Komentarz do Kapłańska 1:1

ויקרא אל משה AND [THE LORD] CALLED UNTO MOSES — All oral communications of the Lord to Moses whether they are introduced by דבר or by אמר or by צו were preceded by a call (to prepare him for the forthcoming address) (cf Sifra, Vayikra Dibbura d'Nedavah, Chapter 1 1-2). It is a way of expressing affection, the mode used by the ministering angels when addressing each other, as it is said (Isaiah 6:3) “And one called unto another [and said, Holy, holy, holy is the Lord of hosts]”. To the prophets of the nations of the world, however, God revealed himself in a manner which Scripture describes by an expression ordinarily used for denoting events of a casual character and of uncleanness, as it is said, (Numbers 23:4) “and God happened to meet (ויקר) Balaam” (the term ויקר, from the root ,קרה, is connected with מִקְרֶה which denotes “chance”, “occurrence”, and has also the meaning of “uncleanness”, by analogy with Deuteronomy 23:11: ‎לא יהיה טהור מקרה לילה) (cf. Bereishit Rabbah 52:5).

AND HE CALLED UNTO MOSES; AND THE ETERNAL SPOKE UNTO HIM. Scripture states [the fact that G-d called to Moses] here and not in other places, because Moses was not able to enter into the Tent of Meeting,³¹Exodus 40:35. and to draw near the place where G-d was,³²Ibid., 20:18. except through G-d calling him [to come into the Tent of Meeting]. For Moses had already been told, and I will speak with thee from above the ark-cover;³³Ibid., 25:22. where I will meet with thee.³⁴Ibid., 30:36. Since he knew that the Eternal that sitteth upon the cherubim³⁵I Chronicles 13:6. was there, Moses was afraid to come into the Tent at all until He called him, just as it was at Mount Sinai where it is said, and on the seventh day He called unto Moses out of the midst of the cloud.³⁶Exodus 24:16. See also Note 7 above. Or it may be that Moses did not know that the Glory of G-d was in the Tent and that the communication to him would be from there,³⁷For Moses thought that he would hear the Divine Voice speaking to him from above the ark-cover, but actually the Holy One, blessed be He, would be speaking from heaven (Abohab). See also Ramban on Exodus 40:2, Vol. II, p. 619. since the cloud did not cover the Tent of Meeting until the eighth day of the installation according to the opinion of our Rabbis;³⁸“And it came to pass, on the eighth day … (Further 9:1). This was the first of Nisan, and the day was distinguished in ten different ways … It was the day on which the Divine Glory dwelt for the first time among the Israelites …” (Torath Kohanim, ibid.). and after this call Moses came into the innermost part of the Tent [i.e., the Holy of Holies], just as the Rabbis have interpreted:³⁹Torath Kohanim at the beginning of Parshath Acharei, (further, 16:2): “Thy brother [Aaron] is under the command not to enter the holy place [except when it was his duty to officiate there], (further 16:2), but Moses is not included in this command.” “Aaron was not to enter [the Sanctuary except at the prescribed time], but Moses was not included in this command.” This is the plain meaning of this verse. I have explained it already above.⁴⁰Exodus 40:34.
But our Rabbis have said⁴¹Torath Kohanim, Vayikra 1:7. that “all communications [that came to Moses], whether they are introduced by the word dabeir (speak), or by emor (say), or tzav (command), were preceded by a call,” that is to say, G-d said to him, ‘Moses, Moses’ and he answered, ‘Here am I.’⁴²Exodus 3:4. This was a way of expressing affection and encouragement to Moses.⁴³Accordingly, the call to Moses that is mentioned at the beginning of this book was not for the purpose of giving him permission to come into the Tent of Meeting, but rather to express G-d’s affection for Moses and His inspiriting him for the communication. If so, it stands to reason, Ramban continues, that this kind of call [“Moses, Moses”] came to him on all occasions when he received a Divine communication. The reason why it is mentioned specifically here, etc. (see text). Now according to this opinion, Scripture mentioned the expression [And He called unto him …] here, because it was the first communication that came to Moses from the Tent of Meeting, thus teaching us concerning all the other communications that such was His procedure with him all the time and with the whole Torah. The expression out of the Tent of Meeting refers according to the Rabbis to the preceding words, [the interpretation of the verse thus being]: “and He called unto him out of the Tent of Meeting; and the Eternal spoke to him in the Tent,” for Moses was already there [in the Tent].⁴⁴For since the purpose of the call was not to give permission to Moses to enter, but rather to show him affection, the sense of the verse may then be explained as follows: “and G-d called him out of the Tent and He spoke to him in the Tent” where he already was. The explanation of the verse according to its plain meaning and sense is: “and the Eternal called unto Moses and spoke unto him, out of the Tent of Meeting.”
By way of the Truth, [the mystic teachings of the Cabala], this verse is like, And unto Moses He said: ‘Come up unto the Eternal.’⁴⁵Exodus 24:1. Its secret is known from the Revelation on Mount Sinai⁴⁶See Note 17 in Seder Yithro (Vol. II, p. 251). and the Ten Commandments. I have alluded to it already.⁴⁵Exodus 24:1.

ויקרא אל משה, always out of the cloud; similar to what was described already at Mount Sinai (Exodus 24,16) “He called to Moses on the seventh day out of the cloud.” Moses could never enter the Tabernacle without first having obtained permission to do so.

ויקרא אל משה, וידבר, He called out to Moses and spoke, etc. According to Torat Kohanim on this verse G'd always called to Moses before He addressed him from the Tent of Testimony. We have to explore why the Torah records such a call on three separate occasions instead of allowing us to conclude that if it was stated once it would form the basis of a Mah Matzinu type of exegesis, i.e. that just as G'd called to Moses on the occasion mentioned here, or elsewhere, so He did on every other occasion He spoke to him from the Tent of Testimony. The author of Torat Kohanim proceeds to explain why such an exegesis could not be applied: "There are only two other occasions when this "call" is recorded as having preceded the דבור, the speech. The first time it occurred when Moses had the vision at the burning bush; the second time was at Mount Sinai, and the third time is here. We cannot establish a common denominator between these three occurrences as at the burning bush Moses had never previously been addressed by G'd and there was a need to prepare him mentally for such an address. At Mount Sinai (Exodus 19,3) G'd wanted Moses to convey His message to the entire Jewish nation. Neither of these two instances could serve as a valid precedent for G'd addressing Moses out of the Tabernacle on earth after having issued a "call." The reason that even this latter occasion does not serve as a precedent for the other two occasions is that in both other instances G'd had manifested Himself out of fire as opposed to the present occasion.

