad tidings — and despite his lack of distress, all the more so he will not listen!] The answer is: This refutation is [based on a fact] written in the Torah. The Torah itself testifies that the [true] reason they failed to listen was their distress. Such a refutation cannot be incorporated [into the a fortiori]. (thus wrote the Re’m)

Moses may also have alluded to his inability to speak effectively due to his stammer which had made even the Israelites unwilling to respond to him. He implied that G'd should heal his disability in order to make him a more effective spokesman.

הן בני ישראל לא שמעו, "even the children of Israel have not listened, etc." The logic expressed by Moses in this verse seems untenable if Moses accepted the Torah's statement in verse nine that the reason the Israelites did not respond to Moses was their קצר רוח, their understandable impatience. How could Moses compare Pharaoh's potentially negative response to that of the Israelites? What comparable pressure had Pharaoh been under?

Perhaps Moses' logic is valid when we consider some other aspects. While it is true that the Israelites suffered from an impatient state of mind, there were other reasons why they should have listened to Moses. The most important such reason was their faith in G'd. Secondly, this inherent faith should have been reinforced by the good news Moses had brought them. When contrasted with these two factors which certainly did not influence Pharaoh who had blasphemed "who is G'd?", the fact that the Israelites did not listen to him made it seem totally unjustified to expect that Pharaoh should take Moses' demands seriously. Moses suggested that the קצר רוח displayed by the Israelites was minor compared to the קצר רוח which Pharaoh would display once he heard Moses' demands.

The reason Moses added at this juncture that he had a stammer was because he felt this would reinforce Pharaoh's rejection of anything he had to say. Pharaoh would reason- at least to himself- that if the powerful G'd that Moses spoke about had not even cured his spokesman of a simple speech defect, it was laughable to think that He could impose His will on the mightiest ruler in the world. In fact, if this kind of reasoning were to be conveyed to the Israelites, it might further undermine their faith in G'd.

There was another reason for Moses' argument at this point. Whereas in Exodus 4,16 G'd had countered Moses' argument about his stammer by appointing Aaron as his mouthpiece, this was only in order to convey G'd's message to Moses to the Jewish people. We find confirmation of this in 4,30. However, already in 5,1 we find that Moses himself spoke in his mission to Pharaoh (at least also). If we look for confirmation of this thought in the text we may find it in the way Moses describes the Israelites' attitude to him and the attitude he expects from Pharaoh. Concerning Israel he said: "they did not listen to me" seeing Israel only heard the voice of Aaron. When describing Pharaoh's anticipated reaction Moses says ישמעני "he will hear me," meaning he will hear Moses' defective speech. It is important to remember this little detail in order to facilitate understanding of what is still to come.

וידבר ה' אל משה ואהרן AND THE LORD SPAKE UNTO MOSES AND UNTO AARON — because Moses had said, “I am of uncircumcised lips”. The Holy One, blessed be He, associated Aaron with him to be his mouth-piece and spokesman.

AND HE GAVE THEM A CHARGE UNTO THE CHILDREN OF ISRAEL. Rashi wrote: “The purport of this command is explained in the second section,⁷¹Further, Verses 29-30. after the order of genealogy. [It properly belongs here], but because Scripture mentioned Moses and Aaron here, it interrupted the subject-matter [with the narrative of their genealogy], informing us how each was born and with whom they are connected by descent. And the Eternal spoke unto Moses in the land of Egypt, saying: I am the Eternal; speak thou unto Pharaoh king of Egypt all that I speak unto thee.⁷²Ibid., Verse 29. This is the selfsame command which is mentioned here [in Verse 11]: Go in, speak unto Pharaoh king of Egypt. However, because Scripture broke off the subject-matter in order to record their genealogy, it reverts to it [further in Verse 29] and begins it anew. And Moses said before the Eternal: Behold, I am of uncircumcised lips, and how shall Pharaoh hearken unto me?⁷³Ibid., Verse 30. This is the selfsame statement Moses made here [in Verse 12]: Behold, the children of Israel have not hearkened unto me, etc. However, because Scripture broke off the subject-matter [for the abovementioned reason], it repeats it there [further in Verse 30]. Such indeed is a proper method, just as a person who says, ‘Let us return to the previous subject.’” And so also is the opinion of Rabbi Abraham ibn Ezra.
But I do not agree with this.⁷⁴The reason is obviously that Rashi’s and Ibn Ezra’s interpretation necessitates the conclusion that one set of verses — either 10-12 or 29-30 — is redundant. Rather, [it is my opinion] that when G-d commanded Moses to speak to the children of Israel — as it is said, Wherefore say unto the children of Israel⁶⁶Verse 6. — he did so and they hearkened not unto him.⁶⁷Verse 9. Then He commanded him to go before Pharaoh and bid him to let them go out of his land,⁶⁸Verse 11. and Moses answered: Behold, the children of Israel have not hearkened unto me, etc.⁶⁹Verse 12. Then the Holy One, blessed be He, commanded both Moses and Aaron to speak to the people and to Pharaoh.⁷⁵This is in Verse 13 before us. Moses thus thought that both of them — [he and Aaron] — are to take equal part in all the signs they are to do; both of them are to come to the children of Israel and to Pharaoh. But indeed [Moses reckoned that] it is sufficient that only one should speak, for such is the customary way of all pairs of emissaries, that one speaks and the other is silent. This was consented to, and G-d then said to him: “I am the Eternal,⁷²Ibid., Verse 29. Who revealed Myself to you only to speak in My Great Name. Speak thou unto Pharaoh king of Egypt all that I speak unto thee,⁷²Ibid., Verse 29. for it is to you that all communications are given, not to Aaron [primarily] and to you. It is you that I made the emissary to Pharaoh.” Then Moses answered once again: Behold, I am of uncircumcised lips, etc.⁷³Ibid., Verse 30. And G-d said to him: “See, I have set thee in G-d’s stead to Pharaoh, and Aaron thy brother shall be thy prophet.⁷⁶Further, 7:1. You will go before Pharaoh with Aaron, and there [in Pharaoh’s presence] you will command Aaron while Pharaoh will not hear your words, and Aaron as your emissary will make your words heard.” This is just as G-d commands a prophet and the prophet makes His words audible and chastises [the people] with them. This was a great achievement for Moses,⁷⁷Moses had thought that his speech impediment would be a handicap. It now turned out to be to his honor, for on account of it he was to state to Aaron every Divine message as it reached him, and Aaron was to address it to Pharaoh, just as G-d commands a prophet and the prophet addresses the message to the people. which he merited by his humility since he was ashamed to speak because of his speech — impediment. And so Scripture says, Moreover the man Moses was very great in the land of Egypt, in the sight of Pharaoh’s servants, and in the sight of the people.⁷⁸Further, 11:3. It was measure for measure. He had been afraid lest he be despised in their eyes [on account of his defective speech, but Scripture testifies to the Egyptians’ admiration of his greatness].
Now Rashi commented: “Thou shalt speak⁷⁹Ibid., 7:2. each and every message once, just as you heard it from My mouth, and your brother Aaron shall express it in eloquent language and explain it in Pharaoh’s hearing.” This is not correct at all.

ויצום, He appointed them as ministers. We find something parallel in Numbers 27,23 when ויצוהו means that Moses appointed Joshua as his successor with the same authority as he had possessed during the previous 40 years. Also in Samuel I 25,30 the words וצוך לנגיד, refer to David being appointed the supreme authority over the Jewish people. There are more similar examples in Scripture.

