Comentario sobre Exodo 4:34

AND MOSES ANSWERED AND SAID: BUT, BEHOLD, THEY WILL NOT BELIEVE ME, NOR HEARKEN UNTO MY VOICE. “At that moment, Moses spoke improperly. The Holy One, blessed be He, had told him, And they shall hearken to thy voice,²⁴⁶Above, 3:18. and he said, But, behold, they will not believe me. Immediately, the Holy One, blessed be He, answered him according to his opinion,²⁴⁷Since it was Moses’ opinion that the people would not believe him, he was therefore in need of certain wonders which he was to do before them to convince them of the truth of his mission. Accordingly, G-d now gave him the wonders he was to do. The implication of the Midrash is thus clear: If Moses had not said that the people would not believe him, there would have been no need for him to do these wonders before them. and gave him signs commensurate with his words.” Thus the language of V’eileh Shemoth Rabbah.²⁴⁸Shemoth Rabbah 3:15.
And Rabbi Abraham ibn Ezra said, by way of the plain meaning of Scripture, that G-d related to Moses that the elders will believe him, but He did not mention that the people will believe. Perhaps they may hearken to his voice but would not believe him wholeheartedly. But this does not appear to be correct. Rather, it is possible to say that v’sham’u l’kolecha (and they shall hearken to thy voice) does not constitute a promise but a command: “And they must hearken to your voice” — for it is to their advantage to listen — and thou shalt come, thou and the elders of Israel, unto the king of Egypt.²⁴⁶Above, 3:18. A similar case is found in the verse, When the Egyptians shall hear — for Thou broughtest up this people in Thy might from among them — they will say to the inhabitants of this land,²⁴⁹Numbers 14:13-14. meaning it is fitting that the Egyptians should say so. Similarly, the verse, In this thou shalt know that I am the Eternal,²⁵⁰Further, 7:17. means it is fitting that it be so, but not that it so happened. In a similar vein is the verse in this chapter, and they will believe the voice of the latter sign,²⁵¹Verse 8. [which means it is fitting that they believe the latter sign], and many similar cases.
The correct interpretation appears to me to be that the expression v’sham’u l’kolecha means that “they will listen to you to come with you to the king and say to him, The G-d of the Hebrews hath happened to meet us,²⁵²Ibid., 5:3. for what will they lose by it?” Thus G-d informed Moses that the king of Egypt would not give them leave to go, and this was why Moses said, But, behold, they will not believe me, for after seeing that Pharaoh did not give them permission to go, they would no longer believe him at all, for they will say: “The Eternal hath not appeared unto thee. If you were G-d’s messenger, Pharaoh would not have rebelled against His word.” It may be that they will say that “G-d has not appeared to you by the Great Name with the attribute of mercy, to do for us signs and wonders as you have said, for you are not greater than the patriarchs.²⁵³To whom He appeared as E-il Sha-dai. See Ramban above, 3:13, for a full explanation of this matter. This was why Pharaoh did not hearken, for if Pharaoh had believed your words, we would have gone out from Egypt under all circumstances, and it is not our iniquities that have separated between us and the G-d of mercies.”²⁵⁴See Isaiah 59:2.

והן לא יאמינו לי ולא ישמעו בקולי, once the people will see that Pharaoh will refuse to let them go, they will lose faith in me and will not listen to my promises. 'כי יאמרו לא נראה אליך ה, for they know that when G’d says something it will be so. They will not be able to account for my failure except by claiming that I am an impostor.

ויען משה ויאמר והן לא יאמינו לי, Moses replied saying: "But they will not believe me, etc." What could have prompted Moses to claim that the Jewish people would not believe him when G'd Himself had told him "they will listen to your voice?" Furthermore, why did Moses even add the almost unbelievable: "and they will not listen to my voice?" One might be tempted to say that inasmuch as a person is free to do what he wants to do and to believe what he wants to believe in, G'd's assurance on that score could not be absolute seeing He is not in control of our feelings. This is why Moses did not believe in the righteousness of their faith. He said: "and they will not listen to my voice," as if to say "they will not even want to listen to my voice." However, such an explanation would not do justice to Moses who certainly did not want to question G'd's attributes, nor to slander Israel by uttering such a gross suspicion. Besides, we must consider that Moses did not even say "suppose they will not believe me," but he made a flat statement והן לא יאמינו לי, "they will definitely not believe me."

ויען משה ויאמר והן לא יאמינו לי, Moses answered saying: “but they will not believe me, etc.” According to Shemot Rabbah 3,12 Moses sinned in the manner in which he spoke to G’d at this point, seeing that he contradicted G’d Who had told him that the people would listen to what he had to say (3,18). G’d responded to Moses in the manner in which he had spoken to G’d. He asked him what he had in his hand, i.e mazeh beyadcha? When Moses replied that he had a staff in his hand, G’d turned the staff into a snake to show Moses that his answer had been quite wrong. G’d demonstrated that by reading the letters מזה not as “mazeh,” “what is this?” but as “mizeh” “with this,” that He would provide him with a means by which to make the Israelites believe him. (the Midrash, according to Mahar’zu, appears to imply that the need to employ miracles in order to make the Israelites believe that Moses was not an impostor was held as a sin against Moses, not against them.) Ibn Ezra, approaching the text as being quite plain, and Moses’ reply as being in order, writes that when G’d had said to Moses that the Israelites would listen to him, (3,18) He had spoken of the elders to whom Moses would have to identify himself in the first place. When Moses now said that the Israelites would not believe him, he did not refer to the elders, but to the masses of the Jewish people. He may also have referred to their having unspoken reservations in their hearts, disbelief they would not dare to voice at that time. Nachmanides explains that Moses meant that it is entirely possible that the words in ושמעו לקולך in 3,18 were not to be understood as an assurance, but as a command, a directive to Moses to make sure that the people would take him seriously, would believe what he had come to tell them. 3,18 is immediately followed by G’d Himself telling Moses that the elders following him notwithstanding, Pharaoh will turn a deaf ear to their mission. In other words, G’d had never promised immediate success at all. Moses was therefore entitled to point out additional factors which would make his mission difficult in the extreme. There are numerous instances in the Scriptures where the meaning of such words as ושמעו, or ואמרו, is not a prediction of what will happen but an assessment of what ought to happen. It is also possible that in 3,18 G’d had only meant that the elders would be willing, on the strength of Moses having identified himself, to go for an interview before Pharaoh with him, and to tell him that their G’d had instructed them to ask for a three day furlough to offer sacrifices to Him. After all, in their own estimation, what did they have to lose by going along? G’d had already told them that the mission would not be successful. (3,19) Moses therefore was quite correct in saying that after the interview with Pharaoh, also attended by the elders, had failed to produce the desired results, the masses of the people would not believe in him as their saviour. They would argue that if he had truly been a messenger from G’d he would have been successful. Another approach to the subject could be that what the people would refuse to believe would be Moses’ claim to have been privy to the instructions of G’d in His attribute as Hashem, the attribute of Mercy, rather than having received instructions from elokim, the attribute of shaddai, that was known to them but had not produced relief from their sorry condition. They would refuse to see in him a prophet with greater powers than the patriarchs who had not been known as miracle workers. No wonder, they would say, that Pharaoh was not impressed by him. They would argue that their sorry state was not due to their sins, for as far as their sins were concerned these would not form an impassable barrier between them and G’d’s attribute of Mercy. Yet another way of understanding our verse is that Moses simply meant that the Israelites would not believe him unless he could produce some kind of miracle to convince them that he had not lied. There was no suggestion that Moses did not accept G’d’s statement that the people would listen to him. .

Kap. 4. V. 1. Gott hatte ihm offenbart, wie sein Auftreten vor Pharao nicht sofort von Erfolg sein würde. Natürlich durfte Mosche voraussetzen, dass die Erfolglosigkeit seines Auftretens einen gerechten Zweifel an seiner ganzen Sendung hervorrufen werde: der Gott, von dem du sprichst, ist dir nicht erschienen, sonst würde deinem Worte an Pharao sofort die Erfüllung folgen.

ולא ישמעו בקולי, “they (the people) will not listen to me (Take me seriously).” if you were to argue that there is a contradiction here, G-d having told Moses that they will have faith in Him in 3,18, the answer is that Moses argues that they will not believe that Moses is His prophet, but is an impostor. This sounds heretical, as G-d had told Moses in 3,18 that they will listen to him and believe in him? The answer is that G-d had spoken of the elders, whereas here he had been asked to instruct the people who were asked to believe that the Egyptians would hand over all their valuables.

The correct answer to our problem is that outlined by Maimonides in chapter seven of his treatise Yesodey Ha-Torah where he writes that the gift of prophecy is given only to people of outstanding intellectual capacity, people who are whole in body and spirit. The author of כסף משנה, a major commentator on Maimonides' works, comments as follows: "We must analyse why Maimonides did not add some more qualifications such as that the prophet has to be wealthy, humble, of physical prowess, etc." He concludes that Maimonides certainly feels that the prophet must possess these attributes as well. However, inasmuch as someone who practices prophecy on a regular basis must possess these attributes as a matter of course, Maimonides did not bother to mention this in that paragraph. In the chapter mentioned, Maimonides was concerned only with people who prophesy only on occasion. Even if we were to consider Moses as someone who practiced prophecy only on occasion-something we cannot accept,- he argued what he did as a result of his extreme humility, out of a conviction that he personally lacked the qualities needed for someone to be accepted as such by the Israelites. When Moses said והן לא יאמינו לי, he meant that "as the result of my many shortcomings they will have no reason to believe me, etc." This was all the more true, Moses said, since I have not been accredited as a regular prophet, but am only making an occasional appearance as a prophet. When a person who has not yet established his credentials as a prophet appears and claims to be a prophet he has to be able to demonstrate all the attributes the people expect of a prophet; these attributes include wealth, physical prowess, a body without blemish, etc. If the people needed proof that Moses lacked the attribute of personal wealth, all they had to find out was that he Moses, had been a mere shepherd in the employ of his father-in-law Yitro. (He had attained personal wealth only by being allowed to pocket the splinters of the tablets of the Covennant as per a comment in Nedarim 38). In view of all this, as soon as the Israelites would consult with their elders if Moses was believable, the elders would tell the people, quite correctly, that Moses had failed to legitimise himself adequately.

Zur ursprünglichen Ausrüstung Mosche war kein אות, kein Wunder notwendig. Auf כי אהי׳ עמך וזה לך :den Erfolg hat Gott Mosche und uns für alle Zeiten hingewiesen האות. Dass wir in unserer Ohnmacht mit der Thora im Arme einen solchen welthistorischen Gang durch die Zeiten vollbringen konnten, das ist der ewige vollgültige Beweis für die Göttlichkeit der Thora und die Wahrhaftigkeit der Sendung Mosche. Allein hier, im Anfange, wo der Erfolg noch fehlt, ja, wo von vornherein wiederholte Erfolglosigkeit angekündigt war, da war ein Zweifel an Mosche Sendung sehr wohl begründet, und Mosche sehr wohl berechtigt, einen solchen Zweifel beim Volke vorauszusetzen.

When Moses had added ולא ישמעו בקולי he alluded to yet another argument, namely his stutter. His voice would give him away as someone who was not fit to be a prophet. Later on he indeed spelled out his concern on that score. At any rate, the absence of a speech impediment is an absolute necessity even for prophets who appear as such only on occasion. If someone suffered from such an impediment it is equivalent to a physical blemish. When Moses said the Israelites would argue that G'd had never communicated with him, they would be quite justified in their assumption as they would base their rejection of his claim on his physical blemish, saying G'd would not appear to such a person even on a temporary basis. The reason Moses had not advanced this argument at once but had asked G'd what he should say when the Israelites would ask him in what capacity G'd had appeared to him- something which appears to show that he was not concerned about the people rejecting him personally- was because G'd had interrupted him by saying: "this is My name, etc."

It is also possible that Moses wanted G'd to reveal more of the mystical aspects of His name, and that in order for G'd to do so he made what sounded like a provocative statement. Moses hoped, that if successful, G'd would equip him with all the visible and invisible attributes that he felt he lacked in order to qualify as a regular prophet. We find this concept in Psalms 91,14 אשגבהו כי ידע שמי, "I will raise it (the Jewish people) high since it has become aware of My name." Moreover, if they would appreciate the qualities G'd had equipped Moses with their regard for G'd Himself would be appreciably enhanced.

Still another reason why Moses was not perturbed at saying what he did, i.e. that the Jewish people would not believe him, was that G'd Himself had told him after He had said that the Jewish people would hearken to his voice (3,18) that He knew that Pharaoh would not respond to Moses' entreaties and would not let the Israelites depart (3,19). Moses reasoned that if Pharaoh would not take his mission seriously then the Israelites would surely lose faith in his leadership in short order. If Moses would have repeated audiences with Pharaoh all of which did not produce results, the people would eventually even stop listening to him altogether. They would claim that the reason he failed was that לא נראה אליך השם, "G'd never appeared to you in the first place." They would argue that if indeed Moses' mission had been authorised by G'd, who would have the effrontery to refuse to carry out G'd's orders? Do we not know from Kings I 14,10 that if someone contravenes G'd's commands deliberately he will be utterly destroyed by G'd?

מזה בידך WHAT IS THAT IN THINE HAND? —The reason why the words מה זה are written here as one word is to afford the opportunity to explain it thus: on account of this (מִזֶּה) that is in thine hand thou wilt make thyself liable to punishment because thou hast harboured suspicion about worthy persons (Exodus Rabbah 3:12). The real meaning, however, is that it is a question such as one puts to his fellow: “You admit that this object in front of you is a stone?” The other replies, “Yes”. The former says, “Well, I’ll turn it into wood”.

מה זה בידך?, here is a staff which is an inert object, and the hand which is something very much alive. I will demonstrate that I can kill that which is alive and bring to life that which is dead. I will make your hand useless and your staff will suddenly come alive.

?זיאמר ה׳ מזה בידך "G'd said: "what is this in your hand?" This question cannot be compared to when G'd asked Bileam (Numbers 22,9) "who are these men?" Our sages in Bamidbar Rabbah 19 state that Bileam should have answered G'd that He was well aware of even a chamber-pot Bileam had in his bedroom, how much more so would He be aware of who the messengers were who had come to him that evening? However, the two situations cannot be compared. When G'd asked Bileam who the men were who had come to him, Bileam had some excuse to assume that G'd really was not aware of their identity; When He asked Moses what the latter held in his hand, it was daylight and G'd had obviously seen it. The question therefore could only be a rhetorical one. G'd only wanted Moses to confirm what it was he held in his hand. Moses complied and said "it is a staff."

מזה בידך, “what is this in your hand?” The absence of the letter ה in the word מזה instead of מה זה, is an allusion to the fact that only five out of the plagues would be performed by means of Moses’ staff. They were: the snake, the hail, the locust, the darkness, the splitting of the sea of Reeds. All the other miracles did not involve Moses’ staff as an instrument. Some of the other plagues were initiated by G’d personally, some by Aaron.
A Midrashic (Tanchuma Shemot 23) approach: the word מזה could be read with the vowel chirik under the letter מ instead of the vowel patach. The verse then would be the beginning of a line saying: “from this (staff) in your hand (you will be smitten).” [The idea is that since you Moses have slandered the Jewish people just as the original serpent engaged in slander, ultimately your use of this staff (when hitting the rock instead of speaking to it) will become your undoing.”]

As a person who says to his friend. . . This does not contradict the Midrashic explanation [which preceded]. Rather, it explains why Hashem said: “What is that in your hand?” in the form of a question. For did Moshe not know what was in his hand? He surely saw it was a staff.

VV. 2—5. Das Umwandeln, die Tatsache, dass das, was jetzt Stab ist, wenn man will, eine Schlange, und wenn man will, wieder ein Stab wird, ist schon an sich ein אות, das verstärkte אוד: ein geistiger Hebel, ein Mittel zur Bewirkung der Überzeugung, dass derjenige, welcher mit einer solchen umwandelnden Macht gerüstet auftritt, Bote jener einzigen Macht ist, die über den natürlichen Stand und Gang der Dinge gebietet, von deren Willen allein der Fortbestand der Gesetze der Natur bedingt ist, die sie selber gegeben, jener Macht, durch welche nicht nur alles geworden, was ist, sondern alles besteht, was besteht. Allein eine näher eingehende Erklärung dürfte auch klar machen, warum Gott gerade dieses Zeichen und kein anderes gewählt. Gott läßt Mosche erst erwägen, was er in der Hand hat. So wie Jeremias: Was siehst du? "Bringe dir zum Bewusstsein, was du in der Hand hast!" Das korrivierte ה, das über das מה hinwegeilt und den Gedanken auf das זה konzentriert, dürfte allerdings zugleich erinnern, Gottes Wundermacht habe ebenso gut an jedem anderen Gegenstande, der eben zur Hand gewesen wäre, sich zeigen können. Also: ein Stab! Was ist ein Stab? Das natürlichste Zeichen der von Menschenkraft beherrschten Natur. Der Stab hat eine doppelte Bedeutung, die auch entsprechend in der Wurzel נטה: sich stützen, sich neigen und: seine Hand über etwas strecken, liegt. Der Stab ist a. Verlängerung der Hand, wodurch der Mensch sich auf die Erde stützt und b. Verlängerung und Erweiterung des Machtkreises, Zeichen seiner Herrschaft. Nun wird durch Mosche dem Volke gezeigt: das, worauf der Mensch sich stützt und womit er gebietet, verwandelt sich, wenn Gott es will, in den vollendetsten Gegensatz, in eine Schlange. Alle Tiere schließen sich mehr und minder dem Menschen an, aber die Amphibien, und insbesondere die Schlange birgt איבה dem Menschen, der Mensch flieht vor ihr. Also: der Einzige hat dich gesandt, der das, worauf der Mensch sich stützt und was ihm zum Mittel seiner Herrschaft dient, wenn er will, sich dem Menschen gegenüber empören lässt, und umgekehrt, das, was ihm jetzt als gefürchtete, zu fliehende feindliche Macht gegenüber steht, wenn er will, zur gefügigen Stütze und zum gefügigen Werkzeug ihm in die Hand gibt. Damit ist aber eben dein Sender als ה׳ dokumentiert, als derjenige, von dessen Willen jeder kommende Moment, jeder Moment der Zukunft bedingt ist. Und bedeutsam wird auch hier wiederholt: אלקי אבתיכם אלקי אברהם וגו׳, darauf hinzuweisen, wie ja Gott von eurem Ursprung an in den verschiedensten Schicksalslagen und Zuständen sich in ganz gleichem Grade der Waltung und Vorsehung offenbart; er ist Gott Jaakows wie Gott Abrahams; des Knechtes wie des Fürsten Geschick ist von Ihm; so er will, macht er Pharao zum Knecht und euch zum Gebieter, umwandelt er Pharaos Stab zu seiner Geißel und Pharaos Geißel zu eurem Stab.

?מזה בידך, “what is this in your hand?” The word מזה is to be read as if it had been spelled in two words, i.e. מה זה.

ויהי לנחש AND IT BECAME A SERPENT — This was an indication to him, that he had slandered the Israelites by saying (v. 1) “But, behold they will not believe me etc.”, and that he had made the serpent’s occupation (slander) his own (cf. Genesis 3:5) (Exodus Rabbah 3:12).

AND HE SAID: CAST IT ON THE GROUND. AND HE CAST IT ON THE GROUND. I do not understand why G-d performed the signs before Moses. Moses believed that it is the Holy One, blessed be He, Who speaks with him, and it would have been fitting for Him to say, “The staff that is in your hand you shall cast on the ground before them, and it shall become a serpent,” and the same also with respect to the second sign, [i.e., his hand becoming leprous], just as He said at the third sign, and thou shalt take of the water of the river, and pour it upon the dry land, etc.²⁵⁵Further, Verse 9. In other words, the third sign of the water turning to blood was not performed now, but only when Moses came before the people. The question thus arises: Why did He perform the first two signs — the staff turning into a serpent, and Moses’ hand becoming leprous — before Moses now? It is for this reason that the words of our Rabbis²⁵⁶Shemoth Rabbah 3:16. can be relied upon, namely, that the first sign, [i.e., the staff turning into a serpent], was a hint to Moses that he had slandered the Israelites [when he said that they would not believe him],²⁵⁷See Genesis 3:5, that the serpent was the first creature to slander when it said to Eve, For G-d doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, ye shall be as G-d, knowing good and evil. Thus it suggested to her that it was not because it may bring about her death that G-d forbade it, but out of a sense of jealousy. As Rashi puts it: “Every artisan detests his fellow-artisans.” and the second sign was for the purpose of punishing him.²⁵⁸See Numbers 12:1-10 that the punishment for slander is leprosy. And this is the sense of the expression, and Moses fled from before it [the serpent]. He feared lest he would be punished and the serpent would bite him, since every person naturally avoids danger, even though Moses knew that if it was indeed G-d’s desire [to punish him], there was no one that could deliver him out of His hand.²⁵⁹See Daniel 8:4.
Perhaps even though He informed Moses of the Great Name with which the world was created and everything came into existence,²⁶⁰See above, 3:13. He wished to show him that with this Name signs and wonders would be done, changing the natural order of things, so that the matter would be firmly established in Moses’ heart and that he should in truth know that with the Great Name he will perform new things in the world. The first two signs were sufficient for Moses, and therefore the third miracle of the water [turning into blood] was not done here. Instead, G-d commanded him to do the third sign in the sight of the people.

וינס משה מפניו, for the staff had become a real snake and had assumed a threatening posture. This was totally different from the “snakes” produced by Pharaoh’s magicians that were unable to move. They only looked like the real thing, but were totally harmless. None of these sorcerers can produce something that is really alive, i.e. becomes part of nature. Our sages in Sanhedrin 67 commented on this phenomenon by saying: “not only can the sorcerers not produce small creatures, they cannot even produce big creatures such as a camel” This is why in the case of Moses, the Torah speaks of “the staff which had turned into a נחש, serpent,” whereas when the sorcerers’ work is described the Torah speaks of תנין. [at that point Aaron’s staff also turned into a תנין, not נחש, as G’d was not yet ready to demonstrate the superior magic Moses was capable of. Only when Aaron’s staff swallowed the “taninim” of the sorcerers was that point brought home to Pharaoh.]