ויקרא אל משה, in view of our being told at the end of the last portion that Moses could not enter the Tabernacle (Exodus 40,35), this is why now G’d called to Moses from the Tabernacle. As a result, the meaning of the verse here is “G’d called to Moses from the Tent and spoke to him.” The meaning of the verse is parallel to Exodus 19,3 ויקרא אליו ה' מן ההר, where the operative clause is the word מן ההר, “from the mountain.” It is important for us to know from where G’d’s voice originated. At that time it came out of the mountain, whereas now it came out of the Tabernacle. At that time it signaled that G’d had “descended” into the domain of earth, i.e. on top of Mount Sinai, whereas now it signaled that G’d had taken up residence in His home on earth, the Mishkan. At a later stage, after G’d had limited His presence to the Holy of Holies, we hear in Numbers 7,89 that His voice was heard originating from above the kapporet, the lid of the Holy Ark, between the two cherubs. At the earliest stage of G’d communicating with Moses His voice originated in the burning bush, the site of Mount Sinai, also, as we know from Exodus 3,4. לאמור, there is a repetition here, i.e. וידבר and לאמור although both address the same subject. We explained this phenomenon in Genesis 8,15 This phenomenon occurs again also with Aaron in Numbers 8,2. [the author may refer to these phenomena to draw attention to his differing with the commentary of Torat Kohanim quoted by Rashi. Ed.] [The author’s understanding of the meaning of לאמור is that it is a repetition, emphasisng the preceding words, such as ויצו, or ויקרא. Ed]

ויקרא אל משה, “He called to Moses, etc.” Nachmanides, explaining the sequence of the portions in the Torah, writes that after having concluded with the construction of the Tabernacle, a subject which dominated the last four portions with the exception of Parshat Ki Tissa, the Torah now turns its attention to the legislation governing the sacrificial offerings to be brought in the Tabernacle. This is the logical corollary after we have been told that G’d’s glory manifested itself and enveloped the Tabernacle. Part of the legislation about the offerings, are the laws governing who has access to the Tabernacle, and who, even if basically entitled to perform service in the Tabernacle, is temporarily forbidden to do so due to his being in a state of ritual impurity or due to his being drunk. Even the High Priest himself, without being drunk or impure, is forbidden to enter certain parts of the Tabernacle except for a specific purpose on a specific day. (Leviticus,16,2). The priests not only must not be ritually impure when entering the Tabernacle, but they must sanctify themselves prior to performing their service. This additional requirement is based on the presence of the “glory of G’d” in the Tabernacle. Most of the Book of Leviticus deals with sacrificial offerings, the kind of people who present these sacrifices, either voluntary or mandatory, as well as the precise location where these sacrifices are to be offered. There is also a relatively short list of commandments which in one way or another are directly linked to such sacrifices, i.e. which bring in their wake the need to present such sacrifices by the individuals concerned. For instance, the Book opens with voluntary offerings by individuals, and the laws pertaining to them, necessitating the recording of the prohibition for certain fat parts of the animals, as well as all blood, to be forbidden to be eaten. Afterwards, as a corollary of the sin offering, parts of which are consumed by the priests, this brings in its wake the need to inform us generally about which animals may and which may not be eaten. These animals, or even basically “kosher” animals, that have not been killed by ritual slaughter, bring in their wake ritual uncleanness, and confer such on people in contact with them. We read about certain diseases that have a religious background, and therefore are not subject to treatment by physicians, but require the offering of sacrifices upon their termination. Women who have given birth are required to offer certain sacrifices, and are subject to varying degrees of ritual uncleanness for a period of time after they have given birth. The subject of ritual purity is enlarged upon by the laws about incest, and forbidden sexual unions. Women who are menstruating become ritually unclean even to their husbands, until, in due course, they have purified themselves in a ritual bath. The majority of the portions of this Book address themselves specifically to the priests in one way or another. Parshat Kedoshim contains a number of laws applying to all Israelites equally, especially laws governing inter-personal relationships, laws designed to ensure a civilization that functions with minimum inequalities. If the Book commences with the words “Someone called to Moses,” instead of the customary “G’d called to Moses, or similar, this is to remind us that though we are dealing with a separate Book, the train of thought with which the Book of Exodus concluded, i.e. that the glory of Hashem filled and enveloped the Tabernacle is continued here without a break, the Torah now detailing the service to be performed in that Tabernacle. In other words, the subject of the word ויקרא is the כבוד ה' described in Exodus Nachmanides also writes that our sages derive from this introductory word ויקרא, that all conversations initiated by G’d were preceded by a call to prepare Moses that he was about to be addressed by the Shechinah. The word appears only here, as this was the first time Moses was being addressed by a dimension of Hashem in His terrestrial domain, the Tabernacle. Henceforth, this was the standard procedure all the time the Israelites remained in the desert. According to our sages’ understanding, the words מאהל מועד in our context actually have to be understood as if they had been written in an earlier part of our verse, i.e. ויקרא אליו מאהל מועד וידבר אליו באהל כי משה היה שם, “He called to him from the Tent of Meeting and spoke to him because Moses was there.” According to the plain meaning of the text, the meaning is slightly different. Seeing that the glory of G’d filled the Tabernacle, Moses was unable to enter it until he would be invited in, (Exodus 40,35) just as had happened at the revelation at Mount Sinai seven months earlier, when he had been invited to ascend the Mountain. Our verse then describes that on the seventh day of the inaugural rites, the day preceding the first of Nissan, G’d called to Moses out of the Tabernacle, the voice appearing to come out of the cloud. Some commentators believe that what is described here is the basis of the statement in the Talmud Chagigah 14 that every utterance of the Almighty creates an angel that (allegorically speaking) walks in front of Him, as would the page or standard bearer of a terrestrial king. After this angel had alerted Moses to the approach of G’d, He would commence to speak to him directly, or to anyone else whom G’d wished to speak to.

And all commands a calling preceded. Rashi is answering the question: Why is it written ויקרא and וידבר, which is apparently redundant? Therefore, he explains: [For all “speakings” and all sayings and all commands a calling preceded] ... meaning: Hashem did not speak to Moshe abruptly, but first He greeted him with “Moshe, Moshe” and he would answer “Here I am,” and then He would speak with him.

And He called. The א of ויקרא is written as a small letter because Moshe wanted to write ויקר (and it happened), the way it is written regarding Bilaam, which implies God appeared to him only as a chance occurrence. God, however, told him to write the א which indicates His love, but Moshe made it small.

ויקרא אל משה, He (the Lord) called to Moses;” according to Tanchuma on this verse, G–d had to call out to Moses from inside the Hoy of Holies, (between the cherubs on the cover of the Holy Ark) as Moses at the time was standing outside the Tabernacle. He did so as He did not consider it fitting for Moses who had erected the Tabernacle to have to stand outside while His glory was inside. Moses had been afraid to enter as He had not been invited to do so, as long as the cloud was resting above the Tabernacle. Rashi adds that an additional reason for G–d calling to Moses first before speaking to him, was that this was also so when He completed speaking to him. The absence of any word indicating this, is that G–d, when having completed what He had to say, did not do so by anything indicating this. Furthermore the word לו, “to him,” which is really not necessary, was to teach that while Moses heard the call while standing outside, the people did not. In Numbers 7,89, at the end of the consecration of the Tabernacle, the Torah elaborates by writing that Moses heard the sound of G–d’s voice emanating from between the cherubs on the Holy Ark. The word אליו, “to him,” there makes it clear that only he heard that voice.

ויקרא אל משה, “He called out to Moses;” seeing that the Torah had concluded the end of the Book of Exodus with the words: ‘the glory of the Lord filled the Tabernacle so that Moses was unable to enter the Sanctuary,” it was necessary to let us know now that He called out to him, i.e. gave him permission to enter the Sanctuary. In order to make this clear to the reader, the Torah, instead of writing: “the Lord called out to Moses,” omitted to tell us who it was that called out to him, so that the reader will know that this is not really a new paragraph but a continuation of what had been told us at the end of the Book of Exodus. In other words, we need to understand this opening line of the Book of Leviticus as follows: “the glory of the Lord which had been reported at the end of the Book of Exodus as filling the Tabernacle, now spoke to Moses.”This is also how the Jerusalem Targum translates this verse. (Compare Torah shleymah on our verse page 235, where the full text of the Jerusalem Targum appears, in Aramaic, of course) Once Moses had entered the Sanctuary, he heard G-d’s voice emanating from between the two cherubs on top of the lid of the Holy Ark as reported in Parshat Nasso, 7,89.