וידבר ה׳ אל משה ואל אהרון, G'd spoke to Moses and to Aaron, etc. First of all we need to know what G'd said to them, secondly what did the Torah mean when it added :"He commanded them to the children of Israel and to Pharaoh, etc." According to Shemot Rabbah 7,3 G'd informed Moses and Aaron about how intractable the people could be and how they were apt to heap abuse on their leaders. Moses and Aaron should therefore lead them בנחת, in an easy-going manner. G'd also told Moses and Aaron not to be disrespectul to Royalty, i.e. to the person of Pharaoh. These comments are purely homiletical. Furthermore, where is G'd's response to Moses who had questioned the point of this whole mission? The very least G'd could have told Moses was that his logic was faulty! Whereas it is possible to construe G'd's silence as disapproval of Moses' reasoning, we cannot do so in this instance. Let us look for a moment at the verse that follows. Assuming that Moses had not been concerned about what G'd would answer him in response to his question "how can Pharaoh listen to me if even the Israelites do not listen to me?" Why wouldn't G'd have continued immediately with what He had to say in verse 29? What is the whole point of the Torah repeating Moses' question again in 6,29-30 unless Moses had not received an answer from G'd to his קל וחומר, his logical argument?

To lead them with gentleness. . . Rashi is answering the question: The verse, [due to the word ויצום ,] implies that B’nei Yisrael were commanded to bring themselves out of Egypt. Therefore Rashi explains: “He commanded them regarding the B’nei Yisrael. . .” In other words, ויצום means that Moshe and Aharon, were commanded to lead the B’nei Yisrael with gentleness, and to treat Pharaoh respectfully. And when it is written afterward “To bring out the B’nei Yisrael. . .” this is a separate statement.

V. 13. Jetzt machte Gott allen diesen Zögerungen ein Ende. Bisher waren die Sendungen nur mit אמרים, der weicheren, die Gewinnung des Hörers für den Inhalt erzielenden Rede erteilt. Mosche sollte erst selbst der völligen eigenen Unzulänglichkeit zu einem solchen Werke inne werden. Jetzt, schon V. 10, וידבר: peremtorisch, und ויצום: der Befehl erteilt. Habt nicht weiter zu überlegen, ob tauglich oder nicht, habt nur zu gehorchen. Hiermit beginnt die eigentliche Erlösungsgeschichte.

,אל משה ואל אהרן ,“to Moses and Aaron.” G-d took Aaron with to this interview with Pharaoh in order to put Moses at ease. [I fail to understand this comment by our author, seeing that Aaron had accompanied Moses also at the first interview. Ed.] An alternate interpretation, especially on the words: ויצום אל בני ישראל, “He commanded them to the Children of Israel;” Moses was to tell the Israelites everything that G-d had said to him from the beginning of the portion until לכם מורשה אני ה', “for you as an ancestral land;” (in verse 8). Moses was to go to Pharaoh after having told the people, and they, Moses and Aaron, were to tell Pharaoh to release the Children of Israel from bondage in Egypt.

ויצום אל בני ישראל signifies that HE GAVE THEM A CHARGE regarding them; viz., to deal with them in a gentle manner and to be patient with them (Exodus Rabbah 7:3)

אל בני ישראל, the same as על בני ישראל, “over the Children of Israel,” i.e. to be in charge of them. Compare Ezekiel 18,6 אל ההרים לא אכל which means: “he did not eat on the mountains.”

Its simple meaning. . . regarding the matter of Yisrael and regarding his mission. . . [According to this,] the word להוציא (to bring out) refers to both matters. Hashem commanded Moshe regarding the matter of Yisrael, i.e., that Moshe should tell them that he will bring them out of Egypt. And Hashem commanded Moshe regarding his mission to Pharaoh, i.e., that Moshe and Aharon should tell Pharaoh to send the B’nei Yisrael out of Egypt. They should also warn Pharaoh that if he does not allow the B’nei Yisrael [to leave]; Hashem will bring suffering upon him.

In view of the above I believe the correct explanation is that G'd did reply to Moses' argument that the Israelites had not listened to him, and even to his second argument, that Pharaoh would most certainly not listen to him either as long as he was still afflicted with his speech defect. We need to understand G'd's reply thus: וידבר ה׳ אל משה ואהרון, G'd equated Moses with Aaron in their mission so that Aaron would speak to Pharaoh (just as he had spoken to the Israelites as Moses' mouthpiece) Seeing that thus far the Israelites had not listened to either Aaron or Moses ויצום, He commanded them, He appointed them as "kings" over the Israelites so that the people would accept their authority forthwith. We find something similar in Samuel I 13,14 where Samuel told King Saul that he would be supplanted and that G'd had looked for someone else (David) whom "G'd appointed as leader for His people" i.e. ויצווהו ה לנגיד על עמו.

ואל פרעה מלך מצרים signifies that He charged them with regard to PHARAOH, KING OF EGYPT, viz., that they should show respect to him in all that they spoke. This is a Midrashic explanation (Exodus Rabbah 7:3; Midrash Tanchuma, Vaera 2); but the real meaning is: He gave them a command with regard to Israel and with regard to His mission on which he had sent them to Pharaoh. And what the purport of this command was is explained in the second section from here (vv. 29—31) after the order of genealogy set forth in the next passage. It properly should follow here, but because Scripture has mentioned Moses and Aaron here, it interrupts the narrative by interpolating the section beginning (v. 14), “These are the heads of their fathers’ houses”, in order to inform us how Moses and Aaron were born (who were their parents) and with whom they are connected by descent.

ואל פרעה מלך מצרים להוציא, as well as in charge of Pharaoh the King of Egypt, for the purpose of leading the Jews out, etc.. Concerning this topic both Pharaoh and the people of Israel were placed under the direction of Moses and Aaron.

When G'd added the words להוציא את בני ישראל, He meant that the reason Moses and Aaron would have to wield the kind of authority only a king can have was in order that He should be able to take the children of Israel out of Egypt. Moses would have the authority to deal with anyone who refused to leave Egypt, for instance. At the same time Moses' and Aaron's authority would also ensure that Pharaoh could not refuse them. It is even possible that when Moses referred to the Israelites who had not listened to him, he referred to his lack of legal authority to force them to leave Egypt when the time came, and that he was already aware that there would be such Jews. When we consider all this, G'd did indeed answer Moses' claim that the Israelites did not listen to him by saying that as of now they would be under orders to listen to him. At the same time, G'd instructed Moses not to address Pharaoh as someone who appeals to him but as someone who ordered Pharaoh to carry out his instructions.

אלה ראשי בית אבתם THESE ARE THE HEADS OF THEIR FATHERS’ HOUSES — Since it (Scripture) finds itself compelled to give the genealogy of the tribe of Levi as far as Moses and Aaron because of Moses and Aaron, it begins to give the genealogy of the tribes in the order of their birth commencing from Reuben. And in Pesikta Rabbati 7 (on Numbers 7:12) I have seen the statement, that because their father Jacob reproached these three tribes in the hour of his death Scripture again enumerates here their genealogy alone of all the tribes to indicate that they nevertheless were men of worth.

THESE ARE THE HEADS OF THEIR FATHERS’ HOUSES: THE SONS OF REUBEN…. Scripture did not wish to begin with the statement, And these are the names of the sons of Levi according to their generations,⁸⁰Verse 16. so that it should not appear that henceforth in honor of Moses, Levi is first in genealogy. Instead, [Scripture therefore] mentioned Levi’s elder brothers, [i.e., Reuben and Simeon], and that Levi is counted third.
Now Scripture mentioned the sons of Levi according to their generations⁸⁰Verse 16. because in the case of Reuben and Simeon, it mentioned only those who went down to Egypt with them, but in the case of Levi it mentioned his children, the number of years of his life, the birth of the fathers of the prophets — [namely, Kohath the grandfather, and Amram the father of Moses and Aaron] — and the number of years of their lives,⁸¹Verses 18 and 20. all in honor of the prophets. Besides, they themselves — [Kohath and Amram] — were the pious ones of the Most High, worthy to be spoken of as the fathers of the world.