ויהי לנחש, it had turned into a snake. G'd hinted to Moses that the forces of the קליפה are characterised by the symbol snake. We know from the original serpent that it represents סם, i.e. something potentially poisonous. G'd wanted to teach Moses that his hands possessed the power to neutralise the power of that serpent and to turn it into a harmless piece of wood. If, however, Moses would not keep firm control and allow it to escape from his hands, he would unleash all the latent powers of evil which are controlled by the serpent. This would become so threatening that Moses would flee from it [although he stood on consecrated ground, Ed.]. When G'd asked Moses: "what is this in your hand?" He wanted Moses to understand that the staff was biologically analogous to a certain kind of desert-mouse. If Moses were to even loosen his grip on his staff it was liable to develop into a serpent just as earth can turn into a certain species of mouse. [In Talmudic times there was a widespread belief that this specimen of mouse was half flesh and half earth, and developed out of the earth. This belief has halachic implications regarding the laws of ritual impurity, compare Chulin 9,6, Ed.] Moses replied to G'd's question that he was certain that what he held in his hand was a staff, i.e. one hundred per cent wood, without potential to develop into a living organism. When G'd made him throw the staff down to earth, He demonstrated that not only did the staff contain the potential to develop into a living creature, but it did not do so only very gradually, such as the desert-mouse, but it did so in a single moment.

ויאמר השליכהו ארצה ויהי לנחש, “He said: ‘throw it to the ground so that it will turn into a serpent.” Nachmanides has trouble understanding the need for G’d to perform these miracles in front of Moses, seeing Moses had not been a doubter here. In his (preliminary) view it would have been more appropriate for G’d to tell Moses to perform this very miracle in front of the Jewish people, as He did with the third miracle the turning of water into blood. It is considerations such as these which prompted our sages to say that Moses was meant to consider the first miracle here as a personal rebuke for having spoken badly of the Jewish people, for having accused them of lack of faith. He was to realize that he deserved to be punished, and this is also why he reacted in fear, fleeing from the serpent. He considered it entirely possible that this snake would bite him as a penalty for badmouthing his people. The same applies to his hand turning leprous; this too was to remind him that the affliction known as tzoraat is in the main reserved for people who were derelict in their relationship with their fellow human beings, in particular by speaking badly about them. Their forced stay in isolation would bring this home to them even more forcefully. Moses did not recover from his fright until G’d told him to grab the snake by its tail. Moses is then described not as taking hold of the snake’s tail merely, as G’d had instructed, by אחיזה, a somewhat tenuous hold on things, but the Torah uses the word ויחזק בו, “he took a firm hold of it.” Some commentators claim that the miracle of the staff was a demonstration by means of a simile, that the great Pharaoh whose career had started out as a malleable human being, something similar to a pliable staff, had then become hard as a תנין הגדול, a great sea-monster, only to become all soft again, none of his powers remaining, his glory having vanished into thin air. When Pharaoh had turned “tough” on him after he had killed the Egyptian, Moses had already fled from him, as we read in The miracle of the staff would reassure Moses that he no longer had anything to fear from him.

השליכהו ארצהת וישליכהו ארצה ויהי לנחש. “Throw it to the ground! He threw it to the ground and it turned into a snake.” You should realise that the changing of the staff into a snake was related to the reversal of the natural power inherent in the letters used by the Torah. It is alluded to in our verse so that when the order of the letters would be reversed the snake could become changed into a staff again. [According to Torat Chayim quoting a Rabbi Naftali, — cited by Rabbi Chavell —the final letters in the words ארצה, וישליכהו, ארצה, ויהי are the letters of the tetragrammaton in reversed order. When these letters appear again in the proper order at the end of the words ויהי למטה בכפו, it is easy to understand why the snake turned again into a staff.] We know that basically the tetragrammaton consists of the three letter י-ה-ו. The letter ה appears twice in that name.

ויהי לנחש, “it turned into a serpent.” Why did G–d show Moses this miracle by using a serpent rather than any other creature? It symbolised that just as the bite of a snake not only hurts but results in the death of the victim, so Pharaoh and his servants would not only “bite” the Hebrews but would by their treatment of them cause their deaths. Moses being asked to grasp the tail of that serpent and turn it back into his staff, was to symbolise that Pharaoh and his servants would become dried out as the wood of his staff. Any hand afflicted with the plague of tzoraat had automatically become ritually unclean, as we know from Leviticus 14,6. Moses placing his hand back within the folds of his tunic symbolically restores the entire Jewish people to ritual purity which it had lost through contact with the Egyptians. When the Torah reports in verse 7 that והנה שבה כבשרו, “and lo, his hand looked again like the rest of his flesh,“ this was a hint that the Jewish people’s state of ritual impurity would be reversed.

We may understand that by means of these two miracles, i.e. Moses’ staff turning into a snake and his hand becoming afflicted with tzoraat, G’d hinted to him that it was in His power to kill the living and to revive the dead. The staff had been a dried out piece of wood, devoid of life of any sort, and by throwing it on the ground it turned into a living organism. Moses’ hand on the other hand, which had been part of a perfectly healthy living organism, suddenly became as if dead. The disease tzoraat is viewed by the Bible as a form of death as we know from Moses’ prayer for his sister Miriam (Numbers 12,12) “do not let her remain like a dead person!” G’d (Moses) performed both of these miracles here in the desert and later in the presence of the assembled Jewish people in Egypt (4,30). This was what G’d had meant when He said: “so that they will believe that the Lord G’d has indeed appeared to you” (verse 5). The second miracle was repeated in accordance with G’d having said: “in the event they will not believe the impression made by the first miracle, they will believe the impact of the second miracle” (verse 8).
The question remains why these miracles had first to be performed in the desert, i.e. while Moses was standing at the foot of Mount Chorev. After all, surely Moses did not doubt anything G’d told him! We have to accept what our sages Shemot Rabbah 3,15) handed down to us as their tradition, i.e. that the first miracle Moses had to perform was to make him aware that he had slandered the Jewish people when he had stated that the people would not believe that G’d had appointed him as their redeemer. He had no right to say this (4,1) after G’d Himself had told him in 3,18 ושמעו לקולך, “they (the Jewish people) will hearken to your voice (message).” The second miracle, that of Moses’ hand becoming afflicted with tzoraat was as a punishment for his slandering his people and not believing G’d. The miracles performed a different function each time Moses performed it.

The reason G'd had said: "throw it to the ground," was that in the eyes of the serpent the earth assumes great significance since it derives all its needs for survival from the earth, and earth (dust) is its exclusive habitat (Genesis 3,14). G'd taught Moses many lessons by means of this small demonstration. Amongst other things Moses was to demonstrate this very miracle before the eyes of the Israelites.

When G'd instructed Moses: "stretch out your hand," He wanted Moses to realise that though he thought that he had already lost control over what had been his staff, he still possessed the power to master what had become a serpent and to turn it into a harmless piece of wood again.

G'd instructed Moses ואחוז בזנבו, instead of ואחוז בו. This was to teach him an additional lesson. Normally, people are afraid of the poisonous head of the snake and when they try to grab it they try to get hold of its head and crush it in order to neutralise its poisonous bite. G'd told Moses that it would suffice to grasp the tail of the snake and he would not have anything to fear. When the Torah nevertheless describes Moses as ויחזק בו "he took hold of it," and not as ויחזק בזנבו, "he took hold of its tail," this does not mean that Moses did not obey G'd's instructions but that he took hold of the nearest part of the snake without fear. When the Torah goes on to describe that ויהי למטה בכפו, "it turned into a staff in his palm," this means that it ceased being a living organism as soon as Moses' palm touched it i.e. ויהי, "it remained as a staff only."

ויחזק בו AND HE LAID HOLD OF IT —The phrase signifies “grasping” (אחז). There are many examples of it in the Scriptures: (Genesis 19:16) “The men laid hold of (ויחזיקו בְּ..) his hand”; (Deuteronomy 25:11) “And she layeth hold of (והחזיקה בְּ..) his secret parts”; (I Samuel 17:35) “And I caught him by (והחזקתי בְּ..) his beard”. [Wherever the root חזק in the Hiphil is followed by the preposition ב it denotes “taking hold of a thing”].

שלח ידך ואחוז בזנבו, “extend your arm and take hold of it by its tail!” This means simply to establish physical contact, not that Moses would thereby control the snake’s movement, as the snake will attempt to wriggle free. This is why the Torah reports Moses as ויחזק בו, “he took firm hold of it.” This demonstrates that Moses had thought that as soon as he would get to Egypt Pharaoh would release the Israelites immediately, that there would be no attempt on his part to wriggle out of the demands made upon him. The redemption would not occur until strong-armed measures, such as Moses employed to control the movements of the snake would be employed. The second miracle would be performed in the presence of the assembled people who were mired in spiritual pollution absorbed through their being part of the Egyptian culture. G’d demonstrated by means of that miracle [the healing of an affliction considered incurable, Ed.] that the Israelites would become penitents and thus fit for redemption. Some commentators understand the meaning of that miracle to be that just as the Israelites who were free men when they came to Egypt had been afflicted by G’d so that they had become slaves, they would once more be able to regain their former freedom thanks to the same G’d Who had caused them to become afflicted in the first place.

THAT THEY MAY BELIEVE THAT THE ETERNAL … HATH APPEARED TO THEE. The interpretation of this verse is that “they may believe when you do the sign before them.” Scripture, however, speaks briefly about this for it is self-understood that G-d showed Moses wonders with the intent that he perform them before the people in order that they believe him.

למען יאמינו כי נראה אליך השם. "So that they will believe that G'd has appeared to you." The reason that G'd kept repeating "the G'd of their fathers," may have been to hint to the people present that unless one believed in the G'd who had been the G'd of the patriarchs one could not hope to achieve control over the serpent, i.e. the forces of evil in this universe. A demonstration of such control would therefore imply that one was on intimate terms with G'd.

למען יאמינו כי נראה אליך ה', “in order that they will believe that the Lord, (attribute of Mercy) G’d of your fathers has indeed appeared to you.” The Torah refers to the demonstration of this miracle, the verse being an abbreviation, seeing that it was quite understood that this was to be the purpose of the miracle.

מצרעת כשלג LEPROUS AS SNOW — It is the nature of leprosy to be white, and thus we read in reference to a leper, (Leviticus 13:4) “If the bright spot be white [in the skin of his flesh]”. By this sign, too, he indicated that he had made a slanderous statement when he said, (v. 1) “But, behold, they will not believe me”. Therefore He smote him with leprosy (Exodus Rabbah 3:13) even as Miriam was so smitten for the slander she had spoken (cf. Shabbat 97a).

V.6. Bei der Aufforderung, den Stab zur Erde zu werfen, steht nicht das bittende נא, wohl aber hier, wo die eigene Hand aussätzig werden soll, eine Anforderung, die eine unangenehme Zumutung enthält. In solchen feinen Nuancen verrät sich die Authentizität einer Schrift.

ויוצאה מחיקו והנה שבה כבשרו AND HE BROUGHT IT OUT OF HIS BOSOM AND, BEHOLD, IT HAD RETURNED AS HIS OTHER FLESH — From this we may infer that the measure of Divine good comes more quickly than the measure of the punishment He inflicts, for in the former case it does not say מחיקו after the word ויוצאה. (Shabbat 97a; Exodus Rabbah 3:13).

V.7. Die Hand in den Busen stecken und sie dadurch aussätzig und sie wieder in den Busen stecken und dadurch gesund werden zu lassen, ist schon im allgemeinen ein Zeichen göttlicher Sendung. Es lehrt, dass nicht nur der "Stab", sondern auch die Hand, die ihn hält und führt, in Gottes Gewalt ist. Ja, es lehrt: wenn Gott das dem Menschen Gefügige in Feindseliges und umgekehrt umwandelt, so ist der Mensch, wenn er sich nur in sich selbst und auf sich selbst zurückziehen möchte, vor sich selbst nicht sicher. In das menschliche Wesen selbst wirft Gott, wenn er will, den Zwiespalt. Gott braucht den Stab nicht zu brechen. In dem bergenden Schoß des Menschen selbst lässt Gott die Hand ersterben, wenn er will, und wieder neu belebt werden, wenn er will. Ps. 74, 11: מקרב חיקך כלה lehrt jedoch, dass "die Hand in den Schoß legen" ganz so wie im Deutschen ein Ausdruck der Untätigkeit ist. Es kann daher dieses Zeichen noch besonders dem Volke haben sagen sollen: Es kann, je nachdem Gott will, das Nichtstun, das die Hände in den Schoß legen", den Tod bringen, allein es kann auch, so es auf Gottes Geheiß geschieht, in dem שב ואל תעשה die Rettung liegen. Mögen sie daraus lernen, geduldig auszuharren, Gott kennt die rechte Zeit, wann es gilt, die Hände in den Schoß zu legen und wann sie aus dem Schoß zu nehmen.

!ויאמר השב, He said: “put it back.’ Seeing that examination of people smitten with this disease revolve around their being isolated, closed in, the Torah here used an expression similar to that of closing a drawer, instead of the word שים, “place,” which we might have expected.

והאמינו לקל האת האחרון THEY WILL BELIEVE THE VOICE OF THE LATTER SIGN — As soon as you say to them, “On your account have I been smitten — because I uttered slander about you”, they will believe you, for they are already experienced in this: that those who combine to harm them are smitten by plagues, e. g., Pharaoh and Abimelech who were punished on Sarah’s account.

והאמינו לקול האות האחרון, from a medical science point of view the ability to heal tzoraat was a far greater miracle as it meant bringing back to life a limb which had already died ולקחת ממימי היאור, seeing that water is a basic liquid, one of the four basic raw materials earth is constructed of, converting this into blood without adding any additional ingredient to it was a most remarkable miracle.

והיה אם לא יאמינו, “in the event that they will not believe you, etc.” Ibn Ezra writes that seeing that we know full well whether or not the Israelites would believe Moses’ claim to be the redeemer appointed by G’d, it is clear that this verse was addressed only to Moses, to tell him that in the event that some of the people would not believe that Moses was the chosen redeemer after having seen the first miracle, the second miracle would convince also these doubters. As to the Torah describing the reaction of the people to the miracle as a קול האות, a miracle with an audible impact, rather than as it having a visual impact, this is an example of what Rabbi Yishmael had described as the Torah employing a syntax familiar to the common people. Furthermore, as to the Torah describing the second miracle as אות האחרון, “the last miracle,” when in fact it would be followed by a third miracle, the reason is that as of that point in time only two miracles had been demonstrated to Moses. The verse hints that if after two miracles there would still be doubters, a third miracle would be performed which would silence the remaining doubters. As a matter of fact, in due course, Moses performed these miracles, and the people all believed that he was the chosen redeemer. (verses 30-31)

והאמינו לקול האות האחרון, “they will believe and pay heed to the second miracle.” G’d referred to the miracle involving the tzoraat as the “last” one instead of as “the second one,” as it was the last one relative to the first one. Besides, it was the last miracle Moses performed in the desert where he had no audience.

Once you tell them, “because of you I was struck [with tzora’as]” . . . they will believe you. [Rashi offers this explanation because] otherwise the last sign is no better than the first. [Rashi offers this explanation because] otherwise the last sign is no better than the first. The Re”m asks: “But [according to this,] I do not know what Rashi would say regarding the sign of [water turning to] blood. How is it better than the two preceding signs?” It would seem the answer is: the B’nei Yisrael did not actually see the first two signs, thus they might not believe them. But the sign of blood they will see with their own eyes, therefore they will believe in it. And Moshe was not commanded to perform the first two signs [before them] because these signs served also to punish Moshe, as Rashi explained, [and it would not be proper to punish Moshe in front of them]. The Maharshal explains [why the first two signs were not repeated]: For if we say the tzora’as punished Moshe for slander, then he had received his [due amount of] suffering from Hashem the first time, and need not be afflicted with tzora’as again. And if we say it was not because of Moshe’s sin, then surely Hashem would not make him suffer a second time for naught.

והאמינו לקול האות האחרון, “they will believe in the effect of the (sound) of the last miracle.” Healing the skin disease of tzoraat was so unheard of that it would convince the people that Moses had been sent by G-d as only He could do this.

You shall take from the water of the river. He alluded to them that with the first plague He will exact retribution from their deity (Explanation: When God exacts retribution from the nations He first exacts retribution from their deity, for they had worshipped the Nile which gave them sustenance and He turned them (its waters) to blood. [This explanation is found] in an old Rashi manuscript.

V’HAYU’ (AND IT SHALL BE) THAT THE WATER WHICH THOU TAKEST OUT OF THE RIVER ‘V’HAYU’ (SHALL BECOME) BLOOD UPON THE DRY LAND. “The word v’hayu is mentioned here twice.²⁶¹The literal translation of the Hebrew text is: “And it shall be that the water which thou takest out of the river, and it will be blood upon the dry land.” It appears to me that if He had said, ‘V’hayu (And it shall be) that the water which thou takest out of the river be blood upon the dry land,’ I might understand it to mean that it would be turned into blood in his hand, and that also when it reached the ground it would remain in the same state. But now, [as the verse actually reads], the final v’hayu teaches us that it would not become blood until it reaches the dry land.”²⁶²The significance of this point is explained by L’vush Ha’orah (see Preface in Vol. I, p. IX, Note 12): If the water had turned into blood while still in Moses’ hand, skeptics could say that it was done through some secret art. But running or flowing water turning into blood upon reaching the ground was undeniably a miracle. Thus the language of Rashi.
But the purport of this verse is not as the Rabbi [Rashi] has it, and there is no need for his Midrash, for the masters of language²⁶³Found in R’dak’s Sefer Hamichlal. The repetition of a verb occurs after a lengthy intervening phrase. have found in many places that it is the normal style of Scripture to repeat words for the purpose of emphasis and significance, or because of some lengthy phrase intervening between them. Such a case is the verse: And if a Levite come from any of thy gates out of all Israel, where he sojourneth, and come with all the desire of his soul.²⁶⁴Deuteronomy 18:6. Here Scripture repeats [the verb] “come” because of the lengthy expression between [the parts of the verse]. Similarly: And the king of Egypt spoke to the Hebrew midwives, of whom the name of the one was Shiphrah, and the name of the other Puah; and he said: When ye act as midwives, etc.;²⁶⁵Above, 1:15-16. Here the verb “said” is repeated because of the identification of the midwives stated in the verse. And G-d spoke unto Israel in the visions of the night, and He said: Jacob, Jacob.²⁶⁶Genesis 46:2. There are many instances of such verses.

והיו המים, the repetition of the word והיו applying to the same predicate is similar to a construction in Psalms 93,3 נשאו נהרות ה', נשאו נהרות קולם “the ocean sounds, O Lord; the ocean sounds in thunder, etc.” Another such construction is found in Psalms 94,3 עד מתי רשעי ה', עד מתי רשעים יעלוזו?, “for how long shall the wicked O Lord, for how long shall the wicked exult?”

והיה אם לא יאמינו גם לשני האותות, "In the event that they will not believe even both these two signs, etc.," This sounds strange. Does G'd then entertain any doubts so that He has to phrase this verse in such a way? Besides, G'd had already told Moses that the people would listen to his voice! Perhaps the thrust of the message is addressed to Moses' concerns, and G'd is saying to him: "In the event you are afraid that even these two miracles will not be sufficient to convince the Israelites of your authenticity and the authenticity of the message of the imminent redemption, I will let you perform another miracle which will be the clincher and as a result of which they will certainly believe you."

והיו המים אשר תקח מן היאור והיו לדם ביבשת, “and it will be that the waters which you will take from the river will turn into blood on the dry land.” Even though G’d had already told Moses that he was to take water from the river,ולקחת ממימי היאור, He repeated the word “you will take” once more. The idea was that Moses should not take the water from the river by means of some container, but directly by hand.

והיו לדם ביבשת “they (the waters) will turn into blood on the dry land.” The reason the Torah repeats the word והיו, is because the people will first observe that the water poured on the dry land was still water. Only afterwards will it turn into blood to prove there had not been a sleight of hand. This is why the Torah had to write והיו לדם ביבשת.

They will not turn into blood until they reach the dry land. You might ask: But why is the first והיו needed? The answer is: It is the way of Scripture to begin [a phrase] with והיו . (Re”m)

V. 9. Wenn sie nach den beiden Zeichen noch kein rechtes Vertrauen gewonnen haben sollten, so beginne gleichsam die עשר מכות vor ihren Augen, lasse sie sehen, dass du gesandt bist, Hand an das Land selbst zu legen, dass der dich sendende Gott wohl im Stande ist, diesem Staat den Stab des Daseins zu brechen. Der Nil ist ja die Stütze und die verkörperte Macht Mizrajims.

והיו לדם, “they will turn into blood. (the waters)” This was to serve as a sign that in the future the Egyptians would be slain through the dying of their firstborn and the drowning of the soldiers riding the chariots at the sea of reeds.

והיו לדם ביבשת, “and it (the waters) will turn into blood as soon as it hits the dry ground.” This water, once it had turned into blood on the ground, would not revert to become water again even when the plague had ended. This would serve as proof to the Egyptians that this phenomenon had had its origin in heaven. Anything that is manipulated by witchcraft etc., is reversible. Here we are dealing with real blood. (as opposed to the waters that had remained in the river or lakes)

והיו המים וגו׳ — Here we have the word והיו twice. It appears to me that if it was stated היאר לדם ביבשת מן והיו המים אשר תקח, I might understand it to mean that it would be turned into blood in his hand and that also when it reached the ground it would retain that state (more lit., it would be as it was). But now (as the text stands) it tells us that it would not become blood until it would come on the dry ground.

והיו, “they will be (remain).” Why has this word והיו been repeated? According to Rashi this means that the waters in question will not turn into blood until poured on the dry land. Nachmanides writes that there is no need for this explanation in order to justify the repeated use of the word והיו, as it is part of the usual syntax of the Torah to repeat certain words whenever the Torah wants to emphasise a point, or when there is a lengthy interval between the legislation becoming applicable and its being carried out in practice. A case in point is Leviticus 27,3 where the Torah repeats the words והיה ערכך. [you will note there that when the Torah speaks about shorter time frames such as ages between a month and five years, or five years and 20 years, instead of a time frame between 20-60 years, the words והיה ערכך are not repeated. Ed.] The first two miracles were temporary phenomena, the natural state of events being restored in short order. The water which Moses poured on the ground and which turned into blood, never reverted to becoming water; hence the words והיו לדם the second time would be aptly translated as “they will turn into blood permanently”.