ויקרא אל משה AND HE CALLED UNTO MOSES — This implies that the Voice went on and reached his (Moses’s) ears only but all the other Israelites did not hear it). One might think that for the subsections there was also such a call! It, however, states, “[And the Lord called unto Moses] and spake (וידבר) [to him]”, thus intimating that a דבור, a complete section had (was preceded by) a call (e. g., in our text chapters 1—4), but not the subsections. And what purpose did these subsections serve (i. e., why are the larger sections broken up into smaller ones)? To give Moses an interval for reflection between one division and another and between one subject and another — something which is all the more necessary for an ordinary man receiving instruction from an ordinary man (Sifra, Vayikra Dibbura d'Nedavah, Chapter 1 9).

מאהל מועד, to warn Moses not to enter the Tent while G’d’s glory was still there. Our verse speaks of what occurred on the day when Moses had completed erecting the Tabernacle, for it was then that G’d’s glory descended to sanctify the site as well as the ones performing their sacred duties in and around it. All of this is the execution of G’d’s promise in Exodus 29, 43-44 ונועדתי שמה לבני ישראל ונקדש בכבודי, וקדשתי את אהל מועד ואת המזבח את אהרן ואת בניו, “and there I will meet with the Israelites and it shall be sanctified by My Presence. I will sanctify the Tent of Meeting, the Altar, Aaron and his sons.” The same procedure occurred when the Temple which Solomon had built, at the time it was being consecrated. We read in Kings I 8,11 “the priests could not enter and stand there preparatory to performing their sacred service for the glory of the Lord filled the entire House.” Filling the House with His glory was the manner in which the structure became sanctified, as was spelled out in the Book of Kings I 9,3. However, after this first day Moses could always enter the sanctuary outside of the Holy of Holies, i.e. up until the dividing curtain, פרכת. Numbers 7,89 elaborates on this describing that “when Moses entered the Tent of Meeting in order to speak with Him, he would hear the sound of G’d’s voice speaking to him from above the lid of the Holy Ark.”

אליו, “to him;” This apparently superfluous word is meant to alert us to the fact that G’d addressed Moses exclusively, and that Aaron was not included in this communication. Whenever, elsewhere, the Torah writes: “G’d spoke to Moses and Aaron,” the meaning is that Moses was to inform Aaron of what G’d had communicated to him at that time. Aaron was to be a go between, שליח, from that moment on, equal to Moses in carrying out G’d’s instructions.

A calling, an expression of love. [All the “speakings,” etc.] in the Tent of Meeting were preceded by a calling. That is to say, from here we learn through a בנין אב (by comparison) that whenever it says, וידבר, ויאמר, or צו, it was preceded by calling. This is so in the case of דיבור as explained here. אמירה: as it is written in Parshas Shemos (3:4): “Elohim called to him from the midst of the thorn-bush, and said (ויאמר).” ציווי: as it is written in Parshas Yisro (19:20): “And Adonoy called to Moshe to come up to the top of the mountain ... [Adonoy] said ... ‘Go down and warn the people...’ This is an expression of ציווי: Lest they break through toward Hashem to see. However, there remains a difficulty: Why did Rashi not give this explanation above in Parshas Shemos or Yisro; why did he leave it until now? (Minchas Yaakov and Nachalas Yaakov).

According to Rabbi Eliyahu Mizrachi, the source for the Torat Kohanim saying that the call at Mount Sinai came out of the fire is either Exodus 24,16: "G'd called to Moses on the seventh day," or Exodus 19,20 where the Torah writes: "G'd called Moses to (come up to) the top of the Mountain." It cannot be Exodus 19,3 where the Torah writes: "G'd called to him from the Mountain, etc." This follows the explanation of Rabbenu Hillel according to whom this latter verse was not addressed to Moses out of the fire and the Torat Kohanim has stated that the reason the three occasions cannot serve as precedent for one another is that at Sinai and at the burning bush G'd called out of the fire. Thus far Rabbi Mizrachi. With all due respect to Rabbi Mizrachi, the Rabbi was not quite exact in his observation. The premise of the Torat Kohanim was that inasmuch as the word ויקרא is followed by the word דבור, we should have been able to deduce that what happened at the burning bush also happened at the Tabernacle seeing that we have a gezeyrah shaveh, the use by the Torah of similar wording. When we follow this principle the word ויקרא should have been dispensed with in at least one of the three situations. I believe the proof is precisely from Exodus 19,3. The verse in Exodus 24,16 does not contain a single superfluous word as it serves as G'd's call for Moses to come up to the Mountain and to spend there the next forty days. The word ויקרא in that verse is used instead of the word דבור not in addition to it. The only verses which were of interest to Torat Kohanim are the verses in which the word קריאה is used as a prelude to the word דבור. Even the verse in Exodus 24,16 does not really meet the criteria established by the author of Torat Kohanim as G'd had to issue a call to Moses to ascend the Mountain seeing he was down below. The word ויקרא is certainly not superfluous then. That particular קריאה, call, could only have served as a prelude to G'd speaking to Moses on the Mountain. Had it been omitted, we would have assumed that G'd spoke to Moses while the latter was at the base of the Mountain, something impossible as the Torah itself testifies that G'd spoke to Moses while the latter was on top of the Mountain.

אליו, “to him.” On this word Rashi explains that we might have thought that people outside had heard G-d’s voice speaking to Moses; in order to disabuse us of this, the Torah emphasized: אליו, “to him,” i.e. audible only to Moses. The point is made once more in the Book of Numbers 7,89, where the Torah writes that Moses heard the voice of the Lord talking to him, מדבר אליו, followed by וידבר אליו. Instead of writing מדבר לו, the word אליו stresses the exclusivity of that voice, i.e. audible only to Moses. Rashi stresses this also in his commentary on the Talmud in tractate Yuma folio 4.

אליו TO HIM — This is intended to exclude Aaron. Rabbi Judah said, “Thirteen communications in the Torah are stated, according to the wording of the text, to have been spoken to Moses and Aaron together; but corresponding to these there are thirteen which include expressions with a limitative force to teach you that they were spoken not to Aaron but to Moses only, with the view that he should communicate them to Aaron. The following are the thirteen limitations: (Numbers 7:89) “[And when Moses had come into the appointed tent] that He might speak with him, [then he heard the Voice] speaking unto him … [from between the two cherubim]: and he spoke unto him”; (Exodus 25:22) “and there I will be met by thee”; — all the thirteen instances you will find in Torath Cohanim (Sifra, Vayikra Dibbura d'Nedavah, Chapter 2 1. — I might, however, think that they (Aaron and all Israel) heard at least the sound of the Divine utterance (הדבור), even though they could not distinguish the words! However, in the text, Numbers 7:89: וישמע את הקול מדבר אליו,where it might have said לו‎...‎ ה]קול], it says אליו‎‎… ‎ה]קול], “And he heard the voice (הקול) uttering itself (מדבר) right up to him (אליו)” — consequently Moses alone heard the utterance, and all Israel did not hear it) (Sifra, Vayikra Dibbura d'Nedavah, Chapter 2 8).