אלה ראשי בית אבותם, this is explained in the Mechilta as a reference to the three (potential) tribes Reuven, Shimon, and Levi, whom Yaakov had chastised on his deathbed. At this point the Torah enumerates their genealogy to demonstrate their importance in the fabric of Jewish nationhood. According to the plain meaning of the text, the Torah had to provide details of the tribes’ genealogy as far as Moses and Aaron, whereas it also had to provide details as far down the line as Korach, and the sons of Uziel; as well as Pinchas all of whom are mentioned by name and deed in the Torah later on. If we had not heard about their roots in this chapter we would not have known who these people had been.

אלה ראשי בית אבותם, Moses and Aaron were justifiably referred to as the heads of the various tribal groups of Israel, as they were the most respected and most honoured. ראובן בכור ישראל, seeing that none of his descendants were particularly noteworthy except his sons who had been part of the original 70 persons who had come to the land of Egypt from Canaan, none other are mentioned. All those 70 persons had already died as we know from Exodus 1,6. The same consideration held true for the descendants of Shimon. On the other hand, Levi, the longest surviving member of the original 70 Hebrews who migrated to Egypt, managed to raise even his grandchildren to become leaders of the people in their own right. Amram produced three outstanding children in the persons of Aaron, Moses and Miriam, all of whom attained prophetic stature. Aaron married a sister of Nachshon who had been considered the most notable member of the nation in his time. He begat leaders of the generation who were later on appointed as priests. Eleazar, son of Aaron took as a wife one of the daughters of Putiel who was also considered outstanding in his generation (compare Nachmanides). This union produced Pinchas who was granted a covenant of “peace” by G’d as a reward for spontaneously slaying a high ranking Israelite prince who flagrantly engaged in forbidden sex with a Midianite princess and had challenged Moses to do something about it. (Numbers 25,12) אלה ראשי אבות הלוים, just to tell us that Moses and Aaron were the respective heads of the Levites.

אלה ראשי בית אבותם, These are the heads of the various families, etc. The reason the family background of Moses is listed here is in accordance with the principle that only people whose genealogy can be traced back directly to Jacob are fit to be appointed as kings over Israel. This is the reason the Torah did not state the יחוס of Moses and Aaron until they had been given Royal authority. This is all still part of the answer of G'd to Moses' comment that the Israelites did not and would not listen to him.

אלה ראשי בית אבותם, “These were the heads of their father’s houses.” The Torah’s intention in this paragraph is only to give us the genealogy of the house of Levi, whereas Reuven’s and Shimon’s genealogy are mentioned only in order to accord them the courtesy due to seniority. Had the Torah ignored the genealogy of Reuven and Shimon at this point, some people might have thought that Levi was the senior of the brothers. In order to show that the Torah wishes to focus on the genealogy of Levi, the genealogy of the two senior brothers is abbreviated and is commenced only from the point where they arrived in Egypt. In the case of Levi, we are even told details of the number of years some of the principals lived. This enables the reader to reconstruct the chronology of the Jewish people commencing with the birth of Yitzchok. Ibn Ezra writes that the report of the number of years Levi lived was meant to honour Moses and Aaron. Seeing that the Torah meant to honour Moses and Aaron, it also included details about the years Amram, their father lived, as well as some details about the other sons of Levi. In the case of Yitzhar, even his grandchildren’s names were mentioned as the marriage of Amram to Yocheved is reported, seeing they were the founding couple from whom the leadership of the nation devolved. The sons of Yitzhar are mentioned only in order to put the conduct of Korach, the rebel, into proper perspective. The brothers of Korach, Nefeg and Zichri are mentioned without their children’s names, although they did not join their brother in his rebellion, whereas Korach’s sons are mentioned precisely because they did not join their father in his rebellion, as the Torah states on another occasion ובני קרח לא מתו, “Korach’s sons had not died during the rebellion.” (Numbers 26,11) Uzziel’s sons are mentioned as they distinguished themselves when removing Nadav and Avihu’s corpses from the Tabernacle. (Leviticus 10,4-5) Seeing that no information could be added to Chetzron, the Torah did not bother to list his children’s genealogy here.

אלה ראשי בית אבותם, “these are the heads of their father’s houses.” Seeing that the time of the end Israelites’ stay in Egypt was close at hand, and their redemption meant their separation from Egyptian society, the Torah saw fit to list their genealogies from Reuven until Levi, seeing that Moses and Aaron were Levites. The word אלה, “these,” is used to disqualify anyone else from belonging to the Jewish nation. Had the Torah not begun this list with the tribe of Reuven but had only listed Levi as the head of the “houses,” we might have thought that Levi was the firstborn as far as the genealogy of the Israelites leaving Egypt was concerned, and that the entire list was only recorded in honour of Moses.

In the order of their births from Reuvein. You might ask: The difficulty remains unresolved, for why did the Torah not begin with [the genealogy of] the tribe of Leivi? The Ramban answers: If so, it would appear that from now on Leivi is considered the firstborn, in honor of Moshe. Therefore the Torah begins from Reuvein, to show that Reuvein is still the firstborn regarding to lineage, and Leivi is the third of the tribes.

V. 14. In auffallender Weise sehen wir aber sofort die Erzählung unterbrochen, ein Geschlechtsregister wird in die Mitte eingeschoben, das mit den Worten schließt: ,הם המדברים וגו׳ הוא משה ואהרן ,הוא אהרן ומשה וגו׳ usw., als ob das uns bisher ganz fremde Männer gewesen wären, die wir erst hier kennen zu lernen hätten, und erst im 29. V. wird die Erzählung rekapitulierend wieder aufgenommen und weitergeführt!

Erwägen wir jedoch, was uns in diesem Geschlechtsregister vorgeführt wird — es enthält nicht bloß Mosche und Aarons Abstammung, sondern gibt einen kurzen Abriss der beiden ihrem Stamme vorangehenden Stämme, und zeigt uns in diesem Stamme nicht bloß die direkte Abstammungslinie von Mosche und Aaron, sondern auch alle Nebenlinien, ihre Oheime und Vettern, ihre Großoheime und Großvettern; lässt somit ihren Stamm im Zusammenhange mit den vorangehenden, ihre Familie und ihr Haus im Zusammenhange mit ihren vorangehenden und gleichzeitigen Familien und Häusern ihrer Verwandtschaft erblicken; teilt uns noch das hohe Lebensalter mit, welches Vater und Großvater erreichten, so dass diese noch nicht einmal lange gestorben gewesen sein werden, als sie auftraten, und weist dann in diesem ganzen Kreise von Verwandten und Vettern auf sie beide hin und spricht wiederholt: das, das waren Mosche und Aaron an dem Tage, da Gott sie berief! Erwägen wir ferner gerade die Stelle, wo uns dieser Nachweis ihrer Abstammung und Verwandtschaft in die Hände gegeben wird: so dürften wir wohl zur Einsicht in die Bedeutsamkeit und die Absicht dieser ganzen Mitteilung gelangen.

Bis hierher waren Mosche und Aarons Bemühungen völlig gescheitert, und wäre nichts weiter geschehen, so wäre es wahrscheinlich für unnötig erachtet worden sein, uns mit einem so genauen Nachweis ihrer Abstammung und Verwandtschaft zu versehen. Allein von nun an beginnt ihre siegreiche Sendung, eine Sendung, wie sie vor ihnen und nach ihnen von keinem Sterblichen vollbracht worden, da mochte es zunächst ein hohes Bedürfnis geworden sein, ein ganz genaues Register ihrer Abstammung und Verwandtschaft niederzulegen, um damit für alle Zeit zuerst ihren ganz gewöhnlichen menschlichen Ursprung und ihre ganz gewöhnliche Menschennatur sicher zu stellen.