G'd may also have wanted to tell Moses not to worry about aspects of the people's faith which could not be discerned on their faces. In the event that Moses worried that though externally the people would appear to believe both in him and in the success of his mission, they might harbour reservations which Moses could not detect. G'd reassured him on that score and told him that as a result of all three miracles they would believe him without reservations.

והיו המים….לדם ביבשת. "The waters…will turn into blood on the ground." Rashi has enlightened us by remarking that the repeated use of the word והיו in this verse indicates that the waters will not turn into blood until they touch the dry land. I only wish to add one more comment concerning the statement of our sages in Shemot Rabbah 9,10 that G'd eventually commanded Aaron and not Moses to perform this miracle in front of Pharaoh because the Nile had saved Moses' life at the time his mother placed him amongst the reeds and it would have been gross ingratitude to strike at the part of nature which had saved his life. In this case where G'd commanded Moses to strike the waters personally, He did so with the proviso that the waters would become blood only after they had already ceased to perform their life-giving and life-preserving function, i.e. after they had been spilled on the ground.

גם מתמול וגו׳ NEITHER FROM YESTERDAY [NOR FROM BEFORE YESTERDAY] — This teaches us that for an entire period of seven days God had been endeavouring to persuade Moses at the thornbush to go on his mission, for the terms מתמול and שלשום and מאז דברך imply three days, and the three-fold גם which is mentioned here point to three extensions of the period, making six in all, and therefore he had now reached the seventh day when he further said to him, (Exodus v. 13) “Send, I pray thee, by the hand of him whom Thou wilt send” — until God became angry with him (Exodus v. 14), and he accepted the mission (cf. Leviticus Rabbah 11:6, and Seder Olam ch. 5). All this reluctance was because he was unwilling to assume any dignity that would make him superior to his brother Aaron who was older than he and was also a prophet, as it is said (I Samuel 2:27) that the man of God spoke to Eli, the high-priest, in God’s name, “Surely I revealed myself unto the house of thy father when they were in Egypt” — thy father means Aaron. Similary in : (Ezekiel 20:5, 7) “And I made myself known unto them in the land of Egypt … and I said unto them, “cast ye away every man the detestable things of his eyes”, and that prophecy was spoken to Aaron (Exodus Rabbah 3:16; and cf. ברייתא דל"ב מדות).

AND MOSES SAID UNTO THE ETERNAL: O LORD, I AM NOT A MAN OF WORDS, NEITHER YESTERDAY NOR RECENTLY NOR SINCE THOU HAST SPOKEN UNTO THY SERVANT; FOR I AM SLOW OF SPEECH AND OF A SLOW TONGUE. “This teaches us that for an entire period of seven days, the Holy One, blessed be He, sat²⁶⁷“Sat.” This word is not found in our text of Rashi. and urged Moses to undertake the mission. [The expressions], ‘yesterday,’ ‘recently,’ and ‘since Thou hast spoken,’ imply three days, and the three-fold word gam — [here translated ‘neither’ or ‘nor,’ but literally meaning ‘also’] — points to a similar extension of time. Thus you have six days [that have passed], and it was now the seventh day [when Moses still refused to go on his mission].” Thus the language of Rashi.
In line with the plain meaning of Scripture, the purport of the verse is as follows: [Moses said,] “For I am slow of speech from heretofore and from time past, for I have been slow of speech from my youth on and all the more now that I am old, and also now since Thou hast spoken unto Thy servant, for Thou hast not removed the defect in my speech when Thou didst command me to go to Pharaoh to speak in Thy name. How then can I go before him?” Now Moses out of his great desire not to go [on the mission] did not pray before G-d, blessed be He, that He remove his defective speech from him, but he argued: “Since You have not removed my slowness of speech from me from the time You spoke to me to undertake this mission, do not command me to go, for it is inconceivable that the Master of everything should send a man of uncircumcised lips²⁶⁸Further, 6:12. to a king of the nations.” And since Moses did not pray [for the removal of his defect], the Holy One, blessed be He, did not desire to heal him. Instead, He said to him, I will be with thy mouth, and teach thee what thou shalt speak,²⁶⁹Verse 12. meaning that “you will be able to correctly express the words which I will put in your mouth.”
And in V’eileh Shemoth Rabbah,²⁷⁰Shemoth Rabbah 3:20. the Rabbis said: “The Holy One, blessed be He, said to Moses: ‘Do not mind it that you are not a man of words. Have I not made the mouth of all that speak, and him that I desire I made dumb? And have I not made the deaf and the blind, and opened their eyes to see and ears to hear? Now had I wanted that you be a man of words, you would have been so. But it is my desire that you continue to be so, and when you will speak [to Pharaoh] your utterance will be correct, for I will be with thy mouth.’²⁶⁹Verse 12. This is the sense of the verse, Now therefore go, and I will be with thy mouth.”²⁶⁹Verse 12.
According to this Midrash, it appears to me that the reason He did not desire to remove his defective speech from him was because a miraculous event,²⁷¹That such is the intent of Ramban — and not that Moses did not desire to have the defect removed — may be seen from the language of the Tur, who states: “Some scholars say He did not heal him because Moses’ defective speech came through a miracle.” as told by our Rabbis, happened to Moses when he was still before Pharaoh.²⁷²Ramban evidently refers to Shemoth Rabbah 1:31, wherein it is related that when Moses was still an infant and Pharaoh played with him on his lap, Moses took the crown from the king’s head and placed it on his own. Terrified at what had happened, the magicians advised that he be slain. But Jethro, who was one of the counsellors of the king, advised that he be tested as follows: Two dishes were to be placed before him, one containing pieces of gold and the other live coal. If he would stretch out his hand for the gold, it would be known that his taking the crown was done consciously, and therefore he was to be slain. But it he would grasp the live coal, he was innocent. When the test was made, Moses began stretching his hand toward the gold, but the angel Gabriel made him take the live coal. Thereupon Moses put his hand with the coal into his mouth, which burnt part of his tongue. As a result, he became slow of speech and of a slow tongue for all his life.
The correct interpretation appears to me to be that G-d said to Moses, “Who hath made man’s mouth? or Who maketh a man dumb? … Is it not I the Eternal²⁷³Verse 11. Who does all this? I could heal you. But now since you did not want to be healed, nor have you prayed to me about it, go and I will be with thy mouth,²⁶⁹Verse 12. and I will cause you success in My mission.” It is also possible that there is a hint in the verse, And the anger of the Eternal was kindled against Moses,²⁷⁴Verse 14. that He did not want to heal him, and that He sent him against his will.

לא איש דברים אנכי; I am not experienced in knowing how to address people in authority, such as kings.

ויאמר משה בי א־ד־ו־נ־י לא איש דברים אנכי, Moses said: "Please my Lord, I am not a man of words, etc." After Moses' previous arguments had been silenced, Moses now appealed to the attribute of Mercy. This is why the Torah emphasises the name of G'd Moses used here. Moses had not used that name of G'd previously. The word בי is a word of entreaty.

כי כבד פה וכבד לשון אנכי, I am not fluent in the Egyptian spoken by the upper classes of the aristocracy. The reason is that I fled Egypt before I had completed my education there and in the meantime I am 80 years of age. We find in Ezekiel 3,4-6 that the prophet is told to address the Jewish people as opposed to addressing the local aristocracy whose tongue is described as unintelligible speech and difficult language, i.e. עמקי שפה וכבדי לשון. Is it possible that a prophet who could communicate with G’d freely, i.e. “face to face,” and who received the Torah from Him and communicated it to his people should have been afflicted with a stutter? [one could add to the author’s rejection of the commonly held view of Moses’ speech impediment that if he functioned as High Priest for a full week before his brother Aaron took over, how was that possible if he was afflicted with what would be considered a disabling mum, physical blemish for even an ordinary priest? Ed.] Nowhere in our traditional literature of Tannaim and Amoraim (Talmud) is there such a view expressed, and we certainly have no reason to accept such views when they are expressed in hagiographical writings.

גם מתמול גם משלשום, “not since yesterday nor since the day before.” We learn from all this that G’d spent seven days trying to convince Moses to accept the mission voluntarily. Looking at the plain text and trying to understand the relevance of Moses’ remarks, (as if G’d were not aware of his speech defect as well as his not being an orator), Moses argued that seeing that the people know that I have had this speech defect since youth, they will be astounded that You have not first fixed this, but have sent a prophet who suffers from such a blemish. Would not Pharaoh consider it an insult to have to deal with someone like me who suffers from such a blemish? Seeing that Moses, basically, did not wish to assume the burden of leadership at all, he did not pray to G’d to heal his speech defect. He contented himself with saying that someone with a blemish such as he suffered from was not likely to be the most suitable candidate for the task proposed by G’d. G’d, for His part, did not want to heal his speech defect precisely because he had not prayed to Him to do this. He simply told him to go and fulfill his mission, and that He would come to his aid whenever required. Whatever he would be saying to Pharaoh would come out of his mouth clear without Pharaoh ever becoming aware of the fact that he suffered from any speech defect. Moses therefore experienced a double miracle in that whenever he faced Pharaoh he could suddenly speak normally, without there being even a trace of his usual handicap. Both what he said an how he said it sounded complexly normal. Some commentators attribute Moses’ speech defect to the well known story in the Midrash, according to which Moses’ life was spared on account of something which led to his speech defect. He was suspected by the astrologers of becoming the redeemer of the Jews, and when, as a two year old, he was put to the test, being given the choice of grabbing for the king’s crown or for glowing coals, he grabbed for the latter and put them to his mouth when an angel had given him a push in that direction. Seeing that his very speech defect, in a manner of speaking, had been his “life saver,” it would have been inappropriate to reverse this “defect.” Some commentators do not agree that G’d healed Moses’ speech defect at all, even when he used to stand before Pharaoh, but that G’d might have done so if Moses had not used it as an excuse not to do His bidding. As it were, G’d expressed His displeasure by not healing Moses of this defect.

כי כבד פה וכבד לשון אנכי. The very fact that Moses mentioned both these deficiencies of his separately is a clear indication that he had difficulty in formulating certain words which are articulated with the teeth. The consonants he had difficulty with were זשרצס, and when he referred to difficulty as כבד פה, he had in mind the letters דתל'ט.

V. 10. Wiederholt heißt es V. 8: והאמינו לקול האות ,ישמעו לקול האות und ist dies wohl nicht blos bildlicher Ausdruck für die Gewährung oder Versagung des Vertrauens; dies ist V. 9 ohne קול ausgedrückt. Vielmehr dürfte dies die belehrende und zu Geist und Herz redende Deutung des Zeichens sein, mit welcher das zu vollbringende Zeichen zu begleiten gewesen war, und wohl durfte Mosche sich sagen: hierzu bedarfs der Beredtsamkeit. — כי, von בהה wüste, unklar, eine Interjektion, welche eine ängstliche, unruhige Stimmung zum Ausdruck bringt. "Ich bin noch immer ängstlich, fühle die Fähigkeit nicht, den Auftrag zu vollbringen."

ויאמר משה בי אדוני, Moses responded by saying: בי אדוני, “please O Lord, etc.” Moses pointed out that he had been asked to face Pharaoh and his advisors who had command of all seventy languages, and would ridicule him when addressing him in any of these languages which he did not have any command of. They would then add: “In whose name and language do you come to speak to us?” G–d reminded him that it had been He who had enabled Adam to give the proper names in the in all the languages to all of His creatures. (Genesis 2,20) [It did not say there שם in the singular mode, but in the plural mode, i.e. that he named each animal in each of the seventy languages.] If He had been able to enable Adam to do this, Adam who had eaten from the tree of knowledge, it would require only a minor adjustment of Moses’ faculties for him to be able to do so also, and He implied that He would do so immediately, seeing that he had been selected to perform much greater deeds than had Adam. An alternate interpretation of G–d’s response: The words: מי שם פה, “Who has provided a new mouth, etc;” surely the One Who provided the first mouth in the first place at the time of creating human beings with a mouth to express their thoughts. (Attributed to Rabbi Yoseph.) Rabbi Ovadiah interpreted the answer as a rebuke to Moses, who was surely aware of G–d’s abilities, and if He had given Moses a mouth to speak with, He was surely also aware of Moses’ speech defect, and did not need a reminder from him. It is within My power to remedy this. [G–d did not say that He would remedy this, and if so when He would do so. Ed.]

בי אדוני, this is the name of G-d spelled with the letters אדני; (not permitted to erase)

כבד פה SLOW OF SPEECH (lit. heavy of mouth) — I speak heavily (with difficulty); old French balbus. (English = stammerer).

גם מתמול, גם משלשום, neither when I was a stranger in a foreign land, nor when I grew up in Pharaoh’s palace, nor since You have spoken to me and I have responded.

Alternatively, we can understand the word בי as a pronoun in which case Moses would have answered G'd that he considered his own unsuitability for the mission as due to בי, his own shortcomings. As soon as the people would become aware of him stammering they would realise that even after he pronounced the words he had no command of language. They would reject him. Moses added the words גם מתמול גם משלשום, to point out that despite his repeated conversations with G'd, G'd had not cured him of his deformity. It appeared therefore that he was meant to suffer from this deformity also in the future. If so, the people would surely reject him because they would think that if G'd had spoken to him He would first have cured him of that blemish. (He left the last part of the sentence unspoken).

גם מתמול וגו׳. Es scheint, dass dieses ganze Zwiegespräch mit seinen Reden und Entgegnungen nicht rasch aufeinandergefolgt, dass vielmehr Mosche über das einzelne mit sich zu Rate gegangen und dann Gott seine Bedenken vorgetragen habe, die auch bis hierher nicht von Gott missbilligt worden sind. — כבד פה ist wohl die Mangelhaftigkeit des Sprachorgans überhaupt, כבד לשון die Schwerfälligkeit der Zunge insbesondere: "Ich kann meinen Mund überhaupt schwer in Bewegung setzen, und dann stoße ich auch mit der Zunge an, habe sie nicht in meiner Gewalt." Es ist aber eine böse Sache, wenn ein Redner, und noch dazu ein Volksredner — ausgelacht wird. Es gehört viel Verstand und Verständnis dazu, die Mängel eines Redners um des Inhaltes willen zu übersehen, eine Einsicht, die von einer Volksmenge mit Frauen und Kindern nicht leicht zu erwarten ist.

לא איש דברים אנכי, this verse is incomplete, and it must be understood as follows: “Please, O Lord, I have not been a man of eloquent tongue since my birth already.” By saying that he was not eloquent “yesterday, i.e. אתמול,” it follows that earlier, i.e. “the day before yesterday,” i.e. שלשום, I had been even less eloquent. I have also not become more eloquent since My Lord has seen fit to speak to me.”If we were to take the text at face value, how would we explain that Moses proceeds first backwards in time, i.e. “yesterday and the day before yesterday,” and then jumps to the present? He should have said: “I am not eloquent since You spoke to me, nor have I been eloquent the day previously, nor the day before that.”

גם מאז דברך אל עבדך, “neither since You have spoken to Your servant.” He meant to tell G-d that having been worthy to be addressed by G-d had not enabled him to henceforth speak more eloquently, (or distinctly).

כי כבד פה ובד לשון אנכי, “for I suffer from a speech handicap.” He implies that this handicap has been his ever since he was forced to flee from Egypt. I fled from Egypt when I was a young man of 20. Now that I am 80 years old I have forgotten to speak the Egyptian language, but Aaron my brother never left Egypt and he know how to speak Egyptian well. [I believe that our author feels uncomfortable with implying that Moses would have criticised G-d for having been born with this handicap. Ed.]

כי כבד פה וכבד לשון אנכי, the reason why I do not possess this facility is because the physical tools with which to express my thoughts are defective. I have therefore never even made the effort to develop this facility (compare Isaiah 50,4) לדעת לעות את יעף דבר, “to know how to speak timely words to the weary.”

מי שם פה וגו׳ WHO HATH MADE MAN’S MOUTH etc.? — Who taught you to speak when you were arraigned in judgment before Pharaoh on account of the Egyptian whom you slew?

WHO HATH MADE MAN’S MOUTH? This is a reference to man’s power of speech because it resides in the mouth. Similarly: Safa echad²⁷⁵Genesis 11:1. [literally: “one lip”] (one language); that speak ‘s’fath’ Canaan²⁷⁶Isaiah 19:18. [literally: “the lip of”] (the language of Canaan).

מי שם פה לאדם?, Who provided the natural infrastructure for nature to be able to provide the body’s equipment?

ויאמר ה׳ אליו מי שם פה, G'd said to him: "Who has given man a mouth, etc." G'd criticised Moses. He should have relied on the fact that the One who provides others with the ability to speak without impediment could also do the same for him. If G'd had failed to do so thus far, surely He must have had an adequate reason. If and when the need arose, G'd would surely remedy Moses' deformity. G'd responds with the words (verse 12) "and now go and I will be with you." He does not, however, assure Moses that He will cure him of his deformity. It is also possible that G'd only hinted to Moses that he should express repentance at his lack of trust that G'd would cure him.

מי שם פה לאדם?, “Who has equipped man with a mouth?” The Torah refers to the mouth here as an instrument of formulating speech.

[And who made] his servants deaf. The Re”m asks: If Pharaoh became dumb and exerted no effort to kill Moshe, why did Hashem also need to make his servants deaf and blind? The Re”m answers: [Originally, Pharaoh spoke up and ordered Moshe’s death. And] after he heard of Moshe’s escape, he commanded his servants to give chase and capture him. It was then that all his servants became deaf. And when Pharaoh saw that Moshe was not captured, he thought they gave chase but did not find him. Thus Pharaoh did not exert any effort to send many more servants from all areas to find and capture Moshe and have him executed. Instead, he kept silent and went his way.

V. 11. "Bin ichs nicht, ה׳?" Derselbe, der ich Stab in Schlange und Schlange in Stab umwandle? Kann ich nicht auch den Stammelnden zum Beredtesten und den Beredten zum Stammelnden machen? Gerade ein stammelnder Mensch war der geeignete zu dieser Sendung. Jedes Wort dieses Stammelnden selbst wird zum אות. Wenn der sonst stammelnde Mann in Gottes Auftrag fließend spricht, so bringt jedes Wort seine Beglaubigung mit sich. —

מי שם פה לאדם “Who has provided man with a mouth to speak with?” G-d replies that since it is He Who has given man the power of speech when He created the species, it was He who has given or restricted his power of speech. Clearly, if it was His will to do so, He could correct his handicap. G-d, as previously, answers Moses point by point.

או מי ישום אלם OR WHO MAKETH THE DUMB — Who made Pharaoh dumb so that he could not insist upon the carrying out of his command to kill you? Who made his ministers deaf so that they could not hear when he gave orders concerning you? And the executioners whose task it was to slay — who made them blind so that they could not see when you fled from the platform (raised place of execution) and escaped? (Midrash Tanchuma, Shemot 10)

OR WHO MAKETH A MAN DUMB? Scholars have explained²⁷⁷The difficulty presents itself: Since the absence of a property is nothing positive and dumbness is the lack of the property of speech, how can one speak of “the making” of dumbness when it is nonexistent? See Rambam’s Moreh Nebuchim, III, 10, where the author discusses this problem. The answer, quoted here by Ramban, that it refers back to “the man,” suggesting, “Who can create a man without the capacity of speech?” is mentioned there by Rambam. that this refers back to man, meaning: “Who maketh a man that is dumb?” That is to say, “Who has created a man without the capacity of speaking?” “The making” thus refers to the making of man, but as regards the absence of the power of speech, you cannot speak in terms of “making,” for it is non-existence, the lack of the power of speech. Perhaps because man has a speaking soul,²⁷⁸See Ramban on Genesis 2:7 (Vol. I, pp. 66-69) on the great significance of this point. and, for people who lack this capacity, it is due to some obstruction in the veins of the tongue, it is then possible to say, “Who made the dumbness?” [since the making of the obstruction required an act]. Now the Rabbi [Moshe ben Maimon] said in the Moreh Nebuchim²⁷⁹Moreh Nebuchim, III, 10. that it may be said of him who removes a certain property that he produced the absence of that property, for they say of him who puts out the light that he has produced darkness. In accordance with this view, Rambam explains the verse, I form the light and create darkness, I make peace and create evil,²⁸⁰Isaiah 45:7. [for darkness and evil are non-existent things].

או מי ישום אלם?, “or Who makes (man) dumb?” The verb ישום, refers back to the word אדם in the first half of our verse. G’d does not “make“ man dumb, as dumbness is the lack of something, something similar to “nothing,” in the sense that it did not require to be created or refined. If the Torah, nonetheless, created the impression as if G’d had made some people “dumb,” perhaps the reason is that man is considered a נפש מדברת, “a personality equipped with the power of speech.” When one encounters a human being who lacks this power, one assumes that someone, i.e. Gd, had locked the power of expressing itself within that personality, and had made him dumb. The word אלם is the opposite of the word פה, mouth, just as the word פקח is the opposite of the word עור, blind; and the word חרש describes someone not equipped with the sense of hearing. Seeing that the word פקח can be applied to both eyes and ears, describing a lack of perceptive powers of the eyes or ears, we encounter such expression as לפקוח עינים,עינים פקוחות , i.e. “to open one’s eyes”, or “open eyes”, as otherwise we could not be certain in which mode the word פקח was being used at the time. Some commentators view the line מי שם פה simply as a rebuke to Moses, G’d saying: “did you really think that I was unaware that you had a speech impediment?” Surely, seeing that I have made you, you need not remind Me of such matters!”

Is it not I, that My Name is Adonoy, who did all this? [Rashi adds“that My Name” to explain that] it does not mean “My essence is Adonoy.” For it is written (Shemos 6:3), “My Name Adonoy I did not make known to them.” The reason Rashi says, “ ששמי ה (that My Name is Adonoy)” instead of simply “ שמי ה' (My name is Adonoy),” is that it would otherwise mean Hashem is informing us of His Name, which is Adonoy. And if so, how does it relate back to [the beginning of the verse]: “Who gave man a mouth . . .”? But with the added ש it means: “Who gave man a mouth? . . . It is I, that My Name is Adonoy.” Rashi’s further addition, “Who did all this?” refers back to “Who gave man a mouth . . .”