A Midrashic approach (Jerusalem Talmud Shabbat 1,9): the words עקב ענוה יראת ה' mean that whereas wisdom is considered the crown, humility is considered the heel of one’s shoe. On the one hand, we are told by David (Psalms 111,10) ראשית חכמה יראת ה', normally translated as “the beginning of all wisdom is fear of the Lord,” on the other hand, Solomon (his son) told us that עקב ענוה יראת ה', that the fear of the Lord is a product of humility. The author wanted to teach us by using the word עקב in connection with humility that this virtue is greater than wisdom as it is the product of fear of the Lord. A product is the result of something more primitive preceding it, hence it is more advanced, superior to the ingredients which contributed to it.
It is well known that all virtues manifest themselves in opposite extremes. [If I understand the author correctly he means that one can be described as “the most humble,” or as “the least humble;” “the wisest” or “the one most lacking in wisdom,” etc. I suppose that the word “virtue” must then be divided between “positive” virtues and “negative” virtues. The correct translation of the word מדה used by the author then is not “virtue,” but “characteristic.” Ed.] However, in addition to possessing any such characteristic (virtue) in either of these extremes one may also possess it in a degree which is ממוצע, “average,” i.e. somewhere between the extremes we mentioned. The characteristic (virtue) of humility is such a virtue. The reason that this is so is that it is somewhere in between pride and self-abasement. As a general rule, man should strive to possess these characteristics which are at neither end of the extremes as everything that is extreme is usually something negative. (compare Maimonides Hilchot Deyot 2,2). Concerning this subject Solomon said (Proverbs 4,26) “survey the course your feet will take so that all your ways will be prosperous.” With this warning Solomon wanted to exhort man to pursue paths which lie between two extremes. The very word פלס which he used and which we translated as “survey” is derived from the noun peless, meaning “ balance,” as in the balance of a set of scales. It is in the centre. When keeping this advice in mind, a person will be able to plan his activities properly, giving due weight to all the pros and cons of a situation. Solomon made this crystal clear in the verse following where he said: “do not turn to the right or the left; remove your feet from evil.” The message is that he who veers neither to the right nor to the left of the true path will avoid evil.
The exception to all this is the manner in which the virtue of humility is to be practiced (compare Maimonides HiIchot Deyot 2,3). When training oneself to acquire this virtue one must endeavour to practice it to the greatest extreme possible. In fact, the extreme of the virtue ענוה is called שפלות, “a kind of debasement practiced relative to one’s posture in the presence of one’s king.” Any attempt to practice the virtue of humility by applying the yardstick of sticking to the middle of the road might give rise to people thinking that one is somewhat overbearing, arrogant. Seeing that arrogance is the very worst of all negative virtues it is clear that one has to make every effort to steer clear of that characteristic. People guilty of arrogance put their afterlife at risk . Concerning this whole subject our sages in Avot 4,4 said: “be exceedingly humble in spirit.” The reason they repeated the word מאד, i.e. “very much,” was to teach the people to practice this virtue in the extreme, as opposed to the other virtues. The reason is also that this is the greatest virtue and it is one which is evident to people with whom one comes into contact. This is why David described himself as possessing לב נשבר ונדכה, “a contrite and crushed heart” (Psalms 51,19), in spite of the fact that he was a powerful king as well as a prophet. He was also the head of the seventy elders who were the Supreme Court of his generation. (this is based on Samuel II 23,8: where our sages (Moed Katan 16) interpret the words יושב בשבת תחכמוני, to mean that when David took his seat amongst the sages he did not sit on a cushion but on the ground. G’d said to him: “seeing you have humbled yourself you are like Me,” a play on the second part of the word תח-כמוני). Moses also, although the most outstanding of the prophets who ever lived, is described by G’d as the “most humble person” (Numbers 12,3). [This editor has always felt that the virtue of humility is reserved for outstanding people as these have something to be proud of. If the likes of us appear humble it only reflects the fact that we have nothing to boast about. This is hardly a positive virtue.] When the Torah also used the adjective מאד to describe the level of Moses’ humility, this was to tell us that he deliberately tried to practice this virtue in the extreme. Anyone who contents himself with practicing the virtue of humility just as he practices other virtues, i.e. following the middle path between arrogance and total self abasement, may quality for the description ענו, but not for the description ענו מאד.
Seeing that Moses was so humble, he did not want to enter the Tabernacle until G’d had invited him to do so seeing the Tabernacle was still enveloped in a cloud housing G’d’s attribute כבוד. Even though Moses had been told by G’d that He would meet with him in that Tent and speak to him inside from above the kapporet, from “between the cherubs” (Exodus 25,22), he was afraid to enter; he was afraid to prophecy inside, to pray inside, or to offer sacrifices inside until G’d would give him express permission by calling him and inviting him inside. This invitation was tendered when the Torah writes: “He called to Moses and Hashem spoke to him from the Tent of Meeting, to say.”

Happenstance and uncleanness. Meaning: ויקרא is related to the word קרי, as in nocturnal emission. [You might ask:] The word ויקר refers to Hashem! [The answer is:] It seemed to Hashem, as it were, as if He contracted repulsiveness and impurity in speaking to Bilaam, as one who contracts repulsiveness through nocturnal emission.

As far as Rabbi Mizrachi finding support for his theory in Exodus 24,16 where G'd called out to Moses on the seventh day out of the cloud before addressing him in the subsequent verses in 25,1-2 is concerned, the venerable Rabbi has forgotten that the verses 24,17-18 which do not involve G'd's addressing Moses make it impossible to consider 25,1-2 as a continuation of His call to Moses in 24,16. There is absolutely no evidence that what G'd said to Moses in 25,1-2 occurred prior to Moses' ascending the Mountain. G'd may have given Moses all the instructions concerning the donations for the Tabernacle after the latter had already been on the Mountain for a number of days.

לאמור, “saying” [in order to relay to the Israelites. Ed.] The author refers the reader to his commentary on Genesis 8,15 on the word: לאמור, where Rash’bam is given as the source of this interpretation of this word. A well known example of the meaning of this kind of repetition is found in verse 2 of our chapter: דבר אל בני ישראל ואמרת אליהם, “speak to the Children of Israel and say to them;”

מאהל מועד FROM THE APPOINTED TENT — This teaches us that the Voice broke off and did not issue beyond the appointed tent. One might think that this was so because the Voice was a very low one! Scripture, however, states, (Numbers 7:89) “[when he entered the tent he heard] the Voice”. What does it mean by the Voice? It was the Voice that is so minutely described in Psalms, (29:4, 5) “The voice of the Lord is powerful; the voice of the Lord is full of majesty. The voice of the Lord breaketh the cedars. But if this be so (that it was a very powerful voice), why does Scripture state, “[and the Lord spoke to him] from the appointed tent” (מאהל מועד and does not state באהל מועד)? Because it intends to tell us that the Voice broke off and that it was heard only in the tent). A similar case we have in Ezekiel that a powerful sound uttered within the Temple was not heard outside: (Ezekiel 10:5) “And the sound of the cherubims’ wings was heard up to the outer court”. One might think then that the sound was a very low one! Scripture, however, continues “as the Voice of the Almighty God when He speaketh”! If this was so why, then, does Scripture state, “[it was heard] up to the outer court only”? Because when it (the sound) reached there it broke off (Sifra, Vayikra Dibbura d'Nedavah, Chapter 2 10-11).