Auch im Altertume kommt es vor, dass Menschen, die sich ganz besonders als Wohltäter ihres Volkes erwiesen, hintennach ihres menschlichen Daseins entkleidet und wegen "göttlicher" Taten der Ehre eines "göttlichen" Ursprungs gewürdigt worden sind. Wissen wir doch, dass später ein Jude, dessen Jichusbrief nicht vorlag und weil er nicht vorlag, und weil er ein Paar von dem Menschen Mosche entlehnte Lichtfunken den Menschen brachte, nach der Anschauung der Völker zum Gotteserzeugten wurde, an dessen Göttlichkeit zu zweifeln zum Verbrechen ward. Unser Mosche war ein Mensch, bleibt ein Mensch und sollte ein Mensch bleiben. Als bereits sein Angesicht von der Gottesanschauung strahlend geworden, als er bereits das Gesetz aus den Himmeln und das Volk wundervoll mit Gottessiegen durch die Wüste gebracht, ließ ihn Gott hier seinen Jichusbrief und damit die Tatsache niederlegen, wie: ביום דבר ד׳ אל משה בארץ מצרים, wie am Tage, da Gott zuerst mit ihm in Mizrajim sprach, man seine Eltern und Großeltern, seine Onkel und Tanten, seine Vettern und Basen, man ihn seiner ganzen Abstammung und Verwandtschaft nach, man ihn bereits achtzig Jahre lang in ganz gewöhnlicher Menschennatur, allen Gebrechen und Schwächen, allen Bekümmernissen und Bedürfnissen der menschlichen Natur unterliegend, wie alle anderen Menschen, unter denen er geboren und auferzogen, gekannt. הוא ,הם המדברים אל פרעה ,הוא אהרן ומשה משה ואהרן, Menschen. Menschen wie alle andern Menschen waren's, die sich Gott zu Werkzeugen seines großen Werkes erkor, Menschen wie alle anderen Menschen, die sein großes Werk vollbrachten.

Wenn aber dieser Abstammungsnachweis jeder irrtümlichen Vergötterung, jedem Wahne einer Inkarnation der Gottheit in menschliche Gestalt, von vornherein und für immer begegnen sollte, wenn eben er uns die Wahrheit verbrieft: Mosche, der größte Mensch aller Zeiten, war Mensch, nichts als Mensch, und die Stellung, die er vor Gott eingenommen, reicht nicht über die Sphäre sterblicher Menschen hinaus — so wird aber eben durch dieses Namensregister auch noch einem entgegengesetzten, nicht minder verderblichen Wahne vorgebeugt sein sollen, und deshalb nicht bloß die direkte Abstammungslinie Mosche und Aarons: Jakob, Lewi, Kehath, Amram, Mosche, sondern es werden die dem Lewi vorangehenden Stämme mit ihren Nachkommen, sowie auch alle anderen Zweige des Stammes Lewi mitgeteilt. War nämlich durch diesen Abstammungsnachweis zuerst die Tatsache von der menschlichen und nur menschlichen Natur Mosches und Aarons festgestellt, so war damit dem Glauben Vorschub geleistet, ausnahmslos jeder sei zum Propheten geeignet, es könne einer heute als vollendeter Idiot bekannt sein und morgen im Namen Gottes das Wort führen; es könne plötzlich der Geist Gottes über unwissende, ungebildete Menschen kommen, und sie in siebenzig Sprachen reden lehren, wie diese Erscheinung eingebildeter oder vorgeblicher prophetischer Berufung in sonstigen Kreisen nicht ohne Beispiel ist, wo dann, je unwissender und beschränkter der Prophet von heute gestern war, ein um so größerer Beweis göttlicher Berufung in dieser plötzlichen Umwandlung liegen soll. Diesem gefährlichen Irrtum begegnet gleichzeitig unser Register. Wohl waren Mosche und Aaron Menschen, nichts als Menschen: allein sie waren auserlesene Menschen: Hätte Gott sich den ersten besten erwählen wollen, so hätten sich ihm andere Stämme als Lewi, und in Lewi noch andere Zweige als Kehath, und unter Kehaths Häusern noch andere Häuser als Amram, und unter Amrams Kindern ebenso gut der ältere Aaron als gerade der jüngere Mosche zu seiner Sendung dargeboten. Allein Gott wählt sich die Geeignetsten und Edelsten zu seinen Werkzeugen und Boten. Seiner Berufung muss das Menschliche erst menschlich hinanreifen. Nicht Abraham und Isaak, Jakob wird der eigentliche Begründer des Israelhauses. Nicht Reuben und Schimeon, Lewi wird der erwählte Stamm. Nicht Aaron und Mirjam, Mosche wird der Gottesgesandte — wie dies auch der Grundgedanke eines von den Weisen zu dem Verse הלא כתבתי לך שלישים (Thanchuma Jitro) ausgesprochenen Satzes sein dürfte — alles muss erst an sich dem Grade der Befähigung entgegenreifen, der es zur Erwählung tauglich macht. Wir haben schon oben zu Kap. 2, 11 u. 12 darauf hingewiesen, wie nach der Lehre jüdischer Weisheit nicht die Schwäche und nicht die Beschränktheit und nicht die Abhängigkeit es sind, die sich der Gottesgeist zu seinen Trägern erwählt; wie vielmehr der Gottesbote vor der Erwählung bereits als גבור הכם ועשיר dagestanden haben müsse, leiblich, geistig und sozial "gesund". Leiblich: damit nicht krankhafte Halluzinationen für Gottesgesichte angesehen und ausgegeben, betrogene Betrüger in die Welt hinaussenden. Geistig: weil nur ein bereits menschlich zur Vollendung gereifter Geist das Wort Gottes zu fassen und wiederzugeben versteht. Sozial: weil nur ein unabhängiger, für sich nichts wollender und nichts suchender Mensch, Menschen und Zustände in jener Objektivität zu verstehen vermag, wie es der Botschaft Gottes gemäß ist.

Wir haben bereits zum ersten Buche, bei der Pflanzung unserer Stämme, den Gefühlen und Gedanken gelauscht, mit welchen Lea, die herrliche Mutter unseres Volkes, die Stammessöhne des Hauses Jakob unterm Herzen getragen, wie erst mit Lewi ihre Stimmung jene heitere Glückseligkeit gewann, die das echte jüdische Gattenleben kennzeichnet. Wenn die Gedanken und Gefühle, mit welchen eine Mutter ihr Kind unter dem Herzen trägt, nicht ohne Einfluss auf das Seelische des künftigen Menschen sein dürften, so mögen wir schon aus dem Namen, in welchem sie ihr Inneres ausgesprochen, ahnen, warum nicht ראו בן und nicht שמ עון, warum לוי sich der Erwählung darbot. Und wenn wir uns die Gedanken und Gefühle vergegenwärtigen, den starken, zur Pflicht sich begeisternden Mut, der einen Mann Lewis selbst in solcher Schreckenszeit zur Tochter Lewis wieder führte, und alle die Stimmungen banger Hoffnung, hoffender Bangigkeit, und gänzlicher sich Gott anheimstellender Ergebung, mit welchen eine Jochebed ihrem Mosche Mutter war: so dürfen wir wohl zu ahnen wagen, welchen Einfluss diese Muttergefühle auf den künftigen Mann gehabt haben mögen, in dessen Charakter die wertvollste, ihn zu seiner hohen Sendung befähigende Perle: ענוה war. —

ושני חיי לוי וגו׳ AND THE YEARS OF THE LIFE OF LEVI WERE etc. — Why is the number of the years of Levi mentioned? In order to tell us how long the period of slavery lasted — because so long as even one of the sons of Jacob (lit. the tribes) remained alive there was no slavery imposed upon the Israelites, as it is said, (Exodus 1:6) “And Joseph died and all his brethren”, and afterwards it is stated (Exodus 1:8), “Now there arose a king” (who enslaved them); and Levi lived the longest of all of them (Seder Olam 3).