On the other hand, one may read meaning into what G'd did not say, i.e. that He did not instruct Moses how he could ensure that G'd would provide him with a healthy mouth, i.e. the equipment to impress people with his eloquence. G'd did not even hint that He is in the habit of rectifying defects such as speech defects that did not originate at birth. He declared that He provides the initial equipment, i.e. a sense of hearing, a sense of sight, etc. G'd did not refer to His taking remedial action in that regard. We are therefore at a loss as to what precisely G'd wanted to convey with His reply in verse 12.

אִלֵם , von אלם, binden: dessen Zunge gebunden ist. — חרש, von חרש, pflügen: der Taube "pflügt" nur seinen Gedankenacker, aber es werden keine Saaten von außen in den Boden seines Denkvermögens eingestreut. — פקח, das verstärkte בקע ,פקע, ausklaffen: der ein ungewöhnlich offenes Organ hat. — עוֹר ,עור: Haut, עור wachen und nackt sein. Grundbedeutung von עור: den äußeren Eindrücken blosgestellt sein, daher: Haut, das den menschlichen Körper für die Eindrücke empfänglich machende Organ, der Tastsinn. Während des Schlafes ist die Empfänglichkeit gleichsam in das Innere des Menschen zurückgezogen; je tiefer der Schlaf, je weniger steht der Mensch durch seine Haut in Verbindung mit der Außenwelt. Mit dem Erwachen tritt wieder die Wahrnehmung durch die Haut ein. עִַוֵר ist der "Hautmensch", der Tastmensch, der Blinde, der nur durch sein Tastorgan die Körper der Außenwelt wahrnimmt. —

אלם, “dumb,” this is spelling out the first of the faculties that G-d has equipped the human species with, i.e. speech; חרש, refers to the ability to hear sounds. [Thus far G-d mentions physical faculties. Ed.]פקח, “intelligent;” the reason why this faculty is inserted here before the sense of sight, is that although both hearing correctly and seeing correctly, are merely physical functions, they require the abstract faculty of intelligence to become meaningful to a human being. Compare: Isaiah 42,20: ולא תשמור פקוח אזנים ולא ישמע, “with ears open he hears nothing.” Or: verse 7 in the same chapter of Isaiah: לפקוח עמים עורות, “opening eyes deprived of light.”

הלא אנכי ה' DID NOT I whose name is THE LORD do all this?

We must assume that in verse eleven G'd asserted His sovereignty inasmuch as He is the supreme intelligence having provided man with the organs necessary including a mouth, etc. Considering all this Moses should understand that if he was plagued by a deformity this was not accidental or an oversight but was part of an overall design by G'd who knows best. It is precisely because G'd had not seen fit to remedy Moses' deformity that the latter should have given Him credit for knowing what He was doing. Most of you are familiar with the aggadah reported in Shemot Rabbah 1,25 according to which the young Moses playfully removed Pharaoh's crown and placed it on his own head. Some of Pharaoh's advisers were alarmed at this and saw in it an omen of the future. They decided to test the child by placing two bowls in front of him. One contained glowing coals, the other glittering jewels. If Moses were to try and grab for the jewels he would be considered as potentially dangerous to Pharaoh and would be executed; if he grabbed for the glowing coals this would be seen as proof that his having removed Pharaoh's crown had only been a youthful prank by a child with average or below average intelligence. According to the aggadah, Moses was about to grab for the jewels when an angel guided his hands to the coals and he burned his mouth. As a result he was afflicted with a stammer. G'd hinted to Moses that unless He had seen some positive value in Moses' burning his mouth at that time He would not have allowed this to happen. G'd either allows something like this to happen because of something that will happen in the future, or it is retribution for some sin committed, something that could not apply in Moses' case. Rabbi Ami said in Shabbat 55 that no one is saddled with afflictions unless he has become guilty of some sin. If someone suffers from a stutter such as Moses, this too is considered an affliction. If so, it would have been incumbent for Moses to know the reason for his affliction and to remove its cause and then to pray to G'd concerning removal of his affliction. The fact that he did not do so indicates that his affliction had nothing to do with any sin of his. This is why G'd said to him: ועתה. This is to be understood as contradicting previously held convictions. In other words, there was no need for Moses to blame himself for his stutter and to take remedial action.

או עור, “or blind?” Rashi understands this as a question concerning who made the Egyptians blind when Moses fled and as a result of their blindness they did not find him. He bases himself on Exodus 2,15: וישמע פרעה, “Pharaoh heard,” but he could not see. According to Rashi, Pharaoh’s executioner’s sword was blunted by Moses’ neck becoming rock hard. (Jerusalem Talmud tractate B’rachot chapter 9, halachah 1)

As to his concern that Israel would not believe in his leadership because of his stammer, G'd told Him that He would assist him and teach him what to say.

הלא אנכי “Is it not I?” Possibly the addition of the word י-ה-ו-ה at the end of this verse is a reference to the emanation בינה, (נשמה) which is given an outlet by means of the power of speech possessed by man. This idea is reflected in (Job 32,8) “but truly it is the spirit in man, the breath of Shaddai that gives them understanding.” Psalms 45,2 alludes to this when the sons of Korach observe: “I speak my poem to a king; my tongue is the pen of an expert scribe.” I have made some comment on this phenomenon on Genesis 1,26 נעשה אדם .

The words: לך ואנכי אהיה עם פיך "go and I shall be with your mouth," was an ironclad answer valid as long as Moses had not actually commenced his mission. As long as he had not yet become G'd's instrument there was no reason to cure his stammer. This is why G'd urged Moses by saying: "Go!" He implied that if Moses were to accept this mission he would notice that as soon as he began speaking his stammer would have disappeared. G'd said: והוריתיך אשר תדבר; there is a subtle difference between this and את אשר תדבר, which is what we would have expected. G'd did not tell Moses that He would teach him what to say, but He told Moses that He would demonstrate to him that he had developed fluency in speaking, etc. The reason G'd used the word: "I will teach you" instead of "I will show you," is that Moses was to notice that his cure was not something temporary, only for the benefit of fulfilling his mission, but that it would remain the norm from then on.

ואנכי אהיה עם פיך. To enable you to make full use of man’s tools to deliver words by mouth.

V.12. הור׳תין, nicht von ירה, sondern von הרה, einen lebendigem Keim sich aufnehmen (wie הוליך von הורה .(הלך: einen organisch-lebendigen Keim in den andern legen. Geistig ist es der edelste Ausdruck für Lehren. Das Gelehrte soll, als geistiger Keim in das Gemüt des andern gelegt, dieses so ganz in Anspruch nehmen und so in ihm zum geistig lebendigen Organismus erwachsen, wie der Keim im Mutterschoß.

עם פיך, “I will heal your handicap so that you can speak clearly and distinctly. “When Moses realised that all his objections thus far had been useless, including the hints he gave G-d concerning his basic unfitness due to his speech defect, he revealed that his real reason was that he did not want to deprive his older brother, the first born Aaron, of that honour. He knew that Aaron was an eloquent orator. This is why he concluded with the suggestion that G-d should appoint Aaron who during Moses’ many years of being in Midian had been the leader of the Jewish people. He phrased it by saying: “please send the one that You have seen fit to send up to now, as long as it is not I.”At that point, G-d became angry (verse 14) pointing out that Aaron would be very pleased to accept the mission G-d would appoint him to become His spokesman. He will be very happy to meet Moses again, and to hear that his brother Moses had become a prophet. He would not be jealous of him at all, as Moses had unfairly suspected. At this point, Moses accepted the mission and set out to perform it.

והוריתיך, I will also teach you how to effectively address people of Pharaoh’s standing.

ביד תשלח signifies by the hand of him whom Thou art accustomed to send; viz., Aaron (Exodus Rabbah 3:16). Another explanation is: by the hand of some other person whom Thou wilt be pleased to send — for in the end “I” shall not bring them into the land of Palestine nor shall “I” become their deliverer in the future — and You have many messengers! (Pirkei DeRabbi Eliezer 40)

SEND, I PRAY THEE, BY THE HAND OF HIM WHOM THOU WILT SEND. “This means by the hand of him whom You are accustomed to send, and that is Aaron. Another explanation is: by the hand of some other person whom Thou wilt be pleased to send, for in the end I will not bring them into the Land, nor am I destined to be their deliverer in the future. Thou hast many messengers.” Thus the language of Rashi. And Onkelos said: “by the hand of him who is fit to be sent.” This means: “Send by the hand of him who speaks eloquently, who will be fit and proper for an honorable mission such as this. Do not send by the hand of one who is slow of speech and of a slow tongue and be with his mouth when he speaks before Pharaoh, since it is not a matter of respect and honor that Your messenger be one of uncircumcised lips,²⁶⁸Further, 6:12. and none of the people will heed him when he speaks before the king, since this will appear to them as a defect.”
The correct interpretation appears to me to be that Moses said, “Send, I pray Thee, by the hand of anyone whom Thou wilt send, for there is not a person in the world who is not more fit for the mission than I.” The reason for all this obduracy of Moses was his great meekness, above all the men that were upon the face of the earth,²⁸¹Numbers 12:3. as he could not see himself assuming importance and speaking to the king and [taking] glory in saying, “The Eternal sent me,” nor [to speak] to Israel to bring them out from Egypt and be king²⁸²Deuteronomy 33:5. over them.

ביד תשלח, by means of anyone else You wish to entrust with this mission as long as it is not I.

שלח נא ביד תשלח. Use someone who is already naturally gifted for such an assignment, instead of someone like me whom You first have to train for the task, so that in effect You would do the talking.

בי אדני שלח נא ביד תשלח. "Please my Lord, send the one whom You usually send on missions." Moses meant that he did not hold G'd responsible for his stammer; he was well aware that G'd could cure it. If He had not done so it was clear to him that the fault must be his; therefore he recommended that G'd send someone better qualified than himself on that mission.

שלח נא ביד תשלח, “please my Lord, send through whomever You will send!” According to Onkelos, Moses referred to people whom G’d had used in the past as His messengers, and who had a record as being fit for such errands. He implies that among those there were people who were quite willing to be G’d’s spokesmen as well as being spokesmen of the people, people who also possessed the gift of oratory. He meant that even though G’d had assured him that He would be at his side every step of the way, it was not fitting for the representative of G’d to be a person who was afflicted with such a blemish as he was afflicted with. During all the time that Moses had been debating with G’d about whether to accept this assignment, he had been secretly hoping that perhaps G’d would cure him of his affliction, and this would be a sign that he would indeed be able to carry out his assignment successfully. When he had become convinced that this would not happen, he had suggested to G’d to send someone else. Nachmanides understands the words שלח נא ביד תשלח, as meaning that G’d should send anyone else in preference to himself, seeing that no one on earth could be as unsuitable for this task as he was. Moses’ refusal to accept the position of leadership was motivated exclusively by his exceptional modesty and humility. Some understand the comment by Moses, as if he told G’d: “seeing that I am not fit to deliver oral messages due to my handicap, let me present my case by letter, i.e. provide me with a written document to submit to Pharaoh, outlining our case for being released from bondage.”

בי אדו-ני שלח נא ביד תשלח, “please My Lord, send through whomever You usually send!” We have explained previously (3,13) that Moses had been appointed by the attribute of Justice which formed a minor part of the attribute of Mercy. This is the reason that he used this attribute of G’d here which reflects the attribute of Justice. The aspect of the attribute of Justice is contained in the letters אי at the beginning and the end of the word א-ד-נ-י. These two letters were “borrowed” from the names אהיה and י-ה-ו-ה- respectively. The letter י has the vowel kametz, alluding to the attribute of Mercy as explained in connection with 3,13. The words ביד תשלח are best translated as “by means of someone qualified to undertake a mission on Your behalf.” By saying this Moses wanted to make clear that he did not consider himself qualified to speak to the king. He implied further that it would not reflect honour on G’d to have to dispatch a stammering representative as if no one else better qualified was at G’d’s disposal. This is also the way Onkelos translates this verse, i.e. ביד מאן דכשר למשלח.

Through the one You usually send, namely, Aharon. This raises a difficulty: Why did Moshe not expressly say: “Send Aharon”? Thus Rashi offers the alternate explanation. And the alternate explanation raises a difficulty: It is not plausible that Moshe would himself utter this bad matter. Thus the first explanation is needed, too. (Maharshal)

V. 13. Ich fühle mich nicht brav, nicht weise, nicht tüchtig genug, bin nicht der dazu geeignete Mensch; die Sendung wird jedenfalls ausgeführt werden, aber durch mich zuerst misslingen, und wirst du dann doch einen andern, bessern, tüchtigern schicken: schicke diesen andern lieber gleich. Diese Verzweiflung an sich selbst ist das lebendigste Zeugnis der Göttlichkeit alles dessen, was durch Mosche ausgeführt und gesprochen worden, das lebendigste Zeugnis dafür, dass die תורה wohl durch Mosche, aber nicht aus oder von Mosche ist, für die Wahrheit, die ungedeutelte Wahrheit des Fundamentalsatzes: וידבר ד׳ אל משה. Man ist ferner in gewissen Kreisen so gerne geneigt, die Prophetie der נביאי ד׳, auf deren Sendung das ganze Judentum beruht, in das Gebiet der Ekstase, einer Ent- und Verzückung zu verweisen, wo der Mensch willenlos wird und Dinge sieht, hört, spricht und übt, von denen er nachher nichts weiß. Dem entgegengesetzt sehen wir hier vollständig, wie Mosche Gott gegenüber nicht nur das vollständigste Bewusstsein, sondern auch die vollste selbständige Willenskraft bewahrt und äußert, und noch im letzten Augenblicke seine weigernde Bitte ausspricht. Es dokumentiert dies die vollste Freiheit des Bewusstseins, der Besinnung, der Überlegung und der Willensentschließung, mit einem Worte: des nüchternsten, klarsten Geistes- und Gemütszustandes unseres Nabi in dem höchsten Momente seines Lebens. Wenn die Weisen das bedeutsame Wort ausgesprochen: מעולם לא ירדה שכינה למטה מעשרה, und darin wohl auch die Wahrheit bezeugt sein dürfte, dass das Göttliche nie in das Gebiet des Menschlichen also hinübergegriffen, daß damit das Menschliche im Menschen völlig aufgegangen und zum unfreien, willenlosen Werkzeug des Göttlichen geworden: so spricht sich ja schon der Name שכינה als ein Moment aus, das dem Menschlichen שכן wird, in die nächste Nähe zum Menschen tritt, keineswegs aber ihn überwältigend absorbiert. So vermessen es wäre, über das, was נבואה und רוח הקדש ist, etwas Positives aussagen zu wollen, da נבואה eine Tatsache ist, die man als נביא erfahren haben müsste, um aussprechen zu können, was sie sei: so berechtigt, ja pflichtgeboten dürfte gewiss eine jede Erwägung sein, die aus dem von Gott Mitgeteilten wenigstens klar zu machen strebt, was נבואה, was wahre Prophetie nicht sei, damit der Begriff dieser Fundamental-Tatsache rein gehalten werde von allem jenem Krankhaften und Fremdartigen, womit man sie "aufräumend" so gerne zu verquicken bestrebt ist.

שלח נא ביד תשלח, “please entrust this mission to someone Whom You have been in the habit of entrusting such missions to.” Moses implied that just as those messengers of G–d had been provided with a mouth without impediment, he too would be prepared to accept the mission if his speech impediment were to be remedied first.

ויאמר בי אדוני, the word adonay is again the name of G-d spelled with אד.

ויחר אף AND [THE LORD’S] WRATH GLOWED — Rabbi Joshua the son of Korcha said: wherever the term “and God’s wrath glowed” occurs in the Scriptures it leaves a definite impression (mention of punishment of some kind follows), but here no such result is mentioned, for we do not find that any punishment came upon Moses in consequence of that anger of God. Rabbi José said to him: As a matter of fact here, too, some definite result is mentioned, viz., הלא אהרן אחיך הלוי “Is not Aaron the Levite thy brother?” — which implies, that he was destined to be a Levite (an attendant on the priests) and not a priest, — and I intended that the priesthood should proceed from you. Now, however, this shall not be so, but he will be the Priest and you the Levite, as it is said, (I Chronicles 23:14) “But as for Moses the man of God his sons are named among the tribe of Levi” (Zevachim 102a).

I KNOW THAT HE [Aaron] CAN SPEAK WELL. That is to say, “It is revealed before Me that, out of his love for you, Aaron will willingly speak on your behalf even if I were not to command him. And also, behold, he cometh forth of his own bidding to meet thee, and when he seeth thee he will be glad in his heart, and he will not be jealous over your distinction in this honorable mission.” The reason that it was necessary that G-d tell Aaron, Go into the wilderness to meet Moses,²⁸³Further. Verse 27. was in order to inform him of the road by which Moses was coming. It is possible that Aaron heard of Moses’ departure from Midian, and on his own accord he went out to meet him. Afterwards, when he was already on the way, it was said to him, “Go into the wilderness to meet him, for there you will find him.”

ויחר אף ה' במשה, such an expression always means that G’d’s anger had tangible consequences for the one at whom G’d was angry. In this instance, the encounter described in verse 24 where G’d is described as seeking to kill him is such a consequence. I already explained on Genesis 32,29 that Yaakov’s having had to limp was a punishment for him.

הלא אהרן אחיך? If it had been My intention to appoint someone naturally suited for the task, there is your brother Aaron, the Levite, undoubtedly a wise man as are all his brothers the Levites.

ויתר אף ה׳ במשה, G'd became angry at Moses, etc. I believe that as a result of G'd's anger Moses did indeed remain afflicted with his stammer even after he undertook the mission in the end. The Torah says that G'd became angry במשה, at Moses; I understand that to be a reference to his body, i.e. it had an effect on his deformity. Our sages in Zevachim 102 who suggested that Moses referred to his older brother Aaron when he made the comment G'd found objectionable, believed that Moses who had been meant to also fulfil the function of High Priest was deprived of this function as a result of G'd's anger. The Talmud's comment is perfectly compatible with my own, as the words ויחר אף hinted at two things.

ידעתי כי דבר ידבר, “I know that he is a fluent orator.” This means that G’d tells Moses that He is aware that Aaron is willing to act as his mouthpiece even without being commanded by G’d to do so. As proof of Aaron’s helpful attitude, He tells Moses that he is on his way to meet his younger brother, not harbouring any resentment that his younger brother has been chosen for such a fateful mission. The only reason G’d had to tell him to meet Moses in the desert was to inform him of where in the desert he would find his brother. It is also possible that Aaron had heard that Moses had left Midian and that he had gone forth to meet him without even having received any instruction from G’d on the subject. Once Aaron had been on the way, G’d gave him directions where to meet Moses.

ויחר אף ה' במשה, “The Lord became angry at Moses.” Whenever the Torah mentions that G’d became angry at someone this has tangible consequences. Here too G’d’s anger had immediate consequences as our sages (Shemot Rabbah 3,17) comment that as a result of Moses’ last remarks he lost the entitlement to become the High Priest. This is the significance of G’d saying: “is there not Aaron the Levite?” G’d meant that as of now Aaron had been slated to become the Priest instead of remaining merely a Levite. According to another Midrash, the result of Moses’ improper remark was that he would now never be cured of his speech defect. G’d could have honored Moses by curing his affliction at least as easily as He honored Moses by making the skin of his face radiate light. The implication of the words: “is there not your brother Aaron the Levite? I know that he can speak fluently,” is that by contrast Moses would never be cured from his stammer.

The adornment of the breastplate. The word עדי means “ornament.”

V. 14. Wir begegnen hier zum erstenmale dem Namen "Lewi" als Ausdruck des Charakters. Zum Lewi gehört Kraft, Mut und Entschiedenheit, diese besitzt dein Bruder, ihn werde ich nicht lange zu bitten haben, dem brennt schon das Wort auf der Zunge, er weiß auch schon darum und wird sich freuen, dass dir eine solche Sendung geworden.

וראך ושמח בלבו, “as son as he sees you he will rejoice in his heart.” The reason why G–d had to tell him this was that Moses had not wanted to usurp the status of his older brother as he feared that this might lead to his becoming jealous of him. (Sh’mot Rabbah 2,27. G–d told him that he had no reason to worry about this, and that He had already commanded Aaron to be on his way to be reunited with his brother whom he had not seen or heard from for many decades. (Exodus 4,27) Moreover, G–d also told him that all the people in Egypt who at one time had sought to have him executed had already died so that he did not have anything to fear for the safety of his person.

וראך ושמח בלבו “and when he sees you, he will be glad in his heart” He will be happy that you have become a prophet and he will not be jealous of you. When Moshe heard this, he immediately went to Egypt.

הנה הוא יצא לקראתך HE WILL BE GOING FORTH TOWARDS THEE, when you will be going to Egypt.

כי דבר ידבר הוא. He grew to maturity in Egypt, and he has complete mastery of the kind of Egyptian spoken by the upper classes, so that he will be listened to with respect.

כי ידעתיו כי דבר ידבר הוא, for I am well aware that he is an excellent speaker without needing training, וגם הנה הוא יוצא לקראתך וראך ושמח בלבו, and although he is on the way to meet you out of respect for you and your elevation to an even higher status than his own, he will undoubtedly be happy to serve as your interpreter full-heartedly.

וראך ושמח בלבו, “when he sees you he will be happy in his heart.” The Torah informs us with this comment that neither of the two brothers would be jealous of the other’s rank. This is what inspired David to sing (Psalms 133,1) “how good and how pleasant it is that brothers dwell together.” The Torah did not speak about Aaron being happy בפיו, with his “mouth,” i.e. expressing joy about Moses’ appointment verbally, but it wrote that he was “happy in his heart.” Rabbi Shimon bar Yochai comments that the heart which was so generous that it could be happy at the elevation to leadership of his younger brother was found worthy to wear the breastplate with the Urim veTumim (the parchment enabling him to communicate with G’d at will) as it is written "And they will be worn on the heart of Aaron" (Exodus 28,30 compare Tanchuma Shemot 27).

כי דבר ידבר, "for he will certainly speak," etc. The reason that G'd repeated the word דבר is that G'd indicated that though Aaron was able to speak fluently now, i.e. דבר, he would also speak in the future, ידבר, though he would also become afflicted with a handicap similar to that of Moses. On the other hand, in line with our explanation of the consequences of G'd's anger (which had not been spelled out in detail as yet), the word דבר may refer to G'd's instruction to Moses, whereas the words ידבר הוא have to be read together and tell us that Aaron would do what Moses had refused to do. The emphasis on הוא implies also that whereas he, Aaron would display fluency of speech, Moses would not be cured.