And reaches his ears. This refers to the utterance “Moshe, Moshe,” as is, with the pronunciation of the letters. All of these are needed [i.e., the three exclusions that Rashi mentions: 1)This one, “And He called to Moshe,” which excludes all Israel, 2)“and Adonoy spoke to him,” to exclude Aharon, and 3)“the voice to him (אליו instead of לו),” Moshe heard but all Israel did not hear], for if only one of these was written we would have established it [as excluding] only Israel. And if it was only written: “And He called to Moshe and [Adonoy] spoke to him,” [without the exclusion 3)] I would have thought that Aharon and all of Israel heard the sound of Hashem’s utterance. If it was only written: “And He called to Moshe and he heard the sound,” [without exclusion 2)] I would have thought Aharon heard even the speech itself. If was written: “Adonoy spoke to him,” and also: “He heard the voice,” together, [without exclusion 1)], I would have thought Aharon heard even the speech itself and all of Israel heard the call, “Moshe, Moshe” (This is the essence of Re”m’s words).

Rabbi Mizrachi rejected the opinion of Rabbenu Hillel that seeing the call at the Tabernacle in our verse was in lieu of G'd manifesting Himself out of the "fire" (seeing the divine fire had not yet descended on the altar). Accordingly, the Torah had to record G'd's call here. We cannot accept this argument either. Rabbi Mizrachi apparently thought that Torat Kohanim presumed that the "call" at the burning bush and at Mount Sinai was accompanied by Heavenly fire. This is not true. The author of Torat Kohanim only meant that the particular appearances by G'd to Moses were also followed or preceded by G'd manifesting Himself through fire, something that most certainly was not the case when G'd called to Moses here at the Tabernacle. G'd manifesting Himself through fire is an additional dimension to the degree of His manifestation and did not take the place of His "call" alerting the recipient of such a vision that he would shortly be addressed by G'd. Seeing that no such fiery manifestation took place in the encounter between G'd and Moses at the Tabernacle, it was important to record that G'd drew Moses' attention to an impending message by means of this "call."

מאהל מועד לאמר [AND THE LORD … SPOKE UNTO HIM] OUT OF THE APPOINTED TENT, SAYING — One might think from this that the Lord spoke to him from the entire house (i.e. from any part of the appointed tent)! Scripture, however, states, (Numbers 6:89) “[and he heard the Voice speaking unto him] from off the covering”. From this, again, one might think that he heard the Voice coming from off the entire covering (from any part of it)! Scripture, however, continues, “from between the two cherubim”. Consequently the words מאהל מועד cannot denote the place from which the Lord spoke to Moses, but the area within which the Voice was heard (Sifra, Vayikra Dibbura d'Nedavah, Chapter 2 12).

Perhaps even for the breaks. I.e., in a place where there is a parshah-break but there is not [at the beginning of the next parshah an expression of] דבור, אמירה, or ציווי, for example, the breaks preceding (v. 10): “If his offering is from flocks of sheep,” (v. 14): “If his burnt-offering is of fowl,” and (2:1): “When a person brings,” and the like. You might ask: Why did Rashi not ask this “Perhaps even [for the breaks...]” after stating, “God happened upon Bilaam”? The answer is: Above, it was all right because I would have thought that everyone, including Israel, heard the voice of Hashem. If so, it did not indicate that Moshe was greater than the rest of Israel, for they also heard, as Moshe did. Thus, it was obvious there was a calling even for the breaks, for the fact he was called even for the breaks was the greatness of Moshe over the rest of Israel. But now that Rashi explains that Moshe alone heard the calling voice, one could be in doubt if he also had the greatness of being called for the breaks or not, because he was greater than the rest of Israel even without this, for the people of Israel did not even hear the calling voice. Thus, “the verse states

The author proceeds to insist that the principal proof that G'd always let the "call" precede His speaking to Moses is from Exodus 24,16. [I have abbreviated the polemics somewhat in the interests of brevity. Ed.]

לאמר SAYING — This implies “Go and speak to them words that will bring them to a subdued frame of mind):‘It is for your sake that He communicates with me’!” And indeed we find this was so; for all the thirty — eight years during which Israel in the wilderness were placed, as it were, under excommunication — from the time of the incident of the spies and onwards — there was no intimate conversation of God with Moses, for it is said, (Deuteronomy 2:16, 17) “So it came to pass, when were consumed all the men of war (i. e. the men who had waged war immediately after the return of the spies; cf. Numbers 14:40—45. It was they and their generation who wandered in the wilderness as though excommunicated) … that the Lord spake unto me, saying, …” — only then was a divine communication again made to me (Sifra). Another explanation of לאמר is that it means “to speak to God”: it implies, “Go and tell them My commands and bring Me back word whether they will accept them, as it is said, (Exodus 19:8) “And Moses returned the words of the people unto the Lord (Sifra, Vayikra Dibbura d'Nedavah, Chapter 2 13).

The verse states, “He spoke.” [Rashi is answering the question: Why does it say: “And He called to (אל) Moshe”?] You might ask: In the entire Torah it is written, “Adonoy spoke to Moshe, saying...” Why did Rashi not ask this before? The answer is: Here, Hashem called, “Moshe, Moshe,” if so, [it should have said: “And He called Moshe,”] why is it written אל? Rather [it is saying:] “The voice proceeds...” However, Re”m explains that Rashi is answering the question: Why is it written אל משה, it should say simply למשה? To this Rashi comments: “The voice proceeds...” Rashi responds here more than from every other place it says אל in the Torah because in Toras Kohanim the Sages expounded that וידבר אליו comes to exclude Aharon from the actual words of the command. But how did they derive that? Perhaps it only comes to exclude Israel, but Aharon, who was appointed to speak, did hear! Rather, perforce we must say that there was a previous “exclusion,” which is the word אל משה that excludes all Israel, that they did not hear it, and they did not even hear the call “Moshe, Moshe.” This is because [the word אל] refers to the verb “He called.” So much more so [that Israel did not hear] the actual words of the One Who is commanding. Thus, the extra word אליו remains [available] to exclude Aharon from [hearing] the explicit words, and the drashah קול לו excludes all of them, even from the sound of the calling.

To give a breathing space. It is understandable if this was a new calling or prophecy — that is why there is a break. But if there was no calling, why is there a break? Rashi answers: “To give a breathing space...”

I find it difficult to understand the comment in Torat Kohanim that seeing that when G'd spoke to Moses at Mount Sinai this was something public, addressed to the whole nation, and that this is why He needed to introduce His address by a "call. After all, every commandment G'd revealed to Moses by speaking to him was intended for the whole nation. The author of Korban Aharon claims that when G'd addressed the whole of Israel He had to reduce the intensity of His voice seeing the people were not attuned to Him to the same degree as Moses. Accordingly, if the Torah uses the the word ויקרא here it is to tell us that G'd did not reduce the intensity of voice He used when He addressed the people at large instead of only Moses. If we follow this approach we would have to understand the author of Torat Kohanim as saying that when he speaks about לכל ישראל he did not consider this as a compliment to Israel. This is quite difficult to accept. I believe that the מעלה, compliment, expressed by the word ויקרא in Exodus 24,16 consisted in the fact that G'd included the whole of the people in what He was about to say instead of using Moses as His intermediary. The author of Torat Kohanim took the example of Exodus 24,16 as his cue to tell us that just as G'd employed the "call" as a compliment to the people at that time„ He continued to use this "call" forthwith as a compliment to Moses, even though He addressed Himself to the ears of Moses alone.

How much more so for an ordinary person. The main point is to teach us who learn from ordinary persons that we must allow for a break between one subject and another in order to reflect between one and the other.