ושני חיי לוי, according to the plain meaning which I explained in Genesis 5,31 all the lifetimes of generations between Adam and Noach, and from Noach to Avraham were mentioned. After that, basically only the lifetimes of Avraham, Yitzchok, Yaakov, Levi, and his sons Kehot, grandson Amram, and great grandson Moses are enumerated, followed by the number of years Joshua lived. Subsequently the Bible provides some details about the length of lives of the Judges and the Kings during the first Temple, to enable us to calculate crucial dates in our history.

And Leivi outlived all of them. If so, it means that they were enslaved only 116 years. For [it says in Bereishis 41:46 that] Yoseif was 30 years old when he stood before Pharaoh, and [we know that] Leivi was then 34 — since all the sons of Yaakov were born within a 6-year period, except for Binyamin. Thus we subtract [from these 6 years] 2 years until Leivi was born, as Leivi was the third child after Reuven, and it means that Leivi was four years older than Yoseif [who was born last]. After [Yoseif stood before Pharaoh] there were seven years of bounty and two of famine, after which the B’nei Yisrael came to Egypt. At that time Leivi was 43 [34 plus 9], and he lived until 137. Subtract 43 from 137, and we are still left with 94 years of Leivi’s lifetime, during which the enslavement did not begin. Now, the B’nei Yisrael were in Egypt for 210 ( רדו ) years. Subtract Levi’s 94 years from these 210, and the result is that they were enslaved only 116 years.

These are the heads. The Torah writes this to inform us of the length of the enslavement, for Levi was forty-three when he came to Egypt, and for the remaining ninety-four years of his life there was no enslavement (Levi lived 137 years, v. 16, see Rashi ad loc.). Subtract the 94 years of no enslavement from the 210 years total they sojourned in Egypt, and you conclude that the enslavement lasted 116 years.

ושני חיי קהת … ושני חיי עמרם וגו׳ AND THE YEARS OF THE LIFE OF KOHATH WERE etc. … AND THE YEARS OF THE LIFE OF AMRAM WERE etc. — From these numbers we may gather regarding the period of residence of the children of Israel, — viz., four hundred years, of which Scripture speaks, that these four hundred years were not passed in Egypt alone, but that they date from the day of Isaac’s birth. You know that Kohath was one of those who went down to Egypt; now reckon all his years (133) although really we should not take into account the years he lived before he went down to Egypt, and the years of Amram, his son (137), and the eighty years of Moses, the latter’s son, which he had attained when the Israelites left Egypt, and you will not find them totaling to four hundred, and in this calculation many years of the sons’ ages are included in those of their fathers (i. e. in such a calculation one must deduct in each instance the father’s age when his son was born since this number is included in the total age of each of these persons) (cf. Rashi on Exodus 12:40)

ובני קהת עמרם ויצהר וחברון ועוזיאל. Whereas the Torah provides details of the names of the first three sons of Kehot, i.e. Amram, Yitzhar and Uzziel, no mention is made of any sons of Chevron. If this were to lead us to assume that Chevron had no sons, the Torah in Numbers 26,58 adds details under the heading: “and the family of Uzziel, etc.” This raises the question why the Torah kept silent about these details at this point. The reason appears to be that the names of the sons of Chevron do not appear in connection with any of their activities elsewhere in the Torah, whereas the names of the ones mentioned here appear also in their own right, not only as sons of their respective fathers. Amram appears as father of Moses, Aaron, and Miriam. The sons of Yitzhar appear in connection with the uprising of Korach (numbers 16,1) The sons of Uzziel, Mishael and Eltzafan, appear in connection with the burial of the two sons of Aaron Nadav and Avihu in Leviticus 10,4. The sons of Korach, Assir and Elkanah are complimented as not having died in the uprising headed by their father in Numbers 26,12. The sons of Aaron are mentioned specifically already in Exodus 24,1 as is Pinchas, the son of Eleazar. The sons of his brother Ittamar are not mentioned as they do not feature specifically elsewhere in the Torah.

'ובני קהת עמרם ויצהר וגו, “and the sons of Kehot were Amram, Yitzhar, etc.;” the reason why the Torah does not mention the sons of Moses and the sons of Chevron and Ittamar, is that no specific action in which these had been involved has been recorded. The Torah did mention the sons of Amram, as they had been mentioned independently in the Torah so many times, i.e. both Moses and Aaron. The sons of YItzhar were mentioned on account of their involvement in the uprising of Korach. The sons of Uzziel were mentioned because they were called upon to remove the bodies of Nadav and Avihu who had died in the precincts of the Tabernacle on account of having offered unauthorized incense in the Sanctuary, and having added man made fire to their censers. The sons of Ittamar were mentioned in Chronicles on account of the High Priest Eli. (Rash’bam)

יוכבד דדתו JOCHEBED HIS AUNT — The Targum has: his father’s sister; she was daughter of Levi (cf. Exodus 2:1) and sister of Kohath.

We are forced to say that Scripture left out some of the generations between Kehat and Amram, for in [Numbers 3:28] the count for Kehat of all the males from a month and up was 8,600, and he only had four sons as his family, so each of those four sons would [have had to] have 2,150 sons. And behold Amram only had Aaron, Moses, and Miriam. Moses only had two sons, and Aaron four, so how is is possible for Amram, Yitzhar, Chevron, and Uziel to have 2,150 souls [each] in the second year after leaving the land of Egypt? Therefore, one must conclude as IB Koppe in his essay, "Israelitas non 215, sed 430 annos in Eagypt commoratos esse," Gottinga 1777, where he said (and Rossenmueller agreed with him) that Levi, Kehat, and Amram were not in sequential generations, but rather other generations were between them. And according to this, one can answer as its plain meaning the number of 430 years that Israel was in Egypt [Exodus 12:40]. And according to this, the powerful procreation of the Israelites in Egypt can be understood, which the Torah did not speak of as an actual miracle. And the wise Jost (Volume 1 page 2) said that the names mentioned here are family names, so it is saying that so long as the father was still alive, the children stayed bonded together as one family for the most part (even though sometimes sons would divide their fathers household, as was the case for Isaac and Ishmael in the lifetime of Abraham, and Jacob and Esau in the lifetime of Isaac), and with the death of the father the family would split, and sometimes even after the death of the father they would not split off until some time. So the plain meaning of this section according to his opinion is that the family of Levi remained one family unit, and was called "Levi" for the span of 137 years after the death of Jacob, and then, after Levi died, the family split into three, the names of which being Gershom, Kehat, and Merari. So, the family of Kehat stayed as one unit for 133 years, and afterward it was split into four families. And at the time of the exodus from Egypt, 137 years had already passed, and the Amram family was one family, of which came Moses and Aaron. So if you add together the three numbers of 137, 133, and 137, and add 17 years on that for how long the Israelites were in Egypt before Jacobs death, you have 424 years, meaning close to 430 years. Therefore (he says) whenever it says "the son of Yitzhar", "the son of Kehat", etc, it means "the descendant of Yitzhar", "the descendant of Kehat".

His father’s sister. . . Rashi is telling us that we should not interpret this דודתו like the דודתך written in the section of forbidden relations (Vayikra 18:14): “Do not come close to דודתך ,” where it means “your uncle’s wife.” [Here it cannot mean this,] as Yocheved was Leivi’s daughter, thus she was Kehos’s sister. For Kehos was Leivi’s son. And Kehos was Amram’s father. Thus, Yocheved was the sister of Amram’s father.

ויקח עמרם את יכבד דדתו לו לאשה, “Amram took his aunt Yocheved to be his wife;” I have seen a Midrash where it is explained that the reason why when the Torah lists the penalties for incestuous relationships, (Leviticus chapter 20,10-21) but fails to list the karet penalty for marrying one’s aunt, is because Moses was born out of a relationship which the Torah would forbid later on.

