Commento su Esodo 6:9

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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