To exclude. Meaning: the speaking was specifically to Moshe alone. Rashi is saying that to exclude Israel does not need an extra word, because it is [already] written אל, which excludes Israel. Rather, [the extra word] אליו comes to exclude Aharon.

The Torat Kohanim we have quoted above concludes by saying that this call not only preceded addresses by G'd to Moses which were followed by the relatively harsh דבור, but included every time G'd spoke to Moses from the Tabernacle even when employing the softer אמירה, or the word צו, "command." The proof lies in the repetition of the word וידבר in verse one, followed immediately by the word דבר at the beginning of verse two although no message had been delivered yet as a result of either the words ויקרא or the word וידבר. Seeing no such apparently superfluous verbiage occurred either during the Torah's report of the vision of the burning bush or when G'd communicated with Moses at Mount Sinai, all we could have deduced from those occasions is that a "call" always preceded a דבור. We needed this verse and its unusual construction to teach us that such a "call" preceded every communication Moses received from G'd at the Tabernacle. In the other two instances G'd's appearances in that location were restricted to a single communication such as at the burning bush or to a communication extending over a few days such as immediately before the revelation at Mount Sinai. "Calls" reported on those occasions could not have served as precedents for G'd "calling" Moses every time He spoke to him from the Tabernacle, something that became a frequent occurrence during the next 38 years. The first such occasion therefore had to be introduced by the words "from the Tent of Testimony," in order to demonstrate that this form of communication set a pattern for future communications by G'd to Moses which emanated from the Tabernacle. In this instance the previously mentioned method of exegesis מה מצינו, could be employed as there would not be new and different factors governing G'd's speaking to Moses in the future. The Torat Kohanim needed to address the problem of the nature of G'd's addresses, i.e. the various terms the Torah employs when reporting that G'd spoke to Moses. The author wanted to establish proof that when G'd commenced speaking to Moses and the Torah describes this as ויאמר השם, or ויצו, that such communications were also preceded by a "call" to Moses. Torat Kohanim repeats once more that in view of the repeated use of the word דבר or the very fact that the term דבר reflects a "stronger" speech, I would have thought that only that type of speech was preceded by a "call." Therefore, to ensure that we do not misread the Torah, the Torah wrote דבר ידבר, to include all kinds of addresses by G'd as having been preceded by a קריאה, a "call."

I have seen that Rabbi Abraham ben David, (ראב"ד) quotes a version of the Torat Kohanim according to which the proof is contained in the words "דבר, וידבר, לאמור" occurring consecutively in our verse. This version makes much more sense than the one I am quoting from which does not strictly conform to the text in the Torah. According to that version, Torat Kohanim used the word לאמור which was unnecessary seeing that the word דבר followed immediately. Actually, the word לאמור would not have been extraneous at all; the Torah is full of constructions such as וידבר…לאמור. What is extraneous is the repetition of the words וידבר…דבר. We must consider the text of the Torat Kohanim at the disposal of the ראב"ד as the authentic one.

Rabbi Yehudoh ben Beseiro says: Thirteen... It appears to me that there is no disagreement. It is only that Rabbi Yehudoh explains the words of the Tanna Kamma, so that you will not understand אליו comes here to exclude Aharon from the “speaking,” regarding the command: “If his offering is a burnt-offering.” This is because an extra word is not needed here to exclude him, since Aharon is not mentioned. Rather, it should be applied to the verses where Aharon is mentioned, which are the thirteen places. The text in Toras Kohanim follows this understanding as well: “Said Rabbi Yehudoh...” It seems to me Re”m wrote unnecessarily at length about this (Nachalas Yaakov).

I must add that as far as the Torat Kohanim proving that the word ויקרא in our verse is indispensable is concerned as we could not have assumed that such a call preceded G'd's communications to Moses from other instances such as the burning bush, etc., the fact is that the word is absolutely necessary regardless of the arguments advanced. How else would I have known that G'd's "call" preceded all other communications to Moses from the Tent of Testimony barring the first one were it not for that word?

Perhaps they heard. Many trouble themselves to explain why Rashi writes this matter here and not before the comment: אליו — to exclude Aharon. In my humble opinion the matters are straightforward: Rashi’s comments here are dependent on each other. The main reason to differentiate between “calling” and “speaking” is based on the thirteen exclusions, which are the thirteen “speakings” in which Moshe and Aharon are mentioned. These are specifically in regard to speaking and not to the “sound of calling.” Thus, we could have possibly thought the entire people of Israel actually heard the calling, for there is no exclusion concerning this by Aharon. If so, the entire people of Israel are equal to Aharon in this matter, and Aharon would have no advantage over Israel in this matter. This is because it is based on the extra word אליו, and Aharon is excluded together with the entire people of Israel. Therefore, we would have thought this applies only to “speaking,” but not in regard to “the sound of calling.” Thus, it says: [Instead of] “the voice to him (לו),” [it states] “the voice to him (אליו).” Meaning: In the verse at the end of Parshas Nosso it is written (Bamidbar 7:89): “When Moses would come into the Tent of Meeting [to speak with Him,] he would hear the voice speaking to him.” It would have been possible to say: קול מדבר לו, but it is written: מדבר אליו, for the sake of expounding this drashah: The entire people of Israel did not hear, thus, Aharon also did not hear, for they were already equated together, as we mentioned (Divrei Dovid).

We must, however, pay closer attention to the text of the Torat Kohanim. Why did that author not question the word ויקרא as being superfluous in either the appearance of G'd at the burning bush or at Mount Sinai in conjunction with a "call," so that we could have deduced that such a call had taken place by deducing this from what happened when G'd spoke to Moses from the Tabernacle? The problem that the Torat Kohanim posed by saying that a combination of the use by the Torah of the word ויקרא either at the burning bush and at Sinai, or at the Tent of Testimony and at Sinai would not have served as a precedent to teach us concerning the third ocurrence would then not have to be raised at all. Furthermore, seeing that Torat Kohanim used the extraneous words מאהל מועד to prove that all subsequent communications from the Tabernacle were preceded by "calls," what is to stop him from applying that למוד also to what happened at Sinai and at the burning bush, so that the word ויקרא in both of those instances would be superfluous?

“The voice to him (לו),” “the voice to him (אליו).” I.e., Scripture should have written: קול לו, why is it written קול אליו? It must be: “Moshe heard but all Israel did not hear.” I.e., it is obvious that Israel did not hear, for they did not even hear the calling, for their exclusion was expounded from the phrase: אל משה. So much more so that they did not hear the “speaking.” Rather, this teaches about Aharon, and refers back to the words of Rabbi Yehudoh ben Beseiro there, in which Aharon was excluded by expounding the extra word אליו, even in a place where it is written: “אל משה ואל אהרן.” Rashi raises a difficulty on this: Perhaps he heard the sound of the speaking, though not the exact letters? [Therefore, it says: (Instead of) “the voice to him (לו),” (it states) “the voice to him (אליו)” — even the sound of the speaking he did not hear] and it excludes even Aharon with the extra word אליו. So Re”m explains.

I have read the commentary of Rabbi Eliyahu Mizrachi who was very aware of all these problems, but I must confess that I do not feel that his answers put my mind at rest. The venerable Rabbi argues that the reason that G'd had to record the call as preceding His speaking to Moses at the Tent was that Moses was afraid to enter unless invited. (The Torah had described the Tent as filled with G'd's cloud of glory and Moses being unable to enter in Exodus 40,35.) In other words, the reason for the call there was that it could not serve as precedent for G'd's need to "call" either at the burning bush or at Sinai. Why would the author of Torat Kohanim have been afraid to point out something as simple as that? I believe that had the Torah omitted mention of the word קריאה either at the burning bush or at Sinai, I simply would have considered the קריאה here as something new which had not occurred previously instead of assuming it had occurred without the Torah having mentioned it. [At this point the author continues in his polemic against the conclusions offered by Rabbi Mizrachi. The interested reader is referred to the original for further study. Ed.]