וראך ושמח בלבו AND WHEN HE SEETH THEE, HE WILL BE GLAD IN HIS HEART — not as you believe, that he will be angry with you because you have attained a high position. In consequence of this, Aaron was privileged to wear the ornament of the breastplate which was placed over his heart (cf. Exodus 28:29) (Shabbat 139a; Exodus Rabbah 3:17).

וגם הנה הוא יוצא לקראתך, "and he is also on the way to meet you, etc." If this is a continuation of G'd's praise of Aaron that he would be willing to speak although he too would stammer, this is additional praise for Aaron; the word וגם, "and also," is in place then. G'd is saying then that Aaron not only does not mind his handicap but he is glad to be able to perform a task G'd assigns to him. [I believe the reason the author says that Aaron suffered from a speech handicap is that he reads the words דבר־־ידבר as graphically describing the stutter. Ed.]

The word וגם may also be understood in conjunction with Shabbat 139 where we are told that Aaron was granted the position of High Priest in recognition of his being happy that his younger brother had been appointed as the redeemer. When we consider that G'd had decided not to cure Moses of his speech defect because he had declined the request by G'd to assume leadership of the people, the word וגם would refer to the additional result of that refusal by Moses.

The Torah may also have wanted to underline the virtues of Aaron and his humility. Normally, one could have expected him to be slighted for being appointed to be merely his younger brother's mouthpiece, but the Torah testified that far from feeling slighted, Aaron actually rejoiced over Moses' promotion. One of the lessons to be learned from this is that humility should not be carried to the point where one endeavours to escape fulfilling the will of the king (G'd). G'd had to tell Moses that Aaron would rejoice as the latter was not displaying this joy openly. The Torah could also have wanted to tell us that Aaron did display this joy on his face, but that G'd wanted Moses to know in addition that Aaron was equally joyful about Moses' appointment in his heart.

AND I WILL BE WITH THY MOUTH. I.e., “to teach you that which you are to speak to Pharaoh.” G-d now told Moses that Aaron will speak on his behalf only to the people, as it is said, And he shall be thy spokesman unto the people,²⁸⁴Verse 16. but Moses himself was to speak to Pharaoh. It is possible that this was out of respect to the king. But in the end, Moses came back and said, Behold, I am of uncircumcised lips, and how shall Pharaoh hearken unto me?²⁸⁵Further, 6:30. G-d then permitted him that he should not speak even to Pharaoh. This [consent] was a distinction to Moses, and therefore He said there, See, I have set thee in G-d’s stead to Pharaoh, and Aaron thy brother shall be thy prophet.²⁸⁶Ibid., 7:1 And the intent of the expression [here in the verse], and I will be with his [Aaron’s] mouth,²⁸⁷I.e., why was this promise necessary since Aaron was not defective of speech? is that his words will find favor with everyone that will hear them.

ושמת את הדברים בפיו ואנכי אהיה עם פיך ועם פיהו, even though I could put all these words in his mouth this is not sufficient; it is necessary that I personally, assist both you and him to make sure that Pharaoh will absorb the words with his heart. Otherwise, he might deal with you from a position of autocratic arrogance and simply expel you from his presence.

ואנכי אהיה עם פיך, “and I shall be with your mouth, etc.” I shall give you precise instructions what to say to Pharaoh. At this point, G’d did not say that Aaron would speak on his behalf. Aaron would only speak on Moses’ behalf to the people, not to Pharaoh. We know this from verse 16 ודבר הוא אל העם, that it would be Aaron’s task to address the people, but the people would know that he was the “mouthpiece.” The word נביאך, means that just as a prophet is G’d’s mouthpiece, so Aaron will now become Moses’ mouthpiece. It is possible that this arrangement was out of the desire to show deference to the Egyptian establishment, in particular Pharaoh personally, who might be insulted if he received the word of G’d not even through his prophet but through the prophet’s mouthpiece. In spite of these considerations, in the end, Moses queried that the chances of Pharaoh paying heed to a stammerer such as he, was too much to expect.

V. 15 f. Wir sehen hier bei dem geistigen Aufbau unseres Volkes eine eigentümliche Erscheinung, die fort und fort also geblieben, wir meinen: die Trennung der Lehre von der Beredtsamkeit. Mosche hatte so lange an den Mangel der Sprache nicht gedacht, bis ihm der Gottesauftrag wiederholt קול האותות erwähnte, eine Aufgabe der Beredtsamkeit, zu welcher er sich die Kraft versagt fühlte. Die Arbeit des Wortes im Dienste der Gotteslehre erscheint von vornherein zweiteilig: 1) vollständige und treue Präzisierung des Inhaltes, 2) Entgegenbringung dieses Inhaltes an das Volk in einer solchen Weise, dass er verstanden, begriffen und beherzigt werde. Diese Aufgabe finden wir auch bei den Weisen, diesen treuen Nachfolgern unseres Mosche und Aaron, vollständig getrennt. Da war der חכם, der den דין, die הלכה, den Gesetzesinhalt in begrifflicher Schärfe für den auffassenden Verstand rein und treu zu präzisieren, und der מתורגמן, der den vom חכם gegebenen halachischen Inhalt in fasslicher, erläuternder Rede dem Volke vorzutragen und eindringlich nahe zu legen hatte. Ebenso erscheint das Verhältnis der שמעתתא, des klar und präzisiert für den Begriff gegebenen Inhaltes des Gesetzes, zur אגדתא, dem die Gewinnung der Gemüter für die Aufnahme und Erfüllung der gesetzlichen Aufgabe bezweckenden Vortrage. Diese Teilung der Arbeit des Wortes ist für die reine Überlieferung des göttlichen Gesetzes höchst bedeutsam. Um für die Wahrheit Gemüter zu gewinnen, genügt es nicht bloß, den Lehrinhalt zu entwickeln, sondern muss man den Bildungsstand der zu Erleuchtenden und zu Gewinnenden berücksichtigen, muss an die vorhandenen Vorstellungen, Meinungen, Ansichten, Wünsche und Bestrebungen anknüpfen, muss das, was ist, als Ausgangspunkt nehmen und daran entwickeln, was sein soll. Das ist die Aufgabe eines Aaron, eines Meturgeman. Es erfordert dies die Gabe der Beredtsamkeit. Während "Reden" nur die klare und deutliche Darstellung einer zu erkennenden Wahrheit bedingt, will "Bereden" durchs Wort das Innere des Hörers packen und es nicht nur zur Erkenntnis, sondern zur Anerkenntnis bringen. Der "Beredte" läuft leicht Gefahr, indem er in die Anschauungsweise seines Publikums eingehen muss, aus derselben auch manches in den Kreis der von ihm zu bringenden Wahrheit hinüber zu nehmen, um sie mundgerecht zu machen, ihrer Schärfe zu nahe zu treten, ihre Reinheit durch Fremdartiges zu trüben und ihr Eingang durch Konzessionen zu schaffen. Er läuft nicht seltener Gefahr, viel Worte und wenig Inhalt zu produzieren. Einer Zeit, welcher "Beredtsein" so oft als Probe eines ganzen Mannes gilt, wäre viel Jämmerlichkeit erspart, wenn sie nach Weise der Väter die Gaben der חכמה und der Beredtsamkeit, die nur selten sich in gleichem Maße beisammen finden,

ודבר הוא לך means HE WILL SPEAK to the people ON THY ACCOUNT (לְךָ). This passage is proof, regarding every usage of לך and לי and לו and לכם and להם that follow after the verb דבר, that they all have the meaning of על “on account of”.

ודבר הוא לך, he will do the speaking on your behalf.

לאלוהים, so that he will perform miracles at your behest.

ודבר הוא לך אל העם, “and he will speak on your behalf to the people;” Ibn Ezra writes that this was not a demotion of some kind for Moses, but the very reverse. Aaron’s role in this is to be compared to the role of the mouth of a person which represents the thoughts of that person’s soul. The soul, by definition, is not visible, just as the angels are not visible, seeing they have no body. Moses therefore had been elevated to the stature of an angel by having Aaron as his interpreter. This is how we can understand G’d saying that Moses would be to Aaron similar to אלוקים. The word אלוקים throughout Scripture is a name symbolizing the majesty of G’d or that of His holy angels. The angels are the ones who familiarize us with what G’d is doing at certain times during our history. At any rate, Aaron, far from being demoted to being a mere “mouthpiece,” had been promoted to reveal the invisible thoughts of Moses, i.e. of what G’d had communicated to him.

This is an indication. In other words, this verse is one of the indicators. For Rashi has many other verses to prove that these words mean על , which denotes בשביל (for). [The proof here is that] if לך is to be taken literally, then it means that Aharon will speak to Moshe. If so, what does “to the people,” which follows it, mean? Therefore it must mean “for you,” i.e., “in place of you.”

יהיה לך לפה HE SHALL BE TO THEE INSTEAD OF A MOUTH — he will be to thee as a spokesman because thou art slow of speech (Exodus Rabbah 3:17).

תהיה לו לאלוהים, you will act as his superior, instructing him in what to do.

לאלהים means a superior and chief (cf. Onkelos).

AND THOU SHALT TAKE IN THY HAND THIS ROD, WHEREWITH THOU SHALT DO THE SIGNS. Concerning the rod, only one sign — that it turn into a serpent — has thus far been mentioned. But the [plural] expression “the signs” means “the signs which I will tell you.”
It appears to me that when G-d said to Moses, With all My wonders which I will do in his midst,²⁸⁸Above, 3:20. He informed him of all the wonders in detail, but Scripture speaks briefly, and this is the intent of the expression here, wherewith thou shalt do the signs.

ואת המטה הזה, even though this staff is not made from a particularly valuable type of wood I have sanctified it to serve as a sign for you. תקח בידך, as a symbol of authority to demonstrate that I have appointed you to change the rules of nature at your command.

ואת המטה הזה תקח בידך, "and take this staff in your hand, etc." According to the Zohar section 3 page 28 there were two staffs. The Torah then spoke about "this one" to tell Moses that he should not take the other staff.

אשר תעשה בו את האותות, “by means of which you will perform the miracles.” Although at this time, Moses had been instructed only to perform a single miracle, i.e. אות, not אותות, it was a hint to Moses that there would be a need for further demonstrations of G’d’s power. You will recall that G’d had spoken of כל נפלאותי, “all My miracles,” already in Here the Torah is somewhat more specific than in the previous chapter. This is why here the Torah adds: אשר תעשה בו את האותות, with which you will perform the miracles, (pl.}

אשר תעשה בו את האותות, which you will command nature at My command, seeing that you have been appointed by Me for this task.

The expression "take in your hand" means "permanently;" The reason was that this staff should be a mark of distinction, something not unlike present-day rulers who carry a mace with them as a sign of their constitutional right to legislate. Moses took the "staff of G'd" with him as mentioned in verse 20 as a memento of this conversation and as a sign of his authority. G'd had said: "take it in your hand" so that we should not interpret that Moses took his staff like ordinary people take a walking-cane.

אשר תעשה בו את האותות, "the one with which you will perform the miracles." This may be a reference to the staff with which Aaron performed such miracles as turning it into a snake (7,10). According to the Zohar we have just quoted that staff became known as "the staff of Aaron;" G'd had commanded Aaron also to have his staff ready at all times. According to Targum Yonathan 2,21 the staff was made of sapphire and no one was able to even move it except Moses. Accordingly, the very fact that Moses could "take" it was a miracle in itself. The words וזה לך האות therefore meant that no one but Moses would be able to handle the staff.

וישב אל יתר חתנו AND HE RETURNED TO JETHRO HIS FATHER-IN-LAW, to obtain his permission to go to Egypt, for he had sworn to him that he would not leave Midian except by his permission (Nedarim 65a). He is here called יתר and he had seven names: Reuel, Jether, Jethro, Keni, Hobab, Cheber and Putiel (cf. Mekhilta d'Rabbi Yishmael 18:2)

וישב, he returned from the desert to his father-in-law Yitro.

אלכה נא ואשובה, in the interval I will leave my wife and children in your care.

אלכה נא, "I wish to go, etc." According to the agreement between Moses and Yitro reported in Shemot Rabbah 1,29, Yitro had made Moses swear an oath not to take Tzipporah away. Moses now had to ask Yitro to release him from that oath.

V. 18. לך לשלום. Tief und sinnig bemerken die Weisen, wie jeder lebendige Wandel auf Erden nur הליכה לשלום, nur ein Weg zum Frieden, ein Streben ist, Harmonie und Einklang aller Verhältnisse mit uns zu finden, nicht aber ein Eingehen in den Frieden.

וישב אל יתר חותנו, “Moses returned to his fatherinlaw Yeter.” (Yitro) He returned from the desert where he had the encounter at the thorn bush, in order to bring Yitro’s flock back to him. He had no idea when he would return to Midian.

לך לשלום, go ahead without worry, I will do what you asked.

ואראה העודם חיים, "and I want to see if they are still alive, etc." He did not tell Yitro a word about the mission G'd had asked him to undertake, seeing that G'd had not used the word לאמור when He had appointed Moses. We have repeatedly quoted Yuma 4 to the effect that one must not reveal information received privately unless authorised to do so.

לך לשלום, "go and be well!" Yitro forgave him his oath. We learn from this that no formal annulment is necessary if the second party to the oath himself expresses his agreement that it be invalidated.

FOR ALL THE MEN ARE DEAD — Who were these men? Dathan and Abiram: Really they were still alive, but they had come down in the world, having lost their property, and a poverty-stricken man may well be regarded as dead (Nedarim 64b).

AND THE ETERNAL SAID UNTO MOSES IN MIDIAN: GO, RETURN UNTO EGYPT, etc. Rabbi Abraham ibn Ezra said, “There is no strict chronological order in the narrative of the Torah,²⁸⁹In Verse 18 it says that Moses bid farewell to Jethro because he was ready to return to Egypt. Why then was it necessary now that G-d command him to return there? For this reason, Ibn Ezra renders Verse 19 as meaning: “now the Eternal had said.” and the explanation thereof is, ‘now the Eternal had said.’ There are many similar cases.”
But Ibn Ezra’s interpretation here is not correct. The first Divine communication, [i.e., that Moses return to Egypt], was not in Midian but at Mount Sinai.²⁹⁰Above, 3:10. Come now therefore, and I will send thee unto Pharaoh. In Midian He spoke to him only at this time, [as mentioned in the present verse]. However, when Moses accepted the mission by word of G-d to go to Egypt and he returned to Midian to obtain permission from his father-in-law, it was his intention to go alone and disguised. It is for this reason that Moses said to Jethro, Let me go, I pray thee, and return unto my brethren that are in Egypt, and see whether they be yet alive.²⁹¹Verse 18. That is to say, “I will see my brethren whether they be yet alive and I will return,” for it was to be in the nature of a visit by one who is anxious to see his brethren. But then the Eternal said to him in Midian, Go, return unto Egypt, that is to say, “Arise, go out of this land and return to the land of Egypt and have no fear there, for all those who sought to harm you have died, and stay there with the people until you will bring them forth from there.” Therefore Moses took his wife and children since it was the right way to bring them with him, insamuch as the children of Israel would have greater reliance on him because of it. [They would say]: “A free man in Midian who lives peacefully in his home with his children and with his wife, a son-in-law of the priest of the land, would not have brought them to be with slaves and make their lives bitter with hard service if his heart were not steadfast. He is trusting that they will soon go out from Egypt and that he will go up with them to the land of Canaan, and that it will then not be necessary for him to return to Midian to take his wife and his children from there.”

ויאמר ה' אל משה במדין, where he had settled at the time he had fled on account of Pharaoh as we know from 2,15. Now, while Moses was back in Midian, (in the civilised regions) G’d told Moses to return to Egypt as all the people whom had had reason to be afraid of had already died.. (compare 2,23)

כי מתו כל האנשים , both the king and his servants who tried to kill you. We explained this already in connection with 2,23 when Pharaoh’s death was reported.

אל משה במדין, to Moses in Midian. The reason that the Torah stresses that this communication from G'd to Moses took place in Midian is to praise Moses who was not afraid of his adversaries in Egypt at the time he argued against acceptance of the mission. All that concerned him was his own inadequacy for the gigantic task G'd wanted to charge him with. The Torah had to mention where the conversation took place as otherwise we would have assumed that the argument which swayed Moses was G'd's assurance that all the people who had tried to kill him had already died. Moses had already asked Yitro to release him from his oath before G'd mentioned that his pursuers were dead.

ויאמר ה' אל משה במדין, “the Lord said to Moses in Midian, etc.” Ibn Ezra reminds us that the Torah is not bound to narrate events in the order in which they occurred, and that what G’d is now reported as having told Moses, He had told him already on a previous occasion. Nachmanides disagrees with Ibn Ezra, saying that G’d’s first communication to Moses did not take place in Midian but at Mount Sinai (Mt. Chorev). According to him, G’d spoke with Moses only on this occasion while Moses was in Midian. It is possible that once Moses had reluctantly agreed to assume the mission G’d wanted him to perform, he returned once more to Midian to obtain his father-in-law’s permission to return to Egypt. It was his intention to do so incognito. This is when G’d told him that there was no reason for this, as all the people who had sought his death had long since died. This message came to him while he was still in Midian. G’d made it clear to him that he should remain in Egypt until the redemption, the Exodus. This is why Moses took his family with him at that stage. It appeared to be a logical move as it would show the Israelites that he was convinced that the redemption was near, otherwise he would have left his family behind in Midian where they were safe and comfortable.

But had become paupers. Although it is stated (Nedarim 64b): “Four [kinds of people] are considered as if dead: a poor man, a blind man, a metzora and someone without children,” [nevertheless, for the following reasons Rashi knew that] here, “died” certainly means poverty. We cannot say they became blind, for regarding Korach’s rebellion it is written (Bamidbar 16:14): “If you put those people’s [Dasan and Aviram’s] eyes out.” [This implies they could indeed see.] And we cannot say they were afflicted with tzoraas, for it says (Devarim 11:6) that they were “in the midst of the camp,” [and a metzora must dwell outside of the camp]. And we cannot say [they were afflicted with tzoraas or blindness at the time] but were healed when the Torah was given, because all the people’s blemishes returned after the sin of the Golden Calf (Bamidbar Rabbah 7:4). And we cannot say they were considered as if dead because they had no children. For why would Hashem tell Moshe to return to Egypt because of this? Would their lack of children cause the authorities not to accept their slander against Moshe. Rather, it surely must be that Dasan and Aviram [were considered as if dead] because they became paupers, and for that reason Pharaoh would not heed their words. (Ran in Nedarim 7a)

V. 19. Mosche hatte zuerst allein gehen wollen, weil er wohl sich, aber nicht Frau und Kinder seinen Feinden preisgeben wollte, um so weniger, als keine Familie mehr ausgesetzt ist, als die, deren Vertreter im Dienste des öffentlichen Lebens steht und die Seinigen daher am wenigsten selbst vertreten kann. Gott gebot ihm aber, er solle völlig nach Mizrajim zurückkehren, somit seinen Wohnort in Midjan aufgeben, er habe von seinen Feinden nichts mehr zu fürchten.

כי מתו כל האנשים, “for all the men have died, etc.’” the sages are interested in knowing who precisely these men were and they came to the conclusion that they were Datan and Aviram [who had snitched to Pharaoh that Moses had killed an Egyptian. Ed.] The problem with that interpretation is that these two men are still reported as alive during the revolt of Korach. (Numbers 16,1) The answer given by our sages who were well aware of the fact that Datan and Aviram were still alive at the time when G–d spoke to Moses at the burning bush, was that whereas at the time when Moses had killed the Egyptian these men were very wealthy and therefore very influential, by now they had become impoverished and frustrated old men completely devoid of any influence, i.e. not much better than the dead. Our author, after quoting the Talmud tractate Nedarim, folio 64 that not only the poor but also the blind, the ones stricken with tzoraat, and the ones not blessed with having children, are considered as if dead already, proceeds to prove that Datan and Aviram were neither blind, nor afflicted with tzoraat, nor childless. The expression becoming impoverished, in Hebrew: ירדו מנכסיהם, almost has the same numerical value as the word מתים, “the dead.” (difference of 1)

ויאמר ה׳ אל משה במדין, “G-d spoke to Moses while he was still in Midian; after G-d had first spoken to Moses in the desert, He now spoke to him again in Midian.

כי מתו כל האנשים, “for all the people have died, etc.” according to Rashi the words כל האנשים refer to Datan and Aviram, the two men who had told Pharaoh about his slaying the Egyptian. How could G’d describe them as “having died,” when during the uprising of Korach a couple of years later, they were very much alive and ringleaders in that rebellion? The answer is that whereas at the time the incident with the Egyptian occurred these two men were among the wealthiest Jews in Egypt, so that what they said carried weight, in the meantime both had become paupers so that their influence was nil, no more than that of dead people. Sometimes people afflicted with the dreaded disease tzoraat are described as “dead,” as they are isolated beyond contact with society, but this was not the case with Datan and Aviram, whose posture in Numbers 16 shows them a) to have resided within the camp, and b) to have had good eyesight. C) They could not even have been described as “dead” because they had no children, as the Torah describes their challenging Moses brazenly together with their wives and children (Numbers 16,27). However, it is difficult to understand why both of these men should have wanted Moses dead, seeing he had saved the life of one of them by his interference in their quarrel? Besides, granted that both men had become paupers, how did this prevent them from being a threat to Moses’ life? They could still act as informers to Pharaoh? According to the plain meaning of the text, G’d informed Moses that the one who had ever been a real threat to him, i.e. Pharaoh, had died physically.

כי מתו כל האנשים וגו׳׳, “that all the men (who sought his death) had died in the meantime; Rashi identifies these two men as Datan and Aviram of the tribe of Reuven. [This is problematic as these same people conspired against him with Korach about 2 years after the Exodus. (Compare Numbers 16,1) Ed.] Rashi knew this of course; what he meant was that in the meantime these two men had become blind, and according to the Talmud in Nedarim 64, blind people are considered as if dead already. They had the effrontery to accuse Moses of trying to scratch out the eyes of the seeing. Compare Numbers 16,14. There are 3 other categories that the Talmud in Nedarim quoted are considered as dead, the ones smitten with the skin disease tzoraat, the childless, as well as the poor. Seeing that Datan and Aviram are reported as having children, and seeing that they had not been ostracised outside the camp, they had to be either blind or poor, or both. According to the plain meaning of the text, G-d had referred to the Egyptians who sought Moses’ death, the ones biologically related to the Egyptian whom Moses had slain.