ויקח עמרם את יוכבד דודתו “Amram married his aunt Yocheved;”The only reason that seems feasible in understanding why G-d agreed to such great people as Moses and his siblings to be born from a union that the Torah would forbid once it was revealed at Mount Sinai, is the rule that we do not appoint a person to the highest position in the land unless the people were aware of at least something inappropriate that such a person had been guilty of actively or passively before his appointment. [This rule, if enforced, will diminish the chances of such high ranking people allowing their high office to develop feelings of superiority to those around him. Ed.] The best known example of the rule is King David, one of whose ancestors was Ruth, the Moabite, a people with whom intermarriage is strictly prohibited by the Torah. [He was reminded of this repeatedly during his life, not only his fitness as king being questioned, but even his claim to be Jewish. Compare Rashi on Yuma 22. Ed.]

ובני יצהר, “and the sons of Yitzhar;” why did the Torah list the sons of Amram and the sons of Yitzhar as well as the sons of Uzziel, who were great-grandchildren of Kehat, while not listing the descendants of either Gershon or Merari, nor did it list the descendants of Chevron who were related in a similar degree? We may have to answer that the descendants of Amram who included Moses and Aaron, were important, and similarly the descendants of Yitzhor who included Korach were important, and Uzziel was important as his sons Mishael and Elitzafan brought Nadav and Avihu to burial, so that his sons are mentioned here also. (Compare Leviticus chapter 10)

אחות נחשון THE SISTER OF NAASHON — Hence they (the Rabbis) learned (i.e. from the fact that Scripture states who her brother was when it mentions her marriage to Aaron) that he who is about to take a wife should strictly investigate who her brothers are (Bava Batra 110a).

AND AARON TOOK HIMSELF ELISHEBA, THE DAUGHTER OF AMMINADAB, THE SISTER OF NACHSHON TO WIFE. Just as Scripture mentioned the mother of the prophets, [namely, Jochebed],⁸²Verse 20. in their honor, saying that she was the daughter of Levi, a righteous man, and alluding to the fact that a miracle occurred to her,⁸³See Ramban to Genesis 46:15 (Vol. I, pp. 554-9). it also mentioned the mother of priesthood, i.e., that she was related to the seed of royalty, being the sister of the great prince [Nachshon of the tribe of Judah].
Scripture mentioned the mother of Phinehas,⁸⁴Verse 25: And Eleazar, Aaron’s son took him one of the daughters of Putiel to wife, and she bore him Phinehas. for he too was a priest, a reward which he earned himself.⁸⁵See Numbers 25:6-13. Originally when Aaron and his four sons - Nadab and Abihu, Eleazar and Ithamar — were anointed as priests, this prerogative extended only to them and their offspring born after the anointment. Phinehas the son of Eleazar and grandson of Aaron who was alive at the time of the anointment was thus not included. Priesthood was later bestowed upon him as a reward for being zealous for G-d. Now if this name Putiel — [Phinehas’ maternal grandfather] — is a proper name, it is not clear why Scripture [suddenly] mentions the name of a person whose identity we do not know. It is for this reason that our Rabbis have said⁸⁶Sotah 43 a, and mentioned here by Rashi. that Phinehas was of the family of Joseph, who conquered his passion,⁸⁷Genesis 39:7-12. The Hebrew word pitpeit (conquered) is suggested by the name Putiel. and of the family of Jethro, who fattened⁸⁸Piteim (fattened) is also suggested by the name Putiel. Phinehas was thus descended on his mother’s side not only from Joseph but from Jethro also. calves for idolatrous sacrifice, and he is mentioned for praise [here together with Aaron and his sons], who for their righteousness were worthy to be endowed with everlasting priesthood.
In line with the plain meaning of Scripture, we will say [that the mothers of Moses and Aaron, of Aaron’s sons, and of Phinehas are mentioned here because] in the case of kings, it is the customary way of Scripture to mention the names of their mothers: And his mother’s name was Maacah the daughter of Abishalom;⁸⁹I Kings 15:10. Mentioned in the case of Asa, king of Judah. And his mother’s name was Azubah the daughter of Shilhi;⁹⁰II Chronicles 20:31. She was the mother of Jehoshaphat, king of Judah. and so in all cases. It may be that [Scripture does not relate more about Putiel because] he was an honorable and known person in his generation, and it [sufficed just to] mention him in praise.
Scripture says, of the daughters of Putiel,⁸⁴Verse 25: And Eleazar, Aaron’s son took him one of the daughters of Putiel to wife, and she bore him Phinehas. and not “the daughter of Putiel,” because Putiel had many daughters and Eleazar chose one of them. It may be that she was not his daughter but his daughter’s daughter who related herself to him on account of his distinction, and therefore Scripture did not mention her name.

ויקח אהרן, “Aaron took a wife, etc.” This detail is mentioned to show that even members of the priesthood, a hereditary distinction, paid tribute to the line of the kings, so that Aaron married a member of the Royal House of Yehudah, i.e. the sister of Nachshon, who was the 5th generation after Yehudah through his son Peretz. (Chronicles I,2,7) The Torah also mentions by name the marriage of Eleazar, son of Aaron, to a daughter of Putiel, in light of their illustrious son Pinchas, seeing that Pinchas, though born before his father had become a priest, merited elevation to the priesthood by a special decree of G’d. [anyone born to a father who was already a priest at that time became a priest through hereditary genes. Ed.] Our sages state that the reason why the Torah mentioned that Eleazar married “one of the daughters of” Putiel, instead of simply ”a daughter of” Putiel, is a compliment, not a reference to a Putiel who used to sacrifice to idols, but a descendant of Joseph who had demonstrated self control in not allowing himself to be seduced by the wife of his master Potiphar. (Baba Batra 115) [the use of the expression בנות (plural of בת) here alludes to multiple genetic input, including that of Joseph. Ed.] Elezar’s wife being a granddaughter, not a daughter of Putiel, is the reason that her name is not mentioned.

When marrying a woman he should investigate her brothers. However, Lavan the brother of Rivka (Bereishis 25:20), is mentioned only “in order to praise Rivkah.” This is because Yitzchok surely would not have investigated Lavan [to know about Rivkah]. Furthermore, [it is different with Rivkah because] there was no need for Scripture to mention her father, brother or birthplace, as all were mentioned before — forcing us to say that they all have a Midrashic meaning. (Re’m) And we cannot say that it indeed teaches us that one who contemplates marrying a woman should investigate all these factors. First of all, granted that investigating the woman’s brothers has a reason: [her children will probably resemble them] as most children resemble their mother’s brothers. But this is not true of her father, and certainly not of the people of her birthplace. Secondly, [if all of these factors should be investigated], why did Aharon only investigate Elisheva’s brother? We see that her father’s name is not mentioned — implying that Aharon investigated only her brother.

ויקח אהרן את אלישבע, Aaron married Elisheva; she is mentioned by name because of the priestly status of her husband. (Compare Nachmanides)

מבנות פוטיאל ONE OF THE DAUGHTERS OF PUTIEL — of the family of Jethro (cf. Rashi on Exodus 4:18) who used to fatten (פטם) calves for idolatrous sacrifice, and of the family of Joseph who overcame (פטפט, who talked or argued with) his passion (Sotah 43a; Bava Batra 109b).

אלה ראשי אבות, just to tell us that Moses and Aaron were the respective heads of the Levites.

Of the descendants of Yisro who fattened calves for idolatry. . . Rashi’s comment is based on Meseches Sotah (43a), that his father was from the tribe of Yoseif and his mother was from Yisro, or vice-versa. It seems to me that Rashi inferred this since פוטיאל is written with a yud, denoting plural. Alternatively, [Rashi inferred it] since it is written בנות , also plural, which tells us that Scripture mentions her lineage in two ways. We need not ask: Perhaps Putieil is simply the name of an [unknown] person? For the answer is: Rashi inferred that this is not so, since it says above: “Aharon took Elisheva, daughter of Aminadav. . . for a wife.” Thus we see that Scripture intends to explain the lineage. Here as well, Putieil is coming to explain the lineage [and thus cannot refer to an unknown person].