And did not leave the tent. It is not written: “And He called to Moshe from the Tent of Meeting and [Adonoy] spoke to him.” It must be that the reason it is written: “[Spoke] to him from the Tent of Meeting,” i.e. [placing the phrase “from the Tent of Meeting” next to the words] “to him” must be [in order to convey that] the voice was heard by Moshe, because he was in the Tent of Meeting, but it was not heard outside of the Tent (Re”m). This does not appear to me to be correct. Rather, Rashi derives [that this verse is also speaking about the voice’s range] for if you would assume that it is only referring to the place from where the voice originated, it should say: “From between the two cherubim,” as the Toras Kohanim concludes. But since it is written, “From the Tent of Meeting,” perforce it also refers to the voice’s range (Nachalas Yaakov). However, this poses a difficulty: If so, why is the extra word אליו needed to exclude that Moshe heard and all of Israel did not hear? It is obvious that they did not hear, since the people of Israel were standing outside of the Tent! The Ra’avad answers that the exclusion is needed [for the period] before the Tabernacle was erected (Re”m).

For we find. The expression “for we find” is not meant to be precise, for the sending of the spies was only after Nissan of the second year and the Tabernacle’s establishment was on the first of Nissan of the second year from the Exodus of Israel from Egypt. Rather, perforce, we must say that the expression “for we find” only comes to give an example of what is meant by sobering words (Re”m). However, I say that this is what it means: Hashem commanded Moshe to tell them: “It is for your sake that He speaks to me.” These were the sobering words and no more. The authors of the Midrash that bring proofs for their statement that Hashem speaks to the prophets only for the sake of Israel: “For we find...” In the same way, the Mechilta dwells on this at length (Nachalas Yaakov).

And answer Me whether they will accept them. You might ask: How could it be that Hashem would not know whether or not they will accept them? The answer is: It is for this reason Rashi brings a proof: “As it is stated...” There, Rashi explains that it is the proper mode of conduct to speak in such a way, and Scripture only comes to teach you correct manners.

ויקרא אל משה. He called to Moses. Why did the Torah not identify the caller? While it is true that the Torah identifies the caller as being G'd when it goes on to say: "G'd spoke to him from the Tent of Testimony," the omission of G'd as the subject at the beginning of this verse is most remarkable.

Perhaps the Torah wanted to let us know the essence of G'd's "voice" which is such that even if it called extremely loudly it would be audible only to someone attuned to it and waiting to hear it. The words ויקרא אל משה, must mean that although G'd called out generally, only Moses heard it and not any other person standing in front of him [i.e. closer to the source of the voice. Ed.] Had the Torah written: "G'd called to Moses, etc.," I would have understood that G'd called out in a powerful voice but that by the time the sound-waves reached the ear of Moses they were considerably weaker than at their source. Moses would then have had to gauge by the volume of sound he heard from where that sound had emanated. He would also not have been surprised that people standing behind him had not heard that voice at all seeing those people were even further removed from the origin of that sound than he himself. At any rate, there would not have been any miraculous element in this call by G'd to Moses out of the Tabernacle. By writing ויקרא אל משה, the Torah draws our attention to the fact that Moses indeed heard a very powerful voice and that the super-natural element in this call was that he was the only one who heard it.

Another reason why the name of G'd was not recorded in the Torah as associated with this "call" was that G'd was more interested in having His name associated with the commandments He was about to give to Moses than merely to record that it was His voice which invited Moses to receive a communication from Him, or as a sign of G'd showing him respect, if we want to adopt the approach of Vayikra Rabbah 1,8. According to that Midrash, Aaron, his sons and the elders had been wondering who was most beloved in G'd's eyes; They decided amongst themselves that they would find out by observing to whom G'd would turn first after the Tabernacle [Aaron's domain Ed.] was erected. When G'd called to Moses they realised that G'd liked Moses best of all. There was no cause for the Torah to mention Moses by name as the test was the call itself.

By following the approach of the Midrash we can also understand why the Torah had to add the word אל משה instead of merely saying: אליו, "to him," seeing that Moses' name had appeared at the end of the last portion (Exodus 40,35). The Torah could have done the same as in Genesis 18,1 where we are told: "G'd appeared to him" (Abraham), without mentioning Abraham's name seeing he had been the subject of the last paragraph in Parshat Lech Lecha. In our situation G'd had to convince the sons of Aaron and the elders of His fondness for Moses.

וידבר ה׳ אליו מאהל מועד. G'd spoke to him out of the Tent of Testimony. The reason that the Torah had to emphasise that G'd spoke only to Moses, i.e. that only Moses heard His voice, was to prevent misunderstandings. While it was understandable that the ordinary people did not hear G'd's voice, we could have thought that any priest inside the Tabernacle who had business there at the time G'd wished to address Moses would be privy to hearing G'd's voice. The Torah therefore emphasised that only Moses was privy to this voice by writing אליו, "to him exclusively."

מאהל מועד, from the Tent of Testimony, etc. Why didn't the Torah first mention the site from which G'd's voice emanated before telling us who did the talking? Here the Torah reverses the norm completely by first telling us to whom the voice spoke, then telling us who did the speaking and only at the very end telling us from where G'd's voice emanated. When we consider the comments of Torat Kohanim which we quoted earlier, i.e. that all of G'd's communications from the Tent of Testimony were preceded by a call to Moses, it does make sense that this information was reserved for the end of the verse. Matters which will occur at a later stage deserve to be mentioned later than those which occur in the immediate future.

Torat Kohanim also deduces from the wording of this verse that G'd's voice was "cut off, and did not travel beyond the confines of the Tabernacle." How could this be deduced from our verse seeing Torat Kohanim had already deduced the nature of the "call" from the same wording? Furthermore, if indeed the voice of G'd did not travel beyond the confines of the Tabernacle, why did the Torah have to word things in such a way that we learn that the Israelites could not hear this voice? Of course they could not hear a voice which was confined to the Tabernacle! I have seen that Rabbi Mizrachi answers this problem saying that the exegesis is based on the Torah not writing: ויקרא אל משה מאהל מועד, but writing instead: אליו מאהל מועד. The meaning is that the voice travelled in a straight line from the Tabernacle to Moses and stopped there. Our second question is answered by the ראב"ד who says that the Torah had to tell us that the voice of G'd being audible only to Moses was something new; previously it was either audible to the people who were assembled at Mount Sinai, or in the case of the burning bush, it would have been audible had there been anyone else present beside Moses. It was only after G'd took up residence in the Tabernacle that His voice reached only Moses.