על החמור UPON “THE” ASS — the ass designated for this purpose: this was the ass which Abraham had saddled for the purpose of travelling to bind Isaac on Mount Moriah, and this, too, is the ass upon which King Messiah will once show himself in public, as it is said, (Zechariah 9:9) “[Behold, thy king cometh unto thee, …] lowly and riding upon an ass” (Pirkei DeRabbi Eliezer 31).

AND MOSES TOOK HIS WIFE AND HIS SONS. The intent thereof is like that of the verse, And the sons of Pallu: Eliab.²⁹²Numbers 26:8. It states “sons” in the plural, but mentions only one son. A similar case is here, as Ramban explains. At that time, he had only Gershom, as Scripture mentions,²⁹³Above, 2:22. and his wife became pregnant with Eliezer on the way [to Egypt] or in Egypt, if she went there.²⁹⁴See Ramban further in this verse.
It is possible that before the Divine communication came to him on the mountain of G-d,²⁹⁵Above 3:1. only Gershom had been born. Zipporah however was already pregnant [with Eliezer], and when he returned to Jether his father-in-law,²⁹¹Verse 18. she gave birth, but because the King’s business required haste,²⁹⁶I Samuel 21:9. Ramban evidently understands here the word “king” as referring to G-d. he did not circumcise him, nor did he give him a name. On the way when his mother circumcised him,²⁹⁷Verse 25. she did not give him a name, as Moses was met at that time by the angel.²⁹⁸Verse 24. And see Rashi: “and the angel sought, etc.” It was after he came to Egypt and saw that he was saved from all those who sought his life that he then called him Eliezer, for the G-d of my father was my help, and delivered me from the sword of Pharaoh.²⁹⁹Further, 18:4. Our Rabbis have also stated³⁰⁰Shemoth Rabbah 5:8. that the child that was circumcised [by Zipporah, as mentioned here in Verse 25], was Eliezer.

וירכיבם על החמור, to let them travel from the desert where Moses tended the sheep to Midian, i.e. to her father’s home.

ויקח משה את אשתו ואת בניו, “he took his wife and his sons, etc.” This verse is similar to Numbers 26,8 ובני פלוא אליאב, “and the sons of Phalu were Eliav. Even though Phalu is reported as having had only the one son, the Torah uses the plural mode ובני, when referring to this. Similarly, here. At this time Moses had only one son, Gershom. Tzippporah who had been pregnant with Eliezer at that time gave birth to him on the way, as becomes clear in verse 24 of our chapter. It is possible that before G’d had spoken to Moses at Mount Chorev, Tzipporah had born Gershom, and that she had again become pregnant. When Moses returned to Yitro from the desert Eliezer had just been born. Seeing that Moses was anxious to be on his way, he had not yet circumcised his new born son, so that his mother had not yet named the baby. She did not name him right after she had circumcised him, being not yet sure whether Moses would survive his encounter with the angel who had tried to harm him. It was only after Moses arrived safely in Egypt and realized that he had indeed been saved from all those who had wanted to kill him, that he named the baby with a name which reflected his gratitude to G’d for having saved him from all this.

“Earlier” or “later” are not exact in Scripture. [Rashi states that events are not always recorded chronologically. This answers the question:] it should have been written “Moshe took the rod” before “Moshe took his wife.” For Moshe did not take the rod in Egypt, rather in Midian.

V. 20. Es scheint, Mosche sei nur im Besitz eines einzigen Lasttieres gewesen, auf welchem er habe reiten wollen. Nun aber ließ er Frau und Kinder החמור besteigen, und er ging zu Fuß mit dem Stabe in der Hand.

ויקח משה את אשתו ואת בניו, “Moses took his wife and his sons;” seeing that both of his sons were still very young and in need of constant attention by their mother, their mother is mentioned here first, whereas when Yaakov fled from his uncle Lavan and fatherinlaw in Genesis 31,17, his sons are mentioned before his wives.

וישב ארצה מצרים ויקח משה את מטה AND HE RETURNED TO THE LAND OF EGYPT: AND MOSES TOOK THE STAFF [OF GOD] — “Earlier and later” are not strictly observed in the Scriptures (i. e. incidents are not necessarily related in the exact order in which they occur. Here it should state: He took the staff etc. and returned to Egypt; cf. v. 17).

AND HE RETURNED TO THE LAND OF EGYPT. I.e., with those mentioned [at the beginning of the verse, namely, his wife and his sons]. Rabbi Abraham ibn Ezra said that the expression, and he returned to the land of Egypt, means that Moses alone returned. When he was met by G-d,³⁰¹Verse 24. Ibn Ezra refers to the language of the verse: and the Eternal met him. See above, Note 298. Eliezer was circumcised, and when he was healed, Zipporah together with her children returned to her father.
This [explanation of Ibn Ezra] is possible, for due to the fact that Eliezer was circumcised, Moses could not take him on the road until the child would become strong. At the same time, he did not want to delay the mission of the Holy One, blessed be He, and therefore he left them in the lodging-place and commanded Zipporah to return to her father’s home when the child will become healed. This is the purport of the expression, after he had sent her away.³⁰²Further, 18:2. It is also probable that they all went to Egypt, and after they stayed there for some time, she longed for her father and so Moses sent her with the children. This then would be the sense of the word shilucheha (after ‘he had sent her away’),³⁰²Further, 18:2. since Jethro feared that perhaps it was Moses’ intent to divorce her.
And in V’eileh Shemoth Rabbah,³⁰³Shemoth Rabbah 4:4. [the Rabbis have said]: “And Moses went and returned to Jether his father-in-law.²⁹¹Verse 18. Where did he go? He went to take his wife and sons. Jethro said to him, ‘Where do you take them?’ Moses replied, ‘To Egypt.’ Jethro said to him, ‘Now that those who are in Egypt wish to leave it, do you desire to lead them there?’ Moses replied, ‘Very soon [those held in bondage] are destined to go forth from there and stand at Mount Sinai and hear the words of the Almighty, I am the Eternal thy G-d Who brought thee out of the land of Egypt.³⁰⁴Further, 20:2. Should my children not hear it together with them?’ Jethro said to Moses, ‘Go in peace.’”²⁹¹Verse 18. In accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis [in the above Midrash], it is proper that we explain that after Moses and Jethro agreed on Moses’ returning to Egypt, the Holy One, blessed be He, commanded him thereon, thus confirming the word of His servant,³⁰⁵See Isaiah 44:26. and he returned to Egypt with his sons and his wife, as I have explained.

וישב ארצה מצרים, while Moses went on his way back to the land of Egypt.

וירכיבם על החמור, “he made them ride on the donkey.” The Torah specifies that it was a donkey, not a camel or some other animal used to ride on; perhaps because he had a number of animals to choose from for his wife and children to ride on.

וישב ארצה מצרים, “he returned headed for Egypt.” He now continued his journey alone. After the angel, (G-d’s messenger), had shown him that G-d had been displeased that Eliezer had not yet been circumcised, Moses left his family there (at the inn), and continued on towards Egypt. After Eliezer had recovered from his circumcision, Tzipporah and children returned to her father in Midian.

וישב ארצה מצרימה, “he returned in the direction of the land of Egypt.” According to Nachmanides, even though the Torah uses the singular mode וישב, what are meant are Moses and his family. Ibn Ezra writes that the reason why the Torah used the singular mode is that though Moses had intended to bring his family with him to Egypt; he changed his mind after his encounter with the angel and the circumcision, after which, in the interest of the baby’s recovery from that procedure, Tzipporah decided the return to her father’s home for a while. Moses had not wanted to delay beginning his mission while waiting for his son to recover. It is also possible that they all went to Egypt together, and that when it became evident that the redemption of the Israelites was still some time in the future, Tzipporah, who had pined for her father’s home, returned there pending the Exodus becoming reality.

את מטה האלוהים, “the staff of G-d.” This staff had not yet been renamed as “Moses’ staff” because he had not yet performed miracles with it.

בלכתך לשוב מצרימה וגו׳ WHEN THOU GOEST TO RETURN TO EGYPT, [SEE THAT THOU DO etc.] — Understand that you should go thither with this purpose in mind: that you should be vigorous in carrying out my mission — to do all my wonders before Pharaoh and that you should not be afraid of him.

AND THE ETERNAL SAID UNTO MOSES: ‘WHEN THOU GOEST BACK INTO EGYPT SEE ALL THE WONDERS,’ etc. Rabbi Abraham ibn Ezra said that this was said to Moses when he was yet in Midian. G-d informed him that He would harden Pharaoh’s heart and he would not let the people go because of all the wonders which he would see until the last wonder. Ibn Ezra’s intent is thus to explain this verse as saying: “See that for all the wonders which I have put in thy hand and which you will do before Pharaoh, for all of these he will not let them go until you will tell him that I will slay his son, his firstborn. Then he will let them go.”
This explanation is not correct for what sense is there for the expression, when thou goest back into Egypt, see, etc.? Rather, the purport thereof is as follows: When leaving Midian, Moses took the rod of G-d in his hand³⁰⁶Verse 20. to mark the way with his footsteps.³⁰⁷Psalms 85:14. G-d forewarned him and said to him, “When you go on the way, mark well and behold³⁰⁸Ezekiel 44:5. that all the wonders which I have put in your hand you should do before Pharaoh; do not forget to do anything before him. And I will harden his heart, but do not despair from doing them because of his obstinacy, and you will yet warn him again on the last plague which will cause him to let them go.” The purport of the expression, I have put in thy hand, is that “in your hand I have put them; you are to do them, and not someone else.” He had already informed him that He would perform many signs and wonders in Pharaoh’s midst, as He said, with all My wonders which I will do in his midst.³⁰⁹Above, 3:20. All this was an encouragement to Moses, for since he was forced to go on the mission, G-d warned him before the action, and commanded him again at the time of the action before each and every wonder.
It is possible that the expression [concerning the smiting of his firstborn], and thou shalt say unto Pharaoh,³¹⁰Verse 22. is but to inform Moses now that in the end He will so command him to say it to Pharaoh. Thus the purport of His words is as follows: “I will harden his heart and he will not let the people go in spite of all the wonders, and thou shalt say to him on that day, ‘Behold I will slay thy son, thy firstborn,’ and then he will let them go.” We do not find that He informed Moses of the death of their firstborn except at this time, and thus [we must say] that not all of the Divine communication [here given to Moses was relayed to Pharaoh] now.³¹¹The intent of Ramban is as follows: In Chapter 11, Verse 1, it is said concerning the final plague: And the Eternal said unto Moses: Yet one plague more will I bring upon Pharaoh, and upon Egypt; afterwards he will let you go hence. But nothing was mentioned to Moses about what that plague was. Ramban suggests that Verses 22-23 here concerning the final plague were said to Moses now with the understanding that later, before the tenth plague, he was to relay the warning to Pharaoh, but not that he said it to Pharaoh as soon as he came to see him. Hence it was not necessary for Scripture to say in Chapter 11, Verse 1, what that “one plague more” was.
It is possible to explain [the matter as follows]: “See all these three³¹²The staff turning into a serpent, Moses’ hand becoming leprous, and the waters turning into blood (Verses 3-9). wonders which I have put in thy hand to do before the Israelites, do them also before Pharaoh so that Pharaoh should know that the elders of the people who request of him to let them go say so according to the commandment of G-d, and he should not come with a pretext against them.” And so did Moses do [these three wonders³¹²The staff turning into a serpent, Moses’ hand becoming leprous, and the waters turning into blood (Verses 3-9). before Pharaoh], even though it is not so written. The verse [further on] which states, When Pharaoh shall speak unto you, saying: ‘Show a wonder for you,’³¹³Further, 7:9. [which might indicate that the wonder of the staff turning into a serpent was done by a special command, and not because of the Divine communication here, as explained above], means that Pharaoh will want a sign for himself. G-d thus commanded Moses to throw the rod and it shall become a tanin, not a nachash,³¹⁴Ramban thus distinguishes between the nachash mentioned here in Verse 3, and tanin mentioned further in 7:9. Rashi however explains there that tanin means nachash. In the J.P.S. translation, both terms are translated as “serpents.” In other translations, nachash is translated as “snake,” and tanin as “reptile.” Some such distinction between the terms is to be made according to Ramban. as mentioned the first time. Thus He wanted to show Pharaoh that Aaron’s rod would swallow up their rods, instructing him that He would vanquish them and that they would be destroyed forever by Him.
In the Midrash V’eileh Shemoth Rabbah,³¹⁵Shemoth Rabbah 5:6. I have seen mentioned: “[And the Eternal said to Moses: ‘When thou goest into Egypt, see all the wonders,’ etc.] To which wonders does He refer? If you say that it is to [the staff turning into] a serpent, [his hand becoming] leprous, and [the waters turning into] blood, the Holy One, blessed be He, told Moses to do these only before Israel! Moreover, we find nowhere that Moses did these signs before Pharaoh. But what then is the meaning of all the wonders which I have put in thy hand? This refers to the rod upon which were written the initials of the ten plagues: ‘D’tzach Adash B’achab.’ ”³¹⁶They are: Dam (blood), Tz’phardei’a (frogs), Kinim (lice), Arob (beasts), Dever (murrain), Sh’chin (boils), Barad (hail), Arbeh (locusts), Choshech (darkness), Makath-b’choroth (slaying of the firstborn). According to this Midrash, the explanation of the verse will be: “See and contemplate the writing on the rod which I have put in thy hand, for all wonders thereon you will perform before Pharaoh.”

בלכתך לשוב מצרימה, every time I tell you to leave your tent which is outside the boundary of the Egyptian capital, etc., do precisely what I command you. The nature of the capital, with all its abominations prevented prayer offered in that city to G’d to become effective, as we know from 9,29 where Moses explains this to Pharaoh. G’d says: “I will command you from time to time to enter the capital in order to speak to Pharaoh.”

ויאמר ה' אל משה בלכתך לשוב מצרימה, “The Lord said to Moses: ‘when you are on the way to return to Egypt, etc’.” According to Ibn Ezra what follows was said to Moses while he had still been in Midian. G’d told him that in spite of all the miracles He had provided Moses with to perform in Egypt, that He, G’d, had made Pharaoh’s heart strong so that he would not discharge the Israelites from serving him on account of the miracles Moses would perform. This would only occur as a result of the final miracle when, after being told that G’d would kill all the firstborn Egyptians including Pharaoh’s own firstborn, he would capitulate Nachmanides writes that Ibn Ezra’s description of events is not correct, for if it were, why did the Torah write the line בלכתך לשוב מצרימה ראה, “when you are on the way to return to Egypt, see!” Rather, the true meaning of the verse is that when Moses had already taken his staff and was about to set out on his return journey to Egypt, G’d warned Moses to perform all the miracles in spite of the fact that Pharaoh would not be sufficiently impressed by them to let the Israelites depart. The way things would develop would be that while Moses was doing “his thing,” i.e. what G’d had empowered him to do, and while Pharaoh, on the other hand, would do “his thing,” Moses was not to become discouraged. He warned him further that when it would come to the final plague when he would warn Pharaoh that G’d would strike dead his own firstborn son, Pharaoh would capitulate. The words אשר שמתי בידך, “which I have placed at your disposal,” mean that G’d had provided only Moses exclusively with the power to perform all these miracles. He gave Moses a review of how things would develop in order to encourage him to proceed with appropriate dispatch. Subsequently, he would receive detailed instructions concerning each of the miracles, i.e. each of the plagues. It is also possible that the words ואמרת אל פרעה וגו' are instructions to Moses concerning the 10th and final plague, when he would warn Pharaoh of G’d killing his firstborn son. Whereas with the other plagues the Torah reports G’d instructing Moses, and Moses then carrying out the instruction, we do not find G’d issuing any instructions there to Moses before he proceeded to announce the forthcoming plague to Pharaoh, (Exodus 11,4) It is also possible that G’d instructed Moses here to perform the same three miracles before Pharaoh that He had already instructed him to perform before the Israelites. This was in order that Pharaoh should realize that the only reason that the elders of the Israelites had requested what they did, was because G’d had sent them Moses who had performed these miracles for them in order to identify himself as their redeemer. Pharaoh would therefore have no reason to fault the elders of Israel for their request. Moses acted in this fashion although the Torah had not bothered to spell this out. Concerning the fact that the Torah also wrote “when Pharaoh will say to you that you should legitimize yourselves by means of a miracle” (7,9), and that He commanded Moses to turn the staff into a sea monster instead of into a serpent, as he had done before the Israelites, and that he showed Pharaoh that Aaron’s staff would swallow those of his magicians, this was a hint that He would overpower the magicians. In the Midrash Shemot Rabbah (5,6) we are told that in the event that someone were to claim that the miracles of blood, tzoraat, and the staff turning into a snake, that these had been performed only before the Israelites and not before Pharaoh, the Torah adds the word ראה, that G’d told Moses to look at the letters ד'צך ע'דש ב'אחב the respective first letters of each plague, letters which were engraved on the staff in order to confirm that all these plagues, i.e. miracles, would be performed in the presence of Pharaoh.

V. 21. Nur drei אותות hatte bisher Gott Mosche in die Hand gegeben, hatte jedoch noch von keinem ihn beauftragt, es vor Pharao zu üben. Allein vergegenwärtigen wir uns den Sinn dieser Zeichen, wie sie eben Mosche als Boten Dessen dokumentieren sollten, der die Stütze und die Macht des Menschen in ihm feindselige Schlange zu verwandeln, ja, auch umgekehrt das dem Menschen Feindseligste in ihm gefügige Stütze und ihm gefügiges Machtwerkzeug zu verwandeln Gewalt habe, ja, die Hand selbst, die den Stab führt, nach Belieben töte und belebe: so hatte ihm ja Gott damit bereits alles gesagt; waren ja alle ferneren Wunder nichts anders, als dass Gott den Stab der Macht Mizrajims zur feindseligsten Empörung gegen sie aufrief und zuletzt die Hand, die über diese Macht gebot, selbst tötete. —

ראה כל המופתים, “look at all the miracles, etc.” only one of the three miracles that Moses had performed thus far, he performed before Pharaoh, i.e. the staff turning into a vicious snake.

אשר שמתי בידך [THE WONDERS] WHICH I HAVE PUT IN THY HAND — Not in reference to the three signs mentioned above was God speaking, for he had not commanded him to do these before Pharaoh, but before Israel in order that they might believe in him, nor do we find that he did them before him. But God meant: those wonders which I shall in future place in thy hand in Egypt — such as (Exodus 7:9) “When Pharaoh shall speak unto you, [saying, show a wonder (מופת) for yourselves]”. Do not be puzzled because it is written אשר שמתי (a past tense), for the following is what it means: when you will be speaking with him I shall already have put them into thy hand.

ראה כל המופתים אשר שמתי בידך, pay careful attention each time you go to Pharaoh when you will be equipped with the power to perform all the miracles which I have placed at your disposal. You must perform these in exactly the manner I have instructed you.

אות ist ein Zeichen, das zunächst nur an den Verstand gerichtet ist, ihm eine Erkenntnis zu vermitteln, deren Beachtung oder Nichtbeachtung jedoch den Menschen überlassen ist. מופת aber, Hiphilform von יפת, gleichbedeutend mit פתה, einem Eindruck, einer Belehrung offen stehen, Hiphil also: jemandem eine Belehrung ins Innere bringen, ihn für eine Belehrung zugänglich machen, und מופת ist somit ein Zeichen ad hominem, das zugleich den Menschen für Aufnahme der damit gegebenen Belehrung ergreift. Wenn alles Trinkwasser in Mizrajim zu Blut wird, oder von allen Seiten Ungeziefer an dem König hinaufkriecht, so sind dies מופתים, die sich mit Gewalt Beachtung erzwingen. Ein einziges solches andauerndes Zeichen würde aber zu einer solchen Plage erwachsen, dass nicht aus Überzeugung, sondern aus Angst, Not und Verzweiflung der König euch ziehen lässt. Das soll aber nicht geschehen. Ich werde ihm die Kraft und den Mut lassen, die Plagen auszuhalten, damit er endlich zu einer Überzeugung komme, Gott als צדיק und sich und sein Volk als רשעים zu erkennen. Ziehen wird er euch aber nicht lassen, bis du ihm das Sterben seines Sohnes ankündigst. Bis ich dir daher diesen Auftrag gebe, brauchst du nicht bestürzt zu sein, wenn deine Sendung scheinbar ohne Erfolg bleibt. Erst auf diese empfindlichste Strafe wird er das Volk ziehen lassen.

ואני אחזק את לבו, “I will harden his heart;” this does not mean that G-d deprives Pharaoh of the ability to become a penitent and to reverse his attitude and cooperate with G-d’s commands if he so wills it. The line must be understood as follows: “I will give him additional courage so that seeing My miracles he will not die from fright until all My miracles will have been performed.” This is also how we must understand Exodus 73: ואני אקשה את לב פרעה, “I will toughen Pharaoh’s heart;” he will not collapse from fear.” If you needed proof for this interpretation consider Exodus 9,15: כי עתה שלחתי את ידי ואך אותך, “for now I will stretch out My hand and smite you with pestilence.”

ועשיתם לפני פרעה, you will be successful in this only if you proceed exactly in the manner in which I instruct you, and in the presence of Pharaoh. When a creature sins against his Creator by doing either less or more than instructed to do, he will fail in what he set out to do. This rule did not only apply to Moses and Aaron when they set out to perform miracles, but it is a general rule applicable to all of G’d’s commandments, and this is why the Torah spelled this out in Deuteronomy 4,2 writing “do not add or subtract from all the commandments which I have commanded you.”

ואני אחזק את לבו, for if he could not endure the plagues he would let the Israelites go, not because he was finally humbling himself before the Lord and do His will, but only in order to get relief from the plagues. This was not a good enough reason to grant him relief; therefore G’d reinforced his natural obstinacy.

ואמרת אל פרעה AND THOU SHALT SAY UNTO PHARAOH — When you perceive that his heart is stubborn and that he refuses to let them go speak to him thus:

בני בכורי ישראל, even though when it comes to the period known as קץ הימים, the end of the days of this planet, G’d will cause the kind of upheaval which will result in all the nations calling G’d by His chosen name and they will all serve Him without reservations, (Tzefaniah 3,9) even then Israel will still be special inasmuch as it is “My son.” I relate to Israel as a father relates to his son, not as a master relates to his servant, even the most benign of masters. A servant’s loyalty or “love” for his master is based on his expectations of reward, or his fear of punishment, not so a son’s loyalty and love. An additional reason for My preference for Israel is the fact that it is My firstborn son, i.e. it is the first nation to accept My position as Creator, King, Master in this universe. At a time when all the other nations were still following their misguided theologies, only the Jewish people proclaimed Me exclusively as their G’d and lawgiver. (compare Micah 4,5).