מבנות פוטיאל, of the daughters of Putiel; she is mentioned by name because of her son Pinchas who was granted the hereditary priesthood forever (Numbers 25,11; see also Ibn Ezra here).

Who showed contempt for his evil inclination. Some explain פטפט as “defied,” and some explain it as “showed contempt.”

הוא אהרן ומשה THESE ARE THAT AARON AND MOSES who are mentioned above where it states (v. 20) that Jochebed bore them to Amram. הוא אהרן ומשה There are some passages where Scripture mentions Aaron before Moses (as here) and other passages where it mentions Moses before Aaron; this is done in order to indicate that they were equal in all respects (more lit., that they weighed alike) (Mekhilta d'Rabbi Yishmael 12:1).

הוא אהרן ומשה, Aaron, the one born prior to Moses is described as הוא, i.e. a distinction, whereas the same distinction expressed by the same word הוא is also applied to Moses . Both were singled out as G’d’s messengers.

הוא אהרן ומשה, repeated, seeing these two were the most honoured of their families and it was therefore they who were fit to be entrusted by G’d with the command: הוציאו את בני ישראל, seeing that their voices would be heeded by their compatriots, of all the various tribes.

הוא אהרון ומשה, they are the same Aaron and Moses, etc. The ones whose genealogy has been traced in our paragraph are the ones whom G'd gave the authority to orchestrate the Exodus, etc.

This is [the lineage of] Aharon and Moshe. According to the simple meaning, [Aharon appears in the verse before Moshe because] the B’nei Yisrael had more respect for Aharon than Moshe, for they never knew the greatness of Moshe, who was raised in the royal palace and fled to Midian, but they knew of Aharon’s holiness.

הוא אהרן ומשה אשר אמר, “this was Aaron and Moses to whom He said, etc.” The point of this verse is that in respect to אמירה, verbal communication, the Torah mentioned Aaron ahead of Moses, as it was he who delivered Moses’ message to Pharaoh. He did the actual talking. On the other hand, whenever the Torah makes reference to the Exodus, Moses is invariably mentioned ahead of his older brother Aaron. Ibn Ezra explains the Torah mentioning Aaron first as something natural, seeing he was the senior of the two. Moreover, Aaron had displayed prophecy to the people before Moses had been appointed as the prophet. After this, whenever they were speaking to Pharaoh, Moses is mentioned first, seeing he had superior rank. This is why after this exception you will no longer find that the Torah mentions Aaron first when G’d addresses both of them, or when the Torah discusses something in which both brothers participated. One cannot bring a counter argument from the verse (Numbers 3,1) אלה תולדות אהרן ומשה, “these are the generations of Aaron and Moses,” (in this order) or from the verse ותלד את אהרן ואת משה, ”she (Yocheved) bore Aaron and Moses,” seeing that the Torah there merely records the order in which they were born

הוא אהרן ומשה, “the same Aaron and Moses, etc.” Aaron was mentioned here ahead of Moses seeing he was the older of the two brothers. In verse 27, the Torah lists Moses ahead of Aaron seeing that he was greater than his brother in stature as prophet. We find that the Torah sometimes mentions Joshua ahead of Calev (Numbers 14,38), whereas at other times it mentions Calev ahead of Joshua (Numbers 14,30). Joshua was greater than Calev seeing he was a prophet. Calev was greater than Joshua by genealogy, seeing he was from the tribe of Yehudah. We also find something similar when the Torah mentions heaven and earth. In Genesis 1,1 the Torah mentions heaven ahead of earth seeing that disembodied celestial beings are more distinguished than creatures who require a body in order to be functional. They also enjoy infinite life as distinct from creatures on earth. On the other hand, in Genesis 2,4 the Torah lists the earth ahead of the heaven. The reason is that the Holy Temple and the Shechinah are at home on earth rather than in the heaven. The reason the Torah repeats (verse 28) “it was on the day that G’d spoke to Moses and Aaron in the land of Egypt,” is because earlier (verse 13) it sounded as if the command to release the Israelites from Egypt was addressed to both Moses and Aaron. The Torah wants to clarify that the verbal instructions for this were issued by G’d only to Moses. Moses relayed them to Aaron.

With their multitudes. . . [Rashi explains this] because על צבאותם literally implies that Aharon and Moshe brought out B’nei Yisrael in greater numbers than their multitudes. Alternatively, it implies that they brought out the multitudes first, [and only then, the B’nei Yisrael] — and this is not so.

הוא אהרן ומשה, whenever Moses and Aaron are mentioned in context of their respective ages, Aaron is mentioned first as he was the senior of the two. When these two brothers are mentioned in context of their respective status amongst the people, Moses is mentioned first, as in verse 27. After all, Moses took out the Israelites from slavery in Egypt.

על צבאתם — This is the same as בצבאותם with their hosts — all their hosts according to their tribes. Sometimes the word על is merely used in place of a single letter (ב as a prefix); e. g., (Genesis 27:40) “על חרבך shalt thou live” which is the same as בחרבך, by thy sword; (Ezekiel 33:26) “Ye stand על חרבכם” which is the same as בחרבכם, by your sword.

על צבאותם, the entire community including all their respective members, simultaneously.

הם המדברים וגו׳ THESE ARE THEY WHO SPAKE TO PHARAOH — It was they who received the command to speak to Pharaoh (cf. v. 26), and it was they who carried it out by actually speaking to him (cf. e.g. Exodus 7:7).

הם המדברים, in connection with דבור, speaking, Moses is still mentioned first followed by Aaron, although in order of birth Aaron preceded Moses, being the firstborn.

הם המדברים, they were fit to be the spokesmen to Pharaoh and to be listened to by him with respect.

הם המדברים אל פרעה מלך מצרים, they were the ones who talked tough to Pharaoh the king of Egypt. They spoke to him as does a king who issues decrees. The Torah also wanted to remind us that though G'd had instructed Moses to speak, Aaron spoke also, as I shall explain in greater detail on verse 28.

These are Moshe and Aharon. In Pharaoh’s view Moshe was the greater one, for he already knew of his reputation and his wisdom, but Aharon was unknown to him.

הוא משה ואהרן THESE ARE MOSES AND AARON — they remained always the same in carrying out their mission and in their integrity from beginning to end (cf. Megillah 11a).

הוא משה ואהרון, they are the same Moses and Aaron, etc. The Torah wants to convey that Moses and Aaron enjoyed equal status; this is why sometimes Aaron is mentioned first whereas other times Moses is mentioned first. The Torah makes this point doubly clear by referring to both of them in the singular i.e. הוא, as opposed to הם. The Torah uses the plural also i.e. הם המדברים. This is because Moses and Aaron did not speak simultaneously but they alternated when speaking to Pharaoh.

And it came to pass on the day that the Lord spoke unto Moses in the land of Egypt: [This is connected with the following verse]

AND IT CAME TO PASS ON THE DAY WHEN THE ETERNAL SPOKE UNTO MOSES IN THE LAND OF EGYPT. It is possible to explain that the verse refers to the one above.⁹¹Rashi and Ibn Ezra explain that Verse 28 here is connected with the following Verses 29-30: And the Eternal spoke unto Moses, saying…. Ramban finds this difficult to accept since the plain meaning would seem to indicate that Verses 29-30 constitute an independent section not connected with the preceding verse. Therefore he interprets Verse 28 as being connected with the preceding verse, as explained in the text. Scripture is thus stating: “And it came to pass that it was they — [Moses and Aaron] — who spoke to Pharaoh, king of Egypt⁹²Verse 27. at the time when the Eternal spoke unto Moses in the land of Egypt.” For since Scripture said, These are that Aaron and Moses, to whom the Eternal said: Bring out the children of Israel from the land of Egypt,⁹³Verse 26. it might have appeared that the communication came to both of them equally. Therefore it now explains [in Verse 28] that the communication came to Moses, and the command to bring them forth from Egypt was to both of them. This is why Scripture closed the chapter [of the genealogy of Moses and Aaron with this subject].

