וְדִבֶּ֨ר יְהוָ֤ה אֶל־מֹשֶׁה֙ פָּנִ֣ים אֶל־פָּנִ֔ים כַּאֲשֶׁ֛ר יְדַבֵּ֥ר אִ֖ישׁ אֶל־רֵעֵ֑הוּ וְשָׁב֙ אֶל־הַֽמַּחֲנֶ֔ה וּמְשָׁ֨רְת֜וֹ יְהוֹשֻׁ֤עַ בִּן־נוּן֙ נַ֔עַר לֹ֥א יָמִ֖ישׁ מִתּ֥וֹךְ הָאֹֽהֶל׃ (ס)
사람이 그 친구와 이야기함 같이 여호와께서는 모세와 대면하여 말씀하시며 모세는 진으로 돌아오나 그 수종자 눈의 아들 청년 여호수아는 회막을 떠나지 아니하니라
Kli Yakar
And with this is resolved what Rashi explained, that vayikar [ויקר — “he encountered”] is a language of casualness and impurity, and one of these would have been sufficient to distinguish between vayikar and vayikra [ויקרא — “he called”]. However, since Rashi also believes that Moses’s prophecy was contingent and not inherently from his preparation, this raises the difficulty: why wasn’t vayikar written without an aleph at all? Therefore, he comes to explain that the term vayikar“ suggests both casual occurrence, meaning happenstance, and also suggests impurity, which is completely inappropriate regarding Moses, heaven forbid. Therefore, the aleph was written for Moses to exclude him from the language of impure chance. Nevertheless, a small aleph was written to be read as vayikar indicating that even Moses’s prophecy was casual and contingent, in that it exceeded his preparation as mentioned, and the opposite cannot be said at all.
It is possible that this is the view of the Midrash, as concluded in Yalkut (431) on this verse, which states: ”One might think that God spoke with Moses for his own sake; therefore Scripture says to say — it was for Israel’s sake that He spoke with him, not for his own sake.“ This Midrash requires explanation, for how could it occur to anyone to say that the speech regarding all the commandments was for Moses alone? Did he alone hear I am and You shall have no other gods? Rather, certainly it refers to the levels of prophecy, that Moses merited vayikar — meaning a contingent prophecy that was added to him beyond his preparation, that God spoke with him face to face for the sake of Israel and not because of his own essence.
This is what is meant by ”for Israel’s sake He spoke with him“ — for their needs he merited this addition, and not for the sake of his own essence, as it is written And there arose no prophet in Israel. The letter ”bet“ in b’Yisrael serves as ”for the sake of.“ Therefore, when Israel sinned, Moses was told Go down from your greatness, meaning from this additional divine flow that was given to him for Israel’s sake. And after the forgiveness, it needed to be explained that Moses returned to his former state, as it says And the Lord spoke to Moses face to face (Exodus 33:11). And this explanation is precious.
It is possible that this is the view of the Midrash, as concluded in Yalkut (431) on this verse, which states: ”One might think that God spoke with Moses for his own sake; therefore Scripture says to say — it was for Israel’s sake that He spoke with him, not for his own sake.“ This Midrash requires explanation, for how could it occur to anyone to say that the speech regarding all the commandments was for Moses alone? Did he alone hear I am and You shall have no other gods? Rather, certainly it refers to the levels of prophecy, that Moses merited vayikar — meaning a contingent prophecy that was added to him beyond his preparation, that God spoke with him face to face for the sake of Israel and not because of his own essence.
This is what is meant by ”for Israel’s sake He spoke with him“ — for their needs he merited this addition, and not for the sake of his own essence, as it is written And there arose no prophet in Israel. The letter ”bet“ in b’Yisrael serves as ”for the sake of.“ Therefore, when Israel sinned, Moses was told Go down from your greatness, meaning from this additional divine flow that was given to him for Israel’s sake. And after the forgiveness, it needed to be explained that Moses returned to his former state, as it says And the Lord spoke to Moses face to face (Exodus 33:11). And this explanation is precious.
Ibn Ezra
son of — bin with a ḥiriq is equivalent to ben with a tsere. See also rish (Prov. 28:19) and resh (Prov. 13:18), bin Nun (Ex. 33:11 et al.), bin layla (Jon. 4:10), bin hakot (Deut. 25:2).
A New Israeli Commentary
...and handed over to Joshua. Already in the Torah, Joshua is presented as the faithful disciple of Moses and his successor (Exodus 33:11). From the verb 'message' the word 'tradition' is also derived, the transmission of which is from generation to generation is spoken of here.