כה אמד ה׳ בני בכורי ישראל. Thus said the Lord: "Israel is My firstborn son." Why is this prophecy- i.e. that the Jewish firstborn would not be killed- recorded out of context, i.e. a long time before Moses would announce it to Pharaoh? We need to know also why, apparently, Moses was not to mention this to Pharaoh on their first encounter?

Yisrael is My son, My firstborn. All the nations of the world are part of the purpose of creation. Even if they practice idolatry, nevertheless, there are pious gentiles in every generation who recognize the honor of Hashem. However, Yisrael is compared to the first born son of a king that inherits the crown; moreover, even during the lifetime of the king he assists in ruling the kingdom. In the same way, Yisrael assists Divine Providence and the running of the world.

בני בכורי ישראל. Moses is to tell Pharaoh in G’d’s name that if He had delivered the Israelites under his control in order to discipline them somewhat this was not because He, their G’d, had rejected them. We know this from Moses telling the people in Deuteronomy 8,8 that any discomfort they had ever been subjected to in their journey was due to the discipline administered by a loving father to miscreant children. The father does not enjoy punishing his children but it is necessary in order for them to learn that misconduct carries a price. Pharaoh had greatly exceeded the authority he had to be G’d’s agent in educating the Israelites. As a fitting retribution G’d would kill Pharaoh’s own firstborn during the last of the plagues. When G’d referred to the Israelites as בני בכורי ישראל , this was a complimentary description of them, as for instance the line בני א-ל חי, “Children of the living G’d” in Hoseah 2,1. Similarly, Mount Sinai, a sanctified mountain is also referred to as הר ה', “G’d’s mountain,” in Numbers 10,33. Similarly, the Holy Temple, the holiest of structures, is known as “the House of the Lord” in Isaiah 56,7 The precise wording there is “for My House is called a House of Prayer.”

V. 22 u. 23.שלח את בני — בני בכורי ישראל בכר: verwandt mit בקר ,בגר פקר, die alle den Begriff des Freiseins enthalten. הפקר (auch הבקר): herrenlos. בגרת: das Stadium, in welchem das Mädchen aus der Botmäßigkeit des Vaters tritt. בוקר die Zeit, welche alle Dinge aus der Verschlungenheit der Nacht (לול :ליל) frei und geschieden hervortreten lässt. בָקָר: der frei und nicht in Hürden weilende Teil des Herdenbesitzes. בְכור ist nun nicht der Freie, Ungebundene; er soll ja vielmehr der erste Diener sein und בכור finden wir ja auch bei Tieren und Pflanzen. Die Form ist eine aktive, nicht passive. בכור ist nicht der freigewordene, sondern der freimachende (wie סגור nicht das Gesperrte, sondern das Sperrende). Die bis dahin gebundenen Kräfte des Mutterschoßes werden durch ihn frei, geöffnet. Er ist: פטר רחם. Er ist בכור nicht für sich, sondern für das, was folgt. Mit ihm tritt die Mutter die Zukunft ihres Mutterberufes an. Er ist der den Reigen Eröffnende. Seine קדושה liegt darin, dass mit ihm das Haus zuerst Kinder bekommt, durch ihn wird der קדוש :רחם und alles, was später durch diese Pforte kommt, Gott heilig. בכור wird erst ביציאתו מרחם קדוש, und auch für den Besitz heißt es: וכל מקנך תזכר פטר שור ושה, "dein ganzer Herdenbesitz soll in der Erstgeburt des Ochsen und des Lammes gedacht werden." Indem Gott daher von Israel בני בכורי! spricht, so ist damit gesagt: mit Israel wird der Mutterschoß der Menschheit geöffnet, mit Israel der Reigen eröffnet, in welchem alle Völker als meine Söhne hervortreten sollen. In deinem eigenen Namen und im Namen der ganzen Menschheit komme ich daher zu dir. Israel ist mein erstes, aber nicht mein einziges, es ist nur das erste Volk, das ich mir gewonnen. (So auch die Weisen zu Wajikra 20, 26 ואבדיל אתכם מן העמים כאדם שבורר וחוזר fordere ich für Israel die Freiheit, wie בני als ,בני בכורי siehe das.) Nicht als ,ובורר ich sie für jedes Volk vindizieren werde, das sich mir als Sohn hingibt. Israel ist nicht dem Range, sondern der Zeit nach das erste.

בני בכורי, “My son, My firstborn.” This is the first time the Torah officially acknowledges the sale by Esau of his birthright to Yaakov (Israel).

בני בכורי ישראל, “My firstborn son, Israel.” All of G-ds creatures are His children. However, Israel is the most beloved of His children as when He created mankind the species, it was for the sake of eventually there being a nation like Israel. An alternate exegesis: When Yaakov (Israel) purchased the birthright from Esau and he eventually acknowledged that he had deserved it, I had been instrumental in this, and until Aaron became a priest the Temple service was meant to be performed by the firstborn. This is why I demand that you release My firstborn son to perform the service fore me in the desert.

בני בכרי [ISRAEL IS] MY SON, MY FIRSTBORN — The term בכור “firstborn” denotes high dignity as, (Psalms 89:28) “I also will appoint him a בכור” (which is explained by the following words, “the highest of the kings of the earth”). This is the literal meaning; a Midrashic comment is: Here (in these words) the Holy One, blessed be He, set His seal to the sale of the birthright which Jacob had purchased from Esau (Genesis Rabbah 63:14).

It appears that G'd in His wisdom provided Moses with some information which would temper his disappointment at the long drawn-out process of the often broken promises by Pharaoh. There was a danger that when Moses observed that Pharaoh remained obstinate month after month despite the plagues G'd inflicted upon him and his people, he would become fed up with his mission. G'd therefore informed him of something that would not happen until the end of the process. As long as the plague of killing the firstborn Egyptians had not occurred, Moses had no reason to believe that G'd's timetable had been upset. The synopsis of the prophecy was: "be aware that I will make Pharaoh's heart obstinate; he will suffer many plagues without collapsing; in the end you will announce to him that G'd will kill all the firstborn Egyptians, etc."

G'd was also clever in announcing to Moses in this fashion that it would be the plague of killing the firstborn which would prompt Pharaoh to dismiss the people. Moses would eventually realise that the redemption was close at hand when G'd did not mention to him anymore that He would harden the heart of Pharaoh. When Pharaoh told him in 10,28: "do not come to see me anymore," Moses realised that the time to fulfil the instruction given in our verse had arrived. This is why he announced that plague the moment Pharaoh told him not to come and see him again. While it is true that the Torah reports many additional instructions G'd gave to Moses at that time, G'd may have mentioned them already at this time while recording them at an appropriate moment. When we look at matters in that light we do not need all the Midrashim which try to determine when precisely G'd had made this announcement. G'd did not worry that Moses would misunderstand and reveal this prophecy too soon. He knew that Moses would report back to Him any response from Pharaoh. As soon as G'd would then instruct Moses to bring on another plague, Moses would know that the time had not yet arrived for that final plague. Once Pharaoh told Moses not to come and see him again, Moses realised he did not have time to consult with G'd outside the limits of the city as he was in the habit of doing. This is why he himself announced the plague of the killing of the firstborn without awaiting specific instructions from G'd. Perhaps Moses simply used the words "I will make Pharaoh's heart hard" as his guidelines. He did not know beforehand how long this process of hardening Pharaoh's heart would continue; when he noticed that G'd did not mention this anymore after the plague of darkness, he took his cue from that and warned Pharaoh of the final plague.

It is also possible that G'd indicated that Pharaoh had three choices. If he were to release the Israelites he would be spared any plagues. If he were to deny the Israelites their freedom without at the same time insulting G'd, G'd would bring on the plague of the killing of the firstborn immediately; this would bring about the Exodus. If, however, Pharaoh were to deny the Israelites their freedom and at the same time insult the honour of G'd, he would have to endure the entire range of plagues, as did in fact happen. G'd told him through Moses in 9,16 that He had decided to let Pharaoh experience the full extent of His power.

ואמר אליך AND I HAVE SAID UNTO THEE, as a messenger of the Omnipresent God, שלח את בני LET MY SON GO,

הנה אנכי הורג את בנך בכורכך, even though when it comes to the period known as קץ הימים, the end of the days of this planet, G’d will cause the kind of upheaval which will result in all the nations calling G’d by His chosen name and they will all serve Him without reservations, (Tzefaniah 3,9) even then Israel will still be special inasmuch as it is “My son.” I relate to Israel as a father relates to his son, not as a master relates to his servant, even the most benign of masters. A servant’s loyalty or “love” for his master is based on his expectations of reward, or his fear of punishment, not so a son’s loyalty and love. An additional reason for My preference for Israel is the fact that it is My firstborn son, i.e. it is the first nation to accept My position as Creator, King, Master in this universe. At a time when all the other nations were still following their misguided theologies, only the Jewish people proclaimed Me exclusively as their G’d and lawgiver. (compare Micah 4,5).

If you keep refusing to release My firstborn, הנה אנכי הורג את בנך בכורך, “I am going to kill your firstborn.” G-d explains to Pharaoh that His system of meting out justice is based on the punishment fitting the crime. Rashi adds that here we find G-d already predicting that noncompliance will eventually result in the tenth plague.

הנה אנכי הרג וגו׳ BEHOLD I WILL SLAY etc. — This, it is true, was the last of the plagues, but it was by mention of it that God gave him the first warning regarding the plagues that would come upon him, because this was the severest of them all. This is what Scripture means by, (Job 36:22) “Behold God is mighty in His power”, therefore “Who is a teacher like unto Him?” — This signifies: A human being who intends to avenge himself upon his fellow keeps his plans secret in order that he may not seek means of escape. But the Holy One, blessed be He, is so mighty in His power that there is no possibility of escape from His hand except by returning to Him in penitence. Just on this account He teaches him (informs him what punishment will befall him) and so warns him to return to Him (Exodus Rabbah 9:9).

ויהי AND HE WAS — Moses was — DURING THE JOURNEY IN THE LODGING PLACE.

ויפגשהו ה', in this instance a reference to the Lord’s angel. Moses’ sin consisted of needlessly slowing down the carrying out of his mission by taking his wife and children along.

ויהי בדרך במלון, when he was on the way from the desert to Midian with his wife and children. The Torah tells of this incident after concluding the report of how G’d appointed Moses as the leader of the Jewish people.

ויבקש המיתו, He tried to kill him. The reason that the Torah describes G'd as only "trying" to kill Moses may be that the fact that Moses was on the way to carry out a commandment by G'd. This acted as partial protection based on Pessachim 8 that "people engaged in the process of carrying out a מצוה do not suffer harm either on their way to or from carrying out that מצוה." The מצוה which Moses was occupied with at that time acquired one heavenly advocate for him; this advocate was his companion at the time and prevented the destructive forces poised against him from approaching him too closely. Perhaps the Torah's description of all this happening בדרך במלון is to inform us that at the time Moses was not so much involved with his primary mission but with private matters; this is what provoked the destructive forces to attack him. Nonetheless he still enjoyed some protection seeing that he had not abandoned his mission. While the positive and negative forces were confronting each other, Tziporah removed the impediment to saving Moses' life by circumcising her son.

ויפגשהו ה', “the Lord encountered him;” as a rebuke for having concerned himself with private concerns at the inn, instead of first performing the circumcision on his son Eliezer. The excuse that he was on the way and that the circumstances were such that circumcision would place the life of the infant in danger, did no longer apply as the inn in question was already close to Egypt, not in the desert Some commentators claim that because this was close to Egypt, Tzipporah suggested that she should await the Exodus of the people of Israel while remaining at the inn, and join the Israelites on their way to the Holy Land from there. Moses entertained the thought to leave her there. Seeing that he considered the place safe enough to leave his wife and children there, he had no excuse not to immediately perform the circumcision. Still other commentators claim that he was punished because he should have circumcised Eliezer while still in Midian and not have taken Tzipporah and her children with him at all at that time. Still another view holds that this was the punishment for Moses having agreed with Yitro at the time he married Tzipporah that he would leave half of the children born to him uncircumcised. As a result, he was not at liberty to perform circumcision on his second son in Yitro’s house.

Moshe. You might ask: perhaps ויהי (he was, or: it was) refers to an event rather than to a person, as in (Bereishis 14:1), “ ויהי (It was) in the days of Amrafel,” and (ibid., 15:17), “ ויהי (It was) at sunset.” The answer is: since it says afterwards “ ויפגשהו ה' (Adonoy confronted him),” without stating who was confronted, we must say that ויהי refers to Moshe [and thus means: he was].

ויהי בדרך במלון ויפגשהו ה' ויבקש המיתו; Moses was not present at the inn. The Torah had written prior to this that Moses had taken his wife and his sons and let them ride on the donkey. (verse 20) The meaning of the verse is that he sent his family ahead of him. Immediately afterwards we are told that Moses himself returned to Egypt. If the Torah reports sequentially, Moses could not have been at the inn at the time Tzipporah had this encounter. ויבקש המיתו, the person under threat of death was the boy, seeing that the angel had assumed the form of a serpent about to swallow the little boy. This serpent then spit out the boy and began to devour him from the opposite end, swallowing up to the part where the circumcision was to be performed. At that point, ותקח צפורה צור, Tzipporah understood what the problem was, i.e. that they were being punished for being tardy in performing the boy’s circumcision so that she herself performed it with a sharp flint.

V. 24. ויפגשהו ד׳. derselbe Gott, der ihn soeben mit einer so großen Botschaft aussandte, und in dessen Sendung er eben begriffen war, trat ihm mit einem Male entgegen und zog es vor, ihn lieber sterben zu lassen. Es ist aus dem Folgenden evident, dass Mosche die Beschneidung seines Sohnes verabsäumt hatte und dies die Ursache seiner plötzlichen Todesgefahr gewesen. Ging er doch hin, die Erlösung eines Volkes zu vollbringen, dessen ganze Bedeutung auf Mila beruht, und da soll er in den Kreis dieses Volkes ein unbeschnittenes Kind bringen! Lieber ihn sterben, als ihn mit solchem Beispiel seine Sendung antreten lassen. So glauben wir das ויבקש verstehen zu müssen, ein Wort, das sonst eine doppelte Härte als Aussage von Gott erhalten würde. Gott, der Allbarmherzige, wünscht nicht den Tod eines Menschen, und wen Gott töten will, der ist tot. So aber bringt uns dies Wort das Bedeutsame zum Bewusstsein, dass Gottes Plan durch keinen Menschen bedingt ist, — הרבה שלוחים למקום — Gott ist kein Mensch, auch ein Mosche nicht, unentbehrlich; eine irrige Meinung, der durch das bisherige Dringen in Mosche zur Übernahme der Sendung Mosche Vorschub geleistet war, und der hier begegnet wird. Gott sieht auch seinen Boten, auch einem Mosche, nichts nach. Im Gegenteil: בקרבי אקדש. Das ist hier mit großen Zügen von vornherein gezeichnet.

ויהי בדרך במלון, “It was on the way, at the inn;” Rashi, explaining why the location was necessary to be given here, explains that the word מלון was chosen for what an inn represents. It represents the comfort it can offer the traveler in an otherwise hostile environment. Moses is criticised for not having his priorities right, and in paying attention first to the comforts offered instead of dealing with the law to circumcise his son at the earliest opportunity, i.e. the eighth day. This seems questionable, seeing that immediately after leaving the inn the baby would be exposed to the dangers of traveling in the desert. We must therefore assume that this took place after the meeting of Moses and Aaron, when the latter had already told Moses not to expose both his wife and his family to these dangers but to let them go back to Midian. He did so although members of the tribe of Levi such as Moses and Aaron were not required to perform menial labour in Egypt. Therefore, seeing that they intended to turn back home, there was no excuse for not performing the circumcision at once. Tzipporah would have stayed on at the inn until the infant had recovered from the circumcision. This is why Moses was punished.

ויהי בדרך למלון, “it was while they had been on the way, at an inn; this verse ought to have been appended to verse 20 where we were told: ויקח מה את אשתו ואת בניו, “Moses took his wife and his sons;” it is similarly out of place as is Exodus 21,36 שלם ישלם “he is to pay double,” really belongs in verse 37 in that chapter. The reason why it is written where it is, is that the Torah did not want to interrupt what G-d had been saying to Moses.

ויבקש המיתו AND HE SOUGHT TO PUT HIM TO DEATH — the angel sought etc., because he had not circumcised his son Eliezer; and because he had showed himself remiss in this, he brought upon himself the punishment of death. It has been taught in a Boraitha (Nedarim 31b): Rabbi José said: God forbid that this was so; Moses had not been remiss in this duty; but he thought, “If I circumcise him and immediately proceed on the journey, the child’s life will be in danger for three days. If, on the other hand, I circumcise him and wait three days — the Holy One, blessed be He, has commanded me, “Go return to Egypt!” Consequently, he obeyed His command, intending to circumcise the child as soon as the opportunity presented itself. There was therefore no remissness on his part; why, then, was he threatened with punishment? Because he busied himself with the affairs of the lodging place first, (i. e. because when he arrived at the inn he troubled himself first about eating and drinking. He should first have circumcised his son. Being now so much nearer Egypt, the danger that follows upon the circumcision was not so great, since the interval of time between the operation and his arrival in Egypt was now shorter than if he had circumcised him before he set out on the journey). See this in Treatise Nedarim. — The angel became a kind of serpent and swallowed him (Moses) from his head to his thigh, spued him forth, and then again swallowed him from his legs to that place (the membrum). Zipporah thus understood that this had happened on account of the delay in the circumcision of her son (Nedarim 32a; cf. Exodus Rabbah 5:8).

ויפגשהו ה', the 8th day on which he should have circumcised his son occurred [the word is derived from פגש, occurred, happened. Ed.] When the baby is circumcised the presence of the Lord, שכינה is perceived as being present waiting to induct the new member of the Jewish faith. Perhaps this is even the source of the practice to place a chair for the prophet Elijah at the circumcision ceremony.

Because his first concern was his lodging. You might ask: Rashi himself explained earlier that [Moshe did not circumcise him] because traveling endangers the child during the first three days [following circumcision]. If so, why was Moshe punished, [as they were in the midst of traveling]? The answer is: Moshe was now at an inn that was a distance of one day’s travel to Egypt. Such a short journey would not hurt or endanger the child. (Re”m)

ויפגשהו, “he encountered him;” the expression is remindful of Hoseah 13,8: אפגשם כדב שכול, “I attack them like a bear robbed of its young.”

When the time passed without Eliezer being circumcised, the Shechinah or the angel in charge of circumcision was ready to kill Moses for having been so remiss in fulfilling this commandment.

The angel turned into a kind of snake. [Rashi knew this] because otherwise, how could Zipporah have known that it was because of the circumcision that the angel wanted to kill Moshe? We need not object: Perhaps the angel told her expressly that it was because of the circumcision? For the answer is that the verse later states: “Then she said, ‘[You are] a bridegroom of blood [to me] because of the circumcision.’” This implies that Zipporah did not actually understand it until then. Whereas if the angel told her expressly, why did she not understand?

ויבקש להמיתו, “he attempted to kill him;” according to Rabbi Shimon ben Gamliel, the angel attempted to kill Eliezer, the uncircumcised baby. (Talmud Nedarim 32) This is why Tzipporah called her son Eliezer a “groom acquired through blood” (of circumcision). [She meant that if she had not circumcised him she would have lost him. Ed.] A different interpretation: the angel tried to kill Moses. He had been guilty of not circumcising Eliezer on the eighth day of his life as G-d had commanded that it be done. He should have done so and left him with his mother in Midian. This would have enabled him to carry out the mission entrusted to him by G-d without delay and without hold ups due to consideration of the needs of his family. Instead he had walked slowly while his family was riding. (Nedarim 31)

ויבקש המיתו, according to Rashi the reason for Moses’ punishment was not that he had not circumcised Eliezer on the way, but that this was not his first concern when arriving at the inn. To the question that seeing that neglecting to perform circumcision carries a very severe penalty, as opposed to delaying his trip to Egypt which was only the slight delay in performing a positive commandment, something that normally is not even punishable at all, so why did Moses indeed not perform the commandment of circumcision on time? The answer is that it is not the father of the child that is subject to this penalty, but the uncircumcised male when he is old enough to arrange for his own circumcision if his father failed to do so. The Torah spells this out when writing: וערל זכר אשר לא ימול בשר ערלתו ונכרתה, “when a male with a foreskin allows his foreskin not to be circumcised he will be cut off, etc.” (Genesis 17,14) This is why Moses was not bothered by attending to other details about his family’s accommodation before attending to circumcision of his son.

ותגע לרגליו AND CAST IT AT HIS FEET — i. e. she cast it before Moses’ feet (Talmud Yerushalmi Nedarim 3:9).

צר, an expression similar to חרבות צורים in Joshua 5,2 where this expression described the tools used by Joshua to perform circumcision on the Israelites prior to their crossing the Jordan river. A similar expression also occurs in Psalms 89,44 אף תשיב צור חרבו where it refers to G’d blunting and distorting the sharpness of the sword of the Israelites making them ineffective in defending themselves.

ותאמר כי חתן דמים אתה לי. I have done this seeing that when I became married to you and you were my bridegroom you stipulated that our sons would have to be circumcised and that we would extract a certain amount of blood as the mark of the covenant with G’d. Tzipporah said all this to the angel who wanted to kill her husband in his defence i.e. the angel must know that there was no deliberate negligence in performing the rite of circumcision.

ותקח צפורה צור, “Tzipporah took hold of a sharp edged piece of stone, etc.” she took a kind of chisel, the same kind as has been described in the Book of Joshua (5,3) as חרבות צורים, the instrument used by Joshua when he circumcised all the Jews that had been born since the Jews had left Egypt who had not been circumcised in the desert because the climactic conditions would have posed a threat to the lives of the infants.