I must confess that I am not happy with either one of these two answers. As to the argument of Rabbi Mizrachi that the mention of the words מאהל מועד at the end of the verse after אליו indicates that the voice came directly to Moses and not to the people, how do we know where exactly Moses stood at that time? If Moses had stood in a spot adjoining the Tent of Testimony, the fact that no one else heard the voice does not prove they would not have heard it if he had stood some distance away. If Rabbi Mizrachi is correct, the voice should have been mentioned first followed by its objective, i.e. מאהל מועד אליו. The fact that the Torah writes the word אליו first makes it plain that it was not the Torah's intention to convey to us the exclusivity of G'd's voice by means of this wording. Why would the Torah reverse the normal syntax by telling us the end before the beginning? It is much easier to accept that the Torah imparts the information about G'd's voice being נפסק, cut off, from the sequence "מאהל מועד לאמור," instead of the sequence "וידבר ה׳ מאהל מועד אליו לאמור." If the Torah had not intended for us to deduce the various למודים, the rules of syntax would have required the Torah to first identify the place the speaker spoke from, followed by the identification of whom it spoke to. Now that the Torah did not do so, we have "room," i.e. a sufficient number of departures from the norm to allow for all the deductions we have been taught by Torat Kohanim. The additional words מאהל מועד teach that from that time onwards a "call" preceded every communication by G'd to Moses. The word לאמור may be used to include not only those communications by G'd which used the word דבר. The fact that the Torah did not write ויקרא מאהל מועד attests to the nature of G'd's voice, i.e. that only Moses was attuned to it. The sequence מאהל מועד לאמור teaches that the voice emanated from the Tabernacle, i.e. וידבר, and travelled only as as far as Moses and was not heard outside.

As to the ראב"ד's answer to our second question that the Torah had to exclude previous calls which emanated from G'd as not having been exclusively for Moses' ears, and that this is why the Torah had to write the words מאהל מועד where it did, his words are nothing short of astounding. Surely the Torah had provided us with the words אהל מועד both in Exodus 25,22 and in Numbers 7,89. In both these instances G'd's voice is reported as emanating from the Tabernacle or a certain spot within it. Why would the ראב"ד need the words מאהל מועד in our verse to teach us such an exclusion? It is therefore much more plausible to believe that what Torat Kohanim focused on was not that the voice was cut off inside the Tabernacle but that the communication, i.e. the speech, the דבור was audible only inside the Tabernacle. When G'd called, i.e. invited Moses, His voice was audible outside the Sanctuary. When He spoke to Moses (after the latter had entered the Sanctuary), His voice was audible only to Moses, i.e. it was נפסק.

Rabbi Mizrachi opines that the author of Torat Kohanim clearly holds that Moses was inside the Tabernacle at that time and that this was only possible because the cloud had withdrawn at that time. [It is assumed that the readers are familiar with a Tannaitic disagreement as to whether Moses was inside the Tabernacle when G'd spoke with him at this point or not. Please refer to Exodus 40,35 where the Torah told us that Moses could not enter the Tabernacle due to the cloud containing the glory of G'd filling the Tabernacle. Some opinions (Yuma 4) hold that G'd took hold of Moses and placed him inside the Tent. On the other hand we have Numbers 7,89 from which it is evident that G'd spoke to Moses while he was inside the Tabernacle. Rabbi Mizrachi, based on Rashi, holds that the solution to the apparent contradiction in the verses we quoted is in the words "because G'd's cloud rested upon it" (Exodus 40,35); once the cloud moved Moses was able to enter. Ed.] We also find that Moses was able to "enter the cloud" in Exodus 24,18. The same may be presumed to have occurred in connection with this "call" in our verse here. As far as I am concerned the matter is very simple as it is not reasonable to assume that Moses had to wait until the cloud removed itself fom the Tabernacle and that Moses heard the call only then. Upon examination you will find that Rabbi Mizrachi quoted the text of the first part of Torat Kohanim 1,9 (The Midrash refers to Exodus 25,22 where G'd told Moses He would henceforth communicate with him inside the Tent of Meeting, G'd's voice emanating from between the cherubs which were situated on the lid of the Holy Ark): "When G'd said: 'I will communicate with you there,' He meant to exclude the Israelites who had not been deemed fit to ascend Mount Sinai; He also meant to exclude everybody else including Aaron, barring the ministering angels. Moses could not enter the Tabernacle until he had been summoned. This proves that at the time G'd called to him (in our verse) Moses was standing outside. The Torah writes that the voice came אליו, to him, i.e. from the inside of the Tabernacle and was cut off." Thus far the quote from Torat Kohanim. It is clear that the author of that Midrash was convinced that Moses stood outside the Tabernacle at the time G'd's voice called him. You may ask "how did the author of that Midrash know that the call preceded the communication (i.e. the substance of what G'd wanted to say)?" Seeing that the "call" was needed to invite Moses into the Tabernacle as he was afraid to enter unless summoned, how can we derive any additional למוד, exegetical content, from this word? The answer is that if G'd had wanted to He could have removed Moses' fear and he would have entered the Tabernacle without a special "call." Seeing G'd did not do this, this is proof that the "call" was something that had to precede the communication proper as we have outlined previously, and that Moses remained afraid to enter without invitation. He stationed himself close to the Tabernacle so as to be mentally prepared as soon as he would receive G'd's "call" at which time he would enter the Tent. The sound of the call to Moses "left" (was audible beyond) the Tabernacle, whereas the sound of G'd's communication to Moses never left the confines of the Tabernacle and thus was not heard by anybody else. Not even an echo of it was audible [as had been during the last eight commandments at Mount Sinai. Ed.].

A moral-ethical approach to our verse sees in it a message to Moses to relate to the Israelites everything G'd would command him while he was still in the Tabernacle. This is the deeper reason why the text wrote the words מאהל מועד לאמור, "from the Tent of Testimony to say," in that order. There is a sound psychological reason for this. If the Israelites would hear G'd's commandments as emanating from the Tabernacle, it would inspire them to relate to them with far more reverence than if Moses were merely to tell them these commandments while assembling the people inside the camp. They would accept these commandments knowing that Moses would not have dared to add or omit a single word while he was communicating G'd's word at a place where the שכינה was present.

There is yet another message contained in the words אליו מאהל מועד. Moses merited being called by G'd and addressed by Him as a sign that G'd had forgiven the sin of the golden calf and had taken up residence within the Tabernacle to signify this forgiveness. G'd wanted Moses to communicate this message to Israel. This is why the Torah wrote: "from the Tent of Meeting to say." When you find that Torat Kohanim interprets the substance of the message hinted at in the word לאמור as being דברי כבושים בשבילכם, "words of rebuke for your sake G'd communicates to me, etc.," this refers to Deuteronomy 2,16 where Moses told the people that G'd had resumed speaking with him using the friendly term אמירה only after all the people who were 20 years and over when the spies returned from their ill-fated misssion had died. This was 38 years after the moment described in our portion. This comment is in line with what I have said. The only difference is that Torat Kohanim derives the entire exegesis from the word לאמור, without dissecting the verse as carefully as we have done. מTorat Kohanim states there that in the event we thought that G'd communicated with Moses because of His own concerns we should know לאמור, that it was only on account of the Israelites. The Midrash means that the word לאמור is to be understood as a מעוט, an exclusion. G'd made it clear that He would not have spoken to Moses on that occasion were it not for the fact that He did so for the benefit of the people, i.e. He wanted to speak to them. This teaches that the whole purpose of G'd speaking to Moses from the Tabernacle was in order for Moses to communicate sections of the Torah to the people. When we are told in Avot 1,1 that Moses received the Torah at Sinai and he delivered it to Joshua, etc., this means that Moses handed over the entire tradition; he neither omitted any part nor added something of his own. Every secret G'd had entrusted to Moses, Moses in turn faithfully communicated to the leader of the next generation. Israel are compared to Moses when it came to Torah knowledge, the only difference being that Moses had received the Torah directly from G'd.