ציטירנדיקער פּירוש אויף שמות 33:2

Come up to the Eternal. In line with the simple meaning of Scripture, the reason for this expression [when it should have said: “Come up unto Me”], is because it is the Scriptural style to mention the proper name instead of the pronoun, such as: And Lemech said… Ye wives of Lemech;⁴⁸⁹Genesis 4:23. It should have said: “My wives.” and the Eternal sent Jerubaal and Bedan and Jephthah and Samuel.⁴⁹⁰I Samuel 12:11. Since Samuel was the speaker, he should have said: “and myself.” A similar case is the verse, and cause Thy face to shine upon Thy Sanctuary that is desolate, for the Eternal’s sake.⁴⁹¹Daniel 9:17. It should have said: “for Thy sake.” In the Talmud,⁴⁹²Sanhedrin 38b. however, we find that they⁴⁹³“They” — the Rabbis, asked. To understand, however, the following references in Ramban it is necessary to know that the question was addressed by a min [a Jewish infidel], to Rav Idie for sectarian purposes. The answer here quoted was given by Rav Idie. asked, “It should have said, ‘come up to Me,’” and therefore they said, “this refers to Mattatron, whose name is even as the Name of his Master.”⁴⁹⁴See Ramban above, 23:20. That is to say, “And unto Moses He — the Divine Name mentioned at the beginning of this subject, namely, And the Eternal said unto Moses⁴⁹⁵Above, 20:19. — said, come up to Mattatron, for My Name is in him.” The meaning is thus: “Come up to the place of the Glory where the great angel is,” and the intention was that Moses should come into the midst of the cloud⁴⁸²Further, Verse 18. where the Glory of G-d was, but he should not come right up to the Proper Divine Name, for man shall not see Me, and live.⁴⁹⁶Further, 33:20. The intention of our Rabbis is thus not at all as Rashi had written above.⁴⁹⁷23:20. — Ramban refers to what Rashi wrote there, that the verse mentioned further on [after the sin with the golden calf], and I will send an angel before thee (33:2) has reference to Mattatron. That is not correct, for Moses did not consent that the angel mentioned there should go with them (Abusaula). See also Ramban above 23:20 for a full discussion. In Tractate Sanhedrin also the Rabbi [Rashi] turned the subject around.⁴⁹⁸In Sanhedrin 38 b, Rashi commented: “This is Mattatron. It was he who said Come up unto the Eternal.” Ramban’s opinion, as explained above, is that the Eternal said, “Come up to Mattatron.” Now I have already mentioned⁴⁹⁹Above, 23:20, and in Seder Bo 12:12. the Rabbis’ intention concerning this name [Mattatron], and all their words are true. In that homily, however, [related in Tractate Sanhedrin, concerning the infidel’s question to Rav Idie],⁴⁹³“They” — the Rabbis, asked. To understand, however, the following references in Ramban it is necessary to know that the question was addressed by a min [a Jewish infidel], to Rav Idie for sectarian purposes. The answer here quoted was given by Rav Idie. the Sages spoke in an abstract manner, since Rav Idie did not want, Heaven forbid, to reveal to that infidel who asked him the question, the matter of the great Mattatron and its secret! Instead, he mentioned to him that the verse speaks of the angel who is “the guide of the road” of the world below; and hence he told him, that “even as a guide we refused to accept him, for it is written [that Moses said], If ‘panecha’ — [literally: ‘Thy face’ or ‘Thy presence’] go not up, carry us not up hence,”⁵⁰⁰Further, 33:15. for we accepted no messenger, only the Revered G-d. I have already explained⁵⁰¹Above, 20:3. clearly the secret of panim (face) and the whole subject to those learned in the secret lore of the Cabala, in the section of the Giving of the Torah.

The difference between the staff of Moses and a כידון is similar to the difference between Moses’ level of prophecy and the level of the prophetic power of Joshua. As is common knowledge, the numerical value of the word והמטה, is the same as the numerical value of the letters in the name of G’d א-ד-נ-י, i.e. 65. The numerical value of the word וכידון is the same as the numerical value of the word המלאך, i.e. 96. The prophecy of Moses was one that did not require an intermediary such as a מלאך in order to be translated into reality. Joshua’s level of prophecy was of the level that required the assistance of the angel who returned to the Jewish people after the death of Moses. Moses had opposed his presence in Exodus 33,2 where G’d had proposed that the angel accompany the people instead of His own פנים, Essence, and 33,15 where he had refused to be satisfied with that level of divine presence. As mentioned, after Moses’ death this angel reappears in Joshua 5,14 saying עתה באתי “now I have come.” The difference between the two levels of prophecy is like the difference between heaven and earth. One is active, the other is passive, a mere recipient. This is why as long as Moses was alive the Israelites were able to eat heavenly bread as G’d had said: “here I am going to make it rain bread from heaven for you” (16,4). Once Moses had died and the people came under the leadership of Joshua they ate bread which had been produced on earth as we know from Joshua 5,11. Once we appreciate this we understand why Moses appointed Joshua to fight the terrestrial battle against Amalek while he himself fought the battle against the celestial representative of Amalek in the “higher” regions. He tried to defeat Amalek and uproot him from earth once and for all. Our sages (Baba Batra 75) illustrated the difference between the power of Moses’ prophecy and that of Joshua as the difference between “the face of the sun and the face of the moon.” The meaning of this statement is that Moses’ prophecy was of the “active” type whereas the prophecy of Joshua was of a “passive” nature.” The sun is an active luminary whereas the moon is a passive luminary.

AND THOU HAST NOT LET ME KNOW WHOM THOU WILT SEND WITH ME. “And that which You said to me, Behold, I send an angel before thee,⁴⁷³Above, 23:20. — that is not ‘letting me know,’ for I am not satisfied with it.” This is Rashi’s language. But it is not correct to fit this thought into the language of the verse. Besides, why should Moses have said this only now [that he was not satisfied with the angel], and when the matter was communicated to him he remained quiet? Did Moses think to gain because of the incident of the calf? Instead, the purport thereof is as follows: The Holy One, blessed be He, had told Moses here, and I will send an angel before thee,⁴⁷⁴Above, Verse 2 (in this chapter). and Moses told Him, Thou has not let me know who is that angel whom Thou wilt send with me, and whether it is that first angel in whom is Thy Name.⁴⁷⁵Ibid., 23:21. This is the sense of the expression, Yet Thou hast said: I know thee by Name, meaning that You have known me and exalted me by [the knowledge of] Your Name. And so also did Rabbi Abraham ibn Ezra explain the verse here. In his opinion⁴⁷⁶So explained by Ibn Ezra above 23:20 (towards the end). the angel he [i.e., Moses] wanted was Michael. With his good sense [Ibn Ezra] understood the verses to imply that the first angel was pleasing to Moses and to Israel. He could not, however, know the truth, since he neither heard it [from others] nor did he prophesy it [on his own].⁴⁷⁷This is a veiled criticism of Ibn Ezra who neither received the mystic traditions of the Cabala from others, nor studied them by himself. As Ramban will explain in the following verse, this whole subject can be understood only through “the way of Truth.”