V. 25. חתן דמים אתה לי: Worte, die, wie alles Dunkle, die vielfältigste Deutung gefunden. Es wird dies gewöhnlich auf das Kind bezogen, das am Tage der Mila mit dem Abrahamsbund Vermählter heißt. Nach Nedarim 32 a. scheint diese Benennung Brauch gewesen und dann wahrscheinlich aus dieser Stelle entsprungen zu sein. Allein abgesehen davon, dass, auf das Kind bezogen, diese Worte kaum einen entsprechenden Sinn zulassen, so setzt eine solche Erklärung, die das אתה auf das Kind bezieht, überhaupt voraus, dass bei dem ganzen Vorgange Ziporas Sinn auf dieses und nicht auf Mosche gerichtet war. In der Tat meint denn auch diese Ansicht in Nedarim, nicht Mosche, sondern das Kind habe in Todesgefahr geschwebt.

'ותקח צפורה וגו, “Tzipporah took etc.” what prompted Tzipporah was that her husband had been weakened by the attack of that angel so that he, personally, was unable to perform this commandment. He therefore revealed to his wife what had to be done, and she performed the deed.

ותאמר AND SHE SAID, referring to her son:

'ותכרות וגו, performance of the circumcision of Moses’ son by Tzipporah was a lifesaver for Moses, much as a sacrifice offered by Gideon or by Manoach when they were confronted by an angel (Judges 6,24 and 13,19). [Manoach had been afraid he would die having seen a vision of G’d. Ed.]

ותכרות את ערלת בנה, “she cut off the foreskin of her son.” Moses did not circumcise him as the angel had incapacitated him. This is the meaning of the words ויבקש להמיתו, “he tried to kill him.” If these words referred to the infant, as some believe, why would not Moses have circumcised his son himself instead of his wife performing this task?

Erwägen wir, dass der Satz ותאמר כי וגו׳ das Motiv ihrer vorangehenden Handlung enthalten muss, erwägen wir ferner, dass die nach der Rettung gesprochenen Worte: חתן דמים למולת von den vor derselben gesprochenen nur in der Umwandlung des לי in למולת differieren, somit in beiden das ל־ gleiche Bedeutung haben müsse und in dem zweiten Satze nur das auf מולת bezogen wird, was im ersten Satze auf Zipora bezogen war, und lassen wir uns einfach von den Worten leiten, so dürfte sich der Sinn dahin ergeben: Zipora sieht Mosche in Lebensgefahr, auf dem Wege, auf welchen ihn Gott gesandt, von Gott an den Rand des Grabes gebracht; sie erkennt, dass das nur an einem liegen könne, nimmt rasch das Kind, beschneidet es, reicht die Orla ihres Kindes dem in Todeskämpfen liegenden Gatten zu Füßen hin und spricht: "ich tue dies, denn ein dem Tode (buchstäblicher: der Todesschuld) Vermählter bist du um meinetwillen geworden! Ich bin schuld, ich habe dich von der Erfüllung dieser Pflicht zurückgehalten, mir zu Liebe hast du nicht darauf bestanden, und bist so um meinetwillen der Todesschuld vermählt worden, d. h. dem Tode verfallen."

צר, a sharp scalpel. Compare Joshua 5,2 חרבות צורים, according to Rash’bam. An alternate interpretation: the word צר means “stone;” we find it as having this meaning also in Ezekiel 3,9: כשמיר חזק מצור, like a shamir, “even harder than rock.” She took what was at hand.

כי חתן דמים אתה לי which means, thou hast brought it about that my bridegroom (Moses) was on the point of being killed because of thee: thou hast been to me my husband’s murderer.

ותגע, a transitive mode. She presented the foreskin at the feet of the angel in order to put him in a more tolerant mood. The Torah did not want to spell out that she had actually seen the angel’s feet. [this is why the word “of the angel” was omitted although that word had not appeared previously. Ed.]

ותאמר כי חתן דמים אתה לי, “she said: ‘you caused my bridegroom’s bloodshed.’” Tzipporah’s remarks were addressed to her young son. She blamed him for causing Moses’ death, had she not intervened. When the angel released Moses she changed the meaning of what she had said first to mean that her infant’s blood, (the blood of the circumcision) had made him a bridegroom of blood. [she had acquired the child at the cost of some of his blood. Ed.] Some commentators claim that Tzipporah’s comment was addressed to Moses, i.e. that she felt the angel’s threatening to kill Moses was part of the punishment for his having married a Midianite woman. In other words, she felt that she had acquired her bridegroom at the possible cost of her bridegroom’s life. When the angel released Moses, she realized that the problem had not been her marriage to Moses but the failure to circumcise her son on time.

Dass wir dies so fassen dürfen, möchte sich durch Worte unserer Weisen rechtfertigen. Es ist längst besprochen worden, ob dieses Kind das erste: Gerschom, oder das zweite: Elieser gewesen. Man neigt sich meist der zweiten Ansicht zu und meint, Elieser sei eben geboren gewesen, die Mila habe der bevorstehenden Reise wegen nicht vorgenommen werden können, allein in der Herberge, schon nahe am Ziele, wäre die erste Pflicht die Beschneidung gewesen, und wegen dieser Verzögerung habe Mosche diese Gefahr getroffen. Allein so nahe war diese Herberge noch nicht. Erst weiter, wird erzählt, traf Mosche und Aaron am Horeb zusammen und von da nach Mizrajim waren noch drei Tagereisen. In der Mechilta פ׳ יתרו spricht ר׳ אליעזר המודעי das starke Wort, Jitro habe ihm nur unter der Bedingung Zipora zur Frau gegeben, dass ihr erster Sohn der ע׳׳ז verbleibe; darum wäre er unbeschnitten geblieben und darum habe Mosche die Gefahr getroffen. Wird doch dort selbst der Name גרשום und dessen Deutung: גר הייתי בארץ נכריה im Zusammenhange mit einem solchen Umstande gefasst. Und wohl mag darin eine solche Entschuldigung liegen. Er war fremd in einem Lande, das ihm שום, eine Wüste, eine Öde war. Wäre dies ein Faktum, so würde allerdings das חתן in buchstäblichstem Sinne zu nehmen sein: bist um meinetwillen ein Verlobter der Blutschuld geworden, d. h.: hast um meinetwillen, als du dich verlobtest, eine Todessünde auf dich geladen. Allein so weit brauchen wir nicht zu gehen, brauchen nur zu glauben, es sei einer Zipora, die ja keine Tochter Jaakows war, schwer geworden, ihr Kind beschneiden zu lassen, und im Drange der Verhältnisse habe Mosche eine Verzögerung nachgegeben. (חתן דמים wäre dann wie איש מות zu nehmen, und zwar noch nicht völlig איש מות, nicht dem Tode bereits ganz verfallen, nur "verlobt" mit ihm, nahe daran, ganz sein zu werden).

ותגע לרגליו; “she touched his male member.” This is another word being used to describe the area of it where the circumcision had to be performed. We find another occasion where the word: רגליו has been used in the same sense in Samuel II 19,25: לא עשה רגליו, “he had not attended to his private parts.” It is necessary to rephrase this verse so that it means: “Tzipporah took a scalpel and applied the sharp edge of it to the male member of her child and she cut off his foreskin.”Still another interpretation: the subject in the word: לרגליו are the angel’s feet. She considered what she had done as a kind of sacrifice to G-d, and placed it (the foreskin) at the feet of G-d’s representative, in this case, the angel. We find something similar to this when Gideon as well as Manoach in the Book of Judges, placed their “sacrifice” at the feet of the angel. (Compare Pessikta de Zutrata on Exodus 12,13 at length on this subject). Another explanation is that she threw the foreskin at Moshe’s feet because she thought that the blood of the mitzvah would banish the danger, just as we read later on in Egypt that the blood of the Pascal lamb kept the destroying angel away from the Jewish homes.

כי חתן דמים אתה לי, by means of this offering of my son’s blood you, Moses, remain my husband.

Doch nicht so soll Mosche nach Mizrajim kommen, und auch so nicht Zipora. Nicht in Midjan, auf der Reise — frei von jedem Einfluss der Eltern und Verwandten, allein, nur auf sich selber hingewiesen, soll Zipora sich zur Höhe eines jüdischen Weibes emporarbeiten. Wie ein Opfer reicht sie die Orla ihres Kindes zu Füßen des mit dem Tode ringenden Mannes dar und spricht: ich weiß es wohl, um meinetwillen hast du eine so schwere Todesschuld auf dich geladen! Als aber die Gefahr von ihm ließ und sie sah, dass sie das Rechte getroffen, da sprach sie: du hast dich mit der Todesschuld vermählt, nicht um meinetwillen, sondern um aller künftigen מילות willen! Wie bei allen gesühnten עבירות war durch die verzögerte Mila nicht so viel geschadet, als durch die wiederhergestellte allen künftigen Milot genützt worden, wie dies in der Mechilta und der Mischna Nedarim 31 b. ausgeführt ist. Keinen Augenblick wäre Mosche am Leben geblieben, wenn sein Kind nicht beschnitten worden wäre! Dadurch erhält die Mila eine unendliche Sicherung für alle Zeit. Ward selbst einem Mosche, und noch dazu in einem solchem Momente, nicht nachgesehen, wer, der nicht schon alles von sich geworfen, wird es wagen, die Mila aus irgend einer Rücksicht zu unterlassen! "Nicht ich habe jetzt den Gewinnst davon, sondern unser beider Verirrung wird der Heilighaltung aller künftigen Beschneidungen zugute kommen." Daher auch: מולֹת, Plural.

(ותאמר (אל משה, “she said: (to Moses)”

The word חתני is equivalent to בעלי, “my husband.”

כי חתן דמים אתה לי, “for you are a bridegroom to me on account of the circumcision.” She attributed the fact the Moses had almost be killedn to herself, i.e. as being her fault for having married her, a Midianite, something not appropriate for Hebrews to do. She considered herself as inferior to Moses.

וירף SO HE LOOSENED HIS HOLD — the angel loosened his hold ממנו FROM HIM; (cf. Exodus Rabbah 5:8). אז THEN she understood that he had come to kill him because of the delay in the circumcision,

וירף המלאך ממנו, the word is similar to Judges 19,9 רפה היום לערוב, “the day has waned toward evening.” The construction of וירף from the root רפה is similar to ויקן from the root קנה, “he acquired.” The word וירף therefore means that the angel’s lethal power had become much weaker.

וירף ממנו, he released him partially, but not totally, as until the second part of the circumcision, the פריעה, the uncovering of the corona, had been performed the ritual is considered incomplete, and not valid.

She understood . . . You might ask: Rashi explained above (v. 24) that she understood why the angel came since it swallowed Moshe from his head to his thigh, etc. Yet here Rashi explains that [she understood it] since the angel withdrew from Moshe now. Also the Re”m asked this, writing: “I do not understand Rashi’s intent . . .” The Re”m elaborated on this point, leaving the question unresolved.

אז אמרה, “then she said, etc.” what is the reason for the introductory word: אז, “then,” at this point? At first Tzipporah was not sure when she saw that the angel stopped at the part of the body that is subject to circumcision whether it was on account of the delay in circumcising the infant, or whether it was on account of her attitude to circumcision altogether. It had become clear to her now that the problem was the delay in circumcising the infant. When she had performed the circumcision and the angel had desisted, and she had thrown the foreskin at his feet (either Moses, or the baby’s), she realised that the problem had been the delay in performing this commandment. She told her husband then that he was about to be punished for the delay, she had been given back to her husband (or her son) for having performed the commandment in his place. (Attributed to Rabbi Eliyahu Cohen)

וירף ממנו, “he let him alone;” after Tzipporah had performed the circumcision on her son, the angel left. and no longer tried to kill Moses; at that point Tzipporah understood what it had been that caused her husband to almost have been killed, i.e. the fact that Eliezer had remained uncircumcised until then. This is the reason why she had not referred to the word למולות, “on account of circumcision,” in the previous verse where she first described herself a bridegroom of blood. A different interpretation: As long as Moses and Tzipporah had lived in her father’s house, Moses had not been punished for not having circumcised Eliezer because his fatherinlaw would have tried to prevent him from doing so. Compare Yonathan ben Uzziel on the subject who attributes the fact that Moses’ grandson became an idolater to the fact that Gershom had not been circumcised as part of an agreement between Moses and his fatherinlaw that one of his sons could be circumcised but not the other. The reason that the angel tried to kill Moses was on account of Tzipporah, who had opposed his circumcision before. (Compare Judges 18,30, and the commentators there) Nonetheless most people understand the matter as being the non circumcision of Eliezer, not Gershom. At the same time no one has attempted to either explain (away) the aggadah of Moses having made a deal with his fatherinlaw concerning the subject of circumcision. If you were to counter that Rashi on verse 2,16 has already stated that Yitro had abandoned idolatry so how could he have opposed Moses’ circumcising his son, I believe that this Rashi need not be understood literally, i.e. Yitro had not converted to Abrahamitic monotheism, but had become what we call “a ger toshav” a proselyte who had accepted the seven basic laws G-d gave to mankind. He himself had certainly not circumcised himself, in the opinion of Rashi.

אמרה חתן דמים למלות SHE SAID “BRIDEGROOM OF BLOOD BECAUSE OF THE CIRCUMCISION” — my bridegroom was on the point of being killed on account of the circumcision.

אז אמרה חתן דמים למולות, “my husband had become guilty of death for delaying the circumcision of his son.”

אז אמרה חתן דמים למולות, when you were a bridegroom you said that the circumcision involves the removal of some blood during two stages of the circumcision, first the cutting off of the foreskin, then the severing of membrane over the corona.

Referring to the blood of the circumcision. Whereas according to Rashi’s explanation, דמים (blood) is an expression of death and murder.

כי חתן דמים אתה לי, “for you are a bridegroom of blood to me.” According to Rashi, the word דמים should be understood as in שופך דמים, “spilling blood, killing. Compare Samuel II 16,7 צא איש הדמים, “get out murderer!” The verse ought to be rearranged so that it is understood as: כי דמים חתן אתה לי, “you were (potentially) a shedder of the blood of my groom for me.” (Alternately, these words could have been addressed to her baby Eliezer, meaning that the baby if not for the blood of his at the circumcision, it would have caused her groom’s death.

למלות means on account of (ל) the circumcision (מולות). The word מולות it a noun, and the ל prefixed it used in the tense of על, “on account of”, just as in (Exodus 14:3) “And Pharaoh will say regarding the children (לבני) of Israel”. Onkelos, however, translated the word דמים as having reference to the blood of the circumcision (whilst, according to Rashi, it refers to the blood of Moses which was about to be shed).

AND HE MET HIM IN THE MOUNTAIN OF G-D. Thus you learn that Mount Sinai is between Midian and Egypt.

לך לקראת משה, to fulfill what G’d had already told Moses, i.e. that his brother Aaron was on the way to meet him joyfully. (verse 14)

לך לקראת משה המדברה, like a student who walks some distance to welcome his teacher even before he arrives in town. The student is what we call the “reception committee.” Aaron being a student of Moses although he was his senior has been confirmed already in verse 16 when G’d told Moses concerning his brother: “you will be his prophet, i.e. mentor.”

לך לקראת משה, "go towards Moses, etc!" Although we have heard G'd say to Moses already in 4,14 that his brother Aaron was on his way to meet him, the actual instruction to Aaron came from G'd while Aaron was still in Egypt. There is no question that the prophecy in this verse was adressed directly to Aaron even though we learned in Torat Kohanim 1 that wherever the Torah writes: "G'd spoke to Moses and Aaron," that the directive was spoken to Moses only and he in turn was to convey it to Aaron, this does not apply here. Even according to the view of Rabbi Yossi Haglili who excludes Aaron from receiving a communication from G'd directly even while both were in Egypt, he referred only to communications which concerned an independent mission to outsiders. There is no reason to believe that G'd did not speak to Aaron directly concerning what Aaron himself was to do. Our verse proves that Aaron was a prophet in his own right.

וישק לו, “he kissed him.” Aaron kissed Moses. Seeing that Moses was so humble, it would have been unseemly for him to take the initiative by kissing his senior brother. This accounts for the fact that contrary to similar encounters reported elsewhere, the Torah did not write “they kissed one another”). (compare Samuel I 20,41)

ויפגשהו בהר האלו-הים וישק לו, “he met him at the Mountain of G’d and he kissed him.” Tanchuma Shemot 27 comments on our verse that it is a perfect illustration of Song of Songs 8,1: “If only it could be as with a brother, as if you had nursed at my mother’s breast; then I could kiss you.” We also have a verse in Psalms 85,11: “love (kindness) and truth meet; justice and well-being kiss.” The word “kindness” is a metaphor describing Aaron of whom the Torah wrote (Deut. 33,8) “Your Tumim and Urim for your devout and loving man.” The word “truth” is a metaphor for Moses of whom G’d said (Numbers 12,6) “he is trusted in My entire house (because he is so truthful).” Moses is also described as the personification of צדק, righteousness, in Deut. 33,21 “he carried out G’d’s righteousness,” whereas Aaron personified שלום, peace, as we know from Malachi 2,6 “in peace (harmony) and equity he walked with Me.”

ויפגשהו וישק לו, “when he met him, he kissed him. (Aaron kissed Moses.)” This is alluded to in Psalms 85,11 חסד ואמת נפגשו, צדק ושלום נשקו, “loving kindness and truth meet; righteousness and peace kiss one another.” (Compare Sh’mot Rabbah Rabbah 5,10.) [The commentators on that Midrash have different views of what the author meant. Ed.] Basically, our sages describe Aaron’s predominant characteristic, virtue as that of chessed, leniency, whereas Moses’ predominant characteristic was truth, justice. Similarly, Moses was distinguished by insisting on righteousness, whereas Aaron strove for preserving or making peace where at all possible. Our author also quotes Malachi 2,6 בשלום ובמישור הלך אתי, “he walked with Me in peace and equity” as relevant to Aaron’s stature. [The whole chapter discusses the priests. Ed.]

AND HE KISSED HIM. Aaron kissed Moses, for Moses the humble one treated his older brother with respect. For this reason, it does not say that they kissed each other.

ויפגשהו בהר האלוקים. while Moses was already on his way back to Midian from his encounter at the burning bush, at the mountain of the Lord, all set to go to Egypt.

וישק לו, as one kisses a sacred object. We find the term used in this sense in Samuel I 10,1 וישקהו, ויאמר הלא כי משחך ה' על נחלתו לנגיד, ”he kissed him and said: ‘the Lord herewith anoints you ruler over His own people.”

AND MOSES TOLD AARON ALL THE WORDS OF THE ETERNAL WHEREWITH HE HATH SENT HIM. This means that he told all the words which were spoken between him and the Holy One, blessed be He, and all the objections he had raised against undertaking the mission, and that he was sent against his own will. This is the intent of the word kol (‘all’ the words of the Eternal). In Midrash Chazit³¹⁷Another name for the Midrash Rabbah on the Song of Songs. The quote is found there, 4:12. See Vol. I, p. 292, Note 73, for the reason of the name Chazit or Chazita. [we find it stated]: “And the Rabbis say that Moses revealed to Aaron the Tetragrammaton [which had been revealed to him].” The intent of their explanation is that Moses told Aaron the Divine Names mentioned above³¹⁸See above, 3:13. by which He sent him, and the Name that is derived [from them],³¹⁹See my Hebrew commentary for elucidation of this Cabalistic subject. and the explanation that is inherent in them.³¹⁹See my Hebrew commentary for elucidation of this Cabalistic subject.

את כל דברי ה', “all the words of the Lord.” He explained to Aaron that he had repeatedly refused the mission G’d wanted him to carry out, and that in the end he had accepted the task only under duress.

ויגד משה לאהרן, Moses told Aaron all that had transpired since he last saw him many years ago, including the fact that he had brought his wife and children with him on this journey, until the very first inn. Upon hearing this, Aaron told him that there were already far too many Israelites suffering in Egypt, and he did not need to increase their number by bringing along his family. We may assume, as did our sages, that this prompted Moses to send his family back to Midian to her father’s home.

V. 29. Es ist dies das erste Mal, dass die זקנים auftreten, und das einzige Mal, dass sie זקני בני ישראל genannt wurden. Sie heißen sonst immer וקני ישראל, d. i. diejenigen, die vermöge ihrer Geistestüchtigkeit und Reife die Gesamtheit, Israel, zu tragen und zu vertreten fähig sind. Jetzt aber gabs noch keine Gesamtheit, somit auch noch keine זקני ישראל; vielmehr: die זקנים unter den בני ישראל sammelte Mosche. Erst indem sie unter Mosche Anführung mit ihm vor Pharao hintreten, die Sache aller zu vertreten, werden sie זקני ישראל; daher werden sie oben, im Auftrage V. 16 u. 18, bereits also genannt.

ויעש האותות, “Moses performed the three miracles;” the staff turning into a snake, his hand becoming smitten with the skin disease known as tzoraat, and turning water into blood.

V. 31. ויאמינו, das Wort Glauben entspricht nicht dem Wort אמונה. Glauben setzt immer einen Mangel von Überzeugung voraus. Für das, was man nur glaubt, setzt man nicht Gut und Blut ein. האמין ist mehr, האמין ist: das, was uns gesagt worden, als אמן, als den festen Punkt anerkennen, auf den wir uns stützen und an dem wir uns halten, der uns אומן sein, uns erziehen und leiten soll. Das Göttliche, dem Israel seine אמונה zuwendet, ist ihm der über allen Zweifel hinaus feststehende Ausgangspunkt für alles andere; es glaubt, d. h. es hält alles andere nur für wahr, wenn und insofern es mit diesem einen Maßstabe der Wahrheit übereinstimmt. — Sie hatten zwei Momente aus Mosche Worten entnommen: a. dass Gott die Zeit für gekommen erachtete, Israel mit dem ihm verheißenen Geschicke zu "bekleiden" b. dass Er ihr Elend gesehen, d. i. wenngleich die Erlösung nicht sofort kommen würde, sie doch erwarten dürften, dass sie vor fernerer neuer Unbill durch Gottes Auge geschützt bleiben würden. — aufrecht stehend, die Stirn fast zur Erde ,קדה .ויקֺדו kürzere Niphalform von ,ויקדו neigen, wahrscheinlich Ausdruck für Unterordnung des Geistes, der Gedanken, unter einen Höhern. השתחויה: sich ganz zur Erde hinwerfen, d. i. sich mit seinem ganzen Wesen Gott zu Gebote stellen. Sie taten beides.