ויהי ביום דבר ה' אל משה, when G’d spoke to Moses that he should speak to Pharaoh and he answered G’d that Pharaoh would not listen to him, i.e. after G’d had already appointed Moses and Aaron as the leading authorities over Israel as well as over Pharaoh, as reported, G’d explained that He had not intended to give both Moses and Aaron equal status, but that Moses would be an authority, G’d like, for Pharaoh, whereas Aaron would be his mouthpiece, his interpreter.

ויהי ביום דבר ה׳ אל משה, It was on the day that G'd spoke to Moses. The Torah here wants to correct any mistaken impression that the equality of Moses and Aaron had already existed on the day G'd told Moses while still in Midian (Exodus 4,14) that his brother Aaron was on the way to met him. This is why the Torah adds here: "On the day G'd spoke to Moses in the land of Egypt," as if to say: "on that day Moses and Aaron were of equal stature."

ויהי ביום דבר, “It was on the day Hashem spoke, etc.” According to Ibn Ezra this verse is directly linked to what follows, i.e. verse 29 ויהי ביום דבר ה', “it was on the day that Hashem spoke,etc.” Nachmanides claims that it is possible to understand verse 28 as referring to what had preceded it, i.e. to verse 26 where Moses and Aaron are described as the ones who had been commanded by G’d to take the Israelites out of Egypt. Seeing that once we have a verse in which Moses is mentioned first, and another in which Aaron is mentioned first, the meaning may well be that the commandment to take the Israelites out of Egypt applied to both of them in equal measure. The Torah now clarifies that the word of G’d was issued to Moses, but that the commandment to carry it out applied to both of them in equal measure. This is the reason why this paragraph was split into two sections.

To be joined. . . For if this were not so, it would not be possible to explain “It was the day when Adonoy spoke. . .” [We are not told what happened on that day. Rather, [this verse] must be joined [to the following verse].

The Torah therefore had good reason to repeat that G'd told Moses: "I am the G'd י־ה־ו־ה, speak sternly to Pharaoh." The repetition was meant to reassure Moses that he could rely on what G'd had told him. He was to go and speak to Pharaoh personally. In other words, nothing had changed since the first time G'd had identified Himself to Moses as the tetragram at the beginning of our portion. I explained that at that point G'd had not yet appointed Aaron to be Moses' mouthpiece except when Moses wanted to say something to the Israelites. What happened in the meantime was that Moses repeated his argument that he had a speech defect and was not suited to speak in public after G'd had told him to speak to Pharaoh. Hence G'd authorised Aaron to speak to Pharaoh also in 7,1. As a result Aaron had become Moses' equal concerning what they had to tell Pharaoh. Inasmuch as Moses had not previously complained about his not being fit to speak to Pharaoh there had been no need for G'd to appoint Aaron as His spokesman.

All the above shows G'd's concern to employ Moses as His exclusive messenger. He had co-opted Aaron only when Moses had raised repeated objections. Perhaps the reason that our verse employs the word ויהי, which always reflects something regrettable, is to let us know how much G'd regretted the necessity of having Aaron share what was originally meant to be Moses' exclusive mission. The word ויהי may therefore suggest that if Moses had indeed remained G'd's sole messenger the quality of the redemption might have been different; some of the side-effects of the incomplete redemption which led to such disasters as the golden calf episode might never have occurred, for instance.

Perhaps the reason that the editor of this paragraph in the Torah saw fit to write our verse as a paragraph by itself and not as the beginning of chapter seven or even before verse eight in chapter seven was, that he wanted us to know that G'd was saddened by the fact that He had to appoint someone to share Moses' mission with him. Had Moses been the only one, he himself might have entered the Holy Land as leader of the people as had been G'd's original intention. He might have lived to participate in the building of the Holy Temple which Solomon built over 400 years after Moses' death. That Temple might then have endured forever.

It is also possible that the Torah made a special paragraph out of this single verse in order to tell us that Aaron's status was equal to Moses as of that day in Egypt, and that even previously when G'd had announced to Moses that he would be Moses' spokesman, this did not imply equal status. When Aaron would speak alone G'd describes his position as "he will be your prophet," or similarly when the Torah states: "he will speak to Pharaoh."

וידבר ה׳ AND THE LORD SPAKE — This is the self-same command which was mentioned before, viz., (v. 11) “Go in, speak unto Pharaoh, king of Egypt”, but because it (Scripture) broke off the narrative in order to record their genealogy it now reverts to it and begins it anew.

אני ה׳ I AM THE LORD — I am powerful enough to send you and to carry out the matter on which I have sent you.

ויאמר משה לפני ה׳ AND MOSES SAID BEFORE THE LORD — This is the statement which he made above, (v. 12), “Behold, the children of Israel have not hearkened unto me”. Scripture repeats it here, because it broke off the narrative for the reason already given. So is the method of the historian — just as a person who says, “let us return to the previous subject”.

ואיך ישמע אלי פרעה?, This paragraph is a repeat of what we had in verse 12 where Moses had raised the same question. At that point the Torah had only presented a summary of the answer, in order to reach the chapter detailing the genealogies after which the reader would be familiar with all the personages that played leading roles.

הן אני ערל שפתים ואיך ישמע אלי פרעה, ”here I am (still) of sealed lips. How could Pharaoh listen to me?” When G’d had commanded Moses and Aaron to go to Pharaoh earlier in our chapter Moses had remained silent. He assumed that the instructions had been intended for Aaron. When, at this point, he alone was addressed by G’d i.e. “all that I am saying to you,” he repeated his previous argument that his speech defect made him unfit to serve as G’d’s vessel and that even the people did not listen to him. At this point G’d explained to him (ויאמר ה’) in a friendly fashion how He would deal with that problem.

This is the same statement. . . Rashi is referring to “. . .I whose lips are covered” (6:12), which comes after “Behold the B’nei Yisrael have not listened to me. . .” (ad loc) which is the first statement in that section. And it [“. . .I whose lips are covered”] is repeated here, in the second section. Rashi is not referring to “Behold the B’nei Yisrael have not listened. . .” as this [statement] is not repeated in the second section. (Re’m) But I say that Rashi is referring to everything stated [in this verse] in the first section. Although “Behold the B’nei Yisrael have not listened to me. . .” is not repeated in the second section [in an express way], it is alluded to nevertheless. For a question arises: Why does the verse reverse [the order] that appeared before? In the first section it said, “How then will Pharaoh listen to me — I whose lips are covered?” Yet here it says, “Behold, I have covered lips. How will Pharaoh listen to me?” The answer must be that our verse [needs to be filled in and] is saying as follows: “Behold, the B’nei Yisrael have not listened to me. Even though my mission is for their benefit, nevertheless they have not listened to me, for the reason that I have covered lips. If so, how will Pharaoh listen to me?” And this is the same a fortiori inference that was said in the first section.

?ואיך ישמעני פרעה, “what is the likelihood of Pharaoh listening to me (when my own people do not)? This paragraph is a continuation of the previous paragraph in which Moses complained about the people not listening to him. (verse 12) [Moses attributes the reason both times to his lack of eloquence or his stammer.] The only difference between the two occasions is that earlier he was very brief, as the Torah wished to insert the passage of the ancestry of some of the principal characters in the hierarchy. The Torah takes up the thread that had been interrupted so that the reader is reminded of where it was interrupted. In this way the lines of ואני ערל שפתים, and ואהרן אחיך יהיה נביאך, “I am afflicted with a speech defect,” and “your brother Aaron will be your spokesman,” have been joined together.